that >> that time >> almost >> 7:29. >> Oh, >> good. >> Here it is. >> It just turned. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Good evening and welcome to the Nutley Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting for
January 12th, 2026. Please stand for the flag salute. Pledge allegiance 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. >> Would the secretary please take attendance and read the uh compliance with open public meetings act? >> Robin Lee >> excused. >> Mark Kichio >> here. Lorraine Castro >> excused.
>> Treasure Dy. >> Avette Walls. Terresa Duba. >> Oh, she's excused. Sorry. >> John Kafone >> here. >> Greg Tolby >> here. >> Daniel Tolby here. >> Chairman Graziano >> here. >> Diane McGovern >> here. >> Pursuant to requirement of section 13 of
the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting was included on the annual notice of regular meetings for the year 2026. It was advertised in the Nelly Sun with a copy posed on the township of Nelly Bulton board first floor 1 Kennedy Drive Township of Nelli New Jersey with a copy sent to the Herald News Star
Ledger and tap into Nelly.net. A copy is filed in the office of the township clerk and copies are made available to all persons requesting same. All persons addressed the zoning board of adjustment regarding community concerns should approach the microphone and provide their name and address for the record unless further time is granted by the board. Each person should limit their
address to 3 minutes. All remarks to the to the board and individual members must be addressed to the chairman. The chairman may defer citizen comments to the appropriate member of the board. Dialogue between citizens and others addressing the board shall be allowed unless the chairman or presiding officer or the majority of the members of the
board shall determine that the interests of the decorum and or expeditious conduct of the board's business are being adversely affected by such dialogue. >> Thank you. I'll just pull your address out. Please let us know that you're here. 140 Spatz Avenue.
>> Yes, Mr. >> 34 Humber Street, >> 380 Mount Vernon Street >> and three Union Avenue. >> Okay. Okay. Before we start tonight, >> yeah, we have to amend the agenda. It's
our reorganizational meeting. So, we uh I'll start it off. So, so um do we have a nomination for chairman of the first. >> Who was the second? Dan. Okay. Um,
all in favor? >> I. >> Any nays? >> No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, you can take this. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, the vice chair, I'd like to nominate Daniel Tovi.
All in favor? opposed. >> And we need we need a nomination for um secretary. >> I'd like to nominate Patricia, >> secretary. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. And we would like to Well, we have to
appoint Diana McGovern as a >> Well, we we're going to anyway for attorney. We have a second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. And for recording secretary, I'll
nominate uh Paul Marenzino. >> All in favor? >> Opposed. All right, that's taken care of. We're back in business. >> Guess right on the resolution, sir. >> Amazing. >> Sign off on that. >> Oh, we got to say it still. Let me sign. will be told.
Go that way and come back. Okay. Okay. Well, we're not Oh, here we go. All right. First up tonight, 140 Spats Avenue. Okay.
Regarding the new single family dwelling for 140 Spatz Avenue, block plot 850212. Dear Mr. Bennett, your request for a construction permit on behalf of your client, Fernando Michelon, at the above
reference premises to build a new one family dwelling as shown on the plans prepared by Dantis Karate Architecture dated March 22nd, 2024 and plans prepared by
by Terod Design LLC dated May 28th, 2024 is denied for the following reasons. This property is located in an R-1 district as shown on the Nutley zoning map. Chapter 700, article 8, section 700-46A
schedules of of regulations as to bulk height and other requirements of the codes of Nutley requires the following in R-1 zoning district. Lock depth required 100 ft proposed 80 ft. Rear
yard uh required 30 feet proposed 15.6 feet. Lack coverage including exterior stairway required 35% proposed 36%. Stories required
two and a half stories proposed three stories. Chapter 700, article 11, section 700-67E3 of the codes of Nutley states, "Decks and patios must meet the following minimum setbacks of table one. Required
setbacks. Rear yard is 24 ft. Decks and patios inches in height 24 ft. Decks and patios greater than 30 in in height 13.1 ft.
Chapter 700, article 13, section 700-91A1 of the codes of Nutley states, "The drive driveway shall consist of the area directly opposite to an attached garage, detached garage, or not more than 2 ft in front of the main dwelling when a
twoft in-depth landscaped area is provided deirectly in front of the main dwelling or depressed garage or the extension of the sideyard and into the front yard. The driveway width shall not exceed 16 feet in width for lots up to
50 feet in width. Locks having a width greater than 50 ft may have a driveway width of up to 18 ft in width when conforming to 700-48. However, if there is no garage and no available sideyard, a driveway not to
exceed 16 ft in width from the side lot line may be constructed. Required 18 ft, proposed 20 ft. Um, I think that's the end of the letter. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Gary Bennett, ben net. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicants this evening with regard to the property that's just been described. Uh, this property has a history to it, but the history has been some time ago. Back in 2014, the board heard an
application to construct a one family dwelling with substantially the same type variances being requested. At that point, the board affirmed after hearing the testimony and I was not part of that application. So, I speak from the resolution itself that the board approved the application unanimously at
that time. Unfortunately, based upon some financial factors and some personal factors, Mr. Michelon, the owner of the property, was unable to develop the property. he was getting close to a point where he was able to move forward. Uh we got an intervention of COVID, we got an intervention of supply chains, we
got a cost that increased dramatically. And what he had looked at, uh as the smoke settled from all of the above, uh he now put himself in a position where he wanted to move forward to develop it. The property, as all the board members know, is on a dead-end street, and it's the only lot on that street that is
without a dwelling on it. um it sits out kind of as like a missing tooth and a smile when you go up the the hill, but the hill is very steep and it creates some um challenges, I'll say, with construction, but it's fully developed street with houses on either side. As a
result of that, I think when we look at the municipal land use law, this is exactly what it fits when you talk about the uniqueness of a piece of property, when you talk about topographic conditions that preclude it from being developed without some deviation. The other unique thing about the lot is that
it's 78 feet wide. So, it's dramatically wider than what would be permitted and it's 80 feet deep. So, you're dealing with a lot that has in excess of a,000 ft beyond what your ordinance requires for development, but it's in a different configuration than you typically would have with a 50 by 100 foot lot. So, it's
an extra extra-l large lot on an angle sloped. And so, Mr. Michelon went back to his architect who had worked with him on the last application uh retained an engineer and began to move forward to try and figure out what would be the best look of the house. Previously there
had been some concern even though it was approved unanimously with regard to the type of roof and the slope of it. That was eliminated. uh and what you have before you in the plans that were just outlined um by the two engineers and architects are the plans that he
believes fit the best use of the property from his purpose fits within the neighborhood. Again, you've got very large sideyard on one side. It's just a very unique piece of property. But you'll notice that from a point of view of of coverage and impervious coverage, the impervious coverage is dramatically
below what's permitted. 70% is permitted. This is, I believe, 46. So, you'll hear from those experts, the two experts that I'm going to have testify, and Mr. Michelon himself is here. Um, no one labors under the impression that anything that took place in 2014 has any
bearing, but it it was an application that involves exactly what we're asking for here, and that is the least intensive use that any ordinance permits, which is a one family dwelling, and specifically this zone. So, we believe that what's proposed fits in. It will complete the neighborhood. It'll do
so by leaving substantial sideyards. the appropriate setback and the deviation or or uh request for variance for a rear yard is a product of the fact that the lot instead of being deep is wide rather than deep. And we've tried to maintain a front yard that provides for nice
landscaping from a street view will provide an accurate appearance and an aesthetic appearance for this property that is sat vacant now with taxes being paid on an annual basis for the last 14 years, 11 years. 11 years. Um, so with
those opening comments, uh, I'd like to call first, uh, Mr. Mano, you want to just step up this morning. By the way, I for the board secretary, I have the proof of publication and affidavit of service.
>> I'll take it. >> These are the originals. Yes, >> thank you. >> I have to swear you in. >> Oh, would I want that? I don't know. You can put it right over here. I guess you have to turn it around and show the
people in the audience. That's where I'm making. >> Oh, we do have >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand, please? You swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. Would you state your full name and
uh your address? >> Sure. Uh legal name is Giovani, Gio Va Ni. Last name Manilio, M A N I L I O. uh with Manta Design with an address of 62 Grove Street, Somerville, New Jersey. >> And you'll be testifying as an architect?
>> As an engineer? >> Engineer. >> Correct. >> And your Mr. Manila? >> Well, one second. Is your license in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes, I have a license. >> In good standing? >> Yes, sir. >> And you've uh testified before boards like this? >> Uh yes.
>> I have over 60 boards throughout the city. >> Be acceptable. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh John, if you would, the property you've heard me describe a little bit. The board obviously has your plans as as well as the uh architectural plans. You would kind of just orient the board with
regard to how this property sits on Spats Avenue and how it's intended to be developed from an engineering perspective given the challenges of the lot. >> Uh sure. So I I do have one exhibit for tonight. I have handouts as well that I like to circulate. um >> mark those
>> and it's entitled 140 Spats Avenue site exhibit with today's date. >> Yeah, give it to the board secretary to mark one. >> Yeah, I'll I'll put the >> A1. >> A1 and we're pulling this one. >> Uh site exhibit
>> site exhibit. >> Other than being shrunken version of it, is it substantially or exactly the same as what you have? It's exactly what we have except it's 11 by7 cheat. Yes. So I I'll kind of walk you through
what's existing on the site. Um and then we'll go through what's being proposed as part of the application. copies >> for uh so property is known as 140 spats avenue uh block 8502 lot 12 located in the R1 zone. Um the lot is approximately
78 ft or exactly 78 ft wide and 80 ft deep with a lot area of 6240 ft. Uh the neighborhood is currently uh developed with single family dwelling or dwellings. Um and the lot is currently vacant with the exception of a curb cut that that remains from the previous
house that was on the site. Um that that dwelling was demolished sometime between 2014 and 2016. Um as stated earlier, the lot does have some severe grading as you look from if you're looking at the site from from spats um from left to right uh
approximately 18t drop from the left uh property side uh to the right property side. Um I do want to note that the lot is existing non-conforming with the lot depth. Uh so lots in this zone require a lot depth of 100 ft. Uh this lot is 80
ft in depth. Now I'm going to refer to the site exhibit that I handed out and that's on on the easel A1. Um it's just a um color rendition of what's being proposed overlay on the aerial of the general vicinity. Uh so what's being proposed is
a new two-story single family dwelling uh with a twocar garage that is located on the I guess the we'll call it the east side of the of the lot. Um so that is a like I said it's going to be a little under so it's almost like in the cellar or basement level is where the
garage would be and then uh as the site uh grades up there is a stairwell outside that gets to the first floor and to the porch. Uh the driveway at the street is 12 ft wide. Um but then as it gets further in it expands to 20 feet wide to accommodate for that twocar
garage um further into the site. Additionally in the back we do have a a deck as well. Um it's it's a modest deck. It's about 6 1/2 ft in depth from the house. So, it goes um from the house back 6 and 1/2 ft and it goes from the
main um sliding doors for the main living space and it extends to the west side of the lot. Other than that, that that is really all that's being proposed on the site. I'll go over the uh relief that's being requested as part of this application.
Um obviously the non-conforming um lot depth is to remain the 100 ft is required and 80 ft is existing and and to remain uh rear guard setback to the main structure itself the setback is 15.6 6
feet uh where 30 ft is required. Um I do want to note that a portion of that so that when when the architect comes up he'll he'll show you um some elevations and um I believe he has a rendering as well but there's an architectural element on that rear facade that projects from the main dwelling about 4
ft. So the actual face of the actual building wall is u 19.6 ft. But the way that the ordinance reads it's it's anything that's attached to the dwelling. So that overhang or architectural element is 15.6 6 ft and that is what is being requested as part
of the um uh variance tonight. Um I I think we you know it this is a the site has does have a hardship. We do have a undersized lot as far as lot depth and then we have the severe gradient that goes from left to right. So when designing a house on the site the the
you want to go deeper than wider because you do have a great drop that goes from left to right. And again we we lost um um space in that building envelope. So the building envelope um is 25 ft from um front to back on this site. Um on a
conforming lot that's 100 ft deep, we would allow 45 ft for a um a building envelope. Uh additionally, we're asking for relief on the deck on the rear. So any deck that's over 30 in above the ground has to be 24 ft from the rear
property line. Uh this deck is 13.1 ft from the rear property line. Um but to give you some perspective, so the deck on the west side, uh where it starts is 30 in or less than 30 in from the ground. Uh by the time you get to this side, because there is such a severe
gray drop, uh that deck is about 6 1/2 ft above the ground. Um and hence that's that's the reason for the relief on this one. Um I believe we are over on lock coverage. The building itself and all the roofed areas is 35%. Um, but I
believe the way that it was read that these exterior steps as well should be included in building coverage. Those are the steps that get you up to the level of the first floor. Uh, so that will bring you up to uh 36%. Um, I also do want to note on the plans, I'm not sure how visible it is on the small plans, but the white box
represents the uh the building envelope. So, you can see, you know, what is what is allowed as far as um the building itself. Um, we do have a front porch as well, but that conforms with the zoning code. you're allowed a front porch that does not exceed um 6 ft into the front
yard setback. Uh I believe we're 5.6 ft. So that is a conforming um uh front porch as well. And that concludes my testimony. if there's any >> and despite the fact that there that's okay I think >> okay I didn't know whether my voice was
loud enough but uh despite the um the constraints of uh of the topography of the lots the fact that the entire street is fully developed and this lot had formerly a house on it from an engineering perspective it's fully developable it just requires a little bit of a unique approach to it in order
to accommodate correct >> that that's a correct statement yes >> chairman I have no further Other questions? Board has questions of Mr. >> Manilio question. >> That's better suited for the architect. I'm an outside guy.
>> U Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Um the 2014 variance um had uh um replacement of the retaining walls as a condition and uh um
upon visiting the site it looked like these are probably the original retaining walls. So can you talk about um why those were not replaced and what the considerations are in terms of uh the engineering and plans?
