e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the May 6th 2024 meeting of the city of summit Zoning Board of adjustment my name is Andy ball I'm the zoning board attorney uh both are chairman and vice chairman are excused tonight and they are asking the board to appoint former chairman Tom Yuko to serve as temporary chairman for tonight's meeting is there a motion to do so second do we need a Voicee or roll call just in case Mr Nelson yes Miss Z yes Mr Malay yes Miss toad yes Miss chiefo yes the motion carries okay yours thank you um in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper record and has been posted here in City Hall please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation Indy and justice for all okay this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and theor appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on summit's government Channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30 a transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and the audio so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room please note that the fire exits are to my right your left and at the back of the room where you entered the city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired if anyone needs hearing assistance please obtain the system at the dis and return it after the meeting missos please call the role of the members sure chairman Steiner is excused Vice chairman lyit is excused Mr Yuko here Mr Nelson here miss Don here Mr Kieran is excused Mr Malay here miss toad here miss Cho here Mr feskin is excused and Mr chili is expected but not present you have a quarum you may proceed thank you uh Andy ball is the zoning board's attorney he will advise the board members in matters of Law and as the key interface with an applicant's attorney the attorney does not vote on the applications Stephanie suos is the city employee and is the zoning board secretary Miss suos works with applicants and preparing their applications planning our agendas and keeping our meeting minute minutes Miss sulos also does not vote on the applications also present is Carl O'Brien our board's engineer who is seated at the table to our right the audience is left uh he will ask questions of the Witnesses and provide input to the board as necessary but he also does not vote on the applications our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates all members can participate in the hearings tonight but a member of SE a maximum of seven can vote most applications require a simple majority to be approved each case will begin with the applicant or their attorney giving no overview of the application process to date and the variances are required we then hear from any additional expert Witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why variances are needed the board members may ask questions of the applicant their attorney and the expert Witnesses once the board members and the board professionals have and the applicants professionals uh have com I should say board professionals I'm sorry have completed their questioning the public will have an opportunity to ask questions this is not the time to tell us what you think about this case that opportunity comes at the end of the hearing before you ask your questions please clearly state your name spell your last name and provide your address it is important that a court reporter be able to keep it clear and accurate public record after all Witnesses have been heard members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak and at that time you may express your opinion positive or negative about the application then the public hearing is closed and we go into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote you will be able to listen to our executive session but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion Chris Anderson the City Zoning officer has asked that we remind all applicants that they must read carefully the resolution that documents the zoning board's decision and to pay particular attention to the conditions contained in the resolution for example if a landscaping plan is required you must obtain one and submit it to John Linson the city's Forester if a grading plan is required you must have one prepared by a civil engineer and submit three copies along with the application fee to the city's engineering division failure to satisfy all conditions in a resolution will result in a delay in approving your application as will cause extra work for City Zoning staff the resolutions documenting the board's decision will normally be available 1 month after we decide the case so when I call your name please come to the podium and tell us how many witnesses you have and whether you think you can complete your case within 30 minutes first application tonight is Robert and Marina aisian 15 cwell Avenue just come with the microphone please Thomas Bao architect for the applicant my clients are in Hungary and are not here they had a death are are you the only witness I'm the only witness okay great very good and 30 minutes you think is enough yes okay oh yeah do we any documentation did they get into anything ideally yes but we can accept his representation okay all right uh Andrew Brown and Bianca Moreno 24 WIS ro hi I'm Bianca Mareno um for 24 wins row and I can do this in 30 minutes I see your architect I assume that's the only witness yes it is okay very good uh Michael and Kristen Apple bound ad Belleview Avenue hello uh Hillary OLS from Dempsey Dempsey and Shen um we have four Witnesses so maybe like 45 minutes to an hour at the very most okay fair enough uh so we'll get back to beginning begin with Robert and Marina abidian Mr Bale all right if you could please raise your right hand do you swear Fromm the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes it is please state your name spell your last name Thomas beo B A IO architect for the applicant Richard and Marina abian thank you I know you've uh testified before us before and we're accepted at that time any changes to your credential since the last time you appeared no I remain um in good standing with the board of Architects all right thank you and uh just before you made the representation that your clients had a death in their family they were unable to make it here I imagine they've authorized you to uh present the application before the board T yes that would have happened anyway it's predominantly a clarification and an expansion of the prior um approved application thank you all right thank you um so first and foremost they were approved by the board on August 1st 2022 they were um they were an immigrant couple I'm surprised that they're in Hungary I didn't find out until today um they didn't think that this was important for them to attend so take that for what it is um at the time we testified and reduced our application from a 16ft kitchen Edition to a 14ot kitchen Edition the issues ensued with a very poorly prepared survey I have two exhibits to introduce one is the prior survey and one is the new survey um would like to mark them into the record yes okay so um I'll call the old survey exhibit A1 and I'll call the new survey exibit A2 and I'm going to date that today to do I give exib our secretary thank you thank you so the problem began with a very poorly prepared survey they didn't want to uh at the time um they're they're a struggling couple but they want to do this kitchen Edition and did not want to have a survey prepared a new one that resulted in a lot of complications in terms of what was the accurate um testimony as to the rear yard set back we knew that what we did is took a an addition that was 16t and during our proceedings reduced it to 14 ft but it was the net number that I uh stumbled with and it did not really come about until the resolution was prepared by Mr ball Miss May and he brought it to my attention that this is really a clarification issue and we need to probably come back before your board this time I took it upon myself to actually pay for the survey so that's why the survey certified to me and not the owners um to clarify what is the exact rear setback and tonight I'm here to uh also introduce that in the production of the survey we realized that the side yard setback is not 8 ft but rather 7 Fe 5 in so we have that new variance to also attest to in addition to that I want to clarify our floor area ratio our building coverage our lock cover variances which were granted um we had some disagreement with what I had versus Christa Anderson's report and I want to stand on the record as the numbers on my drawings are accurate I brought Renee from my office mostly because she spent hours today justifying that the numbers in Christa Anderson's report she had a larger floor area ratio than we shown in our plans the Flor rare area ratio sheet had shown was one that was 38.855563 we couldn't figure out how Christa got to that number but we did take it upon ourselves to say well what if she calculated the old Edition the 16 foot Edition and sure enough that's where that number is higher on Christa Anderson's report than the one that we are submitting to you here in so so just to clarify these these revised diagram this is so new that Chris has not seen this yet either she seen that she she has seen this oh yes she has she prepared a report on April 10th I received it last week and in that report I received she mentioned you know the rear setback number which is correct 25.6 at the kitchen and 21.6 at the deck I'm here to assert that that that is the actual rear yard setback and it's the original reason that um I'm here in addition to that she came up with a building coverage number of 29.9 whereas our building coverage number is 29 29% um I don't know how she got the point 9 I mean I I checked everything unless you added the shed um we couldn't come up with how she arrived at 29.9 so our um building coverage is 29 all right I mean normally I mean I think we're going have to have Christa review just make sure she's on the same page sure I don't want to have to come back again saying oh by the way oh now I know where the 0.9 came from yeah and also that you mentioned a new sidey yard setback correct which that's correct in the new survey which we handed out exhibit A2 that's the second one um you will see that I had Rich Keller clarify everything from the presence of the home the location the setbacks the sidey and that uh revealed that the prior survey which is exhibit A1 never really demonstrated that it was 7.5 it demonstrated 8 ft so that is why we're here for an additional variance okay so just on that point the Christa's memo notes and maybe that's a typo in there the sidey guard setback is in the R5 zone is 7 feet but you proposing 7 foot5 in um and therefore variance is not required it's it's 8T we think it's 8T that's my vague recollection as well and I can bring up the code just to confirm yeah I think it's 8 ft we we take it I mean I could be wrong but I I think the summit ordinance for R5 is 8T and also I think the shed does count in um in flary ratio I think it does in building coverage build in building coverage coverage yeah but not F so we included that in our building coverage yes I thought you said you didn't include the shed you said no when not I was referring to the floor area ratio I I don't know how she got to the number she did we actually calculated that she might have used the old kitchen which was 16 feet because that number seems to come on I thought okay I thought that was for the floor area ratio to get from 38.5 to 38.3 but that the building coverage Christa had 20 just trying to clarify this she had 29.9 which probably includes the shed and I think that you previously just had said that the 29 unit 29 does not include the shed so that might be the difference that that's my recollection of of Mr Bao's testimony as well okay I'll accept that we'll just go with the 29.9 I spent a lot of time trying to understand why numbers and my numbers were were different um well and to be technical she she in her in her Memo she has two sets of numbers the the newer number for the floor area for the uh building coverage is 29.88 I know I saw that yeah uh yeah she had different numbers on her lot of a lot of different numbers here yeah there are a lot of different numbers so we want to be very clear that uh what the numbers are so I I do also want to just step in I I pulled up the schedule of space regulations the R5 Zone minimum side yard setback is in fact s feet so if you're oh it is seven feet yes if you're proposing 7 foot5 Ines you would be compliant with the sidey guard set oh okay well we noticed that we had that as an additional variance so um I suppose for the record we'll um will not have a sidey guard variance um with regard to the setback okay um the other one was lock coverage and in the lock coverage we came up up with you didn't give me a percentage um she she had 45.63 and our percentage is 48 48 and my number is accurate that includes all the walkways that we had surveyed in the new survey as well as the hbac condenser as well as the front stoop and that little walkway that goes from the front stoop around which is pretty much landscaped over and the driveway so is that the existing or the proposed well we're not changing that those things it's on the new survey that was conducted that would be exhibit A2 right I'm just I'm just trying to figure what which so this number but you said you're not TR okay yeah the proposed includes our addition yeah so so even though Chris is saying it's 45.63 you're asking for 48 yes we are that was actually um that didn't change from the prior variance uh requests I'm not sure how Chris's numbers got to where they are is this the same that's on the plane your the exhibit you just gave us is this yes it is sir it's the same that's kind of small do you have any AC units or mechanical outside um yes we do and where on your survey are they located um the existing AC unit is located adjacent to the deck um I'll I'll point to it it's right here okay so it's already on in yes it is I went out there today because I saw that in one of the reports that and for clarity where he pointed at was the rear deck right adjacent to the steps between the steps in the house is where the AC unit is currently uh and the new units when that is covered with a new building the new units will be located on the sidey yard and shielded per the ordinance but they're not on the plane anywhere no and I'm testifying they will be in the sidey guard um and and landscaped actually with all due respect I I would be happy to put them anywhere um well I mean are you testy they'll be in a conforming location yes still be in a conforming location if the board so chooses to have them in the rear yard we can put them in the the rear yard behind my next to my deck steps if they would like to put it in well I think it's if it's conforming location it's up to the applicant as long as it's conforming all right thank you we'll do that um so that's really all I have I have the new clarification on the rear yard setback and um just I guess further clarification on Christ's report to what my plans show other than building coverage which I agree we'll take the 29.9 because if she included that um as Miss Zan said then I think I should not be dismissive of that the shed going to stay uh they would like to keep the shed yes I see the Neer it does by 08 on one side and 1.2 feet on the other yeah I think we have to at least correct that that it's across the property line okay so as a condition of approval you would like to see us bring the shed in into the proper line well but and then it becomes an issue because even if you Mo inside the property line you need a variance if it's closer than 4T to the side of the rear property line so yeah they would like to avoid putting as you see their rear yard has gotten small um I would like then to seek that in exchange for moving the shed in that allow us to be um reasonably 12 Ines from the property line instead of 4 feet so ask as an additional variance tonight one foot rather than fouret is your request yes to follow up on that one of um Mr Mr Lind the linsen excuse me the city Forester pointed out that the um there there's very little screening on the back and you know those those houses are on top of each other um so if the the shed were screened behind there would be basically no room to perform any maintenance behind the shed outside um uh