called statute satisfied certified [Applause] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. [Music] >> Mr. Goldberg >> here. >> Mr. Tractenburg >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here. >> Mr. Schustster >> here. >> Mr. Benois >> here. >> Mr. Kramer >> here. >> Miss Siven >> here. >> Miss Polara
>> here. >> Mr. Woodford >> here. >> Mr. Roler >> here. >> Mr. Voch and I Sonia Santiago here. >> Okay. First matter on the agenda is approval of the minutes of uh May 19th, 2025.
Everybody read the minutes. Any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ben.
Okay. All in favor? >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Okay. Minutes are approved. Next, we have several res resolutions. The first being BA-10-25. Jason and Alina Burke.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is a memorializing resolution with respect to the application filed by Jason and Elena Burke with respect to uh their property at 43 Lord William Penn Drive who applied to the board for an
interpretation of our ordinance uh to determine if a variance was necessary for a pool cabana that they wish to construct. The board um had determined that since there was no potential living quarters in the cabana that a variance
was not required, although it was conditioned on the applicant filing a deed restriction, that in fact the cabana may not be used as living quarters and as such the um that application was uh so decided by the board. >> Okay. Thank you. Members of the board,
any questions about this resolution? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So Motion to approve. Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, Miss Santiago. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Polara. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yep. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Miss Simmons. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Woodford? >> Yes. >> So move. The uh second resolution is with respect
to the application filed by Alexander Rose for property at 46 Normandy Heights Road who applied to the board for variance relief relating to the construction of a 12x 20 shed. Um that application required that construction
would require uh variances for combined sideyard uh an accessory structure in the front yard and uh in order to maintain four accessory structures where only one is permitted for the reasons that are set forth in the resolution. That application was conditionally
granted with our standard conditions as well as conditions indicating that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall relocate the existing beehive uh to be no less than 15 ft from the front property line. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit to repair the existing gazebo to
the satisfaction of the potential engineering department. The permit for the repair of the gazebo and for the installation of the proposed shed may be obtained simultaneously and there shall be no utilities within the proposed shed. Okay. Board members, any questions?
If not, I'll entertain a resol uh a motion. >> I'll move that. >> Thank you, Mr. Benois. I have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, M. Santiago. >> Mr. Goldberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams?
>> Yes. Mr. Schusta, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Miss Simmons, >> yes. >> Mr. Wer, >> yes. >> So move. >> Okay. Next, moving on to the uh public hearings. Uh the first we're going to
take them slightly out of order. Uh do you have to make any announcement on the Dwire? We don't have to announce, but just in the event someone is in the audience with respect to the application filed by Edward Dwire at 17 Springbrook Road, that application is not going to be heard this evening. The applicant
will notice again or actually for the first time um for his hearing date, which will be November 24th. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh we're gonna uh bypass Mr. Ewing's
application for the moment and we're going to go to BA-13-25 Declan and Megan Barrett Burke Santiago. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> This is application BA13-25.
Declan and Megan Barrett Burke. This is block 8403 lot 88 8 Shepard Place in the RA15 zone for section Z. Applicant proposes an addition to the existing garage creating a front yard
setback of 38.1 ft on all turnpike road where 50 ft is required. >> Okay. Where are the witnesses? >> Excuse me. Can you turn on that microphone? Thank you. >> Okay. Yes. It was the light. Yeah. Right
there. It's good. Lights on. Okay. Would you both please stand, please? You sworn. Raise your right hand so you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. And for the record, would you each state
your full names, please? >> B. Megan. >> Thank you. >> It's all yours. >> All right. >> Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Um, so as you know, my name is Megan Burke and I'm here with my husband
Declan. Um, we're the owners of 8 Shepard Place, uh, which is located in the common station. We have lived there for 17 years now. Um, we have four children between the ages of 8 and 14. Um, and we're here
tonight to respectfully request that the board grant us a front yard setback variance from township ordinance section 9528 pursuant to NJSA 405D7. A little bit of background. Uh, Shepard
Place is located in the RA15 zone, which means that it is subject to a 50ard front yard. >> 50 foot >> 50 foot. Thank you. 50 foot front yard step back. Um, our house facing front view of the residence from Shepard
Place. I would >> just you know just for the record I'm gonna I have the originals that you provided to us so I'm going to mark that one as A1 made with today's date. >> Thank you. Yes. And I did give Sony a copy. >> Yes. Thank you for that. Yes. >> Okay. So using this as A1 that is the
front elevation or the front view of the existing residence. Um I would wag your guess that many of you have driven past the house on your way to or from the train. Um you're not far from the conf. Um, however, the house does sit on the corner of old turnpike road, which is a
sign characteristic of it. Um, if we go to the the next uh exhibit, which I'd ask that you marked A2, >> that would be A2. >> A2, you can see the side view of the residence from old term road. And just if we could mark this A3 to
further orient the board as to where we sit. It's a Shepard Place and you can see how it's situated at the corner of Old Turnpike and Shepard each of the elevations that we just saw. So, um,
last year, um, I'll come back to the to the aerial in a minute, but last year we enlisted the help of an architect, uh, to to help us figure out how we could, uh, enhance our house to make it work a bit better for our grow our growing family. They just keep getting bigger,
the kids, and to help create a little bit more space. Um so our goal in the renovation was to update the existing kitchen which dates back to 1963. Um and also see if we could add space for a pantry and a mudroom and a home office. Uh so after much consideration
which was um we face some structural challenges with the house and also um you know factoring in the economics of it um we decided that the best approach seemed to be to extend the garage uh towards on the right side of the house
towards old pipe. So I'm now going to ask if we could mark uh it up on this. Yeah, the the plans are part of our package. So, we don't have to mark those. We have those. >> So, I just refer to A3 in the plan. >> Yeah. Whatever page.
>> Yeah. It's just go by page number. >> So, the page three. >> So, it's drawing number A3, right? >> Drawing number A3. >> Y. Okay. >> So, we decided that would be the best um way um to to to proceed with the
addition um to on the right side of the house. So, a singlestory addition. Um, and from a zoning perspective, it seems rather ideal, too, since um it's going to be on existing driveway. Uh, so there'll be actually no no additional lot coverage created. So if I go back to
what we marked as exhibit two, you can see where the driveway area is there is that is where the plans are that if the variance is granted that the extension will go onto right in that area right in
front of where the existing garage is. So we're simply pushing the garage out further onto the driveway portion. Um but because of the corner lot situation as I've described um we are faced with a 50 foot 50 yards >> 50 foot
>> 50 foot setback um requirement under the zoting ordinance on that side of the house. Um and so our planned expansion um would force us to encroach into the 50ard setback a total of 11.9 feet. I don't know why I
keep saying it wrong way. Yes. but it would force us to go into the 50th setback 11.9 ft. Um, and so we are asking permission to create a new setback of 38.1 ft where 50 ft is required. >> So you're on the corner there. That's
correct. >> You're on the corner >> and across old turnpike is the uh train tracks. Correct. >> Cross old turnpike is the train track. >> So the only person that could possibly be affected by this expansion is the person behind you. >> That's right. And you have uh screening
there. There's bushes along that uh property. >> All of the screening that you will see if you if you from if we go back to this exhibit, we have planted and carefully carefully grown over the 17 years that we have lived there and none of it will
be touched with this extension. So in fact, we'll probably be further enhanced. Um, yes, and we have uh slipped to all of our neighbors, particularly the ones that live directly behind us, which is 50 Old Turnpike here. Um, and uh I can't speak for them,
but um I can say that of course them being here speaks volumes and I could say they're very excited about the process. >> Board members, any questions? your yours is the house that has um you
put a thing out in the road to to slow people down and a hockey goal. Yes, >> we do. We have hockey goals, lacrosse goals, soccer goals. >> I'm trying to trying to set it in my mind. >> Depends on the season. Yes, that's >> I'm just trying to set it in my mind. >> And we do. Yes, I have. Please slow down children. Yeah, that's the one here.
Yeah, we have a number of young children on >> I wear on bike quite often. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm sure you do. Um, and there's actually uh a plan of foot the town is trying to put a um a crosswalk across Old Turnpike from the corner of Shepard to to help with people like you
that are biking by. So, um we do feel like it's a unique u property condition due to the corner, but um yes, we we don't uh feel it would further impact the neighborhood. In fact, we believe it'll enhance the existing neighborhood. Like I said, our plan is to make sure
the one-story addition will match the uh it's actually was the plan is to match the existing house. The siding will match um the roof will match and that we will just continue to um with our with our trees that are there existing and potentially add more as far as the
landscaping goes. If I may, correct me if I'm wrong, the houses on your side of Old Turnpike, the the two or three blocks pretty much all face those interior streets. None of them actually front on Old Turnpike.
>> The only one that So 50 Old Turnpike does front on Old Turnpike. That's the only one. That's the one directly behind us, which you can see up on the map here. Yeah. And then as you go down to the bottom towards Punch Bowl, you may recall, I don't know, I think it was pre-COVID that they built the Brownstones. >> Yes.
>> And they actually don't have any setbacks. >> Yeah. >> Well, before CO, actually. >> Well, before CO. Yeah. >> Okay. Any other board members with questions? >> Not open up the professionals. Any questions? >> Uh, no question. Just noted that the
neighbors in the rear that is their sideyard, their garage side. They have less need for u recreational space that would be customary to all patio etc. Thank you. Any members of the public
with any questions? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion board members. Any discussion? To me, it's pretty much >> my comment about >> no no impact on anybody else actually benefit the neighborhood.
>> Uh, >> my comment, my question about there's nobody actually they're very there's only one house actually facing punch bowl. I mean, that's why I think corner lots are supposed to have >> right >> two front two front lot suspects, but these are really it's really just a
sideyard road. >> I know >> you understand what I'm saying. I'm making up my own word here, but >> yes, we I understand that. >> So, do I have a motion? >> I move we approve. >> Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Goldberg second.
>> Mr. Got a vote. Mr. Who? Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Okay, there we go. Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. >> Mr. Schust? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kramer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Wood? >> Yes. >> So much. >> So, I'll have a resolution for you at the next meeting and get going. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Much appreciated. >> I can give you that. >> Thank you.
Okay. >> Next application. >> Next application is BA-15-25. Uh Daniel Faulner. Yep. This is D8-15-25 Daniel Faulner, block 8101, lot 1029
Bennington Road in the RA15 zone for section C. Applicant propos the construction of a one-story addition creating a sideyard setback of 14.86 86 ft where 20 ft is required and a combined sideyard setback of 30.63 ft
where 50 ft is required. The applicant will also seek a variance for expansion of a non-conforming structure. >> Okay, Mr. >> Yes. Would you both please raise your right hands? You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. >> And for the record, you have both your names, please. Michael. Spell your last name. >> Ariel T. >> Daniel F. >> Thank you. Have a seat. Thank you.
>> Do I need to give credentials? >> Yes, please. Yeah. >> So, owner, architect, licensed architect, MR architecture. Uh, I've developed the plans for this application. and I've been admitted as an expert witness in front of this board back in 2022 for eight Crest View
Terrace Gerard application. U sit on the uh zoning board of adjustment for Chester Township as well. >> And licenses in good standing. >> Yes. >> Okay. We'll accept you as an architectural expert.
>> All right. So, we'll start off um briefly describing the proposed addition which is a new one-story structure towards the rear of the residence. Uh it's going to be it's it's been designed to uh expand the kitchen and family room um towards the rear of
the house. It's going to replace an existing sun room that's 140 ft. So the net increase of the addition is only 244 square ft. Um if you look at from the plan plan point of view, the the overall uh impact is 384 square ft um of new of
renewed renovated space. Um the reason why we we're proposing to take down the existing sun room is because it was constructed on a slap-on grade, not necessarily conducive for um uh for a kitchen expansion, plumbing, things like that, insulation. So So this will be
this will be a new addition in the back. It's going to maintain the existing left side setback. Um, it's going to expand out only 2.8 ft into the rear yard. Um, >> from the existing uh sunroof.
>> Yes. From the existing sunroof. Yep. Uh, and then majority of that addition is actually towards the the inner half of the property in the back. Um, we're keeping it at a onestory structure. It the roof is designed almost identical to the roof uh that you see right now in
the photos. um that were shared. So from an aesthetics point of view, it'll be very what was very little change in aesthetics uh beyond the fact that it it actually comes out about 2.8 ft um beyond the existing sun room.
We're requesting relief for obviously the exist expanding an existing non-conforming structure. Uh the sideyard setback for this addition is 14.86 ft. That's both existing and proposed. So again, there's no change to the left side setback required is 20 and
then the sideyard combined um existing proposed not changing as well. It's at 30.63 ft required is 50. So uh again really predominantly the the issue here is we're short on both left side setback
and combined setback which is really what's what's forcing us to request this relief. And that was there before you even thought about doing this extension. >> Well before. Yep. Well before. Um again, the massing of this addition is is going to be identical. So there really won't
be a detriment to the to the adjacent neighbor who who would be impacted the most. Uh like I said, I talked about the net increase only being 244 ft as well. So I think because of those things, um we're hoping to get relief for this
proposed project. And I'll turn it over to the homeowner just to explain a little bit about Just just as a matter of clarification, um >> the photos you submitted that got the wrong names of streets on there. >> Yeah, my my apology that you brought that to my attention before the meeting. So, it it might be a carryover from a
previous uh photo collage. >> So, uh going to the second page, it says um view from residents from Belmar Place. That's from the uh when you're facing the property, it's actually from the
left rear of the property, >> correct? Yeah, that's that's inaccurate. >> Okay. And the same for the second photo on that page. >> Yeah, they were all taken up from from Benton Road essentially. >> Okay. And then the other ones are from the front.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, they're all they're all page three is also from the rear of the property, correct? >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Rear. And we tried to get some photos from the left sideyard from the rear as well.
