Good evening. I'm sorry for the delay. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on November 12th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the 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 of the municipal complex and is is
is and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet town topics the times tranonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on November 7th 2025 and has been posted to the municipal
website www.princetonj.com princetonj.gov/meings 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 and was transmitted to the Princeton packet, town, town topics and the and the times
and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April, 2020. Such notice notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are and are to be
maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town topics the time 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. Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, Mr. Floyd, Mr. Shrivever,
>> here. >> Mr. Stein >> here. >> Mr. Tenno. >> Miss Donna. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin >> here. >> Cohen >> here.
Okay. Uh, we have two resolutions this evening. They are or they were in your packet. Uh, the first is case Z25-623, 728, Bun Drive, block 2801, lot 11 in the O1 zone. Does anyone have any
comments or questions on the mo on the resolution? And if not, if someone would like to make a motion. I just had a quick question about um number three on page 10. The the meaning
of that uh where it says the applicant shall submit an administrative waiver of site plan for any improvements required for compliance with the 91 site plan approval including landscaping and buffering. That that means that they need to comply with the 91
>> yes >> site plan. Okay. All right. I just I I couldn't quite make sense of the sentence, but thank you. >> Well, it's it is a little confusing because of this administrative waiver, but staff wanted them to do that
specifically. They wanted them to file for an administrative waiver because that is a mechanism then for them to again review. Okay. at the staff level, meaning they're not coming in for site
plan, but um staff wanted to be able to confirm that, including I guess Derek, wasn't there a question about buffering, too? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> So moved.
>> Second. Second. >> Okay. Claudia, please call the role. Miss Jen. >> Yes. >> Second. Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stein. >> Yes.
>> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Our next resolution is case number Z25-682, 311 Western Way, block 8703, lot 13 in the RS
or the R5T zone. Once again, the resolution was in your packets, questions, comments, or motions. to approve. >> Second, >> Miss Ten.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Syri. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stein. Yes, >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have three applications this evening. The first is a carryover from
our last hearing 184, >> excuse me, 164 Prospect Avenue, block uh 8 55.01, lot 16 in the R2B zone.
Oh, hi Michael. Um, is there someone there representing this application? Someone here representing this application this evening? >> Uh, Mr. Peepsack is uh been pulled over. >> Okay.
>> He's the applicant. >> Okay. Very good. >> Yes, I'm here. Oh, jeez. I am here uh the architect for the applicant. >> Oh, there you are, Mr. Bay. Okay.
>> He was previously sworn in, so I don't have to do it again, right, Karen? >> Oh, that's right. Consider yourself still under oath, Mr. Beao. And and as and you as well, Mr. Peepsack. >> Yes. Uh thank you, board. uh will be quick. We are requesting an adjournment
of our case into the first available in January. We are in the process of trying to retain additional professionals to assist with our case as we feel it is now needed. Um these include the likelihood of hiring an attorney and the likelihood of bringing in a planner and
as such um we request um respectfully an adjournment of tonight's hearing. Derek, when uh when could we hear this case? >> Uh Claudia, what's the January reorg
meeting? I'm sorry. Is it >> Well, on December 12th, um is it December 12? I'm sorry. Uh we will have the uh at the next meeting, he will have to uh adopt the um >> December 10, I'm sorry. So he will have to come on December 10 and after we
adopt the meeting dates then he can carry to that date again. >> Thank you. I think that's what Karen said, right? >> Yeah. So to the if to the benefit of anybody who's here tonight, this application will be carried to December 12th.
>> 10th, excuse me, >> I'm sorry, December 10th. And at that time, I guess it's anticipated that the applicant will again request for the application to be carried. But right now all we can do is carry it to um December 10th.
>> So we would adopt the meetings for next year and then the meeting should be in January on the 28th and correct next hearing on the 10th of December. >> Once that's adopted, you can request to uh carry that meeting to the January 28th meeting.
>> Okay. And um we would be providing uh we we're agreeing to extending our application. Until then, do you need any formal testimony tonight on that? >> No, but we would like something in writing to confirm that. >> All right, then I'll send you tomorrow
Derek Bridger an email uh putting our timeout into into next year despite I will be appearing December 12th to request an adjournment again. >> Thank you. >> Actually, your office already sent an extension till the end of uh uh I think it's 13126.
>> Uh oh, okay. That's wonderful. Um, good. I'm glad we're on top of it. Thank you. So, there's no need for uh a further requesting of time. >> We're good on that. So, >> thank you. All right. >> We'll see you in December 10th. >> Great. And happy holidays everyone to uh Thanksgiving.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Our next case is case Z25-687 66 Dempsey Avenue. >> Sorry, sorry, sorry. >> I'll start again. Our next case is 66 Dempsey Avenue. Case Z25-687,
block 5804, lot 57 in the R6 Tzone. Okay. Um, Claudia, do we have the applicant here? >> Can the applicant uh raise her hand? I I can't identify the name.
Thank you. While we're waiting, I'll just note that the noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight to hear the application. and I'll swear you in. Mr. Bridger, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
>> Yes, ma'am. I do. >> Thank you. >> Is the applicant. >> There's somebody on the screen. >> Good evening. We're here. >> Okay, we need to Can you There we go. Okay.
>> Do you have anybody else? Do you have any uh architect, engineer, anybody that else that needs to be moved over? >> No, not on this call. >> All right. So, >> so Mr. It's Mr. Muker G and Miss
Agarwal. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Thank you. >> All righty. And do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> We do. >> Yes, we do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Before we begin, Derek, can you review your memo with us?
>> Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh, Henerbon Mukerjee and Nidi Agarwal are the owners of 66 Dempsey Avenue. They're seeking a C1 variance to permit construction of a vestibule, an exception to the prevailing front yard setback, and to expand the driving the driveway width
and parking area within the front yard. uh properties located in the R6T zone and is subject to the use and bulk regulations in accordance with sections 10B 246, 255, 255.2 and 10B attachment 3 of the former Princeton Township land
use ordinance. The subject lot is complying with respect to the bulk requirements in the zone. The existing house does not comply with the required front yard setback, which is a prevailing setback. In this case, the requirement is 50. The existing is 31 feet.8
31.8 feet. Um applicant is proposing to construct a 6 and 1 half x 12t enclosed vestiel in the front facade of the existing single family dwelling. Um the applicant was issued a zoning permit in April of 2025 for a 14x 24 rear edition
which was permitted as of right. The applicant also wishes to expand the driveway parking area in the front yard and the proposed vestibial, excuse me, the proposed vestibial addition will encroach into the prevailing front yard setback and the driveway expansion will
encroach on the front yard parking setback. The proposed driveway widening is more than the permitted uh width. So the following variances are required for the uh vestibule. The required setback is 50, the existing is 31.8 8 and the proposed is 25.5 ft. The front yard
parking setback requirement is 25, proposed is 15.58 ft and the maximum driveway width uh required is 22 feet and the proposed is 23 feet. Applicant has requested consideration under the C1 criteria. If
you have any questions, I'd be glad to address them. >> Board members, any question? Oh, Donna, please. >> Yeah. Um Derek, I I'm this is a confusing application to me because um I walked by the property and um there's
already a vestibule. So what I don't understand and maybe Derek, you know of is is there are they trying to, you know, legalize the existing vestibule or are they going to knock it down and do a new one?
