All right. Good evening everyone. Let's call this meeting of the township promotion board of adjustment to order for August 21st, 2025. Uh can we have a roll call, please? Nicole. >> Mr. Ashi >> here. >> Mr. Domo >> here. >> Miss
Mr. Chamora >> here. >> Miss Li >> here. >> Mr. Pi, Mr. Mr. Carol, Vice Chair Daneo, and Chairman Fuller. >> Kier, we stand for the flag
to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. a copy of the notice
have being sent to the Asbury Park Press and the Coaster and filed with the office of the township clerk. Uh there's an emergency I'll get to the cell phone policy in a second. Um the emergency room uh uh exit through the courtroom doors, two exits
in the rear of the room. There's no smoking. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. this evening. No new testimony taken after 9:30. In addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceanceans Community
Cable Channel, channel 22 on Verizon FiOS and 1300 on Cable Vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a phone call, please uh make your call outside of the meeting room. Uh carried cases,
uh Sam Gabby, 8 Mammoth Road, Block 5, lot 35, will be carried to September 18th, 2025 for defective noticing. Notice was published in the newspaper in accordance for the July 17th, 2025 meeting. No notice was not served to
property owners. Board will discuss right now if we need to re if the this applicant needs to renotice in the newspaper. So how should we >> they notice for what date? >> July. >> For July. >> July. >> For July. >> And we we announced about the July meeting. They were being carried to this
meeting, right? >> Correct. >> It's just the name. >> Yeah. I would make them I would I personally would I mean this the second time. Is anyone here on that application? >> It's uh it's I mean I would make them re not in the paper at this point. It's two
times to be on the safe side. >> This would be be renoticing in the newspaper and have the property owners got >> property owners have never been noticed. >> Yeah. So they they are yet to be noticed. Right. >> So I've just happened to do full new notice. >> Okay. Does anybody have any objection to
that? All in favor? >> I resolutions to bemorial for memorialization. Cole, do can we all do all these at the same time? Do you know? Okay. Uh Julia Gordon, 411 Roosevelt Avenue. Wendy Pcel
1301 Woodlock Avenue. Marco Pellete 802 Mammoth Road. Um, Aleandro and Maria Nasimento, 109 Adams Avenue, AEI Holdings, 1400 Highway 35.
Can someone offer? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> That has to be a roll call vote. >> It does. >> Oh, okay. Right. Right. Sorry, >> Mr. Ashi. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr.
>> Yes. Okay. Our first case this evening is John Pro Sisto Systo 1319 Burch Avenue. And while the options are setting up, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to mark into evidence the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 will be the variance
application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the survey of the property. Exhibit A3 will be the architectural plan. Those are the exhibits from the applicant. Then I have B1 is in board one will be the zoning off a report. B2 will be the board planners report and B3 will be the
board engineers report. That's all I have. And sir, you want me? Can I swear you in? >> Can I uh do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, self? >> Yep. >> And just state your name for the record. >> John Pisto. >> Thank you. Chairman, all yours. >> All right. Mr. Pisto, if you could just
give us a brief overview on on why you're here tonight. Uh and then we'll have our our folks kind of go over what they see and then you can answer any of our questions. >> Sure. So, I'm trying to put a second story edition on my house right now. It'll add three rooms upstairs and a full bathroom. We have uh two little
kids and we want to stay in the area. So, it's best case to do it. >> Okay. Uh and so you're here for variance on the minimum front yard setback. >> Correct. Yeah. 25 ft is the setback and or uh 30 ft is the setback. We want to start at 25 ft.
>> Okay. >> So, Jim, do you want to tell us what you see here? >> Yeah. essentially they're just going up with the building. Um the only concern I have well the zoning officer pointed out that one of the rooms is labeled office and that
should be changed on the plans. And the other concern I have with that room is that it could in the future if you were to sell the house not that you're intending to use it as anything other than an office but the way the room is set up it could be used as a bedroom. And if it's becomes a bedroom, the
parking requirement goes up from two spaces, which they have, to three. And normally, and I recommend my report that the board give consideration to the driveway being widened and having a a
third parking space on the site, but the board should also be aware that the topography on the front of the site is very steeply sloping. So, it may be difficult to do that. So it's something the board should be concerned about. The applicant should should address. >> Okay.
>> And maybe something can be done with the modification of the office to eliminate either provide no door no closing door on it or to eliminate the closet. >> Yeah. Does the office have the office has a closet? >> Yes. >> Most offices don't have closets. So
>> we can eliminate. >> Would you agree to eliminate that? Okay. Yeah. >> Would you agree to a deed restriction to be recorded against the property that puts everyone on notice that that room is never to have a closet and it cannot be used as a bedroom? >> That's >> okay.
>> That's otherwise I have no real concerns. >> Okay. >> Mark, would that deed restriction not allow someone to come back and change it to a bedroom provided that they added a parking spot? >> Someone can. So any deed restriction we ever record here, someone can always
come back to this board and ask for three week from the deed restriction always. >> And the reason I'm I'm concerned about the parking is during the whole master plan process, the police, fire, and the rescue all are concerned about the
Wamasa area, the narrowness of the streets and the fact that park cars are being parked on both sides which hinders emergency response. So >> uh like uh it was said before this
application is just uh uh making the building two stories from one to two. So there's no other site improvements. So I don't have any engineering concerns. >> Any questions from the board? >> Actually, so
you're not allowed to have office though in the residential area. >> Well, you can have a room in your house that's a den that you've used as an office, but not just shouldn't be labeled on the plans as an office, right? So, in the future, somebody might look at and think they're allowed to
have a commercial office be called den. >> Yeah, den. >> We made that change already. It'll just be it'll be in the final >> dent or study. >> It'll be called a den. >> A den. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Yeah. All good. >> Just curious that the materials aren't
noted on the elevations. Is are you intending to remove all of the siding on the existing house and redo the whole thing or you just put >> just the new part is going to be >> Okay. And that's going to match the floor below or >> Yeah, it all be white. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions? >> The only um thing that we're looking for is the only ordinance is for the setback, right? That's That's why we're here. >> Yep. >> Any questions? >> Any questions for the public?
>> Just so I understand, the setback issue already exists. They're not exactly. >> That's correct. And it's consistent with the setbacks of the other residences on the street. >> The shed there's also a shed which you have to take >> existing when he purchased the home. >> Yeah. So I when I moved in, the shed was
already there. It was on the uh the original survey. Um so if you want to put something maybe that if I ever move it, I'll come back just so I don't have to. >> If you can move it, make it conform a form conforming location and you just have to get a permit from the building department. You don't have to come back.
>> Okay. >> Can you move it now? >> No, I can't move it. It's made out of wood. I would have to deconstruct the whole thing. >> Yeah. >> And what is the uh what are the variances for the shed? five foot rear yard setback.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, the variance for the shed, if the shed falls down in the future, you can't build one exactly in the same spot. You have to make it conform or you come back and and Okay. >> Any other questions? Any comments from
the public? Can someone make a motion to close public hearing? >> I'll make a motion to close. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> uh any opposed? >> Can we have a motion for a posit resolution?
>> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. [Applause] Uh, next case, Alan Mala, 8 481 South
Edge Drive, block 76, lot six. >> Sorry, I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name. How do you pronounce? Okay, great. >> Let me just mark in the following exhibits, Mr. Chairman. A1 will be the variance application. A2 will be the elevation certificate. A3
will be the flood map. A4 will be the coverage breakdown. A5 will be the aerial photo of the property. A6 will be the 3D rendering of the survey. A7 will be the specs for the shed. Uh A8 will be
the asbuilt survey and A9 will be the plotting grading plan. Then we have as B1 is in board one will be zoning officer's report. We have the board planners report will be B2 and B3 will be the board engineers report. And if we
just have the applicant raised uh be sworn in, the swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, self. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Alan Mal. >> Thank you, M. Go ahead, Mr. >> Sir, if you could give us an overview why you're here tonight and we'll let
the engineer and >> I built the swimming pool and there was a curved grass and when we finished the pool, we squared it off and I didn't realize it wasn't part of the original plan. And I also have a shed on the property
that I had built, not realizing that it wasn't it was something you need. >> Okay. >> So, what kind are you on a a corner lot? >> Um, it's a Edgeir Place is like a street off of the street that's sort of a dead
end >> and I'm like the first house in inside. >> So, it's sort of the house is sort of hidden from the street. Hey Jim, can I pass it over to you? >> Sure. Uh, the variances are necessary for maximum building coverage and the uh
existing or the the coverage would be permitted is 25% of the lot area. That would be 16 1,646 square ft. The existing coverage is 9 1,934 square ft. and the shed of that the shed
is 102 square ft. Um the lot is smaller than a conforming lot. If it was a conforming lot, 1,875 square ft would be permitted and uh the
um building coverage prior to the construction of the shed would have been 1,832. So, if it was a conforming lot, the building covered before the shed would have been nonconforming. Um, but that was still approximately
27.8% of the area of the existing lot, which does exceed the ordinance requiring 25%. I don't think there's a hardship there, but I think the applicant has to provide some form of testimony to the board that
would justify the variance. With regard to the accessory building setbacks, again, if the pool had been put in a different location, the site, the shed could have been put at a conforming location. And uh so I
think there has to be some sort of testimony to justify why why there's a need for the shed in that location. And it can't be that there's a hardship. And I don't know if the applicant understands the the legal reasons for granting variances or not. This is one
probably where I think a planner would be necessary to explain the reasons to the board if the applicant doesn't understand them. Um then the other issue is an unfortunate situation where the prior zoning officer approved the pool plan including the
pool decking and he approved it at 5.5 ft set back from the side property line and the uh ordinance requires 10 feet. Not sure why that happened and the applicant relied on the the zoning
officer's determination. So I if that's realistically there are no planning reasons for it but I think there might be a a moral reason for it if you understand what I'm saying. >> But my my bigger concerns are having the
board having positive reasons for the uh granting of the other setbacks the accessory building and and the uh lot coverage. Bennett, you go. >> Okay. Uh, so this, uh, property is located in a flood hazard area. Uh, so
the construction of a pool typically requires, um, uh, a permit from the NJD. Now, it could be a permit by rule. uh there are certain conditions uh stated
in the D's regulations that um identify what the conditions are for a permit by rule. Uh and I think the applicant should just identify whether or not a permit was uh looked into or obtained. Uh and then uh
the application indicates that a variance is required for the retaining wall um which is four feet tall and it's greater because it's greater than 2 feet but that's not um necessarily accurate. Uh based on the plans that that were
provided the wall is less than four feet and it's not located in a sight triangle. Uh so there's there's no engineering concern with the the retained wall itself. Okay. All right. So, I guess let's start with the um
you know, as to through Jim's Jim's notes, the building coverage. Um >> did you hear what what Mr. Higgins said? >> I did. In response to >> I did. He he wants testimony for the reason for for the put building of the
shed >> for the building the shed the size >> in the location that it's that it's in. >> Yeah. There are there are legal planning reasons that the board can consider. They just can't consider whether I wanted to put the shed there because it was most convenient for me. There there
have to has to be reasons which are very technical in nature. the location where I built the shed, half of it covers four garbages that were exposed and visible on the property. So, it was four what? >> Four um >> garbage cans. >> Garbage cans.
>> Yes. >> So, you know, they were smelly and they're sitting right there right by the the you know, right when you drive into the property. >> Well, why couldn't you move the garbage can? >> There's not really another location that
would be practical. You have no other place on this property to put a garbage can. >> It would have to be somewhere in that driving driveway area. Small small property and on the on the on the edge
place side. >> Well, one of the one of the problems from a legal perspective, just so you understand, is you chose to put in the pool. >> Yes. you created your own hardships by limiting by limiting space on the
property. So, it's difficult for the it's difficult for me from a legal perspective to simply say, well, yeah, we have to cover the garbage cans, but the reason the garbage cans are there and there's no other place to put on the property is because you put a pool you put a big inground pool in the backyard
which eliminated all this other space that you had on your property. >> Yeah. So that that that's that's the problem that I think that our planner is is is speaking of like what's the justification? What's the zoning justification for the shed
being where it is? >> The shed was honestly an afterthought. I was I I saw these on Instagram. I saw these enclosures that these individual enclosures that hide the garbage cans and I immediately got excited that I could maybe hide the garbage cans. And from there somebody said, "You might as
well build one yourself." And you know, I didn't realize because it's not mounted to the ground that it would that it was even a a problem. And the swimming pool, I was told that it was when it was approved, I was told that it had to be 10 ft from the the property line, but 10 ft from the water. And
I'm not sure if the rules changed from the first time it was approved till now, but I was told that it had to be the water had to be 10 feet from the neighbor's property line. >> Yeah. But >> yeah, >> that doesn't >> the water has to be 10 feet from the
property line and the area surrounding the pool, the deck, if it's 3 feet wide or less, that doesn't count towards a setback. But if it's more than three feet, then it does count. >> Gotcha. And
>> uh that's been the zoning officer's opinion for years on that. Even the prior zoning officer did that. But why why he let you have it at 5.5 ft, I I don't know. >> Okay. >> But that that piece, you know, exactly
where it is, how close it is to the the property line was approved in a plan by the plan, >> right? I I don't think the board can do anything about that. >> Yeah. So I I think we we everybody agrees we just that's okay. That's fine.
