regularly scheduled meeting for which the date, time, and location is set forth in the annual notice of meetings adopted by the public planning board at the organization meeting of January 2026 in accordance with the open public meetings act
has been filed with the world clerk. The copy posted in the vest of the Wick administration building and copies transmitted within 7 days after adoption to the official newspapers of the bureau as designated by the governing body to
it the bro record and the original news. So I call this meeting to order and secretary please do the roll call. >> Mayor Jodano >> here. >> Mr. Rorich >> here. Mr. Romano >> here
>> Mr. Frink Mr. Kowalsski >> here >> Mr. Mistwick Makola Drake Mr. Panfilly >> here >> Mr. Schz Mr. Schultz >> here >> Mr. Mitchell >> here.
>> Thank you. Please rise. Join me in a moment of solemn prayer followed by the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. Does anybody from the public have anything to come before this board that's not on the agenda? >> And that's not you.
>> Okay. Okay. Right. to uh I want you to a motion that does everybody have a copy of the minutes? Does anybody had a chance to read that? I want you to a motion to um dispense with the reading
stand and mark. Any discussion? Can we go to a How about it call? that just all in favor. >> Oh, all in favor. >> Any opposed?
Any abstensions? See none. Not on the record. Drake has joined us. The circle Drake just joined us. Okay. Resolutions. I see none. We do have an application.
RAC Holmes 103 Crescent Avenue. Mr. Whitaker. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Rich Whitaker representing Rack Homes LLC. Uh, Rack Holmes is the owner of 103
Crescent Avenue, Walwick, showing a tax map at block 143, lot number 27. The property is a regularly shaped property, having six sides. It's on the corner of West Prospect and Preston Avenue. You're probably all very familiar with it.
Somewhat of a focal point as you come down the road and um at this point it's a lot that my client recently purchased. Uh obviously looking at it in the past that has not been well maintained by the prior owners of the property and it's
become somewhat of a a catch all ground for um some debris and whatever else which obviously will be cleaned up as we move forward. Uh the property consists of 26,000 uh plus square ft. Uh the property is in
your R1 zone which requires 15,000 square ft. The applicant's proposal is to subdivide the property into two building lots. The lot would each house a single family home. You'll hear testimony this evening about the home
itself being very modest in nature. The good part about the subdivision approach with this, and you'll hear testimony from our planner, is that the lots that are being proposed are somewhat similar to the other lots in the neighborhood.
These are lots that are going to be compatible with other lots. The homes proposed will meet the both requirements as it pertains to the setbacks. So, we're not creating a lot that will be deficient, have a deficiency, and would
prompt the necessity for additional variance relief. Um, the homes, as I stated, modesty, uh, the lots that are being proposed, one lot will be, uh, will meet the 15,000 ft criteria for lot
area. uh both lots will be deficient as you'll hear from testimony of our engineer pertaining to lot width but although deficient compatible would be other lot widths of the properties in that vicinity. Um beyond that we would
explore also there's a deficiency in lock depth right now and that one would remain um an overview of the application and our position that what we're proposing here meets the criteria under the circum-c um you have a regularly shaped lot uh it
is oversized uh one of the largest lots um in that area uh in doing the review and we'll hear this from our planner. Uh it's not one of these type of lots you can say, well, if we allow this here, does that mean other lots in the neighborhood would do the same thing? Uh
basically impossible because no other lot has a configuration that this lot has that prompt two lot subdivision. um we'll be able to provide to you the reasons why from a standpoint of the positive and negative criterias and that meets the goals of the municipal
language law as well as meeting goals set forth in your master plan. Um, with that said, we obviously recognize that there's another reason for it and see it under the C2 criteria also because
what's going to be done will obviously upgrade the streetscape and the whole area and make this lot much more conforming as to uh a residential character uh in that area. Uh we've had the benefit of all the reports from your
agencies. There's nothing in those reports that we cannot satisfy. Uh we quoted public works that said they may be need for some different sewer connection, whatever else, albeit whatever it is, we can meet those criteria. We've also had the benefit of the posible report of May the 26th and
Mr. Gra's report of May the 4th. Uh we can meet all of the criteria and questions and issues they have in there. we can meet them and we stipulate we will meet them and we're going to address some of them during the course of the testimony this evening. Uh we have three witnesses this evening. We
have Eric Wilson, our engineer that's going to explain to you the existing conditions and what the proposed conditions are. And then uh Oine also adds to the sizing of this lot uh and comparison to the other lots in the area. Our second witness will be John
Ninsky. He is a local architect. has done the design of lots of single family homes in Northwest Burke and uh he is just going to give you a conceptual of what these homes would look like. They're modest and they will fit and be compatible with other homes in the
neighborhood. And then finally, we have Steve Lighten with a Suburban Associates, a wellrespected planner who's testified many times including before this board um has as you'll hear has a plan for Bergen County itself. And
with that, he will take us through the planning aspects of show how these two lots meet the character of the neighborhood and uh that they will be compatible with it and fit within what's called plans for the overall neighborhood. So unless there's any
questions with me, I will call first. >> Thank you. Question. Um last month we were questioning whether there was wet land. So, was there It's obviously not wetland. >> No, it's not. There's no wetlands. Uh, and there's no environmentally sensitive
areas. That was confirmed. uh also in uh report. >> Before you sit down, hand up. >> State your name and spell you last. >> Eric Wilson. E R I C W I L S O N.
You sir testimony about the gift of the truth to hold kids and nothing about the truth of God. >> I do. Mr. Wilson, what is your um profession? >> I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey
center incorporated. I prepared well I prepared one of the plans for you. Our professional land surveyor primarily prepared our sub plan. I did it as a consultant together. Uh and uh my license is current and active in the city of New Jersey. And uh those my
first pleasure to have appeared before the first time it's my pleasure to appear first time before you I've appeared before many other towns both say Burden County, Sussex County, Morris County. List some if you'd like, but uh I've been doing this about 15 years.
>> License is in good standing. >> It is. >> And education is from where? I have a bachelor civil engineering. >> Lady and gentlemen of the board, Mr. Wilson comes before you as an expert in the field of engineering. As such, she
is different from the lay witness in one critical aspect. He may give you opinion testimony. To the extent that you agree with his opinion testimony, you are absolutely in allowed to accept it. If you find that either the underlying
facts are not as he says or you perceive them to be different and or you just find his conclusions to be different from yours, you are not bound to accept them. >> Thank you. Mr. Wilson, you're familiar with this
property and you've been in charge of preparing the plans for this application. Correct. >> Correct. So referencing the plans that are up there uh those plans are the same plans that were submitted u on that and the uh
so two here I have the subdivision plan three sheets the existing conditions plan sheet um the date of those plans are March 116 and and
site movement plan by our office uh dated April 22nd 26 revised uh May the 13th by over sure they are the same and there's no difference in what we see
>> would you like uh sir I have three sheets they all be A1 A1 they can all be A1 one and then A2 is a single sheet. I got it correct. So, Miss Wilson, remember some of the exhibits that have just been locked into
evidence at A1 and A2. I'd like you to tell us and explain to us what the existing conditions are of this property. >> Absolutely. Um, as already mentioned, uh, we're here tonight for 103 Crescent Avenue, block 143, 27,
uh, here in the burrow. Uh, it's a lot of the corner of Crescent Avenue and West Prospect Road. Crescent Avenue being uh, right away and West Prospect being a municipal rightway. It's a lot that, uh, as was mentioned, is a bit irregularly shaped. Um the frontage
along West Prospect is approximately 111 ft. Um it's from the uh the end of the uh radius there and then along Crescent Avenue 140 ft. But once you start moving the interior of the lot um from the West
Prospect side there's a leg of the lot 67.2 two feet back then and it makes it a regular bend uh to the south east and so regardless of civil engineering
it would be correct to say that the shape of this lot is regular. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. And on the basis of that um is there anything on this lot as far as structures are concerned? >> Um the only existing structures there's no existing structures as we would all
call them. There is an old foundation uh that was found to be on the lot at the time of our survey as well as some old fencing in the rear of the lot. >> And you're familiar with the u overall lot and we've already just like you put on the record. No environmental
constraints as pertain to the property. >> No. >> In connection with the um this lot right now. Is there any drainage facilities on this property? >> There is not. So at this point any uh drainage or anything is sheet flow off the property. Correct.
