All right, we're on record. >> Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Township of Precipany Troy Hill Board of Adjustment. It is Wednesday, July 8th, 2026, and it is 7:30 p.m. Uh, announcement is made that adequate
notice of this meeting has been given and that it is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 104-6 at SEC of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Uh, roll call.
Um, Mr. Joshitz >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Masarella >> here. >> Mr. Modi >> present. >> Miss Negluia >> here. >> Mr. Pupi. >> Yes. Here. >> Mr. Ready >> present.
>> Gran Grant. Oh boy. I'm sorry. Chairwoman Grani. >> Present. >> We have our board planner, Mr. Chadwick. >> Our board engineer, Mr. Lammanoitz. And our board attorney, Mr. Johnson, >> here. >> Please stand. Join us for the pledge of allegiance.
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stand and justice for all. >> Before we proceed with our agenda this evening, um
an integral part of this board member Bernie Burkowitz passed away. Uh Bernie was not only a personal friend, but he was instrumental in his involvement in this township. Um Bernie was also the
township attorney many years ago. He will be sorely missed from this board. Um he was a dedicated father, a beloved husband, grandfather, and I will miss him personally. Thank
you. Uh we will move on to correspondence. That correspondence received from Pina Trevetti request an application 246613 North Beverick Road be carried to October 7th, 2026 without further notice
and with extensions granted through October 30th, 2026. Can I have a motion? >> Motion. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> correspondence received from Rick
Volomar request an application 254518 Bridgton Drive be carried to September 16, 2026 without further notice and grants extensions through September 30th, 2026. >> Motion second.
>> All in favor? >> I. All right, we'll move on to resolutions. Everyone can Well, yeah, everyone can vote on all the resolutions. We have application 2614,
block 262, lot 1. Uh, application 2611, block for I'm sorry, 242, lot 6. Application 2621, block 716, lot 2. Application 2617,
block 98, block 59.2. Application 2556, block 626, lot 10.05, and application 2625, block 729, lot 6.02.
Can I have a motion? >> Motion. Second is uh Jos. Yes. Mozzarella, >> yes. >> Modi, >> yes. >> Meglia, >> yes. >> Prai, >> yes. >> Uh, Ready? >> Yes. >> Griani,
>> yes. >> All right. Approved. Application 26 colon 13 Johnny 19 Madison Avenue block 605 lot 9 zone R4 a C variance to construct a new
single family dwelling with attached garage roofed front porch shed deck patio and other site improvements contrary to section 430-35 columns 3 and 10 section 430 30-275X
applicant is returning for discussion regarding the proposed walk upstairs. Good evening, sir. >> Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but um before you start, the board may
recall that you heard this application and granted this application already. One of the conditions that the board imposed was that instead of the walk up stairs that you that the applicant had proposed on the plans, um you had a
condition imposed that the applicant needed to revise his plans to pull down staircase to access the attic rather than a walk up staircase to access the attic. Mr. Janney is here because he made an application for the board to potentially reconsider that condition.
you permitted him to come back here to um for you to hear from Mr. Janney as to why you might or might not want to reconsider that condition. So that's why Mr. Janney is here. So why don't you tell the board why it's so important to
you not to have a pull down staircase for your to access your attic, but instead have a walk up staircase to access your attic. >> Good evening, chairman, members of the board. My name is Rakkesh Jani, the homeowner of at 19 Madison Avenue. Thank you.
>> Can you pull the I'm sorry. Can you pull the microphone a little closer? I apologize. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm here today to one very specific reason to request reconsideration of the condition requiring pull down attic stairs and
clarify that my attic is unfinished and intended solely for storage, not for living space. I want to respectfully explain why the put down stairs are a safety I would say serious safety issue for me. I'm able to use down ethic
stairs safely. In past I have fallen twice while using this type of stairs. I have also seen others sleep or steps because of my body size with weight of 26 64 lbs and mobility limitations. pull
down stairs poses a real risk of injury to my health. This is not a preference. This is genuinely a safety concern. By contrast, the permanent walkup stairs are stable and wide with a 3-FFT high railing that lets me hold on to it,
balance, and even sit on the step if I feel uncomfortable. This is the only safe way for me to access myself at storage. I want to be very clear here. I'm not asking for walk up attic stairs to create living space. I'm asking
because it is only safe way for me to access my storage. At the previous hearing, the board expressed concern that walk up walk upic stairs could imply future living space on the third floor. I understand that concern completely.
However, in the every single set of architectural drawings, I have submitted the attic clearly labeled as unfinished attic storage only. permanent stairs for storage access only. I have never stated, requested or implied that I
intend to use this attic as a living space. The person who answered on my behalf last time was my builder. He is not the homeowner and cannot speak on my intention. I was not prepared for that question because this issue was not
listed as the variance in the zoning review letter I received. So I want to correct that record. The attic will remain unfinished with the job. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board of this information that has been given to us
this evening? >> I I guess my question was it was discussed as it being spiral staircase or >> it's not spiral, right? >> Yeah. What? Well, no. That was my impression was it was spiral. >> That was why we didn't understand the
difference. Could you explain what the staircase will look like the best you can to us because we did understand it to be a spiral staircase. >> It's a C-shaped staircase. Uh you have a stair. >> You have a drawing. Do you have a drawing?
>> It's in your >> It looked like a spiral. No, you don't have the you not have the drawing >> from the previous. >> And if I remember correctly, I think because the builder was um unclear or even indicated that it
could be used for >> uh space. It gave us concern. >> So, we do I know I appreciate you coming forth and uh saying it will definitely not be. So, let me ask some questions about the configuration because I actually have your plans. I know the
other members of the board don't. So, you have living space on the second floor, correct? And then, so there's a landing of a staircase that comes from the first floor to the second floor. Correct? >> And then there's a set of stairs and then a landing and then another set
of stairs to the attic. Correct. Okay. So, it's not a spiral in the sense that it's going around a center pole. Even spiral would not hit me if I have a surplus of >> Is there is there any proposal to put
electricity up like plugs up there? No electricity, right? >> I mean, >> maybe a light from the ceiling. >> Just for the light from >> one light >> and and there's one light from the ceiling. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. That's all you want? >> That's all. >> Okay. No electrical outlets. >> Um >> no sheet rack.
>> The only reason why I why I need electrical outlet for some reason if there is a leakage in the Or if something repair needs to be done have to pull wire down. >> Okay. And the walls won't be finished. Correct. Unfinished walls. >> Unfinished floor.
>> Unfinished. >> Unfinished ceiling. >> Unfinished ceiling. >> And you do not have any condenser or anything in there, right? >> No. >> Maybe air conditioning needs something will be there, right? >> Yeah. >> Would you be housing air conditioning? >> Air handler.
>> Your handler system. Okay. All right. Okay. >> Well, I I think the the question before the board is whether you want to eliminate that condition from your previous approval. >> Um and then I can draft the resolution
accordingly to add the conditions that we just discussed. >> Yeah. >> If that's what the board wants to do. >> Is everyone in agreement? >> Members with the clarification. I'm >> okay. >> So, so you need a motion. >> A motion to remove the previous condition. previous condition of the
stair being pulled down. >> Correct. >> Second. >> I apologize for second. Okay. >> All in favor? >> No. >> Roll call. Okay. Josit, >> yes. >> Mozzarella, >> yes. >> Modi, >> yes.
>> Neglia, >> yes. >> Project, >> yes. >> Ready? >> Yes. >> Grani. >> Yes. Mr. Johnny, >> thank you for coming back and explaining to us what what you were hoping to do in
your home. >> That's why I'm saying that I'm also upset and disappointed about hearing the loss of Mr. Bernie Bow who is the closing attorney for this man. >> Oh no. >> He was like a father for me.
>> He was Bernie was Bernie was in the Jewish language he was a mench. >> He was a mench. So, I mean, I was I I was really stunned just hearing that news on the very first day. >> Thank you. Thanks for letting us know. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I put it up an email.
>> Good luck. >> Application 26 col 12 Zaban. Correct me please. I'm sorry for the pronunciation. 10 Califon >> Califon Road block 369 lot 23 zone R4 C
variance to construct a twostory rear edition second story edition over existing first story and landing and stairs replace/relocate contrary to section 430-35
columns 8 10 13 and section 430 I 01 carried from June 3rd, 2026. >> Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Speak and sit down.
>> No, I'm just trying to >> state your name and spell your last name, please. >> Everybody, my name is S. >> Okay. If I recall correctly, you were here a few weeks ago and the issue was that the board didn't have a full set of
the plans. It appears that the board now has a full set of the plans. So, if you could explain to the board what it is that you want to do. >> Sure. Um like >> Could you please speak a little closer
to the microphone? Thank you, sir. My phone right now. >> I don't know. Sorry. One second, please. >> The microphone. >> I don't think it's on. >> Sorry about that. Um right now my the current home is a split home with two bedrooms and one attic bedroom wherein I
cannot walk with my heads up because it's a slanting roof. Uh with my family growing, I would like to extend my home in the backyard by 7 ft and then also make my uh attic bedroom into a full-fledged room making it two
bedrooms. So that is what I am here for. We have any questions from the board? Well, they read the engineering report. >> Do you have a copy of the May 4th, 2026 letter from the municipal engineer? >> Uh, no. I did not bring it. Now, the one
I was stated was I >> did you receive that letter? >> Yeah, I did. Before June 3rd meeting, I did receive a ma mail wherein I was stated there was no storm drain water uh plan which I gave and it is attached here again.
>> Okay. And then there's a May 28th 2026 letter from >> uh one of the letter I never received and I called them and then I figured out that I had a meeting. So that's how I started and one mail never came in for
me. It was stuck with USPS for a long time. So I received only one mail uh from the city of Pasipony. >> Part of the package is a storm water drainage plan and engineering specification that you prepared. Is that right?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And um >> he's an engineer. >> There is a how did you >> where did you get that information from to prepare that? Do you have any particular expertise in doing that? >> Uh no. Um absolutely I don't have any
civil engineering knowledge. So but um since I'm a IT engineer, I always try to look into solution. I prepared a first set of solution and then went to the engineering department wherein I explained him. I forgot the name of the engineer. Uh Paul uh he is Paul his
name. So, and after that he made some suggestions and then I came and it was like uh at least like three trips I made it because I was told that it is going to cost me $1,300. I said okay let me do it myself why not uh save it. So that's how I started and eventually I made it
through and then Paul said that's good enough for my lot size. >> Did he give us any information that he approved that or >> Well, doesn't this letter say it? So the May 28th, 2026 letter says the applicant with assistance from our office
>> designed the drywall to provide the required storm water management. >> Right. >> I I can only assume that he's referring >> Yes. >> to the document that was prepared by the applicant. >> Okay. >> I think that's a reasonable assumption. >> Yep. >> Makes sense. >> Okay.
In addition, the the letter references the May 28th, 2026 memo references that it's going to be inspected in construction by the engineering department. >> Yes. Uh during the construction phase, they're going to come and check it out if uh we are doing it according to the
specifications that we have made in the plan. But >> I do have one question about one of your variances and that is the um the landing and stairs. Is there a reason you're you're you're asking for a variance
um for the sideyard accessory landing and stairs? You understand that? And then and then on your plan it says relocate existing wood stairs. Can you explain what's happening with >> No. What is happening right now is right now I have a side deck which allows me to get out of my kitchen to the
backyard. So when we are going to extend our home in the backyard by 7 ft, that particular side uh deck needs to be extended. So that particular uh stairway needs to be uh relocated. That's what we meant. Not the any of the doors in the
building. It will be remaining the same. We are not going to change it. >> So now now the there's going to be a landing in the sideyard. >> Uh no, it'll be the same way after 7 ft. So because the since the building is going to be extended by 7 ft, it needs
to come behind. >> Still don't quite understand. >> So you're going to extend the deck 7 ft as well and then put the landing. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Right. Right. >> I think we're talking about Apple Pier.
