Tamara, are we good? Okay. Okay. I'd like to call this uh board of adjustment meeting, our reorganization meeting to order. The time is 6:06. Adequate notice has been given in accordance with the sunshine law. Notice
was published on January 1st in the local source, one of the official newspapers for the township of Springfield for the year 2025 and posted in the annex building on January 2nd, 2026. Can we all please rise for a flag salute?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I'm going to do a roll call.
Mr. Steven Hawkstein >> here. >> Mr. Michael Wex >> here. >> Mr. Steven. >> Miss Marlon Apparano >> here. >> Mr. Peter Shitz, >> Miss Anika Dodson, Mr. Randy Pearlman,
Mr. Mark Cunningham >> here, >> and Miss Jodie Cohen >> here. And we have a quorum. So now I'm going to take a nomination for uh chair for 2026. >> Like to make a nomination, Jody Cohen.
I'll second. >> Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, uh, Mr. Mark Cunningham, >> yes. >> Mr. Steven Hawkstein, >> yes. >> Mr. Michael Wex, >> yes. >> Mr. Steven Fersinbound,
>> yes. >> Miss Marlin Apparano, >> yes. >> Mr. Peter Shewitz, >> yes. >> And uh, Miss Cohen, >> congratulations. >> Congratulations everyone. >> It is now your meeting.
>> Appreciate it. Okay, this is I take over now. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um All right. So, next we're going to call nominations uh for vice chair person. Um are there nominations for vice chair? >> I'll nominate Mark Cunning Cunningham.
>> Second. >> Are there any other nominations? >> Mr. Steven Hine? >> Yes. >> Mr. Michael Wex? >> Yes. >> Mr. Person? Yes, >> Mr. Barano. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ch. >> Um, Chair Cohen. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Penningham. >> Yes.
>> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you, fellow board. >> Um, all right. Next, we have nominations for the board attorney. We received a response from Bruce Bergen from the RFQ. Um,
I'll take a nomination for board attorney. I'll make a nomination for >> I'll second. >> Are there any other nominations? >> Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Cunningham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Persian? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Hawkstein? >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Epano? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sheit? >> And Chair Cohen? >> Yes. >> Passes. Congratulations. >> Congratulations. Okay. So the next uh the next nomination that we have up is for uh board engineer
and we received four responses um to our RFQS which was from Mike Disco Mike Disco and Associates, Victor Venegger at Harbor Consultants, uh Michael Neglia, Neglia Engineering Associates, and Trevor Taylor at CME Engineering. Um I hope everyone had an opportunity to
review them. Um I'll take a nomination for board engineer. I will say that um I think for uh based on our prior experience and history um I would I would be looking to nominate Mike Disco again.
>> So all right I'm nominating and a second >> uh Chair Cohen >> yes >> Mr. Hawkstein. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And vice chair Cunningham. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. Congratulations. >> Congratulations.
>> Uh next is nominations for board planner. We received three responses. Mike Mashetta from Harbor Consultants, Michael Neglia from Neglia Engineering Associates, and Ronald Reiner from Reiner from CME Engineering. Uh if everyone had an opportunity to
review the responses. Is there a nomination? >> I'll nominate Harbor Consultants. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Hawking? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Wexine? >> Yes. >> Mr. Binbound? >> Yes. >> Mr. Napano?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sheel. And Chair Cohen. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Excellent. Now we have nominations for board secretary. >> It's a tough one. You still want it? >> Yes.
>> I know. >> All right. Do we have a nomination? >> A nomination. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> I guess there's no other nominations, right? >> No. >> Mr. Sheitz? >> Yes. >> Miss Napano? Yes. >> Mr. Hawkstein? >> Yes.
>> Wax? >> Yes. >> Bound? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham? >> Yes. >> And Chair Cohen? >> Yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh and finally, we have nomination for assistant secretary, which is usually the board engineer. Um
so I'm going to nominate Mike Disco for that position. Is there a second? >> Second. >> You have no choice. Um I'm sure there's no other nominations. Uh Chair Cohen, >> yes. >> Um Mr. Wex, >> yes. >> Mr. Hawkstein,
>> yes. >> Mr. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And vice chair. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Okay. Um and then uh we'll move on to the
official newspaper, which is the local source for the township of Springfield with the Star Ledger as the backup. Our alternate. Yes. >> Okay. Uh do you adopt that?