There's an existing retaining wall and some some trees and shrubbery um I believe along the existing lot line as well. So, it's it's all that will be retained. The the goal is to keep that existing retaining wall. This
this addition is going to come up within a couple of feet of that, but we plan on not undermining that retaining wall. Keep that as is. So, no additional work associated with that ex those existing conditions. >> Okay, great.
>> Just one second. Board members, any questions of the architect? >> No. >> No. No questions. Any members of the public with questions of the architect? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. We may proceed. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, so I am the
second owner of this house. We moved into this house almost 12 years ago and bought it from the original owner. Uh, and the reason why we're looking for this addition is two main reasons. One is, uh, expand the the existing structure to be able to host holidays.
My parents are getting older. My wife's parents are getting older. who live in the area. I have to wrestle Thanksgiving away for my mom who doesn't want to give it away and we're looking for a place to kind of continue that tradition. The second one is I spend a lot of time across the street at Guinty Field. I do a lot of coaching and youth sports. So,
my son, my son's friends, I I know the kids, they know me. We want to make our house the place where the kids feel comfortable hanging out and spending time at because we know when they're in the house, they're not out doing things that they're not supposed to be doing. So, uh, we're looking for to to make an
inviting an inviting house, uh, to make sure our kids want to be there because in the grand scheme of things, he's turning 12. It's only about six more years until he's he's gone off to college. We have another 5-year-old coming up behind that. So, um, those are the main reasons why we're looking to do
something like this. Yeah. >> Yeah. House does not actually have a family room as it it's it's got your prototypical walk-in left from the front door is your your small formal living room. And then we have the little kind of sun room den in the back.
So this this will essentially have a a formal family informal. >> Yeah. >> Board members, any questions? >> Any questions? Any comments? Any members
of the public with questions? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. Board members, any discussion? Ben, >> seems like a perfectly reasonable application and benefit the neighborhood. Doesn't object doesn't
obstruct any other areas. Um, I would vote in favor of this. >> Any other board members? >> No, I agree with Mr. Ben. I'll I'll second that motion. That was a motion. >> It wasn't a motion. >> It wasn't a motion. You're making a
motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> Yeah. >> You're seconding. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Santiago. >> Mr. Colbert. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Ben? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford? >> Yes. >> So move. Okay. Okay. And I'll have a resolution for you at the next meeting. >> Hey, Dan. Army.
>> We're going to do it this year. >> Shouldn't be hard. >> Go. Go. Army. I got to defend. >> Okay. Next application. >> Motion to journ. No wish. >> Wishful thinking.
>> No second. >> I hear some crickets up here. >> Come on up. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes, >> Mr. Brady. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
Next application. >> Okay. Next application is uh the EUING application which is number 17 >> BA17-23. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. David Brady Brady and Coral on behalf of the
applicant. Um last time we were here was way back in March. At that point, uh awarded her several evenings of testimony and and was close to voting at which time I requested the
board hold off on voting while we take one last look at this plan and I appreciate that the board uh allowed us to do that. Since then we've been trying to reschedu and there's very been various conflicts but uh the plan was
submitted uh back uh in the beginning of the summer. This plan changed the location of the new garage in the back of the property which was focused most but not all most of the
comments and concerns of the public I think frankly of the board. new plan has done kind of rejig that rear portion of the property. Um the veranda that was out there has been shrunk a little bit
and everything was slid over. So that garage is now compliant with the uh with the 20 foot set back on that side. So what we're left with now are three variances all of which relate
to the attached garage. Um first we have a combined sideyard variance. 50 ft is required, 33.22 ft is current and 29.44 ft is proposed. Then we have a single
sideyard variance. 20 ft is required. Current setback is 17.78 and we propose to go to 14. That's an expansion of the attached garage um to the left. The board may recall the
testimony about the difficulty of that garage in terms of geometry and in terms of it having no interior connection to the house. And then we have a front yard setback variance truly dimminimous variance. The front one corner of the uh
garage is 49.89 eight nine feet from the uh front yard and 50 feet is required. Um the addition to the garage to make the record complete not only goes a
little bit to the left by 3.78 ft but we are also adding a second story. No variance is required for the height of that story. Uh but because it is in the sideyard and I suppose that the minimus intrusion in the front yard and
we're going up with it that does require a variance. The the plans have been revised but they speak for themselves given all the testimony we had. I don't intend to go back over u the uh either the architectural plans or the
engineering plans. I do have Mr. Soia here who uh can I propose to have briefly describe what variances are left and then go through and reiterate a little bit for the board since it's been some time
since we've been here the planning considerations that apply to those variations. So unless the board has any questions after my intro, I'd ask that uh we proceed to Mr. Topia and and planning testimony. >> Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes. >> Question. Was there a TCC review on the revised plans? >> No. >> No, there was not. >> Okay. And it appears that um the elevations in the plans are missing
the sideyard elevations. Only has the front and rear. And should there have been a TCC review? I don't know. >> Generally with this board, we only have PCC meetings for use variances. We did have one on this application, however,
because the applicant requested one. >> Okay. But >> early on when they first filed, >> the last plan was not to show the side elevation. Side elevation doesn't change the same
>> as the previous one. Okay. >> Shows the rear and and the front. try to f the uh of the carriage house because that has
>> Okay, I got it. Thank you. All right, that's all I have to um show in. >> I'll do it again because it's been it's been a raise your right hand. You solemnly
swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. And again, use your name for the record. >> Michael Tobia, T O V I A, the applicant's planning consultant. >> Thank you. >> You've been accepted as a planning
expert in this case. Is your license still current? >> Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Um, so I thought we'd go through um I thought Miss Gerson had something to say. No, >> not right now. >> Okay. Sorry. Maybe. >> Um, we'll go through the changes. Uh,
like Mr. Brady said said it's very simple. It's only a few minutes of testimony. I think um we did hear some resistance from the board back in March about uh what we called A. I'm going to circle that on the U on the plan. These
plans dated May 29th of this year. By the way, May 29th on the site plan. Uh and a cover letter by Mr. Brady of May 5th. That's when all this went in. Uh this addition um throughout much of the case had required a sideyard setback
variance from the easterly property line which you all are seeing on the left side of the screen. It was proposed at 14.25 ft uh for a long time, 20 ft being the requirement, 14.25 being the
proposed condition. At the last hearing, uh, we heard resistance about that massing and how close it would be to Miss Sellers's property on the east. So, we decided to eliminate that variance in its entirety. That means this the uh,
addition A now being circled by my U pointer is now 20.1 ft from the sideline. Okay. The variance has been uh, eliminated. Importantly, this entire module which contained a garage on the
ground floor, a bedroom on the second floor, and a basement, a walkout basement down below, is exactly the same as it's been for all the hearings. The entire module was simply shifted westward to get that extra six feet or
so to eliminate the troublesome variance on the case. How'd that happen? Uh since the addition itself did not get any smaller, nor did the proposed dining room get any smaller, it was simply shifted westward and the
veranda on the westerly side of the property uh was made smaller. So we took all that space out of the veranda, which has been in a conforming location roughly since our second hearing probably a year and a half ago
now. uh we reduced that um to make room for addition. That eliminated the variance for the sideyard setback. The only variances now remaining um are one the front yard setback a dimminimous condition off of
Spring Brook Road which is 1.3 in short of the required 50 ft. Not 1.3 ft. Definitely not 1.3 yards. Okay. 1.3 in. But Mr. Roller pointed out a few meetings ago because it's being
expanded upward. Technically, it's a variance. We can't pick up and move that existing wall backward. That would be u um impractical and a hardship. We're asking for that variance to continue with the second floor going up. Okay.
Then, uh you'll recall, try and give you a little zoom here. We also had on our existing garage at the front of the house a proposed bumpout 3 feet 9 in show shown in boldface here to modernize and
widen the garage. Recall testimony a few meetings ago said the garage is kind of obsolete. It has 8ft garage doors. They're only 6 and 1/2 ft high. Our architect, Mr. Dorne, said no one's building that anymore. He wants
to widen it so we can have nine foot doors, which is state-of-the-art now, and seven feet clear for each of the two garage doors. It will remain a two bay garage. So that variance is 14 ft off the sideline. This is this this has not
changed since the beginning of the case with 20 ft requested. Uh note also that's always been a um a nonconformity with the existing condition being just under 18 feet off the sideline. So it's a bump out of 3.9
ft. We continue to request that sideyard setback variance. Uh the RA15 zone like a lot of residential zones in town has a combined sideyard requirement as well. In this zone it's 50 ft. Uh when you take our
proposed condition on the east side, combine it with our existing condition on the west side, you add those two together, we're asking for a sideyard setback variance when combined of 29.44 ft called 30 ft with 50 the requirement.
All those proofs have been put on the record for that uh addition in the front. One is modernization of a garage. Garage is simply not usable now for any kind of larger SUV. Uh it's not usable for any vehicle with any kind of height to it. Um the garage
as it's now built has a center column down the middle which makes it even more difficult to get in because you're pinched on the sides by walls and then the middle by center column. The benefits of this are modernization of a garage. The current standards as Mr. Dorne pointed out. We've also pointed
out the combined sideyard here uh right now doesn't comply with the 50 foot requirement. That house is 67 ft wide as it is. Um so the um addition in the context of what's on the site now is
a dimminimous one. I'm going to circle for you this garage bumpout. I measured it this afternoon. It's 78 square ft. Okay. The encroachment is 78 square feet. It's only 2% of the entire
building footprint of the whole property. Uh we call that a dimminimous request for the variance. Okay, it's really really minor. Um bearing in mind virtually the entire rest of the building envelope, the pool, the rear
garage, um and everything else proposed by this applicant is now compliant with the bulk requirements of RA15. We call the pools a permitted use, the house is a permitted use, the garage is a permitted use. Okay, so those are the variances. Um
we um are now at a with a case that's almost completely compliant with everything. We've rechecked building height. We've looked at height uh for the overall structure as well as for the addition in the back as well as for the
addition in the front. Every single point of measure speaks to a compliant level of height. In fact, uh the addition up front, which still needs variance, is only 23 feet high in a zone that permits 35.
So, we're short by six feet on our sideyard setback, but we compensate by making that building much lower than um what would be permitted in the zone. The overall building itself is 33 feet high. Even in the back, the addition
which is now fully compliant as to location is only 30 feet high. Okay. So, in every test of height across this property, we are below the permitted height. There is no control on number of stories in the RA15 zone. So,
we don't have to worry about counting stories. Um, so that's pretty much uh the case. At the LA at I think it was the last meeting I spoke at or maybe it was two meetings ago. Um, we uh put together a list of uh conditions
which I know I have here. >> Can I can I just ask a question? With the moving in of the carriage/poolhouse, is there any change to the architectural plan uh the um landscape plan? >> So yes, thank you for that. Um once we
moved uh Mr. Chairman that um um proposed addition A into 6 ft, we had more landscaping opportunities on the easterly side of the proposed addition. So five additional viburnum have been
added there. Testimony by Mr. Huff on the viburnum plant material months ago said uh they will grow to about 12t high. That's true. That's how high they get in my yard. We've added a bed of Pakasandra in that area also. And then
um every other plant on the whole site which was testified to at length by Mr. M. Duff is the same as it was on the old plan. >> That revi revision was submitted with revised landscape plan dated March 8th,
2024. And then um what what we put together um at the last meeting through testimony and Mr. Brady's been helping me out with this. Um we had a bunch of conditions uh to protect the neighborhood and soften the impact of this development on
neighbors. One was no overhead lighting on the pool. We agreed to that uh probably over a year ago. Uh no flood lights. um a railing on the staircase if it exceeds 30 in. That's code requirement. Pool
equipment um will be um housed within the the basement. That's on the plans there. Pool equipment was put inside the house to minimize noise. Won't be outside. Um we won't vent the pool equipment toward the neighbor. It
probably means we'll vent it due south on the site. Um, there will be no rental unit within the house. You all remember that. That basement level is for pool equipment, a sitting area, and a bathroom. Uh, and we'll stipulate to no
separate apartment. Uh, there's a typo on the plan. Been there a long time. Board members, on the west side of the existing office bumpout, circled on the, uh, exhibit now, um, are two AC units
that don't exist. just type of plan will be corrected to reflect that. Um >> actually my notes indicate something about a proper signature line. So whatever the board needs in that regard, we'll do that. >> Right. And then I think we um oh we
talked about this um the 18inch Norway maple on the easterly property line. It's actually on our neighbor's property. We have extended testimony on that saying we all wanted to save it. Mr. Euing wants to save it as much as the neighbor does. Uh we'll make every
effort to do that. If somehow that tree fails um within a two-year window, we will replace it with a 6 inch caliber replacement tree. It's pretty big uh pretty big plant material. Um but we're going to make every effort to save that
uh tree. We also said uh when Mr. Hansen was still here um as assistant township engineer. If we had to alter our small retaining walls along the easterly property line um we would run that by the engineer to make sure it's okay with
what we would do out in the field as a field change. I think as I recall during the last colloquy with the board indicated that if the board had a concern over the survivability of that maple tree due to the proximity of the smaller wall because there's a tiered
wall section there uh that we would be willing to go to a single wall to gain a little bit of distance. uh we would still have the two-year guarantee, but if the board felt that maybe that would be help the survivability, we could do
that. That might trigger a variance because the tier terracing right now avoids that variance, but we'd follow the board's direction on that. >> Do we know how high that would be? >> Well, the lower wall I know is three
feet and I'm looking for the upper wall. How high total do you would have? Well, the lower wall is three feet. Right now, the proposed upper wall is also 3 ft.
