April, 2026. The legal notices required by statute have been uh satisfied. The statement as certifying same will be executed. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance 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. For all >> Mr. Goldberg >> here, >> Mr. Trackenberg >> here, >> Mr. Williams
>> here, >> Miss Simmons >> here, >> Mr. Benois >> here, >> Mr. Kramer >> here, >> Mr. Woodford >> here. >> And for our professionals, we have our board engineering consultant, Joe Voych, >> here.
>> We have our board attorney, Rich Oer. >> I'm here. >> Okay. Uh, the board, we talked among ourselves. We're going to do the second application first. Sorry to have you all set up here. We're going to do the second
application first. That last you got a resolution right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. First resolution is BA-26-25 26 men road control. Yes. Miss. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
memorializing resolution with respect to the application filed by Howard Messer, who applied for permission to modify an existing non-conforming dwelling by constructing an addition requiring uh variance relief or front yard setback uh
in two locations as well as an expansion of a non-conforming structure. um for the reasons set forth in detail in the resolution that application was conditionally approved with our standard conditions.
>> Okay. Board members, any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Have a second. Second. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. Woodford, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. >> Second resolution is for BA-27-25, 9 Westminster Place. >> Thank you. again a uh memorializing
resolution with respect to the application filed by Glenn David who applied for permission to modify an existing non-conforming dwelling by constructing an addition uh requiring variance relief for sideyard setback combined sideyard setback front yard setback and an expansion of a
non-conforming structure and for the reasons set forth in the resolution that application was um conditionally approved with our standard conditions as well as a condition indicating that the applicant shall obtain either a variance approval or waiver of the application
from the town of Morristown. That's the lot that straddles uh both towns. Right. >> Okay. Board members, any questions? Uh if not, I'll entertain a motion. >> So move. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call.
>> Mr. Goldberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Traenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ben? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Kramer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to the public hearings. Uh we have had two tonight. Uh we're
actually talking with the among the board members. We're going to do the first one, the second one, BA-28-25 first because it's a very uh straightforward application as far as we can tell.
So that would be BA-25-20 uh 28-25 Todd McNammy for block 106 that lot 1346 Burnham Road. >> Sorry, sir. You're going to have to vacate the table.
You Mr. Mley, how are you? >> I'm well. >> Good. Um, on this morning, >> is anyone else testifying? Just you. >> Just you. Okay. Would you stand and raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. So help your guide. >> Thank you. And just for the record, your name is >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. McMe, tell us what you propose to do and why we should grant you a variance. >> We have an existing sun on the back of
the house. >> All right. And you're bumping it out uh couple of feet to the rear. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, can you describe why you need variance? >> Okay. Then is that going to change at
all with this addition? >> Okay. So, as it exists now, uh, how far is it from the, um, property line, >> the house? Five to six feet. >> All right. And
and it's not going to change. Is that correct? >> No, it's not going to change. We're going to stay within the object. >> And you can't put any basically any addition on the back of the house without asking for a variance. >> Yeah, because we don't meet the sides. >> All right. And this is a 50 yard 50 foot
yah wide lot. >> Yes. >> Anything else you want to tell us? Not unless you have any questions. >> So, I just want to point a couple things out. So, the the variance relief is for the sideyard because you're um going up on the second floor on the right side,
right? Where that's on the survey it says 5.8 ft. So, >> correct. Yes. >> Right. We're going over the top of there, but towards the back. >> Towards the back, right? So, we're just in >> Yeah. So, to the right side.
>> Okay. So, the the plan The plan that we have in in the front says 5'9.6 in where the survey says 5.8.
Any idea why that's different? I'm looking at the first page. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. So, if you look at the the front of the house where it borders up on Burnham Road, right?
That front right corner, see where it says 5' 9.6? >> Okay. And then if you look at the survey in that same spot, it says 5.8. Any idea why there's a difference? I would guess.
>> Yeah, >> Rich. I believe it's the architectural measurement of 5'9 in which is >> in surveys. >> Yes. Okay. >> So 5.75, >> right, would be would be the the
engineering on the percentage of right the the decimal, right? And then so the 9 in and change >> it's actually exact. I just did the math. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> I think it's that and then it's it's slightly a skew from the property line. >> So the back point is 6 ft 2.4.
>> Correct. >> Right. Okay. So, one other thing then too is and Joe, maybe you can do this with me, but in the back of the property left corner for the garage, >> correct? >> Scaling off of the survey looks like
it's 2 feet there because we have a combined sideyard variance, too. Okay. So, that's kind of looks like a should be two feet there. And then if we take that 5.8 8 or whichever one I'm going to use. That's 5.9.
Right. I'm going to add the two feet to get to that combined sideyard. Okay. >> For the for the accessory structure separately. >> No, no, no. There's a there's an existing combined sideyard which we're not worsening the same like we're not worsening the sideyard itself
other than going up on it, but it creates a combined sideyard at the second story. All right. So, so it's that left side and the 5.8 on the right side. And I'm just going to use two on
the left side because it's it's not dimensioned. It's it just scales out to about 2 feet. Let me ask you just a question to clarify the interpretation. Is the combined sideyard on the principal dwelling or the principal delling and
the accessory garage? >> Both. >> Okay. So, we're taking you're taking one side on the dwelling and the or really both sides >> on the garage. >> Both sides on the garage are the combined >> we have a 1.8 on the other side, right?
On a garage. >> Yeah. Like I think I think the garage is 1.8 and >> and >> roughly a little bit larger. >> Three. >> Okay. >> About double that on the opposite side. >> About three. So that's the combined
sideyard existing condition condition. If it's lawfully existing, it's it's not exacerbated, but on the other structure, it is. >> Right. >> Right. >> So 4.8 for that sideyard's 5.8 not worsened. 6
2 on the architect's plan where we're doing the addition. Right. >> Correct. Right. >> And impervious coverage. Right. >> As well as impervious on this too. >> Yeah. >> Right. So the the impervious is not exacerbated the proposed addition canal
levers over the existing stairs and brick pavers. >> Yeah, I know. But we don't know how we got there. >> We don't know how we got to that number in the beginning. So I think we we honor that variance now in >> I would capture it now so that there is a variance in place for it. >> Correct. >> Right.
>> Okay. Okay. So those are the three. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So we're doing a variance for impervious coverage also. >> Yeah. To clear it all up. Yes. >> All right. >> Right. And there's no water issues on your property now. Is that right? Okay. >> All right. Board members, any questions
of the applicant? >> Seeing none hearing on any member of the public with questions of the applicant? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. Any member of the public wish to be heard on this application? Seeing none, hearing none, close the
public portion. Board members, any comments on this application? Mr. Chairman, I think it's pretty straightforward and I think it's an improvement to the home, improvement to the neighborhood. Um, the pre-existing non-conforming is not making it any worse. I'd be in favor of
this. >> Okay, Mr. >> Chair, I totally agree with Mr. Benois and I'll I'll second his motion. >> You were taking making a motion. >> Want to make a motion? >> Okay, you're seconding the motion. >> I help him along. >> Okay. Uh, roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Trackenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. Miss Simmons, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. Woodford, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. So, >> so I'll have a resolution at the next
meeting for you. >> So much time. >> Sure. Thank you. Good luck. >> All right. Next uh application is BA-25-25 uh Nwood Holding LLC for 40 Nwood Drive. And I have to recuse myself.
I have to recuse myself as well. >> All right. So, for the record, that's Mr. Woodford and Mr. Trackenberg. >> You have six. >> You got six. You got >> Okay. Should
they see Mr. Evangel found it? Uh, next application we'll hear tonight is BA2525 uh, block 2906 lot 1140 Nola Drive. It's in the RA15 zone. Um, Mr. Would you like
to pick up from where we last left off? Yep. >> Mine disappeared. >> Okay. So, yes, Nwood Holding LLC. >> All right. If we have appearances, please. >> Okay. I'm going to ask you to again
spell your name for me. E S E U K R I S H T E L. >> And yes, uh Jeffrey Goan, architect. G E O F
R E Y G O G- an uh 35 Pine Street, Morristown. >> Okay, I'm going to swear you both in again. So, if you would both please stand and raise your right hands. You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Goen, are you also a professional planner? >> Yes. >> All right. And we qualified you as both a professional planner and an architect at the first hearing. Is that right? >> Yes, I believe so. Yes.
>> Right. And your licenses are still current? >> Yes. >> Nothing changed since the last hearing? >> Nothing changed. >> Thank you. Okay. So, who's going to tell us? I know you submitted a revised plan with some changes.
>> Yes. Um I I I'm just trying to get my screen to share correctly here. Bear with me. This is it. Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. So, at the uh I'm going to see if I can zoom in. I had a little trouble zooming just
before. hopefully. Uh at the first hearing, we had quite a few questions about the proposed height variance that we we had originally included on the application. Um and so we decided to eliminate the
need for that variance and we've lowered the building by taking uh building height out of the first floor and the second floor as well as lowering the roof pitch. So, uh, we are now proposing to remain compliant with the 35 foot
allowed height measuring from the average grade that was confirmed by the Morris Township Engineering to the ridge of the roof. So, we we've now recalculated it to 34.8 ft. And I'm going to show you the elevations uh with
the I have both sheets, the ones the from the first set and and the others that which I can show so it's easier to show the difference what the changes were. Um the other the other thing that came up last time was um Joseph noticed that the area on the
survey was incorrect. And it it this is the original um survey showed 31,000 square ft. And we found out that the surveyor did make a mistake and picked two lots instead of just our lot. So he he resubmitted the survey to us with the corrected area
15791.7. And the uh zoning chart was updated to reflect that that accurate lot area. And uh fortunately it didn't cause any new uh variances
um to be created. So, we're still compliant with the building and and improved lot coverage. Um, and so basically any any reference to the originally sought after uh building height of 38.4
has been crossed off and eliminated from the application. And the only thing that we're here for tonight is the two sideyard applications. We we have the the left sideyard as as you recall due to a bumpout. I'm just going to scroll back over there. Um we have a proposed
bump out in the front which is respecting the front yard setback, but because the uh the site is somewhat trapezoidal on a on a curved street where where the lines get closer and closer as they get closer to the street,
the side light the sidelot lines. Uh our proposed corner is uh.5 ft uh closer to the sideyard than the existing uh corner of the garage which
is 29.7. And uh the reason we don't want that bumpout is because of the more recent changes to uh trash storage and recycling bins and needing to have more organized ways and
to protect them from animals. Um so we wanted to have a little area where we could have a pedestrian door and be able to go in and out and and take the bins in and out easily um from, you know, two times a week or whatever whatever is needed.
But uh there haven't been any more changes to the site plan. Uh just that the calculations were updated. Uh but the the back section is still the same. Um all all the other setbacks and everything. We haven't changed any of that.
So So this this is the um what you're seeing now is the updated cover sheet which has the uh we also added a chart. Are you able to zoom in on that chart? >> I'll zoom in on this. Yes,
>> we added a chart because there were some questions about the building area. So I I added uh the the areas of each portion and then um I think the questions that were being asked were relative to the way a realtor
would would really the warm floor area that you would use when you're listing a house for example because they were comparing to other houses in the neighborhood. So in other words, you wouldn't include the unfinished or the semi-finished garage
and you might or you might not include the basement. So um uh I I included those numbers here. I if if I I I might, you know, I if you want me to go through them now, I can. But I
also showed a chart showing the existing and proposed bedroom and bathroom count. So basically, it's a four-bedroom house now. It's going to continue to be a four-bedroom house. We're basically converting one bedroom into a big
walk-in closet and and foyer area for a master suite over the garage. And um there there there are basically uh there's uh we're proposing two half bathrooms on the first floor. One is in
a mudroom area, one is in in a more formal entertaining area. Um and we have on the second floor um I'm sorry, let me just see. First floor we've got the two half baths. And then we got the second floor we have uh one hall bath and three
end suite baths. In other bedrooms that have direct access to to their own bathroom or sharing a bathroom with with uh the hallway. So, uh, and and the idea is is that a lot of people like to have that feature, you
know, for their adult children who visit or maybe they have kids and they don't want to always have to go out into the hallway to share a bathroom. But, um, you know, I think the after or during the meeting there was some some implication that maybe there was a plan
to rent bedrooms to Yeshiva students and that is not at all contemplated. Uh the owner is going to be living in the house himself with his family and um so this is just a normal uh single family house
project essentially. Um in addition to the I should have mentioned this the left and right sideyards we we also needed a variance for combined sideyards because um of that tapered lot line
situation uh where 50 is required. We're proposing 46.3. Um, and then so the the the the one side on the right is currently 17.1. It's proposed to remain at 17.1,
but we were asked to get a variance because it is going up a little bit higher than it is now. >> It is a variance. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, um, and then the left sideard I mentioned was is now 29.7 proposed to be 29.2 ft.