>> Um yes. >> Okay. >> Can I ask I would just >> note um as of March 1st um state law will change to allow for online publication in lie of a newspaper which of course the star ledger is
online itself. Um in February I'll have a uh an updated resolution for the board to I I was going to ask you a question about that. Is there more than one online newspaper that would be
appropriate for this or is >> I don't believe there are any other newspapers that would qualify as a local paper. >> The the um obviously the local source, it's the
only other newspaper that circulates in town. Um The new law will um allow for a municipality in lie of newspaper publication to have a on the
municipal website a location uh prominently uh findable where they would post all notices from the municipality as well as a link to the states website
which will contain uh notices from across the state. So people will have two websites to to go to to try and find it. >> The only reason I asked is because I know it's fairly expensive to more economical way for
>> I mean the Star Ledger is the much more expensive one. the local sources is less because circulation is less but um that won't be necessary for the board and the
municipality come March. >> Okay. So I think we need to adopt the official newspaper for 2026. Vice Chair Cunningham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rostein. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wex. >> Yes. >> Hersbound.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. She. >> Yes. >> And Chair Cohen. >> Yes. >> Okay. And last for reorganization is the adoption of the meeting dates for 2026. Did everyone have an opportunity to see those?
>> Okay. And can we have a motion to adopt those? I'll make the motion. >> Mr. Hawkstein, >> second. >> Yes. >> I'll have a second. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Wex, >> yes. >> Mr. Fenbound, >> yes. >> Miss Mcano,
>> yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham, >> yes. >> And Cher, >> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Excellent. Uh, okay. Okay, so that closes the reorganization meeting and we're going to open up to the regular meeting this evening. Uh the first order
of business are the resolutions for memorialization. Uh I'll start with the first resolution which is for application 2025-24 block 3207 lot 7. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the resolution?
Are there any questions or comments? If there's none, is there a motion to approve? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Sheitz, >> yes. >> Mr. Hawkstein, >> yes. >> Mr. Wex, >> yes. >> Mr. Fenbound, >> yes.
>> Miss Barano, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham, >> yes. >> And Chair Cohen, >> yes. The next resolution that is on for adoption is resolution 20, resolution of memorization for application 2025-8,
which is the share alliance resolution block 207 lot 23. Has everyone had an opportunity to review? Are there questions? >> Yes, I have a question. >> I do. >> Okay. Um, I just want to make sure we're
all working off of the same version because there have been a couple. The last one sent out was with changes requested by the applicant. I'm not sure if everybody got that. it in particular
in the uh the now therefore section uh the conditions they they requested some slight wording changes in AB and F. So if everyone doesn't have those I can at least read those as to what they're
requesting. >> Those are the red line changes that were in the drive. >> Yes. I have >> Could you read Can you just read the >> Okay. Um as
>> Okay, never mind. We can >> got them. Okay. Anybody else need it? >> The the the change in paragraph F was really um just a wording change and didn't really affect it. But A and B obviously are the two
>> still the same problem. >> Yeah. two areas that this board did discuss. >> So, I'll give we'll give everyone an opportunity to take a minute to review, but I will say I'm not sure that a reflects what we approved.
>> That's my >> um So, you want to read it? Do you want to read it and then we could discuss what we believe we've approved? >> The the currently proposed again this is paragraph three. The use and operations shall be subject to all
conditions agreed to on the record including but not limited to the following. A participation in the programs offered shall be limited to Springfield residents and those people who may work, worship, receive services,
attend school, or regularly conduct business in Springfield and members of the various organizations associated with the share alliance. that that is
again that's my wording marked up by the applicant requesting that that be what the board does. But >> so let me I'll start with one point. I think that the way that it was written with respect to who is constitutes the
chair alliance is the accurate way to state it. I don't think it's any organization that is associated with that could be a number of organizations. I I believe could go back and look that we said it is the organizations that make up the share alliance and that were
those those were the groups that we agreed would be able to register. >> Well, what I what I remember is it ends after the word Springfield period. The members of the organizations of this airlines means they could be anywhere.
That means it could be an organization in any town place in the state. >> Didn't we during the testimony they listed >> the individual came up and listed those member groups >> they were located in Springfield.