he wasn't screening for the shed I think he was screening all a lot of backyards converge around my client's right backyard yes I mean we we would accept that we'll put in um SC so what you're saying screening to the shed yeah there you go um and on both s the side and the back I mean CU When I was looking sort of there's a house that the backyard you know there's sort of multiple maybe four backyards that kind of that that is correct there's three maybe more than three um and obviously you put this you know building there it's different than having a deck there when you put that there for someone else of course um so I I feel like you you know the screening has to be along the back and the side yes and I yeah that's Mr L we would accept uh the Proviso of fencing or screening or Landscaping probably for the side and rear yard up to the shed but not behind the shed so there is the ability to paint it so I think think we would need a condition that some some kind of a plan be submitted to Mr Linson to for review certainly all right so I have that's a couple of conditions so far also I have I have a question because um uh Miss Anderson's uh memo came out uh April 10th did you receed this yes I did that's what I was referring to okay so I'm just wondering why some of these questions weren't resolved with Christa before you came in today because that's like a while it's not like it was this came out yesterday I got the report last week yes I got it on April 24th or something like that um I I just didn't have I to be honest in preparation for tonight I looked at these notes earlier today not last uh Tuesday or whenever that was and you're talking about the points of the differences in the numbers correct yes I think just coming in and having sort of a straight understanding of what you know what's being represented here Christa uh versus your numbers it seems to me that there was an opportunity to clarify this before coming in and have Christa you know say she agreed I'm not sure materially whether that's going to impact anything but for me um that's something that I just wanted to know whether you did you know follow up with Christa and try to get this yeah I did not and but then again when I read the report um the rear yard setback was correct that's what we're here to clarify the sgard setback I don't know why we had it but we don't have a variance now so it's a positive the other numbers she kind of took it upon herself to put into this report and I to be honest only saw them earlier today well I do have to I just clarify because this although this passed in 2022 this is a new vote to repass the whole thing is that correct just to it's like as if it had not passed so it's sort of a new pre for me it's a new presentation I just want to clarify by that and the the other so in that with respect to that something I didn't hear anything about was the the um stor the ctech system which there were no calculations there's no mention of it like is there we going hear about that we we need to hear from Mr Brian about that for sure that's a great pick up on it um so back in 1998 it was approved for Dr system ctech chamber on one of the and it's not one of the uh just out on a prior survey I have it where there was a great location of a St seage pit that was I'm assuming was installed if you're looking at the smaller of the two PL that's the new suring yeah I'm sorry if you're looking at the larger of the two um in the rear yard where it says metal shed you see a bunch of dots there right by where the metal shed that's where it's depicted on the plan that I have where where the stone SE pitch fit um I'm assuming it's there because it's on the planet we have from 98 uh but I like like you're saying there's no CS there's no I don't know if it was installed did someone ins it well why don't we just was it why don't we say that we'll be putting in a ctech system for our new addition so I'll do that you know 25 you know percent coverage calculation well you'll you have to meet the requirements yes yes and if there is something there you'll have to remove it replace it to today stand yeah if it's near that shed it's obviously make it damaged a lot of the CeX are plastic right right but from what this is saying it's not even a c oh it's just a stone it says Stone seage yeah so it may have been approved for a specific type of chamber which was a plastic chamber they may have install a stone SE pit I don't know until they dig it up so so we're talking about another pretty heavy condition then is what it sounds like so if the board if we approve it if the board would look to approve this I would say that they would have to meet this storm water requirements for the application it have to go through engineering for review and approval yeah um and as long as it doesn't trigger a variance we can do that through building department review uh a problem but it's based on location as well the closer they get towards property line becomes an issue we don't want to undermine the shed deck whatever it should be going where pretty much where it's on the plan where I see it so if we had to do a new chamber I would do it in the left property in the center there's really no reason to put it close to a property line that's fine we'll need a a test to make sure it's going to infiltrate you want a soil yeah soil test we're have to make sure that if you're putting in something for infiltration that it's actually going to perk and uh because if you dig and it hits clay and it's not perking well you're going to have to come up with something else I think the hus would have to be on the applicant that no matter what it is they would have to abide by the storm water RS if it comes to the where they punch a few holes in the ground and it's not perking anywhere then at that point they may have to come back here okay good boy um so I that that could be could become a problem I I you know the applicant's not here to hear this but that that's something that could become an issue yes okay um so I'm going to testify that whatever is required we're going to provide um I I wanted to come before the board to clarify what I thought was you know bad testimony on my part for the rear yard setback and all these new things popped up and my I already texted my client who did not respond to me that I will be testifying to move the shed and that there'll be trees and whatever else the board wants they of course have not responded but it's too late yeah so we we would accept those conditions because um I think they're reasonable I need to ask my counsel again how how are we feeling about this this the architect making these commitments it's a lot of conditions it's a lot of items that are up in the air um in the past the board has required that those be ironed out there's also been cases where they've deferred to the submission of things like storm water management plan Landscaping plan um and confirmation of those final variance figures you know if we're comfortable with the maximum range of the variance figures we can leave it at that if you think it needs clarification before we can realistically vote on them that's another option I I'm less concerned about the variance differen is because they're relatively small I mean they're not you know huge numbers but getting into into this this this you know the seepage or whatever whatever the storm water manager is ultimately going to be um he's yeah the architect is making big commitments about screening too well if you want we can look I made the error in well I don't know if it was my error but we had a really bad survey and I commissioned the new survey because my clients just that way nonetheless if we have to wait a month and at the same time I can commit to meeting with Christa to clarify the numbers it's okay by me I I was I I'm a little uncomfortable with the um we'll do this we'll do that and there's nothing solid for us to see at least that's that's me sure um I would how's everybody else feeling yeah I also have one more question possibly for for clarification if this is where it's going to go um so the storm water seepage pit was that part of a prior requirement M for some kind of storm water management on the property or is this something that the owner decided to do because I think if you're if it was required then you have to make sure that whatever new system you put in is sized for that plus whatever the new work I think just also we don't have any information about that I did not see a seepage pit on the property normally you would there's full grass on the backyard which normally you would not have that over a seepage pit you know m well if it's rock what you do is you run the leaders into a Subterranean pipe yeah dump it into the pit hopefully the rock is silt lined and then you can landscape over that it just allows for a slow percolation and it's a small addition and it's not a lar but it's not sloped or anything so I I don't know I'm not sure if there is one or not but if there is so it may have been just adding on to that it may have uh discharged underground and instead of having an inspection port on top like a manhole it or something like that they don't have anything right so just be into the ground into an open void or stone trench and so for like some pump or something soil on top and that's it as far as an increase in impervious if this was an application that had no other prior storm water it did but let's take it for for a minute out your requirement is anything more than 300 sare feet they need to do some type of storm War they're only increasing by 158 so now it it is cumulative though it is cumulative yes so it's 158 but this goes back to 1998 so what I suggest what they do is and I agree with you take whatever the requirements were back in 98 with what you increase it to why it was designed for that add the additional 158 square feet to it and then that's what you're designing for your new it's a minimal amount when you look at the whole thing when you're cing this but if you're doing it do it the right way especially if you're doing it for today's standards is there anything else you want to address in in the report those were the two it was the drainage and then the um the AC units that that was really the two big things okay so I sense that we're we're we have a consensus we don't want to act on this application tonight we want some of these issu to be resolved so we're talking about the the the drainage seage whatever it ends up being might as well get in touch with a Forester you know come up with something that works with for the Forester Christa Anderson also noted Mr beo something about numbering numbering Pages or something your sheets did you see that comment numbering no I didn't look at that oh it looks like it looks like he just you know G gave us the sheets that we needed to see and there were other sheets we didn't oh yeah I didn't give you electricals and the structural sheets sorry I just did the floor plans and elevations okay so then so is that that's your testimony so why there why why Chris is not noting that discrepancy okay um so we could we can accept moving the application to adjourning it um with no further noticing hopefully yeah I and I'm being suggested that we can carry this to June 3D June 3rd would be fine okay and you would be waving the board's time frame to act on the application until June 3rd yes we would' be doing that 634 um let me understand points the first was to relocate the shed and for that relocation we are seeking an additional variance correct the second is to conduct a soil test to determine the soil conditions and meet the conditions of the engineering requirements I'm not sure what I'm providing for that am I bringing a drawing or no what you can do is once you have the per test results if you can submit it with your drainage calculation so we know size you're looking to put on it put out there that would be great um also on your you can throw it right on your survey where you're looking to put this okay I can show the location of it perk test I have to get an engineer to perform yeah we're going to where you may want to put it may not be able to work so that's where why per is okay then I have number three is to reach out to the Forester and determine what the Landscaping that he's referring to would be prefer prefer and then I'll take that and I'll put it into a drawing and I'll submit that drawing as part of an exhibit at the June 3rd hearing and while we're at it if you can confirm where the AC condenser is going to go as well might as well button that down okay I'll write that as well okay I've got the four conditions HV and the fourth HVAC anything else colleagues okay all right did we do the motion to car not yet okay can I have a motion to carry to June 3r without without the need for further notice so moved second all right thank you board thank you the vot the motion Mr Nelson yes Miss Zan yes Mr Malay yes Miss toad yes Miss Cho yes acting chairman Yuko yes the motion carries thank you very much see okay next up is uh Andrew Brown and beon 24 W Road do we have any idea if we're going have a seventh member for tonight yeah this is going be problem I guess I assume just just your information Mr nuli looks like he's not going to be here and you do have I think you do have a Dev variance in this case right right mhm uh yeah yes there's an F yeah okay so we don't have seven members so so you need five to approve you're down to six do you want to proceed knowing that we're down one member this evening yes what um can we have um do read the or listen to the minutes if you yeah if get to the point where we're ready to vote and you would like to carry it to a subsequent meeting just for the vote to have you know either Mr Chuli or any other member read through the transcript so that they're eligible and then vote at that point uh we can so we can deal we could do that as well and you can play it by your at the time we get to a vote this evening all right Miss Marino I imagine you'll be testifying first and if so please raise your right hand do you sore affirm the testimony you're about to given this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name Bianca Marino m o r n o thank you just give us a brief overview of your case and then your architect can take over yeah sure um so I'm Bianca Marino my husband is traveling for work so couldn't be here but uh we're a family of four I have a four-year-old and a 20-month-old a dog we've lived in Summit since July of 2020 um my husband actually works here in town for ECP um on Beachwood which is why we moved here but uh we're very happy we love it and plan to stay here for quite a while and have our kids grow up here um we've been in the house for a while and are hoping to reconfigure the primary bath and closet and are looking to add some space above my office my home office which is on the first floor which used to be an old porch of the house um in order to that we do need three variances because it is a bit close to the property line of our neighbors okay Mr Rosen I guess you're going to take over from here yes uh we should just open it to the public any questions from the public about that test sorry yes a matter of practice well and and I suppose we should ask you have you had conversations with your neighbor to the right about this yes okay and they're not here so looks like they're not planning to object no no they're supportive so they said do all right if you could please raise your right hand do you sore from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do please state your name spell your last name Dave Rosen Ren um a partner at Rosen Kelly Conway architects in um in Summit and you've appeared before us quite a number of times any changes to your credentials since the last time you were accepted no no changes I imagine the board would like to accept you once again we will certainly will yes uh before we begin since the first image up there is one is a photo uh Can I submit these as they're identified are five drawings five photos and I've labeled them A1 through A5 these are photos of the house and property uh taken by um somebody in my office on April 30th this year so they pretty accurately represent the the current conditions on the site okay so this is a house at 24 uh Windsor Road it is at the end of the road it's a culdesac if you go up the road then there's a circle and you bear to the right and it's the last house on the left on the road but then