So, I think I'll go ahead down and um that's a survey I talked about. Sorry. See the sheet numbers here. Okay. C4. I'm going to skip over these. None of these site uh details changed. Uh they're just details for the uh grading,
the storm water, the plantings, some of the details. So, this is the first uh architectural plan. This is the original basement uh foundation plan that was filed and um the really there was no substantial
change to this plan. Um really there was no change that I can recall at all. All I did on these was clarify the room names. So this sheet has been replaced by this sheet where I also took off all of the the architectural dimensioning and everything. I just left the room
sizes and the room names so that um it would be easier to discuss, but essentially the basement has a full basement below where the sun room is now and it's being enlarged a little bit. But right now that's just open
space where a deck foundation exists. The sun room was built on top of a deck. And um to the left you see the the foundation, the existing garage slab is here. The proposed bumpout is over here. Uh and then the existing full basement
has a finished portion in the front and an unfinished portion in the back. Mechanicals will stay where they are. And then this this portion here, he hopes to be able to have like a hobby baking kitchen where he'll have slightly different feel and he might may have to leave dough overnight and things like
this and and things that you would he wouldn't he would prefer not to have to do in in the residential kitchen upstairs. Um, this was the original first floor plan. Um,
again, no substantial changes to the plan. The only thing that really did change was the stairs because we we lowered the first floor by 2 ft. It was a 10ft ceiling. I'm sorry, a wide by 1 ft. It's now a 9 ft ceiling. So, we
removed the extra risers that we would have needed uh up to the second floor and and I did the same thing from the second floor to the attic. So, but otherwise, these plans are pretty much identical. Um, and I'll show you that the the the replaced sheet. I also took
off the extraneous information and just left the room names, sizes, and areas um with the kitchen layout and the the powder room in the front. And then there's a little one in the back for more of a mudroom area.
I don't I I won't try to repeat everything, but essentially there's a this this hatched area is is a roughly a 4ft addition to the rear four to 5 ft. Um uh and and this is the existing sun room
here. So the sun room is being expanded to the rear and to the side a little bit. And I think I mentioned before this this portion is a lower patio that you can enter from the basement and then start stepping up to the middle patio and then
up to the existing patio up in the back. The next sheet is the original second floor that was submitted. Um, and again, the only change to this sheet, which I'll show you here, is I
took off all the extraneous construction information. I just left the room sizes and we did change the stairs from the first floor up as well as the second floor to the attic. And you can see hatched in here.
Um, the addition to the second floor is is this area over the existing garage and it and it includes the area over the sun over that little pump out in the front and over the extension along the rear.
And then uh let me just go to the next sheet is the attic. This this was the original um attic plan that was submitted. Uh, and then it, you know, it has all the dimensions which I probably shouldn't have had originally. And so this time I took took those off and just
left the area. Um, and this also reflects a different area of of habitable area because when the roof was lowered by pitch, it came down like this. So it lowered the 7 foot. It reduced the the amount of area that's 7
ft ceiling height. and um and that's all been updated on here, but it's essentially still a partially finished uh attic with with the three dormers in the front. Um and now so the biggest thing you'll
notice is is on the elevations. So uh let's see. So the the original front elevation with the proposed 38.4T 4 foot height had transom windows on the first floor
and it had 8ft high doors. So all these windows were taller and all the second floor windows were taller. But now if you look at it with those transoms have been removed and the the second floor windows are also shorter. Um you can't really see it too well here
but that this roof pitch has been dropped down lower than than it was. Um, and this side looks pretty much as it did before, although it is lower obviously because the whole the whole house came down u on each floor.
>> So you have a 9 ft high ceiling on the first floor. >> Yes. >> 8ft high ceiling on the second floor. >> Yes. >> And a maximum of 7 ft in the attic. >> It's Yes. Well, >> that's the current plan, right? I you could have some higher ceiling in the
attic, but the the portion that we count for habitable area is 7 ft at the 7 foot height. >> Okay. Uh while I'm on this sheet, um the original left side elevation is here. And you can see that that there were taller windows.
Um I'll show you the other one. And then we we also had transoms all around the sun room, windows and doors because all of that was taller. Uh, and we have now lowered both of these floors. So, I'll go back up to
that one now. And you can you can see that all these transoms are gone on the sun room. Um, these windows are still here with transoms, but they they're shorter windows. And all these outside doors have been lowered.
So, if I go down now to the uh the next sheet of elevations, hopefully he's right here somewhere. Let me see. Um, okay, that's the front. Okay, sorry. I think that was out of
place. Um, this is the original right side elevation that has the transoms in the U, you can see in the sun room, the taller windows, the taller floor to
floor heights. And this is the new the revised right side elevation where you can see the transoms are gone. The windows are shorter and um the second floor the same thing. The
windows are shorter and at the rear. Um you can see the original had these transs all all around the first floor. uh the the taller ceilings here, the taller second floor windows, and the
revised plan is shorter. Um here you can see it just looks shorter. You can see all the transoms are gone on the first floor. All these windows are shorter on the second floor. So um basically that that is summarizing the
the changes that were made. Um, and I think the only other real I'll go back up to the to the site plan just just to refresh you on on the fact that we have these two sideyard
variances that we need. Okay. So, basically, we have the pre-existing 17.1 to this corner. It's really not going up very much because it's it's it's it is going up a little bit, but um not too much. So, it's it's still it
still looks like every other second floor in the area pretty much. Uh so, so that is staying the same. And then, um this corner, I'll just zoom in here again just to make it clear.
Essentially, we have the the bump out um causing that five uh half half foot uh closer to the sideyard. You know, we thought about we actually talked to Dave Hansen about setting that
corner in to respect the existing 29.7 setback, but we tried drawing it. It really didn't look that great. he agreed with it and he he had originally uh thought we should be able to get away with it, but um so anyway, we're we're we're asking for the 29.2
and we don't feel it will um really make much of an impact on the street because the adjacent house has their driveway and parking on that side. So there's still quite a bit of space, way more than normal or you know
required as far as the distance from house to house. That is pretty much what underlies these sideyard requirements. Um we we have an extensive uh storm drainage system proposed here with with an area drain and and all of this is
going to be reviewed by the uh township. Um I think uh that kind of summarizes the architectural end of it. As far as the planning end, uh, essentially I just thought of it as pretty much under the C1, we have the hardship of the
pre-existing trapezoidal shaped lot, if you will, with the with the tapered lot lines um, which which is making it uh, um, more constrained. And we basically feel that it's a fairly much a fairly dimminimous uh, request as
far as just the half half foot uh, difference on that left side. And then the C2 uh proofs which would have to do with the uh front elevation, basically the street frontage, the street appearance of the building. I'll just
zoom all the way back down there. Let me see if I can scroll down. Oops. Let me see. I think I just lost the uh I'm going to have to stop sharing and share again. Sorry. I must have just
clicked something. Okay. So the front appearance uh we feel is I do have a picture some in one of these exhibits I believe it was it was actually attached to the application but um basically it it's
it's very similar to the existing in the sense that the front door is still uh where it is with the portico is being improved with with nicer columns around it. Um all the windows will be replaced. Um the brick will just be uh extended a
little bit and painted. Um and then the a high quality uh siding will be installed like like uh Hardy Plank. Um good quality roofing in it. So basically it's just being an upgrade of of a of a nicel looking house. Um I left the roof
the roof pitches of the dormers were were left as they are but I lowered the dormers of course to um to agree with the the new ridge height. But I think it's uh you know it's going to look like a nice house from from the street driving up and from both sides.
So, I think we fulfill some of the purposes of the C2 paragraph in terms of the um um street frontage and um overall purpose of fulfilling the
what what a single family residential home uh needs these days with the trash recycling and a nicer uh suite and a nicer kitchen, a more open family kitchen area and so on. Thank you. Um, Mr. Vuch, any questions?
There's a couple references on your plan. Um let's start with let's start with the elevation views um that you have up in at the >> go down to the other
>> uh both the rear and the right right sides the same reference um you have a proposed ridge elevation 4339 and then you're indicating a 434.3 permitted um that that what's referenced as
permitted it would put you in a a C1 height variance. C >> can you um are you looking at Did I leave a note or something I should take? Is that what you're saying you're saying? >> Well, I I want to clarify I want to clarify the the height as
proposed is a fixed 30 foot height from architectural first for elevation to the top of the adjusted ridge. Right. like you discussed in the last hearing, working off the architectural calculations and then looking at just
the drop negative to the to the finished floor from the finished floor to the average grade outside gave us a very clear distinct understanding of the height defined by the applicant's plans and inter and understood by the board. So
>> yes, uh you you asked us to do it that way and I I I actually have it I think it should be on all but the front elevation probably shows it clearest because this particular one doesn't show the one from the first floor to the average grade. But I I think that's the best way to do it is we showed the total
from average grade to the ridge, but we also showed the distance from average grade to the first floor and then from the first floor to the ridge. So that would be easy for anyone to go out and check the uh dimensions, >> right? But then
my concern is the use of the words the word permitted with this other elevation right there. They they're side by side proposed ridge at 4339 and 4343 permitted. I think first that
needs to be stricken because there is no difference. There's no point4 difference from the proposed ridge to the permitted ridge. The permitted the permitted ridge would have to be within 0.2 ft to stay
at the maximum 35 ft definition. All right. So I wanted to understand what the statements being made on the plan and then stipulate to correcting and striking it to ensure a fixed a fixed height elevation.
>> Right. I think uh what I was saying there was we're proposing 34.8 8 ft to the top of the ridge. And and what we'll we'll do is when we're framing, we get the first couple of rafters uh before we even frame the whole roof.
We we'll we'll have all that certified to make sure that we're not over the uh height, the allowed height. But I I was just saying there that um under the zoning by right, we could go to 35 ft, but I I I figured a little less just in
case of a little glitch in the field or something. uh we're uh they won't be right. We aren't proposing an exactly 35 ft high ridge. So uh but but I just mention I I wanted to make a distinction there that if it was let's say 34.9 ft that the
board is that the zoning officer would not say well you've got to go back to the board that that they approved only 34.8 ft. I'm just say that our maximum is >> the proposed height is 02 ft from the maximum and you're indicating a point4
spread between what you're proposing and what's permitted. So there's an >> 2. Yeah, it's only 02. That's right. >> Right. It's only 2. >> So we'll we'll we're going to be I I want >> So that So that would be 434.1 as the permitted next to it on all the
elevation sheets. you know, it's it's uh I I thought I had all those elevations correct. So, it's um but basically I think let me just see if I don't know if I can re not recheck those numbers, but are you saying that it looks like there some of the
elevation numbers are incorrect like proposed ridge 433.9 and then next to it 434.3 it would be 434.1 would be the would be a fixed 35 ft height without >> I see what you're saying it's it's more than 2,
>> right? And then above that you have a max ridge elevation at 437.5 which conflicts with the other two which I think is a remnant from >> it must be a >> prior revisions. So that's on
that's on the right side elevation I believe. Right. Is that what we were just looking at? No. >> Sorry. Let me just see if >> that was on the front elevation. I'm surprised that's on there. >> And then I think it's also 437. It's
also then on the left side elevation. >> Okay. Well, that was certainly intended to be. So I think there are there are a number of plan errors I think that need to be
stipulated to and understood to be corrected for what the board receives and accepts as resolution compliance if this was >> to be voted to an approval. >> Hopefully we can do that on the signature sets and just make it clear that we are not asking to go over um
38.4 ft from the average grade. >> Okay. So if if hopefully the board can just accept that there might be some remnant um notes that I missed. Um >> I think it's in each respectively in each of your elevation views. I'm sorry. It's in each of your elevation views
between that reference to the point4 greater in permitted. That would be corrected as well as the old ridge max ridge line in reference in a couple locations. >> Yes, I'll make sure we get those. Um the height calculation that you're doing
using for average grade um is the same as it was last time to to establish the average grade which was 3 uh 399.1.
Correct. And that was that was this those are the same points that were provided by our township assistant engineer in the in-house calculation then used for your calculation.