>> Yeah. So you may have some you know minor areas where the sheet flow might uh kind of come into like a shallow concentrated flow condition and spread back out along the boundaries of the property. It's fairly flat but there's a bit of a null if you will in the middle.
>> I'd like you to take us through what is now being proposed with the two lot subdivision. regard safe each of the lots that you've designated as uh 27.01 and 27.02 too. Take us through West area and others.
All right. We're going to be on sheet three. proposes to divide the existing lot into two lots. This would be proposed lot 2701 to the north and lot 27.02 to the south. Um
the existing lot has an area of 26,529 ft which is uh quite a bit larger than the um the zoning required lot size of 15,000 ft in the R1 zone.
Um the existing lot is deficient in depth. Um it primarily is drive and it's a regular shape. Um on the one side of the lot coming back off Crescent is 237 ft long but then as you approach towards the corner it gets substantially
narrower. um the two proposed lots. We would divide them so that the lot to the north 2701 would become the corner lot and that lot will be 10,989
ft which we do acknowledge is less than the required 15,000 ft. You'll hear some testimony from planner concerning why we believe that's appropriate and why we believe that that furthers the reason special reasons of municipal landings
law and your master plan. Um that lot would have a width of 86.96 ft which is slightly difficult compared to the 100 ft required and a lot depth of 124.76 which is again consistent with the
existing lot depth and still non-compliant. So that depth just to explore that a bit that depth at this point would be exactly what's there today. >> Yes. >> No change. >> Correct. >> Uh in connection with the second lot they labeled 27.02.
>> Yes. So that lot would have an area of 15,540 ft which is compliant with the ordinance but it would have a width of 70 ft which is deficient compared to the 100 ft required by ordinance. But then it would have a conforming depth of 237.8 ft. Um
again just the reason for uh for how one lot can conform to depth and not the other is due to that irregular shape existing property. So looking at this lot and the existing condition would be correct to say that this lot is much larger and one of the
largest lots in the center. >> Yes. And you can see that actually on our cover sheet we have a uh a map here which overlays your municipal tax map. um the key map on the left side of page one and uh you can see that there are
some lots that uh have a similar depth to our our uh our deeper side along the county road to Ben. As you come down West Prospect Road, the lot is significantly smaller. On average, they're about 50 to 60 ft wide. There is
one that's at 40 and then they're all roughly 100 ft deep. Uh on our side of the street, there's a bunch of irregularly shaped lots that get progressively larger and that's just due to the nature of where the streets are in the area and you know how it was historically developed.
>> And uh this whole area here as far as the lot sizes and shapes are concerned besides you confirm that it's irregularly shaped. It's unusual in that it's shaped very different from the other lots around it. >> Yes. You know, an unusually shaped lot
can take a lot of forms. Um, you know, often times it might be in a flag or in some other sort of shape. This, you know, I I don't really see a good reason for why the lot was formed in the shape that it is other than that's how I saved it. Uh, with that said, there's a
proposal to construct a single family home on each of the lots. So, let's explore this from the standpoint of both requirements. >> Sure. And so, we also submitted a soil movement plan which I referenced earlier. mark that as I have here that's
page two and the purpose for this plan um the applicant has submitted or desire to spend submitted are um a soil movement application to prepare the losses fair amount of earth work nothing
you know out of the ordinary for home building fair amount of earth work and preparatory work would have to be done preceding uh development of the properties and he would with the subdivision should it be approved to be able to proceed and do some of that preparatory work. And so,
um, we prepared some conceptual layouts to show you what could be developed on the property. They're not final houses. Um, but you'll hear more from our architect u, but um, we show a house on um, proposed lot. Sorry, I don't mix
them up here. 27.01 fronting on West Prospect Road. Um street. >> Okay. There. Who doesn't want to do that? Um the reason we're choosing to front
the house in that direction in this concept is that each opposing house uh has the driveway from that street and uh design of the paint that was appropriate. I
know in one of the letters brought up that by fronting the house towards uh West Prospect Street that that would create a front yard variance addition. um we could front it to Crescent Avenue. We just felt it was more appropriate given the nature of the community to do
it the way that we showed. Uh and then also there was a comment asking or noting the width of the driveway being quite a bit more than what your ordinance allows for. And um while we think that it provides for a better usable lot, that's something we can
discuss with your professionals. >> Well, you will stipulate that we will bring it down to 20 STIPULATIONS. UH AS FAR AS the building level. So it does how it's shown now, but if we were to front the house along West Prop 3 doesn't qualify the uh the review
letters, it would change the uh envelope as we go it by 350 back to what Prop Street and then in that case it would not meet it. Um if we were to front it in the other direction, we could meet it. Um so it's it's a developable lot.
We just felt that in our concept the most appropriate way to develop it prospecting on West prospect the building envelope would be performing with both remote standards. >> The building envelope would or the house would be shown here. I'll just say that
that building envelope that would be closed would be able to be one that would accommodate a sle >> a narrow one >> uh in connection with the uh proposal. Uh talk to us about the
second lot. >> Yes. So the second lot for the south lot 27.02 102. Um, it creates a fairly long lot again due to that that shape and the depth that we have there. So, what we've shown in concept here is a 34x 34 uh
foot house which is fully within the um the building envelope uh with a driveway that would go past the house and there's room a garage in the rear um full use of the property. Um that's been shown the
central plan and again the building envelope including the garage the fuel and the park as shown here um from the standpoint of drainage on this 26,000 plust lot there's no drainage done testify to that what is being proposed
so there's nothing there today and again as I mentioned the layout here conceptual um so when we produce an actual site plan with a uh a final house design from our architect Yeah, this would probably change a little bit. It's going to be moved around. Um, but we
should what we showed is based on calculations of what how large, how many drywalls would be required should we propose something with this level of coverage. So, you can see what it would look like. Um, obviously as brought up in Oswalt's letter, storm storm water
soil testing is going to be required anywhere we put them and we agree to that entirely. Um there was a comment about our storm water drain along 27.02 um not having great that would probably get shifted further to the south leaders
said again it was shown primarily for central regions to calculate cuts and fills for the storm movement application and to show uh that the lots are developable. Um but we would propose to collect the roof run off from the property as well as uh the driveways as
needed and infiltrate them in the subs soil so that we ensure that there's no detrimental effect in neighboring properties from the increase in purpose. So on the basis of that am I correct in saying that these drainage improvements will now uh create a situation where
drainage will be contained on site whereas it's not right now with cheap flow that testified to earlier. >> Yes. Yes. I mean, you'd still have sheet flow from our uncollected areas that are still grass, things of that nature, but um any of our imperous areas that especially the roof areas where we have
that clean run off, it's ideal to infiltrate to um promote improvements in groundwater and the local aquifers. We would do that. >> You're familiar with the requirements for drainage calculations and drainage improvements when developing a lot of
developing a subdivision. Correct. >> I am. And are these pro provisions that you've proposed in this plan meet all of those requirements? >> They do. >> You've had the benefit of the May 26 Boswell report that you previously referenced. >> Yes. >> There is a few requests there for some
minor modifications to drainage calculations. You already testified that there's going to be soil testing etc. Would it be correct to say and we can stipulate that we can meet all of the requirements set forth in their report? >> Yes. Comment 11 I referenced briefly but that had to pertain to the location of
inlet which um we would relocate and and address that comment certainly. Uh item number 12 um this was asking about how the runoff will be collected and we certainly on the final site plans will be submitted for uh permits to build the
houses would provide much more detail on on how the collection will be handled um and comply with what they're going to be looking for. We mentioned the soil logs and then lastly inspection and maintenance procedures will be provided um and certainly the system will be
designed so there's no negative effects on any of the properties surrounding. So one of the one of the stipulations for each property owner is as per character 14 uh maintenance of the pits will be the responsibility of the property owner and that runs with the land. So only
future property owners will be required to maintain that and that's the standard that's using today. Correct. >> Very standard. this. >> Okay, let's turn to uh the other improvements on the site um landscaping. >> Yes. So, um the site is generally wooded
today and um to prepare them to construct homes, we do put down a number of trees. They're all shown on the plan. Um we would propose uh we don't show a detailed landscaping plan here. Again, it's conceptual, but the goal would be to landscape the properties so they are
very in keeping with the surrounding area and meeting the ordinance requirements. So, correct to say we would meet the ordinance requirements, the tree removal permit uh submission and um we would landscape it which would be in accordance with what's required by the construction department also.
