fitness center. Again, we are increasing the parking from 153 to 154, if I'm understanding that correctly. Um, and I basically gave the board the background of how we got to this point here. So >> there's actually no change in parking to
153. Yeah, there was a as Mike as Mike said, he went he counted the spaces. There was a discrepancy in what there was existing out there. 153 >> has always been there and continues to to be there. >> Sorry about that. >> That's okay. No. No. >> Um so what I do with all of these
applications is I look at the site itself. I look at the surrounding neighborhood and I tie that into the zoning ordinance, what we're proposing, uh the variances that we're seeking and tie that all into the statutory criteria for relief. So, um in terms of site
suitability here, I think we can look at uh context. Historically, again, there has been a fitness use in this exact tenant space. And again, this is actually going to be a smaller scale fitness use. Um, in terms of how this is
going to be perceived from the street or from the pedestrian point of view, this is not something that's going to overpower the site. It constitutes a relatively small tenant space in the grand scheme of things and all these other uses that we have out there um in
this shopping center will remain. In other words, we're not talking about introducing a brand new fitness center. Um, in terms of the massing, again, this is something that fits well within the uh 2,000 square foot tenant space as testified by the uh applicant or site
operator. Um, this is consistent with his um other uh club Pilates businesses. We're basically talking about interior modifications only, no changes to the massing or the size of the of the development.
And of course in terms of the parking variance, which I'll get into because that is a C variance, but the testimony is and will be that the site is adequately parked and what we're proposing does not constitute something that's going to overburden the the property.
>> And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but just to to confirm as well. So that that variance was previously granted by the planning board, and we're not looking to change that variance in any way. I guess the question is whether you even need if the board were to approve it whether you actually even need it because you're not
increasing square footage except for the steps going out the back. >> So mentioned it out of you know to be conservative but when you when we calculate we provided this to the board when we calculate all of the parking spaces required by all of the uses now wi with the fitness center and assuming that the remainder 2,000 square feet
will be some other type of tenant. We stay within what was granted by the planning board. the 153 and the 206. Um, >> and that's reflected in two resol two resolutions that you provided as part of >> at least one if not two. Yes. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. So, basically everything I just said goes into that site suitability testimony. We look at the context. We look at how this is going to look and how it fits on the property itself. Um, all of those considerations may not be typical of any other fitness center that
would be proposed in this zone. And again, it's not a standalone fitness center. It's something that is taking the place of an old fitness use. So, in terms of the positive criteria, we look at the benefits. We look to the municipal land use law, the purposes of zoning, why we have
these uh permitted uses in the first place. Purpose A, promotion of the general welfare. Uh this is a fitness use. Obviously, this is something that promotes healthy lifestyles. um getting people active and this is sort of an area where people can learn
how to extend that healthy lifestyle outside of um this uh this establishment. Purpose G, variety of uses in appropriate locations. I think I can just rely on the site suitability testimony. Uh purpose I desirable visual
environment. Here we heard about the very minor changes to the exterior of the building and that's really to have better consistency with the rest of the development. Uh this is not a use that's introducing any outdoor storage or anything that would alter the character
of the shopping center or the zone. There's a couple prohibited uses in the zone and we are really not akin to any of those. Uh purpose M efficient use of land. Again, no exterior changes, no um or very minor exterior changes and no
changes to the building mass in terms of the size and scale. So, in terms of the negative criteria, no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. We have memos from the environmental commission, the fire department, as well as the police
department's traffic bureau, all of which had no comments, no concerns. Um we just heard from the applicant. This is an experienced applicant that has uh eight other Club Plates studios in New Jersey. And this one is pretty much uh
on par. It's very similar with all of those other um operations that he has. Um again, in terms of negative criteria, this is smaller than the previously existing fitness center. Again, we're dividing that into two. And of course, we just heard that the classes are going
to be scheduled and structured and there's going to be a limit on the number of uh individuals that would be able to participate in any of these scheduled classes. Uh so all of that goes towards the negative criteria. I would say the positives clearly outweigh any negatives here. None rise to the
level of being substantial. And just to hit on the the parking variance, if if we decide that that is uh needed, I think I can fall back on what our council has mentioned. Um, in terms of the C2 balancing test, the benefits outweigh the detriments. This
was the same uh uh basic argument that was used in 2017 to justify the same exact uh parking uh number of parking spaces. Um basically the argument at that time was that this is a shopping center where
peak hours are basically different for all of these various tenants. Uh, for example, we have a restaurant, we have a post office, we have a dry cleaner, an H&R block. You know, these are all uses that will have different peak hours. Um, and there's going to be not everybody
coming at any one given time. And again, the uh the testimony of 12 individuals plus one instructor at any given time, that comes out to 13 uh the need for 13 parking spaces. whereas a strict interpretation of the zoning
ordinance of course requires I think 23. So, um I think there is some latitude in regards to that as well. Um so really that's that's pretty much it and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Matt. Anyone else? Linda? >> No. Then
>> and our board engineer David Simmons will give his report if you're so kind. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I did do a report dated August 8th, 2025 which basically summarized all the documents that the applicant submitted uh and I
did a completeness report and based on the limited amount of exterior changes to the site, I recommended that those items be waved and basically the application be found complete and proceed. Uh as the applicants witnesses testified this evening, uh basically the
