hi good evening everyone This is a regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustment for Wednesday April 16th 2025 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 mun municipal building and
sending a copy to the Monontlair 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 Monontlair website as is a link to the township's YouTube channel where the hearing can be viewed live or after the
fact The hearing is also being televised on channel 34 And I'll call the role Um Chair Harrison here Vice Chair McCull here Mr Caulfield is not present Mr Church here Miss Harris here Mr Moore should be arriving shortly And Mr Simon
here Mr Rivera is not present Miss Grant is not present And Mr Griffith is not present Mr Cruz here And then Mr Sullivan here All right We have the minutes of the April 2nd meeting I just have one change on
page six on line 197 where it says existing property change it to existing house Anyone else with any changes to the minutes if not someone want to move the
minutes without change I'll move the minutes Mr Chairman Just and not second Note that Mr Moore has arrived Uh all in favor say I I Any opposed any abstensions abstain Abstain Okay Then we
have the resolution for the VG Ashwood application on Wildwood Avenue I don't have any changes Does anyone else have any changes if not someone want to move the resolution Uh Mr Chairman I'll move the resolution
Is there a second second All in favor say I I Any opposed any abstensions stay The first application is that for the property at 144 Union Street This is a continuation of the public hearing that
uh commenced in March Mr Tremulac do you want to give your appearance uh Mr Chairman um I need to uh recuse myself from this application Good evening everyone Alan Tremulac uh appearing on behalf of the applicants
Aaron uh Kell and Meg Menel Um chair has indicated this is a continuation of the hearing um which uh commenced in March Um we have some I think brief um additional testimony to provide this
evening Um since the last meeting um as you know we submitted uh revised architectural plans addressing some of the uh comments and suggestions that raised by the board at the last meeting Uh
we've also engaged a professional engineer who has prepared a landscaping a landscape plan and a drainage plan for property So I'm going to have the two professionals discuss those plan revisions starting with uh Mr
Klene who testified at the last meeting You understand that you're still under oath yes I understand that Okay All right Can you um just your your office just let me stop you So Adam let I want to swear you in for I know you were previously sworn in but there are three
hearings after this So this is for all the hearings So would you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth in the matter matters pending before the board i do Just state your full name and your position with Montlair Zenith Gausny assistant planner Thank you
All right So Mr Klein your office prepared revised plans uh which uh I believe have a re revision date of April 7th That's right Is that correct okay So what I'd like you to do tonight is to simply um discuss the revisions with the
board explain what what's been changed what's been added etc Of course happy to do that It's meant a lot to me during the architectural process to get to know this family and their strong commitment to enabling their parents and
grandparents to age in place according to the best intent of Monontlair's ADU ordinance We've all worked closely to identify and respond to the family's needs and to incorporate the suggestions of the Historic Preservation Commission and this board's very helpful additional
recommendations The revised plans we submitted to you have added the fire door and a second exit at the rear in order to provide additional fire safety carbon fume monoxide and general safety precautions
We really appreciate your comments Uh they were very helpful to us Can you just um indicate on the plans with the help of your assistant who's working the projector um to just point out
sure with pleasure the changes I don't have Francis you need the the microphone if you can Yeah Here's the extra door which was a very good idea And here's the extra exit
from the back bedroom We had a back exit We had a back exit which was in this position Uh we slid it over so that it would accommodate uh this exit Um that's
also extremely helpful suggestion We appreciate it So you've got two doors there One exiting from the uh the bedroom and one from the garage both onto the platform platform and then using the same set of exactly stairs
That's right Okay And that's that's in the rear And then the other change was in the to the egress store in the front of the building Yeah Here we moved that over so that this door is accessible from this bedroom
That's talking about the Okay So it's been slightly relocated and then you added right the second door share the same um stoop and stairs It was a very good idea We appreciate Okay All right And then
can you point out the change to the uh main entrance door in the front of the ADU that's sure That's back to the plan That one This one and that one There are two There's the vestibule We added this one We had this one We added that one So
it's an air lock in here Okay All right Are there any other uh changes to the prior plans just those two Yeah Okay Sorry Mr Trump can you just go over that that last thing that you just exhibited for us i didn't quite hear the introduction to what you were referring
to and this law Yes Yes We took the board's suggestion to add this door so that there are two doors on the vestibule So that's a better air lock uh in case any fumes should come
from the cars in the garage Thank you Okay Nothing further for Mr Klein Um I really don't have any additional questions Mr Chairman I appreciate uh the attention to um providing the additional exit Um and uh I'm assuming
based on the drawing that there are maybe three or four steps at the most um down onto the onto that patio Is that correct that sounds correct One two three That's correct One two three And they're not steep steps so no All right
Thank you very much Thank you church Question I have no questions Mr Chair signing Yes Um in regards to I there was some testimony before about making this ADA accessible and and making
accommodations but is there accommodations for wheelchair access is there a ramp in and out on either of the entrances the the entire uh ADU is level with grade and the garage and then there's a
ramp Yeah this this area is ramped to get out So I'm So are you saying you would go up the driveway and make that turn driveway and it's level so it's If you're going to if you're going to testify we're
going to have to have you sworn in Then we won't have to have you sworn in again You just have to acknowledge that you're still under oath Okay and state your name and address please My name is Jazelle Bazali I work for Francis Klein I'm an architectural designer So the intention is that from because the the
the grade of the site it's very slow to one direction So the only way to make it accessible and the way that they would discharge from the car on a wheelchair it's from the garage So from the driveway that upper terrace is all on
grade and it has the minimal difference of a half inch from the outside to the inside of the ADU So the so the stairs is just to get stairs down to the yard Correct Okay Thank no questions
No questions I don't have any questions You want to call your next Yes Thank you Harrison Uh Baron [Applause] He was not sworn in No New witness Okay good Would you raise your right hand do
you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board i do State your name and address please Uh Harrison Bariny address 87 Hiburnia Avenue Rockaway New Jersey 07866 Would you spell your last name please b as in
Bravo A R A N Y Okay Mr Barney Um would you just provide your professional qualifications for the board please yes I have my bachelor's in science and civil engineering from Ruckers University I currently have a
professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey It is current and in good standing and I have testified before numerous boards across New Jersey including Newark Planefield uh City of Summit Floren Park Township of Morris among among others When when did when uh
did you obtain your u license as a civil engineer in New Jersey i obtained my license in 2023 Okay And what is your current business affiliation um I I work as a professional engineer at E2 Project Management Uh we're engineering consulting firm Okay Mr chairman I offer
him as a Thank you All right Uh Harrison you prepared um the landscape plan for this property and the drainage plan Correct That's correct Okay Um and those have been submitted to the board So what I'd like you to do is to
um want to start with the um Yeah I can talk Drainage plan or the landscape plan your your choice Yeah So so we submitted uh two sheets uh two design sheets uh plans dated March 31st 2025 um consisting of a a drainage plan and a
landscaping plan Um basically due to the the amount of disturbance and the increase in imperous coverage we do not trigger a major development for storm water but we do trigger a minor development which is an increase in 250 square ft of new impervious coverage Uh
in doing so we're required to store two gallons for every additional square foot of impervious coverage Uh and we're doing so by means of a dry well system Two dry wells um situated in the rear of the property And we are capturing all of the uh the garage roof runoff as well as
uh we're proposing a small trench drain in front of the garage to capture any runoff from the garage and uh from part of the driveway Um and currently the existing garage right now doesn't even have any uh drainage doesn't have gutters or anything of the that kind any storm water management So um we're
actually improving although you know although incl expanding the footprint we're adding stormwater management now So everything will be captured from the roof piped underground to the drywall system and infiltrated uh into the ground And the drywall system has a called a popup pop-up cap emitter So in
uh storm wear events where water rises uh to larger storm events basically due to pressure the the cap opens up and the water just naturally flows on the grass as it would if it were to hit the grass from the a rainfall event Um and uh we provide we're providing our details uh
on our on our drawings Um we are aware that we need to do soil testing We haven't done that yet but we will do so um and work with the engineer on that uh we have to provide a a satisfactory permeability rate to infiltrate which is uh a minimum of a half an inch per hour
Um currently we've designed the system for uh two inches per hour Um and the storage that we're providing is 600 around 600 cubic feet uh and we're satisfactory in what we're required to store uh meeting the the township ordinance um as it as it pertains to the
landscaping plan which is labeled sheet C102 Um here you can see that we're providing uh some foundation plantings along the the western side of the home as well as some in the rear along the steps and some um like ornamental ground
covers within the planting beds Um it's these are all um they're non-invasive species they're accepted uh through New Jersey to be planted here Um and we're we feel as though we're offering a good variety of plantings Um some flowering shrubs as well as greenery shrubs that
will provide a nice uh break it will break up the hardscape of the side of the garage Um and I just would like to note too that we are not removing any existing trees Uh all trees are to remain So no tree replacement plan or replanting of trees is required Um and
the plant list that we've provided is on is on our sheet at the bottom We're providing a total of 16 shrubs and 11 uh ground cover plantings which will uh you know add a nice aesthetic to the the back of the house the garage there
Okay Does that cover all you know yeah Um okay That basically covers what we provided Yeah Are you satisfied that the drainage plan that you've designed um is adequate and in compliance with the appropriate standards uh during the
Montlair um in the Montlair ordinances yes So um the use of drywalls uh the township really would like green infrastructure to be to be used which is like filtration or natural infiltration of water uh on the surface
Um however they do accept dry wells if the other options aren't uh a good fit for the property Um I've used them before uh and some designs I've done in Montlair with the engineer I worked with the engineer Um so given that the permeability rates are satisfactory I don't see an issue with using the dry
well system It does infiltrate So it's retaining the water on site It's not letting it go offsite for the uh uh storage that we're required to provide Um and um it in some cases could be considered green infrastructure because it is infiltrating uh the war As I've
said we're not detaining it and then dumping it off site So um in my opinion it's it's a good design but we are willing to work with the engineer um if he has any additional comments with our design You understand that the plan is subject to the review and approval of the board engineer i do Yes And you're
satisfied that you can work with him to resolve any issues that might arise i do Okay And have you reviewed the board engineers uh uh letter dated December 16 2024 regarding this application i have All right And specifically directing
your attention to sections 5 7 and nine of that report um are you um able and willing to comply with the engineers comments and recommendations contained in those sections yes we are
able to comply with all those comments All right Nothing further Mr Chairman You have any questions yes Thank you Mr Chairman And uh thank you Mr Baron for your presentation Uh
just a couple of questions for clarification Number one is um I understand that there is no flood hazard uh in this area Is that correct yes we checked the flood mapping and there's it's not in a flood hazard area Okay Um and then you indicated that um uh in
terms of the landscaping plan uh you're not planting any new trees not removing trees not relocating trees That's correct Yes So the trees that are on uh C102 represent what is currently existent Is that correct those are existing trees Yes So um just a a a
question that I have is um in the previous hearing we were looking at uh the ability since this is uh in ADU uh the ability of the occupants to be able to make an emergency exit if necessary
So we now understand from the revised plan that there is now access to the platform or to the patio in the back in the rear So if the occupants needed to utilize that in an emergency is there
anything in the landscaping plan that would inhibit their ability to leave uh from this uh from the ADU and to be able to move sufficiently away from the building uh if that was necessary yeah I
I visited the site today um and it's pretty it's pretty open the tree the trees you can see um aren't very obstructive in any way and the plants that we're proposing aren't uh very large um and the way that we would plant them they wouldn't obstruct any access
points um and as you can see in the plan the stairs are directed away from the shrubs so you would turn go down the rear the rear of the building and around the corner um and in no way would any of the plants shown here obstruct someone from doing that in my opinion and that
would be by foot or by wheelchair as far as you're concerned Well the back of the site it look it appears there's stairs So I don't believe that's wheelchair accessible Yeah I'm not I'm talking about that I'm really talking about the landscaping itself Just in terms of the yard Yeah Their ability to move clear of the pro
of the building itself That's all Yes It I mean all the plantings are up against the building itself So an emergency want to get away obviously from the building So in no way do I feel that they impede uh that emergency access getting away All right Thank you very much
Mr Church do you have any questions no questions Mr Simon do you have any questions no questions Miss Harris do you have any questions no questions Mr Moore no question Okay I have a couple
The landscaping shown on your plans differs from what I'll call the stylized landscaping shown on the architectural plans I'm assuming we're to be guided by the landscaping on your plans Is that correct yeah I would I would uh use our
our landscape plans as the primary planting and landscaping design for the site Okay And then a couple questions on the storm water The roof of the garage portion of the building slopes to the
west and I'm not clearly seeing how you're getting water from that side of the garage portion of the building over to your dry wells And the concern is because of the proximity
of the um garage to the neighboring property owner Are you referring to the east side or the west side west side The west side So the west side Um our our location of our roof leaders are in a sense preliminary We will be work working with the architect on where
they'd like them placed with respect to the slope of the roof in the area So um if a majority of the roof or that portion of the roof is sloping towards the west we we are able to add additional roof leaders uh if need be and it won't affect the uh the the
design of the drywall system or storage in any way Just the question is how is the water getting from there to the drywall to the drywall Yeah So basically we have a series of roof leaders that come down and then there's underground um header
pipes that are sized for the roof itself um that get directed then towards the drywall beneath the ground Yeah Just you know given the distance involved I'm curious as to whether the slope is going to work to how deep are the dry wells