>> Yes. So I think the consideration is when this does get developed those walls will be replaced. Um at this point they're they're a vacant site. Um so that's the reason that the walls have not been replaced yet. But yeah though I I don't think we have an issue with the
um condition of the 2014 resolution. And uh the other question I have is um will the HVAC be traditional AC heating or will you be doing geothermal? >> As far as I know it's it's uh traditional but I I guess I could defer
that to the architect as well. He would uh know better as far as what's being proposed. >> Okay. Because that will um affect uh step setbacks in terms of which don't seem to be uh uh the condensers don't seem to be indicated on the plans anywhere. Okay. Um, are they permitted
to be in the sideyard? >> Um, >> the condensers, AC condenser. >> I think will that affect well the setbacks? >> They adjusted that ordinance for the setback there. You can put them in the sideyard, but I
don't I don't remember the exact >> I think you can have up to three feet, right? Yes. So, um, >> so, um, what what were your sideyard setbacks? >> He's got plenty.
>> Yeah, you're right. You'll be all right. >> Yeah. No, you can put them on the sideyard that. >> And if you want, I could take a look while the architect is testifying and and just verify that real. >> It's just within three. You can do three up to three feet. used they changed it within the last year because they used we used to get a variance every month
about somebody wanting to put their HVAC because we have sixoot sideyards that are allowed and so they'd want to put them in it wasn't big enough and the board always pretty much granted them so the commissioner changed the ordinance so you can have three feet
>> okay I think we'll be fine with that >> of your deck in the back you said on the left side if I'm standing fast looking at the house left side's 30 inches up >> a little less than 30. Yes. >> Right side is speed up. >> Correct.
>> What would be the height of it? >> Uh the setback. So if if the deck is more than 30 in above the ground, then it has to be set back 24 ft. Uh we're uh 13.1 ft. >> And how how far the deck should go?
>> Uh above the ground. >> Oh, from the house 6 and 1/2 ft. Correct. No, it's not a big deck. >> Does the Does the neighbor's property follow the same contour? >> Does the neighbors property behind us
>> behind you that this deck will be facing? >> Uh, no. They're that they're not the same contour. >> I'll have to just give me one second. I don't know off top of my head. >> Indicer.
>> We're looking at pictures. Yeah. Uh, >> yeah, it's a little higher. I mean, there it's higher. It does have that wall in the back as well. >> And was any consideration given for storm drainage? >> Uh, no, but we would definitely work
with your professionals on providing um drainage or any improvements that are required. >> Steve pill, you're going to get a lot of runoff. >> So, >> there has been no house there, so the water is pretty much perking right there. Now, it's going to run off into the street. Um >> yeah, we could direct all the leaders to
the to the street um to direct it away from any neighbors. Um obviously we will have soil erosion measures put in place and we'll get so erosion approval from Hustics Pacific soil conservation. Uh so all those measures will be put in place uh during construction. >> Okay. So would you you would agree to a condition that you'll work with the
township engineer as to storm water mitigation? >> Uh yes. Other questions? None from the board. Um would anyone in the audience like to question the um planner?
>> Engineer whoever he is. >> You have a question. >> We have a question for the engineer. >> It's just a question, not a comment. >> Just a question for the engineer. Come on up. >> You're going to have to be uh sworn in. Okay. Raise your right hand, please. Do
you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you give us your full name, spell your last name, and give us your address as well? >> Cynthia Norman, 71 Grand View Drive in Bloomingburg, New York. My parents own
house behind. >> Okay. >> 142 Spots Avenue. Salvatore. And >> this is next to him. Behind. Was this next door? >> Next door. Yeah. Okay. >> Up the hill or down the hill? >> Up the hill. the one with the wall.
>> What's your question? >> Those are concerns about um that we have a bay window on that side of the house. Um where exactly that house will be located and the deck that they're proposing
um on the back of the house if that's going to obstruct the view from that side of the house. >> Are you New York down the hill or up the hill? up the hill. >> So, >> um whether the house is forward or it's
back. And then also our concern is with the with the wall. >> Okay. He's going to show you he's going to answer that question and he's going to demonstrate on a on a picture. >> You want? >> Yeah. So, if if you could look on exhibit A1, you can see the the dwelling
that's I guess to the west of us. Sure. >> Um, you can see the end of the house kind of ends at the beginning of I I guess your your parents house. Um, so yeah, I don't believe that's going to obstruct any views.
>> Kind of a blur. >> This one right here, right? >> Yeah. Do you know where that bay window? >> I do not know where the bay window is. Yeah. >> And I see it on proposed plans here. >> Right. So, I believe if remember the
surveyor did pick up the um front of the house is about 53 and 1/2 ft from the property line. That's that's um your parents house and we're 25 and the house is 35 ft deep. So, we're at about 60 ft. So, the house only projects maybe 5 to 6
ft past the front of the their parents house. So, I don't know how close that bay window is to the corner. >> So, you're saying so this is not the house, right? Here is the house. >> This is the house. That is the house. >> And this is the deck.
>> This looks >> Yeah, they do >> like it's filmed, right? >> Windows. >> Okay. Can we You have to do it so the board can hear you all discussing. >> Sure. So, I'm just going to go to the um the first page of the plans. I think that's what she's referring to. >> Are you concerned about your view of the
city? Is that what it is? >> Yeah. So, you could see here uh So, if you >> that >> Yes. So, if you want me to show you right here. So the deck ends be before the the the bay window. So if you draw a line from the bay window across >> the the deck ends before that. So there
should be no issues with that. >> So this is the house here. >> That's the beginning the house. That's the bay window shown. >> And this is so you're into this house. Okay. >> All right. But not the bay window. >> The house is back further.
>> So if you could back a little further. Well, your house is already back a lot further, isn't it? >> Ours is. >> Okay. I took pictures and I think this is your house. Let me just ask you.
>> Is this your mouse? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Uh, we're going to mark this one. These are pictures. Um, you can see this is this is what she's talking about, >> correct? So, the house itself does not
block the bay window. The deck itself also is does not project past the bay window. And if I if I remember correctly that that your your parents property is actually elevated higher than our property, >> right?
>> About 3 ft from the bay window to the dirt. And then um where's this mall? >> Right. So I'm showing the elevation of the deck at 169. Um the elevation at the bottom of the bay window is 171 12. So
approximately 2 and 1/2 ft above the deck. And then your bay window is like you said another 3 ft. So you're 5 1/2 ft above the deck with the window. >> So you'll be looking over the deck. >> Correct. >> And you'll also be to the side of it. So >> is that correct? That is correct.
>> Over it 5T and it will be >> when you're inside the house, you'll be approximately 5T or so to the bottom, >> right? To the bottom of the window. So >> So she'll be 5t above the deck. >> The deck. >> So your parents bay window will be five
feet above the deck. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> They're standing in the window. You'll be significantly higher. >> The land is at 3 feet and then they're going to be down >> another two and a half ft. >> Yeah. Because of the drop >> to the deck. Yes. and back. >> Correct. So, if I draw a straight line across
uh we're probably if I had to guess four to five feet behind the deck. I mean behind the bay window >> concerned about that >> that wall that was be replaced by the lower >> so we don't have any
>> lower house being exposed >> lower the deck of foot >> our property. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I think we we stayed that we would comply with that requirement from 2014 >> that would go all the way back this because there's a wall here on this side
that's probably almost 3 ft, right? And then it gets deeper in the back. >> Either that or it'll be graded out. So it's it's stable between the other neighbors. >> Correct. So, so we've decided and we've
determined that the deck will not protrude into the line of sight of the bay window and the bay window will be a lot higher by at least 3 feet from the height of the deck up of the deck to the bottom of the window is 3 ft difference.
>> Uh, so from the ground at the bay window to the deck is 2 and 1/2 ft. I'm taking her word that it's another three feet to the to the window itself from the ground. So >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Are you satisfied with those answers? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else with questions? You have a question for the engineer. Come on up. >> You raise your right hand, please. You read the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, give us your full name, spell your last name, and give us your address. I'm
Raymond Guzman. I'm G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G Gu G U Z M- an N Raymond R A Y M O N D. I just bought 139 Margaret Avenue. >> 139 Margaret. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um >> is that behind you?
>> Yes. >> I guess my concern is the deck. Is it leveled off with my backyard? I guess. >> Yeah. Is the de is it higher >> immediately behind him? >> No, we said that it was lower. Your property is higher.
>> Is it? I'm not sure. >> Yeah. I don't know if I have enough information to I it it appears it's a little higher. Um I mean I'm just looking at the survey. The survey has it about a a foot higher. Um but I don't know. I don't have enough
information to see what the rest of the property does. >> This is This is the rear. >> Yeah. No. And then it does. Yeah. So I'm sorry. There's another shot here of this other wall where it's 5 ft higher on the one corner. So, yeah, it is it is higher. >> Okay. So, we don't have any uh >> it'd be your your property is a little
lower than the deck. Um so, the deck is is supposed to be at 169. It looks like on it's hard to show at the middle of the back of your property. The elevation is 167. So, it's about 2 feet lower than the deck. And then on this side, it's about 5t lower than the deck.
picture B1 pictures is of the neighbor >> and so it's on top of a retaining >> correct >> members on this side >> you have a deck on the back of your So do you think the deck will be even with the B his uh law?
>> Uh so so the prop so let me just see if I could explain this. So on this corner of uh Mr. Guzman's property it's about 172. Our deck is 169. So, at this corner, your property is 3 ft higher, but by the time you get to this property, his property drops as
well. Um, it is um about 4 and 1/2 ft lower than the deck. So, like I said, both of our properties drop, but the deck itself on our property stays level, >> the picture in this picture, >> right?
>> Where's the retaining wall that's on this property? >> It's on It looks like it it straddles both properties. Um, >> and can you point it out for the board? Sure. >> Cuz they're >> they've gone to the property. They've got the pictures to refresh their memory. >> Yeah. So, the wall actually starts over
here on the side properly. Uh, and then turns and then it keeps going along the whole property and then I believe it turns again and goes I'm not sure how far it goes. The survey didn't pick it up, but it does turn onto your property at one point. >> So, it straddles Mr. Guzman's propert.
>> Yes. >> It looks like it's more on your side than his. Yeah, the beginning portion is and then at the end once you get to here looks like it's more on. >> Okay. So, >> and and also is that the same identical retaining wall that would the variance
was given in 2014? >> That I I I don't know. >> Yeah, that's the question with the condition that was previously entered. If we're going to if we're going to continue conditions, if that's what the board's inclination is >> Mhm. >> and it's straddling properties and
you've taken that on as your obligation, you you're okay with that. You don't you do you consent with that? I mean, you you're going to consent to somebody doing it, of course. >> But I'm asking the coun the attorney, are you consenting to that condition being >> to replace that wall? >> Replace the wall
>> to replace it completely. that I believe referenced that that may have been conditioned in 2014 if that was condition then and I think one of the board members raising a question. >> So yes, I think that's a condition of
the board comp. >> Okay. >> Does that satisfy you? >> Yeah, that's Thank you. Thank you. >> Anybody else? When you do replace it, you would have to stay on his own property. Correct. >> And that's going to require you probably
filling in some some some property or some stuff for the uh neighbor. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Apparently, Mr. Chairman, Walt's leaning a little bit over the years. I'm sure. >> So, it's a little hard to tell exactly where it started where it is today. Oh, >> you'll find out. You'll find out when you get to the footing.
>> All right, that's all the questions we have. Thank you. Next architect. >> My next witness would be Paulo Dantis, who is the architect who submitted the plans that you have before you. >> All right. >> Can I just ask anything?
>> Sir, you raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Please give us your full name, spell your last name, and give us your address. >> Sure. Uh, my name is Paulo Dantis. First name is Paulo P A U L O. Last name Dantis D.
Uh, address is 427 Chestnut Avenue. Uh, sweet 302 Union, New Jersey. >> And your license is >> Yes. So, graduated with a bachelor's in architecture from the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2007, uh, 2002. I apologize. Uh, I've been
licensed since 2007. Um, testified in various boards and licenses up to date. All right. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Paulo, if you would, you were retained by Mr. Miselon to aid him with trying to design a house that not only fit this
property, but that fit today's uh designs architecturally and desires for a home with what's internal in the property and how it was to be laid out. Um, that's correct, right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So you visited the site, you looked at the property, you looked at
the uh engineering plans to get the u the u design because of the slope in the roadway. Yes. And so forth. And what you submitted to the board is what you based upon your discussion with your client believe is the appropriate use for this property by way of the size and shape
and configuration of the home. >> That's agreeable. >> And then once you get inside the home, obviously Mr. Michelon has indicated certain things that he wanted within the home that you've tried to incorporate. Correct. Correct. >> So, if you would using your plans and referring to the page numbers uh that
you're referring to either in the upper or lower corner, wherever they may appear. Sure. If you would just reference to make sure the board knows which page you're referring to and just kind of walk us through your plan. >> Sure. Thank you. So, we're proposing um a new single family dwelling um with a building
footprint of 1,800 ft². Uh we're also looking for a livable uh floor area of approximately 3500 ft² and a garage of 761 ft². Uh currently, the property is vacant. What we're looking to propose on
sheet A100 is a finished basement. Uh we're providing a mechanical mechanical room. We'll be putting the water heater, furnace, and the sump pumps to provide heat cooling throughout the whole first and basement. Uh additionally, we are
also providing a full bathroom and an interior stair accessing the first floor and also being able uh with a door to access a twocar garage. All of this foundation will be slab on grade and we'll have a a basin foundation um
throughout the the perimeter architecture sheet 810 one 101 which is indicated as our first and second floor. We're proposing uh one main entrance
facing pass avenue. The first floor layout um is consistent with a open plan concept to include eating, dining, kitchen, and family room. We're look we're proposing to have a a floor to ceiling height of feet. Uh within the
family room, we're proposing also a pre-fabricated fireplace. Uh the kitchen will have an L-shape adjacent to the eating area. And then obviously, we'll be providing some sliding doors to access the deck. Uh additionally we have provided a half
bathroom. Uh the interior access there it's continuous from uh below and will give accessibility to the second floor. We are proposing a bedroom office. I just want to consider that we did put closets but we do not have a full
bathroom within that floor. It's more I would say it's more for a guest type of um condition versus a permanent uh uh bedroom. On our second floor, we have a livable area of 1,712 square feet.
Within here, we have four uh four bedrooms uh and two bathrooms. Uh the primary bedroom will has a primary suite of a bathroom and also walk-in closet. We also adapted the second floor to have the laundry room and then we have one
hallway bathroom which will accommodate the rest of the three uh bedrooms there. Uh we will be having a drop down uh ladder if possible just to access the unit on top if feasible. Um and that's where we're going to locate our
mechanical systems or elevations. If I may, I'm just going to go to sheet 103. Um this one is exactly what we submitted to the board. The only difference is we have a color rendition of it. uh because the board we couldn't print
it out in color. Um and so what we did here is we tried to use the total building height and I'm going to say the total building height from the driveway all the way to the top is 31.93 ft.
