We're all here. Steve, you ready to go? >> Okay, >> I think we're on. >> Should we begin? >> Yes. >> Okay, I'll read the opening statement. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton zoning board of the adjustment being
held electronically via Zoom on January 28th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the open public open public meetings act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by
prominently posting the sunshine notice of the Princeton zoning board of adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the PA Princeton
packet town topics the the time tranonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on January 23rd 2026 and has been place has been posted
to the municipal website www.princetj princetonj.govmeings pursuant to executive order 107 due to the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding COVID 19 corona virus. Notice that during the declared state of
emergency, all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics and the Times and was filed
with the clerk of Princeton on the on on the 24th day of April, 2020. Such notices have been placed, I'm sorry, I'm reading it. Such notice have been placed on the official
bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are in are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town sopics the
times tranonian Comcast media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Okay.
So, let us begin. Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Chen, >> here. >> Miss Coulson >> here. >> Mr. Floyd >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here. >> Mr. Tenn >> here. >> Mr. Stein
>> here. >> Miss Donna? >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin >> here. Chairman Cohen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, we have three resolutions which were in your packets. Um, we can go through
those. The first is case number Z25-69815 Hillside Road, block 7207, lot 4 in the R6T zone. Um are there any if anybody has any questions, comments or changes
necessary, please come forward. If not, if someone would like to make a motion, please. >> Members, I do have a correction I need to make. Um several times in the resolution, there's a reference to a concrete wall which is going to be added
uh for as part of the storm water management plan. That have to make sure it's clear. It's a five inch wall. So that needs to be corrected. It appears I think on page three of the resolution
and uh it may appear again somewhere else. So that's the revision that I'd like to suggest. >> Right. Also saw on that same page three the second paragraph is seems to be missing something. The second sentence of the second paragraph,
>> second sentence, >> uh, the proposed additions will change the something probably follows there. >> Oh, good point. >> I think you have to take out change the architectural style. Take out heel prime. Oh,
>> yeah, that would make sense. >> I think that because it's a Cape Cod now and it's going to like a like the twotory. Yep, that's correct. Okay. >> And a small correction, my name is spelled wrong. >> I apologize. Okay,
got it. >> Okay, so board members, any additional comments or would someone like to make a motion? >> So moved. Second, Floyd.
>> Thank you. Okay. Um, Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes.
>> Mr. Dokin, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Our next resolution is case number Z25-693 6 Evelyn Place block 34.01 lot 7 in the
R3B zone. Uh again the resolution was in your packet. Questions, comments or motions, please. I'll move to approve it. >> Excuse me. >> Oh. Uh, I move to approve.
>> Okay. >> I'll second it. Coulson. >> Thank you. Claudia, please call the role. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> yes. >> Miss Donna,
>> yes. >> Mr. Doin, >> yes. >> Thank you. I wasn't here for that one, I guess. >> Right. >> Okay. Okay. Our third resolution is case number Z25-79
416 North Harrison, blocked 7202, lot 7 in the R 6T zone. Um, again, the resolution is in your packets. Questions, comments, or
motions? I move to approve it. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Who second? I'm sorry. I didn't get that. >> Triber. >> Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Chen,
>> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> yes. Mr. Dokin. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. We have uh we have
three hearings tonight. Um I understand that there's an issue with the first one 164 prospect >> board members. The applicant has advised that they have now retained an attorney to represent them. that attorney has
asked that the matter be carried to the February 11th meeting uh because unfortunately he had conflict with another matter uh tonight. >> Okay, Derek, do you think we're going to
have time to hear that application with 344 Nassau Street? >> Um we'll know better in a couple days. Okay. So, we we really can't make a determination yet. >> Uh, no.
>> Well, the problem though is that if if it isn't carried to a specific date, we don't announce that tonight. Then, um, the applicant's going to need to renotice. >> Well, he'll we'll carry to the next
>> to the 11th and then that will Okay. All right. Okay. >> Claudia Ryan Kennedy raised his hand. >> I think he's okay now. >> Okay. I'm sorry, Karen. I talked over you. So, what
>> Oh, that's okay. So, so I think that it it appears everyone's in agreement that 164 Prospect will be carried to February 11th and uh if it's necessary to carry it again, then that would be announced at the
beginning of the February 11th meeting and we would be in touch with the applicant and their attorney in advance of that if it turns out that it needs to be carried again. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Good. Okay.
Um, our second hearing of the evening is case number Z25-715, 45 Markham Road, block 53.03, lot 43 in the R3B zone. Karen, are all the notices in order?
>> They are, and the board has jurisdiction tonight. And I'm just going to swear Derek in for the evening. Um, Derek, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, ma'am. I do. >> And board members, I believe that
we do have a court reporter here. Um, for the next application, not this one. I don't know. Uh, Ryan, uh, do they need to be carried over or they can just listen in the background? for the for the second application. Um I'll ask perhaps that she be brought
over, but for this one um would be necessary. >> Okay, great. >> Karen, um actually uh Taylor's going to introduce this case, so if you could swear her in as well. >> Absolutely. Uh Taylor, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful.
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh one one second. Uh Ryan, who who needs to be moved over? I just >> I see I I see you moved over our architect Jeff Flecher. Um >> he's refu he declined to be a panelist
so he we cannot see him. >> Oh, >> perhaps maybe you could um move him out and uh he may have accepted. Um >> okay. >> And uh Mr. Beck as well uh the applicant um is I see in the uh in the attendees.
If you can move him over as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, Miss Griffin, can you summarize the memo? >> Absolutely, I can. >> Thank you. >> Um, again, this memo is for 45 Markham
Road, block 5303, lot 43 in the R3B zone. Mr. Beck is the owner and applicant. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing non-compliant front-facing garage to living space. The conversion eliminates the one required parking
space. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway for the required parking space. The proposed space does not comply with the required 25- ft front yard setback. The proposal also includes the raising and reconfiguration of the attic. The attic
currently encroaches into the sideyard setback and the alteration is considered an increase in the existing degree of non-compliance regarding the larger and combined sideyard setbacks. The subject property again is in the R3B
zone and is subject to the use and bulk regulations in accordance with that zone. The subject lot is not compliant with the following bulk requirements. the lot area, the lot width, the large side large left sideyard setback, and
the combined sideyard setback. The subject property does not fall within a locally designated historic district. And to go into the variances, the applicant is proposing to convert the existing non-compliant built-in
front-facing garage to living area consisting of a mudroom, a powder room, and a living room expansion. A side stoop providing access to the mudroom area is also proposed. A
converted rear and covered porch are also proposed. Both the stoop and the porches encroach into the required sideyard setback, but they are exempt pursuant to section B17A 403
L2F, which allows covered but unenclosed porches to encroach within 4 ft of the sideyard setback. The R3 zone requires one parking space. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing
driveway for the required parking space. The uh section B17A 403 L4A requires front parking setbacks to be 25 ft or from the front of the house, whichever
is less. Um, the existing attic roof, which has a side-facing gable, will be removed and the height of the attic floor will be increased. A new roof with a front-facing gable and
three dormers is proposed. The extension of the attic area will serve as the primary bedroom and bath suite. The southern elevation of the attic encroaches within the required larger sideyard setback. the increase in the
height within that setback is considered an increase in the existing degree of non-compliance. Um, if any of the board members have any questions, um, I'd be happy to answer them. I I'm going to confess that I didn't
really understand the uh end of the sentence which stated requires front parking setbacks to be 25 ft or the front of the house. That last part I was puzzling to me.
>> Um, so the the front yard the front the parking setback is 25 ft from the front property line >> or the setback of the house whichever is less. That was a typo that um I missed
on this one. Se Oh, >> okay. I think I understand that now. >> Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Um I guess Mr. Kennedy,
please begin. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um members of the board, uh Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee here for the applicants, the Beck family. Um Claudia, I'll just note, um the applicant when he logged in was getting an error with his camera. He's going to return back in a moment
from a phone so we can make sure he has a a working camera and we can have him testify. It takes that more than another minute. Perhaps I'll have our expert qualified first. Um but just to to make sure things keep moving for everyone here this evening. Um with that though,
I want to thank Taylor um and and Derek for their summary and and working with the applicant here. What you will hear tonight um is an undized um and a lot with a significant um width issue.
Uh where 60 feet is required, there's only 42 feet. Um you'll see that prior to the I guess they're not so recent anymore neighborhood character revisions uh to Princeton zoning code, a home was
allowed to be built on this narrow lot with a front protruding garage. as I'm sure you hear quite a bit and were involved in that process. Uh the newer, not so new anymore, uh code really put a lot of thought into how garages work and where as a front-facing garage needs to
be set back now 16 ft uh from the front facade, this one actually protrudes in front of the front facade. What the applicant is proposing um is a redesign and expansion um um modest expansion of
their home uh to allow this existing protruding front-facing garage to be removed and replaced with um living space designed to look like the rest of their front porch and to add a front porch that the neighborhood um really kind of expects uh in an inviting less
car ccentric way. because the lot is so narrow, you will see that there is no other place to park other than the front driveway. Um, so our proposal is to allow that front yard parking. We'll talk through uh both the the detriments
to the other parking uh potentials. You know, for example, a a drive in the back. While it both doesn't work and would remove a lot of greenery, uh it's just not wide enough to allow for that other parking. I know you've this board has dealt with front yard parking. um in
the past um looked at cases where it was possible for example um uh to do it but um that we'll show that that's both not the case here and the change from the existing front facing front protruding
garage to a design that eliminates that gets rid of that conformity um is we hope you find much beneficial visually and and for the neighborhood. Um, we'll also talk a little bit about that there is um some examples of this type of parking arrangement on on other lots uh
in the neighborhood. It's would not be um out of character despite it being limited really to this lot as as as our request, this unique uh narrow uh lot. Um and then uh you also heard there are technically two other variances. the
existing home has existing sideyard setback um conditions by adjusting the sidewalls up slightly. Um that technically does require us to get those variances, but that really is the existing condition and again a result of
this um u quite narrow lot. I'm looking um in the audience um and I do see uh the applicant on twice. I'll ask if you can push the raised hand button. Perhaps we can identify which one is the one with the working camera phone and we can have him moved over. Hopefully we got
the the right one. And indeed we did. Um uh thank you. You know as not to say it was I was prolonging my uh introduction to make sure his camera worked, but uh turns out the the timing worked just right. So um if uh possible um we'll have two witnesses this
evening. Uh Miss Casey, if we want to they're both on uh u both Mr. Beck and Mr. Fleer, if we want to perhaps um have the both sworn in if you'd like. Um >> well, if they uh could you unmute yourself, Mr. Beck? >> Great. Do you do you both swear or affirm your testimony this evening?
