Not sure. recording in progress. >> Good evening everyone and welcome to the public meeting of Feb of >> February >> April 21st. I'm trying to remember the date. Uh 2026 of the Tachipo Washington
zoning board. Adequate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on January 15, 2026. And this meeting has been posted on the township bulleted board electronic message board, WCTV,
and on the township website. Uh public announcement. Governor Murphy signed it into law on June 30th, 2025. A new law which reflects the transition from traditional print newspaper to online platforms as of March 1st, 2026.
You will find on our township website uh a tab on the homepage named public notices where all official public notices are required to be posted and may be obtained or viewed. 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 pledge. >> Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. Hey, can we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Dagustinino is absent. Mrs. Grimaldi >> here. >> Mr. Labrada is absent. Mrs. Osmond >> here. >> Mr. Rivera >> here. >> Mr. Zitkco >> here. >> Mr. Bellleon
>> here. >> Mr. Tadres >> here. >> Chairman Gats >> here. >> Let the record reflect. Also in attendance are attorney Gary Gantonio, board engineer John Yimick, and board secretary Grace Kish. >> Okay. So we'll move on to the public
portion. Uh to participate in the public portion of the meeting, please if you are in the audience, raise your hand. If you are uh at home, 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 stated 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. Uh motion to open the public portion. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there anyone in the
audience that has any uh questions, comments, concerns for the board or anyone at home? Seeing no hands raised online, seeing no hands raised in the audience, I will ask for a motion to close the public court. >> Close motion. Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> All right. Um, we're going to bypass approval of minutes. Those are not yet uh uh completed. So, we will um have those for the next meeting. We will move on to new
business. Application of Dawn Calamari, Frank Road for a two-story edition and front porch at 112 President Road, block 451.03, lot 8. She's going to be doing
>> Okay. >> And her husband. >> Okay. Is that correct? All right, everybody knows. Who's gonna start tonight? >> Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. This was position while we swear in we're going to be the meeting. Um, do you swear that the testimony before this word, the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth
shall help you God? >> I do. >> Please state your name for the record. Yes. Jo Joseph J. Bruno 2 Pascat Road, Park Ridge, New Jersey. >> And Mr. Bruno, you are an architect, right, in the state of New Jersey. And you you've testified in front of the board many times before.
>> Yes. >> Um and your your license is still active in the in good standing in the state of New Jersey. >> It is. >> Okay. Unless the board has any other questions of Mr. Bruno's um uh qualifications. I would ask that they
accept this witness as expert witness in architecture. >> Any questions from the board? >> Nope. So accepted. >> And Mr. Bruno, you just handed the board a photo index. >> Yes, I did. There are there's a
an index and there are seven f photographs and I will explain those in a moment. >> Okay. Do we want to mark this? This is not any This wasn't in the application or anything. >> That is correct. I just handed it on to the board tonight. >> Okay. So, do we want to mark this A1? >> A1. >> Oh,
thank you. My apologies. >> Sure. I'll remember. >> And this is A1. This is a photo index. Seven photographs dated April 21st, 2026. >> Yes. >> And this was taken by yourself? >> Yes. I took them um I think it was
yesterday morning. >> Okay. And is this pictures of the neighboring projects uh neighboring uh properties as well as the subject property? >> Yes. And I'll go through the uh I'll go through them in a moment.