Uh the architectural characteristics and materials selected is uh by the owner's design and requests. Some of the materials that we're proposing are going to be some vertical paneling, metal paneling, as well as horizontal, some
horizontal wood paneling, stucco, and stone veneer. Uh we will be having a low pitch roof, a one on 12. And we're looking to provide a modern um a modern design, but and with that we also want to break some horizontal and vertical um
depths, breaking the facade uh deteriorating from the the monolithic look. Uh the building also has been designed horizontally from some front entrance canopies and garage canopy and some wood accent wood accents to break
down uh the paneling and giving a little bit more worth um to the more aesthetic um pleasing facade. >> Um what are the parapits? What what are they designed there for? They're just designed so we could have
at least a consistency on the side so it could look a little bit more squareish. And then we decided to just slope the back uh to gather the water. >> Do those parapus add to the height? That does that help?
>> No, it does not because the height is being taken from the front. You're talking the finance, >> please. >> Yeah. >> So, we're not Are we putting HVAC up there? Is that what you said or not? >> We we're trying to put it there, but if not, then we'll just put it in the
second floor unit. I mean, second floor uh in one of the rooms. >> One of the rooms. Yes. >> What's the overall height? >> So, I'm taking the height from the the garage level, let's say, or the ashalt all the way to the top and on the higher
portion. 31.92. >> Yeah, I talked to Dave Barry today. He sent me an email because apparently you had some back and forth with the code official. Um because I was I was confused at the as to the front of these plans. Um this is the email from Mr. Barry, our
code official. Uh this addresses my comment on height, which he makes the comment in the letter of denial. Um, it doesn't address or he says, uh, he cites the ordinance 700-3, any story having its finished floor
surface entirely above grade except that a basement shall be considered as a story above grade where the finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than 6 ft above the ground level for more than 50% of the total building perimeter.
um he wrote to me and he said, "Since receiving that email, I have not received any revised plans or additional submissions regarding that issue." And you had indicated to him in an email on November 14th.
Um I had a chance to review our building height calculation and noticed that we had calculated it incorrectly. However, the height is still under the allowed 30 ft. We had calculated the building height from the proposed finished grade
along the front wall to the top of parapit. Per your email and ordinance. It would be measured from the natural average grade to highest point above the roof beams adjacent to the street wall for flat roofs. And then you indicate
natural average grade equals 162.08. Finish floor equals 169.56. Highest point of roof beams as measured from the finished floor equals 22 feet
4 and 38 in or 22.36 ft. 1 169.56 ft finished floor plus 22.36 ft height of highest roof beam uh
minus 162.06 ft natural average grade equals 29.8 86 ft to squeak in there under the 30 ft. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's engineering writing all those technical. >> Uh but but to answer the question about
the basement third third floor. So I did do that calculation. I don't know if that I don't think that was a a question, but if that was um so there's two definitions. There's a definition of a story above grade uh which says at 6 feet or more of the um the floor and uh
can't be more than I believe um 50% and we're at 42.8%. >> Yeah. So he cites them not for height variance because it made it in under the wire, but they are cited for how many stories they have because you're allowed two and a half and they have three based
upon this topography with the way this worked out cuz you can walk out from this basement. >> Uh so I I we don't have the calculation on the plan. So what I'm saying is I did do the calculation and I don't believe that's a story. I think it's considered a seller. >> He cites it in >> the letter of denial. Yeah, because it's more than
>> more than 50% of it, >> right? But we're we're at 43 and a half%. Um is what I calculated. >> That is exposed. >> That is exposed. So I could provide that calculation um to the zoning official. >> That would be >> okay. Well, I'm going to say this. If you're going to challenge the zoning
officer's decision and his calculation and his opinion, the board can consider that as, you know, an interpretation. However, when we do that, we always invite the code official to explain that. So, I don't know that you want to.
>> So, then we will ask that or just continue with >> continue with three stories. >> Three story varants. Okay. >> I think that's fair. We'll ask for the relief but with the consideration that we have reviewed this. I >> understand that it's you have that argument, but we're you're not pressing. >> Got it.
>> Okay. Also, I have a question. Oh, sorry. Just question. >> So, moving on. You have 9 foot on the first floor, you have 9 foot on the second floor, >> correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, uh, on that second floor, you have two bathrooms up there, a washroom,
>> uh, a laundry room. >> A laundry room. >> So, two bathrooms and a laundry room. >> So, you have to make some kind of structural consideration for the weight of tubs because you have, if I'm not mistaken, you said you have an open concept downstairs. >> Yeah. Well, we always accommodate for that. Yeah. No,
>> it's an open concept. Okay. >> No, it's open. wondering if that is going to consider you going to have to take that into consideration like those and if you do does it does it are you to grow that >> so so what happens with these things is
I don't put structural calculations but you could see there's a wall >> dividing and then we have 17 ft so it's it's it's achievable 9 and 12 >> no no no I I I'm I'm I'm very confident that we'll we'll we'll be within that
marker yes Make a note. >> Yeah, that'll be fine. >> You have the flat roof there. So, the flat roof is pitching from back to front. >> From front to back. >> So, from front to back. >> So, it's the highest point is the front, lowest point the back.
>> So, maybe two inch difference, whatever that is. >> Uh, it's one on 12. >> Then you have the two. It's not giving me on my drawings, but give me one second. >> It's about two to three feet.
>> Three inches. Yeah. >> Yeah. About uh 3 ft. I I'll say 3 ft for now as the pitch from front to back. >> 3 ft front to back and have those power pits on both sides. Where's the water go from there? >> Then we're going to go into a gutter system. And then I believe uh our engineer suggested that we're going to
work with the gutter. >> Yeah. And I think we could achieve that. That's not a problem. Make sure you're not putting residential gutter on that and then having the thing overflow. >> No, no, no. I I do I >> I'll be honest with you. I do my calculations on the gutter sizes. >> Okay.
>> And then if it looks too big, we usually hide it. You know what I mean? Like we conceal it. >> The you've already agreed to a condition that you'll work with the township engineer as storm water management. So including >> including gutter sides and leaders. >> Okay.
>> I would say that. Yeah. Once I saw those power pits, I know it's flat roof. I'm wondering where >> is that's a big rush. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um referencing back to um the number of
stories and uh you were calling the the lowest level of uh a basement or a cellar. Um is that going to be conditioned space? It's going to be conditioned. >> Okay. So, it's not technically
um a utility basement then it >> it's more of like a wreck room. >> Okay. Um so, would that be uh part of the considerations for number of stories that be >> it is that's what the that's what the code official
>> number of stories is calculated according to the height above grade >> and where it starts and where it ends at 50%. They're saying it's 43,000. >> But they're counting that level, aren't they? As one of the stories, >> the first level. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. That's Yeah. >> Three stories. >> I'm I'm not counting as a three story. >> You're not. But the code official. >> Oh, the code official. Yes. Okay. It's fair enough. >> But if it takes away that 50%, >> it would then go down to story. >> Yeah. Okay. So
that's something we have to work >> based on the description we would just >> if they do the recalculations later but I don't I don't think >> and then going back to the um the placement of the HVAC units if it's going on the flat roof
>> you said there was a possibility >> there um so uh we have to see if we have enough clearance in order to put these units if they're not going to be put there then what we usually do we put them within the floor area where the laundry room is is areas like that.
I I think I think we do two, but I just got to see. >> Mhm. >> But I guess my quest my question is if for some reason it needed to go on the top of the roof, what would the height of the unit be? >> You're talking about the actual the top.
No, I would not put it on top. So it's more like the furnace or the air handler would be within the attics portion of that flat area. Not directly and exactly. And then we talked about the condensing units just putting it on the side of uh on the side of the sideyard.
>> Um I notic you've got a got a b in the basement you have a b. >> Yes I do. >> That you may not full a kitchen in the basement. >> That's fine. >> And it cannot be used as a living unit. >> That's fine. And that's our testimony
today. That is not for u bedrooms or any type of separation. >> Five five bedrooms in this house. >> Uh so I want to call it four uh as per who's going to live there and then five for the guest office. But it's more for >> building this house are going to live
there and they need four bedrooms. >> Yes. >> All right. So if you have a bedroom office, I'm wondering why you need the the closets. I asked the same thing, but I guess we just left it. Um, I think it's more just
to put whatever they're going to put in within the shelves. >> But it does give a an indication almost being a bedroom. That's why we just wrote it in. >> Yeah, you're going to get taxed. >> I know. >> I just want to clarify one issue if I
could, Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. uh on this the the height and the number of floors. I know that got a little confusing. So my my uh proposal was or or to clarify it. If in fact it's determined that the um official was
correct that this is technically three stories, then we would be asking for that relief. In the event that he agrees with the our engineer that it in fact isn't a threetory, then we wouldn't need that relief. But if we do, we're asking for it. But if we give the relief here tonight, it's it's a movement.
>> And if we can comply below that relief, that's I just want to make sure that was clear. >> He didn't back down on his assessment that it was three stories. So right now, we're going with >> Well, because he hasn't gotten anything back and they're saying it's 43%. We're talking a difference of
>> But but what but I think what the attorney is suggesting is that if if they give the Mr. Barry the information and he changes his mind and says, "Oh, they don't need it." Yeah, >> you're still you still have the variance for that. Nothing's changing in the house. So,
whatever the interpretation is, if it stands as three f three stories, then we would just ask for that relief with the explanation that we've provided. >> Okay. So, so in looking at this house, I look at it as as almost fitting as a
corner lot way the way you've got everything on the side. You usually don't have a big backyard on a corner lot. I mean that that's what I'm looking at. You agree or >> based on the shape of it and also the way the topography kind of descends, >> right? But a longer lot, less room in
the back more lot like that. >> So it feels more like the backyard would be on the side, >> right? >> Which is going to be that won't be a problem. Okay. >> I had a I just need some clarification if that's okay. Um you mentioned that on
the first floor you're going to have a prefab fireplace. Now, is are you is that like an electric fireplace or >> No, just gas. Gas. >> Gas. So, it's a direct vent. >> Direct vent. >> It's not going to have a chimney. It's going to be a direct vent. >> That's correct. >> Um Okay. And then this next question I
have regarding the um recreation area on the lower level. That's going to be a walk out. So, the entrance will be from the garage into the uh recreation area. And the walk out since it's partially
walked out because of the way the sloping is. Are those going to be sliding doors or a regular? >> So on the basement we have no sliding doors or anything. The only >> from the front. >> Uh the the one in the front we left it open where you could put you know the
garbage cans and all these things. Is that the one you're talking about where it says storage? >> There's no walk out. >> No, there's no walk out. Okay. That >> No. So the only access really is from the first floor. let's say or if you're coming from the garage then you just
have access uh you know in the back. >> Okay, that's just a clarification on that. >> And then on the second floor uh do you have um >> the attic space uh do you have the
dimensions like so maybe you can stand up in the middle but not the end so it won't be able >> it's too flat to even stand up. We're we're even we're discussing just having the unit laying down and that maybe even be difficult. >> Okay. Thank you. Wanted that. >> No. >> No window.
>> No window. >> I wanted to make sure that we're on the ground. >> Okay. >> All right. Those satisfied my >> question. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I actually do have a question. Um given that the variances that were
granted in 2014 which looked at a specific footprint that seemed to be appropriate at the time for the property. Um the proposed plans are substantially
larger in terms of um footprint and also um cubic feet in the house. Um, so respectfully, I'd like your interpretation as to
how this is not a self-created hardship by proposing a residence that um was much larger than the one that was originally considered.
>> Yeah. I I don't believe it was much larger, but I can tell you this. Um the variances were granted in 2014, and again, I was not part of that. Um but the fact of the matter is there was a 20ft setback. So there was a granting of a 5-ft variance for the front. Instead
of being set back 25 ft, the 2014 provided for a 20ft setback. What that created was a variance then for that front porch because it has to be no more than six feet projected in. At that point, we only had um 14.2 feet or they
only had in 2014. So, you're granted a variance at that time for it. The only difference now is that it's been pushed back 5 ft. So, now that variance is eliminated and the variance in the rear comes into play because we lost 5T by pushing it back. With regard to the size
of the house, um I think if you look at the impervious coverage, we're at 46% instead of 70. We meet the left sideyard dramatically exceed almost by three times the right sideyard. Have the front set back in place. Have the height we
believe other than the story issue. And the house itself, the footprint is is not dramatically larger. And I believe the resolution provided that it was somewhere around 3,000 square ft. This I believe the testimony was it was somewhere around 34 to 3500 ft². All
that is is really a product of expanding a little bit on the first floor. And you correct me if I'm wrong. Um it it's more of there were volumes on the first floor of like cathedral ceilings and all of those. Uh I I don't think the footprint changed mostly. I think it was those cathedral and open open rooms that we
kind of occupied to accommodate the master uh the closets and things like that. >> So that led to approximately 500 more square feet. >> Yeah. And then and then we also didn't have the office on the first floor. I think that's one of the biggest things that everybody requests these days. Uh
that everyone has a home office. People working from home these days. Um so that that was a little bit of a trigger on on the modification of the layout. >> But the fact of the matter is the lot's over 6200 ft² and this house is 3500 ft house >> uh F,
>> right? >> But it's only 1,800 on the footprint >> on the footprint. >> We don't have an F here. >> I I'm just explaining Liverpool area. And with regard to the neighborhood itself, there's other fairly large homes that are on the site. Mixed bag, some smaller, some the same size.
>> For for for a firm, it's it's a standard with between 29 to 3500 like these typical homes >> for one family. >> For a long, >> but it clearly fits very easily on this lot. >> I I feel it's properly done. But that's just my opinion.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Nobody else on a board. >> Any questions from anyone in the audience for the architect? >> Okay. Just uh we'll need you to state your name again. You're still on the road. >> Uh it's Raymond Guzman and I'm at 139
Margaret Avenue. I guess just in regards to the height of the house again in plain terms, is it going to be towering everybody else's house around there or >> I I think so. I think with the right side I think we're pretty conformative and that's the lowest part within what's
zoning requirement and then the left side obviously really dug in >> and the back >> the the back kind of mimics what the front is taking place. So the back you'll see everything kind of dug in on the left side and then it gets exposed >> because our concern and I don't want to
speak for everyone else but our concern is sunlight. We get a lot of sunlight from that area. So, if you're towering over all of us. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure. >> Sir, >> thank you. Um,
>> anyone else in the audience? >> What What What kind of roof are we putting on this? >> Uh, metal tendency metal >> on a flat roof. >> Anybody else? >> There's nothing underneath the stairs. going to be standing seam only for security.