>> That's that's not something to argue about >> on on the >> edge place is right on my property line pretty much. There's nowhere for the garbage cans there. There's a small walkway to the what you would consider the back door >> and there's no space whatsoever on that
side of the property. It's like I said, it's very close to Edgeir Place. And on the other side of the property, even if I were to put it where the pool is, you're talking about putting it deep inside the property and there's steps there. It wouldn't really be practical to have to take them out down a series
of steps on a regular basis to have the garbage removed. >> I don't know. I always grew up that way. >> We brought our garbage cans out in the morning. Um, >> but I mean the shed is
>> 25 ft long and four feet deep. >> So, it's obviously more than just garbage cans. >> Yes. four garbage cans which take up about 45 or 50% of the of the section. And then the other section I put bicycle racks to hold bikes because we have a
small garage of not really much room for the bikes. >> How tall is the shed? Do we know? >> 7T. Would you consider putting shrubs or bushes in front of the garbage cans
rather than building a whole shed? >> It's not so much it's it's not so it's I it's so clean right now and it's tucked in underneath these large aravita trees which are super taller >> and it's tucked in underneath it. You can't even see the shed from the street
unless you step into the property. If you're standing directly in front of Edgeir Place looking in, you can't see the shed. If you're coming from edge place from Mammoth Road driving, you can see it from the angle. But face on or from the other direction, you can't even
see the shed. >> So you you turned in as part of your application an aerial photograph. Do you have a copy of that? >> I don't. Did I? >> Yeah. Can Can you show Yeah, I I have it. Um if you can just show us I don't see the shed on here. Is the shed there
or is this pre-shed? That's for the sh >> Let me just get my bearings here a second of which where's my property? I guess >> that's the other thing. I'm not sure which one of these is. >> That's the brown roof.
>> Oh, this is me. The brown roof. Believe it or not, it could be there because the trees are covering it, but I'm not sure. >> I did it. I did an overlay. >> It's probably not here. >> It's not It's not there. I did an overlay and part of the shed would be
>> visible. >> Would be visible. Yeah, I think so. >> Do you have any photographs of the shed? >> I did. I I I I sent you photographs of the remember the inside where the bicycles and the garbage cans were. >> Just give the board some idea what this thing look like.
>> There is a drawing. You have the drawing, but you don't have the actual >> I could look I could look for that email. Let me look for it. >> We have that. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know about I would love to see what this looks like from the street.
>> Absolutely. >> Yeah. And I'll be clear just as the board knows, you do not have to vote on this tonight. You can say, "I don't have enough information. We'd like to know what the shed looks like and require the applicant to come back with some photographs of what the shed actually looks like since it's an issue." And
unfortunately, we can't take it off your phone. So, um, there's no way to do that because you can't mark your phone into evidence. >> Should the applicant come back with a planner also to help him justify the legal reasons? >> That's up to the applicant. You can't
force him to hire a planner. Um, but he's he's free to do what he needs to do >> and then you have to make your decision based on the information that you have. >> Uh, would you like to see I did find the photos >> again? We can't we can't take it off your phone. >> Okay.
>> Because you can't you can't you'd have to leave your phone here. >> It has to be marked evidence. >> I wouldn't be able to forward the photos again. Can you? >> Okay. >> Well, no. I mean, if she has them on, as long as we have copies, we can mark
them. >> Maybe we can use the computer. >> Yeah, you're going to have to pass that around, though. >> Would it help? I could pass mine as well if you like. >> I just want to make sure Nicole definitely has them. And how many photographs are there? >> There's four or five photographs.
>> Any of the street view? I know you said it was the inside and the bike racks or any street view, sir. >> I'm not sure if I took one from the street. I was just leaving this morning. I looked and I was just getting >> That's what the board is. >> More of the inside,
>> right? Yeah. I don't think we care what it looks like from the inside. >> I was just showing that there were garbage cans in them and the bicycles. >> Maybe one where you want to go out. >> Okay. So, that's not going to I mean, I'm assuming that's not going to help the board. The board wants to see the exterior. >> Yes.
>> Correct. >> I'm not sure. I never tried. >> And again, the board may just want to go out and look at it, see what it actually looks like. I would love that to happen because if you see it, it's it because of these arbit trees that stick out so far and it's tucked in underneath them,
it's really discreet. >> Are the arborites on your property or on your neighbor? >> On my property. >> All right. So, can I suggest we carry this until next month? >> Should I pass? I know you said you can't use it. >> Yeah, I I I would So, I think so. What
does board want to do? Yeah, I I think if because I would love to see what it looks like from the street if you could take some pictures from the street. Okay. >> Right. Um give you your your best angles to to give to us, frankly. Right. Um and send them in and we'll carry this till next month. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, I do recommend
that you do open it to the public to see if anyone here in the public may have some comments. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Do we have any questions from the public? >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're going to carry this to the um what's the next meeting date? >> September 18th.
>> To the September 18th meeting. Uh and and you're going to have to get those photographs in at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. Okay. >> I mean, get them tomorrow, whatever, but but they've got to be here 10 days before September 18th. And uh if any I know no one's here, but just in case, this application is being
carried to the meeting of September 18th, 2025 at 7 p.m. You will not receive any further notice. If you want to be present, you need to be in the room at that time. >> Okay, >> that's for me. If I want to be present, don't I have to be >> Well, you have to be president.
>> You better show up. >> He says that for the millions of people watching at home so they can come. >> You want me to take photos from straight on and then from all the angles? Every angle. >> I think I'd be I think I'd be good. >> From the street. >> Yeah. >> The more information you can give them, the better. >> Yeah. I think if you see it, if somebody
if you see it, I think you know it's really discreet in the sense that you can't see it from the street. >> That's and I do recommend that board members drive by and check it out for yourselves. Also, >> if you see strange cars by your house,
>> thank you. We'll see you next month. >> They strongly suggest >> Mr. Lex, that still leaves the issue though of that back so you have >> plot coverage. Correct. Like >> I mean it doesn't eliminate anything. It's just it's just the board doesn't want to proceed until they know what this shed looks like.
>> Right. I just want the applicant to understand. >> Okay. You can tell >> even though you're bringing us pictures, that's not the final resolution. it still leaves the issue of a variance for the lot coverage and for you to present a reason a legal reason in accordance
with the regulations why you need the variance. >> So would it be that it's a it's already what I was told it was it's already over and it's a it's a unique shaped lot.
It's not a typical lot. And I think what I was told was because it's not a typical lot that that that the board would be more open to allowing it. That makes any sense. >> It does. And that's part of Yeah. a
justification. I just want you to be armed with as much knowledge as you can. That's all. Okay. And information. >> All right. So maybe I'll speak to someone at least to be more educated. >> That would be a great idea. >> Yeah. because the board does consider, you know, houses in certain areas of town have larger lots and so they're
easier, it's easier to play within the rules that are set than houses in Wanamasa, right? Houses in Moses poker. So, yeah. >> Yeah. If so, listen, if if somebody came by to see the garbage cans and where they are and the limits of where we can put them to put them inside of the where
the fence where the fence is would be it wouldn't be beneficial for the property. It would really be terrible. And even in the driveway area, they take up quite a bit of room and they're an eyes saw. So, I thought I was doing a good thing. I didn't realize that, you know, something
that's built loose, not built to the ground was even an issue. It started out smaller and then I said, "Oh, I could put some bicycles in there." And before you know it, it got a little bit longer. But, >> well, it's not it's not the fact that it's Are you under some impression that it's because it's it's loose and not or
that it's public? >> That's what I initially listen. That has nothing. That's not the issue. The issue is a setback. >> I know that. I >> Okay. Okay. Because you've said that a couple times and I want to make sure you >> only because that's where I started. >> Yeah. >> That's why. >> Yeah. Either way, it would it would be an issue whether it was fixed to the ground or not.
>> I'll take some good photos and I'll do my homework on >> All right. We'll see you next month. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next case. 504 Mammoth Road LLC. 504 Mammoth Road, block 65, lot
one. Attorney for the applicant, Mr. Fernicola. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. This is the board Paul Fernola. On behalf of the applicant, 504 Mammoth Road LLC. We're here tonight on application. We see uh two variances.
>> I have my planner with me. We also have Mr. Folino, our architect. I would have called him first. He's not here right now. So, I would like to call I'll It's a little bit out of order, but take the planner first. >> Protocol. Should we do another application? I think because I understand you have objectors to the
next one and I'm hoping he will >> be here when we complete Mapone's uh testimony. >> That's fine. >> We can decide that the board wants to hear that. >> Okay. Um so I have the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 is going to be the
variance application. >> I'll wait to catch up. [Music] >> That's fine. Right. Exhibit A1 is the variance application. Exhibit A2 is the survey. Exhibit A3 are the architectural plans. And then I have the following
board exhibits. B1 will be the zoning officer's report. B2 will be the board planner report. And B3 will be the board engineers report. >> Uh Mr. Lexine, there were a couple uh revisions. So maybe for the record we should just be clear. >> That's fine. So the zoning officers
report is date. Is that what you're talking about? >> Uh I think it was actually the planners and the engineers. >> The planners report uh I have the June 26th report and then the board engineers report is July 15. >> Deal. Fantastic. Thank you for that.
>> It's hard to keep track. >> Yes. >> Maybe it will again one day. >> No problem. Um, >> are we >> Why don't we just start? We don't want to have delay. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> So, swearing Christine.
>> Y. >> All right. Miss Clone, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, self? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Hi, good evening. For the record is Christine Cafone. Business address is 52 Reckless Place, Red Bank, New Jersey 07701. I'm testifying this evening as a
licensed professional planner. I have been testifying as such for 29 years in the state of New Jersey. >> We just need to all we need to know is that you're licensed as I >> am licensed. Yes, I am. >> Your license is in good standing. >> We are good. >> Thank you. >> So, we offer Miss Kapone as an expert in planning. >> Yep. >> Map. Are you familiar with the subject
property located at 504 Mammoth Road, Block 65, lot one? >> Yes, I am. >> Can you uh briefly describe uh the property and the current improvements located on the property? >> Yes, I can. The property is an existing undersized lot. It is undersized with
both respect to area and frontage in the township's R4 zone. It is an 8, approximately 690 foot lot that has frontage on both Mammoth Road and Myrtle Avenue in your R4 zone. >> The frontage along Mammoth Road is 109 ft. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> And Myrtle is 67. Yes. Correct. >> And what is the applicant proposing to construct on the property? The applicant is proposing to construct an addition primarily in the existing footprint of the ex of the the building. We will require um a proposed second story
addition that requires a variance of 23.9 ft where 30 feet is required. And we will have a charming front yard porch on the property, but that will have a non-conforming front yard setback of 21.1 ft where 30 is um also required.
And that's to Mammoth Road. Okay. Focusing first on the uh proposed second floor addition, is that addition being built primarily within or on top of the existing footprint of the dwelling? >> Yes, it is essentially being built in the one-story section of the existing
dwelling on the property. >> How does the proposed setback of the addition compare to uh other portions of the existing home? >> It is in line with other portions of the existing home. And turning your attention to the covered porch, uh, you indicated that
the setback is 21.1 ft from Mammoth Road. Is that correct? >> It is correct. >> And does the township's master plan contain a policy statement regarding uh covered porches and front yards? >> It does. You last re-examined your
master plan here in 2023 and there was a recommendation in that that generally um front porches add curb appeal to residences and to not only add curbable curb appeal but they allow for usable front porches so people can sit and have an outdoor extension on their property.
So yes, there was a specific recommendation to allow for flexibility in your zoning standards to encourage and allow for front yard porches to be um within the 30 foot front yard setback. >> And Mr. With regard to uh the property,
does it have an existing shed that is uh not conforming to the setback requirements? >> Um it does and we would propose to eliminate that. And if if I just go back to the the front porch requirements, the actual recommendation in the master plan is to allow them to project 10 feet into
the 30-foot setback. So we would be consistent with what is being recommended in your master plan. >> But you're removing the non-conforming shed. >> We are removing a non-conforming shed. >> The condition of approval. >> Are there are there benefits from eliminating the nonconformity of the existing shed? >> Yes, we're eliminating an existing
non-conformity on the property and reducing any coverage associated with that shed. In your professional opinion, would there be any negative impacts from the grant of the barances? >> No, I think curb uh porches generally um improve the curb appeal. Um there are
many porches in this immediate area along um Mammoth and Myrtle that have porches. So I think that the home is consistent with the character of the area. One of the purposes of the municipal land use law is criteria I which talks about promoting a desirable visual environment. As you heard, this
is not a tearown. the proposed location of the improvements are with approximately, you know, essentially within the one-story section of the property. So, I think the board could look at both the C1 and C2 section of the statute here with the C1 being lawful existing structures. Um, this is
a lawful pre-existing structure despite the fact that this the site is under size with respect to area and frontage, it's still a lawful pre-existing use. So I think the board can invoke C1 and of course using the C2 criteria, criteria I advancing a desirable visual environment
and criteria G which talks about sufficient space for appropriate locations. I think this is an appropriate location for a porch and I think as far as the negative criteria, the land use laws does not ask you to hold any applicant that there be no detriment just that there be no substantial detriment and the benefits
have to outweigh the detriments. So here you have an opportunity to implement a goal in your master plan with the grant of the requested reasonable relief in conjunction with this application and I see no substantial detriment if the board were to move favorably on this application.
