You're live. >> All right. Thank you. Good evening everyone. This is a regular meeting of the zoning board of adjustment for Wednesday, November 5th, 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 municipal building and sending a copy to the Montlair Times Star Ledger and Herald News. This is a public hearing in which any members of the public are welcome to attend. The meeting agenda is available on the Montlair website as is a link to the township's YouTube channel where the hearing can be viewed live or after the
fact. The hearing is also being televised on channel 34. And then we have one uh change to the agenda to announce tonight. Application 2932 for 120 Wang Avenue for applicants Jail
Singh and Nep Singh Sandu has been postponed to December 17th, 2025 without the need for further public notice. So if anyone in the audience is here for that application, we kindly ask that you return on that date for that hearing.
that is December 17th, 2025. Thank you. And I will call the role. Chairman McCullum >> here. >> Mr. Cfield >> here. >> Vice Chair Simon is not present today.
Uh Mr. Church is not present. Miss Harris >> here. >> Mr. Moore >> present. >> Mr. Ver is not present. Miss Grant is not present. Mr. Griffith >> here. >> Mr. Cruz >> here
and then Mr. Drill is here. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We'll turn to the approval of the minutes for October 15th. And uh I didn't have any uh corrections
uh to the minutes. Um however um I'd like to have you just circle 193 and 194 and page six just because there's a question that I want to ask when we get to the resolution. Okay.
Page six, line 193, 194. It doesn't have to be exact, just so you're in the approximate location. Does anyone else have uh any corrections to the minutes? Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve the minutes.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Abstensions. >> Abstensions. Thank you. With that, then we'll move to the draft
resolution uh related to application 294649 North View Avenue, William Barry. I don't have any corrections to be made to the resolution. Does anyone else have any corrections to be made to the
resolution? Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve the resolution? >> Motion to approve resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed? Abstensions? And then we'll move to uh the
resolution for application 2943 31 Grey Street, Kristen Hull and Earl Brown. And I don't have any corrections to the minutes, although I have a question I'd like to pose to Mr. Drill F.
And this again relates to the minutes um that um I asked you to be uh to note in this resolution. Uh we make reference on page two paragraph 8.
Uh and here we make reference to um the number of vehicles uh that can be utilized on this property. Um this is tandem parking as you may recall. And then there was a conversation about uh whether or not they would have an
additional car that would be sitting um in the driveway uh closer to the street. Uh the minutes um reflect that we had conversation about that. Uh and um the homeowner indicated
uh that uh he did not intend for them to have more than two cars on the property. So the question I'm really posing is whether or not um the language in the resolution is strong enough to um do we need language that prohibits a third
vehicle or is it all right for it to remain as it is? >> Answer the question two ways in my opinion but I am very strict on conditions. >> Yes. >> Probably more strict than Mike is. >> Mrs. Sullivan. Yes. >> Right. I would have a condition in
there. Now what Mike would say is Take a look at condition number six. When you're down there tonight, if they approve an application, there's two conditions. Make sure they remember to put them in. Take a look in condition number six. >> Now, where are you looking now? >> The applicant should be found with all
representations made. >> That's on page four. >> On page four. >> Yes. >> Number six. >> Okay. >> Number six. Yes. >> The applicant shall be bound by all representations made on their behalf during the course of the public hearing.
>> The problem is if they said we will not park more than two cars in the driveway, condition six will cover it, but I would still recommend having a big condition saying you can't have more than two cars parked in the driveway. >> But they said they don't intend,
>> right? There's only two parts that do not plan to use the driveway. And then your paragraph that you pointed out in the resolution, paragraph eight on page two,
>> says they do not intend to use it. They say in the minutes they don't plan on using it. It says they don't intend to use it. If they don't plan it, they don't intend it. If their plans change and there's no prohibiting it. It's going to be hard in
my opinion to take condition six and use it because it's not really it's a representation of their current intent, not a prohibition. So, I put it to the board. It's up to you people to decide what you want to do about it. But to me, if they later change their mind, your
condition six, in my opinion, would not be enough to cover it. Now, if you don't care about that, then leave it like it is. you care about that and you think it's important because you didn't grant a variance based on them saying they weren't going
to have a third car, then >> you should have imposed another condition, but it's totally up to you. That's my legal advice. I'm sorry to be sound wishy-washy on it. >> No, you're you're very clear. So, it just the one thing I just want to make sure for the purposes of of of our
recording. So, it is within the purview of this board. >> Yes. to impose a restriction. >> That's correct. On the basis that they didn't seek a variance, >> but they did and I think we approved it. >> Yeah. >> Where is that variance? It's it's the
first whereas >> on page one of the resolution >> under that second whereas it's number four >> right they requested that >> they requested it and it was approved at the last >> on page three the first whereas under
paragraph 12 Now therefore, I'm looking at so whereas is what the board the board's finding the board's conclusion now therefore be resolved by the board of adjustments that the application for sideyard setback building coverage parking
location retaining wall and fence site and story count variances are approved. So which is the >> the parking location? So the parking between the main sorry the parking between the main dwelling and the curb of the street is one of the variants
that was requested. What they let us know is that that was a technicality for them because they only have two vehicles and they don't intend to have more. But if there's a future tenant >> that's what I'm asking. What did did they say that? Did they say that? >> Yes, they did.
>> Oh, they did. Oh, they did say that they themselves only have two vehicles. >> Right. I understand. I see that. Right. >> Did they say that they would want to use that variance in the future in case they had a tenant or in case their plans change? >> They didn't say that explicitly, but we
did grant the variance because it was it was requested. >> Well, you granted it because technically it was required. >> Yeah. So, you have to decide what >> you granted it because it was technically required, but you weren't going to allow a third car to be parking
there, or you granted it because it was technically required. They didn't currently intend to do that, but if it changed in the future, the cover, that's you guys have to >> hole yourselves on. If you think it's the latter, then the resolution as it stands is fine. If you think it was the
former, then you should probably change something. So, um I'd like to to open the floor for discussion about this to see what um the feelings of the board are uh and uh whether or not we uh need to take an
action. So, um >> I mean I I think we went with the latter option. I think we granted the variance and I have the option to use it in the future. >> I'll take the lather the the what Angela said. Um I'm just not sure how you enforce that.
you know, put it in your book and say, "Oh, it's a third car. Let me go get them." So, I'd rather just do it the way that is. >> Um, I I agree as well with the latter. >> I agree as well, but I also abstain because I wasn't at the last meeting. >> I'm going to abstain from it. Uh, but I
personally don't think that we should be approving allowing cars to park in the front yard. >> Were you here at the last meeting? >> I was here at the last meeting. Yes. And I did not vote. >> No, Mr. Griffith, you did vote at the last meeting.
>> No, no, there was a a bit of a confusion because Mr. Cruz did not vote and Mr. Sullivan um thought that you couldn't vote, but then you did vote. >> Yes. >> So, now you can say it and
in my opinion, I don't think we should be improving in the front yard unless there's uh hardship that makes it reasonable to approve it. There was no hardship for them in my mind and therefore I don't see I thought weed
>> what you're saying. >> What you're saying is you you voted to grant it. You granted it but you granted a technical variance because there's a driveway. >> I'm not even I'm not even going to go down that road. Okay. I just told you what I thought and I'm not more details
on that because I'm not familiar with the law. >> Um I think uh Mr. Griffith and I are in very similar places on this uh in that I think that um if we were being asked uh
specifically as a zoning board whether or not we felt um that it would be um detrimental to the neighborhood for vehicles to be um potentially
permanently parked in the driveway. um that we would uh without without justification because given the fact that there is tandem parking available on the property, we we might very well have taken a very different position. Um
uh with that said, I think hearing um what the feelings of of the zoning board, I'll um also take uh the position that um I'll support leaving the resolution the way
that it currently stands. >> You would say yes in any event to adopt it, right? Make a motion and see what happens. Yep. Motion to approve resolution as written. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All opposed. >> Any abstensions? >> Abstain. >> Two abstensions. It is approved. Okay. All right. Give a moment here while I All right. Um, we're going to move to
new business and we'll move to application uh 2941 uh 105 Wildwood Avenue, Victoria Monte. Um, and uh this is u
application for variance to demolish the existing twocar garage and construct a new expanded twocar garage in the same location. The property is in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot 39 in
block 3505. A variance is requested from Monontlair code 347-46A 2A to permit a sideyard setback for accessory structures of 2.38 ft where a
minimum of 6 feet is required. Is this application in order? Have taxes been paid? >> Taxes are paid. Public notice. Public notice is in order. >> All right. Who is uh representing? Please come forward to the microphone. >> You're welcome. Please have a seat.
>> You both will be speaking. >> So, please just make sure you press the push button on the microphone. >> Let me get all three of these for you. applicants and everyone raised a right hand so affirm that the testimony you're going to give
in this matter >> yes >> yes yes I do >> all right you're welcome >> you identify yourself >> uh I'm Victoria Monty the owner >> I'm Nashwaters the architect on the
project >> all Okay. And and what's your name again? Sorry. >> Nash Waters. >> Nash Waters. >> Yep. >> And uh uh does he need to present his credentials? >> Yeah. >> You qualify as a you licensed architect in the state of New Jersey?
>> Yes, I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey and New York. I've been uh practicing professionally for over a decade. I've taught at the university level architectural design studios and I've had my own practice operating in New Jersey since uh 2019.
>> Have you been accepted as an architectural expert for any other plan? >> Yes, I have. >> County? >> Yeah. Yeah. Glenn Ridge and um also multiple places in Union County as well. >> Anyone have any questions on his qualifications?
>> No, we'll accept his qualifications. Thank you. So, Mr. waters. Will you be making the initial presentation on behalf of your client or >> Yes. >> All right. You're welcome. >> All right. Um, so as we noted, there is an existing
twocar garage that's kind of under sized for modern vehicles and also the existing garage is within that 2.38 set um foot setback. That's where that number came from. That's the existing condition. And then also the existing garage is in very poor
condition. Um the ridge beam is cracked. The concrete slab is damaged and cracked throughout. There's multiple rafters. There's the garage doors barely go up. There's a side door that's angled. Um there's photos on the last page for reference. You can kind of see some of
those existing conditions. Um they actually don't use it at all in any capacity because it is feels dangerous going inside of it. So, it feels like it should come down one way or another. And since they will have to rebuild it, um the idea is to expand it slightly so it
can accommodate their vehicles. And also the expansion would allow for them to use it as storage for things such as um gardening tools and like lawnmowers, lawn equipment at that backside as well because they would rather not put an
additional shed in their yard for storage as part of that. Um yeah, that's kind of the major scope of the project. And then we're not changing the height of the structure. We're keeping the same height and also
the same eve height as well. And this has also gone through the um historic preservation commission review as well. >> Anything else you like to >> um I don't think so. Do you have any questions? Anything specific? Mhm. Other
questions of uh Mr. Waters? >> Mr. Waters, will you be um maintaining the slab foundation for this for the existing? >> No, we won't. We'll be removing that entirely. Yeah, just because um it's cracked and damaged throughout that it
doesn't seem practical. >> Okay. And typically there's a minimum six six foot sideyard setback. Is there any reason? And it looks like there's room in the yard to be able to comply with that. >> Um, yeah. So, it's a narrow lot of 50 ft and by shifting it over, it starts to
really center it in the middle of the yard rather than being off to one side and would likely need to expand the driveway more. And it's kind of hard to see on these images, but there's a 40-in diameter tree on the right hand side of this garage as well. So, moving it over
would start to impact that and probably damage the root system. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Mr. Cfield, um, >> you wouldn't have any issues moving it instead of the 2.47 moving it 3 ft from
the side property line. >> Um, I think we'd rather just keep the existing condition as is just to simplify it. Already aligns with the existing driveway. Um, >> but 6 in wouldn't damage that. You know,
it's a 6 inch movement. I don't know how much that would do that because we usually grant variances for garages at three feet usually. I mean, we have a six foot thing, but usually it's three feet. We've granted that. >> Yeah, I guess we're trying to preserve like every inch possible because of that
tree on the on the opposite side. >> I got you. I think six inches is not going to get you that close there. Um, in that sense to the tree. Um, are you going to redo the driveway over? >> We will after you know the project. That's probably the last thing to do.
But the driveway has to the driveway cannot get any wider because it the house is on one side and the edge of the property is on the other. And then we have an existing patio that has already uh it's already a structure that's existing. And then the tree uh would have to be you know removed or damaged
in order to go further in if we are required to do so. >> Okay. Thanks >> Mr. Cruz. Um, do you have I'm sorry. Do you have the diameter of the tree listed on the plans at all or >> uh I see I think it's where did I see
that? It's 40 in. Um I don't know if you have this the application for development packet here. Okay. >> On page three. Um, it's a bullet point that carries over at the top of that page.