there are a couple more houses uh down a driveway and I'll show you a little bit of that driveway in just a moment so this house the proposal is to add uh in the area and if you can see over here behind this tree where there's currently a small deck the The Proposal is to add 159 Square ft there directly above an existing uh room and um we we require three variances one is a side yard setback variance uh one is combined side yard and one is floor area ratio and I'll go over each of those um the house itself was built in 1937 and uh interestingly Christa Anderson goes through what the ordinance was in 1937 and what she was not working here then by the way and and I wasn't either so um but it is quite interesting because that was she mentioned the ordinances from 1923 which is essentially the first ordinance in Summit um and it at the time had a requirement of 15 ft combined on the two sidey yards uh that requirement is quite different today uh now it's 15 ft on each side and that the two combined have to be at least 35% of the width of the property so on this house on this property which is in the R15 Zone but it's not 15,000 ft it's 11, 250 square ft the the the side yard setback on the left side where the driveway is 13.13 and on the right side where the addition is is 6.26 so it's significantly under sized however there are some things that make this a little bit unusual and and make it appropriate for the addition to be located here U for one thing there's a there's an enormous amount of screening um even John Linson seem to enjoy the screening here and you can see it on the photo this hedge which comes up to the top of the first floor but that's in front of the addition and then you can see these arbites which go up on the side here essentially to the peak of the roof what you can't see very well here but I could expand this a little bit is that the next door neighbor um the the roof it's still hard to see but in there there's a gray areaa and there's a little white koua in there that is the garage of the adjacent neighbor so this is not directly uh adjacent to sort of their primary living area on the house it's it's separated by quite a bit uh just going a little bit farther through some of these photos the this uh shows a little bit more of an angled view on the left looking toward the house um and you can see that the road stops right there so not even quite at the end of the property actually this this these plants in here are part of uh their their property on the right you can see the what what had originally been a porch was then enclosed and it has the railing up on top and you can see how tight the screening is on the right side going around the back the screening continues now it's on the on the left and you can see in this photo that's that's on the right here that it comes right up to the side of the house over here and extends uh and extends way up looking out at the backyard uh this is because of something else that we're doing that does not require a variance but reduces an existing non-conformance and that is that when you look out to the backyard in the back left corner there's a concrete pad and over on the photo on the right you can see that concrete pad with a basketball hoop here that's pretty much regulation size and uh a somewhat smaller one over here in in pink um the concrete slab is to be removed so that we can reduce the laun coverage as I mentioned it's nonconforming and it will go from 39.6% to 37% so we're getting it little more than halfway toward the conforming amount of 35 um so in these photos just to finish uh there are a couple of other things on the on this uh in the project that don't require variances but there's a dormer over the garage door that single Dormer is being replaced by a a dormer that's wider that'll have three windows but it's all less than 7t tall it's in a bedroom that's above the garage so there's it doesn't add the floor area it's in a compliant part of the property and so there's nothing uh there's no problem uh with that and the looking at sorry at the other side I don't have a good photo of it but on the left side over here um we also have a dormer with two windows that's shown on the drawings so I mentioned the sidey setback 6.26 um just to add a little bit more information about why that's so tight uh the property normally in the R15 Zone the requirement is for 90 ft for the width of the property this property is 75 ft wide and so if it was a conforming lot in its width and in its area um we would not need any of these variances that is assuming I get to pick where the extra space is you know on which side but if we put it kind of pretty close to even we would be uh we wouldn't need it we would be conforming in we could be conforming on each sidey yard setback and in the combined and the floor area which I haven't really addressed yet the allowable in the r-15 zone is 25% it's currently a little bit more it's 25.7 and we're going to 27.1 now Christa had asked um for me to address a question because in 2011 there was an application for a variance and for building permits for expanding the size of the garage and I have the the drawings from that 2011 application and I'm going to show you something where this area uh with this overhang which is over the garage doors was shown differently in those other drawings and so when Christa went back to those it changed uh a couple of things but I'll show you that so in their drawings I have highlighted the much more extensive overhang which is to the lower right of the two blue lines but when that when that was widened in in this drawing the roof is wider and it meant there was a wider area also that had floor area on top so I spoke to Christa about it she agreed with with the calculations oops that I had done and so when we come back take a look at this area here the extent of that and then when I come back to the photos you can see that it's actually only about a 1 foot overhang and so that's the difference that Christa had in her um in her calculation and she asked that I would explain that and so I'll I'll just pause for a moment if there are any questions about that or is that deficient all right okay thanks hearing uh no objections I'll just I'll move on so let me go back to the to the front of the house there it's hard to see because of the cherry tree here but there is a second floor on the left side and what we're doing on the right side is to balance that um when we look at V4 which are the drawings that you have you can see where we're at it where we're going to add this is the existing front of the house on the top and the proposed on the bottom and we even brought the roof line brought the eve down the gutter line down so that it looked more properly balanced with the left sign and in addition it it helps reduce the impact of that to the neighbor as well because we were able to bring that down by about 2 and 1 half to 3 ft uh that area is a closet so that's where the clothes would be hanging so it doesn't adversely impact somebody being able to walk through there uh just coming around the on these drawings um so around the side this is the addition and you can see that the roof is sort of off center there and that is specifically to lower that gutter line on the front the other thing to notice is that this addition is not as neat as the rest of the house it's set back in the front and in the back uh the other thing on this drawing V5 is that's the Dormer uh above the garage that I mentioned you can see over here and uh just to show you what the um what it looks like as we come around um that's on in the back and then coming down sorry so this shows the difference between the single Dormer up here and the triple Dormer down here again those those things above the garage are not part of the variance application but I wanted to uh explain those so now let's go into uh Christa's comments and I have highlighted a few things here just to um to help sort of focus our attention a little bit I'll make this a little bit bigger so these are Christ's com and you can see at the top she originally gave them on April 25th and then she amended them on May 1st and this whole piece is talking about uh this these Stone water plans and those are the ones done from um in 2011 and then going on she lists the variances which are exactly the same as what I had given um one second I had I had uh rounded off the proposed total side yard from 255.8641357 in history lesson which I actually kind of like um and then she says she can find no historical records of how how or when the existing rear patio and platform came to be constructed on the property and that depending on what I she says the applicant May request and the board may choose to Grant variances for the right side uh for what's existing I'm just going to go back to those stonewater drawings for a moment and go back to their the site plan here this is the piece that I've let me just make that a little bit bigger so this is showing the area where the patio is and it's on these drawings from 2011 as existing so it wasn't added um by Bianca and um and her family it may have not it may not have been added by the prior owner we don't know exactly when that happened in 2011 it was not the practice of this board to ask for variances for things that were existing conditions that that's something that had the board this board has done more recently and I think it's a helpful move because it documents when something happened uh but but in 2011 this is just shown it just says patio uh it says shed concrete pad and it shows that extension of the of the garage and its overhang they didn't build that overhang and then it shows another area on the second floor where they had added other things but it doesn't indicate that this was something that was added then so presumably it existed before and just look at the let me just get to it so this photo on the right shows shows that and the photo on the left shows that there's a little patio over there as well and it's indicated on the on the site plan but do you agree on behalf of the applicant that we should consider a variance granting a variance for that tonight yeah I think that it's a good idea because the question has come up and then for future boards um which may have different members sh or some of you may still get to be around uh even then it's just helpful to know when something existed what the board did or didn't feel about it so I think that that's helpful uh just one other thing while I'm on this photo in the center of the back of the garage that's the air conditioning condenser back in there that is uh it's surrounded by uh a lattice uh a little lattice fence um when this was taken these these bushes had not yet I think that they're new and they have they'll fill in much more anyhow so um with Christa's comments uh she this is the area the thing we were just talking about the proposed lot coverage um is going to be reduced by 2.6% by the removal of that of that patio and then I'm just going to run through some of the other staff comments uh and these are really pretty simple fire chief he just says uh build it the code U the police chief says no objections the engineering um memorandum has a few comments uh one is that the appli in number three it says that the applicant shall confirm in testimony the nature of the slopes on the property and I think you've already gotten a pretty good idea in looking at uh in looking at photos so the property slopes away uh toward the back it's relatively level and if we look at the the photo on the left you can see that it's relatively flat but it does it does slope a little bit uh down toward the back the front is more or less flat um and the reason that one of the reasons we're removing that concrete is because as the the water goes off when it lands on that concrete that goes right to the neighbor it doesn't have time to sort of get slowed down by the lawn because it's pretty deep in the corner there so we felt that this was something that was not a it was a nice to have but not a need to have and so we're we're removing that um going back sorry to this to the staff comments um so I think that that you okay with that on the engineering the slope okay and then just continuing on sorry it's so light but I'll just read in number nine the applicant uh is proposing a decrease which we just talked about number 10 uh there's a storm water management is not required and that's all the comments that I have about the engineering comments was there anything that you wanted to touch on no the only thing is by removing that back concrete area we moving almost 300 square feet help with storm water in that area just as you testify to so that look fa on this and then the other item was the uh AC units which he depicted with testimony fromp okay right and and just to keep in mind that the addition that we're doing is directly on top of an existing structure so we're not changing building coverage we're not changing the lot coverage we're not asking for anything more by the addition we're just removing that extra extra piece there uh just moving on to some of the other comments uh construction official no objections and then City Forester the existing footprint of the home Remains the Same no trees or Landscaping need to be removed uh which really means we're not intending to move any and we won't and the proposed improvements are well screened by existing Landscaping no objections that's that's called a that's high clean sheet of approval from John Lindon yeah and then uh Health Department no comments and then in this uh the historic preservation commission with this uh sort of Joy writing style um the proposed Second Story Edition adds Mass to the right side of the street elevation which helps balance the structure the proposed rear Dormers are minor uh in scale in relation to the size of the existing house and the building materials are compatible with the existing materials the HPC takes no exception to this application so that completes all those comments any uh anybody want to add anything to that right like questions ready are you ready for questions or are you oh I'm always ready for questions yes yeah I was just going to go through the summary and posit positive criteria negative criteria and then we can see whether there's if if it looks like the vote might be tight but you want to go for that then we'll go go through that and then we'll go okay question fine is that all right yeah okay so as I mentioned it's a two-story Colonial home constructed around 1937 it's in the r-15 zone but the lot size is much less than that at 11,250 the addition is the second floor addition directly above another part of the house the uh concrete pad will be removed in the back left corner which reduces the lot coverage uh and then um all of these other elements on the property existed prior to their purchase um and the variances which we've uh I've mentioned and these are the statistics again no change to that although we are building up same with sidey yard combined no change to those statistics but we're adding up and floor area ratio that's really the the main one where we're adding 159 Square ft and it goes to 27.1 um few other things same kinds of notes down at the bottom here the lot is significantly under sized if the lot was a conforming lot the proposed floor area ratio would be 20.3 so it's not that the house is too big it's the property is a bit small um Bianca mentioned that she has uh spoken with the adjacent neighbor and from what I understand they're they they thought about coming but they had no objection so okay positive criteria we've covered most of this um it's a it's a very appropriate kind of addition for this style of house to get that balance the floor area sorry I'm in an area that I didn't highlight here but over here the increase in floor area is relatively uh is fairly modest and can be easily accommodated on this property and again a lot of it has to do with that it's very well screened the property adjacent is is lower and uh it's it's their garage negative criteria um for it becomes more important for a floor area ratio but there really aren't any negative uh any negatives to this the variances for the proposed additions can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good um without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone plan meaning the sort of the intent of zoning itself and specifically this ordinance uh the proposed design of