It's just I jump. Welcome to the public meeting of November 18th, 2025 of the Township of Washington Zoning Board. Adequate notices of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least
two newspapers on December 27th, 2024. And this meeting has been posted on the township bulletin board electronic message board WCTV and on the township website. Please stand and salute to the flag. >> 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. To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link on the website and listed on the
agenda to join the webinar. You will be asked to state your name for the record and we ask that only one person Oh, sorry. Let me do roll I skipped. Sorry. Let me do roll call. >> Mr. Dagastino >> here.
>> Mrs. Grimaldi is absent. Miss Hannah >> here. >> Mr. Lrada >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Zitko >> here. >> Mr. Rivera >> here. >> Mrs. Osmond >> here. >> Chairman gets absent. Let the record reflect also in attendance are attorney Gary G Antonio, board engineer Jeff
Morris for John Kimick, and board secretary Grace Gish. >> Sorry. To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link on the website and listed on the agenda to join the webinar. You will 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. Do I have a motion to open the public portion? >> Second. All in favor? >> I I
>> Anybody in the audience would like to come up and talk about anything that's not on the agenda? >> Anybody on Zoom? >> No hands raised. >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> approval of the minutes of October 21st. Has anybody had an opportunity to look and make any comments or suggestions? No comments on my end. >> No comments. >> No comments. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Dagino. >> Yes. >> Montana. >> Yes. >> Mr. Labrada. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman. >> Yes. >> New business. application of Jessica Leveski Rex
um for an addition and alteration to 637 Valley Court block 3201 lot 14. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Matthew Capzy on behalf of the applicant. If I can just give a brief summary of the application and we
can call our first witness. This is a property that's in the burrow's RA zone. and it's a 10,000 ft lot with 98 ft of frontage. It's improved with a single family dwelling that's a ranchstyle dwelling. Uh the applicants purchased
the property in 2023 and what I believe is significant to the application before the board this evening is at that time there was a large pool and patio in the rear yard as well as a pool house. And I have the survey that existed at that time that was in disrepair. So those
elements were removed and that took away approximately 1,800 square ft of imperous coverage. Uh so the table that's before you does not take into consideration that previously existing 1,800 square ft of coverage because at
the time Mr. Gorenstein prepared his plan, those improvements did not exist at the property. Uh I raise them just merely for uh relevancy. I think it's a good comparison. This evening, we're asking to place approximately 400 square foot addition along the rear of this
home. It'll be a one-story addition to keep the ranch style uh vernacular of the dwelling going forward with this is a small addition to try to improve the utility of the existing space. Uh those of you that may have had the opportunity to visit the property, this neighborhood
is a fully developed single family neighborhood of all ranch style homes. So, keeping the ranch style home by way of the uh addition off the rear we thought was appropriate. Again, staying with the existing architectural styles
found within the neighborhood. Uh, also of note to the rear of us is a townhouse development and we are facing actually the closest landscaping between our property and that property to our rear. We are not requesting a rear yard set. As I said, it's only a one-story
addition, so it's shallow in height. But just in case the board was concerned about the impact of this additional building coverage on that development to the rear, there are no concerns because again, that is a much more dense multif family development as compared to the subject property. Uh Mr. Gorenstein
prepared the plan set that's before the board this evening. Two variances being sought, building coverage and impervious coverage. Again, because of the ranch style dwelling, we need to go outward as far as the building footprint is concerned. And that's what's driving the need for the additional building
coverage. And as the building coverage goes up, as does the impervious coverage. But if we look back in time ever so slightly to 2023, we had 1,800 ft of additional coverage there. So if we had kept that, we would really not be increasing the impervious
coverage at all. And more importantly, the the property was accustomed to having an additional 1,800 square feet of coverage on it for many many years. So the additional 400 square feet of coverage here is still 1,400 square foot less than what the neighborhood had been customarily used to. Uh so again, we
don't believe there would be any substantial impact as a result of granting either variance, but certainly we'll have Mr. Gorenstein go through those details. If there are no questions of me, I can have Mr. Gorstein sworn and have him go through the plan set.
Please raise your right hand. It's working. Yep. Think you got it. >> 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. >> Can you please repeat and spell your name for the board for the record? >> It's Michael Gorenstein. G O R E N S T E
N. >> Thank you. >> Michael, can you do me a favor just if you can keep your voice up a little bit for me, please? and if you can go through your educational and professional experiences. >> Oh, sure. Um, I have a bachelor of science and architecture, a bachelor of
architecture, uh, licensed in New York and New Jersey, licensed in New Jersey since 1985. I've appeared before various boards including Penfly, Howorth, Englewood, Alpine,
Barrel. >> Your license is in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. I ask this board accept this witness as a professional witness, expert witness in architecture. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Borenstein, before you
go through the your narrative, the plan set that's on the easel, is that the same plan set we filed with the application? >> Yes. >> Thank you. You can talk to us a little about the existing condition and how we're proposing to improve it. >> Uh yeah, so u refer to drawing A1.
Uh you can see the footprint of the existing dwelling. It's a as as was mentioned it's a ranch or one-story structure. The rear uh we're proposing it's shaded in that uh red hatch and um
it's a 12t deep rear extension. The lot itself contains rear patio, a shed, u paved pavers, uh creating a path with the rear down towards the front. There's a paved pave
driveway in the front and again towards the entry at this point of the house. the interior on A2. The items noted in red are new construction. The items dotted in green
are the proposed construction to be removed. >> Excuse me. But can you just raise up the voice a little bit because it's it's hard coming on the table. >> Okay. Is that better? >> Oh, yeah. >> Is that better? That's better. >> All right. I'll get closer. >> Thank you. >> Uh, sure. So uh the as I said the area
in in red is new construction proposed the area in green is uh proposed construction to be removed and the uncolored area is existing construction to remain. So the existing interior of the house uh you enter from this this
portion into a living room an open dining area and an existing family room. There's a onecar garage to the side with an entrance into the family room. This section contained a small kitchen.
Uh what we are proposing with this 12t rear edition is that uh we expand it to the rear allowing uh for an increase in very tight counter space. And my understanding is both our clients uh cook and they need to have some room in
the kitchen to maneuver which this gives them. also provides for some eating area. Uh we're also providing a walk-in pantry and a new laundry room and an and we're maintaining a sort of rear exit to the rear yard which they had in in the
scheme. Uh this is the stair leading down to the basement. There are two existing bedrooms and in this area is the existing primary bedroom up to this point. It's uh
limited in size. It has a small toilet room because it's a toilet and a sink, no bathing facility there, and has a small walk-in closet. So, in a new scheme, we're giving them additional closet space. We're increasing the size
of the primary bedroom, and we're providing for a shower, double vanity, and a toilet. Right now, all three bedrooms share this tub as the only means of of bathing in the house. The roof plan indicates the new construction
area. In effect, the entire roof uh will be re-roofed with new asphalt shingle. A3 has a rear view and a side view of the house. Uh what's shown in red again is new construction. And this is the rear of the existing
family room. And this additional wing here includes the uh the new primary bedroom area. Uh the laundry room window. And this is the kitchen area with the proposed porch out
leading to the backyard. The side view. You can see clearly the 12- foot addition to the rear and the height of the new addition is no higher than the existing structure. In terms of zoning,
we are in an Azone. The required lot area is 10,000 square ft. Uh we are at 10,000 square feet. So we are uh conforming minimum lot frontage is 100 ft. We are
100 ft and we're conforming there. Minimum lot width is 100. We're slightly under at 98.02. So we're existing non-conforming. Minimum lot depth 95 ft. We are at 101
conforming there. Minimum front yard is 30 feet. We are at 30 ft. Uh we're not touching anything in the front. We're maintaining that. As I mentioned, all our work is in the rear and the perception of that from the
street is really minimal. Uh the rear yard uh I mentioned is is 30. We're at 26.3. This is the 26.3 area. The existing we are at slightly beyond the 30
and the sideyard 15 ft we are at 15.7 and on this side we are about 23 aligning with the existing side of the house.
Maximum building coverage is 2,000 square ft. The existing is 2029. We are proposing 2465 for 465 square feet uh over the maximum.
It's a non-conforming condition maximum impervious coverage 3500 ft. Uh I want to correct that number. It says 3307. It should be 3410 actually. Uh we're proposing 3846.