>> Thank you. I have no further questions. >> Any questions from the board? >> I just have one question. Compared to I know you said the other um homes in the area have porches. That's consistent. in your opinion how far this one will stick out. Is that consistent with the others or the others
set back a little? >> So I think some are maybe set back further but I think this is consistent with the recommendation in your master plan. Right. The master plan recommended 10 ft into the encroachment. So we're about 9 ft into the front yard set back at 21.9 almost eight. So
>> the house is doesn't sit parallel to Mammoth Road. at an angle to mom's road and the northern corner of the house is only 15 feet from the front set back. So the porch is separate back beyond >> right beyond that room set back of the house itself. >> That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you.
You're welcome. >> Any other questions? Any questions for the public? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> At this time we call the architect, Mr. Anthony uh Arcelino,
>> I will point out that we have the two shortest memos from our experts ever. So, >> I'll try to keep my >> Why don't we do this? Uh does does the is there any rather than go through it because we have the plans. Is there anything specific that the board needs to hear from the architect as to what's
being proposed here? Because this is a pretty clear-cut application. >> Yeah, I would like to ask Jim and Bennett uh if they have anything they'd like to hear. I don't have any concerns with the application at all. I think it's fine. >> I have one question. Um I don't get it.
>> Well, it's it's in it's in my report. You have it. >> Uh so just a clarification on the uh room that's labeled the maid's room uh on the plans. If that is to be a bedroom, it would trigger uh three uh off street parking spaces uh to be
required. That would be the fifth bedroom. Uh right now the the block can accommodate two. >> So Mr. Let me swear in Mr. He's going to answer that. Uh sir, do you swear in testimony you're going to give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth you got? >> Yes.
>> And just state your name for the record. >> And you are a licensed architect and your license is in good standing. Correct. Thank you. We offer him as an expert in architecture. >> Mr. Ergeno, you heard the question. Did you submit two weeks ago revised plans addressing the issue of what was
formerly labeled as a maid's room? >> I don't know if you heard me say it's now in the revised plans. It's now labeled as a >> Did you say there was no closet? >> What's the date of the revised plans? We Mr. Kalino's office had delivered on
it prior to 10 days. >> Okay. So, >> yeah, I think you wanted 11 copies. I thought it was either or. And I that's why I made sure to get it in prior to the 10 days. >> Okay. Well, we can address it then. >> So, can I just Yeah. Can I just ask what
what date does the board have on their plans? >> July 30th. Some of them have >> I have 52. >> Mine's 52. >> Mine's 52.
>> The original drawings were submitted on >> I do have my my second page is 7:30 and it shows a study. >> Okay. Okay. I mean, either way, it's it doesn't it's not going to opportunity that engineers should >> Can we Can we go backwards just for a second? Let's talk about this room. So,
what's >> that was me? >> Just give me the date of the revised plans again. >> July 30th. >> July 30th. >> Okay. So, so revised plans dated that RX >> sheet A2. >> Sheet A2 only.
>> All right. sheet A2 of uh exhibit A3. >> And was that prepared in response to your review of the engineers letter? >> July 30th, 2025, but but we don't
necessarily have it. So, it's going to be I understand you submitted it, but but not everybody has it. >> You can treat it as basically resolution compliance. >> Understood. So, you rephrase the maid's room as being what now? >> What do you call it? >> A study. And it does not have a closet.
>> Correct. >> And would you agree would would the outcome agree to a deed restriction limiting that room to a study without a closet and it can never be a bedroom? >> Yes. >> Bennett, did that satisfy you? >> Yeah, that's
[Applause] never have closet or bedroom or be a bedroom. Anything else for >> Is there any other testimony you'd like to uh enter? >> We can make sure we don't have questions.
>> I just a question for Mr. Ergino. Can you describe It looks to me like there already is a twotory portion of the home and other half of it is >> Okay. So, the other half is coming up a little bit higher than that story. >> Yes. because it's the
mid level currently. So there's the lower level, the mid level, and then the upper level. And now this is the second level over top of the mid level. Got it. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Any questions from the public? >> Would you like to make a closing
statement? Yes, based on the testimony of both the architect and the planner, we believe we satisfied the criteria for the issuance of the variance. We've made the revision. The testimony confirms for change made based on the recommendation of your engineer. We've also agreed to
your Jeremy suggestion of the filing or the reporting of the restriction with regard to the study that it won't be based on bedroom based upon that request that the board grant application and grant the two variances for the second floor edition in the covered court and
it's also uh condition on relocating the shed. >> Yep. Okay. Forgot to close a public hearing. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Okay. >> Paul, can I just I You're approved. I
just need I need clarification. Is the shed being removed from the property or is it being relocated? >> It's being relocated to a performing location. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Someone like to make a positive a motion for positive resolution. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.
Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Litman, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. [Applause] All right, next we have Deborah Israeli,
35 Brandy Wine Road, block 35.03, lot five. >> I really like >> attorney for the applicant, Jennifer Crimco. >> Mr. Chair, >> good evening. >> You don't talk. >> Ready? >> Hi.
>> Good evening. Jennifer Crimov, law firm of Mr. Is he not here this whole time? Someone was sitting in front of me. I couldn't see. >> He was not here. He was not here. >> I didn't realize I didn't realize there were only five. >> Uh Jennifer Crimco on behalf of the
applicant. Uh it's the application might be in the name of Deborah Israeli as she might be listed on the deed, but it's Deborah and A Dr. Avi Israeli who reside in the house. Uh what we're here for tonight is to try and clean up what a builder did and ran
off with my client's money. Uh I don't, as you know, I appear here regularly. You don't typically see me put my client up, but in this particular instance, there are some circumstances that I think are not legal reasons, but I think the board needs to understand as to how
we got here today and why we're here to now fix what has been basically done to my clients. So before we get into the legal aspect of it, I'd like to go through some questions and answers with Dr. Israeli. >> All right. And I'm just following
>> marking the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 is the survey. Exhibit A3 is the demolition, grading, and retaining wall plan. Those only exhibits I have from the applicant. And then I and then I have the following board exhibits. B1 will be the zoning
officer's report, B2 will be the board planner's report, and B3 will be the board engineers report. And Mr. Crimo, I apologize that if you had something you wanted to add to your own exhibit. >> No, no, no. I will. And I have a lot of exhibits, and I'm not going to submit them all at once because I'm only going
to use them if I need them depending on uh where the hearing goes. So, what I would like to do just to start is just move in uh one exhibit. And these are photos that were provided to me by the Israelis and I'm
going to walk Dr. Zoy through them. They consist of 12 pages. So, that will be A4. I do have extra copies >> and I assume they're photos of the house. >> That's an area of photos of the house. Yeah.
to get to the neighbors. >> So, if I could have Dr. Israeli sworn. >> Yes. Sir, do you swear or affirm that you're uh going that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. And just state your name for the record. >> AI Israeli. >> And is that Avi?
>> Avi. >> Thank you. >> M Dr. is really your wife and you uh own and reside at the property uh known as uh 35 Brandy Wine. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And how long ago did you purchase the house?
>> Uh I think we purchased it in October of 2020. >> Okay. And the house in the neighborhood are generally very hilly. Yes. >> Let's say so there there's not a lot of flat land. The roads go up and down and there's retaining walls all throughout the neighborhood which we'll get into
later. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So, you hired a contractor, as I understand it, to do some work at the house. Who did you hire? First of all, >> unfortunately, Mike Gohar. >> Okay. And you contracted him for what purpose? To do some interior renovations and to prepare uh and do an outside
renovation as well? >> Yes. Yes. Originally, it was for a basement renovation uh which then led to a master bathroom renovation, which eventually led to him taking over the backyard renovation and the pool project. of he he somehow manipulated the first
pool builder to basically walk away from the job so that he can take over. I mean, he's he's >> Okay, let's let's Okay, >> stay. We talked about just answer my questions. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, uh, as it relates to Mr. Gohar and
your contract, uh, it's my understanding that there were issues with his work workmanship in the house. Your basement flooded and you had to have a lot of the work redone. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. AIGN as it relates to the outside of the house. You worked with him to create a fully conforming plan that you submitted for building permits and you
left it with him to pursue the permits and build according to the plan. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And at some point you realized that he wasn't building according to the plan because the hot tub or the spa wasn't where you asked him to put it. Correct.
>> So, how did you come to notice that? Well, I mean, you know, originally the the hot tub was supposed to be at the front of the the pool, >> closer to the house. >> Closer to the house. And then when the um I guess I guess the excavators came in and they dug it up. I'm like, "Okay,
I guess the pool here and the hot tub is there and I have no say." And who am I to say that's it? Pour back the dirt and and start reavating. >> All right. So again, you entrusted him as a licensed contractor to go get permits, do what you had to do, >> right?
>> Okay. And as part of that also uh you originally submitted a zoning permit for a cabana that was larger than was permitted and then you got a zoning permit for a 10x5 cabana. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you assumed that's what was being constructed. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And as it relates to the grading in the backyard, you had talked about wanting a flatter yard and it's my understanding that you looked into it with them and you found out that uh the walls would require variance relief. >> That's what he said. Yes. Okay. So, what
did he suggest you do? >> So, he basically gave a long story saying that it would end up taking about 3 years to possibly get approved for a variance uh from the town. I guess it was the time when uh right after CO and you know we we were both you know strung
along for such a long period of time that it was either we get the the pool built now, get the CO now or wait x amount of years to get the job done. So he said he could do it without needing a variance. >> Correct. And he said he can do it with um what do you call them? Landscaping
walls, >> right? So staggering the walls. >> Correct. Instead of doing the the traditional variance required walls, which I I I'm assuming anything higher than 2 feet. Um >> not exactly, but in any event, >> right? So he decided to put, you know, two feet walls and then stagger it with
another two foot wall and said that was that was just considered landscaping and not considered uh variance needed. And you assumed that he got permits for it like he was supposed to get for all of the other work? >> Of course. >> And when all of this was said and done,
was everything installed according to how it was supposed to be with good workmanship? >> Depends. I mean, the the PA stones had to be all redone. >> Okay. >> It was a it was a major disaster. Uh he used the wrong gravel, the wrong cement,
the wrong sand. Um he didn't even use drains. So whenever it rained, my basement kept flooding over and over and over again. And the water kept rushing right through the hopper windows every single time it rained. So, uh, thank God, you know, uh, Tom, uh, who is the,
uh, heartscaper and and poolcape and and pool builder, uh, was kind enough to go ahead and redo all of the paper stones for me. >> And as a result, you are in litigation. So, Mr. Gohar no longer works for you. >> Absolutely not. And you're represented by Dave Crankell and you're in active
litigation against the builder for all the losses that you suffered as a result. >> Yes. >> Did you know that you needed variance relief during the time that the building was going on? >> When you say variance relief, >> did you know you were not compliant? >> No.
>> Okay. So, at some point you submitted an asbuilt survey to get your CO. >> Well, the problem was I kept bugging him, when are we going to get the CO? when are we going to finally get our fence? When are we going to get, you know, finalized? When is the cabana
going to be done? And all he kept doing was stringing us along. He would disappear and he would ask for more money and then he would disappear again. Um, and all along I just thought it was uh he needed more money so that he can bring the inspectors in to go ahead and
get the CO. And then at the end I I assumed that it was because he didn't complete the fence. Uh, so what did I have to do? I already paid for this guy. I'm gonna say north of a million dollars between not just my house, but he was also supposed to construct >> in any event
>> a a business for me. But in in any event, I had to loan him $10,000 on top of >> Audi, let's stay on track. This isn't the judge considering the wrongs that were done to you, >> but they're not. So, let's go back on track. Yes. >> So, once the fence was in, you submitted
a final as built for purposes of getting your CO, >> right? And at that point, Kate Maloney pointed out that you needed a bunch of variances as a result of the work, >> which I had no idea. >> Okay. So Dave Crankl told you to call me. I got involved and here we are. Yes. >> Okay. Before I introduce introduce Dave,
I want to go over this with you just to orient the board as to what they're looking at. So I have the pa these are the photos you sent me, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I have the first on page one. That's an aerial you took with a drone. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And it shows the pool and it
shows the um >> spa >> spa in the location that you indicated. And then this is just a decorative rock area here with a waterfall right next to that. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then if the board's looking at it, to the left of that is the cabana. >> Yes.