We'll be truthful. >> I do. I do. >> Thank you. >> Right. Thank you so much. Um apologies um uh for the the the bit of uh technical mishaps, but so glad you were uh able to to uh to to get on and join
us tonight. if you could just briefly introduce yourself to the board. I know this is uh only recently the home that you've owned, but you've got a lot of experience here um prior to to um to purchasing. So, just um connect yourself to to this board in terms of your um your time here in Princeton and this
home. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks a lot, Ryan, and and thanks a lot to all of you for your time. I apologize for the hiccup on on the video, but uh but it worked out in the end. I appreciate your your patience. So, my name is Megal Beck. I'm a Danish citizen but have lived outside
of Denmark for the last 12 years. I work for a pharmaceutical company here in the area that is a Danish pharmaceutical company and have lived around the world for the last 12 years. Um I've been in living in Princeton before from 2022 to
24. Then I moved away and came back. And actually when I lived here last I lived in the very exact house we are talking about as a tenant with my daughter who then was six years old who is now nine. So she started in school here in in Princeton at Riverside. and uh and you
could say we both gained a quite strong affection to the area but uh due to my work. We we had to leave uh in 24 for a project I had to do abroad uh but uh but decided to come back this year because of of my daughter and uh and and her
strong desire to return to the area uh and mine as well. Uh and then happened to be that that the house we used to live in was was on the market and um and after some considerations and also conversations with with with good
advisers uh decided to to buy it with the prospects that we are now also presenting to you today >> to to to propose a few changes to the house that that better fits the needs of of us but that we also think uh largely
fits with with the look and the feel of of the neighborhoods that that we are being part of and and the community that we know well among the the many great people on the road and the school and and the whole Riverside neighborhood
that's that we are now rejoined. So I hope that uh that that answers your your question Ryan and nice to meet you all again. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much. Um and Mr. Chairman, uh, if it's all right, we have one exhibit that we had provided. It's all right for me to share my screen. We can have that marked as our
our one exhibit uh this evening. It is 17 slides, I believe. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Thank you so much. I will uh famous last word. >> Excuse me, m Mr. uh Mr. Kennedy, do you want to qualify the architect? I mean, it's routine, but do you want to do that?
>> Um, absolutely. We can we can do that now. Um, we'll we'll um we'll start with Mr. back with a little bit of testimony. But, uh, Mr. Flesher, if you could, I know you're often before this board. Um, but I won't stop you. Uh, they may, uh, going through your qualifications. Uh, um, and I'll have you, uh, qualify this
evening. >> Right. Uh, it's Jeff Fleer, architect. Uh, I've been a practicing architect in New Jersey since 1997. I have a bachelor's in architecture from NGIT. I'm licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. and I've
appeared in front of this board many times. >> We will accept you as an expert. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Jeff, don't go too far. Um, but uh we'll we'll start with uh Mr. Beck, I'll I'll I'll go back and um add our exhibits back up to the
screen. Um so as we normally do uh try to orient the board a little bit uh as to where we are in Princeton uh uh Miguel is uh that white arrow um uh pointing uh to uh your property as we kind of zoom in. >> It is. Yes.
>> Um then uh moving to slide three. This is a aerial that we get from a service we have called connect explorer. Uh that uh blue box is uh your property is as well on on Markham. That's correct. Yeah.
>> All right. Uh next going to slide four. Um uh the left is is a photo of your home u you know from a from the front. Um and uh to the to the right that's another aerial close in uh kind of showing um uh the the the property. Do I
have that right? >> Correct. Yes. now. And um so looking at the home uh from the front, I we in the introduction, you may not have heard it as you were logging back in, but we talked about that front protruding garage. Uh that's the uh item there on
the on the the right where often people park near, I suppose. >> Yes, correct. Yeah. Uh and and to the left, they'll have some other photos here, but there's a I think you could you could see there's a a large tree that kind of is in front of that gate that's to the bit of the left part of
your uh property that might kind of head back to the back. >> Yes, correct. >> Uh so moving to slide five. Uh I believe these are a couple of examples you helped us find of um I'll just call it front yard parking in
the neighborhood. Uh those properties to the left, those are a kind of uh duplex that's right across the street from you. Is that right? >> That's correct. Yes. >> No. And and uh uh on the right side, that's the property next door. >> That's the next door neighbor. Yeah. >> Okay. Um kind of finishing out um I have
a couple more here on on slide six, but these are other properties, you know, around the corner, I suppose. Uh um you know, other examples of of front yard parking in the neighborhood. >> Yes, correct. Um,
next on slide seven, um, I believe I believe you're in some of these photos, but maybe just talk a little bit about what we're looking at here, particularly the features of the property that, you know, you remember and came back to. And I'm I'm specific that, you know, the the the greenery and and that tree in in
particular. I guess in some of those photos, you could really see um the size of that tree that's on the left side of your house. >> Yes. So these are some picture of me and my my daughter on her first day of school to the top uh left and then you
have my brother and his extended family I would say in the middle who came and and visited from from Europe and these are then take on summer days where you see some of of the green and especially in the front say that big tree that that that I think is an important part of of of the feel of the house and and that of
course like to to sustain and and as you also see to to the backyard a relatively small uh backyard yard, right? But and and also just with with with one big tree in this picture that has actually been unfortunately removed since and before I moved in for for reasons that
I'm not aware of. So So unfortunately not so many trees, but we have this in the front that we're very happy about. >> And and before we get to to your architect and the plans, maybe just take a minute just talk about the the needs of your family. This is a pretty modest
home as it is, but uh um your your plans to renovate and and particularly kind of reclaim and reuse that front part of your property with a with a porch and the uh the kind of awkward garage space that sticks out in front. >> Yeah. Yeah. So if if we start with the
porch. So so that's something that uh that that we asked quite early on when we looked at the house if it would be feasible both uh you can say to to better match the the the way we think houses look and uh and should look in in
the neighborhood and and many houses have that that little porch. And then on the garage side that is it is a small onecar garage today, right? You can say effectively there is always one or two cars parked in the front. Uh but but but
the living room today is very small, very narrow and uh and difficultly fits the the needs of of our family. My wife for for health reasons is currently based uh in another country and travels to and from the country. So most of the
time I'm alone with my daughter and the way the house is set up now means that it's difficult to interact because it's sort of small boxes uh downstairs and the garage to that you say closed downstairs feel and and the idea that
that we have is really to try to open up the the downstairs area including the garage to a large space that includes an an open kitchen environment to living room where you can have a more and better interaction between family members and and friends and then also
have a a mud room uh in in in the entrance because today you don't have a you don't have any entrance. You go straight into into the already small uh living room, right? So so that's really the idea of it. Uh and to to ensure that that we have a better interaction and
and better space for for living together and and being together as a family. So So that's the comments to the downstairs at least. Jeff, >> um thank you so much. Um before I move to our architect, um uh Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly pause if there's any
questions for the applicant. Uh I know he's not going anywhere. There's uh if they come up later as well, but >> board members, any questions of Mr. Beck? >> I have one. Uh >> do you ever park in the garage now? >> Uh no, only if I'm away.
>> Yeah. Okay. You don't use it as a normal parking? >> No. So, normally I park outside. uh on the front. >> Thank you. >> I have one question, Mr. Beck. How many cars does your family own?
>> We currently have one and then are purchasing another one. >> Okay. And and where would you park the second car? So, as you see in the in the photo here, they there's space to park two cars next
to each other in the front um in the already existing driveway. >> Well, I noticed I noticed in in one of the pictures that the minivan was close to the sideyard property line and there
was a row of hedges in there in in your site plan. And it looked like there were additional hedges. I don't know. The big hedge is your neighbors, I assume. Or is that yours? >> Yeah, I think actually the Yeah, to be
honest, I'm not completely sure of that as I believe it is our hedge as I recall the drawings, but maybe Ryan or Jeff can recall that. >> When um Mr. Chairman, good question. I can either skip to that now with with Jeff and we can pull up the site plan if you'd like or or we can
>> Okay. Well, we can we can hear Mr. Fleer and we'll discuss it then. Thank you, Mr. >> In the one drawing you've given us, it is on your property. The hedge is on your property. >> It Yes. I I'll just note, you know, we'll get to it with testimony, but
yeah, they're on the property and uh they're they're not new. They're existing. And we've got a couple other photos of them. >> Okay. >> Quite significant. >> Fine. Continue. >> All right. Um thank you so much. Um uh Jeff um uh moving to slide eight. Um I
know you were already um introduced and uh accepted as an expert, but maybe just briefly u we the board heard from the applicant what the charge was here, but maybe you could uh take the board through what you were asked to do and your approach to this property. And I'll just note slide eight, I believe, has
the current um elevation on the left with that non-conforming front-facing garage and uh the proposal on the right, which uh has that uh um you know, large front porch and um you know, I guess I'll call it filledin front porch look
where the garage used to be. >> Uh right. Um well, the the client uh as part of his program wanted an open floor plan as much as possible on the first floor. Um the existing family room was only about 10 feet wide. Um so the only
way without adding footprint to the house was uh to make that wider was to take the garage over for a mud room and additional space for the family room. >> And and obviously um you could not have gone wider here with an addition uh
without u also violating the existing sideyard setbacks. Right. >> That's right. Yeah. Um and then um the the existing attic the the roof slope was too low to provide for living space on the attic level. So
that's why we removed the roof and um reorientated the pitch of the the roof to the front. Um provided dormers um to provide space for uh the primary suite and the attic level.