the addition has no adverse effect on the adjoining properties the neighborhood or the city of summit there's no change to the use of the property and no damage to the character of the neighborhood so as to constitute a substantial detriment uh to the public good and there's no no detriment to the neighborhood character utility or value the granting of these variances caus doesn't cause any further problems it doesn't change the overall perception of the size of the house and it doesn't cause all kinds of other things that could be with some additions of either noise light Clare odors or any other burdens and it looks great okay you could have a second career as a platter if you want to change change yours uh any questions from my colleagues for the architect I have a couple yes um one is just a point of clarification which um he had mentioned this is the last house on the street but there are actually two other houses passed it on Windsor and I actually had I was like I walked on it there's four other houses yeah well I mean across the street too but you have like 26 and 28 Windsor so just to clarify it is not the last house on the street so I was trying to understand there was a a couple times you said it's the last house on the street there's no one else there is that garage that's there so just right wanted to yeah just to to understand what why what what that point was I'm the full width of the road stops in front of their house and then it's a drive a shared driveway that goes down to some of those other houses that's right well it's a road that turns into their driveways right like because there's it's a driveway that's one driveway and they all park there just cuz there was construction so I had to walk in I couldn't you know park by your house so I actually was standing on the the road I'm like oh there's a road and then my second question is uh because we don't I don't think we have structural plans but um in that first picture is with the if you can just show that for a second so uh the front of the house mhm and yeah so where you're putting that addition on on what I'll say is the right hand side right as you're facing it from the road are you um tearing that down or you like how you know do you have to what do you have to do for do you have to do anything for structural for foundation I'm asking because of the screening um because those trees from this picture you can't really tell but when you're actually on the property they're actually sort of encroaching onto the little patio porch over there and it would seem to me that that screening might end up being compromised and maybe need to be replaced you can see it over here MH um I can make that a little bit bigger let me just but you're you are correct in saying that the the screening comes not only to the house but extends over or like butts against the house right and so there's going to be some pruning on that side of the arbites um but not taking them down and not removing the first floor addition what we may do and we haven't really covered this we haven't gotten all the way into it since this was originally a porch the ceiling is the floor was lower originally it was raised but the ceiling is lower it's not the full height of the rest of the first floor and so as we do the addition there's some question about whether we want to raise the the floor level we will raise the floor level the only question is whether we're going to bother raising the SE ceing in the uh in the room below but the way that the the addition would be done is to put new floor joist directly above the existing roof area and then so that the floor aligns so you don't need to do any kind of uh piles or any extra foundation work that is correct there is no absolutely not because if we did then we would have a much more significant problem with trying to keep all those arbites alive So the plan is to prune them back and then I don't know exactly how the contractor would do it but they have to put new siding on the addition so I suspect that they'll probably pull the branches back a bit um we don't we don't want them scraping against the house and so it's hard to see but on the first floor they have been pruned back so that they're not I mean there are windows there but you're looking right into the G walk by there all the time but I'm I'm cuz I'm guessing those um trunks are probably 3T off the side of that building so it just seemed to me that it might actually be hard to to do this without impacting those Arbor like it sounds good it's a good idea but practically like even the siding wasn't something I was just thinking like as you build you need the crew needs space you're going to have yes you know and they need to they need to put the siding up the there are a number of things that happen in the course of construction even if you tie it back you only have 3et well I think that there's I think there's a little more these are on on their property so they have full control of them right so in answer to your question uh nothing is happening down below the ground um no New Foundations essentially nothing is happening on the first floor and I say essentially because the the gutter will come off and there are a few minor things the railing comes off and the addition gets built straight up um we would we'd be fine with a condition that John linsen uh that would that I'll put it this way that would satisfy John linsen that those arbites are sufficiently protected I think we're just repl like something replaced if they they can't be protected I just think it's quite possible when you come to the construction that they won't be able to be protected yeah I think that's a good idea and I'm also concerned and I'm not a construction EXP expert but the the screening in the front of the house is that vulnerable during the addition uh well let me just show you two things so this this satisfies any concerns about the back and I think that the construction actually would come around the backyard and approach um the construction would mainly happen coming from the driveway around the back of the house across the patio and up that's where I expect the materials to come through um as for the front this doesn't show a lot but that tree is definitely staying and if we come to the the image over here you can see a little bit of this let me just make it a little smaller so you can see here that there's not a whole lot going on over here this is this an old air conditioning condenser so there's just on the engineering there's two of them that one is in the front and and screened um but there is room for people to walk between this bush that's in the lower right here and the house so there is room in front and back side uh we will will be glad to accept whatever conditions in the event that one of those arbites doesn't make it that's uh it's not quite so easy to get one that size and put it in without disturb disturbing the roots of the others but whatever whatever you'd would make you comfortable yeah I think some kind of condition that says you when this is all done that the screening will be comparable to what's there now okay something like that I know how to work that but all right I I've been clicking away here I think the applicant shall confer with the city Forester to ensure the existing Arbor V are preserved during construction in the event that the existing Arbor or damaged or removed they will be replaced and maybe something along the lines of with comparable screening is that appropriate to the satisfaction of the city Forester sound good because he may say that if we prune it he he may have other suggestions I'm not sure what that would be but any other questions for Mr Rose yeah okay you go ahead we'll just work our way down silly question um currently where did the gutters drain from this porch and then in the addition when you put the new roof I know you're not required for storm water but is there a way to manage where the discharge from the new roof goes so it doesn't dump onto the neighbor's yard or is there sufficient ground space for the water to settle in um just looking at this this line over here which looks like a gutter is not that's an enclosure for air conditioning so let me just go around the back keep in mind that we are the water flows off of this into a gutter and um I don't I don't remember where it goes there is a gutter that wraps around and we can either have it go to the same place where because again it's we're building directly on top so we can make sure that it goes that it goes somewhere um either to the front or the back if the neighbor has any concerns we're glad to send it somewhere else yeah and just for clarification we replaced all the gutters on the house like a year and a half ago um so it's easy I think just to have it go in the same place or us can I see speaking to the microphone oh sorry we replaced all the gutters around the entire house about a year and a half ago um after some storm it probably just dumps in the sidey yard because there's not a lot of volume but now you're doubling the volume because there's now there's two roofs so we're not doubling but you're we're not changing the volume at all because the rain comes down like this we're sending some to the back and some to the front but we can take it okay wherever but there's no there's no roof pitching toward the neighbor in our in our no yeah front to back yeah but where the gutters lead to um just I mean you to your next door neighbor was 26 Windsor um you've got six and a 6 and a half 6 and A4 feet and to my untrained eye the N Neighbor Garage is also in the setback so it I mean I don't know that is a question so much as an observation that rather than having 15 and 15 ft between the two structures it's more like six and maybe 10 or 12 yes I I think that it's not as much as 12 no because when I look at this drawing and I see that if we're 6.26 over here that's essentially double at 13.13 maybe this looks this looks more like your first comment more like 8 ft is or 10 but certainly when when you get to the neighbor's house rather than the neighbor's garage then we're then we're pretty good so if this is let's say that between these two we have a total of whatever you want 15 ft yeah then it's another 20 something feet to the main body it's a two-car so it's at least 24 ft wide it's at least 20 but I we haven't I haven't measured that no but I mean garage size it's 12 by 24 hopefully this is an older house that may not have perfect um current compliance it may be smaller but in any case it's at least 20 ft I would I think yeah and so because they get two cars in there they never Park them in there so oh they don't park them in there never mind it's a stor in any case the point that you're making is that to the main body of the house we probably have somewhere 35t or more okay thank you any other questions for the architect okay any the public have a question I don't think anybody's here for this but just in case I see no questions okay and he's your only witness correct correct okay um anybody the public want to tell us what they think about this application Pro con again seeing nobody anything in conclusion either one of you we think that this is a very a relatively small addition I think that it will it's complimentary to the house does not cause any problems for any of the adjacent neighbors or the appearance or in the neighborhood um and we think that it's uh a positive thing and we appreciate your time in uh considering it thank you Mr wall conditions yep I have two uh first is our usual compliance with those conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum and then second as we just recently discussed the applicant shall confer with the city Forester to ensure the existing Arbor V are preserved during construction in the event that the existing ARB body are damaged or removed they will be replaced to the satisfaction of the city Forester okay and once again we have six members you need five votes to approve normally we would ask the applicants to weigh in at this point before we get deliberations on whether you want to proceed with the vote now this is not not a a board that hides um objections so this is a board that speaks its mind and I think that uh my reading of the room says we should get the vote so I would like to like us to proceed with the vote okay thank you who'd like to start deliberations I'll start since you're looking this way uh I visited the site um it's a beautiful house I think the addition is going to add to it uh it doesn't do doesn't affect the Neighbors at all if they cared they would be here so obviously they're in favor of it um so I I the positives that way the negative so I can I can support this uh proposal okay anybody else um I too can support this um I I I did the math myself Mr Rosen that yes the lot doesn't even have to be conforming it only needs to be 90 feet wide it can have the same depth and you probably wouldn't be here at all um I appreci apprciate that you're removing um the impervious coverage and that in fact the you know the sighting on the lot is being reduced so that there is no storm water management um I get a lot more concerned where people tend to think if they put in enough drainage they can pay a lot um so so for for that and I do think that this is in conformance with zoning um supports the positive effects enhances the neighborhood because it does improve the the look of the house so I can certainly support this okay anyone else want to add anything I also support this application I mean most of the VAR yeah I can support it too I mean there's there's no change in footprint as was noted they're reducing lock coverage which is we always like to see that help balance off some of the other things I see no negative impacts on the neighborhood uh houses you the scale is in line with what exists there um I think it's a very nice project I'm in favor as well so uh is there a motion to approve before we go ahead are we also going to consider the variance for the deck being within or the the patio being within the setback I think didn't we disc CH had suggested I mean just wanted I wanted to clarify that we are including that requested during the hearing so we'll be including that I think that's important because um it memorializes what's there so if your neighbor moves and the other new neighbor says hey you're not right with this it kind of takes care of that so just be clear and Mr ball correct me if I'm wrong we' got proposed right yard setback propos total side yard percentage F the right yard setback for the four feet and the lock coverage that's what I have okay okay okay uh yes yes I would just uh just to make sure I understood that the four feet uh there is four feet to that uh to the the last step on that but I think that it's considered that it's a part of the principal building so I think that the requirement would be my interpretation based on a lot of conversations with Christa is that it would probably be the 15 ft requirement not a 4ot requirement for this not maybe not the p but for the for the raised portion just because it feels to me like Christa would say that that is building coverage and it's part of the principal building yeah that that is consistent with her Memo she notes that the setback would be 4 feet where as 15t is required right okay thank you all right so is there a motion to approve move to approve second second I'll take Mr M a second um Mr Nelson hi Miss yes Mr Malay Miss toad yes Miss Cho yes acting chairman Yugo yes the motion carries thank you very much okay this next case I think is going to be a longish one do anybody want a five- minute break sure yeah let's take a 5 minute break and then we'll come back so uh 855 is e e e e e e e e okay we are back on the record uh ad bellw Avenue Michael and Christen Apple bam and I guess represented by m ALS yes uh good evening Hillary ol from Dempsey Dempsey and Shen representing the applicants Michael and Kristen Apple bam owners of property located at 80 bellw Avenue block 1104 lot 9 in the r25 zone uh the applicants are requesting approval by the board to replace the existing accessory structure which is located 6.1 ft off the property line with a new accessory structure with attached pergola in the same location together with Associated outdoor improvements and Landscaping as you will hear in testimony uh the existing accessory structure has always been used as an active structure um and in the most recent past it was