>> So, I assume that means you'd have a sixft single wall. Joe, you concur. We're speaking to the 18inch tree on the neighbor's property. Yes. On lot 55. >> Right.
>> Can you put your mic >> microphone on, please? >> Sorry. Y better. So like I was just trying to figure out you >> you know not to exceed what height
>> to exceed six >> right >> and how far along that wall would it be six feet and what before it bends back into the 3 plus three. >> You know what I mean? I think the wall
design would then modify because you're you're using the tiered walls to make up the six feet for what I'll call the both L's of the wall. Right. So the >> that western that easterly side as well
as to the the south um >> would seem to be >> no interest. >> Yeah. Essentially as they then intersect you would then transition down to the single wall.
>> Right. Okay. >> Right. >> The extent of the sixt wall will depend on the field conditions. >> Correct. Or the necessity of it to remain six feet at the driveway on the southern edge of the driveway instead of
tearing back down. Tear it. >> Yeah. Tear as much as possible. Yeah. Right. So essentially we'll be looking at removing the tar here for the projection of the tree and then tearing
at the north and south ends. >> Right. >> Right. >> Get that. >> Mhm. All right. Did you um have uh an opportunity to
review the landscape uh report from the uh expert hired by uh Mr. Mrs. Nent? I just wondering if we're talking about >> I Sonia sent it on to me. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It dealt with the nent side of
the property, right? Nothing that's proposed here changes on the nent side from what was proposed previously. So that's all been vetted, questioned, comments made. Uh and a report is not testimony is not admissible.
>> No, I I don't know if they had experts here or not. >> No. Well, our position would be on that that portion of the uh the plan has not changed. There's been full hearing, full vetting of that and airing of all the
issues and we would object to any additional report or testimony. >> All right. Um >> board members, any questions? >> Mr. Chairman, on on that point, we did discuss the plantings on that side of
the property before, right? That's all been done and all right. Okay. They're sort of going back to the issue. It's not like >> that's my point is that we've gone through that issue thoroughly previously and there's been no change that would
require additional questioning or testimony. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I just had a question. Sure. On the you referenced the pool equipment being in the basement of the pool house.
I don't recall a lot of applications where we hear where that equipment is going to be interior where there's actually I guess a bedroom also in the pool house. Is that correct? Is there living space in the pool house? >> There's no bedroom. >> There's no not on that level but inside the structure. >> Two floors up there. >> Two floors up.
>> Is there any? And you mentioned something about venting. Is there anything especially required for safety purposes because you have pool equipment inside the house where there's living? >> I think that Mr. Dorne said the venting was needed because it's going to be inside the house. Okay. And that will
all of course be checked by the building. >> And then you reference something about the venting to go away from the neighbor's house. Is that >> was noise related? So like I said, it's probably going southbound. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
Okay. Any other board members with questions? >> Yeah. So you did mention that uh that you would replant uh after two years if something happened on the east side. What about the west side?
>> Well, there was a condition that the landscaping plan itself would be maintained in perpetuity. The two years was just with respect to that Norway >> Norway maple. >> The Norway maple >> on the neighbor's property.
>> On the neighbor's property. Right. >> So that's a question. So if that were to die inside of two years and you're saying you'll plant a six caliber tree, >> Mr. Kramer, I think was because that retaining wall was a few feet or maybe a
few inches. Hard to tell exactly where the trunk is and the roots are and the property. >> Okay. >> We don't have that on the other side. We have retaining. But if you were to replace that, let's say that tree died, you're going to
replace it with a 6-in tree on the applicant's property. >> On the applicant's property, >> right? >> Right. They wouldn't have the right to go on someone else's property. >> I agree. Understand? >> Any other board >> in the approximate location is now I assume, >> right?
>> Somebody want to move it a little further away from the property line. >> Any other board members with questions? Council, any questions? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, uh, for the record, John
Erson Shank Price representing uh, Maggie Sellers, the uh, the neighbor. Um, I'm as aware as all you folks are that this is our seventh hearing. So, I'm going to try not to belabor certain points, but um I'm a little surprised at
how quickly the uh applicant moved through the testimony tonight. And I didn't I was going to stand up and object, but again, I want to move it along. that the planner just testified as to measurements of building height and and really your engineer is here and this
issue needs to be addressed once and for all. Um the planner should not be allowed to testify with respect to this property being in conformance with building heights. Um he's not an engineer. Uh your planner >> defers and that's a fair point, right? And I mean, one expert can rely on
another expert's report and he's saying what's on the plan, but I think deferring that to the board engineer is appropriate. That's all do that. Yes. >> Yep. Right now, as good as any problem.
>> So the and for the record, as Mr. Waller indicated, Mr. told me they were simply taking the information off of uh Miss Mueller's engineering. >> That's what's on the plan. >> Yeah. But but he did he did say that it was measured each and every way and he was emphasizing the point. He's a good
witness. I just want the engineer to testify to engineering. >> Fair question and and I think the board engineer can respond to that. >> U so I'll refer the board to uh drawing two of two lot development plans.
uh last revised 52925 from Muller Engineering. In the top right, we have a building height detail that also includes calculations below it. Um as well as in the zoning table,
we have both a max building height from average grade within 20 ft and then below that max building height from lowest grade at building. So our our zone has a required 35 ft height
uh which is calculated by our building height definition from average grade within 20 ft. That average grade is calculated on the plan in the first calculation you see to the right side. Average final grade 21 average grades
taken within the distance of the 20 ft from the radius of the structure. um summarizing out to an elevation of 91.79. Um then that proposed building height calculation is taken from the highest
ridge of the structure that that portion of the structure being the twotory dwelling at 25.16 and their resultant calculation at 33.4 4T
below the 35 ft requirement. Uh we also have a secondary calculation in our code defined for um consideration of topographic change in the property and that being the build max building height
from the lowest grade at the building. Um that accounts for the 35 foot what most may call like the architectural height of a building. um to include up to 33%
increase in total height to take from the lowest grade at the building. um that lowest grade being calculated at 84.7 ft. Um and
that being uh then directly up the building to the 1256 same ridge height elevation. So that calculation came out to 40.5 ft. the uh requirement in in that calculation being
46.67 feet >> as a maximum >> as a maximum. Right. >> Right. So um within greater than a a foot of separation from the 35 ft and then a few feet from the 46 feet.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Uh I have a few questions for Mr. Tobia. Mr. Toia, you um you you you spent uh time talking about the changes that have been made to the plan and trying to describe to the board that the
uh sideyard encroachment being intensified was dimminimous. But do you have a for the the expansion of the garage 3.78 ft almost four feet closer to my client's property line? Do you
have a a planning justification for why the board should bend its own rules in order to justify an additional 3.78 ft of the garage space coming closer to my client's property?
>> Yes. And I I just went through those one um to modernize and expand the garage as I told you. Um the other thing I didn't mention, Mr. person is what we did with landscaping along that property line was plant plant material proposed to plant
plant material that'll be 25 ft high at maturity green giant arms um which will be higher than that proposed uh building addition. Um, but the the basic um testimony was it's time to modernize the garage, time to widen it, time to get
proper doors in there, time to get modern vehicles into the garage. Recognizing when this garage was built, board members, cars were mostly a lot smaller. Um, and to recognize also the footprint of that proposed addition is
78 square feet, microscopic amount of that overall building footprint. Not if you live next door. So, uh, your testimony, uh, is based your your testimony. You've said that word now a number of times, modernizing. Uh, the
the current layout of the house has how many car garage. >> If you count those as bays, there are two garage bays there. >> Okay. And in the plan that you've submitted, uh, you're going to accommodate how many cars in a garage?
There'll be two in the front and in the back there will be one bay uh with a a large depth to it that will allow two medium-sized cars to stack park. >> Okay. So, your new plan has a fourcar
garage, has four cars able to be put in garages, but that you're still not satisfied with that. You want to make two of the garages larger to accommodate what you call modernization. And that's the justification for going four more feet towards my client's property.
>> That's the justification. >> Okay. And when you testified, one of the key things that you testified to uh when we had a back and forth is you testified that when there's a a yard encroachment, uh the higher the encroachment, the more
the intensity. And we talked about it a couple times. I'm sure you remember. So, what I found interesting is in the recap that you gave to the board, you didn't give any justification for why you needed to now build a second story above
the garage that already encroaches into my client's property. So, I thought I'd give you the chance now to tell the board what the rationale is for adding a floor, which adds intensity by your own testimony, and moving all of it four
feet closer to my client's property. So this this goes back to you know a long time ago as you know the design uh challenge here for our architect was a fourbedroom home um that fourth bedroom through architectural design and a lot of it was decided to be over that
existing garage. It's pointed out further the roof over that existing garage is um antiquated and poorly sloped. Uh Mr. Dorne when he spoke said by going up and doing a properly pitched roof it would be more consistent with uh
his architectural plan. Uh that's where it was planned um by architectural design and it was in a space Mr. Ersen where the vast majority of that bedroom is within the compliant um footprint meaning if I may um the
bedroom also only encroaches by that 3 foot 9 in bump. Yeah, you just tripped up there. It's not within the compliant. The compliant would be 20 ft, right? >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, it's up. Go ahead. >> You said the majority of the bedroom was
within the compliant setback, which is not the case. You're going to you would you would have to go how many feet back to be within the compliance setback for the second story bedroom? >> Six feet. >> Okay. And so, could you do you have control? Could you put the the second
story plan up? Second story, the architectural plan. >> Yeah, I think it's just the next page after this. >> Okay. So, this second >> it's right here. >> See it? So, um, this is the architectural plan up now on
dated March 25th. Is that what you want, Mr.? >> Yes. Thank you. >> So, um, it was interesting because I asked you what the planning justification was for the secondstory bedroom and you talked about the architectural plans and you
talk about the pitched roof. Obviously, the pitched roof can be changed any time. You don't need to add a bedroom to fix the roof. But then in your testimony, >> sorry about that. Hold on one second, please. >> Okay.
>> Then in your testimony, you focused us on a certain point, and that is that the seconds story bedroom encroaches 6 ft into what would be the permitted setback, right? And and you still offered no planning testimony for why we should allow that bedroom. And I thought
it was interesting. How many closets are in that bedroom? >> The answer is four. >> You're asking me, right? >> Yeah. >> Oh, so walk-in closet to the right of the bedroom. I think everybody can see my pointer. Um and then um
>> one >> three uh >> small man doors. Yes. Three in the bedroom and then one around in the hallway. >> Okay. Right. >> So, if you just eliminated the walk-in closet, you could actually move the bedroom back into the compliance setback. >> And do do you have a planning
justification for why you need four closets in that bedroom? >> The remember and this is architectural testimony. >> I'm just asking for planning testimony. >> Uh the testimony was to deliver um modernized bedrooms in this house on suite, which meant closet plus bathroom
for each bedroom. uh criticism of the old house, the existing house, was it didn't have these things. I guess there are bathrooms down the hall. Um and so this is really architectural testimony. What I would point out to Mr. Ersen though, if you look at this plan, this
bedroom now is 15 ft east west. Uh there's a bed illustrated in it, nightstands. That's typical architectural floor plan. If we chopped off that 6 foot dimension to just go with a fully compliant sideyard setback,
we'd end up with a 9 foot wide bed, which would never be built by >> No, you you could eliminate the walk-in closet and just move the whole thing 6 ft back to be compliant with the sideyard setback. But the architect did testify that these were
uh these were necessary in the same way that he testified that the office was necessary and that the back edition could never be moved and all the other things we heard. But still no planning testimony for why we would need four closets to encroach with more intensity
into the sideyard setback. >> Um all I can tell you is uh this is the architectural plan. If we move this, if we eliminated the walk-in, we shifted everything to the right, you're going to have a garage on the first floor, a step back in six feet,
and then the new wall, the bedroom. Not an architect, Mr. Ersen, but that's usually not the way this is done. Meaning that that John back in but appreciate the question. >> Yeah, no problem. But it would um I guess you and I are going to play architect for a minute. It would get the
windows of the bedroom six feet farther away from my client's property line. >> Correct. Um remember um one way or the other. Okay. I respect your questioning. One way or the other you're going to see this house and that addition if it's
approved and built. Okay. Six feet will achieve technical compliance. Um anyone standing in the field on that property property line is still going to see that bedroom upstairs. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the public with
questions? >> Hi, Lean Nent, 38 Spring Brook Road. Um I object to the statement that everything all the landscape was
vetted is what you said um on the border of our property. Uh, one of the questions that a few of the questions that I posed in prior meetings was what was going to
happen to the landscaping on that side. There's no retaining wall, but everything that is being removed and replanted and will disturb our existing trees. And that's why then
we hired Mr. Linson to go and do a report. One thing that I would like to point out, >> there's questions, right? >> Okay. So, I questioned about the removal of trees in the
back corner of the property um on February 24th. How do I pose it as a question? >> You'll have an opportunity to make statements. >> Okay. Then I'll go into another topic then.
