Good evening everybody and welcome to the public meeting of June 16, 2026 of the Washington Township Zonoting Board. Adequate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least [clears throat] two newspapers on January 15, 2026. And this meeting
has been posted on the Township Bulletin board, electronic message board, WCTV, and on the township website. Uh public announcement. Governor Murphy signed the law June 30th, 2025. A new law which reflects a transition from traditional print newspaper to online platforms as
of March 1st, 2026. You will find on our township website a tab on the homepage named public notices where all official public notices are required to be posted and may be obtained or viewed. Uh these documents in addition will have a hyperlink to the
Secretary of State's public notice web page. Please join me in a salute to the flag. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. Could I have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Dagino is absent. Mrs. Vermaldi >> here. >> Mr. Lrada >> here. >> Mrs. Osman >> here. >> Mr. Rivera is absent. Absent. Mr. is absent. Mr. Bellon
>> here. >> Mr. Toddos is absent. Chairman Gats >> here. >> Let the record be reflect. Also in attendance are attorney Gary G Antonio, board engineer John Kimmick, and board secretary Grace Ke. >> Okay, so we will move on to the public
portion. To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link on your website if you're at home and [snorts] listed on your agenda to join the webinar. You'll be asked to state your name for the record and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This public comment portion is
only for non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. At the end of the general public portion, no further general questions or comments
will be accepted. If you are, of course, in the general audience, just raise your hand and you will [laughter] be recognized. uh to make any comment. Motion to open the public portion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Is there anyone who has an uh
any questions, comments uh for the general public portion? There will be time later again for agenda items to for you to speak. Seeing no hands in the audience, seeing no hands at home, I'll ask for a motion
to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> All right. There are no minutes to approve tonight. So, we'll move on to new business. uh application of Tim Walsh to add a one-story addition to a onecar garage at
452 Richwood Boulevard North, block 2304, lot 14. Come up. >> Yep. >> Good evening. My name is Tim Walsh. >> Let me swear you in, Mr. Walsh. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that
the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. >> I do. >> And you could please state your name again for the record. >> Timothy Walsh. >> Thank you. >> Before we take any testimony, um let's just uh let the record reflect that Mr.
Codros has joined us. >> So, he will be able to vote on the application. >> Continue. Sorry. Second. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Tim Walsh. I'm the owner of 452 Ridgewood Boulevard North. I we moved into the residence
September August of last year. Uh we love our new home, but we'd love to have an an attached garage like many other homes in our neighborhood have. We are proposing a 12tx 26 ft deep garage with an attached one-story rear mudroom
laundry room. The front of the new garage is 45 ft back from the front property line. So it sets back far enough that it will not look very visible from the street. We are requesting just a right side yard variance. The minimum side yard
requirement is 10T 10 ft and we are we are proposing a side yard setback of 7T 10 in which is which is basically 2 feet which is dimminionative. The positive as aspects of our proposal is that we comply with all zoning requirements
except for the sideyard and the new attach and the new attached garage is very common in my neighborhood. Also, since we have three cars, um, one car will now be in the garage and and less visible from the street. Um, we thank
you uh for hearing our variance application and hope you will grant these variances. All right. >> Uh, do you have any professionals or >> No, what he he was scheduled to come last month with me, but it got moved to this month. He had another appointment
and his associate is out on maternity leave. >> Okay. So, board have any questions for this uh witness? I have something for the engineer on the one side of the property. It
looks like the line the property line is is there something that's you know there that juts out into the neighbor's property. Could you comment what is that? >> Yes. So um Mr. Chair, we rendered a report um dated May 14th, 2026 to the
board. believe a copy was given to the applicant. Um and in response to the particular question um item number 10 on our report page three
um talks about um as an asphalt driveway servicing the lot and a fence um encroach onto the neighbor to the right while facing uh
the house uh and the encroachment is uh for the asphalt driveway appears to be about 2.3 2.5 ft and the fence is
looks like about 3.6 ft. So, if the board votes favorably on this application, we would recommend that as an item of construction that this encroachment um gets rectified and all and those two
aspects that are servicing the subject lot be moved entirely um on the lot or that the applicant should provide some testimony with regard to that. >> I have spoken with the neighbor. They've lived there for a little more than two
years. Um, he put the fence up. He had an agre, you know, he talked with the previous owner. Um, the asphalt was down already when he bought his property and this they were okay with it. Uh, it goes
a little into his lot and then he's a little bit the fence that he put up goes a foot or so into my lot and it's agreed upon. I mean there was he I talked with him recently about it. He has no issue with it. >> See the only problem with that is there's no issue right now. If you leave
or he leaves there might be an issue that's where we handle it right here and with this variance it's a lot easier and this does happen sometimes where people are encroaching on other people's and not on purpose or anything. It's just that it happened like you said but it's
really shouldn't be that way. you know, they try to resolve it. I would think here in this board if they're looking for variances, we've done this before. This is not a new thing for this board to do. >> Well, my concern there as well in addition to that is that there would
still be 7.8 ft plus 2 1/2 ft. So, there would be 10 foot of asphalt parking directly on the property line and on the neighbor's property line, which um would you be are you planning on parking cars there?