Encroach on existing 40inch diameter tree in its root system. >> Okay. >> And there's also an existing foot path to to the rear yard. >> Yeah. At the very top. It's kind of it's a carried over bullet point from page
two. >> Yeah. And I forgot there is an existing foot path along that side as well between the garage and that tree that slips between there that we're trying to maintain. And then when you uh you rebuild the
garage, you'd have you'd be reconstructing the the slab. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think I think there's some photos. Um yeah, on page V5,
the existing photos, three, um there's one, the second photo, you can see the slab and it's just kind of cracked and falling apart. And that's just one condition of many similar conditions throughout. Those are all the questions I have for now. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Yes. Do you have any issues with complying with the recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission? >> Um, remind the recommendation. I think there's one about the window type. That
was the only one I recall. >> That was the only recommendation as far as I'm as far as I'm aware of. Were there others? >> No, that was the only one about >> And you're fine with that? >> The pain of the windows, >> the six versus four?
>> I I I think so. Yeah. Um I I think we want to review it because the the proportion of the windows are slightly different that we're showing too because the other because it's really dark inside also. So we're trying to get more natural light into the inside of the garages also by increasing the size of the window. So I don't know
that grid would architecturally make the most sense for the new proportion window. It might look a little >> speak on that with you know kind of bringing in more light. The area is north facing and there are a lot of >> Excuse me. Could you just come a little closer to the mic? Is the Is the green light on? >> It is on. Yeah.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can is this better? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um, what was I saying? Uh, if I can speak on that. So, the backyard is north facing. And in addition to using the garage for storage, as Nash said, you know, gardening tools and a lawn mower,
we'd also be having it as a a kind of indoor play space for my son. And I would love for it to just have a little bit more natural light for him to kind of play in the cold, dark winter months. >> Okay. Is there any electrical tied to the
garage? >> Uh there is an existing electrical line. >> Yeah, there's there's light fixtures. I know on the exterior at least. >> Thank you. No, >> Mr. Griffith. Uh, >> sorry, I was looking at your elevations
to understand the difference between the existing and the new. So, you did draw slightly larger windows and the uh historic uh preservation commission asked that you retain and replicate the scale and penetration pattern existing garage windows, specifically the
proportions of the divided light style of the original six pane windows rather than the proposed four pane. And um so I kind of think in terms of maybe
splitting the difference big windows, give them their six panes they're asking for. I don't think it'll make any difference on the amount of light that gets into the room. Um but how do you feel about that?
>> Um I mean I'll kind of defer a little bit. Architecturally I don't love the idea. Um, but if you know, if you're saying it's a requirement, that's that's different. But if it's a recommendation, um, I would push back a little bit and
say we'd like to keep it as open as possible. >> Um, just a second. So, I noticed in the design that you don't have a side door to the garage. You just have a back door and two garage doors in the front. >> That's correct.
>> It's rather unusual. >> Yeah. Yeah, I guess the idea is that it's the storage space will be along the back cuz you see like most of the yard itself is towards the back. >> I understand. I saw the layout. It's 24 by 24. You got the maximum footprint. Makes perfect sense. You did a nice job
proportionally. It all this it's the same garage. You made the windows a little bigger. It's a very nice job. But uh it is curious to me to see the the door in the back which you walk around the garage every time you go in and out of the garage with a car unless you you
know manually open and close the garage doors and make that your access. So it's a little funny to me. That's why that's why I asked exist in the existing conditions you have the door that's shouldered into the window and looks really weird. I I can appreciate you did want to recreate that. >> Yeah. The idea is that the back portion
is where the storage is going to be. So in terms of this accessibility and pulling things in and out, that's where it made the most sense functionally. >> Understood. On the south on the south elevation, is it above the garage doors? There's a large horizontal element that connects the two doors. What is that?
>> Um that's just a be a piece of trim, architectural >> flat trim. >> Yeah. >> It's not a little mini >> shingle thing or >> No, no, no. Just keeping it simple and modest. >> Okay. and the materials for the garage.
>> Um, so we're look, we're still pricing that out. That's going to be part of kind of next steps. We're looking at possibly using cedar shake, but I know that's extremely expensive right now. Um, so we're considering alternative materials, synthetic materials that would match the existing house. >> Could you say something like we're not
going to use vinyl? >> Uh, the the current house that uh we completely did have has vinyl shakes. I understand. >> Yeah. >> I'm asking you on the garage, could you say that you won't use vinyl?
>> You use cement, cement, uh, you know, hardy board cedar shingle, hardy board shingle or something like that to get the same look. >> May I ask why that is a request? Vinyl's uh not a nice material for the environment
and so we like to try and uh deter people from using it so that we can all maybe our children can live a longer life >> and maybe we can just saying. >> So it's a question I ask.
>> I'd have to think about it. >> Okay. So the difference between 3 foot and the 2.37 or whatever it's like 8 in right between the ask and the and the setback that you're asking for.
>> Yeah, approximately. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. I don't have any more questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, Miss Monte, let me ask you some questions. >> So, first first of all, I I I want to understand
uh the the property. So, I noticed that there is like a um I'm going to I'm going to say like a Belgian block kind of um it's not really a wall, but sort of that separates uh your neighbor's property
from yours. um which would be to the left of the garage. It runs the length of the driveway. Is that is that the property line? Is that what is that? What >> it's kind of like that that the those blocks are our property, but right after it is our neighbor's property.
>> Okay. And so and so the the huge tree that's sitting on the left side of the garage, is that on your property or is that on your neighbor's property or is that shared property? one. The 40 foot one. >> Yes. >> That's that that's that's
>> Yeah. 40 inch diameter one. It's on the right hand side. >> It's on Yeah. It's our property. >> If you're coming up the driveway, it's on the right hand side. >> Yeah. It's behind the house. It's our property. >> Okay. It's on the right hand side or the >> Yeah. So, if you're you're coming into the driveway, you're talking about the um like the house is on the on the left
side. If you're coming into the driveway. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. So, >> I meant the right side. Sorry. My I get my left and rights mixed up. Sorry. Okay. All right. So, so that tree is is on >> your property. Okay. And is is was that
tree part of the problem of the eventual wear and tear of the >> of the current garage? >> Uh, no. >> So, uh I know that I noticed that there was a reference to the to the roof line having sort of sloped inward. It was was
that just because of aging or that wasn't because of >> age and disuse >> and disuse. Okay. Right. So, um several members of the of the board have have raised a question about whether or not
um just given the um scope of the yard whether or not um uh you could facilitate moving that since you're doing a complete demolition apparently including the cement base. um whether or not it would not be in the best interest
to to simply move that garage over uh just a little bit. Are you open to that possibility or are you totally opposed to that? >> Well, I mean that's one of the reasons why we're here. We would like to keep it the same because of the reasons of, you know, existing driveway, existing patio.
It's close to our property line and abudding the house as well and the tree. >> Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Okay. All right. You mentioned that the the garage you you you foresee uh there being some space in the garage for a child of yours
to be able to to have some activity space uh in there. So there would be space for two vehicles plus space for um a child to to play. Is that that's that's what your vision is? Mhm. And
yeah, space for a vehicle. And then the other side would be storage and uh and an area for a child to play. >> So not necessarily two vehicles would be in the >> two vehicles as well, you know. Yeah. >> As well. Okay. All right. Okay. >> Um and then you and then uh the question was raised about the door in the back.
Um and is there anything that would separate the area where the child would play from that door? Um yeah, we would have like um I guess I'm thinking container store. You know how the container store like has those
shelves that you can have kind of built in >> like you know just kind of alongside to kind of separate the car area and store area from the >> uh sorry from the activity play area. Um,
I noticed that there was a I I think there was a a a pipe on the side of the garage. Um, is that a is that is that a water pipe or is >> Yeah, it was a hose bib. Is that active or or could be active or >> It is.
>> It is active. Okay. So, the shut off is in the house apparently or something like that. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then um as far as as far as lighting uh Oh, one other question is uh do you anticipate uh having uh any electric vehicles inside the the garage?
>> Okay. So, you will not accommodate that kind of uh electricity. Okay. Um and so otherwise uh uh just uh say something about the lighting that you anticipate uh in the garage or or external to the garage.
>> Yeah. So on for the external lights, you can see on the elevation on page V4, drawing two, um there'll be we don't know what the spec is for the fixture, but three kind of wall-mounted sconces um on each side of the one on each side
of the garage door, one in the middle. Um as well as probably a flood light at the top. And then on the back side, there will be a a wall sconce next to the door as well. >> Okay. >> And then on the interior, there will be ceiling lights as well. >> Okay. And uh would would the um
uh in terms of the um the external um lighting uh do you anticipate that having any kind of u negative impact uh on your neighbors? >> Oh no. >> No. It's going to be there's um it's going to be like almost decorative in a
way. It's not going to Yeah. There'll be a flood light for safety for when that's necessary, but that won't be used regularly. >> Okay. All right. All right. All right. Are there other questions from the board?
>> Um, just yeah, out of curiosity, um, on V4, um, drawing two, there's something shown on the roof, on the right side of the roof. Are you planning a skylight? >> Where are you looking? >> I'm on page V4,
>> drawing two. two on the right side of that roof. There's some kind of struct some kind of object on there. What is >> Oh, yeah. It's not on my printed set. Sorry. Um Yeah, I think we might have been entertaining that at one point. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Cuz yeah, we were talking about bringing
more maximizing natural light. >> It's not what page you want again. V4 looks like a skylight on her, but it's not on. >> I bet you're not. >> Oh, I guess it is. >> You're not considering that anymore. So,
you >> uh We are We are still considering it for the maximize the natural light on the interior. I think that's probably going to come down to we have to meet the contractor and kind of go through some budget items as well. Thank you.
>> Other questions, Mr. Mr. Cruz? >> Yes. Um, so I noticed that it appears that you are increasing the impervious coverage by more than 250 square feet. Correct. um
>> between the um the uh the garage, the uh proposed paved driveway, the proposed patio. >> Uh yeah. So, um actually the the proposed patio that >> that's already existing and you have a
storm water management plan in place already installed. >> Um Oh, I'm sorry. I was in the uh the existing it doesn't show the the pad. So, the deck and the patio have already been installed >> and they are there is a storm water management plan uh drain like already
installed underneath it. We went through the whole we went through all the channels and and had that in in place. >> And when when did this uh occur? >> Last summer. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, and then, uh, I noticed so the the tree to the left of of the garage,
can you talk about that a bit >> behind the garage or the the >> the ones to the left? That was that removed >> uh the one that's like >> the one the one in front. I can't tell too well by the uh >> like >> by from the picture
>> by the driveway. >> As you come in, >> do you have a planning report? It's on page three of >> like the big one. Yeah, the airport. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, can I see that >> or if we don't have it? >> Terrible. >> Sorry. Do you mind if I come and see?
>> It's on the line. >> This is in the front. >> Yeah, it's not technically our property. >> Um, is it I I don't see it on the on on the survey or the plan.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's still there. >> About how far away from the garage would you say it is? >> I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of my head. I'm sorry. >> Miss Monte, if you could just return to the mic. Sorry.
>> Um, sorry. I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of my head. >> Okay. So, um again though, but to bring it back to the to the storm order. So, um uh
the com So, right now the deck and the patio have been done, but the driveway and the garage have not been done. >> Correct. So, if I was to um uh combine the proposed improvement of the driveway and the proposed improvement of the garage, would that
require more uh storm water management? >> I That's a good question. I have to I ask Nash, but it would be So, um anything over 250 square foot would require additional storm water management. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, um, uh, where is your existing system located? >> Under the patio. >> Okay. And it's what, uh, what are what are you using? >> I'd have to ask the landscapers that installed it. I'm sorry. I don't know off the top of my head. >> Did it, uh, if you recall, did it look like a tank or was it like a whole bunch
of like stone and >> stone? >> Lots of no giant, no tank. >> There was like a tank. It was like they put like a hole in the like in the ground. Okay. >> And they had put stone and we had like a soil analysis done. So I think it's stone. >> Okay. Yeah. So that that would be
typical of what's done which is a a dry well. >> I assume that's what it is. I wasn't involved in that project so I can say for sure. >> Yeah. No, typically for this scale of development it's it's a it's a dry well system. Okay. Um and then uh yeah I have
no further questions. >> Thank you. We're going to open it up for comments uh for questions uh from the from the public. Uh are there any members of the public that would like to come forward and ask questions about this application?
Right. There are none. All right. With that, then I think we're ready to uh move towards making a decision. Can >> I ask if anyone in the public wants to make any sworn statements about the application? >> All right, we'll do that. Are there any members of the public that would like to
make any sworn statements about this application? >> Okay. All right. All right. So, now we'll uh we'll uh have discussion and uh move towards uh making a decision. >> You want to finalize? Yes, I'm going to
invite them to Yes. Do you have any final comments um before we >> Thank you. >> No, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh Miss Harris, >> um I think you know I I understand the
issue with the tree the existing tree and the tree roots. Um however um I forget which one of my colleagues mentioned that um typically we prefer to if we are going to uh grant to sideyard variance to grant at least 3 ft from the
property line. Um we've had situations in town where there have been fires um from uh adjacent structures on different properties and so we're trying to avoid that. We're also trying to make sure that should your neighbor build something in the future, a fence or
something on that side of the property, you would be able to get around it and maintain it. Um, and three feet is a reasonable amount. So, that would be the most I would be uh willing to grant in terms of the sideyard variance here. Um, in terms of the other issues, um, in
terms of the siding, I don't know that I that bothers me that much. Um, I'll leave it to the rest of my my colleagues to discuss that. All right. >> Um, yeah, I we've, as we've stated before, we've always granted three feet. You know, the six feet is very hard. I
agree. But I'm looking at your drawings. I don't necessarily think that 6 in is going to impact the tree or your driveway. Thank you, Spruce. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I'm generally in favor of uh the uh the
application um uh with the like the three-foot sideyard setback and other uh measure, you know, make sure there's no light pollution on the neighbors. No, and any new uh coverage is tied into your existing system.