the the the dry wells the bottom of stone is roughly 7 and 1/2 ft deep Um so entering high um and it's a 6 and 1/2 ft deep give or take drywall with a foot of stone Um so you're looking at a couple feet below
grade probably 3 ft or so that you'd be entering Um we do you know 2% slope is usually the minimum required for positive drainage Um and the the area in the back will be regraded slightly um to make sure there's enough cover for the
pipe um and adequate slope slope of the the pipe itself Okay But it it's going to be my understanding of what you're saying it's going to be coming in from the pipe coming from that the west side
of the garage is going to be coming in to the drive Well what I'll call midle Yeah And what happens if the well the water what happens to the water if the dry well is filled above that level so
in the sense that the drywall is filled above it We have um emergency roof drain overflows So if the water backs up towards the roof leader uh piping it then spills out into a splash block at the house or garage itself and dumps out into the ground and events that it backs
up that that where would that be located relative to the property to to the west so I don't believe we would implement that at that location So in the west portion of the site it would be at a higher elevation obviously than the east portion of the site due since it's a
further distance away So the overflow uh portions of the roof leaders would be implemented at the roof leers prior to the the west side of the location So it would enter the roof leader locations to the south uh in the east portion and dump out there before it would even
reach the west portion the um assuming the drainage first goes into the northernmost of the two dry wells Is that correct it does And then there's an overflow pipe that takes it to the next
Yes dry well And then that's the dry well that has the cap that comes off if that one fills up Is that correct that's correct Okay Anyone else with any questions um okay Are there any members of the audience who have questions
either for this witness or for Mr Klene okay Mr Trimbleac do you have any further witnesses yes I do Um I'd like to call Meg Manel as my next witness
Would you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board yes State your name and address Magenzel 144 Union Street Montlair New Jersey Um Meg you're one of the owners of this property married to Aaron Kle who was
here last meeting could not be here tonight All right you asked for the opportunity to um address some comments um to the board regarding this application So why don't you go ahead and Okay Tell the board what it is you'd like to say relating to
uh you know this application Thank you Um thank you for um giving us the opportunity to return and present again this evening the plan changes you advised and the information you requested Uh my name is Meg Menzel and
my husband Aaron Kessle and I are owners of the home we're speaking of this evening Um Aaron uh is very sorry not to be able to be here tonight and I will be representing the two of us um right now Um as I have not met you yet a very brief background on me I'm the mom of
three children who go to school in Monontlair um and the daughter of Shayla and York the people who would hopefully be moving into the ADU Um by profession I'm a genetic counselor and assistant professor of medical ethics and humanities Um and as I I work as a
healthcare ethicist at a hospital in New Jersey um three days a week and I teach genetics and gen and ethics to the genetic counseling grad graduate program at Colombia two days a week We feel incredibly fortunate um to be living in this wonderful community and raising our children here And we were thrilled that
my parents were also excited to move to Montlair two years ago to be closer to our family and to enjoy and give back to Montlair with the same love that we do As you've heard our goal is to have a space where my parents can be close to us so that we and my children may enjoy
them and they us and so that we may also care for them more and more as their needs increase I do want to share that throughout this journey we have been very open with our neighbors about our plans and we feel incredibly blessed to have wonderful neighbors who have been nothing but
supportive In fact the neighbors who live directly behind us and would be most closest to the ADU and the ADU construction even asked if we could postpone this zoning board meeting to next month so that they could voice their support as they are away on spring
break this week Numerous neighbors have also offered to write letters of support but we understand that this is not something we would be able to present at this meeting Um in this process we've also reached out to the Montlair People with Disabilities Advisory Committee and Montlair Gate Gateway both of whom have
offered their support On a personal note I would like nothing more than to be able to support my parents by having them in our in their own space on our property so that they may age in place together with our family If we are not approved to move more forward with our
plans with the variance in size I fear that we will need to begin to make plans for them to move to an assisted living committee community probably outside of the Montlair area This would be such a missed opportunity for me and Aaron for my children for my parents and in our
opinion for the Montlair community to support an aging couple who wants to stay in town Thank you for your patience time and understanding and for letting me speak Thank you Nothing further Obviously there any members of the audience
any members of the audience who have questions for this witness mr Chairman you do have anything further one one final witness Mr Chairman which would be um Yorg Menzel Do you raise your right hand do you
swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board i do State your name and address My name is York Mensel My first name is spelled J O E R G Uh just like and pronounced York just
like New York Um I currently live at 36 Hawthorne Place in Montlair with my wife Shayla Buckley who is behind me What is your relationship to the young lady who just testified before you well you have
already met Meg Mensel my daughter our daughter and um her husband of course is Aaron Kle our son-in-law And then of course the wonderful three
grandchildren Um although people tell us that um we don't look like it Uh both of us will turn 86 um within the next 3 months And
um but be assured that uh we do feel the accelerating age and experience both mental and physical problems Thus with your permission I would like to read the statement that I
prepared Is that okay thank you In 2022 while Shayla and I walked with Meg in the woods of Western Maryland Meg saved her mother's life by recognizing her stroke at once and
quickly calling 911 I did not recognize it We all agreed then that we needed to live close to Megan Aaron so that they could keep track of us and support us as
needed So in 2023 we sold our condo in Bethesda Maryland and rented a 1,340 ft two-bedroom twob apartment here
in town That's where we live 36 Hearth In fact this feeling of needing to be close to Meg then saved my life because while we were riding while
I was riding with her in the car from DC to Montlair she noticed that there seemed to be something wrong with me that I did not detect and she took me directly to nearby St
Barnabas Medical Center I was promptly examined admitted to the hospital diagnosed with severe anemia which I never had before given several pints of blood and released after a week
of excellent medical care So there were two instances that we can never forget As SA and I get older slow down get more forgetful and have greater
difficulty walking we are getting more and more dependent on Megan Aaron Thus we need to be closer to them on a daily basis but not so close as it to intrude
into their daily lives and their daily family life But fortunately for us we recognized early on Monontlair's great initiative code 347-8 for the accessory dwelling units
the ADUs And that is the ideal answer to our needs And that's why we all here Architect Francis Klein as you heard and his architectural designer Jazela Buzzelli have come up with
two-bedroom layout for our ADU on the 144 Union Street property It meets our needs It anticipates our future ADA requirements
The plan serves the dual function of bringing the old twocar garage up to ADA standards as well as providing an ADU with full wheelchair access The area of this ADU is
1,243 square ft And that of course is above Montlair's current limit And we know that I have attended all previous board meetings all
discussions and now as the future occupant of this ADU I shall address some of the questions which were raised before and other questions which may be asked this evening
The obvious question the first question why do we require two bedrooms a couple in their 80s and 90s has different medical needs and daily life patterns in order to be taken care of by the other partner especially with
outside help We require two bedrooms When I first got CO Shayla could take care of me in one bedroom while being able to retreat safely to the other And then of course the reverse was true
where I could take care of her Last year in our rental when each of us went through a month's long coughing spell our two bedrooms of course proved
essential So based on this experience and our different daily life patterns when we are not sick we do consider it essential for our health and well-being to live in a two-bedroom apartment
The current ADU maximum of 800 square f feet is inadequate for us because the required ADA size of our bedrooms would very significantly curtail our kitchen dining and living areas So we hope that
the board will accept this real life explanation from old folks in granting us the various variances Second what area is needed to satisfy the ADA requirement of full
wheelchair accessibility architectural designer Jazella Buzzelli examined and reported to the board right here in detail how wheelchair accessibility adds square footage to an
ADU Having wheelchair access to all of our living space will be essential for us to be able to safely age in place Again we hope that the board will be guided by that expert
conclusion into granting us the required variances Third what relationship should there be between ADU and the main dwelling on the property and here I will uh ask you please to accept my apologies
because I will be answering this question with a bunch of numbers and it's just that my nuclear science training got the better of me So according to the code an ADU can be no larger than
40% of the main dwelling on the same property So for an ADU of 800 square ft this would translate into a main dwelling of 2,000 square
ft But that is only onethird the size of the Kissle family's house on 144 Union Street In fact our planned ADU is only 20% rather than
40% of the existing main residents So we hope even with these numbers that the board will factor in the size of the single resident's property at one 144
Union into granting the required variances Fourth and I'm getting to the end Fourth how does this larger size ADU fit into the neighborhood the so-called
excess square footage has been designed to be located in the rear of an exceptionally large lot in ward 3 It has been appropriately set back from the neighbors property
lines and is out of view from the street Again we hope that the board will accept this well planned architectural design in granting us the
variance And finally the question that has not been asked before why not wait for a possible code change yes we are asking the board to grant variances not
anticipated in Monontlair's excellent ADU code the original code We are convinced and we hope we have convinced you that these variances are all well justified by our
needs by the lo localized architectural plan for our ADU and by our positive responses in the past to requests made previously by the historical and the zoning
boards At our age time is especially precious We feel incredibly fortunate for every day but it is entirely possible that our needs will significantly be different even just as
uh just a few months from now If we are not approved today we will have to make other plans for where we live as we do not have the time to continue with the status
quo In that case the alternative of moving to an assisted living facility would separate us further from Montlair which we have learned to love and from our family
We hope that the board making this special decision will share our sense of time and grant the requested variances So in summary we asked that the zoning board approve this ADU for Aaron Kisel and Margaret Mensel at 144
Union Street because the two bedrooms are needed by us for aging in place The ADA wheelchair space requirements are expected to be needed by us and not
very long from now and have been architecturally demonstrated The area of this ADU is restrictively proportioned with respect to the size of the main residence
The ADU is placed on the property property specifically to avoid any negative impact on the neighborhood The rebuild garage provides safe access for modern
automobiles provides us with ADA access and matches the current gable height in historical look from the street The garage and the attached ADU will not
cause any water runoff problems And at our advanced age because of our anticipated needs and for medical reasons we cannot wait out
the process of an ADU code change by Montlair itself Thank you very much for listening Thank you Mr Menzel Appreciate some questions Any questions for members of the board mr McCulla
Uh thank you Mr Menzel Thank you um you were um uh careful to speak to um your desire to uh be able to protect the uh independent living of your um your daughter and her
husband and and your grandchildren Uh but you did not speak to how this would afford you and your wife to be able to continue to live uh independently So would you speak to that please
oh of course Um when I I I'm a scientist by training I've used computers constantly What I find now every day is that I have difficulty with the computer When we
needed to change the TV I turned to Aaron when we we have a a range of medical doctors in this area whenever we make contact and plans
we go to Meg So what's different between now and being close by there's a great difference in that when she comes home she does not have to go to
Horththornne place she comes by and drops by and says hello to her parents When the children come home from school they very natural would stop
by We could help when they need help Um it it there's a long list of where the distance actually makes significant difference by
conversations by context by being aware of our behavior Our daughter will see us every day and she will detect changes just like she detected changes
with Shayla walking and with me in the car So that is the difference Then of course we get the pleasure of spending time with a family More time
with a family Thank you Any other questions from members of the board any members of the audience with questions for this witness mr Chamberlak do you have anything further we have nothing further Mr Chair Are there any members of the audience who have any
testimony any comments anything whatsoever you want to say about this application yes please come forward and give your name and address and if you're going to and we'll have to swear you in Would you raise your right hand do you
swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board i do Give us your name and address please Uh I am uh Dr Jonathan Schwarz Uh I live at 133 Union Street Uh I'm providing a neighbor
testimonial um in support of the proposed project Uh my wife Katherine Xernicki and I have lived at 133 Union
Street for uh over 18 years Uh we are uh very fond of the neighborhood and the the neighborly components uh within it Um we have gotten to know uh Aaron and
me Kle in in the years that they've resided uh up the street from us uh they're wonderful neighbors supportive uh of of the community uh and excellent parents to to their three children Uh
and we believe that uh their actions have consistently been supportive of of a favorable neighborhood environment um to uh and as a self-avowed uh tree hugger and bird watcher and uh uh
amateur house afficionado um I I can attest that uh the proposed um structure will not in any way compromise the uh historic or aesthetic
um character of the neighborhood and and of Union Street and uh I believe my views are deeply shared by my wife Katherine Zerniki as well as our neighbors uh Peter Rapaort and Marcia Marley who live
directly across from uh the the Kissle family at at 139 Union Street Um my wife uh Katherine Xernicki also wanted me to uh emphasize that this is a project that reflects really the very best of
Montlair community and inclusion It is what anyone would want for their parents and what anyone would want from their children Any
questions thank you Thank you Any other members of the audience who have any comments on the or testimony concerning the application mr Trimble you want to sum up uh yes Thank you Mr Chairman Thank you board for your time and attention to
this you know very important application Um so we need four variances from the board Two variances relate to the garage and two relate to the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit I'm going to talk about the garage variances
first be uh because I think the rationale for granting them is is fairly evident um and um uh you know supported u under the uh standards in the municipal land use law With respect to the garage the first variance we need is
a sideyard setback variance to essentially maintain the 2.9 foot setback which has existed since this garage was built approximately a 100red years ago Um we believe that variance