>> No, I'm going to put a little bit of insulation, rigid insulation about 3 in or so the water when it rains and >> exactly and then below then we're either going to apply that or it >> so we're going to have the proper insulation.
>> I got to delete that sound. >> Okay, next. >> Good. >> That's all the witnesses we have. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whe there was any other members of the public. Let me let me ask if uh anybody in the audience has
any comments that would like to be heard with regard to this application. Seeing none, can I have a motion please? Need a summary of the conditions. somebody um do but I have to you could you help me add them if they need
>> well I'll go I'll go through >> uh we have a condition that will they will replace the retaining walls >> yes uh condition that they will work with the township engineers to storm water mitigation including gutter and leader sizes yes uh they will oh I've got to
wait that they're replacing the retaining wall um No, >> no kitchen or use of the uh basement area as a separate living unit >> not projecting into the bay window
of the bay window. >> Um well, we didn't do that as a condition. The testimony established that it would not lock it >> and I think that was it. So, we had >> four conditions.
>> One. Yeah. Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for the new build at 140 Spats Avenue, block 8502,
lot 12. The hardship of this property is that it is an undersized and sloped lot. Although it's non-conforming, it does have it will have a substantial sideyard. Um the design has been thoughtfully
designed and it appears that it will be an aesthetic improvement. Um with this granting there are conditions. Um the first condition is that the retaining walls will need to be replaced. Also the they will agree to
work with the town for storm water mitigation. um to include gutter and any other conditions set forth by code enforcement. Um also that they cannot install a kitchen in the basement and it is not to be used as a separate living
unit. Um also are there any conditions from the original 2020 2014 that need to continue on? uh just the the walls were as part of it. And uh the only thing we're going to add to that is that when you do the walls, you'll you'll uh
you'll take care of the neighbor's property as well as refurbishing what was disturbed. Thank you. >> No, because that by us giving them the variance tonight, we if it passed, >> doesn't matter.
>> We'll um there will be no need for them to even mention that to do it. They'll they'll have to hide variance. >> You need a second. >> It doesn't matter. Yeah. >> For these reasons and any others that are set forth by council.
Would the secretary please award? >> Yes. >> No. >> Yes. >> John Kafone? >> Yes. >> Craig Tolley? >> Yes. >> Daniel Tolley?
>> Yes. >> Chair Gaziano? >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. Lots more. Do you want these plans? You sure you don't need this? left. evidence. Oh, no. I have them. Never mind.
>> Okay. Um, >> can we can we clear can we clear the room and take your comments outside, please? >> We're going to start another one. >> Uh, 34 Humber Street. We need to read the letter for read it.
>> Okay. Um, >> this is a new application. >> A new application. Okay. So, we'll need to read the letter of denial. >> Thank you, sir. >> The letter of denial find the letter. >> Uh the fourth conditioning
You have the letter. >> You need the letter of I have >> regarding the townhouse residential development for 34 Hbert Street, block plot 670210. Dear Mr. Preino, your request for a
permit on behalf of your client, Kitan Daraj, at the above reference premises to construct a townhouse residential development consisting of four dwelling units. Site development including parking, landscaping, trash enclosure,
draining and lighting, etc. located in an R-2 zoning district is shown on the plans prof prep prepared by architect Salvador Cino Architect and Planner LLC dated October 10th 2024 and land and
ostraculting engineering and surveyors dated May 1st 2025 is denied for the following reasons. This property is located in an R-2 district is shown on the Nutley zoning map. Chapter 700, Article 8, Section 700-7A
of the Codes of Nutley states, "No building shall hereafter be erected, and no existing building shall be moved, altered, added to, or enlarged, nor shall any land or billing be used, designed, or arranged to be used for any purpose other than is included among the
uses listed in this article as permitted in the district in which such building or land is located, nor in any manner contrary to any of the requirements specified in this article. Chapter 700, article 5, check chapter, excuse me,
section 700-12 of the codes of Nutley states, "The following uses are permitted in the R-2 zoning district colon. Uses and buildings permitted in the R-1 district except home occupation and professions
C700-12C has prescribed two family dwellings not to exceed one building or structure on each lot and home occupation and professions. >> Category A, a townhouse residential development is not a listed permitted
use. Town houses are permitted are permitted use in an R-3 zoning district. Chapter 700, article 8, section 700-46A. The schedule of regulations of the codes of Nutley requires the following in the
R-2 zoning district. Um, we don't need to do the checklist, do we? >> No. No, thank you. >> Uh, let's see. No, there's a few more articles. Second page. uh chapter 700 article 3's ch uh section
700-3 of the codes of nutley states the definition of a parking space is an off- streetet space available for the parking of one motor vehicle and having minimum dimensions of 9 ft in width and 18 ft in length exclusive of passageways and
driveways a pertinent thereto giving access thereto and having direct usable access to a street there are two proposed those parking spaces per dwelling unit in which which will be tandem parking. Chapter 700 section
600-1A of the codes of Nley states no construction permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use except one or two family detached dwellings and permitted accessory use thereto unless a site plan shall have first been approved by the board in
accordance with the terms of this chapter. except that the site plan approval also shall not be required for the following except as set for in subsection B. A preliminary view of the preliminary and final site plan by OM
and Ostricorn dated May 1st, 2025 indicates the following items are missing using the checklist for site plan applications. 18 copies of application and site plan fee in accordance with the schedule of fees 85-42.
Data received application uh date certified is complete. All entrances and exits to public streets on site and within 400 ft thereof. All property lines, streets, roads, retaining walls, rock outcrops, marshlands,
ponds and streams within 400 ft. The rights of way easements and all lands to be dedicated to the county. all existing uh pertinances, excuse me, all existing easements, deed restrictions, and other covenants and previous variances granted for the property application filed with
the uh county construction official may require building elevation views of a date adjacent properties added 55 um May 5th, 2015 by ordinance number 3302.
waiverss may be requested and approved by the board. >> Thank you. Um, this is probably going to take a little while. So, what I'm thinking is let's do this. We won't go past 10:00 with this so we can get to the other applicant.
Okay. Yes. Then we'll try to get back to you uh if we have enough time at the end of the evening. But I'd like to get the other applicants in this evening. >> Okay. >> Yeah. that chairman obviously burns. >> Um okay, >> Mr. Chairman, Gregory, Misera, Bannon,
Roy McDonald, and Misera on behalf of the applicant, Crazy Sand LLC. Um the um the owner of the property is Kon Dargy, D A R Ji. Um the applicant this evening seeks um variance relief with regard to
the property, 3438 Hunbert Hunbert Street. The property is rectangularly shaped. It's 11,697 ft and it's currently unimproved. For the record, it's uh uh block 6702 and lot 10. The lot is an interior lot on
Humber Street. Um the um it appears that the lot uh has been unimproved since 2011. Um the street just generally general description um is a mix of two family and single family dwellings. There is a an apartment building
adjacent to this property on the north. The um the applicant is seeking a D1 variance, a use variance because this property is in the R2 zone. Um a townhouse, which this is defined as a townhouse under the
code, is not permitted. We're proposing four attached units uh with uh in one building. The um the other variance is a D5 variance and we have the same issue as the last applicant. Um we meet the
height requirement but we do not meet the story requirement. Our um our planner will discuss that. Um we also need a variance because we have um um we um have 14.9 units per acre and 14.52
units um are permitted in the zone. So, we need a small variance for that and we need a sideyard variance of approximately five feet and you'll hear testimony from the architect that we can alleviate that variance um if the board so desires by a simple change in design.
My first witness this evening is Kirsten Ustorn. She is a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. Your chairman, Miss Oststerorn has appeared as an expert in front of this board before. >> She has. So, we'll just need her to put
her name on record and uh and Yeah. >> Hi. >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Give us your full name. >> Kirstston Ostricorn from Omland and Osterorn 42 Central Midland Park, New Jersey. >> Your license is in good standing as the
state of New Jersey now. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Must can you leave the board the benefit of the work that we have done on this property? some of the brief description of the property and then the engineering design and then we'll go through the engineering letter that that the forge
engineer has provided to you. >> I'm going to stay. Sure. Hi everybody. Nice to see you. Um as Mr. Bera said, this is 3438 Humphred Street, tax map block 6702, lot 10, Township of Nutley,
Essex County. This is the set of plans that were dated that were referred to. They're dated May 5th, 2025 and they're revised through uh 125 2025. >> What What number What number is that?
>> That's sheet one. >> We revised per the engineers letter that we had received and resubmitted um in December. to address some of her comments. >> I would think so. Do we don't have that? >> I think we
>> Yeah, it's the new exhibit. >> No, >> it says revised and then we had a new letter from Penoni that they reviewed our plans December 5th, 2025. >> Third letter. >> Yeah, the December 23rd letter reviewed these set of plans. Do you have the
door? What you right there? >> I don't have >> They're not that exciting of drawings, though. >> I don't know. >> That's this. That's this. >> No, >> those are Mr. Pino's drawings. I think
you're opening. >> I have >> No, those are the architects. It's 8-1. >> We don't have the old drawing. Where's the new one? >> My set is one of seven. I don't not not the architect drawings. Mine are >> What's the date on yours?
>> Mine are revised through December 5th. >> No, there's no revision. >> Those are still Let me ask you a question different way. Did you drop off 15 copies of the new uh drawing to the town hall? >> Yes, we emailed and delivered
>> because we got a package that included um >> revised. >> We have Z drawings. We have drawings south uh >> south revised drawings 12525. >> We have zoning documents.
>> Oh, is that this >> uh R10 starts with the other one is Z3.0 And architectural starts with the A1 A2. Nothing >> December 8th. We do have this. >> I didn't get it. >> You didn't get this.
>> No, don't give me >> I had No, some of us got it. >> No, no, I should be here >> on that side. >> This is that drawing here. Um, revision date.
>> Yeah, revision is 11. >> Yeah. >> No, it took you said December. >> December 5th. >> Nope. >> 11 >> 11 >> 111 >> 111 December 5th. >> No, the revision on the drawing is 11-11
on the on the revision. >> Dipy here. Which is the one you reviewed? Was it >> December five architect and or the engineer? >> I don't know the drawing. >> I have >> no 11-11.
>> What's 111? >> No, it's revised through December 5th. Okay. Sorry. Where's that? Wait, >> Frank. We're looking at the wrong December 5th. Yeah, because I had the letter.
>> It was revised because of the letter, but I my revision date. >> Revision date. Okay. >> I was revising it per the letter. >> So, we'll have to use this one. I don't have it. >> You can use mine. >> Right. Okay. We're back on track. >> I was revising it per letter.
>> You know what? Let me share. You guys have one you could share over there >> and we'll give you over there and I'll share with Diana. >> Well, >> okay. So, we each have >> 125. >> I promise they're not that exciting. The revision. >> Okay.
>> Go ahead. >> Sorry. >> Uh, so we had reviewed um Miss Dippy's from Penoni letter dated 1111 which is when we had revised the plan and
resubmitted on December 5th. Um, so just speaking to the property as it was outlined before, the lot area is 11,697 square ft where 6,000 square ft required. The lot width is 70 ft where
60 ft required and the lot depth is 167.1 ft where 100 ft's required. There's no change to the lot area width and depth. for front yard requirements. I'm going to move to sheet two of my set.
On the left side of this sheet is the existing uh conditions of the survey. It's an undeveloped property and on the right side is the the site plan part of it. 25 ft for front yard setbacks required. We're proposing 71 ft. We're
proposing a 4-unit townhouse that faces on Humphre Street and the rear yard faces to uh the park uh town lot in the back. So, as you pull in, we have a 24 ft entrance. The units can access um as it was mentioned in the letter, they're
tandem garages for the four units. And then we have additional three spaces, one handicap and two non- handicap spaces um that are uh available for guests or or just part of the parking while the the units are provided their
parking that they need. Sideyard setbacks uh we have six feet on each side that's required. I wasn't 100% sure the five yard 5 foot one. Okay. Oh, for the parking is a five foot. The building is required 6 feet
which we are showing at 6 feet. The rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet and we're proposing at 38 ft. As it was mentioned the building height we meet the 30ft requirement but it is counted as a extra story. So it's three stories where 2 and 1/2 stories is required. And
for our building and lot coverage we are in conformance. 35%'s required for building coverage. We're at 29.4%. And for lot coverage, which is the building, the deck, the walkways, the steps, the driveways, the parking area,
70%'s required, and we're at 69.7%. The required driveway width is 24 ft, which we are providing at the required 24 ft. So, that was just my quick zoning analysis. That'll help everyone out for the planner later. And my sheet two of
my set as I go to sheet three. is our grading, drainage, and utility sheet. On the left side is the focus of the grading and drainage. Uh we're providing new utilities, gas, water, and electric to the building. And
we have drainage systems in the front and the rear to accommodate the increase in coverage for both the parking area as well as the building. So the front half of the roof as well as the parking area will be captured into a drainage system in the front of the building. And the
back of the building, we have a smaller system just for the roof area that is set back farther from the property line. Um we know that there's the uh fields and everything in the back and we are set up higher, but we're able to provide that buffer from a drainage perspective.