>> Yes, the 3399.1 I believe if I just understood what you said is is correct. It's the one it's it agrees with what your engineer um corrected us with. >> Okay. So, we're using the same points for average distribution in 20 feet around at a representative average grade
height as opposed to skewed in any particular direction. >> You're you're agreeing with the calculation from our assistant engine? >> Yes, I'm agreeing with that. >> Okay. And the only changes were made architecturally to the height in the first floor ceiling
height, the second floor ceiling height, and then the ridge coming down in the habitable attic. So that being cumulatively the correct >> what would be just over three and a half feet that were reduced architecturally
in the plan. No change in the exterior footprint. So no change in the average grade calculation. Correct. >> Correct. No change. >> I'm just trying to get back to my uh
>> Okay. And then the you added you said you added some references. Oh, sorry. Um, before I move on to that, there are a few items on the sub submitted hard
copy were stricken from notes with your initials on them. And it would appear that they're also they're also then identified on this the PDF set with a strikeout. Yes, I I noticed at the last minute that some some references to the 38.4 were weren't
caught, so I I handed I did it that way. >> Okay. Um and so all of those are reflected from your handotes to the digital submitted record copy. >> Yes, I believe they should be agreed. >> So it looks like it's to the side of the the warm floor area buildings building
height based on topo 20 ft from building 35 allowed 31.8 8 existing grade 38.4 proposed stricken. So that would be corrected at the proposed height of 34.8.
And then same with um further down across from the schedule of zoning requirements there's a um a a statement the height of the ridge proposed at 34.8. That's correct and and underlined. >> Yes.
>> Right. And then on board of adjustment checklist notes five variance relief from section 95.8 and at the last line of that you have then stricken and corrected.
So I'd prefer to see those items corrected on the plan the plans that the board accepts. I will correct those and um make sure that there's no ambiguity. >> Okay. And then
the uh the tables that you you you added um part of the earlier testimony, the warm floor area, building areas, and the bedroom bathroom count areas. Um just
to go back over those and have a better understanding for the existing floor area in the structure. We have a a first and second floor warm floor areas identified for 329
square ft. And then there is is there a habitable attic or the habitable attic is being created by the proposal? It's being created by the proposal. >> Okay. So, currently it's not habitable. It's not roughed in in any way. >> Okay. And that that habitable attic
being created at 649 is slightly less than I think it was 670ish. >> Yes. >> On the prior and that's because of the the 7T clear height. >> Yes. It came lower when we lowered the pitch. Yes. And the proposal for that habitable attic,
does that include any? It's just open floor space for open den use. >> Yes. Not not intended for additional bedrooms, >> correct? >> Or or plumbing to the third floor. >> Right. There's no plumbing, no no bathroom proposed, just mechanical u
equipment and an area to do homework or or have a um a little u home office or something if somebody needed some quiet space. >> And the applicant would agree to that as a condition? >> Yes.
>> Uh yes. Um and then the basement um unchanged from the prior proposal just continued. >> You're saying the basement? >> Yes. The basement level of the the basement kitchen and that habitable
space in that in that area is unchanged from the prior plan set. still reflected at the same >> same proposal, same full kitchen, >> the cabinet spaces and and all that just unchanged from the prior submission.
>> It's unchanged. >> Okay. So, the total habitable spa and and that area is is partially finished currently. About a third of it is finished currently. >> Yes. Uh this this front
>> third to maybe closer to a half. It's it's this whole area is finished. This whole so probably close to half is finished. >> Okay. >> All right. And then so then the total capital square footage of the home is is
correctly stated at existing 385 and then increasing to 6,342. >> I just go back up there. Okay. >> Uh I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question?
>> So the the total withhabitable attic and with finished basement existing at 3,85 ft and then proposed being 6,342 >> coming from your
>> Yes. If you if you count the uh the finished the entire finished basement and the habitable attic portion. Yes. >> Well, that that's that's a clarification I want to make sure the board understands. >> Yes. >> Is there you have the correct square footage of
the habitable areas on every floor and so that cumulative total is correct. There's no error in that. >> I as far as I know it is. Yes. Um I I I wanted to get the subtotals because some people were wanting to include the basement or not the basement and garage
and so on. So I I uh they're their finished habitable space is intended for use and would be assessed as what accordingly by the tax assessor. Correct. >> Yeah. I I do want to say that um the
indivi the floor areas that I used here are gross areas. For example, it goes to the outside surface of the exterior walls. Um so comparable reductions in both the existing and the
proposed since we have similar footprint to the home. >> Yes. I I I it's the same way of calculating both ways, >> right? Okay. So in terms of percent increase of the total floor area all of that it it's still a relative comparison
for your proposal 3800 and the 6,300 42 okay um I think those are the questions I have just from the testimony direct and then offer over to the board for questions. in case I I may
interject to add on a couple. >> Okay. >> Another. >> Thank you. Board members, any questions? >> Mr. Chairman, can we talk about the kitchens? It it appears there's a kitchen on the third on the second floor as well.
>> No, there's no kitchen on the second floor. >> Oh, no. I got the first floor in the basement, but the second floor it says something about >> size of range exhaust. Ptor's housing exhaust. >> Oh. Uh there there's a you're probably
seeing that there's a uh there's a there's a a range hood duct that goes straight up through the second floor. And that's probably the note you're seeing. It goes right through the walk-in closet. Uh, I'll point to it. I think you're you're you're saying it's right here,
right? >> Well, it's the rectangle. >> I think the larger rectangle is what you're referencing to, right? >> Yeah. >> I think that's >> there's a rectangle above that. >> Oh, right here. >> Yeah. >> That's just part of the walk-in closet,
like furniture or a little island type piece in the walk-in closet for like drawers and >> So, that whole room is a closet. Yes, that that whole room is is a big closet. And this is just a chase for the uh range hood from below.
Oh, okay. That's a big closet. All right. Um so then the basement kitchen, can we stipulate that it won't be used for commercial purposes? >> That's a big kitchen. I mean, I like to
bake, too. That's a huge kitchen, >> you know. Um it it's going to have to all be designed. I'm sorry. Let me just go back to the basement here. Uh it's going to have to be refined somewhat. Um but it's
it's basically just a placeholder at this point. Um I haven't really talked extensively about what's there, but I'm sure it'll have a refrigerator, uh an oven, and a prep area. some some um that type of thing. It's it's it
hasn't really been fully developed. >> Well, there's a section on the right called staging area, >> right? Uh I I just didn't know what else to call it. I It's basically just a place to have equipment and maybe a prep island. Um but there's nothing commercial about it. It's just a hobby
and not sort of a a thing that he does for people. And he's brought a few loaves to me since we started. It was delicious and I just really appreciated it. It's a It's >> I mean I bake bread, too, but it's a hobby for me as well. >> Yeah. >> Um but I don't have a 32 foot kitchen.
So is there >> It looks to me like the intent is to make it a commercial kitchen and I don't know whether give things away or sell things or or whatever. But
I don't know is is it maybe board members are >> stipulate. You can make any condition you want about it. It is what I've told you it is. It's just for a personal interest that he has and he does >> then you stipulate that it can't be used for commercial purposes. >> Right. >> Is there a specific definition for
commercial purposes in our ordinance? >> Well, it it couldn't be used for business purposes, right? Because that he would have to satisfy the home occupation requirements in the ordinance. Um and if he couldn't, you know, be back here. So um it just
couldn't be used for business purposes without coming back here then for further variance relief. >> Yeah, I understand there are other constraints in the health department and health code of the state >> uh for
commercial baking inside of residents. In fact, I think we're one of the only states doesn't allow specifically for commercial kitchens in residential dwellings. Okay. >> So I think there are existing citations in state regulations and
health health code that prevent that. that stipulation would do would go far toward >> but I I think that plus the stipulation in in the in the record of the approval um would be >> sufficient
>> sufficient to uh document it in both angles both you know in case the ch state were to change its regulations that currently would my understanding is prevent it. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Then sure. >> No,
>> wait. Not right. We're still questioning him. You'll have an opportunity to testify. >> Yes. Plus, I have to swear you in. >> Board members, any other questions? Yep. Um, at this time, any members of the public have any questions uh for this
witness, the the architect? So before we do, uh I believe it's cottage food operators permits and there's certain restrictions to that at the state health code level. That's what the board's understanding. Cottage food operator. >> Cottage food.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> There is a signin sheet at the podium if you'd like to expedite the uh the spelling and address information. >> Sure. They ask us not to request. Okay. So, yeah, if you could please >> just put a signing sheet so they can write that down.
>> Signing sheet is great, but I'm still going to have you state your name and spell it. >> Fair enough. >> Thank you. >> I'm just going to pass this. >> Uh, Jason Church. C H E R C H I A. >> I'm sorry again. >> Jason J A S O N Church. C H E R C H I A.
I live at 31 Nwood. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I own that property as well. Um, I just have a few questions regarding the commercial kitchen. Would the applicant agree to, if they were to get an approval, would the applicant
agree to record the resolution in the chain of title? That way, the next purchaser of the home is also aware of the condition. Cuz while you're certainly aware of it, if the home were to be sold, the buyer who is not here right now may not be aware of it. And we
would would the applicant be agreeable to recording the resolution in the chain of title? >> I think that's a good idea. Um I don't think he has to record the whole resolution, but we could record a deed notice that identifies that. Right. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um can you tell me approximately what percentage of the home is being demolished and how much is going to of the existing home is going to be demolished and how much of the existing home is going to remain? Uh, >> I'm sorry. The question it's for the for
the architect >> roughly a percentage. >> Yeah, I I um if you don't mind, I'm just going to answer it this way. The entire rear sun room is being demolished. Uh, and
the roof over the existing garage is being demolished to make the new floor for the for the bedroom. But otherwise, of course, the existing roof of the U house is is coming off and the existing second floor walls and the existing second floor structure is coming off
because we're going to extend the first floor walls higher and build a new second floor. And the same pretty much the same layout as the second floor. We're just lifting it up. >> Uh, I heard earlier, maybe I misheard you. You mentioned something about
needing the garage expansion for the safety of the for from animals. Is that what I heard? Maybe I heard you incorrectly. I was talking about um the reason we want to have this bump out in the front >> um was to
uh provide more space for bins for you know where it's convenient right right near the where you would take them out to the curb um for recycling and trash and not have to leave them outside in in a like
enclosure or something outside. Uh so but it's also to provide a way to have a pedestrian door that you could walk in without raising the overhead doors. So for example, if there was a delivery or somebody visiting that they
could just come through that side door. Okay. Um the addition above the garage, uh that's the side of the house that has the non-conforming setback. Is that right? >> Yes. Uh, and the addition Well, does the
existing home have windows that face that the home, the neighboring home? I saw you're adding windows. So, my question is, does the existing home have windows on that side >> on the front >> on the side? Uh, the side of the with the garage that faces towards that home
with the non-conforming setback. >> I I think there might be one in the back, but I I I don't know for sure. Let me just see if I have a photo of it. >> These are these are the um surrounding house. I do have it here somewhere. If you want me to try to find it, I can I
might be able to click to it. Let me see. This is the original um set of files. So, this is this is this is I'm going to zoom in on this. Um, >> no windows. >> This is the existing house, the front
here, and this is the left side where you you just have the garage doors >> and the side of the roof. So, there are no windows on that side. >> Okay. And my last question is, did you identify any purposes of any specific purposes of the MLUL that you're relying on for your C2 variants?
>> Yes. Um, >> I don't have my physical notes here, but I did include that in my application as an as an attachment. So, it's it's with all the original uh documents and online. And so I'm just
going to use my exhibit here to go through it. And essentially basically I I as I mentioned earlier I um we we have two paragraphs of proofs. Essentially, it has to do with the C1, which has to do
with the hardship. And we we we feel that those existing tapered lot lines and the pre-existing non-conforming corners are could be qualified as a hardship that uh an owner has to just cope with. For example, the 17.1 on the right side
is what it is. We're just going up a little bit over that and and it's it's uh >> Right. My question was about the C2, though. I understood your testimony about C1. >> Okay. So the the C2 um I feel that we're providing pro uh
we're we're fulfilling u paragraphs A, C, G, I, and J. A has to do with um um safety and general welfare and the fact that um the garage is going to function better and have a more suitable way for
guests and deliveries to come and go and have the uh the bins uh controlled and inside uh a secure area. >> I'm sorry, you said deliveries come and go. >> Well, like if someone has a delivery and they or if a guest comes and they want to um visit and come through the side
door, you know, that's >> okay. But you're agree. You're agreeing it's not a commercial. >> No, no. I mean just a private home delivery. >> Okay. I don't have any more question. >> Pause for a second. >> In providing your proofs >> the
the promotion of public health. I I can uh basically >> with the proofs though as as you're stating them, they need to be comprehensive to the public and the township as a whole, not to the benefit
of the applicant or their >> phrase from saying yeah. And so the way that you just stated that was specific to um the operation of the tra the the trash and other things. Um, frankly, trash management is something
that all neighbors have to address and need to conduct safely. So whether it's in the garage or in a designated area inside the garage in an annex is not constituting that. I just want as as was
stated, it was more individualized. M >> I'd like you to just revise that statement to make it uh more broadband to the public and to the township to satisfy the proof. >> Yes. And in your direct testimony when
you spoke about the C2 proofs, you mentioned aesthetics which is purpose I. You didn't say purpose I but that is purpose I right. Correct. >> I don't know if that's in your >> aesthetics. Yes. in your application papers, but I is uh with respect to aesthetic and
>> so I I'll accept what what Joseph was saying about the purpose of uh a and um >> well in all in all purposes that you are speaking to the benefits are are to the the global we of the township and the
residents and the neighborhood as opposed to the applicant. >> Okay. Well, I I um I'll accept that you you probably are um more aware of that that global um per
intention for those paragraphs. I've used those before and uh felt that you know for example historically appropriate um on under sea where we are tradition the house is traditional and it's providing light and air between um homes with the the way the roofs are set
up. Um and that G has to do with residential uses and the fact that we are fulfilling the intended use for the zone being being a single family home. But updating it for current needs of uh this this period of time where you have
multiple um people in the home living together, working, going to school, and um doing a lot more in the home remotely than they used to do. Is the existing home vacant or underutilized? >> I'm sorry.
