tough tough tough get the I get the all clear and then Yeah all right in compliance with the open meeting public law open public meetings law sorry about that notification of this meeting has been sent to our official newspapers and other
publications circulated in the burrow of Altapan and notice has been posted on the Bolton board at Burough Hall please note all meetings are videotaped and posted on the website fire exits are located at the main entrance to the council chambers and in the rear of the council chambers everybody please stand
to salute the flag i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all mr majio here mr mari
Mr te here Mr allessie here Mr jung here Councilman Marte Councilman Voce Ludith here Mr scava here Mr bedine here Mr xarian here Mr kramer here Mr
deli okay we'd like to open the meeting to the public for any opportunity to speak about non-aggenda items anybody have a motion motion motion second all in favor i okay does anybody have anything to discuss with the board that is unrelated to what's on the agenda
tonight seeing none motion to close second all in favor i okay environmental commission report oh yes uh we have a meeting next week but we'll be gearing up for some of our normal annual activities um coming
up would be the uh Arbor Day tree sapling giveaway to the third graders at TBD and then the hooked on fishing contest to follow in June uh and the photo contest which will run I think from May until June so uh just the
normal activities but we meet next uh next Tuesday and that's when you finalize everything nice anything else that is all for tonight all right nice and short council liaison report do we have any council liaison i don't
see any not here all right seeing none construction official report is attached anybody have any questions okay uh borrow engineer report mrs scrabble no new no new report Mr chairman
holy financial secretary report we have $500 out of budget and $10,775 out of escrow for a total of $11,275.50 anybody make a motion regarding approving that much we approve
second anybody there you go all in favor i Okay uh meeting minutes none this none all right we're going to catch up on that any new business does anybody have any new business they want to bring up any old
business uh Mr zbo any update on the re-exam for the for the Yes i spent uh the last two weeks we're going into settlement sessions with fair share and the builders association uh with respect to the housing numbers for any
municipality that took a reduction which ultimately is one of them so I've been tied up doing that so I've got to clean up the report but I'm trying to set up something for the end of the month with the committee that doesn't work uh we'll work something out so I can meet with you and finalize the plan okay and
timing is we we we have time we have time yeah we're not We didn't have that deadline that we had you're a year ahead of schedule yeah that's what I'm saying but we need to get it done because it's going to be part of the housing you know June 30th is the deadline is the deadline for adopting the housing element that's got to be available in
May right and you know I plan on probably getting everything adopted that in in at a regular meeting so we don't have to have a special in May and then we send it off to the uh the housing element and fair share plan gets sent over to the council and they have to endorse the the fair share part of the
plan okay very good thank you so we'll look at something probably in probably in April yeah maybe sooner because it's it's almost done okay sounds good any communications communication all right
resolutions to approve we have 70 Orangeburg Road um we we should have all received that this was for a approval more memorializes approval of last month granting minor subdivision approval on Baron Field 8 block 106 lot 870 on F
road and were there any um conditions that we should have well there's the numerous conditions that uh are pretty much standard and in uh subdivision approvals that the plan has to be adhered to that
was marked into evidence that the county since it's a County Road the county will need to approve sight distances and the location of the proposed driveway on the new lot there are some conditions pertaining to the the catch basin and seepage pits uh there's a requirement to
uh comply with the requirements of the burough engineer requirement of a develop uh signing a developers agreement perfecting minor subdivision approval within 190 days and a number of other standard conditions that are common okay cool thank you anybody have
to make a motion or anybody making a motion make a motion roll call jen do you know who the eligible voters are who seconded the motion pick oh
Mr mio yes mr ke yes mr allessie yes mr jones yes mudith yes mr vin yes mr aarian yes seven
okay get rid of this right now yeah okay next up we have an application for CH at 48 Old Pan Road don't go too far though Mr chairman it's my understanding that the notices are in
order and that there had been an issue about the form of the notice at the LA at at the last meeting which I'm happy to report will resolve by council for the applicant and council for the objective very good board has jurisdiction to proceed
all right good evening Mr chairman members of the board uh I'm Tim Dunn from the firm of Dun and Brown and Riverale representing Mr cho this
evening on an application for a two lot subdivision uh the lot's uh a unique lot in the 40 foot 48 road uh and the lot currently is approximately 75,000 square ft looking
for two lots one of which would be in excess of 40,000 square ft requirement for that zone district and one for less than that about 25,000 square ft the uh the light is 75 ft by almost
1,000 ft deep and so it's um unique in uh in lots in the brool pan and unique in the uh in the sense that we need
variances in order to develop it in any event there's a single house on the lot that's at 48 Ultra Pan Road and we'll lay out our subdivision plat showing uh before the balance of our application
the um we're aware that there's been commentary we have opposing council I believe in of this case appeared last time objected to our notice and uh our concern is look we
heard the commentary that this is and even in the engineers report Mr scrabble's report talks about this being unprecedented and I need to say at the outset that
unprecedented is not a zoning criteria we have statutes and we have variances that are designed to address the unprecedented condition that renders it difficult or impossible to develop a site
this site is 75,000 square ft right now well above the required minimum a resulting lot that we propose will be 40,000 square ft in two lots we submit that it's going to be consistent with the
neighborhood that it's a a lot that uh can bear a decent size home there will be a credit to neighborhood and they can be developed without undue impact upon the zone plan and the zoning ordinance we have
um two basics that we're proceeding on here uh for for the variance one will be a hardship variance by virtue of the fact that this slot's shape and dimension and conditions on the
site render it uh impossible to develop in accordance with the zoning ordinance and a benefits versus detriments uh request the C2 variance referred to it in that the benefits of this
