e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the June 18th 2024 meeting of the city of Sumit Zoning Board of adjustment my name is Joe Steiner and I'm the chair of the zoning board please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and jce thank you uh in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 colon 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here in City Hall 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 decorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be made maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page it's also being broadcast on some its governmental channels which are Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30 a transcript of this meeting is also being taken utilizing the video and audio so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones here in the room uh please 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 that hearing assistance please obtain the system at the Das and return it thereafter Miss suos would you please call the role of the members sure chairman Steiner here Vice chairman L here Mr Yugo here Mr Nelson here miss Z is excused Mr Kieran here Mr Malle here miss to here miss Cho here Mr feskin is excused Mr Chuli here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you very much Andy ball sitting to my right is the zoning board's attorney he will be advising the board members on matters of Law and is the key interface with the applicants attorney and he does do not vote on the applications Stephanie suos is a city employee who is the zoning board secretary she works with the applicants in preparing their applications planning our agendas and keeping our meeting minutes she also does not vote on the applications also present are two Consultants uh to the board Marie rafy from CER engineering our board engineering firm and also seated at that same table to to our right your left uh is Ed um brain dead uh Ed snck is from uh Burgess Associates these experts provide input to the board and also they do not vote on the applications our board as you can see consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates all members can participate in the hearings tonight but a maximum of seven can vote most applications require simple majority to be approved but Others May acquire a different majority before we enter into executive session to vote on the application you will be advised how many votes are required each case will begin with each applicant uh or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required we then will hear from any additional expert witnesses that the applicant may have to help explain the application and why those 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 completed their questioning the public has an opportunity to ask questions this would not be the time for you to tell us what you think about the application that will come a little bit later before you ask your questions please clearly state your name spell your last name and provide your address it is important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record after all Witnesses have been heard members of the audience have the 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 enter what's called executive session where the board members will 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 the zoning department 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 that are contained that in that resolution for example if a landscaping plan is required you must obtain that and submit it to John Linson the city's Forester if a writing 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 the resolution will result in a delay in approving your application as it will cause extra work for the City Zoning staff the resolutions documenting the board's decision are normally available one month after we decide the case so now we're going to uh go through a a little exercise that helps us run the meeting a little bit better what we would like to have is each applicant come forward and tell us how many witnesses they have and um when they do that also to tell us um whether or not they think they can get their application completed in 30 minutes we'll begin with uh Thomas Holdings LLC good evening Hillary OLS from Dempsey Dempsey and Shen um we have three brief Witnesses and then the planner and I would say it'll be about an hour but we'll keep it moving okay thank you second is Brian and Renee odonnell 22 Webster hi everyone I'm Renee odonnell from 22 Webster we have one witness with us today and I think we would be able to be done within 30 minutes great thank you um I skipped one my apologies Elizabeth and Christopher mcke hi you yeah you will be second not third when we do the the actual cases hi I'm Elizabeth mcky um we have Janet seagull here one witness um and we should be done within the 30 minutes okay thank you from n Tri thanks and the fourth one is nar's Tabit at 11 Washington hi good evening I'm bie Tabit my husband nurses and I live at 22 Brainard Road and we have um one witness well you think you can make it in 30 minutes absolutely sure okay thank you um before I go is we have the yes M we have we're going to change just change up a little bit we're going to go into the resolutions to allow somebody to go home and not have to sit through at least three hours and this is for for the uh resolution for extension 557 565 Morris Avenue a request sure we have a resolution on the agenda to extend this application they've requested an extension for 2 years through January 18th 2026 citing both um compliance obligations and financial complications that have delayed the project Miss Alfonso represented the applicants still does and can explain if the board has any particular questions thank you before we we move on I'm going to have to abstain from this uh proceeding Okay thankk you Okay anybody else have any questions of the applicants attorney seeing none we would accept a motion so moved second should I should I stay or should I go you're fine Mr Yuko yes chairman Steiner yes Miss Z I mean I'm sorry Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Vice chairman lits yes Miss to yes the motion carries okay thank you thank you see if I'd known it was you I probably would have let you uh she appears before us quite often okay so let's begin with someone else who appears before us quite often uh the representatives for Thomas holding okay you mind if I said your wherever you're comfortable as long as you're using a microphone Sor great okay good evening I'm Hillary s from Dempsey Dempsey and Shen representing the applicant Thomas John Holdings LLC uh with regard to property located at 502 Mars Avenue and 5 L Avenue block 502 Lots three and four first um I want to thank the board for providing the applicant with the opportunity to revise the plans to address comments made by the board members at the last hearing um on February 21st 20124 the applicant listened took the comment seriously and directed his profession professionals to revise and redesign certain aspects of the plan to be responsive to all the board comments those revisions and redesigns have resulted in the elimination of the following variances the location of the dumpster in the residential Zone tandem parking and all signage variances the revised proposal also reduces the variance for the number of commercial vehicles to be stored outside overnight the original proposal called for six vehicles uh this new plan contemplates four vehicles outside where one is permitted and two will be um stored inside the main building the revised plans also aim to address the remaining open administrative comments tonight the applicants experts are here to highlight the changes to their respective plans and the presentation will conclude with some planning testimony based on those revised plans if the board has any questions for me I'd be happy to answer them otherwise I will call the first Witness questions from the board okay let's move on uh Bill Hollows is the first witness and I'll just note for the record Mr Hollow was previously sworn remains under oath his credentials as an engineer were accepted in the prior hearings fine okay so uh using the revised plans with a date of April 24th 2024 and exhibit A10 which is a colored sheet 3 of 10 of the April 24th 2024 plans can you describe for the board the revisions and redesigns to the plans proposed in response to the board's comments from the last hearing and in response to any outstanding administr administrative comments from the city's professionals what I have in front of I don't think I'm there have been problems with that you could turn that around and grab [Music] it what I have here before you is sheet three it's our layout plan we we' colorized this and starting off with some of the changes that we made we eliminated the tandem parking we now have four stalls uh the closest ones to Morris Avenue those four stalls stalls stalls will be for the uh the commercial vehicles and then the intent is to put two more commercial vehicles inside the building you can see that we eliminated the tandem was in this general area and now we just have the four stalls the aisle becomes a little bit wider because I really can't push this parking this way because of the location of the building it would affect the other parking stalls so we have a little bit wider so these commercial vehicles would have a little better in and out to their parking stalls and because of this moving these parking stalls over we're able to move the dumpster enclosure forward towards Morris Avenue out of the residential Zone and into the strictly into the business Zone we've corrected or made the handicap access or the handicap Ada parking stall uh work a little bit better a little better function with the sidewalk and what we've done if you recall we had these these stairs that go up to the apartment on the second floor and what we're planning on doing is putting a fence to the back and the side of those stairs so that it reduces the visibility of these parking stalls to anyone on Lowel Avenue and that's another reason why we move these parking stalls back a little bit is so that they were hidden more from anyone on LEL Avenue in addition there were some comments about protecting the stairs and we we had pipe ballards on along that uh be the Westerly side over the stairs and we've added a curve line in that area also there was some talk about well we did have discussion about the lighting and if you recall there's the light in this location which is about midway between the parking stalls closest to the residential Zone and that would be put on a motion sensor and the flood lights will be removed from the garage and the architect can talk to what he's proposing to put in their place but they would be removed and again there'll be a there is a light by the man door on the side for the apartment entrance towards the front of the building building and then there would be one added to the door that goes into the uh overhang of this the back apartment and the storm water management plan has been changed um I think you if you recall I first started out with some dry Wells over in the corner of LOL and Mars they were removed and then we have a storm scepter system that's going to be in this grass area uh so it wouldn't be visible it's underground and that would drain out into the uh the County's Road there's a storm draining system that goes along side of mors Avenue our side of actually we've relocated the shed so that it's more parallel to the parking stalls again that would be visible from L Avenue and there was discussion that we need a variance because we go over the property line with our the light and it's it's really if you recall it's just a very little bit on L Avenue that's actually between the property line and the curb line it doesn't even go out into the street and then there was some little bit of light in the um Enterprise rental car parking lot and it's when I say little we're talking Moonlight in that in that general area can you talk about the signage um with regard to the no parking area and exit only on Mars Avenue uh the building exit only oh okay we're going to put we're put a sign out here there be exit only no entrance into the into the building we know parking in that that exit driveway really as you recall there's a door in the back of the building there's a door in the front and the vehicles would enter from the back and then exit from the front most likely um stored in there so it' be just potentially two vehicles a day that may come out of that parking area or the inside parking area and these plans have been resubmitted to Union County engineering department through their planning board Department uh that was done earlier in June and we're awaiting that approval or hopefully approval it and their their uh comments really had to do with new curving new sidewalk along the frontage of Mars Avenue and that's been shown on the plans and again when uh they review the plans they review the storm drainage system because it will go into their system in mors after thank you I don't have any questions okay Marine so no we we review can you bring the microphone down sorry we reviewed the plans um that were submitted um so there's been two revisions to our engineering letter since the last time you saw these plans so there's been two revisions um and we reviewed the um the storm water that would be one of the big things and we have no we take no exception to the way it was designed um the stormw Water Report um there was uh some lighting concerns that we took a look at we have no um we take no exception to that so I don't I don't know that I have any further comments on anything good evening um Ed snikes with Burgess Associates we uh submitted a report on June 14th 20124 um and what the applicants done through testimony from the engineers has provided any of the or address most of our questions I just had a few other ones regarding um will will the uh spaces 11 through 14 be the commercial designated parking spaces for overnight parking yes okay and the remainder of the spaces are being used for the residents that will be inhabiting units upstairs as well as potentially employees correct on the first is 2 through five are designated tenant space okay thank you um okay I think that's all the questions that I had I think you addressed the motion sensor light and I presume the architect will talk about the building mounted light correct on the fixtures okay thank you questions from the board I have one um the employees I'm thinking of the time when they come in and the time when they leave they then each employee has two vehicles where do they go they the one they drove in to work with and then they'll be parking it where their vehicle was what happens in between so can I when they get their in their their rout for the day any special instructions load any equipment whatever that's a period of time that I'm afraid is going to wind up on L Avenue um I think that that question would would be best answered by um the applicant if you would like him to answer and respond okay is he going to testify later or no but he could he's here he can answer that question uh yeah that that probably would be appropriate and we'll get it out of the way sure and you were PRI prior testimony yes he was previously sworn remains under so we're good to go yes uh we've been operating out of this space since uh 2011 and we've never put uh any of our employee vehicles on lull so what typically happens is we either go guys will drive directly to job sites in their own vehicles or they will car pull together so not every employee drives a vehicle to the site typically I would say if your job needs five men we might have three and one one vehicle and then one or two will drive there directly so since 2011 we've never parked vehicles on L okay all right I'm just trying to find out where where where they where they go at that that 9:00 hour when they're trying to get everything I know it's like before before you yeah before you leave got a couple questions you yeah couple questions here just follow up on the parking uh Mr H has addressed part of the question about designating spaces for people employees residents whatever will they be clearly