So we're 346 ft uh over the the max there. And that's non-conforming. In terms of height, as I mentioned, we're less than the slightly under the existing uh 200 two and a half stories, 30 ft is required. And we are under that
and we're conforming in the height. >> Michael, the 2023 survey that I mentioned in my opening statement, did you have a chance to review that? >> I didn't see it. As far as the pool and patio and the pool house that existed at that time, how many square feet
approximately did that account for? >> About 1,800 square feet. And that 1,800 square feet that has been removed that's not picked up anywhere in your existing >> that includes the pool house the ingground pool and the surrounding concrete a just concrete slide like
>> your existing conditions impervious coverage calculation does not include any of those areas. Correct. Thank you. As as far as the rear edition is concerned the only aspect that may be visible from the street is just the modified roof line. Is that correct? Um,
not really. It will be below that. What you might catch a bit of the side, but it's a minimal minimal view from the side view right there. Nothing from the front. Directly from the front. >> So, not really not perceptible at all from the street >> barely. >> And the addition, the rear yard setback
is conforming to that addition. >> Oh, yeah. We're beyond 30 ft. >> As far as the development that exists to the south, is that a a townhouse development? Uh, I'm honestly not familiar with what's going on there. Uh, you're more familiar with that than I am.
>> Fair enough. As far as the facade element of the addition, how is that being tied in? >> What do you mean by the side element? >> The facade. The facade. >> Oh, facade. We are maintaining the uh the existing structure is uh uh has a
aluminum shingles aluminum siding and we're maintaining the same finish along the slide in the rear. >> Thank you, Michael. I don't have >> match that. >> I don't have any further questions for him. >> Anybody have any questions for the architect?
Is there a civil engineer or grading? >> No. >> No. >> So then the only question I I would have is if the board looked favorably on this if storm water would be collected with an underground tank or something of that that sort.
Yes, we have we have requested uh storm water management calculations and uh and that be taken care of. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Whatever is required in that uh on that end. >> Yeah. a site engineer would would do a complete site plan. >> Can I ask a question?
Um, there was a letter that was sent from the engineer who I know is down at the league >> and it says, and that's what I don't understand, this office has reviewed recent aerial imagery of the site and found that the rear yard includes a pool in the patio.
>> That's an old image. It's an old >> I've seen it myself. But if you look on Google Earth or something like that, it still shows it, but it you check the date on the image. It's it's not there. >> Okay. I mean, you know, it just it seems strange that it says because I know when
that pool actually went in, that was a variance that the pool was. >> Yeah. >> The pool went in in 1986. >> It's not there. >> Okay. >> It's all grass at this point. >> It's all grass. Then why do we have a a fence going down the in between? Was
that the whole size of the pool? This looks like there's a some kind of a fence that goes right down the area where the >> fence here. >> Not Yeah. Right where the pool was. >> Yeah.
>> No, that's just a >> No, no, no. I'm here. This area. This looks like there's a fence. I didn't understand that. >> Is that There may still be a fence there. >> Well, I don't know what those little marks are. >> Oh, you're talking about this.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's there. There still There's still existing fence there >> off of the patio and the shed area. Yeah. Back to the other side. Yeah. >> That's a fence. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that's just cement then or was grass? >> Uh that the area under it is um is
grass, I believe. Yeah. >> Okay. So, Mr. Morris, I have a question based on what >> John had written on the report. So, on page two, number two, it says the survey map of the property has not been
provided to this office. Has that been >> That's been done. >> That's been done. >> Yeah. We have now a current survey. It would have been nice if we had the 2023 survey also so we could compare the two as far as the pool and the uh cabana, but we don't have that one. We have a we have a current 2025 survey
>> and the scale shall be verified. He wrote afterwards. >> I mean I just what do we have? >> This is the survey for three. >> Yeah, this is not scale but it's uh and actually the one Mr. Ezy had just uh
given us chose the ingground pool and the pool house. >> So this is a survey dated June 20th 2023 which we're marking as A1 and the most recent survey that we were referring to is August 12th 2025. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> So if we do the comparison between two surveys, one shows the inground pool and the other one does not. >> That's correct. You know the inground pool surrounding patio and the pool house have all been eliminated. taken away. Okay. >> Also, if it's approved, the
I I guess it's a uh I'm not sure exactly a family room. The family room is in violation of the rear yard set back and that's an addition to that house. It's not originally with that house. Uh I like that in the resolution stating that there is a you know they were in
violation of the rear yard setback which nothing to do with this application, but I wanted it as part of it for future reference. Certainly a ratification of that non-conforming condition would would be welcomed. >> Okay. What what is non-conforming exactly? >> The rear yard the uh I guess they're the recck room.
>> It goes it's like 28 ft only into the rear yard. It's not the 30 ft the requirement. >> Yes. Actually it's 26.3 ft. >> Yeah. I mentioned that. >> Okay. But it's not resolution >> existing. Right. Right. because there
have been two or three additions onto that house since it was built. >> So that the current rear >> actually zoning. >> So what exactly do you want the resolution? >> So it it actually says in their zoning grid that it's an existing non-conforming condition. >> So I think that if we just follow the zoning grid as part of the resolution, I
think it would be okay. It's calling out that 30 is required. We're 26.8 >> and that's just if they come up for another variance >> that we see all of them are originally and you know the paper >> pre-existing. Correct. Got it. >> Correct.
>> Right. That makes sense. >> Okay. >> Also, the soil moving normally, don't they? I mean, it says it here, should the board vote favorably, it must comply with the provisions. We So, you know, it's important to have
the applicant actually tell us how much soil will be moved. They know by the time they come in front of us, they have their architects here, they have their engineers here. Uh it's important that that be part of our applications from now on. I, you know, not for your purpose, but uh I I think that's very
important that you know, we should have that from the architect andor the engineer who's coming with the application. >> It will it will be provide we we need to complete these for these are not for construction. These are just for general scope and discussion. Well, I know, but see, we have to know what you're doing. And it's important for us to know, are
you going to go over? Do does it have to go to another board? >> What's happening? >> And it's important for us to know that >> I did Washington. Is there a major soil improvement application in town? I >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. How many cubic yards is the
threshold? >> It's all 400 cubic yards off. >> Are are you planning on expanding the basement or just would this be a crawl space? >> Crawl space. space. >> Okay. >> But all that would be subject to the end.
>> Yeah. Yes. No, I realize that it's just >> And Mr. Morris is based on John's report, is it required that they have to have the storm water management in this application? >> Yes. Uh there because they're over on
Perview's area, so they should be accounting for that as far as storm water management is concerned. And I'm assuming that they will have to supply you the numbers to determine how big um I guess the tank would have to be. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> Yeah, we have no problem doing that.
>> So that would also be subject. So >> I'm sorry. I'll play devil's advocate for one second. uh because we we're always concerned about going over the numbers. Um so is it possible would it be feasible that um let's say the new
addition for example could be smaller so it would reduce the numbers or is it just not worth it? >> It really wouldn't be worth it Mr. Chairman with with the house with the garage element under the proposed condition is 2400 square ft. So, you
know, the the livable area is approximately 2200 square feet. It's quite modest house, and I certainly can appreciate the board's concern with um trying to adhere to maximums, but again, if we looked at
the impervious coverage calculation under the proposed condition and if we added 1,400 square feet to it, we would be well over. Uh it's just the fact that the the applicant was proactive. If they had called me in 23, I would probably I would have told them leave that pool and
patio there and because it would have been an existing non-conforming condition that we would be getting credit for removing. They were to their credit proactive and getting and eliminating those items. And I certainly would like to have that taken into consideration. >> See, my my concern is when you get that impervious coverage and you start going
over the max, my concern is that water, you know, that's why you have to have management control for the water. But I don't want to have the neighbors calling up and saying all of a sudden the runoff is going to to the neighbors. And and the more you cover, the more you coverage, the more that water can't absorb somewhere. It's got to go
somewhere. >> Understood. You know, prior to this application, the the site had uh I'm trying to think my existing impervious coverage. Well, according to according to the numbers, you were 34.10
according to Mr. >> since the wrong Steve since the 80s when the pool and patio element was put in until 2023, the site had approximately 5100 square feet of coverage with no on-site storm water management system.
So certainly if there were no neighbor complaints over that 30-year period of time having substantially less coverage there there won't be any issues in in addition we're adding the storm water management system. I understand what you're saying. I understand. But land
changes, sh everything shifts. You know, water starts to go in different directions that has never been there before. So, I always get concerned when it comes to the impervious coverage. You know, I need to also think about the neighbors, making sure that the neighbors are not affected by any work
that's being done on the applicant's property and what could it do to them. >> That's that's my concern. >> Understood that. I just if we had 5,000 ft of coverage for 30 years, there were no neighbor complaints. Having 3,000 ft of coverage, obviously, we're not going to generate any neighbor complaints.