>> Yes. Yep. They're going to expand the one that's there. >> Okay. >> I think it's a little too narrow to be cultural, >> but I let them testify to that. >> Okay. And then Derek, they don't need an F variance. I know in the application
the applicants noted they did and maybe they got a number wrong. >> A good catch. No, it it was a small lot and there's a proportional F adjustment which >> uh means they're okay with the F. They don't need an F adjustment. That's a good catch up.
>> Oh, okay. So, they just need the C variances. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thanks. >> No, thank you. Good question. >> I just have a technical question in the >> Wait, >> go ahead, Karen. I'm sorry. >> I was going to say in the description of variances where it says maximum driveway
with required 22 in existing not applicable. They do have a driveway though, right? Already. >> Yeah, they do. Yes. >> That okay. And it is
compliant or >> Yeah. I mean it's non-compliant with the regard to the setback, but it's an existing non-compliance. So >> Okay. So the the driveway is Okay. So it's not not applicable. It's it's not conforming
currently. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's grandfather. It was prior to the change of the ordinance that required a driveway setback from the side property line. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Michael, did you want to say something?
>> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. >> Good to hear you. >> Claudia, please note in the in the a in the record that uh Michael is in attendance. >> Note it.
>> Good. All right. uh please uh the applicants make your case. >> Um yeah, I'll talk to the first one which is about the um the front vestibule. So regarding the question right that yes there is an existing
vestibule however uh it is improperly designed and you know it doesn't provide a safe entryway to the house right so the first point I want to highlight is that it is providing inadequate shelter from um weather conditions so when it's heavy rainfall the water leaks through
that current vestibule um you know and as we open the main entrance door sometimes there's pulled water that provides slippery situations uh sometimes you the packages that get delivered you know during inclement weather they are left outside you know in in the rainfall because it's not
obvious to the to the delivery people right that uh the estu vestibule is accessible to them so there is no overhang to that vestibule that provides any kind of landing area or shelter area uh so it's very very improperly uh constructed right now there's a lot of
pest intrusion also that happens through the structural gaps that are there in the vestibule so we have had several occasions during during springtime when you know there have been snakes uh you know sitting in that vestibule um and as the children you know go outside the door and you know try to pick up their
shoes there's a snake sitting right there right so there are multiple gaps in that vestibule that are not properly sealed and you know we've checked with the contractor right the only way to do it is to you know deconstruct it demolish it and and constructed properly
um so you know without you know the structural changes it's not feasible to make those repairs also the the level of the vestibule to the surface of you know where our main entrance is there is difference in the in the surface area I mean the um the elevation so it creates
a tripping hazard as well if you're not paying attention because the levels are are significantly different so there's a lot of improvements in the construction that need to be done and that's why we are requesting for this variance >> yeah and to the members of the board I I would only want to add that we have also
submitted did images of snakes that we have found in the shoes which are in the shoe racks in that area and it's it's it's quite disturbing so I'm sorry to say >> we we don't need to see those
>> I'm sure. Okay. Um thank you. All right. any other testimony >> um with with regards to the to the driveway expansion. That's the that's the second one. I mean, at this point of
time, we have a narrow driveway. We have a car for my wife and for myself. They're both parked behind each other. And essentially when it the the real problem is when it gets to the the winter months and when we when there's
snow cleared out on the streets and stuff like that. I mean, we have we always have one extra car on the on the driveway, which is which is an annoyance for our neighbors as well because when they're rem they're taking their cars out of their driveways, it's an inconvenience because they have to look
out for our car which is already parked there. And for the ve vehicles that are clearing the snow on the street, there's always a vehicle on the street. uh be- because of the sequential nature of the you know the both cars being parked next
to each other. So essentially that that's why we are seeking to widen the uh the current blacktop the the driveway that we have so that both cars can be parked next to each other and we don't have to use the road and inconvenience
our neighbors in in the process. Yeah, I think I just want to add right during the peak hours in the morning, you know, when we have to leave for work, we have school drop offs, you know, gym to attend, there's always this last minute rush as to whose car is is in the front,
right? And that person has to first, you know, quickly back away so that the other person can leave. So, it is just a a significant inconvenience in just the daily usage and routines, right? That we all have to follow. Okay. All right. Anything else?
>> Those are the two uh proposals in our application. Uh we appreciate the board for listening and appreciate your consideration in the matter. >> Sir, do you know when the house was constructed? >> 1953, ma'am.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. At this po Excuse me. Did you want to say something else? No. Okay. At this point, um, you can make a a closing statement right now and then we'll open the hearing up to the
public. So, do you want to say anything before we open it to the public for comment? Yeah, just a closing statement, right, that I mean there are, you know, we for both of those topics, right, the driveway um that allows us to, you know, park two cars next to each other as well
as creating a safe entryway, there is, you know, lack of other reasonable alternatives, you know, aside from, you know, having this this variance application approved. Um, you know, the layout of the lot and the current zoning requirements, they they prevent any other practical, you know,
reconfiguration that we can make to this house. uh and you know we we truly believe that granting this variance is not going to adversely affect you know the the surrounding properties or cause any kind of nuisance to the neighbors. Um in fact you know the the change to the front test will only improve the uh
the aesthetic and functional value of the neighborhood. So we just respectfully you know request your consideration and approval. >> Okay. Well thank you very much. Okay. At this point, we'll open the hearing up to the public. If there's anyone in the
audience who'd like to comment on this case, please indicate that by hitting the uh uh raise your hand button on the screen and we'll recognize you. Claudia, has anyone indicated they'd like to
speak on behalf of this application? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, please let them in. >> Their pictures there, but we don't have
any audio. >> Muted. >> Okay, now we have audio. >> Now we don't have anything. >> There he is. >> There we go. >> There we go. Okay. >> Sir, can we have your name, please? >> Okay. is Paul Raider.
>> And Mr. Raider, uh, uh, can you give us your address if you feel comfortable or 32 Kyler Road, uh, but we're at the corner of Dempsey Avenue in Kyler and next door 266 Dempsey. >> All righty. And do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will
be truthful? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Hey, I just want to just quickly say that I think that their the things that they plan to do are fine with us.
Uh the vestibule will just make it look nicer in the in the front their front yard, but we particularly want to have them have access to doubling the size of the driveway so they can park both cars at the same time. Uh last winter often
times they had to park on the street. That's dangerous when it's snowing, the plows can't get through, and we really want them to have the ability to park both both cars uh on their own property. That's it. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Okay. Uh Claudia,
has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak? >> There are no more hands. >> Okay. All right. We'll give it a couple of seconds here. So, all right. We're going to close the public portion of the hearing. Uh once again, the applicant is
can say something before we go into executive session if you'd like to. >> Oh, I I I just want to say uh I'm we deeply appreciate Paul's feedback on our situation and we appreciate uh the
consideration of the board in this matter. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Um we're going to go into executive session now. Uh board members, do you have any questions? Donna, please. >> My question is
um how big the the the size of the desired vestibule versus the size of the vestibule now. What how do they compare? >> About five feet, right? because I just
don't see it on the plans that you know it's giving us. >> But the front yard setback is 25. They're proposing 255. The existing is 318. So it must be about 5t closer to the
to the street. >> Yeah. I don't know whether that measurement is to the existing vestibule or the one they want to put on. >> Uh no. So that's the the way that was explained is right. Right. So the the width of the current vestibule is quite narrow and the way the construction
would happen is that we have to build a a roof on it. So in order to get the a roof and and some overhind to the vestibule >> upstairs. >> Yeah. So that there is you know enough space to provide shelter from the weather in case somebody's ringing the bell and standing if it's raining you
know. So that is that is why there it is adding uh you know a few extra feet. So yeah that's the drawing where it shows the current vestibule and you know uh how much uh we are adding. Okay. So the current one is the one
that's outlined in the the dark outline and then the extension is in the lighter outline or or no. >> Right. >> Um the if you notice on the drawing where the entry vestibule says there's a number 2.6.