marked with signs or absolutely absolutely we don't like chaos um we we try to run an efficient business so time is money so we don't want them to figure out who's parking where and also the zoning officer wanted to ask wanted us to get testimony confirming your hours of operations um uh typically I would say 8:00 a.m. and then 5:00 p.m. maybe 6:00 p.m. the latest but typically it's an 8 to window so play arriving at 8 yes and then leaving at the end of the day at I would say 4:30 by 5:00 they're out of there okay unless there's a different circumstance where they're doing a job say in Manhattan they get stuck in traffic coming through the tunnels or the bridges and then there might be one vehicle that's later and typically that's a civilian vehicle if we're doing work in Manhattan we typically take a minivan that's not a commercially marked vehicle okay uh should we make the U signs on those uh spots a condition so if I could just interrupt I'm sorry the the tenant spots have signage already on the plans it shows tenant parking but you just indicated there would be others that would have them yeah I meated so maybe they should our idea is to give whatever employee a designated spot so there's no confusion that's my intention I I mean otherwise we don't have efficiency okay that work that work for everybody yeah okay I just have a question couple well just one maybe two questions um are there going to be any other contractors parking on your property after hours no okay okay and I noticed that on the new plans I it wasn't wasn't ran by the Fire official or fire chief uh now that we're parking Vehicles inside does that change the fire load inside the building since you have vehicles with fuel in there we fireproofed it okay that all was done a year ago okay we also Highwire the uh smoke system for about the tune of $10,000 okay that doesn't include the cost of insulation fireproof bat and double sh double drial thank you very much we have a high rating good any other questions from the board Mr chairman seeing none sorry oh yes sir yes if I could just interject I hearing about the signage issue of parking spaces I know you've indicated you've uh signed the uh employee parking excuse me the resident parking spaces but will the employee spaces be signed or just assigned assigned assigned so there won't necessarily be assigned designated for each one of those spaces just want to make sure that's clear if that's what the board's and that was where I was going was you know that somebody pulls in a customer and parks in an employee spot well we don't have typically we don't have retail customers that's not our business model I mean anything we do is off site we go and we look at a job or building or home and and very very rarely does anybody come there and visit us unless somebody's dropping off wallpaper or somebody's coming and inquiring about specialty finishes and stuff like that my intention that was to put the tenants label the tenants One Two Three or one two 3 4 as tenant spaces because those and they'll know that's theirs you know and that's that's you know that's a priority and you won't be renting to any contractors or something like that to live upstairs and have a car trunk downstairs no I that's I hope it's a good question it's a great question but yeah I mean you have an electrician upstairs who lives there with it you know with his wife it has it has its perks though you okay uh anything else from anybody okay let's move on to your next Witness should open two questions from the public oh for either of those my apologies I I forgot the public um any questions for the witness from the public Are you standing up to ask a question or are you the next witness he's the next witness I had I got to find out okay thank you and then we will move to your next okay uh the next witness is Michael McNerney the architect question what maybe he'll ask question okay that work noting once again for the record that he was previously sworn in his credentials as an architect were previously accepted great um can you highlight for the board the changes to the architectural plans and address any administrative comments or outstanding comments by board members from um this or any prior hearing the the changes that were that were made based on the comments from the board prob the first one is I had put together a an F worksheet to show how we deriv that number when doing that I I realized that I included the square footage of both Dormers and said that was the square footage of the new Dormer the new Dormer is actually 32 fet not 64 squ ft um but the the overall f is still the same as as as at we the last meeting the the other comment was dealing with the well I I did not show any sign information since we are no longer putting a new sign we are just refacing the existing sign and that has been done that has already been permitted and do not this um the other issue is really just the lightting we talked about um having a more of a a residential field from the lighting and what I had done was I I I basically used an arts and craft style like Carriage l that I apply to the garage wall and have so we have two two lights on the G along the garage for that and then I I show a light at the top of the stairs because that was also mentioned that uh from the residential building can you just show that on your plan see it on as far as the carriage lighting uh it it's located here and here and that's on the garage for the for the for the for the main building the lighting is basically is at the top of the stairs and I show that where I show that upper left thank you here it is over here at the top of the stairs and again it's it's a arts and craft style FL and I think that's all all that I have changes those are the only questions I have for the architect from chairman uh just regarding the light fix fixture that has been added it seems like this is a revised if I'm not mistaken revised fixture it seems like a fixture right next to the handicap parking space that's mounted to the building was that there before actually the handicap space um to the tenant entrance yeah maybe you could look at the site plan you'll see what I mean oh the site plan over here you're saying yeah there's one right next to the handicap space on the lighting plan so if you go to sheet bill that's your just making sure that's properly shielded and and controlled I know testimony was just provided as to trying to limit the the level of lighting out to low Avenue but I just wanted to indicate what kind of fixture it was so that'll be the same right the arts and craft style like just right next to the door oh yes for when the tenants so they have lighting when they enter the building are you sure of that that's the only thing I I don't mean to be um I'm just trying to make sure of that in other words yeah are you talking about the one by the Ada correct correct that's going to be the LED type that will be an LED but one by the man door would be more okay gotcha right but that'll be a sharp cut off exture correct as far as the controls of glare it won't be a flood light no this is not a FL light again it'll be a residential FL that's the only question I just want to verify questions from the board questions from the public moving on next witness uh John olivo and just once again for the record previously sworn remains under oath and credentials were previously accepted thank you um can you describe to the board the revisions to the Landscaping plan using exhibit A1 which is a colored rendering of sheet one of the filed landscape plan just Mark exibit so yeah um briefly we took the feedback from the board from our last meeting and uh i' say the commentary was mostly regarding the screening from LOL into the parking area so um we added additional Evergreens to the greatest extent possible without hindering the site triangle and then a lower level Evergreen hedge again to screen the parking that'll happen on the western side of the property um additionally there was a lawn area proposed initially and our testimony in February right um so that is now populated with perennials um and there was also a request to continue the Evergreen screen around the property entirely um that was also addressed and then responding to uh the environmental commission had a comment about the U shade tree removal which was addressed by John Linson when we initially had the plan he recommended removing the large oak tree we then supplemented with an additional shade tree so there are three proposed shade trees um there was also some commentary about non-native plants and the challenge with that is of course deer you know brows so we could certainly make Replacements but we did we do try to provide a plan that functions for the benefit of the community as far as buffering Etc um I think that's all I have questions from the professionals only question I have is anything invasive of your plant material no okay board members okay now has Mr Linson seen this yes it was it was submitted in March prior to the um hearing that was supposed to take place in April but there wasn't enough members at that meeting so it was carried so we just didn't resubmit it again but it had already been submitted um and it was part of that review in March and he approved it yeah I think the the report we have from him was dated March 28 yes correct so I believe that reflects this plan Jos I okay any other questions from the board questions from the public moving on Final winess uh Michael toia the planner and for the last time previously sworn he remains under oath and his credentials were accepted at the last year okay so what we thought we would do is um just wrap up with some quick planning testimony reviewing the variance of that have been eliminated the ones that still remain and we took a lot of notes Hillary and I did on suggested conditions of approval we'll go through those with you all and you're going to hear that most of the ones that were suggested back on February 21st have been uh Satisfied by the new plans okay so um first of all um as Hillary said earlier we've eliminated variances all signed variances are gone now there were three uh suggested back in February 10 the parkings out as a variance the dumpster enclosure in the residential Zone has now been eliminated by Mr Hollows and our overnight parking while still a variance is down to four requested spaces from Seven that were outside in the Stacked parking plan back in February that's uh five variances eliminated another one moderated by the plan revisions um if you look up on um the exhibit was this Mar yes this is A10 so A10 uh this is Mr hollow's um exhibit now we still request the D1 variance or use variance for parking in the residential Zone thank you um and that's for the parking we've been discussing on the west side of the site um this is a parking lot expansion across the residential Zone remember we have a b Zone in front residential Zone and back R six the site for 70 plus years has been used entirely uh in a commercial capacity some of you should remember the auto upholstery business that was on the site just for ages um so the D1 variance is to per permit commercial parking and a residential Zone the proofs were put on at the last hearing the main aspect of this case for an applicant who's only getting 32 square fet of more floor area is modernization of the parking lot it's finally going to be paved curved striped lighted buffered you finally get ad parking and what you heard earlier now is we get an organized parking lot the commercial stalls will be on the easterly side of the lot numbering four and then four residential stalls down below for the apartments on the second floor and then we have 1 two 3 four five employee parking SS uh so there all going to be designated and organized um and this takes the site finally after 70 years of halfhazard commercial parking into a modern parking lot particular suitability test which you have to consider for these D1 variances is obvious the parking's right next to the commercial building there's no other site that's more suited for the parking than where it's proposed on this site plan we request a two variants if you recall the garage at the back of the site has also been there for decades always associated with the business on the front of the property uh we propose a minor expansion of that garage it's on the second floor it's 32 square ft note that the main commercial building is not getting bigger in any way so we're putting 32 square feet upstairs under a dormer that will match the one existing Dormer on the site so we'll have have some enhanced architecturals to the property that will enable us to represent to this board uh we will have no outdoor storage on the lot at all because of the additional storage in the garage as well as existing storage on the main level of that building note that the garage will not increase employees or traffic or be used for commercial purposes other than storage okay so that's the the two variants um it's a very minor building exper um addition and in exchange we got a vast amount of site improvements most notably the buffering along the Westerly property line let's quickly talk about a couple of u c variances the buffer we propose which Mr olivo just uh described is dense it's high it's Evergreen there's already a big thick buffer offsite on the residential property to the west of us this essentially doubles or triples the effectiveness of the existing offsite buffer by providing all this new plant material the ordinance says it should be 30 ft wide and we only propose 20 ft that's the variance had we gone to 30 ft we would have come smack down the middle of the parking lot and eliminated all the new parking that I just described to you and all the benefits associated with that parking we can do in 20 ft what the ordinance requires to be done in 30 so here we would represent to you the benefits of the smaller buffer allow us numerous new spaces in an organized fashion in the parking lot uh we have a technical variance for lot coverage on the residential side of the lot 53.3% proposed um and we um 24.3% is now on the site remember also uh both sites now are getting merged there will no longer be a residential lot and a commercial lot it's going to be one big lot then if you compared it to your B zoning uh coverage we'd be compliant we think that's the appropriate course of action since this is a commercial lot uh Tom who was just up our applicant said he gets extremely light uh loading Amazon UPS FedEx occasional deliveries all supplies paints and so on are not delivered to this site they're delivered to job sites elsewhere so for that reason we did not put a loading space on the on the site plan had we done it we would have lost one or two parking spaces we'd rather have the parking spaces which we know will be used on a nearly daily basis and recognize the loading is going to be that quick pickup drop off like we all have our at our homes when these same delivery vendors come by finally um Mr snikes reports in in his um in his report um variances needed for the accessory structure that's the garage he calls them technical variances he's correct we need a variance for height because of this slight expansion but the Height's the same height that's existed on the garage for decades 17t 7 in we need a variance uh for dimension of this building 24 ft is the maximum dimension of any accessory building in a non-residential Zone the building is 30 ft in one dimension that's existed for decades so we're not changing that either um nevertheless it's a variance um because we're we're expanding the building and then finally we're going to 860 sare ft on the size of that garage right now it's 828 so we're improving we're expanding it by a little bit the permitted accessory building is 576 Square ft remember all of our additional floor area is upstairs under the eaves no expansion the footprint no change in height uh these are all things reflective of the existing building and bear in mind all we're doing is more storage upstairs which helps cleans up the site all the more I told you back in February our negative criteria on the job uh are met this is a vast Improvement aesthetically it's not a minor Improvement it's a vast Improvement buffering gets better the garage