>> Is there any grading on on the land back? >> We'll make sure. We'll have to submit a grading and drainage plan. >> Yeah. >> For Mr. Morris's review or his office's review and certainly whatever commentary there is relative to that grading and drainage design will be incorporated and will be a sub a condition of any
approval from this board. >> It's a relatively flat site. >> Okay. We'll also review that because it looks like from my view of this house, the front yard pitches towards the street. I'm not so sure about the rear yard. So, we just have to make sure it's directed towards the front yard. >> Um I I don't have a toe of it at this
point. So, I could have >> because visually it looks >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And ask about the demolishing of what less than 50% >> depend on.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, so we run into problems with applications in the past with when it comes to renovations. So, we ask a general question so everybody's on the same page and we get the same answer. Is the applicant taking down more than 51%.
>> No, or 50%. Let me see rephrase that 50%. >> Is that kind of like interior renovations or just exterior walls? >> Exterior walls, >> right? No. We're we're maintaining existing footprints and adding to it. >> Well, no. I'm we're just asking a
general question. So, we have it on on on file. >> We're not taking it down more than 50%. >> That's all I want to hear. Thank you. >> And in the past, people have said they're bringing addition and next thing we knew the house was gone, >> right? And then it and then it became that it needed to go to the planning board and not the zoning board and it
causes a lot of time delay on both sides. So that's the reason why we started this new procedure that we're going to ask the c ask the applicants when it comes to renovations on their properties. >> Understood. >> Yeah. That's not we're indicating and that's not what we intend to do. >> Then we're good. Thanks.
>> Mhm. >> Does any other board members have any questions, statements? >> Let's open it up to the uh public. Motion to open to the public. Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anybody in the audience would like to
come up and ask any questions to the architect. >> Please state your name and address. >> How you doing? I'm Jason Danelloo. I'm at 645 Valley Court. I'm the neighbor immediately to the right. Um met Neil and Jess back in 2023. Um I can confirm
for the board that the pool has been filled and that is all grass there. So, just to uh you know, obviously I was upset about it because I was looking forward to moving in with a neighbor with a pool right next door to fill that in. Um, also for the for the board's edification, directly behind
we're at the end of a culde-sac, right? >> So, directly behind us is about let's say 30 40 ft of shrubbery woods. I don't know if it's uh I have to look at the tax map. I don't know if it's specifically an easement, but then it's the the condo association. So, there's a
lot of shrubbery. there's um you know a lot of bushes and stuff. So you know I think certain with respect to anything impervious I'd be the only one really that even be able to see it. You're not gonna be able to see it. I I took a look at the you know at the the planes myself and I'm super stoked for that. Um really
excited to see know you know young family like myself moving into the neighborhood. They obviously want to expand, you know, I've gotten to know them the last couple years. They're looking to expand their family just like we are at ours. And it's really nice and refreshing to to be able to add in the community um you know having having you know kids like like my daughter as well
just got to you know drive their bikes around in the neighborhood in the cold sack. So really looking forward to that. Um with respect to any sort of runoff water the way that I've been seeing it everything is in the front does pitch towards um the street and then everything in the back as well. We haven't had a guys I don't think we've
had a single issue at all with any any sort of water retain again looking at the at least I'm certainly no no architect um but or engineer but I don't see how that was I think 400 square feet would at all cause any sort of issue with respect and on top of the fact that
they're also doing the the extra bonus of of having you know some either catch basin or or water retention for that um yeah I'm just I seriously hope that the board does consider this um you even just speaking with them that it looks like they they want to stay in in township. They want to grow their family
here and they just obviously they they need an opportunity to do that, you know, just like anybody would. They're in, you know, an opportunity to go through their house now. It's tight. Um, you know, and just they're looking to expand it and not not anything that's outlandish, ghoulish that's going to be the, you know, eyesore. It's they just
want to make it practical and convenient and I'm all for it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can we open up to uh Anybody else? >> Oh, anybody? I'm sorry. Anybody else would like to come up? I didn't see anybody else come up.
>> How about on Zoom? >> No hands raised. >> See no hands raised on Zoom. Motion to close to the public portion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I um
nobody else has any additional questions, statements, comments. I mean, the only statement I will make is that I think that we have a new zoning ordinance with coverage, so it's kind of new for us voting. Um, in the context of this specific application, if they had
just had the original survey, this is entirely a home run application. Um, you're getting rid of the impervious coverage. Um, well, before there was no impervious coverage, but right now the existing house as it stands is over. So, there's nothing you can do about that.
And I think that's more a statement about the coverage numbers that we've adopted as opposed to what's out there. I think when you look at this addition in comparison to the fact that this could be an add level in in a culde-sac of all branches, you know, and then
you've got the CL the most adjacent neighbor. I mean, this is a slam dunk project. I can't see how um I couldn't approve this. I should say that. >> Yeah. Anyone >> else? Anybody else? >> Yeah, I think I think it's fine for the
simple fact that got to give credit for that 1,800 that they were able to shave off, too. So, that that just helps. And the driveway and all that staying the same. Nothing's being affected by that either. >> Correct. >> Okay. That was another problem. That's
what I'm asking. >> Understood. Does our engineer have any other questions or concerns or you >> No, I don't. Okay. Can >> make a motion. Make a motion. >> We're going to make a motion to approve the application subject to
um soil moving calculations. um the storm water management um making sure that that um that one variance is back into the resolution so if anything happens down the road we know exactly what's there
the rear yard >> um is that is that it for you >> uh yes it is >> so movement storm water management and he said the existing nonform the rear. Yes. >> Right. Okay. Nothing else on missing. >> I don't think so.
>> Okay. >> Do you want in the resolution that they stated that it's not more than 50% being? >> Well, that would be Yeah, we state that automatic. Yes. Yes. >> So, I' I'd like >> and that the driveway is not being moved either.
>> Great. I'll make a motion to approve the application as presented with the conditions set for by the chairman which were soil moving uh storm water drainage uh ratifying the existing non-conforming
the statement that they're not demolishing more than 50% of the perimeter or the structure of the structure and not relocating the driveway. >> That's what I got. A second. Grace. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Dagustinino. >> Yes. >> Miss Hannah. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lrada. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitkco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman. >> No. >> Thank you all. >> Congratulations.
>> Have a good evening. >> Good luck. Thank you. Get rid of this. 754. Just give me one sec. Yeah, thank you. Okay, I'm Uh, next application is going to be the
754 Cotch Peak Avenue, block 4103, block 24. It's for the application of Christopher and Kimberly Bendic for an addition and alterations. >> Anybody? Yeah. >> How are you? Just 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. And please state your name and for the record and please spell it. >> Sure. My name is Christopher Bendic. Spelled C H R A S T O P H E R. Bendic. B
E N D I K. >> Okay. >> Ready. >> Ready. All yours. >> Well, thank you for allowing me to review uh my my request to be here today. Of course, I'm asking for approval to convert one of our existing
garage spaces to create additional indoor living area as part of a renovation to our home. I'm also asking for a small impervious coverage increase for expanded driveway. This change is deeply important to my
family. My father-in-law is severely physically disabled with multiple sclerosis. And as our family grows, we've realized that our current layout doesn't provide the accessibility or space we need to comfortably and safely care for everyone. Expanding the interior will allow us to
create a more open accessible floor plan, excuse me, one that can accommodate accommodate mobility needs and allow them to be more independent within our home. We've worked closely with our architect to ensure the redesign is tasteful,
cohesive, and aligned with the character of the neighborhood. This modification will truly allow us to stay in our home long term, keeping our family together under one roof in a way that works for everyone. We deeply value our community and are taking care to
ensure this our family while respecting neighborhoods look and see. Okay. You Okay. Um, >> and just for the record, you were the owner of the property and the me and my wife.
>> Thank you. >> And your >> Okay. So, this is my architect. This is >> So, you're going to have him testify. This is your only witness. >> But, I mean, for professionals. For
profession. Yeah. Correct. You want to gra you got to grab the microphone. >> Yes, >> it's down there. Yes. >> Right. >> Good evening, board members. >> 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? I'll help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> And please state your name for the record. My name is Tomas Bona. T O M A S Z. Last name Bona B O N A of Bonarch
Architecture and Design. Okay. And for the board's um edification, can you please give us your qualifications? You know, licensing, education, etc. >> Certainly. I have been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2010. I have
uh accomplished my higher education with masters in architecture and urban planning back in 2000. Um and I've been practicing architecture uh for the last 25 years in the tri-state area. I'm also licensed in the state of Massachusetts.