>> Yes. >> That would be the existing vestibule. So that's approximately 3 feet from the or 2 and 1/2 ft from the face of the house. And the proposed vestibule is about 5t
6 in or 6 feet from the front of the house. >> Okay. So it's about double. >> It comes out another 2 and 1/2 ft. >> Okay. So it's about double. And then the width is the same. Yeah,
>> it looks like >> seems like a very reasonable size for the uh for a >> vestibule. >> I like the design. I think it improves the the visual of the whole house. I I noticed on the on the street up and down
the street, most of the houses, many of the houses have extended driveways already. So, I I I like what they're proposing. >> I agree. >> So, are you talking about the vegetable
how it's like a lot of other houses? >> No, the the driveway a lot of the other houses on the street have wider driveways already. It's not like this would be a unique something to have a little more parking
space in the front yard from what I could tell. >> Yeah, I noticed that too. That's probably the the most herk herky jerky half a block section of
all types of weird arrangements. >> Yeah. >> Um that's true. I I do I do have a problem with the driveway being expanded and the parking in front of the and doubling the parking area.
Essentially, this house, in my view, has the same type of driveway that I have and probably half the board members and a major portion of the town, which is a driveway that's a single driveway that
requires you to stack your cars. It's it's it's a driveway that can and does accommodate two cars, three cars without parking on the street.
It's just moving the cars around is um you know an inconvenience, but it's also an inconvenience for all the other people in town that have the same width and length driveway.
Um, so personally I I don't support um widening the parking area because it's essentially because they don't want to stack the cars and move them. >> No. Yes. >> And the and the zoning's in place
requires that the driveways of a certain length and you can't have a a double spot um like that in the front yard set back and it makes a whole lot of other people stack their cars and they've been done
doing it forever. That's my thoughts. I can't totally disagree with you, Michael, but in this particular case, you know, the house was built in 1953, and I think it was more common for people to have one car than two cars.
And I think the fact that the street itself is narrow and in the wintertime, you know, leaving a car on the street, which is perfectly legal, uh, creates a little bit of a hazard. And uh I can't argue with the fact that many houses are
are single car driveways, but um I think in this day and age, a double wide driveway is better than a much better than a single obviously. And um maybe it should
be something that we look at in the audience in the uh ordinance, but this particular house, the way it's sitting on the lot, um if they expanded the driveway the other way towards the front entry, I think it would be awkward. And
I think aesthetically putting it on the side like this, I don't think it creates a real problem in terms of its relationship to the neighboring property. Well, okay. That's your opinion. I I
don't understand it. I mean, >> a lot of families have two cars. They park it in a stack position. You know, one car deeper in on the side of the house and another one a little closer to the road.
I don't I don't see how, you know, Yeah. I don't see how you say no to anybody that comes in with a a a regulation driveway that requires stacking cars. That's what the code requires,
>> right? >> But that's my two cents. >> Board members, any other comments or someone would like to make a motion one way or the other? Steve, I I just have one more question.
Um, sure. >> Oh, if can Claudia put that back up again, >> please. >> The screen share. >> Yeah, Claudia, >> you're muted, Claudia. So, does this mean that the the the
driveway the driveway addition they're proposing is an additional 9 ft and goes not the entire length of the existing driveway, maybe 34 of the length. Is that what am I looking at that right?
>> That dark portion next to the existing driveway that they're proposing. >> Right. It's 9 ft. Okay. >> It's a little more than 9 ft, but >> it is more. >> Yeah. >> Is this the least
um is there any lesser upper driveway that would work here? And I mean it will still need a variance, but is there any other way to accommodate this problem? I don't think shortening the driveway
really I mean it's still a variance. So if you're going to consider a variance I would consider a variance that allows two cars to adequately park there without being too close to each other. Um the only other I mean there aren't a lot of options in the front yard to to
supply parking because of the 25 foot setback. So >> yeah. Okay. Thanks. I mean, in theory, you could put an 8 foot wide space in there rather than a nine, but yeah, I think they could tighten it up,
but you're still you're not going to get to the the uh 25 ft setback. Um, >> but >> you could you could you could probably increase the 15'7 slightly. Um,
maybe angling the car somehow, but you're not going to get to 25. You're you're uh >> Yeah. And though and though the other side of the house is a little bit wider, it's odd shaped
right now. It's fenced off. It looks like a a relatively new fence um that's there. But, you know, whereas the extensive renovations on that Lynen Lane house close to Nassau, we basically made
them do it on a side where they had rum. >> If you remember that house, >> I do. But >> well, board members, is that a discussion relocating the the drive or
the the additional car? I don't think so. I mean, there's a little the other side also has a little bit of a mounding, too. You'd have to flatten it and >> not much of a mounding.
>> Well, couple feet, foot and a half to I >> I don't think so. But that's >> I think this uh I I think this is a looks to me like a reasonable request. I mean, I agree with Michael. We all have I mean, my wife and I have a first in
last out kind of deal with our cars, but I think if given the opportunity to change it, I would. And uh this doesn't seem like it's a you know big improvision. >> Well, if you want to move on, move on. But if
you want to change a code, you you you don't go against the code before you change it. >> That's a good point. I mean, don't and if you change the codes, you're going to allow anybody with a one one car width driveway,
even if it goes the complete length of the lot to park in front of the house. If there's, you know, not adequate space, >> we have any issues with two curve cuts on the street.
>> Only one driveway. >> Yeah. >> Permitted per lot. >> I mean, I would think it's preferable to grant the variance for this than to have two driveways. I mean, that just is a waste of impervious coverage. Yeah, I I agree. >> Okay.
>> I move we approve it. We can vote on it and see where we're going. >> Um, can I ask one question? >> Sure. >> Sure. >> Can I mean, can can that frame shed move and then you have a little you go past the house
and you turn and you get them both in? You have some impervious coverage to spare. >> Yeah. I'm not sure how much they have because it's retroactive to >> 2017 and they did that addition in the back. So, um
>> I mean it >> it would mean they would need a storm water management plan which isn't the end of the world, but >> Got it. Okay, we have a motion on the table. We need a second. >> I second. >> Okay,
>> that Mr. Dokin. Yes. Thank you. >> Is there any discussion on the motion? >> So the the motion is to grant both variances. >> I mean if we uh we do yeah we've got a
motion on the floor now. uh if if that doesn't pass then I guess they can be uh voted on separately if if that's proves to be an impediment. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to inquire
about. >> Uh all right. Uh let's see who made this motion. Stephen >> Stephen, you willing to amend this motion to separate out these variances? No, I'd rather vote on this and we could separate it out afterwards.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. No other discussion. And Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes.
>> Mr. um I'm sorry, Mr. Floyd. No, >> Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes, >> Miss Donna. >> And no for the driveway, but yes for the vestibule. So, I guess that's a no.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Stein. >> Yes, >> Mr. Dokin. >> Yes, >> Chairman Cohen. Yes. >> So, we got one, two, three, four, five.