Correct. >> That is correct. >> Let's just talk about the soil movement. you testify that you have a soil movement plan, but I'd like to place on the records what the quantities would be. >> Sure. Um, so we have here on our soil
movement plan. Uh, you'll see a number of various uh you should have submit color for you. See these kind of purple boxes. Um, there's a couple different ways you can estimate soil moving quantities. If you have a roadway or a linear development crosssection every so often, you average them. We do provide
some cross-sections as required by yours here. But because of the shape of the lots and the way it was, we felt it was um more accurate to basically box out in and rectangular shapes the areas where the soil be moving at about a similar amount of uh elevation and then uh label
the cuts and fills in those areas as appropriate and add them together. Um so that we can provide you with an appropriate accurate number. Um on lot 27.01 1 um you'd be moving about 147 cubic yards um of fill in, but you'd be
removing 540 yards of cut. So after you balance those um there's a 357 cubic yard uh cut and export that must come out of the property and that's primarily driven by um the house construction
and uh we need to install basement under them and there's just nowhere on the property to raise the grade sufficiently without it being strained and not keeping the neighborhood which certainly is not something we want to do. Um, so that's that's what drives the 200 357
cubic yard net cut on lot. That's a comparison of finish grade today to finish grade tomorrow. So that's inclusive of stone and other materials that we placed in addition to soil. Lot 27.02 um we had the opportunity to uh do more
fill there. We have 43 cubic yards of fill required inclusive of the stone for the storm water management system etc. But then um 480 cubic yards of cut coming out. So that's much more balanced, but it is still a net cut of approximately 80 yards. For reference, a tandem dump
trucks about 15 cubic yards. A triacle about 20. So you're talking, you know, four or five trucks coming out of uh the second lot. And on the first lot, you could say, you know, 10 to 10 to 20. And it sounds like maybe a lot if you're not
used to looking at construction, but it's it's probably not even going to be noticed by the community. Um that that amount of soil can be moved in a few days without disruption. >> As far as the utilities at all are
concerned, um there's no roadways that have to be improved. Uh there's uh sewers in line and water in line. Correct. There are and we would you know we didn't detail the proposed connections because again the houses aren't final but on our site plans that would be submitted to the burrow we will
detail sewer connections water connections um gas and electric as appropriate uh and there in avenue there's water sewers gas and electric for our survey markouts and then there's
also utilities available in West Prospect. >> Thank you. Nothing further at this time. >> Thank you. I have a quick question. On the tax map that you provided, you see in lot 26 there is a drainage
easement that butts up to to the far end of the property. >> Yes, sir. >> Does that have any effect on the property at all? >> Uh, not that we're aware of. documents are available. >> Okay.
Sir, >> um I did check with the regarding any type of drainage pipes that the borrowed in that evening and I confirmed that they have no recording that >> okay.
>> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Now we go to the public. All right, members of the public, you can ask questions. You have to be strong. You have to stand up. You have to ask your questions into the microphone. Questions are only for this
witness, only based on what he has testified to. There is a period for comment later on after all the testimony is in. But right now, it's questions only. And I will stop you if you're not asking a question. So, if anyone would
like to come up and ask a question, by all means. You'll have to be sworn >> shall attempt to be brief. >> Raise your right hand, please. >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true self to God?
>> I do. >> State your name, please. >> Charles Blanchard. >> If you would be so kind as to spell the last name. >> Yes. B is L A N as C H A R D. And your
address, sir? >> 206 West Prospect Street. You want the property questions? >> Okay. Thank you. And your questions are >> Thank you, sir. Um, Mr. was
I have some questions um with regards to the drainage calculations that you made. Were they based on rainfall onto this property only? >> So the sizing calculation let me try to
answer it. >> Okay. So I'll see the angology point of view. Um so we compare our exist in in this case there is no real existing impervious coverage. So we make comparison of our impervious coverage and um we calculate
the volume of 3 in of runoff over that impervious coverage which generates um a total cubic foot of rainfall generated uh by the impervious coverage of one for the lot in question. Sorry, your lot is is you're you're here. Do I understand
that correctly? Where's your >> correct? Right here. That is correct. Um, so the uh storm water system that's currently shown closest to you um is sized to accommodate uh 1,608 cubic feet
of water, whereas the impervious coverage on that lot would generate 1,239 cubic feet in a 3-in raintorm, which is roughly equivalent to a common water quality storm that you'd have very frequently about an inch in a quarter. A 3in storm is a little more serious. Um
it's not a it's not a monsoon but it's a I have 29 years of experience on site uh observations. >> Sure. So um >> I am somewhat familiar. >> Okay. >> All right. Um forgive me this is not a
question but simply an ask. Is it possible to review the possibility report? >> Currently it's been a public document on record May 27th. >> Thank you. It's it's part of a public file.
>> Thank you, sir. All right. I will reserve the rest until the comments period because the rest are observations rather than questions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your attention. >> Any other people from the public who wish to uh come forward?
Again, questions only please related to the testimony. I'm Caesar Baldi. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm Caesar Baldy. I'm a neighbor to this property. >> Okay. Mr. Waldy, would you raise your hand, please?
>> You sir, testimony you're about to give give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the true self to God. >> Yes. >> Okay. And if you would spell your last name, please. >> B A L D I. >> And Mr. Faldi, what is your address? I I object to it because All right. The
lot is bigger. >> Oh, sir. I asked a question. >> Where do you live? >> Where do I live? >> Yeah. >> Next door, 99 Preston Avenue. Yeah. That's what I was looking for. >> Remember, questions only. >> Oh,
>> if you have if you have an opinion, you will have your chance to state it, but that comes after all the testimonies in. >> Okay. >> Fair enough. Go ahead with your question, sir. >> Well, I lived all my life and this still
it's been a lot less, but it's enough to >> again question that you're commenting now, I'm afraid. Is there a question attached to this question for the engineer? >> I have a question or am I going to >> do you have a question? In other words,
you're up here to ask questions right now. Um, comments and your opinions. Absolutely. But not now after all the testimony you've seen. Right now, it's only questions for the engineer. >> So, I have to answer the question.