can be justified either under C1 or C2 criteria C1 we think is applicable because the garage it's a lawfully existing structure Relocating the garage to comply with the 12-oot setback requirement would um would uh you know
cost significant amount of money and it would also require the uh realignment of the existing driveway and also coincidentally remove the garage from the public view from um Union Street which was something significant as far
as the HPC was concerned They were very concerned with how that garage looked They liked that it was historic blended in with the house and and and and was an important feature So um you know we believe that maintaining the existing setback of the gar of the garage on the
westerly side is is is preferable And I think that's also uh justified given the location of this structure in the rear corner of this property where as Mr Ste pointed out in his testimony and with one of his exhibits there's a cluster in
this corner of the property a cluster of accessory dwelling uh I'm sorry accessory buildings including a very large garage directly opposite um this garage uh on the adjacent property at
152 Union Street Uh we're just looking to maintain the setback that's existed uh for this garage for uh for a century perhaps longer And it's hard to conceive of any detrimental impact that would have by allowing that to continue Um
even though the garage is going to be substantially reconstructed Second variance relates to the height of the garage Uh as with the setback variance we're seeking to maintain the existing garage height of
18 ft Uh whereas the ordinance you know limits the height of accessory structures to 15 ft Interestingly the the existing garage is actually 15 ft high height uh measured at the front of
the garage facing the street However because the land slopes downward to the rear and then you have in calculating height you have to take the average grade around the structure Turns out that the average grade results in a in a
building height for the garage of actually 18 ft So the only reason we need a variance is you know again because of this the topography uh of the property Um and again as with the westerly sidewall we're just seeking to
maintain a condition that's existed with respect to this garage since it was built a 100red years ago It's also important to note as I think we pointed out that my clients when they went before the HPC before I was involved I
did get involved in the HPC application but before I got involved they had proposed to reduce the height of the garage to make it conforming which was can be done Um the board HPC did not like that at
all and felt strongly about maintaining the look of the garage you know given even though it's set back quite a distance visible from the street They like the look they want felt strongly about maintaining the existing height
and to not change the height whatsoever um and to maintain the uh the the tutor appearance of the garage which matches the the main house on the property So again that's what the HPC wanted Again given the the long-standing existence of
this garage it's hard to imagine any negative detriment that would result from allowing the height to continue as it's as it's been So moving on to the more significant variances which both
relate to the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit So we're dealing with a what's really a new ordinance that was adopted by the town council just a little over two years ago in February of 23 And you know ADUs are not
only new to Montlair but they're new to the entire state of New Jersey And to my knowledge I believe there's only a handful of municipalities Uh I think Princeton is one I believe Maplewood may may be one There may be others I think we're going
to see more of them enacted over the years but these are new Uh we don't have a lot of experience uh with them uh there's no practical experience to draw upon in um and um you know I mean the
town was faced with this in in crafting um this ordinance and really taking a leading role in um encouraging and and enabling ADUs uh at least in our community um you know and I think it's
obvious that since we're dealing with a new uh ordinance um and also understand I believe this is the first application this this board has actually heard um involving an ADU and I'm sure you'll
hear additional ones as as time goes by and I'm sure after we have experience in in addressing this new type of housing unit um that there's likely to be
uh adjustments amendments uh uh to the ordinance Um um and I'm sure there'll be recommendations u that this board will provide in the annual reports that you're you're required to pro provide uh
to the town And as we already know um there's a there's currently an an amendment uh to the ADU ordinance recommended by this board currently pending before the council I think there's likely to be further tweaking of the ordinance Um I think there's some
issues that have I think been been raised by this application that might you know provide a basis to re rethink some things particularly kind of jumping out of turn here You know I mean the
town provided that ADUs are permitted in all one family and two family zoning districts throughout the town So meaning an ADU could be permitted on a 5,000
square foot lot in the R1 uh you know district and it could be permitted on a 1 acre or 2acre property in the RO mountainside district But in either case no more than 800 square ft no matter
what the size of the property is I'm not quite sure what the rationale for that was Um because the you the town first came up with well you know we we want to make sure that these are accessory in terms of that it doesn't look like we're
creating two family uses throughout the town So we got to make sure it's small enough um that it's not viewed as a as a you know as a as a second you know residents in our our uh one family zones
that we value in this town are all looking like two families So they came up you know with a formula that said the maximum size of an ADU cannot be more than or the maximum floor area cannot be
more than 40% of the floor area of the primary dwelling on the property or the main house Um but they then said in no circumstances more than 800 square ft no matter how
big the property is no matter how big the existing house is So that's what creates the problem for us Um in this case um in evaluating the ordinances I think you know the starting
point has to be the ordinance itself and to look at the public policies underlying the enactment of the ordinance Uh and those policies are stated right in the ordinance itself And I think it's important for me to uh review those briefly And Mr Stack
pointed this out in uh in a part of his testimony The ordinance adopted by the town in February of 2023 um included some very important recital as to why the town felt it was important
to enact this ordinance And I'm I'm reading from the uh from from the ordinance um quote "Whereas older residents living on a fixed income are especially at risk and face the possibility of having to leave the township taking with them a lifetime of
of experiences that benefit the entire community And secondly another whereas clause people with disabilities face considerable challenges when finding adaptive housing and risk ha risk having to live away from family and trusted
support networks in order to find appropriate living environments It's very interesting how those statements really match up with what you just heard here um as the compelling reason for you know for the variances
that we're seeking So those are in the recital provisions of the ordinance And then the very first section of the ordinance talks about the purpose of intent And again I I I just want to read a couple of them The ordinance says the Monontlair Township Council finds and
declares that the purpose of this section is to one provide citizens with the opportunity to retain their homes age in place and create adaptive living environments for people living with disabilities Go on And the third purpose
is recited is to integrate these housing units within existing neighborhoods respecting the character of the neighborhood And then lastly to provide flexible housing options for residents in keeping with the goals of the master plan that respond to changing family
needs smaller households and increasing housing costs Um so that those are the policy consider considerations that uh the town was seeking to uh encou by by enacting this ordinance Um
you know the focus of the ordinance is to provide additional housing options for older pop you know older residents so they can age in place uh and with an additional focus on um adapt u um
accessibility and accommodating the needs of people with disabilities That's that's the focus of the uh I think a major focus of the ordinance and it's certainly a major focus of our application before you this this evening
you know clients want to provide an accessory dwelling unit for Ms Menzel's parents uh elderly parents so they can age in place in close proximity to their children and grandchildren in a community that they've grown to love in
a short period of time Um and also to have a fully accessible unit So the reason we need more than the 800 square feet um that the ordinance allows um is
to provide to provide um excuse me for a second Um yeah Okay The reason reason we need a larger unit is primarily for two reasons As you heard explained much better than I can
um there's a need here due to the particular circumstances uh of the uh couple that's intended to occupy this unit There's a need for for two bedrooms um and a need for separate rooms as well
as those rooms need to be a little bit larger to accommodate an aid or a caregiver and tables and whatever else might be required as well as to allow for you know wheelchair accessibility in those bedrooms You know if you look at
the ordinance the ordinance contemplates a one-bedroom apartment um because it limits ADUs to no more than three rooms in addition to a kitchen and bath So if you're allowed a kitchen and bath and three other rooms I think the contemplation was one bedroom a living
room and perhaps either a dining room or or an office or family room or something like that um here there's unique personal circumstances which uh create the need for two bedrooms And then the uh the
second reason um is uh why we need relief from the uh um ordinance is because of the uh the fact that the entire unit needs to be accessible and we heard testimony and
numbers and calculations from Francis Klene and his assistants explaining the additional square footage required to provide accessibility Um so those are the you know very unique
particular personal compelling personal reasons uh for the relief we're seeking You know I think it's important to point out that you know we're asking for relief purely
for the personal reasons here Certainly not looking for any financial gain Um you know we're not looking to create a larger ADU because hey two bedrooms we could rent them for more rent them for more money and wouldn't that be great Um
clearly that's not the intention here It's not it's not the motivation Um so we think that the variances related to the size of the ADU uh can be justified uh under
section C2 uh of the statutes because the v the benefits of granting a variance substantially outweigh any detriments Um and the the benefits the public benefits are what I've already indicated Just looking at the public
policy expressed in the ordinance and the goals and objectives and what the town was trying to accomplish in that ordinance it it matches up exactly with what uh what we're trying to do here and the relief that we need um you know
granting the variance effectuates the purpose and intent of the ADO ordinance by allowing an elderly couple to age in place um in close proximity but as Mr from men not too close but close proximity to to their uh children and
grandchildren and also in an in an environment which is fully accessible um uh which again is another goal sought to be accomplished by the statute So um we think those are significant variances
uh significant benefits and also that those benefits substantially outweigh any detriment In fact we don't perceive how there could be any any detriment uh given the particular particular
circumstances of this case and the property involved I say that for the following reason uh reasons Um number one this is a large lot in the RORO zone district The lot consists of
34,518 square ft of land area The minimum land lot area requirement in the RO zone is 20,000 square feet So we're almost 15,000 you know what roughly 70% or so larger than the minimum lot area
So it's a large property The property has 150 ft of width which is 50% more than the minimum lot width requirement of 100 ft The property's 270 ft deep
Um you know um so we're dealing with a large property which can accommodate the larger ADU that's been proposed Um we talked about you know the the the ordinance
um if you put aside the 800 square foot limitation you know the the ordinance uh provides that the permissible size of an ADU is based upon the size of the principal dwelling on the property or in this case the house This is a fairly
large house uh with 6,088 square feet of uh of uh of floor area excluding the basement 6,088 square ft Um we're proposing an ADU
of,243 square ft which is only about 20% the size of the of the main house the AD ordinance again but for the 800 foot limitation says we're okay as long as it's no more than 40% the size of the uh
of the house and we're again we're half of that basically Um thirdly again demonstrating the absence of any negative uh impacts from granting these variances is the location that's
been that's proposed for the ADU Um it's in the rear corner of the of the property in an area where there's several a cluster of um of accessory buildings including as I mentioned
earlier a fairly large garage structure on the adjacent property next door at 15 uh2 Union Street They're all kind of clustered together in that corner and the Mr Stack had a picture of that as part of his exhibit
Um you know so that's where the location would be It's also remote from the street over 200 square ft um from the street and it would be shielded by the house so it wouldn't be visible The garage would remain visible which is
what HPC felt was important you know but the ADU attached to the garage would not be visible from the street Nobody would see it Um yeah and there's plenty of you last thing is you know there's adequate room more than adequate
room on this property to handle the additional storm water that would be generated by the additional impervious you know coverage that's being proposed And we we demonstrated that through the drainage plan that's that's been submitted And um you know the property
naturally slopes to the east um uh away from the ADU Um so there'd be no negative impacts upon uh the neighbors uh neighboring properties by allowing this um larger ADU than uh than is
permitted Um it's also I think significant we're talking about negative criteria and impacts on the neighborhood the fact that no neighbors no one showed up to speak in opposition to this application
and one neighbor M Dr Schwarz obviously you know spoke very eloquently in favor I I uh I I think if this was not for the fact that school it's school break uh spring break week I think other neighbors would have uh come out and
expressed support for the application But there's certainly been no opposition which again I think confirms the absence of any negative um uh impact from granting these variances The last thing or maybe the next next to last thing I
want to address because I know it's always a concern of this board and I think one or two board members may have alluded to it at the last meeting and that is precedent Well if we grant this are we creating a precedent to allow
larger ADUs um for other property owners um the answer to that is absolutely no No And let me just read a sentence from the Cox handbook which is you know the Bible
that we land use practitioners rely upon And um so I'm quoting from uh page 419 of the uh current edition of the Cox handbook when he talks about the effect of precedent And the quote is generally
speaking the granting of a variance to one property owner does not create a precedent for the granting of a variance to other property owners since each variance must must stand or fall on its own particular factual circumstances
Assuming the board grants the variance that we're seeking here tonight it's obviously based upon very specific unique and particular circumstances personal circumstances unique u to to to
this family and and taking into account the large property that the ADU would be located on So um there would be no presidential value for someone else to
come in and say "Hey me too I'd like you know a larger ADU." Also you know unless the only presidential value would be if you had another property owner um coming in on an application to create an ADU
for elderly parents who needed two separate bedrooms an adequate room for the space for the unit to be fully accessible and proposing that that unit be located on a lot similar in size and
with the particular features that I've mentioned to this property that would be the limited presidential value which is basically you know none um for for all intents and purposes
um you know so you know in in in summation I as I've said several times already there are unique compelling personal reasons for granting
uh all of the variances uh that we've requested requested and that approving the the ADU variances would actually effectuate and be consistent with the policies and the goals and objections
that our town council sought to promote by enacting this ordinance Um um you know allowing for people to age in place provide adaptive living environments for people with