>> Okay. >> The you show a wood deck facing California Road. Oh, that is the front deck. >> Front deck. I'm not making any changes. It's on the side deck that we are talking about.
>> That's the front. >> Talking about this right here. >> The one the one that's going to be on the back corner >> of your house. >> Yeah. >> When you come out of the new edition,
you >> It is right now. >> How do you access that those stairs? Yeah, it is right now in uh the door is uh from the kitchen. It leads me to the side uh deck. It is going to be the same. I'm not going to change the position of my existing door. So, it'll
be the same. And since I have to I'm extending it. We are extending the deck also by 7 ft. >> So, you come out the side of the house >> onto the that deck and then go down the stairs. >> And that's the same way it exists today.
Cut it. >> That's what I was trying to get at is why you're doing it that way. And that's because it's the same way it is today. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Sounds good. >> And the total number of bedrooms in this home will now be four. >> Correct.
>> And your plan shows existing and proposed basement plan. and it shows I'm not sure what it's showing going into an unlabeled space.
I'm looking at sheet A1 01. >> It is in the floor plan uh proposed basement floor plan. >> Yes, >> you will see it as storage. The reason I was told because we I initially my thought was uh when I wor with my
architect we thought we'll make it a full-fledged living room along with a washer and dryer in the corner but what she told was the wall is a loadbearing wall we cannot make any changes to that so we made it as a storage because when we are extending 7 ft behind uh I cannot
remove the wall so we made it as a storage or work office something like that with a sliding door in the backyard. So if the board approves this, we will label it storage as a condition. >> Uh storage or for I can make it as a gym
or I can make it as my working office. It'll be fully uh it'll have heat everything. >> It won't be a bedroom. >> It won't be a bedroom. It can't be. >> Any questions from the board on this testimony given by this applicant? What is this? Oh,
>> that's the So, >> are you saying are you saying this is an open area? >> Yeah, >> cuz that's where he's talking about storage. >> His is very low, >> right? >> So, he's
he agrees it is not going to be a living space. >> It can I can use it as my workspace for my work. So, but not a bedroom. I cannot be there. It's a very small room. So, so no bedroom on the no bedrooms in the basement. >> Correct.
>> Is that bedroom? >> Okay. >> All right. That's awesome. >> Is it a walk out? >> Yes, it's a walk out right now. It's a walk out, too. Uh, it has a door. I can walk out in my backyard. So, instead, I will be having a >> That's existing. >> Yeah,
>> it's existing. >> The full bath is there now, right? >> Yeah, it is there already. >> You're not adding the full bath. It's >> already there. Where's the >> You're just adding that that stone >> the backyard. >> So, you have to add the foundation in order to do the dishes walks out now. >> Yeah.
>> So, we're going to make a foundation in the backyard around the perimeter and then build the >> walk out is where the behind the storage room. >> Yeah. From the storage room, I have a sliding door there. So, that is going to be the walk out. >> So, this is all the new >> walk out now from your existing mudroom. >> Correct. It is a
>> door another 7 ft out to accommodate the addition. >> Correct. And you can't take down that interior wall because you said it's loadbearing. >> So now you'll have sliders instead of an actual door. >> Correct. >> No kitchen.
>> No kitchen in the basement. No. >> Have any other questions? >> No. >> Members of the board, do you have any questions of this applicant? The testimony under >> Is there anyone in the audience that has any questions of the applicant and his
testimony at this time? Anyone in favor of this applicant and his testimony? Anyone not in favor of this applicant and his testimony? I see none. >> Would one of our members like to recommend approval, please?
>> Madam Chair, if I could just suggest something, please. >> The survey shows that the existing driveway is going to remain and that it extends more than a foot onto the neighboring property. So, I would suggest a a statement in the resolution that the
boards if the board chose chooses to approve this that that is not a um an act that would legit legitimize that encroachment just to protect you know so that the we don't wind up with an issue later where well the board approved my plan and my driveways on your property so it can
stay there that shouldn't be implied. >> We've done that before. You've you've added language to resolutions of the board. Great. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Would a board member like to recommend approval, please?
>> Sure. I think it's uh very reasonable application. I think you work with the engineer, which was one of our big concerns. Um you agreed to work with him and get it inspected and whatnot. So, space for family that's getting larger
is a good reason for me to uh approve it, and I'll be voting yes. Thank you. >> Would one of our members like to frame the resolution please? >> Application 26 colon 12 watar ramen sub.
>> That's me. 10 California road block 369 lot 23 zone R-4 to grant or issue Cance to construct a twotory Z their edition uh second story edition over existing first story and landing and stairs
contract to section 430-35 column 8 1013 and section 430-10 I with all the uh discussions stipulated and in compliance with the >> regulations
>> engineering default >> and with no bedroom or kitchen in the basement. >> Yes. >> Second Josh. >> Joshua. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Modi. >> Yes. >> Neglia. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Ready? >> Yes. >> Byani? >> Yes. >> Applications approved. You'll be receiving your notice in the mail and at that time you could proceed with your permits. Sure. Thank you everybody. >> Thanks everybody. >> Application 26 col09.
Mr. Leon 50 James Street block 147 block 3 zone R3 a C variance to construct twotory additions patio and landing with stairs contrary to section 430-35
column 4. This application was carried from June 3rd 2026. Good evening Mr. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Have a seat. State your name and spell your last name, please, in the microphone. >> Uh, good evening. >> Good evening. My name is L. Dong. Latin name D O N G. >> Great. And you have someone with you here tonight? >> Yes. >> You raise your right hand, please. You swear or affirm that the testimony that
you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> State your name. very last name. >> Uh my name is Jonathan Babula. B-ab ULA. I'm a registered architect. >> And you've testified before this board before, correct? >> I have. >> And you've been qualified as an expert in architecture before. Correct.
>> Correct. >> The license is in good standing. >> Yes. >> He's qualified. >> Do you want to just walk the board through the plan? >> Sure. Yeah, I think so. Um can you still hear me? >> Well, take the microphone or there's there sometimes there's there's another
one, right? >> No, no, no, no, >> no. There's one right there. Yep. Okay. >> Um Okay. So, uh the this property is located in the R3 zone. Uh we it is a corner lot on uh 50 James Street and Fair View Place. Uh we are seeking a
variance for the front yard. Uh because this is a corner lot, we have two front yards. Uh the requirement for the front yard setback is 40 ft. Uh the existing off of James Street is 45.2, which that will stay the same. and the remain uh we are doing a onecar addition to the left
side of the house which is uh facing Fairview place here and uh since that is a front uh which requires the 40ft setback with this addition we are going over that front uh about 7 ft and the the setback on this uh front here will
be 33.2 two instead of the 40. Uh we are also doing addition out the rear. Uh we still meet the rear yard setback of uh 20 20 ft is required and we are at uh 20.3 uh and um the lot is a little bit under side in
square footage where 15,000 ft is required. We are at 12,500 that is existing and will remain. Uh the the coverages we all comply with the coverages here. Uh we are under the impervious coverage and under the building coverage with the additions. Um
and we did work with the uh town engineer. There was a earlier version of a bigger uh addition but we reduced the size of the addition to um get under the 500 foot threshold. So we do not require any uh storm water management for this project. Great.
>> And you know I feel like because um the other houses on most of the houses on both streets, Fair View and James Street, they all have two-car garages. This uh existing house right now only has a onecar garage. So with this addition of adding the uh second car bay
here, um it kind of conforms more with the the rest of the neighborhood with twocar garages. >> I think the issue at the time of us asking to get more information was the storm water, right? >> Yeah. >> It was one of the main issues.
Okay. So this satisfies both of those concerns. Yeah. Okay. >> So, there's a note on um the zoning officer's uh memo about the shed in the front yard. Do you know where that shed is? >> Yeah, that shed is located uh on the Fair View in the in the corner of Fair
View in their rear yard here. >> That's an existing uh obviously not >> It appears to be within the front yard setback area. Yes. >> Would you agree with that? >> Yes. Yes, it is. >> Um do you know who prepared the notices for tonight's hearing?
>> I do not. No. Do you know if the notices indicated a catch all phrase about any other >> Oh yes. >> Did it? >> Yes. I created it and yes. >> So it did it did indicate that there could be other variances that come up >> during the course of the hearing. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> But why don't we ask what is [clears throat] the condition of that shed? >> Uh the shed is in decent shape. Just a distant shed. Yeah. It's in good shape. >> Is there any landscaping around it? >> Uh just in the area. Yeah, just it's just a yard grass right now.
>> Okay. There's a fence that runs along this property line. >> Um, yeah, >> I think there is one that runs on the rear property line here. >> What's the shed? What's it on? You know what it's on? >> Uh, I do not know. Is the shed on a
concrete pad? on the concrete uh with the uh single and um the siling, but they're sitting on the concrete. >> Mhm. The shed sits on a concrete slab. >> Yes. Yes. >> Is it good shape?
>> Yeah, very good shape. >> How long How long's it been there? Is it >> Oh, I've been there over 10 years. So here the ask is from one car garage to two caras. Is that the only ask? >> Yes. Yes. For the front yard setback on uh Fairview please.
>> Okay. And >> from the rear yard also >> you mentioned something about that there might be additional >> rear yard. >> The rear yard we comply with the rear yard setback. >> The problem is that the shed that the application didn't ask to legalize the
existing shed. Okay. the existing shed does is within the front yard setback. I if you looked at Ms. Smith's memo, she points out that the shed is within that setback. >> Yeah. >> So, that needs a variance. The question is, do you want to address that or do
you want to make Mr. Dwang make a separate application to legalize that shed? >> It's up to the board as to what you want to do. >> Let's just address these. >> No, the catch all covers it. You can you you you have the authority you have the right to address that issue.
>> Let's address it. He's been back plenty of times. >> Yes. >> Yeah. You you you're well within your right to address that issue tonight. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> well, let's ask question. Did you build that shed? >> It was there when you bought the house. >> When we bought it already there.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Grandfather. We have >> Is that your test? >> Yes. Unless you want me to go through the architectural plans themselves. Um they're kind of self-explanatory, but >> yeah.
>> Do we have any questions from the of the board for this >> applicant? Are they requesting for the shed? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I believe they're requesting to add the variance for the shed. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's been here 10 years.
>> It's been here 10 years. It has been more than 10 years. >> Yeah, exactly. >> More than 10 years. >> More than 10 years for sure. >> So technically >> over 15 years. >> So So you're you're amending your application to add an additional variance for the shed. Correct. >> Yes.
>> I've written it. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> No. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment or speak of the information just given by
uh the architect? I see. Anyone in favor of this applicant? Anyone against this application? I see. >> Would one of our members like to please frame recommend approval of this application, please? >> Sure. I'm going to recommend approving
it. We started at a place that seemed far far away. [laughter] and we uh we got back to planet Earth and you're not really asking for a lot and the shed has been there longer than you own the house. So, I'll be voting yes. application
uh 26 col09 Lee Jung 50 Drain Street block 147 lot 3 zone R3 recommend granting a C variance to construct a two-story addition patio and landing with stairs contrary to section 430-35 column 4 and legalize an existing shed
>> in a front yard setback >> in a front yard setback and that's it correct? >> Yeah, I don't think there were any conditions. >> Okay, great. Uh, that's it. >> Second. Third. >> Uh, see Jess?
>> Yes. >> Nasarella? >> Yes. >> Modi? >> Yes. >> Anglua? >> Yes. >> Popity? >> Yes. >> Ready? >> Yes. >> Griani. >> Yes. >> Go home. [laughter] >> Thank you, Mr.
>> Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> Don't build anything else over there. Bye >> bye. [laughter] >> Have fun with that guy. >> Application 26 col06 Craig Terrone 37 West Minister Drive
block 746 lot 46 zone R2 C are to construct an open deck and stairs. Install pavers around outdoor kitchen area and PA patio. Contrary to section 430-35 columns 13, applicant may wish to
legalize existing swimming pool inside yard setback for 5.78 ft 78 in I guess whereas 6t is required. >> Oh meaning >> you raise your right hand please to swear or affirm
>> excuse me that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yeah. >> State your name. Spell your last name, please. >> Correct. Toron. Last name is Toron. T O R O N. >> And you're the applicant, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> And you have someone with you tonight. >> Can you raise your right hand, please?
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but >> Yes, sir. >> State your name, please. >> Thomas B. >> Spell your last name. >> Uh, B O V E. >> And what is your relationship to this application? >> I'm a professional engineer. New New Jersey uh licensed professional
engineer. >> Your license is in good standing? >> Yes, sir. Have you testified before this board before? >> No, I have not. >> Have you testified before other boards? >> Yes, sir. >> Have you been qualified previously as an expert in engineering? >> Yes, sir. >> Um, I don't have any other questions on
qualifications as well. >> Okay. So, who wants to talk to the board about the application? >> Sure. I'll jump into it. So, this lot has a few existing non-conformities. One of them being the uh existing ingground swimming pool which Craig actually
brought a survey from 1973 >> 73 which shows the pool uh there in the same location that it is today. So assuming that there's been no objections since then I I I assume that it's not going to be an issue moving forward.
He's also uh over on the imperous coverage with the lot. So, we are proposing to add some pavers, but in a good faith effort to keep the impervious coverage where it is now and actually reduce it, we propose to remove the deck
and remove some concrete around the pool area and we will be adding a few feet of pavers around the existing outdoor kitchen. We're going to be we're adding we're actually reducing the impervious coverage. So, we do not require any
storm water management. Um, right now Craig's lot does have some existing drainage issues where he has some some ponding. So, we will be adding a few yard drain there to address that concern. >> So, when you purchased the house, it was
in the configuration that currently exists. >> 100%. We've been there 18 years and the only thing I changed even though my wife would want me to do some work on it, the liner of the pool was about the only thing I changed out of it. >> Okay. So, all that was already existing.
>> Already there. Yes. >> Okay. So, and you're proposing to improve the impervious coverage situation by removing um that um concrete pad that's immediately adjacent to the pool that that looks like it's right on the property line, right?
>> That's correct. Yep. And also removing the existing deck. We're going to replace it with pavers, but there is a small uh planting collar that we're going to have around the the perimeter of the house to make up for impervious there as well.
>> Do you know what the papers are going to be dry laid or are they going to be grouted? >> I'm not sure honestly. >> Haven't looked into that yet. But you reduced the impervious coverage
so that you aren't required to have a storm water management plan. Correct. >> That's correct. Yep. >> And you did that by removing that concrete patio, right? >> The bulk of it was with that concrete patio and and we gained some by removing the deck and adding that replacing with
that 18-inch planting uh collar uh with top soil. and the rest would be would be pavers, but we gained some in that in that area as well. >> Well, we have a letter from the engineer saying you don't need a stone water management. >> That's correct.
>> You do need a soil minor soil permit to take care of that through the engineering department. >> And uh Nor did you do this notice also? >> Yep. >> So, this notice also has that catch all phrase, correct?
>> So, it's coming in handy. So would you like to amend your application to include the pool variance as well? >> Yes, sir. [laughter] >> Great. >> What is it? >> It's 12 in. >> Not even. It's not even a quarter of a
foot. Well, what's a It's a quarter of a foot. >> Oh, three inches. >> 3 in too close. >> Right. On the worst on the worst case. [laughter] inches too close to the side >> in this courthouse.
>> Great. >> So, just got to get this information. >> Okay. >> Is that your Is that your testimony, sir? >> That's all I got. Once you guys have any questions? >> No. >> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> Any questions from the audience on this application?
>> I don't think you wanted to hear. >> Okay. >> Oh, wait. Just for the record, did you see the June 22nd, 2026 letter from the township engineer? >> I had it right here. Yep. >> Okay. So, are you okay with all of those comments? >> Yeah, that's fine. We'll get them We'll get them as built and he said that we
need a a soil permit uh if it exceeds 5 cubic yards of soil moving, which it won't. Everything's going at at grade. >> Okay. So, you're you're okay with all those conditions, >> correct? >> Okay. I think this is as minor as could be, so
I'm going to be recommending it. >> You're welcome. >> It's a dimminimous recommendation. >> I kept it short for a reason, so I don't remember. >> Frame a resolution, please. >> Too late. Application uh >> you want to do it or no? Application
2606 Craig Torren 37 Westminster Drive block 746 lot 46 zone R2 recommend granting a C variance to construct an open deck and stairs install pavers around outdoor kitchen area and paper patio contrary to
section 430-35 column 13 and to legalize a swimming pool >> uh was yeah >> that's it Second >> and the conditions is that he's going to comply with the engineer.
>> Uh and the condition is as Mr. Johnson said. >> I'll second that. >> Josh, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Modi, >> yes. >> Neglia, >> yes. >> Popity, >> yes. >> Ready? >> Yes. >> Ryani, >> yes. >> Application is approved.
>> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. Thanks for >> I think your last applicant may be discussing something with your with their neighbor and their council. So maybe someone should move for a uh >> Should we just see if they're close?
>> A little Would you like me to go out and see if they're talking? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Like to make a motion for Mr. Johnson to go outside and check out. >> Johnson can make a motion. >> So good. They're back. >> They saw you coming. They said, "Oh, shoot." He got up.
We were keeping cash. >> What's this all about? >> I don't know. [clears throat] >> Yeah. >> I don't know. Application 25 84 David and Tess Lewis
30 Battle Ridge Road 15.7 lot 11 zone R- 1M a C variance to legalize asfelt corpse shed on existing asphalt courts
patio pavers open deck and stairs contrary to section 10 C shed side and rear yards section 430-10 I >> section 430-35
columns 8 asphalt courts and paver patio section 430-35 columns 9 and section 430-35, columns 13. >> Okay, >> Mr. Johnson, quick question for you.
>> My current employer >> built that house. Did we say it was okay or >> it was before I was with the company? >> Have you conflicted Did you conflict yourself about the last time this was heard? >> I'm You know what? Maybe I No, >> I'm sure I raised it. I just wanted to
make sure. >> I don't have an issue. >> Yeah, it's before I was even with the company. >> I don't have an issue. Okay. Um, >> his employer built the house >> before he was employed. >> I don't have an issue. >> Wait, it's told that they are the
original owners. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm only with them 10 years. So, >> so they were right. So, you were not employed? >> No. >> At the time that they that your current employer built or sold the house to the athletes. Correct. >> Correct.
>> I have no >> Okay. You want to put your appearance on the record? Yeah. >> Uh, good evening, madam chairwoman, members of the board. My name is Anna Das. I'm a partner with the law firm of Kennedy's. I'm here this evening on behalf of my clients Tess and David
Lewis uh with respect to their property at 30 Battle Ridge Road. It is block 15.07 lot 11 on the official tax maps of uh the township zoning maps. Notice of his application was duly provided pursuant to NJSA405D-12.
Proof of said notice was provided in an affidavit of service filed with the secretary of the board on June 24th, 2026. By way of a brief background, my clients have owned this property since uh 1992.
Uh this uh that fact uh that they have owned the property for 34 years is reflected in a deed that was recorded with the Morris County Clerk's Office on January 28th, 1993. Mr. Johnson, I would
like to mark the deed as exhibit A1 and I have copies for the members of the board. We'll distribute that now. >> Sure. >> I'm going to provide all of the exhibits together. This is the summary of of all the exhibits exhibits if we use
them all in that order. That's the order of >> Are they pre-marked? >> Yes, >> these are not. >> Okay. So, just give give one to Nora and then she can mark them as we go through them. Let me and
>> it's more important that Nora has that. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh the >> Nor please. >> Oh, thank you. So, right now you're marking A1. Is that correct? A1 is the deed to the property dated January uh excuse
me December 21st, 1992. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. The the deed that has been marked as exhibit A1 reflects that my clients have owned the property as in continuous ownership since the house was newly
constructed. There was new construction in 1992. Uh the property as uh shown on the plans is a two-story frame dwelling is improved with an asphalt driveway, a twocar garage, a front uh porch with
steps, a rear deck, a patio, and an asphalt uh court uh that also has a storage shed sitting on it. The relevance of the deed uh ladies and gentlemen is that my clients have had
full knowledge of the improvements of of the property over the last 34 years. And while we are here tonight um to quote unquote legalize certain improvements
uh that appear not to be consistent with the code as it is today. I would like to offer before I turn it over to uh our engineer that these improvements, namely the uh patio and the deck and the
basketball court were all existing at the time or in relation to the issuance of the initial uh certificate of occupancy that I commend the township's records. I was actually able to find on the township
website. The certificate of occupancy was applied for on August 18th uh of 1992 and was issued later that year in
December 16th, 1992. Mr. Johnson, I profer the certificate of occupancy as exhibit 82. without objection. Um that is a uh document again found on the township's website and is also made
part of the exhibits. So the issuance of that permit, the certificate of occupancy reflects that the improvements uh were constructed in in relation to in discussions with the builder at the time
the house was built. So I submit respectfully to you members of the board that the improvements that we are discussing tonight have been in existence for approximately 34 years.
This is not a case uh as there are frequent cases as we all know where a property owner constructs an improvement and later comes before a board seeking forgiveness. These improvements were subsumed as part
of the initial certificate of occupancy as part of a list that was prepared in relation with the builder at the time. And fortunately, because my client has owned the home since that time, uh she's
able to provide that recollection. >> So, do you have a survey for when your clients purchased the property? >> From 1992? I I do not uh Bill I don't have >> there there's no reference in the in the certificate um what you mark as A2 to whether those
improvements were there or not. Now I understand your client may testify >> Sure. >> that they were there but there's no reference to them correct in >> correct that's our representation >> that that your client is going to testify that they've been there the whole time. >> Yes. Correct. >> But you don't have a survey. Uh not from
uh let me well let's have Joe V may be able he prepared a recent survey and I can let's have uh Mr. Vuch sworn in uh Bill >> just affirm that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> State your name your last name please. My name is Joseph Vuch. That's V as in
Victor. UI C [clears throat] and licensed engineer and licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey as well as certified municipal engineer. >> Um if you testified before this board. >> I have not before this board. I am the
uh standing municipal engineer and board engineer in your neighboring Morris Township, uh Chester Burrow, Long Hill Township, as well as others in Sussex County. And your license is in good standing. >> Both licenses are in good standing. >> You seem to be qualified. >> Thank you.
>> Go ahead. Joe Joe was going to respond to your comment, Bill. All right. >> It's our understanding from discussions with our client that the improvements have been there since the time of their original inhabitants and more specifically that those improvements
were as were part of a punch list on the closing of the home and negotiation with the builder. They were built and coordinated by the builder or through a subcontractor that he identified for them. Do do you know if the builder
included those improvements in their building permit application? >> I do not. >> Is there any records that have been able to been any records that have been located that would indicate that the provenments the improvements that you're
seeking to legalize today were included in the building permit application? >> We have not found those those documents to exist. So we don't know as we sit here today whether when the building permit was issued those improvements
were included in that application. >> No, we have the understanding from our client and their direct testimony if required >> that it was as part of the closing and punch list with the builder. >> Okay. So So your clients didn't build
the house. >> Correct. So they have no firsthand knowledge as to what application was made to when they when they sought a building permit. Correct. So they can't testify one way or the other as to whether these improvements were part of the application. >> But no, but they were provided
>> a certificate of occupancy for the home they purchased in good faith by the builder with their understanding of the punch list from the builder and the reconciliation of certain improvements that were being constructed at the time. >> Mr. Mr. Johnson, I am sorry. I need a
minute of your time. >> Do you want to fry it? >> I think I think I have to speak to you. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Well, let's um uh Okay. >> What do you want? >> I think I need to recuse myself. >> If you think you need to recuse yourself, then you need to recuse
yourself. I do. >> And you don't need And if that's how you feel, then you should recuse yourself. >> I do. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> No, no problem. Honesty, it's great. Good evening, guys. Sorry for the delay. >> Yeah, I think we'll get there. Okay. So, um,
may I briefly interject? [snorts] >> So, can we finish our presentation and you'll have >> objection to something? I I do along the lines of should I put my appearance on? I >> appear put your appearance on now.