used as a place um that the prior owner of the property who was a chef would host dinner parties the existing structure is old and suffers from structural deficiencies the replacement of this structure provides the opportunity to correct the dysfunctional tiered rear yard uh there's a main level tier a middle tier where the existing accessory structure is with a surrounding patio um which is difficult to navigate to and a lower tier to the side of the home these different levels make it difficult to have a safe and functional backyard that meets the needs of this young family the applicant's desire to replace the existing enclosed structure with a cover Ward structure that's open on three sides uh that will be 18 ft by 18 ft with an attached 10t by 18t pergola and Patio area to be on the same level as uh the top tier of the yard allowing for better flow and safer access with the existing house while also providing a lawn space for the applicants to Young and active children the improvements as proposed require variance relief for the location of the structure 6 ft from the property line where 15 ft is required and 6.1 ft is existing and a variance for the length of the structure of 28 ft where 24 ft um for each Dimension is permitted and i' just like to note that the structure and the pergola themselves both comply um but because technically they're attached the zoning officer considers them as one structure um which would be 28 ft by 18 ft so the presentation tonight will begin with the applicant Michael Apple bam followed by the architect Joseph Sarah civil engineer Thomas scrael and the landscape designer Jessica orano there are any questions from the board I'm happy to answer them or we can call the first witness any questions for the attorney let's go right to the witnesses great so I'd like to call U Mr Apple bound and if you could please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please state your name spell your last name um Michael Apple bound a p p e l b a u m thank you um and are you the owner with your wife of 80 Belleview Avenue the property that's the subject of this application uh yes and we have two young boys uh five and three years old excellent and how long have you owned this residence uh we purchased the house and December of 2019 uh and using the Google Map that was filed as part of the application can you please describe the subject property and the adjacent properties uh that share the rear lot line otheres yeah e please stand under the mic if you can too or Bandon towards you too sure um okay you can turn if it makes it easier for you um so this is our home um this is the inground trampoline I'm not sure if anyone came to the house they might have seen inground trampoline this is the existing patio in the upper tier uh this is the exess accessory structure in that middle tier um this property right here is uh the eans and uh Anthony and Jessica Ean and their two kids um this is their house uh which fronts Hillcrest Avenue it's about 215 ft away from the proposed structure they do have a pool and then they have an they have they have an accessory structure a carriage house in the back and they also have an a detached garage in this area um this property over here are the Reeds Dan and Courtney Reed they have three kids um their house fronts lellan Avenue um and it's about 225 ft from the proposed structure um and then this area back here is part of the aians property it's a heavily wooded area right behind the um in that area between the two properties behind the stru proposed structure uh when you purchase the home can you describe the outdoor space sure um so the backyard is a bit uniquely shaped it's it's a IR regularly shaped um there are three tiers um off the back of the house there's the upper tier with a patio then there's you walk down steps to a mid tier where the existing accessory structure exists um and then also when facing the back of the property to the right um there is a lower section of the yard so there's three different levels and one of the issues we faced um since moving in is there's a lot of up and down I'm not sure of I I I believe a few board members had the opportunity to visit the house I almost fell despite being warned yeah right it's slippery and wet yes so um as you can imagine with two young kids and young kids that have friends that are also young um we're usually holding our breath um when they're going around the backyard so the project is in intended to replace all stairways um well reduce the amount of stairways by making it just a two- level yard instead of three and then any remaining stairways to completely make them safe and actual stairs rather than just kind of stones that seem to be happen to be there um so the intent of this is to make it a safer yard for our children to play in and by the way my parents which and my wife's parents the grandparents to make it safer for them as well um because they com every time they come over about how unsafe it is um but also to have an outdoor living area that works for our family meaning one that is um not this closed structure um that um you know isn't really usable to one that is open on three sides so that can seamlessly transition from playing in the yard to being under the structure and shade and keep an eye on the kids um and also we would like to um um you know improve the existing structure that is in that place because um we actually have a rule where kids are not allowed in the structure um there's nail pops everywhere inside the floor is actually bouncy because the foundation below is kind of rotted out over the years so it's actually a bouncy floor um and it's not it wasn't sealed well so animals have actually um compromised the siding there's a hole in one side there's a hole in the back and animals seem to get in um and in there um and uh the windows don't open or close so in the summer it gets quite hot in there um so unfortunately we haven't really been able to use it and that's a significant area of the backyard we want to make it so there's more lawn space we're actually proposing to reduce the amount of uh lot coverage by reducing the amount of patio and replacing with grass and then have it just transition um better from our property to the structure great um and can you describe for the board what is proposed as part of the application sure so we're going to remove the inground trampoline um and replace that with grass in its place um we're removing a portion of the patio and replacing that with grass so there's more grassy play area um we're going to simplify the backyard so it's two levels instead of three um all retaining walls that are not in the best shape are going to be replaced with new newly well constructed retaining walls all patios as well even walking around the side of the house it's a patio that needs some improving uh that we're going to to be doing and then we're looking to replace the existing structure that um is challenging to say the least with a new structure in the exact same place that will be open on three sides um and allow more seamless transition um utilizing the backyard space um and you just talked about that accessory structure and the new Pera can you describe that area in more detail for the board what's proposed sure so we're looking to have a covered structure in the same location as the existing um accessory structure but there would be a back wall and then the other three sides would be open uh we would have a fireplace in the middle of that back wall with a TV on it the TV would face our house it would not face any neighbors houses um we would have ceiling lighting underneath shining down to illuminate the area um we will have two sconces as well um I would note that the existing accessory struct six exterior lights pointing away we will not have those um there's currently four speakers we're going to reduce that I think to two uh speakers there'll be a grill with a countertop and a refrigerator um and a little storage cabinet and um next to that covered structure there'll be a pergola with you know the pergola slats um and a table of seats around that pergola um have you had an opportunity to review the zoning officer comments with regard to the air conditioning units and Generator in the front and sidey yard of your property and can you respond to those comments yes um so I actually have some pictures I took that I'd like to hand out great can we hand these out A1 Mr Alam did you take these pictures I did and recently or when were they taken I took them on April 27 thank you uh which was after I believe after Christa the zoning officer visited the property can you describe uh what the pictures show sure so the pictures show show in a recently planted uh shrub in front of the air conditioning unit in the front of the property um over the winter unfortunately the existing uh plant died um so I guess coincidentally in the period the like week or two that we removed it before we replaced it Christa happened to be at the house um so unlucky timing but lucky timing that we were able to replace it in advance of this meeting um it's a PGM plant um it just finished blooming and then it'll I guess it goes through a growth cycle after it blooms it's an early Bloomer um so we believe that will continue to grow into that space We Believe from the street though um that it sufficiently covers the air conditioning unit uh that was there and then um can you talk about the ones on the side as well sure so the others um are for the generator um there's a lattice well there's a rod dendrum and a lattice fence that protects the generator from the street view and when standing in 98% of the driveway the large three boxwoods Shield it as well I think there's one spot that's maybe two feet wide when standing at a certain angle in the driveway where I think you can see a a foot of the generator um but from the street and 98% of the driveway um it's significantly screened um did you also review the forester's comments and if so can you respond to that comment um yes we did um another coincidence is um so I have pictures of that area i' ask you mark As A2 again same question you took these pictures yourself I took them I also took them on the same date April 27th and can you just describe what these pictures show sure so this is um uh looking at the recupero residence uh 57 Hill Crest Avenue uh Darren and Lisa recupero um he uh he reached out to me um and let me know and then I took pictures he just recently in the last two weeks planted these seven spruce trees a screening at the back of his property that faces the uh North and Northwest of of our property it's kind of in that I don't know if you noticed a wooded area on the side anyone that might have came to the house um he planted uh those seven spruce trees there uh did you consult with any professionals to help you in designing this proposed outdoor space to meet the needs of your family and improve the Aesthetics of the property yes and can you tell the board who those experts professionals are sure uh Tom scrael is this civil engineer Joseph Sarah architect and Jessica Oran from Thomas Flint landscape are your architect civil engineer and Landscape designer here tonight to assist you in the presentation of this application yes and finally have you spoken to any of your neighbors about the proposed improvements and if so what was the nature of those conversations um sure so we've spoken to all of our neighbors that surround our property because we want to be good neighbors and we want to be thoughtful and courteous and encourage them to let us know if they had any concerns with the plans um we heard back from all four of them who were all supportive of the project um I I'm not allowed to read text messages right so I won't um but they all said sounds great and they look forward to out um enjoying the improved uh outdoor living area when it's done if it gets approved um and um one of one of the neighbors is an attendance tonight excellent I don't have any other questions yeah I have just a couple prelimary questions which you can defer any all this to your experts if you want to um so you address two of the issues which I true we were going to get to maybe require conditions for the screening in the front I was actually looked there today I said I'm not sure what Chris expected but I'm happy to hear that you planed that um and also the Landscaping concern for the Forester should we just for formal sake have a condition that Christa and John list review these just to make sure that they agree that it meets their concerns if you think that's necessary up to the board if you're completely satisi ignore um I'm I I think even we can judge that the the air conditioner is adequately screened like I said I I was surprised I just want to get anybody concerned okay then I think we can stipulate the air conditioning she and the Landscaping any um I actually had a question about that because the one thing that was visible walking around the existing accessory structure was um is it 47 Hill Crest yes yes there there detached garage that had a bunch of Windows leaning up against it or something um um but um yes is that the neighbor is here um it is okay okay CH your words careful no I'm just it was a blue garage I'm just trying to identify it because there it looked like there was no very little screening between your property and that one ye um correct there are mature deciduous trees um there but we cidly do intend to add additional and your landscape landscaper will speak to that landscape designers here y testify to the landscape plan and the other preliminary question I have which you again leave to your professionals maybe there are technical reasons for this you're tearing down what's there you're rebuilding from scratch and yet we're here for variances did you consider locations that might have minimize those variances or we did um we tried significant time and effort do we want to leave it to your experts to discuss the reasons or yeah but I'm happy to pre I'm happy to pre it because um we spent a lot of time on it um and it's in a regularly shaped backyard where that unfortunately happens to be the most um shallow part of the backyard whereas the rest it kind of actually bows out on a diagonal um but that is unfortunately we don't want it attach to the house because um a key architectural feature of the house in our family room you may have noticed there's large black um Windows um around our family room and it's like anytime someone comes to the house either it's inside of the house or the outside of the house they always mention those windows and how amazing they are I can't take credit the prior owner uh put them in um but so we didn't want it attached because that would reduce all the light there's tremendous light in the house um but if it's closer to the house also then it's awkward because it's like looming over the house and neither attach nor detach suff sufficiently and then there'd be a lot less grass space as well so unfortunately after a lot of iterations and revisions um we realized that that was the most suitable place for it um to maximize the backyard space okay I just question on that point because the one place where I'm looking is where the trampoline is right where it's on the lower yard you know you could raise this whole backyard and make that all usable green and there's definitely where the property line is to me it looked like you know there's plenty of space to put that in without requiring a variance for the 15 ft sure um so you know was that area considered so it's a good question um unfortunately that is significantly lower and we didn't want a scenario where the two back doors to the living room you then have to walk down two flights three flights of stairs to get to it every time whereas we want to keep it on the same level as as the house um not the level where the garage is because that would it was significantly lower down there well I mean you're building up the right now where this this is already significantly like you know it's 5T below this is I don't know what the I'm looking at the elevations here it's about three and change feet below whereas the elevation to where you were suggesting by the trampoline is closer actually to about seven or eight feet so that just if you think about like the tremendous disturbance to the property to build something that much up seven feet it would I'll let the the professionals yeah but um we did we did it's a good