>> Yes, we do. You're saying there's 8 ft on their property? >> Well, if you're looking for a 7.8 28 foot setback, right? And then there's the asphalt goes uh 2 foot over onto the neighbor's property or is it uh
then you have approximately 10T which um I'm quite sure is uh not going to be a good thing for the new neighbors whenever that may be a 100red years from now that they're going
to want cars parking on their >> we do it right with no problem. >> Well, again, but the problem is you're asking for variance relief to for this poor to grant relief from the because
you have a hardship. Um, and the problem is it would be making things uh it's not making anything better. So, in order to get some relief, we're usually looking to make the property more conforming
than it would be. And this would just force a car onto I mean onto parking on asphalt that's on the neighbor's property. So, I would I would not be amendable to passing this
application. You know, that's only my opinion, my vote, unless that asphalt came out >> and I don't know if you're looking to do that because you're going to limit your parking now. >> I will take the two ft of asphalt out if I have. >> I'm talking about taking the all the
asphalt out. >> I don't understand. I'm confused with that for once the garage is built. if it was built I still had on my property I still have another almost 8 feet >> right which is a nonconforming situation
right now which is not a good thing in the eyes of the land use law so in order to grant your application to um to make uh to give you relief from the
other variances that you're asking for um we're now we can't leave a non-conforming situation in place. So >> So you're talking about from the
property line beyond this property line. The asphalt. >> Yeah, the asphalt. I'm talking about be I don't I don't think a future neighbor wants their wants someone parking there. >> Right. I meant to make sure the applicant understands Yeah. >> what he's asking. And so
>> so it's the asphalt beyond your property. >> It would be >> I can park it in the driveway now. >> Yes. >> If the neighbor sees our car, >> but technically that's not your property, right? >> Yes, it is. >> Well, I'm confused. I think you got it
backwards. >> Okay, maybe I do. >> You have it, >> Mr. Am I wrong? I I have I we park the cars there now and it's not even anywhere near 2 ft of their asphalt. If if my house is here, fence comes here
and then we I go over this much the asphalt is over. I still have this whole side even when the garage is built to park a car right there. We do it now. >> Right. But you're saying what you're doing now is not ideal. And if we're
looking to grant you relief from the existing from the variances, we don't want to leave a situation that's not ideal because it affects your neighbors a 100red years from now. It affects their next neighbor. It affects
the person that buys your house if if ever, whoever it's sold to. But it's in right now. It's not an ideal. It's you're talking about >> beyond his property line is okay. >> Yes. Beyond his property is okay, but
what this going to create is now you're going to you're only going to have >> 7.8.8 ft on your property line and you're going to be parking a car there. So that means >> not necessarily it's the side of the garage would be then a walkway to the to
the back of the garage to go around the yard. We park in the driveway now. >> So that's where park right in front of the driveway of the garage if we build it and then it wouldn't even we don't park anywhere. So, where does the asphalt driveway end?
Cuz it's not shown or I'm not seeing it on a plot plan. >> So, you mean on going to the side into the neighbors? It's like a it's like this much. No, >> it's only for 8 ft. the asphalt on the
side that you're working on. How far from the street back does it go? That's what his question is. How far from the Does it go all the way to the back of your property? Does it go to the back edge of your house? >> About 8 ft from the back of the property. It's probably 30 40
>> on the side that they're talking about where you have the 2.3 ft over the line. currently how you park. You're not on that section. >> No. >> So, >> no.
>> If that section was removed, you'd still be able to pause as is. >> Sure. >> The addition is not coming up far enough to put you out.
>> No, it's not. Still have plenty of room. I I see what you're saying, but you would still be forcing. So now you still when you say plenty of room, just because you have plenty of room to park does not mean that it's an ideal situation where your asphalt for your
driveway is on your neighbor's parking lot. Even if it's not over, it's now on it. And you're parking if you're trying to get two cars side by side. >> No, we don't do side by side. We parked right in front of each other and then the other cars in the garage, >> right?
>> Let me let me ask you this question. The current driveway, the asphalt you have right now, >> is all of the asphalt from the front to the back, is it all on your property line? >> Yes, I believe so. Yeah. >> Well, how
>> except for that one, maybe that. >> Okay, but so so the answer is >> So the answer is no. No. Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. So, what we're saying is maybe that excess has to be removed. >> Right.
>> Right. So, we're saying the as >> what I offer to >> the asphalt that doesn't belong to you >> would have to be removed, taken off, gone back to the ground all the way back. >> That's what we're that's 8 foot driveway here.
driving, >> which again that's why I'm saying it's that you could park cars there. >> But even if you're parking cars here, >> Mr. Kim, yes, mentioned the shed also in
your letter. >> Yes, I did. Um, the shed has been removed. I removed it once I moved it. >> But the shed But the shed's on this plan. >> Excuse me. >> The shed's on this plan.
>> Does the shed remove >> on the survey or >> right? The survey is showing that the shed's still there. When was when was the shed removed? >> When I moved September. When I move right after I moved in. >> Last year. I'm sorry. >> September of 25. I moved in in August or
got the house in August. was falling down. >> So the shed and if the shed was removed, Mr. McK does that because besides I only heard a sideyard variance, he also has a building coverage, >> correct? >> Varian, correct? There's a second variance for building coverage. Uh the
applicant is proposing um 20.26 26 uh building coverage and existing is 17.37. Um we had asked for a um calculation on
the tabulation on the um on that to make sure that that number is correct. >> Do we need soil removal and all that stuff? anything over 10 cubic yards, uh, he has to file for a so moving permit
application. So, he's undoubtedly going to be over 10 cubic yards. He would do that after his approval. So, there's two variances right now. All the variances associated with the shed are gone. Um, you know, the survey we
got then uh is not was not up to date. Uh, the bottom of the survey was cut off when I received it. So I I made the best I could do with it. >> So on this you talking about this survey that has it's missing the bottom. >> Yes. So uh the testimony is that the
shed has been removed. Um, however, I guess the asphalt um goes back um I would imagine the asphalt is as shown on the survey without the shed there
and that the width of that asphalt is going to be um narrowed as a result of the new addition for the garage. Sorry, I'm going off topic here. two variances, one for building coverage, one for
sideyard setback. I would ask the um applicant if he's proposing any HBAC units in the sideyard. >> Um there will not be a new unit put in, but it will um come from the existing.
>> Okay. So um because the code allows eight HBAC units to be of a certain size in the sideyard, so that issue goes away. Um I just need some clarity on the removal of asphalt um that the board is is going to be
requiring. Um are we they looking to you know reduce impervious area further? Um as far as additional impervious area, we're only looking at um 25 square
feet because he's building over existing imperous area. Um, and so the driveway will become essentially a very wide walkway. Um, and then I guess
No, I'm sorry. The plans say the existing driveway is to be removed. um that went back to the shed and that the existing the existing driveway will remain at roughly about
5 ft wide. Uh that'll go to the back almost to the back of the new garage. That's according to the site plan on the architect's plan in the upper left. So, I just want to get some clarity. Are
we looking to strike that driveway line uh a few feet off of the property line or are we looking to strike it uh precisely at the property line? >> That's what I would be looking for is a few feet off the property line. So, if you look at the if the if the driveway
as uh as shown on the site plan in the back would be about two and a half about 2 ft off the property line. 2 and 1/2 ft. I would like to see that line continue
all the way to the front so that you can't park vehicles side by side. [snorts] What drawing are you looking at? >> A1 right on the front. >> A1 site plan.