Um, >> so I guess moving uh in slide nine, these are the ele existing elevations. Uh, I think in the in the top right, if I have it correctly, that's that existing front bumpout for the >> for the garage. >> For the garage that is that we're
looking to replace uh and and remove. Um, and then uh slide 10, this has the proposed elevations. Um, and uh, one thing there was a bit of a I'll say not back and forth, not the right word, but
just kind of confusion on on the notes um, uh, almost I don't mean to say uh, too well hidden. Uh, but ultimately that what you've created on the top left with that, um, traditional looking front porch that encompasses both the front
porch and a what I guess is designed to look like a a enclosed front porch essentially on the right side. >> Right. the the the area the the porch on the right hand side is actually where the garage protrusion was. Um so the new
porch roof covers that as well as the the new porch open porch to the left. >> Yeah. Well, that's it's kind of hidden as a as a design element to kind of reclaim that garage that way. Um here on slide 11, this is the
existing floor plans and the uh proposed uh just talk through a little bit about what um I guess >> first floor challenges with that garage there. >> Yeah, the the first floor with with the garage on the right hand side. Um the
garage was actually wider than than the existing living room. Um, but it was only about a 12t wide garage, which is really not adequate to park in and get out of your car. Um, so we combined
the living room and the the garage into one room. Um, as you can see in the proposed first floor plan and then opened up the the floor plan as much as we could. Um so you'd have circulation around the house through the kitchen dining
and then provided a small rear porch to the backyard and uh and know we are uh talking about the existing sideyard setbacks. Lets me just go back a page um uh or or or two slides perhaps on the existing and
proposed. I I I believe while the overall house is slightly taller, it does seem that you were able to kind of hide that attic in a pretty traditional looking front gable um design rather than that kind of low slung exist.
>> Yeah. And it's it's reminiscent of the houses in the neighborhood with the finished attics um with dormers and and gables. >> Uh that's slide eight. We'll go back a couple of slides. Um, so here, um, and I
I think Mr. Chairman, this this may be where where you were looking or thinking, uh, before. So this is the uh slide 12 on the left is kind of a site plan so to speak that shows those existing hedge rows uh both on the the right that shield the uh one neighboring
property and the front actually who that it uh does a nice job of of um screening the property as well as that uh tree. Um, we'll get this a little bit more detail, but um, I guess the blue, you know, that's that's there's um, a
non-conforming side yard there. Um, and and on the right, both which we believe are are not adequate for for driveways on such a a narrow lot and would require removal of a lot of these um, green uh,
features. uh we did on slide 13 kind of pencil in what you know even though we don't believe you could actually fit back there what it would mean to pave all that area again uh we we we don't believe cars would really fit uh or that it would be used but that's what would
kind of turn the yard into um uh as well and this also um even though again we don't think it's the width that would fit would also require a setback variance uh for a driveway that's supposed to be 3 ft from the or to even attempt to make it work, you you'd have
to go right up to the edge and need a variance for that. Um, as well, uh, similarly, you know, just the the notes from the code here, you're supposed to be 3 ft. Um, and so, you know, with the minimum distance for a a size for a for a driveway, it really
Jeff, in your mind, would it would it work? Could you even open a door or get a car back there? >> Uh, no. You really couldn't. No. Um, we also just looked, you know, if again, assuming you it would physically
work, which we, again, we don't believe it would. Here's the things that we'd kind of lose there. That that tree would have to be removed. That hedge would be removed. There's a couple of other um, I'll just say problems on this side between a a um, uh, telephone pole that's probably uh, in the way and and a
water shut off that would all have to be moved as well. Um uh so going to slide 16 here, we've kind of marked up those pieces that with either you know if it were somehow again we don't believe there's room on the right side at all. Um what would be
removed to do that and similarly what would be removed to try to squeeze something on the left if there was enough room. Um, and both of which things that the the applicant very much desires not to do and we think would be
uh a negative um uh to to do so. Um u in summary um let me just ask if there's any other questions for our our architect. I'm happy to very briefly sum >> I have one. What's the dimension between the hedge row and the the new front
walkway and steps? the dimension between the existing hedro along the street or the one >> No, no, on the sideyard between the hedro on the right hand side and the walkway to the left of the
existing driveway. >> Um, it's about 27 feet. >> How much is it? >> 27 feet, I believe. >> That's 27 feet. from from the sidewalk from the front door to the edge of the head edge.
>> No, no, no. From the running uh right to left. >> Right to left. From the walkway. >> From from the edge of the walkway. Yes. To the to the edge. >> Yes. The width. Right. The >> edge row. Yeah, I I think it's it's about
the the whole lot is 42. >> It's it's about 20 ft. I'm sorry. >> There you go. >> Yeah, it's about 20 ft. >> So, it's big enough for two cars. >> Yes. >> Okay.
All right. Thank you. Um the with with um with that um I want to appreciate the board's time this evening. We hope you agree this is a uh for a from a C1 uh perspective. This is
an unusually narrow lot uh where uh there is um significant benefit in removing the uh variance condition from the front yard front protruding garage. Uh we hope you agree that there's no real alternative
location uh for the uh the parking um on the site. Uh it just really unfortunately not just wouldn't be a better use, it just wouldn't physically fit. And I'll just note that the um couple of uh benefits um that this supports uh from zone u from the
municipal land use uh law sections A, C, G, H in particular, which is the transportation to promote the flow of traffic um and discouraging uh blight or congestion. Um, and again looking back to um the extensive work that was done
uh in Princeton on front-facing garages, it's a balance here between removing that uh and the front yard um parking setback. Uh we believe this is um not just um better uh or not just not a
detriment but but a a better solution again on a lot that is uh quite narrow where 60 ft is required only 42 uh is available. So we hope that you agree that removing this non-conforming condition and replacing it with the the
front yard parking um will um be a positive. Um with that I have I have one more question of the architect. Sorry. Sure. Um, did you consider putting the addition, when I say addition, I mean rather than going up
going out the back, >> leaving the garage and expanding out to the back. >> We did, but because the the backyard or the rear yard is is very small, >> we didn't want to sacrifice that space.
>> Well, okay. because you're it's it's a very awkward situation taking a garage out and I mean it's Yes, Mr. Kennedy, I understand it's a it is a non-conforming garage, but it's an existing garage
nonetheless. And now you're going to park in the front of the house and um and again, you know, the the dormers create a varian situation as well. So, I just want to know if you considered going out the back, which may make a
reasonable could be a reasonable idea. All right, your decision. Okay, board members, any other question of the uh Michael? >> Yeah. Um, first a comment. I had, you
know, a few of the same questions you have have asked, so they were some of my concerns, too. Um, Mr. Kennedy uh on the land use citations because I don't have them in front of me when you say AC and you know give
letters. I don't really know what that is. >> Certainly I I I just want to make sure that there's a bit of a record for the um you know the positive negatives and the the um bet purposes of zoning. But to u A is the appropriate use of lands
in a manner to promote health, public safety and welfare. C is to provide adequate light, air, and open space. G uh is appropriate locations um according to the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. H is the one I
actually did list out. Um and then I which is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civics design. That one really comes from the elimination of the um front protruding visual garage U obsession that that would be promoted by
that one. >> Okay. Thank you. I think that's clear for the record. And if if I didn't know what some of those were, I'm sure at least one other board member didn't know what you were citing.
Thank you. Um I have a question. Can I share my screen? >> Well, wait. Hold on one second. Stephen, Michael, are you finished? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. Yes, Stephen, you can. >> Let me just see if I can do this a
minute. Can you see that picture? >> Not yet. Yeah, we can. Yeah. I'm just curious with the change in the roof line how it would compare to the houses on the left and the right. I mean, I happen to like the design. I
think it m it it looks like the same house on the on the right, but I'm just wondering, are you going to be taller than these? >> I I don't I don't know the exact height of the existing houses, but we we'll obviously be under the the
height limitation. Um, >> okay. >> I I don't think if we are taller, it wouldn't be by very much. >> I mean, your your proposed design looks a little bit like this house on the on the right hand side, which is nice.
Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Board member George, did you have a question? >> No. >> Okay. Sorry. Board members, any other questions? M of Mr. Kennedy or the architect or the owner? Yeah, I have I
have one more question um just of interest especially with putting a suite on a third floor which you know I don't have a problem with that. Um I guess I was wondering it seems like a
a lot of rooms for not too many people unless you're planning to have a lot of visitors staying times over. you know, why why adding a suite on top of three other bedrooms?