>> Mr. more. >> I'm in favor of the application and uh just like my colleagues, um I'm in alignment with with the the restrictions that they've mentioned. >> Mr. Griffith.
>> Yeah, I uh I would agree with the three-foot request of my colleagues. Uh I'm uh sort of frustrated on the architectural aspect pointed out by the story commission being uh not embraced to some
degree, but um we'll move on. I hope you don't use vinyl, but that's up to you. You can live with it. Thank you. >> All right. Well, um I do think that uh the uh three-foot sideyard variance is
reasonable. Um and and I think that um you know, we do try to be um as consistent as we possibly can. There are certainly times in which we feel as though um sufficient hardship has been proven um where um we would we would in
fact make an exception. uh but in this particular case that we I think uh our sense is that there is sufficient space and we certainly understand uh your desire to uh want to maximize the amount of yard space for other activities. Uh this that's certainly not unreasonable
but um um I I think that the three-foot sideyard uh variance is is appropriate. Um and I would see that as a as a condition for >> two ways of doing it. >> One you can say motion you deny the
variance request for 2.37 ft. >> Mr. T, could you just put your things? >> I'd suggest instead of granting the variance and then putting the condition on, deny the variance for 2.37 ft and grant the variance for 3 feet. >> All right. So, we'll look for you to make that statement when we're ready to
put the motion uh before the body. Um and then u there was a question uh that was raised about uh storm water management uh just given um uh uh the
uh renovation of the driveway and the um and the um uh the the the garage. And so, uh, I think that there was a a recommendation for, um, that to be explored, uh, just to make sure that,
um, that, uh, this project remains in compliance. And I, I gather from from your response that you're not opposed to that. >> Yeah. >> So, I'd like to to see that as something that also um, we would include. Um also
uh uh again uh I I think as one of our uh colleagues uh also mentioned um I mean we certainly never know in terms of u of u what kind of development uh other
neighbors might choose to undertake. Uh and so uh just given um the intent to more fully utilize or in fact to fully utilize this garage because basically it has been not utilized uh for for quite
some time. Um that um uh you make sure that the lighting uh is um limited to to your property and and and does not infringe upon the privacy um of your neighbors. Um are there any other uh conditions that
um members would like to see imposed? >> Yes. Okay. All right. >> I would just add that we'll include our standard conditions that Mr. Joel mentioned that the applicant shall be bound by all representations made on their behalf during the course of the public hearing and the applicant shall
be responsible for all inspection fees and escrow fees incurred in connection with their review and approval of this application in accord in accordance with township code 202-27. >> All right, Mr. Drill, are you ready to state that
that >> the condition on lighting? It's a restriction on the the flood light can't be seen by neighbors. What exactly >> would not would not infringe upon the privacy of the neighbors. Yes, >> I think that there's a something in the
code with regard to not seeing having a direct line of sight to the light source. >> So that um that's what makes sense. If I can sit in my room and make hand puppets on the wall from your light, that's probably not good. But if your light is
indirect to the ground and bouncing up, I probably can't do that. It's a matter of direct line of sight to the light source from the neighboring houses. >> So something like courtesy >> not to be seen by neighbors per ordinance. Something like that. >> Yes. Poor per ordinance would be
sufficient. And then something similar with with respect to the uh additional storm all the the storm water management measures as required by the township >> engineer. I'll say the applicant shall provide storm water management as me storm water management measures as
required by the township engineer and shall take undertake any additional studies or testing as required by the engineer. >> Very good. Great. That's good. >> Okay. So is the only variance being sought the sideyard setback variance?
>> That is correct. So then I suggest that the motion be made to deny the variance seeking a 2.37 foot setback, grant the variance for a three-foot setback subject to the conditions that have already been discussed on the record.
>> Right. Is there a motion? >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Do a roll call. >> Yes, I can do the roll call. Uh Chair McCull. >> Yes. >> Um Mr. Caulfield. Yes. >> Miss Harris.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Moore. >> Yes. >> Mr. Griffin. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Cruz. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Congratulations. Enjoy your new garage when you finally get it built. And
>> thank you. Our next application uh is uh number 2947 14 College Avenue uh Matthew Iben and Gina Moon and uh this uh application is for a
variance required to convert the existing attached garage into a home office. The property is in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot 7 in block 1511.
A variance is requested from Monontlair code 34746C to permit parking in the front yard as removing the garage would require that vehicles be parked in the paved area between the dwelling and the street. All
right. I'll just note that taxes are paid and the notice is in order. Thank you. >> Thank you. You're most welcome. Would you please identify yourselves? >> Matthew Ivan. >> Eric Schultz. >> Eric who?
>> Schultz. >> Schultz. Okay. Can both of you and the board's planning expert raise your right hand? And to all of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes.
>> Great. Thank you. And Mr. Schultz, will you be speaking initially on behalf of your client or will we >> um Matt speak first? >> All right, M. All right. >> I'm sorry. >> Could you just please press the push button?
>> Of course. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Oh, he's I think this is uh let me before we do that though, uh can we uh please uh review your credentials, please? >> Right. I've been licensed architect in New Jersey since 2004 and I have a practice here in Monontlair since 2011.
>> Okay. Have you testified before other planning boards or boards of adjustment in the state? >> Before this board uh many times >> and you've been accepted as an expert before this board and your license is still in good standing. >> Yes. >> You accept him as an architectural expert? >> Yes.
>> Yes. I know Mr. Schultz. Yes, you're getting nervous there for a minute, weren't you? >> Okay, I see. All right. All right, Miss Dwin, um you're most welcome. Would you like to talk to us about your project? >> Sure. Uh very briefly. Uh good evening.
Um I've lived in Montlair for 5 years. We live at 14 College Avenue with uh my wife, myself, and we have three kids, eight, five, and three years old. Um the house is very small. three bedrooms. We have a small sun room that my wife is
currently using as her office space uh for two days a week when she's working remotely. Um and my kids generally do their homework mainly our oldest at this point on our kitchen table. Um which has been difficult in and of itself. But um
to make matters a little bit more complicated, she was recently diagnosed with dyslexia and we've been engaging in regular tutors at this point at least twice a week. Um and it's just become very problematic because my other two kids are running around. This is like our primary living space. Um so what
we're really looking to do with this renovation, with this conversion, is to find a space away from our living space that we can use kind of as a designated quiet study office. Um, just another little nuance, my wife is also stepping
away from, well, unofficially stepping away from her very high stress corporate job and is going back to school to become a therapist. Um, so we'll be also needing to have kind of a more readily available at home office. Um, so she would be using the space for that as
well. Um, the the garage itself is is very small. We aren't able to fit any of our cars in there uh currently. So we have both cars in the driveway. have a SUV and a small sedan. Um, so we're this change really will not be changing how
we park our cars. Um, and uh, again, we I don't I think maybe we could fit our small one in, but I don't think we could open the doors. It's it's very tight. Um, so I I that's that's the reason why we're we're seeking this this um this uh variance today.
>> Thank you. >> Um, so great. So, I'm just going to quickly jump um to the floor plans like A1 just to show the existing garage um which you can see is it's 16 ft long
which is um as Matt said, it's not long enough for a conventional sedan. So, they park out two cars into the driveway and they're side by side, not tandem because there's not enough depth in the lot for tandem. Um
A2 is the proposed plan of the office um which shows u access to the offices by a new door in front of the stairway two steps down and then showing the uh the window the garage door being replaced by a window
assembly. Um A3 shows the existing garage door. A4 which is up on the screen shows the proposal which is to the window assembly unit which is a an exact match for the
living room window assembly which has two double hung windows and a middle uh fixed pane. So the idea there is to match that um exactly um
just to jump back to the um site plan on T1 um what's exists there now is uh for the two cars is an 8ft strip of uh pa um patio pavers and then a 10ft strip of asphalt and the asphalt
runs up to the driveway. Um T2, which is our proposal, is to make the full 18 feet of patio pavers, but then to stop it 5t short of the house where we would plant uh mulch and
u we'll have plantings, mulch and plantings. So that would add 50 square feet of uh pvious surface. Um and then with regard to the comments by the uh historic commission um they made
some notes about the streetscape. I just want to hand out some additional photos just to add some context. >> This has not been submitted to the board before this as exhibit A1. This is A1 is
looks like an 11 by two sheets 11 by 17 with some pictures on it. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, there's A1 for you and here is A1 for all the board members. So the commission um refers to this
house type as a Cape Cod revival style. Um and their concern is uh removing a feature that removing the garage door upset the rhythm of the block and create an atypical facade. And I just want to point out
that there are there are 12 houses on this block. Only four of them are of this type or this style. Uh the other eight um don't have an attached garage and are a mix of uh pre-war postwar colonials.
Um these four houses uh they are in a row but they are bracketed by um to the north 20 College Avenue which is a pre-war colonial and bracketed to the
south by on the lower left photo 8 College Avenue which is a uh four square Victorian. So there's quite an eclectic mix of housing types um on this block. Um
and within that row of four, there's quite a bit of variation in terms of the architectural features. Um for example, the neighbor immediately to the north, 18 College Avenue, has a different roof type than the other three. It has a roof, a gable end over
the front door and a separate roof from the garage, whereas the other three have a simple shed roof. Um, another um example is their neighbor to the north has a box bay window, the neighbor to the south has a angled um bay window,
and this house and the one two houses down do not have a bay window. Um, so like I said, there's there's quite a bit of um variation and I'm arguing that the proposed window would not create an
atypical condition or really upset the the rhythm because it's not much of a rhythm to upset, I guess, is the is the argument. >> Just one more note on on Carile Road, which is >> Oh, okay. I'll let him finish. Sorry.
>> Page two of those photos. Um, I was going to say, uh, where this housing type is prevalent is the next street over on Carile. Um, and there are two examples here on, um, 23 and 5 Carile Road in which
that garage has been converted to a living space. And you can see in both cases they added a pair of windows. Um, our proposal is slightly different. the the five cario road for example is about three foot high window. We're
proposing a 4 foot six high window. So the sill would be much lower. We'll be putting plantings in front of that to hide some of the um additional siding and again the plantings would contribute um 50 square
feet of pvious surface. >> Sorry. No problem. Um and that's um that's our proposal. >> Right. >> All right. Uh we'll move then to questions from the board if you have nothing else that you like to say. Is
that right? >> So Miss Harris, >> um yes. Uh are you proposing any changes to the curb cut um in the house? Um, not right now, but we'd be open to it if it was >> Okay. Um, and the historic commission
had a a suggestion about moving the parking kind of towards the right of the property. How far is that curb uh the park the driveway curb from the property line? >> They recommended moving it 4 feet um
which would remove 4t of grass which would remove 100 square feet of pvious surface. Um, so we we thought I didn't think that was a good idea for that reason, but also it's that grass is part of their it appears to be part of their neighbors lawn. So it would be
um maybe not a nice thing to do proposed to the neighbors. Um it would also require a sideyard setback to park within 4T. So it creates a second variance for this application.
Um, and the pavers that are currently in front of your the entry steps, were those there when you bought the house or >> Yes, they were already. >> They were. Yeah. >> Okay. I when I think of this ordinance and no parking, you know, between the house and the curb, this is the parking
that I think about and this is what I assume was the intent of the ordinance. Um, I'll let my other colleagues ask questions, but go ahead. Mr. Cfield.
>> Yeah, I I I guess that does not um with the parking in the front make it look nice, but you know, everybody has that in this town. So, um it's not much you can do about that. Um I do agree with my my colleague about the curb cut there and it you know on the pa side needs to
be you know taken a look at just because as you back out on that side you have to kind of maneuver out of that curve in that sense. Um Eric, are you going to keep the existing slab on that garage or is that coming out?
Um, so there'd be a new foundation wall um under the new window and wall and then I don't think the slab would need to be rebuilt. They would um put sleepers and a new wood floor over it. >> So
I see that you to get into that you're going to make an entrance from uh from the garage into that area. Correct. Just a couple steps up to that. >> Exactly. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you,
Mr. Cruz. >> Yes. I was wondering, could you describe a bit about the I guess the character of parking on on college? >> Uh, it's an eclectic mix. There there's a a lot of the a lot of these houses have have the sort of 36 feet you need
to do tandem. This house does not. We have uh 29 feet. Um there are houses uh in this area that have the side by side, but they have room to do it
um on the driveway side. This is this is sort of a unique situation where we can't really go the other direction to the south um because of the uh utility pole and the guide wire and the trees and extra variances would be needed to
we did explore that um but it's it's an eclectic mix of how the houses are parked on this block. I'm sorry. Could you just repeat one more time that your your intention of the of the office space >> for how what we're going to use it for?