only exterior improvements are some shifting in the rear of the site uh for some of the parking spaces in order to provide a proper room for a new set of uh steps and egress from the de one devised unit uh because the other unit
that's going to be available already has an exterior exit to the back. So, it's limited as far as uh what they're doing on the site. So, I didn't really have any additional comments and I would defer to the board's planner for the use variance and interpretation. The only
other thing that I would bring up and ask the applicants, probably the architect to comment on, uh, as they indicated they were going to have to create a new door because of the second unit that they're forming. Uh, would there be any additional HVAC units
because of the two stores now? And would that be roof mounted or mounted in the rear or where would that take place? >> M. Cabo, please come forward and speak into the microphone. >> You can stay there. he can stay. >> There are two existing rooftop units there and we're actually in the process
right now of designing separate vanilla boxes for both. So, we're just going to we're going to put one over the uh left. I can't I don't remember the the number, but one over the left and there's an ex existing one that's going to be over the >> So, they're going to be roof mounted.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And that's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you, David. Now our board planner Lindsay Knight will give her report and then Lindsay if you can cover the interpretation versus use variance too etc. >> Yeah absolutely. So um I know that this
type of use is something that both boards have been kind of struggling with because of that change. Um I can provide some insight into kind of my take on this use in terms of um kind of the fitness center definition. I think
that this use um is very similar to a lot of other boutique fitness studios which are a much smaller footprint that are intended to be smaller in size um in both class size as well as the size of the um the size of the space. Um, this
use in particular I've seen pretty often within shopping center type settings. And this, um, Club Pilates owned by a larger company called Exponential. And a big piece of their, um, target of where they like to be located. They're
associated with like Cycle Bar, Rumble, Stretch Lab, these types of uses. And they all intend to be used in places like shopping centers. Um I actually the town I live in has a club Pilates located in a very similar shopping center. Um and I will say that um this
type of boutique fitness is very new. Um these are smaller fitness studios that are geared towards one type of use as opposed to the traditional fitness studio like your Crunch Fitness which is a large scale footprint with several different rooms, large space. Um, so
very different than what this is. And I I would say that maybe when the um, and maybe I'll ask Matt this as well, is in your interpretation of the zoning, do you think that when this change happened that maybe the boutique fitness might have been something that was not contemplated or not considered or have
you seen similar in your um, kind of your professional opinion? Um, because I know in my a lot of other municipalities I deal with, they call this a personal service. So similar fashion to a personal surface, something like a dentist would be considered that dry cleaning, all those types of uses get
bulked into one use. So maybe that's something we speak to the council about in the future, but for this evening, I would say that the T intention of the TCC zone is for those types of retail uses. Um I'm not sure what happened in
2024, why that was changed. Um I think it was changed more to address the larger footprint type of fitness center. Um, and I do want to point out that I don't know if somebody can confirm on your team, but also a lot of these spaces in the front, they do have a retail space as well, which is going to
be then that kind of permitted use as well in the TCC zone. But typically in these boutique fitness centers, the Club Pilates in my town, they have a whole setup of retail where you can buy your leggings and your shirts and your mats or whatever you need um as well. So, I
think that's kind of a a key component as well. Yes, as Richard mentioned, um, in sort of those off hours, folks may come into the retail. So, there will be a retail component, I think. >> Sure. Yeah. And so, while it may not explicitly say boutique fitness, I do think that this kind of retail personal service is is in line with the intention
of what the TCC is meant to to uh permit. >> So, uh, Lindsay, interpretation or use, what's your >> professional opinion? So to air on the side of caution, I would say use um just
air on the side of caution. I think Matt did put plenty of proofs on the record as well that support that use variance. Um and I think having seen that a fitness center was previously there and had I guess closed door during COVID, which many fitness centers did.
Um so I think that is a kind of a a strong argument there for that as well. >> All right, great. Thank you. Marissa, would you please call on the board members who have questions or comments? >> Richard Larupa, >> no questions.
>> Michael Leandi, >> none for me. Thank you. >> Richard Robacker, >> no questions. >> Jennifer Panaha, >> no questions. >> Michael Steinberg, >> no questions. >> Chairman Kenneth Larry, >> no questions. I'll open the uh hearing to the public
now. Anyone in the public that has any comments or questions on this application, please come forward. See no one in the public with any questions or comments. It's now closed and back to the board. The board will entertain a motion approving the
application. >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to have the board attorney draft a resolution approving application number 10-25 for 11 and12 Main Street, Spart Avenue, block 5019, lots 11 and
12, seeking a D1 use variance. >> Um for uh a fitness studio, which is not a permitted use in the zone. Um so just division of the existing vacant rental space into two separate tenant spaces including a new storefront rear exterior
stair um in the existing shopping center building according to all plans and testimony presented here this evening. >> Do I have a second please? >> Second. >> Any discussion Lyn? Any points that we might have missed? No, I'm going to put
some findings in there and in in the resolution so you'll see it to supplement things that were testified to. But no, I think there's no conditions. There's no anything. You have the resolutions. The resolution will note that the other resolutions are
out there on the land and that it carried through. I think quite frankly if you needed parking relief it was already granted to you but at worst it's subsumed under >> okay >> the action that the board took. Is that all right with you? >> Yeah. No, that's that's fine. And and I
assume so and the minor site plan will be specifically noted as well. >> Got to listen to the fine print. That was part of the motion. >> Thanks. Thank you. Thank you Glenn. >> Marissa please call the role. >> Richie Larupa. >> Yes.