>> Okay. >> Right. >> That's that's my concern is if you're parking two vehicles in front of the garage side by side because it looks like there's just enough room to park two vehicles side by side.
um with the ex uh with the asphalt going up to the property line. But if you remove those that two feet and continue that then you only have approximately like 17 feet then I guess be 12 + 5 you
would have a 17t wide driveway which would um >> that would make two calls >> which would what >> make two calls. Well, that's the thing. Other if you otherwise you're going to have a 19 foot
driveway which is as I said encouraging putting side yard two cars next to each other right onto the neighbor's property line or there's opening doors. I don't know. Um the fence again there too.
I mean ideally I would like to see that I would say 3 feet off the property line. So that you would have a 16 foot wide driveway >> and you can open it, you know, >> right? Go from front to back, >> right? So it's front. If the if the testimony is that that's how they park
their cars anyway, then that shouldn't affect um it shouldn't affect anything really. And you would still have a 4ft walkway, 4.8T walkway to the back.
>> And that would take care of the side. And that would take care of again it wouldn't encourage parking cars side by side which again would not right out right up to the property line.
That would be my only issue. >> What's causing the maximum coverage? Is this the building itself? the building. >> Um they're they're reporting compliance at 37.24% for impervious coverage. I would also
ask uh the applicant how uh drainage characteristics of the site, how does the driveway drain and how would the new building drain? Yeah, but the applicant is not really
able to he's to testify to that because he's not a professional. >> Well, we would not want to see any runoff going to the next next neighbor, >> right? >> As a result of whatever they're doing >> and and that could be a condition of the
resolution. >> Yeah. Well, that would be a condition I would of the resolution. >> I'm not suggesting any storm water management, just you know, grading and roof leaders. Not >> we're still under the impervious coverage.
>> Yes, [clears throat] we're still under impervious coverage and we're only looking at a 25 square foot increase, which is inconsequential, >> right? No, >> but if if the water is not running off properly, you could request water management coverage, right?
>> Well, yeah. Um, >> as part of the conditions, >> yeah, you would put a little swale along the property line, let it drain to the street, that sort of thing. We could we could accomplish that through grading. >> Okay. >> It's not a lot of water. if it's pitched. >> And quite frankly, if we we could
accomplish that with a swale, if there was three feet to do that, if we took we required that the asphalt be pushed back 3 ft off the property line, >> it it makes it easier. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else have any
comments, questions? >> Um I have a comment. I You had two kind of tents and car under tent. You're not going to be doing that with the garage. Correct. I mean, that's why you had what >> a tent like area. >> That was for a party late this weekend. >> Oh, you had a car, right? You had a car
like underneath this tent under there. No, no, I was just wondering. >> Party was Sunday. Okay. >> Yeah. It was removed today. >> Oh, okay. I mean, I saw that and I didn't know you using that for the >> You talking about the white tent? >> Yeah. Well, there's Yeah. >> Yeah, there were two white tents that we had a graduation party for my daughter.
It was Friday. >> As I say, you had a car parked under it. So at some point so I was just wondering if you that's what you continue to do but not with the >> John. Can you require an updated uh survey >> um
>> as part of the conditions cuz this is so in the shed and all that stuff plus it's missing the bottle. Well, you would anyway if the asphalt's going to be >> well, we would get an asbill, >> right, >> after it's after it's done.
>> Um, the survey is really for the board's benefit to run a decision. And so if the board takes the testimony of the applicant that it's that the survey is current except that the shed is no
longer there. Um you know the board could determine that's that's good enough. So Mr. was would you be uh amendable if the to removing the asphalt three uh 3 foot away from the property
line >> straight up and down >> straight all the way back >> from back to where the the neighbor has the fence >> right so all the way uh so three so the there would be no asphalt off the
asphalt would be in a straight line 3T off your property line all the way forward and all the way back. So, you would still have a 4 foot you could leave the four 4.8 foot asphalt uh in the on the side of the garage. So, you
would still have a 4.8 ft uh pathway to the back as you uh mentioned it on back again. the the part you're talking about is only about six feet and then there's a fence and then a foot maybe two feet
on my side of the fence is dirt and grass now and then asphalt >> so it's just it's hard for us to see cuz we're but we're pictures we're looking at Yeah. So, so again, maybe I'm off, but I thought >> basically you're what I believe you're asking is that I would remove the 3 ft.
It it goes like this on an angle. So, I would, you know, six feet like that. I could remove that asphalt. >> Yeah. So where so the asphalt does the asphalt all go all the way back to the back of your property right now or No,
>> it does. But once you get to the curve of the fence going back on my side of the fence, there's dirt and grass. It's probably this wide. Then the asphalt is there. >> Okay. So there would be from the side I you know from the side of where the
garage would be there would be four feet five feet of asphalt and then the rest would be the dirt and grass. >> Right. So that's that would be exactly what we're saying. So right now you there's probably from where it looks to me there's probably two foot of dirt and grass like that. So, what we're saying
is take another foot off of that and then bring that line all the way forward to where it meets the curvature in the front of the driveway. And so that would be 3 foot off your property line. The asphalt all the way forward and all the
way back would be three foot off the property line then. And that could be replaced with grass or >> I Yeah, I guess so. >> Okay. It's just I I I don't think you're really picturing what I'm I mean, why would I need to take another foot off
where the dirt is or I mean there's a walkway and it'll [snorts] have grass walking but because technically let let me ask you this question. Sure. If you left the asphalt the way it is, is it possible that you could fit two cars side by side? >> Yeah. You're just talking about from the Okay, go ahead.
>> Am I Am I right in what I'm saying right now you could technically put two cars? >> We we start now anyway, >> right? That's what we're trying to prevent. >> I mean, it Yeah, technically I could. Yeah, that one area up until where the fence goes that way. >> Then there's another 20 ft back
>> because that part of the asphalt is on both properties. >> Correct. >> Right. And >> probably a two. Yeah. area that five, six foot area is in the asphalt is into their area. >> And the asphalt and the asphalt
>> was really part of your property and it just went extended. >> They did it before when I bought the house. >> How did the other the neighbor that you were talking to that has the asphalt there? How did the >> How did they get the asphalt? >> Are they new neighbors also?