>> Now the cabana, and I'll have Dave uh our project manager talk to it. The cabana has a large roof, but is the entire thing an enclosed building or is only a small portion of it? What do you mean by the >> meaning has four walls? >> No, there's there's only uh one wall,
>> right? Well, there's one small back wall, right? Well, there's one small area that's enclosed and the rest is really just a covered kitchen, >> right? It's open. Yes. >> Okay. Um and just going through. So, that's the first photo. And then it shows the staggered
walls and the solid fence that you have on top immediately to the back of the cabana. And I don't have the plan open so I don't know if that's north it's southeast or west but the neighbor I believe is at 15 Duffield where the
cabana is adjacent to the corner. >> Mhm. >> Um has a significant landscaped area there. Correct. >> Uh there's a lot of trees. >> Okay. And um let's go to page two. On page two it shows the spa.
It shows the uh rock wall and it shows your solid fence and then as you describe them to be a lot of trees and then the neighbor one neighbor's house to the left which is the corner house and the neighbor uh behind the caban is to the right behind those trees
somewhere at a much lower grade and the engineer will talk to the significant changes of grade but that's an accurate representation of what's out there. >> Yes. And then as we go to page three, as the board can see, there's an enclosed area at the back of the cabana.
And then it's just an open outdoor kitchen just with a shade cover over it. So the building itself, as you're going to hear from the testimony, not including the covered area, is only 64 square ft. And then as we go to page four, that's a
much better view of how much of this is actually a building. Is that >> yes >> the right view? >> That's correct. >> Then going to page five. Uh that's the view looking towards Framingham. Your
house is to the left and the corner house I think it's 13 Duffield is to the right. And that's actually their shed which as you'll hear from Dave Bash is about 2 feet from the property line. >> Yes. >> And then page six that's a view of your house is on the left. The neighbor's
house is to the right. And that shows the heavy landscaping between the ch between the two and the significant grade change. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you took this one, >> I believe. So, >> you and your wife. And then page seven is just a closer up view. Your house to the left.
>> Mhm. Yes. >> And then page eight is even closer up. And you could Is that the neighbor's basketball court to the right? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. And then it appears you or your wife or someone went on their basketball court to kind of give a view of what it looks like from their house. >> Yes.
>> Is that what this photo is? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, you spent a lot of money. You have these walls in when you came to me. Rather than wanting to just keep them, you'd indicated that you have some concerns about how they
were constructed and whether or not they're going to be safe in the long term. Correct. So this photo is in the back corner and what does this show here on page 10? >> Shows you an incomplete wall. It seems it seems whoever Gohar subcontracted the
work to uh is definitely substandard. Uh there were sink holes uh along the fence line caused from this. Um, I guess from what I understand, you're supposed to line the inside of the uh of the walls with some kind of a uh um waterproofing
uh plastic. I'm not sure what it's called. I mean, you guys may know what it is, but >> but in any event, in any >> there were no there were no permits submitted for the walls as far as you know. >> Correct. >> And there was no engineering review for the walls or the grading as far as you know. >> Correct. And there are areas in the
fence, under the fence, on top of the wall that are actually eroding out onto the neighbor's property. >> That is true. >> Okay. So, despite the expense, you want to replace it to have it done correctly. >> To have it done correctly, to have it done safely. Yes. >> Okay. And then page 11 is just another photo.
>> Yes. >> And then you had indicated to me and I show you on page 12. It was your what you advised to me and tell me this is correct that the way the fence was installed was done in such a way that it moves constantly and as the wall shifts the fence shifts and pieces of the fence
just fall right out. >> It's already falling apart. Yeah. You can grab the fence from one end and just shake it and you could see a whole wave motion going across the line. And when we when you came to me and you wanted to just put the walls on the side
and put the solid fence on top, I explained to you, you can't do that, right? >> And as a result, and as Dave's going to walk through, you agreed to some significant compromises to mitigate the impact of the final proposed plan to the neighbors as well as the types of
variance relief that were needed. >> Yes. After you yelled at me, I said yes. >> We don't like to tell everybody that, but yes. And in addition, you agreed to line the entirety of your backyard, including the sideyard, with evergreens to further enhance the buffer that exists between you and the neighbors.
>> Yes. >> And then also, you have a corner lot. You're on Brand Wine and Framingham. And right now, the fence on Framingham, and we have more pictures we'll get to, has an estate fence you can see right through. You want to be able to have some privacy in your yard. >> Correct. And we have not put any trees
or any bushes or anything of that sort because we're waiting for the uh the approval. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for Dr. Riley recognizing we're going to go through all of the details with the engine with the uh landscape architect? >> And I'll just note for the record and Miss Ko said this before she began that
the majority of the testimony before the photographs are not legal reasons for granting the application. Just to give you backtory and that's all it was intended for, >> right? Correct. It was >> you cannot you cannot grant the application because you feel bad for the applicant. >> 100% No. No. And and the reason for it is is a lot of times the context
>> Yeah. you. Well, not only that, you come in with with applicants that disregard everything and just do it. And I know from the fact that I can never get Dr. Israeli on the phone, that he works for 8 in the morning till 10 at night and we can never get any Zoom meetings
together. It it it wasn't because he was there supervising telling anyone what to do. Uh let me just see if there was anything else here. So, I think that that's it for Dr. So, you were going to agree as a condition of approval that that you're going to line the border with Evergreens to create a landscape. >> Yeah. We didn't get there yet. We're
shown it's actually shown on the >> but he said it and you're going to Okay. >> Yes. And we we actually need a variance for the ones that are going to be on um Framingham and we're showing them to be kept at 6 feet in height and I have some photos of similar treatments in the neighborhood. >> Can I ask Dr. a question?
>> Sure. So the basement was first that project and when that was a disaster, why did you hire him and let him do the other work? >> It wasn't a disaster. It it just took a while for him to to finish the project. >> I thought you were displeased with the
outcome. Is that what I heard? >> Afterward, we realized um he did things to the HVAC system, rerouted things. Um it took a while for us to realize that why is the ceiling leaking? And we, you
know, it was it was basically more of uh what do you call the a duct worked issue which he uh apparently skimped on in in numerous locations. And so this is stuff that we realized after the fact, you know. Um >> how long did he work for you? How many
>> um >> months, years? >> No. Well, I I guess we hired him. I believe it was in 21 and um trying to think when we we got rid of him. I think it was in uh was it 23? It must have
been like October of 23 is when we we finally got rid of him. When he finally put the fence after I had uh given him a quote unquote $10,000 loan to put the fence up so that we could finally get the seal for the pool. And I thought that was all we needed at that time. I didn't realize there was all of this
other stuff going on. >> All right. And u Mr. Croco, the this landscape buffer. And I just want to be clear that I know we're going to have further testimony on it. Which property are we talking about that's going to line it? >> No, it's it's you're not even you're on a survey, I think. >> Yeah. I'm just looking for I know it's
not on here. I'm just asking you which property. >> It it's shown on this. >> All right. I'm just asking which property. >> Yeah, but it's it's all the way around. It's all the way around. >> Yeah. It's already the backyard side. >> Okay. And that's going to be uh we'll need a deed restriction on that to make
sure that it's recorded forever that that landscaping bumper has to be maintained at the level of six feet. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Obviously taller in the back, but six feet in the front. >> Yes. Six feet in front. Uh how much are you proposing in the back? >> Assuming the board >> approves it. Yeah. I'm resp I'm responding to Mark.
>> Yes. So how how much are you proposing in the back? >> Wherever they grow. >> Yeah. >> Okay. At least six feet. >> If I could just have Yes. At least six feet. >> Okay, that's fair. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for Dr. Israeli?
>> So, the the wall that you want to redo, you're going to redo the wall so that it's done properly. You said you're going to Yes. >> take it down, have someone redo it. Part of the reason why you're here is to get the bearings to do that wall. Is that correct? >> Yeah, correct. >> We didn't get I This is just the backtory. Dave Bash is going to walk you
through everything we're doing. Got it. and the reasons why and what the heights are going to be and everything else. >> Sir, just one qu one question for me. Have in your discussions so far, have have you find all the different things that you'd have to do to be able to make
this be compliant and not need variances? >> To not need variances? >> Yeah. I the the the short answer is yes and and I can I can offer that he'd have to rip out all the walls that were put in. He would have to reslope it and bring the grade back down. I don't know
if that's even possible based on where they set the pool. So they might they would have to rip out the pool. The cabana and they would have to rip out the spa, rip out the rock wall. The cabana as you're going to the >> spa itself is too close. >> Yes. Okay. >> That's what we didn't get there yet.
Again, I'm just I want to go through >> Yeah. I want to go >> happens when you open the can of worms, right? >> I want I'm going to go through every single variance, every issue, what we need, why we need it, and and what the justifications are for it. I just I
wanted you to understand how we got here that it wasn't as if we just, you know, said, "Well, we're going to build whatever we want." >> And of course, Mr. Chairman, whether they whether it be difficult or expensive for them to bring everything intoformance is had nothing to do with whether you get the variance or not. as far as I'm concerned that this board as
you always do when someone builds something uh without barriers relief, you have to treat it as if it doesn't exist. >> Correct. Which is why I have all the other evidence with regard to the neighborhood and what's existing in the topography and everything else. >> But that wouldn't be appropriate to put in through Dr. Israeli.
>> Any other questions right now? >> Now, do we have any questions from the public? >> Okay. >> These are questions. They're not uh so And if there are questions, so what you might hear is that's really a question for our uh engineer or or our architect
rather. And if that's the case, that's an appropriate response. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So So what we're going to do is we're going to put you up. You're going you're going to stand up. You're going to take the microphone >> over there >> and I'm going to swear you in. Do you swear any test? Do you swear or affirm
any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> All right. And just state your name for the record. >> Bill Mayo, 15 Duffield Drive. Bill Ma yo >> and your address again. I'm sorry. >> 15 Duffield Drive 15 >> Duffield Drive.
>> So we I just want to um your family here or whoever they are you you can't offer testimony. So so just don't say anything. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. So my first question was were the plans submitted to the town for installation of the pool, the wall, retaining wall, everything approved at
the time when it was done? Was was like was all that approved at the time when everything was done? >> So that's what we just went through. That's why I brought uh Avi up here. The pool and the cabana and the grading was approved. The contractor then took it upon himself to change everything around
without getting permits. >> Yeah, that's pretty much what happened. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayo, that's what the testimony was. They went through all that. >> So So I'm clear. >> So the town got uh plans approved the plans. it was built did not match the plans that the plan got here got.
>> So what we're so what we're seeking here tonight first the variances related to it and then we would retroactively go back and get whatever building permits are necessary to ensure that the walls are safely installed the drain as you're going to hear from Dave Bash there's drainage proposed to ensure that there's
no runoff to the neighbors. So all of this would be done uh if the board approves it. >> Okay. The other my next question would be was did the plan include a third party study of the engineering standards? I have a retaining wall in the back of my property. It runs about 10 ft high. So if you look at those
pictures and if you look at >> yours aren't on there yet, but I will be moving yours in. Yeah, >> I have a photo of yours from Duffield. >> Yeah, if you just look at page four, you could see that >> when that structure was built, I believe the variance is 10 ft. It was 8.7 ft.
And also the other part of this application which I just like to clarify it says 8.7 but the application looks like it's 3 and 1/2 ft. >> So again these are questions now just for this >> I don't need to get I'm just I'm stating questions. So if it's again I'm just asking questions.
>> So that's for the uh >> for the architect >> for Nelson Engineering. >> Okay. But is that in fact correct that it is three and a half ft? >> That's for Nelson Engineering. >> For Nelson. Okay great. Um the other thing and I guess maybe you'll address this too. What's the plan to mitigate the runoff? >> That's also for no.
>> Okay. So, it's tough. It has to be about >> just stick to questions from this from the testimony that was that you just heard. >> Okay. >> Because you're asking very technical questions now, which has already been stated. This witness is not familiar with that information. >> Okay. So, my question it's tough. I get
it. But you could try. >> Wasn't sure the process. I don't care. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, every time you ask questions, it's going to be of the witness that only what the witness testified to before. Good news is there's only potentially one more witness. So then all those questions can go to that witness.
>> Any other questions from the public? >> Thanks. I'll be >> okay. Done. >> Bye. >> Unlike Mr. Mal who wanted to sit here with you all night long and chat.
>> Dave, you want to come up? Do you have your print out that I can hand out? Okay, I do have some more exhibits that I'm going to move in with Dave. A5 is a color rendered landscape plan.