>> Michael Leandi. Yes. >> Richard Roarbacker. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Pernoha. >> Yes. >> Michael Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Chairman Kenfl. >> Yes. Your application and variance has been approved. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> This the chairman maybe you want to offer
>> written resolution waiver. >> Well, they've been trying to they've been trying to get to this point for quite some time. All right. You want to do that? >> Would you like to wave your uh >> to a written resolution? Would you like
to uh wave your right to that >> at this time? You can proceed at your own risk, Linda, here. So, you could get any construction work, whatever you all want to submit for building permits. >> The resolution will be adopted in 30 days, but then you still have the So, you're just proceeding at your own risk,
>> but you had no objectors and so it's pretty clear. So, you could immediately get going with the construction department. >> That would be great. That would chair entertain a motion. So moved. >> Second, please. Second. >> Marissa, call the role, please. Richard Larufa,
>> yes. >> Michael Leondi, >> yes. >> Richard Robecker, >> yes. >> Jennifer Paha, >> yes. >> Michael Steinyberg, >> yes. >> Chairman Kaflar, >> yes. All right. Good luck. >> That's fabulous. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Sorry you had to hang around last time.
Was just was just bad luck of the draw. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, you can leave if you want. I'm dismissed. >> I was thinking the same thing. No sense staying. >> I have a three and a halfyear-old. I'd like to go. >> All right. Talking to bed. >> Thank you for everything tonight. >> Thank you guys.
>> You're welcome. >> Next application 11-25. Thomas and Kathleen Nua, please come forward. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> I need to recuse myself from this application.
>> Oh, okay. Um, >> do we need a reason, Glenn, or not? For the record? >> No, he can. No, he can share. He doesn't have to share. >> Okay. >> You know the re You know the reason. And um Mr. Dyster, you know the format
by now. I would assume after you and your professionals have completed your client's application, we'll open it to our board professional David, then back to this board for comments and questions, and then to the public for any comments and questions they may have.
We've never done Like the old joke of coming in my psychologist wants to change. You guys almost ready? >> Yeah. >> Let's Let's at least Let's do Who's gonna >> want to swear everyone in Glenn?
>> Let's do something. Who's representing the applicant? >> I am. Uh and Doug Dystra. >> Okay. Uh so let's >> And your name? I think it is. Yeah. >> Okay. My name is Anne Sears from Ann
Design Architects. Um I have appeared in front of this board. >> A little bit louder. Again, it's a requirement that we have a recording of all proceedings for the state of New Jersey. >> Sure. If you don't mind. >> My name is Ann Sears, architect. I've been an architect for 25 years. I have um I am a licensed architect here in New
Jersey. I reside in Sparta. Um excuse me. And I have appeared in front of this board many times before. and they accepted you. And let's everybody raise your right hand. Let's do let's keep this moving. You all swear to tell >> the other the other
guy. >> You all swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the proceedings before the board tonight. So I help you God. >> I do. >> All right. So you're an Sears. >> I am Sears. >> You're a licensed professional architect in the state of New Jersey. And your licenses are still valid. Correct.
>> As of tonight. And you've testified a number of times before the board. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Who are you? No, ladies first. I'm sorry. Who are you? >> I'm Kathy Na. >> Kathy. >> Kathy Naut. >> Okay. So, you're the applicant. Yes. Who's the guy standing next to you? >> Thomas Snder.
>> Oh, what a surprise. Okay. So, you guys are sworn in. And now the other guy. >> The guy in so proficient at setting up easel. It's a problem. The thing is, it's failing on me. >> Oh, watch out. >> I'm gonna have I have to hold on to that. Doug Dyster. Professional land
surveyor professional. Doug, the microphone up further. >> Doug Dystra, professional land surveyor, professional planner. >> And you've appeared before this board on many occasions. >> I have. >> And you still have your licenses valid, right, Doug? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, Ann, you're going to you're going to lead this off so he can just be the
keeper of the easel. I think >> I can run with it. I got to have it. >> You want him first? All right. Well, let's get going. >> How can we help you? I'm here on behalf of the Nautas seeking a variance to construct
>> Mr. Dyra. You need the microphone with my voice. Okay. I'm here on behalf of the Nautas seeking a variance to construct a uh onecar garage, a deck, and a small addition on the back of their house. The property is located on
East Shore 22 East Shore Trail. It's about a tenth of a mile south of the plaza. It's the eighth house if you count from the plaza southward. Um the lot, as you can see, the lot is sort
of a pies-shaped. It's wide in the back, narrower in the front. We have 47 ft of frontage, and 74 in the back. The lot slopes from East Shore Trail to about the back side of the house at about 15%.
Um, the front door is located about 7 feet below East Shore Trail. The back walk out basement is about 16 ft below East Shore Trail. The lot is currently serviced by a driveway on the left hand side of the
lot that goes down, loops around the back, and there's a when I say a small garage, a very small garage inside the house right in this area. Um, we have quite a bit of uh imperous
surface, the driveway, walkways, a walkway in the back, a bar, a sitting area, two sheds. Um, so that about sums up the existing conditions. >> Mr. the dyster. There are colored looked
like they pulled out crayons to do something on the Is that was that on file or is that for testimony? >> Mark those. >> All right. So, we'll just The bottom one is colored, too. I can't see. >> Yeah, the bottom >> sheet. All right. We're going to mark
that as A1. And please identify it. >> A1 is the proposed conditions and A2 is the existing condition. I just reviewed the existing conditions A2.