>> I still I I have a question about the zoning in our township about number of stories. I is it true that there is no zoning ordinance on the number of stories which is what was said before
because I was told otherwise when we wanted to work on our property that I wasn't changing a roof line I wasn't changing heights I was told we could not change our attic and put a dormer out and making making a living
space because we have a walk out basement. So now I hear that there is no zoning ordinance on number of stories. >> So that's true >> in this zone in all the single family
zones in Mars Township um height is controlled only by number of feet. 35 ft the control you heard there there's secondary control but 35 ft is what's measured basically it means you can do whatever you want within the 35
ft there are other zones in town that do regulate by number of stories but not the res not the single family residential those are multif family zones >> and and Joe you concur with that too >> this was seven years ago we were told unless you were very
>> I can't say what you were told but I can say there is nothing as It applies to this application. >> There's no story limitation in residential zones. >> So, I don't know if that if you were
told the number of stories or the ultimate height or what they were looking at, but there's >> weren't changing height. It was just we were told you could not have another living space if it were over three stories. This is a three and a half story home
>> and from bottom to top. >> I can't I can't speak to the recommendations or any guidance that was given you at that time. >> I I am now the township engineer. I'm now also in um in charge of the zoning
and the interpretations that come out of my office for zoning. Um, if you have a formal review, denial, or some paperwork that expresses those positions previously, I'll happy to revisit those for your property. But as it relates to
this zone that's common to you and your neighbor, uh, as well as all the other residential zones, the height is only regulated by by feet and not by story. >> Okay. Okay. Then we were just mistold.
Um, but then I going back to landscaping, I do have the question of the trees in the back right corner, not all the way in the corner, but where there is a hedge,
we have two trees. One is over 30 feet tall on Mr. Hewing's property that gives a lot of screening. and are I'll put in in a question again.
Are they going to be removed? That's where the hedge is on the plan. >> Mr. Chairman, as I said, we've gone through this back in February. That side is not changing since then.
>> Excuse the landscape plan is not being questioned. It was was reviewed at that time at that time. Exactly. Well, but why don't we just answer the question? There's no indication on the plan that there's any tree being removed on the right side of Mr. Euing's
property, right? >> They just covered it up with new hedges. >> Well, that they don't show the removal. If >> I may that there's a new planting plan along that side which was put in because of concerns over your privacy. They're
green giant arborite that were proposed there. Testimony was they're planted at 15 feet. They grow to 25. That's that's factually true. Um down near the pool there's a triple hedge with boxwoods and hydrangeanger and um
um I can't read my notes here. Emerald writing which will be maintained at six feet high. >> Maintained at 6 feet in replacement of the 30ft tree. >> That's where the 30ft tree is. I'll tell you. Um, yes, I'll tell you exactly what I said on on uh the seller's side of the
property. My my client, the applicant, wants to preserve trees alongside that property line as much as you do. He wants his privacy as much as you do. Uh what's proposed here, we haven't talked about it in a long time, but the pool is
a conforming setback. The veranda is a conforming setback. And if you recall up in the front, he removed that office addition that um was going to replace the office bump out that's in the front of the building. Now, this side of the property is a
fully compliant sideyard setback. Now, um Mr. Yui wants to do just what you want to do. Um, when construction starts, if you want, we can go out. We got town engineer to come out with us, mark things, flag things, try and be as
cautious as we can to protect things. This applicant is not going on your property and chopping down trees. >> This applicant has gone on my property and chopped my trees. So, I How do I What am I supposed to trust? Because it has happened and I have photos of it.
Well, >> so >> if that's the case, then I suggest that you consult with somebody about >> I tried. I got no response from so there guarantees are being made for the
red maple and that's why we have now an expert because we wanted our testimony to be heard about our cherry trees which are old established cherry trees and with the disturbance of the plantings new
plantings going in on the root system of our cherry trees that are almost on the property borders. They're at danger. Again, Mr. ter we're retreading ground we should have gone over earlier and we
did go over earlier but the difference between uh the Norway maple on the left is that that Norway maple as I said was within a few feet uh of a retaining wall that was going to require a founding footing etc
etc that's not the case at all on Miss Nan's side of the property the trees are further back and the only thing going on on that side is putting it of a fence and of landscaping on our our side of the
property line. >> True. >> And removal of large trees with root systems that are established. >> If we were to remove trees on our side, first of all, we're entitled to remove trees. We have a tree removal ordinance in the township will have to comply
with. Again, this is not akin to that Norway maple where there would be a digging of a foundation within a few feet of the trunk of the tree. That's not happening on the region side. >> I'm revisiting it because in that
testimony, the response when I asked about the 30foot tree was that it is not being removed. and you can go back at the 2hour 33 minute mark and revisit that yourself. So that's why I'm revetting
it. >> If I may, >> the the 30 foot you're saying 30 foot high tree, correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And you you mentioned it was in the the southernly portion of the yard. >> Is that
one or >> It's actually two trees next to each other. It's the two what are shown on the survey as 8 inch directly to the west of the proposed pool. >> Yes. >> What we see what we see at the top of
the plan here. >> That's a 12 incher right there. >> So a little further north. >> Well, these are my chairs, >> right? And this one's the 8 incher right there. But it's the privacy that is
gained also by the >> Yeah, we're speaking of the the two 8 inch that are on the subject property, not on your property, >> which is that. >> Okay. A little further north, right? Okay. Sorry. South. So directly across from the words north, directly page
left, the words north and north. >> Those, >> right? So those >> those I'm questioning that because you said last time they were not being removed. >> I relooked the plan. >> So they're not they're not proposed to be removed on the plan,
>> but there is the potential for conflict with the landscape plan that shows replacement plantings in that that scheduled area. Um, so if the board is going to consider the the option discussed earlier of kind
of field coordinating that removal if necessary or or changing the planting, we should make it specific to those noted two 8 in caliber trees and the landscaping that's proposed overlapping
that area. Um that being most I think most notably these it's in the middle species here the boxwoods the arborites >> square >> that's square rectangle of proposed in the landscape
>> we have no objection to meeting with the representative that I do actually point out though now saying to give her privacy is up and we need to keep on our
property but we're totally compliant in that area not seeking guarant normally my response would be she wants privacy trees can be added on her side as Mr. We said we're going to be in landscaping
down in there. We've got, I think, a fabulous landscape plan here. We can modify it, keep the intensity of landscaping, and also keep those trees. We don't have
>> We are much higher elevation, so we look down. So a 6- ft buffer does not to replace a 30ft tree does nothing for us.
>> No requirement between two residential uses, right? No right to require that I not see your >> someone else's use of their property for how it's >> Can I can I can I ask a question?
>> The the fence that's along there >> fence is >> right. There's a fence there now, right? Existing. >> That's our current That's ours, >> right? So, their landscape plan, can't it even come up to your fence? It's going to follow the um
>> their It's going to follow their proposed fence, which is just what traditionally we we have staked out from our department will require be staked out a foot inside your property, >> right? >> To ensure that there is some form of gap between the two properties for for
boundary dispute. Okay. >> So, the proposed landscape plan utilizes that what appears to be about a foot offset internally of the site plan fence line to then establish the sideyard for the planting.
>> And how far is your tree from the existing fence? >> Our cherry trees. >> Yes. >> I >> they're less than five feet. So >> from on center >> right >> from on center of the tree they're less
than five about three three feet at the southerntherly >> and it's pretty much about three feet for each because that fence line is deviating into the property line. >> Right. So, how far are they from uh uh the applicant's property?
>> Uh on center 5 to 6 feet to south 12 in the same on the 8 in in the middle and then the northerly 12 in is closer to 7 ft. Okay.
And then there's a 20, sorry, there's also a northerly 26 in that's more immediate to the property line, >> right? common to the property line really >> really >> fence does not go up to the 26 inch tree though right just goes along the property line and again is not digging
uh for footing for a retaining wall simply fence posts in the ground >> yeah the nearest disturbance to the 26 in on center to the trunk is about 18 ft to the corner of that proposed fence >> right
>> um that 26 is offsite and obviously ly not proposed to be removed. The 12, the eight and the 12 that I just mentioned are offsite. >> Okay. >> The eight and eight would be the ones that were subject to the conversation for field coordination. And then there
is a 6 in in the far south corner that is scheduled to remain and is called out on both is shown on both plans, the site plan and the landscaping plan to remain in the landscaping. >> Okay. Right. Mr. Newton, any other questions?
>> That's it. Thank you. >> So, I'm sorry. I I just want to clarify the two 8 in trees that are on that southwest line on the applicant side, >> are they intended to stay >> because it seems to conflict with the landscape. >> As Mr. said it conflicts with the it
would seem to conflict with the landscaping plan whereas a rectangular um combination of of plantings it would seem to be in the middle of that. Uh the idea though of going out and looking at
what's there and what's proposed modifying what's proposed a little bit to maybe maintain what's there. So if if makes sense >> if you're reading the landscape plan, you can see actually there are two 8 in
call outs in the plan in what if I'm going from the north to the south to the rear. The third tree block and then three more back as well. The sixth of the eight.
So those are essentially in the third and sixth of eight are essentially in the existing locations. >> So there is an opportunity to work with that planting area and preserve those two trees while supplementing the difference around them.
>> So translation the plant material will be field located. That's what happens on a lot of these jobs. And uh we'll save those trees, move things around accordingly. So you'll save those trees, >> right? And you'll just conform the site
plan to the landscape plan, >> right? >> Yeah. With the exception of that field coordination, right? In a specific condition. >> Okay. Any other members of the public with questions? Joan Ferrari, six Spring Hill Lane in
the Spring Brook area. Um, I'm confused. The what I got on the agenda says a building height of 40.5 ft where 35 ft is required. Does does that mean the actual if you measure the height of the
building or does that mean that you take into account the the grade as well? >> So there are two height controls in the RA15 zone. >> Yeah. >> The one you're talking about
says at any single point around the whole entire house nothing can be higher than 46 feet. So, we had to find out where the single tallest spot was on the proposal, and that's at the back corner of addition A.
I'm circling it now on on the monitor. And that is where it was measured at 40.7 ft, I believe, shared. That's the highest point on the whole thing. And then when you go around the house, many other spots, it's much lower than that.
>> But that's that is that's disregarding the grade. No, that is dependent on the grade of the spot which has a spot elevation of 84.7 ft. >> Okay. So, how much how much how much
interior space do you have? Is it based on this ed addition? Is it based on 40 ft of height of an entire building or what what is it based on? >> It's based on the height of the building
for the feet of the roof. Mhm. >> Uh and that number is on the plan to calculate that. And then you go all the way down to the lowest point of debris around that proposed addition which has an elevation of 84.7 ft. Subtract one from the other and that's how you come
up with the 40 dimension. >> And so then what what's the total square footage of this addition, this building >> of the old of the new addition? the as of the pool house, if you will.
>> Mr. Dorm testified as to that. I don't know. >> Yeah, I don't know if we >> No, hold on. I'll get it for you. I'll get it for you. [Music] >> So, it's 18 ft wide. It's 32 feet north
to south. And um 18 by 32. We see someone else. 52. >> And so that would be on the top floor, the living area 576. >> So, and how many floors are planned for
this? >> Addition A has two floors, one's the garage, top floor is the bedroom, and then there's a basement level underneath it, which we described earlier. >> Then the basement level is the pool house level. Yeah, >> that's ground. That's
>> That's ground level. >> That's ground level. >> Okay. So, that's not counted as a flare floor. >> That's correct. >> So, in reality, you're telling us that there are three floors planned
within all of this. And each floor is 500 some square feet >> in that limited area. That is correct. Yes. And how does that all add up to the number of total square feet >> again for that addition?
>> Mhm. >> Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. I'm only concerned with that addition. >> So that is if I do my math quickly, 178 ft 576* 3. The my my concern is I had asked before what the definition of a
residence was and the answer that I got uh was reasonable, but it also everything planned in this this pool house edition would make it uh make it a a residence.
It it would it would comply with that. So my concern is as a resident of of uh Spring Brook that boils down the way I look at it as two residences on one lot and I that has
been that has been denied other other developers and builders and I wouldn't want two residences on my lot or next door. So that's the reason I'm asking all these questions. >> I appreciate that. We have agreed with
the board uh to um um restrict this to single family usage only. That's not an apartment down there. There's no kitchen down there. It's just the lower level of the house, the basement like I have in my house and most people do in their
homes as well. So if this gets approved, there's going to be condition that says you can't have a separate bill. >> And in fact, we've agreed that I think we've agreed Mr. didn't make it clear that we would put that in a deed restriction. So anybody buying the
property can't say, "Oh, I didn't know. I didn't understand." because previously y'all had said that there would be a kitchen in this in this structure and which made it you know that was part of the whether it would
comply to requirements for a residence. So, but you've eliminated that there's there are no no kitchen facilities whatsoever. Hold >> on. We're going to double check for you. Okay.