I have been testifying um in front of numerous boards um across central and northern Jersey, most notably in front of this board a couple years ago on a property located on Calvin Street also in Demerest, Hohokus, Satbrook, Rockaway, Franklin, Kinolan,
Summit, Butler, Pumpton Lakes, Hoboken, just to name a few. And my license is in a good standing >> in the state of New Jersey. Yes. Okay. Um I would ask that the board accept this witness as a expert witness in architecture.
>> No problem. >> We may proceed. >> Certainly. So the uh applicant uh Chris outlined um sort of the functional needs of the multigenerational family that will occupy this house that's currently being renovated
uh under a permit application. The drawings were filed fully conforming to all zoning um ordinance provisions. They secured the permit. The construction is underway. While the construction was underway, they realized that the area uh
that this house offers um may not be completely sufficient for multigenerational family um and growing family. So um then the idea was um incepted to potentially ask for a little bit more usable space
um and convert one of the garages into a habitable area. Um just a little bit of history before the construction uh project started of the addition that's located u on the left side of the house um at the present time. This was a two-story existing dwelling with a
twocar garage that was oriented sideways. Um, so the approach from the driveway was sideways towards the garage doors and then as a result of the project and expansion towards the left, we reoriented originally the two garage
uh two garages to be um accessible from the front of the house. This just worked better functionally that way. That also um triggered some modifications of the driveway. We eliminated the excessive driveway that's currently on the left
side of the house and we sort of transferred it to the right side of um of the of the dwelling because uh we needed to accommodate the access to the second garage that was originally um proposed as part of the uh permitted drawings.
This is a uh a fully conforming property u 10,000 square ft 100 by 100 and the building um as per current asbuilt survey that was provided to the board members um is fully conforming to all of the setbacks as well. um the um
intricacy of of converting um one of those garage spaces to a habitable space to a habitable area um forced us sort of to make sure that we can still park those four four cars on the property. So, we sort of kept the
original extents of the driveway and um since we needed to expand a little bit of the driveway to accommodate that uh newly created parking, but sort of uh the garage that is being proposed is one and a half parking space. I believe it's 11t wide. So, there's an excessive
amount of space inside of the garage that would remain um as part of the dwelling. It pushes us with impervious coverage slightly over the limit where 35% is um required. We're proposing 37.4. So we're
about 240 ft over. Uh it is worth mentioning that uh the um the avenue uh Cotch Peak Avenue uh is kind of going all the way um is inclining steadily towards the right side of the property.
that will be towards east. And uh all of the existing driveway on this property has a positive pitch towards the street. So there's really no um water being discharged onto adjacent properties. And uh with the expansion of the impervious
coverage to um keep the existing and accommodate the newly created garage, we would still continue pitching the driveway um towards the street. Um the overall area of the dwelling
would be um proposed to be at um 3,000 square ft and that excludes the uh the newly created garage addition that was originally permitted it. So that garage that would remain is 360 ft. So that's why I'm calling I'm referring to it as a
one and a half um sort of garage. So, it allows um for extra storage um in addition to park the vehicle. Um with the driveway configuration that we're proposing, we can comfortably accommodate four vehicles uh on the
property. So technically it would be twocar garage, two cars inside of the dwelling and then two parked in front of it in the configuration that we're describing keeping the uh overflow driveway that exists currently at the present time on
the left side on the on the west side of the building. This sort of allows us to park second car and then we have plenty space to park additional two cars in front of of the dwelling which was also important um for the applicant considering the fact
that it's a multigenerational family. Um this is a two-story sort of a ble dwelling. So the lower level um that has the garage or the two garages at the present time um sort of transverse it
sort of um from the west to east the grade um is sloping upwards. So on east end of the house we're partially underground. It becomes more of a basement whereas on the west side where the garage is
located we're pretty much at the great elevation. Um so unfortunately um about a third of the available habitable area falls you know in the sort of partially
underground more so as a basement rather than actual floor. Um so that is um we we don't really have a way to expand to accommodate um um the needs. Um I mean
technically with the height limit we could add another floor but the owner is not interested in expanding upwards. Um and we would still fit within the building height limit which is 30 ft. Um so the um only available opportunity for
us here is to ask for permission to convert one of those garage spaces uh that we created um into a habitable area. So the idea is also that um since the ENOS um are sort of limited um as far as
the um uh their ability to move around and scale the steps that having that ground level uh which is pretty much at the grade elevation helps a lot because the ENOS can access um the habitable space at the lower level directly from
the driveway elevation without use of any steps. So that's a huge benefit actually for the applicant as well to be able to accommodate them um at the lower level while their primary family occupies the upstairs.
We've have also created um additional we made additional provisions for the bedroom and the exit uh emergency conforming exit from the bedroom that was also permitted under the original set of drawings um to make sure that we have the fully code conforming u bedroom
located on the lower level. So we believe that uh um this application is not necessarily creating any nuisance to the neighborhood. Um, are there other dwellings around this neighborhood with twocar garage? Yes,
absolutely. Most of the houses uh surrounding this property has the two garages. Um, however, due to the nature of of the applicants um functional and family needs, we're hereby um requesting
um consideration and approval of every one of those spaces. Okay, Mr. Morris. >> Yes. >> Can we get your uh input into this application, please? >> Sure. There again, they're all going over on an impervious area, so they will
need storm water management. Um, one question I have is it's a for four cars, it's a pretty large driveway. Um, the front is 30 by 30 and the back portion is 17 by 20. I
mean, both parking spaces are 9 by 18. So, it's >> This is true. >> Can fit probably a lot more than four cars. And, you know, they're over impervious. I don't know if you want to consider knocking that down a little bit, but uh you know, they and the other
issue we have is we have not seen a building height calculation. Uh we just we just received the survey uh very recently. As a matter of fact, it's dated 11325. Uh so we would like uh building height calculations on the left side especially since it's a garage.
>> I see in the in John's engineer report it's talking about the curb cut. >> So my so my question is if we're going from a twocar garage down to a onecar garage, >> right? Yes. Is not curb cut need to be put back?
>> Well, they're asking they have an existing looks like either a 12 or 15 foot wide curb cut. They're asking for a 22 moved to the right uh about 10 ft. >> The existing curve is going to go on their property line for curb cuts. 22 ft
>> 22 >> 22. >> Yeah. >> Whether it's a onecar garage or a twocar garage. >> Yeah. It doesn't matter. I think it's the total has to add up total width. Okay. >> So if there is a 22, they're asking for a 22. Their existing looks like about a 12 or a 15.
So they're looking to make it wider to the right. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So then the edge of the expanded driveway aligns with the newly created addition which has the onecar garage, one and a half car garage within it. >> Can I ask how come the garage was built
already? >> Oh, >> I'm sorry. The garage >> the garage is be was built already. >> So um this new addition is built. Yes. >> Yeah, it was built. I mean, you're coming into the board to say you're getting rid of their two or you're going
to put the one up. You can't come to the board if you've already I mean, you can you're supposed to. You can't build before you get permission. May I ask how come this occurred? >> I went last month to look at the house and it was framed.
>> I went Sunday and it's done. >> But there's no issues with what's being built. It was fully permitted and it's fully conforms to zoning ordinance. Yeah, but you you're in violation of the zoning or of the zoning. >> We're not. >> You don't have a second car garage there. >> We do. >> Where? >> On the buildings that are um in the
building department that was permitted. We are showing twocar garage. >> But you don't show it at the house. There's windows. I mean, you sir what you have here. >> What what she's saying is your permits at the building department says there's
twocar garage, but right now there is not twocar garage. It's only a onecar garage. >> I'm not sure if the wall where the second car garage is supposed to be located has been already open. Maybe it hasn't. >> But you can't get a car to go through there and there. That doesn't work.
>> That That's correct. May May I speak real? >> Sure. Yeah. >> So, the reason for that, I'm sorry, Maryanne. Um, the reason for that is because in order for me to open up the land to make room for that second garage that was previously approved, I I need to excavate, you know, a large amount of
material. So, um, >> so you remove some of the soil that's already was there. Well, we removed the soil that was there to accommodate for the new addition >> and that's the reason why we need soil permits and all that stuff based on on the >> Yeah, I have that all with the existing.
>> But but what she's saying and I agree is that you put the cart before the horse because if this board decides to turn you down, you got to put it back to what it was. >> We we don't need to change anything. We just continue with the original project.