It pass. >> It passes. Yep. >> Okay. So, it's approved then? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Um,
our next case is case number Z25-698, 15 Hillside Road, block 7207, lot 4 in the R sixt zone. Uh, Karen, are the notices in order? >> Lauren, the board has jurisdiction
tonight to hear it. >> Steve, can we take five minutes? I'm sorry. >> Certainly. Okay, let's see what time it is. 8:25, so we'll reconvene at 8:30. Thank you. Michael, how did you get your audio to
work? >> Very strange. Computers are strange. I obviously disconnect, you know, I came out of Zoom. I went into my computer settings
just to see if I could find anything. Uh, in settings, I went to my apps, scrolled down to the Zoom app, you know, settings and clicked on that.
And then in the settings, the audio for Zoom was turned off. Now, mind you, I've never been in the settings and then the apps, the
Zoom app in my settings ever. >> It could have just been some combination of things you hit that that shut it off, huh? >> Yeah. Yeah, that was totally unrelated, but I I Yeah, so that's that's what
happened. It it was it was deep in the computer. Had nothing to do with me and Zoom. I I don't know. >> These things happen. >> Computers are great when they work
properly. Michael, I didn't hear what you said because I had this problem last week. Did >> my computer I went left Zoom, just had the computer on, clicked on
settings, went to settings, and um I went to uh apps. That that did all my apps. went all the way down to Zoom, clicked on Zoom,
and audio was turned off in Zoom, and I have never been in that. I don't know what turned it off, but I had to click it on, and you know, that was that and turned out that was the solution.
>> Yeah, I had one I had a a different case, not the one with the sound, but another problem. And it turned out I had the same kind of thing that somewhere down in inside the app it had been changed from I don't understand how that happens but
>> yeah me neither >> could just be a sequence of buttons you pushed at one time and yeah but it's really right >> yeah it's it's very strange because >> it's it's it's controlled by a button
that I've never accessed. in all the time we've been doing Zoom. >> Yeah. >> All right. But at least you got it fixed. That's great. >> Yeah. >> Got about 30 seconds or so left here. Okay, it's 8:30. Uh, Claudia, can you
start the recording again, please? >> Okay, >> you're on. >> Okay. Okay. Our next case is uh case Z25-69815 Hillside Road, block 7207,
lot 4 in the R6T zone. Um Karen, as you said, all the noticing is in order and we have jurisdiction. Thank you. >> U Derek, can you summarize your memo on this case? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh 15 Hillside Road LLC is the owner
applicant of 15 Hillside Road. They're seeking C1 and C2 variances to allow for the construction of a second floor addition over the existing first floor and a two-story rear edition as well as a detached onecar garage. Properties
located in the R six T town R six Tzone in the former Princeton Township and it's subject to the regulations of 10B 246 255 and 255.2. The subject lot does not comply with the required 10,890 foot lot area. The
existing is 8,250 ft. It's non-compliant with regard to the 50 or the 85 foot lot width and lot frontage. The requirement is 60 and it's the sideyard setback. It's 15 and it's non-compliant on the left at 9.8 and non-compliant on the
right at 13.7. And the parking side setback requirements 5 ft. the existing is zero. Um the applicants proposing to renovate and add additions to the existing Cape Cod style home. The plans propose a new foyer entry and a new
second floor replacing the existing halfstory and a two-story addition is proposed on the rear elevation of the house. A detached garage is proposed behind the house and a twostory bumpout front foyer addition is permitted as of right. The following variances are
required. sideyard setback for the second floor over the uh existing front portion of the house. Um on the requirements 15 feet on the left side it's 8.875 ft and on the right side it's 12.79 ft and the sideyard setback for
the twostory addition um requirement is 15. The proposed is 13.79 and the garage setback requirement is five. They're proposed is three and the driveway setback requirement is 5T and the proposal as it grandfathered now
where it's non-compliant but as it it it angles in towards the garage from approximately 0 to 3.5 ft applications requested consideration under the both C1 and the C2 criteria. That's a brief synopsis of my memo. If
you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Board members, any questions of Mr. Burgger? >> Okay. Um, who is going to be representing this application this evening? >> Mr. Song,
>> uh, Eugene Song on behalf of 15 Hillside Road LLC. the applicant. Uh together with me, I do have the representative of the LLC, uh each one Lee, and we also have our architect. I don't see him in the panel here. His name is Anthony.
>> He's here. >> Here he is. >> Okay. >> Okay. And uh with respect to our application, in addition to the documents that have already been submitted, uh we'll be presenting testimony from the uh uh from the owner
um Mr. Lee and also from our architect uh uh Mr. Llaka here. So uh the first thing that we would like to do is to qualify Mr. Llaka as our expert witness. Um,
so if we can go ahead and swear in the witnesses, we can proceed. >> I will. Uh, Mr. Lee and Mr. Llaka, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Good evening, Mr.
Llaka. Um, would you uh share with the board your uh just a brief background of your credentials? >> Yes. Um, my name is Anthony Llaka. I hold a master of architecture degree from Tulain University. I am a licensed
and registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Um I've appeared before this board on numerous times over the years for many various applications. >> You have and and we will accept you as an expert. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And >> one quick one question. Excuse me. Your license is in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. Okay. Please continue. >> Yeah, in addition to the documents, we also have a PowerPoint slide presentation that we will uh use as a
guide uh for our application for tonight. And >> Mr. Song, do you know how many slides you have? >> Uh I believe it's seven slides. >> All righty. So, we'll make that exhibit A1.