becomes better looking parking lot becomes better looking there will be no on street parking um so we think there's no substantial detriment to this I don't think I've ever worked on a job where an applicant's putting this much money into a site and only getting 32 square feet out of it so The Balancing Act here is really positive okay um I wanted to talk for a couple minutes about the r six Zone um it permits single family housing meaning a single family house in theory could be built on the Westerly lot it hasn't been there for for 70 years plus the lot's never been used for residential purposes despite that the intent and purpose of R six is single family housing in this particular case though if we put a house on this lot we wouldn't be able to build a parking lot which benefits the B Zone at the front of the site we would no longer have a serviceable driveway out to l meaning all our commercial traffic would have to come off of moris and no one wants that and we would have zero buffer between the new house and the commercial site not a 20ft buffer not a 30 foot buffer no buffer in this particular case building housing on this site doesn't make sense okay uh what makes sense is recognizing the whole site has been in commercial use U for 70 plus years as I said so for those reasons we think this is an approvable application a real winner for the neighborhood and what I want to do to close out um is quickly go through stipulations conditions from February 21st um we said to you we would stipulate to no parking in front of the building on Mars Avenue we now have a sign on the new plan indicating that um and a sign on the new plan saying that front is exit only um we will merge Lots three and four that's already on the plan there will be no outdoor storage on the lot that is a condition we don't have a note on the plan I I believe so that should be a condition no outdoor storage um back in February we said we'd turn off all the lights in the parking lot at 10 p.m. recognizing lights would have to stay on for the apartments now at the back of the parking lot we have that motion sensor on a light the idea is that would illuminate the four residential spaces go on in an as needed basis if you want to say lights off at 10 we'll still do it we think everything's going to work out fine because it's motion sensor the lights at the Mand doors um can also be motion sensor as Tenants come into the building and go upstairs that's your call uh we have back and forth back in February saying add a sign to the front of the building that would say parking in rear uh we think that's self-evident if you want that sign we'll put a sign up we'll make that a condition the discussion back in February sorry Hillary sorry um just don't keep don't go back any further okay um the sign was talked about being at the front of the building facing mors Avenue um remember what our applicant said he gets almost no retail customers to the site which means it's basically all employees and uh and Tom and his partner they know where the parking is you want to sign we'll do it um suggestion was made by your engineer to add curbing around the rear stairwell that is now shown on the plan as our ballards by the way and the fencing described by Mr Hollis storm water Cals we did um stall 11 uh was supposed to be reduced down to 9 ft because it was envisioned to be an employee parking stall now it's a commercial parking stall we're going to keep it at 10 ft wide that condition no longer applies floor area ratio calculations have been provided by our architect we said to you commercial vehicles would be limited in height to 7 feet meaning they would not be higher than the 7 foot fence required by code and proposed uh by Mr alivo on the site so we'll stipulate to that 7 feet maximum Van height um so tonight we heard signs for employee parking Mr chairman um I want to hear what Mr snikes has to say I'm not a big fan on putting up multiple signs across a parking lot all saying the same thing if you want what I would suggest is a pavement marking that would go across all of them saying employee parking these stalls that way you don't get the posts and the signs and all that your call um and we'll stipulate Mr Nelson I think it was no other contractors will park on the site okay um that's it in a nutshell Hillary will remind me if I missed anything um okay and I'll be happy to answer your questions and Mr chairman thank you yes I would offer that always we try to avoid sign clutter try to minimize the amount of signs as much as possible if we had sign uh labels on each one of the resident parking spaces I think that would be sufficient I've seen that successfully done in the past maybe with one sign that says resident parking only in that area so it minimizes that visual impact um and he want he was talking about having 10 signs right well it's not what I heard that's why I was asking that question was it seemed like they have the four signs for the four parking spaces for the residents and that's technically required by the rsis the four parking spaces the remainder of spaces were going to be for employees but I believe they were going to be assigned verbally to those people not necessarily signed uh specifically um I'm not sure we need to have them signed but that's my opinion I'd open it to the board of course but uh again to avoid more visual clutter this is a the location that's trying to transition into a residential Zone trying to reduce the amount of commercial look of the area so that would I would offer that to the board any other questions yeah I was just checking my notes I think uh Mr Toby has definitely addressed my concerns and my questions I was more concerned about the outdoor storage potentially and he was identifying it uh for the commercial uh parking spaces on site one question I have for you is that the four spaces at that wasn't [Laughter] me the four spaces that are being proposed for commercial as well as the two interior they're actually located on the B1 Zone portion of lot right yes okay I think that's something the board can consider as well thank you Mar no I have no question can question for the uh planner I mean th this application looks fine to me as is for this business uh what are your thoughts for future use or for a different user for this same lot we are taking part from residential uh zoning giving it to Commercial and uh so what is your uh future uh in uh prediction so right now as you may recall from the February meeting this applicant just bought this property probably about 2 years ago the future plans are these plans okay um he plans on doing this he's been on the site for 12 years now um he's committed to the site it's a local boy graduate at the high school this is his gig um if anything comes up in the future that changes this site or he wants to change the site we're back before this board again um to either revise uh any approv approval you might Grant tonight or to do a whole new thing but right now the answer is this is the future for the applicant so we're looking at like 10 20 years ahead thank you okay you're welcome Mr chairman couple questions about the parking I agree with what Mr snaker said about this the signs and since I was one of the ones concerned about the parking and I know I think you alluded to this could could we Mark the pavement instead of putting in signs is that I would agree with that preferable yeah okay wait a minute do we have full agreement on something it's amazing yeah we we like that because you know I always talk it looks like soldiers all lined up across a parking lot really looks awful it's important for the residential spaces because we don't want our tenants wondering where they're going to park at night so those will be signed and then I see one long stripe across the other stalls employee parking on the okay speaking for myself that sounds reasonable I everybody else feels that sounds good and one other question um because I think I was one of the ones who asked about the motion detector for you know residents coming home when 1:00 or 2 o'clock in the morning um is what you're suggesting that it'd be on a timer till 10: but that after that the motion detector would be automatically in operation right okay okay yeah um couple of more like St well I guess questions um one of the things that bothers me about business zones and you had mentioned that you didn't want traffic from this site entering onto Mars Avenue every other business on that Mars Avenue enters onto Mars appen right one of the things that concerns me is um we have side entrances from this site into a it's still into the business zone so to say so to speak but it's a residential transition zone there are future projects down the road literally down the road from where this project is that's going to happen in the future and uh I'm not against what's going on in this site I'm concerned about setting precedent for future construction sites well if it's okay here why isn't it okay here um maybe I'm being a little bit too picky um but I will be on the receiving end of one of those discharges into the transitional neighborhood area um and this kind of leads into a we're talking about a non-conforming site I think I think part of the board's job here is to bring non-conforming sites into con into Conformity maybe this isn't the spot but I think just because something's been in use for 70 years doesn't make it correct because it is nonconforming you know so I'm I'm I'm I like the project you guys have done your team has done a fantastic job um I was just a little taken back when you said as a planner you don't want cars entering onto Mars Avenue that's what Mars Avenues there for so um couple great points there I'm not trying to argue I'm no I know um we have the benefit of corner lot okay not all the Lots on Mars are Corner Lots um one kind of planning 101 with Corner Lots is if you can keep traffic off of the Main Street meaning a driveway coming out with left turns and right turns um you're better off because mors is busy constant flow of traffic as you know whereas to make those turning movements on L especially recognizing that most of them are going to go to Mars right um is the preferred planning alternative I wouldn't want this driveway 500 feet down low right that'd be a disaster but on the edge that's uh what we prefer and what the county prefers and what do prefers if this was a state road your other remark um about non-conforming uses generally in theory um us planners say an old non-conforming use would grow old and wither away and be replaced by a conforming use but the law and practicality says that doesn't always happen Okay we can't we're not allowed to take away non-conforming uses and say hit the road you know tear it down and build something conforming this is protected by a whole body of law that just focuses on non-conforming uses the lead case is a Supreme Court case called Burbridge it Burbridge youve heard okay um and what it says is if the use isn't going to fade away might as well fix it up that's the whole case here perfect exactly well and I know there are a lot of things going on in the tan you guys have a very vibrant mhm Town um in this particular site we know that building's not going away um so we're trying to do the best we can I think I think your team's done a fantastic job yeah thanks if I can just add something Mr Paul maybe you can say better and I'm going to try and say it in terms of Mr Nelson's comment about setting the precedent every application is different so just because we approve something here doesn't mean if a similar application comes up two blocks down we don't have to approve it there is that fair that's thanks for the education yeah and you would concur with the witness's statements about the the case I would any other questions from the board yes sir yeah yeah I have one on the um on the garage and the increase in the storage space um this may have been asked but I might have missed it is um are there going to be any uh chemicals stored in that garage like um often times in the pain business there's all sorts of solvents being used are they going to be stored in that garage um I think the testimony back in February was they would be sto they'd be minimal and they'd be stored in the front building so there's going to be no chemical stored in that garage I mean if I've been in the building back there that is strictly um you know ladders scaffolds things like that I'm just uh pulling up my notes from the prior hearings the testimony was that the majority of the business is non-solvent based and that any solvents would be in a locked storage container right the other testimony on this Mr bu was basically all the applicant uses is stuff that we could all buy at Home Depot uh you know commercially available um supplies so I hope that answered your question any other questions from I'm going to try this side first and this any questions from the public I believe you said that was your last witness so I turn it over to you for your summation she also said we'd be done in one hour close I me she's got about a minute you got okay all right well so again thank you for uh providing the applicant the opportunity to redesign the plans based on um your comments which I think have resulted in a better plan than originally proposed um I just want to hit a couple points um in closing again I know we've said it these two lots have been used in connection with each other um and for commercial use for over 75 years the transition line between residential and commercial use has always been between Lot 4 and lot five and this application does not change that but actually improves the condition by the addition of a planted 20ft buffer Lot 4 has never had a single family residential home on it and in all likelihood never will if Lot 4 were to be improved with a single family home it would have a significant negative effect on the Ingress and egress of lot three reducing the commercial access driveway on lull to a point that would be unsafe effectively making it a oneway and would then require Ingress and egress on tomoris Avenue it would also severely limit on-site circulation if Lot 4 was a residential lot it would also not allow for any buffer area on lot three between the commercial property and the new residential home home due to the driveway on L Avenue and the location of the existing building so there would be no Landscaping Improvement at all abing the residential property as a result of an Al alternative plan the tandem parking spots were eliminated and the drive aisle increased which improves on-site traffic circulation this eliminates the concern for traffic jams in the parking area experience at this site for 12 years and the proposed management of the parking demonstrates that the parking layout as proposed will result in a better practice than existing the plan assures that there will be sufficient on-site parking for this use and future commercial uses if this commercial use changes and this application is not approved it would limit the ability to park on site resulting in overflow of parking on the streets throughout the neighborhood the redesigned plan proposes two commercial vehicles inside the building reducing the number of outside commercial vehicles to four where one is permitted and the commercial space are proposed to be located completely out of view of the Residential Properties LOL Avenue and Mars Avenue moving the two commercial vehicles in the main building makes the 32 square ft of additional storage space in the garage all the more necessary so that the property can be kept clear of debris and Equipment currently being stored outside no neighbors have come out to speak in opposition of this application or have raised any concerns the applicant is making a significant investment in the Aesthetics of this property and this application provides a realistic opportunity for the beautification of the site and the area as a whole which benefits surrounding commercial and residential properties thank you thank you um I'm going to pick up something I forgot which is to give the public its opportunity to tell us what they think about this particular application if anyone wishes to seeing none I believe we will move into conditions yes uh before I list everything