>> Correct. That's what we're going to take it down and put the side >> that that house that house had a twocar garage, >> right? Which entered from the side. That front wall is still the front wall of that garage. The plan originally, if I if I'm correct, was to put a garage door
on the front and maintain the twocar that way with this addition. >> That is correct. >> If you could have Yeah, but they didn't do that. >> So, if we didn't approve it, he would have to put that garage door there, >> right? He would actually have to take the >> That would just be a continuation of the
construction by opening up that wall. >> Right. That's right. That is That is correct. That should be done. >> If I may. Um here's actually a portion of the permitted drawings which shows you can see the two garage doors in the front. >> Okay. But that's not what's there. >> No, that is correction. That's why we're
>> because it hadn't been open >> because they just didn't continue the work. >> Yeah. But you can't do that. You can't do that because I mean you built something that now is that when you say to me you well you can't do that. I mean and now you have to redo it. I mean this is >> we don't need to we don't need to redo
it anything. We are not in v violation with anything. We're just >> be honest with you. Garages are one thing in this town that they're very very strict about and they ins everywhere and they insist on having garages. We've had applicants come here
who want to put a garage up in need of variance. Well, that's okay because now you're actually enhancing our land use because you're putting in something that's important in this town. Taking away one garage is not something that's done. I've seen many times and people
have tried to do it and they've lit the doors up and they've done the interiors and houses by levels just like that and they're have to redo them back to the original. So this is >> we have no intent of doing something illegal. So that's why we're here,
>> right? But what we're saying is is that if the board decides not to approve the application, >> you're going to have to put it back to what it was. >> Well, it's not back to >> Well, there's no question. >> So you have to put the door there to make that put the second door back in order to make it what it originally brid
showed. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Was two garages there. >> Yes. >> Completely understood. >> So they just didn't open up that wall. And I I am I'm on on the same page as Maryanne and looking for some way to take this singlecar garage and make it a
twocar garage still while not necessarily taking away the space you need because again it is something that we've been pushing very much so for having twocar garages on any construction. Um, and I don't know, I'm not an
architect, but I would look to see if if we wanted to keep a twocar garage. Like my first question was going to be how much space between the setback and the new wall is there was going to be my first question.
>> At the present time, we have 17 and a half. Yeah. 17 and a half from the old wall to the setback >> from the property line to the new newly constructed addition. >> Okay. >> I mean, me personally, and I can't speak for the rest of the board, I'd be more inclined to grant a little bit more
impervious coverage and maybe an incursion into the setback to make that a 22 foot wide two-car garage there than I would be to approve taking away garage. And I don't know if the rest of the board kind of feels the same. Uh but
that my personal inclination would be more inclined to that and maintaining a two-car garage or cutting a little bit into the proposed living space to gain some of that power. >> I think you can cut into that living
space that's down in that the two >> for 22 ft. You're 5 ft short. >> Yeah. So, even if you did two feet on one side and went to the setback and took two feet from the living space or two and a half feet actually on each side, um that would keep you within the setback and give you the two cars,
>> right? >> Um inside, which which again is is been a very big push for the town um as a whole and it's it's required of any new construction that it must be a two-car garage. And in 1986 is when they actually put in
this, you know, the ordinance that said you must have in that zone a two-car garage. And you know, people have come before and once you start saying, well, you don't have to have a garage anymore, a second garage, then you're going to get lots of people and I know you're supposed to be on the application that
we vote on, but still once and especially since I guess I'm most upset about the fact that it's I went by there on Sunday after church and there is the one car and it's done. I mean, it's siding on it. It's painted to match. I
mean, we're not talking about a a shell like it was last month when we were >> That's a planned addition though. Was >> Yeah, that was an that was the existing garage. >> The other one wasn't done. So, if the other one had been done, I would have said, "Well, okay." But it wasn't done the way the plans were. So, you went
against the plans that you gave to our building department. >> I'm I'm not building the house. >> My drawings are showing two garages, and the intent is to construct two garages. But these plans aren't showing two garages >> because those are the plans that we're submitting >> right now. They're asking us to change
>> they would continue build. I I I understand where where they're coming from with that. But I'm still >> I'm still of the opinion that somehow we should find a way to keep a two-car garage. I mean, my house has no garage. I wish my house had >> Oh, sure. Most people and I have a
two-car garage and only need a one car, but I have to maintain that too. I'm not allowed. and I live in a smaller zone. >> Would you consider kind of changing the plan so you could keep the twocar garage and make it go back to the building department
>> and make it work? I mean, as much as I would love to do that, you know, um our budget has kind of reached a peak, you know, and um you know, in order to build a second garage, like like you said, if I were to go out another seven ft to
maybe a second garage, I believe that would take a lot of uh engineering work, you know, and and substantial a lot a lot of uh money to do so. Um, >> see, we we this town fights to to keep
garages the way they are. >> Um, and and and what Mrs. Osman is saying is that applications in the past who want to put a second garage, um, we made it happen, you know, so because then they they're in conform to the town's ordinance.
>> We don't like going the reverse. We really don't unless unless it's >> a really really bad hardship that there's no possible reason and everything's been looked at and there's no solutions then maybe it's just that's a maybe. But we're we're coming up with
some kind of a resolution here >> um for Mr. to Zip code, which is a decent resolution that says, "Hey, you can keep the two-car garage if you do this, this, and that, right?" >> You know, and and and redo the plan so we have a new survey and new plans and all that stuff because all of that would
have to be updated anyway, >> right? >> But dealing with interior, can't you just I mean, interiorly, I mean, wouldn't it be easier to take away I mean, what you have here? >> Well, if you're going to entertainment room, some of it. >> Can we mark that for? What? What is that
that he gave to you? If we could mark that. >> Those are the original drawings that are in the building. The >> Oh, is this something in the plan? >> Drawings. Yes. Yes. >> The office and and some of the entertainment room. If you take away, there's your second car garage. It's interior work.
>> We have it on the drawings on the primary drawings. We have two building. >> Please understand that this house doesn't have a basement. There's not another layer level or storage or or extra space. So, We're really constrained with, you know, storage and
and habitable space and garage as as is. But it's also important to mention that, you know, we're not introducing an opportunity for cars to to park on the on the street because we have we are still providing plenty of off street parking on the property. So we are
easily accommodating four vehicles and I think the in principle those ordinances requesting for two garages were trying to reduce the opportunity where the cars will be parked on the streets. >> Mrs. Mrs. A just give us just give one second. Go ahead.
>> So I believe a document was handed over. >> What document was just given? >> I think it was a copy of >> it's just a portion of the building of the construction permit drawings. I can >> can we submit that into evidence as an exhibit and then pass that around the board so that we can we can see
>> is it something different or blown up previously approved plans that they started the construction base off of that are not completed because then they turned around and said yeah >> are now asking to modify those is the
part of the permit application the permitted drawings that are in the building department so you can see the two cars parked inside that's our two-car garage and this is the shape of the driveway, right? So, we took out all this portion. >> So, let's do this. Let's first put this into exhibit and then we can take a look
for a second >> and the other is a portion of the of the level plan and elevation that's show >> A1 and then A2. >> These are two different >> and then there's an A3 I believe. >> Okay. >> So, I think there's a couple of copies floating around. >> So, A1
>> may I ask >> through A3. These are these are site plan. >> Yes. that was that's submitted to the building. >> That's the permitted site plan and >> for the original permit. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, and what is the date of these? Um May 16,
2025. >> So that's A1 through three. >> Yes. And that's set of >> May 16, 2025 is the site plan. This is part of the permitted application prior to the zoning. >> That is correct. >> And just one more. Right.
>> So So um I'm a little confused. Let me let me just ask a question that I think helps all of us in this. So, right now >> from the outside, obviously there's no garage door there. >> What is the current state of construction on the interior? Where is
that at in terms of from the old plans to the new plans? >> Uh it's it's framed out as a you know a blank canvas as of now. >> So, where is the that beam at the end of the house? Is
that beam still there? >> The uh original beam. >> The the beam that was the end wall. Well, I guess it was two garage doors at the time. >> That's correct. >> So, what is there now? What replaced that? >> That that is an existing mason wall. The
first level is built out of masonry. So, the intent was just to leave these open and the second garage was next to it. So you were you were going to keep the the the column in between the two doors plus the previous walls. >> Yeah. Which is this.