question and we did spend time discussing that but it was challenging any other questions for the applicant anybody in the public have questions for the applicant seeing none this all you may call your next witness thank you okay uh Joseph Sarah the architect if you could please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth please state your name spell your last name you're going to need to raise the microphone Joseph ire Jr s a r r a thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board yes I'm a licensed architect in five states I've been licensed for 24 years years uh I've been practicing I've been working for an architect for over 30 uh from anything from small Cabanas and pool houses up to uh School additions um restaurants uh from 1500 to 10,000 square F feet and Office Buildings thank you you said license in five states I assume that includes New Jersey it includes New Jersey that's my primary State thank you any questions from the border would you like to accept as credentials I think we'll accept as credentials thank you okay what steps did you take in connection with your retention as applicants architect uh we discussed uh what the uh client wanted to do um as Michael uh explained they wanted to create an outdoor space um cond for their family um right now their site as some of the board members have seen and as Tom will testify is three different levels um and treacherous in spots um uh I know I've slipped on on the stairs when I was out there visiting um so they just wanted to make it more enjoyable and usable for their young family to young kids and create a a green space outside the back of the house and an open uh coverboard structure so they can use um during the year uh did you inspect the existing accessory structure yes I did and can you describe to the board what you found um there were several deficiencies uh in walking around as uh Michael explained animals have made um poles and have eaten some of the structure the floorboards in there are bouncy and without ripping them up and finding out if the floor Joys were first adequately sized or if they're rotting um is just a little too much bounce in there so they could be rotting because they're sitting close to the ground um don't know when the structure was built uh but that's a possibility um the stone a rubblestone foundation in spots looked like it was deteriorating um so it just adds that it uh eventually it's just not a safe structure uh as Michael explained the windows don't work it's a very hot structure it's enclosed Nails it's not safe for the kids okay and from an architectural perspective can you tell the board why replacing the structure in its existing location as opposed to a conforming location was appropriate uh Michael kind of touched on it because uh they've uh we went around and around where to place it the backyard slopes uh away quite a bit um uh the civil engineer will testify and talk about that but this location is the least amount of fill where we're going to make it level with the back of the Y yard he can see it from their family room their house back of the house easy to get to when they're entertaining uh to bring guests to that they I mentioned grandparents um the ease of just walking out their house and right to the covered structure and if it was pushed 15 ft closer it would be uh as the applicant discussed um there's not a lot of room if you we push it closer to make a comply it will uh provide too much shade for those large windows in the uh living room and uh reduce the amount of green space and grass that they were hoping to have for a level backyard for their children um based on the administrative comments and for purposes of clarity with regard with regard to the lighting proposed did you revise the plans that were filed as part of the application yes um the board up there I all I did was show what the proposed lighting um so hold on just one second so using the revised plan which is dated May 2nd 2024 entitled proposed floor plan and elevations um which I would ask be Mark is A3 can you describe for the board the proposed structure and program yeah the proposed structure in perola uh is going to be open on three sides with a solid wall in the back which will have a stone fireplace uh the stone used will match the stone on the front of the house to keep it consistent um and the sighing uh that is proposed for that wall is a cement Hardy Board Siding so it's a very durable long lasting material uh Cedar shape which will match the front of of the house uh Cedar shake and uh any of the wood structure will be trimmed in white trim all to match the house so it'll be um consistent with the design of the original house um and the peers on in the front of the structure will be Stone wrapped bases um what about the utilities that will be in the structure um they're proposing a uh stone-faced bar that's going to have um a refrigerator storage area but there will be no Plumbing or sink uh in that bar and can you describe the lighting uh yes in the coverage structure there's going to be six 13 W LED lights in the ceiling facing down on dimmer switches uh a ceiling fan centrally located in the and two wall sconces on either side of the solid wall of the fireplace um that are pictured uh in the exhibit in the pergola there are going to be six six watt LED lights facing down as part of that prefabricated structure and also a fan correct and a fan I'm sorry okay um and what is the size of the pergola and the structure uh the structure coverage structure is 18 by8 the pergola is 10 by8 and so together it is 28 ft which is is over which is requires a variance because the uh the attached right where 24 ft is permitted um I think you already touched on this but for clarity what are the variances associated with this proposal uh a rear yard setback which is 15 ft required uh we're proposing 6 feet which is in line with what the existing structure is right now and for both structures being 28 ft um where 25 is required 24 24 I'm sorry it's okay um I don't have any other questions for this witness any questions from board members for the architect can you can you give the sizes of the the um parola and the open the the coverage structure is the cover structure is 18 ft by 18 ft uh and then the prefabricated pergola attached to it is 10 ft by 18 ft I have a question um so the barbecue grill is going to be in that structured area it's going to be underneath the covered structure okay and that's the only Grill yeah it's going to be a grill um propane that it I do not know what the uh the owner has decided on that the fireplace will be gas under the pergola is that grass or is that patio that's patio and is that that's patio is existing today I mean I know rep it but there is an ex there's an existing patio around the existing structure and the patio under the pergola is existing but it is being reduced as per the new application so we're reducing that patio in size so just so I understand the the combination pergola and structure is how how does that size compare to the structure that's there now the existing structure is 15 feet by 18 feet okay but the existing structure has an a patio that the new uh pergola that we're adding on is going to go over that existing patio but we're reducing that existing patio a little bit smaller so the the combination of the current structure and Patio is larger coverage than what's being proposed correct okay any other questions for board members anybody the public have a question for the architect guess that's one public back there but no questions okay okay uh next witness sure Thomas the civil engineer do you bring all right if you can raise your right hand nice make sure I got the right one can everybody see that all right try that again do s from the testimony you're about to give them this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name Tom scrable SS Sam k r a b as and boy l e business address is 65 Ramapo Valley Road in Mawa thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board yes I'm a bachelor in civil engineering 1987 uh working in the industry ever since got my Professional Engineers license in New Jersey in 1992 uh worked for a couple different municipalities over the years I'm currently the municipal engineer in ultap pan New Jersey and then I work privately for Bill Builders homeowners Etc in in other municipalities uh but my license has been in good standing since 1992 any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials they will accept his credentials thank you very much great um after a review of the administrative comments prepared in connection with the application did you revise the plans that were filed with the application to incorporate uh those comments yes I did okay so using the revised plan which I would ask be Mark as A4 which is entitled site plan and soil erosion and settlement control plan with a revision date of May 1st 2024 please describe for the board the existing conditions and what is proposed sure so it's existing single family home uh 80 biew Avenue it's on the west side of MW um as you look at the drawing the street is at the bottom North is to the right um so the existing home driveway walkways this accessory structure that we've been talking about um some retaining walls in the rear the lot currently has some some slope to it there's about 15 ft across the entire lot uh from a low point of about 87 on the Northerly Edge to just under 102 on the southernly edge um but almost all of that slope is in I'll call it the the Northerly quarter of the site and then can you just talk about out on the the house and it the set back from the front property line yeah the existing home is set back almost 60 ft out 59.9 59.9 ft from the street where 35 is is required so it's significantly set back from the street which obviously Narrows the rear yard it it makes it a lot more difficult to um properly develop the rear yard area great um and then can you just describe um the properties around this property that share the rear bot line sure just so I don't know names but as you're looking at the drawing if you're standing where the proposed structure is going to go looking into the neighbors Lots um the lot to the upper left let's say 11:00 on the drawing their home is is a couple hundred feet away uh um front on lellan the neighbor directly behind us um as was mentioned earlier has a detach garage a Carriage House driveway in between where we're proposing our improvements and their main dwelling um and then the lot to the north um the distance of that house I'm not sure about but we're facing their rear yard area and that's the lot where the uh the spruce trees have recently been planted um there's a lot of large mature deciduous trees um if you looked at this on a Google aerial which I guess you did earlier it's it looks like it's fully fully canopi um so there there's some small gaps in the Landscaping um that could be handled with some understory plantings and the landscape designer will speak to that in a little bit um and can you show the board the location of the tree that's proposed to be removed yes as you look at the drawing it's right behind um the garage area area of a walkway yeah we're proposing a walkway through there that's not why we're removing the tree uh it's a 36 in Oak and it's it's literally overhanging the house um it's a healthy tree but it's it's still in my opinion dangerous just because of of how much it overhangs the house um so for that reason alone we're we're removing it um and you're reducing lot coverage correct yes just to go over those removals really quickly um the existing the accessory structure and Patio walkways that are being removed is 1,444 square ft and we are proposing with the structure and new walkways 1,271 Square ft so it's a net reduction of 173 and can you show the board the location of any inlets yes so just to comment on that before I show you the locations of it even though we're reducing the amount of coverage on the lot um the owner wanted to proceed with storm water management anyway um part of the reason for that is one I think it benefits our case for varant two as I mentioned earlier all of the slope on this lot is is on the Northerly Edge um so the entire yard currently under current conditions runs off to the north um if we're going to put any new improvements there whether it's reduction in coverage or not um any water coming off of those then has to run down that Hill toward the neighbor and we thought it was better to collect the water on the high side pipe it down and to a storage system underground so we have an inlet and I'm just going to circle it on the drawing here as you're looking at the the new coverage structure it's it's just um east of it and South and reason it's located there is so that we can shed water off of all our hard surfaces off of the patio that's underneath the perola um to a lawn area and then direct the lawn to this this open grate a 12in grate we're then going to pipe the roof leaders from the coverage structure into that same Inlet that piping will then run to a cultech system a detail of which is kind of lower right on my drawing um on the lower side of the yard um so that the waterers being collected it's not going to create erosion on that Hill which could then run off either on our property and be a maintenance issue or a worst case scenario onto our neighbors so we're trying to address that um even though technically we don't have to um and are you capturing more runoff than what is required slightly um your engineer requires a 3-inch rainf which honestly I think is is a good number these days um we all know it seems that the storms are getting worse worse and worse but still I would say the majority of municipalities require a two so that in and of itself is is additional storage that we're providing um and for the 3-in rainfall we would technically need 318 cubic feet over all of our new impervious area and we're providing 382 cubic feet so that's about a 20% increase excellent um and did you prepare the ctech calculations requested by the engineer I did and they're they're on the desk there we have copies for everybody if you'd like them or we can just provide those to your engineer do you have a preference well definitely the engineer U I would like to see one if you have the copy so we might as well y so this would be A5 two of those thank you so much are you only collecting the water from the roof of the covered structure in this coltech and the the patio under the p so that the patio runs off into the lawn and then there's a swell shown so the lawn is actually graded to the okay um and did you revise the plan to show a 6in pipe instead of a 4-in pipe yes okay and did you prepare steep slope analysis for the property in response to the board Engineers comments I did and can you describe that sure that's shown just to the right of the main plan view on my drawing the hatched areas are the steep slopes that would be disturbed there's really two different categories um because of the way the lot is situated um we can only access through the existing driveway if we were to go around the other side of the house um there's some large trees there that would have to come down just in order to get equipment equipment behind the home so construction access um is through what is the majority of the steep slope area on the property if you look at the lot as a whole and I did not calculate this exactly I'm only showing you the areas we disturbing but the the amount of steep slopes on the property is about 4500 sare ft um for the construction access we have to temporarily disturb 652 Square ft but that when we're done gets top soil seated mulched um and goes back to the same elevation it's at now that's not going to be changed permanently but it will be affected temporarily just to build the project and then the other steep slope area is very small between two of the tiers that the the applicant and the architect have already testified to there are some existing stone walls on the property and the area between those walls is really steep um almost a it's probably a two-on-one slope something like that so that's another 226 square feet of steep slope area that we would be permanently disturbing that steep slope area would be removed so one question U this is exhibit what was this one a do I have copies would you like that was my question okay thank you A4 heard Mr ball say A5 I was mistaken A5 is the storm water okay a and