>> So come up and put your appearance on the record so we so so the record can reflect who's speaking. >> Good evening, chair, members of the board, esteemed professionals. uh Michael Castorii of Day Pittney representing uh the the owners of 34
Battle Ridge Road, Mr. and Mrs. Pinto. Um I didn't mean to interject uh to their introduction, but I if there's going to be a factual representation that all the improvements have been in the state that they currently are when
the property was purchased, I would like the direct testimony of the property owner to substantiate Okay. I >> think he's just previewing the testimony. >> Apologies. >> Thank you. And u to be clear um that is we will put that on uh Mr. Johnson and
members of the board, but we're also here to provide the necessary proofs under the municipal land use law to have the the variances. uh because when the as reflected by the certificate if you look at the certificate when the zone when the
property was constructed in 20ou 1992 the zone was then considered a R3 zone currently the zone is a R1M zone and over 30 years um admittedly there have likely been changes to the zone
requirements. Um so but we are here again tonight to to address uh uh with the preface with the predicate facts that we were put on by our client as to the existence of these improvements in
1992. We also have a professional engineer and planner with us who will testify to why notwithstanding or in spite of the fact that the improvements were lawfully existing uh we're also prepared to to put on the
burden of proofs. Let me simplify for the board the variances. uh we can uh neatly address two of the variances which are the accessory side yard uh where 5.9 ft uh exists for the shed and
six is required and similarly for the uh rear yard for the shed where 4.07 07 ft is uh existing and six is required. I can stipulate having conferred with my client that we will simply move over the
shed to eliminate uh both the dimminimous uh sideyard infringement and as well as the rear yard. So we can address those two by agreeing to rem just simply move the shed over um a few
inches. >> Okay. So your clients are going to move the shed so it complies. >> Correct. So that takes care of variance for the sideyard for the shed as well as for the uh as as well as for the sheds rear yard variance. Uh okay. And with
that I'm going to turn it over to our engineer Mr. Blitch to speak to the uh broader issues relating to the variances uh that remain. So >> okay
>> to regroup on the improvements since the time of original construction. The extents of these improvements were well established and have remained since the original
time of construction. Uh most notably that being and I'll refer what I had pre-marked. So one and two were submitted to you. >> A three enter the applicant will mark
exhibit A3 >> which is a agreement between the Lewis's and the neighbors to the south on the uh driveway side the not the objector side. Um and then my submitted boundary in
topo survey from my firm uh was to be marked A4. A5 is our variant set as submitted. And then A6 impervious area exhibit which was revised in coordination uh with Miss Smith
um at the time of submission. I'm going to turn to that plan. So A3 is an agreement between your clients and one of their neighbors >> with >> Yes. With respect to the >> to a fence >> to the fence and the proximity of the
improvements on that side of the yard because the fence was installed as screening between properties. >> Okay. A4 is your boundary and survey. >> Yeah. As submitted with the application. >> Okay. A5 is the variance plan set, the
cover sheet and the and the plan as submitted with the application. Great. >> And A6 is the impervious area exhibit which was revised um and at the same date in our coordination with Miss Smith during our
submission and that is what I've turned to here in front of you colorized. It was colorized at time of there's no change to it. >> This was submitted to the board. This was submitted to Miss Smith um in supplement to reconcile the uh the
zoning analysis. >> Okay. >> There were discrepancies between her calculations and ours and we submitted this to clarify and make sure that our calculations were consistent with hers and your interpretations of your code. So [clears throat]
the rear pavement area p um is up in the top. It's 899 ft. That was originally constructed and has not been improved since that time. There are rear walks to
that area of 117 square ft that were improved um originally and remain as the original blue slate steps. And then the patio area which is uh 1179
ft is bound by an original wooden curb. And that area is the original extents of what was a blue slate. And then uh on in the center and towards the south and on the southern side to
that full limit of the property line that extent always existed and was originally mulched and stone landscaped with a swing set and fire pit until the entire area was renovated with pavers as
opposed to blue slate that were there prior. So, was the is it your understanding that that entire area as originally constructed was blue slate? >> It was blue slate and landscape stone
along the far portion. >> Do you know how much of that area was covered by blue slate as originally constructed? Uh my understanding is roughly to the edge of the prop uh the edge of the building >> and the rest of it was mulch
>> was a like a a stone mulch um which supported the the the walkway around the side from the driveway and in through the rear gate and into that extended p patio area. >> Do you know when that improvement was made
>> originally with >> when was it? >> When was it changed? Um >> is your correct >> approximately 8 to 10 years ago. >> Okay. Is there any record of any application being made to make that
change? >> No. >> Uh the dwelling remains at its original constructed size which our survey shows is a footprint of 2479 ft. the front
driveway with the walls on the side of the driveway at 928 square feet uh is the original alignment and constructed width and extents as well as the the front steps are the original configuration but I understand were uh
maintained and renovated to uh keep them compliant um settling of certain pavers and others over the years. um AC units, condenser units on the side that also contribute to uh impervious coverage that have been
part of the the home since its original construction. Um the the areas that are part of more recent landscape renovations would be uh an incompleted small landscape wall of approximately 18
in to maybe 2 ft in height. that was part of an attempt of mitigation recommended by the township engineer. Um, as well as this kind of curbing around the edge of the lawn area in that area. Those are the only modern
improvements other than the maintenance replacement of the blue slate and stone to a consistent PA patio in the last 8 to 10 years. And so I would turn to our next exhibit A7
which are the existing condition [clears throat] photos. So we see on the top the Oh, I'm sorry. I will slide back. There was one other modification.
The deck steps were relocated at approximately the same time. >> Um, they were originally more centrally located and they were shifted over to align with the existing sliding glass door from the kitchen uh just out of
convenience for coming in and out in the rear. But they were simply just slid over at one point. >> That entire yellow space there with the pavers now that was all slate. Now it's all pavers. It was slate with a small area of landscape stone. >> Okay. But now it's all pavers.
>> It is all pavers. >> So what is the difference as far as impervious coverage between the way the slate was put in and the way the pavers are? >> It's a full finish slate. >> It was no no crack. Water didn't get through. >> Yeah. It wasn't it wasn't slate with stone around it. It was slate edge to
edge like I have the same at home. >> Concrete in between. >> Yeah. No. >> Sit sitting on concrete. sitting on on grade flush stone edge to edge cut stone cut blue stone >> but I cannot
>> it was impervious >> at the time >> okay >> and it was replaced impervious >> it was expanded >> correct >> yeah it was expanded >> gravel impervious area was replaced with pavers along with the blue stone area that was impervious replaced with pavers
>> so you think the gra the pre-existing gravel is it your testimony that you believe that was considered impervious. >> It was compacted and well traveled by the feet of their children playing in that area, the fire pit and over the years as well as people coming in and
out of that area. So yes, it acted as a mostly impermeable surface cover. Do >> you know >> similarly to a uh access road by gravel that cars infrequently used is considered under D's definitions to be impervious.
>> [clears throat] >> Okay. >> So, a A7 is the existing photos from April 14th, 2026. Uh views from the deck looking south to a view from that corner, southern
corner of the deck, looking back across the patio, the existing PA patio as renovated. >> Joe, can we Mr. Castro can't see it? Can we turn this so that he can see it? >> You have the time to work them. >> They're all in that back.
>> Yes. >> In order. >> They're just not marked to mark them while we're here. >> Uh in the top right corner is the small yard area and that unfinished small landscape wall. As I said, you know, uh, a foot to 18 in, maybe two 2 feet at its
most to the bottom of foundation that fur um, which is a wall that would not require construction permit, but that was done as at the request of the township engineer trying to reconcile drainage issues. Uh, the upper area, this is the existing
pavement, the original pavement. You can see its wear and age and condition in all in these two photos, left bottom and center bottom. And then from that area, this is a shot back towards the house um
off the pavement and the mulch landscape area that that drains down on a slope towards their property. [clears throat] >> Who's their property? Uh >> our client's property. The next exhibit is A8. This is a near
mapap aerial imagery, high resolution aerial imagery from April 8th, 2026 on the top, the most current available image, as well as 2015, April 12th, which is the furthest back available image. These images are consistent on
all improvements at the property dating back to 2015, including while it's not as easily seen on 2026, the upper area of the asphalt that is undisputed still remains and it's more clearly visible in
2015. And we see no no change in conditions over these 11 years with the exception of this constructed wall at this location. >> And then the steps in from the >> What is the >> I'm sorry the steps from where
>> Oh yes. And the steps exactly that I mentioned before. That's why I went back. So you Thank you. Um >> what is the history to the of the wall? You mentioned that the township engineer was involved in that. >> Yes, there are um along with the letter
for this application, he attached his prior correspondence on the matter related to the drainage dispute that that had started the initial application. Uh next is A9. So I'm going to go back. I'm going
backwards in time. This is NJ Geo Webb's the NJ DP's 2007 infrared aerials. We use the infrared aerials because they're easier to see through tree cover. There is some still, you know, um tree limbs that you have to see through. And obviously these get grainier as we go
back based on technology. But again, we see comparing to what we just looked at in 2015 to 2026, the same improvements, the same patio area. right here there is there are trees so there are branches kind of covering to this area but this
is that that area right here where we're talking about these pa patios do extend all the way to the property line and previously right in here was an improved area [clears throat] >> so this is 2007 picture >> this is 2007 yes the next goes back to
2002 same no change in conditions no change in improvements no improvements done with um to the property without obtaining permits. >> This is A10. >> This is 2002. This is A10. Um again getting grainier, but this is
what is available to us to demonstrate and document that there were no substantial changes to the property. Um and then we go back one further which is the closest we can get to our 1992 certificate of occupancy. We see a lot
of grain and distortion in the image. But again, this does align back up with the same limits of improvement that are in the prior. This this being A11 in A10, A9, A8, 7, and back to what we see today in
my A6 exhibit, which is our surveyed impervious area exhibit. Um, now A11, sorry, A12 [clears throat] is an exhibit that I prepared for tonight's
hearing with today's date, July 8th, 2026. This is the neighborhood lot coverage exhibit. U, our client's property is here, 30 Battle Ridge, lot 11 in the middle. What we'll we'll see consistently through this document, and you should
have a small copy in front of you to make it easier to see on all these lots, we have very similar lot areas of roughly 15,000 and change. Um over here, lot 9, two houses away, is larger at 17,344,
but the neighbor to the right, which is the south, 15,08 ft. Our property 15,025. our neighbors to the left, the north side is 15,05 square feet and further
one more 15,012 square feet. Similarly across the street we have larger lot areas that extend into the woods but the developable footprint is similar. Um we see the same you can see the same roof pitch patterns. These are steeper
repeats by the builder on on the building type. This was not an ABCD rotate and step. This was essentially a one pattern step and repeat through. Uh we see because of that minor discrepancies in percentage of
building coverage, building plus deck coverage and total impervious coverage on most of these problems. um our client's property at 16.5 building coverage and building plus deck of 17.787 which are two of the variances that are
in front of you tonight as well as their impervious coverage a third variance that's in front of you tonight 42.22% 22% of their lot coverage. We see comparative building coverage of 16.3 on our
neighbor to the north, lot 12, 34 Battle Ridge. Uh building and deck coverage, which is actually slightly higher than ours at 19.7 and impervious coverage of 30.7. On the other side, on the south side,
lot 10, 28, Battle Ridge, we see 16.3 of the um building coverage, 20% on the building and deck, and 31.3% on uh the total impervious. And this is consistent percentages throughout the
neighborhood. If we go two houses north to 38 Battle Ridge lot 13, [clears throat] we see 16% on the building, 16.3 on the building, which is slightly below ours at 165. We see a building plus deck above ours at 19.3
and we see an impervious coverage above ours at 51%. Um, and this is a good example of some of the upper bounds of this is obviously a more modern pool improvement in modern times, but based on the construction of
our impervious area uh, in the '90s, it is comparable and um, and and lot 13 far exceeds us by 9% on total lot coverage in the rear yard, which in this area all drains
westerly and down the page towards Battle ridge. >> Do you know if 38 Battle Ridge got a variance to put that pool in? >> I do not. Um I would expect they did because it's an obvious improvement that requires multiple construction code,
>> right? >> Uh permits, but it is representative of what I assume is a approval for lot coverage in the modern zoning in this in this area, in this neighborhood. Um, and
it's a good transition to my next and final exhibit A13, which is the first sheet and also the fifth sheet out of a set of eight, which is the Powdermill Village
phase two, phase 3, section two subdivision, which was dated 1988, uh, June 7th. This is filed map 4675. On this filed map cover sheet, we see
zoning which was the proposed zoning for zone R1M and alternate 2 version with the ordinance requirements. And what we see in this table is an understanding that the powder mill village subdivision, which is quite expansive
and has multiple phases and sections, um included contemplations for residential, commercial, industrial office, single family dwellings as well as town homes, each of which having respective densities.