>> Okay. >> So that's that's what we >> and that still exists right now. >> Yes. It's all achievable to be built. There's no issues with us constructing it. The owner uh is in need of a little bit more. Well, where I where I was going then isn't something that's going
to be able my thought wouldn't be able to be done then because there's no support here. Well, anything to be done. >> You'd have to eliminate that wall. >> So, realistically, the only way to make that a twocar garage now without going back to the original plan would be to
add how wide is this garage right now? >> Um >> 14 and 12t. >> So, you'd have to add >> 13 and 1/2. Yeah. >> 13 and 12. So 7 8 9 you'd have to add about just under 10 ft which would then
>> you don't need a full 22 >> we would need to suspend the second floor >> 15 >> it's a complicated structurally solution >> and how much space between the new and the the the setback >> we have 17 and 12
>> actually the survey shows 18 ft >> 18 ft So if we did if you had to add a second garage on that side, you'd be more than five feet into the setback.
>> 14. >> Yeah. >> To hit 22 ft, you'd be about 7 feet into the setback. >> You really need 22 feet, though. >> 16. 16 you can get away with. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, you could do that. It is tight, but it would classify as a two-car
garage. Um, so that might be that might be the answer is to just bring it to the setback line and make it a two-car garage with one door and that would minimize any major engineering. >> Good. What I don't what I don't
understand is this was submitted to >> building department >> this way. They just haven't opened this wall yet. Inside is not constructed, >> right? But it still show but on the May reports it showed twocar garage. >> Yes, that's what was planned. Now
they're asking to modify that. But no, not after they they during the course of construction, they realized that they needed more space. Now they're asking for permission to take what was going to be a two-car garage and go against >> Okay. >> and ask for a varian.
>> I see how you're reading that. Okay. So they they've essentially stopped construction now >> waiting for us to either approve or deny this. If we deny it, they will continue knocking down this wall, putting the door there, making that a garage. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> I'll I'll go down that path.
>> So what I'm trying to say is how do we get them both? How do we satisfy the two-car garage without a a great burden by engineering a new beams and everything? If I'm hearing correctly,
the board would be satisfied with 18 foot garage with maybe a 16 foot door, overhead door. Is that something that >> that's what I I'm trying to hash out in not only my mind but just in general for everybody.
>> What What part of the meeting are we in? Are we in questions for the architect? >> Well, the architect. >> We're still the architect. >> Yeah. So I think that I can provide some clarity that maybe everybody would fine but I don't think this is the appropriate time to voice >> no >> that I think I I don't have any
questions for the architect. I think he stated the case very well. >> I understand it. >> Let's open it to the public. Let's see if we get their inputs and then we'll go back to us. >> Back to this board member. >> Well, let's let's let's see. Yeah, let's
>> Mr. Morris, do you have any additional information up to the public? Um, yeah, what you know, as I said, the original plan showed for the two-car garage and eliminating the side piece of the driveway. So, by leaving that side piece of drive, that's why they're over on Fergus and they're up to 37% right now,
>> which may may I add, I I'm, you know, more than flexible of accommodating for the what's supposed to be impervious coverage. I, you know, I'm I'm flexible with removing some of the driveways, I guess. I brought the impervious
coverage. >> Yeah, let's go over on building coverage. So, >> let's open up to the public first and then go forward. >> Um, motion to open to the public. >> Some move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anybody in the audience would like to
have any questions for the architect for this application? Anybody on Zoom? >> Uh, motion to close to the public. >> Second. I'll second it. >> Motion to close. Motion to close the public.
>> You got it. >> I did the motion. >> I'll second it. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Now, from the board, do we have any additional questions, solutions, possibilities? >> So, I think we should go through John's letter and do the 50% question. >> Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. You're right. Keep
on forgetting. You're right. >> That's all right. >> Uh, just like before with the other application, we have to ask this one question. is in your renovation, are you taking more than 50% down for any of the walls? >> I'm I'm sorry. >> Are you removing any Are you removing
50% of the additional of the current coverage of your home to make this renovation happen? >> More than 50% of >> More than 50% of the walls. >> Yeah. >> No, no. >> Pretty much 100% of the perimeter of the building is stay. We're putting in addition.
>> So, the answer is no. >> That's correct. >> That's all I need to know. Thank you. Okay, now let's come back to the board. >> So I So looking at this um we came out a little hot. Nobody I don't think that they were trying to pull anything. No I
don't >> I want to be very clear and I actually so you know I I have the benefit of being in architecture and construction. We see this often. So whether their intent was to do this or not doesn't actually matter to me. Um I think that
>> we come up with a solution. Let's come up. They're here now, right? They're they submitted a set of plans that complies with all of the zoning regulations. They got under construction and, you know, they were able to build it and we got to this point. Okay. >> So, what's the solution?
>> So, from my perspective, you know, I'm I'm surprised to hear the opposition to the two cars. Personally, I think that this is one of those projects that you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think the average person, we're hearing it on this own board. It's the
Cobras developed in in ' 86. There are a lot of people that don't need to. If we could get people to not expand their houses, not make them bigger, but make more usable square footage, that's green, that's environmentally conscious, I think it's doing all of the things
that a good architect and a good citizen does, you know. Um, I think the reality is is that you could drive, every zone is different, but you drive down Colonial, most of those are one one car, right? It's not like a onecar garage is the only like this would be the only house with a onecar garage. Um, you
know, the point of the side entry is that you're not seeing the garage door from the street. Um, but the reality is is that everybody parks in their driveway anyway. So, what are we really trying to accomplish with that? I there are situations here that we don't take into consideration as a hardship um or
can't, but they're they're evident. I think that they could make the impervious coverage less. I don't personally think that they they need the forgive me for saying it this way, but I don't think that you need a 22 foot curb cut. I don't think I just don't see that
as necessary. I think making the left side come a little bit closer to the impervious. I mean, we're we're how many square feet in the in the new? This is the old This is what they submitted. This is the compliant. How many square feet over on impervious coverage are we?
>> Uh We are >> 37.4 >> 37 proposed >> where 35 is required. Correct. So it's less than 10% over. It's not really dimminimous. I mean if it was a point then it's a little bit more palatable
>> to me especially coming off the heels of when they probably drew this. We didn't have a zoning requirement for impervious coverage. So >> So what are you suggesting? Reduce the curb cut down a little. >> I'm saying suggest bring down the impervious coverage a little bit. We we
can certainly accommodate reduction in purpose coverage uh on the left side especially. So we're going to move the paving away from the from the neighboring property the edge of the paving could be >> and this is without regard to what you've done or not done or what you have to do. Um I think just practicality of
whether you constructed it or not knocking down a bearing foundation wall it's costly. It you know it's wasteful. Um I don't know. I I would I I personally don't have much trouble with
the the one car variance for all the reasons I just said and the impervious if I think they could technically even get it to comply without compromise for if you took if this driveway is uh 30 and another 20 50. Um, you know,
if you probably if you took 2 or 3 feet off the width of the driveway and that's that's 150 square ft. >> You take four feet off the driveway to still fit all the cars. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah, that brings you right down.
>> May I add something? >> Um, so there's actually only going to be two tops three cars in the driveway. >> Well, one will maybe be in the garage also. And um yeah, so there's only three and I'm more than happy to add, you know, all kinds of landscaping and and
whatever I could to, you know, hide the uh the cars in the driveway. >> It's not it's not that what he's what he's suggesting to to eliminate the onecar garage. Um if you could shrink down the driveway,
>> sure. um and reduce that maximum impervious coverage, you you might depending on how the board feels, you might have a better favor than you would if you said no, I can't do nothing and that's the way the end. >> Then the only variance if he brings that down to the 35, then the only variance
is one car versus >> right. So, so we, you know, there's >> it's like a give and take, you know, >> you know, as a design exercise, a front-facing garage takes up way less of impervious coverage than a side facing. Okay. So from that perspective alone, if
I were if I were to give you advice, my my advice would be comply with impervious seek the single varian. >> We are definitely flexible on that. >> We can certainly adjust the the entire west edge of the driveway along the neighbor's property and the and the back
edge towards the rear yard which that portion of the driveway is a legacy of the original um garage which was accessible from the side. And we can certainly fall within the back within the 35% limit >> saying no to one to the other. It's
>> it's getting favorable. Yeah. I mean I get >> and everybody's hot spot is impervious. We have 13 and a half wide garage. So certainly there's plenty opportunity for for them to park the car and have ample amount of storage within the same shell.
of of that garage. It's 13 and a half by um >> it's a it's a it's a pretty decent size garage. It's 360 square ft. So it's 13 1/2 by uh >> it's a lot bigger than mine. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And apparently >> that's almost like one and three >> by about 23 ft. >> Yeah. That's like interior dimension, >> right? That's like one and 3/4 drive garages. So it's it's huge. >> Yes. And that that was the objective too to make sure that because there's no
basement. So, >> right, >> attic is limited. The roof is not that >> and there's no and there's no shed on this property. >> Do we have the 400 foot requirement? >> The minimum for the garage. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's another variance actually. >> What's that? >> That you have to have a minimum of 400
ft. >> 200 200. Yes. >> So, then it would go down to 200. So, that's not another variance. If it's if it's the minimum has to be 200. If it's 199, you need a variance. >> Oh, okay. Gotcha. All right. So, then we're good.