>> They two years ago they moved in and then >> the asphalt was there and the asphalt was there too. >> Yes. See, it also gives us room for improvement for reducing the impervious coverage. So, that's a benefit that that would happen. And that way, you would
have a three-foot along the side of the garage. You would have a 4 point, you would only have a 4.8 foot asphalt walkway. And then you would now have three foot instead of two foot of space which you could create a swale of some sort but that would reduce your imperous
coverage which would the board would look favorably on that >> and that's why it would uh that's another reason it would help us >> and it's less of a runoff. >> Yes, it's less runoff. >> That's that's a concern >> and there's a side Yeah. Now there's a a
little bit of a buffer that what we're trying to create is a buffer because again right now it's not even though you've been doing it since you moved in and your neighbor's fine with it again it's not an ideal situation under the land use law. Um it's also not an ideal
situation for storm water runoff and impervious coverage. So, if you were willing to again just run the asphalt um 3 foot off the property line or remove any asphalt up uh that's 3T off
the property line all the way from where it exists now to and run that straight line to the curvature in the front where you have where you pull into the driveway. It curves a little bit. >> Yeah. So, it's it's probably it is three
it looks like it is three foot off the property line or maybe more in the front. >> That's >> Yeah. So, you would be just uh again you would have a little bit of a buffer. Um
and that would also uh >> would be easier if we just tell them how wide we want the driveway to be. >> Well, that's what I think Mr. Kimick has already calculated. Yeah, >> probably. So, >> well, I I need some frame of reference
and and 3 ft off of the property line is is a good one. >> Yeah, >> you could stay with that. >> We don't have to reinvent the wheel, you know, two or three different ways here. >> From what point? >> Yeah, >> because I'm looking at like a picture and there's little scrubs there at the beginning, right?
If if you followed the line of his [snorts] existing uh concrete uh block wall, >> that would put you where they wanted to be. >> Right. It looks like that's 3 ft off. >> If you ran that straight back from the curb,
>> your concrete uh block wall does this. But if it went straight >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's what they're looking for you to give back >> from where it intersects with the concrete wall >> to the
uh looks like 8 foot off the back of the property line where the existing asphalt is. If that asphalt was removed 3 foot off the property line to where it intersects with the front wall. >> It look it looks like he has that though at the back of the house on this drawing
>> at the back of the house. It looks like he's come 3 ft off the fence line with the with the >> K in in the resolution put approximately 3 ft. >> It's hard to see >> absolutes now. >> That's the reason why the professional
would have been no and I understand no and I know you have no control in that but that's the reason why the professionals have worked being here. >> I I understand the intent of the board. We want to remove asphalt from approximately 3 ft off the property >> create to create an edge of driveway
approximately 3 feet from the property line. >> Yes. I think >> from the concrete blocks. >> Yes. From the concrete. >> They can do anything with that. >> We're not We don't want this board. I I'm not guessing this board does not want to touch touch that.
>> No. from concrete block >> and it goes straight >> to the end of the property >> to the end of the driveway >> to the end of the >> Well, >> see this is the concrete block. >> I think we can't say to the end of the driveway. >> To the end of the asphalt.
>> To the end of the asphalt. Yes. >> Because it would no longer be driveway. >> To the end of the existing asphalt. >> And John, by doing that, would that take care of the maximum coverage numbers? Well, it's not building, but uh
>> Okay. >> But it's still a benefit. >> But it's still a benefit. It's it's a mitigation to the variance for being requested. >> So, right. So, the max cover makes sense. >> So, makes sense.
>> But it's not that much over. It's 26% over. So, you're >> by doing that, you're >> you're helping them. I need to know what this is. try to work out a little give and take here if you haven't noticed. So, so that there's a benefit
>> so that we can maybe >> you know I appreciate >> you know look to mitigate it. Yeah. >> Yeah. We're trying to mitigate the the nonconformities and that will help us get there and I think you know again so John we still have the two variances nothing is
changing from >> that's correct >> from the >> no variance those two variants >> one sideard for 7.83 83 ft and for building coverage 20.26 >> correct >> percent. That's not changing regardless of what >> correct.
>> Yeah, that's not >> the understand what the board is asking. I don't know if you need to shove in on >> I I I believe I do. I just >> Okay. Just want to make sure. So just no asphold from three foot over the to the property line straight off straight back to up to the concrete wall that you
have. We don't want you to have to touch that. G >> Gary will put it in words. I'll check it and then it'll be um >> memorialized >> memorialized at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> So So Chest >> the minimum front yard setback is permitted is 20 ft and he's at 24.8 and
it's both the existing and the propose. >> Why isn't there not a variance on that? >> Cuz he's it's 20 foot minimum >> and he's 24 foot. Yeah, he's got more. >> I thought you said more than
>> Yeah. So, it's it's minimum. So, it's he's more than >> Oh, he's more than Okay. You have to have at least 20. And he has >> Sorry, I read it the other way around, >> right? >> It happens. >> It does. >> Um Well, let's open uh You want to open
that up to the public? A motion to open up to the public for any >> motion. All in favor? >> I >> All right. All right. If any member of the public uh at home or in the audience has any questions for this witness or
comments uh with regard to this uh variance application specifically, uh please raise your hand and you will be recognized. All right, seeing no hands at home, seeing no hands in the audience, I'll ask for a motion to close the public with regard to this application.
>> Motion second. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right. Um, anything else? >> No, I don't think so. >> Mr. Kimick, anything else? >> Saw a movement permit application. >> Right.
>> Um, I'm going to ask the question, but probably the answer is no. Any trees to be removed as a result [clears throat] of this? None. >> Um, and it looks like he's going to be under 5,000 square ft of disturbance. So, um, if he goes over 5,000 ft, he has to go
to Bergen County Soil Conservation District. >> Does this home require as of now a onecar garage, twocar garage? >> The >> one car one car. >> Right. So, the applicant is he's he's adding a benefit to the property by adding
>> Yeah, he's adding right >> by adding the garage. >> It's a Bone. >> Okay. >> Right. We you know >> that's a benefit to the people becoming more conforming >> should have been part of his testimony >> that is >> okay
>> and so we've got everything else about um so soil movement the shed will be confirmed that it's removed there'll be uh on the final um as built that will be checked
>> water tables water What do you want to call it? Water. >> Well, uh, no adverse effect on drainage to, uh, adjacent properties. >> The neighboring properties. >> Mhm. >> Want any water going to the [laughter]
>> All right. Any other questions or comments from the board? >> All right. We'll have a motion to uh approve the applicant.