Just bear with me. [Music] And then A6 is that same color rendered plan but overlaid on an aerial [Applause] [Applause]
[Applause] And then lastly, A7, I had Dave prepare in response to questions from uh Jim with regard to how we got our numbers. As this board knows, historically, if a fence or a wall is within 10 ft of
another fence and a wall, it's considered combined together. So, I I have an exhibit called combined wall and fence height study that corresponds with the uh numbers in our notice. And I'll have Dave go through all of
that, obviously. Okay. >> Yes. Sir, do you swear any testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth by the two? >> I do. >> I just state your name for the record. >> David Fesh, BOE s with Nelson Engineering Associates. >> And you're a licensed uh certified
lscape architect. >> Licensed landscape architect licensed in good stand. >> Okay. And you're the vice president of Nelson Engineering and you oversaw the preparation of this plan. You're the project manager. >> That is correct. >> Okay. We'd submit him in that capacity. >> Thank you. So
Steve, if you could with the background that was provided from uh Dr. Israeli, just if walk the board through what's existing there today and what changes we're proposing to mitigate the impact and eliminate the impact on the neighbors. >> Okay. When we were retained by the
applicant, uh we were first asked to update the the survey of the property to show exactly what we were starting with, what what was done and uh where what was done uh deviated from the municipal
ordinances. So on A5, uh we have the landscape plan, but I've also shown um overlaid over top of where the existing retaining walls are. Uh on the southeast corner of the property, the retaining
walls are in excess of 10 ft off the property line, which is unusual. uh it creates a a maintenance problem uh for those areas down uh downhill of the walls. How do you go to maintain them?
Uh especially when you've got a tiered wall some a lot of times then the maintenance eventually falls on the property owner who it's not their property. And then also Dave, as it relates to those, there
was no drainage shown or anything like that to keep any water running through the wall from affecting the neighbors. >> That's correct. Part of what uh where the contractor exceeded his mandate was
there was some additional uh patio areas that were not originally approved. Um, so that additional water would go unregulated onto the adjacent properties because typically in a uh landscape wall
condition behind the wall, you have a layer of stone that allows the water that's running off the property to enter into the stone rather than crossing over into the adjacent property. There's then a pipe down at the base of the wall which
then relays that water to air as we call it. In this what we're proposing that air would be out the adjacent streets. So rather than the water going onto the adjacent properties, it would go out to the adjacent streets. >> As constructed, as Aby tried to explain, it wasn't done correctly and it didn't
take into account any runoff onto the neighbors properties. >> Correct. when we surveyed the the property, we could not find that piping to air that should have been there. >> Okay. Um and as it relates I I want to talk about the
cabana a little bit. So you it's it's hard to see on this plan, but on the plan that we submitted that was moved in as >> a >> three >> and a2 the survey >> A2 and A3. The cabana is actually two
parts. It's a fully enclosed area. How many square feet is that portion of the building? >> The shall we say the habitable four-wall roof part of the cabana is 64 square ft. >> And then extending from that towards the house is a roof and a covered kitchen area. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. >> The the roof of the covered kitchen is 117 square ft. >> Okay. So, let's put it So, if it was just a 64 square foot cabana, it could be at this location. >> Correct. >> What's the setback now? it is at 5.5
feet off the rear or eastern property line where for an accessory structure less than 150 square feet you're allowed to be 5t off side or rear property line. >> Okay. So the portion facing the neighbors the enclosed portion the only portion that imp would impact them as it
relates to the setback that's only 64 square ft. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And the only thing that's triggering the variance is the excess roof that's going towards the house. That's correct. >> So if needed, if need be and to follow
Mr. Fuller to go bring it into compliance, if 31 square ft was cut off of that roof, which would only impact the Israelis because the neighbors wouldn't know if the roof's there or not. But if 31 ft were cut off, we'd be at 150 square feet and we'd be fully
compliant with that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So that's as it relates to the cabana. as it relates to the um as it relates to the spa that's part of the pool that's supposed to be 10 ft off the property line. What is it?
>> The edge of the spa is 8.7 ft off the uh uh eastern property line. >> And there and before you go to the next thing, there was a walkway behind that that was also in excess of the temp requirement. We're proposing to remove that walkway alto together since it's not really necessary. >> Correct. As uh Jim had mentioned on a
prior application, if the walkway is greater than 3 ft wide, then the setback applies to to that as well. We're just agreeing to remove the walkway behind the spa altogether. >> Okay. Then the the decorative waterfall
that's part of the pool. What's that setback? >> That I believe that was 6.5. >> It should be on your listed on your plan as certainly in my notice. So, let me grab it. Um,
>> 8.6 ft. Sorry. >> Right. And then there is a walkway that leads to the cabana. That one small area is 6.8 instead of 10. And that's just so it can go to the side door of the cabana. >> Correct. And it's the total area of
additional walkway we're adding it is three square feet. >> Okay. So we could remove three square feet and it would comply >> just we'll have a little >> just we would have to step we have to step over mud every time we go through it. >> Um okay so that's it as far as the
setbacks. So now going to let me just I want to share some photos that I went out and took today. Uh, this is three sheets and I think I misspoke. Dave's plan was A7. So, this should be A8, right?
>> Correct. Okay. >> All right. So, A8 is three photos of the subject property. And I just want to walk you through it before we start talking about the walls and the need for walls. So Dave, you've obviously been to the
property. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. And currently existing at the property as shown on the first sheet of A8. That's the uh waterfall and that's the spa. Behind it is a solid 6ft fence. >> That's correct. >> And then behind that is a um
trees and a significant drop off to the property below. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Mr. Mr. Mayo had indicated he is a 10-ft wall. You can confirm that since your office actually did the plan for the prior owner. >> Back in 2002, we were actually the site engineers for
15 Duffield under the prior owner. >> Okay. And so it drops off significantly. So as it relates to where our property is, and I have more photos that we'll get to that really goes to to the duff to the uh driveway for the Mayo, which behind it is a 10-ft wall with
landscaping. Correct. That's correct. >> So from our property, it's not really visible. And from their property, particularly with the six foot fence, they wouldn't know if our spa was 8.7 ft or 10 ft. >> Correct.
>> Okay. On the second sheet, it shows, I think, a better view of the enclosed portion of the cabana and it shows why the walkway is necessary. There's a door to access the cabana in that area. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. And again uh our property line is
not coincident with that fence. Our property line extends a little bit past the fence. >> That is also correct. >> Okay. And as we look at your survey and your plan um approximately how many feet off the off the property line is our fence
>> on along the eastern property line. The >> existing fence >> the existing fence is at the top of the second tier of the tiered retaining walls which is approximately 5 ft off our eastern property line. So the fence is >> So while when you look at the second
page it appears that we're close to that fence that's not our property line. Our property line is is further out past. >> Now now I get I I need to amend that. That's at the northern end of the property is 5 ft. does get closer as we get to the southern end where it gets to about 2 to 3 ft off the property line.
>> But again, that that fence is not the line. >> Correct. >> And then as you look at this last photo that's taken from Framingham, that actually shows the fence and the walls and what's in between our client's property and the two properties on
Duffield. Is that accurate? >> Correct. The property line is in closer approximation to the toe of the slope. >> Okay. And then also as it relates the the property immediately behind us to the north, it's not as significant a slope. So as
high of a wall isn't required. Correct. >> Correct. >> But as it relates to the Mayo's property, if they have a 10-ft wall on their area, then it's a pretty significant drop from our property to their property. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And that's shown on here. So now let's talk about what your solution is
for these failed walls in order to uh make it a safe and aesthetically pleasing condition for everybody involved. >> Well, first of all, the the walls that are there, we could not support them at all. So we our recommendations take them
out. Take them out, build them according to the the manufacturers and engineering specifications. Uh we're proposing a tiered wall solution again where the again to the property to the south that
would be uh lot six about half a foot off the property line would be the face of the toe of the wall. The first wall would be constructed up to a height of about 4 ft. Then set back 4T from there. Another
wall approximately height of 2 ft. And then the safety fence would sit on top of the second tiered wall. >> So it's not as if we're doing a very tall wall with a fence on top. It's similar to what's there now. They're
teiered back. And again, in in this scenario, you're actually curving the wall around that tree. It's saying that neighbor wanted to make sure that that tree was saved. And so, >> correct, there's a about a 30-in
diameter oak tree that falls right on the property line which raises >> and then as we go along the back, there's areas where there's just a single wall. Correct. >> Correct. There's a uh AC across the back of 15
Duffield. Our property line across the back of 15 Duffield is only a single wall. It's not a tiered wall. And then across the side of I guess would be the back. >> Well, before we get there, so as it relates to the Mayo's property, our
fence wall height conforms. As I'm looking at your combined wall and fence height, it indicates that we have three feet and then a 6 foot combined and then 4.7 combined as it goes across
the back. So, as it relates to the Mayo's property, the fence wall height complies. >> That's correct. Okay. And then as it goes uh towards Framingham uh to make up the differential where that stepped wall was uh we have
a fence wall height that maxes out at 8 ft at the corner and then slopes down >> 8t at the corner. >> The I'm sorry, the corner of their two properties. >> Yes, that's correct. >> I apologize. And uh in in each of those
scenarios, the wall is ranges from top of wall, bottom of wall, four, five feet or so. >> Correct. >> And then we have the 4ft fence on top. So it's the combination of the two.
>> Correct. That and that would be for the single wall solution adjacent to lot four. >> Okay. And while the clients would prefer the solid fence, um, having a solid fence sitting on top of a wall has certainly has more
impact to the neighbors. So, we suggested that we do an estate fence similar to what's on Framingham, which is a black aluminum fence that you can see through. >> That was a point of heated discussion between us and the the applicant, and that one
of their concerns was providing privacy. So, in an effort to provide privacy and to make it aesthetically pleasing as opposed to having the neighbors look at a solid plastic wall, we're proposing a row of what kind of trees? >> These are evergreen trees, varying
species from uh holly trees along uh 15 Duffield. uh eastern red cedars along lot six and along part of uh lot four
and lean cypresses in the narrowest section across the back of the pool and spa. >> So even though the neighbors can't ne don't necessarily see our property in the event they decide to take their own trees out they will still have the pleasure of looking at trees as opposed to a solid fence.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And then as it comes along Framingham, we already have that 4ft estate fence. Correct. >> And we're proposing to relocate that state fence from approximately 12 ft onto the property to the property line >> and then line it with
>> and then on the inside of that fence inside of the property with a hedro of I believe it was uh columner junipers. >> Okay. And we're proposing that those be maintained at a height of 6 ft. From a
privacy perspective, I'm the poster child where 4T doesn't provide you with privacy. I can see right over >> this. And I want to move in to evidence. I think we're up to A8. See, the older I get, the worse my
memory gets. A9 are two photos that I took today that I want to walk through with you. One is 37 Brandy Wine, which is across Framingham from the client. And the other one is immediately to the left of that which is 36 North Woods.
And that Yeah, you can keep that one for now. And the reason why I'm submitting these to the board is because these lots both have uh identical kind of an identical situation that we have where it is a um corner lot
and in an effort to create privacy they've put a row of greenery along it. So, similar to what's shown there and is essentially establishing, you know, how the corner lots are treated along that way. That's similar to what we're
proposing to do. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Now, you had an opportunity to go through the neighborhood >> and you're familiar with it? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. I'm going to move in a tenant evidence
and walk through. Again, I had described in my opening and as I was speaking with Dr. Israeli that the neighborhood has changing topography throughout and that as part of the construction when this subdivision was developed, the builders
actually installed quite a few very tall walls. Is that your understanding? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. And I hear over here Jim is aware of it. >> I I am aware of it. I was involved >> with the township at the time. subdivision was created and I actually
walked that entire site before the subdivision was created. >> Okay. So 810 is labeled 15 Duffield and in the background and I apologize it's hard to see that's the 10 foot or so wall that uh Mr. Duff I'm sorry that Mr.
Mayo offered and that you worked on that plan. >> Correct. That's at the uh northwest corner of lot three. >> Okay. So that's where the corner that I'm showing is where it immediately abuts our property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then if you go to the next sheet,
it's just a panned out version and it just shows the extensive landscaping um as well as that wall which wraps around the corner of his property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. 16 Brandy Wine is the next one.
And again, what does that show? It shows the retaining walls adjacent to a circular driveway >> and again varying heights and stepped back similar to what we're proposing. >> Correct. >> And 34 Brandy went right across the
street. What does that show? >> Again, another stepped retaining wall um of varying heights with the uh safety fence across the top. >> Okay. And then the next one is 40 Northwood. So that's it's actually not
supporting 40 Northwoods. It's up against 40 Northwood. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's significant in height. If you were to estimate based on the height of the car, what would you guess that wall height is? About >> guess at the highest point, I would estimate that wall at about 10 ft. >> Okay.