>> Okay. Cuz we just need corresponding numbers for the uh for the neighboring properties. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. So, photograph number one is the front or east elevation view of the subject brick residence. Photograph
number two is a view looking west along the northerly side of the subject property. You'll see the um there's a a fireplace chimney to the left and there's a uh wood fence and next to the chimney it looks like a condition condenser unit. and the uh neighboring
property to the to the north. Uh you'll see the um uh little bit of the white fence. You'll see that house in better detail in the next photograph. Photograph number three is the west elevation view of the subject residence. There's an existing um covered uh porch
there that we intend to uh to rebuild, but I'll get to that when I explain the uh the plan and the elevations. Photograph number four is the east elevation view of the residence at number 120 President Road. Uh the subject residence is on the left
hand side of the photo. So this uh this photo this uh residence at 120 President Road is to the north of the subject line. Uh photograph number five is the west elevation view of the residence at 121 President Road and that is across
the street. Uh photograph number six is the west elevation view of the residence at 113 president and photograph number seven is the west elevation view of the residence at 107 per per president. So you'll see that
these houses are uh consistent with the with the scale in which we are proposing the um uh the addition and alterations. I'll uh go to the drawing that is most dated most recently dated 22826 which is
the drawing that you have before you. Uh we are proposing to um to uh take the driveway from the um the southernly side of the property. Uh because right now it's a onecar garage and it's a side
road meaning it comes to the southern you enter from the side. We are proposing to expand the garage and make it a front load and also have a twocar garage because in this zone the two-car garage is is is required so that we
would um enter the garage headon after leaving the uh the roadway and we're proposing a driveway with a width of 22 feet which is in accordance with the burrow standards or the burrow ordinance. Uh we are also proposing a
front porch with an extended extended um cover area so that uh uh v visitors who are coming out of their cars can get undercover u quickly and also with folded relatives to try and keep that entrance way a bit um uh clearer of snow
and ice. um the east elevation or front view of the house. We are proposing to look uh like this. What I'm pointing to now is that front porch extension with the sitting front porch to the right, the twocar garage with individual front
doors and stone facade in the front at the first floor level and then new siding at the um the upper story. I'll go through the architecture of the house first and then I'll go through the variances. Um this is the first floor plan. The the
hatched area or the diagonal lines is the um proposed garage expansion. So we are taking the side mode garage as I mentioned before widening it so that it could handle two cars. uh coming in from directly from the road in in a frontal
manner with some storage to the right. The shaded area is the proposed covered porch and the um we are all um aside from doing um new new renovations to various portions of the house. We are
also proposing to not only rebuild that that porch in the back of the home which is in the state of disrepair at at the moment. Um we are also proposing to expand it which would be where these diagonal lines are just to distinguish
it from the existing footprint of the of of of the porch so that we won't make the the uh right now the porch is nothing more than a passageway. So we're we're proposing to expand it so that it can actually be be used for sitting and
and and such. Then at the second floor, which is on sheet number three, A3, we are proposing a master bedroom suite at at the upper level. There's a uh there's like a home office space there.
and the second floor to accommodate next street and and as far as the variances that we're that we're uh requesting um we are requesting variance for right sideard setback which is to the north 15
ft is required uh 20.5 ft is existing and 12.5 ft is is proposed uh front yard setback 50 ft FT is required is required. 50.3 ft is is proposed
um is existing I'm sorry and 36.83 ft is proposed to the to the um front covered porch which is open on all sides. It's just uh it's just got a roof and two columns at that dimension that dimensional setback from the street. The
front yard set back to the wall of the garage is 42.34. So that that um covered portion of the walkway that I described for um giving protection for people coming from the driveway to the stairs that is the that
is the uh closest uh proposed projection to the uh the street. Um as I see as I show on the site plan here um you know the curve will be um cut and replaced to
create a new curve cut the old cut will be filled in according to federal standards and in the event that the um that the project goes forward the homeowner will um engage a New Jersey licensed engineer civil engineer to
design the site plan also um including subsurface drainage structure to to handle the rain water from uh the Us and um with that I'm happy to now to answer all the board's questions.
>> Is there any existing water retention system on property currently or is it just meters into the grass, you know, to the ground surface? >> Not not to my knowledge. Mr. Rick would be able to answer that um better than I, but I'm uh none to my knowledge. But uh
as part of this project, he will be handling the um the storm order. >> Well, Amanda, why don't we uh ask our board engineer if he has any questions first before the board starts discussing
>> questions? Um okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We um we run to the report date April 16, 2026 I think. Does everybody have a copy of that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Um so
uh talking about the variances um are our report identified possibly three other ones um with regard to existing conditions at the site. Um,
one, um, I'm trying to put this in the form of a question, but, um, it's a long one. Um, there is a shed to remain. Um, there are two actually two sheds on the
two accessory structures on the property according to the survey. Uh there's one according to the survey there's a frame shed um towards the extreme rear of the property and then there is another one