>> Second. Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Formaldi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lrada. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bleon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Padres. >> Yes. >> Chairman D. >> Yes. So, you're approved. Thank you very
much. Under those conditions, of course. Yes. >> At next month's meeting, we'll have the written resolution. So, after you get that, then that'll go to the building department. Okay. Unless they have that, I don't think they'll issue any per right, John. They won't issue permits or anything until they
have a resolution. >> Correct. >> If I stop them >> or or you act in your own risk from doing so, >> the answer is yes. So yeah, their next meeting will have to write a resolution and just be aware there is a 45day period that someone
could appeal that after it's published. So if you do anything at that moment so you saw we move the I'll get some direction here. >> Yes. So just you're going to just have to take it out. So it's three foot of
grass that not as property on your property. >> Yes. Yeah, >> all right. More new business. Uh, application of Brian Giblin to add a twotory addition
and front porch to 982 Garbaldi Place, block 2307, lot 25. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm Brian Gillan. Uh I'm here for this is uh this is actually is going
to be my house. Uh once it's completed, um I'm here looking for three bold variances, which are the max since you're applicable, we'll swear you in. >> Oh, yeah. >> Uh do you swear that the the testimony about to give this board is the truth,
whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'll help you out. >> I do. an attorney. Thank you. >> Swear. >> Sorry. >> If he's an attorney, you have swearing. >> Well, he's the applicant. >> So, really, just for my own sake, I I didn't know that. >> Having sworn in.
>> Yeah, it's I would too. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. No, I was telling uh so I'm looking for three more variances of which is uh the first is impervious coverage where 40% is
allowed. uh looking for 47.9%. Uh building coverage which is uh 20% the plan show 23.3%. And then there's a what I consider dimminimous height uh variance request where 28 ft is allowed. Uh we're looking
for 28 29 ft and.5 in 58 in I'm sorry. Um, [clears throat] so without any further ado, I'll uh I'll call my first witness, which is my architect, Toby. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give this board is a true whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I
help you God. >> Yes, sir. >> Please state your name for the record. >> My name is Hun. H O J O N C H. >> My name is Hun Jang. H O J E O N Last
name C H U N G. Mr. Sh, could you give the benefit of the to the members about uh your education and and uh your experience and some other boards that you've appeared in front of and testified in front of? >> Yes. Um I graduate from New Jersey
Institute of Technology in year 2000 and then I have practiced in the field for 25 years now and I'm licensed architect in New Jersey since 2007 and I have
testified in Pisage Park Leonia Fley and some other towns in Bergen County. >> And as of right now your lot your license is currently in good standing. >> Yes. Um, I would ask I've seen Mr. Chong testify before other boards myself. So, I would ask that the board accept this
witness as an expert in architecture. >> So, accepted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chum, would you briefly uh just go through you you provided a set of plans to the board. I believe it's three pages. >> Yes. >> Three pages. Would you would you mind
explaining to the board the current condition you've been to the site personally? Yes, I do. >> Could you describe to the board what currently is sitting on the site and the condition of the property? >> Okay. And um currently uh it is the one story
existing single house unit. So um bas starting from the um this basement plan on the basement there's a one um study room and then finished basement and then
uh there is a utility space and on the first floor there is a existing garage on the right side and then as you coming into the building uh in living room in front uh and kitchen dining and two bedroom with a bathrooms.
>> Okay. And and the this plans that we're submitting, this this photo at the top is what a proposed final rendering will look like. >> Yes. >> Could you do the benefit of the board of showing them exactly what we intend to
do with the property and and the uh the existing structure that's current? So starting from this um first floor as you coming in um to the building we are proposing a 5 ft extended front porch
with a roof and as you're coming into your house um it's it will be open space with a one bedroom and one bathroom and this open space there will be all kitchen, living room and dining and
we're going to keep the um existing garage but on the rear side we will adding a small pantry area. And as you coming up to the second floor we are proposing three bedrooms with a two full
bathrooms. And this is what we are proposing. And on the um basement actually as you're going down we will keep the existing study room and open finish space with a mechanical loom and one bathrooms.
>> So am I correct to say that there there will be no further encroachments on the sideyards to either neighbor on the right or to the left of the property that the house is staying uh that there won't be any further encroachments to this either sideyard. Is that correct? >> Correct. So the house is only being
extended towards the back. >> Yes. 7 ft more. >> And then the front porch in the front. >> Yes. 5T. >> Thank you. And could you just briefly discuss uh with respect to the height? We we requested a foot and a half of
additional height and I'm going to ask the engineer Mr. Dy about that. That's a positive mistake. Could you just touch a little bit on why we needed that extra additional foot and a half on this particular design and why we were unable to make it any lower than that?
>> Yes. Uh so as is showing on elevations finished first floor is existing so we are not raising up or we we are not doing anything and ceiling heights for the first and second floor are both same
as 9 ft high. I believe this height is the typical in these days. Um and then we only have a 5 foot 9 inches roof height but as shown on the side
elevations you can see the minimum slope pitch for the roof high which is 4 and 12 [laughter] and we need this minimum slope for the aspar single loop and by code. So I believe there is nothing much
we can do at the uh for the building height. >> Understood. >> Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for this witness. So >> I John, I have I have a question. Is our ordinance per floor is a minimum of 8 ft per floor?
>> I don't believe our code um specifies minimum floor height. So is it is it if I read this right each floor is 9 ft. >> Yes, >> that's testimony. Yes. >> Right. So if we brought the the height
of each floor down, that would take care of some of the building height >> to 8 ft >> 8 85 whatever whatever make it a little bit lower would cut back the building height. >> But um but you still and you still will
get what you want. Right. If if we have to I mean we could do that in technically but at these days like I have done a lot of houses these days and all new houses requires 9 ft by
the client. So he also have to think about the future. >> Yeah. I get what you're saying, but we're looking at three different variances. And >> right, >> if I had a if it was possible to make something less um and it's workable, I
would look at that. >> And again, it's only my opinion [clears throat] on this board. Everybody else has their own opinion, but no, if if you brought it down to 8 or 85, what would it do to the building height? >> Yeah. And I I actually think I would reserve that due to the topography of
the site. I think there's actually an answer as to why why it's not being done, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yes. Which I think >> is that is that a latest latest for this for this >> a later statement coming up next? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. M
>> Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to the height uh for the architect. So on uh your elevation sir front and rear you're reporting a correct me if I'm wrong a building height of 27 ft 4 and
a4. However your variance request is for a different number which is 29 umt 7 in. >> Right. Correct.