>> Yeah. >> For a small family. >> Yeah. Yeah. Fair question. I mean, as I mentioned before, um my wife due to a health condition lives currently in another country, travels back and forth. Uh she has a need uh no matter how on
how that develops to to have more private space for herself. So we're building you can say an additional room that's large enough to have some privacy because the three bedrooms there are today whereas the biggest one of them is my daughter who is approaching teenager
age uh are very very small. Uh so uh so so not you can say not rooms where you can have privacy and u and and your things and and and clothes. So, so that's the that's the primary reason
that that that this is what fits our family needs. Uh and given that that the current bedrooms on the existing for first floor with the exception of the one my daughter have are very very small. >> Yeah. And I and I asked that question um
in the end as it may relate to parking and how many cars this site you may be proposing or anticipating um on a regular basis or you know basically it's going to be more than two
on a regular basis you know that's where I was asking questions. >> Yeah. No, it's not going to be more than two on a regular. I mean, we are you say we are two adults in the house at least at least for the next foreseeable period given that my daughter is nine. So, so
that's the standard, right? Uh and we do expect and hope that uh that my wife will join us in the summer and when hopefully the new house is ready. Uh that is what we are planning towards and and that's also part of this proposal. >> Thanks.
>> Okay. Any other questions, board members? All right, Mr. Kennedy, we I want to open this up to the public, but I want to let you say something before uh we do that. >> All right. Much appreciated the opportunity as always. I'll uh I think I think I summarized this up before. I
won't bore you with hearing it again. So, thank you uh um for for your time this uh this evening. >> You're welcome. Okay. Um, we're going to open this up to the public. If there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak on
behalf of this application, please indicate by pushing the raise your hand button at the bottom of the screen. Claudia, have you gotten any uh one that's indicated they want to speak?
>> Yes. One second, please. Hello. >> Mr. Turlo, can you start your video because we can't see you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, yep, I can do that. >> All right. And um we need to swear you
in. And if you could also give us your address if you're comfortable doing that. Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. And my at my address is 49 Markhamm Road exactly next door to the
to the applicant's uh property. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> so shall I >> please? >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, I just want to say that I'm I as uh the direct neighbor to
the property, I'm I'm strongly in favor of all the improvements that they're proposing and the pro uh I just want to share that the property has long been a a rental property. Uh, and
most of the tenants have always parked in uh, the driveway. No one uses the garage. It's the property is just too small. The first floor is just too small and awkward. Everybody ended up storing stuff in the
garage and parking two and even sometimes three cars uh, in in the front yard and it never mattered to the to the neighborhood. So, uh, just sharing that as a as a point of, uh,
a a comment on how that's not really an issue for me as a neighbor. Um, so again, I think it's really nice, uh, it's a really nice plan. It's nice to see that the house will be improved and updated, and I I don't think that the
lack of the garage is an issue at all. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> Okay, Claudia, anyone else wishing to speak? >> There are no more hands.
>> Okay, give it a second here. All right, we're going to close the public portion of the hearing. Uh again, Mr. Kennedy, before we go into executive session, >> uh again, I'll thank uh the board tonight uh and and your professionals uh
for helping this homeowner with this um with this project getting to this point. Again, I hope you'll agree that this is a um a design that greatly improves on a problematic condition. Uh you heard that there's really no other place to put
cars, that this is how it's essentially people have always used it. Yes, someone did try to squeeze a garage here when this house was built on this exceptionally narrow lot, but the reality is, and we even heard from a neighbor, that it was really not big enough even to use. Uh the reality is
that people would would park up front uh to remove that, which is a non-conforming condition and replace it with usable space um uh for people that you don't see as being uh carentric like the current design is um front and
center. what what a good portion of um the neighborhood character zoning exercise went to uh address in Princeton and and by this application we're we're we're writing that wrong um with yes a variance in its place but one that uh we
believe advances several purposes of uh the MLU well um and creates a better product for for the neighborhood. So with that I'll just again thank you. >> Okay. I do have one comment Mr. Kennedy. I think you are re you keep referring to it as an existing nonconforming
frontfacing garage, but you're removing it and putting another nonconforming use in its place. So, >> that is correct. >> It's it's not I'm not saying I object to it, but it's it's uh you're trading one
for the other. Okay. Um we'll go into executive session now. Board members, any questions, comments, discussions, motions? >> I guess I'll say something. Um,
I regularly have some concerns about um legitimizing parking in the front in the setback. Um, and I I realize with this neighborhood
um from drive the immediate part of it, there's a lot of cars parked in the front yard. I have no idea how many of them are legally parked and how many are illegally parked. But that's that's something we all
understand and it's nothing that can be policed. Uh, I do believe this well the lot is is a narrow lot and I don't see too many alternatives um other than the
garage or uh taking the garage use away and parking further in the front yard. I'd like to see if this ends up to being a twocar a
twocar family um on a regular basis that they park in tandem. I don't think that's anything we can control um you know rather than parking stacked and only a few feet away from the uh the
sidewalk and pedestrians. But if if they can fit two cars um and it's already paved for two cars um >> might be two car it might be too tight for one car behind the other.
>> Um yeah so I I don't know if we can stipulate that uh Karen or not. I realize the zoning code is only requires provision of one spot, but approving a variance
something I was considering encouraging. Um, so um that's all I'll say for now. >> I think it would be difficult to enforce that. I'm not sure how.
>> Yeah, I Yes, I probably should have said that too. just like we can't enforce any of the front yard set uh parking and we don't even try to. So >> yeah, >> any other comments, board members?
>> I agree with you, Michael. I I like the way you put it that I I similarly don't even if there's something of an ordinance or that we that I might not agree with, I still feel like we should I don't feel great about
legitimizing something that is in conflict with what is on the books. But I I think in reality it makes so much sense. I mean the reality is that people are not well that it's already happening
that that that's where the car is already being parked and others are and I also just it it just seems like a better use of space to have living space rather than a garage in the in on the
first floor in a sense. I so it I I like the design and I think um I don't think that there really any other options and it it just seems like a in some ways it is an improvement because they'll the cars will be a little closer to the
house rather than to the street. It that seems like something of an improvement, but I also just think the design makes a lot of sense. Um and um yeah, so I'm I would be in favor I'm in favor of approving this one.
>> Ready, Donna? Donna, excuse me. >> Yeah. >> So, I I do think it's a big improvement um to the house. I think it is unfortunate to have two cars in front of
the the the garage, but uh you know, that's that kind of offsets the improvement to the house when you see uh the two cars in front of the garage. But um it seems like that's you you we're improving the house and
allowing an existing parking condition to continue that is already um you know has been used that way for some time. Um I definitely don't see how pars could cars
could possibly be in tandem in that uh on that driveway. They they'd be sticking way into the apron um and crossing the the front walk, the the sorry, the sidewalk, not the front walk. Um
but >> you mean stacked rather than next to each other? Is that what you're >> in tandem? So one behind the other. Yeah, I think that's what Michael was. >> I'm saying tandem is one beside one another. >> Oh, I think tandem the other way. Oh, I
thought I also thought, Michael, you meant one behind the other, but >> yeah, that's I would have said stacked >> if I Okay, no problem. >> Okay. Well, anyway, the only way they can be there is side by side, uh, from
what I'm seeing. >> Um, so, you know, two cars are unfortunate, but I not sure uh, you know, uh, that there's much to do about that. Um and and I support the
changes to the house. >> Good. Thank you. >> Um any other comments or if someone would like to make a motion? I >> move we approve. Second.
>> Okay. Any questions on the motion? Any conditions? Michaela, do you want to put the uh side byside parking as a condition? >> Yes. >> I think it's a good idea. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Who second that? Um >> I did. Haron, >> Miss Chen. >> Yes. Miss Coulson, >> yes. Mr. Floyd, >> yes.
>> Mr. Shrivever, >> yes. >> Mr. Tenbomb, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Welcome to the community. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> All right. Um, we have one more application this evening. >> Is it too early to take a five minute break? >> It's never too early. So, um, it's 8:33.
8:38 will reconvene. Ryan, who do you need um moved over? >> Um if we could Oh, I sorry you already moved the court report over. Thank you so much. Uh uh uh Rushi Dar is our architect and Steve Leiden is our
planner. If you move those two over as well. Okay, it's 8:38. I think we're all back. Let's continue. Okay, Karen, are we all right? >> Yes. The noticing is in order. The board has jurisdiction tonight.
>> Okay, so our next case is Z25-6710 Humber Place, block 25.02, lot 77 in the R4 B2 zone. Um, okay. The notices are in order. Ms. Gribbon, can you summarize the case for
us, please? >> No, we're handing off on this one. So, >> this one. Thank you, Steve. >> You're welcome. >> Uh, good evening. Um, property is located at Town Humber Place. Uh, the owner, SAI Associates LLC, is the
applicant and owner. They seeking a C1 variance for the construction of a new home at top an existing foundation in exception to sideyard setbacks and height to setback ratios. The applicant is proposing to construct a plus or - 750 ft two-story addition to an existing
single family dwelling in exception to the required sideyard setbacks and height to setback ratios. Property is not located within a historic district. It is in the R4B zone. It's subject to the use and bulk regulations of sections
B17A, 254, 258, and 403 of the former Princeton Township land use ordinance. Um, subject property is located on Humber Place, which is a private road. Um, the lot does not front on a public street, and accordingly, it does not have a front yard, lot width, or lot
depth. Um, the code defines a street as a public street place square lane or way with a minimum right away of 25 ft set aside or used as a right of way for common street purposes. The front yard is defined as the portion of a lot
extending open and unobstructed from ground level to the sky along a street line and from the street line for a depth set forth in the applicable district yard regulations. In accordance with the definitions, all the yards of the existing lot are considered sideyards.