>> Is the existing home vacant or underutilized or un unable to come to market to be inhabited as it currently exists without additions and alterations? >> All right. So that basically purpose I is the key. Uh that has to do with the
um improvement to the streetscape and um the fact that it's consistent with um the more traditional older homes, the higher quality homes being built and the um high quality materials trim uh top-of-the-line windows and the steeper
roof, the dormers just creates a nicer street frontage. >> Okay. But you didn't answer his question, right? Is it is the house currently vacant? It was rented for a year. So, I think it's vacant now. Vacant.
>> It It's It was supposed to be under construction by now, but we're we're delayed. >> Yeah. So, the lease the lease had had run its course as opposed to becoming an underutilization or vacancy, >> right? >> Is it marketed currently?
>> It's not being marketed now. >> Okay. >> It is outdated though, you know. It's it's uh for example the back sun room was just built on top of a deck which shouldn't have really been done. So it's or things like that. Would you characterize
>> would you characterize the neighborhood as outdated? >> Would you first would you find would you characterize neighborhood as outdated? Would you find that the the home as it exists currently is in character to the existing neighborhood?
But I I didn't mean that that the neighborhood is outdated. >> No, I understand. I just we just want to be specific with the variance proofs being put forward and have a clear understanding that they're demonstrated, right? It it's it can be both. The home
can be existing home can be in character to the neighborhood and the proposed improvements can also be in kind to the character of the neighborhood if that's what you believe the appropriate improvement has been
architecturally put forward to still promote while providing for um a modernization that makes the home more marketable and desirable for a longer continued lifespan, right? It can
be both. I just want to have a clear understanding of if it needs to occur because it's underutilized and is not marketable and therefore it is coming back to the neighborhood because others have done improvements or if we have a
neighborhood that exists as it has been and has mostly been with minor improvements and this larger scaled improvement is still in time with that neighborhood. that distinction should be understood by the board and in the
proof. >> I wouldn't uh object to that. I think that that's a good way to state it and uh I'm going to try to remember that. So you find the existing home as as is
in character to the neighborhood and you feel that the proposed improvements modernize and help the home improve the home while while keeping in character to the neighborhood. Is that is that your testimony?
>> Yeah, I don't feel that the improvements are too extreme to where they start to look out of place. Um and that and that the fact that we're we're still um pretty much consistent with the uh yards
and so on. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> I'm done. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh Timothy Dixon, 14 Kistle Lane, also uh an owner in the neighborhood. Um, so before asking for
the variance on the front of the property, I I noticed that the the back of the property, the the yard tapers out to the left. Why wouldn't that extension on the garage be able to be put on the back of the house where the variance
would no longer be needed? Okay. Um, I'm just going to so I don't have to scroll. I'm just going to go back here. You're saying that uh why what you're asking why is the bump out in the front not feasible on the left side of the house?
>> Yeah. I mean generally before you ask for a variance you've exhausted all other options to make the property work and be in conformance with the the permitting laws. So my question is there's plenty of space on the back of the house. Why wasn't the extension put on the back of the house? It would still
serve the same function of, you know, access for deliveries and and guests and an area for your trash, but you wouldn't need the variance. >> All right. So, uh in there are many ways to to do things.
When I was looking at this project, uh and I uh I I think it really came from the frontal elevation. I'm going to go down to that. um where I you know we always try to avoid let allowing a house to to look too boxy so to speak you know
where it's just you just build over a garage and extend the roof and it all of a sudden it looks like it's much too big so I wanted to be able to turn the roof 90° over the garage. Sorry, I keep uh hitting this the wrong way here. And um
make it look like almost a mass that has its own roof that's connected to the original box of the house, which is here. And uh in order to do that, I I did I couldn't just have the side go straight across. I I needed to have some
corner boards and some some slight um difference in the front elevation or I wanted to just turn this corner back and then come across and come back out and have something under this new uh gable end which was um also becoming part of
the master suite um above the garage. So, it just kind of made sense on both levels to to do that here for the sake of the front elevation. So, that um it it kind of made made the reverse gable um you know, the 90° turn of the the
main roof u make sense and make it look like it it needed to be that way for for a reason. >> So, so if I again I'm I'm not an expert in this um but it sounds like it's more aesthetics than actually needed for
function. to be able to build the property that way. >> Well, certainly aesthetics is part of it. Um, >> but aesthetics isn't a unless I'm understanding it right, aesthetics is not a need for a variance. >> I I didn't see that in the the code
list. I I don't know it exactly but >> right we we were just talking about the purposes of the MLUL and um the the municipal land use law which is a state law that guides all boards in the state on how to uh justify variances
and um we were just talking about those purposes before. Let me see if I can just um zoom out here for a second. Um so th those purposes do include um what's known as C2 uh has has to do with
the u aesthetic where you can use aesthetic improvement especially if if it affects the streetscape so to speak where it it just basically is something that will improve the yard and streetscape and landscaping and the
overall appearance. Uh it is an accepted uh justification for granting a variance even that alone without a practical u hardship. So um >> right but the the bump out was a C1
variance not a C2. Correct. Well, it was both because it I felt it was C1 because of the fact that we have the pre-existing corner that that is non-conforming and um we we didn't we could have complied with that by just
shifting the the the corner. I just want to show you that because um no, I I saw it. So, we we'll we'll we'll table that for now. Um, you you said that the updates are to be consistent with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And I believe this question was brought up in
the last meeting of how many houses in this neighborhood have three stories with dormers on the third floor. >> I can't tell you that answer. I I I haven't surveyed. I don't I don't think >> so. So So the question was asked in the
last meeting and and and not answered. So, how many homes in the neighborhood are in excess of 6,000 square ft of habitable space? >> I haven't done that analysis. >> Yeah. And you're counting it before and you're counting it now, but you're making it bigger and more furnished. So,
you need to count that space. So again, another question that was asked and not answered. Those are all my questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh Brian Millio 16 can away. >> Just spell your last name, please. >> Millio. M I L E O.
>> Thank you. Um, in line with questioning I guess last two residents, friends of mine. Um, >> I'm sorry. Did you give us your address? >> Yeah. 16 Canbury way. Yep. Thank you. >> And in the application quotes of being
in line with houses in the neighborhood. I think Tim asked the question, how many houses above 6,000 square ft? I would ask how many above 6,500 and ask you to check that calculation on the square foot is the house. I would
ask if you're including the closets in that calculation of space habitable area like what what is excluded from the habitable area. I'm assuming mechanicals garage you mentioned what is actually excluded from the habitable area
>> right let let me just say that um you know when we when we look at building coverage or in some towns there's an a floor area ratio where people want to see the overall size of a house we don't have
that in Morris Township but we measure to the outside surface of the walls and it includes all the closets all the mechanical case you there are some exclusions, but when a realtor um compares houses like let's say if you see a house that says, "Okay, we're selling a house. It's got 5,000 ft."
They're usually just referring to the warm floor area or they'll qualify it and say, you know, plus garage or plus basement or something like that. So, the 6,000 square foot number that you're using um is a is a total gross area of
the house. It's not if if you just look at that's why I tried to show it as a warm floor. Uh but the first floor excluding the garage is 1809 proposed is 2172. Second floor um
is 1,400 and 2149 and that excludes an open uh foyer where a bedroom's being removed. So that that total is 4321. But then if you add that, you know, we
have a habitable attic, which most people don't have it. You you wouldn't even notice it. It's it's still the same roof, you know, essentially you're just finishing a little bit of it for a a bonus room, so to speak. And so that is counted as 649, that brings it to 4970. And then if you count the finished
basement, which is all below grade, just about all there's some walk out in the back, u but it's all hard to see. Uh it brings it to 63. So, you really should be comparing um if you want to look warm floor to warm floor the way you would think of a realtor talking about houses
in the area, it's more like 4321. >> That's the number they would use to compare. >> So, based on that, are you asserting that those extra spaces have no impact on the home or the neighborhood or anything of that sort >> for the assessed value? cuz that's what you seem to be implying when you're
comparing 4300 and warm floor, but you seem to be excluding the I see the number is there, but in terms of influence or impact, you don't seem to be putting much weight into that. >> No, I I I'm not really trying to say
that. I I'm just trying to say that um um let me see if I can not have to scroll here. Um no, I'm got to do it. If if I go back down to the elevation, uh because I think the overall point of
your question is about the the the overall volume of the house as it as compared to other houses in the in along the street. Is it going to look too big, you know, compared comparatively speaking? >> Well, that's one aspect of it, but I would I would think everybody in this room would be concerned of volume. I
mean, if you create a box, as you said before, which would be unsightly when obviously there's issues with that, but to create a box in that footprint and jam 8, nine, 10,000 square feet into it, I think there'd be a lot of concerns with people in the neighborhood, especially when they're probably the majority of these houses are in the
order of 3,000 square ft. I mean, we're not we're not I mean, and to Tim's question earlier, are there any houses that you came across in the neighborhood that are upwards of 6,000 square ft? I I think my my answer is that um
basically you you have a proposed two-story house which there are a lot of those in the neighborhood. Uh it looks like it's basically got a 9 foot ceiling. Yes, it's maybe there aren't I don't know how many 9 foot ceilings are but that's not very uncommon in homes
today uh on the first floor. So you've got um a two-story house. The the gutter line is still about where it was. It's it's maybe a foot higher and then instead of a low slope roof, we we have a steeper roof, but it's still a roof.
So, it's going to look like a two-story house with a roof. Um, yes, there are some dormers, but that's not that uncommon even for attics. Even unfinished attics, what you they'll put just for the look of it. And and yeah, we have some more volume over the garage now that we didn't have before, but we
tried to break it up so that it doesn't look boxy, you know, and um I think it's I don't think it does look boxy. I don't think I don't think it looks too big. >> So then to clarify your statement in line with the houses in the neighborhood is strictly on visual.
>> Well, I think that's what most people are concerned about is visually going up. >> I don't think everybody in this room would agree with you >> and people watching at home. I just don't think they would or maybe members of the board which we're going to hear from but I I don't agree with that. I don't I think a lot of people in this room don't agree with that.
>> Yes, it's important but I don't think it's just >> it's just questions now. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I'll ask other questions. Um I guess I'm going to ask and presume with 6,000 square ft not checking housing neighbor. Have you checked with other houses in the neighborhood that have habitats? Is that
something you've done? >> No, I haven't done it. >> Okay. Um, have you checked if any houses in the neighborhood have closets upwards? I see one 16 by 14, 14 by 12. >> Is that common? >> That kind of research would be almost
it' be very very timeconuming. >> Have you checked how many houses in the neighborhood have two kitchens upwards of 900 ft in the neighborhood? >> No. Have you checked um any house in the neighborhood that combined 2,000 square
feet of recreation area, not including the living room and the the back patio area that's being enclosed or the back room? Have you checked if any housing neighbor would have over 2,000 square ft of uh recreation space as you call it? Just so just to I just I hear I I know
where you're going with it. But when we look at this as planners, we basically start with the zone, the setbacks, you know, the side, front, and rear setback, the height, the stories, and we try to build within those that envelope. That's an allowable building envelope. If if we
were to do that, um we we would have quite a bit larger house. The the the front wall, let's say someone wanted to take this house down and build a compliant house, right? the whole front wall could align with this this front um of the garage because that does respect the front yard setback.