on the right side of the sheet is basically a duplicate, but it adds in the soil conservation requirements for silt fence, limited disturbance, construction entrance, your stock piles, everything we need for the Hudson Essex Payic. I also have the drainage calculations that are provided on the
right side of the sheet. Um, speaking to Penoni's letter, there there were questions that we had addressed. um minor comments with this revision, additional spot grades that were asked for. We provided the soil testing that was done previously as long as well as
the locations of where the soil testing was done um in the past that uh was requested. Uh I'm trying to think of there was the couple of the minor comments that between these couple sheets were just little technical details that we just cleared up for Penoni's letter, which is
the recent letter of December 23rd. Um, as you read it, it says satisfied with a majority of their comments. If I move to sheet four is the landscaping plan. In the front of the property, we have two
uh nice street trees as well as some shrubbery that's provided along the frontage to buffer out those minimal those three parking spaces we have as well as the property. And along both sides of the building, uh we are providing roodendrums and additional
landscaping that's on both sides. There also is fencing. At the time of when I printed these plans, I didn't show the fencing on my plan, but they are shown on Mr. Corvino's plans that we are providing privacy fencing along the property. So
along with the fencing and the landscaping, there's a nice buffer to both the neighbors um to the the south and the north. And then along the rear of the property, we have what are they? The Norway
spruces that are going to be the nice evergreen, the larger trees that buffer everything from this property to the the park in the back. Uh also help with the absorption. And we have the just that little bit of lawn spa uh lawn space. So
the properties, I'm sorry, the the tenants that come out to their deck and can come down, they'll have a little grass area and then they're just going to see some Norway spruces. Like it's going to be a buffer to anything that they were to possibly see in the rear as well from the rear of the property to
the front. And then we have the fencing as well. The sheet five is the lighting plan from the letter that was written um by Penoni. This is
one comment I wanted to address is comment number 12 on page three of um the letter. I just on comment number 12 on Penon's letter dated December 23rd. It's page three. It refers to a section of the
ordinance that says all parking area shall be lighted in such a manner as to always provide not less than 1 ft candle of illumination per section 700-60B. At this point, whether that's considered a waiver or a variance,
I'm looking to not have one foot candle and over light the site. We are in a residential neighborhood. I spoke with the lighting manufacturer prior to this meeting and the minimal strip of not meeting that 1 ft candle that that is
across the site. When you pull in and you're looking at you and you think, "We want to have the residential feel. We're we're on a residential street, which is what we're looking for. And you come in, you come into your driveway, you have your door lights, your garage lights, and you get
into your property, and you're okay. Similarly to this, we have the lights that light up the actual parking spots, and then you have the lights from the front doors in the garage. So the minimal area that's across the strip
that's in that 02 to.5 foot candle is enough light for someone to just cross. If we have to meet the 1 ft foot candle and add more lights, we are going to light up the site and it's not going to have the same residential feel that
we're looking for for this townhouse, these four town houses. While I can come up here and say we'll do everything and just satisfy the engineer's request and the ordinance request, I don't think my professional opinion it will best serve this site to meet a 1 ft foot candle
requirement on this small three parking space lot. That's not what you would want in your backyard. I don't think that's what the neighbors are going to want. This is enough lighting for what we have right here. And I don't know if that's listed as a waiver or a
variance. >> Well, asking for a waiver because >> it's section 700. So, I'm not >> We'd be asking for Mr. and I'm jumping ahead to approve this application and would agree in a post uh post approval
condition that we would work with Mr. Raja and whatever chief of third we would be happy to do. We was >> lighting the bright. Yes. >> Or if they do the 6 months and you test
it out later like after 6 months. >> Okay. So looks great. the code official code officials citing this ordinance from the townhouse. It says parking shall be provided in the amount of parking spaces for townhouse unit and
then we talked about lighting. We're not in a townhouse zone. Um >> yes, I saw that too. >> That's why we be questions later. >> Yeah. So I I >> again Mr. We're happy to to to comply.
So you know >> I I think um it's a waiver. It gives that um a little bit more leeway at age five they want to increase it. So why don't
we call it a request for wering? >> Is it section 700? >> Yeah. >> And some because it's under the zoning. >> So 700-60 is where it's >> design related. >> It's a design related variance to townhouse to the townhouse zone.
>> Um if if you if you say it's required it's either but if it's not required it's not order. >> Uh let's just square you in. So when you >> Yeah. If you ask where the testimony
>> I do give us >> it's Paul Ricky R I CCI the licensed professional planner um >> I mean I didn't I didn't look at this issue in in detail but if he cited a section that's in the townhouse zone
only question is Does it only apply to the townhouse zone or is it apply for town houses in that form of development? That's kind of but if it is required there would be a design related virus because it's in section 700 but
>> the code official didn't site >> okay >> what section >> 6dB under article 10 first I know from prior experience that if we have a use variance
The code official only cites what R2 because it's R2 what the R2 zone requirements are. It doesn't mention anything about foot candles in an R2 zone. So this is to be safe we can call it a variance >> but he didn't cite them.
>> Yes it >> and the standards in the R2 zone don't really apply for tower houses. So you're really looking at this application in its totality as part of a use barriage review if you think it's necessary for a certain form of lighting or has the
right to ask for. >> Yes. >> And if you feel that it's not needed for a strip of land between that the engineer just explained to try to keep a more residential feel. I don't think I think you can review this in totality. >> Okay. I just want to make sure the
notice is correct because if you notice for variances and you didn't list this as a variance request because it wasn't in the letter of denial, you have that catchall language and for any other such variances. Um, we're splitting hairs here. The request is is that the brightness of the light, which normally
would be required for a townhouse in a townhouse zone, which has its other requirements, is being asked for relief here because of its proximity to >> one and two family homes. this technically required or not. When
you speak to the zone plan, you know, you typically look to other districts for where the use is permitted and you would evaluate, right? You would evaluate the standard for where town houses. >> I I agree. So that's the that's the high
>> I'm going to suggest that uh if this gets approved that it be considered uh we throw it in there as and if a variance is required that we give relief from it. >> The question is does this word engineer do we think it's necessary where she's
citing this a requirement in the code for this type of plan? Just because it's cited as a necessary government consumed as designer it would be consumed into the use bar that's what happens the minister recently has suggested that it's in a
different section of the code it would be consumed as part of the use because you don't have any part of the code but I agree Mr. with your solution and >> Okay. >> All right.
>> Any relief from uh the requirement for foot candle bright brightness whether by design uh waiver or variance is allowed >> you >> which everyone's good on that
>> they got like I said they got enough light from the field. So >> I know I like so we're good. Um and then the balance of just uh going through Penon's letter, we we provided the soil location map and there was a couple of ongoing requirements. Um the last they
had requested an operation and maintenance manual. We had requested in our review letter that that'd be a condition of approval just in case the drainage system has to the the the drainage system is just based on the approval. I mean right now we have the
um the chamber system shown if there was some reason it changed into a system the operation maintenance manual would follow but it doesn't have an impact as to the design. It's just how the owner has to maintain the system that typically we we provide that as a
condition of approval if approved. Um the last item was the water and sewer demand calculations which I know we had done and I thought were provided but it doesn't seem like you got them because I think they were part of but if not we
have them to provide for you the the the water and sewer for the four units that are we've submitted all the will serve letters as well. We just haven't gotten them back. Okay. >> How many year flood is that based on? >> Say that again. >> How many year? >> 25. the 20 Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay.
>> Uh the 25-y year storm that we designed the system off of the entire with uh Majination that this is not a major development. >> Yes, >> that's correct. And you had said that uh
you did not encounter groundwater when you when you uh did the uh infiltration test. >> Correct. Mhm. >> Uh and then with regard to the on manual that uh those requests that would be something that would be prepare or is
that something that you believe is not necessary? >> It would be prepared upon approval >> if appro if the system that's approved right now. I can write the O andM manual tomorrow. >> Oh, I did see I did do it. Yes. >> Yep.
So we have the for the four bedroomedroom townhouse um for two bedrooms it's 600 gallons per day is what's going to be generated from them. I think it was just one comment about the uh doing it for the peak. So I have to
multiply it by three. So it' be 1,800 gallons per day for the peak. >> Yes. Um the sewer calculations are 900 gallons per day for four two-bedroom town houses and we have submitted the will serve letters to the respective
utility companies. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Did you go on a hiring? >> It's it's um so the sewer calculations come from this the state code. It's the
administrative code. No, it's two. It says it's 225 gallons per day per unit. And then the water is a different section. That's 150 gallons per day per unit. So just And that was based on a twobedroom. Yeah.
>> I have a question about >> I have a question about the about the the flood. >> You're saying this is all based on uh what you need for a townhouse or in the residential area. You're putting a townhouse in a residential area that usually we get 30
ft between town houses. So, are we getting this water far enough away from these other houses? >> Yes. The the water the drainage system is designed based on your coverage. So whether you built a single family home that com that would be the same size as
this and a big parking driveway area because we're complying with both building coverage and impervious that if you came in here with the same single family home we'd have to put in the same drainage system. Um, part of what gets done, we do it's a groundwater modeling
analysis to make sure that the water when it's underground, it's not impacting the neighbors. But the fact that we didn't hit ground or we had decent soil whether this is a townhouse or not, this could be a single family home with the same coverage and we'd have to do the
same drainage. >> I'm just concerned because I'm worried about floods. That's what I'm worried about. We're getting a lot more floods lately and a lot worse floods. >> And normally, I'm sorry to cut you off. So, because this isn't a major development, so we're not increasing our
coverage by a quarter acre, we're not disturbing an acre. in residential type developments. If someone was coming in here with a regular single family home and my experience in Nutley for other projects I've done for single family and pool developments is that you design the
drainage system based on 2 to 3 in per hour or 2 to 3 in over the increase which is more of like a 2 to 5ear storm. Because we're coming in here for a site plan and we're in front of your board engineer, we've gone to a higher standard of a 25-year storm and
exacerbated and made the requirements even higher than what normally would be done here if someone came in here just to build a single family home that wouldn't even be in front of the board. >> All right, we'll ask our engineer later. >> Okay, I I have a question. I think it
might I don't know who it's for. um you're the manual which you're going to you're asking for it to be supplied afterwards. >> Is this going to be a homeowners association? Because the problem with the MA and will that be included that information be included in the manual? I think is that
something that would be necessary? >> Yes. >> For enforcement purposes. Okay. I just wanted that to be on the record. You're not selling the individual town houses without an association? >> No. There there would be an association in the O andM manual gives the guidelines for inspection of the inlets
of the entire system after major storm events having there's an inspection report to be part of that HOA that's part of this four-unit development. >> Continue. >> I'm done. >> You're done. >> No other questions. >> Uh anybody else? Anyone in the audience
that would like to be heard? I don't think there's anybody in the audience. Actually, I have one >> just questions for me. >> We have >> I I just have one small question about um the final privacy fences. >> Yes. >> Uh on the right side of the property
uh next to the single family h home. I guess it's the south side. >> Right side when you're facing it. Sorry, not right on the plan. Right side. This side. >> So there's that chain link fence. Whose whose fence is that currently? And are we >> it meanders on the fence line? I would I
would think the owner the when they go to build they're going to talk to the neighbors if it's thought that it's their fence, but I think it'd be the conversation that it goes along the property line with the block wall that they'd be taking that down and replacing it. But they'd have a conversation with
it. I mean, it's on our property and it kind of meanders and crosses over and then goes back around. So, they'd have to have a conversation with their neighbor. So, is there a possibility of two fences separated by how many feet? >> It'd be like inches, not feet.
>> Just inches. Okay. >> It'd be inches. If If our client is not one that he doesn't want to anger anybody in neighbors, if that neighbor wants to keep that chain link fence, we would just put our vinyl fence right along it on our side. Okay. But ideally
it would be that that fence would come down as it's kind of goes between and along the property line. >> So it's it would be just in the maximum case it would just be >> it would just be inside the property line offset is >> yes. Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. city and just put up the new >> there. Anything else? Anybody else have a question for the engineers? >> No. Okay. Our next is Salvator Corino.
Come on down. Alice here as an architect only >> Mr. Corino, >> we'll need you to swear. We'll have to swear them in as well. >> Would you raise your right hand, please? Swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. Hope to nothing but the truth.
>> Yes, I do. >> And give it your full name. Know your name and address. >> Salvatore Corvino, architect and planner. Uh, testifying as a architect only at this point for this project. Uh, 111 Brookfield Avenue, Nutley, New Jersey.
And uh you've been before us many many times. Yes. >> And your legend is to good standing. I pro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Corino, can you please uh uh join the board
the >> up there? Yes. Um, we have a uh the drawing uh I reference it as R1 rendering
was submitted uh in the revised package and uh just it shows a site plan just to locate where the where the view is for the rendering. So, uh the rendering of the of the townhouse, the front view
taken from the uh the side of the property that is adjacent to the apartment building. Viewing the front parking lot and front facade. I have another rendering the interior. Uh
looking at the kitchen from the uh dining room uh area and uh looking up the stairs to the second floor, the third floor >> here
the ground fences that you general design of the form entrances. >> Yes. So uh sorry I'm going just reference this the uh exterior
uh as uh Kirstston had indicated um the fence is shown on u my drawing um it's a 6' high decorative uh vinyl fence u I show it
uh ending at the building facade only to not block the view of the render. rendering, but that fence would continue to the front parking space 10 ft off the front property line. It is shown on the site plan that way. So, the fence runs
from 10 ft off the property line down the side across the rear of the property and back to the along the side. I have that as six feet. Uh but uh the
uh and again that's just meant to prevent uh lights from cars. It uh affecting the neighbors. So that fence from the front of the building to the parking could be lowered to 4 ft if the board prefers it.
It's not necessary for it to be 6 ft, but uh I thought it might be something that uh the board wants to consider for the neighbors. But uh the 6ft portion would be from the front facade of the building down the sideyard and across
the rear property line on both sides of the building. The uh remaining portion of the sideyard would be landscape behind the fence and then have some landscaping at the front of the parking lot, but no fence across the
front the front of the property. Um in terms of uh front entrance. Yes. So, now the buildings uh the materials used on the building uh are going to be uh uh stone at the base
uh and on the side. My apologies, I have to switch my pages here. Um, we would have a uh uh Hardy board style plank uh clapper sighting for the
uh for the uh upper portion uh the second floor and the dormers. Um, we have a metal railing with this uh with the masonry stairs going up to the front doors. Uh, at this up the second
level, which is the main entry, there would be a uh interior. Uh, there would be a an entry at the lower level um under the stair to each garage. Uh, and
under the stairs is where the storage would be for the trash containers that each tenant would bring to the curb themselves. Uh, there could be something written into the townhouse uh, maintenance agreement. If somebody
were to actually hire someone, they would probably include that as cost, but they can hire someone to bring the garbage out. But knowing how the new system is working, we could treat these town houses as individual homes where the homeowner brings their garbage out
to the curb like everyone else is doing now. Uh however, it could be done by a maintenance person and be included in the HOA fee. Uh same goes for the recycling. Everything is stored under the stair. Uh and the each tenant has their own uh
utility service and the meters can be remote read from the side of the property. Each uh each townhouse unit has a a panel and a um the meter uh the the uh the electric meters could be on the side
of the property along with the gas meters and the water meters or they could be remotely read and the meters be inside the garage mechanical room. Uh the garage doors will have uh clear
clear lights at the top. Um we had proposed an alternate um plan for the upper level. I had originally the original set of plans had windows with in the dormer. Um I provided an alternate balcony plan which I feel
would uh also help with the open space if each tenant had more open space. We were a little short on the open space for townhouse use. We do have their yard. You have a deck. We have space under the deck is open space. Uh we
probably shorted balconies 3 ft by the front of the front door and the rear dormer bedroom. So you have a little outdoor space that might be considered
to counted toward the open space. Uh because each tenant would have that uh in their unit. Uh then there would be uh combination of some paneling and clapper siding for the upper portion of the building
and uh architectural style fiberglass shingles for the roof and a stone veneer for the the base the first floor base uh at the front and the sides of the building.