Um, and the lot is non-complying with regard to the required 6,000 ft lot area. The existing is 2758. Um, the side setback on the northern elevation requirement is 12. The existing is 0.5 ft to the porch. Side
setback south elevation requirement is 8 ft. The existing is 0.1 ft. Um side setback west elevation is 8 feet. The existing is 0.9 feet. And the height to set back north elevation requirement is 3 to one. Existing is 26
to 3.8 or 6.84 to 1. Um height set back on the south elevation again 3:1. Existing is 26 to 0.15 or 173 to 173.33 to 1. Um the setback on the
western elevation uh requirement is 3:1. The setback is 14.41 to1. And then there's finally a distance between buildings section B17A 382 which requires 10 ft existing is 9.4. Um the applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing 98 square foot twotory house down to the foundation. A new 65 or 647 ft twotory dwelling will be constructed on the existing basement and a new crawl space. The existing front gable roof
will be replaced with a shed roof which slopes down from the west to the eastern elevation. The first floor features a kitchen, full bath, office, and living room. Second floor consists of three bedrooms and two full baths. Uh required parking spaces in the same location. It's a space on the lot. Um there's an
existing driveway. Uh Humber is a private road and it the interpretation of the zoning officer that the variance is required pursuant to B17A 217. Um restrictions on issuance construction or alteration of buildings
on lots without access to streets. No zerning permit shall be issued for construction or alteration um or any building on upon a lot without access to a street except in the E2 district when the entire subject building is located more than 150 ft from the public street.
Um a street is defined as any public street place square lane or minimum uh right ofway with 25 ft. It's used as a rightway for common purposes. The 16 foot wide Humber place does not meet the definition of a street and a variance from this section is required. The
applicant should demonstrate that um the street is adequate to allow fire and emergency services. Okay. The following variances are required for this project. Uh and I've kind of split down you'll notice there's
an existing one-story porch. Um and then there's the higher twotory edition. So, uh, since everything's being scraped to the ground, everything requires a variance. Um, so we'll start with a side setback. The north elevation to the porch requirement is 12 ft. The
proposed is 0.5 ft. Um, north elevation to the twotory again setback is 12. The proposed uh is 2.3 ft to the overhang. Side setback, south elevation, the onetory requirements 8 ft. The proposed is 0.1 ft. Um and
that's the one story. is south elevation twotory required setback is 8 proposed is 0.5 ft and the south side setback west elevation the single story requirement is 8 ft proposed is 0.9 ft and the side setback on the western
elevation the twotory portion the requirement is 8 the proposed is 3.3 ft to the overhang the height to set back for the north elevation requirement is 3:1 proposed proposed is 7.9 to1 setback height to set back For the southern
elevation, the onetory proposal is 130 to1. Um the south elevation twotory proposal requirements 3.1. The proposed will be 60 60 to1 excuse me. And the required elevation for the west
elevation one story again 3:1 and the proposed will be 14.44 to one and the height to setback uh west elevation twotory requirement 3 to one exist proposed will be 6.2 25 to1 and the distance between buildings again uh 10
ft and the proposed is 9.4 ft. The application requesting relief under the CI1 hardship uh variance criteria and the applicant um I mean it's come to our attention uh in the the past couple days that there's issues with access to the site. So, we
fully expect that to be discussed in length tonight and uh there's an easement and that that easement is is somewhat in question as I'm sure you'll hear about uh as the case goes on. But that's the synopsis of my memo. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to address it.
>> Board members, any questions of uh Mr. Burgger? >> Okay, let's continue. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Derek uh and Taylor once again uh thank you so much uh for uh your work on this. Uh
Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee for the applicants. Just a brief introduction before we start with our architect um and planner here tonight. Um ultimately uh we are talking about uh renovations to uh a modest home uh built
on a very interesting lot on Humber Place. Uh the lot is undersized. uh essentially everything about the existing building from a setpack perspective is non-conforming. A lot of that is exasperated by the unique situation where it does not actually
front on uh uh a a street but instead fronts on a private rightway essentially an easement allowing um access um for this property and the duplex next door uh to Humber Street. As Mr. Bridger
said, um, there actually is a dispute about that access. Um, um, from this board's perspective though, our suggestion is that it's essentially the same problem either way. Um, either there's, uh, an access issue for an existing home um, with no way to get to
it or essentially an access issue for a modified home. And we hope you'll agree that the modifications make sense and the variances which again are all functions of the unique undersiz lot uh make sense to allow this uh investment
in a in a modest um property uh to bring it up to speed to improve it um for uh its use. In this case, it happens to be uh a Princeton couple who's bought it. They have hopes in perhaps future years to when they can uh fit into it. maybe
they would move there, but ultimately it would uh be um a rental until that occurs, but uh one that's been uh improved um for the the benefit of the neighborhood. And we'll you'll hear tonight that it is while physically
expanding um some uh the number of bedrooms, the number of units, nothing from a measurable perspective in terms of density is changing. What's three bedrooms now will be three more usable bedrooms. And once the first floor footprint that's uh quite tiny would be
uh as you'll see from our architect um improved so that it could be more usable uh for a family at this site. Um many of the variances um are a a function of a positive element of the design. Um it is
uh there is a duplex essentially next door that we will show you. Um the proposed design has a a roof that essentially sheds water away from that rather than the current um front gabled roof that was by uh by design and intention. It does require um because it
is in the same location of the current um roof home and walls which are all variance conditions uh to go up slightly higher with the um sloping design that would channel water kind of away from the neighbor and and into the the use the rest of of the applicant's property.
Um we feel is a is a benefit. We'll we'll we'll go we'll go through that. Um so tonight we've got uh two witnesses. Um perhaps we'll have them both sworn in now. um our our architect um uh and uh planner. So, if we we could um Miss
Casey, I believe they're they're both on at the moment. >> Sure. U Miss Dar and Mr. Leiden, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do. >> I do as well, Steve Liden. >> Thank you.
>> Uh before we show up our exhibits, Mr. If you could um introduce yourself uh to the board um and and give the board the benefit of your uh your credentials. So I'd be accepted as an expert here tonight. >> Sure. Good evening members of the zoning board. My name is Ruchi Dhar. I'm a licensed architect representing my
client tonight. I hold a bachelor's degree in architecture. I'm also lead certified and also ENAP certified. I hold license in three states which is New York, New Jersey and Maryland. My licenses are active and I and in good standing and I've testified before many
zoning and planning board in New Jersey. Um I have my professional address is 81 Falcon Road, Livingston, New Jersey. >> We'll accept you as an expert. >> Thank you so much. Um Mr. Chair, if we could again um we've got uh believe 18 slides that we provided uh uh in advance
if it's okay to share my screen and we can have that marked as our one exhibit this evening. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. Um, members of the board, as we often do, um, we, uh, start with the, um, uh,
the property and and the the zoning map. Uh, Mr. U, the arrow seems to have disappeared here. Um, uh, usually I I put an arrow here. Uh, um, oddly, um, that's, uh, removed from my screen, but,
you say this is in the R4, uh, >> former burough zoning district. All right. Thank you so much. >> Yes. Oh, my one of my assistants u was fancy with the transitions. I I I usually don't employ such visual techniques, but there so that that that arrow that uh
appeared as if from nowhere um uh that that shows the property that we're talking about. >> Yep, that's correct. >> Um uh next, slide three. This is an aerial photo. And I'm going to skip again. Uh I I believe my assistant uh um got a
little fancy on us, but that uh blue arrow points to 10 Hert Lane. Is that the property we're talking about? >> Yes, that's correct. >> All right. Uh and again, moving now to uh slide four. Again, zooming in a little bit further.
Uh and then with the arrow, um uh that's the property uh we're we're talking about um uh expanding and renovating. >> Yes. And uh maybe just so since we have this uh on here with the tax map um
overlaid um this uh in front that's what we've been calling uh Hbert Place that private um easement and right ofway that is uh uh uh either allows access or perhaps if it were to be invalidated does not. That's what that's what this is here.
>> That's correct. Uh and then just moving u you know from this house towards Hbert Street um 6 and 8 Hbert that is a duplex next door that similarly uh uses that uh um that private easement. >> Yes, that's right. They they use the private lane.
>> Um and then uh behind the property, I think we have another photo that shows that, but that is um uh the essentially the multif family building uh next door that fronts to Humbre. That's their parking area. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And uh uh
the your understanding is that their access is actually is to Jefferson to the right offscreen by uh this alley that goes behind our property. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Right. All right. Um from a different view of
slide five here, this kind of shows that um again u the home in question here at 10 Hbert Place. Uh I think this arrow uh the orange arrow is meant to show from their
current parking area through the private right ofway to Humber uh street itself. Um and then shaded in the parking area for the multif family building next I'll say next door uh but further down on on Hbert that goes to Jefferson actually.
Is that right? >> Right. >> And does this property have any access or touch that alley that goes to Jefferson? No. >> No. Okay. Um, so, uh, bringing moving into the home itself, maybe talk a little bit
about what we're looking at here. The, uh, existing home. >> Okay. So, uh, very briefly, uh, this is an existing home, two stories, has a basement. Um, the existing first floor is 478 square ft. The second floor
that's existing is 415 square ft. What we are doing is basically keeping the the basement of the existing house and rebuilding above it and doing a proposed addition next to it where you see the porch roof. That's where the addition is
going to come up. Uh we are also uh changing the roof design so that the the rainwater does not shed towards the neighbor but away from the property u on the west side of the u on the east side of the property and uh basically doing a
nice modest addition to this house. We will have three bedrooms and uh about three bathrooms for this property. >> I'll move next to slide seven. This is a I guess on the left that's a photo kind of looking from the the parking area in
the in the yard. Um I hesitate to say side because this house doesn't have any sides or fronts as it turns out. Um but looking at the existing house and what are we looking at the right here? That's the space between uh the existing home and the duplex next door. >> Right. So we are redoing the steps.