development will substantially outweigh any detriment so with that just preliminary statement I'd like to uh proceed we'll call our engineer just to introduce our site and uh show the board what graphically what it is we're
proceeding with sure that that's fine mr dunn how many witnesses are you going to have tonight uh I have uh two potentially three witnesses and Mr cho so So two professionals and then the uh Yeah and then the owner okay at this
time okay just asking because we're going to have a closed door session at the end and we need time there is a curfew one can I ask uh gentlemen what is your normal u uh uh procedure here do you close at a particular time or just We like to finish up by 10:30 or 11:00
but we have this closed door session that's going to go on for a couple of hours litigation yeah so for you for you folks tonight then that would mean ending around 8:30 9:30 8:30 8:30 yeah so that give you about an hour and 15 minutes okay we'll
get it underway and try yeah that's why I'm asking you to get it okay Mr john McN our engineer You swear I think I should swear Mr scrabble and Mr zabel on too gentlemen
you swear our friend that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding shall be true i do i do sir would you give us your full name and spell your last name please sure sean Mlen last name spelled MCC C L E L L A you're a licensed professional engineer is that correct i
am yes and Mr mlullen has been qualified in that field before other boards I represent i think he's been here as well yes okay i recommend he be deemed so qualified and let the record also reflect the burough engineer scrabble and burough planner Zel have also been sworn thank you thank you before uh
beginning your testimony and Mr dunn you want to have any exhibits marked so we don't interrupt Mr mone uh I'd like to mark our site plan under board if we can Mr chairman as uh A1 applicants A1 and what are we calling this the subdivision plan subdivision
plan for me market Mr chairman yeah just give us the date is there a revi revision date on there april 27th 1920 uh 2023 that's the revision date or the actual date this was an original plaque i think it's 42723
yeah okay [Music] okay I'm going to just ask Mr mlullen to describe generally uh the site and the uh procedure with regard to the preparation of the subdivision plan that we're presenting here
all right so the um the plan is titled uh two lot subdivision for for John Cho it's uh April 27th 2023 and um it's 48 Old Tap Pan Road uh and as Mr dunn stated it's in the uh
RA40 residential zone uh the lot is unique in the fact that it's um 71,000 ft but it's only 75 ft wide so it's 75 by 950 so it's very very long
and narrow it fronts on Ulta Pen Road also on inkeeper and um Avenue B um as it said 75 ft in uh lot width where uh 150 is required so we have
about half of the lot width but about almost four times the lot depth um fronting Ulta Pan Road is a a single family home um as you see here the uh the home is in red i'll just kind of trace it here it's it's long and
narrow um because that's you know the lot's long and narrow uh what we're proposing to do is to um subdivide the lot into two pieces um the lot on Altapan Road is uh property line here is this red line
which we're going to have it about 37 ft deep so this lot would be 75x 337 with a lot area of 25,240 and the proposed lot which I have is uh proposed lot 102 will be
46,67 ft um you see it's uh we set the house to the left of inkeeper road so this h this um this new lot on Inkeeper Road and also on Avenue B um the variances it would be the lot width
because we only have the 75 throughout the entire lot and we'll also need some additional bulk var variances for the um the dwelling because we won't have much of a building envelope because the house is so or the uh lot is so uh narrow
sorry uh the length of the second lot which is in excess of 40,000 square ft is that correct yes area is 46,000 square feet and the depth or the length of it if you're looking from left to right is over 600 feet yeah and I I see
the total I think it's the total length indicates on one side 985t on the other side by 983 or 9 the 900 is from Altapan Road to Avenue B the full existing depth of the lot as it
exists now correct yep okay so it's almost 1,000 square ft and taking this lot 1.0 102 made it the larger of the two lots in your subdivision because only one of them can conform in any event is there
what is the basis for establishing this lot line where you have located it we wanted to have um the house off of inkeeper this way we so we we we established that line based
on that based on getting enough area for this lot where it wouldn't bring anything into non-conformance even though we're proposing 25,000 square ft we still conform um with the the coverages and the F um and also we want to keep there's
wetlands on the property um on the north end and we wanted to stay as far away as the wetlands from the wetlands as possible and when you're going through the wetlands you've got them marked out on this lot they were they were marked out by an environmental company um it's referenced here um by PAX survey and
environmental that was done as recently as uh May of 20120 and that marks the wetland period in and you've plotted it in such a way on this slide that there's to be no development
in this correct the the wetlands line is um right here the 50ft buffer is here and we're probably a couple hundred feet from there i'll just get an estimate the the house the way we show
it is about uh 240 ft from the wetlands buffer all right is there a reason for locating it that far away from the wetlands which exceeds any required buffer as I mentioned we want to we want to stay we want to come in off in inkeeper and come towards the the left so we want
to set the h house this way to um to to stay um south of inkeeper all right Mr mclo looking at this site we're looking at a lot here 75 ft by almost
1,000 T in depth and the unique feature besides its uh size and dimensions is that it's located on three streets uh inkeeper a unimproved street of the bow and the plan that correct yes and
and how did that uh work into your plan place to locate this house well just like like I said we wanted to come off inkeeper and go in a direction farthest away from the wetlands um and also establish a lot line where we'd
have enough area on the existing well proposed lot 101 where the existing house is that we wouldn't need any coverage variances for that type that house all right so there's three um have you made any determination yourself and we have our plan of course that testify
with regard to this but have you made any determination yourself in regard to the issues that pertain to the grant of variances in this case hardship lack of detriment to his own plan significant benefits and so on just in the narrows
of the lot yeah all right and the uh three lots or three the streets that were on here one question was raised by the uh boro engineer was the determination of a street line and
you've drawn this in so the street line is the street line as shown uh for inkeeper road in this space is that correct yes i I kind of did a a 50 foot arc off of inkeeper road so the front my front edge I have it kind of like dashed
pink line like this here and then also you have the the front set back off of Avenue B all right so you've drawn your uh variances or uh located them indicated them on your zoning plan uh with the understanding that the street