So, um, one other important fact here. Um, the lot is 0.212 acres, 9,249 square ft. The required area in this zone is 14,000 ft. So, we are
pre-existing non-conforming area. additional non-conforming um issues. The principal structure has two sideyards that do not conform. Two accessory structures whose sideyards do not conform and the total impervious
area of 48.6 which is does not conform. 25 is permitted. >> Mr. Dyster, let's keep this simple. >> You agree with all of the comments as to the variances that you need that are set forth in Mr. Simmons uh August 28th
report chart. >> Yep. >> Okay. Continue, please. >> Okay. I'm not sure where that leaves me, but Okay. So, let me just walk through what we're proposing very quickly then. Um we're proposing to add the dark green
section right here. The narrow addition is additions of the house. The uh it'll be basement to first floor on the right side. The left side will be cantalie first floor only. The purple is a proposed garage mudroom
and the yellow is an additional deck that'll proceed out beyond the um addition of the garage. >> The entire surface of the garage will be at first floor level. So when you exit the room over
here onto the deck, you'll have all this deck for enjoyment. And like I said earlier, the front door is about 8 7 feet below the road. This is 16 feet below the road. The roof line
will block all this from the road. So you'll have no visible impact from the road. Um we also reconfigured the driveway to have more of a turnaround and a head-on entrance into the garage.
Um, we eliminated all the um, walks and sheds that were in the backyard, which actually, let me get these numbers straight for you. Um, taking into all improvements, we have
570 square ft. Um, the addition to the building, the building addition alone, the 573 square ft I just mentioned, takes us from 13.4 building coverage to 19.5.
18 is permitted. We are increasing by 1.5% that equates to 139 square ft about 12 by 12. Um the proposed layout also this is important reduces overall impervious
coverage by 250 square ft. So while we have a 1 and a half% 139 square ft further out of compliance with building coverage our overall impervious has dropped by 250 square ft.
The reduction in the overall impervious mitigates any perceived negative the 1.5% of nonconformance in building coverage may have um I I go through some special reasons why this lot
>> well who's going to provide the what are you going to testify describe the house the reason that we need the addition on record and also describe that the Um, the entrance, the proposed entrance to the garage actually allows us to be able
to maneuver and park in the driveway a little safer. Currently, right now, they have to back down the driveway in order to be able to get out. There's no real way to park into that garage with two cars. Now, they'll be able to park in their garage. They'll be able to back out and drive forward out of their
driveway. Now, >> and is this one of the How long has this house been? >> So, this house >> original lake houses. >> It is. It's an original crane. I I don't know the year. 1929. >> I'm sorry. 1929. >> 1929. And currently the existing house
is is very modest in size. I mean, totally under existing right now. The square footage of livable area on the first and second floor is roughly 1,600 square feet. And we're really only looking to bump that up to 1,800. and and primarily the main reason um in in
the floor plan their their dining area is only eight eight feet in and in in length, we're going to increase that to 15t 11 so that they can fit a dining room table in there. >> They can eat real food. >> They can eat real food instead of eating on a t a door that's their table right now.
>> As far as you can tell, Ann, I'm asking as an architect, >> uh because I think we can really shorten this up a little bit. As far as you can tell, were there additions put on to this structure? I mean, you list I don't even know how many variances and existings
and this and that. Is this pretty much the original crane house and now this is the first time or do you think it's had a number of other additions? >> I think it's had some modifications in the the lakefront side. I'm going to be honest, the front yard and the the appearance from the front, which by the
way will not be changing, looks original. the roof line and everything looks like >> from the road you're talking about >> the from the street front side um in the rear they may have popped up the second floor to have that 500 square feet in the second floor at one point. Um I I
can't guarantee that it's the original. >> Did did anybody do any checks in Sparta's files to see if there were if there was any previous board action >> on this? >> Uh my understanding is that >> sir we can't hear you. Well, my
understanding is is that the um the piece of the structure that Ann's referring to is a bedroom that's on it's basically is the second floor. I think that was done in the early 70s. This is just from when we bought the house. >> Okay. So, you think that might have been the only old >> that as far as I can tell. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ann. And yeah, I will just put on record, I think that what we're proposing is in keeping with the neighborhood and um does not further encroach on any other views or uh neighborhood detriment.
>> And the improvements that you're making are consistent with development in the in the neighborhood. Is that correct? >> 100%. And you've you come up with a modest plan based on uh based on your client's >> correct
>> that you think is appropriate for the >> I think it's appropriate scale. Do you have anything else? >> No, I think I included >> All right. Uh our professional engineer, David Simmons, if you would give your report, please.
>> Sure, Mr. Chairman. I did prepare a report dated August 28th, 2025. And with regards to the overall application in general, what Mr. Dyster and Miss Sears just pointed out is basically I agree with what they're proposing. U as Mr. Keynes indicated, we
did have on page two item number three all the existing zoning the variances that are pre-existing non-conforming conditions. Uh the proposed will still result in a variance for the overall impervious coverage of 45.9% where 25%
is allowed and the building coverage goes up to 19.5% where 18% is allowed. Um with regards to the variance plan, I just pointed out when I was doing the site inspection, there is an existing dock that extends off the seaw wall.
It's not shown on the variance map. doesn't affect what they're doing here tonight, but it's an existing condition. Uh, for Mr. Dystra on the driveway, I don't know if you check the shots versus the property line, does the driveway encroach onto adjacent lot six? Do you know?
>> Like a >> Thank you. curb. >> It's like a shared curb wall kind of brick. It's like it's concrete with brick. >> Yes. and the the corner lands on that and it kind of holds the wall pretty cleanly all the way down the lot line.