We'll just uh uh redo them and uh basically keep the basement and rebuild. What we are also trying to achieve is doing a fire rated construction. It would be 1 hour fire rated um construction for the house uh because of the proximity to the neighbor um and the
lot line. So uh basically trying to minimize the number of windows facing the neighbor and also making the the wall construction as 1 hour fire rated and and I think we'll talk about the roof design in a bit. But um uh this is
that space between the properties that uh would be I I suppose benefited or or there'd be a positive change I suppose by that shed roof uh if that's the right term but the roof that would kind of shed water away from this area. >> Right. That's correct. >> Right. So, uh, tell us what we're
looking at here on on slide eight. >> So, that's the, uh, the front and the rear elevation of how it would be, um, with the proposed addition. It would be, uh, basically if this is the left side is the neighbor. The, roof is going in
the opposite direction. Um, um, it's a shed roof. uh uh keeping the water away to be collected in between the um the the space between the neighbor and the and this house and uh basically the wall construction would be 1 hour rated like
I said minimizing we minimizing the number of windows that are facing the neighbor um and most of the windows would be facing the uh Hbert place lane uh side and uh the entrance the main entrance would be through these steps that you see that's the front door Um
the the side entrance would be mostly used to take out the garbage from the house. Um and the towards the right is the rear elevation where we don't have the um any windows because of the because of the location of the house on
pretty much very close to the lot line and um the IBC IRC doesn't allow you if it's too close to the house you don't give um windows or any u window uh or any fenestration. So that's what we have respected. No windows are on that face.
Um so yeah, pretty much most of the windows are um I'll go through the other elevations also. >> And and just as a reminder, the the the rear what we'll call the rear the elevation that uh faces away from Humber Place, that's the one that faces that uh
multif family parking area. Um >> yes, that's right. So then uh this is a side by side of the existing and and proposed attempting to to show how the the addition will kind of fill in the area where the uh existing porch is.
>> Yes. So pretty much where the existing porch is on that side, we're extending on that side and um and re reconfiguring the interior layout of the house which um uh has three bedrooms on the upper
floor now and um most of the first floor is all um living, kitchen and dining spaces. So this is a side facing um towards what is called as the yard the sideyard. Um it has a couple of steps leading to that
area. The area where you see the roof hatch from the basement is um where the new proposed uh addition would take place. Um so these are the these are the new steps in that area. the the the
sliding door, few windows facing having u getting nice light and air into the house and um and then the roof sloping towards this yard. Basically, this is from the neighbor's side. The elevation like I said, minimum windows
on that side. Uh mostly one of the window is a bathroom window and one is the where the staircase um ends. That's the door for taking out the garbage um from the house. >> And that's essentially the existing condition minus changing the roof line
to >> Yes. >> um pull the water away and reducing the windows, you know, >> to correct. >> I suppose more more neighborly to the the house directly. >> So close. Um this this text I guess this is a
rendering of of the properties show the materials that are proposed. >> Yeah. So most of the materials are vinyl siding board and bat um asphalt shingles um and um and double glazed windows um we're just trying to improve the uh how
the house looks aesthetically. It's going to look better with the roof line. that's going to uh cater to the storm u the rainwater away from the neighbor and uh material-wise and lookwise and even the plan uh the layout wise it would
make sense to now use it as a a good space for more light and air circulation wise um it makes sense to have nice three bedrooms fitted on the second floor with bathrooms that are adequately sized.
>> Excellent. That's the on the side uh elevation facing the um the sidey yard. >> And I suppose this well the your rendering software does add some trees where there's probably a a roadway uh to
the left. Uh but this would be the the the door that you know from the parking area where someone would enter the property likely with their groceries or or use the backyard. >> Correct. >> Or sideyard. I don't know if there's a back here. Uh so next um I I as we think
about the variances here, this kind of site plan tells a lot of the the story of the of the variances. So maybe we could just talk a bit. So in gray that's the existing home. Uh and then in hatched is the proposed addition.
>> That's right. So um while variances are required for even the new two-story part, it does step back uh a bit from the lot line uh ahead
of ahead of I suppose um the existing building. Is that correct? >> That's right. U and uh with a 12 foot setback or 8ft setback, there really is not a lot of place to put anything on
this property that would not have um removed the ability to um have a a parking spot or yard or really any usable sideyard space. >> Yeah, that's right. uh because the way the house is sitting currently on the lot, it creates those non-confirming
conditions. And what we tried to keep is make the house more safer, which is basically making it 1 hour fire rated and then um also um addressing how the layout would be and would make sense for the owner in terms of the entire uh
house plan. >> Got it. Um, and so as far as access from HRE Place, what you've shown here essentially is the existing access plan. There's really no changes to that whatsoever. It's really um the existing
driveway opening is is where it is now. Is that correct? >> Um, so the existing was all uh the gravel u that was there on site. Um, typically they either park on the the lane or on the inside. they have the
space. Um so it was a it was a basically a gravel um driveway existing >> right and that will be um both reduced in size um a bit but um you know essentially uh cleaned up to the what's
proposed um here correct um >> reconfigured yeah uh to make sense at least for a 9 by8 parking uh spot to be uh to fit well into that area. Yes. Um, essentially that's where someone would park now with the current home and
that's not really changing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, let's go into the the floor plans. I guess this is the existing um on the left and the proposed first floor on the right. Want to just kind of take the board through, you know, what's changing
programmatically and and um you know >> Sure. So the steps we're keeping it the front step and the side steps. The outline of the first floor stays in place because we are keeping the basement. What we are taking out is the entry porch and the metal hatch from the
basement. Um on the right side you see the dark gray area. That's the addition uh which basically gives the space for the kitchen and the entryway and and couple of steps going into that driveway area or where the car is parked. So
basically on the first floor we have one office, bathroom, kitchen and uh and a living space. >> Um and I think you went over this when we were looking at the front facades, but ultimately the the idea with the entrances is you've got the existing
kind of front entrance that's being just um relocated slightly into the addition, the the new entrance that would connect to the parking and and yard here on the right. And then again, the existing place where people would, I guess, take the trash out to the to the alley.
>> That's correct. >> Um, next on slide 16, we've got the existing three second floor bedrooms and then maybe talk through that in the proposed three floor. So uh on the on the left we have the existing plan that has the bedroom some middle space that
kind of was used by the family as putting some space for um as a living space. On the right we have the three bedrooms um two bathrooms and a washerd dryer and steps taking you down to the uh to the first floor. There is also
pull down ladder for the attic and attic is mostly used for the storage of the HWAC unit and nothing else. >> So I didn't didn't mean to if you had anything else before we got to the slide. >> Yeah, quickly I just wanted to say that the gray area is what basically got
added to the second floor. >> Got it. Uh but but uh what what is effectively three bedrooms but uh squoszen up on the third floor or excuse me third floor on on on the second floor is uh going to be three still quite modest uh but more usable bedrooms. Um
>> right and we basically adding bathrooms. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um before we get to any any questions just so we have it out there. I I guess um uh this is the Oh, sure. >> How many cars are required to be parked?
>> Just just the one. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yep. Um before we get to our planning testimony and just anything else you want to add, I know Mr. Mr. Bridger went through in in great detail the um the
variances that are needed, but anything in particular you want to um add um uh to that? U maybe now's the the time particularly, you know, there's a couple of different buckets of these variances, but uh really they relate to the
existing uh conditions um and and I suppose an attempt to step back a bit and improve. I think we we just proposing a nice modest addition. Um and um it it's going to be a nicer looking building. It would
cater to at least three bedrooms for the uh for the homeowner with adequate size bathrooms. the uh the finishes, the materials that I used on the facade are also something that would be um uh would be vinyl siding and uh board and bat
siding with asphalt shingled roof and it would give a nice look in the neighborhood u for this building to be there. So I think it's a good nice addition to the neighborhood. >> Just a question on that. You show two different elevations. You show the
front. You show two different drawings of the front elevation or the the alley side elevation. >> I assume it's going to be the last two. The last one you showed. >> Um,
>> this is the front elevation. >> Sorry. The >> No, you then the other color elevation that is a little different than the other one. This is going to be what you're going to do. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah. Uh I this is very similar to the
2D elevation. This was something um generated by AI using uh some landscape features. But if we go with the uh two-dimensional elevation, that's how um the house is going to look, which is basically board and bat siding and vinyl
siding. Uh >> the roof, not the roof. Is the roof overhang going to be as you show it on this drawing or the other drawing? >> So, um Ryan, if you can go back to the to the elevations,
the roof overhang is going to be uh 1 ft 6 in if projecting out from the face of the the building. But wherever it is um touching the property line, we are not project doing the 1t6 in overhang. So
like if you see the one-story structure we are not projecting it out because apparently if we do that it would be um uh it would be crossing the u lot line or very close to the lot line. So we deliberately uh did that wherever u it
doesn't affect the lot line we projected it 1 ft 6 in. Uh but where it's very close to the lot line we we don't do that. We don't project it 1 ft 6 in. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Before we get to our our planner, u I don't mean to presume, but if there any other questions, I certainly have our architect available before we switch to our next step. >> I just have one on the on the site. The uh the way you park on this in the
property, it's kind of awkward. It looks like by the positioning of the car the way it's shown, you'd have to drive past the driveway and make kind of a reverse Uturn into the property.