that's shown on Mr. Bruno's plan. Um, that's labeled to the left that's about 10 by 20 and it says existing shed to remain. Section 5810 of the code says that um
accessory building shall only be in the rear yard. Um, I believe this board interprets that both of those sheds are in the sideyard because the sideyard extends all the way to the rear property line. So, um, we're
interpreting that that you would need for those to continue, you would need, um, two variances for those two accessory um, buildings to remain. Uh also under 58010
um accessory building size this is under number five of our report. Um accessory building size shall not be greater than 80 square ft. The uh shed to remain that's closest to the president road on the left side is
approximately 290. I'm sorry. both uh accessory structures, I combine them together, um are approximately 290 square ft. I don't know if I'm allowed to combine them together. You're not allowed to have 80. So I uh identified
that as another possible variance. And then finally, uh, we've talked about this before, um, and I I listed it. Um, the maximum size of a garage,
uh, according to 58084D, um, you do need a twocar garage in the zone. Uh but it also states that the maximum size cannot be greater than 20% of the building area. I took the building area as I've done in the past
to be the footprint of the building. I think this board may have interpreted a different way and I believe Mr. Bruno was on that application. uh but uh taking the footprint of the primary structure
uh the proposed garage will be approximately 26.5% of the building area. So my qu after all that my question to uh Mr. Bruno is um I
guess could you please comment on those uh three three to five additional variances one two three four four additional variances that are in our report and any sort of rebuttal uh to
what our reports >> well as far as the existing sheds that are there I I would just u just submit to Mr. brief vote as to what what the um uh purpose of those continue to be and whether that's still needed with the
with the advent of the um um the construction here. So that may be a question that's better answered by by him. >> Yeah, let's swear in >> we just have to swear you in before you
testify. 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 got >> Yes. >> And please state your name for the record. >> Charles, >> can you just spell that? >> K L A U S. It's my first name. Last name
is Brinkro. B R I N U K R O D E. >> You may proceed. >> So, uh, both sheds are, uh, on this property, I would say over 25 years, if not 30. Uh the one to the left closest
to President Road is a frame structure uh made out of cedar wood uh which is used as a utility shed for uh various uh garden tools and machinery we need to uh maintain the property. And the the backyard shed is uh is a
open structure with no floor in it, just a gravel floor. And uh was also used in the past uh for storing uh items for the pool cover and so forth to for the uh in the summertime. The pool cover goes in
there and other pool accessories. the um the nature of the size of the garage is is also you know not only for the two cars but also for the you know the ubiquitous and necessary storage of
you know for typical suburban life. I don't know how how um how it would affect the the existing shed if at all. >> The shed or the garage size would be >> well the the items that are in the shed
now could they go into the garage? I think that's what the board may want to know. >> Um in my opinion not really. Um I as as a hobby I also use uh woodwork. I have some machinery I would like to store in
the garage for woodworking purposes and the other gardening uh equipment actually is in the shed right now. So various equipment a lot more the snow blower power washers and so forth. Yeah.
because one one of the things that we have discussed in in the past here is that um we when you have a garage that's that's oversized and for the reasons that that Mr. what has just mentioned.
Um there has been some discussion here that well if we put if we erected a wall then technically the garage becomes smaller and in conformance with the ordinance requirement. But from the from the outside there is
no no no difference. But the only difference is really one that's somewhat negative in nature because then the wall becomes confining for for things such as woodworking because if you're doing woodworking you need to you need to um
and it's strictly hobby woodworking but you need room to move the pieces around and so on. So the so a wall inside the garage as we had discussed in the past would would technically make the garage smaller and in accordance with the with
the um the ordinance uh requirement but it doesn't it doesn't do anything to to um to lessen the size of the structure. and the size of the structure is not um you know we're not um the build the
structure itself is not larger than is permitted to be meaning we we don't need relief for for either building coverage or impervious coverage so I don't know whether um whether the size of the garage it as as it applies to this
particular application um is um is really a um is is really a big issue So, are you suggesting that the frame sheds, both frame sheds would remain or you would like them to remain?
>> That I think is what what I'm hearing from Mr. Green. >> I always have a problem with something that's put on the property and is there and you know, we're not supposed to have it there. I mean, we didn't get permission to put it there. I mean, I guess it may have been there for a long time, but
then people do that and then they come in for variances and and then they ask for variances and now there's four additional variances from what that was asked. That's a very difficult position for the zoning board to be in that just keep granting, you know, just because they were there, you know, that they
were there before. And I I always have a problem with that. I'm sorry. I you know, there should be one. There should be one. That's the law. I mean, that's what township had put in. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Oh, is that his wife?
>> You can speak. >> Let me have sworn in. >> I can you can you see us? >> Yes, I can. >> Can you please raise your right hand? >> Sure. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, old truth, and nothing but the
truth? So, help you God. >> I do. >> And can you just state your name and spell it for the record? >> Don Calamari Brink Road. C A L A M A R I B R I N K R O D E.