>> Okay. >> Uh with regards to utilities, they're on the township water system, so that's not an issue. And the location of the existing water line doesn't conflict with the proposed additions. With regards to the septic system, that's located in the front yard. They're not
changing the number of bedrooms. Correct. >> Correct. So, with regards to septic system, that shouldn't be an issue. Uh, with regards to electric service to the subject property, it does cross over a portion of lot 8. I didn't know. Well, you can see it on the the plans that
they submitted. It cuts over across lot 8 to service the property. If you could check to see if there's an existing easement for that. >> Well, what there is that the um blanket typical blanket easement for service. It's not doesn't say pole number to right hand corner of the building or
anything. >> There is something recorded though that blanket easement. >> I'm I'm quite sure. I have to double check his title, but I can do that and get back to you >> if you could and add that to the plan just so it's on there. And the other question on utilities, the gas valve,
uh, is this house served with gas or is it is served with gas? Okay. So, I just want to note that for the record. Uh, with regards to storm drainage, I did point out in the report that per the ordinance from the township 21-02, if you're adding more than 500 square
feet of impervious, which the proposed addition of garage is 573, you're supposed to provide storm water mitigation. However, Mr. Dyster and I had a conversation and I believe he's correct uh that they are removing some areas of walkways and two sheds which
brings it below 500 square ft. So therefore I correct that statement that storm water mitigation in this particular application is not required. Uh with regards to the architectural plans, are there any additional HVAC units going to be proposed?
>> No. Okay. And the proposed side elevation shows an area open to the left of the proposed garage. Is that for storage or another vehicle? >> A little of both potentially. primarily storage, but on on the off occasion, they may drive a car underneath the
deck. Um, >> and with the microphone, please. >> Um, it it's mostly just storage. >> So, it's going to have a hard surface underneath for a vehicle. >> It will it will you were going to discuss that the the >> thinking is concrete.
>> We added today. >> Yeah. open to suggestions on what material you would >> We'd have to check that just to make sure it doesn't trigger any storm drainage issues and if it does then you won't do that. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh an EIS was not provided uh the
approval from the township construction officials needed and as usual if the board decides to grant approval to the application um and as built be prepared. That's my report. Mr. Chair, >> thank you David. >> Yeah. Marissa, can you please pull on the
board members for comments and questions? >> Richard Larufa. >> Yeah, I have one very minor suggestion. It's not a a question or comment that the door going into the garage where it's where it's located and swinging into the garage. It looks like
it may hit the car, but if you have a car in there, it's going to be very awkward getting in and out. You may want to revise that to a sliding door, a pocket door or something. >> They actually swing in the other direction. >> Swing out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That that'd be it. That'd be fine.
>> I have trouble in my garage. >> That's all. Thank you. >> Michael Leandondi, >> no questions. Thanks, guys. >> Jennifer Kaha, >> no questions. >> Michael Steyberg, >> no questions. >> Chairman Kenneth Larry. >> Uh, yes. Um, Mr. Dyes, can you just
explain real quickly about the expansion of the deck and also the rooftop deck? Um maybe you want to speak to those. >> Um >> so the um ex the the deck is really on the first floor level and it'll be over
the garage. So it's the rooftop deck and then it'll expand further into the yard. Um it will be um u roughly the same square footage as the garage below 300. And uh
and then we are proposing additional stairs off of that deck which help for egress and ingress from the lake from the deck. Uh on on the deck itself I've proposed to use some stone base column bases to uh increase the uh appeal
appearance from the lakeside and the stairs will also offer kind of screening to the underside of that deck. Uh, and >> all right, then you'll be open too that the deck will not be covered or >> no >> any lighting or anything like that. Correct. With a condition of approval,
>> right? >> All right. Thank you. And then just for the record, Lake Mohawk Country Club, their engineer, Sabine Watson, had no issues with this application. Correct. >> No, we have the approval. It should be in the file. >> All right. Thank you. I'll now open the hearing to the public. If anyone's in
the public has any questions or comments, please come forward. All right, Beth. Thank you. Seeing no one in the public, it's back to the board for a motion to approve the application. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to have the board of attorney draft a
resolution approving application number 11-25 for 22 East Shore Trail, block 5048, lot 7, seeking C variance for building coverage of 19.5% where a maximum of 18% is permitted. impervious coverage of 45.9%
um where a maximum of 25% is permitted. Sideyard setback of 8 foot for the deck where a max a minimum excuse me of 10 foot is permitted and then some pre-existing non-conforming variances for a rightard setback of 5.7 ft or 8ft minimum is required a left side setback
of 9.3 ft. >> You don't have to go through those. >> Okay. >> And all the all the reported pre-existing non-conformings. Yeah, thank you Glenn. There is a lot of them now that I'm looking at it. Uh we'll have a condition that the deck won't be covered and that's according to all plans and testimony presented here this
evening. >> And also Mike with a quick addendum that it won't be lighted. Also the deck >> noted. Thanks. >> And you said they provided bill plans. Correct. >> Also noted. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second please?
>> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Marissa, please call the role. >> Richard Larup? >> Yes. >> Michael Leundi? Yes, >> Jennifer Paha. >> Yes, >> Michael Steinberg. >> Yes, >> Chairman Kaflar.
>> Yes, your application and variance has been approved. Good luck. You're welcome. Next application 12-25. Daniel Michelle Papa, please come forward. And when are you all going to get started on this?
>> Oh, yeah. Do you you want to uh wave your right to a written resolution? An >> Ann, would you like to wave your right to a a written resolution also? >> I don't think we have. >> Yeah, they're they're not going to need to
>> Okay. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> The chair will entertain a motion. >> I think they don't want it. >> Oh, you don't want the written resolution? No. Oh, all right. Good luck. You do want a written resolution. Yeah, >> we'll get it done. >> Thanks, Mike. >> You'll be fine. You'll be fine. You're
getting into the tough weather anyway. >> What the >> We're not doing it. [Music] >> Hey, Daniel Michelle Papa, application 12-25, please come forward. Thank you.