>> Uh we're going to have so the plan is to have kind of built-ins with desks and try and have like one area for each kid and then uh a desk for my wife um near like the front um and the small couch
area, but it would all be basically desks and office related type things. Yeah. >> A2. A2. It's exactly what he just described is shown on drawing A2. Yeah. >> But yeah, we we were we really wanted the the bigger window just so we could
get some natural light. The the light that comes in on the window, the existing window in the garage. It faces our neighbor's house and doesn't really get a lot of direct sunlight. So, it is generally a very dark area. So, not a great study area. They'd be relying on
relying on this wall to provide the morning and um midday light. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Moore. >> No questions, Mr. Griffith.
I found the chimney in the photograph. He hid it from me on the drawings. the chimney. >> I disagree with historic preservation commission's recommendation that you put a fake garage door in. Um
I I think it's inappropriate. Uh I do think that the design you did is is appropriate and sympathetic to the neighborhood in a fitting way. Uh that said, I can't in good faith uh
approve moving forward on something that acknowledges and accepts parking in the front yard. And I would suggest also that you have a whole backyard that you could put the space into. And why not
put it there? >> I'm sorry. What you're suggesting? >> Build you ought to have an office space, a one-story office space. Build it in the backyard. there's room where there's room to add
on to without comp without without >> compromising the building code or zoning ordinance or >> anything else. >> We do have a a relatively small yard. It's it's about 0.1 acres, I believe, or maybe.1 acres.
>> Uh so I I I don't know where we'd be able to fit that in. We have an existing patio right now um and then a playset and I I don't I don't know where we would be able to fit it in quite frankly but I I do appreciate you
>> 100%. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, uh just a couple of questions. Um one is again and I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. Um, I think there was a suggestion by the
uh HPC that you consider uh creating some driveway space to the right of the garage, but your response is that there is insufficient space in order to accommodate that. Is that correct? >> No, it's we could do that. It just means
uh eliminating grass like 100 square feet of grass >> and it it would essentially abut like directly to the property line of our neighbors yard. So I think what you were Eric was also saying that we would require a second variance to do that and it it would just it would also kind of
block our ability to just walk straight into our backyard because it it would then kind of our cars would be right where our sidewalk is at that point. The only access to your >> other than inside the house, the only other access to your backyard is through this gate. Is that correct? Is that is
that's what we're seeing here? >> That's correct. >> But that gate would be wid that gate represents the boundary >> between I believe so. Yes. >> And that that is it's a little hard just looking, you know, at a at a photo. Um
but um that >> that you're correct. The gate >> that gate is as wide as the vehicle that is in the >> in the driveway. >> No, I would say the gate is maybe four maybe between four and 5t. >> It's actually on the survey it's 5 and
1/2 ft. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> Five and a half. >> So, uh we they said four feet. Well, we we discussed four feet because we need to be 1 foot from the property line. So you you could only without needing yet another variance, we could only go into that sideyard by 4 >> ft.
>> And do you know if there ever was a time that there was a shared driveway between your property and your neighbor's property? >> I don't believe so. I I I don't know. But the their garage for my neighbors is um also on the right side of their house. So I I Yeah, I don't know.
>> Yeah, it's on the north side. So >> um so the uh the the nature of the of the neighborhood is such that I mean based on the the exhibit that you gave us A1
um that seemingly a lot of um the homeowners park uh forward on their property. Is that correct? Year round pretty much. >> Yes. And that's that's what you do. I mean
you because you don't utilize the the garage at all. >> That's correct. >> And and do a lot of cars uh spill over into the street as well? >> Um during the daytime occasionally. Uh, but I I think the parking rules are
generally like we can get our street passes, but we have to move our cars back onto the sidewalk. So, I think generally people are pretty good about that. >> Okay. >> I think this garage is unique being 9 and 1/2 ft. Um, many I've worked on a lot of houses like this and a typical
interior width is 11 ft >> which allows you to park various types. Um, and again it's only 16 ft deep. It's just unusually like you could really only get a compact car and even then it's still tight. So that's why I think this is unique situation. Small garage
and they don't have the depth for tandem parking. So it's it's unlike most of their neighbors their situation >> for and now I want to just uh ask a couple questions about the the space that you're talking about for the office. Um is uh to the to the left of
the office are we looking at stairwells going going up and down? Is that what is that what that is on the uh >> existing stair goes up and then the it's uh the stair to the basement's from the kitchen. >> All right. And is there any uh space any open space or crawl space currently
under the garage area? >> No. >> Okay. Have you considered the possibility of opening that wall between the office and the stairwell to create the illusion of more space in the house?
>> The off the existing sun room. >> No, no, no. That wall behind the sofa. >> Which one? >> Um, you talking about >> that the stairwell? Um, >> I don't Well, it would only open it to
the stair because there's there's really >> most of the the stair is hidden by the wall to the left. >> But I think part of the purpose of creating the office is so that uh Gina has a place to go sometimes to get away
from the kids and close the door. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> And and one of our kids, whoever's getting studying, right? >> Typically our oldest priv privacy for whoever is using that space. Okay. And the door is a sliding door. >> Correct. The pocket door. Yes. >> Pocket door. Yeah.
And the See the the windows. It's the window, the new windows on the front. See that again? Three panel. Okay. Which would m match existing windows
gone planting. Right. Right. Okay. So, uh, one of, uh, my colleagues, uh, uh, express an opinion about the, um, recommendation from the Historic
Preservation Commission about the, um, uh, front facade, uh, that garage door. What's, what was your response to that or what is your response to that con concept? Um,
well, it's it's not desirable from the point of view of the interior of the office because it limits the amount of light and it has a it feels like you're in a garage. >> Um, so that's the inspiration. And then so then the idea is to how to make it look contextually
um natural from the outside. And the idea here is make it look like a living space just like the another living space. Um, and that I'm not sure that the we're upsetting the
historic character of the house or the block in any way by swapping out the garage door opening for the window as long as we're not changing the footprint or the roof line or any of the other um more attractive features. Okay. All
right. Okay. Very good. Uh there are any other questions from the uh board? Are there members of the public that would like to uh ask questions or make a statement? >> Yes. >> Fell asleep. Sorry.
>> Can you take that microphone and identify yourself, please? >> And I suggest you let them do questions and comments at the same time. >> Yes. I think so. identify yourself, please. >> My name is Frank Rubaki. R U B A C K Y
>> 398 Upper Mountain Avenue in Montlair. >> Okay. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm any comments? >> Yes. >> Question. >> Okay. I'll start with my questions. Um, good evening.
>> Good evening. Um, I guess my question is probably first to the board. Well, let me ask the architect. Is does this approval run with the land or run with the building? In other words, if this building doesn't
stay there, does the front yard parking remain with the land? >> It's a legal question. You want to know if the board of variances of the land. >> Yes. >> The answer is yes. >> Thank you. So,
you could alter the house in different ways and still have front yard parking. Okay. I just want to make sure. Um, is there any other house on College Avenue with a double wide driveway or
with legal front yard parking? >> Um, I'm not aware if there is. Um, did did you make improvements to the house? This is for the owner. Did
you make improvements to the house since you bought it? >> I have not. >> Okay. So, the bathroom and the pantry are existing conditions. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Um the building coverage
for an R1 is 25% max. Your property seem your building your house seems to be about 200 square ft less than the maximum. Why wouldn't you use that available
building coverage for this purpose? For what purpose? >> To create more living space um because there's limited uh land um in the yard is the owner noted that there's
a >> but the ordinance allows you if my calculations are correct allows you 200 square feet and that's only 25% of a lot. Well, why would why do an addition when
you can renovate the interior that's not being used and can't be used for parking? >> So, you're doing it for cost reasons. It's and >> well, of a practical >> Okay. >> I mean, why why build more bulk? Why is so the hardship argument here is
what? >> There's no place to park >> there. There's >> there's no room to park their cars. >> There's room to park in front of the garage for that driveway for the garage with
>> No. >> So, you want to have two cars. You want to be able to park two cars is the hardship. >> They're parking two cars now. But it's not legal. >> I I don't I don't know. I don't know how to answer that.
>> It's an existing condition. It's a non It's a non-conforming situation. Whatever. >> Are you aware of the house? We don't know because it was like that when they purchased the home.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. The properties you showed on um Carile number five particular is that do you know if that is a legal parking arrangement? I
>> I don't know the history. Um, you said um your intent, your future intent as homeowners would be for your spouse
um to use it for her occupy therapist role. Is that what I heard? My the the goal is to use it for my children to have a study room and for my wife to use as an office while she's studying over the next couple years. I I
there's no plan for her to have clients in the space itself. >> All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Um would you um accept a condition that the plantings would not obscure
the front elevation the first the facade of the first floor there would be minimal and by minimal I mean less than three and a half ft high. two. >> Well, here's here's my concern. My concern is
>> you have a one side of your house you have a 35 foot set back from the street. >> The other side of the house you have a 29 1/2 ft set back to the street. You're going to put 5T of planting in there
between the house and the driveway. So you'll So you'll be at 24 and a half feet. The driveway will be 24 and a half feet long. >> Okay. >> Right. I mean that's what that's what
your plan is. Okay. >> My concern is that you end up or a future property owner ends up with five carile road in front of the house. that photograph of five carile that was
presented which you know quite frankly five was not as bad as 23 23 Carlile was exactly why we have this ordinance it's a it's
bad anyway um so would you would you accept the condition that that driveway will be no shorter In other words, I don't want to see a little like parking space in front of the house. I'd rather it look like a
driveway. It serve as a driveway. And plus, you'd have more length to get the cars further away from the street. If you shorten it to a permissible parking space in this town, which is 19 ft, often 18 feet. You're that much
closer, the car will be that much closer to the sidewalk, to the street. and aesthetically less appealing. So, what I'm asking is that you don't shorten it. You make a condition that you can't shorten it. Yes, you can park right over the
sidewalk, but I'm just saying that >> I'd rather have it longer than shorter. >> If you do look, I mean, there's there's more than five feet give here. I mean, the Volvo is that's our SUV. That's the bigger of the car and it's it's it's far it's far more than 5t from
>> um the house. I mean I think our concern was just it would look nicer and more welcoming and adding more greenery as opposed to having a window out. >> I'm fine with that. I just don't want it. I just don't want what I'm worried about as a future owner putting in a row of arborite that are six, seven feet
tall that 25 ft and since it runs with the property, >> we we can't know what a future owner is going to do with that property. So, if we make it a condition, we can put some type of control over
what a future owner might do. That's all I'm getting at. Okay. Um, one moment please. I think those are um I'll just go to comments then please. Um, one, this is would be an anomaly for the
street. This would be the first approved front yard parking situation on this street and you should be very aware of that. Um, I live on a street where front yard parking is the rule
rather than exceptions for large parts of it. And I live on a nice street, Upper Mountain Avenue. um I would say 40% of the properties between um Belleview and Claremont
on the lower side at least have front yard parking. Um it looks nicer, but it's still front yard parking. And I remember this board rejected front yard parking for a very
affordable house on Orange Road um next to the business district because it was simply front yard parking. So my challenge to this board is one,
if you're going to put in front yard parking, be consistent about it, especially in neighborhoods that don't have it, don't necessarily have a hardship. Um and I don't see a hardship here. I I appreciate it and but I think it would
make a difference. Um so I would I would do not support this. I I I find this either the zoning board has to make a decision on how they're going to handle front yard parking or not. But right now you're just doing oneoffs and you're
finding reasons to justify it that quite frankly are not very good. And this is something that's been going on for years. I've been watching these applications for years. So, the second thing is we're doing a rewrite of the mass the
master plan, the land use plan. We're also talking about affordable housing in a significant way in this town. and the planning department has made presentations and I'm sure it's going to be part of all our U master plan element
documents where appropriate where they're going to insert the concept of a missing middle housing. It's not the affordable housing with the capital A capital H. It's just what Montlair used to be more like where it was more affordable. And there is going to be an
intent to bring zoning forth that will enable this or maintain the affordable the missing middle that we do have. When you do things like this with front yard parking,
you are exacerbating the loss of the m missing middle because what you're allowing to do is to use the front yard for parking and that allows development of the house even larger
than what it could be. Okay. So, this house is maybe a thousand or so square footprint. It's probably 1,500 square ft total area. It's assessed below the
median uh value of houses in Montlair. It's probably the definition of missing middle in Monontlair. Has it become more expensive? Yes. Did they pay a much higher price than what the
property was back when I lived nearby? Yes. But this will take in very short order. And when I talk about short order within probably a valuation in 28 for a little bit later maybe a
little bit sooner where this will take properties like this on this street above the median price in Montlair and everybody says the median assessed value is high for Montlair. So I ask you to look at things like this
where we're going outside zoning which were supposed to keep the scale and the appearance of neighborhoods consistent to decide whether this is the place to make a stand and say no or approve it
and say we'll fix it sometime down the road. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Can I I'm sorry. Can I just ask one question? >> Sure. Um you mentioned that um allowing front yard parking will somehow make this no longer the missing middle
housing. How do you see the front yard parking changing the >> feel in love? >> Because um from a development point of view, if I was speculating, I'd buy this house in a heartbeat. Um, it's got a 25
yard 25 foot setback requirement. It's currently getting the first part of it at 29 to to 35. The other houses along the block have a setback that are as close to the street on an average basis.