>> Yes, seven in total. >> Seven slide PowerPoint. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um Okay, Mr. Llaka, uh as long as we can have the PowerPoint presentation up for the board
members to view as you describe the property and the design that went into this uh into this um into this renovation project that the homeowner would like to undertake. >> Sure. So, um the existing house is a um
a Cape Cod style house that um currently has just two bedrooms and one bathroom and uh an unfinished attic. Um so, the owner would like to expand it to a u
more typical uh arrangement. Um the two-bedroom, one bath house is a kind of an anomaly. uh in uh in this neighborhood. And uh so um as a as a
renovation uh the proposed house uh would be a four bedroomedroom, three bath house. Um the um the roof of the house uh existing house is proposed to be removed. um a new uh story to be
added onto the existing uh first floor footprint and a uh an addition um off the back end of the house. Uh currently the house uh uh does not comply with uh
with the sideyard setbacks. Um and the new house um the new addition and the new um uh both second floor and the uh rear edition uh would also need uh some sideyard setback uh uh variants uh for
for their addition. Um they're they're also um in in um in sort of uh the same sort of uh setback as is typical within the uh the neighborhood of the existing sideyards
within uh other houses immediately around the house. They uh they have a sim uh similar variances to uh to the required setback uh that is uh currently uh required. Um,
so, um, we're also adding a, uh, a garage, uh, to the rear yard, which, uh, is going to have a driveway extended, uh, from the existing driveway through to the
backyard to keep the, uh, the car parked, the cars parked in the rear. Um, so, um, we also are going to need a variance for, uh, the proximity of the garage to the sideyard, um, in the in
the garage area. >> Um, just before we continue on, um, if I can direct the board's attention to the PowerPoint presentation, the second slide. >> Well, we can't see anything, Mr. Song. Nothing's in front of us. So,
>> oh um I do not know how to share the screen regarding >> you know the green the green button. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Okay, I see it here. >> Yeah, I can share the screen right now because I don't have haven't have a chance. >> There you go. Okay,
>> there you go. I'm sorry. >> The first page. >> Yeah, that's the first slide. The second slide will uh show uh photos with respect to the uh pre-existing um current existing conditions of the
property uh that Mr. Bla just uh previously mentioned. The next slide um I believe is comments with respect to the neighboring properties that also were also non-compliant and also were granted uh variances in um in a similar
manner. And then for the third slide is the proposed design that Mr. Blaka just mentioned there in addition to the next uh slide as well too in terms of the the the existing property and the proposed
uh design of the uh of the project. So, um, now that we were looking at the, uh, at the site plan, um, and that, uh, illustrates, uh, some of the issues that I had described with, uh, with the
setbacks that the, uh, the sideyard setbacks um, that, uh, that exist are are continuing to exist uh, with the uh, with the second story edition. and with the um with the addition in the
rear. Um so um which is you know uh the most practical way to go about adding an addition to a small house. Um and uh and so the the finished product is uh you
know one that has a some architectural um um you know uh convenience to it and and look sensible. Uh and that's sort of one of the goals when we try to do architecture is to make it look uh as
though it's a sensible approach to how we uh we build a house. Um, and uh, we're adding a front vestibule to the house to give it a bit of an architectural feature. Um and uh the uh
the real garage we're, you know, we're bringing the cars uh away from the street through a driveway that exists and bringing it to a garage in the back and and also allowing um some stacking
area for uh for additional cars within that driveway. Um the garage is positioned such that um it's 3 ft from the property line. Um in order to to
minimize the uh the the difficulty maneuvering into a garage space in and out uh in a in a tight space. So that's uh one of the reasons why uh we're proposing that the uh garage is is
positioned in that area. So, you know, the house is uh being built in a in a configuration that uh is uh not uncommon uh to the neighborhood. It's it it will have a an image of a of
a of a a center hall colonial style house uh which is uh a kind of a typical traditional style that uh I think will be very harmonious to the neighborhood and uh will not be any detriment. And uh
I think we've we've tried to you know be responsible in uh not overdeveloping the house. it still is not going to be an enormous house. Uh, and it I think it fits very well within uh its context.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Llaka. Um, unless the applicant, Mr. Lee, uh, whether you have any additional comments to share with the board. Um, if not, then we can open the board to questions. Um I just want to add that uh I deeply appreciate
the everyone in the vote tonight spend the time to hearing my case. I really appreciate it. Um and as uh um my lawyer and architect mentioned this is truly hardship situation where it's existing house already built like that way. So we
are actually trying to minimize the the the intrusion to the the environment. So trying to just add the second floor and then uh put the uh garage all the way to the back. Uh so we are trying to kind of um benefit to all the neighborhood. So I
truly uh uh deeply appreciate if everyone can um consider approve our application. Thank you so much. Mr. >> Lee, do you know when the house was built? >> Uh yes. It's 1955.
>> Thank you. Thank you and we vote on the board for your questions. >> I have a question. The uh the garage rear setback required is what? >> 5T
>> in the rear. >> Yes, sir. >> So, there's no reason that the garage itself can't be moved a little further back and then moved over to comply with the five-foot sideyard. Well, I guess uh you know it's it's it's
always a bit of a a balancing act between uh wanting to desiring to uh you know um have the least amount of uh impervious coverage um you know uh that
we we can do. So, I guess you know what I what I'm proposing is uh is to try and uh minimize the impervious coverage by by keeping it closer to uh to the front.
Whereas if we pushed it back and had uh more driveway area, uh there would be, you know, uh more paving uh and uh and less imper uh let less impervious coverage, which um I thought might be uh
an advantage. >> I I understand that. I just think that it would you I mean, look, you could leave it where it is and move it to 5T. It's a new garage and it can be anywhere on the property and there's you know realistically in my opinion no reason to grant a
variance from that because you have the land and um and I do appreciate the minimiza minimalization of the impervious coverage but I think that the uh you know conformance with the ordinance makes more sense in this case.
The another reason we're thinking about that is because as you can see this driver actually is not that long and then uh when when you get into the building the other the corner building if you move this garage two feet into
the lane this angle to to get from this straight to this garage it's a quite a big angle so it could become a kind of huzle situation for people to >> and that's that's that's why I suggested moving it back to minimize that angle.
You could leave it where it is, but I suggested moving the garage back and over. >> I see. I mean, if that's your understanding, so we can extend it. I b another five feet back over here and then push a little bit to in toward
this. Okay. >> Yeah, I think it makes sense. It makes sense. I mean if yeah we were trying to as we said we're trying to maximize the compliance because we want to keep it environmental benefit to
everyone. So um we just want to re keep the imperous coverage less. So >> that doesn't does that push us over in terms of his per impervious coverage. I'm just looking for the application >> only. Do you remember like how much uh
in Paris coverage room? >> It's I believe it's 36% >> 36.37 right now proposed excuse me you permitted the zoning requires you
can have up to 49%. Yeah. So there's so you can ex you can increase the impervious coverage a lot without going over the no maximum I think that also another reason is because of the uh the net in imperfect
coverage is going to be uh more than 400 square ft and because of that then we had to put the rain >> uh stone rain garden into this house. So that could be another major reason. We want to minimize the impervious coverage
because >> Thank you. I don't think I don't think the rain garden is going to be a major a major issue. They're kind of a nice decorative feature >> that the problem is the the yard might
not have enough space. But anyway, um uh if what the what Tony, what do you think? You are the expert. Well, I think um that um there are a couple of uh options
that could be uh that could achieve uh a less impervious coverage that um strategies that we've used before. Whereas uh some of the they're not ideal. Some of the driveway could be uh
what I sometimes term as a ribbon driveway to where the uh this there are uh pathways that are paved for the tires of a car and the center of the driveway
be um be turf or some other um um material that uh is considered a per uh that is not considered impervious. Uh, and we've done that before. Uh, that's an option to uh that could be considered
um for the driveway to u to kind of uh to mitigate uh the additional um additional square footage that might be required to uh to to move that garage. So uh that's something that we could
consider um as a as a way of kind of achieving both uh both. >> I understand I understand that. Um but as owner I mean that existing driveway I think it's not the condition itself is actually it's okay. It's quite
good. So to me I probably not want to kind of drip the whole thing out. >> Yeah. >> Put the drip and dry. it doesn't make sense to everyone. So I guess I mean what the other um board member what do you think I mean if if you want me to
push and and then I will probably as owner consider all factors I will probably just keep it as is and then just put two more feet and somehow I make this turn a little bit safe.
I would rather to do so if that's what you want me to do. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> No, I was going to say that's just my suggestion. The other board members might want to chime in here. Well,
I guess Steve, I I think this garage, excuse me, is rather small and >> will not have that, in my view, doesn't
have that big of impact. it could have a lot bigger impact if it was a bigger garage on the neighboring properties. So, I was kind of able to live with it being at 3 foot,
you know, given that it's um especially trying to accommodate with an existing building. But that was just um my view and >> no, that's a valid argument. I mean, it is a small garage. It's not going to have a major impact. Yeah.
>> So, >> it's it's it's not so impactful. >> Yeah. >> And of of course, I give them credit for living with stacking cars and a narrow driveway. >> Right. Right. >> As they acknowledge.