um minimum and maximum lot sizes were proposed were required to be between 12,500 to 17,500 and what was provided in the creation of these lots was 13,50 to 19,910.
Um so when we look at this table we understand that there was what I I understand to be a cluster density modification approval of the original subdivision of powder mill. The improvements at that time um and the development of the lots as
single family dwellings were understood to have a certain density that exceeds your current zoning and is lawfully existing when when constructed and approved at that time. We see a understanding as well of open
space required of up to at 30% which was intended to be 78.9 acres. The developer provided 95.44 acres and there was a required setback in the front yard to the residential roads of
30 ft. And as we flip to sheet five, >> is this A14? This is no this is part of A13. Okay. Second page. Second page. We see the lots. This our subject lot is lot 11. Here there is consistently
a 40ft building setback line not 30 provided by the developer. we see a 15 as I noted before 15,000 square foot um lots being created in the median average between the minimum and maximum required
and as I noted earlier some 20 plus acres more provided an open space as part of the the cluster density the if you will horse trading of the zoning of that subdivision originally. Um, so we understand that the totality
of this subdivision in its sections was contemplated with a certain density and anticipation of reasonable improvements for a single family dwelling in this particular section. And those reasonable improvements have existed since the '90s, constructed under either the
direct hand or subcontracted hand of the developer initially to its original limits and then were supplemented by contractors uh for minor landscaping improvements and maintenance through the years by our client without exceeding
any of the original limits. And so respectfully, it would be our position that these are lawfully existing improvements can be acknowledged as such by the board as part of the original CO.
The aerial history demonstrates a consistency of that in the absence of an original survey from the from the builder on record with the municipality as part of his CO. um and no other municipal records that
have been provided to us that document anything to the alternative. Um in that we will provide planning proofs in the alternative and would prefer to receive all the variance relief now. So we have a
modernized acceptance of variance relief in 2026 under current zoning to further reinforce that all of these are lawfully existing in perpetuation moving forward. Um and
with that in brief my planning hat and then I will supplement at your direction. Um, understanding that the first part that I explained about lawfully existing improvements, I do believe those would
categorize under a hardship C1 variance under section 7. that the structures lawfully existing thereon in strict application of the ordinance would result in particular and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship to the applicant because they
were originally approved, contemplated as part of the subdivision and then executed by the by the builder and issued cos that were not in in dispute in any form from 1992 until 2023 approximately when the
dispute between neighbors originally arose that started with the zoning violation that brought my client to this forum on a prior application that was withdrawn and then resubmitted with professionals in support. >> I understand your point with respect to
the upper asphalt area that that seems it seems pretty clear that that probably existed. But there were there's a change with respect to the patio area right behind your cl your your client's house. The change is in
>> the blue >> what was a blue slate and mixed stone area which would I would say was approximately 80% blue slate full coverage and I'm going to turn back to that what [clears throat] was our exhibit A7
A6 so this area is79 ft about 80% of That is the rough estimate of where that full cover to cover blue slate was to the edge of the existing curbs that have not been modified and that last 20% area. So, uh,
we look at >> 200 square ft. >> Yeah. 240 ft. >> Do you have any documentation that shows that gravel was there? Any photographs, any surveys, anything that shows that that was gra? No, just the honesty of my
client that she did not state that it was fully impervious as blue slave, but instead clarified that it was the stone area that was originally bounded by the wooden railroad ties. >> Who who is going to tell us
the township engineer became involved? >> Yes. >> In the drainage issue. >> He did. >> What preceded that? How did that get to the town engineer? So, there was an unfortunate incident of a failure of a
hose and valve um in the rear yard and the rear spigot which is roughly in this area and um over this patio area that I understood understand drained
north and then west around the property and over the property line to get to the curb. >> Okay. And that matter was a rare instance. Um was corrected between property owners um by communication and
uh the valve was turned off and then >> an accident that was that was understood to be an accident and then there was uh I believe a higher attention to rainfall after that time and what kinds of impacts the rainfall were happening having to both respected properties. So,
so did that accident happen before or after the slate was changed that we know? >> It would have been after years after. >> I guess my other >> my other question is we don't have a survey from the original build, right? Did anybody attempt to get one?
>> We don't have one in our possession, >> but was there an attempt made to get an original survey? Because my house was built in ' 64 and I have an original survey. So I I guess I my my question is if we had the original survey in front of us, we would know >> you would >> exactly what was approved for the CEO then. No,
>> you you would know what was on the survey, >> right? And >> that doesn't mean that someone is part of the sale of the house didn't add some improvements. You would know what was on the survey. >> That's well and I guess that would go a long way. leads to the
builder's intent and what the builder submitted and if he had done any improvements that he did not communicate to the to our owner and the first occupier that were not part of his co but he had not most of these things are add-ons after
you occupy alcohol the size of these patios in the court area in the back >> correct and as shown not a common improvement going along with the initial >> at the time of the construction which is an issue we see in storm water
management for major development of the lack of BP's understanding of what happens with a subdivision. >> So when I wear my municipal hat right I >> look for storm water mitigation by the developer in excess of the lock coverage he's proposing >> but more of the lock coverage that's
allowed so that the next owner can make improvements that are already mitigated for. That's not something we contemplated in the 90s. >> Fair enough. I'm just my my point is just if I were able to look at this original survey then maybe that would shed a little more light on >> understand and that's why I provided A12
the lock coverage in the neighborhood. So you have an understanding that >> no no current one is we we understand we can compare but do you mean to say that that ashalt in the backyard that is built by the >> has not been replaced since >> builder builder gave like that
>> the builder built it >> I agree with Mr. mozzarella like we'll have some starting point if we have survey we could have some starting point okay this is the starting point >> and that's all that's all I'm saying I mean obviously we're going to hear testimony that it was there but we're
might hear testimony that it wasn't there >> and so with that let let me offer that the assistant municipal engineer Mr. Nihoff his comment letter dated March 11th item two um indicates that there's storm water
runoff from the backyards flowing towards the neighborly direction. But more importantly, item four identifies that our municipal code here locally with respect to minor development stormwater regulations was adopted in 2021 and he concluded that
there were no additional improvements since 2021 and therefore stormwater mitigation is not required. This would be if we contemplate the whole of all of that in modern times >> of anything that's really in dispute of being constructed which or modified in
change of impervious we're talking about what was about 250 rounding conservatively up square feet on this side 250 ft in any municipality in the state is pretty much exempt under local codes from requiring stormwater
mitigation. Typically, municipalities might impose a mitigation requirement around 500 at the lowest or more typically closer to a thousand or when there's 1,500 square ft of disturbance as part of triggering minor storm water mitigation
>> depend on the R1, R2, R3 zone, >> depending on the zones. Yes. But we're we're looking at since the time since the time of zoning in this municipality, there is no storm water mitigation requirement for any of these improvements.
>> So I guess your point there is that even if they added that patio um it since it was before March of 2021 or even thereafter it wouldn't have required storm wear mitigation measures.
Is that your point? That is the assistant municipal engineer's position and I agree with his position. >> So if I look back and maybe maybe this was put in back in ' 92 or whenever, but there's on the February 14th, 2025
letter from uh the engineering office, right? It says about a 4 in drain that was capped supposedly. So there was this area is bound by a railroad tie. >> Uhhuh. >> It doesn't flush drain off. So it does pull water at times. There was a small
ads drain. We see it here. This great elevation. Very small little 4 inch cap, >> right? >> That alleviated anything that held into this corner which was about maybe a/2 in lip of the railroad tie, the paver to
drain into this lawn area immediately right here in this >> right now. Was that added after the original build or was that >> that was part of I believe the pavers being replaced for the blue stone. >> Okay. Okay. So then that was >> and then this wall here was part of the mitigation that was started in good
faith at the direction of the municipal engineer to try to resolve that dispute >> to prevent the water go to the next >> right so that this lawn area would kind of prevent that from sheeting away and hold it into this area so it would infiltrate into this lawn area that is >> what is there in that area is it steps
are >> this is all lawn >> you said it was not finished what >> the yeah um it we were I've understood it was a stop work order to stop the work because it was
objected to by the neighbor and uh the township engineer thought it prudent to stop the work as opposed to a rec because it doesn't require permit doesn't require UCCC permits perhaps it required zoning permits for the extent of everything else and that's what was
issued and what started this process >> was the wall intended to mitigate storm water runoff. >> It was >> to direct it. >> No, it was good. >> It's a landscape wall. Respectfully, I don't believe it mitigates anything, but the township engineer thought it prudent
to place it in that location to help create a boundary between the properties. >> And it also says about that 4in stream that it was said to be capped, but it was buried. And then the erosion that was noticed kind of led them to believe that maybe it wasn't capped. So that
that that drain right here, you have an edge of sod, >> right? >> And they then exposed that, cut it, and opened it right here to alleviate that issue when it was inspecting. >> Okay. I didn't >> So currently it discharges all of maybe
six in through this curb. >> All right. So, but it's not capped. >> No, it's not. Okay. >> Correct. It discharges well within the property about a foot away from this edge right here. >> Right. But okay. But it's still if if there's a flood, it comes out and around
it comes down to the front of the house >> or to the neighbor's property. >> Right. Which is this area we're speaking of is right in here. So that that discharge is right there. >> Okay. So when the spot in in in correlation with that drain, where would the spot have been located there?
>> The spet's located right here off the center photo. >> Okay. And then I understand that water sat in this area and drained that way. >> Okay. >> So the water in this property drains
north and west. >> So I'll turn to A3. A4 which is our survey. The water generally drains west from the top to the bottom to the front to Battle
Ridge Road. There is a uh elevation of the the first floor with sloping northerly towards the neighbor to the north along the property line and immediately in the rear here there's a
breaking grade as well. So the natural drainage pattern is directly through westerly and on the north side it does drain north to and through the property line to the front >> which we see with the the topo that's picked up.
>> It's all funneled over to that spot. >> Yeah, it's it well and well maybe the back half the northerly half the other northerly the southerntherly side drains around the other side of the building. >> Right. So it looks like there's about
when house to house lines up it's looks like about is that 3 ft of a slope down. >> There's a 12.4 ft setback on our property and then similarly to the neighbors go about 25 ft between foundations. >> So it says 8.1 815.6.