line on inkeeper as is located on on the basically around this culdeac along the sideline and uh on the other side correct correct okay
[Music] any issues been raised with regard to yourself in regards to any development issue on the site any particular condition outside of what is being discussed here that would impair
or impact actual development not to my my knowledge i haven't done any type of soil investigation yet but um no nothing I'm aware of so if there's nothing in this site as you've draw it here with regard to this I should clarify that this is
prepared by land engineering is it correct correct yes you involved in this preparation or uh at the time of the the development of this the subdivision map i was an employee at landm okay and so you've been to the site you've seen this uh site and examined from the locations
that we've been discussing here today that'd be Old Span Road uh in You've been on the property yeah I've been on the property yes okay all right uh I have no further questions at this time m all right well why don't we start at the
end Mrs scrabble sure sean can you just clarify the the wetlands lines that are shown sure um it looks like the WL numbers that's what was approved in 2005 but then PAX did the other side of
the wetlands the southerntherly side more recently so the wetlands line I have is just to the north of where you see WLFPA-1 and then
WLFPA-4A and then the buffer is to the 50 ft to the south of that right but the line on the other side of the wetlands on the north side that's where you're referencing the D permit from 2005 uh let's see
that probably came from the cotch lane subdivision plan I'm guessing yeah so there's the freshwater wetlands waters boundary line is verified for the 200 yeah that's that's further away from our property more towards Avenue B right so we just have
two different sources that's that's what I'm trying to get to right correct yes all right and the newer one you haven't gone to D that's just tax's interpretation of where that line would be correct and I'm not disagreeing with it it's probably very close i just want to clarify that for the board um second
question did did you guys apply for a zoning permit or not like is there a a determination from the zoning officer on the the yards rear versus side for the really proposal 102 is the question
right that was my interpretation i know you you had disagreed or had different interpretation of the frontage um I kind of did it as the culde-sac and went 50 feet off of that in all directions and then used um the small line here as our
our sideline and I used this as the rear right and then um I had all this as a side and then the front here off of Avenue B and I don't necessarily disagree i just think the board should look at that focus on it and make sure you agree with it um because it would
change the variance requests like if as you're looking at the dwelling the proposed dwelling on lot 1.02 if you come in off inkeeper make a left and you're looking at what is kind of the side of the house but if you consider that the front then you've got two sides
and a rear as opposed to um where the site where the subdivision plan is showing the rear yard is what backs up onto Cotch Lane homes and that's creating in my opinion the worst variance so I want to make sure the the
board is on board with that yeah i actually had similar comments about the yards so So and I I want to go back to Mr scrabble did you did you study every scenario in terms of how to orient the house to create the least obtrusive
right so this is the really the only place we can put the house what's that this is really the only spot we can put the house in my opinion and maybe it's a front yard variance also if we take this whole line and offset it the front yard but then
actually you know that way with the front yard of of 50 and the rear yard of 50 the the two um the two lines would there would be it'd be a negative building envelope in that scenario um so we'd either need a rear yard
variance or a front and rear yard variance depending on how we deter determine the front yard i might uh I'll just read the definition of sure a front yard and that might clarify things and why we took the position that it's a front yard variance under definition's
front yard an open unoccupied space on the same lot with the main building extending the full width of the lot situated between the street line and the front line of the building projected to the sidelines of the property because the only frontage is on Inkeeper Road
that has to be the front yard because that's how it's defined on the street there is no other street so that that's to me a front yard set but if it runs the full width that eliminates the whole building on foot
that's right that's why it's not built right which is not what the plan is showing that's Yeah that's right and you know the board is the board is free the board is free to make its own interpretation based on the arguments that are being presented i'm only giving
you my opinion based on the literal reading of the of the code it's the only frontage uh and all front yards are taken off of roadways us you know and that's the way it works and that's how it's defined here right so like you know for all old the pan he just project a
line this way um if if inkeeper wasn't here so just for example then we survive here then we'd be coming 50 ft off of Avenue B i mean obvious B is not right right it would that be an access fence right so then but with inkeeper you have
a a bulb here and if you went 50 feet off here it would the front yard would run that's exactly the whole way that just shows how developable the lot is according to zoning that's all typically with a with a culde-sac I mean I know you were definition but you kind of
offset the bulb line that's kind of what I did here right um so I I I agree with that that bulb line i just clarifying that it does need doesn't have a it's just a very strange orientation and Sean typically if you were offsetting the
bulb that line that's 50 foot off the rightway line would extend all the way to both sides it would extend like this so if you've got a typical pieshaped right correct yes yeah so you can look at it both ways if you were to extend
this 50 ft side to side then you've literally got a 25 ft strip that's 400 ft long to develop right and my just my last comment and then I'll let this move on um regardless of how
you interpret it I think from a practical standpoint the idea of a 50-ft rear yard is so that houses backing up on each other have 100 feet between them so you can enjoy your backyard yeah in this case you're not going to have that yeah that's a similar comment i'll get to
that later too i I agree with that um and this is all a byproduct of the unusual orientation of the site right and and trying to find ways to interpret it to make it work to get this approved i agree
yeah thank you Tom anything else not me no John uh Tom stole a lot of my thunder i'll leave it I'll leave it at that that's why I let him go first change seats every now and then no no no no you guys should swap every now and then that's a good point uh no i mean and and
I just have a question the the subdivision line creates a substandard law it seems to me and you can clarify the thinking that went into that that you put the line there so you could fit the house and still be able to access inkeeper road otherwise you could split