The uh can you describe the layout? >> Yes. So uh we have Yes, this one. So, an interior layout. We have I had a This is a balcony
scheme. So, we're looking at uh third floor. Uh there's third floor. Okay. So this is I guess we're starting with the third. Let's try to do the lower level. Let's Yeah.
No, the other one there. It's the one. I apologize. Well, starting with the ground floor. >> Which drawing is that? >> Uh, this would be drawing uh Z3. The ground floor is shown in the overall
site plan garage level. We have a uh ground floor is made up of a parking space in the garage, some mechanical closets and utility closet, laundry area
off of a uh wreck room with stairs that lead up to the ground the first floor uh dining level. And the tandem parking space is the space in front of the garage. uh in an R R2 zone you can park
R in front of the garage and so that becomes your second space. Uh it's the spaces that are closer to the street that would we be requesting uh I guess a variance on that or a waiver because
those are uh those are um parking in the front yard but not in front of a garage unless you can consider parking 25 ft from the garage still in front of the garage. But that is still a uh so we have three additional spaces at the
front. one of them being a handicap space. The second level becomes the main living level and that's on sheet A1. Uh had two options. It's just a slight
variation in layout, but uh this option has the dining room at the rear, those stairs that lead down to the recck room, uh half bathroom, outer room, >> A1 Excuse me. A10,
>> right? Let me know what your additional sheets uh replaced, but the A1 is in the original set that you got. uh they were in the original submissions. They haven't changed. These are the
sheets that changed. There were some conditions that so could have to open up the original set for A1 and there's also ready or just let me know. All right. So, an A um A10
uh we have the uh uh you come up from the recck room at the rear. You have a dining room with the stairs that lead down to the recck room. uh a door that leads out to a deck
um and deck stairs down to the yard level. Uh we have a kitchen in the middle with a half bathroom and some storage pantry space under the stairs that lead up to the third floor. We have a counter you could sit at for three
people, dishwasher, sink, stove, refrigerator. Uh we have it's an open plan. Uh the units are about 13 and a half clear inside 14 and a half center to center.
Uh they uh the front area is the living room with a entry and coat closet um and a little uh desk area al cove at the front with a uh a bay a bay uh window that overhangs over the garage
door. second option A >> option A or option B the only difference between the two is the configuration of the uh uh the kitchen where the this layout of the kitchen it was but with I
just the interior can be choose chosen by an owner ahead of time or we could provide two units one way two units the other way the interior doesn't change the exterior if the interior is It might be an option for a different layout. It the owner might decide they
want to go with one scheme and that's what I was providing uh just for configurate the the other scheme. Uh the layouts for the rooms are all the same size as the kitchen in uh that scheme.
Then up to the third level, we have a master bedroom um and a secondary bedroom. Um similar size. The uh each bedroom has a a dormer
bay that expands out. Uh I try to cut some of the roof down a little. So we created dormer windows and try to reduce some of the volume up there. We pulled the building back a few feet at that level. uh front and rear and uh two bedrooms.
Uh each uh each bedroom has closet space. Uh the master bedroom has a a master bath, double sink, uh a walkthrough closet that gets goes through into the bathroom. Additional
closet in the hallway, a linen closet in the hallway, a second bed, a bathroom, and uh a walk-in closet for the front bedroom. Uh next,
you can have a residential. >> Yes. The intention here was if you remember, the first time we brought this in front of the board, we had the town houses turned 90° facing the neighbor. There was some comments and concerns
there. So, uh we thought facing forward reducing it by one unit and making it sort of work in the street line. It is set back more than most of the houses. A lot of those houses uh along that street are very small lots, undersized lots.
Houses not a lot of front yard parking. People park uh wherever they can, but uh those lots are all undersized and they the houses are closer to the front. There isn't much of a rear yard because a lot of them are undersized in depth
and width. Uh we wanted to provide a street view that looked like the residential uh the reason for the dormers and trying to keep it even though it's a threetory we kept it under the 30 ft but we try to make the roof line drop a little so that we you know
maintain uh a more residential look and uh I think it appeals more terms of a street view. Um, you know, they're town houses. The lot is large enough to really almost have four single family homes on it, but uh we try to make it
look like uh these are trying to be more in conducive with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its look. >> Question I had on the R1.0 What do you what do you >> see?
No, you don't you don't see the the driveway. The driveway is actually uh down the middle. It >> is down the middle. Yeah, they probably the language probably shows it gr but further over. It's a little a little out of whack, but
>> it should be in the middle. >> Okay, so that's perfect. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I was trying to get a view of the house. Even the fence would have blocked it all the way up to the front here, >> but I took it I just didn't show it >> just so you could see the the materials.
>> Yeah. question about the listed. >> Yes, it's listed in the plan. There's even a detail on the engineers drawing, but uh we initially thought we wouldn't have the fence. Then we brought it up when we revised the drawings and
responded to the planners letter. Uh we decided to show the fence and add a fence because we think that old fence there is it's kind of a mess. the neighbor who owns the apartment building having problems with it. There's a lot of growth with poison ivy. The fence the
the the plants are growing through the cyclone fence. The fence really needs to be removed and replaced. Uh and it flag and I was just wondering how because
children show the fence stop at the front of the house. But now you describe how he described the fence. Six feet tall. >> Six feet tall. >> And natural, >> right? >> You can only go four feet. It could be present
>> at the front. It can go six at the rear. >> Front wall of the house. I brought up the fence beyond the front wall to to block the uh parking area. That is six feet. But I I had mentioned that we could drop that down to the 4ft by
and leave it six feet at the rear. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Honestly, you have to come back for another round. >> No, no. I would I I mentioned it right off the top that I would drop that down to the 4 foot maximum height uh at the
front part portion of it. That's on the sides. That means beyond >> on the sideyard up to the front building wall from the rear would be six feet. Going beyond the front wall would be 4T.
>> Oh, six foot is >> okay. So, >> we have landscaping there. I I added the fence there just to give some because there's cars maneuvering there and vehicles. So we could certainly remove the fence at the front if it you know if
it's >> No, but I I realize if it's a variance then we can't really include it. >> I agree. Yeah. And it should be for but it doesn't it's not cited. So can we
>> you can we can amend your request to ask for a marriage for that. um >> typically recuses himself. That's very >> We're gonna do this. We're gonna do this. We're put this in um and Mr.
You will not be voting on that that question would be is whether you want the fence 6 foot all the way up to that point or go down to four feet. Except >> if the variance is necessary for each
portion. That's got to be over what people >> from the front of the house. What's the the side of the parking lot so that we can make it right? How far
back from the front line? >> And that's all. >> It lines up. It lines up with the parking space. The last part up to 10 ft from the front. Correct. >> Correct.
Well, the point was have a solid fence so the lights wouldn't bother anyone, right? perfect height fact that it's solid. No stairs. >> We're going solid vinyl in the 4ft section at the front
and We will get you out and the property line just make sure Green is four. So all solid fence. >> Okay.
>> All right. All solid. Right. >> I have that fence as white. However, we're um open to any color that the board requires. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone any questions? No more questions here. Anybody in the
audience? >> I just question you about the um in the front body. You can put it at how >> like a a balcony, a rail with a little place where you could stand or sit, have
a chair to have a cup of coffee in the morning. It's just it's only about 3 ft deep. So, yeah, a little pit and it'll be tied in with the drainage uh the storm drain system. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. So, that'll be part of the HOA.
They're going to have snow removal leaf and that would be part of the HOA fee. That would be handled by a private company. The only thing I'm not handling with a private company is there's no there's no outdoor garbage storage uh
location. The garbage is kept in the containers, the roll out containers that everybody has under the stairs. And and and again, if they if the landlord decide or the property owner decides to have that as part of the fee to have somebody move the stuff out for
the tenant, but I think each tenant could treat treat it like their own house and yeah, there were about I will make them fit. Yeah. >> Yeah. What do I >> made for question? Question
on the right. Yes. What's the width of that you have on both sides? This here the driveway. >> The color red. >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> What are you looking at? It's
>> right there. Put your fing right. >> That's the driveway of the the property next door. The apartment building. >> That's the view. I'm think taking it from >> cuz I see the I see the village block. >> No, that's the other that's the other propert. >> Yeah, we we cut off part of it to fit it
in there and I realized I should have shown more of it. Our driveways >> about 25 ft over. >> Anybody else? >> Yes, we have our >> Mr. Chairman. Uh, next witness is Peter Ste.
>> I do. >> Uh, my full name is Peter G. Steek stress 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey. I am It is.
Yes. Um, I have a handout that might be helpful. >> I think it's the it's the bill there. Yeah. >> Uh, so did we mark? >> Yes. Okay.
Uh I'll just briefly describe A3 and then I'll run through it in my testimony. A3 was prepared by me. Uh it's dated January 5th and it consists of six pages. Uh again, first page just shows the zone
that we're in in relation to the entire municipality. The second page uh has aerial uh photographs uh where on the left side I've outlined the R2 zone and on the right side is a
uh Google view of the subject property outlined in yellow. Uh the next page a uh P3 in the upper right hand corner has the neighborhood from a drone view that's fairly recent. That was January
5th. And I've superimposed the site plan uh on that diagram. Uh the next page, P4, is photographs that were taken by me on uh January 3rd of this year, uh
depicting existing conditions. So uh on the upper left two you see the adjacent uh multifamily building garden apartment that has uh eight units plus a a manager's unit. Uh on the right you see
the dwelling on the uh opposite side of the subject property and in the lower right you see the view from our property looking across Hbert. Uh, I'll talk about this later, but the next page
shows the R2 zone where I've highlighted where the subject property is in a darker black line, lot 10. And then I have a dot uh showing uh the lots that conform to the minimum lot
dimensions uh and uh minimum use. And so you can see that there's a lot of nonconformity uh on uh on our side of the R2 zone uh south of Ellen Street. Uh the next page,
which is P6 in the upper right hand corner, I've outlined what I call an analysis area. We're an interior lot. So I looked at the interior lots on Humber Street. I in light uh pink I show the
number of dwelling units. Uh in dark red I show the densities of the existing uh development. So back to the beginning on my testimony. Uh
this is a rectangular lot uh 70x 168. Uh it's vacant. Uh it did have a dwelling on it which I believe was demolished in in about 2010 according to the aerial photographs.
Uh so it's a a vacant property uh today. Um the review memo references types of variances that we need. Um the parent variance is we're proposing town houses in a zone that doesn't permit
town houses. So that's a Medici case, a D1 variance. There is also al someone could argue it's a it's subsumed in the fact in the fact that your zone doesn't really have a density standard. It has a minimum lot size. But if you look at
your zone, the R2 zone allows a a two family on a 6,000 ft lot. That comes out to 14.52 dwelling units an acre. Uh we're proposing 14.8. So we're slightly over uh the density. Um, we have three
stories instead of 2 and 1/2 and that's a C variance and not a D variance. Um, there was an issue about tandem parking cuz our units have garages with a park in front. Um, most of you probably have
tandem parking in your houses. I'll note for the record that the residential site improvement standards which govern parking in this application in section 5 col21-4.14 say uh in subsection D2 a onecar garage
and driveway combination shall count as two off-street parking spaces provided the driveway measures a minimum of 18 ft in length between the face of the garage and the right away. So, I would suggest although I don't want to fight with you,
uh I would suggest that the because the RSIS allows a garage and a parking space in front counting as two spaces that shouldn't require relief, but if we need relief, I think it is justified.
Uh we do have our front parking area that parking is permitted. Uh the plans show the setback uh between the pavement and the side property is about 2 and 1/2 ft.
What I would suggest is um that because many of the lots are narrow, it's not unusual, but what I would suggest is we are proposing a code compliant 24 foot wide driveway, which is your minimum standard for two
ways. because of the few that and that would apply up to 99 parking spaces you would be served by the two directional driveway. That's much more driveway than you really need to get out of a small project like this. And I would suggest as something for you to consider uh if
we shrunk that to 18 ft instead of 24 ft, we could have more greenery on the side of the front parking area. we could have at least 5 ft there, which is what the code is required. So, that is a suggested amendment. Um, to me, it's
100% reasonable to have something less than 24 ft um on a on a driveway in the center of the property. Um, part of my analysis was to look at the surrounding area, predominantly residential, although, you
know, there's municipal parkland to the rear. Uh the reason I included those uh two diagrams at the at the end of uh my exhibit P5 is
most of the lots in our portion of the R2 zone are non-conforming. There are non-conforming uses. There probably isn't a house that's set back the minimum of 25 ft. So, this is an area that's really discordant uh with
your R2 zone. There's a just a high degree of uh uh nonconformity with lot sizes uh with setbacks uh with architectural styles. Uh there's some
people that park kind of right on the sidewalk in front of their dwellings because there's no other place to do it. So, it's a, you know, the the paramount feature of this little neighborhood is that the pavement with
is only a little over like 14.3 ft. So, it's a one-way street. You really can't park on it because if you parked on it, you would block traffic. So, a paramount issue is let's make sure you have enough parking. And that's why the applicant has
designed it this way uh to have convenient parking in the front and more than the minimum re requirement. Uh the minimum requirement would be 10 spaces and rsis and you got to have a half a space per unit for uh for guest parking.