>> No. No. You have If you have a question for him, ask it. >> No. >> Okay. >> You'll have to wait till we have comments from the public. Okay. >> That comes later. >> Comes later. Yes, sir. Okay. >> Take a seat. Yes sir.
>> Are there any other questions from the public? >> Mr. No further questions next. Sir, you testimony shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. God, state your name, spell your
last, please. John M u S I N S K I. And your profession, sir? >> I'm a licensed architect. >> All right. And how long have you been so licensed? >> 37 years.
>> And your license is a good standard, of course. Um, have I don't remember you before this board. I've been before this board number seems to be
>> okay with again Mr. Mazinski is an expert in the field of architecture. He testifies as an expert because of that he can render opinions. Again, if you find his opinions persuasive, you
are entitled to accept them. If you do not, you are also entitled to object for the purposes of conceptual architectural plans uh for these two lots. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> You had the opportunity to review the
subdivision map, the dimensions on the map, and the areas that are involved on each of the proposed lots. >> Yes. So I and you've designed homes like this on similar lots. >> Yes. >> Um I'd like you to just walk us through what the conceptual plans are looking at
these elevations and explaining um what the height is, the size of them, number of bedrooms, that type of thing. >> Well, at this point we have the conceptual elevations basically on on a similar project. >> And could we mark those? >> Mark as A3.
>> Thank you. >> Collectively we'll mark it. Yeah. >> Conceptual architectural. >> Um okay. So this is a conceptual drawing A1 that we have submitted which is basically just a similar project we have
done before that these houses will be based on. Um this the houses will have two two homes one lot approximately maybe 2,800 square ft 3 to four bedrooms. The house on the corner lot due to the uh the shape of the the
property and where we feel the garage should go um and can fit will be a an attached garage on the corner lot. Uh the southern lot will have basically a uh detached garage behind it and a long drive will get there. It's a narrow lot.
So there's no way to basically do it in our body due to the size of the property once it's subdivided. >> And the configuration you have here will meet all the bulk standards. >> Yes, we will meet all the bulk standards once once it's planning for approval. If
we get approval, meet all the standards including height setbacks. >> You've had the opportunity to uh view the neighborhood and the areas surrounding these prop this property. >> Yes. Would it be correct to say that what you're proposing here would fit within the character architecturally um
with other uh properties other homes in the facility? Yes. Yes. The way the front yard depending on what house you're talking about be no further than the existing properties that are adjacent to
in connection with the uh materials that you're proposing. What is what would be built? The the materials would be basically uh cement pl cement hardy siding. We'll have um asphalt shingles, some metal roofs, accent roofs. Um it'll
be a nicely built house with some architectural character that'll add some uh and lot the two houses will distinguish itself from each other. It won't be what's referred to as a cookie cutter approach. >> No, they'll be they'll be different. I mean there'll be different shapes
because one will be narrow from the trunk and this narrow lot with with the attach garage behind it. Um they will be different. Yeah. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Is the intent to sell these or uh
or rent them? >> Well, Mr. Singer, that's not a main question under law, but I will answer it anyway. That is they would be sold. That can't be in for your consideration.
Just curious. >> What type of home is this? Would it be colonial or by level? >> Oh, pretty much what you see here. It's not going to be a B level, not a split level. Be basically more traditional kind of typical home that
you see. Just most of those areas have capes and split levels. Not even level. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Mr. McInness. Oh, I'm sorry. Joe, >> the south she said the driveway is going
to be the garage is going to be detached in the back. >> Well, the that is the south lot, not the corner lot because the narrowness of the property, you can only fit a a house so wide. So, the house would be slightly deeper than wide to get a driveway to pass by it. >> So, you you couldn't have it attached at
the cuz I would think the zoning's tougher to have a detached garage than an attached garage or no, >> we don't have the width. No, it's not. It still meets all the setback requirements. >> Okay. I was I told you I thought it was more stringent to have a detached garage instead of an attached garage.
>> We meet the setback requirements for an accessory struct. >> Okay. And then as far as the height, what was the height again? I'm sorry. >> We're not going to go over the maximum height. >> 35 ft. I believe height. It'll be much It'll be It'll be below that two. Yes. 9 foot ceiling on the first
floor, eight on the second. This house would probably be a vicinity of about 30 foot um roof at the high point. >> Thank you, >> Mr. McInness. >> Will there be basements? >> Yes. And you need to testify the
basement. >> So the conceptual architectural plans are not necessarily match the site plans. They're both conceptual as I understand. So obviously there's basement that's going to change the soils because plans don't match. So, as long as the board is aware of that,
we'll make sure you're aware of that. >> Yeah, we'll work from the engineering plans where they testify to the quantities with basements and the architectural plans that we have here. I brought the the architect in just so that the board would have a sense of the style of the house, how the house would
look on these lots as part of the proper evidence and u foundation and basis for the barriers would be being sought that we have houses that will meet your the stated criteria what they will look like and obviously not be overpowering because they're going to be less in
height than the maximum >> and and that's fine but just the north aware If the house changes size changes the earth so there >> are the soil movement calculations that you reviewed consistent with full
basements for these two houses. >> They're consistent with the plan but not with the architectural plans. Both financ. So the soil movement that we're seeking will be based upon the engineering testimony,
>> but it doesn't match what you intend to build. >> I'm sorry. >> But it doesn't match what you intend to build. >> No, these what we intend to build will be on a footprint that's shown on the edge. >> So we're just talking about the the envelope and the footprint. >> That is correct.
And again, Mr. McInness, you found the um the soil moving calculations that you review to be consistent with full basance. >> Correct.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? Now, is this for questions of the architect? Now for the public. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Open the floor to the public with questions specific to the architect.
>> Again, questions only to the architect only. >> I'm just wondering when you say 30. Sir, raise your right hand. >> Dear sir, the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to God. >> Yes. >> Please state your name. >> Kevin Becker.
>> Mr. Becker. Good to see you, sir. Um, and your address on West Pro West Prospect is >> 204. >> 204. Thank you. Now, a question for the architect. >> Okay. The first one you say 35 ft. Is
that two stories or >> the house will be two stories? The 35 ft refers to the maximum building height allowed in this zone which would be from its average grade. But the bottom line is the it's to the rich not to the to
the upper point of the house. This house will not be 35 ft. It'll be less than average. >> So it's a twotory. >> What's a tangent question? is a two-story home, right, with a basement. My concern is one,
I bought the house 22 years ago because I love the view, right? It's not, but I'm worrying about the water. The house next door to me is backyard is basically a swamp most of the year,
mosquito infested and everything else. I'm worried about the drainage because when they built the houses on vine street behind me. >> All right, Mr. We got to keep >> those are engineering questions. >> All right. >> They should have been asked of the
engineer. The architect doesn't deal with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. But your comments will be welcome at the end. >> All right. Does he need to be sworn in again? >> Hi, Mr. Baldi. You're still under oath, sir.