>> They weren't residents >> the member groups but they weren't >> they didn't have to live in Springfield but they were part of an organization. >> There was a church >> right? I thought they talked about residents of Union were attending in Springfield. >> That that's my that's my interpretation.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Everything they mentioned. >> Yeah. The concern that I had when we read it was where it says regularly conduct business at open. >> I agree with that. >> I do know they talked about the concern of the limit of
funding and assistance they was limited to res >> wasn't res. >> Can I make a suggestion? where where you have various what if you put members of the Springfield organization. So >> you really have that in the sentence
above. It ends after Springfield. If you read if you read that sentence where when you put a period after Springfield, that's what that does. >> The second >> Yes. >> Yes. And that that takes care of it. >> And that takes care of it >> and take out the whole >> I mean as soon as soon as you word use
the word associated, you open it up to a larger group of people. because it's an association with a group that does not directly have ties with Springfield. >> You say regularly conduct business. >> I want that out.
>> I don't agree. We did not say that. That That's a whole slew. That's a whole new group. >> Not arguing. You're going tighter. >> Yes. >> We definitely did not agree to that. >> I think we should just end it at the end of Springfield. Period. >> Yes. That need I think that needs to be
removed. I'm not sure though that I honestly think we may have to look at the transcript because I'm not sure that that would it be the people who worship in Springfield and that's how we get the member organizations and organizations of the
share alliance included. I don't know that ending at the second Springfield includes that second part of members that we agreed to. >> I believe there was one I thought there was one that was in summit too that was part of the share,
>> right? They they gave a list as that all the members of the share alliance whatever that six or eight were >> can they provide a list? >> We just put the list into the There was a list given on the record >> a as as this is written
um that list is essentially incorporated into the resolution um because it's part of the record and they've agreed that >> I just feel still these are too generic. I just don't remember the list was
given. So why can't we include the list in resolution? No specific organizations that are associated with SH that were given during test be listed as the ones that are
>> if if that's the board's desire I will get that we can either get it from the transcript or or I can ask the uh applicant's attorney. >> See to me associated could mean anything. >> I agree. >> And what's with and there's one uh
phrase in here receive services. What does that mean as far as people who are eligible to go to the pantry? >> Receive services. That's very vague. So >> they did this year when they did that
fun. They did it this year. They required you to be >> spoke here early on. >> She wasn't then she >> she did she spoke for this but when they did that school it was for residents of the school. But if it's in the record, whatever we
agree to specific, that's a very open associated with. >> Yeah, I think if you just say who may work, >> worship is normally I mean my thought of whatever religious background you ask,
>> a member of that church, >> right? who may work um receive services, attend school, or are members of these churches. >> If you want to get particular, receive services could be you go get your haircut. >> Exactly. That's what I'm saying.
>> I think I think a lot of these statements are awfully vague >> as far as who would be eligible to vote to the pantry. So I I just think that we this to me is open up a can of worms as
far as who who would be eligible. >> Leaves it open to interpretation. >> Yes, very much so. >> I agree and I Yeah, I think the additional language that that we're seeing here does not reflect what was agreed to on the record. I think it
really needs to be spelled out limited to what was agreed to. I know. >> Um, >> there is a member of the public that I see raising their hand. If you want to
offer something, you may step forward. >> You could say Springfield residents and member organizations of the sherines. >> And I think that's all we agreed to, >> right? >> And the spring and members of the >> member organ can be anyone,
>> right? But they listed what the member organizations were. >> Right. We could say members per the list and include it. >> Right. >> Yes. Hi. >> Yes. First. >> My name is Russ Hoglin.