Why? Why can't you just come off of the the roadway at 90 degrees and park that way? Because you have a very tight area between it. It's just awfully tight between the
side steps and the drive and and if that car is positioned properly, you'd have to back in to get to it. >> Um, like I mentioned, this h this uh private lane is is narrow. So, the way
the car comes out, the way the car comes in, they will most likely have to reverse and come out the same way. It's a narrow lane. And um that is something I mean that is a a situation where um these houses are given a narrow lane. So
um my answer would be that the the the way they come in they that's the that's how the the same way they go out. >> I I don't understand the way this looks to me. It looks to me that you drive you drive
up the alley, you pass the driveway entrance and then you put it in reverse and back in and turn. Is that right? >> Yeah. I don't think they can take a 90° turn. They back out and then they back
at the same direction the way they came in. So because the the lane is quite narrow. So that's why that's how they they basically have to come the way they come in inside the lane. They they come and they park. That's how they they turn
and they can't take a 90 degree turn and then um take keep the car out. >> You have you have the land on you have the property that you could create a turnaround there. I mean I understand that the lane is narrow but you have
enough room on your property to compensate for that. the uh one of the other factors is also the imperous coverage. So if I if I have to increase the asphal paving the imperous coverage we have to be careful
of the percentage that is there uh as per the zoning I think I believe it's um 60% of the site so that was also another factor where we have to be uh careful of not to exceed the impervious coverage.
You're nowhere near 60% of the site. >> I don't think I mean maybe you are, but it looks to me like you got a unless you're paving most of the property, you've got you've got a lot of land there. >> So, yeah, as per the calculation, I
think we were exceeding if we extend the driveway a lot where I can take a 90 degree turn for this car, we would basically be affecting the imperous coverage for this lot. >> Well, maybe Maybe just u respond a little bit to
what I think the chairman's point um which I I I think is is a good one and ultimately I think we've documented the current condition. Um I I think what I'm hearing though is that there is room to create a a more navigable space on the
property frankly and if there's more room um in our impervious coverage we'd certainly look at that. We we prefer not to ask for a variance. Um, we may have some room to play with the the parking spot layout a bit to perhaps allow uh either a kturn turn or a
different orientation. That might make sense. Um, >> is that is the is is the site you obviously the existing building and the addition are impervious coverage. The side steps are impervious and the
area you've defined as the parking space is impervious coverage. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the And the rest of the site is what? >> Rest would be the grass, which would be the the around this area. >> Okay. All right. It just if it's 60%. I
mean, just it it seems to me that that you're way under 60%. But look, it's it's just what concerns me is how awkward it is to get into that parking space functionally.
And I think you have the space to resolve it so it's easier to maneuver. But >> I I honestly, Mr. Chairman, I think that that's a good point. And you know, >> with the limit being um coverage, that's something we can certainly look at and
work with with uh staff on if if the board were inclined to uh approve this. Um definitely the existing we're not really changing the existing >> footprint between the porch and that Bilco door. So it is really the existing condition and then I think where the
mouth or apron I suppose onto the lane is is kind of fixed as as per the easement but we do have room I think on the site we prefer not to pave too much of it. Um but I I think that's a good point and we can look at that you know again as long as we don't create a variance condition we have some room to to go there.
>> I don't think I don't think what you show I don't I don't have a problem with what you're saying uh Mr. Kennedy, but it doesn't seem to me that that parking situation works. But that's if you resolve it with the staff and the
engineering pe our engineering staff, then I'm comfortable with it. >> I I have a question. >> Yes, please, Michael. >> Yeah, it it's related. Um, just for clarity, see the this particular diagram
shows the car backing into the spot, >> right? >> Is that inaccurate? I would imagine you're just going to drive head into the spot, which, you know, is you don't have to drive past the the driveway entrance. So, I'm
I'm questioning whether that's an accurate depiction with it being backed in. >> Well, you know, it's interesting, Michael. I mean, I'll let them >> That was That was for the architect. >> No, I Okay, I'll let him answer or her answer and then I have a comment. Go
ahead, please. >> Yeah. >> Can you answer Mr. Floyd's question, please? um the car um comes through the driveway uh the alley and comes in and and when it has to come out it would turn in the
same direction and come out. So I I understand that that's a a narrow um >> No, that's not that's not the qu the question is is the car coming down, you know, Humber Place to the driveway
entrance and driving onto the property head first or back going past the entrance as the chairman was worried about. See, this picture shows it being backed
into the parking space. And I don't know how you do that. >> It would go in head first. I mean, that's >> that's what I thought. That's >> really more just an artifact of how your your site software kind of just >> decided to put a car there rather than
meaning to show that's how it would be parked necessarily. But Michael, further to your question, if they come in, the car is shown with the with the front of the car facing the addition. So if they drive in the other
way, which is practical, then coming out, they'd have to go out and turn into the alley or they're going to have to back all the way down the alley. I mean, it's it's it's a screwy situation, but
I don't think it's it's properly thought out. It needs to be resolved. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Any questions, Michael? Um, I guess my only question, but um I I
trust Well, you you want to save the existing house. You know, originally I thought you were taking it down to the foundation because there's some reference to that, but you're >> It is being taken down to the >> It is. It is, Mr. Floyd. They're taking down the entire house.
>> And then they talk another place where they're just renovating the insist existing. Okay. Well, I'm glad I I now understand that. Then it does get to my question. Why not just build the new house,
reorient it lengthwise on the site? I I did you look at that I guess is the question because all these variances I believe I mean uh even if we would have completely demoed it from from the
basement itself there was still variances being kicked in because right here we don't have a clear front yard we don't have a clear backyard um because we are facing a a private lane so the variances would still get kicked in and
we were taking a sustainable approach in terms of keeping what's existing, what we can keep, and then rebuilding and making it more safer from the the uh basement above. >> Well, wouldn't it I don't know, but
wouldn't it be less variances if if you built new and but rotated the house lengthwise like the lot is? So one of the one of the concerns there um okay you know you see in in red the
building envelope so you know conceivably I think what you're suggesting and this is a excellent thought is you know could not uh a new structure be built in that envelope and while something could be designed there the other constraint of this lot is the
access and the current portion where this lot is permitted access under the easement into the private lane is at shown here in fixed the part further back um is available for use uh otherwise uh by the fee owner of the
easement um and the other parts are are under the easement available for I'll call street parking I suppose um in other circumstances so it is dictate the entry to the site is dictated by a fixed location um where that's the only place
that access could be um could be created um where where it is existing. Uh so that's what that led to the existing reusing existing footprint essentially. >> Okay. Um I think I understand that. So you're saying the easement if it does
exist only goes to the driveway entrance and then it stops there. >> Correct. there there is a kind of a complicated set of arrangements where um uh there is uh again I don't want to get
too much into the details because it's we're not um necessarily talking about the street parking you know that the one spot that this one needs is the one that we're talking about on our site um but there are um uh the easement does provide for locations where access is
not permitted other than what we're talking about essentially. >> Wow. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I think Michael's point is very well very well on point. Turning that house
and putting it within that red boundary is a very good solution and you could pull in that spot that's there and go straight in it. It's this is a very forced situation.
Obviously, it's your choice. Um, but it seems it seems a very complicated situation and the way the drive in is is very awkward. Who who owns the alleyway?
The uh adjacent property owner. So, there are there are three or actually four um property owners in this uh neighborhood. Um there's um a dispute between the the three uh or four of the owners, the the duplex to the left u
this property and uh uh the one who uh is I'll just say, you know, burdened by by the easement. >> I'm I'm wondering in light of Mr. Floyd's comment if um the applicant would be interested in kind of going
back and revisiting these plans. >> Well, um certainly um subject to any further feedback we got, you know, on the we get from from the board. These are comments that are helpful and you know, I'm not um I'm certainly not
dismissing them. Um but we have a little bit more time. Maybe we could just make sure we get um some of the comments from our planner out there. Um but then we can regroup and see, you know, there the only concern I've got. I just want to make sure our our um
our architect, you know, while on their face, I think the the Mr. Cohen and Mr. Floyd's comments make a lot of sense. Uh I I would like our architect to react a little bit just about you know the other constraints that that
while you know taking a a modestized home and kind of turning it and and reducing some of the variances I just don't know physically is possible without removing the access but I may be misunderstanding the the suggestion. If I if I could um because as I think more
about my suggestion in light of what you said about the the the shortened easement uh for your u uh entrance to the parking if you rotate the house and push it push
it to the back part of the lot and have your parking between the current entrance and Humber Street basically switching the entrance. It's still within the easement
but having the house on the right hand side. >> Yeah, that's a very good point. >> I see. So that the it would enter but instead of where this right arrow points you to the back where people park now kind of point you back to the you know towards the duplex essentially. Um
>> yeah, it'd be close to the Humber Humber uh street that the uh the parking >> now that again um I'll I'll I'll say helpful feedback. This is this is you know um we're not >> Yeah. And I I say that in light of all
these variances you want. >> No, understood. >> Mr. Just for clarification, um is your architect, Miss Dar, is she going to address the question that Mr. Bridger has raised? Uh
he had indicated he believed you need a variance. Um that the applicant should demonstrate can the street is it adequate Humber Place to allow fire and emergency access?