this lot in half get two lots but then you're going to create a problem with access correct yes so that's why you put it there and that's what's creating the substandard lot to remain yeah so I like I said I I kind of massage between having enough area for proposed lot 101
so we we create no variances of coverage and having enough area to come in off of inkeeper and set this house back i have nothing else Mr chairman okay um thank you John Tom yeah you said your access is
from inkeeper foot how much of the curb footage is actually touching the property like for an access of a driveway if there was one there between the curbs is about 25 ft
okay so we come in with our driveway off of here and probably turn into a front loading garage it's uh rather narrow um okay good all right um some of these I don't
know if this is the place to ask the question but the original home the original property that was approved is there a resolution for that because that had to not be compliant at the time
mr dunn I'm sorry sir and and and I again sorry but is there a resolution for the original home and property because this couldn't have been approvable it had to it had to go through a variance process whenever it
was approved and in fact when was it when was it built it didn't go through a variance process because I believe a building permit as I understand it on this site was given to uh for a replacement of the existing home on that property which was built from a with a building permit going back to 1982 or
1942 1942 years ago right it was only maybe 42 okay so this building this is a house from at least the 40s yes before we had a resolution you think a lot earlier and prior but I can't there's no history of
I can't find a history of it okay was there an attempt to do that but but your records show that it was built I think a building permit issued 82 what was the date of the first borrow zoning ordinance be i haven't researched it don't know and so all the work that's
been done on that house since 1942 has not required going to the since 1942 as far as I know does not require going to the building department i don't think there's any other building permit issue as far as I could see from the Okay you can understand why I would be
concerned about that of course all right um here are my comments and questions so first I'm not an engineer so due to the unusual nature and shape of the site are there any concerns about drainage considering
um you have a wetland area that you have homes immediately close which I'm going to get to in another comment is there anything that has to be done to properly drain the site um without it impacting neighbors i don't know the answer to that well all all the
impervious area will be be stored in some type either seepage pit or drainage chamber okay so we're you're confident that we're going to need to do that oh yeah we do that in any any new house we build we we put in storage and Mr chairman just to give you
an idea the the wetland area is at elevation like 10 103 uhhuh so the water is pretty much at the surface right so you can assume more or less that's your groundwater table and the home is shown at elevations 109 110 so you're five and
a half feet at least higher so there is room to to take care of storm water management and store it underground okay perfect thank you all right the second one was um fire truck access so if if um a fire truck had to get here how would they be able
to do that has that been studied well not only firet truck by the way emergency any emergency services they could come up in Keeper Road in there's a bulb there so you you're confident they can make the turn yeah um I'm not sure i didn't measure the ball if it's if it's a
standard size culde-sac a little bit smaller but you know they they'd be able to get around maybe have to do a three-point but they definitely get around any any fire members here want to comment on that or you stole my thunder all right i'm going to say where Tom is
next you should do thank you next month um I I'm sorry i forget your name but as he said um Sean Sean it is doable in the largest of the fire trucks okay is it
is it the best scenario no but like Mr dun said but you've done worse it's unprecedented i I've done worse okay i I've driven worse thank you i appreciate that all right next is about the yards so So certainly they stole my thunder about the the uh front yard and the rear
yard and the sideyard so I'm going to go in a different direction regarding that forgetting about the dimensions which clearly this was just done as a to to create a technical to to avoid a technicality regarding it you have homes that are very close to the to the
dwelling unit you have homes on Cotch Lane two homes on Cotch Lane and one home I guess it's on Inkeeper doesn't say on the site plan um that are all you know the one on Inke keeper is like 23 feet from the property line and the other two homes on Cotch Lane are about
50 ft away because of this oddity regarding the yards the home is going to be very close to those homes and very close to those people's backyards what are we going to do to make sure and assure that everybody has
privacy well if uh if we were uh grant approval we can do um fence and also green giants around the borders for privacy well I'm sure the the neighbors are here i'm sure some of them are going to
comment if they're not concerned and I'm not concerned but I do think that whatever approval if we end up approving this we would have to put in some language about creating some sort of a buffer in there that's it for now i'll probably have more comments but okay
um what would stop the new homeowner from subdividing even further so we at one time had a plan to do it for three and we we scrapped it um
three so you sc that doesn't stop so we could be it could be something it could be something in the in the resolution also the the proximity to the wetlands uh would stop that as well we we could restrict it in the resolution and if it's approved there would also be a
developers agreement we could have a provision there would there would be no further subdivision of proposed law 1.02 i mean it wouldn't really be practical it would be so under size what 46,000 square feet the cut is too will
be 23 we're just making sure but we would address that as a condition okay now you said arborite and and a fence um what if the residents on inkeeper and cotch don't like either any is there
a third alternative for some uh I I don't want to testify as a professional landscape architect there probably other types of okay trees and stuff we could use harvey resid them and um just stole my thunder
on the fire truck so sorry for this sorry ask another fire truck question i know another fire truck question uh on the plans here you're showing a typical dwelling what's the size of that typical dwelling sure so I have it
as 70 ft uh deep and across uh 35 35 by 70 so that that's the building itself so footprint that's just a basic concept just to show positioning of the house i'm sure an architect will have a much won't be showing a rectangle
they'll have much more features than we're going to see that tonight uh I don't believe we have architectural plans okay we got the building plans tonight uh or prepared would regard that except for uh the building plans in the front however the house would be
approximately 35,000 uh 3500 square ft as we calculated the two two stories so that's the anticipated size modest size but significant sub size okay so we'll and we can provide and and we're prepared to go ahead and in the process