>> We Yeah, we just heard that previous case. >> Yeah. I would add uh that it it is a difficult condition to have an angled driveway coming into the garage because you see you need a certain length for the car to pull out
before it can start to turn. Otherwise, you're hitting the opening of the garage door. So, um yeah, I think just pushing it to create more distance from the sideyard is going to create an even more
difficult condition. You'd have to push the garage back to minimize that angle. >> Yeah, I know. And then and then Yeah. Then then you're just uh I I I I'm okay with it where it is. Um compromise
between the impervious coverage. I I do have a question about the F. I'm I'm not quite following what I see that you're saying you're compliant, but I see uh 25% in the table on the um on the
drawings as as um the maximum F, but then I see 31% in this this table. And I'm kind of confused by the calculations. And did it include the garage? Um I'm I would think it would just be all
the areas added up divided by the lot area, right? >> Um I believe that the uh the F uh calculations do not include uh the area for a garage as a >> does not. >> It does not.
>> I can help. >> So there's a uh proportional F for small lots. That's >> Oh, okay. Yeah, it was also adjusted for the proportional lot. I forgot about that. >> Then the garage, there's an exemption for garages if they're behind the house,
the principal house, and less than 15 ft in height. Um, they're exempt from F up to 300 square feet. >> Okay, got it. >> I have a couple questions. Mr. Lee, are do you live in this house? Are you going to live in this house?
Um we probably going to think about see if we want to downside but currently we live in uh western side of the town. No we but my two son is going to college uh this year so we are thinking to
downsize. >> Is that an LLC? >> Is that why you have an LLC? all all my property it's all in with the OC. >> Okay.
>> Um second question I have is I think you said there were four bedrooms but I see five bedrooms. Is that correct? >> Well I believe that uh well there is a study uh that is not uh being considered as
one of the bedrooms uh on the first floor. Um, there's first floor bedroom and three bedrooms on the second floor. I believe >> I see four bedrooms on the second floor. >> Are there four? Well, I stand corrected then. I I don't have the plans in front of me. I'm sorry to say. Are
>> So, you're changing this from a twobedroom, one bathroom to a five bedroomedroom, fourb house? >> Uh, yes. with an office, >> which could be a bedroom.
>> No office. Do we have an office, Tony? >> Well, there's a study in the front. Yeah. >> Well, that that that uh they are that's true. Um and um but as as we've uh
stated, it's within the F. We're not asking for any exemptions for uh increased floor area. Um, so it uh it's and the two-bedroom, one bath house
is uh is a a functionally obsolete uh structure within this neighborhood. I don't think it we could consider that to be anything other than that. Uh and a new house within
this neighborhood uh within Princeton. Um, we would have to consider that uh this is a pretty typical way of uh of u attempting to uh to build a uh a new
house within the confines of Princeton. So I uh and we're doing it within the uh required F. >> Um another question, are you going to knock down the house and build a new house?
No, I believe that the house is going to the roof is going to be removed and the the the new addition is going to be built on top of the existing first floor. Uh and uh and that footprint the
the existing basement is going to stay and also the first floor. I have a question. Um, I'm a little confused. Um, with the front yard setback, is there a variance required
or or not? Your your narrative says there is. I think one of the slides you put up says front setback was going to be compliant and I didn't see in Mr. Bridg's memo
where there's a front there front yard setback variance needed. Um could could Okay, Derek. >> Yes, sir. Uh the prevailing setback is 29 ft and you're allowed to go two feet
either greater than that or less than that. So um the 27 1/2 still complies with the twoft variance from the 29 ft prevailing front yard setback. >> Okay, good. Thanks. >> Yeah, cuz in in the narrative, as I say,
it it said there's a section called front yard variance. So I was confused. Thank you. >> No, you're you're you're correct. I I didn't have him update the narrative after we went through all the back and forth, but good catch, Michael.
>> Yeah, that was that was in their narrative, not yours. >> No, I know. I just I don't always make them redo the whole package again. So, >> okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. Do you want to add anything to your
testimony at this point? >> Not for me. >> Yes. >> See your attorney on the screen anymore? >> Oh, I'm here. >> Okay. Do you want anything? >> Nothing further. Nothing further to contribute here.
No, I I think uh I've uh described as much as I um I need to, but if there are any questions, I'm happy to continue uh answering any questions or continuing the discussion. >> Okay, we're going to uh
if you want to summarize um Mr. Song before we going to open it up to the public, um you're more than welcome to do that. Uh just yes just one additional comment because I believe um
one of the uh adjacent uh homeowners is actually here tonight as well too and they've uh actually had a discussion with the homeowner uh with the applicant and in terms of you know addressing their concerns. So I believe that if uh
the homeowner is here tonight I believe uh he or she can actually help uh contribute to our application as well. Thank you. >> No problem. They want to speak, they're more than welcome to. Okay. So, if you have nothing more to say, we will open
it up to the public. If there's anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf of this application, indicate that by pressing the uh raise your hand button and we will call on you. You can take the screen uh down at this
point. Claudia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak? >> One person. >> Yes. Can you please take the screen down? Stop sharing. >> Both. >> Hello.
>> Keep going. >> Uh, Mr. Lee, uh, you would have to stop sharing your screen, please. Um, I thought I already stopped now. >> No, it's still still visible.
>> Oh, okay. Let me close it in. >> There you go. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Do you know what the name is of the neighbor that wants to speak? And >> it's Dan. Dan. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's me. Uh, thank you very much uh for giving me the opportunity.
>> We We can see you. We can see you, sir. You cannot see me. Uh video. Okay. >> Can you see me? >> No. >> No. >> Maybe I have some problem with my laptop.
Oh god. Oh, okay. Can you see me now? >> No. >> Oh, okay. >> Well, there's another screen here that says Alex L, but that's not you, right, Mr. >> No, that's somebody else. >> That's somebody else. Okay.
>> Yes. >> So, so can I speak without the video walking? Uh, >> no. That's a problem. >> Oh, so um >> to be able to see you. >> So yeah, let let me try to fix the problem. Let other neighbors to talk first. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry about this.
>> Claudia, can you call on the next person? >> He's there. Alex L. >> Okay. But we can't see him and he's muted. >> L, would you like to uh speak on this application? You're muted and we can't
see you. unmute. >> Okay, we hear you. We just need to see you now. >> Uh, I'll do what I can. >> Okay, >> I can I can see me. So, >> okay. Well, we can't see you. >> You got me now. >> There you go. Now,
>> I am. >> Okay. Sir, could we have your full name? >> My name is Alex Lavine. >> All right. And Mr. Lavine, if you're comfortable, would you give us your address, please? >> 327 Walnut Lane. >> All righty. And do you swear or affirm
any testimony you give this evening will be truthful. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Please speak. >> Okay. I have no problem with the the building, the the the the dwelling.