You have the capacity to do to convert this without even dormers in a half floor above to over 24 2500 square ft. Um, you have every opportunity from the speculation point of view to almost double the size of this house.
>> No. No way. No way. >> Okay. And excuse me. >> No, you wouldn't be able to do that. >> Okay. Well, you look at the zoning. I look at the zoning. I come up with different numbers. The first floor footprint right now is,550.
The point is you have 25% um building coverage of a 5,000 square foot lot. Okay. So you you can get a very substantial you can get 1,200 square footprint.
Two floors is 24. Add another 500 or so 600 for a half story and you can convert this house to double the size. And you don't have to worry about parking because you're in the front yard. So that's how it's going to happen. I
can guarantee if it doesn't happen with this house, it'll happen to more of these houses and these type of neighborhoods and that's where you'll lose the missing metal and you won't see it coming till it's done. >> Okay. >> Um and Z, can I ask you a question? Um I
don't have the um residential improvement standards in front of me. How many parking spots are required for a house this size with this many bedrooms? >> I believe it's two. I' I'd have to double check. Is it How many bedrooms are there? >> Three.
>> Yeah, it's two. I believe >> um Go ahead. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Go ahead. Um, for the applicant, um, there's a walk that goes around the side of your house that is connected to the existing driveway. >> Are you planning
>> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Are you planning to make any changes to that walk at all? >> Okay. >> So, it's just going to kind of terminate at the landscaping that you have. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Because we were going to do the additional That's a good point. Um,
I don't know. Yeah, we we hadn't addressed that in the the planning yet. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Probably the walkway would extend forward a few feet so that it touches the driveway. So, there'd be a small uh
10 square feet extension to connect it to the driveway is probably what I would recommend if we were to do this >> and extend the mulch. We have about this much mulch on the side of the house because it's really narrow. just extend
that another five feet I suppose. Right. >> So, in light of what Mr. Rebaki was was posing in terms of alternatives, did you ever consider the possibility of bumping out the garage itself in order to enlarge the space to facilitate
parking? >> Bumping I didn't really understand what what he was proposing. So, he was saying building in front of the house. >> Of course, he was talking about about uh building on to the back of the house. >> On the back of the house, I >> But but I'm I'm just asking the question in terms of the garage itself.
>> Had you considered the possibility of expanding the garage, bumping out since you do have some space on the side of the on the side of the house uh in order to enlarge the garage so that you could facilitate parking?
>> I don't know how that would >> Yeah. >> look. Uh if we just built out just the side of the garage while maintaining >> we wouldn't be allowed the zoning sideyard setback wouldn't allow us to bump out to the side space >> um >> is what you're saying >> there there's no space to the side um to
go back would the small kitchen there's no I mean other than that pantry that bumps car it takes a carve out of the garage you would be removing the pantry so there would be a um kind of a domino effect where you'd
have to if you killed the pantry, you still wouldn't have the width. So, it it doesn't it wouldn't really help. Um we we would need a sideyard variance for the footprint of the house if if to make that garage work.
>> Can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> Can you read the ordinance from which you need relief? The notice says section 23746 C. That's not right. I think it's 34B.
So, can you first check this? I >> I'll just clarify that we like um that is the ordinance that is for the zone, but the text is in 36 C because our ordinance says to reference back to the RO zone requirements for
height and accessory structure setbacks, but this the code section is is still 46 C. >> 46. It's not the best system >> for accessory structures, parking areas, and driveway shall be the same as R the RO zone. If I go to the RO zone, then I
find 34B. But can you you have the orders inside here, >> but I do. >> I I don't I don't I don't think we do. >> I just want to >> read it so you know what relief you're seeking. It says
no accessory structure nor any off streetet parking area whether or not within a garage shall be located between the main building and the curve of the street on which the building fronts provided however a driveway leading to a
garage which is in the side or behind the main building shall be permissible. So my question is right now there's a garage. I know that he's not using it for a garage. I can look in the pictures. He's storing stuff
in there. Testified the garage is too small. >> That's right. >> The two cars that are parked in the driveway. Is that permitted under 34B which is incorporated by reference by 30
46 C or not? Um, >> I mean I mean I mean what we're we're looking for >> I mean we're we're looking for a variance to continue to park >> when there's no longer a garage. looking
for a variance to continue to park how you're parking contrary to the ordinance basically to formalize what you're doing now in order to be able to eliminate the garage by converting it to the proposal. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And you haven't taken a look to see this ordinance says it was adopted in 1980. You know when that house was built? um 1950s. >> I think that's right. Yeah. >> But you haven't looked to see if you
have a lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming at least parking of one car, let alone two cars, right? You don't know? >> No. >> Yes, Mr. Griffith. >> So, the qu the question I ask is that when he bought we bought the house when?
>> 2020. 2020. So in 2020, uh what was the law? Uh I believe in 2020, I need his attention, but um in 2020, my question is is my
understanding is the law still required that you can't park in front of the between the house and the street. And you bought the house, it had a garage, and that was the constraint when you bought it. You knew it when you bought it or should have been. >> It was a Yes, we bought a house with a
garage that was essentially non-functional, which just by the act of purchasing the house, we we realized that we were not going to be able to comply with this this law. But yeah, that there's I guess that's true. I am not familiar with the law. I can't tell you. >> But um yes, >> and um
>> leave things alone, but I just wanted >> So I mean, you could buy a car small enough to fit in the garage. It's not impossible. I the the BM we have a small older BMW that I don't think can fit in there and uh yeah >> understood. Anyway, uh
thank you. >> All right. Um are there any uh other members of the public that would like to u raise a question or offer a comment about this application? All right. Um, so is there anything else that you'd like to say about this uh
before we then uh discuss this as a zoning board? >> I don't think so. >> Uh, no. >> All right. So, uh, we'll turn to Miss Harris. >> Um,
I take no issue with the garage conversion. I understand your need for space and the fact that it's not functional as a garage. Um, and though I don't care for the the the parking, the existing parking in front of your steps,
I understand it's an existing condition. You purchase the house um that way. Um, and so by virtue of you pursuing this conversion, you're basically exposing the fact that
this parking is not non-conforming to the zoning ordinance. Um, I mean, I'm inclined to grant the ordinance just because this is >> I'm sorry, the variance. Um, thank you. Um, just because this is an existing condition. This is how you use um the
property today. Um, even if you weren't converting the garage, it wasn't it's not functional for a car today. So, you wouldn't you wouldn't be in compliance of our res the residential standards in terms of parking anyway. So I think that is a
hardship because the existing garage does not actually um meet the requirements um of of a functional garage today. So um as much as I think this is a very unattractive solution to your parking issue, I don't see another
um solution because you're not allowed to park on the street. So I would be inclined to grant the variance. >> Mr. Callville. >> I mean, I I I think there are other factors in town that make this town hard for affordability aspects, not just, you
know, the two cars that are parking here and making this house, you know, somewhat affordable for not affordable for other people in the non. Um, you know, the way this it's such a, you know, that the ordinance came out in
1980, this house is in the 1950s. It's kind of hard to, you know, um, view this house in that form of like kind of disciplinarian. That's just unfair. Um, so as far as I'm concerned, I I this is
a hardship in my mind. Um I I I think the bigger issues of Montlair and like how this granting this for me is going to you know destroy the fabric of Montlair and and and it's the parkability is I think it's a bigger
issue. Um but to to force you not to be able to park your cars there when we as we stay we you know then let's have on street parking at night. That will freak people out as well. So, you know, I think this is the better of the the options. And,
you know, I mean, I think as you buy a house, I think you're going to have like for me, like I'm never going to buy a house with electricity lines in the back. I mean, now when I go to houses, I'm not going to buy houses at front yard parking. I don't know. Just not sure where this ends. Thank you,
>> Mr. Cruz. >> Uh, I'm trying to weigh all the the competing interests in my head. you know, on one hand, there's clearly a storied um you know, history with respect to the ordinance and front yard parking. At the
same time, given the 0.11 acres of your lot, that is comparatively small, which does pose a hardship. And then with, you know, three kids, that's another hardship. But um uh I'm gen I'm generally in favor of
your application given how it's been presented. My only concern would be in the spirit of it running with the land should you choose to alter uh your property at a later point to just put in some like some conditional
safeguards should you choose to do things that you can't think of right now but you might think of later. Mr. Moore, >> I'm generally in favor of the application uh taking into consideration um that it's a 9 foot width, which is
the minimal minimum requirement and the current well for parking and your current vehicle doesn't fit within that space. Um, so I could see that being a hardship. Um, in addition to
your family dynamics and this is a home in which you know you're um you're looking to well live and work, right? Um, and have your quiet enjoyment.
So I'm in favor. I would place a a condition that the um driveway becomes no shorter than 24 ft
and that you don't uh have plants that go above the windows. Um, and you know, it's a tough decision though because it seems as though there's, you know, already rule in place
in terms of having um how the parking is currently. So, I think that there's certainly going to need to be a resolve um to ensure that um the way in which it'll be situated, how
you can park then on. Okay. >> So, um I am in favor because I recognize the hardship and I don't think that it would be a detriment to the street. I look at this as a special case
and it certainly is. And um with that said, you have an opportunity to make an improvement to your existing home for you to utilize the space as needed. Mr. Griffith, I find it very difficult. Um, I do think
the proposed design is uh spot-on uh informed better job than any of the recommendations from the historic preservation committee. Uh I on the other hand I do think that uh there's an
opportunity to create the same space in the backyard. Um and I don't feel like that's been explored or adequately considered to make this the only option. Um if we approve this, we in essence say
it's okay to park in the front yard. And that means everybody else on your block will be in here and everybody else on other blocks will want to uh piggyback on this precedent which I'm
not in favor of creating. So I would not be in support of this. Thank you. >> Um so uh Mr. Griffith uh introduced a a concept that I think is important to
this application and that is a question of precedent. Uh and um part of my my understanding is that um a decision taken by the zoning board
does not in and of itself automatically create a president. >> That's correct. case laws New Jersey Supreme Court case by case basis. It's not presidential. >> So it so that would mean that in this particular case if we were to approve
um this this proposal uh it would not it would not compromise our ability uh to deny other applications. It's just my opinion, you should make very specific findings to be able to distinguish
>> this from other because I believe Mr. Griffith is right about >> one thing >> and I'm not taking a position you guys decided if you grant or don't grant it but if it's granted other people will try to use it >> exactly president even though it isn't president that's why you have to
distinguish >> it and I think the board members have done a decent job laying out the hardship about the size of the garage and all that but distinguish it as much as you can >> right uh and that's that's kind of where I'm going on this is is that um Um
naturally u given what has been presented to us as part of the picture of hardship is that this is a this is a neighborhood in which this is a very common feature. >> That's the negative criterion.
>> Okay. The positive criterion the hardship size of the garage. >> I heard Mr. Cfield also had a hardship >> right? Because if you use that this is what the neighborhood is as hardship even though it's not presidential I
don't know how you would >> you can't violate >> equal treatment. You can't treat people unequally. So if you said that the hardship is based on the neighborhood pattern >> then you can't treat anyone else who comes in differently. It's not precedent but you have that issue.
>> Right. So so I I agree. I mean, I was uh going to say that um you could certainly see where um the the uh strong possibility would emerge that other neighbors would request or claim the
same privilege. Um however um uh the uh hardship um which is always um the standard that has to be met you know for us to to make a variance uh has to be clear uh and and it should in fact be
distinct um and and it seems that in this particular case um first of all the garage is not conducive I mean I think I think It's it's clearly been demonstrated um in terms of in terms of
the width of the garage um uh that it is not accommodating uh to um most vehicles. There probably are some that could fit in there, but most vehicles could not fit in there. Um it is not an
alternative uh to expand the garage because uh it would require um an additional variance. Um uh and um uh while um there may be um uh the
possibility of doing additional construction uh to the rear of the property. uh it is it is the homeowner's argument um that there is insufficient uh space to accommodate that kind of thing. That's that's a that's an opinion
that's not uh a finding of of this zoning board. It's just it's just an opinion that has been stated, but it's part of the hardship case that you that you present. Um so, um
there have been a couple of suggestions. is one of them well uh conditions that have been suggested. One of them is that um uh uh if we were to approve this that the driveway um would be um no no
shorter than 24 ft. Um that that would be a condition that would be imposed as part of the approval. >> Um what is the what is the um how far off of the ground is the is the proposed window? at the bottom of the window and the top
of the window, please. >> So, the the sill is approximately 4T above grade and then the window itself is 4 foot six. >> The sill is 4T off the ground. >> Yes. >> And then the top of the window would be >> uh 8 foot six off the ground. So, it's a 4 foot six window.