So, in this area, we're calling the um the pool house. I'm calling it a basement. Okay. A hall, a mechanical room, uh a bathroom, a sitting area, and a what I call a kitchenet. Single
wall with um a sink, a refrigerator. um along the eastern side of the road. >> That's what you get when you get an apartment with a galley kitchen. >> Back in the day for me, my first place you correct.
>> Well, it still is. You go to senior living somewhere. Same thing. Um Okay. I'm still not happy. But thank you anyway. Thank you very much. >> Any other members of the public with questions?
>> Seeing none, hearing none. Close the public portion. Any other witnesses at this time? Mr. Bernie? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Council, you wish you wish to call any witnesses? >> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to call two witnesses and I'm going to be brief. Um,
could I have them come to the podium here and testify? >> Sure. >> Mr. Lyn, do you want to come up? [Applause] >> Would you wait before you do that, John, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> I do. >> And your name, please? >> John Linson. L I N S O N. Thank you. Um, >> your address, please. >> Um, my address? >> Yes, please. >> Which one? I got three of them. Um, I I
I work out of um a post office box um in in West Orange. Um, and I physical address 52 Ricker Road in Kennelon. That's probably the one you want. >> I You swore me in before the This is not
This is the second time I got sworn, >> right? So, you're testifying as an expert, right? >> I I do. >> And previously testified as uh >> I'm a New Jersey licensed tree expert. >> Okay. >> Number 198. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to Mr.
Lson. He was here last time. He gave testimony uh in favor of the Nent about trees. Um the plan in that area as I've said has not changed. We've gone through this already to reopen it for that is
unwarranted given that we're compliant on that side. >> On the other side >> have come out since then. >> So I would I'm going to let him say it's going to be brief, right? because we I mean just for the record, we have a plan that's updated June 2nd, 2025, which
we've just heard testimony about for the first time and he's going to have some comments on it. >> Update. >> Understand? >> Not on this side. >> That's understandable. >> Sounds like good cross. >> I made the objection for the record. Yes. >> Understood. >> Mr. Tobia, do you still have control?
Could you just go up an inch maybe? >> That way. >> Oh, yeah. It's good. Thank you. Uh Mr. Linson, uh just uh I'm I'm going to ask you questions about the seller side. Yes. >> Okay. And if if you're if you're going
to get asked questions about another side, somebody will ask you those questions or you'll give that testimony. >> But you previously testified with respect to your concerns about the trees that form the buffer between the seller's property and the applicant's property. >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. And uh we're not going to go through all that testimony again because the board heard it. I'm sure the board remembers it. But generally, you're concerned that the uh work that's going to be done right on the property line at depth is going to damage the trees.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So, I'm going to focus you on two things that were that are pertinent to what we're talking about tonight. Um and very specifically um you you understand the testimony that the attached garage which is uh addition
B is the applicant is proposing to move that 3.78 ft closer to uh the seller's property. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and with that comes the the driveway moving over and with that comes the wall on the property line. You understand that?
>> Yes. Do you have an opinion with respect to whether the driveway being moved over 3.78 ft and the wall being moved over 3.78 ft would have any positive or negative impact on the damage that you're predicting will come to the
seller's trees? >> Um the the that particular tree um provides um shade to um Mrs. of the seller's um sun room. So,
it's a very important tree. Um but by changing the grade uh and particularly um you know the foundation of the wall uh it's probably a dry laid wall, but it's still um
older trees um are are like people. They don't like change. And um to take a tree like that that's probably 50 60 years old and dump three 3T of fill on the on the
the root system of the tree. Um it's not going to be happy. And um it's it's um in addition to to that um subsequent to
the last meeting um Mr. Sellers um reserveyed the property and a number of the trees that we thought were on the adjacent property uh number 40 uh are actually on her property. So, uh, that that does change my, uh, my testimony
from the last time. >> Okay. And so, do you do you want to tell the board what the change is? >> Well, the the biggest change is where the, um, the the storm water collection system
is, um, which is >> it's off the it's off here. Um the um there's a tree that's right on the the edge of the property line and in order to install that storm water system you
would be cutting roughly 50% of the roots of that tree. Um which u generally when you cut roots on one side of the tree the the remaining roots in a storm situation acts as a hinge. So, the tree
in a storm situation is most likely to fall into a misseller's uh property uh if it doesn't die from the uh loss of 50% of its root system. Um also um along the driveway here, there's
um a number of Japanese maples that are really quite um um they have they have a an incredible value in the landscape. A lot of those branches would have to be removed just to have the wall and
passage on the on the driveway. Uh as well as um the effect of a fill on the wall on their root system. Um, >> and in that area that you were just pointing to right next to the the attached garage, would would it make a
difference in the trees survivability and damage to the trees whether that wall was on the property line with the driveway or whether it was moved over 4 ft? Would it make a difference? >> It would make a difference. Um, there's um a number of of ways to um design a
system um around an existing tree root system. Um, it's a conflict for me to tell you what they are, but I've buried trees before and uh they're still living 10 15 year years later. Um, but it's um
right on the property line that close to the trunk of the tree. I I I don't really have much hope for that tree's uh survival. >> And did you do any analysis of uh how many trees might be damaged or die or what the value might be? Um yes I did.
Um I used um the Council of Tree Appraisers has a has a booklet where you um you take the diameter of a tree and you uh index it to uh what the cost of uh a replacement tree of that species is
and you get a cost per square inch and then you you expand that and then you deduct for the condition of the tree and location of the tree. And uh I did that for um all of u Misseller's trees.
The um the value that I came up with, I think that's what we're looking for. Um the value of those six trees is $107,55 using this formula which hey if um IRS
accepts it as a as a evaluation tool um I think this board can too. >> And is it your testimony um is it your testimony that those six trees would be damaged in the process of building what's proposed? >> They certainly would be damaged. Um some
of them um would be lost um but they would be compromised and um the uh the screening between the properties would be compromised. Um do you want me to speak about the screening between the property line that they're proposing?
>> Sure. Um they have uh emerald green arbory going in here. Um, this is for someone who has planted tens of thousands of trees between a sidewalk and a curb in a restricted root area. I
can tell you that there really isn't enough soil mass in there to support these trees. And in addition, um, emerald green arborite is a favored food of whitetail deer. So if you build it,
they will come, but they're already there. So why would you plant something that the deer like you why plant deer candy when you know uh so I I I have a I'm very skeptical about this plant material surviving at all between the
driveway and the wall. >> Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions of Mr. Linden. I'm not I'm not sure whether >> I'm not sure whether anybody else I don't know how you want to handle that. council would go first and any members of the
public. >> Mr. Lson, which trees in the in the area of the uh storm drainage structures you indicated? >> Well, you have um
you have emerald grain providing uh deer candy. Um >> no, no, I'm asking you said that. Oh, the existing trees >> water infiltration devices at the rear of the property were going to result in certain trees during the
>> um I have >> are those trees shown on the plan. >> Well, there's um actually it is and it's shown to be on 40th property, but it's really on 42's property. >> I'm going to object to that testimony.
I'm not a surveyor, but this is what how it's been reported to me. >> Show that the only survey that we have is the one that shows that those trees are in fact on Mr. Ewing's property and they're slated to be removed. >> The 25 foot 20 25 inch tree is that
>> 28 >> 28 that's shown on both a portion of it goes onto the seller's property. The overwhelming majority of that tree trunk, the center of that tree trunk is un is under
>> right. I understand that >> gives Mr. Yuing control over that much because the split I would agree with you that maybe there is a problem or an issue that tiny little edge I think that's Mr. Mel.
>> Well, I can't I can't I can't decide that. >> I don't I don't have that authority. Let's say whose pro whose tree that is council, >> you know, actually think there is a case and maybe Mr. Brady knows the names, but
I don't recall. But I believe that that tree is substantially on the portion of the applicant's property. It's the applicant's tree. That's what I believe. >> Yeah. >> In fact, if it was >> 10 years ago, it might be totally on the property and it would be the center of the tree is on the property. The overwhelming majority of the trunk of
the tree. I do think that's the rule >> that makes it Mr. Ewing's tree. The 24 in is Mr. Euing's tree. Also, um >> Mr. Vincent, you said that the uh the 18inch Norway is an old tree and may not be happy.
>> The Norway maple. >> Yes. >> Um >> right. That's what you said. >> Yeah, it's >> okay. Would it be happier if there was two walls, lower one and the upper one, or if there was one wall which would be further away?
>> We're talking about the the maple tree but opposite the existing garage >> or the or the one by the storm drain. >> There's a maple tree shown on the plan that's 18 in. You see that? >> Um,
>> it's where you want me to point it out. >> Is it? >> Thank you, Mr. >> It's that one. that >> um >> it really it really would be happier if there wasn't a wall at all. >> Well, I understand that. But there was a choice to be made by the board because
we more or less left the board between two wall system that you see there, a lower and an upper >> or a one wall system, just the upper. Well, my my advice would be that you need um a licensed tree expert to devise
a plan to save that tree. >> So, you don't have an opinion then as to which of those two is preferable? >> I I can't say it's going to die 100%. >> Let me ask is there one that's preferable, one that will increase the chances of the trees surviving?
>> There are ways that could increase the trees to survive. >> Okay. But you need from your opinion then doesn't make any difference whether there's two walls or one >> at this point. No. But um >> okay that's the only thing I'm asking.
Um [Music] is there instead of the emerald green arborite is there a plant that the deer don't eat that would fit in that space? >> Yes there are. >> Okay. What what would that be? Well, at the last meeting you told me I wasn't a
landscape architect, so I'm not going to tell you the answer to that question. >> Well, go ahead. You're allowed to go ahead. >> There are plants that will that would survive in there, but it's um it's almost a hydroponic situation where you've got
>> not not enough soil to it's there's not enough soil mass to support trees. When you have asphalt and you and you have a wall and and and and you're back filling, you're planting in whatever is backfilled. >> Go back to my question.
>> What ones have a better chance of survival? >> There are species of juniper that are a little bit more tolerant of those conditions. >> If we went with the sixoot wall, so we eliminate the the terrace effect. We
have the sixft wall. Would that give more soil mass to enable uh plants to survive? >> Well, it would um whatever you planted on top of it would be that much taller to begin with. >> Um so I mean if you had a sixft wall,
you're planting this >> you're on top of it. You got 14 ft of is that >> below it walls next to the offsite 18 that row there if you were to modify the
wall from 3T 3 foot you're going to be planting at existing grade at the property line >> right >> wall will be six feet behind it. So effectively you'll lose 3 ft of height on the landscaping when you when you change over south
>> right >> into that area in the in the area nearest the garage and the sideyard barrier requested the existing garage >> the there's a single retaining wall and planting is behind it. So you're still
in either scenario preserving that height of that landscaping in that screening. It's when you go to where the the tiered walls are and south that you lose the height. >> Right. Okay.
>> Joe, can you turn your mic on? >> All right. So you did you understand what our engineer explained as far as the soil mass? >> I'm not sure what he said. I I I left my I charged my hearing aids, but I left them home on my desk. So, uh it's not
helping very much here. >> Okay. Um if we went with a sixoot wall, it would give us six feet off the It would be like approximately six feet off the property line. Is that correct? >> It is. >> Uh it's about five. Yeah. five feet to
the front of wall. >> Okay. >> Uh so so what you have currently is a is an area that's roughly >> 4 feet 3 and 1 half to four feet wide to plant in between the walls.
>> Right. And if we went with the sixft wall, we'd have approximately >> you'd have five foot plus >> you'd have the five feet of the property to the property line, >> right? And then there would be no restriction of the routes into lot 55.
>> All right. >> Eastward. So, do you understand what the our engineer was saying as far as the uh we're if we put a six foot wall went for the sixoot wall instead of the two
threes to be approximately 5 ft of uh soil at the grade level. Is that correct? >> Right. >> At grade level. >> So, >> for plantings, >> would that increase the survivability of the trees?
that is a tool that could be used to increase the survival of the tree, but you you're going to need an arification system. Um, you know, basically you don't think about tree roots needing oxygen, but they do that the roots
stratify through the soil uh based upon clay and and sand and gravel content of so you know you we don't have trees that have a root system like a carrot. They they spread out. Most of the the tree
roots are within 30 inches of the of the surface of the soil. So if you're increasing that um you can fool them by uh using a high sand and gravel content in the back fill material. But you can
also run uh airification pipes going through there. The issue would be um the imperous surface of the driveway uh is going to restrict um water and and air exchange uh to the you know you you
would like to be able to encourage the roots to grow up into that new strata, but um you know this is an older tree and um it's it's not going to be happy. But um we may be able to arrive at a sustainable situation, but it's going to
take uh some expertise. You're going to have to bring in Bartlett Tree Experts or Save a Tree, um a company, a fullervice tree company that uh is able to oversee this project during the the the course of construction.