of developing those plans no I'm glad I asked the question i learned something so it's going to be 3500 square ft two stories is there a garage associated with this yes there will be okay no question and we'll see these regular size home okay all right so I'll I'll
hold the rest of my questions until we see those plans i have no questions tonight just to piggyback on um David's comment in the bulk zoning table you show that the lot will
[Music] conform chart when you say will conform under the main lot yes um specific to the size of the house is that 35 ft by 70 ft footprint that you've indicated
you're showing on there is that graphically shown as the maximum to meet the maximum F allowed no the um so the the uh the coverage will be allowed to be
15% just use my calculator here so at uh 46,000 square ft you can have a building footprint of 6,900 square f feet and 75 by 35 is 2600 ft² so it's about a third of the size it
could be i'm I'm looking at F not the cover oh the FB um that's.16 sorry uh.16 46,000 *.16 is 7,300 ft would be allowable and
what you were proposing was 35 Tim 3500 ft approximately i just suggested this is a current so be well conform with the F i was just thinking if you were maxing it out definitely not maxing it out too
many to make it you know could it be smaller that's where I was heading with setbacks Mr dunn we will eventually be seeing architect plans for the uh home on 1.02 go ahead and presumably you would
have no issue with the burrow condition if it grants approval conditioning that the home on 1.02 02 would conform with those plans the condition I'm sorry the home on 1.02 would conform with the submitted architectural plans and no
larger.2 yes okay when we do the plan yeah okay you'll hear that at a future date I assume otherwise theoretically if you were to grant that 20.5 rear yard variance you could have a house that's over 100 ft long times 35t deep mhm
you need to nail down the house if you we would make that but you need to know how big what kind of design is appropriate there to design the condition to satisfy the board so we need those plans
[Music] okay I guess question I have this fail ended up in 75 ft high unusual lot so have you done any
research any digging i have not we've built some preliminary and just have no idea the history of this goes back to probably at least a hundred years so it was apparently this way when there was only
ordinance pasture we don't know you mentioned the owner may have testified today so maybe I'll vote by that question well I don't think he knows we'll maybe I'll ask it now but you know he
can answer it later when when did he buy this property mr wow he he needs to be sworn if he Mr d he will need to be sworn if he got All right we'll do that later we'll do
it later let's finish with the engineer so is it fair to say when he bought the house say 20 years ago cuz I earned 1942 old house he knew this lot and he knew
uh the house size right is that fair to say he he knew the existing house size he just went for building from it to place it okay yeah and he walked a lot with the understanding property at that time because he could develop three lights from it
[Music] i I don't know this for certain but I think the configuration might have gone back to ODR owns a ton of property behind it my guess is at one point maybe they owned this strip also they wanted access to Old Span Road probably what
did you say orange and Rockland orange and Rockland Utility at some point they sold it i'm sorry this might have been an easement at one time or just they reserved it for access they had control of the lot and they kept it for a period of time because they didn't know what they were going to
do with it if they needed it and then sold it that's my guess john okay all righty uh I just have one comment on the uh discussion with regard to the uh street line and the location
of the front yard with regard to this and that was that we we approached it from the standpoint of the burrow ordinance which uh contains references to street lines defined streets as any street boulevard road etc
um and includes uh the areas between the street lines and so we couldn't designate what we're talking about a front yard or a sideline as a street line because it's there's nothing abate that uh that meets that criteria it's
all withineper so that was our thinking on it we've advertised for alternate variances will be guided by the board's determination but that is our thought and we we don't know how you would define it otherwise we we hear the argument we we're prepared to address it
either way i don't know the answer to that all right you have more witnesses yes we have to open it up to council for an objector or objectors do that he should ask questions first he should advise who he's representing and then members of
the public he said nothing mr stamos okay good evening Mr chairman members of the board dean Stamos of Ferraro and I represent Mr and Mrs aarian and also Mr and Mrs alex Bonnie do you need their
addresses uh yeah you can put that on the record I think for Mr and Mrs aarian own 110 Cotch Lane which is block Oh no I'm sorry yeah it's block 402 lot
2103 and this one is Californiai zone 11 inke keeper and that's uh block 402 lot 6 that's lot six 4046 uh yes they're they're immediately I see it i'm looking at the map
404 left six okay oh yes 404 not 40 404 okay so just uh know we've been talking about this the issue of the lot frontage i
think obviously it's proposition it is a front yard variance and basically it would create start off this question before I give you a thing just to kind of give
you you're counting the lot depth to clen from this line to here right from basically inke keeper towards cotch that for the new for Yes 75 ft so lot depth
goes obviously from on the other property from the front all the way to your new proposed lot correct right so 337 yeah so so lot depth since we read the definition of front yard says the
horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines measured along the perpendicular perpendicular bis sector of the front section line so it's the entire line so this is all this would
also be lot depth not just this small area correct it's 75 ft everywhere okay but I'm saying if we're counting it as lot depth it would be the front this would then be
considered the front lot line correct because you're calling this the front yard and then this the rear yard so this would in theory would be the front lot line you also have you have two front lot lines
which which two okay i'm not referring to the undersized lot that's been created on Oh not either yeah which which front line are you referring to you have inkeeper and you have Avenue B so you're saying frontage on this isn't
a unimproved It's not an approved street correct right but it still would be front yard okay i'm saying your calculation of the depth is east and west right like the from
this lot line to this lot correct 75 ft okay so again if that is we go 50 ft from this front lot line and 50 ft for the rear yard setback you'd have no
negative building envelope i believe I already testified to that correct and how stand we don't have architectural drawings is there manication of how this house going to be oriented like the
front or was the front door i would think that the garage and front door would be on the um coming off inkeeper you don't show the driveway or anything on your plane correct nope