>> Raise your right hand, please. >> You both swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We're seeing before the board tonight. >> I did. >> Yeah. >> Who are you? >> Aaron Burke. >> I'm a registered licensed architect the state of New Jersey.
>> You have to turn on the mic. I'm sorry. >> You have to. >> We're not hearing you. >> Not hearing you. That's why. >> Now. >> Yeah. So, who Let's try again. Who are you? >> I'm Karen Burke. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey since 1999.
>> And uh who do you work for? >> Daniel Papa and Michelle Papa >> all the time? >> No. For this project? >> Is that a trick question? >> No, for this project. >> You have your own private business? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And where is that located? >> Uh in in Byum.
>> In Byum. And you're justifying as a licensed professional artist? >> Yes. And I design the project. >> Okay. And you regularly do this as part of your business? >> Not too regularly, but yes. >> Enough. Enough to be a little bit smart. >> I hope so.
>> Okay. Does the board accept her as a >> Yes. >> And who are you, sir? >> Uh >> Daniel Papa. I reside at 62 Shauny Trail. >> Okay. >> Then Karine, you know the procedure. After you're done presenting the application, we'll open it to our board
of um planner uh engineer and then we'll come back to this board for our questions and comments. Then I'll open it to the public after we are finished. And please, you know the routine by now. Speak loud and clearly into the microphones. How can we help you? Okay.
So, uh, the papas came to me because they were wanting to have a twocar garage with a room above. So, it's pretty simple what we're asking for. Um, if you look on the site plan, >> excuse me, you both can sit down if you
would like. >> Oh, I'll stand. >> No. Okay. Go ahead. Um if you look on the site plan um it's a very unusually shaped lot and the house is on an angle
um existing um the side that we need the variance for is along Alpine Trail. So, this property has two front yards and the existing um
front yard set back to Alpine Trail is 46.6 ft and we will be asking uh to be 30.7 ft. Um, we moved the garage forward
um to hit the existing driveway and also to create more of a front porch uh to come in because we're eliminating the existing entry uh that's
more toward the center of the house. Um, so our hardship stems from the fact that we have the the two front yard setbacks and um we meet like Mohawk's front yard
setbacks but not Sparta Townships and um this really is the only logical place to put the garage uh because of the driveway configuration And on the site plan where you see like
the the bay window, that was a garage at one point that was enclosed at some point in time. So there had been a garage very small. Um, so we're asking for maybe a little bit oversized garage
because my client has a truck, his wife has an SUV, there's a snowblower, there's lawn mower, there's things that are going to be put in there and um uh so it's, you know, a little bit deeper.
>> Um, and they also needed a pantry. So that takes up the back corner of the garage. Um we had looked at other uh proposals, other schemes that had gone even
further. Uh this is 20 uh 24 feet wide where some of those were 32 feet wide which would have incurred more imperous coverage and would have brought us closer to Alpine Trail. So, we cut back
and um tried to tighten up as best that we could to get my clients what they needed, but also to stay away from the front yard as much as possible. And you can see we're going to be getting rid of
a small portion of the existing driveway and the existing walkway. and we are under uh for the imperous coverage. Um yeah and so there is a large room above
also the garage because this had been a lake is a lake style home on the inside small rooms and there's really no large place to congregate. So they will be able to use that space above the garage
to have people. So that's really it. >> Mr. Papa, would you like to add anything? >> Uh, not at this time. No. >> No time. All right. David, if you're so kind to give your report, please. >> Mr. Chairman, I did prepare a report
dated September 24th, 2025. uh as the applicants just explain what their proposed plan is. That's outlined on page one. With regards to zoning for the R3 zone, as they indicated, the only variance
that I found that was necessary, again, as they indicated, was the front yard setback, 35 ft minimum required. And to the corner of the proposed twocar garage to Alpine Trail right away, it's 30.7 ft. Um, with regards to the variance
plan, uh, there is an existing HBAC unit on the right side of the existing, uh, dwelling. It's not labeled, but it's a small rectangular area on the right side with the garage and the uh, other improvements. Are there going to be any other HVAC units added?
>> Uh, it'll tie into the one that is already existing. >> So, the one that's there is going to be it. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the other thing I noticed when I did my site inspection, we're at the intersection of two streets, Shauny Trail and Alpine Trail. Uh so basically
for safety purposes, what I recommended as a sight triangle easement be established over the corner of this lot with the legs of the triangle 90 ft along the center lines of the rightway. That's basically shown on this map >> just in that area.
>> Is that agreeable with the applicant? >> Yeah, I would say so. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Then with regards to utilities, again, the service line isn't shown u but I believe it's off the township's water system when they revise the map to show
the uh sight triangle easement I just described with Mr. Papa. Uh I recommend that be shown on the plan just to make sure it's not in conflict with the garage or anything. Not saying it is. We just want to be sure. Uh, with regards to septic, with what they're proposing,
there's no additional bedrooms added. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, I don't believe that's going to be an issue as far as the septic system. Uh, it appears to be quite unique in the back. It looks like the U electric service comes off of Alpine Trail and a
pole located in the rear of the property. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it's served in two directions. Um, and again, that's not in conflict with the proposed addition. With regards to the proposed or the storm drainage rather, uh they have kept through the
elimination of some pavement and the concrete walkway, they have kept the additional impervious down below 500 square ft. So therefore, under the ordinance, storm water mitigation isn't required. Uh we talked about the HBAC unit. That one on the right of the
existing dwelling is going to serve the entire enlarged uh dwelling and garage area if the board approves. An EIS wasn't provided and I didn't see any environmental issues out there while I was making my site inspection. They're going to need approval from this
township construction official. And as normal, I'd recommend if the board grants approval of an ASB bill plan be prepared. >> All right. Thank you, David. Marissa, can you please call on the board members for their comments and questions? >> Richard Larupa,
>> no questions. >> Michael Leondi, >> no questions. >> Richard Roarbacker, >> no questions. >> Jennifer Panaha, >> no questions. >> Michael Steinberg, >> no questions. >> Chairman Ken Larry, >> no questions. And for the record, Lake Mohawk Country Club's engineer Sabine Watson had no issues with this
application. Correct. >> Correct. >> I'll now open the hearing to the public. Anyone in the public with any comments or questions, please come forward. See no one in the public that's now closed and back to the board for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
of the board of attorney draft a resolution approving application number 12-25 for 62 Shauny Trail, block 4016, lot 57, seeking C variance for a front yard setback of 30.7 feet, uh, where a minimum of 35 ft is required. um with
conditions agreed upon uh set forth in Mr. Simmons's report including a submission of asphel documentation. >> All right. Thanks, Mike. A second, please. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Marissa, please call the role. >> Richard Laruab, >> yes.