>> First raise your right hand. You swear or affirm to tell the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now state your full name. Spell your last name and give us your address. >> Uh Russell Havland. H O V like in Victor. L A N D 147 Countryside Drive
Summit, New Jersey 07901. My affiliation would share alliances. I serve on their board as treasurer. I apologize to the board tonight. I thought our lawyer would be here to try to clarify this discussion. Uh I'll do
my best. Um, the intent of the program, as originally planned, was to provide services to those that are either either live, work, or worship, or receive services in
Springfield. I'm not sure that that's what came out in the discussion and was agreed to by the board of adjustment, but that was the intent and has always been the intent of the program. Live, work, work,
worship, or be served by by Springfield. Served meaning medical services, dental services, school, and the like. Uh we've developed our application process to ask those that are applying
to be served to provide documentation on how they're being served, whether they whether or not they live in the community, work in the community, um worship in the community, or receive services. The application process that
we've devised, which will be on our website, asks the members that are applying to be serviced to provide documentation that supports their application. So, I just wanted to provide that clarification to the board. >> Thank you. Appreciate that.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> That brings us back to uh a comment about if you get a haircut in Springfield, you're covered, >> right? >> And uh I don't think that I don't think I'm speaking for myself
that that was the intent of this of the board. I have no idea what Mr. Mer what Mr. Merman's Murman's thoughts were, but u >> I don't believe that was the I don't believe that's what we intended when we
approved. I don't I don't think that was the scope of individuals um that could apply when we approved. And I I'm not sure that that was relayed during the discussions on the record. >> The only thing is is there is a limit.
So if this was to move forward, they reach the capacity, they then are back to square one and then maybe opening. >> Yeah, I think they're two separate issues though because if they're already granted the
>> use then they're just coming back for an increase in capacity, right? >> The use has already been granted for capacity use, right? I just think the word needs to be narrow what we
voted on board's perspective >> agrees to what the intentions were just because somebody comes in Springfield and does something. >> Yes. Just one additional thought and I think it was touched on
um the number of applicants that we will support is through our registration process. We have limited capacity which is written into the resolution on how many members we plan to support. So once we reach capacity, we will not support
any additional people. We don't support any people that will come in as walk-ins as well. So once we reach that number for each of those stages that you see in the resolution, we will shut it down. There'll be no walk-ins.
>> Just want to provide that clarification. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I think that when we approved the application, we were clear on the limitation as to um who
could register and who would be served at this time. And I think just like capacity, if the share alliance wants to open it up to other categories of individuals, then they'll have to come back to
discuss that. But I don't think that's what was approved during the application process. So my thoughts are it would be participation in the programs offered shall be limited to Springfield residents and those who
may work, worship, and attend school in Springfield and the members of the organizations as set forth on the record and we will list them. I think
too >> because if they come in we didn't say that either >> right >> and how and also >> if they're member of the of the alliance >> that's those religious organizations not every >> who walks in to worship okay people who
Springfield residents and those who work and attend school >> why work but I think it has to be those affiliated with Right. >> We've I think we've estab who are residents of Springfield and people who are
>> associated with organizations, >> but it's not associated. It's the member organizations that were listed on the record, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Which >> Well, you have to I don't know if that's you. I don't know how many we're talking
about. >> I think there was like six or seven organizations. the the individual that came up to discuss operations came back and and in the record >> during her testimony gave a list of organizations
>> and those will be the organizations that I think we agree to. >> I don't want to speak for everyone. So, >> so it doesn't have to be. So, the wording of associated really doesn't come into play. It's those specific
>> ones. So, I think we're asking for trouble unless we have another hearing with them present >> and the issues and the language aired out on the record. >> I think that's I agree. You're right. I
agree. So, I mean my what I would do is move to or recommend >> that we table set it down for rehearing and then do whatever everybody wants. >> I'm in agreement.
>> Can we get what was stated that? >> Yeah. on the transcript >> if we're already at disagreements with what the meaning is >> and we're speaking of with seven people who sat here.
>> So do we actually need a hearing or amending resolution and then show it to them make sure and then just vote on >> well I I think that if Mr. wants to come back to argue that these all of these
again I don't categories of individuals should be included then I think that opens it up to a hearing. >> I I think if if they're in agreement that we rely on the transcript and we put together the language then we move forward
>> move forward >> with the resolution >> tonight. No, after we table >> the question was I and Bruce you tell me but the question was whether we actually need a hearing. I think the answer is if they want to discuss this and we don't believe the record reflects that they'd have to open it up. Right.
what what I'm going to suggest so that we're talking about something specific and not in the abstract that this board give me instructions tonight as to the resolution that you would deem appropriate
and I will then send that to their attorney and advise them if they have any objection then they can come in for a hearing >> otherwise they don't >> they don't know what agreeing to
um so I think what we say the other option >> I don't know that we know right now >> but then that's why I'd like to see what I'd like to see the resolution >> or or the minutes whatever you want to call it what was taken down readed it
before I said I would want to say what >> can't we just say and those ailated Share alliance with the share alliance. >> That's that that would be >> with the share alliance that and with these shar alliance member groups. You
don't know what they and have them list. >> No, but just have that and then have them list it. The lawyer can list it out. >> I think that's probably the goal. >> Yeah. I would als I would also raise the issue that uh talking with a member of
the board as opposed to council when they are in effect a corporation is something that should not be happening. >> I still would like to see that list. >> Yeah. >> The list could be changed then I don't know what it said.