and I know we've covered a a good portion of them there with the planning testimony there were two that I had still hanging out there one I I assume that we've received storm water management calculations and you're satisfied with those Marie correct okay so we can eliminate that one the other I just want to confirm that the we previously discussed curbing between the commercial parking spaces and the building itself is that now added to the plans okay okay so we no longer need that one um so I now have I think a total of seven conditions first is compliance with the conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum second there shall be no outside storage on the property third that lights in the parking lot shall be turned off at 10 p.m. lights for the residential spaces spaces shall remain on with a motion sensor to be utilized for the light closest to the residential spaces um fourth there shall be no parking in front of the garage Bay there shall be an exit only sign from the building which I know we have dis uh the exit only sign is proposed so I suppose we don't really need that um and we did discuss signage shall be added indicating parking is in the rear of the site which I'll need input from the board on whether we want to include that or not um fifth I have that the four commercial vehicles to be parked on the site shall be limited to commercial Vans or let me clarify that four commercial vehicles to be parked outside on the site shall be limited to commercial Vans with a height of not more than 7 ft sixth is that parking spaces shall not be utilized by other contractors and seventh the applicant shall Mark the pavement to designate the employee parking spaces and the number of votes required for this five since it includes D variances now I we should clarify signage indicated indicating parking in the rear of the site does the board want to include that as a condition can I speak I I I think the less signs the better so I think the I would say no so no parking and we I mean it's obvious and there's no retail customers going in that need to see that m w could just restate that water we're time not sure follow it yeah so the fourth condition that we have there is there shall be no parking in front of the garage Bay and we previously discussed that signage shall be added indicating that parking is in the rear of the site so yeah I agree m m g so take out else that condition anybody in favor of keeping it in Che it out so that condition will only limit that there shall be no parking in front of the garage bay period okay all right and you've heard them all so who wants to start Mr chairman I'm sorry Mr chairman yes sir I excuse me for interjecting um regarding the commercial was coming the commercial vehicle being parked outside should we designate spaces 11 through 14 in the resolution because sometimes in the future when you look back at a resolution it's better to have the spaces identified at least it helps you as long as we're not putting it on the ground outside it's part of the thing you can put it in the paper I was just offering I assume that's AC fine okay helps the record thank you okay who wants to start now that we clarified that please first of all I think it's a thoughtful redesign and um you know s very responsive I think to the concerns that were laid out in the last meeting I love the fact that you're preserving the existing structure um I think there's some options to not do that I'm glad you are and I think just the substantial improvements to Landscaping is just going to benefit you know the town certainly the neighbors um if I thought there was a chance that after 70 years that you know those lots would be used for different purposes um I just I don't see that being a feasible option so I can be supportive of this and appreciate your respons for this anyone else down this side yeah I really support this plan I think they It's a Wonderful um update to the property I think I think there's all all all positives I mean I know there's a lot of variance um you know two D variances and a bunch of C variances um but overall I think it's you know an improvement it's going to be visually appealing um and it's keeping you know it's updating and building it's not knocking it down and building something new I think it's um highly supported Mr chairman yes sir yeah this might be in random where I've been scribbling notes Here I hope I get kind of in order I agree we've been very responsive to our concerns definitely appreciate all of that I like that the sign variances have been eliminated I like that the you reduce the number of vehicles can be kept outside I think the use variance variances are the are Justified or can be granted since the this use has been in place for decades of various kinds but I think one of the witnesses said 70 years um and I I there certainly no added negative impact from what's being proposed now the lighting Varian is the Minimus um parking variances are justified by the other improvements on the property um and uh it's certainly just visually if nothing else it's a vast improvement over over what's there now um and I think it's would be a very attractive addition to the neighborhood so I I can support it as well thank you um I'm I'm really leading towards a question here for for you Mr ball um because I doo appreciate everything you've done I recognize despite my best efforts that's not going to be a residential property in anybody's anybody seeing see going forward um but you had also said I believe back in February March that if the properties are merged that portion of it remains residential what I'm thinking down the road is there a way to thread the needle so that if the commercial IAL use of the combined sites are abandoned or or it is sold to somebody who's doing something much smaller that the residential lot can somehow be reclaimed as residential so they are proposing to merge the lot um in theory at any point in the future they could apply for a subdivision it like you said that that portion of the lot does remain within the residential Zone unless it the uh city council decides to rezone it um they could apply or any other subsequent owner could apply for a subdivision to then recreate the existing separate lot and it could be used as residential it is a process but that is the process and I'm I'm not sure that that aspect of it needs to be incorporated into and all the issues they enumerated about how problematic it was be to fild Res on that side for me I granted I believe that Mr Yuko made the Chairman's remarks by responding to everything that needed to be uh put into the resolution so I'm going to say based upon uh our past Chairman's uh remarks I would entertain a motion to approve this application you still oh that's a motion motion to appr I thought you wanted to say no okay is there a second second secondos would you please call the rooll sure Vice chairman lit yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you so much thank you good luck um please leave the the um exhibits New U new new exhibits her office is getting to look like a really nice place inside and all these drawings going there can we take a fast five minutes I'm sorry could we take five minutes you can take four no you can I can do it in four how about um how about at 10 minutes before we'll start okay we are in a recess e e e e e e e e e e e e key m c k e thank you okay would you give us an overview of uh what it is you're planning to do and what the variances are if you know them other otherwise I see you have an expert with you and I assume you'll turn it over to her to uh carry the what do they say carry the heavy water sure um my husband and I have lived at nine Ed Drive since 2003 um we have always had a covered patio in the back of our um property lot I um have learned that our house pre-existed the setback guidelines and so I think we are requesting a variance um for to recreate a covered porch um in that same area it was um damaged and destroyed when a tree fell on our property last summer during a storm so the existing covered um awning was removed and now we want to replace it with a permanent structure in the same spot okay any questions for the applicant okay then uh would you questions from public just to be questions from the public for the applicant nobody wants that no okay no one's going to do that okay let's move on to your expert and if you could please raise your right hand do you sore airm the testimony you're about to give this m matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth is please state your name spell your last name Janet seagull Janet B seagull architect Madison New Jersey and I know you've appeared before us a number of times have there been any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here no there's Noone I imagine the board would like to accept you once again okay we can do that unless anybody has an objection I don't see so let's go ahead and move on okay I I'm just going to briefly explain the um site conditions of this property um it is slightly undersized we're in the r25 zone where 25,000 ft is required we're at 20722 um and equally every neighbor that ads them is actually in the very similar size lot they're all slightly in and around 20,000 Square ft so we are in equal company um as site size um the front yard setback is 35 um their property um home is 71 ft back on one end and 85 ft back so it is a very nice gracious front yard um an L-shaped home that gives a very private backyard um the U rear setback is 45 and the um portion that um of the awning that did come down and a lovely end room that is more like a sun room with the old sleeping porch above is completely over the rear yard setback that's probably how it was built it looks very original to the home so I don't um um so what we're doing here is just again replacing what has already been in that spot we're also not increasing that line of the existing house so the high the tightest point of their existing corner is 26.3 where we are attaching that structure is going to be 28.8 and then as the angle leads down it's 30.8 so we are less in the setback than the existing corner but we are still over that setback line one question before we forget to ask will the proposed structure be the same size as the awning that was there very close yes within inches yeah we have a couple square feet um so again it's I I'm looking at this as a pretty simple request um the side um because it is the width of the property taken from this front if you were taking the side yards as this end it is not as we are building this portion the proportions are taken from where that structure is built and we are conforming on the side yard combined um but the existing home is not conforming on the side J any questions on that so our request basically is the one variance for the rear yard set our lot coverage originally when this when they called to say we need to build a new awning and I said I think we're you know over the line we asked Andrew Clark who had done the survey was that on considered structural and it was not ever noted on the original survey which we were kind of going back to see since it wasn't a secured structure it was just a fabric awning with a metal frame so we don't so we at this point the lock coverage did not the original numbers did not have that lot coverage or had the lot coverage because there's patio underneath but it did not counted as building coverage so as we um move forward on the lot coverage we are really only um expanding the the portion of that by 0 2% so a very minimal number on how that those Dimensions came out building coverage yes we are increasing that's 9 which is 189 s ft which is the size of the awning or yeah the new the new structure the new cany um the floor area not counting and it's not changing because we're not increasing that number due to the open area of this um the height is we are keeping it as a as a shed very similar to the shape of the awning therefore it's only 11.2 at the highest point of the addition quickly to show the plans as I said we I don't have a full floor plan of the first floor we just showed the area that is that lovely sun room that exists on the property and the location of the new structure and then from upstairs this is an original piece and then you're seeing the roof line that you would be looking over from the second floor the elevations this is the L-shaped back side view of the property and then you're looking at the awning as it's coming down on the elevation on the lower proposed side elevation and the rear elevation you're seeing the windows from the sun room and the sleeping porch above and then the extension of the new awning security structure I have um photos that I think will be helpful if I want and I want to um put this in as um an exhibit when were the photos taken by whom and well there's they're different dates they're noted on here I have a date of a photo from the tree damage which is August 2023 I have a photo that I took in January 2024 with no awning it had been removed um this is an existing view I'm not sure who took it it was the real estate listing from 2002 which does we wanted to show that that awning structure was there in 2002 and then this is taken U by Liz I believe in June of 2022 again showing the awning in use so various dates but again a good um I just have copies if you want thank you for that but I think this was just a good example of um kind of trying to date when when they bought the house this is prior to their ownership on the real estate that this was Thea that's what we're trying to show here that and um in our proportions what we're trying to do is keep that same shape and size and use um basically we're putting just a Sonu structure so we're really not even affecting the patio underneath so it's very minimal construction um like for like size um and most importantly a very secure structure obviously the awning just crumbled with the tree um we're hoping for more safer structure also the awning was something they had to take up and down as the season went out so this will be a permanent um minimal sight disturbance as I just said visually attractive and um the interesting or on the next exhibit in the neighborhood I'm just going to do a really Bri brief rundown as you look at our tax map and you look at this circle from Edgewood Road to Edgewood Drive it's like a kidney shape as a pool as you go around every view as I drove and took pictures of the front of each one of these houses is looking up so the back of everyone's property as we're looking at the rear yards is the peak of this hill so it's a very private spot there's no way to see where this structure is and actually hard to see it from anywhere from their property because of the buffering at the top of that dild that everyone has kind of at the peak planted a nice row of buffering so it's a very interesting site um kind of topography of what's Happening as you look up everyone's yard you're looking up on that whole beautiful homes you're in the tutor side on one side on the other side of that your drive you have all Colonials so um we're just keeping you this is a good upkeep it's a nice way of keeping these homes in beautiful condition the only comment I believe we had from engineering there's very little um sight disturbance um and at the point when we're at that top there's very little slope difference of of at the back of the yard there's very little slope change and we're not even changing the patio um there was a comment from historic um preservation the option to use copper is in their wheelhouse we haven't done all the pricing but that is the goal to have the copper because they will be looking out the window from the second floor you know onto that copper roof and again you have some options with this house with the slate roof and the you know and a metal roof I think our first goal was to go with um I think the metal and staying at at three on 12 slope to get that water off but also keep it down as a minimal on the impact and then keeping with what they were used to um in their previous um just technically we should we mark this is A1 and the second one is A2 2 and A3 yes yeah the these pictures were marked as A1 and this was I have V2 so that would be that would be A2 and or well one