>> Yes. Okay. >> Question. >> I don't have a question. >> Then it's not the time. >> When When do I make a comment? >> When all of the testimony >> is in when it when everyone who's sitting there to testify has testified
and when Mr. Whitaker has said he's that's all of his evidence. That's when you all get to ask questions. Okay. >> There further questions from the audience? I see none.
Call our next witness, Mr. Light. >> Good evening, sir. >> Raise your right hand, please. >> I do. >> And state your name. Spell your last, please. >> Sure. My name is Steve Lion, spelled L Y
D O N. And your profession, sir? >> Yes, I'm a professional planner. I have been since before fall. Uh I'm elected university graduate. Uh I used to work for B County Planning Board three lifetimes ago. I mean before co uh I was
a planning director and zoning officer for a community in Morris County for about uh 11 years or so. And as an aside, never become a zoning officer. Yes, horrible. Uh and then for the last 25 years I've been uh in the employee of Burgess Associates. I come out to night
hearings and testify uh on on behalf of applications. I also sit with boards uh reviewing them on behalf of the board. I've testified in superior court as well as municipal court. I've created master plans, re-examination reports, and lately nothing but housing plans.
>> Is that all? >> Thank God that's all. Thank >> all right. My license is a good standing. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. >> All right, folks. Once again, Mr. Leiden has
appeared before this board any number of times. He is a he is an expert in the field of planning and as such can render opinions. Once again, to the extent you find them helpful, by all means accept them. If your
analysis differs, you have the right to reject them. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Elijah, just to um continue with the u introduction that you gave, uh a large part of your practice is sitting as a
planner and reviewing plans on behalf of municipalities. Correct. >> That is correct. Part of the bulk of our are Yes. and you are familiar with the U municipal land use law and specifically the requirements set forth in U NJSA4 55
days 7 C1 and C2 >> yes with that said have you had the ability to um see this site see this property and review all of the plans involved with this application >> yes in preparation for my testimony tonight I visited the site twice most
recently Saturday I have looked at the review the engineering plans. I have reviewed the architectural plans. I have uh reviewed the borrow master plan and the reexamination report you adopted in 2018. And I also became familiar with the applicable applicable portions of
the world and zoning orders. >> And in connection with this, you were also part of what I'll refer to as the team architect, our engineer, myself in reviewing this and creating the application that snaps forward. Correct. >> Correct. And so we've been provided with
your planning expertise as as part of the submission. >> That's correct. >> So with that said, I would like you from a planning perspective to walk us through uh your analysis of this property and the justifications for the variance relief being sought. >> I'll be happy to. Uh you've heard that
the property's at the corner of Crescent Avenue Prospect Street, not road. Uh the property is vacant and large. The total is 26,529 ft. And I think that's relevant to your deliberations tonight. Um without I'll
go into this in greater detail later, but this slide is pretty unique for the area, pretty unique for Waldorf for a number of reasons, which I'll also get into later. And I think that uniqueness based on both the C1 criteria of the statute that Mr. literature just lad as
well as the C2 basis of the statute uh gives this board the the authority and the reason to grant the application to create this uh the subdivision and create two lots out of one. Uh the property is obviously the largest property on the block. It is uh as you
heard environmentally it's free of environmental constraints. It has however through the years been the subject of dumping. And here I have to make a uh a bit of a confession. Uh, I went out to photos on Saturday and none of them were recorded by my digital
camera for some reason. I'm getting a new one. But there is multiple examples of dumping of various materials. Everything from uh cut grass to leaves to branches when someone cut off of a of
a tree or two. there is more substantial uh amount of fill on the property such as um clay pipe, concrete pipe, asphalt and it's not in an area or two. People have spread this material uh throughout the site. Um if you look at this the
trees real careful a lot of the trees are relatively young and they've grown up I guess after some of this um the dumping was placed but there is ample evidence of a dumping and I have on the board here what you haven't seen yet an
aerial uh photograph of the area and I I zoomed it in real tight. We >> marked that as A4. >> Thank you. I'll >> mark the A4 and date it today, June 3rd. And it is called site aerial map and it was dated uh the exhibit date is today
June 3rd. And I tried to bring this in real real tight in an effort that you might be able to see some of the um the dumping areas. And it is widespread. It is along
West Prospect Street. was along uh Preston Avenue for new corner. Um this bowl seems to be mostly um dumpsville and a lot of asphalt. So that will be one of the benefits of this application
is that material that foreign material inertia was put there will be removed. This exhibit is also good in showing the immediate area and later on in my I keep saying later on but that's fine. I'll mention that your your ordinance has a provision where if the ordinance says
one thing on primary setbacks and the prevailing neighborhood pattern of development is somewhat different, you can use the prevailing neighbor neighborhood pattern of development. And I'd just quickly like to point out the proximity of zones on the north side of
West Prospect Street. They're about 25 25.2 ft from the right of way. uh the house to uh the immediate east of us is this one. Uh it appears to be even closer and then they do step back a little bit further back but I think the
overall pattern in the area the front yard setback is very close to 25 ft away along uh west prospect. I wasn't so much concerned about the setbacks on Crescent because we're going to meet them. Uh the the ordinance requires a 50- foot setback and we're proposing a 50- foot
and change setback and that's only a conceptual plan. It may actually shift further back when the architect finishes his work. Uh in the current condition, this property detracts from the neighborhood. Um if it was pristine and worn and maybe
had a flag pole on it, I wouldn't make that statement. but in this current stat this current the current conditions of the property detracts from the neighborhood. Um and does it in a way that none of the other developed properties in the neighborhood do and I
suggest that if this this property is approved for development and is subdivided and two homes are on the property it will actually be a benefit to the neighborhood. And that's a C2 basis for the grant of the variance. Uh,
furthermore is one of the few if only undeveloped lots in the neighborhood. Quite frankly, I think it's the only one, but I would leave myself a little leeway. Most of the properties in this area are developed. Um, approval of this application will not result in a series of copycat approvals as few of any
neighbored lots are subdivided. They usually don't have the frontage or the lot area or buildings in such a way that it just doesn't preclude a future subdivision application. So, I don't think this is if this board approves this application tonight, I don't think you're opening up the floodgates. I
probably shouldn't say flood gates with two engineers in the room, but you I don't think you'll see a lot of future applications based on this. Uh you heard what we're seeking to do. I think it's also important from a planning perspective that one lot is face West Prospect Street and the other one
Crescent Avenue. It makes the lots it makes the lots appear to be independent of each other and in fact they'll function independently of each other. Uh and one good example of that is one will have a detached garage, one will have an attached garage. Um
as you heard our our engineer testify right now there's no storm water management controls on this property. If this application is approved, there will be storm water management controls on both properties and maintenance of those storm water management controls will flow to future
owners whoever they may be. Uh you've heard briefly this I'm going too fast. I'm sorry especially for Missa. I'm just trying to take this down. I will slow down. Um property is in the R1 zone. We the zone permits single family homes. So the use that we're seeking is permitted
by by the ordinance. There is some bulk variance relief requested. You've heard a lot about that. Um, and I think you heard that we need a front yard setback along West Prospect Street. And I would
draw your attention to section 97-12.5 of the World Code, which in certain circumstances allows for a um a front yard setback less than the ordinance would require if
in fact the uh neighborhood pattern of development uh supports uh a lesser setback. And I think that's an important um provision in the ordinance. You know, when you do zoning, you do it with a
broad brush. In fact, everything in Waldwick west of the Hocus Brook is almost I think there's three lots of four lots, including to the south of us at the intersection of Crescent and um what is that? Franklin >> White. Thank you. Um is all zone R1 and
there's a number of lot sizes and lots. So, it's a broad brush and then the zoning ords gives the zone the planning board or the zoning board the opportunity to adjust that wide brush as as uh situations evolve. And and I think
in this case uh the dwelling along West Prospect the proposed dwelling along West Prospect Street um will be uh very conforming to the uh the pattern of development and that I agree with the the architect that the development will result with dwellings which appear to
fit well within the fabric of the neighborhood. Um so so statuto criteria and that's what the planners are here for. Now you heard Mr. um later round up the the uh criteria
from a legal perspective. What it means is that your physical features of a site including its shape or its configuration that may be a grant that may be the reason for the grant of the values or by reason of an extraordinary or exceptional situation affecting the
property. Um so that's the C1 C2 basis is that results in a better zoning authority and I think we have that here and then the negative criteria also has a couple parts. uh this board is not supposed to grant any variance and I
hope you wouldn't if it causes substantial detriment to the public good and the word substantial is actually municipal annual law and and you should not forbearance it will substantially again that word is in the municipal landings law impair the master plan or
zoning or respect your community so so the lot in question the corner lot is very much an oversized lot it's also further characterized by its irregular configuration. This lot line here is uh 240 270 ft I
think 240 ft long. The rear line is only 40 ft uh in in length. Clearly uh this is a very peculiarly shaped lot and that gives it some constraints. It also gives it some opportunities as we
look at this uh two lot subdivision. Um, there are probably very few vacant lots similar to all of this in Wway. Furthermore, the project question has significant furniturees along both streets. So, you don't need to worry
about creating flags. There's 140 ft of frontage roughly along 111 ft along, excuse me, there's 140 ft along frontage along Crescent Avenue and about 110 ft 111 ft along West Prospect Street. So
there's going to be a sense of openness with these lots. Development of one additional lot, each facing a different street will not create a significant detriment to the pattern of development, nor will it overwhelm the neighborhood.