Um, and in terms of the planting, I I know that you in terms of the pre the um the uh demonstrated uh I mean the the picture that you gave us, the drawing that you gave us, um it suggested planting that uh is is probably 4 feet
or or smaller or shorter. Is that correct? Am I >> less than four feet? >> Less than four feet. So if we if we were to have a condition that limited uh uh that uh planting uh at four feet uh you would be all right with that? >> Yeah, I we we have no interest in
blocking the sunlight to that room anyway. >> All right. So uh so we would have a condition that would uh limit uh vegetation at 4T. Uh and then uh there is also a I think a condition that we would want to um impose and that would be for the
curb cut to be expanded um so that uh both vehicles would be able to exit directly uh without one cutting in front of the other um to exit or enter the the uh the property.
All right. Are there any other conditions that we would want to >> No, but I take it you're in favor of the application. >> Yes, that's my next statement. So, I'm I'm I'm going to support the application uh with those conditions. Uh and u
>> and those standard conditions that you also mentioned before. >> Yes, absolutely. Yes. Uh and so um yes, you have a question. Sorry. Um >> yes, please. And isn't there a standard um condition as well that all plantings
um are native? Yeah. Okay. >> Well, will include that the improvements comply with all code sections. We'll uh lay out engineering, landscaping, and
>> believe that's it. Yeah. >> All right. So, uh, would someone, uh, >> before we continue, I just wanted to be clear of of the findings, um, for why we're granting this, uh, this this vote. Um, I, I understand it's an undersized lot.
>> And the the lot, >> what I heard was it's an unusually small garage, which would not accommodate usualized vehicles. That's that's what I heard the primary hardship was. If I
could just suggest the the other hardship would be the available length of the driveway. It doesn't allow tandem. It's only 29 ft. Right. >> Um and then I would also just want to say that um >> you're getting rid of the garage. So that doesn't apply anymore, does it?
>> Even if it was garage, >> like if you get rid of the garage, what is what is camping versus side by side? What are the >> It wouldn't it wouldn't you'd still be parking in the front of the house regardless if it was >> That's true. Okay, I see what you're saying. Yes. >> Okay. No.
>> Um, and so then I just also wanted that, you know, parking in front of your house is not in character of the neighborhood on along College Avenue and that we're granting this because of the hardships that we found in this particular application.
>> Thank you. >> All right. All right. Um, with that said, uh, would someone, uh, move, uh, approval of this application with the conditions as set forth by the chair? >> So, moved. >> Is there a second?
>> All right, we'll have a roll call. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Enjoy
your >> Have a great night >> renovations and your driveway. >> Thank you. Take care. My wife will be very happy. >> Thank you. >> All the best. >> Okay. one. Our next application is application
2930, I'm sorry, 2944 for 24 William Street, Dimmitri Charles. Um this uh is for variances required to expand the existing is existing dwelling
with rear and vertical additions. The project includes widening and extending the existing rear portion of the house and reconfiguring the roof to accommodate a stepped back uh upper level. The overall building height will
increase from approximately 28 feet to 33 feet and the structure will be classified as three stories due to the width of the proposed dulmers. The property is in the R2 two family zone district and is designated on the
township tax maps as lot 28 in block 1511. Variances are requested from Monontlair code 347-51 to permit a three-story building where a maximum of 2.5 stories is permitted to
permit an easterly side yard setback of 3.27 ft where a minimum of 6 feet is required and to permit a front yard setback of 10.08 ft where a minimum of 25 ft is required.
A variance is also requested from Monontlair code 347-101 to permit two off streetet parking spaces where four are required. Notices were made to the public. Taxes are in our order.
>> Yes, both. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask both of you to identify yourself for the record, please? >> Sure. Aende Mats. I'm the architect. >> How do you spell your last name? M A T O S. Okay.
>> And I'm Charles the owner. >> Okay. And for the record, >> Zan of Gazmi, assistant planner. And I do. >> So everyone, everyone raise their right hand. Does everyone swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do.
>> Yes, I do. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Mr. Moss, would you uh share with us your credentials, please? >> Uh, absolutely. Um, good evening. My name is Ajende Mats. I um um I have a bachelor of architecture. I graduated from NGIT in 1996. So, I've been
practicing for about 29 years or so. Uh I'm a licensed architect in New York, uh New New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. I have given expert testimony in numerous boards, uh all over New Jersey, including Exus County. Uh I haven't had
the privilege to be on this board. This is my first time. I don't remember. >> Everyone's got a first time. >> Everybody has a first time. Uh but I definitely have been, you know, over uh in Bloomfield, Newark, Irvington, East Orange, etc. Um my all my licenses are
in good standing and um I'm a member of the American Institute of Architects >> and you accept him as an architectural expert. >> Yes, we do. Thank you. >> And for the record, there's no one in the public anymore. >> All right. You never know. >> That's true. >> Maybe that guy will come. >> So, uh Mr. MTOS, will you be making the
initial presentation? >> Yes. >> You're most welcome. >> Okay. How do you spell your first name? I'm sorry. >> A L L E N D S and David E. Uh it's on the title on the title of the drawings. Um >> my office has prepared uh the the
drawings you have in front of you. Uh it consists of um five sheets T001 uh D100, A100, A101, and A102. Um, as it's been said, we're seeking um
uh variances for uh front yard um uh side yard and um uh two and a half story conversion to a three-story and uh uh parking. Um the existing structure is a um two
and a half story, two family dwelling with a driveway um and and a rear yard. It is um the structure is located uh on the easterly side of of uh of the property approximately on the back 3.27
ft and on the front 3.26 ft from the property line. Uh it has the driveway on the other side and we have 10.14 uh feet from the property line. The existing uh lot is on average 119 and a
half ft. 120.97 on one side and 119 on uh no 119.32 on the other side on the easterly side. And uh the house is uh situated uh forward on the on the lot um
and it is approximately 8.28 ft from the property line in the front. So um these conditions uh the the of the site being 30 feet wide and approximately 118 19 and 1/2 ft deep creates um some problems
for what we are trying to achieve. Uh we are trying to uh do a dormer on the third or on the attic but we have exceeded that because we uh it would not fit the program uh that we're trying to
achieve and we added a a u a rear yard um addition um and that is conforming um so I would like to um focus on the next sheet which
is D 100. It has it's a a demolition plan but it shows what the existing conditions of the of the houses of of the two family dwelling. Uh the first detail number one um on the
left side of of the sheet shows a the existing basement is a very small basement um approximately five and a half to six feet tall. It's barely a basement. Um, so we are conditioning that space to allow for
occupation. Um, the detail number two, which is the first floor, it's a uh one bedroomedroom um apartment and uh the bedroom is literally 7 and 1/2 ft wide. So the the
the whole design and the the whole space is really um inadequate. Uh the the house um it's very small and so we're expanding it for this reason. The the other detail on number three, the floor plan, it's a it's also a one-bedroom and
uh it's it's a very similar layout um and also inadequate. So what we are proposing is on sheet A 100 and if we focus on the first detail it shows the basement we are conditioning the basement putting a bathroom in a mechanical room and an
exercise room um uh where where the expansion is. uh I show uh with the marker existing house and new addition to so you can differentiate and see where the the the volume is being added
to the back of the property. Um on detail number two is our uh first floor uh apartment and what we've done is we have two two doors on the front porch as
it is exists right now actually. Um, but what we've done is we created an open plan with a kitchen and living room area. And then we've uh placed a common bathroom uh with a stackable washer and dryer closet and two bedrooms in the
back and a small mechanical for the HVAC unit. Um, this allows us to provide adequate bedroom sizes. The the the width of the property inside is about um 14 1/2 ft. So, we're utilizing uh trying
to utilize the the space as best as we can to provide adequate bedrooms, bedroom sizes. Um, in as you uh go up to the second floor, there's the the door to the left of the porch. You go up to the second uh floor level where we have
the apartment where uh my client um uh Mr. Charles would like to reside. Um and so this um apartment um it's connected to the third floor or attic with the dormer. Um and we have we
come up the stairs and we end up in the middle of the space with an open kitchen, small kitchen living area and we have two bedrooms at each end of of that floor with a common bathroom. There's another set of stairs that takes you up uh to the next sheet which is
A101. And this is where we're seeking the third floor uh variance because we don't we don't have enough space with with the 50% um dormer
dormal width. So we are um providing a similar layout to the floor below, a little bit smaller. a bedroom in the back and a bedroom in the front with a recreation area and a bathroom. Um, my client has three little kids and so
this is how we set up the space um so that it could it could be utilized um more efficiently. Um, and this is why we're here seeking uh the variances that that we've listed. Um on the next sheet A102
are the elevation uh front, east, west and south elevation. The front elevation uh we try to maintain um as much as we can the the aesthetic of what's there.
Now we have pushed the dormer back five feet. So, even though this is a flat two-dimensional drawing, what's on top, what we're adding is actually set back um approximately 5 ft from the original uh ridge and roof of of of the
structure. Um the other thing that we are planning to do, I actually we discussed this with uh Mr. Charles, is that we're planning to use Hardy Plank. One of the comments that was made by the historic commission uh was to to use uh materials that were more appealing and
durable and we were planning to do that. So I uh I made a mistake and put vinyl lab sighting. We we were always had the intention to use um the the harding plank material if you will. There's many other manufacturers but that's that is
uh one of the most common ones. Um, and as you can see the side elevations, uh, just to be able to fit the number of bedrooms that that we require, uh, for a larger family, we had to stretch the
dormer, uh, forward and and backwards. And so that's what how we ended up here. We in fact produced construction documents uh, that did not require any variances. know once my client realized that it was it wasn't enough space. It's
just first of all he's 6'6 and there is not enough space in the attic to to have a viable attic the way it was now. You can barely walk. In fact, it wasn't a habitable attic uh to begin with. So, so we decided let's do the right thing. Let's get a a beautiful
symmetrical facade and and um you know go for a variance and uh hopefully we we are able to to uh convince you that this is something that will be acceptable to you. Um and essentially that's why we're here. Um that we we we feel that the lot
is uh narrow. It's that the narrowness of the lot is the hardship that we have. And in addition to that, the way that the um dwelling is situated on the site, it's it makes it even more difficult. It allows for a driveway, which is very
nice. Uh even though the neighbor's property is encroaching about 2 feet into our property, however, uh it does allow for that driveway to be able to park in the back, but it it creates other hardship, which is that three-foot setback on on on the easterly
side. Um so essentially that's what we are presenting here uh to you and and I'm open for questions. >> Um yes briefly. Um my name is Mr. Charles. Um
I have a blended family. So um Mr. Linda might have forgotten my um my teammates. He's in school. So, it's a family of six. I have a 19-year-old who's about 63. I myself is about 6'4, 65. My wife is
5'10. And um and I have my seven-year-old projected to be taller than me. And I have a four-year-old and a three-year-old. And I have my wife is also with child. So, we have a fourth one on the way. So, um the current the initial design wasn't feasible for what
we were trying to do. um trying to take uh it was it was an opportunity for us to move into Montlair and it was a best situation economically to make it work. Um also we want to take advantage of
Montlair's uh school system, the quality of life and all the other good things about Montlair. Well, I'm hoping that they're considering allowing the variance. So, those are hardships. I mean, one of them is because the height of the family going
to be a big family and not small people. So, >> Mr. Cfield, >> and also um >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Like to also say I'm not trying to um dismiss the integrity of the area. we consider that but to make it more
habitable um this will work for us also I just wanted to add that >> what is what is >> um um because I I when we purchased we didn't realize it was in the historic uh section so I know we had all these
grander plans and then we found out that we have to you know present to the board and hope that they approve what we're asking to do >> so so so what I'm I'm not trying to dismiss the integrity of what the historic society is. Like we understand
what it is. It's just at the time it was built built for, you know, simpler life. Um, possibly people of smaller stature. So, >> how how long have you been in the house? >> Um, since January. >> Oh, so
>> in I haven't really I haven't actually moved in yet, but you know. >> And so you >> been working on this. >> Okay. And so you're what what you're saying to us is you purchased the house thinking that you were going to expand the house. >> Yes.
>> Is that that's I just want to be clear in terms of what your >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Cfield. >> Thank you. Um for the architect, uh on the block, are there any houses like this like the threetory that you are
going to present? any of these houses have that? >> There are houses nearby. I'm not sure if it's on the same um same uh side of the street, but there are houses that are uh that have been expanded with dormer and
look very modern. And in fact, my client sent me a few pictures of houses near the area that um that are that do have uh it's a thirst story. considered they look like dormers as as we are trying to do. Uh they look like dormers but
they're considered a third story because they have exceeded the the the ordinance of the 50%. >> I mean just taking a a quick kind of review of the the block uh when when the client was talking um I I don't see any
giant three-story buildings in that location. So this to me this is like the first in that in in that location. There there is a three family across the street and there's also um >> and there's this is not a giant house by
any stretch of the imagination. I want to make that clear. This is a small house. Um a very small house and in terms of height uh the allowed height is 35 ft. We are at 33 feet. So we're 2 feet under the
allowable height. We're here for a barren of a definition of a third story. That's why we're here. Um, and because we encroach into the setback. So, this is not a giant's house by any stretch of the imagination. But I wanted to give
you an address. 23 uh 21 and 25 New Street um nearby are houses that are very similar um in ter in terms of the dormers. Uh, and they they're built. They're brand new.