of them would be A2 and the uh the one that's hanging in the middle there is A3 A3 all right just to be just to keep the record going so we have worked uh you know again we're don't think this is going to be too heavy of an Ask we're trying to present a structure that's going to be in keeping with the style um in in the metal and um and black detailing as many of the tutor homes have and then just um working within the beautiful neighborhood that's there and staying in the scope of what the town is asking for and the zone and not asking for any more that's already been there and U feel that we've met those needs if you have any other questions okay we'll start questions with our professionals Mar I so I I as you heard um there's a minimal increase in um in prvious coverage on the property I think I noted 36 square fet does that sound right because the patio is already there and we're just going over the patio where where those footings are going is slightly increasing that right so as a result you know that doesn't really trigger any um storm water mitigation on the property doesn't appear that there's any um changes to the topography so we don't have any we don't take any exception to the to the design head uh no questions thank you okay board members just a minor one Mr chairman yes sir so I see you have your sidey yard combin it nonconforming 35.7% for some reason you've listed entirely different percentage in your proposed and I understand you took those Dimensions from a different point yes right can you explain yes I that why the case a good point um this was with um with Christa Anderson and how she interprets when there's um a as opposed to taking the changes from here if you can see what I'm talking about those are the two numbers we were talking about the two tightest numbers when we're doing an addition back here she actually had me take the two numbers that is reference from where that addition is coming from really that's just her interpretation I've done it with her that way before so it um and it does yes dramatically change that number and it's hard to reconcile existing and propose because it's a very different it you could also take that same point without the awning here possibly might make a little more sense but I looked at the most extreme first as the non-conforming and then right that's where you're traditionally supposed to take the sidey yard combined set back measurements okay so just curious would you take that right corner and the new corner I I would say you just keep the 35.7 and call it existing nonconforming call it a day but okay we don't we don't dare go against Kristen Christa has retired yeah we'll train the next one right so she's even more exalted I don't yes okay but I mean but the fact I understand she's still still in the office on her days but the fact is I mean however we calculate it it's still it's no difference in appearance or right yeah yes it's a very adir but knowing moving forward is why I'm asking I do agree and then is it your testimony that due to the slope of the front yard there is no practical other place to build the house and that and although as you said um the the setback rules changed since the house was built I mean all the houses are forced to the back of their property yes that little quadrant of of homes as you look at um this group right here they are this these five right here are have pretty extreme slopes as you come up so they are are moved the back so yes other questions I just have a question on the um footings for the um the covered porch MH what are they going to I mean what I see the picture but what color are they going to be I mean they going to is it I'm just concerned I mean it's a beautiful historic home will it how are you making it so that it looks like it's been there footings I'm talking about what's going in the ground oh yeah no I'm talking about the The Columns we are looking at um doing all in a wood but a dark stinging and then doing the copper so generally as in a lot of the tutors have the dark trim that's kind of the idea so it kind of if you also see what was there was rod iron and we're not going there so it was sort of a mixture of keeping it very clean okay and having those Lin trying to modernize it to so it's your testimony that the architectural style of this cedy will be in keeping with the architectural style of the house yes okay thank you any other questions any questions from the public seeing none um does anybody from the public wish to tell us what they think of this particular proposal okay uh then we will move to um anything you'd like to say in conclusion no just thank you for uh considering this update we think it's going to be a nice Improvement to the home conditions and number of votes yep just are one condition compliance with those conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum and since it's only one single C variance uh four votes would be required okay who would like to start I this is an easy yes um you're replacing what was there the backyard is extremely well um buffered from the neighbors even the photo from the winter um makes it hard to see anything through those trees and like last weekend it was all greened in um so yes um let let the McKees have their shade I'm in favor of this okay yeah and me me too I think I think the proposal is more attractive than uh than the awning and just to confirm what Miss to just put on the record that the Forester concluded that it's very well screened and and no need for anything of that nature so I can support it as well any others comments from anyone if not I think uh this is as they say an easy an easy lift uh it's something we uh we can look at all the negatives and there aren't any and then we can look at all the positives and say there they are uh we can just uh move forward and uh I would entertain a motion to a so moveed secondos Vice chairman lit yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you okay we move on to Brian and Renee odonnell 22 [Applause] Webster Janet I'm sorry if you could just you all that stuff stays [Applause] I okay perfect thank you let them clean out all right I can get you sworn in if you'll raise your right hand do you swear airm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name Renee odonnell o d o n n e l l thank you okay if you would explain to us what uh what you're attempting to do here and what the variances are if you know them and uh uh then go ahead and uh we'll ask you any questions but uh turn it over to your expert great um so again I'm Renee odonnell my husband Brian and I have been living at 22 Webster Avenue for seven years now uh we always knew we wanted to live in Summit and actually closed on our home about 2 months after getting married um we absolutely love the neighborhood that we live in many of our neighbors have been improving their home so that they can stay in our neighborhood and we feel the same way we wanted to wait a a little while to ensure we made the best changes for the house possible so that we could stay there for a long time 20 or 30 years um we are proposing um a front porch which is one of the variances for the front setback um but then most importantly we are requesting an addition in the back which would allow us to um expand our home at a mudro drop zone better bathroom area uh for downstairs and then EXP upstairs to include a fourth bedroom um in the for the potential of an expanding family and those variances that we would be requesting for that um include lot coverage and building coverage and floor area ratio okay um I'm just going to ask are you planning to say anything tonight no I okay because if you are we'll swear you in just just in case you happen to drop a comment in okay uh any questions for the applicant I have one just CU I'm curious um there was a note somewhere in the in the package about the lot having been divided in the '90s do you know what did it look like beforehand um yes so we've been told by our neighbors uh we we've had they are no longer on our block anymore but we had several neighbors that had been there across the street from us that house is no longer there and it's now a brand new house but the owner there his wife was the original owner um and then three houses down somebody was also grew up on the Block um it was our house and the lot next door was all one lot we were told and there was a green house on the other lot and the driveway actually went um what is our current family room was a garage and the driveway came out from the garage and snaked behind the whole property and dumped out onto montros is what we were told and then they divided the lot sold off the second half and a house was put there by a builder okay any other questions for the applicant you have not any questions from the public for the applicant see any questions from our experts NOP we will then uh I assume you have an expert with you and uh we'll swear you in and go from there do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do please state your name spell your last name Robert Forbes f o r bees thank you and have you uh testified before the board yes I have recently uh within the last year yes all right any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here no I imagine the board would like to accept you once again yeah we will certainly okay great thank you all right so just to uh start off um this is 22 Webster AB as R mentioned it's lot 11 uh block 503 it's in the R6 Zone it's 7,809 Square ft it was originally built in 1933 um as I kind of walk you through the plans we'll kind of see how it has a little bit of a quirky floor plan part of what Rene said is how the it was originally a garage so it's almost feels like a split level when you're inside and the second floor is um very clipped up Brian as you can see is not a small person behind me he has a little trouble up on the second floor um we have kind of some existing non-conforming coverage situations that um make this addition a little bit challenging from a from a coverage Point um a lot of it is due to this um oversized two-car detached garage in the rear of the property um I don't get the benefit of taking the full credit for that garage from a floor area standpoint so there's some leftover um F that's in that garage um if I if that was only a onecar garage or was within that 288 square feet the F variance would actually go away um so the the mass of the main building as I kind of walk through this um we really feel as compatible with what the f is trying to be in the neighborhood and I feel like that's important to kind of start state from the start here um and as you can see there's kind of this little recess in the back of the lot and we feel like that recess really hides that oversized garage and really helps to absorb that extra bulk um so it's hard to see another thing is because of that big um garage that's recessed back there we have a long driveway right so I get extra loot covers that I'm already existing nonconforming at um which I'll kind of walk you through as we go through the plans so we have these this kind of existing non-conforming lock coverage and we also have existing non-conforming building coverage all kind of generated a little bit by this oversized garage um and its placement so I just want that to be noted from from this um we are proposing a very small um mudroom Edition in the back which is right here it's 140 square ft it helps us to just as I kind of show you the plans helps us to just get access to the building from the back let's us set up the rest of that old garage as a family room and make a better connection to the kind of the kitchen living area that's actually up a few steps um which I'll kind of walk you through the other um new building coverage is the front porch which we feel like is really compatible with some of the other front porches that are happening one one right to the right of us one right across the street from us um I did I do have an exhibit which I'll walk you through in a moment um that also um we are not getting very we are heading a second floor but we are not not pushing towards that 35 ft Max height the existing building is at 28 ft and we're only proposing to go to 30 ft I feel like that's important the the neighborhood kind of sits in that kind of height and we're trying to kind of be responsive to that um I'm kind of excited about this project I feel like um the house needs a little bit of a facelift and um I think we've kind achiev that and made it more compatible with the other Colonials on the street um so I kind of walked you through the survey as I was sitting there go over to sheet b82 U this is the first floor plan this is what was included in your packet um this area in the back here is the mudroom addition that we are adding just kind of giving us better access from that rear driveway it's all over existing covers that's already cover patio right now there's no new coverage lot coverage being created by this mudroom okay you can see how the house is kind of divided this side is higher than this side it's up about four steps so this is a very quirky part of the house where we're trying to create a better connection to this B room and adding this mudro is allowing that the the front porch in the front here is really the only new impervious coverage that's being created and you think great benefit to the neighborhood from the forch as I as I mentioned other than that we're really renovating the kitchen cleaning up this rear um old Sun ports have been previously enclosed to create an office um for them to work from home that's really other than inter you know interior kind of moving some stuff around cleaning know what's going on before you move on to the next page the left corner here yeah is is that new that's a new box window that's in the back in the back oh this yeah that's existing already exting I think it was like an or something yeah on the proposed that has an X through it I thought that was something new it re is that what yeah I couldn't read but that said yeah it's it's it's just probably partial to getting that's to actually make this yeah it's not level with the rest of the house it's got the old so as we come up to the second floor um you can see really these dotted lines that are in there that's the existing knee walls that are really low there's one bedroom here existing and there's two bedrooms over here we're really just renovating again lifting um the facade lifting the exterior walls everything is conforming to the setbacks I think that's also important to not here um we are having a little walk up padic to a little finish storage space up there all that is under height doesn't count as F um4 we have the front facades these dotted lines represent the existing building that dotted line there represents the existing orig line so you can see we really just you know extending those vertical walls all within the setbacks but the height of the building is not getting much taller and I feel like that's important to be kind of compatible in that neighborhood kind of you know we're not trying to push to that 35t height you can see the new front porch we feel it really helps to kind of scale the building back down into the neighborhood create a sense of community that has a great neighborhood kids running around the neighborhood like hanging out in the front are that's the right side elevation this is that very clipped up area that we're as we come to the rear facade this is that existing structure that's really kind of being cleaned up and rebuilt that's noted um on the rear this is the the new area of the mud room which has a second for on the top of it this is the left side elevation and then I have this exhibit that I that I put together today I saw in Chris's in Chris's um notes or was a note about doing a neighborhood averaging um so I put that together today um I kind of tagged here on a tax map a b b is the site c d and e um are all kept on our side and then I took the three closest across the way like we're supposed to I get an average of 23.7 ft just a little closer than the 25 ft but not not at the 20. that we're proposing however I did want to note oh I should Mark this right want we to mark this A1 please however I I wanted to note the the house to the right of us right flag is C