So why why is there a difference >> or is that testimony of the engineer? >> Yes, I >> I think Mr. Mr. Donley whispered in my ear. He'd be up to answer that. Mr. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um
ask about the um the front porch, the front deck. Is that >> It's not um speaking to the front setback. >> The even with the porch, it won't encrunch
on the front setback of the house. >> The front? >> Yeah. I still have there's substantial room from the front of the house >> still. Yeah. >> Right. But and so that's not considered part of the impervious coverage. >> It is. >> It is. >> It is. >> Okay. So the the the porch in the front
it does go go towards it's not house but it still counts towards the coverage >> then it's been factored it's been >> it and that's accounted for in the percentages. Correct. >> Okay. >> Is that the reason why the impervious coverage is so high? >> Corre correct. I frankly when when I drove through the neighborhood my my
sister actually lives on Calvin Street in town and uh so I'm somewhat familiar driving in the area. I saw a few other homes, frankly, that had front porches and uh my girlfriend and I thought it would be something that added like some real nice aesthetic to the neighborhood
and to the surrounding areas. That that was kind of the the you know the uh rationale for the front porch. >> Just have a quick question. Do you happen to have a picture of the existing house? >> I I did go on Google Earth right by and
was blocked out for some reason. It's it's it's a one story kind of cave from the 40s. >> It's almost like a ranch. >> Yeah, it's a ranch from the 40s. >> Is that how it's vacant? >> It's totally vacant from when I bought it. >> Right. I went by this afternoon. It looked >> vacant.
I was waiting to see how today went from before. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, any more questions uh from the board for this uh witness? >> Mr. Yikcom. >> Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. Um, ask for a motion to open to the public for questions for this witness. Motion Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. If any member of the public has any questions for this witness on this application,
raise your hand. You'll be recognized. There'll be time to comment generally later. Just so you But if you have specific questions for this witness, >> no worries. >> Okay. Just state your name and address.
Michael Cherry, 550 Hoover Avenue. Uh, I know the board has already asked the question, but I just want a definitive for the witness. Could this house be redesigned with 8 foot ceilings? >> Um, I mean technically yes.
>> That's it. >> But I mean these days all the new houses are built based on 9 ft high. But it's a new house amongst old houses. >> So the question was could the house be
built ceilings? >> Oh yeah. Technically yes. >> Okay. And how much would reducing the height the ceiling heights to 8t reduce the overall height of the structure? >> Two feet. >> Two feet. Right. One foot each. >> So by reducing the ceiling height to 8 feet would that not eliminate the need
for a barracks? >> Correct. >> Okay. to me go on to another. Does a continuation of the existing non-conforming right side of the house not require of separate banks?
>> Oh, that's an engineer's question. >> Then I'll wait for the engine. >> No further questions. Okay. >> Anyone else have any questions? >> You have a question? >> I have a question. I'm waiting for it to be closed to the public. >> Okay. Anyone from public?
Anyone at home? Seeing no one, I'll ask for a motion to close the motion public portion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> Mr. Chung, is more than 50% of the structure to be demolished as part of
your improvements? >> That question. Um, depends on skill. >> Yes. >> The answer is yes. >> We're we're we're keeping the basement intact and the sides of the of the the house intact. So, it's only the front
and the back and the and the roof because we're trying to add a second story. >> So, is it more than 50%. [laughter] That's the question. >> Yeah. That that I don't have the answer to right now. Are we just do you know if
we're discharged? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So there lies a problem. >> Yep. >> You have to go to the planning >> planning board. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That's one of our ordinances that uh if it's more than 50% of the
structure is going to be uh demolished that the planning board is the venue not the zoning board. >> Okay. >> And the planning board if they agree can give you all the variances so forth but it has to go to them. >> Okay.
>> Now if you said you only taken 49% then that's a different story. But since you answered yes it has >> Yeah. I frankly I'm not I'm not sure. >> This is Brian Senior. He's an attorney as well. My boss. >> I would ask the board so that we can
look at that. I would ask the board to just continue the application. Uh so we can look into that and then if we have to make application at the planning board, we'll do that. >> I don't think that's an issue. >> Yeah. No, we can. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> But how can we vote on it? >> We're not we're not going to vote on it.
We're not voting on it. We're just we're just carrying carry it right now. >> Move it to the platform. >> Preserves our notice. That's that's all I'm concerned about. Preserving our notice in case we wind up coming back here either changing the plan somehow or
uh you know making it an application that is rightfully before this board. >> So then we'll get all the new plans for the >> Yeah. They were chang if they determine it's less than 50% they could continue their application come back revise plans and continue
testimony. So >> right I'll have to discuss with with >> Yeah. No I have no problem with hearing all the testimony that the public came in >> we could carry it to the next meeting and then you guys will let us know >> if you're going to be in front of this board or go to the other >> or the other side. >> Yeah. >> Not a problem.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you guys. Maybe I'll see you again. >> Yes, you invite. >> Yeah, I don't think he wants >> Do you want to put on the rest of your testimony or >> you can finish? >> I just want to I would say
>> I think I don't think it makes sense to do that. >> We're in front of the wrong board. We're not want to waste your time for the >> um what I thought you were asking. >> Okay. Sorry. >> I thought you were asking to hear all the >> That's my thought. >> No, no, no. All right. We can we can
carry it, but um just procedurally um how are we going to deal with notice if we're if it's an open-ended carrier? >> Well, we're going to carry it to the next meeting. They're asking not to require notice. They agree to extend the time for the board to act on.
>> The applicant agrees to extend it. We would only ask that it be carried to the very next meeting of the board. >> Okay. Just want to make sure that's on the record with no further notice. >> No further notice for the next meeting. If it goes beyond that, we might have to readjust. >> Thank you.
>> Good question. >> Sorry, I didn't put it in my report. >> So, yeah. So, there will be no new no notice for the next meeting. I mean, the agenda will be out and you'll see if it you can check the website to see if it's on the agenda. Um, if not, that means
they're probably going to the planning board. Um, uh, they will not have to renotice if they're coming back to this board. Um, but it will be on the agenda for the next meeting. >> Next meeting. >> For only the next meeting. Yes. And then
we would have to deal with it from there. So, we would have to deal with it from there at the next meeting if they are coming back. But we will uh be coming before us. They could be saying we're going to the planning board. They could ask for adjournment. There's >> Right. >> And which if anything like that would be
announced at the meeting. >> Yes. No one's going to get any public notice with regard to this board. >> Right. >> Yes. Exactly. >> What happen? >> I think it's late. Oh, >> I'm July 21st. It it looks like from
their plans that they're far in excess of 50%. So, it's most likely going to have to go in front of the planning board. But again, just keep an eye on the agenda and keep an eye on the um which will be out uh usually the Thursday before the meeting.