>> Michael Leondi, >> yes. >> Richard Robecker, >> yes. >> Jennifer Pinoa, >> yes. >> Michael Steinberg, >> yes. >> Chairman Kenfl, >> yes. Your application has been approved. Good luck with it. Would you like to wave your right to a written resolution?
>> Always forget how they're >> if you can explain it, please. >> I'll be happy. When do you When do you want to get started? >> Springtime. >> Don't worry about it. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Good luck with everything. >> Thank you. Have a good night.
>> Application 13-25. Tracy Gent, please come forward. I think you know the format by now Tracy with present your application when you're finished then our board engineer will give his report he'll come back to this board for our questions and comments then I'll open it to the public
and please speak clearly and directly into all microphones since it's >> you both raise your right hands please you both swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth the proceedings before the board tonight so hope you got Yes. >> Start with the ladies. >> Your name is >> My name is Tracy Jent.
>> Use the microphone, please. >> I think it's on. >> I think it's on. >> Thank you. >> Uh Tracy Jent. >> Okay. And you're the applicant, right? >> And who are you, sir? >> I'm a contractor. >> My name is Tom Matistic. >> All right. Tom, how you spell your last name?
>> M A T I S T I C. >> Okay. How can we help you? >> I was looking to get approval for a uh front porch and balcony on the front of our home, making the front yard more usable. Uh due to the steep and rocky terrain in our front yard, we're
concerned about the safety of my grandkids and elderly family members. By creating the front porch, the balcony will have a safe area in the front yard to entertain as it will provide a level surface with railings that will prevent stumbling on the rocky terrain. The project is designed to be aesthetically
pleasing as well as providing a more usable space done in lake style. I would also note that this project has no way blocking any views or concerns of runoff for our neighbors. Um, to conform with the requirements, we are planning to remove a concrete patio in the backyard
and a front parking space in the front to bring the impervious coverage from existing 32.07 to 25.22. With this reduction, it's 470 square ft for the property. That's it. >> That's That's all I got.
>> Sir, would you have anything to add? Hopefully. >> It's a pretty straightforward, simple, small project. Uh the the building coverage is only increased by 3% and we're reducing the uh imperous coverage
by 7%. >> To try and offset the the gain in 3%. >> That's it. No, no more testimony. >> Okay. Uh David, if you could give your report, please. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh referring to the report we prepared dated October 1st, 2025.
Uh the applicant has already described the proposed modifications mainly to the front of the existing dwelling. With regards to zoning, uh take Mr. Keynes's lead on that because there's a lot of existing pre-existing non-conforming variances. They're noted in the chart.
Yeah. Let's if we if I can, Mr. Chairman. Uh Trace, this is an old house. >> Yes, it's a original crane. We're 1932. >> I'm sorry. Original >> original crane. And it was um 1832. 1932. >> Are all the crane houses are coming out
tonight? >> And as far as you can tell, Trace, how has anybody made any substantial modifications to the house? >> No. It's a very small home on a small lot, but I think it's >> the reason again just for everybody, the
reason I'm asking is Dave calls out all the pre-existing non-conformings. You don't have to reissue them. They have it's been there. I mean, we can note it on the record. We'll know. >> Boy, Glenn, Mike used to always do that. Now we're cutting back on that stuff. I'm only joking.
>> Mike used to cover all those pre-existing ones, but I'm just joking. Glenn, >> he'll save you some time. >> Okay. seem to be particularly disappointed with >> I'm He's very happy. >> I'm great with this news. >> Thank you.
>> The only new variances that you're seeking are impervious coverage and building >> coverage. >> Correct. >> All right. Uh David, please. >> Yes. So, uh the one thing on the variance plan I called out for uh the plan calls for the elimination of the
existing pay parking area in the front of the existing lot. There's no garage or separate parking area for this subject property. Uh the applicant to advise how many vehicles normally are at the location. Just yourself or >> just one. >> Okay. And that looking at the survey pre
prepared by Thomas Ernst uh >> on the most southeasterly corner is where that little indent was. You don't normally park there. Correct. >> When you're looking at the to the left there's a little >> It's to the right. To the right is where I park and then
there's a little bit. >> But you don't park in this area by the wall. >> Do you? >> I do. But if we would take out the we would put stone down so I could still >> So you're still going to park? >> Still park there. >> Okay. That's what I wanted. >> Okay.