>> No, I know. My only concern is what he like that night and then we >> oh but that >> but I think we were kind of vaguely asked her like what are some of the organizations I don't think we were like >> say the list from A to Z >> oh I thought
>> I think the list the list was presented twice the first meeting and the second meeting >> so there is a list >> so I'd like to see that before we go back >> can't we just I'm saying couldn't we just say that in there and then they pull the list in the transcript
give it to their attorney and see if he agrees to it and then >> move on. >> So it's Springfield residents and the list >> and the list and these member organizations and then >> leave it at that. >> So work, worship, attend school,
>> all of that is out in the programs offered shall be limited to group of residents and those members share alliance organizations referred to in the following list. >> Yep. >> Okay. I mean that's okay. Essentially
what you're going back to is will I originally >> correct? Yeah. No, I'm in agreement with what you originally put. >> Okay. And then we'll just add the list in from the record. >> Correct. Yes. >> Um that's fine. And then
um paragraph B again it was written to broaden it. it. Um >> well now paragraph B if it if it's >> but if it if if A is what we say then we're then fine right >> and B is limited
>> right then B is limited >> got it >> right right >> yes agreed >> yeah it's >> it's fine >> okay so you're going to bring that >> I based on this discussion I will uh do a reddraft adding the uh the list from
the record. Um provide it to the applicant's attorney who can then make a determination whether they want to come back at the next meeting or just allow it to uh to be considered by the board. >> Excellent. So, we'll need a motion to
table or Yes. >> Yes. Move to table. I'll >> second that. Austin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham.
>> Yes. >> And Chair C. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, all right. We'll move on to the applications for this meeting. The first application that we're going to hear is application 2025-23. This is for 16 North Avenue, block 2901,
lot 17. This is a request for a side front and rear yard setbacks and a lot coverage variance for installation of a walkway, patio, portico, and sopet bench.
>> Hello. >> Hi. How are you? >> Good. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? >> Yes. >> Please state your full name. Spell your last name. Give us your home address. >> Nicholas Dejidio. D I D I O 60 Horse
Avenue, Springfield. >> Thank you. >> Uh Okay. Tell us a little bit about your >> All right. So, for the the front yard setback, I'm making an enclosure for my front door to make like a mud room entrance way.
So when I do that, I want to put a portico like a roof over the front door. And the roof is going to that portical roof is going to extend, I believe, six inches in into the setback. And over the garage doors, I'm going to
be doing um a sophet over the garage doors. Same thing, which is going to go three inches into the setback >> from the front yard setback. >> Okay. >> So I'm looking for relief for that extra couple inches, few inches. Okay.
>> And the lot coverage is for a patio that I installed >> Yeah. >> like five years ago. So, I'm looking for relief for the lot coverage, the amount of square footage that I'm over. >> And it's going from it's going up to 46%
now. Is that where you are? >> That's where I'm at now. Yeah. >> Which I'm going to have to install uh drywalls on the ground. >> Discuss that with the township engineer >> with Mike. Yeah. And I have uh I already submitted the the calculations for the drywalls.
>> I have one question. So the enclosure you're doing around that currently covered thing. >> Yeah. >> It ends at the existing house intruding the actual >> Yeah. Well, it's gonna it's going to recess about 12 inches from the front of the existing house.
>> Okay. But the the setback is just the roof that's going to be over the front door. In the in the folder, I have a picture um attached to the application of what I'm looking to do. >> Basically, my question was that
enclosure that you're doing is not coming out just >> the roof. Just the roof. Yes. So the first photo here is my card and the second one here is proposed. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Looks nice.