disabilities providing for uh you know additional for housing units that respect the character of the neighborhood and provide housing options for residents that respond to ch changing family needs smaller households
and increasing housing costs Um we believe that for all of those reasons uh you know u the board should grant the variances uh that we've request reflected and that
we've established that those variance uh variances are justified uh under the requirements of the municipal uh land use law and that we meet we've met those standards So uh once again thank you for your time on hearing this very important
application and uh for considering our presentation So start the discussion Mr McCullen Well um I think uh Mr Tumblac has given us a very comprehensive uh and clear
um presentation of the perspective of the applicant uh and um has addressed um many if not in fact all of the prevailing questions um at least um from
my perspective Um I do think that there are you know some things that factor into the decision I mean obviously uh this is in fact the first time that
we're making a decision about an ADU Uh and so there is a question of precedent and and I do want to speak to that uh Mr Tulac in a moment But um I I think that um certainly there is a there is an
outstanding concern about the size of ADUs uh that uh we want to we want to be careful to make sure that uh we don't end up in a situation within
the township where we're unintentionally increasing the density of our neighborhoods and the community Um and sometimes um you know people may have the
perspective uh that they need a significantly larger property than uh is really um helpful uh in a given neighborhood or in the community And so we we certainly have to be I think alert
to that Uh and um you know we can certainly look across the township and see lots of signs of that Um so it's it's it's a real concern It certainly is one that that I have Um not necessarily in this particular case but but it is
something that I think we have to be alert to um as a zoning board Um uh I I also um you know I think uh you know when we come to this
um to the question of of a precedent um and Mr Trembleac said the answer to that is is absolutely no Um but I I did listen to his explanation and I I heard that
he in his uh presentation allowed for one slight exception Uh which u allowed it didn't really allow me but it makes it easier for me to say that uh yes it is certainly a no Uh but it's a yes and a no also Uh and and the the only reason
why I say it's a yes and a no is because we we live in a time in which um uh public perception um can make things that seem that should
be very obvious less obvious you know that uh arguments can be made uh about uh whether or not something was intended to be in one particular uh direction as opposed to another Uh
and so we often times uh find ourselves in this particular day and age of trying to figure out what's truth and what's right and what's wrong and what's you know what's sort of the intended purpose of of of a partic particular rule or in this in this case an ordinance you know
uh and so it leaves some room for interpretation which sometimes is helpful and sometimes is not very helpful So um uh when we sort of get into this whole question of the precedent it it um uh as as we're sort
of looking at it I think as a zoning board um we want to be careful that we don't set um uh you know sort of on the first first opportunity that we we choose to
sort of change the president uh uh uh without you know giving careful thought Um so um but I I mean I I do think that that u when the township uh considered the
ordinance it did have you know a a concept in mind Um and um uh and I guess my my my thinking about that is is that in terms of the the concept
uh the township was beginning from a place where it sort of had a blank slate um and uh needed to create an ordinance to speak to what an ADU opportunity might look
like within the township uh and I think uh in in at that particular time it gave its best effort to sort of define that On the surface that's good The reality is that experience
um informs um decisions later on Um and and I think that's part of what's happening here is that in terms of this this presentation this application um we're
looking at um uh an uh an opportunity or an application that informs the discussion about the ordinance and what really fits for this community Uh and so
even looking at something um as as um as um clear um as um the the wide variety in terms of the size of properties that exist across the
township uh sort of challenges the notion of what um makes the most sense in terms of uh a maximum size of an ADU do uh and um so
um so I think already we're beginning to hear um that um that you know there are experiences that will ultimately cause the township to wrestle with this whole question of the ordinance And I
certainly appreciate um the fact uh that uh the Menzels have have also um called to our attention that um there is a a factor of timing uh that uh should be taken into consideration I think the
last the last uh uh point that I would want to make uh and I I think is is really about u what I would consider to be the principle of independent living uh which is which is why I asked Mr Menzel the question because it's one
thing to say that the intent of the ADU um is to provide an opportunity for the occupants of the main house to be able to provide care and support for the
occupants of the ADU I think there's also a principle here which is to to to see how we as a township can assure uh to the extent possible that the occupants of the ADU are able to
continue to live independently um so that so that um we're not necessarily making the argument for someone to go into the ADU who is wholly
dependent upon those living in the main house on the property uh and so uh and and I think what what's happening in this application is is that the argument is being made uh
for for the ADU to be able to function as truly an independent living experience within the township which at the same time continues to maintain the nature and the character of the township
um and provides an opportunity for people who have historically lived in the community to be able to continue to live in the community So so there's a there there's a principle that I think is at play here uh that um is is important Um so
uh there are a lot of um you know other other thoughts that I have uh uh that I'll certainly set aside for the moment but um in I would simply conclude by saying that that u I I'm I'm
in support of this application Um I think that um it it does certainly change um what seems to be fundamentally the intent of the of the ordinance But I at the same time I think it does the
application makes the argument for why we need to have some flexibility um in terms of how um the ADU experience is lived out
uh in this community uh and and I think it all at the same time also uh provides an opportunity for us to look at ways in which or for the township to look at ways in which it still
can can create um boundaries that still um limit what an ADU is um so that again it doesn't ultimately end up um as um
someone creating a massive structure um on a piece of property that is not the intent of the ordinance in the first place So um I'm I'm generally in support of this application Mr church
One of my uh concerns with this application was as we expressed I think at the last meeting was the fact that we have to make a variance or grant the variance
for something we don't have a history of in this town and my concern became one of fear of setting a president That was certainly in my mind
The the uh testimony by Mr Tremulac assuaged that concern by reminding us that each application that comes before this board
is one that's unique to that particular individual that particular unit And the application that we have before us tonight being the first ADU
application we've seen we're fortunate that it was an application that took into account the necessity to maintain a
uh portion of Montlair with the uh that as uh historical housing historical outbuildings historical properties This application for the ADU did that They tried to take it in as
best they could but could not stay within but did not stay within the requirements of the statute The township council seems to understand the fact that with the that statute
needs amendment already without having seen an application come before it before this board And there is a uh a an amendment to the application pending now
So that not that this application would fall under that uh extension but at least there's uh uh concern that the initial applica
uh the initial ordinance was not adequate for the needs that are probably going to come before this council or this board Um so the variances being
sought by this application the size of the ADU the height of the gar of the b of the garage and the um other and the drainage problems that
ensue We're fortunate or the applicants in is fortunate that it's on a big enough piece of property that it does not harm or jeopardize the intent of the of
the uh master plan for Montlair It doesn't stand out It's not going to cause a detriment to the general welfare of of of the township And I believe that this application is
an application that absolutely fits the size and the the needs of the people making the application Uh having said all
that I am certainly not one who may be in need of one of these someday himself going to say that they're not uh meeting any uh acceptable standard
they are meeting an acceptable standard although it's not the standard set at the present time that will change with time and I don't fear a president is being set I think we're going to get a lot of different
uh types of applications for these ADUs as we go forward So therefore I would vote in favor of this application with the variances being uh uh accepted
uh of the height and uh the setback uh from the neighbor's property of 2.9 in feet or whatever it is I I would uh say leave it the way it is
Uh so therefore my uh feeling is that I would uh vote in favor of this application and just be thankful that our first goround with this was something that we could look at and see
what an ADU can look like on the adequate piece of property So that in the future if we get ADUs coming in not on adequate pieces of property we have a voice we have a a basis of
comparison and we can look to this application as the first one uh that we approved So I approve this application Mr Simon Um I think this scenario is exactly what
the town had in mind when they came up with the the ADU provision Um I think that uh in this situation is this is definitely the case that we would want to encourage um for the residents Um I
think this the dus in general should be appropriate for the property that they're going on So that one sizefits-all would be difficult to maintain uh and would not even make sense to have a little shed on a
property uh that's so large I I think it would be inappropriate So I have no problem with the the variances u being requested regarding size The one question I have which I'm not sure of is what happens 20 30 years from now There was some mention in the last testimony
about having separate meters for the ADU which gave me made me think of you know a a separate unit that could be rented for whatever reason for the the next owner I'm not saying for um this case
here So is there a The ordinance only requires that one of the units on the property be occupied by an owner of the property but the other unit can be rented It can be rented Yes Okay Okay So I just wasn't sure about
that but um Oh that I I am in favor of the application Miss Harris um I'm in favor of the application Um I think given the size of the property and the lot and your needs um the variances
um in terms of the the length of the wall and the square footage make sense The other two variances are existing conditions that you're maintaining Um and I thank you I'm glad to see people taking uh advantage of this ordinance and and not only creating um housing
that fits your family's needs but you're moving out of Hawthorne another family can move in which is exactly the point of the ordinance So thank you Mr Moore I'm in favor of the application I think
that uh from the testimony and also from the uh experts um it all comes together and makes a lot of sense um in order for you to age in place and um have an
intergenerational um home environment I think that this uh certainly mirrors uh the type of community that Monontlair is and why there's um a zoning board uh so that we can consider these types of applications
um that only enhance and speak to um the current dayto-day right so um I don't see this as being a detriment um uh to be a neighbor andor community I
think that if anything um it enhances um inclusion and um being able to um have a vibrant uh community in which we serve So I'm in favor of the application and I think
that um you all have done a wonderful job um uh at addressing um what the modifications that we wanted you to uh take care of as well as the historical preservation and um in your presentation
as well Okay I'm going to give a long discussion Let me start off by not in favor of the application Um and let me start off with
when I was six years old my parents built a house in Monontlair The location was chosen because it was a block and a half from where my maternal grandparents lived Many days when I you know particularly 6 to 10 years old when they'd come home from school I'd go to
my grandparents house for various reasons My grandmother taught me to play baseball I'm still playing softball this was an very important part of my growing up So I understand fully what you're doing and why you're doing it Um but you
know as you know is the ordinance is new We had one other application It the applicant disappeared after one hearing I I think it was potentially approval It was that application that led us to make the recommendation
uh to the governing body that they amend the ordinance uh related to ADUs um in the R1 and R2 zone so they could actually achieve the the size that was
allowed Uh and that ordinance is pending before the town um the concerns here and I'm not sure if I should start with the basic accessory structure limitations or the
ADU limits You know I guess the ADU limits I would have no problems with the variance you know the testimony from the architect was the extra 50 ft that's given for an an accessory unit um for to
provide handicapped accessibility you know was was not sufficient and I forget the exact number but it brought it up to around 900 square ft as to what would work in order to provide the handicapped um accessibility the um you know I think
that would be fully justified in keeping with what the intent of the ordinance is I have no problems with the two bedrooms I you know those reasons I don't I'm not sure what the intent of the ordinance was but I I think it was
focused on size not exactly what rooms what configuration of the rooms My concern here and it relates to both you
know accessory structures in this zone have a limit on the length of any one wall which is being exceeded for both the garage and the accessory dwelling unit
the this is I I don't remember ever actually getting an application for an accessory structure in this zone exceeding the the 36 ft permitted length Um you
know we have routinely shrunk garages saying don't you don't need to go that deep and we weren't even talking about 36 feet um dealing with setback issues the the the variance runs with the land
It it is there forever and to accommodate it being accessible that's clearly the ordinance envisioned that dwelling units would be accessible and we're not considering the personal circumstances of these applicants in
granting the variance And in general we are not to consider the personal circumstances of applicants Certainly not for a C1 variance but I don't think even if it's for a C2 the special reasons can't be accommodate this The variance will run with the land It's
going to be for other people going forward Um but it is the the reason the accessory dwelling unit is too large The reason it is too long is the large open living dining area that is
being provided and that is something that you go through and Mr Tremulac went through the various intents of the ADU unit That that's wasn't part of it And I
understand that is very nice to have but it it goes far beyond what the intent of the ADU ordinance provides And it
is something you know th this is you know one of one of the concerns is the lack of experience with ADUs anywhere because as Mr Tren like I
said very few towns have done it and not a lot of units are going to be built but this is something new and different and the units that are approved are going to be entitled to be there forever and I think we need to be cautious in what
we're approving um as to the rationale and I I can get very far in terms of in order to accommodate handicapped accessibility There are various reasons why two
bedrooms and it can be apart from the particular circumstances of the parents of this applicant that you know may make sense for that that to be the case and but it's you know it's you know I
indicated at the last hearing I mean we've approved lots of two bedrooms with 800 square ft and you know and as you know no problem doing more to accommodate accessibility issues
um based on testimony doing that I I just um it it is I am concerned with our saying we think the ordinance should accommodate larger dwelling units on
larger properties Um and I think that's a legislative judgment for the township council to do And here I'm I'm just not willing to do that
for the to accommodate a large living dining area space that leads to the exceeding the length limits I also have a problem with the 2.9 ft