okay which is here which is 24 Webster has a front porch and that's noted there and that has a setback of 19.5 also across the way a newer build that was that was done um site H which is 25 Webster also has a new front porch which is at 21.5 next to that g is the only other one that has like a ptico that pushes forward is at uh 23 Webster is at 24 so all of the sites that have front porches or front porticos start to push close to that that we're proposing and what I did in this aerial shot that I took today off of Google is I wanted to try to draw a line showing from the front porch next to us if I drew a line straight you can see where that area where we're putting our front porch we're not going to be the closest thing to the street I feel like we're very compatible with our neighbor very compatible with what's going on I feel like that's unfor this is just some pictures that I took when we first started the project um back in these photos were taken October 27th um just before Halloween Brian wanted me to mention that his spider spider um so photo a is at the front of the house photo B is at the back of the house this is where that mother magici is going you can see all this coverage that's already existing there um and photo C is of the left side of the house this is that structure that you're asking about that's being let me ask a question why I've got the pictures there and I I visited the property today and I forgot to confirm this although I have no reason to doubt that the zoning officer's comment about the Google Earth picture is is wrong you have the you have the HVAC unit in the front of the house and it's not screened so there is an HVAC unit front of the house that uh apparently was not on the original survey because there was some heavier Landscaping there that it was hiding it as we build the porch we have to move that AC compressor so that AC compressor will get relocated as part of conru which I think is to either conforming location and screened and all that good stuff it'll be too and I I know you mentioned this earlier but I didn't hear you attach numbers to you you were addressing the impact of the oversized garage on the F did were we able to quantify that just I know you said it it's a part of the dri drove the variant but how much of it is the oversiz garage so 136 square fet of the garage is not counted is not credited to the F that represents 1.74% our F deviation is 1.7% okay so you would be slightly I would actually if I built a 288 foot garage I would be able to remove my f VAR okay um which is I think important to know and again I feel like the site can absorb it because of this little special Niche that it has in the back you can almost see from the aerial how kind highs back there um it's not really visible and I think and then the the mass of the mean struct really is compatible with the zoning which I think is important that's what you visually see from the street schap um that's that's really it for my testimony other than questions okay questions from Marine no I have no questions just a quick question regarding the second floor is indicated that that will conform with all the setbacks the second floor conforms with all of the setbacks so it's really just the the front porch that's calling for the front yard setback there the front porch is the only setback there that will remain open that will remain open yes okay thank you no further questions okay questions from the board just have a question on uh on drainage um when I was out there um you I'm trying to hear you when I was at the property it looks like the the drainage from the whole back back side of the roof is running into 4 in PVC pipes running under the driveway and it's routed out through the side of the garage and there was a black corrugated pipe which actually runs almost to the end of the property I got to imagine that that runoff has got to be going into neighbor's yard is that is there any kind of a drainage pit on that property or um there is not a drain that we know we do have a black corrugated pipe uh that we actually angled at plants it may have been moved because my son loves to play with it um but we where it was dumping onto our property was causing runoff of um Mulch and stuff and sediment to kind of run down onto our neighbors property so we used the pipe to uh funnel it at the hostas that are there and kind of like have some water we've never had complaints from our next door neighbor or the neighbor behind that there were any water issues from it um but that was our solution at the time but we have there as we're as we've been told or knew of there were no dra like um Wells put in but with with this addition AR they increasing uh some roof area which is going to cause more they're increasing it um by a small amount um I think it was 188 138 Square ft which does not trigger any um need for any drainage improvements on the property any dry Wells so they're not required to do anything other questions from the board questions from the board questions from the public okay do you have any other Witnesses now do you have any other witnesses that you brought no okay um we've asked the public if they have any questions for this witness okay seeing none uh are there is there anyone from the public that would like to tell us what they think of this application former board member course if you could please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please state your name spell your last name sure Elizabeth new and W 26 Webster Avenue I am in complete support of this project um it's in accordance to all the other products on our streets on Madison on Evergreen um and then you know it's just keeping in the same gist of the properties the front porches that are coming about I wish I can have one too um but it it's will be a beautiful Edition um especially for the backyard for the kids uh I think uh totally in support of it okay thank you anyone else wish to tell us what they think of this particular application seeing none if you have any closing remarks uh just thank you all for your time and thank you for being on this board um it's important work you do and it's a lot of big time commitment so thank you and thank you Stephanie for all your help with the application process so appreciate your time conditions and number of votes y once again our only condition is our usual one compliance with those conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum uh this does include a d variance for f so five votes would be required to approve Okay who wants to begin Mr Vice chairman you look like you're R thank you Mr chairman I was wavering until Miss n step to the Dez now I'm 100% in favor of this project no I I think all these improvements um in totality the the positives positive criteria outweighs the negative it's a substantial Improvement to the design the use uh probably the safety of the house U I believe it's entirely reasonable request to have this front porch which violates the front yard set back it's the juice is wor certainly going to be uh worthwhile incursion into the front yard so with all that I can wholeheartedly uh support this application Mr yuku yeah I I I came into this little somewhat concerned because of the large F uh variance request um and I appreciate the clarification on the garage that that kind of kind of help me understand where some of that was coming from and you know that's an existing garage and that's you know uh so that's understandable and I also appreciate and I'm glad you were asked to do the front yard averaging calculation because that also helped address some of the concerns I had because it it you know visually it looked like it wasn't going to be it was comparable to the other front porches but your calculations help give me Comfort on that um you know it's definitely a very positive Improvement to the to the property um and it's as has been noted it's in line with what some of your neighbors have done um so in spite of some initi reluctance um that your testimony your calca helps I I can support it as well I too can support this um front porches help build community that's consistent with the master plan master plan also speaks to sort of a visual historic coherence throughout town just getting rid of those fake stones in the front of your house is worth the price of admission um I also appreciated the architect's drawing showing how W with the overlay of the roof lines you've cleaned up a lot of the roof lines you've cleaned with the fenestration um and that that's in accordance with all the design guidelines so it's you know little small change big impact I can certainly support this anyone on this side they theyve monopolized all the point any any other question any other comments now it looks like uh Miss n carried the no uh you're right there are a few negatives but they're well overpowered by the positive so at this point we would uh accept a motion to approve the application so moves second Miss suos sure Vice chairman loid yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss toad yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries congratulations good luck you thank you and follow everything on the resolutions helps when you bring and 11 Washington is up [Applause] next that's um while they Tabit yes I was going to say while they are settling in I don't know what point they'll be out of the way in a minute yes I don't know at what point this is appropriate but could we consider taking judicial notes notice of the the tax map not reflecting the reality on the ground specifically neither Washington Nur Grove really Connect middle to Broad Street um there's a creek down the middle there's significant undergrowth and this property in reality is not it it backs up to undergrowth and other backyards it does not back up to Grove Street yes can can wait till we get the witness that the applicants warn in and then we can do the whatever discussion I don't know in what order this happens I I'd just rather have it all on the record of the of the of the application and they can respond to it and we can go from there okay okay please if you could please 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 yes please state your name spell your last name my name is Elizabeth tavit T is in Tom a v is in Victor i t is in Tom thank you okay um if you can just give us a quick overview and then we'll get into uh the issues that uh come up and maybe your expert will have some answers to it sure um my husband opened a retail business in Summit I think around 20201 which is why we moved out here and we bought this house in 20 2004 deliberately we wented a double family home for long-term investment we lived there for 3 years and we moved in 2007 to 22 brainer Road where we currently reside um we have had a lot of success as a rental property um it's been a really great property for us we would like to add this addition to the second floor to sort of bring the property into the 21st Cent if we could um improve the quality of just the way things look there um hopefully um attract tenants who will value the property and care for it um we plan to hold on to the property uh maybe my daughter might move in there someday we're also considered the dreaded downsizing we may move in there the first floor um has no um stairs or anything so we are considering for retirement home so um we are you know just we're very committed to Summit we live here we don't plan to go anywhere else you whether stay in this house that we live in now or move into this property someday and I'd like to introduce my witness whose name is Aran he's an architect he's our architect okay questions for the applicant from the board questions from the experts questions from the public please come forward my name is marij makuchi defonso I am a manager for Mochi makuchi realy Holdings um I reside at 12 Washington Avenue my house at 14 is in LLC my daughter resides at 73 Springfield Avenue that is also in LLC and my mother resides 71 springield thato so my family has owned this property these four Lots no we're looking for questions at this point okay only questions to the applicant I'm reading this um little write up here um combined side yard set back their side I think that will be probably answered by the expert better before than the applicant because that's what he's here for is to go through all the statistics I don't understand how a sidewalk justif a a sidey yard it's a sidewalk that's maybe I don't know two three they'll get to that question and then there's a a foot patch of grass on the side and that's it and on the other side there's the brook and ma'am this is questions questions they got to give them a chance to answer it when the proper witness comes up I don't and their proper witness is not here right now I don't understand the com combined sidey yard there is no sidey yard okay that's it we'll explain that to youy a sidey when there is a okay ma'am we'll explain it to you but you have to give us back the floor okay thank you okay now you have a witness with you to explain sure my witness is Art hen he's U the architect for the project okay if you could please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give on this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth please state your name spell your last name arthor H hnn thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board sure um I've been practicing for architecture for 23 years been before this board a number of years ago I think twice um quite a while ago um most recently Lyon and Cranford um my LIC good standing license in New Jersey I imagine thank you any questions from the board would you like to accept his credentials we'll take your credentials and assume that you will uh in your presentation try to answer uh the question of the the Varan the public that please okay uh so we're here for two variances uh the first one is for lot area uh for an existing two family home where 10,000 square ft is required and we currently have 9,498 square ft uh which is 5502 Square ft below the required uh lot area uh the existing home was built in the 1970s as a two family home and bought by the tavits in 2004 as a two- family home uh there are six six of the 11 homes on that Dead End Street uh Washington Avenue are two family homes and five of those uh two family homes on that street uh are less than the 10,000 s foot um kind of goes to um uh board M was talking about is that being a dead end Street um on the TX map it looks like Washington Avenue continues through but just past the tabs property it's a dead end there's a um what we call a drainage ditch that kind of cuts the road um you know right here at the right there and gr Street doesn't continue through at back corner the back of corner of the property is a dead end there too you kind of see that um on their survey we kind of see the end of a Grove stopping here and the rest of their back of their property is basically uh that drainage ditch and a w wooded area um it's important to note um we talk about the um you know the rear yard um you know given the fact that there's you know multiple two family homes you I'm not feeling and they're allowed in that R5 Zone um I think requiring the owner to convert it into a one family zone or one family home uh to comply with the 5,000 foot requirement for of one family would be an undue hardship for them um the other variance is the combined sidey yard setback uh 33% um 16 1 12 ft total of the um is required uh we currently have 29% which is a combined setback of 14.5 uh which is an existing condition that we're not changing um the combined side setback regarding the yard uh The Yards it's the distance from the house to the property line whether there's a sidewalk or Paving there the measurement is from the house uh to the property line the proposed second floor that we're uh looking to do on on the house um all falls within and complies with the side guard setbacks um so that that mass that we're putting on the back um Falls within those setbacks um the left side of the house which is the garage side is that portion has uh puts us over that combined side our set back by about 2 feet um reducing the garage width it's over on this side reducing that garage withd um would basically make that garage unusable um there's currently