>> With regards to utilities, uh I believe they're on the township's water system and the water line would come off West Shore Trail. Uh if the board decides to act favorably, I'd recommend that the service line be shown so we can just verify and the water department would want to verify that there's not going to
be a conflict between the service line and your proposed addition. >> Got it. >> Y >> we did have them come out in March, but it was in June and we'll have it again >> and then shown on the plan. >> It it's not shown on the plan, but it it will not interfere with
>> Right. But we need it shown on the plan. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Then with regards to the septic system, that appears to be located in the rear yard and it won't be in a conflict with the addition or the front of the dwelling. That's where your improvements are going. Uh electric
comes off a pole off West Shore Trail. Uh applicant, it does come across your adjacent property owner. Just double check with your title to see if there's an easement for that line and your surveyor can note that on the plan as well. >> Okay. And I don't believe you have any
gas service to the property. Correct. >> I do. You do? >> I do. >> Then they should show the gas line also so that we can make sure just to make sure it's not going to conflict with your proposed addition. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We had it marked out, but you need it on the >> You need it on the plan, please. >> Okay.
>> The architectural plan, right? >> Uh the survey plan. >> Okay. With regards to storm drainage at the end of the day uh because of some elimination of some impervious areas again they're for a total of 470 square
ft of impervious below the 500. So no mitigation is required per the ordinance. Uh I note the removal of the rear concrete patio is a condition of the Lake Mohawk Country Club approval as outlined in their June 27th 2025 letter
just for the record. Uh there were some discrepancies between the zoning table and the architectural plans. I believe those have been corrected. So we've got that. There's no EIS. I didn't see any environmental issues out there. They're going to need approval from uh Sparta
Township construction official and the soil conservation and as usual an asbel plan when if the board grants approval and it's constructed. >> That's my update. >> Thank you David. >> Yes sir. Marissa, please call pull on the board members for their comments or questions.
>> Richard Larupa, >> just just to follow up on one of Dave's comments on your plans rather than saying you removing the pave parking state that being replaced the paved parking with gravel parking just so the parking area remains. The way the way
your plans look, it looks like you're just taking the parking out of there. >> Oh, okay. They're just saying you're replacing removing the pavement from the parking area and replacing with pvious gravel. >> But the parking remains. >> Okay. >> That's what generated that question.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thanks, Rich. >> That's it. >> That's it. >> Michael Leandi, >> just a quick one. I've got some conflicts in my notes. the the actual impervious coverage that we're seeking and the actual building coverage
like the actual variances the calculations what what were those numbers? >> So for um the building coverage uh we were at 17.6 we're going to 21%. >> Got it. >> Okay. U the max requirement is 18 right.
>> Uh from the impervious the existing is 32.07 and the proposed is 25.22 22 max requirement is 25%. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Um Richard Roarbacker.
>> Uh no questions. >> Jennifer Paha. >> Um yeah. So it sounds like uh you have two areas that you're removing and the concrete one in the back sounds like Lake Mohawk is asking you to remove that. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So that's part of the
requirements. As for the asphalt portion in the front, um, why are you asking to remove that? Because you're trying to stay under the imperous coverage piece. Correct. >> We're trying to offset the increase >> by the decrease of their
>> David, would that trigger, if they kept the asphalt just the way it was, would that trigger additional storm drainage or other requirements that they had to adhere to? I didn't do the calculation, but it probably would because I believe they're very close to 500 square feet the way it is.
>> And quite frankly, when I was out there, it's a fairly steep lot going up. >> And between the septic being in the back and the proposed uh work they're doing in the front, there's not a lot of extra room
>> as far as providing some dry wells or something like that. >> Right. Right. Okay. I'm just trying to do whatever is easiest. If it was just going to increase it by a small amount, why make them rip up the asphalt which is useful and then put >> gravel down? But it sounds like >> that's probably the
>> I mean less owners. Yeah, got it. Okay. Definitely we would like do that, but we're just trying to conform to the requirements. >> Yeah, it sounds like you need to stick to doing that. Okay. No other questions. >> Michael Steinberg, >> no questions.
>> Chairman Kenneth Larry, >> no questions. And just for the record, Lake Mohawk Country Club had no issues with this application. I'll now open a hearing to the public. Beth, do you have any comments or questions? >> You've been too quiet tonight.
>> All right, Beth. Thank you. Was close to the public and back to the board for a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to have the board attorney draft a resolution approving application number 13-25 for 439 West Shore Trail, block 4031, lot 33, seeking C variances for
impervious coverage of 25.22% where a max of 25% is permitted and a building coverage of 21% where a max of 18% is permitted uh with conditions laid out in Mr. Simmons report particularly showing all the utility lines on the survey plan and grabbing all the pre-existing
non-conforming conditions as well according to all plans and testimony heard tonight >> and to survive the asbuilt plans to uh Mike as >> usual if you're open to that addendum. >> I am. Yes. >> Thank you. Do do I have a second? Please.
>> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Marissa, please call the role. >> Richard Larua. >> Yes. Michael Leondi, >> yes. >> Richard Roberger, >> yes. >> Jennifer Paha, >> yes. >> Michael Steinberg, >> yes. >> Chairman Kenneth Larry,
>> yes. Your application has been approved. Would you like to wave your right to a written resolution? >> No. No. Like to get it. >> Yes. >> And just to be clear, we're going to keep that parking space so there's no >> ambiguity or anything like that.
>> It was clear. >> All right. Good. Uh, good luck. >> Thank you. I'll now open a hearing to the public for comments and questions on items not on the agenda tonight. Beth >> yes, >> nothing. >> Thanks for your time.
>> Take care. >> Thank you. >> All right. It's closed. The chair will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> Everyone in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. >> Right.