Planning and zoning, uh, seek consistency, and you see this when almost all of Waldwick uh, west of Hogusbrook is in one particular zone. Um it also is reflected in the zoning mandates minimums and maximums. One of
the criticisms criticisms of planning and zoning is that everything cookie cutter and that's a criticism but your ordinance and section 122 in particular um shows that there can be flexibility in the
application of the zone or that basically says uh 12 I'm sorry it's uh section 12100 building setbacks and yards and That's the wrong one. I think that was right.
122 5. Bear with me just a second. Yeah. 122.5. It says juices can be located closer to the street right away when the when lots on either side of the
lot on the same side of the street is established at a closer distance. Such new buildings may then be built no closer to the street line than the average setbacks of these buildings but no closer than the adjacent building. the adjacent building
which is this lot here because I'm not worried about east uh crescent at because that's a conforming lot is set back 24.8 8 ft and we have prepared dwelling
at 25 ft set back um west prospect street. So it talks about conformity we can form the pattern of development along uh west prospect street. I have one or two more
exhibits. So I guess this next one will be 85. and I'll date it uh and mark it A5 and this exhibit is called Width Analysis and it's also dated today. Uh this is a portion of uh tax
sheet 12 books tax map uh atlases and the it's got two colors on it basically. The yellow one is the lot as it exists today that we're trying to subdivide. And the what I call orange lots are those lots with lot widths of less than
114 ft. I didn't use the ordinance requirement. I used what we're proposing. And the four lots adjacent to us on the south side of West Prospect Street all fit within that category. And then even more
street uh lots on the opposite side of the street fall within that category. Many of these are 60 and 80 ft in width. The one across the lot across the street directly from us is 40 foot in width. I did not include this lot because this lot faces pro Crescent Avenue and your
ordinance says that depending on where the front of the house is, that's what you call the front door. So because this is not a less prospect street lot, I didn't include it. Um so I think this is a good illustration
of how the proposed lot will conform and exceed in some degree in many cases the neighboring pattern of development. And then one last exhibit >> A6. I will mark this A6 and put today's date.
This one again has two colors. We're consistent if nothing else emerges. It's uh called the lot area analysis. It's been today. It's the same tax map sheet 12. And here the property in question is in yellow. These are the lots on the
south side of West Prospect Street that are less than the proposed lot size called 11,000 square ft that that the act is proposing for lot 2701. Lot nine is the only one that is uh
larger. And if you notice on exhibit um A5, lot 9 is a lot that is narrower than the proposed lot 2702, but it has more depth. So from a from a
neighbor pad of development, you don't really see that. It's it's it's real land. The homeowner can use it. Pools, swimet, trampoline. No no doubt of that. But from the neighborhood pattern development, this this back portion isn't really noticed. These lots are all
about 100 ft in depth. They are 60 to 80 ft generally in width and they're all significantly under size compared to the proposed 270 block 2702. So I think since planning and zoning is
seeking consistency um we've demonstrated it through these exhibits as far as the proposed lot 2701 quite frankly I haven't focused as much on proposed lot 2702 is that lot is conforming in the area it is a little
bit narrower than your orange requires but it meets the sideyard setbacks so excuse me so that means that the lot to the south of it which would be this lot 3.04 is receiving all the light air and open
space that the ordinance suggests is appropriate because the lot line the new lot line to the to the north and the new lot to the north doesn't affect the amount of open space along that lot.
Um, I think this application can be granted by the board. Um, consistently consistent with your master plan goals and objectives as enumerated in the 2008 redevelopment report. Uh, one of the concerns raising
your master plan is the compatible land use development. Well, we're seeking a single family home in a neighbor of single family homes for each of the two lots. And I believe that the one lot along Crescent Avenue with its performing lot area is probably not a concern of the board. Um, and a height
of concern is probably with the West Prospect Street, but it achieves the compatible land uses that the national plan is looking for. uh especially since it focuses on adjacent developments. In addition to furthering that burough master plan goal, several purposes of
the municipal land use law are advanced by this development. Purpose A looks for appropriate development of all lands to promote the general welfare. I think putting another single family house or two single family homes uh in a zone that calls for two single family homes and do it in a way without upsetting the
neighborhood pattern of development does that. Purpose E of the municipal land use law is promote establishment of appropriate population densities. Both lots are larger than neighboring lots. So I think we uh promote the appropriate population densities. Um provide
sufficient space in appropriate locations for abuse uses. Here we're proposing a conforming use. So I think we meet that goal as well. And then purpose M is a lessening cost of development and a more efficient use of land. As far as the cost of development,
what any whatever improvements need to be made will be made at the dime of the developer. The burrow is not being asked to extend water lines, sewer lines, electric lines, or any other utility lines or make roadway improvements. There are sidewalk occurrings in front
of the property. Uh if there are damage during construction, of course, the gap will be posting a bond and will be required by your burough engineer and construction official to repair damage. So there's no uh cost of development by the borrow that makes a more efficient
use of land. Right now we've got a 27,000 foot lot that and plus change uh that's being undeveloped and is being dumped on. Um this will uh make it conforming lot uh for one lot and you make the other lot which is conforming
with the pattern of development. Um so I think the positive criteria is satisfied. The negative criteria is also satisfied by this development application. Uh the requested variances can be approved based on the C1 partip. The site has a regular configuration.
The proposed design is very compatible with adjacent land uses and represents an efficient expenditure of public funds as there is no extension of municipal infrastructure. Um furthermore, this uh this lot can also be approved under the C2 clause. Right
now this property is subject to dumping. that will be eliminated uh once two dwellings are constructed. So that's a benefit to the neighborhood dumping any of these property owners. Um
approval this also does not create a uh substantial detriment in the zoning board. A review of tax maps very few of any candidates for further subdivision. approval this application uh is a standalone activity.