>> Mr. Brady, any other questions? >> I may have one, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Lson, you had indicated you came up with the value of trees that are affected at $17,000. >> Yes. >> Trees are that included. Um,
I guess you didn't see my report, but uh there's a 9-in diameter Japanese red maple, a twin L 7 in x 5 in diameter Japanese red maple, a 9 in diameter Japanese red maple, a 3 1/2 in diameter
Japanese red maple, a 22.4 in diameter Norway maple, and a 13 1/2x 15 1/2 diameter Norway maple. those six trees. >> Where are those trees located on this point? >> They're um
well, starting almost all the way out at the road um and then ending the sixth tree is is right up here. >> So, >> the one that's on our client's property doesn't be included. The information
that I had was that >> and I saw the survey uh is was marked in the field and I I'm not a surveyor but I saw the line that was marked with tape for the entire stretch of the property line and I I have to go with the fact
that that the center of that tree is is on Miss Seller's property. >> So you disregard the engineering plan that's inevitable. >> I I think it's incorrect. >> I mean there's two different there's two different surveys. Why don't we put them together and find out whose it is?
>> Hold on. Unless you have a survey that places that tree on the seller's property, we have to accept the one we have. >> Well, then you have to go with the one you have. >> But >> was there a stake out by I know Miss Sellers disagrees with that. >> Was there was there
>> I'm just going on record the fact that >> she you know another surveyor has identified the center of that tree to be on her property. >> I object to even testimony. >> Okay. Yeah, I was going to ask does Miss Sellers have a survey that's of the property?
>> Yeah. Well, she had surveying work done. That's what Mr. Linson relied on. We don't have the survey itself. >> Mr. Turman, I object to the entire line of any testimony. >> I understand that asked the questions.
>> I I I I understand that. But nonetheless, if their survey shows that it's on their property, we can't decide boundaries. >> No, the only survey the only survey that we can consider >> is is that legit evidence.
>> I understand that, but they could go into court and say, "No, that tree is on our property." >> Well, they should be here with the survey if they're going to survey, >> right? >> Only survey and evidence board to consider is the one. We'd have to go with yours and they'd
have if if they want to do something, they have to do it at a later date. >> So, we have to go with yours. >> And and we don't have a survey indicating that any where any of these other uh Japanese maples are either. They're not shown on the plans. Uh and
there's no survey to indicate where they are on the neighboring property. >> And if there were an appeal, it would be based on the evidence before the board. It can't be supplemented later. So, all we have is this survey, >> right? Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, earlier we talked about
doing a field evaluation and making decisions in field in the field. We in two different locations. Can we just make that sort of a a boundary issue and have some of these decisions made in the field rather than have trying to decide all these things right here?
>> That's you're barely looking at the >> from an engineering perspective. I know >> before the lawyer gives you the the legal p perspective. >> Um the difference in the discussion had previously about the other side
is specific to preserving existing trees or removing and replacing them. Um the irre irrespective of boundary on the other side what you're discussing is the boundary of the property and what
you have in front of you is only one professional position on record which is the surveyor survey of this applicant to to determine the boundary. Well, I'm referring to the trees from the street
back to the end of the correction. >> So, I I see >> on on the plan two eights nearest the road going from north to south >> on on lot 55, the adjacent property, >> right? >> A six. I believe those two eights and
the six are part of what the objectors professional was discussing. There is then an 18 in the middle of the property at that property line on lot 55 the adjacent property. The 28 inch nearest
the storm system that we discussed before being more the majority of on the applicant's property and then there is a 24 further into the applicant's property behind that. >> Right. So
>> the the 18 we discussed as being maybe having a 6ft wall rather than a three and three. >> Correct. >> The one further back from what we can tell is on the applicants property. >> Correct. The 28 there in between those two there is a six and 18 further into
the subject property >> well and come out >> which are proposed >> which are well. So really we're only talking about two by the street. >> Yes. And and I would point out Mr. Ben, if you look at that plan carefully, the plan by Miss Mueller, you'll see a
dotted line. That's the current arrangement of the driveway. As I understand it, >> there's nothing going on in front of the property near the street that's any different in the future than it is now.
>> And what it is now, >> that 6 in and that double 8 in. >> That was going to be my question. Okay. Is there anything I mean if they're in that part part of that $107,000 but nothing's happening to those three trees nothing's happening near them right
>> essentially a straightening of the curb line at that point which is in the same location >> or fther into the property as you go from the 96 contour out to the street. >> So they're matching grades and straightening that >> curve line along the same lines. If you
look towards the rear where that L is, the existing pavement is inside and Mr. Deutsch can estimate far quicker than me are probably five feet from where the new retaining wall is is provided. So in
terms of adding any cover or imperous surface, it's I would argue it's a minimal amount. There is a pretty close five four to five feet maximum from the
existing curb line in that area to the to the outside of the first wall. So the in interior wall. Um so so that that parking area is
coming as as close as 4 ft closer in that section which is about 30 ft long north to south. >> Thank you. I defer to questions. Chairman. >> Okay. Any members of the public with
questions of this witness? >> Board members, any other questions? Seeing none, hearing none. >> Okay, your next witness. I'm going to call Miss Sellers briefly. >> Thank you. Miss Sellers, would you raise your right
hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Again, your name for the record, please. >> Margaret by Maggie Sers. >> Thank you, Miss Sellers. Um
I I just pointed out a few minutes ago that we are on our seventh hearing before the board. So, I'm going to try our best not to go over testimony that we've done before, but you testified extensively and we gave a booklet to the
board uh and it showed a lot of pictures from different points in your residence and a lot of uh angles about how this proposed house would affect you. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And so uh you acknowledge that uh
that addition A has now been moved back uh some feet. >> Yes. Three stories of it. Yes. >> And and and you understand that uh addition A is now back to the setback that's required. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're still not happy about ex addition A?
>> Correct. >> Okay. And you're not happy about it because it's a large wall and there's a lot of windows looking towards your property. Well, from the ground to the peak of the roof at the bottom, you have to understand the topography. Mr. Euing's house is above mine. The new
is above his. Then we get to mine. It's a little bit lower. You've got garage bedroom with on suite. Then the the uh ground pitches down. And from my side of the property, I see three stories on that ground level. >> Right.
>> 37 ft and 46 in. That's what I think what I'm going to be looking at. And and so so if we had to do all that testimony over tonight, um we're obviously pleased that it's moved back, but it's still going to have a significant impact on your property. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. And if we had to go through each item of testimony that we went through last time, all the the views of that addition looking down on your house into the various windows into your bedroom, that testimony would all be the same. Correct. even with the the it going back
to the setback because it's a very large mass and it's tall. >> Correct. It got pushed over six more feet, but it's still huge. >> Okay. So, the the board heard you last time and you passed out the uh the the booklet that we had with all the pictures and we're we're we're I know
the board paid attention. We're going to trust that they all remember that testimony. So, what we're going to focus on is uh the fact that right now the closest portion of this house is currently the existing garage. >> Correct.
>> Okay. And currently the existing garage doesn't have windows that face your direction. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh you uh you're asking the board to consider the fact that they're proposing that the existing garage be
moved over 3 ft 3.78 ft closer to your property. >> They're requesting that. Yes. >> Okay. I understand that. >> I I'm the what I'm asking you is does that upset you? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's getting closer to your property.
>> Yes. That's getting closer to my property. It's putting living space above the current garage that's there now. Right now, it's garage and a nice peaked roof, which is typical of the neighborhood that pitch that roof is right now with a slate roof. It's beautiful. Or was
>> And so you're upset because the garage is getting closer and there's living space above with windows facing your direction. >> Correct. >> Okay. And this is a big deal to you. >> It's a huge deal. >> Okay. So, uh, I'm trying to summarize a
little bit here, but you're you want the board to understand that you're a realtor in this area, >> correct? 30 plus years now. >> Okay. You know all the houses in the area. >> I know a lot of them. >> You've sold the applicant's house or at least uh shown it on a number of occasions.
>> Sold it three times, rented it once. >> Okay. Um, and your testimony is that this house is going to be much larger than any other house in the neighborhood. >> Oh, definitely. around our area. Now, that said, I think it's 48. Spring Brook
is on almost two acres, and that's about 4,800 square feet. So, that's a bigger house, but the lot is almost four times what he's what Mr. Yuing has. >> It's appropriate size-wise. >> And and trying to summarize because the house is as big as it could possibly get, maximizing everything. You're
asking the board to enforce the sideyard setback on the garage and the living space above. >> I am because it's not necessary. There's no hardship. We've got no hardship here. >> Okay. And uh the testimony with the trees has gone a little all over the
place. Uh but the general the general your general belief is that the trees have always been a nice buffer between your property and this property. >> Yes. And there were pictures in the files. I'm sure that you have you could see >> in the booklet that we passed out. There were pictures not only of your property
but of Springbrook in general focused on trees dividing the various properties and the neighborhood that it created. >> Right. You also have a copy of the original Spring Brook brochure that I like to pull out because it talks about the original development of the neighborhood and how trees and the
beauty of the land are maintained. So, um, you uh I we'll I'm going to talk to the board at the end and I'm going to summarize all the reasons that we're against this application being approved as it is. But that that's what you
wanted the board to know that that even though there's been some improvements to the property at least three different times, the the encroachment that still comes to your property by the garage and the living space and the mass of the house still upsets you and you and you
wish the board would not approve it. >> It's the mass. It's almost 8,000 square ft in total, including the garages. I looked at my property card and the new property card. My and I've got twice the lot property size that Mr. Mr. um Euing has. So my
total property size on my property card is 4809 ft. I have87 acres. The Nent have 51.86 square f feet. They have48 acres. If this plan is approved, Mr. Ewing is going to have seven almost 8,000 square feet structure on 4545
acres. It does not fit into the neighborhood. It's too big into that small lot. >> And for that reason, you're asking the court to enforce the regulations as strictly as possible. >> Yes. >> Absolutely. >> I know you're upset about this and I know you'd probably like to keep talking
about it, but the board, you know, heard you the first time. Is there anything else that you think we're missing tonight that we haven't said? >> Yes. A few things, actually. A few things. We keep hearing that the garage as it is now is not functional. I think even the planner tonight said that. I have pictures I took last week. They
left the shades open in the garage. There's cars in that garage right now. It is not a garage that's not functional by today's standards. I can share the pictures with you if you'd like. Um that garage is 446 ft today. Mine that garage was built in 1930. My garage was added
to my home sometime in the 80s. It's 399 ft. At one point, I got a 19, sorry, a 2010 Land Cruiser and a Mercedes XL in my garage. No problem. And my garage is significantly smaller than what's there now. So, I say again, there's no hardship that requires this expansion.
They're only trying to expand the garage so they can facilitate another bedroom upstairs, bedroom suite with four closets and a bathroom. It's It's wrong. It's too big. Too big for the property. And I've lived here. I've been paying taxes on this house for almost 22 years
now. paying taxes on my elder house in the town for almost 30 years. I've done everything by the book and any work I've ever done on my property. I would never request something egregious as this against my neighbors. I think it's just appalling that's even being asked for. Um and it's as a realtor, I'll say it's
going to affect my property value. I also want to touch on for a second with the uh with the um appraiser that they called in as a witness. that appraiser I looked up after the w the uh testimony that he gave. He's listed on LinkedIn as a commercial.
>> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object comments on the appraiser, his qualifications. That would have been appropriate the time that he testified, not now. >> Oh, I think it's >> he's a commercial appraiser, not a residential appraiser per his LinkedIn page. >> I I think they can still challenge his
credibility even though they're not asking him to his face. She can still make comments about what he has said on other locations. Well, then we have m Miss Seller saying her opinion of what her look up on the internet shows about that appraiser.
>> He's listed as a commercial appraiser that did six appraisals last year to testify as to what's on his site or what he meant by it or what it might actually say. I don't >> he might be trying to expand his business into commercial. So he's putting that on his LinkedIn page
because most businesses look there >> question his ability to say that this is >> I I would I would object to that. I I'm not going to allow that to come in. >> We we we made our points when the appraiser testified. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let me see what else I have here.
Oh, current garage 446 ft. Took the liberty of having an engineer friend of mine sketch. >> You can't tell you can't say what an engineer told you. She's sitting right there. She's an engineer. Then >> she can testify to it. But your your your your point is that two cars fit in
that garage and they the the applicant hasn't denied it. They just want two larger cars to fit in the garage with larger garage doors. >> Two of his Land Rover Defender 130s fit in this current garage. Now, >> just can we get back to question and answer? >> Sure. Sure. Um >> I just trying to make some points.
>> Can object just second so Mr. Brady can object to anything that might be hearsay. Uh >> say council, can you follow that back? >> I I can. >> Okay,
>> that's she'll testify about that. But we're we're the four cars is on the record. So >> Okay. But the current garage is not antiquated. Cars fit in that garage and it's being used now. End of that story. Okay. >> Good. So therefore, I say there's no hardship
to have this be approved. Um, and I respectfully say to all of you, I mean, I respect what you do. With all due respect, I think it's unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to consider this be over the top with what's being requested. It does not fall
into the line of what the nest of the rest of the homes in my beautiful neighborhood look like. and um it's it's not appropriate. >> It's a good place to stop, Mr. Chairman. That's all the questions we have. >> All right. >> Any other >> I have no questions, Mr.
>> Okay. Any questions? >> I do not. >> Any board members with questions? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I do. Do you have a second story on top of your garage? >> No. >> It looks like it in the picture. >> I don't have a second story. There's a there's an attic that has a peak that I can only stand up barely in the middle.