And then the next sheet is uh similar treatment in the front 140. >> Correct. and then 40. And just for the board's understanding, Dave, that's all within the same block. It kind of brandy wine
extends to Northwood and then it framing hand goes around it. So it's >> North Woods again. >> It's all part of the same neighborhood. >> Yes, it is all part of the Wayside um development. >> Okay. And then lastly, 20 Framingham again is another wall with the fence on
top of it. And again, this isn't every wall in the neighborhood, but is this representative of, you know, what was employed in order to create livable space for these lots? >> Right. Because of the the the historic rolling topography of this area of the
town, these are the tools that were implemented to provide livable space for each of the lots. >> Okay. And based on the walls that we're proposing and the height of those walls, would they require structural engineering calculations to be submitted as part of building permits?
>> Uh that's a one of Mr. uh and Ben I keep forgetting his last name. >> Mattlac Ben's letter was that should the building department require uh structural calculations, they will be provided. My understanding that any retaining wall above 36 in requires it.
>> That it requires structural as well as a safety fence across the top. >> Okay. So, should the board approve this, we're going to obviously be bound to submit whatever engineering requirements are. And I think addressing Mr. Mayo there. Now, as it relates to drainage, what are you proposing in an effort to
mitigate any impact? Let me just start with we're under building coverage and lot coverage. Correct. >> Correct. So we don't need any variances for overbuilding the property. >> Correct. >> But notwithstanding that because of the change of grade and the walls, we want to make sure that we're not having a negative impact on the neighbors.
>> That's correct. >> So what are we doing to ensure that? Well, two things. With the net result of the removal of some of the impervious surfaces, even though there's a small addition by the combat owner, the net result of what we're proposing would be a reduction of the impervious surfaces
by about 107 ft >> overexisting. >> Over ex over existing nominal doesn't really you wouldn't notice it. But what we are proposing is that the retaining walls be uh installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications which
include that uh layer of gravel and porous material behind the wall that would intercept storm water, bring it down the wall and then into that pipe that runs along the foundations of the wall out to daylight
by the adjacent streets. Okay. And um I think I hit everything that he asked. Was there anything that I missed that you wanted to go address? >> Uh I I have one question. The uh the under drain pipes that go at the base of the walls. Uh can you show the outlet
locations on the plan? >> We can provide pop-up emitters at the right at the backs of the sidewalks. >> So the answer is yes. >> Thank you. Does the board have any questions for Dave
>> when the um right now the piping that you're talking about for draining the water that was never installed? >> We can't find it. We can't verify that it was. >> Okay. >> And with the removal of the walls, whatever may have been installed is going to be removed anyway. >> Just So I can get my bearings. I'm
looking at the combined wall fence type height study. That 15 duff field has kind of a curved what looks to be a curved fence. >> That's correct. >> That's that's the fence that's in this photo right here. >> Presumably. Yes.
>> Tell that that's curved. But is that is that the view? >> I believe that's correct. Yes. >> So that wall is directly >> behind us. Okay. Got it. Thank you. [Applause] Mr. Chair, any other questions for Dave from the board? >> Uh, I do. I'm looking for the picture.
Uh, so sorry. Lots of >> You want to tell me what it is? I'll probably be able to help you get there. >> What did my All right, here we go. Um, so the cabana, how tall is the cabana? Is the height part of the uh
>> I believe it's 10 feet. >> Yeah. No, the height complies. >> And then how close is it to the >> 8.7 ft? >> Uh five 5.5 to the fence. >> Oh. To the fence. >> Yeah.
>> To to our proposed fence or the neighbor's fence. >> Your proposed >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's 5. It It's 5.5 to the property line. >> Okay. >> Where again,
>> the only thing triggering the need for it to be further than that is just the roof over the kitchen. >> And you said you're willing you said you're willing to remove that roof if the board still requests. >> Well, no, we're not. Again, if the board denies the variance, we'll have no
choice but to remove the roof or move the structure. No, we're not willing to. That's why we're here fighting for the misunderstood what you said earlier. I apologize. >> No, I said if 31 square feet was removed, we'd be fully compliant. >> And the 31 ft that would be removed
would be towards the house and it would be in disicable to the neighbors. >> And that roof was built because the builder decided just to do what he wanted to do. So, I think what had happened was the the builder redesigned it and extended it and it just ended up
the roof was bigger by 31 square ft than it should have been. >> What I can tell you is >> there was a variant. I mean, there was an application put in to build the >> 100%. >> And but the builder just decided to make it his own. >> Well, again, the the builder
reconfigured quite a few things there. I when I looked at when I filed an Oprah request and got copies of everything, it just showed a 10 by 15 cabana. It didn't show a distinction between an open kitchen, a closed kitchen. All it did was show the roof.
>> Is this the original location of the cabana? The builder also >> No, it was um I have it. I can look. Give me one second. >> Well, it would have been 10 ft off the property. No, it wouldn't had to have been 10 feet >> because it was taller,
>> right? Because it was 150 square feet. It could be 5 feet off the property line. I don't remember if that's exactly where it was, but it could have been in this location. >> Okay. >> And it could have been it could have been 10 ft tall. >> Yeah. 10 feet is your limitation.
>> Where get caught up the same under the same reasoning. You have a retaining wall and then you have um a fence and you have the other retaining. You kind of add those up because you're creating correct. So you to me you're now throwing a 10-ft fence or a 10-ft
building there. It makes it that much more um problematic from a neighbor's point of view. Per >> perhaps >> but but again the portion that's up against the neighbor and the portion that they would see is going to look
identical whether it's 181 square ft or 150 square feet, right? And I would agree with you if the neighborhood wasn't developed in the way it was with the 10-ft wall behind us and all of the landscaping and then plus the landscaping. It's not visible. It's not
visible today and it certainly won't be visible after we put in the row of arborites or whatever other evergreens that we're proposing. So I have a question on the spa. ask that question on the spot. >> Sure. >> Um, so the setback is off for the spa
because the spa has moved into a different location, correct? >> I just have a question for the homeowner if that's okay. I like to ask a question. >> Yeah. Come back up. >> And doctor, you're still on the road.
>> Yes, sir. You mentioned that When he moved the spa, you really didn't say anything. Why didn't you just say stop? Stop. Stop working. That's not where I want the spa. That's not what it was approved. I want it where it's supposed to be. Why didn't you just stop him right there on the D? >> Because he convinced me that it was the
best idea to put the spa where it was located. >> And how did he convince you? >> He's a master manipulator. So he's just the I you know just the way he he he spoke about it, the way he sort of if you want to call him charmed his way
into uh making you know the uh the buyer agree to whatever it is that he was selling. Uh it just sounded appealing. Oh, the spa is going to be better on the back side of it. You'll have more room, you know, uh for the uh for for the sund deck in the front of the in the front of
the pool. But when he put it there, you didn't know that it wasn't 10 ft off the property line. >> No, I it's not my responsibility to to >> No, the question is not having you be responsible for where it should be. The question is the location of what you originally wanted and where it was, right?
>> I mean, you know, I've seen a lot of pools. I have a pool myself and I've never seen a spa be put in the lower deck level of a pool before. Usually, it's in the deeper end or on the opposite end, whatever. I mean, and I was just very curious because You know,
I I mean, as you're saying, he was convincing, but I would have said, "Stop. What are you doing? Stop everything. That's not what I want. That's not how I want it." >> You know what it is? I put my faith in the contractor and and I uh I thought he knew better. And uh you know, who am I?
I'm not a builder. I mean, he's built many homes, many structures. I mean, I'm sure you've heard of him, uh good or bad. Um, I basically trusted him in in into what he was guiding us and uh we agreed to it.
>> You said you moved into the home about uh October 2020? >> Yes. >> Um, and prior to moving to this home, have you ever done any construction work on any other homes that you've owned? >> Uh, well, we built a pool in our previous home in Eatontown. >> Okay.
>> And we did >> any issues when you built that pool? >> None whatsoever. It was it was done within I'm going to say within a matter of 60 days 60 to 90 days it was completed by a company called Pooltown. They got all the variances, the permits and everything. I don't think we needed a variance, but we got all the permits
and everything was approved. It was it was very satisfied with Pool Town >> 100%. >> Is that who you hired to originally do your pool now? Originally, we we spoke to them about it and then we decided against it because the only pools that they constructed were vinyl pools. Got
it. >> And so, we ended up going with a gunnite company. >> Uh we ended up switching it for a patient of mine with Aquitech pools. Uh seemed like a very standup kind of a guy. and um and and and we hired Mike Goard to do the the other part of it,
which was to take down uh trees or to grade the soil and and whatnot. Um and then it got to a point where Mike was uh convincing us that he couldn't work with uh this company and that uh we you know
fully trust him and let him take over the project completely because this way you have one person that controls everything rather than a few people. So basically you hired him originally to do site plan work and then he convinced you to do the whole job. >> Yes. >> Basically where it went >> pretty much. Yeah. Originally it was it
was for the for the uh basement renovation. Uh and then which he did an okay job but it wasn't until after the fact that we realized that there were issues with it. Um which we had to rectify. Uh but it it it was you know yes we hired him to do what you call the
site planning and then afterwards you know um convinced us to to go with him. Um, and in fact, the uh the subcontractor is here, uh, Mr. Tom Ross, uh, for the, uh, that built the actual pool. >> And he's the subcontractor that was
hired by Gohar. >> Yes. And he and he was actually the one that uh, repaired or actually, I should say, replaced all the paper stones and installed drainage around my property line uh, to fix the issue of our
basement flooding on a regular basis. uh from the lack of drainage and the way the the the stones or the the Everests were created. >> Got it. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Anybody have any questions?
I had one more. Mr. Pastor, when you you when you talked about what would have to get done to take away some of the pavers, um you said if you took away the the if you took it away near the um the cabana, you'd be left with just a strip of mud. >> Um would you actually only have to have
mud likeis? >> But could could you could could crush stone go there and and be compliant stepping stones lawn. We could bring lawn over there. You could be in lawn, but but if you don't want lawn because you would get wet and all that stuff. Are there other options?
>> I think Kate would consider that part of the walkway, whether it's crushed stone or whether it's concrete. I think any walkway there would be part of the patio. I don't believe that she would allow that. >> Okay. Stepping stones
>> with grass in between. Actually, I believe there is a photo um of that which shows the patio going to the corner of the cabana. Um and it doesn't have to go to the corner of the cabana. It just has to go to the edge of
the door. So, I don't need to put that three square feet in. >> Right. We So, in here, we could take the door. And I guess Mr. Fuller, we could remove that, make it a little a little bit less non-compliant. But, you know, part of the consideration
is, is there an impact to anybody by it staying there? And I think when it's all said and done, no one's going to know that's there except the people using the property. >> I understand. But, you know, when you cover overall just, you know, we start
there and we look at other places, could, you know, how how much of a dent could we get? Okay. >> Right. But I guess the question is how close it is to the property line, >> right? But because we are compliant with coverage, >> y >> you have to look at what is that what benefit does that get us? It's it
there's no no one's entertaining in that area and no neighbor is going to know it's there. >> I don't know who that is. All right. Any other questions? Questions from the public? >> Mr. Mayo, you're still under
>> just a couple of clarifying points. The um >> Are you asking questions or are you making clarifying points? >> I'm asking a question. >> Okay. >> After after this, you'll actually be able to make, you know, speak and and testify. Okay. >> Just so you know the difference. Okay. >> So, can you just confirm the
application? Um it shows 3 and 1/2 ft from the property line. Is that correct? >> Three and a half. >> Three point. Yeah. From what to what? >> The back of the If you look at the drawing, it shows the spa being 8 8.7 feet from the rear of the yard, except
on the application, I believe it's 3 and 1/2 ft. Is that correct? >> The the existing >> No, the fence is 3 and 1/2 ft into the property. 3 and 1/2 ft on this. If Can I have you come look at it? >> Yeah, >> it's bigger here. >> Yeah,
>> if I may. >> Yeah, that three and a half ft. the the 3 and 1/2t dimension is from the property line to the existing edge of the patio. The spa is 8.7 feet >> from the property line, >> right? And we're removing this. >> Okay. And I know you went quick and I
appreciate your expertise on this, but so the runoff is going to be fixed by the new retaining wall and the stone and >> because now when it rains there's muck and mud and all kinds of stuff that goes down the retaining wall, comes into the yard. I mean it's a mess. >> So as they're
it's going to be what we call an interlocking block wall. So basically concrete blocks stacked that notch into one another. Behind that will be a layer of stone gravel that the water will sleep seep down through. At the bottom
of that stone will be a pipe perforated pipe that the water will enter that pipe. It'll be piped out to the road >> away from your house. >> Yeah. away from the house toward the streets where Mr. Matlac had requested what's called a pop-up emitter. Sort of like a sprinkler head that when the
water fills up the pipe, it pops open the sprinkler head and flows out out into the road. >> Dave, that'll be on our front yard. >> It'll be in our front yard. >> Okay. And you and you mentioned there's going to be a third party engineering study on the wall. You built the wall or you designed the wall for the for Harvey. Yeah, usually the the block
companies have their structural engineering department basically do the structural design for submission to the building department. >> Okay. So the town verifies that that the walls integrity is good. >> Yeah, >> because it's it's a to me it's a safety concern because you got a 10ft wall and
you got a pool that's 8 ft from it. I mean it's and our house is right there. >> Just to correct, we don't have a 10ft wall. None of the >> We We do. >> Oh, you're 10 foot. I got it. the the town has uh the town's building
department reviews retain walls and and they'll make the determination whether a structural design is necessary >> and you mentioned that the um the trees in between and do you have any renditions of what that looks like? Do >> you have what the design is of the
landscaping? Well, there there are a couple of >> because now you see two walls and then you see a big fence and I mean there's trees there, but >> so what are you putting in there? >> So if you look up, David, I think you could see this one easier. So the trees are going to be on the on the top here.