Uh I did look at your master plan. uh your master plan does recommend uh first of all it it the land use plan says that this is a one and two family area. Um that's what it's zoned for. Um it it
didn't want to have intrusions into the residential zone. um intrusions I think as viewed in your master plan uh which is 2012 um was for example non-residential use
intruding onto a residential zone. Uh like most master plans it wants to uh preserve uh uh residential areas. It wants to make that that uh infill development is consistent with the area.
But what I would suggest is there's really no pattern in this area. Almost every lot is non-conforming. There's almost no building that's set back 25 ft according to the code. Um it is really an anomaly uh in terms of what your
zoning was looking for. So, um, in terms of relief, our our parent and and I I'll I'll say that, um, I did look at the R3 zone standards that apply to townhouse
development. It's hard to apply them here because you're supposed to have an a, you know, a 1 acre minimum lot size if I recall. Um it and it they're not technically variances, but I understand because we need a use variance, you can
consider reasonable conditions. Um even though um we're not technically in in a uh a townhouse zone. So uh the main variance we need is the townhouse use. Um
we there is a a C variance in terms of so the main variance is is a Medici case. We have to show that there's some public purposes that are advanced. We have to show particular suitability and we have to meet the negative criteria
under the h enhanced burden of proof that this can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good which is lighting, noise, traffic um and without substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. uh the
height in stories is a C variance uh rather than a D variance uh because it's not a linear height, it's just storage. And again uh as discussed uh we would
like a variance for extending a fence from the front face of the building toward the street. uh my discussions with the uh representative of the garden department next door, he would prefer the 6-ft
fence to come all the way up until about 10 ft from the front property line. That's his preference. Uh it would require a variance. Uh but he will get up and say that that that is his preference. I suppose a second tier is
we could drop it to 4 feet, but I'm just reporting in advance that that neighbor would prefer that the 6-ft fence uh vinyl fence uh >> so he he'll have to testify after, you know, when it's time to comment, but uh
I want to give you a heads up on that issue. So uh in terms of justifying the variances and and an important consideration in my opinion is my last exhibit that shows the densities in the area. There are a lot of lots that are
higher in density uh than we are. Uh we are a small fraction over the maximum density uh that would be permitted in the zone. So it's in terms of intensity of use uh in my opinion uh we're not
that foreign uh to what that area has historically been developed and as you know there's very little new development in this area. It's kind of all frozen because uh many of these are are nonconforming u uh in terms of their
density or or use but certainly lot size. So I think there are four purposes of the municipal land use law. They're advanced uh purposes A, E, G, and I. Uh A, if you
recall, talks about uh encouraging most appropriate use of land that promotes the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Uh E talks about the establishment of appropriate population densities. And again, we're very close
to the maximum density. We're a little bit over, but only a fraction over than what uh the zone would permit. G talks about providing uh appropriate spa space for different types of land uses. Um
this is a private redevelopment project. This uh property has been vacant for a number of years. Uh it happens to sit next to a garden apartment development of eight units plus a manager's units, a total of nine dwelling units. On the
other side, we have a two family house uh with parking in the rear for a number of trucks and other vehicles. I'm not sure exactly uh you know the extent of those uses, but it's a difficult site to use. The main features of this property
is Hbert is substandard. It's probably the only street in Nutley that looks like this that has a 14.3 ft width. Uh it's this has a great view to the rear cuz you overlook Parkland and you can see
portions of the New York skyline. So part of the design of this project is to take advantage of that open space uh in the rear. Um, I do think this is a reasonable private redevelopment project. It's very close to the maximum
permitted density. Another purpose that I think is advanced is promoting a desirable visual environment. Um, this is going to read as a 2 and 1/2tory building because of the dormers or the the balcony on the top. Uh, it does
comply with the minimum side setbacks and height and front setbacks. So, in terms of shadow pattern, it's not going to offend any of the surrounding uh uh properties. I think it is particularly suited uh for this area because there's
really been no development on this street. This is a a it it's a larger lot than the minimum. Um it has now open space in the rear uh that is a butts the parkland to the
rear. Um, Nutley has a lot of This is these are two-bedroom town houses. Uh, Nutley has a lot of one and two family umsized households according to the 2020 census.
20% of your 27% of your households are oneerson households at that time. 32% are twoerson households. That means 59% of your households in 2020 were either one or twoerson
households, much suited to this type of development rather than the classic single family home with a large number of bedrooms. Um, so I think that this is an appropriate infill development.
It's cited to this area which really has an issue. You don't want a car having to stop in the street to load and unload. You want to make sure there's enough parking and we have more than the minimum required parking. In terms of
the negative criteria, this is a unique portion of Hbert Street. Um there are many units that are higher than the in density than the ordinance permits. We're only slightly
over that density. Uh we we meet the requirements in terms of storm water handling. Um again the focus of this development is in my opinion reasonable use of the property as a
private redevelopment indicating that it's been vacant for a number of years. Uh this makes sense because we have more than the minimum amount of parking. Uh we have open space now to the rear of the units. we can take each of the units
can take advantage of that view to the rear which is an expansive area because of the recreation facility and portions of the New York skyline. Um in my opinion with the conditions that may be imposed and again one of the variances
may be the extension of a 6-ft friend fence which will be a request of an adjacent owner. In my opinion, uh this would not be substantially detrimental to the public good and would not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the zone line and zoning ordinance. Thank you. I do. >> Sure. My name is Anthony Colandra. Um, I'm sorry. What did you spell? >> Spell my last name. C A L A N D R A
and address is 4200 Street. I'm the owner of the apartment building that he referenced in. Okay. Uh I wrote a an email to Mr. Mascara uh and um David Barry. Uh my concern and the reason I'm
requesting a higher fence. Um over the years some significant weed/ tree roots have sort of mangled the fence that partitioned the two properties. Um abating that completely and putting in a
fa a 6ft fence would significantly help that situation. In addition, some poison ivy was developing along the line that didn't come from me because everything was asphalt on my side. So, the poison ivy would be abaded. And just to, you know, assure that that won't happen
again. The taller the fence, the better. No, no, not the poison ivy part, but the tree roots that were developing the roots. I mean, they I mean, there's no objection. >> We have no objection. Mr. Ch has
the my only concern. >> Okay. Six feet on the northern side. >> Did you have anything else? Okay. >> Okay. >> You know that street many times we all understand it very
yeah park there you're not getting that. So during construction um you have and again this might has has might have to do with the way you coordinate site work underground work or
but we know when I look at this product not that it's massive you got bl your truck comes you can't block that truck can't block the street you got to close the street down for two hours windows come in have to push you down two hours and you're going to have a
nightmare. So, what I'm going to ask you is if people can make this condition, but um and again, your contractors are coming. You're going to have fun, >> right? >> You're going to have a problem there. The people that live in that neighborhood, we have to take that into
consideration. So possibly the front work of the the 10 foot in let's say if we could hold that to last not the underground but the max paving and finishing and
putting until every deliveries are done. >> I think that would be very helpful. I think >> you can get the representation that I can make on my client's behalf that it'll be performed that way that the street will not be right. Yes.
>> I'm going to have a suggestion. >> Why doesn't the uh requirement or a condition be that there be a pre-construction meeting? >> That's >> um where Okay. Where your engineer meets? Um, Miss App Miss Ro would you be in attendance at that and a whole
schedule in terms of what's most or least uh >> intrusive >> intrusive to the neighborhood can be set up by the code office. >> You have to coordinate traffic control neighbors and we all know how scheduling goes. Meetings are great and all sounds
good, but when the delivery truck, >> traffic controls really got to be handled because people have children that have to get out of school delivery in the morning. >> I just think that if we leave that so the trucks can get in and do what they have to do and then unload and go away,
it'll be we'd be very conscious of that if this >> I guess now we'll bring up uh bring up Ricky, Mr. Ricky. He's already been sworn in, so he can get right into me. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I I can be pretty
brief, I think. Um, I prepared a letter dated November 7th, 2025 that outlines um the application. >> Um, as just everyone should be clear though regarding this site, it is an unusual property um specific property in
the zone. It's 11,697 square ft where 6,000 ft is required. It's an overly deep property. Um it's 161.7 ft deep, it's only 70 ft wide where 60 ft is permitted. So by right um
while they're essentially slightly over the density, they could only build a two family home um without the need for because you couldn't subdivide a six family house. So by right really only a two family could fit on here irrespective of the density. Um with
that said I did hear what Mr. Steck had to say and he did have some valid points regarding the the existing characteristics of this area. I do feel as a planner that town houses two-bedroom town houses is a type of land use that is in strong need um not
just in Nutley but throughout the state. It's more of a workforce type of housing. Um typically we see a lot of focus on um uh affordable housing, large single family homes and then the workforce housing seems to get left behind. So from a positive standpoint, I
think that is definitely addressed from the form of housing that that is being proposed here. Um I do believe technically the tandem parking variance is required and I'm aware of the provision that Mr. stack set of of the residential site
improvement standards that speaks to a driveway. It speaks to a car in a garage and a driveway on the outside. The residential site improvement standards don't speak to two cars inside a garage. And historically, while this is a single
family attached form of development, still is multifamily development. And under Nutley's code, it's historically been interpreted for apartments and other type of applications where parking is inside that tandem parking is not a
permitted land use. For that reason, I I think it's a technical variance. I think it's it's akin to a parking a driveway situation. I don't find it to be a problematic situation, but I think it's technically um a variance.
Um, I mean, I was here for the first application. I know that's not being discussed today, but in terms of how this project presents itself, I think it's a lot better in terms of it now is facing the roadway. It's not a turn building. They are providing the traditional elements of a development
with open space in the rear yard and and the like. So, um, in terms of the planning comments, we we we I'm going to be brief giving the outer. We had some minor comments that we discussed. Things that are a little peculiar about the project. The
units are very narrow. It's only a 13 and a half foot wide unit. Um the applicant is proposing 6T sideyards. That's for uh two family development like town houses. Arguably, we'd like to encourage
more of of a sidearm because it's a bigger building, but um the board's going to have to evaluate it that part of its its deliberations. Um the the main proofs that I think the board needs to feel comfortable with is here. This is an unusual area where the applicant
did show that the densities in the area do exceed what's what they are proposing. you know, it does have an 8-unit apartment building nearby and then it has scattered largely scattered one and two family homes. So, it's it is a um somewhat um I don't want to say
unusual, but it's a it's it's different than than many areas of Nutley. So, the board has to feel comfortable that this use is particularly well suited at this location. If you feel it's it's particularly well suited, it meets the positive criteria under the municipal land use law for the D1 use variance
application. The density variance as he as I do believe that the density variance is is technically required because under the law when you're dealing with anything other than a one and two family form of development, you do back into the density whether you have a specific density provision or not
under the code. So the density variance is required that testimony was provided. It's slightly over the code. I did like that uh Mr. Corvino how he um he hid the third floor under the dormers in the front of the building to try to hide that additional story. I thought that
was a nice architectural uh touch to the building as as delivering uh this project. So in terms of the negative criteria, I think the board has to feel that it's no substantial detriment to the public good. That's namely the surrounding property owners. Uh we have
not heard any ne negative testimony uh from them this evening and we've had we've shown support at least for a a variance offense situation and the question is does this result in a substantial impairment in the zone plan and was that delivered under the
enhanced burden of proof understanding that you know this is not a a permissible form of of development uh in the town. Um, I do think that the board could consider as part of a a a special reason or uh a change circumstance that
this is a form of housing uh that is in strong demand today. Uh, and it's something that be could be considered that it wasn't something I can say that in 2012 that there was a focus on providing more workforce housing uh in the community. So, that's something that
the board could consider. But overall, um, from a planning standpoint, a lot of improvements occurred here from the from the previous project for sure. >> Uh, one one thing or a couple of things. Would you agree that reduced lighting um or is that for
>> uh I I'll give a planning comment on it. What what I think the uh site engineer indicated is that largely the the issue pertains to there's some there's some front lighting for the parking spaces and then some building mounted lighted and in between those two that lighting there's maybe a 10-ft area where it's a
little darker. From a planning standpoint, uh I I don't see it objectionable. I would try to encourage a lower lighting level, but there's always safety considerations that I defer to the board. uh engineer. Um >> and in your opinion
the town houses would probably result in uh less schoolage children than two two uh family or of two family there. um the largely the the I mean I'm I mean we don't always consider like school children and financial issues to some
extent but it's usually the bedroom is the biggest determin determiner of school children and the two uh bedroom type of situation would encourage a lower multiplier. Uh, I haven't seen the I'm not sure if there's
new CU Por numbers in a few years, Center for Urban Policy Research, but generally the third bedroom is the one that really steps up that that school children count. >> Yeah, that's what we've been >> and the driveway with um I mean you've you approved developments on um you know
in the downtown with with driveways recently I think as as narrow as you know 16 14 ft. So for all the fertipy as well, but for a low volume type of traffic from planning standpoint, I would >> Yeah, but I I think I think with a a
narrow street like that and fire trucks and things like that got to get through. >> No, I'm saying the driveway width of the of the property that's a I mean I I'll defer to dipy, but >> yeah. >> Okay. I mean, the driveway is going to be wider than the street, you know.
>> Yeah, but you're going to need that turning radius, I think, with a with a large truck, a fire truck or something like that. man who knows a fire truck has to get in. >> Also, when you when you're >> joking your cars around, >> if you pull over to the side and then
your person can go out and then you pull back in. I think that sounds >> Well, I'm not a fire chief. They usually don't bring their rigs that close to a building. >> I'm talking about fire. I'm talking about just on site when you're moving your car up, but Dip De'll speak when speak about that.
>> We'll bring Dipy up first. Thanks. Sure. Anybody else have questions? Nobody deputy in the We didn't swear her in there, right? >> No. >> I need to swear you in. >> You raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony you're about to give
will be the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Uh full name. Spell your last name. >> Lift Raja. R AJ. Uh 1085 Raymond Boulevard board engineer. >> And the name of your firm? >> Benoni Associates. Okay, this is our town.