>> I don't know. So there is a second story, >> but it's not >> that's not that's not a second story. >> Do you know if your garage is within the sideyard setback? >> Uh that was built in 1980. So I and I didn't do it. It was there when I bought the house. So I'm not sure exactly how many feet from the property line it is. That I don't know, but I didn't do it.
So Oh, and I know what else I want to say about the survey. >> Um if I can add that the survey the that they're questioning. Casey and Keller did my survey when I bought. >> Right. You can't testify about what the results of the survey are because it's not here and they're they're not here to testify. >> I I have a question. You're objecting to
the massing. >> Is that in the zone? Is there some standard for the massing? I'm trying to understand your position on on a saying the massing is too much.
>> Well, I'm talking. >> We know what setback is. >> What is the requirement for massing? Yeah, m Mr. Kramer, I I I would answer faster if you wouldn't mind me answering, >> please. >> Okay. So, uh there there's people in the
neighborhood who feel that the house is too big, and I'm going to say this when I get to my closing. Okay. So, I'm just summarizing so I get to your point. Um but we do understand that if the house is set within the rules and within the setbacks, then those are the rules.
Okay. What we're going to ask at least on behalf of Miss Sellers at the end is that because you will note that this is going to be the largest house in the neighborhood, you know, on a on a smaller lot. Simply that you uh cross all the tees and dot all the eyes to
enforce the rules and not give extra because it's not justified in this case to give extra. >> Okay. >> So, the focus the focus is on the garage and the living space above the garage. So, but I heard a lot of testimony about a
about it's too big, the windows are too high. I heard a lot of testimony about that. >> But to be to be fair, Mr. Kramer, we also have been here for six meetings where you were told over and over and over again that it couldn't be moved, it couldn't be changed, that they had to have it, that it would wreck the design
of the house if they moved it over. And then magically when you're about to vote, it moved. All right. So, I understand that's frustrating, right? But that is what happened, right? So, >> but but now it's been moved and I'm still hearing testimony about something
that's compliant. >> Correct. But that the neighbors the the neighbors are not uh zoning experts and they're, you know, they're not they don't have either my legal knowledge or the planning and so they'll tell you things they're upset about. But when we get to the end, Mr. Brady's going to
tell you the points that he thinks you should focus on to vote tonight. Then I'm going to tell you technical points that I think you should vote on and it's not going to be 90% of unfortunately what we've spent time on. >> Okay. >> I come up.
>> When we say mass, it's the whole building of almost 8,000 square feet. >> Yeah, they understand. Yeah. >> Okay. It's not just the mass of the way it's the whole thing. Almost 8,000 square feet on. >> They got it. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
>> Do you have another witness? >> No. >> Any other members of the public wish to testify? >> Any other members of the public wish to testify? >> Okay. >> Testify or comments? >> Well, we had testimony. So, we doing
testimony now or >> comments or what? Where? We're beyond questions, aren't we? >> Yeah. >> That was his We started comments. >> Yeah. So, we'll start So, we'll start comment
>> comments. >> Should we break first? >> Do you need a break? >> Okay, we're going to take a fivem minute break. meeting as a township of Mars board of adjustment. Mr. Santiago roll call. >> Yes. Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer. >> Yeah. >> Miss Simmons. >> Yes. >> Miss Para. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford. >> Here. >> Mr. Roller.
>> Mr. Vo. >> Mr. Vo. >> Yes. Here. and Santiago here. >> Okay, any other people? >> Okay, we're just gonna There's other people coming back into the room. We're
gonna second. Okay, >> we are now up to the point where the public can uh comment on the application. >> Try not to go over in detail what you said earlier, but comment on the changes
specific to this application uh to this application and the testimony that was elicited tonight. Does that sound like a fair appraisal? >> Yes. >> Council, you'd agree with that? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. All right, members of the public, anybody wishing to make any
statements? >> I'll just get up here. >> Uh, my name is Bill Robinson. I'm at 9 Spring Hill Lane. Um, I've been in the neighborhood for >> So, Mr. Robinson, before you get going, you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do. And again, your name for the record, please. >> Bill Robinson, address nine, Spring Hill Lane. Um, I've been in the neighborhood for 35 years and I gave some extensive comments the last time we had public comments. So, I'm not going to rehash
that, but I'm just saying some of the testimony that I've recently heard gave me additional concern about the potential loss of trees and greenery because to me that's one of the kind of signature points of our neighborhood is the fact that it's it's very rich in
space and growth and trees and anything that would endanger that I'd be concerned about. and and the fact that we're we've already got a a variance condition and we're exacerbating that and potentially sacrificing more trees and growth is is
a concern to me. >> Thank you. >> That's my comment. Thank you. >> Any other members of the public wish to comment? So Paul, this is like the summation of just my points. So okay, >> you slely swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And your name, please. >> Anthony Nent, 38 Spring Brook Road. >> The only thing I asked this uh you know, you all know my feelings. I just asked the board to enforce the variances that what the town has put in place protect
homeowners. That's it. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other members of the public wish to be heard? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. Council, do you wish to make a summation?
>> I do. >> If I make it. So, um, if you if I was being candid with the board, if I was the board, I'd be annoyed. And, um, I wouldn't blame the board for being annoyed. This is our seventh hearing. And, uh, blame is, uh,
usually goes around both sides. I think the the neighbors in the neighborhood sometimes have been a little unfocused in the fact that they don't like the application. They don't like how big it is. But, um, I always find it's much easier to blame somebody who's not in the room. And the reason that we're here
for seven meetings, I'm going to blame it on Mr. Dorne because when he testified, he testified that when the applicant came to him, they went over everything he wanted and they never looked at the zoning regulations. That was the key part of
this testimony. And that's why we've been here for seven meetings because when they came here, the application had too many variances. It was too big. It violated too many rules. And over and credit to Mr. Brady cuz I I know how he works. Over seven meetings, multiple
times, the the the property, the plan has shrunk and become more conforming. But I I want the board to note this that at each time when there was testimony, particularly Mr. Dorne's testimony, we would ask questions about why the office
had to be extended. Uh because it had to be for symmetry. It would ruin the house, he said. And then the next meeting we came and it was gone. We probably fought here for three meetings on addition A. We were told it couldn't move, that it would wreck the house, that it couldn't be designed any other
way, that this was that you people just don't understand this was worldclass architecture. And yet here in the seventh meeting, it moves, right? So, you know, I hope that when the board is thinking about this, they understand that all of those changes could have
been made in Mr. Dorne's office at the very first meeting and this board minus 3.78 ft tonight would have probably had one meeting on this. So, this is a large house. This is a house uh that is bigger
than the rest in the neighborhood. The neighbors are reacting to it, but if it's within the rules, it's within the rules. But when a property is particularly small or when a house is conforming with a neighborhood, the board probably has more opportunity to
give uh variances to give uh exceptions in different directions. When a house is out of character with the neighborhood, when it's exceptionally large, when it's maximizing its footprint on a piece of property, I would urge the board that
you then focus on all the regulations. And I think the board has, and that's why this house has shrunk and moved, but you need to continue to do that tonight. Your master plan your master plan in 2007
um talks about uh in the first objective goals and objectives A on page 15 preserving the predominantly single family residential neighborhood as a community and then it talks about the context with established scale and character of surrounding homes. All
right. So, what I'm saying tonight and what the neighbors have been reacting to, sometimes a little all over the place, is the fact that this house is out of scale and context with the rest of the neighborhood. But if it's in compliance with the rules, fair enough.
This house continues not to be still in not to be in compliance with the rules because you have the 3.78 ft that they want to add and the second story that they want to add. Why would the applicant be here tonight
asking for 3.78 ft after seven meetings and a second story that encroaches over that garage onto my client's uh setback that protects her from the neighborhood property? Why? What is so important? And
in the testimony tonight, Mr. Toby is a very good witness and and he did his best, but the best he could say was that they were modernizing the garage. The modernizing the garage, a garage on a plan of a house that
already accommodates four cars. you uh in a system where you have in a house where you have house plans and you can accommodate four cars, the the the reason for the variance of 3.78 ft is to modernize after you can already fit four
cars. The real reason is the increase in bedroom number four. Uh I'm sorry, increase in bedroom number three. Bedroom number three. When you stop and you look at that plan, the bedroom itself has three closets within the
room. So why does it have to be 6 ft over towards the property line? So that it can have an additional 6 ft walk-in closet. The board can't justify um respectfully because it's your decision, not mine, but you can't
justify granting a variance for that second story when staring at you plain as day is a 6ft walk-in closet that is the fourth closet for that bedroom. That is the reason that that wall and that window is getting pushed into the
sideyard setback. And then what it really does is it goes back to this needs versus wants argument. And I I wrote down some of the quotes from Mr. Dorne. You know, he said that he had to design it this way because the rooms were less than
adequate size. A room with three closets is adequate size. I don't I don't care how you would calculate that or how you would analyze it. It would have to be adequate size. Mr. Kramer's point is right. Mr. Kramer's point is that the neighbors are
still focused on the fact that this house is large and and Miss Sellers is focused on the fact that the one wall in her backyard where where the the ground floor walkout basement is exposed is going to be very large and is going to dominate her backyard. And so that
doesn't create a zoning reason, but it it it it it accommodates why she is uh upset about this application. And and Mr. Tobia testified that when you have an encroachment, the higher the encroachment, the more impact
it has on the surrounding property. So the height of that wall is not a variance in the back on addition A, but the height of the wall on addition B is a variance. the whole thing is a variance and the the applicant's own
planner testified that the more height the more impact. So again I'm focused on the second story. The other thing with the uh put adding the 3.78 ft is the 3.78 ft could
accommodate more room and more buffer between the two properties one way or the other if you aligned the driveway to the side of the building. But no effort has been made for that. And we're here after all of this with a variance that's
fighting over 3.78 ft because the applicant just had to have it. Just had to have it. Needs versus wants. So, I'm just going to leave you with one final thought. And I I mean this respectfully, uh, but if
you approve uh a sideyard setback encroachment and you you approve it based upon the fact that we need to modernize garages after four cars can already fit
there and you need a bedroom that has three closets plus a 6' wide walk-in closet. If that's the rationale for approving a sideyard setback, you'll never be able to ny another one. They'll all be approved because there will never
be reasons less frivolous than those to approve a sideyard setback. So, I'm asking you to uh vote no based upon the applicant's insistence that we continue with the encroachments that come from addition B.
Thank you. Jones. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I already did a closing argument once, so I'll try not to hit everything. >> Please take as much time as you need. >> U, but you know, we've heard about uh
the history of this house and not heard objections to it. >> Just can you turn that mic on again and aim it towards you? Thanks. >> Better. >> Okay. Okay. >> It's recording. Um we we've heard about the history of the
house and uh that it seems to have been fine in the past and it's been sold several times, but you know, renovating, upgrading, modernizing houses, basically it's what we do in America. There's a whole TV show genre that's based upon
doing that. uh and and coming into a a house, taking a house from the 1930s with a 1930s layout and modernizing it helps the community, uh helps the zoning, helps the the the values in the neighborhood. Um the fact that it's sold
many times, uh well, one of those buyers was Mr. Huing, and now that he owns it and it's his property, he wants to modernize it. Um, we've heard a lot about prop. The house is too big. Well, the
house isn't really what this board is looking at. The board is looking at the variance tonight, which is the variance on that existing garage. house in fact is not too big because the size of the house in Mars Township in this zone is
regulated and controlled by the metrics of the zoning code. Terms of size, the house is not too tall. The house does not exceed impervious coverage. Uh the house fits uh all the setbacks now except for a
pre-existing setback on the right side. And we have on the left side the pre-existing setback. And we are asking for a variance to intensify that. And the reason to intensify that is not just
or is incorrectly characterized as well but we want to fit two cars in there. Testimony was not just that we want to fit two cars in the existing garage. Testimony was existing garage. And if you look at the pictures that were in
Mr. Tobian's report, the existing garage is right up against the house. It's a rear facing garage. Uh, and to get into the garage on the lefthand bay, you've got to basically go right down along that house, very close to it. You then have a pillar in the middle. You have
garage doors that were really meant to accommodate older, narrower cars, not today's cars. Um, inside the garage, you have no con connection to the house. Um, I've got a detached garage. I've got
a attached garage. For several years, my car was in the detached garage while we had furniture and antiques and whatnot in the other garage with my wife's car. Once I got to be able to move to the attached garage, it's a whole new story in terms of uh the convenience and the
parking. So, that's what wants to be done here. We want to take this house from the 1930s. We want to upgrade that garage, make it more usable, not only from a width point of view, but from a geometry for getting in and out,
from a height point of view to make sure that the vehicles can fit in. Uh, and just as important, being able to get into the house from inside the garage. It's not unusual to have a second story on a garage or to have a bedroom above a
garage. It is an intensification. Mr. Tobia indicated it's an intensification question for but the question for the board is twofold. You have the positive criteria
under the C1 or C2 analysis. There's somewhat of a C1 analysis here with regard to that garage, but there's also somewhat of a C2 in that the benefits of making that garage more usable outweigh any detriments. When we come to
extending above a garage, we have a situation where it's typical to have that sort of extension of a bedroom above a garage. And we are, excuse me, we are at
I lost my notes from we're at 14 ft where it should be 20. So we're 6 feet closer than permitted. Uh and compared to where we are now, we're a little bit more uh a little bit more than three and
a half three and 3/4. The question Mr. Tobia has indicated these types of variances can be supported under subsections A, C, G, I, and M of the land use.