given the they've been approved to demolish the garage They're keeping that one wall but I don't think that's necessary I don't I don't think a the 12T the ordinance requires is um required but I
think you know given the grading they're going to be doing to accommodate uh the accessibility I'm not sure that moving it over somewhat further wouldn't be good And I'm um little concerned with I think the
reality is that some of the storm water coming off of that side of the roof is going to stay on that side of the property and I'd be comfortable with a little greater um distance to accommodate that storm water runoff on on that side
Um it's I just think it's you know the reality is in a big rainstorm that the initial dry well is going to be high filled higher than where the pipe going in is going to be and I just think there
potential issues there that I'd be much more comfortable with a little wider space Okay Any further discussion and if not does someone want to make a motion um in terms of the setback
what what distance setback would you be comfortable with [Applause] trying to see if we have My instinct is to say five feet I'm trying to see if we got a survey for here I'm not finding one
Um I'd say 5T Is a five foot setback possible i mean given the grading that would have to be completed I I missed the question because I was distracted by Mr Men talking about side
moving the garage Yeah it I I mean I have to discuss it but I I assume it it it it could be um but you know it's 2 ft Um given the
location you know the garage on the neighbor's property I I think is very close to the property like Well you know the other thing is historical You know HPC I think would have some concerns about you know moving
that garage Um it would still be very visible from the street Okay So Mr Chairman I'd like to to to ask a question
for clarification from you Mhm Um and then in light of your response uh I might have a question for Mr Sullivan All right Okay So um did I understand from you
um a concern in in your summary a concern that I just want to I'm sorry I want to make sure Mr Ch Okay Yeah Thank you Sorry Uh Mr Mr Chairman in in your in
your summary um did I understand correctly um that you have a concern that if we were to approve this application that we might be
um influencing or affecting um the ability ability of the township to um either maintain the ordinance as it currently exists or to change it
That's that's a question for you Okay the I I mean the governing body can do what it wants regardless of what we do Um the I see it as making a statement that
we think the limits they imposed are inappropriate for larger properties with larger buildings is what I think a lot of the what people said And um I have no problems with us making a
recommendation if we think that I'm not sure that you know because I didn't in spite of Mr Trimulac said in terms of precedent um this property is hardly unique in the
RO zone It's the nature of the ARO zone in terms of being a existing large house on an existing large property where the percentage limit in terms of the size of the house has no
meaning Um and that that's my concern that that we're making a policy judgment rather than a variance judgment And you know as I said to the extent justified by you
know I see two bedrooms is fitting within what the ADU ordinance is trying to accomplish I see handicapped accessibility which is dealt with expressly in the ordinance and saying okay the 50 extra feet doesn't quite do
it in terms of the layout of the floor plan accommodating that It's saying large house large property bigger ADU is okay And you know and it's to accommodate a large living space which
has nothing to do with the ADU ordinance Thank you So um Mr Sullivan Uh the the question I I have then is if we were to uh vote in favor of this application would we be overstepping the authority
of the zoning board or would would we still be in compliance with its authority well let me just say I mean this is up to you as to whether or not you think the variance proofs have been met I mean you know they're they're the concerns from Chairman Harrison are well
taken but again you're looking at this application that's in front of you Mr Trebilac went through an exhaustive argument as to why he thought those proofs were met If you agree with him you should grant the variance Variances
So I think we started with a motion Yeah [Music] Can can I make a comment if the the fact that the applicant has to provide the owner's annual affidavit of continued compliance in accordance with Montlair code section
347-8e PN 6 PN but I mean that's an ordinance requirement but I think which it should be a condition of the approval also Yeah And I would say suggest more generally that they just comply with the in the provisions of the ATU ordinance You can do that So you've got the engineers memo
That's the neglia memo of December 16 2024 Compliance subject to review and compliance with that memo Um you've got the HPC I assume with the exception of the pitched roof And then you've got the condition for compliance with the uh ADU
ordinance terms Is that your motion Miss Harris i guess it is Mr Sullivan Is there going to be any change to the sideyard to the 5t i don't I don't think so I mean we can go ordinance by ordinance and and vote
that way I just thought the chairman had wanted to increase the side yard to 5 ft He did but I don't know that anybody else on that necessary So is there a second i second
Second discussion All right I will call the role Should I go for each variance or for all variances i think you could do it in the aggregate Seem to be a consensus Chair Harrison no Vice Chair McCulla yes
Mr Church yes Miss Harris yes Mr S Mr Moore yes Mr Simon yes Okay Thank you very much Enjoy your home Next application is that of Joanna Seltzer for property at 140 Chestnut
Street This is an application for rear yard setback variance associated with a plan to remove an existing detached garage and construct a one-story one and a half and a one and a half story additions to the rear and left side of the dwelling that will include an
attached garage The property is located in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township taxes lot 13 in block 1514 A variance is requested from Monontlair code section 347-45D to permit permit a rear yard
setback of 17.75 ft whereas a minimum of 36.5 ft is required Are taxes paid and is the notice in order yes they are Mr Sullivan will surface and you I will uh would you raise your right hand do
you swear to tell the truth of the matter pending before the board yes I do State your name and address please Joanna Seltzer 140 Chestnut Street Okay you can proceed Hi good evening Um my name is Joanna and I moved to this
property in 2019 I have two children um that currently attend Edgemont My son is 11 and he's as tall as me And um my daughter is eight They will be here in Monontlair I was raised in Monontlair
since I was 8 years old Um I really was drawn to this home um because of the historic nature of it Um and because of its accessibility to the high school knowing that my kids could walk back and forth to the high school When we moved
to this property my kids were four and six and they shared a bunk bed But as we just heard from the previous home um situation with the accessory dwelling unit of 800 square ft um my home is 950
ft and we have three people there and as I said my son is growing every day Um so we are just looking um you know to work within the restraints of being a historic property or an identified historic property um with clearance from
the historic um commission that we do not build up Um our only option is to keep it as the cottage um one for um essence of the original design of which we're you know happy to comply with but
we just want to have additional breathing room for everybody Um obviously to purchase a home in 2019 it was before everyone was working from home etc Um so we are essentially um looking here for a variance um
Um the nature of the variance is to address this irregular shape in the rear So as we take the garage and attach it here we're going to put this out a little bit and then it will be um a
little bit closer than typical to the rear setback Um that's um so the nature of the variance um for that rear setback encroachment due to the irregular shape of the lot um has
just forces an unreasonable hardship since the zoning um rear setback cuts halfway into the proposed um addition to the house which goes in that direction so that we're not building the house up and adding a second story which would change you know the the historic nature
of the property that's the whole story even hi how are you um so just a couple of uh things for clarification first of all the garage when you when you purchased the property was the garage itself already uh in
disrepair Yeah the garage was sold to us in 2019 as is Okay So um and we have fixed it since then and it's broken again and so we're just like at this thing of like keep duct taping and bandating and like what we really need
to do is take it down and thank you And then um in terms of the is looking at the the floor plan of the property is there a basement we have a basement um because when we moved in 2 weeks after the closing there was water
Okay So we had to fix that um as one does in town Um the exact square footage it's hard to it's not it doesn't take up like the majority of the house is a crawl space and then there's I don't know maybe 30% has like an actual
basement that you could stand up in So it's not it's not used as living space There is a TV there There is um it's a little danky but I mean just because of the lack of space we're trying to like
kind of utilize every little inch and cranny No I I was asking the question because as I was trying to understand the design of of what you're doing and I noticed the stairwell and then I kept looking for it's not going up it's going down
but there was no there was no uh floor plan for the basement and so uh it was a little confusing to me in terms of what that space uh was for Um I agree it is confusing because it's like in the
middle but I think it was a cost issue to like completely change where the stairs were added so much extraneous cost at that point that the architect was trying to be mindful um
given given the way that um renovation costs have been going up um they're trying to um take that into consideration Mhm So what you're trying to accomplish in terms of your overall project is is
uh larger living space Um because I noticed you've looked at relocating bedrooms and then opening up um what was bedroom two and living room and dining room into one larger space Um and um and
then adding dining area to the back on the back side of the kitchen I guess that's a is that like a nook or is that like a dining room or what is that so currently the kitchen I mean we have a kitchen Yes Um I mean
maybe two people can stand in the kitchen comfortably at the at this time Um and you can't eat in the kitchen Okay So the purpose was to be able to eat in the kitchen because right now you have to cook in the kitchen and then go around the basement stairs Okay To
access a table because you can't fit a table in the current kitchen Okay So um so then that that dining area on the far side on the back side of the I guess it would be the north side of the of the um kitchen would be the
dining that really is the dining area Yeah Okay Yeah I think you know when you start utilizing a space with kids you realize the closer the food is to the kitchen that's the most ideal setup
Um then uh in terms of the the garage um you're proposing uh that I guess is it a twocar garage a one car garage it's sort of like a one and a halfish Okay Okay So it's really one and
sort of storage on the ground level Yeah And then you're proposing that there be a space on the there will be a second story to the garage Can you speak to that please it's really like there's no closet there There's no bathroom There's it's really like a multi-purpose space
again because of this transition we went through from purchasing it in 2019 where no one worked from home to now working from home and needing sound barriers um between kids homework drum sets Zoom meetings that like having one space that
various you know members can go to to achieve those kinds of tasks and figuring out like which person is in which space Um I think there's a lot of um cacophony and like sounds that are occurring in 950 square feet that we've
um really looked at figuring out where could someone go um when they need to focus Okay So it really is intended to be a sort of a multi-purpose space Correct Um to accommodate all of the occupants in the house That's that's the
purpose Okay Um then the last question I have is um uh I I noted that uh the intent uh is to make sure that the addition um complements the main structure Um so
that maintaining sort of the historical uh nature of of the facility and um attention has been given to to the roof and to um the tiling of the roof um so that it matches what is the existing
roof Uh can you speak to how how old is the current roof on on this on the roof is in grave disrepair needs to be replaced but we've it's sort of the roof and the garage are in the same holding pattern where it doesn't make sense to
replace the the roof right now knowing that there needs to be a renovation Same thing as replacing the garage again So it's you know it needs to be replaced There's moss growing on the back of it Um I don't know the exact year of it but
it's not So so the roof the roofing work will encompass the entire Yes property not just the new addition Correct We need to replace clear to we need to replace the whole the entirety of it Yeah All right Thank you very much Yeah
of course Mr Church do you have any questions uh no questions Mr Simon hi Um what's the size of the two
bedrooms especially bedroom three seems very small Yeah they are small Um we're trying not to make the house too big of a footprint because of the way that the historic
building is It was originally an office that got moved from Church Street Um so they are on the small side I don't I'd have to look it through to see the exact dimensions but is it going to be sufficient i
mean okay Um okay that was it Okay Miss Harris no questions Oh I have no questions Sign more I I have no questions I have no
questions So I have I have a question for you in terms of um assuming the rear yard setback was calculated based on the what I'll call the big part of the lot
So like from the part that extends to the rear Yes It it wasn't it was cal I talked to Richard about this and he said you could go sort of either way um just I'm just
asking which way it was calculated from the short edge or from the but the existing setback is not calculated from the short edge well I wouldn't because have thought you would
have gotten a 36'6 in setback requirement using this short edge Okay I see what you mean Yeah So uh it seems to be calculated from
the the western side question Yeah Um cuz I know I mean the normal setback would be 25 ft apart from the depth of the lot calculation right
I'm trying to be helpful um but in part and then I need to understand what you're doing the survey my understanding is that the the exist existing rear of the
house is based on what is 24T 5 in So it's almost compliant if you just look at that part of the lot I mean the the lot there was a proposed railroad line
that started where the existing railroad crosses Chestnut and curved around and was going to Morristown So that weird part of your lot was where that rail line right ofway was and your the lot
next door to you to the west has the remainder of what was that rail line Um but um it's you know and at the point the building was moved from Church Street it
was just that small original lot and then whoever bought it and built the garage Um but I I guess the question I have and I don't the well zenop is
the the landing in steps is that counted in the set towards the setback or it's just that addition where the yeah the landing and steps don't count Okay So it's so it's just the area where you're
proposing the eatin dining that you're creating what in my view is a new encroachment on what what I'm still viewing as a 25- ft setback is what will do do the other for variance purposes but in terms of
what what the lot is really the house is really the lot rear lot line the house is really oriented to So what what is driving doing it going back versus
spreading it out further and moving it the garage over further so you would still have the same room but not create what I'm kind of viewing as a new encroachment on the rear yard I mean I think the architect wanted to he he
basically was like either you're going to have to get a variance on this side or you're going to have to get a variance in the back Like there's only so much room So he was trying to be mindful that to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible that if we would need a variance that the variance
would be within reason Um the neighbor to the back of us was here but it went a little bit longer before so he couldn't stay um he was fine He's directly behind us where the L-shaped part of our
property is And then the neighbor um to our right when we moved in we explained you know it doesn't make sense to have the garage all the way back here We want to bring it you know bring it up and move it you know to be adjacent to the house And he was like "Yeah that makes so much sense." Um
so I think that you know when the architect was trying to figure out how to use the lot and how to adhere to the historic nature of the property that was the variance that seemed the most reasonable and the least obtrusive to
anybody And when you're talking about the neighbor to the rear that's the house that fronts on Central Avenue That's one in from the corner just um the historic preservation commission had a bunch of recommendations Yeah we had a really