>> Thanks. So, I'll keep it brief as well. Uh, in our review letter dated December 23rd, uh, we do know the fact that this application was previously presented to the board in 2024. We're not discussing that application tonight, but that
application was presented for a five uh, five unit down uh, townhouse which was denied. And the applicant has come with a new application now with four uh four uh four stories uh sorry four units. Um I did want to touch a little bit on
the letter. The letter does indicate that most of the comments have been satisfied and we have worked with the applicants engineer. Uh didn't want to touch on the flood issue that was brought up earlier today. the this project is uh in is creating an increase
in impervious area of about 21 acres. What D considers is anything more than 0.25 acres is a major development. So it's pretty close to the threshold, but it's still under the threshold, which is why it's a not a major development. And that's one of the reasons why the
typical 2 3 in year storm was not asked for and we went and the the request was for to design it for a minimum 25 year storm. Didn't want to bring that up. Um we did get the soil test results. The way the storm water basin has been
designed here is there are 18 chambers, 18 infiltration chambers in front of the four town houses and six behind the town houses. So they're they're split into two systems. the the we got the soil test results for those and the ones that
have been designed for the front those 18 chambers have infiltration results that are not uh what are considered ideal for uh infiltration which means that that design won't work. So what typically gets done is you need minimum
1 in per hour and I think the results that came in were 2 to6 in per hour. So in that case uh the applicant could uh replace the soil uh within the entire basin footprint in front of the house. This is just something that I did want
to bring out bring up that if we were to stick to this design a complete soil replacement of the entire basin in the front area would be needed at least up to 8 ft below the bottom of the basin. Uh I did have one question. I think there's a discrepancy in the uh plans
regarding the height of the chambers and the the actual inward that was noted on the plan. So I think that's something has to be verified. But uh once the bottom of the basin is verified, they'll have to replace the soil that's 8 at least 8 ft beneath the bottom of the basin because no ground water was
encountered in the soil test. Um other than that regarding the driveway location we have 24 foot that's I think 24 ft is being proposed. However I had a minor uh discussion with the attorney
and they are willing to reduce that to uh reduce that to 20 ft if needed to maintain more green space. So that's a discussion that I'm sure the uh attorney could um tell us more about. Do you recommend that or do you think a wider driveway is is better?
>> So, right, typically for a two-way uh street, it's 24 ft is always recommended, but given that this is a very unique situation with a very limited number of parking spaces, I think four spaces are being proposed. Uh we could uh leverage the unique
situation and uh reduce it by 20 ft. The main reason being uh the main reason why I say that is because fire trucks or garbage trucks or anything are not going to enter the site here. It's everything's the garbage is getting hauled to the curve. That's what I heard
tonight. Uh fire trucks will park on Humber and uh will access the site. So it could given that there are only four spaces within the site uh we could reduce it a little bit at least 22 ft to increase the green space if needed. it
it wouldn't be incorrect in terms of engineering design. However, the code recommends 24 ft. So, uh that's that's something that's a reason why the driveway has been proposed as 24 ft on the plans. >> What else was there? The reduced lighting you uh agree
>> lighting is Yeah. So given the fact that it's only that small and I I do agree with the uh applicants engineer that the the way the light has been proposed is is beneficial to the current uh proposed use because you
don't want it to be over that you have residential areas around the site. So I don't have an objection to that. It was just a citation in the letter to make sure that it was brought up. >> I have a question about the soil removal that you're suggesting. is that either they have to replace the 8 ft of soil in
the front and keep the same design or go to a separate design that we haven't gotten to see, but that they'll agree uh to go along with whatever the township engineer um advises. Then >> we would agree to uh again if the board
is inclined to approve it post approval condition that it would be subject to uh okay the board engineers approval. >> All right. Otherwise, other than the front of the property, the drainage plan that they put forth will work in terms of the percolation test and the >> for the six chambers behind. Yep. In the
rear, it does work >> in the front. So, they'll either remove the soil and put in new soil or they'll come up with a different scheme in the front and they'll go whatever is to your approval. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the engineers take care of that. All right. Um,
I don't know what the board's pleasure is with the driveway with >> you were talking. We're talking a lot. I mean, see, you know, you're saying 24 or 22. I think 24 is a comfortable for people coming in and out. >> Yes.
>> You're only gaining a foot on each side. So, I'd rather see the 24. >> And if there there may be somebody coming in and out that, like I said, with a narrow street, right? They waiting in the street, they don't know where to go, we'll leave it at 20. >> Okay. Um, I have a little question about that. I mean, for um a homeowners
association, would they be contracting probably snow removal and they >> and and come in with, you know, a small >> plow vehicle and that would be better for that, >> right? >> Yeah. So, they're going to they're going to take care of snow removal.
>> Uh are there any other questions? Anybody in the audience? >> Uh do you want to sum up or uh Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. We appreciated the fact that you uh let us complete this evening. >> Yeah, I know. I know folks, we told you
we were going to stop. We'll get to you guys. >> Okay. My my only summary, uh Mr. Chairman, I think everybody covered it and your professionals covered it is that there are no neighbors here today to object to this application, the variances that we require, um the
sideyard setbacks. Um we have one one sideyard neighbor who is here um who we have worked with and obviously has not voiced an objection. So for those for the reasons that have been set forth um we ask that uh the application respectfully be approved with the
variances um that uh we have requested along with the application. Thank you. >> Yes. Uh I'll ask for a motion wants to do this. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I believe a member of the public who wants to speak. >> I just wanted to say I don't object with
the condition of the plan of the fencing. >> Oh, yeah. I said that before. Okay. >> All right. I need a motion. >> Somebody. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve
the variance or >> Thank you. >> Let's start over again. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Barians to construct a 4unit
townhouse at 34 to 38 Hbert Street, block 6702, lot 10. Mr. Chairman, this um application doesn't seem to will have any substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Actually, I believe it
will be an asset um an aesthetic approvement and asset and fill the need with workforce housing. With this approval, there will be conditions and I would like the board's help if I miss anything. So, please speak up. As
far as the lighting, the lighting um as proposed is sufficient. So, we don't need that as a condition. Um the fence will comply with the code. Um, the neighbor came to speak and would like the six-foot fence
on the north side of the that would be the garden apartment side. Another requirement would be a preconstruction meeting regarding traffic control to discuss deliveries and the need uh to be the least
contrusive to the neighborhood while under construction. Another condition would be regarding the drainage plan. It must be approved by our town engineer and planners. Is that correct? >> Engineers.
>> Just the engineers. Um are there any conditions that I'm missing? >> I think you got them all. Manual to be sub. >> Oh yes. of the HOA that the uh that there will be an HOA and the HOA will be
um responsible for the snow removal and landscaping. >> Yeah. So that'll be covered within the agreement of >> and a manual and an agreement. Okay. >> Yeah. >> For these reasons and any others set forth by council.
>> Second. >> Sorry, I didn't think we were going to do this tonight. Super favored. Yes. >> Trisha Dy. >> Yes. >> Walls. >> Yes. >> Sean. >> Mr. Chairman, I vote yes for the
variance, but I recuse myself from the fence portion of the application. >> Greg Tolby. >> Yes. >> Daniel Tolby. >> Yes. >> Chair Graciano. >> Yes. But that's correct.
>> Yes, you are. Yeah. myself. Give us a few seconds coming up. >> What? Yeah. All right.
Burton Street. Okay. All right. >> Regarding the violation for the patio retaining wall and decorative wall 380 Mount Vernon Street, block plot 8005/26. Dear Miss Mr. and Mrs. Turley, your
request at the above reference premises to leave as erected an 8 ft in height decorative wall located in the rear yard and a patio installed on the side yard line of East Pacic Avenue is shown on the property survey dated January 30th,
2023 is denied for the following reason. This property is our located in an R-1 district as shown on the Nutley zoning map. Chapter 700, Article 11, Section 700-71C of the Codes of Nutley states, "A fence
erected along the sidelines from the rear lot line of a main structure, but excluding an attached accessory deck or similar structure to the rear property line and along said property line, and within such line shall not exceed 6 ft
in height, and shall not be of solid construction. A stockade fence is hereby deemed to be of solid construction. The constructed retaining wall in the rear yard is part partially a retaining wall to the adjacent properties and also
extends to be used as a privacy wall. Note both neighbors have signed a consent form for solid construction. Chapter 700, Article 11, Section 700-67E3 of the Codes of Netley states, "Decks and patios must meet to the following
minimum setbacks of table one." Um, setback requirements. Front yard feet. Um, I'm not seeing any numbers. >> Yeah, not permitted. Um, decks and
patios uh less than 30 in in height not permitted. Decks and patios greater than 30 in in height not permitted. Sideyard um I'm sorry I can't uh the type is is illeible.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. not committed. Side feet principal building set back uh decks and patios greater than 30 in in height. Principal building setback sideyard feet decks and
patios less than 30 in 3 ft greater than 30 in principal building setback. Rear yard feet or greater or less than 30 in in height. uh 24 week for decks of patios greater
than 30 each and it says a constructive patio at the sideyard street requires a principal setback which is 25 ft stone number two the constructed patio at the rear which was extended requires a three
foot sideyard and a 15t rear yard that both installed the rear and sideyard Thank you. Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony. You state your full name. Spell your last name.
>> Arisalis Harley. Last name H U R L E Y. I'm at 380 Mount Vernon Street. So we we had constructed that wall because
mainly um there was a retaining wall there about uh 3 to 4 ft high I would say. Um it was damaged so our insurance company asked us to get it fixed in
order to keep our insurance. Um, we did fix it, but since, you know, we thought it was a good idea to bring it up more because our neighbors,
uh, fence was also leaning into our yard. Um, so it it you know they're happy with the fact that it's you know reinforcing their fence uh which they have like a vinyl
fence on their side. Um it doesn't uh meet it. It's not over their fence. Uh you know Yes.
>> No, I did take them to see what it looks like on their neighbor. >> No, you can't. Um, not even on the other um home which is along East Pacific. You
can't see the the wool either on that end. Um really what is smaller um >> um so we had some doors there installed
at uh on the side. So that's just, you know, an area for us to use as an outdoor area. Yes. Additional seating area.
>> I think the Yeah. We've all seen it. We looked at it. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, in regards to uh 380 Mount Vernon Street, block 8 005, lot
26. Um the hardship being corner property the uh work that was completed pavers and setbacks approve it to the plan and anything set
forth by council >> Trisha second it >> all All right. And second board. >> Mark Kichio. >> Yes. >> Patricia Dy. >> Yes. >> Wallace. John Kafone. >> Yes. >> Greg Toli. Koli. >> Chairman Graziano. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. You have a good night. Okay. Um, very few people >> regarding the driveway increase and front yard coverage for three Union Avenue block lot 94072.
Dear Mr. Dong and Ms. Tang, your request for a permit at the above reference premises to widen the existing driveway to 16 ft, which reduces the front yard coverage as shown on the property survey prepared by Butler surveying surveying
and mapping dated November 1st, 2016 is denied for the following reason. This property is located in an R-2 district as shown on the Nutly zoning map. Chapter 700, Article 8, Section 700-48 of the Codes of Nutley states, "Any lot
containing a residence for one or two families shall have at least 60% of the required front yard and landscaping. This area shall not be covered with paving, walkways, or any other imperous surface. Landscaping may consist of grass, ground cover, shrubs, and other
plant materials. The required landscaping is 60%. The proposed is 40%. What's the lot width? >> Thank The lot width >> is uh narrow, isn't it? >> Thank you.
>> Oh, okay. So, it's an undersized width. >> Undersized width. All right. I need you to raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Would you give us your full name, spell your last name, and your address? My full name is Kevin Dong. Uh last name
is D O N G. Our address is 3 Union Avenue, Nelly, New Jersey. >> The first house over here. >> What would you like to tell us? >> So the reason why my parents and I are here today is to request a variance. Our driveway is too narrow. It's only 10 ft.
10 ft. The width is only 10 ft. We would like to uh widen it to 16 ft. So the garage is uh occupied with my vehicle. My mom parks in the driveway. And since street parking is illegal from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., uh we will get a ticket if
my dad parks there. >> So, the only al alternative is to park uh 10 to 15 minutes away from the house, which is a 10 to 15 minute walk. So, during rainy season or during the winter, especially right now where the ground is slippery, um visibility is low
and it'll be easier to catch um catch a cold. It's unconvenient to park that far away from the house. So, we request to have the driveway widened so it'll be easier to access the house, access the
car, and leave the house. >> Yeah, it's an impervious coverage situation. Um, yeah. Uh, 16 ft. So, what's your plan? To pull one car up and one car to the left a little bit because it's still going to be tight. So the thing is um our driveway so from so from the
driveway to the neighboring um the neighbors I believe is 18 ft. We're going to move it to 16 where that where so it's not touching them. It'll it'll fit. We we tried it. It'll fit but >> and you'll have two feet. You'll have 2 ft of grass. >> Yes. We'll have two feet left. So we're
not going to affect the the neighbors. And even it's still better than walking 10 to 15 minutes every single day. >> No. And you know what else too? It's it you're on Union Avenue. >> Yes. when you park two cars back to back and you got to move one. You got to back out into Union Avenue. So,
>> it's a tough move. >> Um, >> so too, uh, you have a fire hydrant right in front of your driveway to the left, don't you? >> Yes. But, >> but you can't park there at all. >> So, the thing is, yeah, we can. And then, but the thing is fire hydrant is it's close to the neighbors rather than
us. >> So, it shouldn't affect like if anything were to happen, it shouldn't it shouldn't affect the firefighters. >> I know. But it's it's just that, you know, there's no parking. There's no parking. >> All right. Um, does anybody else have any other questions? And I don't see
anyone in the audience, so I'm going to ask for a motion here. >> Um, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Uh three Union Avenue, block 9 9407, lot
12. Um the the hardship is an unders sized width. Um and he'd like to widen the driveway to 16T leaving two foot of grass on the left. I believe it's uh going to make it safer.
And uh yeah, no I said at the beginning now probably and anything uh else set forth by council >> second. Secretary please call the board. >> Uh Mark Kioi
Wallace John. >> Yes. >> Greg Tolley. Daniel Tolley. >> Yes. >> Graciano. >> Yes. >> Thank you guys. >> You got it. >> Thank you for your patience. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry you had to wait so long, but >> we're still here.
>> Hey, other things to do. >> Sorry, boys. Bad night. >> No, we're paying We're paying tonight. We're paying for going out for drinks in December. That's what it is. Get away from us. That's what it is. Everybody,
huh? We have minutes from December 15th. So >> there are propos that >> we We're intense program. All right. Uh 176