>> Can you go over those again, please? The numbers. >> Yeah. A, C, G, I, and M. >> Okay. >> Okay. and the upgrading of a house making it more uh
usable, user friendly, owner friendly upgrading of the house so that it does not fall behind the times is sufficient basis on the positive criteria for the board to approve this. On the negative criteria, the board would have to find a substantial
detriment to granting the variance. either a substantial detriment to the neighbors or to the zone plan. There's been nothing to indicate this is a substantial detriment to the zone plan. And Mr. Tobia's professional opinion, it
would not be a substantial detriment to the zone plan or zone scheme. in regard to a substantial detriment to the neighbors. With all due respect to the sellers, this is a zone where
you with a 20ft sideback, you expect to see your neighbor. This new garage will have three windows. We heard about a window overlooking the seller's property. Will have three windows, two at the lower level in the garage. There's activity in the garage.
We all know when there's activities in garages, we probably all have them. Cars come in, car goes out, light may turn on, light may turn off. That's it. It's at ground level. On the second level, there's one bed, one window for the bedroom. Again, the amount of activity
that goes on in that bedroom uh is minimal in terms of anybody looking out over the seller property. Might be different if it was the family room. might be different if it was the some sort of elevated veranda where you might go out and have cocktails or or have a
barbecue. That's not the case here. This is one window facing uh the seller's property. And I would suggest to the board the difference between 20 ft and 14 ft for that one window is ne negligible.
second story edition itself is below what it could be. It could be much higher and Mr. Toby talked testified about this uh and it could be at 20 ft and be much higher and if it was that may actually have more impact on
missellers than the fact that this is a little close. We have an extensive landscaping program. We've indicated to the board we would work uh with Mr. Deutsche's office to make sure that landscaping program uh uh
program works. We'll put it in a deed with regard to maintaining it. We'll replace that maple tree uh Norway maple which is an invasive species by the way. Um if it dies within two years,
we've agreed to a list of stipulations and conditions that Mr. Tobia reviewed with you. when the board takes the entirety of this into consideration, uh we've satisfied the criteria for this and the board uh should grant it. Thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, board members, it's time to start hearing opinions. Well, before we do that, let me just kind of focus in on what they're asking because there have been several plan
changes and I think we've heard this, but I'll just kind of as you're getting your thoughts together, the the variances that are now before you as a result of the plan changes are uh sideyard setback on the left side to the
garage expansion, right? at for 14 ft 20 ft's required 17.78 ft is the current condition. Okay. Um the combined sideyard setback of 29.44 ft. Again 50
ft is required. The existing condition is 33.22 ft. Um there's a very dimminimous front yard setback because of the way the house is situated. So there's a matter of inches when you add that second floor to the front yard. So there's a that very small
front yard setback. Um all right. And then I just want to run through if there's a proposal to approve uh the conditions that we've discussed. There would be no elevated lighting at the stair risers, but they may use low
voltage lighting. Uh there'd be no flood lights uh permitted. Only sconces may be permitted on the building. Would have to add a railing if the wall height along the stairs exceeded 30 in. Pool equipment would be housed within the
pool house and it may not vent they may not vent the pool equipment towards the neighbor. There can be no separate rental units within the dwelling and they would do that as a deed restriction. They would have to there's a couple of small plan
corrections to make. Uh they'll correct the location of the AC pads and maybe the signature line. Uh maintain they'll also maintain and replace the landscape buffer uh plan in perpetuity. All right. And record a deed notice so indicating
uh the form and substance of that would have to be approved by by myself and the board engineer. Um, with respect to the replacement of a maple tree, should it die within two years of the granting of the CO, um,
they would replace it with a tree of at least a 6-in caliber. It would, however, be placed on the applicant's property, not the neighbor's property. And there was some discussion that I think the board should discuss if there's a motion to approve this to
modify the retaining wall of the left sideyard to a single wall to preserve the large Norway um maple tree. That redesign would be subject to the township engineers approval. Um it could exceed the maximum sixoot height and um
that would be based on field review with the applicant and the town engineer. And they would have to maintain the two 8 inch trees at the southwesterly property line and conform the landscape plan to the site plan upon field
coordination with the township engineer. That's what I had for Barances. Anything else? >> Okay. For the conditions rather. Yeah. >> You satisfied with those conditions? >> Satisfied with those conditions. >> Any do you think that Mr. Over might have missed? The only thing u that I
raise is with regard to the replacement tree. I would assume that can be on the neighbor's property if the neighbor allows or on our property. >> Yes. If I I didn't want to place that requirement on you and then the neighbor object to it. So if the neighbor would
agree to that being replaced on their property, that would work as well. >> Okay. All right. Do you have any things to add? Okay. So, board members,
uh, any comments on this application, you want to start us off with where you're thinking? >> Sure. I'll start off. Um, I appreciate uh the objectives attorney, his his points raised here tonight um versus the
needs versus the wants. Um, in terms of that that bedroom above the garage, I mean, on my site visit to the property, I saw two vehicles in the garage. Yes, I know it's not attached. You can't get access to the the house through the garage. Um, the I think Mr. Toby's
testimony earlier this evening was that they wanted to be able to put a a higher, larger vehicle in the garage. So, you know, I saw vehicles in the garage. So, I'm assuming you can house vehicles in the garage. Um, and if you're constructing two other garage
bays, perhaps design those to accommodate the larger vehicles. So, um, in this particular instance, I'm thinking to provide, you know, after hearing from the neighborhood, the residents about the the neighborhood, um, hearing from everyone that we
wouldn't want to exacerbate for 3.7 ft to sort of grant that variance. So, I would like to hear from other board members what they think in terms of, you know, whether that that to eliminate that that that walk-in closet in the
onebedroom pulls it back three feet, right? Or four feet maybe and keeps it within the boundaries of the current um the current zoning requirements and not providing any additional hardship to the neighbor. um for a a house in square footage which
doesn't really conform with the the character and presentation of the current neighborhood on those lot sizes. So, uh I am a little annoyed to to the the objector's attorney's point on how long we've spent on this and that when
it did come up for a vote about to vote all of a sudden everything shrunk down. Um, so that we're still here sort of going back and forth about the 3.7 ft. I'm I'm sort of leaning towards um providing providing
not providing that relief and and exacerbating things to his point of you know how do you know how any other variance that comes before us in terms of modernizing or taking in totality of the
size of the whole project that we're going to sort of you dance around the edges there. So, that's just what I'm thinking on it. So, I don't you know, if if we eliminated that walk-in closet, pulled it back three and a half, four feet, is it correct that there would be no variances needed? Is
that accurate? >> I think there would still be a variance because it's already non-conforming because you're building above a non-conforming. So to your point, if you pulled back that wall
three something feet, 3 and 3/4, I don't know that that would make you kill off the I'm not an architect. I maybe the maybe the closet goes to 5T and the room shrinks a little bit as well, but you would still need a
variance because it's not 20 ft. >> Mhm. So there's an intermediate stage there. P perhaps I'm I'm not designing anything for anyone but perhaps there's an intermediate step there.
>> Yeah. >> I mean because of the existing setback that's the variance to begin with, >> right? >> Existing. >> Yeah. >> But the speculation isn't in front of us as to whether they pull it back or not and condition on them pulling it back.
We're voting on the plans that are before us right now, >> right? Unless they'd be willing to. I don't know what the >> No, no, we can't. We'd have to go through the whole have new architectural plans and everything else because uh we don't know what the structure,
you know, I'm not an architect. I'm not an engineer. I can't say, well, you just pull that back and everything works. You could be, you know, putting too much stress on walls. I'm sure they can fix anything for a price, but you'd have to see the plans. And still you'd still need still might need you'd still need a
variance for the front yard, but that's the minimus. Um, but uh yeah, I just can't get my head around this application still. I know it's been
addition A was a real uh problem for me, but it's been uh revised first from uh I think it started at 5T and then it went to 14.25 and now it's at 20.1. So it does meet the
sideyard requirement even though you know it we've got the the com combined issues but that would be for the um for the addition uh B which is the extension of the existing garage and
that would be going from 17.78 to I think was it 14 uh 14 ft from the property line and uh every other seems like every other neighbor around here and every other house in in the neighborhood has been
able to uh cope with that size garage. Uh and as it says, they can get two cars in there and they would be looking at putting in uh another structure with uh two additional uh spots for cars in a
garage. Uh and so the larger cars could go in that other location. there's no need to uh expand this garage given uh the additional plans. Uh and it I think it's I'd accept uh what the U objector's
attorney said in that if we grant this just because they want to expand uh basically expand the um the bedroom above uh I don't think the I think the testimony was from Mr. dorm that uh the
onsuite bathroom is the way to go for everybody. Well, I don't think anybody that showed up here tonight has on suite bathrooms in every single for every single bedroom. So, I don't think it is necessary uh to um expand the grant, the
expansion on uh addition B to further impinge upon the sideyard. And I think that the um uh there was no testimony about uh a C1 uh claiming any topographical conditions of
the property or exceptional situation required this variance. Instead, it was a C2. Basically, the testimony was about a C2 and the um subsections for that he uh were cited or
the uh criteria that were cited were the appropriate use and development of all lands in a manner that would promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Well, that doesn't apply to any single house. That applies to like master plans. And the
same thing with C is to provide adequate light, air space and open light, air and open space. And that's also a general uh planning uh for a master plan. Uh G was to provide sufficient space in
appropriate locations for a variety of uses including agricultural, resident, recreational, commercial, industrial, and open space both public and private. But I don't think that G applies in this situation at all. Uh that would leave us
with I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design. Uh but the testimony from the objectors is that
this uh application is out of character with the neighborhood which uh is a promotion of the general welfare. So this goal I does not apply. uh the last one was M I believe it is is
to encourage coordination of various priv and private procedures shaping land development. So once again, that's a general uh something that applies to a master plan and uh not uh this specific application.
Uh but our master plan in the 2007 is cited by the objector's attorney is that uh preserving the uh I think it was the scale and character of the neighborhood.
And I think this goes against that. So I would not be in favor of this application, but want to hear from everybody else, too. Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to thank the members of the public for coming here and spending all the time.
Your voices are heard and they're very important. Yeah, we get annoyed. It's our job. >> Of course you do. when your annoyance helps us battle our annoyance is because
you know a lot of what's going on that we don't know. We rely on expert testimony. We rely on plans. We rely on understanding the the zoning requirements, experience of past plans.
Um so you're being here and spending all the time here, we really appreciate that. I appreciate that. I think we all appreciate that. And um this has been very difficult because um
the design is very nice. Um the character is very nice. Um I do really appreciate Mr. Ersen's um assessment of how things can change. Part of me says,
"Well, 3T's 3 and 1/2 ft." I'm very concerned with the zone, very concerned with the character of the neighborhood, very concerned with the with the with the um the um relative
sizing of um homes in the neighborhood. I've seen in other neighbor in other municipalities where all of a sudden you have this giant thing in there, you go, "Well, how who allowed that?" Um I'm not sure I want to be on the zoning board that allowed that.
It's true. It's only three and a half ft. But I I I I am concerned about the the the the idea that Mr. Chairman said, as Mr. Ersen said, what's the criteria through which we're going to allow
an expansion of of a of a zone of a of a of a setback for that purpose? What precedent are we setting? And precedents are very important. So, I I'm leaning against I mean, two cars
do fit. You can put a door into the house from there. Everything else can go. Um the neighbor's still going to have a window. Still going to have a window up there and you know um but it would it would be it would be within the
zone within the existing setback if we're no additional expansion going on now. So, I'm I'm leaning against approving that setback expansion as well. >> Any other board members?
>> If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> Mr. Benis, do you want to make a motion on this? >> Sure. um is hard because I think it's it could be a really great project, but but for that
one thing. So, I'm going to make a motion that we not approve the application as it is. Um because of the the addition on I guess it's B um B and um
I don't I don't even know what else to add to that. >> Okay. for the reasons that you said before and that Mr. Woodford stated >> stated. Yes. And what Mr. Goldberg stated. >> Um yeah. Do I have a second?
>> I'll second that motion. >> So So we're we're voting on not to approve. >> Yeah. So if you vote yes for this motion, which now has a second, right? So if you vote yes for this motion, you're voting to deny the application. Okay.
Hey, Miss Santiago. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> No. >> Mr. Schustster? >> No. >> Mr. Benois?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer? >> No. >> Mr. Wooder? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh motion carries and the application is denied. Thank you for your time, lady.
>> Well, thank you. I know it's been hard. I know it's been a long journey and uh this is the longest residential application I think we've ever had, but thank you. >> Okay. Uh board members, we have one
other matter of business. I I move that we approve extending. [Laughter] >> Sorry, it's not I don't think there's much discuss. >> This is the extension from SK Mount Kemble. They already have one extension
brings them through October 24th of this year. They're looking for their second extension October 24th of 26 for the same reasons we granted the first one. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Do you motion to approve the extension? Yes. >> Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries. >> I mean, I didn't want to jump in front of you on that, but >> I think that's what was needed. >> I didn't say I'm a slug. >> What's that? >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion to adjurnn. Second. All >> in favor? I I motion.