good collaborative um and participatory conversation and they sent us a list of different things about the windows about not having the thing above the garage Um I can't recall everyone but we were
amendable to what all of their suggestions were Okay Because they there are a couple that are written in what I will call mandatory language It's ultimately our decision but and
then there are a bunch that say consider explore Are you considering and exploring all of those or are there any you don't want to do i don't recall any that they recommended that we were opposed to
during that um committee meeting I don't have that list in front of me Let me go through because I normally we'll put a condition on saying adhere to all of these and I don't want to do that if there's some that are problematic for
you So one is Remove the bracketed overhang above the garage and continue the roof line from the main house You're okay with that yep Consider eliminating the cholester I can't say it Clartory on the garage addition replacing it with
windows on the side or rear of the garage You're okay with that consider relocating the skylights to the opposite roof slope to minimize visual impact You're okay with that uh consider increasing the height of the garage doors to reduce the visual scale of the
wall above Explore changing the material or color of the garage doors Yeah we said we were open to that You open to that or you're accepting that as an addition that's the question
here Um I think we had proposed them to be white doors is my recollection and they felt that um it would like I'm trying to remember
what the um objection was to the it was uh more about just the massing so like adding either an architectural detail or changing the color to better align with Yeah maybe like just so it doesn't look like such a white bulk of the I mean
maybe like I mean they didn't specify Yeah they didn't give they didn't they didn't specify like I mean we could do gray we could do blue I don't I mean they were fairly it was a fairly minor Yeah it was an aesthetic comment HPC doesn't have
authority over the color you choose but it was a if you wanted to explore some detail to break up the bulk of those white doors was the intent of their comment I I there's so many other pressing more pressing things in the color of my garage doors Not require you to do that
and because I I think you should look into that but I'm not sure I'm hung up on the color of your garage doors and ensure the window casings of the new addition match the style and trim of the existing You're okay with that consider replacing the
trapezoidal windows on the second floor of the garage with the rectangular windows Explore way in this explore ways to modify the garage addition to make it more subordinate in
scale to the main house So that one that one's a biggie Well I think the way that the conversation ended if my memory serves me is that when we discussed the the way the vantage point of the plan is it almost looks like the garage is
bigger but there's a giant tree um that overhangs it that would diminish it visually Um and also the garage is set back from the house Um it's it's attached but it's set back Um and so we
were saying that I don't think it's as imposing as it appears from the vantage point of where that I'll clarify because um there was a back and forth with the historic preservation commission So there was one commissioner who was suggesting that it be set back further the general
commission didn't fully agree and they said it's fine where it is but if there's a way um but I think you're right that it was more based on how the rendering appeared and that was clarified but it was sort of left in as if there is a a treatment that can be
done It's would be beneficial just for historic preservation but wasn't stressed to to answer your question I think it was resolved Yeah But like the majority of members didn't see that as obstructive to their approval
when Okay So we're going to drop that as a requirement I think is you're saying the majority is saying we're not pushing that When we when we discussed that part of the plan it was agreed and in
addition with additional information regarding the tree and the vast nature of the tree that would be over the garage itself Yeah I should have I should have left it out of the memo The tree is referred to the street tree that's right at the edge of the driveway
Um there's two trees There's one at the edge of the driveway and then there's one maybe 25 ft in um that's on our side of the property but it looks like it's next to the brownhouse Um but it's our tree And so that tree what we did when
we looked at moving the garage up we did it with um awareness of the root system so that the root system wouldn't be um disrupted so that we could keep the tree there No Okay And
there's there's a small Japanese maple in front of where the garage is going to be Is that going to stay um we can replant it if it needs to be replanted I'm just asking do you I mean you
you're setting the garage back and the house addition next to it So it looks like that it can stay I'm just a curiosity question as terms of keeping the appearance of the house the same I mean I'm only dubious because I don't know how healthy the Japanese maple's
doing this particular season Um so is it is it your intent to preserve it i'm happy to if it if it stays healthy I can keep it on the property Okay Any other questions for members of the board are there any members of the audience who have either questions come
up give your name address be sworn in Okay Would you raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth in a matter pending before the board I do State your name and address Lisa Goldmith 30 Belair Drive Monontlair So I am behind my
backyard is what would have been the railroad tracks Um so my two small things are I just wanted to be sure because lots of things blow into my backyard I just wanted to be sure that there is silt fencing if possible to
avoid um debris blowing into my yard Um and then my other concern was just to make sure that there's nothing about water um flowing into my backyard that's changing because my backyard is super swampy and I wouldn't want like a pitch
to change and to have more water running into my backyard That's it I mean we agree So is is the fencing that you're speaking about is you talking talking about during the period of construction or you
talking about permanently oh just during construction Yeah You're talking about soap right yeah That's a requirement of the ordinance Oh it is yeah During construction
Oh okay And with expanding your home what type of drainage systems have you looked into um to capture everything so the so that the runoff doesn't go into your neighbor's yard yeah Um Joe who is the
architect um designed it so that there wouldn't be any excess He looked at the um permeable area and those considerations when he was doing the design so that there wouldn't be like a
vulnerable area or part Um do if anything I think because we're moving the property like farther away from you Um I think that that would also isn't the kitchen going closer to the property line Um the extension of the kitchen
I guess But I mean that part is but like the the whole garage infrastructure is moving away from you Like the garage is moving closer to the street The kitchen part is moving slightly closer but within that corner
It's within that corner part whereas you live she lives all the way on the other side through the pasture Do you have leaders that are going to go into the ground we currently have that now Okay Um I can
confirm with the architect how he's placing everything um and send you the information so you know exactly where the drainage um will be situated So I'm assuming this is exceeds the 250 square
ft So we'll get the engineering It does Yes Yeah Yeah my understanding was that this variance is simply for the rear setback and then there has to be another level that will have the sign off from the engineer as the next thing to get that
so we know what's going on But any Okay any other members of the public who have questions testimony statements anything to say about the application any board members with any
additional questions okay Anything further you want to say before we discuss and vote on the application Thank you for your consideration Start with Mr Church Yeah
Uh I have no uh comments on this application other than the fact that it's it's it's hard to to envision a change to a
property that is it that fits the area like this does It seems to fit uh into the area So I would uh I would have no question no problems with it at all And I'd be in favor of
the application presented Mr Simon I'm in favor Miss Harris I'm in favor Mr Cruz Uh I'm also in favor Um but I just had a quick comment or question for the board since uh I know sometimes we take a look at engineering before coming to
determination Sometimes uh we do not And so I'm curious is it a requirement for us to look at engineering before we render a termination or is that something the the chair at the last meeting complained about sometimes we were getting engineering reviews and
sometimes we were not and advocated that going forward we should see them in case we have any particular issues with you know that we want to be sure that certain of their recommendations are being adhered to and not weave it
solely to the engineer as to what's being done But she beat that my being aggravated So um I'm going to suggest we propose a condition that she adhere to requirements of the engineering review
Yeah My my understanding was to get this variance for the setback approved You you did everything fine Okay I wanted to change the process going forward Okay Okay Oh and and nonwithstanding my comments I'm still still in approval of
the application as it stands Yeah And I'm happy for an engineer whoever needs to sign off on it for the drainage purposes and everything else I'm in favor of the application Mr McCuller Um I'm also in support of the application I'm in favor of the application I think given uh the
peculiar um shape of the lot is what's requiring the variance Um the I think uh the additional encroachment in the rear yard is justified because spreading the house
out wider would raise some of the concerns that historic preservation commission did by overwhelming the historic part of the structure Um I think you know the conditions should be should that adhere
to conditions one through four and six through seven in the historic preservation commission report and here and adhere to any requirements um of the engineering department related to storm water Um someone want to make a motion i
make a motion to approve the application uh given the restriction stated by the chair Second We'll give it to Mr approves So he's getting to vote tonight and everything All right Okay All in favor say I I Any
opposed any abstensions thank you for your time Appreciate it Thank you I'll get them later There you go There you go I lost my notice Okay
The next application is that of Steven and Shannon Suinski for property at 533 Park Street This is an application for variance to construct a one-story addition on the south side of the dwelling It extends the building's width and alignment with the existing dwelling
The property is located in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot one of block 2710 A variances is required from Monontlair code section 347-45D2 to permit a front yard setback
of 32.36 ft whereas where 43 ft is required minimum setback or taxes paid as the notice in order Yes they are Would you both raise your right hands do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board i do State your names and addresses please
Shannon Sinsky 533 Park Street Montlair New Jersey George Held 600 Getty Avenue Sweet 307 Clifton New Jersey I'm the architect for the project And Mr Held you're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey Is that correct i am for the last
47 years And your license is in good standing yes it is Okay you can proceed Thank you Mr Chairman members of the board Good evening Um this is an application for 533 Park Street It's an R160 zone Uh property is located on the
southeast corner of Park and Overlook Um the area of the site is 24,300 square ft On the property is a single family 2 and a half story residence with a detached garage The floor plan of the house as you can
see is a standard center hall colonial with the main foyer living room to the north side dining room to the left kitchen to the rear and a small family room to the south side of the dining room measuring approximately about 9 ft 6 in deep The proposed project is to
extend that family room approx 13t 6 in to the south side of the building Uh it will encompass part of the existing patio and will extend uh to the southside overall dimension of 15 ft with the chimney It'll give us a family
room at that point at 23t 16 in which or 16 ft which as you can see will be more in keeping with the total scale of the home Um this project is compliant with your ordinance with the exception of the front yard setback The minimum front
setback in this zone is 25 ft or the average of the three homes on either side of it or to the corner Uh the average of the three homes to our side averages out to 43 feet The existing home exists as it is now is 32 feet and
there there is the variance Uh we're asking for relief of that to extend the front wall of the house to align with the existing house uh to maintain the architecture of the home Uh it is my feeling because if you look at this lot this lot is typically known as a flag
lot but to the south side of the property uh instead of 10 feet this house has 66 feet to the property line plus another 15t to the adjacent proper property So we're almost 85 ft with this addition to the adjacent house It is my
feeling that additional setback or that large yard setback on the sideyard really diminishes the overall impact of extending in front of this house only 13t 6 in I really think as an architect I don't think you'll see that or
perceive that I think it maintains the frontline setbacks of the house and I I think the minimum impact to the overall neighborhood will be minimum of none Uh the architecture of the house will be compliant with what's existing We're
proposing a brick facade to match the existing uh hip roof with a built-in Yankee gutter which is on the existing house now So the architecture of the house will be in complian with the existing conditions Overall I think this is a
great ad to this home Uh it gives them a fully functional family room which the home presently doesn't have uh with minimum disturbance to the property Uh I have nothing further Mr Chairman Um yes And uh Mrs Uh Suinsky I want to
make a confession first of all that if your if your uh home security system um showed some strange person walking around your property while you weren't home it was probably me So no problem I get it on the phone It's good I saw your
um in terms of the in terms of the design of the of the family room uh Mr held Uh the there is a a wall that's being removed in order to accommodate this Is that Yes The exterior wall of the family room now will be removed to
extend the family room that 13 ft 6 in Okay So and what is the exterior wall com uh composed of uh wood stud with a brick veneer Okay And are you um in place of that because it'll be obviously wide open Is that correct yes Okay So
are you putting beams or something like that i mean what is what we're we're proposing to remove the roof of that structure reframing that entire section So the entire section will look like a new hip roof Okay So it's not a a weightbearing wall that was being removed It is now but will we removing
that essentially we're removing the hip part of the roof out 13 ft Okay Um so um this new family room will have um extensive windows um on three sides
That's correct Okay Um and and plus the gas fireplace is the gas fireplace um that is only internal Is that correct that's right Okay So it based on sort of the location of this from from my
viewing um this new family room for the most part will be fairly invisible to neighbors Is that correct i believe so because of the extensive sideyard that exists on this property Right in terms of in terms of the streetscape the
landscaping really sort of prevents the view of the of the yard and what the shrubs along the street line also also diminishes that view You're correct And then the neighbor the neighbor to the uh to the south um also I think the
landscape probably also blocks a lot of the view Is would that also be correct that is correct And then and then and then you have your garage detached would block the view largely I mean it doesn't block the whole patio but it also but it does block much of what would be the
view of this family house Correct So it it really because that house sits lower than us on the slope So the view from there essentially looks at the driveway and the the side entrance to the back of
the house So the the new family room really would be a pretty private space based on that is the goal and that's our expectation and the existing patio that you you have and you've you you've utilized I mean that has not
um felt as though it has encroached upon the privacy of your neighbor No no I don't because you have the driveway there and this some distance hidden wall and then the patio sits um under the you know from a viewpoint below the the
brick wall Okay And the windows that um you're designing for the new space are consistent with the uh existing for the most part with the existing windows in the in the house The existing windows are triple sliders We're proposing to maintain those same
type of windows Okay What's what's the um how old is this house 100 years 1925 Did you give it a birthday party or is this his present and our first house in Montlair was 1912 the