>> Yeah, cuz I think we we allowed those to happen and kind of regretted it in some sense. Um, you're not concerned with the 8ft threshold of the building that's encroaching onto us, the neighbor, to having access with the with the cars
going back and forth. I mean, that house, the neighbor's house encroaches on her property by two feet. today. Right now, cars can get by because the building's not being built out that far. But when we build, if you build this building, it's going to be a tight little location to get cars back there.
That's not a concern at all. >> Um, yes, it is a concern. Um, the, you know, they do have a wood fence. I mean, they would not be kids running onto uh my client's property. Uh there is uh an
existing porch right now. The the condition exists. We're not making it worse. Uh >> the only thing that you're going to do is you're bumping your your building out. So today, if I went up that property, I could go in. I mean, the staircase does come out there, but it looks like I can go in.
>> That's what I'm trying to say. You you where that choke point happens, it's already a difficult condition. I don't think we are making it worse. We are making it a wall instead of a a built structure landing and steps. So, uh it
is perhaps a bit better. Um but it doesn't it doesn't um I don't think it makes it any worse. Uh um it's it's it's very close to the to the corner there. Um now they're encroaching onto our property. That's
that's a hardship to begin with. Yeah. We can, you know, I don't know if there's a a legal way to make them remove that. >> I don't think so. >> No, >> not in front of this board, but >> yeah. >> So, is it's a hardship. It's a hardship
for us, but um but right now it is being utilized away. It's an existing two family. >> Okay. >> The backyard um is a combination. It's not a full all macadam backyard. Correct. There is today if I go there, there is a grassy backyard. Right. So
today we're going to propose and completely 100% impervious in this location. >> We would try not to uh the the the side of of uh where the 3 foot the 3.27 sar is we would not uh madam any of that all
the way up to the to the last parking space. So there there would be some uh greenery there. Um we would not go for 100% um impervious coverage. >> Okay. Thank you so much.
>> You're welcome. >> Uh just two quick questions. So from the plan, it shows that you would plan on parking cars all the way in the in the rear. That's correct. >> Yes. >> Um do you have like a sedan or an SUV? >> SUV.
>> Okay. Cuz I was just doing a quick little measurement. Eight like eight feet for for an SUV to squeeze through 8 feet. That's >> I've tried it. Um, I had to put in one of the mirrors. >> Okay. >> Close it. And it was able to I was able to get by. >> Okay.
>> I had to remove some trash and debris, so I had to back it up. >> So I was >> So you're not concerned about the the tightness of the of the 8 ft. >> No, I mean I am, but um
I'm not concerned. >> Okay. >> Really concerned. >> All right. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't mean to. Not not saying I'm not concerned about open >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, I I I I understand. Um and then I guess uh >> Yeah. So for 33 ft I mean I know where
William Street is. I'm I'm familiar a little bit with the neighborhood, but I mean again in terms of the height compared to like the neighboring houses, what what would your what's your what are your comments on that? >> You're asking me? >> Yes. >> Oh. Um okay. So So there are um other
structures that are taller. Um the obviously the the structure to the east side is smaller than than our uh our uh house. Um I am I I don't believe this is
going to look out of proportion. Um again the house is is very small. We're setting back five feet from the from the ridge that's there right now. Mhm. >> Um and what we've done is um
we've minimized >> if you see the the um the gutter where the fascia is. >> We've uh the highest point there is 7 ft from from the ridge uh from the uh fascia below. So, uh, we're not, uh,
making it square, boxy. We're we're trying to keep enough pitch that would, you know, would not make it look, um, so massive. Um, so I think because the house is small to begin with, I I don't think this is going to um seem u
oversized. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Mr. more. >> So, with your design, um, right now the So, there would be a
bump out into the driveway, correct? >> Um, no, not >> there's no expansion. >> No, we are uh extending to the rear of the rear. So, so we're keeping the the the side of the driveway
>> is going back straight. We're not we're not bumping it out. What's what's happening is that the neighbor >> has it's encroaching into our property with a bump out, but our our property staying straight. Our addition staying straight back. >> Okay. >> Um there is
>> So this improvement this improvement that you're proposing >> does not expand into it. It does not expand into your driveway. No. >> For additional space. >> It does not. It does not further up.
does encroach on the other side. Yes. >> On the other side >> on the on the three foot >> on the third story. >> Right. Correct. >> Okay. >> There we are asking for that barrier. >> Okay. >> And that is the one side the easterly side. It requires 6 ft.
>> The house is located at 3.27. >> Mhm. >> So we're just taking that wall up at that same height. So we are creating uh a a variance there on that side. So that uh but on the driveway side we are not
um encroaching into that driveway at all. >> But you're seeking a sideyard variance >> for the for the opposite of the driveway >> because legally you go up even if you stay with the existing >> Right. Right. Right. The air rates. Yeah. Exactly. Okay.
>> There's other municipalities that allow it but not all of many others don't like like this one. There's other municipalities where if you stay within the footprint of the building, you can go up and would not trigger a variance, but that those are that's the exception. There's a few municipalities in New Jersey that allow that. Most of them
have if it's set up the way you do, which is if you're building anything new into a non-conforming uh you know, setback, then that you would have to seek a variance for that. That's that's what we're doing here on the opposite side of of the driveway.
>> So the driveway, we're good. We're We're not encroaching on the driveway at all. We're We're not seeking a variance for that. >> A variance for a two off streetet parking as opposed to four. Did I hear that correct? >> Right. For parking, not not for the driveway. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. For parking. Yes.
>> Is that because you have six bedrooms? >> It's um the residential site improvement standards require two for each unit and a multif family. >> Like this is a two family home. If it was a single family home, it wouldn't apply.
>> Yeah. But uh Okay. They have four bed. It's a six-bedroom house, right? >> Yeah. But it's more to do with the number of units than the bedrooms for uh more than a single family home. >> Right. Six bedroom. Correct. Two twobedroom one unit and fourbedroom the
other unit. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. G. Um looking at the proposed front elevation uh
there's a the existing say new ridge. So, the existing roof is getting raised and then there's a second roof that's taller and then there's a dormer off the second roof. >> So, um
>> this one this elevation. >> Yeah, that elevation. Yeah. So, what we're doing is um we're taking the existing roof right now would uh never pass inspection with the
building department because they use 2x6 um roof rafters and it's in really bad condition. Um so, we're rebuilding it to the existing. We're rebuilding that. Right. when you demo that roof. >> What he wants to know if you take a look
at section one on drawing A102. >> Yeah. Show three triangles basically. >> So which is the which is the original triangle. >> So okay. So yes. So the first one
>> the the 10.5 to 12 ratio. >> Yes. >> Is the original, >> right? And you're just rebuilding that in the same in the same >> in the same that it exists. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um the the other 17 to 12 peak it is
just an effect. What what it is is the fascia coming down only so that the addition that we're putting 5T back doesn't look as bulky. So this is just an effect that we wanted to. So the the the second
>> the second is not a roof. >> It's just a facial. >> It's just a facial that comes out of 1 foot6. >> It's a trim detail. >> It's a trim detail. Correct. >> Correct. And that is to allow for to to to allow for better um proportions cuz
if I take if you take those away, it looks boxy to me and to us. And that's why we >> Yeah. Now I understand it. The debate is in my mind is which would which looks worse. Um I'm not convinced
that the trim does the job, if you will. >> Okay. >> Um aesthetically, um you have three parking spaces in the back. There's only one site plan that I found. It has three parking spaces in
the back, yet you asked to only park two instead of four required. Why not three? >> Uh we well we are we have spaces for three parking. >> Yes. >> But um we can we don't we don't have in
order for each car to get in and out um independently. We are not able to put a fourth parking space. He wants to know the your notice said the requirements four you're requesting two but your detail one on over sheet T1 shows three.
So you're really asking for three where the requirement is four or two where the requirement is >> I would update that. I would update that if he said two. I didn't put it together um the the notice. Uh but I if he says two >> three is better. Three is better. So, we
would change that. We're proposing three. Okay, >> fair enough. Thank you. Um, >> I want to ask, you're a big man. I appreciate uh what you have to deal with, but from a much lower distance.
Um, did you think about trying to take the ground floor and part of the second floor for your home and do a do a two and a half and rent two half floors
>> as a scheme so that you'd have space with with the kind of ceilings you want? >> Um, didn't consider that. No, I didn't consider that. Creating a duplex is what you mean? >> No. Instead of having the rental
apartment on the first floor and his home in the second and third floor, >> have his home on the first and second floor and have the rental apartment on the third floor. Then you wouldn't have to blow it out so high, right? >> Yeah. Or you could >> the rental apartment could have could have a I don't know a bedroom or a
kitchen on the first floor and whatever. >> The attic is not is not >> second floor. Sorry. The attic is not habitable right now. >> The attic, existing attic of the house right now is not even habitable. Have to bump up. >> I'm saying that you could add on to the
house but still keep it within the requirements of a 2 and 1 half story home and make that half story on the on the third level uh the rental, not your space.
>> Okay. the attic right now, that half story is not habitable. You understand? >> I understand that. And I'm going to say it again. You can add on to it as long as you comply with the requirements to keep it a half story. It has to do with
with the amount of usable square footage that you put up there. It doesn't have anything to do with the height of it. >> Rebuild it. You wouldn't have to rebuild it as high. >> So, yes, I now I understand what you're saying. Okay. It would not be possible to have an apartment up there and meet
the requirement of to have uh you could have a bedroom. I we did it. In fact, we already have permits for this. >> Mhm. >> And that's when we realized that uh it was not be it would not be adequate. So the once Mr. Charles realized that you
can only have a bedroom up there >> and meet and and not require a variance, right? And not require a variance. um you you then that's when we realize okay we have to go for a variance because we want to get enough bedrooms for himself.
I don't think the first floor and second floor um and then having a tiny little uh apartment on top we would be here for the same reason. We will be seeking the same variances.
So you I I think this is a more viable um solution where you have an adequate uh two-bedroom apartment um on the first floor and then you have a four bedroomedroom, you know, twotory uh for
for a living space. Um you don't want people living above you. It's another reason why he didn't want people running above him. He'd rather be above running and have the apartment below. There's many reasons why we made this decision, but we uh
putting a an apartment on the third floor would be very small and and not I I don't think it would be feasible just because of the hardship we have of the size of this house. It's about it's 15t wide and um and and we're
encroaching into the setback. Of course, >> I hear you. I think the plans are very nice. I respect the intent, but I'm struggling with with if I can let you build a three-story house, why don't I let everybody else?
>> Well, it is technically, yes, a three-story house, but the intent is a larger dormer. This is what it is. >> No, it is not technically it is a three-story house. That's what we live by. That's what we do. Technically, the
rules are the rules. That's what I said. Technically, it is a three story. Yes, it is a three-story, but we are >> building it in a way that appears as a dormer house >> because we understand, you know, the the um the aesthetic of it and and the scale
of of of the house. Um so, we we understand it. Um that that's why we're here because we need your help. Um that's why we're here. >> Can I ask a couple? >> Yes. Go back to impervious coverage. So go to
your T1 your join data. >> Yeah. >> So the maximum permitted impervious cover is 55%. Right. Right now it says you're at 39.81%.
>> Right. >> That is the existing. Yeah. The proposed >> it says 43.06. >> No, that is incorrect. >> Yes sir. Uh, we would be approximately 95%. >> Okay. So, you need another >> Yeah. >> You need another barance. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. That's not in the notice. >> Nope. >> That's a problem. Um, >> that's number one. Number two, where do I see where's there a plan that shows? Right
now I look at the the picture that's attached to the planners report. I'm looking at figure four and you see the driveway coming in here. There's a lot of grass in the back. >> Yeah.
>> And the three cars look like they're parking on the grass. Unless I'm missing something. Is there some note saying that you're going to black top the entire backyard and get rid of the grass? Uh, no. There is not a note. >> Is that what you're going to do?
>> We're not going to do the entire We're doing We're doing probably about 95%. >> Where where can I see that on these plans? >> No, we don't have enough. >> It's another problem. I I don't I think that this thing's going to have to be continued and they're going to have to
renotice and they're going to have to to show that. >> Yeah, but I mean, I think they should figure out where we stand before they do all that work. I I'm Listen, I'm not saying cut it right now. I just I just I thought I was missing something and I'm not.
>> It's a good point. >> Do you have any more questions? >> I'm done. Thank you. >> I didn't mean to cut you off. Um there are, you know, uh a couple of things here. One one of them is that um
you you mentioned that the attic is is is rather small and and a question has been posed in terms of of expanding it uh sufficiently to uh keep the house
within the 2.5 story um range. And you know that that certainly does speak to the fact that they're well, let me let me let me come at it this way. Part of what you're it looks
like you're trying to accomplish is sufficient living space um as the homeowner, but then you're also wanting to have space uh in which you're you're renting space.