I think improvement Uh Mike, can you just confirm it's just the two um variances lot coverage and run setback? >> Yes. Thank you. Are you satisfied with the mitigation
efforts that are intended to be installed? >> The drainage proposal provides the volume to mitigate. Yes. >> Okay. Members of the board, are there any members of the public that have any questions for the applicant?
Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on the application? I think the front yard request is dimminimous and um I think overall it's an improvement to the property and um it looks like with the drainage being
satisfied um you've done what you needed to do to mitigate. So I'd be in favor of granting the >> I'll move to approve >> second >> Mr. Hine Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bersenbound. >> Yes.
>> Mapano. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sheitz. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham. >> Yes. >> And chair. >> Yes. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> All right. The next application is application 2025-25
37 Cutotler Avenue block 1907 lot 29 front and sideyard set back for an addition. Okay, >> please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? >> Yes. Please state your full name. Spell your last name. Give us your address.
>> Uh Steven Tedamanti. That's Tti. 37 Ker Avenue, Springfield, New Jersey. So, uh, currently requesting a front and sideyard, uh, variance request. Uh, so I've lived in Springfield for a long time. I was fortunate to buy the house
next door to my parents here. Uh, it's currently only one floor, um, with two bedrooms and, uh, I have one kid and I have another one on the way, >> so running out of space. Um, >> congratulations. >> Thank you. Uh so the front variance is
requested for Portugo to go up just the coverage and the side is we're going to just go straight up uh on the second floor. There's already a standing attic there. So just raising it up so we could add some bedrooms up there and we'll open up the first floor. Um the uh the
water flow is going to stay the same. There's going to be no changes to that. So, really just going straight up here and adding more bedrooms and be able to grow my family here and stay in Springfield. >> Excellent. Any questions from the board? >> Any questions from the public for the
applicant? Any member of the public wish to speak on the application? Okay. Again, I I mean, it's a non-consisting non non-conforming existing variance and we're just going up vertical. So, I would be in favor of granting the relief that's being
requested. If anyone feels the same and wants to make a motion, >> I'll move a second. >> Either one get more, >> Mr. First. >> Yes. Mr. Wex,
>> yes. >> Miss Napano, >> Mr. Sheitz, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham, >> yes. >> And Sher, >> yes. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Okay. And finally, we have application 2025-2670 Morrison Road, block 2011, lot 16. This
is a request for a front yard setback on a corner property to install an AC condenser. Welcome back, Mr. Hawkstein. >> Generator. >> What does it say? It says AC condenser.
A generator. Sorry. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear a firm to tell the truth. >> I do. >> Please state your full name. Spell your last name. Give your home address. >> Fabio Kaspi. CBI, 70 Mar Road, Springfield.
>> Uh I'm I want to put a generator to the house. was one of fixed generator. Unfortunately being a corner lot when I was working with the contractor we thought the backyard what we use as backyard was the actual backyard. So we took the measurement assuming that the
backyard was to be treated as a backyard realized that's not the case. uh where we want to put the generator. There is already an AC unit and is uh right next to my property very far from any neighbor.
Uh unfortunately speaking with Bob uh he explained to me that due to the load the setback should be 20 ft instead of 10 ft. So should be closer to the patio. basically putting it right next to the patio and rendering the patio not as
usable because you put this generator in the middle of the the backyard basically right two kids running around you don't really want them to go crash against the generator so we consider alternatives but any viable alternative is very
expensive uh just for uh the the hydraulic and electric uh cost associated with moving it further away from the location that has been uh identified initially. Um
I think that's about it. >> I have one question. Is the fence? >> No. >> Thank you. Um the intention is eventually to uh cover the fence with
shrubbery. Right now there there is some shrubbery but it's not like doing much to cover the view. Right. Intention is to improve the privacy uh but is not something that I'm going to do in the next six months. Uh I've been doing a
lot of work of improvements on the house. So you might have uh seen some permission going through to reinforce the basement. So there is a lot going on. So >> I see the fence. >> Sorry.
>> It's just one of those low vine fences. >> Yep. >> Mhm. Yes. We'll mark it. >> You will see the location is past the AC unit. You will see there basically in front of the the chimney.
>> Yeah. If you see the AC unit against the house, it's beyond that. But before >> you see the chimney coming out a little bit is is in front of the chimney. >> How close is the closest residence to where the generator would be? residence
would be on the other side of the yard. >> The side that the generator is on that that's facing >> that would be right next to my house, right? >> And then you have the entire yard and then there is the next your neighbor in front of there are offices.