year my grandmother was born So I genuinely remember both of those dates for whatever reason Uh so I mean basically what you've you've attempted to do is is to maintain the architectural integrity of the That's correct Okay Thank you No
questions Mr Church no question Mr Simon just to follow up what my colleague said um the bushes which are currently there are going to either remain or be replaced to maintain the privacy That is correct There will be some um rodendrins
that are quite close to the foundation that will need to be removed but obviously they'll as much of the that we can save Um it's a beautiful plant love to keep it Thank you
Miss Harris No questions Mr Cruz no questions Mr Ward no No questions I I have no questions other than curiosity as to how the tail on your lot came to be because it otherwise looks like it
was part of the Applegate farm except from what we can tell and I've done some discovery in town uh the house next to us on overlook was built just slightly before ours So our looking back at the tax records we
think our property was a perfect square on the corner of Park and Overlook and then whether it was family or not we think they cut out but why they left the flag piece of it we don't know In 1971 there was a permit taken for a pool in
that back lot but none no evidence of the pool continues to exist No it's it's you know I mean the the lots on Overlook you know basically go straight and line up going down with the lots on
Fair View which is all those came out of what was the Applicate Farm property I'm just wondering how this piece got left out or um I'm sure it's a very valuable part of your property Okay Anything further any
members of the public who have questions or comments testimony anything you want to say about this application no Mr Chairman Thank you Okay Anything further okay Uh we'll start with Mr Simon I'm in favor
Um I'm in favor I don't think you're making the existing um setback horse Um you're just uh building to the existing setback So I'm in favor Thank you I'm in favor I think it's a great idea I'm in favor of the application Mr
McCullik I'm also in favor Mr Church Yeah I'm in favor I'm in favor I think given this is a one-story addition adding on to what's the existing one-story part on that side of the house keeping the same setback Um
you know that that this is justified by the existing conditions on the lot and will not have a substantial detriment to public good or substantial impairment of the zone plan And I don't think we need any conditions unless anyone else does
Someone want to make a motion to approve as submitted Second All in favor say I I Any oppose any abstensions thank you very much Thank you very much Next application is that of Ian Hunt and
Katrina Sanders for property at 161 Summit Avenue This is an application for variances required to construct a new detached garage at the existing driveway behind the primary dwelling The property is located in the R11 family zone is
designated on the township tax maps as lot 16 in block 266 Variances are required from Monontlair code section 347-46A1 to to permit an accessory structure height of 19 ft where 15 ft is
the permitted maximum height from Monontlair code section 34 6A2A to permit a sideyard setback of 2.5 ft for accessory structures where 6 feet is required or taxes paid and is a notice in order Yes Would you both raise your
right hands do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board Yeah State your names and addresses Uh Ian Hunter 161 Summit Aqu and Katrina Sanders 161 Summit Aler Why don't you pull the microphone a little
closer to you so we could hear go ahead You can proceed Um so yeah you covered most of it Um we're proposing to build a two-car garage at the end of our driveway Um with a two
and a half foot offset from the property line The existing we don't uh there's not currently a drive a garage Um the one we're proposing is planned to be aesthetically similar
to our home with similar siding roof windows Um with a increased square footage of 480 square ft Start questions Any questions do you want to say more or should we start
questions so the intent we we I think maybe one of the questions just to address up front is the reason we would like to have a a little bit additional space is that we um want to have seasonal storage So we like kind of green thumbs and have a lot
of tools that we like to use So that's our intent with the second the additional space uh instead of having to you know build a a shed have like use that space instead so we don't encroach more on the the actual lot size or like
take up more space Start with Mr McCull Good evening Um the when you purchased this property there was no there was no existing garage No No
And do you know um what happened to the garage previously so So we tried to look back The furthest I think we could find pictures of was 10 years ago and there was not one Um we had a conversation
with the original owners but this is you know we bought the property a while ago so it's it's been a while since we shared with them and we remember them mentioning it but we could not find any proof of it Um but you I mean you saw the space like it's clearly different than all the land around it So it looks like there's visual evidence but no we
don't have hard evidence that there was we purchased the property from the children of the previous owners So there's there's no issue um with uh trying to in terms of uh putting in a new garage
uh a sort of a imposed requirement of of maintaining the historical character um of what previously existed Yeah So um then speak to speak to the design of the new garage Um sort of what's the
inspiration of this design and what you're wanting to accomplish does the garage just be a simple A-frame twocar garage 24 ft wide and 20 ft deep with the the first floor will be primar primarily vehicle storage with a little
loft area for hood seasonal Um and then we'll have just a door and a window on the side facing our home Um and that's it architecturally I think and the question is because we I I we chatted about this We were trying to
match the dormers of the roof of our house to match that style as you had mentioned that there's some other features of the home that we could have tried to match but that's what we had intended to do Mhm So the
um this will be a twocar garage right correct That's the intent And then there will be uh minimal storage space above There will not be any plumbing in the garage Absolutely not Okay And the the purpose of the side
door is simply to have access to the yard from the garage right yeah for you Yeah Okay And then um the the location of the garage uh is it in the same location where the
original garage might have been we believe so Yeah Yeah It's right at the end of that driveway that you can see on the the map Okay And what what about the space behind the garage what's the intent in terms of that space because it's a pretty deep
yard Just landscaping We would just landscape it We don't have an intent for it right now other than just usable yard for our kids Yeah Really to turn it into an oasis So uh you know we have we currently live on Alexander And if
you've gone down Alexander going from Grove to Broad Street there's a house that might stand out to you It's a green house with a ton of trees Kind of doesn't match with everything else That's our home lots of green you know kind of year round um plants And so I
imagine that we would want to line it with that and you know provide privacy for the children to like hang out and ourselves to to be able to spend time there Okay And then finally in terms of the the driveway is it your intent to maintain the driveway as it currently
exists or uh are you planning on any re you know revisions to the driveway itself not the shape Um we again we might make it smaller on one side if we again after this work to see how we can use this space correctly and then probably repair it because as you saw it
was in somewhat ill repair Um but other than that no changes and that we that's why we want to position as it is is so we don't have the extra um kind of driveway space right we want to keep as much uh you know grass and and play space as we can Okay Thank you
Mr Church Do you have any questions um on the garage there's a jet out Is that a patio are we able to view it oh from the house Yeah we do have a slate patio in the back of the house
Yeah And this will just be still to get to the yard right yeah We'll be able to drive straight into the garage No No You're going to repave this
eventually I expect we'll have to Yeah And on your uh architectural drawing that shows a single building to Oh on the rendering Yeah
the rendering was um the color window Oh the intent of the rendering is more just to show the color and style of the garage but the the architectural drawing is accurate to what we would be building
You're not going to if if it recommended if it would be preferred then they would do that Absolutely This was a conversation for a little while so sorry about that Okay Yeah What was the reason for the height going
so far up again so so we want the secondary space um for basically a seasonal items right like anything that you only you is um you know you pull out and then for you know I have like a very big uh rake right like things that are
just not going to be able to store on the first So again we currently have a twocar garage which is going to be about the same size and it does not make like I cannot keep everything in it So I also have a small shed in the back I prefer not to have that small sh I mean I would
if I had to do that I would want a bigger shed and I would lose more space and I would prefer not to do that So that's what we would like to use the space for So for the loft area how how do you propose to access it is there going to be a drop down ladder cuz you don't have anything on your floor plan
So there will be there's a set of stairs Yeah there's a set of stairs that go to that door that side door There's a set of stairs and I'm sorry if they're not on the drawing That's the intent I'm sorry Say it again I'm sorry if they're not on there There's a set of stairs that go along the back wall that go to the back that go to that side door
Interior stairs Interior stairs I'm so sorry about that So inside the garage there's a set of back stairs that's going to go to the and the loft area will be put behind the doors on the opposite wall of the doors Yes Okay All right Um
I'm fine with this My my only concern is this the sideyard setback Um 2.6 six You know we in the past we've generally limited to 3 ft It's a nice even number and um but I definitely understand the concern but I would like
to stick to that 3T um side sideyard It's only 4 in right okay 7 in We measured to that driveway So that's where that will be my just to maintain the three feet kind of minimum Okay Makes sense Sarah
thank you Um what is the height of like the floors like the height from the slab to the ceiling in the garage i'm still trying to figure out the height I understand you need a loft size a loft above but you don't need like a full height room It's not full height No it's
like I believe the the ceiling is 12 ft and then there's just six feet above that and then a foot for framing I can barely stand in the middle Like that's what the height of it is I'm sorry We have to get it updated But the
way that it was drawn and the way that we saw it was again when I come up I lean down and then I can walk right down the middle of that pitched ceiling What do you Does this building exist what do you mean like you can't stand up
in it now oh we saw we saw a model We saw a model I'm sorry I'm sorry Sorry about that Okay All right Um so but the the height of the garage itself is 12 feet No is that correct the peak of the
garage would be Oh you mean the Yeah from from the garage the slab to the underside of the loft is 12 ft That's a little bit excessive for garage I mean I think you can get away with 8 ft and 8 to 9 ft and be very comfortable I'm just
trying to minimize this variance 19 ft for and you're not having like occupiable space above It's just a lot I think is a lot Um is this a pre-built pre-designed yeah it's pre-esigned everything It's definitely not
occupiable Yeah it's Yeah he could barely stand and I could be wrong with the the 12T height of the vehicle area I mean either way though like 19 ft for a garage with a loft is a lot So I'm I'm curious as to what the structure is here
um that's causing this requirement for 19 ft I mean a loft is typically six feet 7 ft Garage is typically 8 to 9 ft right so we're talking about 14 or 16 ft max So that's just the dimensions we were given
from the supplier the manufacturer Okay Um and we are one story with no storage or this twotory Okay Nice and um and I agree with Mr Simon Um usually we actually grant the three-foot setback when there's like an
existing structure there and we're trying to make it work but it seems like you guys have the room to um fit this within the required setback So I'm not sure that it's necessary Um I'd be interested to see what my colleagues say but I I think I don't think the the
sideyard setback is necessary in this in your case Mr Cruz Um yes So it sounds like the way you were describing this garage it's kind of like a it's a prefab They're going to like uh they're going to like drive it in on like a like a tractor trailer or something drop it off or No
no no They bring out all the the wood and then they build it in place Okay They don't prefab Um yeah It's just preplanned and everything I I guess they prefab some of the pieces but it's not Yeah but it's not something that they're putting on like they're just going to like drop it off complete They're going to assemble it on the raise the walls
and Okay Um is there anything uh comparable in terms of like size uh in the neighborhood yeah we were just looking at that Yes on North View there is actually that one is much bigger but there's a one very close to us like
around the block that's a full two stories and it looks almost like a two and a half story garage right on North View Yeah But I think for the most part the neighborhood has detached garage of a similar size Okay Um and and then you
wouldn't have any plans on like putting like an addition to the garage in the pursuit No Okay No we want to Yeah we do want to minimize like that's like impact to the yard We also don't want to or not harm but we feel it would be difficult to like drive around the house to park into the garage and then have to drive
around the house to get out You know what I mean there's not enough maneuvering space for that because our driveway is also very narrow right um I'm not sure if you can see the plan is gone but the driveway is very narrow and we don't have any
leeway on the driveway with Mhm And also some of the challenges Yeah And so that's why we wanted it so that we could just like like you said earlier pull straight in Okay No further questions Thank you Mr
more So the the upstairs of your garage um are you looking at having this being a any type of a living space by the dormer and all that it's strictly for storage Christmas decorations
grapes and stuff like that Yeah absolutely Is there any electrical uh there will be just to for the garage door opener Yeah Okay Probably car chargers Okay Thank you the vehicle charger Thank you
Okay Um like some of my colleagues I have a problem with the less than 3 ft and I'm trying to figure out what we can do Um you have as you indicated and shown in the pictures I looked at the property
the patio that sticks out Um the um but you're also I mean it's you know it it's hard to tell from you know the
pictures that you submitted with it but it looks like you're having the garage go closer to the fence than the paved area is and you have you know so I'm I'm not I don't think we can
do the six feet and not create a problem with people backing out of the garage and having to be very careful about not hitting that little retaining wall for the patio But um I I think we can do
either three or four feet and not cause that problem Um and then go back What was that you know your pictures are showing a dormer with two windows and then you're showing one And I'm I'm doing this in the context of the height
where like Miss Harris I'm struggling with the height variance seems to be driven by the first level being much higher than a typical garage And by having a larger dormer you
get height more area with height that you can stand up with I can see you're tall but um on the other hand you're not 7 feet too Yes sir um the so I um
um you know and and since well I'm not sure I'd be for it even if it was a prefab unit but I I I just don't see you know how the the justification where there's
nothing there now and clearly hasn't been anything there for some period of time I suspect there once was a garage but uh you know we can't base it on a pre-existing structure being you know exceeding the height limit Um
uh and you know for just being used as storage space I understand you have to stand up and you don't want to walk but I I'm not seeing why that can't be accommodated with within the 15 ft Um
okay Any other questions from members of the board i think part I'm I'm sorry I don't know if I'm allowed to I think part of like the the design and and why it might be again higher is the like um you know how it's kind of the roof is angled like again I I just can't express
well enough how going up there was but that that's something you have control over as to this the slope of the roof I you know it's you're well the Yeah No I'm sorry Sorry I didn't mean I just No that because I was going to give you a turn to Oh okay Okay I appreciate um
Yeah so that's a great question and I guess we could change the style and the shape but we did want to have that kind of look to hopefully um be similar to the style right instead of going with like a flat roof or something else that