Uh in order to approval this application would increase the number of lots in W test two an eligible amount considering the number of dwellings cited in the housing element. So based upon all the dispatchers and the testimony of the engineer and the architect uh this
application satisfies both the negative and positive criteria and I would recommend and urge you to uh approve the subdivision of this application as proposed uh set forth on the documents that we've submitted these evidence. Thank you.
>> Thank you Mr. Liz. To wrap this up, as I understand it, one of the concepts in planning planners throughout the state in looking and analyzing neighborhoods and looking at billing codes, in looking at various criteria, the concept of having a neighborhood that is
compatible, that has lots that are in a pattern that are similar in size even when they all may be deficient in area or width, but they fit a pattern. Um, that's a planned concept. Correct. Yes, it is. >> And does this proposal by upgrading
these two lots which you testified to will be larger than the area of other lots in the neighborhood but less than what the zone requires. Does that meet that claim criteria that neighborhood scheme criteria? >> Yes, it does. Um even though this lot is larger than many of the West Prospect
Street lots and wider, it is still compatible and consistent with the surrounding property of development. So, I would say yes. >> Thank you very much. That's all I have. Thank you, gentlemen. I have a question. I I took a ride and walked the property
and I notice on Prospect Street, it's a nice treeine street. Is the intent and and then come up to that property and it's very overgrown. Um is the intent to level it and or is it going to remain a
treeine street? I go back to our engineer on that. The other commander The reason I asked that because you're talking about maintaining the aesthetics of this of the surrounding neighborhood. So, um the goal is not to we're not
clear cutting the property. We're only going to be removing the trees that we have to remove where the houses are going to sit or where there's going to be substantial grade change uh be it for cleaning up the dumping that was mentioned or just uh for for making the grade accommodate the houses. And then
um certainly if there's like a a program of street trees that you know can be matched where they're they're spaced certain way of a certain variety I'm sure the athlet would be happy to um I'm sure that we have the appropriate you know we can't plan them that big
obviously but >> please stipulate that we have to seek the tree permit that's required and do the replacements that are required and also preserve those that are permitted to be preserved. It's not a clearcut situation. >> Thank you. Our goal again is to create a
extension of the existing. >> Thank you. Anyone on the board have any questions? >> Sir. >> Yes. For the record, Paul Bra just want to clarify just so with regard to the variances being sought because there's
testimony about conceptual homes in terms of architecture and on the gravy plan. But at this time, it's my understanding the act seeking variances for the lot area and depth of lot 2701 and lot width of lot 2702 because you
don't have set setbacks or set designs of the home. Is that correct? >> I would agree with your assessment. Yes. Mr. >> And then any future so the any if there's an approval granted for subdivision there be two lots the applicant would then have to come back
and comply go to you know file for permits and make sure it complies with all the zoning standards. If not we need to see the variance at that time and further setbacks. You know there's a standard you said about for example front yard that they can demonstrate to zoning official and say they comply with that or if he says they don't they can
vary that is that >> well if you said they we maybe would come back and with an interpretation from the zoning board but we think he would because it's pretty clear. So yes, we would either come back with a reforming house plans for secret areas from both.
>> Okay. So just to be clear though, so right now we just don't have any house design for >> compliance. The board is able to take action on those variance again. >> That is correct. And it's the intent of the developer to be able to meet the full requirements on the setbacks and
they say my opening statement. Understood. Thank you. >> Okay. Any further questions from the board? Okay, open it to the public for questions for the developer. Again, this is not the comment period planner. I'm sorry.
Any questions from the audience? >> Questions for Mr. Leiden only. >> I see none. Okay, Mr. Chairman, this concludes our direct testimony to reserve the right to provide summation after the public has
made their Thank you. So, public comment. Okay. Open the floor for public comments, please. >> Welcome back, Mr. Baldi. >> Baldi, you're still under oath.
>> Okay. Um I my is to judge uh pot sizes today based on those of the 40s early 50s is sort of not the top the trend is have spot size
have to cut all these oak trees down to put another house in there that and the impact this is going to have on the traffic on pro on president another house. Then finally, these are not this is not going to be conforming
to the other homes and it's a single family home neighborhood. I've been there all my life. So I know this. I know about this. That's why I have an objection to it.
Mr. No, >> some questions of Mr. Bald before he leaves. >> Mhm. He's on. Mr. Balding, is it correct to say that at one time you were the owner of this property? >> Yes. >> And is it correct to say that you sold this property to the applicant? >> That's right.
>> And do you understand that the zone is an R1 zone that requires homes to be single family homes and these two homes proposed will be single family homes. >> There's still density. >> No, I asked the question. Do you want to
just so we understand the record? I'm not trying to be difficult, but you made a statement. I said it was going to be a multiple family home. They're each single family homes. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. And the other homes around this lot are single family homes. >> Might be one, two family down the road,
it's not a performance, but the rest of them all are single family. >> So from that standpoint, >> the what exists is single families and what is being proposed is a single families. >> All right. But I think it I think it does make it based on the the earlier
development of the 40s and early 50s when they used to cram halls on such small lots. But you're saying now this is conforming to that standards of >> it conforms to the pattern that's in the neighborhood even if it was developed in
the 30s and the 40s. >> I my father bought that piece of property there on on that very piece of corner. You couldn't build a house on that even then. Well, you can today. >> That's what I'm getting at. I think it's overkilling. >> Yes, I understand the spectrum.
>> And you and and to lose some of these old world old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak old oak trees to do that is is is going backwards. >> Are there any other is there any other com? >> Is there anything else you want to say, Mr. Baldi?
>> I think that's all. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. >> Any other comments from the public? >> Yes, sir. This is the time. Mr. >> I recognize that sir. Thank you for my
required ter. So I have been the property of owner at 206 West Prospect Street since 1997. I respect what the gentleman wishes to do in terms of further development area.
Certainly, it's more wrinkles. Um, I recognize the value of having solo open space, but it was not part of our environment. Sadly, the truth. Now, um, the commentary from the
gentleman's life in so far that the proposed subplot can be granted based on standards within the extance neighborhood. Please correct me if I'm
missing but we've evolved standards beyond that and what we're being asked to do is step back from that to allow for additional development. Finally, I think that's worth to decide.
However, if you forgive me from an observational standpoint, with all due respect to engineering, I can tell you that this property
routinely receives a great deal of sufficient runoff and not just that which is falling upon the property itself. I've looked at topology in the general area and I have extracts of topographic
maps and aerial photos. Uh long story short, there is a benchmark at the intersection of present avenue. I believe it's approximately 390 ft.
The topographic maps show a gradation from that intersection going towards the north. What I'm driving at, I'm trying to keep this simple, my apologies, is that
surficial runoff in this area flows from properties on Crescent Avenue and from the Mine Street development that was developed in the 80s. and it tends to gather
on property subject for development. I can speak to that because I've seen it several times. And we're talking a b a retention basin of probably
60 ft along one axis and 30 or 40t on another. the groundwater infiltration takes time to uh address that if you will. I can speak to this because having observed
this with large rainfall pivots uh the water itself doesn't simply cool there right during the not the rainfall event. It usually appears within a few hours afterwards which means immediately
that is run up from from these two directions. Now there was mention Google that there was great adment
on block 136 lot 26. When I bought the property back in 1997, I looked at the lowlying area and I thought, okay, it's not mapped as a wed. It wasn't then, it is now,
but it was that didn't receive it. But there was strange on the tax map. When Hurricane Floyd came through, all of a sudden, I had 8 in of water in my basement.