phut there an 8ot door on there uh so I think that you know for cents would be a hardship on that um just for um you know conversation the distance from the left side of our house to the neighbor on the left is 20 28 ft I took a laser and measured the distance so we got 28 ft from house to house and on the right hand side where we're closer where we can't we comply on that right hand side is 15 foot n in is from house to house so even though we don't comply on the left side we're still a greater distance from house to house um the next portion of this presentation I'm going to kind of touch on um the zoning officer's uh comments in her in her report so there's some discussion again about that through lot um because it's basically a grow Street leic have paper Street and unapproved at their back it would be consider through lot but visually in the way it functions a it's a rear yard um I don't foresee that ever being improved that that drainage uh ditch you know you can see that the survey comes across and eventually kind of goes down through that paper Street of of Ro um but analyzing if you you know consider a through lot um the 40% of a lot depth um the proposed addition would still fall in into that requirement so we would be fine there the only thing that um she brought to our attention is there's a a metal shed in that back right hand corner of the property um we talked about you know bringing it into compliance we'd have to move it forward closer to the house by about 11 ft uh in from the property line on the right hand side by about 3 ft um then when I went there again just kind of looked at it close I realized it was pushed all the way back in the right hand corner um you had that drainage ditch so so where it is kind of makes sense um we could probably pull it away from that property line on the right hand side a little bit but back in that right hand corner makes the most sense uh would take less impact with the backyard um so um you know that existing shed was placed there by the current tenant and you know we're looking at you know some from comments from the board you know we want to move that but before we move on Mr Paul so for variance purposes should we treat this as a through lot or not I mean visually and practically it's not a through lot but it sounds like legally it is yeah technically I believe the way it's defined in the ordinance result in it being a through lot and so to that extent yes some leeway can be given if we want to Grant the variances from those existing additional conditions that were noted in there um but I I'll double check as we continue but I do believe we should treat it as a through lot is defined and if we do you know if we do that then I can adjust the the uh the rear guard stepb back lines and and you only you know like said the proposed addition would still be in compliance we're basically going on top of existing first Flor um Point number two uh that zoning officer brought up was regarding the the roof pitch U it required to be six on 12 um our house currently has a 4 on2 pitch um in the proposed addition we're just basically um you know matching that to be uh in conformance with and kind of be unified with the uh the existing structure uh the house to the right uh of our property looks like basically identical house just the the roof was turned probably a very similar pitch most of the houses in that neighborhood you have a similar uh you know aesthetic and a similar height um on the front of the house we did make some improvements to the front the side um even though the bulk of our work is to the back with that addition uh we wanted to dress up the front and you know increased the curb appeel we added a skirt roof U with a Gable over the front door and a gable roof at the at the upper roof line and that upper roof uh uh Gable has a pitch of um of kn on 12 so even though the existing structure is 4 on 12 and the intent to to leave that existing structure 4 on 12 the elements that we are adding are going to have a steeper pitch to it um [Applause] we just talking about the elev see that on the front pitch over that little fox that we're putting on and the G it's all a 6 on 12 and the rest of the roof lines that were adding match that 4 on 12 that's currently there the zoning officer had some comments on um what was existing and proposed on the second floor the second floor basically everything from the the stair forward is existing and from that wall back is what we're proposing uh on the second floor there's currently one bedroom uh one bathroom living in the dining area and kitchen at the front um what we're proposing to do is try to mimic what we have on the first floor so we're incorporating three bedrooms uh to the back um we'll have the two bathrooms we're adding one one bathroom on the second floor so there'll be two bathrooms and then expanding the kitchen a little bit and um the dining and the living area on the first floor the floor plan is there basically just we didn't have any labels on it she was making comments about that um we just drew to you know show what we're doing up above um again just three bedrooms on the first floor two baths currently on the first floor you know the kitchen and the living space the garage and laundry room behind the garage there's no basement that has a slab on grade uh and there's no attic that 4 on 12 uh pitch we're only going to have like 3 and 1 12 ft between the top of the the ceiling joist and the bottom of the ridge so it's basically just you know storage space uh we're not going to have anything that's going to be 7 or more that's going to trigger an calculation uh there was a request to show the building height um we have 23t on the zoning chart uh currently and the existing um would be that same you know 23 plus or minus um well below the 35 maximum that's allowed um again like I said the 4 on 12 pitch is consistent with uh you know a lot of the other homes in the neighborhood um you know and work visually with the Jason Holmes as kind of mentioned by the historic conservation Comm um I reviewed the comments by the other Town professionals and saw no major objections of course the building official Fire official PL will be to code uh the engineer wanted some testimony on that there' be no change to the grade and the work is basically a second floor Edition so there's no no change to the grade and we agree with the the city Forester that there's sufficient um uh um screening around the property that area in the back that's wooded um on the right hand side the right hand side neighbor has a nice grow of trees um and it's well it's just in conclusion you know we're proposing a two-story the second I mean a second floor addition uh to expand that second floor so it's the same as the first floor apartment and there's to be similar to the other two family homes right on that street questions from the professionals maybe I can Okay jump in and hopefully clarify this through lot issue can you clarify the entire Frontage along the rear I believe Grove Street if I'm not mistaken um is there any pavement any portion of that street or is it all it's only on paper where okay um you know I did bring a photo packet that maybe I can you know there's some Google Earth images that may be helpful with that and and then there's some other photos of the some houses in the neighborhood um you think that might be helpful if you believe it helps we could take a might as well I got yeah so the the definition of through lots and the code specifically refers to Frontage and refers to the existence of streets and designating them as the you know the least uh traffic intensive one I I don't believe if there is absolutely no Pavement in that rear portion I don't think you can realistically call that Frontage um it wouldn't be approved if an application were submitted to the town so I think I would interpret that not in fact to be a through lot I think we can treat it and you know ignore the additional requirements of um you know updating those setbacks in accordance with the through lot provision treated as a normal residential lot that's logical to me you see the lot it's logical um and and and maybe to tweak it there there are six unpaved streets in Summit um so we don't want to say not paav but I from what I can tell you could not drive a vehicle or even walk behind that property just just the um Grove Street where the current residences are was wasn't paav back in the 70s and the developer came through and and buil p uh I worked with one of the guys um so um I'm not saying that's going to happen moving forward just giving you a little bit of history that that was the way it is behind their property is the way it was up to Washington Avenue so I don't know if that affects anything but I'm willing to go with our board attorney said you know I was going to say I just didn't want us to say if the Street behind isn't paved then it's not a through street because there are six unpaved streets no not not just pave for example but not used at all as an actual Street I can offer the term not even a walk it's not improved not even a walk unimproved yeah I have a a photograph in the packet of you know looking down Grove at that dead end and you just see that it's all wooded so can't even see the red sign of you can't you can't take one and pass down and have these been submitted or if not no I put these out today Mark those as one one thank you you can I ask a question sure so so uh there three B proposed three bedrooms on the second floor currently three bedrooms on the first floor correct how do you propose to parkr these vehicles if there if there if each person in the room has a car yeah so so uh currently we can park three uh spots in the driveway and one in the garage so we'll have four spots total uh it's a like I said it's a basically a dead end Street couple times that I've been there you know there plenty parking on the street too not that we don't want to encourage that exactly but you know in order to get this transcript properly one at a time please Don you want to finish your comment no I I don't think we want to encourage overflow parking onto the street exactly so um just something there's four spots something for the applicant to think about yeah there's four spots off Street okay um if you look at the uh a bottom photo of the aerial photo you can kind of see the massing their houses off to the off to the left the dot um the house directly to their right is basically an identical house uh without that addition that we're proposing and then the second and third houses are are two family houses um that have a bigger mass than what we're proposing so again we we're still you know conservative in the in the massing of the overall uh SCH on the street you can see that same thing on on the second page uh the neighbor to the right you know there's a consistency and that front facade that we currently have it's kind of ugly you know so introducing that skirt roof uh double windows box Bay we're trying to you know articulate the faad give a little bit better and um the third page uh the top photo you can see the distance the neighbor on the right in our house um and then the neighbor on on the left you said from the um closest point which is that corner because that neighbor's house on the left is on a skew the closest point is 28 ft and it kind gets greater from that point and again trees wooded a lot of buffer the last page was just for conversation for that rear yard but if it's not to lot then we'll essentially just keep it the way it is in that last page um I walked the neighborhood um and I marked where there's two families one families um just checked for number of mailboxes and electric meters to kind of you know determine what was a one family was a two family and got my count from that [Applause] okay any other questions I I had just a couple um the you had said was one of the tenants who put the shed in um so then it's not is it just sitting on the dirt is is it on has it got a foundation that shed's going to be disappearing pretty soon okay well that makes it we don't have any long-term plans for that shed we that's really easy it's going to be um and then when you're talking about the addition for the Neighbors um then is it your testimony let's see there are no the addition has no windows facing the neighbor that's 28 ft away no side windows best I can tell that's the um yeah across the creek there are no neighbor okay no windows on that and then for the neighbor that's closer the one window that is being added in the addition is because the neighbor doesn't have a second story there you're looking over the roof line and not into somebody's bedroom that's correct thank you any other questions can you just explain again why it's hardship to convert this property or make this addition combine it with the existing into a one family house this is an investment property for us so um it's our retirement plan so we would be collecting two rents instead of just one so to to put a one family home there and collect the rent it would be we just couldn't do it the numbers just don't add up so I'll I'll just note for our consideration hardship it it doesn't constitute a hardship within the definition of the municipal land use law for the purposes of granting a a C1 variance that the economic issues that are raised here so what would create the hardship uh so I mean there are cases that say complete economic infeasibility of a project can constitute a potential hardship but I believe the applicants are proceeding as not necessarily under a C1 hardship variance request but a c to uh the general positive and negative criteria and special reasons request okay because it wouldn't qualify on the other okay correct any other questions from the board any questions from the public um um you had your first shot we'll give this gentleman his come forward please and again remember we're talking questions only Yeah question is like I'm live on the 15 Washington Greek can you just state your name spell your last name my name Isam Shakur last name is Shakur s h a k o o r so question I I'm just trying to those trees on our side they're going down so I don't know that's not a privacy anymore they will be going down soon and that Creek is already uh it's slowing down it's like uh erosion already so I'm already concerned from my side for for my property so those trees are already going down so that's not a privacy and that's not a privacy questions yeah I just want to clarify that that was mentioned that trees are making the Privacy chance to comment at the end of the application is questions only yeah sure um from my side from our side I want to make sure is there any windows on our side 15 Washington Avenue over like and I want to make sure that it's they're building the second um level and it's on the creek so any it's I don't I'm not an engineer it's going to effect that Creek I don't know I just want to raise that question um and the height of the of the roof is that going to be bigger than our or larger than ours I don't know that's the third question I have no your yours is much higher than what we have we're going to be the same level as our existing house okay yeah and um yeah yeah the lastly I have is like B when I got the survey we share uh some part of questions questions only yeah I'm I'm coming listen to me please we when I got a survey that we shared some they sh they have some part on our side and we have some part on their side so I want to just want to make sure that we are not um coming to each other surve wise I'm pointing that so that these are the only questions I have just want to put in front of you have a comment to that the property line is where it's at um yeah the drainage is not the property line you know so so part of that Advantage towards the front is on his property and then it cuts across um kind of behind our garage through our property so um is okay does that respond to your question you I'm put okay I can show you guys again I'm not an engine like I think if you're going to try to present the survey that's more appropriate for the comments at the end of the application not for the questions right okay okay any other questions I believe you had please okay you fine come on up I sat too long take your time it's what