What is that? That and then it drops down to 812.9 towards their house. >> There's a pitch there's a pitch of the original slope breaking grade between the properties. >> Everything slopes towards that. Yeah, Mr. Me Maser, that's a good point because as Joe was testifying, one of the unique aspects of this property is
the steepness of the slope from the rear, >> right? >> And it actually the natural topography which which is why we believe it justifies the blending proofs is of the unique topography of the property >> landscape. Yeah. >> Well, that old neighborhood's steep. I
mean, what's unique about that? >> Well, unique the three foot difference to the next >> kind of sending everything What's what is unique would be that subsection 7 of looking at lawfully existing structures with strict application of our current
zoning in relation to improvements that were constructed under the original zoning of that area. I think that is applicable to hardship is my professional opinion that is applicable and that's neighbor >> you emphasize the zoning's been changed
>> in detail or in in a gross way. Well, for example, when we look at the neighborhood lot coverage we have in this zone, right, buildings plus deck is allowed to be 10% which is
the building coverage in the zone. Yeah. >> Plus an additional 4% 14%. 10% to 14% combined. Every house in this neighborhood exceeds 10%. The closest to 10% is 11.3
and 11.8 across the street where the lots are significantly larger. But the comparable lots on our north side or sorry our east side of Battle Ridge are all in excess of the combined for the building coverage alone. the combined
building plus debt at 16.3 going north to south in our neighbors. 16.3 16.3 our lot at 16.5 16.3 13.5 again a larger lot and then we see
building plus deck well in excess of that additional 4% to 14 at 19.3 19.7 our client at 17.87 87 20% neighborly and 16.4. So we are the
second lowest in that combined impervious coverage. >> Well that's that's building plus deck. >> That's building plus deck. >> What about improvements [laughter] >> and total improvements? We are our neighbors to the north are 30.7. Our
neighbor to the south is 31.3. Further to the south is 32.6. We are 42.2. and our neighbor two houses to the north is 51%. >> That's the one with the pool. >> That is the one with the pool, >> which we it's a reasonable assumption that they got a variance for that pool
>> under modern standards. And I would argue that >> I don't have that in front of me, but if I was giving their planning proofs, I would identify that this is a reasonable improvement in modern times, customary and incidental to a home. >> Yeah.
>> It collects the water and it's impervious. It's similar in size in fact larger in size than our asphalt area which if I was giving that proof in my collect water >> I would have identified us two houses away >> but but the pool collects water
>> it does but the water but it is treated as impervious coverage >> I understand it's treated as imperous coverage but it collects water >> it collects water faster than it evaporates water which means that water has to be mitigated and that water is actively managed and and pumped through a specific pipe discharge in your filter
system, which can create more specific erosion and detriment to neighbors when discharged, when backwashed. >> And typically the patio then drains away and drains to drains that would mitigate that storm water impact as well. Other than removing the shed, is the applicant
willing to make any other changes to the property to address any storm water management issues. [cough and clears throat] >> Respectfully, there are no storm the property is exempt from stormwater management requirements. So unless the
stormwater management mitigation is the board's direct belief is related to the rel the relief provided for the variance as a planning mechanism to impose a engineering mechanism for mitigation
that is not required by your code. No, we do not propose any mitigation because it is not required and never has been by your code and it would be contemplated and we're willing to discuss it if it needs to be provided with respect to the variance
relief to mitigate the variance. But I believe I've well do documented the neighborhood and the intensity of the neighborhood and we are characteristic of such. What what efforts have been made to discuss with the neighbors
their issues? >> My understanding is that there was an incident. It was mitigated. Then there was attention to rainfall and runoff and that matter was brought by the neighbor to the municipality and
the neighbor the municipality took action to try to mitigate that with the engineer and then ultimately a zoning enforcement that started this process in front of this board and brought the jurisdiction to this board >> for the contemplation of what is lawfully existing and what needs
>> broke down someplace along the line between this property owner and your neighbor. Correct. The relationship deteriorated at some point. Yes. >> And why why haven't you tried to instead of being here >> rekindle that process?
>> Uh Mr. Chadwick, we have and in fact we had a discussion with the the objector's attorney. Um we we're here in good faith. We have tried to have a discussion. some of the mitigation uh that's being requested
uh hasn't been from from Joe's perspective reasonable to actually address. One of the issues as explained is the natural runoff is existing that contributes to the water on their property. However much I can't sit here
and tell you what percentage of the runoff on the property is coming from my client's property, but Joe could give you a better sense that it's not demonstrative that all of the water that they're having issues with or because of the natural slope is coming from my client's property
>> or from a specific activity of changing any direction of flow by our client. And so the requests have respectfully been uh non-commensurate to the requirements of the municipality and we are willing to consider them when they are
commensurate to what the municipality would require of us. >> Obviously something happened. I doubt you're going to have a neighbor just say geez I don't like this and make a big fuss about it. And obviously this board can't force you
to sit down with your neighbors, but it seems to me common sense would say that's what we should be doing first >> and that was attempted and we are in front of this >> sound like you dropped it. >> No, >> you were involved with that process.
>> We we we all were. We in fact we had a discussion even earlier before this meeting to try to see if we're we're willing to entertain a reasonable solution. But we believe both the fact that we have improvements that have been
existing on this property for over 30 years combined with the fact that we have planning testimony of the neighborhood scheme. uh exceptional peculiar nature of the property that justifies these planning
variances. Uh we've agreed to mitigate the two setbacks. Uh we we we appreciate the board's recommendation to be reasonable and we've we we take that to heart, but
these are conditions that have existed for well over three decades. And the isolated incident from our perspective, certainly the objector can dispute it, uh was an incident in July of 2023 when there was a uh a garden hose as as Mr. V
indicated and I happy to have my client testify to that that was uh left on and it it due to the pressure it admittedly caused an issue with respect to the neighbor's uh property. the water channeled
unnaturally onto the neighbor's property. It was an unfortunate incident and that sole incident triggered this board's involvement, the township's involvement. Uh none of the other properties on the street have uh had the
same issues. My client's planning woes began with that incident. And we have again otherwise an undocumented history with this property of no water issues. I'm not saying that the
objectors may not have water issues, but my client has not made improvements to compound those issues. The the issues, the conditions have been the same for over 30 decades. I'm happy to place my client, I will place my client uh for
direct testimony on that. And I appreciate the board's uh we would if we had a survey, we would be producing it. Um but we we do intend to rely upon the planning proofs by Mr. Vuch, a
professional engineer and planner to otherwise legalize the the improvements that have been existing from from the inception of the of the property. Irrespective of our willingness to continue to work with a neighbor to a neighborly
resolution, we are in front of this board for this board's opinion to document lawfully existing conditions and provide variance relief for the benefit of record of our client and the property and any successors. And that is
clearly within this board's jurisdiction and why we're here. Now, respectfully, as a municipal engineer who serves for many of these communities in this area, it's my opinion that the interjection of the municipal engineer was
slightly aggressive to step in when there is no substantial documentation of a direct and quantifiable impact from our client with the subtraction of whatever from the objector's property. contributes to the same issue. There is
no quantification of what's coming from our property to their foundation line. And what to what I understand is water infiltration through a foundation of a foundation wall that is now nearly 40 years old uh in a garage at the garage
level which is multiple feet down in grade from the finished exterior grade. So what we're being asked to mitigate is something that has not been directly quantified and attributed to our client in any substantial form.
>> And in those scenarios, in my other municipalities, in those scenarios, I exit and leave it as a neighborly dispute as it is between property owners. >> Well, this is the letter of February the 14th, 2025 by our engineer.
>> Yeah. Last paragraph, he is recommending that there be a swallow and a burm adjacent to the property line between 30 and 34 battle range. Has any communication, are you telling us that there has been a
breakdown in communication that this suggestion hasn't even been suggested? it my understanding >> to the uh to the to your client and to >> it. It was and it was received and heard
and the efforts in that area were an attempt towards a similar improvement. However, it was the walls talking about that little that little wall by the by the landscape. Is that what you're talking about? And the start of that
mediate some of this drainage onto the other property. >> Yes. And so that was done by a landscaper in an attempt to provide what the engineer was asking for. And it is my understanding from speaking to my client that the neighbors objected to that being done without substantial
effort and cost generative nature of design submission submittal and approval by the township engineer and that's where the communication broke down. >> The stop orders were issued. >> Sorry. When the stop is were >> well the stop this the stop work
>> the work was being done at the at the request and direction of the engineer to >> to negotiate a dispute between neighbors that respectfully the township engineer should not be in the middle of >> is not a township
>> they did follow up on July 21st with to follow up on that swale or burm that said there was no no depiction of a swale or burm that control tunnel. I guess I don't I didn't looking at this, it doesn't say anything about from the to build a wall. Their suggestion was
simply the burm, which I don't know because I'm not a landscaping professional, but I don't know if a burm or a swale is cheaper than putting in a wall. >> I think the wall was landscape aesthetic and defiding the area and the burm would be part of the landscaping behind and along the side, right? And that work did
not go to completion. >> So, there was a plan to put in a burm there. There was an ongoing effort to provide what the engineer wanted. >> All right. Because you said >> and it was not and that what the engineer requested I understand did not meet
>> the burden of what the neighbor required and that's where the communication broke down. >> Okay. >> And that's where it became a zoning matter instead with respect to whether or not these are lawfully existing improvements. And that's why we're in front of your jurisdiction. Do do does
your client has any plan to do? >> No. >> No. It doesn't seem to be a plan. >> We'd like to address this matter first. >> Jersey. >> What What search did you do to try to find an original survey?
>> The township records are available online. That's where we got the CO. There was no attached survey. There was no survey provided by the zoning office in their in their direct efforts. >> Pretty good records. >> There is one survey of Parker
Engineering from 2024 that was obtained by our client as part of their prior application to this zoning board that was withdrawn without prejudice before they came back to this board with us as professionals to represent them. That is the only known survey on record
that my client has with their original title and their deed. It is not recorded in the county clerk's office. It I my understanding is it's not recorded in the municipal building and a 1992 survey. And best I can give you is a documentation of all the aerials that
date back to 1997. Albeit some of them getting grainy. >> But they are consistent with the high-res images that I provided throughout the last 15. Did you try to do this all online or did you come up here and ask it? >> I personally didn't do all of the exhaustive search, but I did my searches
online. >> The zoning department would have been the place to find the survey final as >> the had one of those piles way back when >> microfilm.
>> Yeah. Now they were called something else. >> I'm sure there's one around because I have one from 64. I have one from 63rd. >> Do you have any other direct testimony? >> No. >> Joe, do you want to just speak to the the negative criteria for the for the variances?