>> Yeah. On the website. >> On the website. And if you have any questions too, you can always call the office and >> be happy to take >> unless they unless they revise the plans. >> Yeah, unless they revise the plans. >> I mean, and that's a possibility. They could revise the plans. I mean, they
will keep it% >> which case it will be tough anyway. I won't be here next meeting. >> Norway% like around the corner. Um, okay. So, does everybody uh understand that? Just so right now they're they're carrying
this to the next meeting July 21st. Just want to make sure everybody's clear so they get the opportunity to be heard if it is back in front of us. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, moving on to uh
old business. Um none status report review. >> Thank you all for coming. >> Slide over. >> Yeah. I have this one. >> So, we're going to get a update from John. >> Yes.
>> On the verbal update on uh 891 Manhattan. >> Yes. So, 891 Manhattan, the issue at hand um that the board was concerned about was two accessory structures on the same lot. Um it became apparent to me very
recently uh as a matter of fact that the section in the code that limits accessory buildings to only 80 square ft and only one was adopted in June of 2024
and the Collinses received zoning approval in October of 2023. So that means that it is grandfather. >> Okay. Now we know >> but we still have the curb issue and the
escrow. I will review I will move forward with the curb issue with Mr. Collins. I wanted to get the zoning issue squared away and quite frankly as a result of my investigation I'll talk to my upper management and we'll credit
the escrow charges associated with the with the zoning review um just to sort of um get Mr. Collins to towards conclusion on the matter. >> So is he working with you now? Um, I
wanted to to get this resolved because I I like to have all issues together. I just resolved this recently with the with the accessory structure. So now I will reach out to Mr. Collins to he's been asking me about a month ago to
schedule the um to look at his curb. Um, and I said send me some photographs. I haven't received them yet. Um, but I hope to have this this issue closed by the July meeting completely. >> Okay.
>> Any any further questions on that? >> No. >> Thank you for your investigation. >> Um, Mr. Bendic issued a new plan uh back in May after uh the board's um
deliberation um with the 18t driveway. Um, I have a draft of a report. I actually wanted to do one final site visit before
I rendered the report. I did that before this meeting and um I think I could report at this time it appears that he's still not in compliance with the board's um
wishes for a 18 foot wide driveway. Quite frankly, he's trying to sneak another parking space on the left side of the garage, and it's impossible to do that without widening the driveway more
than 22 ft. So, um, if anyone, if Mr. Bendick is watching, uh, that's my verbal determination, but I'll put it in writing, uh, tomorrow in a report. So, uh what is the next step on that
then? If that's that, you know, if you put it in writing and um nothing changes, >> need a new plan from the architect. >> Okay. >> And um
perhaps maybe we could u move things along. I've been reluctant to give him a a street opening ordinance for the curb cut at 18 ft. Um, I I might be amendable to doing that, talking with him just to move things
along. The front of his yard is still in a state of uh disrepair. It's not unsafe. Still has orange construction fence up, but nothing is stopping him from finishing the retaining wall there for the plan. Um, etc.
>> Isn't our driveway ordinance minimum 22 ft? >> Yes. >> So, he's 4t under. Yes, even if he went to to 22, um I don't want to take any liberties, but
you know, the board said 18. Um 18 is 18. >> Okay. Yeah. >> You know, 18 is not 22. >> Fair enough. So I think the board was looking for you know had mitigation on impervious surfaces and other things as
a result of the varian that he was asking for. >> This was the one where he asked us to watch the video from the prior month we yeah I know I did. >> So it's been relitigated >> and it is what it is. >> Resolution was as
>> frankly stop playing games and do what you told us to do. Okay. >> Okay. uh Calamari Brink Road. >> I have not received follow-up documents yet uh for comment resolution, storm water or otherwise. Correct.
>> Right. They're working on removal. They're in the process of doing that and waiting on the other. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Was I was I wasn't here for that application. I was out. >> I think you were out. >> Okay. Two months ago.
>> Is that person related to the mayor? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> No idea. >> Yes. Um and um the board might be interested to know I received a >> not
>> email for or a um a text or something from Mr. Fans contractor. >> Yes. asking about um if he could receive a CO um while the ground is settling to
install the driveway. And I said, "As long as you put up a bond for that work, um, we could really, you know, we could not we could look at other things, but the normal operating
procedure is that you could put up a bond to cover anything um, that's in the way of a co. Say you need grass planted in the middle of February, you could put up a bond for that. uh so that when May and June comes
the bond gets released but in the meantime you get the CEO >> how much of the bond do you have to put up for it >> whatever the cost is of of whatever he's looking to do. >> Got it. Okay. >> So there's adequate funds there [clears throat] >> when he doesn't do it. >> Right. Exactly. But it was just a
question. It came through about two weeks ago and I've heard nothing further. So I guess the good news is that they don't have a CEO yet. Is that >> fan on uh
>> Ridgewood Road? >> South right south of Glenn. >> But you're saying you're saying that like with hesitation like they should not have a CO, but you're not sure? >> I haven't been asked to close out the
project yet. >> Is it possible? Could they get a from the building department without realizing >> that's always possible, Mr. Lorra. [laughter]
>> Okay. >> I think >> I think it's a good sign that they're asking me questions quite frankly. >> Did they not supply the AS bill? Is everything else under >> I have not gotten an ASB bill yet. I I there's a whole bunch of things >> that are missing
>> that I haven't been able to certify to yet. >> They just ask a very simple question. I I have a then I have a simple simple question. If nothing else has been verified, how can you get a temporary CO
to live in a in a in a structure that may not be under the guidelines? >> Temporary CO um only you could issue a temp you have to issue a temporary CO temporary CO if the site is safe.
if the site is safe and livable co with everything else. That's my understanding as an engineer as per the U building code talking to many construction officials across the county.
So safe means, you know, >> livable. >> Liveable. Well, from my standpoint, you can walk in the front door. You're not tripping over anything >> hazard, >> you know, hazardous. >> The outstanding conditions are not safety related. >> Right. Right. Exactly.