Now, drainage problems do exist and they're not merely on my property. Several properties in the town have some pumps and they drain out to wherever they can. What I would like to have addressed at a
very minimum is the fact that this property receives runoff in excess of what I believe and correct me if I'm
wrong the engineers have planned for and I think it's going to need further assessment separate from that um my property as I
said joins the one the 2701 proposed property the conceptual the development of that property places uh very very close to my property boundary now with a knee allowed setback
certainly but it is something of a departure and um flatly as it's conceived right now I find it objectionable that's just my take
but do bear in mind please about the water run off because honestly with that amount of standing water and when that standing water is there it can take days for it to in winter's time
I have had water from that property cross the front of my property and run down my side bottom creating sheet of ice much I could do about that aside from setting out or running
which will describe the home. Therefore, anyway, so thank you for your attention. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Question I have. >> Yes. >> When was your home built? >> My home was built according to the data that I was purchased. It was built in
1953. >> What type of drainage facilities do you have on your property? I had to take out an equity loan and do a little over $20,000 in repairs to my foundation
and to French drains. And that discharges to the back of my property. Obviously, should this be added or even if it shouldn't, that drainage should be moved out to the front of the property.
uh ideally perhaps to tie into the storm grants, but that is something that I would have to take up with the town discussion. >> So I understand in a nutshell your one concern pertaining to drain issues is
that the applicant's property serves as a receptacle for drainage coming off of other properties. >> That is my assistant, sir. >> Including your own. One would have to say yes. >> You realize that that is not something
that is permitted under drainage standards that each property has to accept and take care of their own drainage based upon the issues that are created by the development of each and individual property. concerned when I
say that the drainage was fertile, the drainage is shunted to the back of my property that it is with was on my property. And you understand based on the testimony provided here that by virtue
of the development of this property, the applicant will meet all of the required standards in the federal ordinances. uh from a drain perspective verified by you understand that's a requirement you understand that's a requirement of the applicant
you may allow me my answers so >> I look forward to reviewing the Boswell report and looking at the underlying assumptions and conclusions from right now I can comment on that okay thank
Thank you. Any other comments from the public? I said see no further call to a vote for discussion. Second actually see if First, uh, Mr. Whitaker, do you have a
summary? >> Just a very brief summary. Um, in essence, what the applicant has brought before you this evening is a design that meets the standards under the municipal land use law.
It meets those standards based upon the fact that there are a number of improvements that are going to be made on this lot that don't exist there. Now, touching on the drainage that was just mentioned. This now will become um proper from a drainage perspective where it doesn't exist now. That's a positive
element. The clean up of the lot, nothing that had to be done by my client but exists there now. Uh the improvement to create a proper street sign and most importantly from a planning perspective and you heard this is going to meet a pattern that is and the word was used
many times compatible with the properties around it. You saw this through the exhibits that we presented this evening. So although this is an R1 zone, the recognition has to be that the majority of the lots do not meet the requirements of an R1 zone, but this
fits within the pattern from a zoning perspective of what exists there. Now, so the applicant I've submit to you has successfully been able to show you both the reasons for variance relief under the C1 criteria for this irregularly
shaped lot and for the compatibility of this created lot well thought out to meet the uh pattern of the neighborhood itself as well as a sub uh a C2 criteria uh in which by virtue of what's being
proposed here for all all the reasons we've provided to you this evening. There is a substantial benefit that far outweighs any detriment. I submit to you there is no detriment in this instance based upon what the applicant is doing here with the drainage improvements and
with the modifications being made for the upgrading of the streetscape itself. With that, I thank you for your time and I would ask for a favorable vote. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. Any further uh questions from the board?
Put it to a vote. >> Comments. >> Comments. Comments. >> Comments from the board. Anyone? >> Just one. I I really want a majority. Good points. The only concern I have and I think Stanford looking at the size of
those houses. I'm not sure they conform. So if those houses on West Prospect Street and Crescent Act, then I'd say it conforms to their neighbor. But looking at the size of those houses,
you know, doing a lot renovating it. I mean, there was garbage there before. It should have been cleaned up before. I don't know why it wasn't, but just the size of those two houses with the neighbor. >> The lot the lots meet the zoning criteria of the R1. >> Understood. logistic >> and the other homes that are there could
meet that same criteria if they expanded. They meet the both requirements >> if but I those two houses going up are not there are no houses similar to that that I know of in that surrounding neighborhood that I can see. But other than that, I think it's a good question. >> Yep.
>> If you go down West Prospect, there are two newer homes right side by side before you get to Vine Street. And I don't know I don't know whether the um witnesses know the size of those homes
in particular square footage, but they do seem to be larger than the other homes on West Cross. I I you know, Cliff, I know the one you're speaking about cuz I think they just had their driveways done in the last two years. They're about the size of the houses that they're requesting here.
>> Okay. >> Just just cuz I know what you're talking about. They're not. But again, what you're going to do with the lots, I agree. It's just the side of the houses that I don't think fit in the neighborhood. >> I would just suggest that the proposed lot 2701 is larger and wider than many
of the homes on West Prospect Street. So, individually they may look a little bit different, but I still believe they fit within the pattern and they may be larger, but the width larger and the lots are larger. So, it can the lots the lot size proposed can accommodate those
problems in my estimation. Another comments from the board. Board members. It helps to um get your thoughts out and on the record if you would. >> I personally think it is a uh I like what I see. I do have concerns about the
size as uh my colleagues have mentioned. Um but I like the idea of what I see. I think it it it's adding a lot of value to the neighborhood. It's going to boost
the property values of the people surrounding and it's going to clean up an eyesore. >> The main problem I see is with the water drainage. Uh but what we've been doing lately in our community here is we've monitoring all that and it's never been
a problem whenever develop came in and they wanted to do something with the tanks and everything uh drainage pits and everything that rested in the community never ever uh was burdened with any water problems. Um that lot
I've had a lot of problems with that lot because I personally watched residents in that area dump rocks and a lot of pipes and everything in there. And one resident did come after me because I told him he had to move.
But you know, anything that's going to make the town look nicer and make the rest of the residents safer, especially with water issues, I think that's a good thing. Yeah, I I agree with both what the mayor said as well as President John report.
I've been to town six years. I drive by that spot every day. It is an eyesore. SO, any other comments? Okay. Should we bring it to a vote? Yes. Motion.
>> Motion to on this resolution. Mark Rondo. Do I have a second? >> What is the motion? What is the motion? >> Positive. Is Is it a positive determination or a negative? >> Yeah. to approve the uh the request. The
motion is to approve the the request >> both. This whole movement is integrated into the application. >> The application itself, >> do I have a second? >> Second. >> Stanoski. Madam Secretary. >> Mayor Giodano.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bwart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bundo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Felski. Yes, >> Miss Sarakola Drake. >> Yes, >> Mr. Panilly. >> Yes, >> Mr. Schultz. >> Yes, >> Mr. Mitchell. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Yes, please. Yeah, you can take them off the board then. >> Okay. Any uh old business to come before the board? Uh I would like to just say I'll take
your thunder July and August meeting my shirt. >> Make sure it's not dirty clothes. I don't care what you have. All >> business new business to come before the board.
>> I see none. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Stan Katie. All in favor?