The uh the sides would be very close to where they are here. They'd be a little bit in if you just didn't want to have to deal with the pre-existing sides. Um and the top you could have two and a half stories
35 ft high. Um so you you know our average grade would probably be about the same. So, you know, basically somebody could just build a house by right and not have to go to the board. You know, you know what I'm saying? And and and it could have a big family room. It could have a big kitchen. It could
have big closets. No, that's not controlled by the zoning ordinance. It's it's more of a marketing thing and a personal preference that people have when they have certain needs and families and, you know, >> Yeah. And I understand, you know, I'm
just based on what I read in the application and I see in line with the houses in the neighborhood, I I don't agree with that statement and I think a lot of people would disagree with you when I also read about undue burden and I think this was the exchange a moment ago. If those features were absent from
this house, are you asserting there's undue burden? Because I would like to say most people don't have that stuff in our neighborhood and I don't think they're feeling a burden. Well, um I think when when I when I meant um consistent with the
neighborhood, I meant traditional. It has traditional siding, traditional uh windows, shutters, roofing. >> That's fair. >> But it looks like a traditional house. That's what I meant. I I wasn't trying to compare room areas. >> Okay. Well, then I don't I don't see the connection to the statement of undue
burden and reduced economic utility. I think that that would impact most of the people in the room, not necessarily the applicant. I think it's the other way around. Okay. Thank you. There'll be an opportunity to talk to the owner of board after uh throughout the meeting.
You have opportunities to come back >> when they've completed all their testimony. Then the public can come up and make their statements >> comments. Y >> that may or may not be tonight. >> Okay. >> So, just to get back to something that gentleman mentioned. So, I just want to clarify. So, the total square footage
under roof, right, is 6,342 square ft >> right >> to the outside walls, including the basement and the attic. >> And the only All right. And the only thing we're excluding with that is the garage or is that includes garage? >> So, everything under roof, right? Yes.
>> Is 6,342 square feet. >> And the and the uh I'm sorry, go back up. Make sure See, uh, a dorm floor chart. First floor excluding the garage and second floor
excluding open. It says >> would that be open air areas from the first floor to the second? >> There's an Yeah. Open foyer at the front front door >> because you have a twotory foyer coming in, right? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so just so we're all on the
same page, what's the under roof square footage? Well, it's correct to say that the both of those areas for the first and second floor did not include the garage. The existing and proposed did not include the garage. I thought that's the nature of the question.
>> So, six Well, that's not really the question, but we'll get to the question again. So, under roof is 6,342 square ft plus the garage. >> The garage I I think I had can give you that. Um
>> I just want the number under route. What's the under roof square footage >> including garage, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. I just have to take that number and add the garage. I would say it's around 600 ft. With the addition
16, >> the garage is >> okay. 20 20 by 26 >> 590. >> So 5 512 ft is the garage. >> 6934. >> Yeah. So it's it's rounding up to 600
proposed is the garage with the addition. >> Well, he just said 512. Is that right? >> I think that was the existing Let me just see >> the existing credits. The first floor footprint, first floor plan, enlarged twocar garage, 512.2
square feet, >> 68. >> There's also the trash recycle below that, >> which is then 80.5 ft. So cumulatively 600 square ft just just under 600 square ft of trash,
recycling, and twocar enlarge garage. >> 69. >> So 592 and a half is right. >> Yeah. Okay. So, all right. So, so we're around 6,900 square feet. A little over >> 6930 >> under roof.
>> That >> I'm asking you. You drew the plan number. >> Yes. Yes. If we we could add the garage back in, you'd be up um in that area. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Why don't we take five and then All right. >> Yeah. >> We're going to take a fivem minute
recess now. for the uh April 27th, 2026 uh board of adjustment meeting the township of Morris. Uh roll call. >> Mr. Evangel >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here. >> Miss Simmons. >> Yes. Here.
>> Mr. Benois >> here. >> Mr. Kramer >> here. >> Mr. Goldberg >> here. Thank you. Thank details. >> And Mr. Holler. >> Yes. So, uh, during the break, the applicants architect came up and
mentioned some possible modifications to the plan. Is there anything there? >> I thought, um, I've talked to the owner about it. and taking into considerations the um the neighbors concerns. Um I'm going to go down to the u
elevation here. So, um, but what we're what what what the owner is is agreeable to is remove all three of these front dormers from the front roof
and just have roofing there, which would be similar to the other houses. Um, give up and stipulate that he doesn't need to keep the habitable attic that that it would just be a plywood floor for storage, mechanical, etc. like
most addicts are. So that would remove square footage, you know, warm floor square footage from the house. Um, in addition, um, regarding the basement kitchen,
we would just call that a wet bar, just just a just a sink and refrigerator like you would have in any recreation room in in a um in a recreation room in a in a basement. We don't have to call a baking kitchen or or staging area or anything like that. It would just be for workout
equipment like the things that that other people do in basements essentially residential uses in the basement. Um so those those are three substantial changes. Uh let me just zoom in here.
There was another concern about the front bumpout. Uh and and what we're thinking is that we could take um we would like to keep a door there if possible because the the overhead doors are are where they are. The columns and the girder are where they are. And I can't fit a door in
there. Um so there is a door in the back, but it's to a finished mudroom uh area. Um it's not an unfinished garage area. So we we could take um about 1 ft 2 to 1t 4 in off the the depth of this
front and and that would happen all the way up, maybe even more, but we we we were trying to keep the door and enough room for trim and um structure, but that that would basically bring this corner closer to the existing front wall of the
house. Okay. Um, so if if the board is agreeable to that, we we we could uh stipulate to that and then what we're hoping is that we can have this approved tonight and come back with um signature sets with all these changes made,
reviewed by the the engineer and then go ahead and uh hopefully, you know, be able to answer any final questions through Joseph or or whatever at at the hearing for the resolution. But um we we're willing to discuss this front
bumpout if it's if it's a tr if it's a problem. Uh but every every every foot that you go back reduces the the non-compliance with the sideyard. So uh and we don't we don't think it's feasible to um you know which was the
original thinking on this project was that we didn't want to notch there but it is you know we could revisit it. Maybe that is a possibility if we go back and you know what I'm saying is if this corner had to be pushed over um half a foot it wouldn't quite look
right you know to but we you know we might we might be able to revisit that but I think that um the the notion of pushing this whole wall back let's say a foot or foot 2 in um would would make it look more agreeable with the with the
existing front plane of the house and we could still have enough trim and corner ers to make the roof look logical. >> Do you know what the setback would be? Are you able to do a calculation where if you continued that front wall
across to the point where it would intersect with, you know, that new section, I'll call it new section of the garage, what the setback would be from that point. >> Yes. Um right now the existing setback
to the existing corner of the house um to to the to that that main corner not the garage corner is 53.8 ft to this corner and our proposed setback to the corner
of our bumpout was 50.7 ft. So if if we went back a foot, it would become 51.7. Um if we you know, we could just adjust that. Uh and then the the the setback to
the corner of the garage right now is 56.5. The proposed front on that corner is 51.4. So basically we would be adding to the 50.7 the 51.4 whatever whatever amount we go back.
>> Yeah. I meant I meant to the sideyard. sideyard. >> Okay. The sideard >> because if you're going to ask the board to say, you know, hey, we're going to >> So, I I think >> I don't know if we can get to a vote, but if we can um you know, what are we voting for then? Right. So, the what
would that what are you proposing the sideyard setback would be? Currently, it's 29.7. You're proposing 29.2. So when you move that wall back so that it's um consistent with the front wall,
right, you get to that whatever that point is. And that point to the sideyard is what? >> I'd say we could call it um 29.4. So I think you have >> I don't think you can call it >> you you have a you have a 0.5 difference
in existing to proposed, >> right? And then you have a 5 foot 2 in difference in the proposed bumpout forward. So roughly on a linear scale on that corner >> each foot
>> point each foot that you go back is 0.1 of a foot in setback. >> Exactly. >> We think the same way. >> Yeah. You're right. >> We're trained the same way. >> Yeah. So I think I think it's about for what what you were discussing was about
a foot to two foot back would be another 0.1 or 0.2 ft on the setback respectively. >> Okay. I just think we should know the number. >> Well, I I think we could go ahead and just say that um we we could agree to 29.4
and I'll make it I'll make sure that the plan agrees with that. So your proposal is change that sideyard to 29.4t. Okay. The basement change would be uh only a wet bar, you know, sink, wreck
room, right? No, um no separate kitchen, right? I think that was the key really. >> The habitable space, >> habitable attic, >> right? The habitable space on the basement is is the same. It's just not specifically purposed as a kitchen,
right? Okay. and removal of the three front dormers. I have it all. >> It's all I >> believe. So, yes, >> the habitable attic also. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I said that. No habitable attic.
>> There's still an attic. is just not noted as habitable, which means you're not finishing off the attic, >> right? >> Correct. >> Is everything okay? >> I think that was >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we understand the change of the plan.
Do you have any other witnesses? >> No. >> Okay. Thought the owner wanted to say something. No. No. You're good. Uh, >> I don't think the question you didn't finish prop. >> Oh, I I thought the line went away. So,
>> okay. >> Members of the public. >> Sure. We can still continue >> open the public portion. >> Well, can the public uh see what the plans are specifically because they might >> I'm sorry, sir, but we need you to come to the microphone.
>> Woodford 36 drive. >> Thank you. um two houses down. I think the public has a right to be able to see the plans and evaluate them before any vote so they can make a meaningful cross-examination and meaningful comments. So, I think we have to have revised plans before we can do anything else.
>> Yeah. I And honestly, I don't disagree. I I I know you're trying to say all these things so that the board would vote tonight, but you know, they're important. You can see it brought out the whole neighborhood. That's how important it is. and and uh you know I think we need to know really
if we're going to we need to know that it's 29.4 four for example, right? So we need to see that plan and then I think um there might you know be fairly quick at a at a subsequent meeting to to
resolve it >> but you know me we're getting there we haven't finished the public I know but right >> we'll get back to the board >> right >> I just mean I don't think there's that
much more time after tonight you But >> we can continue the question on the amended on the amended proposal. >> Correct. >> And then >> take that comment into consideration for the plans being in hand. >> Correct. >> And then we'll go back to the board. >> The board for Yep.
>> State your name and address, please. >> Christina Rajeri, 33 Sunderland Drive. >> Um, I just had a question regarding the steps up to the now inhabitable attic. Will they be removed? Um the reason I'm hesitating is this
whole thing is kind of a moving target if you will. So um >> you know uh >> you can't vote on a moving target. I know we have um a lot of pull down stairs and the owner would probably in a moment where he would probably be
agreeable to it, but we could talk about it and when we re when we resubmit, we could we could look at it. But I I can tell you that even for unfinished addicts today, we often put in safe stairs with handrails where you don't have to use a ladder or or a pull down
stair because people are going up in age. They're they want to be feel secure going up in and out up and down to get Christmas f uh decorations and so on be able to send send anybody like a child up there without a question and say could you get me that box or something like that and so it isn't uncommon to
have a comfortable stair up to an attic. I would agree if the house was the size of my house, but being the house is so large and you have so much storage in the basement, why wouldn't you just put these items down there?
>> So, it's it's getting to the point >> a lot of recreation space that's there and other now the kitchen's getting much smaller. >> This is questions for the for for for the applicant. >> Yeah. Yeah. We we have mechanical equipment that has to be maintained. I
mean, we could talk about it. I don't think it's necessary for us to agree about what kind of stair we're going to have to the attic. These things are starting to cross over into like um the owner's preference where any house could put in a stair to an attic without any
approvals, you know, uh as long as it's, you know, it's for safety and for convenience of going up and down and it's not a finished attic. So, you know, it's going to be stipulated that this is a non-finished attic with a plywood floor. Um, and that's your go, you'll see
insulation and >> so >> would the changes that you're suggesting the unfinished attic and the just not a full kitchen, just a wet bar, whatever, would that be part you guys? I don't know the term, but it was meaning that
in the future it couldn't be a a kitchen. it could only be a wet um wet bar period or was there a possibility that future owners or the current owner a couple years from now would could make that a kitchen again that is originally
stipulated in the plan. I'll answer that any any future change would have to go through zoning permit and a building permit process and that um if it's allowable it it would be something that might be considered you know like I for example today we we have
uh houses where we need an in-law apartment or something like that where I'm not not that we're going to do that but I'm just saying it happens where you need a way for an elderly person to be able to use a microwave or And um so I'm just saying it would be
something that would be um requested through a zoning permit and through formal approvals if it ever needed to be done. >> Okay. Um the habitable attic concern me, but the size of the laundry room also concerns me. It's like 10 by 10 that can
hold a lot of double stacked um washers and dryers. And I'm just wondering why is the laundry room so big? I know they they've tended to go down in size over the years to where now we just have closets with stack units, but um a lot of people still want to be able to
have a nice side by side with folding area, ironing area, um hampers and and have, you know, maybe even someone else in there working with them. So, it's it's not that that a 10x10 isn't really that big really, honestly. It's I mean a
lot of the older homes had real laundry rooms with sinks and um you know equipment and you have some storage and ironing and equipment and things like that. So it's just a matter of elbow room and comfort and >> there's a lot of space 10 by 10 is the
size of some bedrooms. I mean small bedroom of course but I mean that's a big big >> questions Ray for the >> excuse me >> for me have a question. So what is the question? >> I'm sorry. Um it I guess I'll just state that it leaves open the possibility of a lot of laundry facility um machines in
there. Okay. And the only other thing I would like to add is um in our neighborhood we've had a couple instances where we've there have been code violations. Someone was questions for this >> there'll be time at the end for comments and >> um
then I don't have any more questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I Ashoke Narayan. Um, I live at 21 Black Watch Trail. >> Can you spell your last name, please? >> Yeah. Ashoke Narayan. >> Okay. You spell it.