>> It's at least 50 feet from the generator to the nearest property line. >> Okay. >> Before you even hit a structure. >> Yeah. The other side across the streets there are offices. >> Right. Right. >> It's not Yeah. Yeah.
And how far in the generators be a minimum of what 10 ft from the house? >> Yes, of course. All the other regulation are respected that >> uh it's not 10. I think it was five. >> There's a clearance for for windows and
from the building. There are certain requirements. >> It's 18 in minimum. If it's a ventilation source, then it has to be Right. But there is a bill door and there is a window. So it needs to be able to screen it with a little fence or
>> actually absolutely both internally and externally again >> that's the discussion that we were just having. So I guess under the ordinance it would have to be >> right. Isn't there an screen that shall be screened from Jason?
>> I I certainly don't think you should want to put a bigger fence or a solid fence. You'd want to do it with natural materials. >> But Mike, does the fence suffice? the existing fence that's there. Does that suffice as coverage? >> You can see >> you have to see it.
>> It's a 4 foot see-through fence. >> It's better than nothing in terms of screening, >> right? >> I think again that's the spirit of the ordinance. >> Yeah. >> So I think >> board can decide how best to see it, right?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So not visible. >> I don't know. We don't have to say how to >> Yeah, >> I think you can specify whether you want it with vegetation or not >> in your
>> I mean eventually the plan is to put some sort of screen was already there. So for me it's not problem way. I know that if I want to put a privacy fence there, I need to move it a little bit backwards compared to where the fence is right now because it's a little bit too
close to the property line, the lower one. But I can put a shrubbery to make it easier as well. Depends. >> Well, if you were to put a privacy fence, he'd be coming back here, right? >> You could put the the 4 foot open fence at the property line, right?
>> If you want six feet, >> more than four feet I should say, or solid, you got to be back at least 10 feet from that. >> Now, the house is at 7.4t. >> So, you're putting the fence behind the building. So, the >> ordinance tries to anticipate that.
Right. >> So, would the intent then be to put the privacy fence up or are would are we talking shrugs to screen it? >> Um, >> we'd have to >> I'm open to give grant relief. >> Sorry.
>> Sorry. Right. We'd have to grant relief for that. So, >> no. If he were if his intent is to put up the privacy fence, right? >> Well, he could just
>> That's true. >> Or no. Yeah, >> you could put all those green fence around there. >> I'm open whatever the board to do. >> I I can tell the board from personal experience because I put in a generator
a couple of weeks ago. Um it's probably about a four three to four foot high fence would be sufficient. Um, they recommend it be 3 to 5 feet away from the generator, but I think they're
looking probably sufficient room for it to be far enough from the property line to comply. >> But anyway, >> what size is the generator? >> Is one of the gener?
>> Oh, uh, yes, it's 22. If it's four feet but solid, it's not compliant. Correct. >> Correct. You'd have to be 10 feet. >> Correct. >> From property line. You could do that, but this one currently is set at 74 and it's open, >> right? >> The current fence is compliant.
>> Are you talking about high the generator? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> If you want to just say screening, that's fine. I think I think I think we screen it. >> You need to screen it. >> You don't want to see it.
>> However you do it, screen it. >> Don't want to see it. >> I mean, the discussion was if you're replacing the fence to screen it, the actual fence that you have at the 7.4, then you'd need relief for us. But if you're just going to screen the generator, which you have to do under the ordinance, we're telling you you just need to screen the generator.
>> Well, uh, yeah. I mean, the plan to install a privacy fence would be at 10. So moving it backwards eventually to be >> aligned with the regulations. >> Okay. >> I'm not asking for another variance. >> Okay. So
are there any members of the public? Sorry. Any board members have any other questions? Are there any members of the public that have any questions for the applicant? None. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on the application?
None. Okay. So with the condition of the screening which is by ordinance are we in agreement? Thank you. >> Second >> Mr. Hawkstein. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wex. >> Yes. >> Mr. Penbound. >> Yes. >> Mapano.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Sewit. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Cunningham. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Awesome. >> Okay. Thank you very much everyone. Motion to adjurnn.
Second. All in favor?