>> We're good. That's what I'm saying. The idea works well in this case. >> So, so to be in in in in your favor, you might want to consider like 18 ft. You know, that that should put you, you know, slash down your your per coverage and you should be in in a good position
just to apply for variance. >> Are you talking about the curve cut? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's fair. Kirk, >> I'll say it again. We're supposed to be here to uphold our ordinances, not to come up with a way for someone to go against our ordinances. That's not what
this board was put in was here for >> I mean, this is twocar garage. It was a two-car garage. He could build a onecar garage and just put the other section. The interior is not being lost and it's not that much of a hardship then. >> But the the ordinances state what they
are and that's why we're here. We're I mean it's this is not a land problem. There's no problem with you know having to give the variance for the land and and this is it doesn't uphold our ordinances which the other you know I it
I'm sorry it's just it's ridiculous that you know we going to have a onecar garage by levels are made that way. You don't buy a B level and and think oh I'm going to have a garage. You don't. I mean, when you buy a B level, you know what you have. You have the downstairs area. You have extra room, wreck room
down there. I mean, it looks like there's even enough area of wet bar. I mean, that could be put into another kitchen. So, you can actually put this into a two family house very quickly. Now, with this new addition, the way it's done, very quickly, this could be a
two family house. You can have just in my estimation, this is not something that's the board should approve, but you know, it's up to the board. Well, that's the reason why we have individual votes. So, so let let's go from there. >> Um,
any other suggestions, comments? Okay. Um, I'm going to do something I normally don't do. I'm gonna I'm gonna make it a vote to approve the application subject
to several things. Um, I would to question that. >> Well, there's no height this year. It doesn't say the height. It says 24 ft. >> We're good because it was a question. >> It says it's a plus or we had question height because we didn't have a survey when we wrote the letter. We have a survey. Uh we it looks like the height complies
>> cuz it's it's a short height area. It's only 25 ft. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You do have the survey or you don't have the >> We just got a We just got it tonight. >> Yeah. >> So, is the height an issue or not an issue? >> I don't believe it is. I believe the height is about 22 feet and 25 ft is max
right should be okay. >> Okay. The height is 22.1 >> at the from the lowest grade elevation at the garage to the peak of the roof. >> Right. >> Your ordinance states that the height is measured from average grade elevation. So even calculated from the lowest grade
we're 8 ft below the the threshold limit. >> What we'd like to see before we get a resolution is uh the height calculations in accordance with the survey. All right. so forth in the ordinance and a survey. >> I think that's written in the letter, too. >> I mean, we we have height shown on the
building elevations. >> I know, but there's there's a formula that has to be used and you have to show that formula on your plan. >> Certainly, we can add that. So, I'm making an approval to approve the application subject to um several items. One is the height
calculations for the engineer. Um, I would also like to see a new updated blueprint showing all the changes that we talked for tonight so the engineer can review it. That's my that's what I
would like to see. Um, we also need um soil >> uh movement calculations. We also need storm water management calculations. >> I'm sorry. If we're reducing and falling back within the impervious uh coverage
limitations, do we need a storm water calculations? I'm not sure. >> We want mix for runoff. >> I was so >> you you still are increasing the impervious area. >> So it should comply with whatever submit. >> I think we committed we committed to go back to the 35% limit.
>> So if you go you're not at 35 cent% today. You're at 33,200. You're 30.2 and you're going up to 35. We want to see some kind of storm water management calculations, but I think one of the conditions you want to bring them down to 35%. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> So, if we bring them down, if it goes
back down to 35, then we >> it's still an increase in impervious area, >> right? Okay. So, we still need >> and our town ordinance requires more >> and they have that already presumably because they submitted a construction permit and were issued a permission. >> I I'm assuming so. Yes. >> So, we need an updated one. I think
we're supposed to ask the applicant if they want to go to a vote hearing what they say and then what the applicant would say. >> Okay. >> Is >> well I I kind of went both ways. Okay. >> So your your motion has these >> right >> conditions and with max.
>> So the so the question is based on what we have come up with. Do you want to >> I have a question before that. Okay. Um or at least before we vote on the new plans. It's stating and maybe they just need to correct it. Two-car garage maintained as
per 58084B. They're not on these plants maintaining two-car garage. So, I would just ask that that be corrected as a condition also. >> Okay. >> Um just so that it reads the way it's way is in pro and if we approve it. >> Say that again. that condition
>> right here. Um, it states on the on the new plans, twocar garage maintained as per 580-84B. >> Where is it? >> I'm sorry. >> Right here. >> Oh. Oh, okay. So and and the plan it's
just car that's probably carried over from the original by the so I just think for any reason it should just be corrected so that it's correct as as if we approve it that it's corrected to state what's actually being done >> and that's why I ask for the update.
>> So that would just be deleted because it wouldn't need to state that anymore. Okay. >> Yes. So, um the conditions if we can just understand the >> and the applicant agrees to it. >> Certainly the the height calculations
we're going to provide that uh reduction of imperous coverage to meet the 35% threshold. So more to comply 35% 35% threshold. So, we're only voting on one variance, which is the the one car garage. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Um, with the driveway not being wider than 18 ft, you correct correctly. >> Now, does that create ahead by bringing it under 22, does that make that non-conforming? >> I just want to make sure. Okay. Just
want to make sure between 12 and 22. >> Yeah. >> So, the driveway no wider than 18 ft >> and no less than 12. Correct. Right. Right. >> That's what I wanted to get to. The minimum >> less than 12. Okay.
>> And there's one more. Was there any other conditions? >> You had height calculations. >> Um >> any purpose, >> soil movement. >> So, right. So, we're going to redo the
soil movement for >> I'm sorry. >> Revised. Yeah. >> Oh, and the revised plans. revised plans with all changes discussed, soil movement, storm water calculation, reducing the maximum purpose coverage to
no more than 35%. >> Um, correcting the plans with regard to the what the twocar garage maintain >> and removing that >> just remove that >> removing that also showing also showing that the driveway cuts going to be smaller than what it pertains to.
>> Oh, that would be the revised plans, >> right? uction, >> right? >> Driveway and with the driveway not wider than 18 ft. >> Correct. >> Not less than 12 ft. >> Yes, we have five items on the list. >> Are you okay with that?
>> May I ask what the soil moving permit would be for? I'm almost certain in our previous plans that were approved, we had the soil moving permit. >> Forgive me for asking. >> No, no, we haven't seen it. >> We just want the calculations. >> Okay. Okay.
>> It should be already done. They just we just haven't seen them. >> If you already submitted one, did just get to get >> there. I'll got Yeah, I'm almost certain I talked to Mr. Kim about that. >> Right. Okay. >> But we just we just don't have it in the package. That's usually why we're putting it all in on a resolution.
>> Okay. >> Is there an ordinance that talks exactly what's required for the storm water calculations? >> Yes. >> Okay. You talking there's a standard ordinance for all all increase in pvious area. what you have how you have to comply with it.
>> Okay. So then we're going down to uh and you're okay with all this? >> Yeah. >> So I can >> Okay. Absolutely. So then then the approval would be basically reducing the garages down from two to one. >> Correct. Wearings for the varian with
all Yeah. We we'd make a condition a motion to approve the application >> from from two. Yeah. Go ahead. All said, I'll make a motion to approve the application as presented with exception to the removal of the impervious coverage. So, we are uh requesting a
demonstration of the height calculation. Uh reduction of the curb cut from 22 proposed down to 18. Um revised plans being submitted to update the proper terminology. Um,
and then the incorporating the statement that they're not removing more than 50% of the walls. >> Correct. >> That's that's the motion. >> I'll second it. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Dagustinino. >> Yes. >> Miss Hannah. >> Yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zuka. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> This is passes. >> Good. Congrats. Good luck. >> Congrats. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, we get that done. Let me just get some my uh >> bit if uh we're going to just kind of move things a little bit different if everybody doesn't don't mind. Um,
this is my Is there another page to this? Put that all together. >> Is this part of it too? >> This is just the servo. Take care. >> Take care. You're welcome.