storm yes and what what are the total amount of slopes that are being Disturbed so the including the temporary and the permanent it would be 878 ft Which is less than the 1,000 square foot maximum so it would be considered a minor steep slope disturbance correct I think that can be approved administratively correct and have you had an opportunity to review the administrative comments of the city engineer and construction official I have and based on those comments you had revised the plan and provided uh the testimony to answer those questions right yeah I think the only thing I didn't mention is um the construction code official uses the exposed face of the wall plus the buried portion as the height so in this case we're doing Natural Stone Rubble walls they're 5 foot Max exposed but then there's a foot below ground so the building department would consider that a six foot wall so they're going to want structural calculations for those which I just noted on the drawing that we will provide them for review and approval by I think I just say the city review and approval prior to construction so before we can get a permit for those walls we'll we'll submit those counts I don't have any other questions we're going to go Mr Brian but I have one quick question first so when you say the steep slope is can be administratively approved that means we don't have to do anything tonight correct City can approve anything up to 1,000 square F feet okay all right Mr Brian testimony covered the majority of everything the um so the the plans for the rear retaining wall a little different on the site plan for for civil engineering as opposed to landscape architecture those were revised to match the the engineers plans okay so soape AR correct all right so which you also haven't seen yet yes so so just so the board members understand the question in our review was the rear wall was different in the two different plans so now we haven't heard testimony yet but it appears that everything's going to be linked to what Mr scrable testified to for retaining wall as far as length width height everything that which means that some of the Landscaping the rear may change as well not sure they haven't testified to that yet but that's what our concern was in the original plan that Mr scrael submitt the wall went as far as it's shown right now the landscape architecture plan shortened it up a little bit so let's hear what they say about the landscaping for that um so the entire layout is what's on your correct the AR landscape architect plans are now consistent with the engineers plans and the the Landscaping in that area has been revised to take into account that wall to make it all work correct perfect um the the rear uh with the steep slopes how they have to get to the back of the yard I have no problem with that as long as they reestablish that area when it's all said and done um the thing is when you're going back there you don't want to negatively impact what you have already so it looks like what they're doing is the pass of lease resistance um as long as they fix it and and modify it to what today's standards are today it should be good if this gets approved and they move forward with that U the yard inlets they covered we have the Cs for the storm water um the retaining wall so since since it is greater than the five to be uh calculations that are going to have to go before building department that would be a condition of approval because ultimately uh it's a review after the fact so we wouldn't review the calculations beforehand it would be when they submit reil the department review and then the last thing the applicant testified to the lighting and the speakers uh for the rear yard just make the board aware that that's happening back there that's what they're proposing back there um nobody spoke to the intensity of the sound or the lighting I know they said LED I just don't know photometrics or anything how that may impact the neighbors the sound how that may impact the neighbors um that's something that should be discussed and asked uh you know how I'm not assuming they're going to have rock concerts in the backyard but there's going to be something going on so I think that uh Mr alound testified there's four speakers currently on the existing and they're making it too um and they will be um directed obviously towards their own house and all of the lighting that's proposed is inside of the structure facing down so there won't be any spillage right now facing out yes correct they're on the outside of the structure so then currently how it is right now it sounds like you're improving we improving yes has there been any negative feedback complaints what have you from the neighbors with the existing configuration so come back up I'm sorry I'm asking wrong um so we reached out to all four neighbors that touch any part of our backyard um all have been very positive all have said they can't wait to enjoy the area with us and um one person that's most closely um next to the structure is here tonight to speak if the board wants Mr abam have any of your neighbors complained to you about noise or light coming from your property no and just also to note obviously the St State noise act would apply they can't exceed the decel limitations in the St I keep saying St State noise act so you know we're not granting them a free pass or anything like that they they would need to remain compliant yeah correct thank you okay thank you those are all the we have engineering I have um a question about the retaining wall in the back just because you know you're talking about having kids running around in the property and you're raising this part of the backyard and then you have essentially a 5 foot drop off right is there is there a fence that's going to be along this I don't I don't yes I didn't see one any of the plans I think I did maybe I did missed it I I couldn't hear you existing fence there and honestly I didn't know what the exact new configuration would be so it's not shown on my drawing but my understanding is the intent would be that the fence would then be on the inside of the wall of the retaining wall yeah yeah and just so you're aware this since it's greater than the 5T High it goes to the building department building department would review it they would require a fence by building department code yeah it's for a right the drop off yeah so again we don't necessarily need to address that this evening the building form will address it yes I mean you can state that the intention is to follow building code sure that that's in there if a fence is required per building you strongly recomend to be just so on record but uh yeah it's it's not shown on the plan right now I buildings will yeah I just so we' show we've discussed it might make sense to put that in there just as a condition you're suggesting I think so they'll comply with any requirements from the building department as to the wall correct okay protection yep just to show that we address the safety concerns very valid very good question any other questions from board members for the engineer yeah I just have these um coltech units they're just basically um for layman's terms a tank and a water percolates down yes okay okay it's like a half round plastic yes okay I just wasn't sure if there was a a pipe that would run the daylight out of these out of it um I had a question about the lighting simply because I know the Dr has a lot of stuff about lighting that we've gone over in commercial or multifam housing I haven't seen I don't recall as having seen it Outdoor Lighting in a single family house for the most part and I can't read that part of the ordinance I believe it's in the site plan portion which we are not um required to comply with this is not a site plan application okay anybody else board members yeah regarding this that that has like U uh it does not match the crosssection that we as a stone wall or a u this type of the crosssection will not be able to do all these uh corners or uh I guess you would have to do some combination of conflict War and the side of retaining no it's going to be natural and you can do 90 Corner 90° Corners with but the I'm looking at two two locations I think it will be really hard to do them uh left of the walkway that's uh that little planter yeah I don't think that's that's very suit crosssection for it well actually like that planter you know most of that hatched area that's shown is on the higher elevation literally you're just seeing a stone border the only actual wall is the lower part of it which runs parallel with the words where it says proposed prop prop walk so there's really only one wall there because the rest of it's fully buried and it's just a planter on top and we've done 90 degree turns with with rubble walls I see many many 9 point s and uh and the ground elevation is 3 so the bottom of those stairs is 97.3 yeah and then the top is 99.7 right so yeah you're you're walking up several stairs there so that's the only portion where the actual wall would be exposed is parallel with that walkway as you're coming straight off the back of the house everything else is fully buried or it would get as you walk up the steps it would get more and more buried thank you anything else from board members see none anybody in the public have a question for this witness I I have one um you mentioned the removal of that tree I think it was 36 in have you already applied for or obtained a tree removal permit we haven't thought okay but we will you understand okay got it CU we can't Grant any variance from the cities requirements there so thank I meant to ask okay anybody in the public I see no questions in the public so miss Al you're next just if you wanted to address Miss Z's comment about yeah just real quick and some of this is is engineering related some maybe not so much but we talked about where else could we put the structure um the simplest thing would be to just slide it toward the house 9 9 ft to meet the requirement at that point from the back of the chimney um I think we get to probably be about 18t away from the back of the house to the this new structure and that again this is not really an engineering comment as much as an aesthetic comment I just think that's way too tight I don't think that would look right so the other option is to move the whole structure down kind of where the trampoline is now um that's where our steep slopes are you can see um this is the the trampoline that I'm coloring in now and where I'm hatching is the steep slope that we're disturbing but all of this area here is steep slope so to move the structure down there it's going to be slightly encroaching on the steep slope um and we have to raise it 7t the grade at the bottom there is 93 we're trying to get up to match the main yard area at approximately 100 so you're talking about larger walls that would then transition into the steep slope immediately um plus a little bit of the steep slope that we would disturb so I think that would look almost like you're just putting it up on a pedestal I think it it it would not fit into the Contour of the yard nearly as well as it does in the location that it's shown and then that area would be significantly higher than the neighbor's property right yeah we would be we would be meeting the same elevation so we're not raising the structure any higher than we're showing it elevation wise but as compared to the ground under current conditions the difference is significantly more so it would look like it's sticking out of the ground much further especially when you you have now what is a seven or eight foot wall and then a slope immediately adjacent to it if you understand what I'm saying it just it looks like a sheer drop off I think that assumes that you have to build that whole thing up 7 feet I mean there's also an option of flattening that part of the um the upper part of the property where the current uh structure is just to square off that backyard and there's a possibility of just leveling you know an area that you need since you already have stairs there without raising the whole thing 7t where you might just be raising the bottom side and you still have to build you know either way you're going to have to have retaining walls but it doesn't necessarily have to be raised 7 feet to meet the rest of the yard because you still have stairs to you down to use that part of the property so I guess you know that it's another alternative if you just decide not to build it up to the seven feet that you need and you're just going to level the lower part one foot or two feet so we just we thought what weos posing honestly is is and I'm really not talking about the variant right now I'm more talking about balancing the cut and fill and making it seem to look right there's already several steps coming out of the house to the grade now to that 9900 elevation so to go down another 7 feet is another 10 steps um so we can't we don't want to put it down at the 93 elevation so to go another if you want to split the difference now you're going down another five steps and really one of the issues that the client had from the very beginning that that's what they're trying to get rid of but yes it's possible absolutely anything else board members okay results uh landscape Landscape designer Jessica orlano just pass them out now so I don't have to thank you thanks all right if you're ready I can swear you in now if you raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name Jessica orano it's o r e l l a n o thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board sure I um have a bachelor's degree from Sunni cobal skill in landscape design I currently work for another company previous to Thomas Flint landscape for 10 years and I have been with Thomas Flint for roughly 10 years we um do Residential um pool construction backyards very similar to this um fireplaces outdoor structures peras pool houses retaining walls barbecues thank you and just to clarify you're not licensed land landcape architect I am not I am just a designer just being qualified as a landscape designer then correct okay any questions from the board or would you like to accept a credentials we'll accept their credentials but this is an updated diagram so we need to mark this too yes yes so this um the revised landscape plan is going to be um A7 we're going to get to something before we get to that plan so it'll be A7 sorry I'm jumping ahead let me pass this out this is a and these are um updated color renderings um with the final design choices by the applicant thank you okay so I would ask if we could begin um with the proposed accessory structure and pergola um and we just passed out the updated renderings based on uh the final design choices by the applicant which I would ask be marked as A6 um they consist of For Colored renderings can you describe for the board the colors and materials that are proposed sure absolutely um on the back wall uh on the sides of the fireplace that is proposed we will do as uh Mr Sarah said to match the siding on the house it will be the same color the Hardy Board um the trim and post of the coverage structures will be white along with the perula will also be white to match the trim on the house as well the stone that we would like to use on the fireplace and the outdoor barbecue area will match the um veneer stone that they currently have on the front of the house okay um and turning to the landscape plan um did you revise the plan based on comments from the city's professionals yes okay so um the revised landscape plan has a date of May 6 2024 which is marked as A7 can you describe what is proposed sure so as we come from the driveway we have the same um walkway that is now the width because of the gray change that comes off of the right side here so we walk around come around the back and what we wanted was more inviting larger wider walkway to be a little bit more space and Grand a little safer to get into the back area um we wanted a way to get down to the lawn area so you didn't have to come this way kids could come from the driveway they could play in this lower lawn space and then as you guys saw when you were at the house currently there are some kind of Carny stone boulder rocks that you walk up this way so we decided that those are obviously treacherous and it needed to go to get into the backyard so what we wanted to create was not so much of a Stairway um leading up to the space we did do as Mr Apple