>> And usually and the the TCO is only good for a certain number of days. I forget if it's 30 or 60. >> And it gets it can get extended, but they have to basically >> pay a fine >> if they if it gets extended. Every time
it has to get extended. So why would somebody want a temporary CO if if they if if they're not able to get it done within say 30 days and they have to pay this fine, why would they want a CO, a temporary
>> a temporary CO? It's it's it's it's a path to the CO. So if you're in their position once you get a TCO, you know, there's really no turning back. Either you put up a bond to finish the work or you get a CO and eventually
what's going to happen the banks are going to are going to say what's going on with this property where's the CO why haven't you finished the >> comes up with purchasing real estate a lot you get TCO so you could close >> yeah comes up a lot >> but what happens if the
>> you could always resend the CO2 >> okay what happens if the bill comes in and the the numbers are not what it is they're not in compliance >> then they have to come back before this board. >> But in the meantime, they got a temporary CO, >> right? >> I don't That doesn't make sense to me.
>> That's because they're trying to They may be trying to solve the bank. >> But you can't solve the bank completely with a TC. >> It's a good thing that they're asking him questions. Leave it at that and we'll see where >> where we go where it goes. >> Okay.
>> Uh any uh Okay. board member, any issues? >> I have a question. Do we ask the applicant if they are demolishing 50% of the structure or less while they're submitting the application? Because I just feedback for this guy that came in with all of these professional and I I I
I offered I offered this. It's in the code and um I don't want to sound rude, but it's it's the responsibility of the applicants professionals >> to read the code and to understand what the code says. And most are aware of the
code, >> right? >> And when you have two attorneys >> or applicants, they should be aware of the code. >> So you have an architect, you have an engineer, and you have two attorneys, >> right? >> Quite frankly, I missed it. It should have been in my report. I will admit to
that, but um the bottom line is the burden of proof is always on the applicant. >> If they all miss it, >> I'm I'm I'm agreeing it's 100% on him. But does it make sense for us to add that question on our application? >> It does. It does >> because it saves us also coming here and
>> Yes, >> I would bring it up with you. >> I would say that and >> I can't do it on my own. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just asking the question just to you know >> one of the first things the board should ask an applicant is I know Fran was trying to adjust the
application to answer that question. In the beginning we were asking >> You're right. you were and we kind of like fell apart a little bit just a little bit. >> So just for conversation I believe it's on the question is on the the zoning application which is the first application that they fill out in the
process. I'll double check that. >> Okay. I'll see if they answer. >> Did they answer it or not? Yeah. >> A lot of people don't answer it. >> That's their first not to answer it. >> They don't know but I think they should have asked
>> their architect. their artifact and it's 100% on them on the barrier >> but I'm saying if you know >> Grace do we ask for pictures in the application because >> I thought this came up before because >> a lot of towns I applied to they all
want pictures and I think that's this was going to be my board member issue can we ask for pictures and do we have to take a vote on that to add that to the application or um but I think that should be a requirement I most boards I
go in front of as well so that we don't have this issue because now the problem is on that application is your cell phone picture going to be an exhibit that has to be marked because I took it into account when I looked at it um and
it creates issues. I think we need to get 16 copies of uh and that's what most towns require 16 copies of not only the the uh property but the applicant property but any adjacent properties. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But a lot of the applicants have given
us pictures. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And some of them have on the survey the plan which quite frankly I always do when I'm applying because >> I know what board members want to see and if anything it makes it easier. >> Tell Mary when they had pictures you can't get It's helpful. It's definitely
helpful. >> Joe Bruno, he's the >> Bruno. >> Yeah. So, not all >> pictures of the property and the just adjacent properties. >> So, you could see it compared to the other properties in
those mandatory pictures and immediate adjacent. >> I I went by that house. That house is >> It's a ranch with a onear garage. >> Yeah. Well, like again, I didn't have time uh to get by it, so I looked on
Google Earth and um it blocked out. >> Yeah. >> Yes. So, >> Google Maps. >> Oh, you found it on Google Maps. >> Okay. I don't know why that is. Google >> because you can you can send something to Google so people can't look at your
home. >> My neighbor has it blocked out. It's like, are you kidding me? So yeah, that was uh so thank you for showing me the picture. >> I'm looking at house today and the pictures from 12 years ago and that's not the house of today. It's like they
don't update it. >> Yeah. Okay. So one, we're going to check and make sure that that uh question is uh first and foremost on our applications and that it is uh answered or else you cannot proceed forward. Yes.
>> Okay. >> If that question is not answered, the application's incomplete. >> Yeah. But it depends on who's answering it. >> Well, that's on them to get a professional to answer it then if they're And let me add really quickly um
it's been handed down to me >> um by Aelina Fury um that the way that that's calculated is the perimeter of of the house. So um what you do is all
exterior walls that are remaining have to be shown on the plan and if more than 50% of the exter exterior walls are being demolished and replaced that's what the term is because it's a very
subjective >> um question. Yeah, it is because I've seen some houses that I would swear it's more than 50%. Oh, no. That's >> But the way the way through the years, the decades, I would say.
>> So, is it in the ordinance? >> It doesn't say in the ordinance how it's calculated. >> So, that might be something that we should refer to the council >> the annual review >> on the annual review. >> How is it? Right. It has to be codified how it's calculated.
>> Yes. configational because that would really Yeah. >> Because when somebody takes like Mr. Lrad was asking me about the house across from the high school if that was over 50%. It came out really nice. Came out very nice. But if you look at it and
you're passing by it and you see the whole roof taken off. >> Oh yeah. >> Somebody could say that's more than 50%. >> But another way of looking at it is if I have four walls and I take down two, that's my 50%. It doesn't have to do with the roof. Right. But if I have to take the roof
plus >> right >> 50% is that more than 50%. >> Right. So I'm saying is the roof included and not included or is it just the walls? >> According to the previous engineer who's been here for a long time, the roof is not included. >> Not included. >> Not included. >> So if I have four walls and I take two
down, I'm at the 50%. >> Yes. Linear foot of the perimeter. >> Not just number of walls. Not just number one. >> They're taking down the two big walls. >> Yes. >> In this last application, so it's based on short wall.
>> So it's based on footage. >> Yes. It's the foot perimeter footage of what you're taking down. >> Jesus, there's too much calculations involved. >> That's right. >> Subjective, right? But see that's what the board found out that you know they
just taking down walls and 50% and that was it you know. >> Okay. So we will put that on the list. Um >> and [clears throat] any other issues? >> That's interesting. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion second. Creates a lot of confusion. >> Thank you everyone.