>> No, cuz I look forward. >> Same to you. >> Okay. Um, what was it? 25 what? >> 258 is special. I did. >> Where's it on my sheet of paper?
Okay. Uh, resolution ZB25-18 to approve the application of Tar and Tracy and Gabber >> Gab Gab, sorry, >> to extend the resolution ZB 2416 for an
addition to be located at 249 Walnut Street, block 4416, lot 12. a variance for the building coverage was issued. So, I know it was in the paperwork. So, Miss Gab. >> Yeah. Why don't you come up to the
podium and we'll swear you in. >> Okay. >> So, do you swear? Sorry. 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 me God. >> I do. >> Okay. So, this was an application that
was approved back in 2024 um for variance relief with regard to an addition to the left side and rear yards along with expansion of the garage and the left side of dwelling and existing driveway. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. And you're here now asking for an extension because one year has passed and >> correct. >> Can you let the board know the reasons why you need an extension? Uh, I think we underestimated the the um challenge
in finding a contractor and securing finances and being 100% certain that this is what we were doing. So, it it did take a little uh longer for us to secure a contractor that we were comfortable with that that fell within
our budget. Um, we made a very good faith effort in moving forward because we applied for the building permits back in September. Um, and we, you know, thought we were going to be well on our way and the extension the the expiration
crept up on us. So, >> Okay. So, you actually have submitted Oh, yes. >> permit back in September. We're still waiting. Yeah, we're still waiting for that because I think they're waiting for the engineers report, but we submitted um everything back in September. >> Yeah.
>> And I'm assuming that the construction will be done within the next 11 months. >> We're waiting for that building permit. >> Well, once you get the building permit, >> we are shoveling the ground the next day. Yes, it we were, you know, we were supposed to start the plan was to start um as soon as we got the building
permits because we thought it would be about four four weeks. So, we were planning to start in October. So, we're ready to go. Everything is ready. We're just waiting on those permits. >> So, the plans are submitted or they're not submitted. >> Were they submitted for permit?
>> Oh, yeah. September 25th. The the building permits. >> Yeah. >> Yes. The the contractor submitted everything in September. The building permits were submitted in September 25th. um and waiting for everything to come
back. Then the the uh variance expired. >> You have to commence construction. >> Oh, it's commencement of construction. Oh, it's not that. >> Right. Right. I I Yeah, I thought we thought it was the good faith effort of doing the building permits, but it's not. It's the commencement. And that's
that's fine. So, that's why we requested the extension. So, >> assuming the board approves the extension, then you can get your permits and start the job. Um, that's a question for Yeah, we're waiting on uh >> engineer reports for the last many weeks.
>> So, >> from us. >> Um, I wish from you. >> Eyes on you. It's I wish >> I know where it is. >> At this point, you've submitted your permits and you're waiting feedback from from the engineer or from the
>> the engineer has confirmed for the last um probably about four weeks that he was ready to submit his letter but just has not submitted the letter. Yeah, we were we were it was confirmed that there are no issues. He didn't see any foresee any issues. He worked with our architect. >> It's in progress right now.
>> It's submitting. Yeah. So I I believe um that's the only thing outstanding and once that's done then the permits can be >> and what you're intending to do. There's no deviation change. >> None at all. None at all. Correct. What was approved is what we're doing. >> Okay.
>> Then I'll make a motion to approve ZB25-18. Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Dagustinino. >> Yes. >> Miss Hannah. Yes, >> Mr. Labrada. >> Yes, >> Mr. Zika.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes, >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, now you want to >> I do have a question. >> You guys, >> Mr. Chairman, >> I'm sorry. I have a question and Grace
has been wonderful because she knows I'm very not familiar with this process. But who can I ask about going to who how can we get this engineers report that seems to be out that seems to be the only thing that's outstanding and how long does it take?
>> So what I know of as of right now is you need the board to approve it and then you need a resolution to extend it. >> Right. So, so, so in the nor right in the normal process, >> the board approves it one month and then
the resolution is finalized the next month, the next board meeting. >> Okay. >> She's asking who should go to the building permit. >> Right. Right. But engineering reports, >> right? But in this case, Gary has the resolution to help the process go forward. So, I think once this gets to
the building department then and the engineer, it will start to go faster. So the so the building the engineers report was contingent on >> the extension. Yes. Okay. Okay. So then I because I just I was worried that we would move on and we would be waiting
you know endlessly and you know to to no resolution. >> No but in the in the normal world it would have been another month >> but he's a courtesy. He's doing the resolution. >> Oh I appreciate it. >> To get it done quicker for you.
>> I appreciate Thank you. Right. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very one second. >> I got it. So the next is resolution ZB25-17 uh authorization to
uh advertise for requests and qualifications for the RFQ for legal planning and engineering services. Um what else? >> I said I included the you know >> and in the package is also there's also
the U December 29th. Is that the deadline? Okay, >> that's the deadline. >> Don't be late, Gary. >> Tell John, don't be late. >> And did everyone see the um tenative
dates for next year being January 13th? >> So I >> that was in the packet. >> Right. Right. Which I don't understand if if it's the third Tuesday of the month, why did you put down February 10th as the second Tuesday? because because we had calendar problems all year.
>> So I I I moved the January meeting up because Martin Luther King Day, >> right? >> Um >> so what will >> So So the council would meet that Monday, but they get kicked to our day, >> right? So what what will January >> President's Day? >> I moved us up a week. >> So what will be January for us? January
what? >> January 13th will be the reorder. It's instead of the third Tuesday, it's the second Tuesday because the council >> So we're doing the week before. >> We're doing the week before. >> Yes. And >> same thing with this month. We're doing the week before because uh the third Tuesday will close for President's Day.
>> And are we doing the reorg and the meeting the same night? >> Yeah. If if we have we're doing the reorg and if we have >> a meeting we're going to do it the same night. >> Meeting. I mean right now I don't have anybody scheduled for the day off. >> And the same thing for November. I moved
it up a week because >> because of leaks like now. >> So okay just that calendar. >> So March moved up. Yeah, March. We moved the whole week. >> On to St. Pat, you know, St. Patrick's Day. >> Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem with that.
>> I just did it as a court date. >> So, do we need a motion for any of those for the >> um >> No, they're just tenative. >> No, not for the dates. For the other one with the >> RFQ to approve the um >> for the um the RFQS. >> There's a resolution for me to place. >> Right. So, I need a I need a roll call
for the ZB27. So I'll make the motion. >> Second. Now roll call. >> Mr. Dagustinino? >> Yes. >> Miss H? >> Yes. >> Mr. Labrada? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zipa? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. So then I have a question. Uh in our package. I thought we were going to be talking about um the fees and all that. Is that is this for us to know? >> Is that on December?
>> Okay. cuz John was >> John's on here. Our friend's not on here. I figured >> Okay. >> Um, we can talk about that. We can talk about We can review the YouTube >> issue. >> Um, right. Because that's expiring on December 31st >> so we can see what the viewing is.
>> Okay. Any board members have any comments, discussions, requests? >> No. >> Yeah. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion resolution motion >> of what we just approved. >> Oh, I thought Okay, I'm sorry. I thought
we were going to Okay, I jumped the gun. >> Are we approving this resolution? >> Okay. Because we approve you approve the >> the extension. So, now we got to do So, now we're going to do the resolution. >> So, is there a number to that? How do we how >> is DB25-18,
>> Grace? Right. Is that someone? All right. So, Okay. Okay. So that's >> so this was the resolution I which is pretty you know straightforward extending it. The only thing I'm going to add here is because was her basis >> for the extension which we're going to add the extension is need is as they underestimated the challenge of
obtaining a contractor and financing okay the project. >> That's basically the only thing I would add to this. It's, you know, we're attaching the resolution from this year. >> So, it's ex and we're extending it. What
I had in there, which could change, is to >> October 18th of 2026. >> Yes, >> that's right. >> From the date >> it expired today. Not from today. So, it's it's 11 months from, but it's a one
year from from one year, right? Keep it up. >> So, we just need a motion to accept as amended. >> Yes. >> So, I'll make the motion to accept that as amended for the resolution. >> Second. >> Roll call. Grace, please. >> Mr. Dagastino. >> Yes. >> Miss Hannah?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Labrada? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zika? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivero? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Now, I'm done. >> Motion. >> I didn't want to forget that. >> No comments, no additional questions. Motion to adjurnn. Second
>> motion. All in favor? I second. Thank you. >> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Happy Thanksgiving.