So there's going to be a fence and then the trees. So you won't right now you see a solid Well, you won't I don't know that you see it from over here, but this neighbor would see now the solid wall. Instead, it's now gonna be a black fence and all they're going to see are the trees through it. >> And are the trees going all the way across? >> All the way all the way across and all
the way down here and all the way here. So, you're gonna have the added buffer of all of these trees on top. >> So, the trees will be on the other side of the of the fence. >> It'll be Yes. >> Okay. >> That way they can be maintained. >> And and the other the other thing, um, we had some trees that were trimmed back
there and some of the the tree integrity back there were trimmed on one side. So, we had a tree person come over. There's a concern of when it snows, we don't want those trees to come off the retaining wall. So, um I don't know if there's anything we could do in the town to at least look at them and make sure
that they're structurally okay. >> I don't know how much more digging you're doing. Right. But we have two feet >> on your property. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> The the I guess the wall on the Mayo's property is not shown on the plan. Do you have that surveyed or can that be
shown on >> I actually have the survey? >> I haven't. >> We can incorporate it on our plans. >> Yeah, I have it too. >> Is that the dotted line on the combined wall and fence? >> Our property line's two feet from our
our wall our fence. >> Is it curved? >> So, Mr. Mayo, is can I ask you to look >> is is your fence right on top of your wall? That's your fence right here. So, is your is your is it right on top of it?
Is it behind it? >> No, it's not on top of the wall. It's about two feet. >> Oh, here's your property. >> Okay. So, >> about four feet. >> His wall is about 4 feet in from the property line. >> No, I'm 4 feet off the top of the wall. The wall is about 6 feet off the
property line. So, his fence is about two feet off the property line. Yeah. >> His wall is about six feet off the property line. >> Yeah. From the property line to the fence is about two feet. >> That's correct. Yeah. Now I'm assuming just and I was there today just based on what I saw. I didn't come on your property so I couldn't tell. I'm
assuming you have some landscaping up on top of the wall. Is that what you're talking about? >> Yes. We have 30 foot arrivites up there. >> Okay. >> That were trimmed on one side. The the uh you know the concern is if it snows I mean you got those trees are big. They're 30 feet big. Do they tip? Do they you know how do we
>> make sure that they're the integrity of those trees are still there? They were trimmed >> right on our side. Well, they're they're the trees are, you know, on our property, >> right? But I just if your tree branches extend over onto a neighbor's property, we're allowed to trim to the property line by law. So, I'm asking you, did you
trim it or was it trimmed on our side of the property? >> You t Your client trimmed it. Okay. Up to over 12 ft. >> Okay. Up to the property line, where they're you're not suggesting they came on your property and trimmed. >> Uh, I'd have to check that. I mean, there pictures we could show. I mean, they're they're
>> they're beat up. Some of those trees are beat up pretty bad from the trimming. >> Again, I I'd submit that the trimming that was done on our property up to the property line isn't really part of what this board considers. That would be a >> issue between the two private property owners. And the health of your tree
really has nothing to do with the variances that we're seeking. Um >> well, it does because you're talking about coverage and the neighbors and putting up the tree so that it's more aesthetically pleasing. I do think about >> but respectfully we're not touching your property. So we're not touching your
trees is what I'm saying. >> I think we could beg the trees are on our property. They were trimmed on their property overhang. What's the >> No, no. I mean I agree with Mr. Primco. >> Your trees are your trees. >> Yeah. >> All right. And if the trees extend over
into their property, they can trim those off >> up to how many feet? >> It's not It's not a feed issue. if they're if they are up to their property line. >> If they're in the air space over our property, we could trim up to 30 ft. >> And if the trees get damaged, then it's still might it's it's on us.
>> What's the risk you take in putting trees that close to the property? >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> Are the trees located between your fence and your wall? >> They are. Uh yes. No, they're they're the fence,
>> the trees, and then the containing wall. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So your trees are planted about two feet between two to four feet off your property line. So if they're if they're arborites, especially if they're green giants, they're going to >> about four feet. >> Yeah. They're going to extend right over. >> Okay, that's all. And then just the last
question is what's the due diligence for the new contractor because it sounds like we heard the first 20 minutes that there's issues and contractor. How do we make sure that we get the because it took years to do this dust and trucks and all kinds of stuff. Years. >> Understood. And again, Um,
that's that's not part of that's not part of what the board does. But now they have an attorney who's litigating against a contractor and another attorney who's managing it. We're going to review all the contracts and make sure it's all done in a timely manner that they're licensed. Had they come to me first, I might have advised against
that contractor. I didn't get an option at that point. >> Yeah. So, so, so >> about you understand? Hold on a second. So that you understand it's you can't talk because only your father can talk. >> Can I swear? So I can speak >> if Yes, you can. Okay. But you can't
talk right now because this is a there's a record being created. >> I understand. Yes. >> And we can't just have people just talking from the audience that are unidentified. We don't know who you are because on the transcript it will say unidentified male speaks from the crowd. All right? And and we don't want that. >> And just so the board understands, I
wasn't presuming anything. Mr. Mayo senior asked me what would we do to ensure it and that would be presuming that we get an approval and we're reconstructing the wall. So I was answering his question directly not making any assumption.
>> All right. Can can you please don't do it again. Okay. >> Thank you. >> I mean it's not a joke. It's serious. Okay. Thanks. >> I just have a question on the uh on the the piping that's going to be installed for the water. How deep does that go?
>> It'll be at the base of each wall. >> Okay. >> So, if it's a four foot high wall, the pipe is going to be four feet down. >> Right. And and there was mention of some of these walls are 10 foot. Does that mean that you would dig 10 feet to go? >> No, it's a combined height. The 10 feet
is a combined height of two walls and a fence. The first wall being 4 foot high, then tiered back a two foot high wall. >> Understood. And then four high. >> Mr. As normal, the only 10ft wall is on Mr. Mayo's property. We're not proposing a 10ft wall.
>> Any more questions? Any more questions from the public? Absolutely. Mr. Mayo, what's your first name? >> Uh, hello. My name is Daniel Mayo. I >> So, Mr. Mayo, will you swear that any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the true self you got? >> Yes. >> All right. And you said you're Daniel? >> Yes. Daniel Mayo. >> And I assume it's the same address. >> Yes. >> Okay. 15 Dfield. >> Yes. So, I have a question regarding the uh for the engineer, you said that you did the same study at 15 Dfield Drive in
2002. Correct. We prepared the plot plan survey and plot plans for $15. >> Okay. Did Did you have you said and you also mentioned you had some oversight over the construction of the 10ft wall in our property? You did not. >> Okay. >> And you didn't have any part of the design of that wall either.
>> No, we did not do the structural design of that retaining wall. >> Okay. So, in your expert opinion, do you like based on what you reviewed in 2002, did you guys plan on any additional weight being put on that wall and anything structurally that might ah
hinge or anything of that nature? >> Again, I we didn't do the structural design of the wall, so we wouldn't have >> And is anything we're proposing putting weight on their wall? >> We're building on our property, correct? I mean there there are structural issues
but that's what >> they'll look at with our wall when we give our structural design >> the manufacturer of the our wall will be looking at those issues when they design our wall >> correct but there would be extra weight on our retaining >> that's for them to
>> Okay that's all my questions >> I'm sorry Mr. You live at the property? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Any more questions for the public? >> Okay. >> All I have subject to public comment. >> Okay.
>> Jim, have we missed anything? Have >> I I didn't do this earlier, but let me just swear you both in. You do have objectives. Uh do you swear that any testimony that the two of you might give or may have given at the beginning from the beginning of this uh application will be the truth the whole truth about the truth I've got
>> I don't thank you very much. >> Yeah I I have a couple things uh as far as the walls go. I defer to Ben because I think it's really engineering issues. Aesthetically I think they're going to be screened from surrounding property.
So I don't think it's a it's a major problem. I have one question for Dave and that is with regard to saving that 30inch oak. It looks to me like you're not giving the root system enough room with those
walls. Can those can that semicircle be made a little bit bigger to give the root system a little bit more protection? >> We we can adjust the wall. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because I that that would be a concern of mine. So, if the board were to vote favorably, we would >> submit that subject to Jim Zia.
>> And then the only other issue that I would like to talk to the board about is the six-foot hedge in the front yard that will be behind the fence. The fence is is permitted. The 4ft high estate fence is permitted in the front yard.
The ordinance limits the height of a hedge to four feet. So that would be a variance to have the sixft high hedge right behind the fence. Uh in the past the board has required situations like this corner lot give
some relief but require that the fence be set back a distance from the front property line and the hedge be put behind the fence and allowed to be six feet. Um, the only thing I would like to say about that is that we're going to be
reviewing redoing the entire ordinance within the next year. One of the things I do would like to see council reconsider actually look at is the height of fence, the height of hedges in a front yard, whether that should be
revisited, whether it should be relaxed or not. So I would suggest to the applicant that that they or to the board that one of two things. Either the applicant move the fence back to the 10 ft that the current fence is and put the
hedge six foot hedge high hedge behind the fence or install it as they're proposing but keep the hedge at 4 feet and gamble that the ordinance may be that may be relaxed a little bit and the
council may permit a sixft height hedge in the front yard And >> well, what about if we left the fence there because the fence is permitted, but set the hedge back from the fence? >> You could, but then you've got a real maintenance problem between the solid
hedge and the fence. >> Your expert didn't like that. >> Okay. So, again, I think the privacy is going to be more important than those 10 feet. So, should the board decide to vote favorably, we would set it back 10 feet
and have the sixoot hedge behind it. That's not here as a variance. >> It is in my notice. >> It's It's still a variance, but it's it's typically on the corner lots there there should be some sort of relaxation because you're you're losing you have
two front yards and set everything back 30 feet or whatever you whatever this zone requires. I think it's even more than 30 feet. Uh is I think that's a little bit ownorous. But that again that's that's the board's decision. >> But I think it is common in this
neighborhood to have the corner lots even >> as the fence back. >> Yes. >> Like you're saying >> the picture you showed us that's how they did it. >> Mr. Matlac. Um, so regarding the retaining walls, uh, the the review, the structural review of the retaining walls
is done by the building department. Um, I don't know if this was touched upon, uh, previously, but the relocation of the retaining walls uh, closer to the property line results in basically back filling uh, in between where the
existing wall is to where the new wall is. So that does result in changing the grade by more than two feet, which I don't really have an issue with. Uh it's it's essentially it's the the same um wall. Uh the the height of the wall uh
the elevation of the wall is not really uh changing significantly. So uh whether the the wall is is five feet from the property line or right up to the property line, um that's that's not really uh that big of an issue. uh other
than the variance that they're requesting for the combined height of the wall and fence, >> right? It doesn't change. And I just not to correct you, but I do believe that the structural engineering review actually goes to Hopkins's office. It is not done by the building department.