and then just looking at it so you Yeah the currently admittedly that the lot is conforming in lot area as you've testified right yes so the selection of the lot size you're
creating an undersized lot that's about 63% of the required total uh it's 25,000 where 40 is required right and you you have it
on you said what's the benefit i I heard you say you wanted it off of inkeeper but why go left instead of right uh wetlands what was that i'm sorry i didn't hear that location of wetlands the wetlands you said that okay
and you said you haven't done any soil boring tests or anything in terms of the uh not of yet yeah and just kind of looking at the tax map up here are there any
other lots uh undersized in nature uh do you see in the immediate vicinity in the neighborhood i'll leave uh that to the planner yeah everything else I think as everyone said stole my thunder at questions but
uh there's one thing I did want to note there is a resolution on this property my client had submitted a an Oprah request and obtained it and I'm sorry I left them on my desk but it was 1986 the owner was Mr dan D yeah but again that was that doesn't
really address any mentioned Well was this had to do with a portrait portrait porch and I think it was just carrying the um existing lot with right okay I'd like to get that if we can for the next meeting if we can all get a
copy of that resolution you have she did I just have a question again I heard that there's are there architectural plans going to be for a future meeting or next meeting we don't have them I assume I I mean I I hear the request and the desire to see it I just kind was an
idea is would the board proceed with the application without them or are you going to wait i think they represented they would be submitting them and we talked about the plans being uh adhered to as a condition of any approval so we don't get an oversized house on lot 1.02
so because normally in a subdivision like this we give a projected building envelope we're going to want to see the plans yeah we're going to meet the the second act but not in a situation like this okay I have no further questions
thanks now I would open it mr chairman can I just have one followup please just while it's fresh in my mind because this and I don't mean to keep harping on this but harp all you want mr stamos brings up a good point as far as the definition of depth the depth
goes through the it's the perpendicular bis sector of the width so as you look at this drawing that pink magenta dashed line is your width because it's measured at the 50ft setback when you draw your perpendicular bis sector through that it
goes right through the middle of the end of inkeeper to the re the rear lot line for the houses on Cotch Lane skws off at an angle no it's it's it's perpendicular to that that magenta line so it's it's a straight line it's 75 ft straight to the
back okay so that clearly defines the back of the Cotch Lane homes as the rear yard for this lot okay I think that's clear at this point so then the question becomes normally when you've got a situation like that with a
culde-sac bulb you've got your frontage that's on the culde-sac and then the other lines are at an angle that go back toward the rear yard that's where you get your side yards i think the determination this board needs to make is because that's not the
case here because you have your 50.82 feet of frontage but then it's the same line mhm it's not an angle going toward the back it's the same line is that whole thing a front yard or just because it's happens to be 180° instead of some
acute angle is it still a sideyard as they're presenting right that's the key because otherwise again as Mr stamo said you would need a front yard variance as well and there would literally be no envelope the envelope would overlap the front and the rear
which is what he said before yeah so that's a very important determination to make can I just add one thing too i know we did read part of the the definition of front yard uh but I think that not enough emphasis is the statement of extending the full width of the lot and
situated between the street line and the front line of the building projected to the side lines of the lot so across but again you can interpret that two ways because the width is measured along that magenta line so that is your width
that's your full width so at that point does it become a sideyard because they are measuring it the full width that's it's it's a weird interpretation so well let's if you like Mr chairman we could take a Do you want to dwell with
this issue now or I I would love for somebody to sketch this out for us the um because I'll just read the definition let's go back to the ordinance because that's really the guide sideyard is defined as an open unoccupied space on
the same lot with on the same lot with the building situated between the building and the sideline of the lot and extending from the front to the rear any lot not a rear line or a front line shall be deemed a sideline
so it seems that the house is going to define where the sides are in a way because it says situated between the building and the sideline but it doesn't tell us what that sideline is based on the conversation that we're talking
about here maybe the applicant should submit what they think it should be and then it would be reviewed by you and and and Tom and the board sure because we're kind of spinning our wheels here on this issue mhm which is
unusual well it's just the unusual nature of the of the site right if this was a I hate to use the word normal a normal depth site and it was say 200 ft deep we could easily plot the front yard
and the sidey yards and the rear yards so that that's why I I would love to see a sketch that plotted it all out for us because I think the statement that was made before about there being negative negative yardage i think that's
what's going to end up resulting it from this that there is there is no place for a building to be well that's of course just attributable to lot width now what we're calling lot width right and that's and that's why you're coming and that's why you're coming for a variance i mean it's like
we you you understand that but I think I think the board needs to the board needs to understand for us to be able to properly evaluate the the the yards we need to really understand what the requirements are i think we all need to be in agreement on what those are
because to ask for a 20ft front yard in RA40 is a really big ask yeah that's what that is mhm and a 20 foot rear yard right you think that what we have on the
existing dwelling well the existing dwelling technically is 90° right so it's got 20 foot sideyards um which I think is allowed right i think that's what the the resolution the the ordinance allows that
i made comment that part of the the argument and I'm done is making is that it's part of the unique nature of the lot that would apply if this were a unimproved lot and you that's your hardship i want to the only way I could
develop the property this is a creating this situation right there's already a house there's already the property is developed and marketable and even on the market i think it's even under contract it hasn't been zoned into in utility is what you're saying correct exactly it's