So, you're looking for income in addition to living in this space. That's sort of like the the vision for this property. So, there are lots of Well, let me put this there are there are there certainly are are houses in
Montlair that have studio apartments or the like on the third floor. um and some with kitchen facilities and some without. So so there there are you
know variables in terms of how uh people have attempted to sort of do the same thing of wanting to have sufficient space to accommodate the needs of their family and at the same time create an opportunity for additional revenue
um to offset the cost of the household. or whatever um their sort of goal is. So, you know, I put that out there to say that that's something that you may want to look at because then then what that does is it it it really does sort of
free up the possibility of of your primary residence being the first and second floors and then having uh maybe not a family, you know, but maybe having again an individual, you know, who's
living up in that space and so therefore helps to accomplish the very thing that you're sort of seeking to do. That's that's one thing. In terms of the in terms of the basement, what are you what are you thinking about that space? >> Um this uh recreation space for the
adult like like like my architect mission, the exercise room. >> So it will be expanded space from where from what it currently what currently exists now in terms of what you would consider to be usable basement space. I I saw that there was quite a bit of crawl space or whatever. Are you
>> Yeah, it's it's a very um we're actually stepping down uh from the original um basement >> because of the height. It it's very low. >> So, we we've made that basement
>> uh mainly uh a um mechanical room and a and a bathroom. And then the exercise area or recreation area it's a it's you know about 2 ft lower. >> Okay. >> Because it's such a low it's probably about 6 feet maybe 6'2 uh high the
existing attic uh the existing basement I'm sorry. So, we're dropping it off so that we can have adequate height. >> And And so, would that space if you were if you if if you were to go forward with the with the plans as you presented them, would that space be utilized by
the tenant on the first floor or is that space that would be utilized by the by the primary owner? >> Yeah, just the owner. Just myself and my family. >> Okay. And how would you access that without going through? Are we going through the rear >> outside and then down?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, you would not be going through the first floor in any form or fashion in order to >> No. Okay. Um Okay. One one of the questions that was raised, I think it was by the
Historic Preservation Commission, was that uh putting a third a full third floor on this house would overwhelm the neighborhood. I think that's the language that they
used. Uh can you ex can you share with with this board why that would not be the case? Well, yeah. I th those uh the five comments that they made um
you know, comment number two is the one that says literally the proposed roof addition would destroy character defining features. Um I um and I would say it would it wouldn't do that because we're we're
keeping the front of the the facade. it. We're keeping that and we're setting back five feet from it. Um, so I perhaps um when they were looking at the elevation, they thought it was the the
the dormer was coming all the way. >> Which comment did the elevation come in? >> Huh? >> Which comment are you talking about? >> Number two. >> Number two. Number one, and number three. We don't we don't agree with those three comments. >> Number two, >> but number two. Yeah.
That's not talking about the elevation. >> Are you looking at the same report? You might be looking at different things. Do you have the uh memo from the HPC? That's right there. >> Oh, no. I haven't looked at this. I haven't seen this. No, I don't. >> Ah, you were looking at the comments in the planner memo,
>> right? >> Okay. >> No, this is project review Montlair Historic Preservation Commission. >> Paragraph a minute or two. If you could just leave that. Yeah. >> Paragraph one. >> Yeah. >> Speaks. >> That's what the chairman's asking about. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Which specifically >> paragraph one >> number one >> the last sentence >> the commission Okay. The uh commission determined that the threetory high would would open the context and negatively impact the streetscape. >> Yeah. I don't agree with that. I I think
the the elevation perhaps a 3D rendering would have helped um you know shown that that we are set back five feet. from from that facade. Um so I don't think it would um you know I don't think it would be
detrimental to the facade. Um again um the uh we are changing the exterior sighting. Um everything is going to be new. We are >> look at number seven you >> number seven. But he's asking
>> Yeah. I I I think it's you know stay with this with with this comment. Yeah. >> Uh, first because you know uh I mean William Street I mean it's first of all I think you can when you go on to William Street you can immediately
realize that there is a historic character to that neighborhood. It is it's a unique neighborhood, you know. I mean that's that's Congratulations. You you bought in a unique neighborhood. Okay. >> In an old old unique neighborhood. And then at the same time, I'm sorry, you
know, okay, but but you know, I mean, it's it's so so there you can you can see that it was it was a neighborhood that was designed um
really for a very intentional purpose. Okay. Um and and literally all of the houses on the street sort of conform to that sort of concept. So it's it's not a big street. It's not
a wide street. It's not a it's not a long street. It's a short street really. Uh but but it's a it's a unique street. Uh and probably a lot of people in town don't even know it exists. Okay. Because it's not a it's not a it's not a major
thoroughare. Okay. Um, but to none of the houses on that street in my recollection are threestory houses. Okay. >> There's one across the street. There's a there's a three-story house across the
street along with the commercial residential building that's about three stories high. >> Okay. So, it's not uncommon. It's just maybe not as many as the other stresses surrounding. to to to the chairman's
point though. I guess what we're struggling with because it's it's I think aesthetically it's wonderful. Certainly would be an improvement to what's existing. Um I think it would you would have a much easier time if that if
the height is consistent with the with the community with the block. So um so that there is um right similarity which is important to us um the aesthetics and
the upgrades and all that that we want that it's great it'll add value but the height will stand out and so we're taking into account the height and size of your family certainly right
>> and wrestling with that And also to our colleagues point mentioning if you were to possibly swap in terms of the residence right if you'd be on the first and second floor as opposed to the other. So I think so
what we're looking at is the compatibility across the board once there's an upgrade to this site that it's not towering over the others because I I looked at some comparable properties. I know what you're referring
to across the street that mixeduse or commercial kind of box building, right? It's a little bit higher than yours but not much. >> Right. Then your neighboring properties are all the they're the same height. Yes, there's a threestory one adjacent
to you, but it's still at the same height as your roof. >> Not even quite the same height. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Right. So I I there's a lot of opportunity in the property that you have to and of course our chairman will
uh pro let you know but probably think for you to think about how to make some modifications and come back to us. uh because there's a lot of opportunity so that it can work for your family and
plans because of course we certainly want that to happen. Um just may need to be some more modifications and fortunately you you do have a basement. From what I looked at it looks
somewhat somewhat as like a crawl space. Um of course you'll have to look at what is allowed with code. you know, if it's in a historic preservation area and what can be done, but there may be opportunity instead of digging lower somewhat
utilizing that so that on the for the first floor so that it can meet the height of you and your family in a comfortable way and and and it'll enhance the inside of the of the of the
space actually. Um, and this way you're not from the third floor or so going higher than that. Something to consider. >> Your your plan is is I mean you're
essentially going to gut >> this building, right? >> Yeah. So I mean that again that gives you sort of a unique opportunity to to envision uh how this how this property
and you I mean you've done it already obviously you have a plan. So, um, but, um, I think given the opportunity to be before this board, um, uh,
you're hearing a variety of of thoughts about how you could approach this project perhaps a little bit differently. doesn't have to be dramatically different, but perhaps some ways that you could do it differently that given the goals of what you're wanting
to accomplish in this property. um um that you would be able to do that without without triggering a lot of variances and without um uh uh in a sense really sort of challenging
the historical character of of the neighborhood in which you've you've made a decision to live for the long term because you're I mean as you have presented yourself if you you said it's a house that you want to live in but it's also a house that you hope that
your children will want to so so you're thinking of of of it in terms of legacy. That's that's a good thought and and and I hope that you can hear that this zoning board is also thinking legacy.
Um, so we're looking at the legacy of what this neighborhood is and how do you continue to maintain that? Understanding, you know, that that what were the needs of people when this neighborhood was first developed? Of
course, they're different. Lifestyles are very, very different um now. And I think even even there was an intent as we understand from the historical preservation commission there was an intent to have a railroad running in into that area. So there was I mean so
the whole ethos of the neighborhood was very very different from what exists today. But how do we maintain sort of the historical legacy of this neighborhood in a way um that continues to build pride and increases value? Um
and and um so um you I think um you have a you have a a an opportunity here. I'm going to sort of give you a chance to take a pause. So, we could we can you could choose to
continue to continue this hearing at this point. Um, and then and then we ultimately take a vote. Or you could choose to say,
I'd like to go back and rethink this a little bit and come back to the zoning board. Um, and maybe you come back with the exact same thing. Okay? or you come back with some modifications that you think um so you you have an opportunity.
>> Okay. I I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Are you allowed to take a vote even though the >> So, yeah. >> Right. So we we cannot take a vote anyways today, >> but it it's definitely really good to to
to hear your your thoughts and your good suggestions and and we have to go back and um figure out how we can make that work. >> Yeah, we would like to continue and if if we if you this we would like to adjourn, right? And then
>> and you're going to renoted >> and we would we would make a decision on that. We were going to go back and rethink this whole thing because there's a lot. There's move downstairs, go upstairs, duplex this, big, small. We're only going up five feet. But >> yeah, >> it it just
>> all of these reports, by the way, we're not these are not historic districts. This our recommendation. >> We're not in a historic district, are we? Just for my own notification. >> You're in a potential your um property is a potential historic resource. So,
it's not at the full elevation of a local district or property where any exterior change would be um required to be approved by the commission, historic preservation commission. But um you are a resource. So, anytime you come for a hearing before the zoning board or the
planning board, the historic preservation commission has an advisory review. >> Okay. But it's not binding. Is it binding? >> It's not binding until >> recommendation to the BOA, >> right? >> The BOA they agree with the recommendation,
>> right? But it's it's not it's it's not binding. >> Approval. >> We don't need their approval. Okay. But but but obviously but obviously you you take it very seriously. >> Um >> all night. >> No, I we understand that. We we were
here the whole time. Um Okay. Very good. We'll like to adjourn. Um, and then make a decision. >> I I want to give my two cents before you adjourn. So when you come back, you're not surprised when you hear what I have
to say. >> Good. >> I can't bring myself to approve a threestory building here. Doesn't make sense to me. I appreciate that you want to make a larger house. I suggest you look seriously at 2 and 1/2 and possibly
extending out further towards the parking in order to make it bigger. And the basement's going to cost a lot of money cuz if you're going down 2 feet, you're probably undermining the foundations. And I'm like, I don't understand. You know, >> the addition is going out two feet, not
the existing underpinning. We would have to underpin the exist. But I I understand. I understand. >> Yeah. I But I'd save the money on the basement and spend it on floors one and two or one, two, and two and a half in order to get the space that you need and want is my suggestion to you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. also if I may. Um yeah, so uh and then again just to bring up the like the driveway again um since with with the 8 ft. So I know that like a typical parking stall is like 9 ft and
like in a place like Newark you're allowed an 8ft stall but those are us reserved for specifically compact cars. My concern and and this wouldn't be like a binding thing but just like just having 8t wide at some point either someone's going to hit the house or someone's going to hit the neighbor's
house. I understand that that's not your um uh that that's situation to be dealt with at a later time, but just just in terms of like that genuine concern, I'm not sure that 8 feet is reasonably wide enough for for a vehicle of that size. >> Yeah, I measured it. It's actually 10
and 1/2 ft when I measure it from what we're going to currently build to the encroachment. >> Okay. I was going off of the the >> but but the encroachment is 2 feet. Yeah. No, the encroachment is 2 feet. That it's it's about a little bit overt.
It's a little bit over 8t. So it's at this choke point that he's >> Yeah. Yeah. just this especially with if people are going to be backing out. And then also too, if um the um the uh if you're going to pave the whole rear yard, I would perhaps look for a
creative way to perhaps reduce paving the entire backyard as well as you'll have to provide some type of like a dry well or like storm water system in the back. And so finding a creative solution in that way can certainly help the application. Lastly, I'd also say if you
took some time to maybe like actually get some like roofidge heights of some of the neighboring uh neighboring houses, maybe you can find something uh material in there as well. >> Yeah, I think those are good suggestions. Thank you.
this issue. >> What do you have in terms of dates? But whatever you're going to have to renotice, the notice obviously got to be 10 days before the hearing and revised plans to be at least 10 days before. >> So do the notices again. >> Yeah. Yes. You do.
>> Yeah. >> So the next um hearing date that is scheduled for the year is December 17th, 2025. Uh we have not yet scheduled or approved our uh 2026 dates, but um
>> so why don't you why don't you say it's going to be scheduled for December 17, but you got to renotice and if you don't get the notice in or the plans in, then you're going to have to get another date. But it's not even they don't have to continue it on the record with no further notice because you have to have
further notice. But I think you just tell them the first possible date is December 17. I don't know if that's enough time for you or not. Yes, let the >> let the office know. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll have a conversation. >> Yeah. >> When is the time for the board to decide
the application expired? When were these things complete? >> Um, I'll have to check honestly. Um, it is in February, February 17th. >> Okay. So, you get enough time to
All right. >> Anything else? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Somewhere in the middle. >> Yeah.
>> Was not expecting that. >> Yeah. tough applications. >> I don't even know how to hand it.