>> Yeah. Would you like me just to speak to the C2 proofs and the alternatives to the C17? >> Yes, you might as well go finish your testimony. >> We're not going to answer >> with respects to the benefits of the deviation substantially outweighing the detriments. Um, we've looked at we lost
somebody. >> He just went to the men's room. >> Went to the men's room. Could you wait a moment? >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Would you like to take a fivem minute break for everyone else to have? >> I think that would be a good idea. >> All present reappearing as Joseph. Um,
we were discussing the start of the C2 flexible variance proofs for the benefits of the deviations substantially outweighing any detriments of the variance that would cause to both the overall plan and the neighborhood um or
any particular property. Um, as our testimony already previously addressed, these are well documented to be well established existing conditions for decades without substantial alterations. and any documentation to refute such. Uh
there with the exception of most recently uh individualized identification of an of a um of an impact being alleged by our client and their actions in 2023. There
were no prior histories of such documenting any detriment to a specific property or any other property in the neighborhood or in the zone. Uh the improvements to this property are as shown in exhibit uh A12, the lot neighborhood lot
coverage exhibit uh on our property, coincidental and incident to a single family dwelling um in their overall density and intensity are consistent with the neighborhood as originally planned and as constructed and evolved over the years and decades to its
current standing. Our property does not stand out in that intensity with its neighboring properties and the rest of the Battle Ridge subdivision in this phase and section of Powdermill Village. Um there is no specific attachment to the overall original approval and I believe the original approval of the
density and the cluster density with the open space appropriately addressed the density of this single family section um and is still intact today through uh reasonable improvements to the properties and maintaining existing
limits of improvements. Uh the benefits of uh extending the variances to the modern standards of our zoning is an acknowledgement of the prior existing lawfully existing improvements. that they are more consistent with the original zoning and the intent of that
original subdivision approval and construction and that they still in today uh are coincidental and and appropriate in the neighborhood to that of our neighbors and most recently the improvement of a pool in the neighborhood which exceeds our lot
coverage. Uh the of specific note would also be that our property was one of the first cos issued in this part of the community. that this section of Battle Ridge was then
constructed for years and issued multiple COs on other lots to the builder sequentially while the builder was still present was still held under bond for the municipal improvements of the roadway and infrastructure and storm water mitigation measures uh and
eventually released from those bonds years later uh satisfying their obligations of each individual CO as well as their obligations to the public improvements And over that time there was no documented detriment established and asked to be mitigated from this property
by the builder. So respectfully, the time has come and passed for any possible sins of the builder that were in discrepancy to the CO and not communicated to our client that they do not impact the zone plan in any specific
detriment at a greater scale or even individualized to a neighbor today. And so I do believe that the benefits in a C2 flexible hardship significantly outweigh any potential detriments that I see none of.
>> What what reliefs are you requesting now? >> Sorry, >> what relief? >> Well, we've addressed the shed setbacks and we're willing to move it. Yeah, >> we ask for the relief setback on the existing asphalt area to remain at its
setbacks. >> So that's that's the rear and the sideyard for the asphalt court, right? >> Correct. The um sideyard of the patio to the opposite neighbor, not the neighbor objecting, but the neighbor that has provided a agreement which is exhibit A3
for the property. Um and that that that is a fence agreement and our continued maintenance of that fence on their property because it is on the high side in elevation and provides screening of that improvement being lawfully standing
there for 30 plus years at the edge of the property that doesn't provide the setback required by the zone [clears throat] as well as the um building the building coverage over 10% the building plus deck coverage. Before
you get to that, so there's a PA patio variance >> for the setback of the PA patio. >> Set back of the PA >> to the to the southerntherly neighbors lot line, >> right? I understand that. So that is the area of the PA patio that was previously
um gravel. Correct. >> Blue slate >> in that. Yes, the >> that was the gravel. >> Well, it was a blue slate and then that area was the compacted gravel. >> Right. So the area that is currently So the area where you need the variance for the sideyard setback for the pave patio
was previously the gravel area >> and yes and the limits to that setback are the existing railroad ties that have been there since day one and would have required variance relief at that time >> just as railroad ties
>> as a compacted stone area which is under D's definitions of impervious coverage considered impervious coverage. >> Mr. Ver, on that on the gravel issue, do you have any any way to show that that approved how compact that gravel was?
>> It was highly traveled daily >> by feet. >> No, by feet, by equipment, by lawn chairs and a fire pit being relocated. There was a swing in that area originally before the fire pit. It is a highly trafficked stone patio area that
under zoning would normally be considered a impervious >> on top of rocks. >> Yeah, it was the '9s. You want to see my niece? >> I mean, my niece I grew up at that time, too. Uh, I mean, I guess I guess the
issue I I understand that when you have a gravel road, gravel driveway or something and with years of vehicular traffic, I can see that being crushed, compacted, whatever. I really don't see from a practical matter what's
essentially landscape gravel. And I've actually written ordinances to to to differentiate between trafficked gravel and landscape gravel because we had people putting in the riverstone and getting a vi around riverstone mulch around their gardens and getting a
violation for impervious cover. I understand it made no sense >> and I I provide the same relief in my municipalities of reasonable understanding of what is truly landscaped areas and what are compacted areas by foot traffic by equipment of
your wheelbarrow, your lawnmower, other things being moved in and out throughout the space over decades. The ground underneath is compacted. It is highly resistant to infiltration compared to the natural lawn areas adjacent to it. And under D's definitions, that can be
considered as impervious or it certainly would generate a higher runoff potential than if it was not. And so I would respectfully treat it as impervious because it would be lock coverage if you wanted to in the original configuration
of a blue stone plus stone all bound by the the railroad ties. That area is lock coverage. It is part of the impervious coverage of the property under zoning, not the engineering side of storm water mitigation, which we are exempt from,
but under zoning con considerations. 250 ft is roughly what we're talking about, would have been considered a lot coverage improvement as part of our total accumulation. And it is specifically exempt at that size and
extent from storm water mitigation. Where does the water run in this new patio? >> The water from that area. >> Yes. And before you with a hand demonstration said roughly half the backyard
[clears throat] goes down the >> So west side and the other half >> southerntherly edge from our topo survey. >> Yeah. drains along the edge of that curb and everything does drain slightly
towards the building and slightly inward towards the pit. So it it does drain down and through and kind of towards this side. >> Is there a railroad tie in the front? >> No, there is an open gate there. So the railroad tie terminates on the side of
the PA walkway there. is is is the river >> doesn't all sheet flow over and go around that uh area where you started to build a little >> I think roughly 50 to 60% from around the pergola drains probably this way after anything comes down onto the patio
and wraps the building the the dwelling and down to battle ridge consistent with the original design in the subdivision and plot plans that were approved and received cos >> are you going to complete that little dam as part of the uh improvements
>> the wall >> the wall >> they were told to stop >> willing to discuss >> if you if you got an approval it's bought are you going to complete that whatever is being designed there
>> my position was prior stated that that would be a request to the board that would be specific to the variance relief required and I believe the variance relief has been demonstrated without the need for that mitigation and is supported by the engineers statement
that storm water mitigation is exempt. >> But respectfully, I believe this is a planning discussion and a zoning discussion for variance relief for improve improved lot coverage essentially. >> No, >> we've also got a letter saying BM over there. You have you have a
recommendation from the engineer >> correct >> prior prior to the filing of this application is he gave you the context and history of his prior involvement on the property. And as I stated that prior letter was part of a deterioration between discussions and good faith
between township engineer mitigating the two neighbors. It is not the same as his letter now which clearly states that storm water is exempt and not required. But Mr. Chadwick, the
Mr. V is correct. However, if with approval with the board that the remaining of that wall, there's a couple additional blocks that need to be added, needs to be finished, my client would be amendable to finishing that rock wall. >> But but
it makes no sense to do that unless it's going to have an effect. I think that's respectfully that is a landscape effort that likely is exempt in its square footage of disturbance and its increase of any impervious which is really none
from your standards for lock rating permit. So there so so it would be a specific request of the board that uh our client would be willing to consider the cost with their landscaper to make an improvement in good faith but
requiring design submission review approval by the township engineer is respectfully not appropriate in this condition. No, but when you said that town engineer doesn't require now, so if you want to improve and show him that you know we
are doing further improvement then he may accept. >> Okay. >> It's a good good pay. Respectfully, the the issue previously was that the engineer was willing to work and negotiate that and accept the back of napkin sketch, so to speak, and work out
what was going to be improved and handshake deal on the side of the house and then it be improved. And there was a higher standard required by the objector and you don't see a comment from the township engineer reinforcing that
objection. So I think the township engineer's position speaks for himself. He respectfully backed out of the situation after he had stayed in it for too long. >> So >> do you think that wall has affected drainage onto the neighboring
property? I think that wall can provide benefit in its current form to ensure that the water coming out of this little outlet which helps drain this area from ponding water. Again, I said about a/ an
inch at best over that area into the grass area so it can infiltrate and try to hold it back in high intensity events from going to the neighbor. You could see the existing conditions which have not been modified back here are flow
westerly and wrapping on the northern side of the property. So there will always be runoff since the '90s and since the original contemplation that drains towards the neighbor, which is not a detriment imposed by our client by their actions, but rather it is the conditions that were approved by the
municipality in the original contemplation and constructed by the builder and accepted as a substantial improvement, not deviating from the original intent of his plans that were approved. But that wall doesn't do that wall do anything to direct
>> runoff towards the boat. No, it contains it [clears throat] to the edge of the building here and then would relief that water here at a low point >> around the side of the property where it lawfully had the right to drain originally as constructed by the
developer as well as any roof leaders that are on that side that discharge there. >> Do you have root that end of the house? Are those leaders discharging to the surface? I believe so. >> I I believe so. I don't have a photo
documenting that I can confirm for you right now. >> Okay. Because I mean I can't help but notice there's an inlet in front of this house. >> Yes. >> So, and again, I'm not sure it is. >> Why isn't there a connection to the inlet? Because it was constructed in 1992. >> Well, again, that doesn't mean it can't
be constructed now. It can, but what we're discussing is >> mitigation of an improvement that is lawfully existing in 1992 held to a modern 2026 standard for storm water mitigation that is under. But again, I I
I'm disagreeing with the with equating gravel even with foot traffic to be equivalent to a solid pavered sidewalk up uh patio rather. That drain in the corner, was that there with the slate or
was that new? You think you said that was new with the pavers? >> When the pavers went in, that was placed in that location. It could be removed and then uh it could offer to put one in the opposite corner to for the 250 ft that you're discussing, which really
does drain around the southerntherly side of the property, not the northerly side, which is the northerly side is the objecting side, not the southerntherly side. So, if you'd like me to address that, I think I'm confident to state on behalf of my client. We're willing to do that, relocate that drain over to this
side to discharge along this pavers directly down to the street so it can be captured in the roadway. >> Well, what I'm saying is right now that grate is in the low spot. That's where you put inlets in. That's where you put grates and low spots. >> Yeah. >> And that discharges a concentrated flow
versus a sheet flow toward the north. So we can we can remove it. So it flows. >> It would seem that a lot of the [clears throat] water I mean the easiest stuff to pick up is the roof leaves. They're easy to pick up. It's just a pipe >> to connect to connect that
>> the request is inappropriate. Respectfully >> it it's exempt storm water. We're talking about 250 ft. 250 square feet that any of the board's consideration and yours as a professional has identified as potential change in the
impervious coverage since 1992 which is exempt under your code from being mitigated. But we're willing to redirect that area along the southerntherly side of the house where it's always gone in a more appropriate manner. But I don't think it's appropriate for the board to
identify cost generative measures to pipe down to a connection in the street obtaining a road opening permit to do work in the rightway to connect to a drainage basin to have a license agreement with the municipality to directly discharge to the back of that basin which should be required by your
municipal engineer to make that connection. All with plans designed by me as a professional submitted to him for review with escrow with re review. Thousands of additional dollars on top of the thousands of additional dollars we've come to this board and been prepared to
address. All to mitigate something that is not part of the variance that is considered in the relief here tonight. Yeah, >> this is a planning variance discussion about zoning and impervious coverage to affirm lawfully existing improvements
and the establishment of those limits since 1992 that are not refuted by any supported submission to the board or any record files that the zoning officer had at their request when they did their analysis previously. Right? When we
catch somebody for doing improvements on a property in a municipality that they did without permits, zoning officers, construction code officials, code enforcement officials, engineers, we get together and we look at are aerials. We find and document it
and we put the violation in and it goes to municipal court. That documentation is not here. I've given you the documentation to support my client. The objector can put out whatever they want on the record when they have their
opportunity to, but until they do, I think this discussion of storm water migation for something that's clearly exempt is not specifically tied to the variance relief I'm asking for. I'm really asking for the board to consider and acknowledge that these improvements
have always been here. And minor improvements to landscaping and beautifification and continued maintenance of a property is good home ownership. It does not constitute direct impact and detriment to a neighbor either individualized or to the neighborhood.