Um, my concern is with the site plan and the garage. Um, I I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an architect. I'm a neighbor. Um, and so I hope that uh um in addition to the
statement that I've already submitted that I hope has been circulated, what I have to say tonight can just clarify. >> No, no, no. Sir. >> Yes. >> Karen, do you want to explain to him that? >> Yeah. Miss Mr. Lavine, the board doesn't
accept uh letters or written statements. We need you to explain it to us in person. So, if you just want to summarize, that's fine. However you want to hear. >> Yes. You know, I'll I'll summarize it. Um, and that is that the
um the the property at uh 15 Hillside had at some at some point um a paved driveway right along the western property line at 335
um 327. Yeah, 335 Walnut. Um, and that um necessitated the um the the building of a curb to prevent water from going down behind the house into the two
houses on the side of the driveway. the um the the lengthening of the driveway um farther back than the existing driveway will only
create more imperous surface and more runoff um into I think my neighbor's yard at 337 335 walnut and mine at 327. And this is uh something I experienced before when in 2004,
right after I moved in, the uh uh hillside was recrowned and just sent like a a river of water into the two properties which are on the western side of of 15 hillside. Um,
you know, if if it is a true hardship that there is a uh, you know, whatever was a a hardship that was expressed before by the homeowner, um, then the homeowner shouldn't have bought the place. you
know, if there is if there was a true hardship, the homeowner is looking for a a variance to allow three feet rather than 5t from my backyard um with with a roof
structure of the garage bringing water down and um I think that is, you know, that I think will be problematic for Um, and as I said in a statement, I will
summarize the um, in a surprise visit to my home this past weekend, knock on the door, the the new property owner, the applicant for the variance said, "Oh, of course we will build a French drain to
take the take the water away. Of course, we will extend what is in the site plan, the existing wall. Of course, we will have the downspouts um flow all the way into the backyard,
but um a as I said in the statement that I submitted, a handshake and a pat on the back saying we will do all these things does not mean they're actually going to be done. And I am very concerned about the the runoff problem from the
extension of the driveway and the construction of a garage which which will um um direct rainwater right into what what is my backyard. So, these are my concerns
and I would and as I think the last thing I said in my statement is that a handshake and a pat on the back are great, but I would like these things actually addressed in a revised site plan so that my backyard does not become
a wetland. Thank you. >> I think that's a reasonable request. Okay. Um, is that it, Mr. Lavine? >> Oh, that's it. you know, it's like the you know, I think that's it. You know, anything else would be just a little
percentage more. So, but you know, as I said, let me just reiterate my concern is not with the structure >> and I know what um all around in my neighborhood, I've lived here for 21 years, small houses become big houses.
Um but this this is a an environmental issue for me rather than, you know, a structural issue. understand that. >> Okay. Uh thank you for bringing that up. Okay. Claudia is the first
uh speaker available now. >> I think I see him. >> Yes, I see him. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, may may I uh share my opinion? >> You sure? Sure, sir. We just need to swear you in. I understand you're at 335 Walnut, correct? >> Yes.
>> All righty. And do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you again uh for allowing me to uh uh share my opinion. Uh so again this is Dan Dang. Uh my property uh is at 335 W
name. Uh so my house shares a property line that separates my backyard from the right side of the 15 hillside road. uh 15 hillside um has a history of non-compliance uh with the bulk regulations uh as uh
Derek already articulated earlier um uh and also documented in his memo u by Derek and Taylor. Uh in particular of concern to my house uh is the drainage problem. Uh, as uh, Alex, my my neighbor
already um said, my backyard ground uh, is about one foot lower at the property line from 15 Hillside. The previous owners of 15 hillside built a concrete driveway right next to the fences on the
property line with zero side setback. Uh the driveway has a low retainer curb that helps to divert rain water away from my backyard. However, the retainer curb does not extend to the full length
of the property line. Further, the driveway contours from the middleway point and slopes towards the backyard. surface runoff farming driveway and yard remains a
serious problem and it creates a wetland in the right corner of my backyard and in the yard of addict's house at 327 warn name. So I I'm concerned that the new additions including a detached
garage um uh with a setback of three feet from the property line as Mr. Cohen already questioned um would create uh would worsen the
problem. So um I uh I invite uh a meeting with the new owner, Mr. Lee, uh on the call uh last Sunday. Uh he kindly accept my invitation to meet with me. I expressed my concern in person of
potentially worsening situation with the side plan as it is. Uh Mr. Lee verbally proposed two corrective actions to ameliorate the situation. First, extend the retaining wall to cover the full
length of the property line with 335 walnut and 327 walnut name. Secondly, add a gutter and downspout to the car garage and divert rain water downward in
the backyard of 15 hillside through a French drainage system. So here I'm respectfully asking the board to consider my concerns with respect to the use and bulk regulations and asking uh the owner, Mr. Lee to add these two
corrective actuh additions uh to uh a future to be a revised aside plan. Thank you very much. >> All right. Um Claudia, is there anyone else that'd like to speak? >> Claudia,
>> there are no more hands. >> Okay. All right. So I will close the public portion of the hearing and um Mr. Song um do you want to you or your
your applicant want to comment on these this what I feel is a very important concern of the neighbors. >> Oh yes of course. Um just uh one note as well too, the conversations that the applicant has had with the neighboring
homeowners uh was during the interimm between the time when the application was submitted and up until this uh of this hearing as well too. And um and I would like to uh just point out that uh that the applicant volunteered uh to
actually reach out to neighbors because it could be a potential issue and concern for that. and uh has been more than willing to be accommodating to make any uh relevant changes that will help uh sway um uh their concerns. So, uh Mr.
Lee, um if you have any additional comments, uh please uh do so. >> Uh no, I I think that's what you just said. Yes, I actually have a personal meeting with
>> uh Alex and Dan uh last Sunday. So we uh I visit the site and then we spend quite some time together. It's quite lovely discussion. So um I actually agreed that I'm going to do what uh Dan was talking about
two things, right? So add the uh extend the ex existing retention uh to the property so that uh it will maintain the water on my property. Uh, and also in
addition to that, uh, I committed to, um, Alex that I will add the gutters to the garage roof and put the down sprawl and then underneath the down spout, I will redirect the water into the center
of the lawn and that way uh, stone water will all keep will keep in within our my properties will not be drunk. on love to their properties. Yeah. So that's true. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lee. And uh Mr.
Llaka, in your uh professional opinion, um are the proposed measures that was uh actually just mentioned by Mr. Lee would be an adequate way of addressing the homeowners u the neighbors homeowners concerns. Yes, I think uh they would
mitigate the uh concerns um if they uh those sorts of uh actions were taken with the drain drainage uh brought to the to the center of the property towards the center away from the
property lines and also a uh a small retaining wall to keep any runoff uh from running uh past the sideyard. So I think they would be uh uh measures that would uh that would mitigate any problem >> and you would be open to making these
design changes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. MLA >> just one question. Does this include a French drain? Because I believe one of the neighbors mentioned a French drain. >> U so it's a termin ter terminology
different. So it's not truly French train. It's actually it's underground water drink. So So you put Okay. the Yeah. underground attached to the down spraw but the water actually go
where where the the underground pipe. >> Where does the water go after it goes in the pipe? >> Uh say again. I'm sorry. >> Where does the water go after it goes into the pipe from the garage? uh it will go into the center of my
backyard which has to be 10 feet away from any property lines. >> So I just have a concern. I don't think an engineer's weighed in on this application. I note Mr. Lavine's property is approximately
where the garage will be now. I mean the property from the midpoint of the property it drops two feet towards the back. So, by creating this wall along the property line, does that put the water on Mr. Chang's property at lot 14?