not like they can't use the property at all they're looking to use it in addition by creating this situation that actually is part of our argument essentially this lot is such that it goes to the issue of hardship in that we can't it's not practically usable
between the wetlands the sides and dimensions not usable lot question not reasonably usable in terms of well the total the total land there is 71,000 square ft there's not an automatic right to a subdivision I mean there's plenty
of lots in this in this community that are that size and they're not subdiv somebody was about to say something I thought no Mr reagan said what I was going to do about the boy thunder storm clouds are coming um I I
want to open it up for the to the public to ask questions but before we do that I really would like somebody I don't care who it is it could be our professional it could be you um to commit to provide us some sort of a sketch to show us the different scenarios for yardage various
yes side side front rear yard yes and and how it could be evaluated because the the board needs to better understand what the yardage what the yardages are so the way the way I show it now I mean I know it could be negative the other
way but the way I show now we only have 10 ft so we have we don't no matter which way we go we still don't have a buildable envelope um but but do you do you understand the question i do the request is if you can provide us a document that's simple you can take out
all the contours we don't need any of that simply show where the front yard is and then the different yardages and and I think we have to study it in different directions and we have to take into account what what John and Tom were talking about earlier what Mr stamos was
talking about sure yeah i think I I can do that i mean I think you have three different people do this that might get three different drawings i would well but Mullen I do want three different scenario so if there's three different show all three types sure just one thing that's the only way we're going to be
able to properly evaluate it see to see what the different scenarios are and what the options were well just a suggestion why don't we present if we pres if we do join present it to Mr sp that's fine present one drawing just the different options on it if that can be
done you comfortable with that time sure and I mean John's going to probably have more input on that than I would we'll we'll share it we'll we'll So if you can provide it to both of our professionals before the next meeting that way you can
review it and then we'll we'll all get a copy of it in advance it's by my plan we agree okay um anybody want to make a motion to open the meeting motion to open to the public second for questions of the applicant's engineer
all in favor all right so the public can come up they can only ask questions to the engineer about what he presented nothing else um no statements so if you have a statement go sit back down um and if it has to do
with the planner if it has to do with the architecture if it has to do with something else don't ask it um so be for questions from people who are not represented by Mr stam correct that's right okay anybody else i have a question come
up please oh you tell me i was just going to ask that that label 2020 is when that study was done where the wetlands are that whole block has been built since that and there's water everywhere there so I
don't know how that you need a question mr stamos is he your client yes yeah it has to just be a question right so the question I guess he's asking is well this question was the the timing of the uh determination that they have from
D this is prior to the construction of lane um would the construction of the new homes have any effect on the validity of the letter or the the wetlands fund is that a question for me
yeah yeah oh I'm not a environmental making that into a question though i have to I'm impressed well I would I would hope that those lots did not further make our lot more usable we just I'll provide a letter to Mr stimulus but and to the board we received uh from
pack survey who did who did this wetlands survey to begin with a letter as of today uh that he verifies the uh the sightings of the wetland boundaries and borders that we have here so they want to know if the creation of their
property negatively affected our property is that what the question was no just that whether it it it does it change the wet because because they're putting more water on our property making the wetlands more expansive is that what they're asking it seems like that they want to know if
the creation of their lots made our wetland situation worse yeah they're compliant size lots these lots are all compliant and no there's no fair answers on Andy's there's no these lots are all completely compliant
i think there might be but I mean I find it that they want to know if the creation of their lots made our wetland situation worse i mean I would think that they would have to keep all their water on their property and not come onto the property and make the wetlands worse that I thought that was the
question that they asked do we answer the question i don't I don't I don't know if their property development of their properties made our wetland situation worse or not i don't I can't answer yeah I don't know the answer all you can do is I would hope it wouldn't because water should not go out go onto our property from
theirs so So Sean all you can do is evaluate let me ask a different question to John or Tom if I could a 5-year-old wetland study is that good enough for a current development or should it be more current
they they expire yeah this is not actually an approval either this is this is an opinion letter an opinion a 5-year-old opinion letter so the board is completely within its rights to ask for a determination from D because it's
D's jurisdiction it's not ours we spent a lot of time on talking about the wetlands when it occurred we were talking about the facility that is currently going to be built in our town
and I think the wetlands with everything that we have going on we should know what the status of the wetlands are before we approve this and in that particular case they got a permit they have a valid D permit so if there's a question on the limit of the wetlands
is the D permit still valid that's what we need to know and the one they have the one they're referencing from 2005 is not valid it's expired so they would have to reapply honestly my opinion is it's not going to vary that much if they were
showing the house on the right side of inkeeper I think it would be much more important um even if it I mean a foot in elevation wetlands wise is huge for this wetlands line to even approach inkeeper it would have to
change three or four feet in elevation the lots on Cotch Lane would be underwater so practically I don't see it as an issue but the board is absolutely within its rights to have a permit from
D confirming what the applicant is is stating is the truth would that need to be part of an application once this if if this were to be approved or or is that something that should be the land use law allows you to condition yes we condition everything anyway you could
proceed in acting on the application but you could make a condition on the on other governmental approvals which we always do and in this case you know an appropriate condition would be to secure a a more current updated DOI