happens when you sit for a long time well me in 25 you know I'm Joan Conley I live on 12 Middle Avenue with my probably property runs down Washington Avenue and I'm sorry I'm just confused about the parking situation and the amount of traffic that will be flowing down there if this addition is passed could you explain to me again I'm sorry I'm a little dense at times about you'll have adequate parking spots so people do not have to park on the street overnight can I address that you sure can so we've owned the home um we've never met unfortunately we've owned the home since 2004 so my husband and I we had two cars when we lived on the first floor and we often rented to couples who lived in the one bedroom on the second floor so we've we've often had just four cars there um there's no on street parking there at night so correct but unfortunately that does happen um if we rent to people um I mean you're having three bedrooms up stairs so you that's going to be at least two two cars right there well they we that would be in our contract with our renters which we we have typically done I'm sorry that would be in our contract with our renters which we have typically done that they would uh only could have a certain number of cars sure right because there's no overnight parking on the streets in suit mhm so we don't anticipate there being any more cars there than there than there are now because we've had four drivers living at that house off and on you know for almost 20 years now so you know we we we simply can't rent to somebody who has more than two cars that's a limitation of the of the rental agreement and we've been doing that for 20 years so we would obviously continue to do that okay I I don't know what the standard is for parking in the arive zone uh I tried to look through and see sorry I don't know what the standard is for the town requirements for parking in the R zone we try to find it the zone that we're in for property yeah you can't over Park overnight on Street from 2:30 to 5: in the morning right we're providing two spots off Street on the property uh per unit so there's two units now so that'd be a total of four four that's correct right there's two units now and there will be two units and there will be a stipulation that that's sure this way we both done because there's no other option some has a teenage driver they they don't want to rent the property because there's no place for the car thank you great thank you okay any other questions do I need to introduce myself again yeah we're good yeah we're good no okay so this is questions yes so oh I have many questions um so how much of the backyard are we going to be cutting into because I have not heard anyone mention that this is a flood zone there is a brook right next door to this house uh according to engineer dra ditch okay when there is a storm drainage ditch is not going to cut it I can that right now we do have a memo here from the city uh relative to the zoning permit that was at the application of construction floor second floor and existing development property was flagged by uh due to its location in the flood plane uh and according to this the U available flood elevation data for the immediate area indicates the 1% annual chance of flood deviation is approximately 193.50 ft which would be fully contained within the stream channel further more the project is limited to the second floor therefore no work is proposed at grade as such a flood plane development permit is not required for the project and the application can continue to be reviewed and heard at the board so that's what they're telling us is that it's not an issue because they're only doing work on the second floor but you're putting a second addition an addition on it or won't you be cutting into the into the land itself you're not cutting into the backyard you're just going up what going up they're telling us that this is not an issue they don't have to go for a flood plane permit and that it can just be considered as a regular normal application okay my second question is um I have heard repeatedly that parking is not an issue I invite you to come back 10 11:00 tonight and tell me parking isn't an issue the experience because as as we all know in the city of summit you're not supposed to par on the again questions only but you can my question so there's going to be ample parking for it now what hypothetically so in your your lease you're going to maintain that only two cars per unit correct sure of course because right now we are far exceeded excuse me exceeded that um so that that's of concern well the other the other option is if there's parking on the stet that doesn't belong there you can call the police and have tick it up once one person started to do it everybody started doing it well that's what's going to then then you everybody everybody can pay the tickets I understand why one person does it I get it he's a cop but everybody else that's my I'm not going to get into the enforcement police tell you where it's at okay I can't do that I live there so these are my concerns you have any other well you can certainly talk about that at the end when you're allowed to provide your opinion any other questions you address the U parking that's it thank you okay um we have handled questions uh do we have Mr chairman Mr chairman sorry please raise my hand um question there was a question regarding the parking requirement and really in this application for a two family you refer to the rsis residential site Improvement standards for parking and for a three bedroom right they're both three bedrooms it's two parking spaces per unit I'm sorry it's how many two two parking space which is what they're providing correct correct so they are it's in doing what they're supposed to do and the um I don't know if you're considering a condition of the uh on the lease but uh they're not uh they can't put more than two spaces for them and if they go on the street they're in violation of Municipal statute okay is there anything else from any board member okay uh at this point then we will go to anybody who wants to tell us what they think of this application which is now where you can come be sworn and tell us what you think of the application seeing no this is for the public um seeing no one coming forward um you have anything else to add to what's been presented from you this is your chance to wrap up and okay well I've just I've just heard the concerns of my neighbors and you know we want to be good neighbors we live in Summit as well so we'll definitely do what we can to alleviate parking issues and D driving issues by you know not running to people who have you know multiple cars so okay definitely I've I've just heard their issues and we'll try to accommodate in every way we can okay thank you um any conditions and of requirements sure the usual um single condition complies with those conditions noted in our board Engineers memorandum I know there's been talk of a potential limitation on parking I don't know if the board feels that that's necessary since the required parking is being provided oh I think uh just I get deal dealt with that and uh yep I'll withdraw my suggestion so that that was the only single condition then that I had noted um we're dealing with C variances so four affirmative votes are required to approve okay so we will move into executive session at this point um who would like to kick it off Miss to quiet I just see hand go no I'm I'm suggesting that the right hand side of the DI is okay I'll turn this side who wants to start I'll I'll I'll start I mean I just I keep going back to um the zoning officer's first point about not considering it an existing performing condition um by adding the second floor versus it being one um I'm not sure what to make of it yet to be honest with you like because like there were two two points that she had made the point that it is a through lot we've determined it's not a through lot right um what's our point of view on existing nonconformance on the lot area you're saying yeah it it struck me as a bit strange as well um I can't say I've seen that interpretation before where in they expanded building you know the lot size isn't changing it's not being made any smaller so I wouldn't necessarily jump out and say it's required I know the applicants did though apply for that variance so to the extent that you know we're dealing with C variances anyway I I say they're seeking that variance we should treat it as such and formally consider that variance this evening just to be sure that that issue is addressed into the future but yes it it is you know the the size lot isn't changing nothing's being subdivided off or you know being minimized there yes the structure is in theory getting slightly larger as compared to the lot but um the overall dimensions are not impacted okay anyone else want to chime in I'm still not not really comfortable with the some issues here first of all the the limits of the the um boundaries of the lot are not well determined I don't know exactly where this property ends or uh and I I recall one of the uh neighbors raised this point and I'm having also difficulty seeing where the size of the lot and the limits of it and we have here uh when the architect spoke about the distance between he spoke between the houses not between the offset from the uh existing uh Lots borders so um uh I think we need a better survey than that than the existing that I'm looking at for the time being uh to avoid any future so maybe we have a condition of approval like a uh a better survey I don't know if that's a legal term I I think you could ask three different surveyors to survey this slot you're going to get the same thing back unfortunately right they they have very strict parameters in which they observe and record data and then put it in the computer and what's going on with this lot is that it's not going to be sorted out by any server right it sounds like it's a a legal gray area that I don't think we want to weit it into tonight right it's not our it's not our perview it's not our it's not our mission it's not our purview that's right Mr chairman that's a great way of do it I think we just have to deal with the matters at hand and I think what they presented tonight is pretty clear cut what they're asking for so we have to decide whether or not that's reasonable right variances they ask for you know are they reasonable do they do the positive criteria outweigh the negative criteria right are they staying within the spirit of the drro this is what we have to consider tonight and I I'm a little confused what what exactly are you looking to clarify this the survey is as as Mr ly showing uh 7 foot yeah and this is It's a certified complete survey yes I I think it's this Andy I think it's the fact that this part of the what's happening offsite yes yes that happens to be attached to their yeah that that driveway that's not the surveyor within their purview they they can't survey adjacent properties and be compelled to provide the drainage or you know the creek areas there um the survey of this property is complete and meets statutory criteria right and the fact that the tax mag doesn't accurately reflect what's actually going on is not on them at all no and that's I I won't say fairly common but that happens uh you you have paper streets like these that are unimproved and the reality of what behind what's behind there we've addressed through testimony and that's what uh triggers the uh combined setbacks no no no the combined setback is based on the the total side yard of the existing house and we we have those setbacks clearly delineated in the survey yes at seven and seven and a half yes so all of this stuff on the left hand side would just white out it it's any sense it's not relevant to this to the setback determination don't don't pay any attention to it even though we'd like to even if we wanted to which we don't we would not solve it tonight yes so there's really no point waiting in those Waters okay I me it's clearly clearly an unusual property but just to focus on what the applicants is proposing to do I mean it's a two family house now the yes they are proposing to make it larger but it's in scale with you know several other properties on the Block um they're in compliance with with the parking so whatever parking problems there are now they're not going to make it any worse um so in spite of you know I there's some really good questions here but as has been noted they're not really for us to address tonight so I I I think I can support the application based on based on the fact that that really not significally increasing the intensity of use and it is in scale with the other structures on the Block excuse me I agree I think in terms of it being in scale it was was an important decision for me too so I do support this apption we can't pay attention to the neighborhood we have to uh deal with the property that's put in front of us and uh I think that makes all the sense in the world to deal with it that way and uh all the positives are there and the fact that there's no um and that the city has gone ahead and checked on the the drainage issues to make sure that we don't have a problem and that the that the neighbors won't have a problem and uh that makes uh makes the positives outweigh the negatives and I would accept a motion at this point to approve the uh application moved second Vice chairman lyet yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss tote yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries okay congratulations good luck hopefully you'll I think your neighbors are waiting to talk to you which would be good uh and uh certainly uh something we want to do we've got a couple more motions for extension don't we yeah um ahe we have a number of resolutions yes so we have resolution only two of them left anymore want me to if the board would like us to weigh in on what on the the two resolutions for extensions sure um first one was uh citing financial reasons as the basis for the request that's 185 Oakridge Avenue uh again the request was for the the first request for another year extension there um 28 Druid Hill uh cited that they would ideally like to have more time they have very young children a newborn baby attempting to uh do the project at the this time is not feasible for them again requesting a one-year extension excuse us folks we need excuse us in the back of the room folks please please carry on outside please outside we're we're still in session so unless there's any other questions for me on either of those extensions okay okay we have two motions yes two separate motions motion and we have a motion on the first one which is for 185 oid Avenue I motion second Vice chairman lits yes Mr Yugo yes Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes Mr M yes Miss to yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries okay and then the next one that we will do is 28 Druid Hill Road that's zb- 22- 2175 block for 4801 lot 17 and that's Steph Thompson and kin laber moved okay second all right Vice chairman lits yes Mr Yuko yes Mr Mr Nelson yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries okay there's one other item I wanted to bring up um relative to our ongoing uh resol uh cases and that is we have been issuing one year to condition has been a one year to get your building permit and we're processing a lot of for us a lot of uh extensions and many of the extensions are for financial reasons that are coming up and um we did this in the past uh in one of the other Financial issues areas uh to instead of go doing a single year to make the condition two years to get a building permit and uh if you all agree we will start doing that on all resolutions that come forward uh that will offer that will put a 2-year uh condition on it and that way hopefully we won't get as many extension requests and the FED Cuts rates we can change it again construction quests go down any uh any objection to us doing that yes sir if not our attorney will do that on the ones we passed tonight as well as uh those that come up in the future we'll do and I believe there are no minutes for approval our next meeting is July first and do we need a motion to adjourn so moved second thank you good night good night e