um might not look as uh consistent No I I I I think it I I a flat roof would not be appropriate and but I think you you can accomplish this um with still having
a sloped roof and just the extent of the slope um can give you you know plenty of room so you can use the area Uh my other question which relates to the setback is um how are you planning to handle runoff
from the roof just uh gutters um do you mean beyond that yes Either tie in to our existing the pipes that go out to the street or we can add a retention basin
There's enough space I think behind it Okay Any other questions from members of the board okay Are there any members of the audience who since we have a member of the audience who have comments questions testimony anything you want to say uh not much I'm totally in support of them
building I I live next door So if if you want to say anything you have to come up and be sworn in Okay Sure Would you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth of the matter pending before the board i do Name and address please Uh Ted Bourne uh 159 Summit Avenue So next
door Any to say yeah Again totally in favor of you guys building the garage My only question was the setback Um as as as it's currently designed it's uh pretty close to our our fence line That's that's all And I I think also
because the roof sticks out further than the base you know so the base is 2 and 1/2 ft but on the pictures the roof is even further over So it just it just you know that's it's close to a sitting area that we have in the backyard And um yeah so that was my question is if it's
possible to like some of them have already raised So you know if it's possible to move it a little bit over that would be preferable for us And of course if it's not 19 ft then that would be a less of a but that's not really my my issue It's more just the the setback
And then the other question I had is so it would be at the very end of the current driveway Yeah Yeah Okay Because that's further back So that's good Um just in terms of light and so on in our backyard But uh and then my only other
question was we have the big tree there that we share Is repaving the driveway you guys wouldn't affect that that tree Yeah that's no no Cool So yeah my question is just about the setback if it's possible to push that back two and a half ft And then with the roof at
least on the drawings that that were there it looks like it's less than 2 feet I think the render is causing a lot of issues and we probably should have had that updated Yeah it's a great point Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah No so that's and we can modify the overhang I think we can discuss Oh okay Yeah Yeah Yeah That's
cool To get a shorter one Thank you Question sir Excuse me Just one question So Oh sure You're You're not um the N you're not uh concerned about the 19T height overshadowing your
yard Um I mean the way that it's situated it's not there's never sun It's It's not going to cast a shadow on our yard just because of the way that But in terms of you sitting in your yard and seeing this
Yeah I mean 19 ft's pretty big Um like you guys mentioned um but you live there I'm saying do Yeah Do you have a problem with that height or not yeah I don't know if I can totally visualize what the 19 ft is I actually did walk back there I was kind of like
high would that be um uh yeah So I mean you know it's I guess it's really um yeah I mean I'm kind of looking at our house I don't even know how high our house is you know trying to figure out
how high 19 ft would be Um yeah I mean may you know but if again if it's that if that's a design that you guys already have I don't want to mess with Again it's not that that person's not I mean this is your opportunity Once it's built it's built So if you could you guys were already mentioning it so I didn't feel like I we can mention it but if you you
would have to come to some agreement cuz they are asking for a variance over what's allowed So if you have a concern this is your chance to say it I mean if it's possible for it to be smaller and it's not a issue and it's you can still get up to the second floor like you guys
were saying Um uh yeah I mean you know but again the I'm only all I can imagine is like what what you guys talked about as being like the standard height being 15 feet If
that's standard then that would be preferable but again it's not uh um that wasn't that wasn't my primary concern My mine was just I think they mentioned the runoff and if the roof is really just like a foot and a half away
from our yard we could be getting a lot of water kind of coming off Um so that was and again like you said if that's able to be Yeah we can definitely then I I think that that we would make sure there's no water on your property Like we've already chatted about that quite a
bit cuz Yeah that's it's not sloped that way Construction and we would do the gutters Right Right Right And would you would you have any concern about the dormer window over invading your your privacy
in the backyard no I mean it's it would not be facing our backyard It would be facing towards their house and and No I don't that's that's not that's not an issue Again it was mostly mostly like if there's a way to which you guys have already been discussing If there's a way to make the
setback just a little bit more I think and it's not even just for me It's just like okay when we sell the house is somebody going to be like whoa that garage is like right on the fence line You know that that would be the thing to avoid and just getting it a little bit further
back That's what I would hope for Thank you Anything further either of you want to add before we discuss and vote on the application no we're happy to move it back that you know to off to kind of address the
concern Do understand that and just we just tried to match the previous spot So that's where that came from Okay we'll start discussion with Miss Harris Um I definitely think that the sideyard setback should be increased Um I can I
think three to four feet Um you know we we've permitted that in the past so I think that would make sense here Um I'm struggling with the height um because I understand that this is a pre-fabricated or pre-esigned and
pre-planned um garage but I'm wondering if that's something that you can talk to the manufacturer about um adjusting the heights of of both levels um to make it more in line with uh with the ordinance We So we actually tried like
aggressively with them and it was either either single story or the flat roof Yeah um at that height And so with this manufacturer we cannot I I don't think we can um just because of how they like
build and design Okay I'm in favor of the application Um I I'll leave it to to the board to decide what the what kind of a sideyard setback is reasonable Um I think given the the size of your house um in comparison to
the uh dwelling unit that was approved earlier that's larger than your house I think if you're in need of some extra storage space and this is the you know manner in which you're able to do so you should uh you should be able to have that space Uh and I'm in support [Music]
Mr Ward I'm generally in favor of the application Uh but I will uh wait to hear uh what my colleagues have to say in terms of some restrictions uh before um finalizing
Appreciate Mr McCullik Yeah I'm I'm in support of the application and u probably with the adjusted uh setback but uh as far as the manufacturer of the property it sounds like that's not something that is uh negotiable
Mr church I'd be in favor of the application with the adjustment to the setback to 3 ft Mr Simon uh I'm generally in favor I I don't know
if you explored all your options especially considering the fact that this is a blank slate There's nothing there Um considering your neighbors concerns if it was possible to move the garage back and over so that
you have enough room to clear that patio and to increase the sideyard more Um that's something I would encourage cuz I I do hear a concern from your neighbor and I think moving it if you can't go smaller then moving it further away
would diminish the impact on your neighbor Um but generally in favor I I I would definitely have the the minimum setback of 3 feet um for the side but if you can do something to increase that I
would encourage that Um does that reset the process just wondering like if we say push it like we would push it back does that reset this process excuse me To push it all the answers If the board if the board elects to approve the application they can put
conditions including providing a minimum setback if we Okay Oh I'm sorry I thought you were also ref um you saying put it further away from the house Putting it further away Yeah cuz you're going to the edge of the paved area Yeah that was saying if you want to go a little further back that would give you
more room to navigate that stone patio that's sticking out um to to move it over Um but I don't think that doesn't affect the variances that you're looking for because that doesn't affect the height part on the side So that's what I
Okay thank you Probably shouldn't have said that that is giving me interesting thoughts Um I Okay let's um the sideyard and I'm struggling between
three and four feet as to what works I you know we've minimum has been three feet We had a discussion on another recent application as to more and we majority of us went along with the 3 ft based on where the driveway was located and not
wanting them to trigger the storm water review Uh here they do and this driveway clearly will need to be repaired at least Um I um on the other hand I'm don't want to extend it back further
into the lot which would solve the patio sticking out problem Um so you know I think based on the location of the driveway the location of the
patio that we should increase the setback to 3 ft I'm open to four feet but if everyone's comfortable with the 3T doing that I I don't I don't know how we justify deviating from the height Um
there's I understand they've approached someone who said "We build garages that are 18 ft tall but there's nothing here that justifies it The ordinance requires 15 ft." And I I I
just don't think it's a municipal land use law reason to say you know when the very long ago we had an applicant who had purchased and had brought to their property not yet installed a fence that exceeded the height limit and we said
"No you have to go with a height limit." Um I I just I you know there there there's no C2 justification for granting this variance and there's nothing particular about the property that
dictates you know characteristics of the property or structures on the property that justifies exceeding the ordinance by you know 3 ft that I I just can't I I don't see a rationale for doing that and
um suddenly saying well if you come in and you know you've talked to a contractor and that's the size garage they build um you know we approve it and say okay you know I think I kind of take the view
the ordinance says what it says and they um should have you know taken that into account but any further discussion uh Mr Sure I guess I was thinking about it a little bit more and um you know uh whilst I still personally would not mind
the height you know subject to the engineering etc etc I guess I would be concerned if at a future time as I mentioned earlier how somebody might want to take that and then expand upon it using our approval of the existing 19 ft height as justification to continue
expanding outward at a later point in time So that would be like a reservation If there's a way to put on this as a stipulation that it cannot expand be expanded on like we are very grateful to have that like this is very much not the I think you know I mean we could do that
but that would not preclude someone coming back in and say could you please modify the condition of the approval I mean either way they're coming in for a variance with or without the condition It's just whether they're modifying the condition or seeking a further
variance We couldn't say no no you can never do that because So it doesn't really from a practical standpoint it really wouldn't make a difference I see I see Oh okay Further discussion well just a question Now are
there other builders that you've you've consulted um beyond this one that you've you I guess have a contract with at this particular point um I mean others that you could look at uh a more modified um
similar similar design but the the height factor would not be as as great as as as this particular one I mean we could definitely try to to work with more contractors but we liked you know again we saw their previous
design We liked it a lot And um almost everyone we talked to ended up kind of basically pushing us towards a flatter roof which we you know we just really didn't like Um so that's what pushed us to like kind of want to go through this
process and try to get this variance because we felt that it would get us both the form and the function that we were looking for Mhm Um so we we could yeah of course we continue and if anyone had recommendations we can follow up with them but we did chat with quite a
few people um as we went through this further discussion and if not someone want to make a motion Um I'll make a motion but we're going to make a motion on Oh regardless of the motion it should require that the storm
water be designed to direct the storm water away from the property I'm not sure which direction I'm going at this point Um to the rear No because there's plenty of room to the rear To the the
side that the east to the east side Yeah Yeah The east side Okay Um wait can can we split the variance like we can do whatever someone makes a motion to do Correct Okay So uh I'll make a motion to
um approve a minimum sideyard of 3 ft but to deny the height and that's subject to the storm water condition we just Yes discussed Is there a second to that motion
okay Why don't you call the role and just a yes vote is to grant the sideyard setback at 3 ft Okay And to deny the height variance Correct Okay Chair Harrison Yes Vice Chair
McCulla Yes Mr Church Yes Miss Harris Yes Mr Moore Yes Mr Simon Yes Mr Cruz No Okay So the sideyard setback was approved to 3 ft The height variance was denied
Is there any recommendation like for how we can move forward and possibly get support like I just don't know how we're going to find the form and function We did our homework We thought we did our homework to find vault Um is there
anything that we could do to enable it have you reached out to I guess my colleagues asked have you reached out to a number of prefabricated companies or Yeah Have you done that yeah So we've definitely spoken with multiple people
and again that's why we really were aimed in this direction and none of them will adjust height within a few feet So so we you know and we have approved a significant number of variances for garages that
meet the 15 ft height Um I would talk to the building or planning department to get who those contractors were You know we've done some fairly recently so see who those contractors
were I mean it I mean part of my issue just so you understand is we have done a very large number of garages over time and in general they
come in meeting the 15 ft you we had the one earlier where the one variance I didn't have a problem with the height but that had to do with the existing height of the existing garage and the topography is what created a problem in terms of the ordinance height versus the
real height you know but it's it's not something where we've encountered the people have said we we can't find someone who can build us a 15t high garage and that has included a number that have had loft areas for storage
purposes above So I that that's where legally it makes it difficult for us to approve the variance But on the other hand you know I as I said I would talk to either the building department get an idea who the contractors are who have
been building these 15t high garages Yeah we um cuz we reviewed some on the monthly and like I mean I guess I maybe I'll review more uh to try to actually follow somewhat similar approach And I think the last one I saw on last month was flat um that was you know like had
the last Yeah was the two it had the twotory but it was the the two that I saw that are twotory were both a flat roof um which was again where we were struggling with it So um
I I don't how far are you along with this year's annual report nowhere Nowhere So not helping you in terms of immediate other than going through minutes of meetings to see where
we did this recently but our annual reports are all online and they go through every variances we've granted and so it'll list you know the garage variances You you can give me a call I can
identify them for you Okay cool Thank you Thank you Okay we need to go into executive session So not trying to push you out but if you could leave quicker than back on You want to go or you want me no you
just say we had a confidential session We discussed the pending litigation um entitled Monontlair Township Board of Education versus Township of Monontlair and Richard Shirun Township Monontlair zoning officer which a neighboring
property owner has filed a motion to intervene And u based on that discussion would someone like to make a motion uh motion to allow Mr Sullivan to authorize authorize
um a response to the the questions posed by the judge in the litigation in the oral argument Yes On on April 16 15 15th Today's the 16th It was yesterday
Yes Yes Motion to to authorize Mr Sullivan to respond to the oral arguments um phone questions post an oral argument Is there a by the judge is there a second to the motion second
Okay Okay All in favor say I I I Any opposed any abstensions okay Now we need a motion to adjurnn Motion to adjurnn Second All in favor say I Any opposed any abstensions
thank you all