you want to know where they are and what the buffer would be all right and I don't want to throw a wrench in it but if you're going to require it and it has changed you really want to see that now not after it's approved
yeah it would seem to make sense to the applicant because I mean and again I really don't think it's going to change much i don't think it's meaningful but if the board feels it's important you should ask for it now rather than making it a condition of approval mr
john will you investigate that well I I'll investigate it like I said I have a letter from Pax Survey as of today i thought I had it with me i don't but I can I'll give it to Mr scrabble tomorrow and see if he can uh tell us if that's adequate or meets him i I don't I'm not
sure it will or not but maybe you can advise us and I'll provide it well again we we do that all the time we accept professionals letters when it's not something that could potentially impact the development if it could impact the development then you should really have a D permit and that's the board's
determination to make yeah the letter speaks for itself but it indicates there essentially there's no change in the boundary or the markers that are on this plan okay so you understand what the request is and and you will get back to Mr scrabble about this and we need a new I can tell you right now if I get a letter from a professional I'm going to
say it's an opinion letter from a professional and it's not a permit that's right and the board needs to determine if they want a permit or not so let me ask this question what's the process for us to do that do we as a group have to vote on that we request that the applicant provide that information
and it'll take months yeah you won't get it for the next meeting well if it's appropriate we have to request it yeah then we would have to condition the approval well is there a foundation really for asking for it at this point given what we've discussed
the recommendation of the burl engineer and our representation I don't have it in front of me that we have this letter indicating that these things are is it really indicated that we should have well it's just a prof it's an opinion right Mr scrabble explained that a couple of times now it's just a professional opinion that's been
provided so we can make the request for a D you have the right to make the request we we and we are making the request for an updated permit we understand it'll take months so it'll be a condition of approval if it is approved that's there's nothing wrong with that
we do we've done that before okay i'm sorry one question yes last one my apologies i'm counting there a calculation of kind of the number of trees that will have to be removed for the construction there is not no
all righty we have question name and address you come up to the front and then if you can name your name and address uh Chris Greger from 114 Couch uh one of the questions that was raised you said the swells or the drainage can you push on this map where uh where the
drainage for the dwelling would go approximately in this area here but I thought this is where the the driveway is entering from right so driveway come here and the drainage would be just to the north of it so approximately how many feet from block 402
uh we'd probably center it um it'd be two rows of chambers maybe that'd be 14 ft um so like maybe 30 ft from each property line and so the drains themselves they're how big just to give the council an If we went with concrete
seepage pits they're 6T diameter if we went with uh Coltech chambers they're about 4T by 7T so you're putting those just north or I guess north on this map that's not north so east that's west
west on this map no north of north on the map north on the map yeah so approximately how many feet then would it be from his house that's not north that's west approximately how many feet would it be from the house that's resident at 402
i can't read that that distance is 56 ft so 80 ft following question is that possible mr mlen I would ask you if you can try to talk with courtesy to our Oh I'm sorry
okay anybody else have any questions for Mr mlen about his testimony seeing none motion to close second all in favor i okay we have about
15 minutes remaining mr done um I don't know what your next um expert witness Excuse me i I apologize for my voice i just have a quite all right it's horrendous um our next witness will be
our planner and I expect him to be longer he's got to address all the planning issues so I'm a little I mean I can start him but I don't think probably not a good idea not a good idea we'll start all over again in the next time yeah so um will you be prepared to
present at the next meeting i'm prepared what's the next meeting Dave april 9th april 9th that and this is it this is the announcement of Yeah the uh application will be continued to April 9th without
further notice question uh just in terms of council architectural drawing uh prior to taking any action will that be sufficient time uh to submit them for
the next meeting because it's just the planner otherwise we're going all I can say is that's our plan and we will try and get them as for some reason I can't I advise council and the board i appreciate that and u
just if you have uh just in terms of scheduling and for my own self another application um stay tuned it sounds like uh so you know you really can't hear the planning testimony if you don't have the architect it would seem to me to be more
appropriate to have the archite architect testify usually an application to planner is the last my experience but it's his application he present whichever whichever process he wants to utilize okay
thank you Mr chair thank you um All right i guess we're going to take a uh we're going to go into close session we are why don't we why don't we wrap the rest of the meeting up and then go into close do we need to do a public opportunity to speak on non-aggenda items why don't we do that get that out
of the way all right while everybody's packing up um there's an opportunity for us to ask the crowd for any questions unrelated to the applicant again anybody great any second anybody want to second
that second all in favor i anybody have anything they want to ask the board unrelated to the application seeing none motion close second all in favor all right we are going to go into close
session mr rean has to read a resolution who has a question read the res i don't think so you want the history in the lots what's that i can give you the history of all lots of that size i bet you could you
could do the resolution in front of every Yeah whereas the open public meetings act NJSA10 cola 4-12 allows a public body to open close session during a public meeting whereas the planning board has deemed necessary to go to close session discuss a matter related to litigation from which the
public may be excluded now therefore be resolved by the planning board that the board will go into close session on March 12th for the purpose of discussing the te holdings litigation be it further resolved that the discussion in close
session are made public at a time when it is determined the the board's interest will not be adversely affected and we need a motion and a second anybody very good thank you second do we need to do a roll call now it can be all
in favor all in favor excellent all right we have to wait for everybody just to show the meeting second all in favor i that could