>> Well, I don't think we can I I would question if the board would want to uh commit to the to that patio being the same as the original because I don't I think you indicated you don't know if that that those pavers are grouted.
>> I I would suggest that that issue be be addressed once we all the evidence. the new grouts that are used now, and I I'm not remembering the term, they they are essentially watertight. When you put that, it's a it's a and I have a bag of it in my shed. When you put it in the in
the pavers, it becomes watertight. They want to stop the weeds and you stop the weeds by stopping the water from going through the the joints. >> So, if the pavers are placed on on on pearavevel and stone and sand back fill between between them, they are not
grouted on impervious. So there is the opportunity for some slight infiltration under them and I think leaving it in that manner is appropriate considering what you're asking for the 250 square f feet. >> But again going back to the slate do we know if what how you said they were just
butt up against each other. Correct. There was nothing. >> Yes I have that at my house. They're rectangularly cut. They're somewhat odd angled but they are buted up against each other and cut and placed in place and they are a consistent contiguous improvement. That is what I understand
that patio to be. That is what the existing steps to the rear upper area are in this today and they are in their original form. So they are an example of what the greater patio looked like. >> Hear testimony from the applicant about that. >> Understood. >> Right.
>> And so as you had stated I agree. I think >> the rest of the testimony by our position and anyone else who wants to object before we discuss that matter. So, are you finished with your direct testimony? >> I am.
>> Does the board have any further questions of this witness? >> No. No. >> No. >> No. >> You have questions of this witness? >> I do. >> So, here it's it's 10 minutes to 10:00. >> Understood. >> Okay. Can you give me some idea of the
length of your cross examination? >> I don't know how long it's going to take us to respond. >> I will be very direct. I promise. Uh, does the board want to try to get through this crossexamination of this witness? >> We we have few minutes and break 10:00
we cut off. >> Does the board have a 10:00 cut off time? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, why don't we see if we can >> however long Mr. Castor's questions are. And we we're not going to start the direct exam of my client. >> No, we're not we're definitely not
getting to your client's. >> Okay. The only question I have for the board is do you want to start the cross examination to the objectives? >> That will be good. >> That will be good for the time that we have at least the time >> at least they they will have understand.
>> Okay. All right. So, do you have any questions? >> Can you put your appearance on the record? So, make sure you use the microphone. I don't want it to get lost in translation, but if I'm not going to finish, would it make more sense for me to just cross-examine next time around? >> I think the board would like you to try
to get as much done as you can tonight. Can I read the board correctly? >> Yes, definitely. Okay. >> Yes. >> Would you like to come to the other side? We flip zippets together. I'll give you my seat. I'll stand. Um, you say these uh these improvements
are lawfully existing. Then why would be be here seeking variance approval? >> Because the township doesn't have complete records of the property dating back to the 1990s. Perhaps those records were lost or were never created by the developer. >> Did you submit an open request or did your team submit an open request?
>> I did not personally. >> So they may be out there. I can't opine on that. >> Okay. Thank you. [snorts] >> I I did not submit another request. >> Thank you. Um so I based on your testimony, I see that you saw the review
letters from Mr. Nhof. >> Yes. >> Um and that you're focusing on the storm water management quantity management is not required, which I refute, but I'll leave that for my own testimony. Right after that, he says, "However, the runoff from the backyard should be
addressed as to not negatively impact the neighbor at 34 Battle Ridge Road. Has any uh consideration been taken?" >> My testimony tonight has documented that the existing conditions are not detrimenting to the neighbor by any specific action by my client. And so I
believe that statement is incorrect. So you're are you saying are you trying to distinguish between a a direct action by your client or what actually exists in the field? >> What is in the field is what has existed and has not substantially changed. So
any detriment that you believe exists or the township engineer might have identified to negatively impact the neighbor is lawfully existing and part of the original contemplation of the subdivision and buildout of Battle
Ridge. >> You that issue is in dispute. Um the you had mentioned that a wall was built that something a patio I believe was not
built in kind. Were any permits pulled or approvals attempted to be obtained for that? >> No, I was clear on that matter. The uh patio area in its existing limits from day one was replaced from blue slate and
gravel area about 250 ft of it to a paver patio area consistent as the whole area being impervious and counting as lock coverage. So it did not increase any of the variance relief. We're here to memorialize as opposed to respectfully request because it go dates
back to day one. And the retaining wall that you're talking about is a landscape wall by definition, not required for UCCC permits because it does not exceed four feet in height. And that retaining wall was part of an effort in good faith
to address what I understand was a recommendation by the township engineer to mediate a private matter between neighbors. Uh >> where do you see that that was recommended by the township engineer? My understanding from conversation with my client who will put on direct testimony in the next hearing
>> and is your understanding about the impaction of the gravel also based on what your representations from your client >> as well as my personal time at the site looking at the area confirming that the railroad confirming that the railroad
ties exist and have existed and similarly to the other railroad ties around the whole area. they're not added and new and that that area is well trafficked and that area has always been part of their patio area incidental to their single family dwelling
>> without the original asbuilt survey. How can that testimony not be considered speculation? >> How can your position not be considered speculation? >> I'm cross-examining you >> and I understand and without supporting evidence.
My position is my position well stated to the board. Exactly. We have supporting evidence. >> No, with the supporting evidence of everything we've put on tonight. >> Try not to get too argumentative. >> Sorry. >> Have you analyzed any of the storm water
management or any of the storm water impacts from the impervious coverage existing? the yes they are consistent with the original approval and the original drainage patterns of the property that I understand to exist and are documented
throughout all the extensive aerials that I reviewed in in lack of any other records that were provided to me by the municipality or my client. >> Understood. Are you aware of any fill or alteration of the pre-existing drainage pattern? I am aware that my client has
done minor landscaping and maintenance improvements to the property as a good property owner, but they do not extend in my understanding to anything that constituted the requirement of a lock rating permit in this municipality and arguably to the extent of a zoning
permit. The modification of this 250 square ft from stone compacted impervious to a hardcape area. Net increase zero. But you mentioned reconciling drainage issues. So what has been done to
reconcile those issues? >> What was my direct testimony on reconciling drainage issues? >> Uh maybe it was in regard to the board's testimony or to the assistant municipal engineers comments and the installation
of the um what are you calling it? The a landscaping wall or a retaining wall? >> Uh yeah, a landscaping wall. Um my understanding in my prior testimony if this is consistent is that the township engineer assistant township engineer was mitigating a private matter
dispute between neighbors offered a solution that our client was willing to consider started to provide that consideration and at the request of your client. It stopped because the request
for the standard of design and review uh was an overreach of the municipal reach under jurisdiction. Again, lock rating permit not required for dimminimous
exception of lot disturbance. So, um, in your professional engineering opinion, contrary to the municipal engineers findings that the existing and proposed condition does not require storm water mitigation, my position is consistent with the township engineers
March 11, 2026 letter comment number four that states, "No additional impervious coverage was added to the property since 2021, which is the time of the municipal ordinance for stormwater regulations, and therefore stormwater management quantity management is not required.
My testimony is consistent with the assistant engineers written pen position. >> Yes. And that's what I was trying to get to with the reconciliation because you're ignoring the comment right afterwards where he says [clears throat] that the runoff from the backyard should
be addressed as to not negative. >> I did not ignore it. I addressed it in your direct request prior moments ago and I addressed it in my direct testimony earlier that I disagree with it and I put that position on in direct testimony and then supported it in my
direct response to your questioning. >> Can the board require storm water management mitigation to justify the grant of requested variance relief? I >> think we discussed that with my planning hat on. Yes. But it is the board's decision and is my position that that has not
been demonstrated as a requirement. >> Are the benefits of the variance specific to the property owner? >> No, they are consistent as I stated to the intention of the zone plan, the original 1980s and '90s subdivision and
amended subdivision and the buildout of Battle Ridge in this particular section. So >> do you know what the st you mentioned that there were previous zoning standards that did you analyze what the standards were at that time? >> Uh we addressed that in exhibit 13 with
reference to the subdivision plat and the zoning standards that were identified for the cluster development density density modification approval of that subdivision. >> Okay. I'm sorry I didn't see that until this evening. The document is a recorded
filed map that is part of the title chain to your client's property as well as my clients and everybody else's in the surrounding area. It is a readily available document that I obtained only 3 days ago through clerk searches because I wanted to make sure I provided
the board with that history of understanding of that subdivision. If the board would like, I can provide you with every filed map that dates back to the early 80s through the late 90s because I downloaded them all so I could review them all
in the last 72 hours. I'm kind of a nerd for that stuff, [clears throat] especially cluster density subdivisions because we don't really do them anymore. >> We're approaching the 10:00 mark. Um, [clears throat] >> and I I'll just finish with the final
comment, but would like I apologize. I meant to say question. >> Okay. >> Final question for this evening, but I would like to reserve the right to complete my cross at the next >> Definitely >> hearing. >> Okay. Thank you. Um you you mentioned
the municipal engineer uh couldn't quantify the storm water management impacts to be able to recommend mitigation. >> Not couldn't. I said he did not and nor did the objecting neighbor.
>> So how did you quantify the storm water management impacts? Was there a >> I analyzed the I analyze everything available to me in my survey and the documented drainage patterns of the neighborhood and understanding from
walking the neighborhood and understanding that everything on this easterly side of Battle Ridge drains westerly directly through the properties around the homes and between the homes towards the street and that there is a consistency of
drainage pattern patterns that blend along property lines between neighbors and out to the street ultimately. >> Anybody? >> Why don't we stop right there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. 10:00. >> Thank you. >> So, you're going to return and you're going to finish your cross examination
and any any redirect that that Mr. Dash made. >> Thank you. >> Norm, may we have a carry date, please? October 21st. >> No, no notice is required. >> No notice. Are you going to give us all extensions? >> Okay. No further notices required.
>> Earliest available date. >> That's probably the earliest available date. >> That would be the earliest unless um >> unless we carry it to the next meeting just to announce a date. See if I can do a little juggling >> uh with some applicants. I I have one
that they carry to a different date >> and if I can call someone up, they can notice within like 3 days that we open something up in September. So you want to carry to the next date just for the purpose of getting a new date. >> Carry to July 22nd for the purpose of announcing a date
>> to avoid you having to renotice. >> Oh. >> Yeah. So if we carry to July 22nd just for purposes of getting a new date, then you won't have to renotice. >> We don't have to reappear on. >> You won't have to reappear. We'll take care of the board will take care of it at that date. You're welcome to appear
if you want to, >> but but the only thing that the board would do at that time was announce a new would be announce a new date. >> So I have to check availability. It's October 3rd. >> Well, right now we're we're we're July 22nd, right, Nora? >> July 22nd just to announce it.
>> Otherwise, if you want to definate, it's October 21st. >> But Norah may be able to get you an earlier date is what she said. >> So is it typically your your second and fourth classes of the month? first and third because the first Okay,
so first and third. Okay, just thinking of my other obligations, but I'll find a way to if you have conflicts, >> we will let you know. >> Then let Nora know before the July 22nd date. >> Yeah, we'll look at our schedules for what's on the schedule already. >> Okay.
>> Be happy to coordinate, make sure it works for everyone. >> Yeah. and >> try the best she can. >> And it goes without saying that you're all encouraged to continue to try to talk to each other. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We have a motion to close, please.
>> Motion second. >> Did you Did you move to adjourn it to July 22nd? I don't think you did that. >> No. >> Motion to adjurnn it at July 22nd. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Now you can. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion. >> All in favor?
>> Everybody. Good night. Thank you. >> Thank you. [music] >> If I have right now, you know what? Why don't we have Yeah, we all have to take the security, right?
And you can't plug a USB.