Bal um stated a few different designs and we came up with splitting up some of these stairs so that we could have a little bit of relief and some plantings in between as we got up to the backyard so we'll walk down a walkway here we'll screen this nicely the side of the house we'll walk up to what is now just a very small almost walkway where the current patio is um existing we then re um created these retaining walls so that we could Elevate that middle tier to be the upper tier and the idea from that was to have everyone kind of be together in that space when you have friends over no one is on the lower level or on the middle level everyone is connected you can see the kids if you look here we reduced the patio space um in this area by the house by about 10 ft because they really don't use it the impetus was to keep the patio space back here that they would use we did reduce this patio Space by six feet on the a little bit but this is where the table will be and this is where they will go all the time to um use that space as a family and also when We Gather um I've got um boxwoods and things that are evergreen that will get you know 36 in tall something like that that will stay Evergreen that will be on the tops of those walls so that no one can walk off of them in these areas um again softening those those walls do you want me to talk about um there were some I don't I don't know if I'm jumping ahead but there were some other things in the planting that the Forester had on his um in his comments that he asked me to switch one of them was being that um he wanted me to get rid of the dwarf fountain grass um so I did that that was in the areas um in these lower walls here and it was in the areas over here in front of the box just to bring some different levels and some color so I chose to just do a vinga and get rid of that plant um because it is a um in on the invasive plant list so I did change that um he has you have significant screening um existing arbores existing Green Giant arbores existing skip Laurels on this side of the house he's got they have existing arbores in the back and to your point earlier um Tom spral did let me know that this wall needs to extend further down than where I had it in the first design that you saw so I did change the plants back there I had arbites in there before yep I um I chose skip laurel because they're going to stay a little bit more compact we do have room over here if you look at Tom grael plan there's only 2 feet between the wall and the back wall fireplace of the covered space over here where the perola opens up we have a little bit more room to plant something so I'd like to use a skip the deer don't touch them they stay Evergreen all year they'll get really tall um I'll also do them on the other side but in the back of the fireplace I don't have any plant material I could use something um back there that is a little bit smaller I could use a Sky Pencil a holly something like that that just stays you know has a smaller roof ball so can be planted the deer won't eat again and we'll get a little bit taller but we thought that the Privacy was very important to the Apple bombs when we were designing and that's when we came up with the idea of putting the walls and then so they could you know so they could get a little bit of privacy while they're sitting in here um the other thing that I added was in this northwest corner here it was on the forester's comments that he would like to add um some more additional screening in here although it is not Evergreen um that is a very shady spot I did choose something I will use VI bur dentatum which was on his native um plant list and I'll use the Blue Muffin and which is um deciduous but again the deer are not an issue with them great so um I think you just stated does your landscape plan contemplate the use of any native trees or plants yes yes great um and you also stated that you reviewed the city's Foresters comments and uh the plans were designed to respond to all of the comments that you had yes okay um and the architect previously testified with regard to lighting inside of the accessory structure and pergola can you describe for the board any additional landscape lighting proposed yes I did do a uh low voltage landscape lighting design this would be a I do have copies don't already I did not okay um so all I would like to propose is along this walkway here some path lighting it's low voltage lighting this is a description here on the fxdl path light a black finish blending into the space copies of that it's hard to see it from here are these and this is A8 yes thank you thank you so what I would like to POS is um just some soft landscape lighting it is to light up the path for safety it is just along this walkway here into the back it is only in the planting beds I don't have them up here in the lawn space we don't ever want them to get H with the lawnmower the weed whacker and they're basically 18 in in height um they come 24 they come 12 18 in gives you just enough coverage to light the path so that is safe to walk from the front to the back of those stairs so just be clear the the the highlighted marks on here got they're kind of yellowish yes yes yep those are just where the pathway locations are they are roughly 10 ft apart um because that's how much they illuminate again they're only 18 in tall so they're just Illuminating the ground they're not Illuminating above or very far out around it um there are some that are a little bit closer by the stairs so that we can light up the steps and safely walk in that area great um I don't have any other questions uh Mr bran do you have any questions for this witness no you're good okay I'm good thank you board members questions for this witness so there are two grills I guess I'm right is that right two outdoor barbecues is that one appro one adjacent to the house and one under the pergola CU right here by the walkway over there on I was just noticing it says proposed Barbecue on um that may be a typ of the one that's next to the house today that does exist there today so that's not like is it built in or is it um there's a gas line that's built in but there's um it could be detached and wheeled away okay cuz it looks yeah it says over here it says proposed it makes it look like it's something built in gu the reason why it says a proposed is we were going to put masonry around it to make it built in um as part of this but you're not going to you're not doing that um canly we haven't fully decided um we may um put me I mean if the board opposes we I I only ask because I I don't want to inadvertently trigger well this be minimal lot coverage or minimal coverage it would be additional coverage the area is included that's already in it's already included incl yeah so might stay or will stay it the grill we were intending to have it stay so is it right up against the house or is there I can't tell from two like this drawing looks like it's against the house and this one it looks like there's a good question it is right next to the chimney that's the backside of the family room fireproof yes yeah wall behind it yes there I asked how many grills there were and I just was given the answer that there was only one yeah no that yeah that's incorrect there's one proposed Grill under the covered structure there will be two because there's the existing one that is where we just described behind the chimney of the house but there would be one proposed new grill that goes under the covered structure for cooking while using the outdoor structure and the intention would be to in the winter months use the one next to the house most likely uh any other questions from board members for the landscape uh not architect what did you call yourself designer [Laughter] designer seeing none anybody the public have a question for the landscape designer seeing none okay one more witness I think nope that's it that was it that's it very good um so anybody uh okay that's caught off guard there anybody in public want to tell us what they think about this case okay we have our neighbor yep please come give us your name address and you'll have to be sworn in uh Anthony e Maan 47 pest so our backyard is probably the the backyard that abuts the most uh the most closely and I'll swear in if you can raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and can you just uh spell your last name please e k m e k j i a n thank you um so my wife Jessica and I and our two kids are fully supportive uh we're familiar with the plan pl we think it will look better especially you know versus the existing structure uh we're happy about the you know reduction in levels because the you know as talked about the safety is definitely a big thing and um you know no objections just point where your house is approximately on that where the picture we're looking at back here so our house I think it was noted is probably you know yeah 200 ft away or so okay but they're the ones with the blue garage yes right all right if that's it I guess thank you yeah okay thank you anybody else want to tell us what they think I don't think there's anybody else but last chance okay anything in conclusion um yes I just have a brief summation uh if that's okay with the board um okay so the testimony and evidence presented demonstrates that the exaggerated front yard which is approximately um an additional 25 ft more than required the location of the existing lawful structures and and the Topography of the rear yard creates an extraordinary and exceptional situation that imposes practical difficulty and undue hardship on the applicant The applicant's Proposal will create a more functional and safe outdoor living area that reflects current custom and Vogue and provides an aesthetic benefit which advances the purposes of zoning by promoting a desirable visual environment the replacement of the existing accessory structure is in keeping with the standards and amenities of the surrounding area and are consistent with the character of the community the structure in Perla will be located in the same location and at the same distance from the property line as currently exists and are only additional 4 feet in length and excess of what is permitted the application advances the purposes of zoning by providing sufficient space and appropriate locations for uh residential uses in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens promotes a desirable visual environment provides adequate light air and open space um it advances the intent of the zoning ordinance and master plan it will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and the benefits to result from the improvements will substantially outweigh any uh detriment um The Proposal further satisfies the negative criteria as property values will be unaffected storm water drainage will be appropriately managed the purposes of the steep slope ordinance will be met and no unstable conditions will result the improvements will be aesthetically pleasing um the Improvement is replacing an existing accessory structure the location and distance of the homes on the Lots AB budding the rear of the subject property are a significant distance from the proposed Improvement lot coverage is being reduced by 5% mature Landscaping exists as a buffer to the buding properties and Landscaping will be enhanced the use is permitted in the district um and the improvements comport with the established character of the neighborhood okay review the conditions and there were no this is not a DV variant so they four of six four votes correct uh two conditions one is compliance with the conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum and the second is that the applicant shall comply with any fall protection requirements identified by the building department for the prop closed wall that sound good perfect okay all right who would like to start I I would okay um I think it's overall an improvement I mean it seems like it the yard needed a lot of work and I support this I think it's great that we're not trying to add more space to the house but we're adding to backyard and it's still very open um still very airy um and I think you know it's it it seems like it's it's a win win I mean it's just an overall Improvement and I and I think just putting that much um investment into your yard is just going to benefit in the long run thank you anybody else um yes I'd like I I too can support this although the variances are for the structure most of what applicant is proposing to do is really a safety issue um in terms of leveling out the backyard we didn't even discuss removing that in ground trampoline um it is being removed yeah my wife I don't think I've ever seen an inground TR trampoline before that looked like a disaster waiting to happen um you know the the the existing structure is unsafe they're they're managing the Landscaping they're managing the leveling reducing the lot coverage um managing sound and light um so the the I I understand why they want to rebuild where it is and at calling the perola part of the structure strikes me as akin to insisting that a port kosare is a carport um and it isn't really so I'm willing to give them some Flex on that one so I will be voting in favor of this okay anybody else have anything to add or anything contrary um I just uh I think this is quite an undertaking having walked through the backyard I mean there's just Stone everywhere um so the the project of just doing this it's it's a it's a huge project and I do think you know it's it's warranted um I do feel like I just need to make a comment that eight um papers today being new it seems like a lot like that should have been maybe given to us beforehand um just to have a little more time to process that um but um but yeah I mean I would say I'm supportive of it I just thought this was a lot and I think that needs to be said um and then I think that's that's it yeah although no paperwork today that was not ideal but I mean I it was nothing drastic and I think they're all improvements to make the application better I came in concerned about you know why are we from scratch and not try to make the variances less necessary but I think the applicant and their experts made a very convincing case why that is the right spot definitely safety issue Mrs abam warned me and I still almost fell so I'm happy that you know that that's going to be addressed it's going to be much more attractive property um you know I'm happy with the with the reductions that they're making uh in in the coverage issues um happy that they're adding storm orderer management that's not technically needed like that um and uh yeah I think it's going be a positive addition for the for the neighborhood it'll be it's very trative property uh once it's done and yeah I can support it as well so um lbody has anything different to say I'll call for a motion to approve I'll make a motion to approve is there a second second okay Mr Nelson yes Miss Zan yes Mr Malay Miss to yes Miss Cho yes acting chairman Yuko yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much okay I think we have some uh resolutions I think what do we have yes y okay I'll start so first we have 23 Morris Avenue that's vb- 24- 2230 block 3906 lot 5 the applicant was Christopher graetz the elig eligible voting members are chairman Steiner Vice chairman lyit Mr Nelson Miss Don Mr Malay Mr Kieran and Miss to would someone like to move that moved second okay 23 Mars 23 yeah that was a play structure yes I thought he was coming back no I thought Oh I thought that was John like John okay I was got it it was on that side street I this address okay Mr Nelson yes Miss Don yes Mr Malay Miss to yes the motion carries and then our next one is 61 Tulip Street that's zb- 24-22 31 block 3207 Lot 2 the applicant was Janine Kus the eligible voting members are chairman Steiner Vice chairman lits Mr Yugo Mr Nelson Miss Zan Mr Kieran and Mr Malay would someone like to move that make a motion to move okay and a second second okay Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Miss Don yes Mr Malay yes the motion carries and then finally we have our minutes for approval um the minutes were from April 15th um we could do a Voice vote but we will exclude the members who were excused that evening which were Mr Mr Yuko Mr Chuli Mr Malay Mr feskin and Mr Kieran can we have a motion moved second okay all those in favor I any opposed the motion carries okay uh next meeting May 20th we are adjourned thank you