It's done by the township engineer. >> Would they have the wherewithal to review the neighbors walls and the impact on their retaining walls? Certainly, since it sounds like the neighbors got a variance for it and they have all that information, if the board were to vote favorably, it could include
as a condition of approval that when reviewing our wall, it be taken into consideration with the neighbors wall since you have all those structural calculations already. And then that way they would be sure to know if we needed to do anything to enhance our wall accordingly. >> Okay. I think Mr. Mr. Mayo, that's
something you should try and stay on top of that the town properly reviews because I I think you bring up a good point and Mr. Matt just sort of re reiterated it that with the work that's occurring adjacent to your property, there will be added weight that those walls will have to be back filled and
that's additional pressure on a wall that was built. I don't know. I don't want to say the years. Somebody said they walked the site before it was built. I might insult. >> No, it was around it was around 2002. >> Okay. So, a while ago. >> But Mr. Just one thing just to point out a two things. If we removed the walls,
we would have >> dirt up against his wall, which would be putting more pressure. By putting our own wall there, we're holding back our dirt and we're not putting the pressure on his wall. Remember, his wall is six feet off the property line. So, if we
have an intervening wall six feet from his wall, that's holding back our property and our wall is taking the weight of it, not his. So again, I'm not suggesting we don't have the engineer review both and make sure, but having
our own retaining wall will actually bear the weight of our property and not put it on his property. >> I think to a degree, yes, I'm not a engineer. Mr. Mr. Matlack is going to throw a shoe at me if I try to pretend to be an engineer, but there is a
certain amount of the bearing load of the soil of the wall that goes down and then it starts to go >> laterally. So that has to be >> and I agree with Mr. Mayo's off thereord comment that the digging could have an impact. That is something that for example they construct foundations in
Ocean Grove. They have twoft setbacks in Ocean Grove. So it's basementto basement. So there are requirements under the building code when you're in a certain proximity for any kind of excavation to protect the adjacent neighbor. That is what the building department would ensure. >> I think it's just that this the 10ft
wall is on your property. So really, it is your problem regardless of what they're doing next door. That's just the way I think it's just it's on you. So, it's it's your due diligence to make sure that someone's looking at >> my business card and >> and you can email me or call me and I
can keep you in the loop of everything that's happening should they >> and and the that's part of the reason why I requested that the um the mayo's retaining wall be shown on on this plan so that when the township engineer is
reviewing it, they can see that there is a wall there because what we see on the plan right now doesn't show the whole picture. And we'll make sure to put top of wall elevation and bottom of wall elevation so he's abundantly clear how high that wall is. >> Everything that everything you need so that he says, "Oh, I got to look at
this." >> I mean, I'll call Greg myself and let him know. >> Okay. And Mr. Mayor, just to be sure that we we can have our surveyor enter your property to give precise measurements of your wall in the same datim as
>> we can't show it on our plan unless we can survey your property, I think, is what you're saying, Dave. asking for permission to enter his property to survey it appropriately. >> Yeah. What would that be? >> Um why don't you Yeah. Exchange numbers and you guys can deal with that after the fact if the board grants the
application. >> Bennett, was that everything? >> Uh yes. I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's it. >> So now we have uh the opportunity for public comment. We're having an open dialogue. >> Would anybody like to come? Okay. So, come on up. Please grab the microphone.
>> Mr. Daniel Mayo, you are still under oath. >> Yes. >> So, can I sit here? >> Sure. That's fine. >> You'd like to? Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um, just based on some of my own research
that it's not a public benefit. It's more of a personal luxury and it does not satisfy C-2. Under C-2, the project must advance the purposes of zoning and the public benefits must substantive inially outweigh the detriments. Uh, a private spa, a waterfall, a roof cabana
does not promote health, safety, and general warfare for the neighborhood. And then obviously like they said doing you know months and years more of demolition and fixing all these problems is not going to help the neighborhood. Again I understand these problems with the variances but again there's going to
be you know 18 wheelers and trucks and people >> Mr. May let me just stop you. The construction aspect of it isn't something for this board. >> Okay >> because whenever there's building of a house or there's there's any sort of thing there's going to be construction. It's going to annoy everybody around it.
That's inevitable. So this board doesn't take that type of thing into consideration. The earlier part of your statement was relevant, but but talking about demolition and construction and disturbance, that's not relevant. Okay. >> Um, as far as like the storm water and
draining and absent fruits, like as far as that stuff, the applicant I think should present substantial amount of evidence that draining will not impact our evidence in streetold. And let's say, for example, that the system fails and it does flood our yard. what would be the repercussions of that and dealing
with the damages addressing there >> and I think uh Betty you had said you want to deal with that >> so if if there are issues uh after construction that's when you would call uh code enforcement um and and the township either code enforcement
official or the township engineer might come and and take a look at it and see what if there's an issue. >> Okay. I mean, right now, storm water, assuming the board approves the application, you already heard, uh, he's going to review everything ahead of time to make sure everything's flowing not to
your property, but to the to Framingham, if I heard correctly, Frammingham. >> No, no, Brandy one. >> Oh, Brandy one. Okay. Both. Both. Both. Both. That's okay. Okay. And then as far as like the communive intensification of
undermining the plan, the proposal is stacking multiple different variances between I know the drain system is now draining into the front of into the street. So it's going against all the fences and then also to it's stacking the height of the cabana which you addressed for 25 minutes about how they
have to fix that as well. the tall hedges which is between four and six feet and then the gray manipulation that combined with all the impacts and the like pretty much approving of that such Patrick would basically rewrite the whole ordinance in that sense correct where they would have to get like
>> this is a comment not a question >> yeah but that's the truth you'd have to rewrite the whole ordinance and get it approved >> so Mr. They're submitting the application. The application is what it is. I mean, they don't have to rewrite an ordinance. They're asking for a variance. >> Okay. That's pretty much everything I
have to say for my public comment. >> But if my only question to you, Mr. Mayo, is so so are you opposing the entire application? >> I'm proposing >> or opposing. Are you are you objecting to the entire application? >> I'm objecting.
>> Yeah. >> So, >> well, I I asked him. Okay. >> He's one under oath right now. I mean you you can speak secondly. I'm just curious. Are you objecting to the entire application? >> I am objecting to the overvariance and the complexity of the situation that's going to result in the negative impact
on my welfare and the welfare of my family and I and the rest of the neighbors. >> And what what is the negative impact that's that's occur that this if this application is granted? >> The walls, the hedges, the drainage system, the complexity of all that man. In what way? Because that that's what
I'm not understanding. I mean that the the drainage that I'm not saying there isn't a negative impact. I'm just trying to understand >> and also the weight on the wall which >> well what is the negative impact upon you? >> Yeah. So the negative >> what is >> the negative impact would be the extra weight on the wall which is already 20
years old. So let's say if something were to happen for that due to the extra var. >> So that's so that's an engineering question which the engineers are going to make sure that that gets done correctly. >> Okay. >> So so that shouldn't be a concern. It's not really a zoning issue. That's really an engineering question. So,
>> well, it is a zoning issue because if it was zoned in a different way, then the extra weight wouldn't be on the wall. Correct. >> Not correct. if we spaced. So, I'll let him finish, but and and again, I'm not going to spend a lot of time cross-examining him as a lay person, but
I disagree with just about everything that he said, and I'll explain why in my closing, but but it's not correct, and the variances aren't necessarily what's driving that because the 4ft wall we're putting at the property line is a permitted height. We can put that 4ft wall whether we come here or not. The
variance is because we have walls behind it or fences on top of it which add no weight at all. So again the 10 when they got their variance for the 10- foot wall that was the weight of dirt behind a 10-ft wall. A 4ft tall wall is permitted
without a variance. So the wall on the property line that's up against their 10ft wall is not creating the need for a variance. >> And and again I I agree with that statement. >> Okay. So, so again I'm just trying to understand putting the wall behind because that's not creating a variance as we just said.
>> Okay. >> What is the negative impact? The drainage is going to be directed away from the property. So the drainage isn't an issue. >> Okay. >> The wall's going to be structurally engineered correctly which is which is beyond this board's expertise and but as you heard it's going to be done and it's
not a varian. So what is the negative impact of this application? That's what I'm trying to understand. >> So can I answer that? No, no. >> Okay. Then I plead you. You can speak for yourself. I >> I plead the fifth amendment. Then >> you what? >> I plead the fifth amendment where I >> That doesn't apply to
>> It doesn't apply. It's okay. Yeah. Yeah. You're not You're not under criminal indictment here. You've made >> You count offer testimony. I have the right to cross exam. And Mark's asking all the questions that I would have asked. So that's why I'm sitting here quietly. >> Yeah. I I mean, because I I just don't
understand. And again, I'm not advocating for the applicant or or against the applicant, but you've but you've stood up and you've said that there's a negative impact and and I'm just trying to understand for the record what is the negative impact because I'm not hearing it. >> Yeah.
The negative impact in my opinion would be an added burden to the neighbors and myself. Like I said, with the constant new revelations of the fence, the trimmings, and much more variances and stuff that has to get added. >> So, construction is what you're
suggesting is a negative impact. >> I'm answering his question. >> Well, I get >> Yeah. But is that what you said? The construction? >> I'm think I think is that the answer? Is that his construction? >> Well, I think >> Yeah, sir. Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. You
stay here for one second because she does have the opportunity to ask you questions as well. statement you were reading seemed to indicate a lot of your issues were with the construction, but as Mr. Lexine said, >> that's not an issue for us to decide. >> Okay. >> And I understand how that is your
concern and that's really what I'm hearing you say. >> Okay. >> That's what I'm hearing him say also. It's all about construction >> and and potentially the engineering of the wall, which we talked about. And that is similarly not really for us. That's something that the the town is gonna have to okay >> deal with from an engineering
perspective. >> It's not a zoning issue per Miss Crimco. That wall >> could be located a few feet in a different direction and it wouldn't even be in front of us. Okay. >> No, no. We could put the wall in question. We could put in without coming to this board. The reason why we're
coming this board is because we need to put a fence on top of it. If we set the fence 10 ft back, we it's not an issue. >> It is purely an engineering issue. And that's I think that's why we suggested >> okay and when we get faced with questions about engineering which we can't really speak on and we can't make
a call on that's why we have our professionals and we put things into um approvals to make sure that all that work will still happen and all that work is contingent the approval is contingent on that those types of things being analyzed
>> and and happening. Okay. The same way the same way we could say um you know we don't want the the wall to be too close to a tree and we could say so after the fact you have to make sure before you do this that you're going to get his approval that the wall is far enough
from in the away from a tree to to make sense. Okay. And so we're able to kind of delegate that responsibility. >> So So Miss Krimo has the opportunity to ask you a couple more questions if she wants to. She doesn't have to. Now my only question is do you want to go to law school because you did a really good job researching all the municipal land
and use law and I think you do a great job. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Just just one one other comment to make. >> Give me a resume when you're ready. >> Is is that the applicant could actually put a sixft wall on the property line.
Okay. Instead of having a 4ft wall and then a two-ft wall back from there with the fence on top, she they could put a six foot wall in the property line, put the fence 10 ft back from that wall and not have a variance. Okay. >> And that would have a lot more impact on
your property than what they're proposing. >> Okay. and and I can just to nip this in the bud. Um can would the applicant agree even though I think it'd probably be done anyway, but can we agree as a condition of approval that the engineer township engineer will review the retaining? >> Yeah, yes,
>> I think it was going to happen anyway, but we'll put it right in the resolution. >> But you're sitting right next to Colleen. Trust me, it's not going anywhere. When Miss Krimco offered your dad her card so he could check in with her and be and be apprised of what is happening during the process, she meant
it. >> Okay. >> So you you will be informed. >> Okay. >> And I also meant if you want to >> where there are no young land use attorneys. Zero. >> Well, he's going to need an associate.
>> Okay. Do we have more comments from the public? >> That is awesome. >> Mr. if you wanted to talk. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Very briefly, and I think that the professional said it. We had a situation with an unusual topography. A builder
went rogue. My clients learned their lesson. We're just trying to now fix it. As it relates to the impacts, we're doing everything we can to mitigate them. And as it relates to the purposes of zoning and the public benefit, we're taking an unsafe condition that's there
now where there's runoff into the neighbors yards and we're proposing to fix it with a fully engineered wall with added drainage and adding the buffer. As it relates to the dimminimous difference with regard to the setbacks, we're
talking about less than two feet on top of a 10-ft wall with 30 foot trees in between us. So, as it relates to the negative impact, well, I understand that construction is a pain in the neck. The variances we're seeking are really only going to bring a benefit here to everybody, and there really is not a
negative impact. Uh, we will agree if the board votes in favor to move the fence on Framingham, keep it at the 10-ft setback, and put the sixoot hedge behind it. We'll widen the well so uh Jim is comfortable that that existing
tree will survive. And we would certainly agree that any uh structural engineering for the wall would have to be reviewed by Mr. uh by the by the township of engineer and subject to the mayor's giving Dave permission to go on
their property. We'll survey their wall, make sure it's on the plan and make sure that uh Greg knows about it. >> And the deed restriction to maintain the landscaping. >> Oh, the Yeah, I'm sorry. And the deed restriction to always maintain the landscaping. A minimum of six feet along
the back. We miss anything. >> Are there any any other conditions? >> If there were, we'll capture them, but those were like the main ones. >> Yeah. The fence on top of the wall is going to be the estate type fence, not solid yet. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Should have closed the public hearing before uh you made your statement, right? >> Anybody want to make a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion. >> Public hearing. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay.
Would anyone like to make a motion for a positive resolution with all the restrictions that we spoke about? >> I will make a motion for positive resolution with all the restrictions. >> You have a second. >> Second.
>> Mr. Ashkenazi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Doma. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman. >> Yes. Chairman Fer. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. And trust me, we're going to fully vet the contractor the next time around.
>> I feel badly for the contractor. >> Jen's honor now. >> All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion to adjurnn. All >> in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Have a good night, everyone.