>> Okay, let me see. Sir, I'm going to Can I share my screen so we can talk about it? >> Can I make a suggestion here? I think I think um you know, Mr. Bridger brought up a valid concern. Mr. Mr. uh Lavine
did as well as Mr. gal. Um, I think we really need a drainage plan. We need a an engineer to prepare something that documents everybody's concern to make sure we're not impacting any of the
adjacent properties and and uh and and exactly how as Mr. Bridger said, you know, when that when the water is collected and it runs into the backyard, wherever it discharges, there's got to be some something there to to disperse
the water. So, I think I think with, you know, all the all the comments related to the water, I really think we need an engineered drainage plan that our town engineer can review. that's also a part of this record you know however we vote
on it but it should be it should be uh prepared um I understand uh Mr. call home with all due respect right I mean here it's not that I don't want to do it right I mean but at the same time I don't want
to overengineer stuff right I mean real in the situation and what I was concerned about is that this single car garage that the water went off from one side of
that single garage how much could be right so Um if I'm doing that ger collect remember uh I'm if you don't mind let me share my screen again so that way we we can know what we're
talking about here. So see this. So Tedica if you see my C cursors here. So this is the single car garage right. So we are talking about one side of the
rainwater collection right this side. So I mean I understand the drinkage issue which definitely I committed to address right. So definitely so but what I'm proposing here is that if I collect I put a gutter here collect this one side
again this only a small side probably I was about 4 feet by uh 16 so we talking about 64 square footage of the rainwater off if I collect it and I put it underground
drench and I redirect water back to my backyard here which is going to be more than 10 ft away from each direction. Right? So that if if if there's a concern about affecting this
neighborhood, then I can either further down into the middle of the of the yard which I totally believe is more than 20 feet away from their poverty line and there will be another 20 more than 25 feet away from this poverty line. So,
so let's just kind of be realistic. How much water can and what kind of drinkers can we affect? >> Well, all the other properties, right? So, >> so look at the topo on the left. Everything goes back to Mr. Lavine's
property and it goes to Mr. Chang's. So, are you talking about doing a curb all the way down the property line? >> Yes, that's right. accelerate the flow of that water. It's going to >> concentrate that water to flow onto Mr. Chang's property.
>> I mean, I know you don't want to do storm water management, but you know, you might have to contract with an engineer to get this solved. It's not as it's not something we do on a napkin and uh wish for the best, you know. >> I think you're exactly right, Mitch. I think you're exactly right, Mr.
>> I would. >> Okay. >> May I make a comment? Can if it is it possible for us to approve this subject to the condition that an engineering plan for water management be uh completed and approved by the administration.
>> That's where I was going on this that that you know we won't we we either can wait until we get an engineered plan approved by our engineer or we can again Mr. merger Karen we can if this is going
to be approved we can do it with the understanding that the approval is conditioned >> on a an engineering plan approved by the reviewed and approved by the town engineer >> and then how would the neighbors you're saying the neighbors then would need to
um be able to look at the plan either at the engineering department or >> yes >> with Mr. Mr. Bridger. And if they had questions or objections, then what? >> How does that get resolved? >> Then we could do it another way and just
ask them to prepare an engineering plan and come back to us. And then we can do it. We can do the we can do another hearing and have a plan available to the neighbors beforehand that they can review and our
engineer would review it before it got presented to us. Derek, do you have a thought about this? >> I mean, I think we're just kind of driving blindly um without a plan. And I think it would be in your best interest,
Mr. Lee, to to have a plan to share it with your neighbors, to share it with the applicant, I mean, to the land use attorney here, maybe before the next meeting on December 10th. um because there's no way to ensure that everyone's
going to be on the same page um once we leave this meeting. That's that's my suggestion. But the whole back half of the yard drains to the neighbors affected. And I just want to make sure that whatever solution comes up works for everybody involved. Um obviously if
it if it met the the setback, then it's it's not as big of an issue, but >> the drainage is still an issue. It is. >> Yeah, you're right. So, we could we could in a sense carry this
until we get an engineering plan or we can uh approve it subject two, which doesn't allow us to even memorialize, I think, until that happens. Is that correct, Karen? Derek. >> Well,
>> well, what's it subject to? I mean, it >> Yeah. subject to an approved engineering plan, >> but the neighbors aren't going to be able to see it. >> Oh, they would have to be able. So, >> I know, but the issue becomes if the neighbors
>> they see the plan, they go to uh municipal building and they say, "I still have questions or concerns." Well, who do they raise that with? Staff. Staff says, "Well, gee, I don't know." you know, uh, so I think it makes more
sense to have them come back. Uh, if they can I don't know if they can get it done by the December 12th meeting. >> 10th, >> I'm sorry, 10th. >> I don't know if they can do that, but um,
>> it's got to be done and reviewed and available for review by the neighbors. That's fine. So >> yeah, and >> and present it to the board for, you know, we can listen to the neighbors
and and digest that, too. Um I'm I'm not for voting for an approval from what I've heard now without it happening in that sequence.
and and the record will of the zoning board will reflect what they propose to do, what their engineer says, what our engineer says. Um, yeah, I I I would like to see it come back. Um, I mean, I
I don't see a time crunch. According to the documents, this applicant only bought the property four months ago. So you know >> I agree with Michael
>> as do I so um >> can can I ask a question juster right just to career what I have to do right because I don't >> certainly I don't want to waste everybody's time and then I come back
with a wrong design and then everybody come up here Right. This is talking. So >> I think and please Derek correct me if I'm wrong. We're looking for an engineering plan that allows the water
coming down the side of the driveway and the water coming off the roof of the garage to not impact the neighbors and to adequately be dispersed on your property. Is that correct, Derek?
>> Yeah. And it might not be a curb, not might not be a concrete curb. It might be a burm or you know that directs the water that your lot you know and >> so I mean we're happy to meet arrange a meeting with the municipal engineer the land use engineer >> if you meet professional.
>> Yeah Mr. B Mr. Bridger if you could arrange that because I definitely I wanted I committed to to fix the issue as I >> said it. >> Yep. Exactly. So that way I just need some help to understand fully so that I
can talk to my engineer and then he can just do it that way is correct >> and like yeah no come come back. >> That's good. >> So for the interest of the neighbors the application will be carried to December
12th. The applicant will not be required to renotice. >> 10th excuse me >> December 10th. >> Oh 10th. Why do I keep saying the 12th? Sorry. Apologize. Um, >> can you stop sharing the screen? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, Karen.
>> No, it's fine. >> And uh >> it's got to be in it's got to be into the town the completed plan at least 10 days before the hearing. So, there's a lot of work that has to happen between
now and that time. If I may, if I can add uh an additional comment as well. Um the applicant will be meeting with the uh the land use attorney engineer. I mean, um and I'm
sure there's not just one solution to this particular issue. And our my concern is is that when we do come up with a uh a storm water management plan, uh as long as it's acceptable to the township, then that should be sufficient.
Well, the township and we also want to give the neighbors an opportunity to look at it >> of course and unless they have uh an engineer to provide an opinion as to the feasibility and the properness of the uh
the the the design other than just saying well I just don't like it they can more or less have a veto on that and that will prevent any type of uh variance. I don't think >> I really don't think we can get into that level of detail and try to
determine what the neighbors are going to do. I think let's get the plan prepared, meet with our town engineer, prepare a plan, submit it, he will review it, the neighbors will review it, and then at the hearing we'll discuss it again. That's that's why we have a zoning
officer and a zoning board who are more expert than the neighbors who are presenting legitimate concerns which we would like to have addressed. >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. So, you're okay with carrying the
hearing until theoretically the 10th? Hopefully, it can get done by then. I believe so. >> Okay. All right. Anybody want to add anything else? >> Right. So, I guess
we'll see you on December 10th and Mr. Bridger, you'll arrange a meeting with the applicant and the engineer. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. All right. So that's
the uh that's it for the evening. Um thank you all for attending and u have a good Thanksgiving and uh we'll see everyone on December 10th. >> Thank you. Thanks Steve.
>> Thank you. >> Enjoy the upcoming holidays. >> Take care. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Good night.