Will she be able to address that or is your planner >> We'll have her We will have some planning testimony on that if we get to that point. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I it seems kind of obvious to me, Mr. Kennedy, that
as currently applied, there are some um challenges going forward. Um, and as you've appeared before us many times, you know, it's not uncommon for applicants to kind of regroup when they're getting feedback that is um,
valuable and beneficial for their project to move forward. Um, if you deem it advisable for us to um, listen to the planner and everybody else, great. I'm happy to do it. Um, it just seems to me that uh there are some tea leaves that
can be read at this point and I'm wondering if it's worth reading them. >> Uh, much much um appreciated if if you want to um give us um a moment to group on our end. Happy to to do that. I I'll I'll as I always do thank the the board
for their feedback and cander. We you know as our goal to collect as much of it as possible if we were to regroup of course. I I don't I I I'm guess I want to throw some other tea leaves in here because I um I did hear a couple of
things that I thought that I would I would say that I we want to be concerned about having, you know, tons of variances that have to be approved. But at the same
time, I I did hear and maybe you could speak the architect could speak a little bit more about the idea that they were trying to keep sustainability in mind in preserving the and working with the
foundation that was already there. And seeing that red outline, it seems like there's it's hard for me to totally visualize, but it's hard, but it seems like there there would be far less green space, outdoor space. So, just in terms
of the livability aspect, I I I think that needs to be considered as well. So my contribution of tea leaves is that I'm I wouldn't say that we haven't heard from everybody and we
don't always weigh in at this point but I'm not one of the ones who's saying rethink it and come back later. Yeah, sustainability was like one of those important things where we wanted
to keep the foundation of the house the way it is and develop the house uh keeping the footprint of the house as is and adding adding to it. Um but I completely respect u the uh the board's um suggestions tonight in terms of the
variances that get kicked in and we're going to uh look at it again and talk about it after the meeting. M >> Miss Dar just for clarification for the board. So your testimony is is the applicant
keeping the entire foundation? Yes, the existing is staying. We are doing u the addition to it. The addition would have the new crawl space and new foundation. >> So, okay.
But the but what the house and when I say the house I mean everything above the foundation that's all going to be removed. Correct. >> Right. And we were making it 1-hour fire rated u because of the proximity to the neighbor. We were making it more safer
in terms of the construction. >> But you're But I just want to make sure in light of what our attorney, our counselor said, the existing part of the house, not the porch, the existing part
of the house, you know, you're is is coming down also. So everything is coming down to the foundation, both sides. The porch is coming off and the house it's the three-story house is coming down. >> Uh the crown space and the foundation is
staying for the existing house and everything else is getting rebuilt. Yes. >> Okay. So all right. Okay. So do you how do you want to go on from here? Do you want to have your planner >> talk or do you get do the three of you
want to discuss this and come back to us in a couple of minutes and let us know how you want to proceed? >> If if you could give us a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, we'll see. I I I we do have a planner here, but if if we're going to be talking about ultimately something drastically different in the future, I don't want to waste your time with planning testimony on something
that would um potentially uh u change a bit. So if you if perhaps we could have five minutes and and return if that's all right. >> Sure. I I'll just quickly add that I um agree with uh Eve's point about you know
there there seem to be valid reasons for uh the approach that was taken to keep the uh existing foundation and work with that. So I'll let you go. >> Thank you. And I I'll just >> I just I just have one more question. Um
cuz I just don't know. How much of a positive impact on sustainability is it to keep you know a rather small cinder block foundation assuming it's cinder block. I
just don't know is is we you make people It sounds like it's a substantial impact, but is that really what people are meaning to say? The whole house is going.
>> Yeah, you you don't have to get rid of some concrete blocks or something, but that might be of of big value. So, educate me >> to to to your um to your point and to Miss Chen and Miss Coulson's points. Um
all of which are are I think spot on. Um if this were to be redesigned drastically, obviously we would be showing that differently with a different set of variances or if it turns out that you know we looking at this we have different information to justify a current this current or
similar design. Uh what we hear is that you're you're going to want to see more information about um the the maneuverability and the parking and if it really is um to to Mr. Floyd's point um uh the the whether it's the environmental or locationational benefit
or even the planning benefit of massing the site as it is now. We should have some things differently to to show that um that that aren't on screen at the moment. Um is what I'm what I'm taking away um from from from those comments.
All right. >> It would also >> Excuse me. >> Go ahead, Stephen. >> It would also be nice uh if you could give an estimate of how many variances you would need for a new location versus this one because a lot of these are are
not going to go away just by rotating the building. >> That's that's fair. Um and and I think accurate though it's hard to say obviously without doing a little work that from from the from shooting from the hip that would be challenging. I
think your point is like all everything that we've heard tonight um is generally pretty accurate. There's almost no chance that there won't be some subset or or even similar number of variances. It may be that some of them are diminished in quantity or or altered. Uh
but a site like this with a building envelope like we're talking about unless we were to have no usable yard space or or parking and and mass a building full foolishly I don't mean it that way but but you know right in the center um would would kind of render everything
else kind of pointless and useless um and absent that and even with that we would still need some some variances. So again your point is spot on. I wish I could say, you know, rotating it, we would go to to six variances or some number. We may come back with that and
say like we could here's an alternative um that we've looked at and it requires X and maybe that X is is quite a bit less. Uh the point is it may be the same um even after we've looked at it. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Kennedy, how much time would
you like? >> I I think I think five um uh should do it. Um uh I'm >> all right. Let's just say it's 9. It's almost 9:35. It's like 9:34. So, we'll say at 9:40 we'll reconvene. >> We We'll do. Thank you so much.
>> Okay. So, board members, five or six minutes. Thank you. Chairman Coy, I'm I'm getting some um notifications that my internet isn't stable. Would it be okay if I called in from my phone? >> Um at this point, yeah, I mean, we're
we're probably this it's up to you. Yes, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, you know, I don't know really. Karen, can can Harlem still vote if it comes to that this evening? If he's on his phone, >> I mean, I I guess it's a if you're on
your phone, you'll be able to see. Correct, Harlon? Yes. Any additional >> shouldn't be. >> I think as long as the applicant does not have an objection, that shouldn't be a problem. So, >> I mean, I I'll stay on this as long as I
>> Right. As long as it stays stable. The other question I had, Stephen, we'll raise this again when the applicant um rejoins us, but uh I do see there are members of the public. Uh and I don't know if you would if it would be a good
idea to open it to comment tonight. >> Well, I think I think we have to get the plan they're going to propose. We have >> well at least one person whose name I see is someone who had already contacted staff saying he wanted to make
objection. So you know in a m I I don't know the extent to which >> it's helpful or not but um >> you know it's it's let's see let's see what the applicant comes back with because >> it has an issue it's an issue with
regard to um access. >> Yeah, I know. and that needs to be explained, but let's we don't I don't think we know enough about this project yet to really make an informed decision. >> Okay.
with with the person from the public's previous comments to staff. Does does it indicate that that person has a legal involvement with the easement? >> Correct. >> Well, might be good to get some clar
Yeah, you're right, Michael. Yeah. Yeah, >> I think that's a that's important actually. >> And to get it on the record. >> Yeah. It's All right, it's 9:40.
Um, I think we've got to reconvene now. You're muted, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy, you're muted. Sorry about that. Um um again um as probably anticipated um much appreciate
all the feedback we got here. We would like to carry the meeting so we can come back possibly with an alternative design um and and showing you know the the kind of conceptual thinking we could take the board through. I don't mean in a concept so much as you know either what could
work um that's that's different um or more likely the the kind of the story of of um why these alternatives don't work and don't result in fewer variances. So if if we um we do think we can kind of turn that around in in short order. Um
um so if it's if it's possible to um uh carry us to a a date certain we would certainly um appreciate that but we would like to return with some additional information for you. >> Okay. So thank you Karen. I have a question in light of Michael's comment.
Are we can we actually hear from the public on this application now? Well, you have members of the public who have come to make a comment. I appreciate that Mr. Kennedy's indicating
uh the applicant has some additional thoughts about this and they want to come back. Um since at least one of these people in the audience uh had previously advised staff that they wanted to come and raise objection and
it is in connection with the the access easement. Um it the board may want to consider hearing these folks because they're here tonight. >> No, I think >> and while it may change while the design
of the house may change now, um these comments may be helpful to the applicant as well. >> I agree with you. I agree with you. As long as you feel we can hear them, I think it makes sense to do it. Okay. How do we how do we do that? Um
>> well, I guess you can open it to public comment. You know, it doesn't mean everybody who's here may want to comment, but um >> All right. So, at this point, at this point, we're going to open up this hearing to members of the public to
comment. Um Claudia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak? >> No, Mr. Chairman. There was a person, but they dropped. They They're not there anymore. >> Okay. Um
Well, we'll wait a second here to see if they reappear. >> Well, what was the name of the person that contacted staff? And is that person in the audience? >> They don't appear to be in the audience
anymore. >> Okay. on. So they do they no longer appear. >> Okay. >> All right. So they're not here. >> Okay. Um
All right. Would Mr. Kennedy, would you like to explain this easement to us at at this at this moment? would I I I want to be careful not testify and maybe when we return that would be a good place to
to uh to start more testimony on I'm happy to make some general recommendations about it. It is a matter of >> public record and perhaps the board can take notice and be guided by I I want to be careful and not provide testimony or something that seems like testimony to be honest with you.
>> Okay. All right. So, we're you're asking for continuance. Um, do we, Mr. Bridger, Miss Gibbons, do we Gribbons, do we have a date that we can
assign. >> You're muted, Derek. >> Yeah, I know. March 25th. Okay. Um many many many thanks for uh for you know I know it's a busy calendar and uh um you know this actually is a dense neighborhood so it is quite
meaningful not to uh have another stack of of green cards but much appreciated. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much and uh we'll see you in March. Um that is the extent of our agenda this
evening. So we are adjourned. >> Good night. Good night bowl. >> Good night.