>> Ashoke Narion. N A R A I A N. Nine. That's my last name. >> Thank you. >> And uh at 21 Black Watch Trail, which is right behind next street down. Um like, you know, issues about all these
modifications. I mean I the diagrams don't really you know explain it um in terms of the environmental impact uh because we've had the next door especially on my neighbor and to an small extent I've had that where there's
some storm water overflow so as to how these changes will affect the uh pooling of of puddles uh in the backyard uh that uh that acutely affects the next door and there and it affects us uh to to some extent and as to how it's being
addressed because if the if a tree that's there is going to come down then that'll adversely um I don't know if it's going to come down maybe the tree still is going to exist but that's that's the kind of u and yeah and overall u and the other question I had
was >> okay let's do one question at a time okay right now we're asking about drainage right >> yeah the overall yeah soil >> so is there any impact to off-site drainage It's it's if anything, it's going to be less off-site runoff because we have a very nice drywall and we're
picking up most of the roof leaders. Um certainly all the new roof area I I I I think I have this entire back roof of the existing um roof included, but it we're really collecting and storing a lot of the storm run off underground.
>> Yeah. But is a tree going to remain? because a tree is also a source of privacy and it has a certain soil stabilization. Uh >> yes, I I showed the existing trees that's the surveyor had them on there and and I tried to locate the drywall far enough away from the tree and the
root ball to allow that to be carefully installed. >> So the tree is going to remain behind. Yes. >> Okay. So it's not going back. Yeah. Because those are the overflow concerns, the main overflow environmental concerns. And as to the you know from a property tax perspective a larger area
that is something for the board to address and uh I would put that uh in there that's outside the purview of this. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> So just I I'm comparing the two sets and I noticed that
the new submission has eight sheets when the prior had 14. are the C the C drawings. Uh what would be I guess two? Sorry, there is no two. See three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, the civil drawings which includes your your detail for the dry well, the the trenching and other other details and then the plantings. Are those all still part of the record set or they removed from the record set?
>> Yes, those sheets were not updated. Okay. >> They are still part of the record. >> Okay. So then the combined they'll be combined in the second revision. Okay. >> So that's still your record proposal on the storm water. I I see the dry well is still there, but that you're
demonstrating your calculations on these other sheets, >> right? >> And then for the board's understanding that is all still subject to a lock rating permit under the engineering department for review and approval. >> Thank you. >> Yes. I just have one question relating to the
revision. I'm sorry, I was up before Jason Church again. I just have one question relating to the revision that was just announced. Can we get clarification on what variances are still going to be required if if I'm assuming there are some or we wouldn't be here at all, but the I guess I just
would point out that we're still putting a second floor on the garage and the garage encroaches in the required setback. We're putting a second floor in there. >> Yeah, that that's so the variances are remain. >> Okay. >> Right. So you still have the two sideyard variances because you're he's going straight up. Right.
>> Right. And and that creates the >> right. That's what I'm why I'm asking. >> Variance, right, on both sideyards. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Right. So the the second story is at the existing, >> right? And then the first story is where the front yard bumpout created a shorter
sideyard setback, which was the discussion we had before of 0.1 feet for every foot you move back, right? >> To make that revision. Uh yeah, Tim Tim Dixon again. I was up before. So when you propose to shrink that front room back, what what would be the width of that room that you'd be
going for and what would be the size of the door that you're looking to put in there? Um, obviously it's it's it's it's a little hard to be exact on it, but I I what we what we're saying is that if if you approve if if the board approves a 29
foot to the corner, we will do whatever we can with that. And um we, you know, we don't have to have a certain size gore. Uh we it should be big enough to pull one of these big bins in and out if possible. >> Can you pull up the the plan for the first floor? Yeah.
>> So we can see the size of that room. The foundation plan has this dimension on it. Um of five sorry 5 5'2 in out. That >> that's the foundation plan. Can you go to the first floor plan where the the room is actually going to be?
>> Okay. Right. I didn't have the dimension, but it's 5 foot2 um up down this this side. >> So, we would have to >> It's in your call out. >> Yeah. >> Is that at trash recycle?
>> I'm sorry. It's in your call out. The interior dimension. the trash recycle the 1510 551 that's the gross area to the outside surface of the wall >> and help me understand is there is there a wall that's going to go here or is this just going to be a bump out of the
garage >> there's an existing wall the garage wall is pretty much right there um now that that would just about all come out and it this area become part of the garage essentially. >> It's just open, right? So
you just instead of opening the garage door, you'd open this door. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the with those trash cans being like 30 in wide, you would need a door at a minimum to get those in. I mean, those are the town issued trash cans, I'm assuming, right? Yes. I I had one
measured while we were here. >> I was trying to get a 2 foot 8 in door if possible. >> Okay. Well, let's just is not that's not going to leave you a lot of room for framing. >> So, >> it won't leave a lot of room, but we're trying to um be agreeable with the
concerns of the neighborhood and the board and um find a way to to make it agreeable. >> Okay. So, that this this proposed solution still doesn't remove the variance. >> No, it it doesn't remove the variance completely because you can see where that uh you can see where the uh
>> Yeah. comes all the way into the garage. Yeah, I got you. That's the required setback actually. >> Yeah. >> So, we're just a little over in that one corner, but you know, we we just didn't want to have to uh uh change the whole look of the house to
pull that in a few inches. >> It's still still a request and it still has to be code compliant. So, that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I am Craig Chaplick. uh C h a p l i i c k uh the 21 Canerberry way. I have one
question. I don't know if if uh these plans would have this or it's been contemplated yet uh but in terms of uh electrical service, is there plans to upgrade the service? Not just the electrical, but the amperage coming into the home.
>> Yes, I'm sure we would be upgrading the service. Um I think you said you want to go underground, right? He's he's he's thinking that where where the the overhead wire comes into um let me just see if I could show it right on this plan here.
The overhead wire comes into this corner of the house. Now we we we would probably put an underground um conduit up to some place in this corner and have the main panel uh there and an upgraded service
>> to to what amperage is that anticipated? >> I'm sorry. Is there an anticipation to increase the amperage into the house? So, for example, my house is 200 amp service. >> Yeah, usually 200 is fine for any res >> and that you're planning to keep it at about 200 amps. >> I think we Yeah, we'll calculate it, but
we don't we can't imagine any any um anything that would be beyond that, >> right? Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Paul Woodford. W F O R D 36 Nwood Drive. A couple of questions. Uh in your original plans, you had indicated that
there were going to be three uh zones for the second floor. Uh one for the master, one for the rest of the second floor, and then for the third floor. Are you going to retain that for the third floor? >> Right. We we we thought we would have a separate thermostat so they could put
that down low, let's say, in the winter and not use the third the the habitable attic. So now that that zone won't be necessary. >> But so my next question is if you have the zone a zone up there and you have the stairs going up there, what's to
prevent the applicant after he leaves this board from developing a thirdf flooror attic? >> I mean you could ask that of anybody to it basically it would be uh they'd have to get a permit to do that kind of work. >> But would they need any zoning variance for it?
>> No, nobody would need a variance for that. Um, it'll be stipulated in the resolution that it's it's going to it's being approved as an unfinished attic, >> right? But there's nothing to prevent him year down the road from making it an
improved attic. >> But didn't you just say that there's now going to change and there's no um no utility >> on the in the attic. >> Right. >> Right. Right. >> Farmers will be gone in the front. No.
end >> there. We still have a window on the end of the gable, the triangular uh of the end. Um, and we we have uh we still have a shed door in the back with some windows where which gives us the headroom for the stair.
>> Um, >> but it's not conditioned space. No, it's it's not going to be conditioned space, >> but it could you don't need another variance to come in there and make it habitable and put a uh and put a bedroom up there, >> I think.
>> Or a dormatory or whatever. >> The answer to your question is construction permits, >> right? You need construction permits, but what would prevent zoning? He wouldn't need to come before this border, ask anything. He'd just have to go get a permit and there'd be no >> Correct. >> and he wouldn't have to have it reviewed
by uh the zoning board. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So, how are we going to uh how are we going to uh control the expansion? >> Well, we could just have that as a condition that the um you know, the
attic cannot be used as habitable space and part of the deed notice that we've already established would be coming um would it would be in the deed notice. >> Okay. Well, we got to do the same thing for the um uh kitchen in the basement because you had mentioned that maybe
somebody later on wants to put a uh develop a kitchen down there. We're going to put the same deed restriction in for the kitchen in the basement. >> I I think it just has to be done with a reason. It seems it seems that there are time for example I believe in Morris Township um if you have a mother
daughter apartment you have to the owner has to sign aid David that's only for is that right Joseph family >> for family for family occupation yes essentially de restriction >> I believe I don't know if that's if that's uh attached to the deed do they require that that's recorded
>> restriction >> I believe so >> okay so you would record it that it can't >> an affidavit could be recorded or some kind of an amendment to the deed for example. >> Well, for example, are you willing to do that?
>> I think at some point at some point we have to look at what what is reasonable, what isn't. Uh >> well, I'm asking because when you you say the applicant is giving up the kitchen, but is that a permanent give up or is that just like we're pushing the ball down the road?
ask me. >> There's no intention to be deceptive or >> Well, I'm not asking. I just want to make sure it's not going to happen. >> I I think he'll probably be able to do everything he has to do in his main kitchen. And there there it is allowed to have like an auxiliary refrigerator,
for example, for proofing dough or something like that, right? A sink, you know, >> a sink. Uh yeah, a sink. >> No range, for example. you said there won't be a a range, a cooking range, which is usually the key piece of a kitchen. >> Right. Right. So, but just going to put
that as a deed restriction >> if if the board requires it. Uh it seems a little extreme to me, but I I suppose the board could require it. >> All right. So, I have a question. Uh, what's the height of the uh uh wall facing the
downhill property, the outside wall, >> because that's the per the next door neighbor is the person going to be directly in uh impacted by that uh roof line coming closer to her house. um from the grade there which which is
right that's the low side of the house. It's it's about um 4.78. So that they would see the full height up to the ridge of 34.8 ft. >> Well, the ridge is 34.8 8 and that's a uh
that's a weighted uh measurement. So 34.8 plus but the the actual wall is higher than 348 at that end. Correct.
No, the if you the the average grade is four sorry 78 I think below the first floor and that that is where the grade is on that side. >> Okay. And then how high is it to the to the roof? 34.
>> So from that point it's 34.8 ft from >> So what's the total? >> That is the total that's the total to the ridge. >> The total to the ridge is 34.8 >> plus the four. No, that includes the 4.78. We have to measure that 34.8 from the
average grade, which is >> right, the average grade. But we're talking about what does she look at >> when she looks over there? She's not looking at a 34. She's looking at something much higher. >> Well, let me go to that elevation. It's a little higher. It's almost
I can see right now that this this is um I'll have to correct this. This grade line is is not correctly drawn. It's it's down here. You see the window there? So, the grade is actually lower here. And um and so I I'll have to correct that, but essentially they would
see the grade here and then you would see this side wall. And I believe um I still show the original roof. Um if you want to see that, let me just zoom in here cuz I'm pretty sure you can see the original roof of that side. It's right
here. You see that that dotted line right there? >> Mhm. Right. >> So it's pretty close to what's there now. I think it's a little taller because we're raising the >> about how many about how many feet taller >> and how what's the final what's the final result?
these questions. >> So, I think I think what what we're looking at, right, is >> the the point that's being used 20 ft from 20 ft from the the foundation in this
corner is 394. So, relative to that 394 at that corner of the calculation, not from average, but from the grade 20t off, what is then to the ridge height?
Right. I I understand what what he's saying. I I believe u my front elevation is actually more accurate in the sense that this is the grade is lower on this corner. >> Right. Which is then 397 straight to the front and 394 20 ft off into the neighbor's property.
>> Right. So what I was just going to say was that this this is a um a 4 and 1/2 ft high window right here. So the height from the old ridge to the new ridge is roughly the same height. It's it's about total number >> Yeah. You can't
>> What's the What's the total number? >> It's It's 3 It's uh Okay. >> It's got to be greater than 34. >> I think it's going to if anything it's going to be under 34.8. I'm sorry. >> You can't just I'm sorry. You can't just
speak out from the audience, right? We're trying to record this so we can have a transcript if necessary. >> Joseph, did you did you just say that you you saw 397 on this this right corner of the house? in the calculations that the assistant township engineer
provided that were then that then matched all the average points around the building at that front. Let me just get the direction plan right front
westerly northwesterly corner of the building. >> Right. We provided a point 397 in the front yard and 394 just over to the neighbors the neighbor's property line cuz this the
setback there is 17.1. The building foundation at that corner is 398 and a half >> per survey.
So if you'd like So from 398 and a half >> to 3991 >> the 3991 is what the >> say like 78 in it could be 78 in below the average grade is what he's saying right >> Joseph.1
your finished floor is at 399.1 398.5 is the exterior grade at the corner is 6, right? Plus the 30 foot fixed architectural
elevation at that corner measured directly up, it's 30.6. But moving out to the neighbor's property line where you'd measure from it's at 394, >> right? So you'd be counting part of the
grassy hill coming down to that level if you're if you're that's what you're saying. If you were to measure from that absolute lowest point 20 ft away, that's that's a different story. But what's the from the peak of the roof, the peak of
the roof down to the ground at the base of this house, what is the distance? >> Right. What what Joseph was just saying was that the the grade on this side of the house is um 398, right, Joseph? Three roughly 398, right?
>> 398 to 398 and a half of the existing grade. So that's actually about a foot below this average grade line right here, which is 399.1, right, Joseph? That's 399.1. So we're down another foot. So let's say she
would be seeing about 35.8 ft from the ground to the ridge. >> Well, go to the site uh elevation. Okay. So, you're saying >> this this ground line is is drawn too
high here. It should have been lower. >> But that's I think that's part of the the discussion. If if that box is an exposed window on the existing foundation line, >> you're right. >> Then your existing topography is not
burying it. Is your existing topography burying it and you're now going to expose it by cutting that area? >> Well, we've got this door here. So, I assume you're not going to go up like
that. So, my question is from the base of this exposed wall to that ridge line, how how what's the distance? >> Right? You're not going to see this lower section of the wall. You see, here's the average grade line right here. That's 3.99, >> right? Well,
>> the grade is one foot below that right here where my foot, >> but then you've got a door all the way down here. >> I know that's that's in a lower patio where with behind the retaining wall that that's not exposed. She wouldn't see the lower half of that that door.
>> But you're saying that so this is all going to be filled here and then it's going to go down. >> No, this line is is going to still be below this window here where it is now. What I'm saying is this portion going to be uh ground still or is it going to be
exposed >> where the ground line would be? Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Now, you've got the uh roof line coming all the way out to the uh edge of the building. What uh purpose
of the zoning of the C2 variance is that fulfill? >> You're saying what why does this gable come all the way to this corner? Right. All right. What what zoning purpose does that serve? >> Well, I I was uh using both two purposes. One one is I felt that the
pre-existing non-conforming corner right here is 17.1 and that a lot of the times if you try to push a corner back to make it compliant, it actually makes the house look strange, you know? >> Well, I'm not saying push the corner back. I'm talking about the the third
floor, the extension all the way out. uh on the third floor all the way out to that uh uh side. Why isn't it just sloped and uh and what purpose does it zoning purpose does it serve going all the way out to the edge of the house?
>> You know, it was a gable roof. We were raising it up and I I didn't even think of changing it to like a hip roof if that's what you're going at. >> Yes. So that that would really require changing the whole roof system which we could look at if the board thinks we should but essentially you know because
of the pre-existing corner usually in most situations including Morris Township you know they they used to allow us to go straight up and I'm just used to trying to make the house look normal and complete and not change everything because you could say the
same thing about really this corner exists all the way up here. I just want to make that clear. There's a second floor room right here. >> We're going up about a foot higher with the gutter line and then the roof is where it is. It's it's a gable that is where it is. We're just increasing the
pitch. So, it's really a a minor change to the corner that's there now. >> So, you're raising a height change. >> You're raising it up about 2 feet, three 2 and 1/2 ft. the the the ridge is is um is going up higher because it's a low slope roof
right now. >> Right. But I'm just saying is what was it? Let's rephrase it. What was it? What's the um height of the building now as it ex presently exists? >> Uh we we do have that information up on
the cover sheet. 318, right? It >> says 31.8 >> 31.8 34.8. Is that calculated from the >> So it's a 3 foot difference from >> is that calculated from the same average
grade? >> Same average grade. >> Okay. >> So what's the justification zoning wise to go up that three feet? basically the uh it's we could we could keep the the roof lower slope I suppose
it just wouldn't look as nice uh you know normally today we try to go with like an eight pitch roof minimum to make it look nice and um so that there's definitely an reason to uh fulfill that one purpose uh
purpose I I think it is and um but essentially it's just the fact that there there's also a hardship where we have that pre-existing non-conforming corner for a two-story house that is there now and it's going to remain while all we're trying to do is bring the gutter up a foot and then bring the
bridge up another few feet. So the the C1 proof supports the existing nonconformity in its current configuration. the elevation above it that creates more
massing is respectfully a C2 proof, >> right? But I I I think it's >> because you're worse than because it's your choice, >> right? And so I think the question being not to speak for you, but the question
being asked is comparatively to the other side where you're not going to the full ridge height you're proposing and you're and you're asking for relief to go above build above the existing non-conforming sideyard setback.
Another way to rephrase this would be why wasn't that also considered on the west side of the home? >> You mean be like a hip roof or something? >> On the east side of the home, the the to the the architectural height, the perceived height is a few feet shorter
than on the west side of the home, the garage side compared to the chimney side and the chimney side of the home. And and that difference is roughly what appears to be from your plans to the existing ridge height of the existing
home. Does that does that make sense or just further confuse everybody? >> The the peak on the master bedroom >> right here. >> Yes. is, I believe, roughly in line with
what was your existing architectural height of the attic space prior to the vertical addition on the opposite side. >> You're right. You're you're you're correct. It's about correct. Yes, it's about aligned up with that old bridge.
And I think the nature of your question was to the difference in those two heights when sideyard setback relief is requested on both sides to go up above the existing height at at that setback.
So the consideration that's provided on one side, what were your considerations on the other and why perhaps architecturally you chose these decisions? I I think I would just say that um I did
consider moving this corner in and notching it and and I didn't like it. I thought it looked like it was forced, like someone had an afterthought. And so I actually talked to Dave Hansen about it and said, "You know, I'd really like to just make this wall align with the
existing garage wall and just come out enough to do the pedestrian door and a little bit of extra storage in that front section of the garage." And um didn't seem like a big ask at the time.
Um, so >> did did you evaluate running the entire width of the house easterly at the full proposed ridge height and why what was your consideration to come
to the eastern portion that you have is the o it that's the opposite question of what I rephrased. >> Yeah, I understand. >> Member of the public. Yes. >> I didn't really exhaustively try to study ways to to make that corner
comply. Is that what you're saying? Comply with the sideyard. It >> you're you're requesting sideyard setback relief to go vertically above the existing condition. Right. Aside from the front bump out that we discussed earlier on both sides, east
and west sides, >> chimney side, >> you're going vertically above an existing non-conforming sideyard setback. That massing is what you're requesting variance relief for. On the east side, you're
effectively a two and a half story structure on that side. On the high side of the lot at the garage, right? That's at 402 in the in the driveway. >> Right. >> Then 402 in the driveway and a perceived
height up of about two and a half stories. on the west side, you're on the low side of the lot, which is then proposing to go to the full threestory architectural height above the low finished grade exterior to
the home. And I think the balance of the question is would it be more appropriate for those to be reversed and is it is it and is it the existing dwelling constraints that that would make that prohibitive?
Right? You're not going to change your driveway to the other side. And if you were to scale down the third story of non-habitable attic now on the west side, would architecturally there not be a solution to the
aesthetics of the home from the front and from the westerly side? >> Yeah, I suppose uh we could look at it. I um I I I think really honestly we I I didn't consider putting like the master suite and everything over on this right
side because of the availability of of some expandable area over the garage and the um >> yeah and I'm not recommending that. I think the question is relative to the difference in height at both proposed
non-conforming setbacks. If you're standing on the eastern side, easterly side or the westerly side and the perceived height is greater because of the drop in the grade and the concession is provided on the height concession is provided on the easterly
side which is the higher grade. So, in other words, without the habitable attic and without the dormers on the non-habitable attic, is there a reason that ridge line would still be the additional height proposed
architecturally on the home? the character of the home, the architecture of the home, keeping with the style of this type of home. Is that additional height necessary from the peak on the east side, not carrying through to the west side?
>> I I think it would look odd. I think that that the house is has a symmetry to it with the two pairs of windows on each side of the front foyer and entry and that uh it would just look like it was something that was forced that would not look appropriate. What I'm thinking as
you talk about though and as as as the question comes up uh is that we we could offer to put some evergreens along this side of the property which would effectively screen the lower uh section of the house and provide a buffer um for
visual buffer um going around maybe kind of turning the corner a little bit here and coming back up along this side and that might um soften the effect of that corner and help uh make it more agreeable.
>> I'm done. >> You done? >> Yeah. I don't have any more questions this time. My name is Frank Zupa. Address is 23 Canterbury Way. In few of these discussions that have just taken place, I presume there's going to be new
drawings and a lot of the questions that are being asked about dimensions etc. should be marked appropriately so we could talk about it. I do have when you do architect when the architect when you do these new new drawings
I've been changing my my own notes about what the square footage of the new house is going to be and what is the square footage of of the existing house. I think up until the last change, we were up to 6,300 square ft on the new house
if if it if it gets approved. Now, without the habitable attic, you lose about 600 square ft. That brings it down to about 5700. But I would expect that when you present it the next meeting, you will have all
those numbers correct. and existing. I think it would also be good to have the existing square footage of the existing house for for the for the audience to understand and the board to understand what's what's proposed because
in the a month ago meeting you made a statement that said the typical houses in We Chief are about 5,000 square feet. That's not true. >> Is there a question for the is the Well, my question is my question is this. When
you come a month from now at the next meeting, we have all those numbers so that we we get the proper answers. That's my my statement. >> And then the only other question I have in view of the habitable attic space gone,
do you really need three air conditioning zones? No, we we are going to have Well, we can take one of those zones out and we'll just have two for the second floor now. >> Okay. Okay. Two for the second floor. What about the first floor? >> There'll be a separate unit in the
basement just for the first floor. >> So, on the second floor, you have two two zones. >> Yes. We we we wanted to do that because the master suite wanted to have its own thermostat. >> Okay. >> That not not have to treat. and another
zone for the basement of the first floor. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> See you at the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Uh Mary Joe Woodford, 36 Snowwood Drive. Um some of the questions are changed because I think the plans are
changed. But one thing I would um I'm a bit concerned about is um the houses uh in Nwood in the backyards. There's an underground stream um going through and they this uh construction that has been done in other areas of we chief have
have aggravated flooding and we've had that area flooded several times. So, I don't know whether in your plans, have you taken into account the underground stream uh going up from uh uh the the backyards and and Nolan? >> I really haven't. I'll have to ask
Joseph about it, but I think um the our you know, our drywall will be subject to inspection of the soils to make sure that uh we don't we're not below like a seasonal high water table and that that it it has the capacity to store that water and let it perk out slowly. And so
we won't be adding a lot of surface runoff to that back of the yard area. >> Well, I'm concerned that the construction the, you know, moving the foundations and the building and all that. Um, there was a the construction of uh the weak chief town houses up in
the neighborhood up above us. They had a problem with their their uh grates and they uh it caused a huge flood. They came down uh washed out uh the backyards and allwood went a river went through
>> questions for the >> went through our backyard into the pool of our next door neighbor. So your dry well I'm asking is that you know I just want to make sure the disturbance isn't going to cause another flood in a very sensitive area. You're saying during
construction that's >> I mean during construction after construction with the pavers with the walls with the retaining walls all of that additional disturbance how is that going to affect this underground stream which is very uh has flooded several times.
>> Well we'll have to look into we'll check with the um the uh engineer and the building department about what they what they can educate us on that. Um, I don't expect this is a fairly minor expansion of the U sunroom. It's not it's not a
huge, you know, diff change to the rear yard. >> It seems to be a lot of pavers and and walls and exterior outdoor oven and kitchen. >> Well, it's a small patio in the back that's um accessible from the basement.
>> What is the size of the patio in the back? And >> that goes from the house to the to the border of the uh property. >> It's 366 ft. So that's not small.
>> Well, that that includes all the steps. There's a low there's a low area and then you step up to a a middle kind of kind of like a big landing and then you have to turn. So it's it's uh it's not huge but it's >> So the total square footage of that
patio area is >> I'm showing 366 >> 366 >> on here. I had a question on the kitchen in the basement and maybe it's I don't know that it's been answered. Um it sounds
like you're taking away but part of my question is there's a um uh township ordinance that section 354-4. It says cooking facilities no cooking or food prep shall be conducted in any room
except the kitchen. So, I guess my question is why would this kitchen ever be permitted if it doesn't seem to apply uh be consistent with this uh uh
ordinance and um I just want to make sure that it's if you've removed it, maybe that's not a problem anymore, but I'm still concerned why it was ever on the drafting board.
>> Yeah. I I can just say that um over the years I've done quite a few projects where motheraughter type kitchens were allowed in Marsh Township and uh as long as you you know certify reassure the township that you're not
creating a rental apartment for example but but it is I I have never run across that ordinance that says that there's can only be one room where you prepare food in the house. I'll have to look that up. I really wasn't. >> Well, I guess it's a question for the people at large here, too. Um, but
there's you're taking away that and there would be an deed that you're not going to have a kitchen, but actually the ordinance doesn't seem to permit it anyway. >> Well, I'll I'll definitely look it up and I'll I'll just have to >> It's just going to be basically a wet
bar. We we might have some. >> So the prep and the staging and the burners and the double oven from your from >> burners >> from the earlier draft that's gone. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other members of the
public with any questions for the witness? Uh seeing none, we'll close the public portion. >> Okay. So before we wrap up for tonight, I just wanted to go over some outstanding items
for next time, right? Um so you're going to provide us with uh and I suggest you do it at least 10 days in advance, maybe in a handout, but the square footage of the existing home under roof. It's up to you. You can say first floor, second
floor, basement, but basically the square footage on the roof and and the proposed home. Okay. Um, you're going to you you'll have to, I guess, discuss it with uh with Joe or or and if he thinks you need a site engineer, then you'll
have to do that, but verify that there's no off-site drainage impact. You're going to submit the revised plan with those changes that were discussed when we came out of break. Um, we've since also talked about a
landscape buffer along that right side of the home. I would suggest maybe a landscape plan then so we can see what that is. Um, and there's I don't know how important this is honestly, but there's an open item about you know the type of uh step
or access or let's call it access into the attic, right? So what's your attic access? But really the condition is going to be that it's not used habitably. So, okay, >> I think that's it. >> Were there a couple? >> Yes, >> excuse me.
>> You need to redo all of your square footage. >> I'm going to review all of this. >> Well, I can tell you that your warm floor building area. Pretty pretty confident that right now that includes the square footage of the
garage. And the garage needs to either be If it's in there and say it's in there, but it shouldn't be. But if it's not in there, if it's not in those numbers, then why is it in your lot coverage?
>> Right. It is in the law lot coverage, I'm sure, because that's part of the building coverage. I But you you it's not impossible. I I'll double check and make sure that >> it's not a warm floor or a garage. It's concrete floor. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm I'm looking at is I think and
I think a lot of the um the neighborhood wants to see the comparison of the overall volume of the new house versus the old house. That's why I'm saying square footage on the roof. >> I agree. If you looked at
>> the square footage that a realtor who markets the house will say it will not include >> that garage square footage. >> That's right. >> I'll show it both ways. Okay. Right. >> Yeah. >> The the tax records currently show 28.44
as a square footage of the home. >> Right. One last time. >> I just have one short question. >> But again, I just announce yourself for the record, please. >> Frank Zuper at 23 Canterbury Way. >> Thank you. >> When you close the portion of the public hearing, that's for tonight.
>> Yes. >> And since we're going to have new drawings, >> Yes. >> you'll be open. So, what'll what'll happen is they're going to submit new plans. They we don't have the new date yet, but we'll get there in a minute. Um, they'll have to submit new plans. Those plans have to be submitted at least 10 days prior to that date. Okay?
We're going to announce whatever that date is once our secretary tells us what's available. Um, and then we're going to kind of do this again. Um, you know, they'll give us a hopefully brief description of what those plan changes are. There can be some questions and
hopefully we'll get to comments so that the public can then make their statements. Those statements will be on the road. >> Thank you for the answer. I just look for clar clarification. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry Tim Dixon. Really one quick uh further thing. So there there's been a
lot of stipulations made about changes to the plans that are going to be coming. Uh things that are going to be taken away. I think what'll help the public understand and get some reassurance that these changes are going to incorporate the the goal I think that we're all trying to achieve is if the
applicant can also provide a plumbing stack diagram and also an electrical load diagram so we can see what services they're actually planning on putting in the house because again I think there's some major concerns here that there's been some verbal agreements of some
concessions of removing things from the property But at a later date, it doesn't become a zoning issue anymore. It becomes just a construction permit issue. And I think there needs to be some stuff put in in this application to
so that there can't be a change to the construction permits later on that add a bunch of additional services in that won't need to come to this room into this type of environment. >> So this board doesn't really have jurisdiction over things like that, right? And if they want to submit that
as further proof as to what they're presenting, they they can volunteer it, but we can't require it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Mr. Eller, weren't there there was a couple of punch list items from the previous meeting as well?
>> So, I think I covered the Well, okay. So, the last time we talked about photos from homes in the neighborhood. Uh again, the buffer, but I mentioned that and the square footage of homes. And what I suggest you do is um just do an
Oprah request to the municipal clerk and ask for the assessor cards for each of the homes on the 200 foot list and and then you can just make a chart off of that and we can see what the square footages are in comparison. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> That's it. Just the date, Mr. Secretary. >> We have 33 on May 18th. So, I think that one's closed. >> We have two on the May 18th. That next date then would be June 22nd.
>> Okay. 22nd. >> Okay. Good. >> June 22nd. >> Okay. All right. So, for purposes of the public, this meeting is being adjourned. Um, it will continue uh in this room at 7 p.m. on June 22nd. There'll be no
further notices from the applicant. >> Get a call back up there for other matters or >> Yeah, he can close the meeting. I don't know if there's anything else on the >> draft. >> Oh, yeah. You need him for the annual report. I think I'll be here for
Ryder University. >> Oh my god. No, not you. But these last few >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We're done with public. >> You can submit when you want. >> That's okay. >> I understand.
>> Okay. So, what do we got? we got left is a 2025 annual report. >> 2020. We made some revisions to it. Has everybody seen that? Is it you posted it? >> They put it in the group. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we did make a couple of changes to it. >> And uh
so just uh the first paragraph I think was we modified a little bit just because it says uh both talks about three application being uh left over from 2024. And then it says uh both will force C
variances. So that's a little confusing when we go from three to two without an explanation. So we're just going to modify that. And does anybody have any comments on the rest? >> Just in case we have any recommendations to the planning board. I can't anything. Do you have any recommendations?
>> I mean, I'd love to see a ordinance. I think I mentioned this to the planning board though. You know, these Madison Avenue, they stopped construction. and they left these mountains and and plastic on the roof that uh there should be something that
said after a certain period of time >> they can't just abandon construction be sight a mess done at um why I decided you're right >> yeah I mean is there something we can recommend to the planning board is >> there anything we can >> to make an ordinance or is that out of
is that out of that that out of line >> that's really not zoning >> so it's not technically zoning but there is a state statute that deals with abandoned projects. I don't know if it covers, you know, that particular situation. You're talking about where
somebody has a blue tarp on their roof and they're not fixing it fast enough. Yeah. >> Yeah. The restoration hardware, >> not necessarily an abandoned project commercial project. >> Yeah. Before, you know, projects where you see the steel go up and then 20 years later, in fact, that exact
situation happened on Route 80 in it. That was in fact that's the building that caused that statue to come in play because that skeleton stood there for 20 years. >> Right. >> Right. So now there's a statue that says that >> but could there be an ordinance that
says you have to at least lower things below the height of the fence and you know so that's not an eyesore mount fixing your roof. >> H >> what if you're fixing your roof though? Right. >> But they've abandoned the project. Oh, so you're talking about an abandoned
project versus somebody >> there's been no activity. There's been no activity for three years. >> So, you know, when somebody gets a permit, right, there's no end date. So, if I get a permit to put on a second floor to my building, like it could take
me 20 years. And as long as, you know, once in a while I go out there and I bang a nail in, it's still in progress, right? So there and and that I don't know that the maybe there's nothing municipal issue is more of a state issue because there's state permit, right?
That's building permit and that comes under DCA. So I I'd have to think about that a little bit to see if there's a municipal ordinance that you could say building permits expire >> if you abandon it. Yes. But when that
guy's going out there once a week, >> I haven't seen anybody going out with a hammer lately out there. >> Yeah, I haven't seen any activity there. >> I passed that every day. >> Which one? >> Um Restoration Harborfield and uh
>> Well, that was under some discussion recently, right? >> Yeah. >> Um >> discussion as to what their intents are, if they're moving forward. If they're not then amended redevelopment plan necessary.
>> We've revised it once already. >> We have revised it. Whether or not we need to revis the concern, right, that >> Yeah. And plus the eyesore. >> It's sad. Right. I mean there are there has been activity recently of cleaning
up some of the stock piles and cleaning up the site but not necessarily anything improvements to the structure or any other renovations proceeding. So given the dormcancy the natural time to start the dialogue
over whether or not that approval is going to wind up expiring naturally and then how to prepare for that eventuality if it wasn't. Yeah. So maybe if it's going to expire, that would be something that they'd have
to take care of before the expiration. >> So there's that. If it's going if their per if it's going to expire, the pool approval is going to expire, then maybe they should be able to take
care of all the eyes and the building threats and stuff um either before the expiration or immediately after the expiration. >> Right? So that the land use approval
their intent will be clear based on whether they move forward with activities on site or they allow >> and if it elapses what happens >> then they don't have the right to construct the improvements that they
>> so they lose their construction permit >> but then they have to like >> lose their >> do they have to like fix up the land so it looks >> so yeah there's there's a performance bond in place certain obligations. >> Okay. >> I think whether or not it's ever going to come fruition, it's a valid question
right now and it's why a dialogue just started. >> Okay. >> I thought more if not if not >> I mean something should be done >> then what? >> Yeah. And there hasn't been any indication
that they're not going to >> because that plastic tarp is falling apart. >> Right. >> Structure becomes more questionable as to whether or not they can renovate it to the the intent of their >> Yeah. >> They're doing their own damage.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Which could be construed as >> abandonment. >> Which could be construed as their intent. Not exactly. >> And so the dialogue did start very recently and it has not gotten much off
the ground as to >> starting to think about the property again as opposed to the reality of >> someone told me they paid a huge amount for that property far more than it was worth. I don't know whether that's true true or not but that might explain some >> it predates me. So, I was looking
forward to it activating and turning into seeing it through through construction as a township engineer, but the approvals predate me. So, much of those >> the agreements, the re redevelopment plan, the amended redevelopment plan are things that I've been doing my homework
on the last two weeks. Now, >> so the original question is >> changes to the annual report >> change. Do we want to make any kind of recommendations? adopt this one. That that's a homework assignment for sure. >> Okay, >> we can bring that up and say
supplementing our our annual report. >> We were discussing this. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. It was approved under a revelopment plan, >> right? Plan so it went to the other board. >> It it's not this for before the question
something we can recommend to the planning board or the town council. It's more general general as opposed to off the Okay, I just want to make sure the piece I missed from the >> No, just because I'm on both boards, I think >> that was the moving force.
>> Uh just an aside in Egypt, they actually tax uh finished buildings uh at a lower rate, at a higher rate than unfinished buildings. >> So people have no incentive to finish their building.
>> Mhm. So you go through Cairo and there's like steel jutting up everywhere. So they they can they're saying, "No, we're going to put a floor on." But they never do. So it's like everywhere. And if they got another family member,
they'll build a floor and then put more on. Okay. Anything else? Motion to adjurnn. Motion >> second. Second. >> All in favor? I >> any opposed meeting ajourned.