>> Thank you. >> Um I just wanted to to clarify um my husband's statement. Um, I happened to, um, purchased this home in 1998. Um, and I bought it through a family
member who, um, that structure has been there since I'm 17 years old, which is over 40 years ago. Um, and the back shed has been there the whole time that I've owned the
house. So, I I don't Those are two structures I did not erect um on the property. So, I'm not trying to kind of slip something in at the last minute. It's just always been part of um the home. Um
and just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you for that. Um so, I have a quick question in regard I'm looking at the plans. Where exactly is the second sh going to go? Uh because it's saying on the um based on the variances, they're both on the left side, but I'm only seeing one one remaining existing
shed on the plants. >> There's no more sheds. We're not making any more sheds. We're not trying to make a shed. >> No, no, no. I understand that. But >> the one in the back left, um I would say it's 10
um by probably 11 in in structure. Um >> Okay. Okay. So, you're referring to the to the original frame. >> That's the one all the way in the back to be honest with you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It it holds the like grass clipping
containers. Um it's it's really um just kind of a coverage for like my husband said, the pool cover. >> Um it's not something somebody lives in or there's no electricity to it. Nobody's, you know, having parties back there. It's not just none of those have
those types of um things in them. >> But you clarified that these were already existing >> prior when you bought the home. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So that Yeah, that shed is only shown on the property survey. The second shed, >> correct?
>> Not on the uh plans. >> Yeah, proposed plans. >> Um is that shed that second frame shed is that on a concrete pad and >> it's on the grass. >> What? Okay. What's the size of it?
>> I would say it's 10 by 11. It's not very large. >> I get 9 by 10 scales. >> Yeah. 9 by 10 scale. Scale. >> Uh is the 9 by10 allowed under our >> No. Yes.
>> Ordinance. are allowed um >> 80 >> 80 >> square feet. It's 90. >> That one's 90. The other one's bigger. >> Well, that's really not the one that concerns me anyway. The bigger the other
one is the one that's right on the property line and that concerns me. Um but um to be quite frank, that is the least of my concerns. Um, and as much as I uh enjoy Mr. Bruno's design. I think
that's a lovely design. I just failed to see the hardship here and I think we're going to need to delve into that a little bit more because quite frankly it's a you know it's a
very large property and the hardship you know this board's job is to grant relief from the hardship that flows with the land. It seems to me by this design that the hardship is
whether it be financial or the fact that there's an ingground pool that's close to the existing structure and that it would be probably financially a burden to um alter the structure and alter the plans
and uh take down the frame shed. That's all right there because the pool is there. But that does that pool is not the land. So I think there's,
you know, the application calls for a, you know, 30 something% deviation from the front yard setback. I don't see why it can't be pushed back um into the house and built on top. Uh, I do love
the fact that they're expanding to a twocar garage besides from a onecar garage, but um, again, I'm going to need some testimony that shows us what the hardship flowing from the land is that
we're building around. Uh we have a we've got a very deep piece of property as you stated, but the the issue is and the problem is that the house is built way forward. There is no we could take the pool away, but where we we still
have a place that we need to put the garage and >> so why don't you push it back and take the den out? Well, it doesn't make it really really doesn't make sense to reduce living space to get for for the purpose of a
garage. >> Well, you could put more living space on top, >> but the living space would be strictly suited for bedrooms. You wouldn't put you wouldn't on a split level home, you wouldn't put you wouldn't put living
space at the second floor. So that is the that is the the um the impetus for the the um the location of the garage. It's a matter of expanding it from where it is located at the
present time. And I see your argument, but again, we're supposed to be dealing with relief from the land. So, if you pushed back the living space on the ground floor,
then you would have plenty of room to push back the garage and you could still build on top. But the variance that you're asking for is again a 30 something% deviation from the front yard set. If you're looking at if
if you're looking at that the the the covered portion of that that walkway that could be that that is not the that is not the most important part of this of this design in the sense that the garage is the central portion the
central most important part of this design. So, we could we could take that back flush with the with the um front wall of the garage or even further if if the board deemed that appropriate. So that we would be looking at a yard
setback request of 42 feet which which gives us you've got a you got an appropriately sized garage in terms of in terms of depth and and it's
it's only 22 ft on the inside front front to back which is which by today's standards with vehicles and so on that's about as as um minimum a depth that is reasonable to um as as an architect for
me to suggest to a client to build at 22 ft in interior dimension. And that's based on and and that's you know we um so we're actually coming forward from the from what's now the sidewall of the
the interior sidewall of the drive which will now become the interior rear wall of the glass. So if we if we take away that that that covered that covered walkway which is
the the 36.1 million and we just look at the garage itself right from the existing east wall of the garage. We're proposing to come come forward 8
ft to provide that that um uh that minimum depth for for a vehicle 8 ft. And to put that in perspective, it's taking a sheet of pl and lying and laying it down flat on the finally
existing fable in the house. Well, in that respect, then why not just go back 8 feet and expand the den 8t back and take out the existing shed? Well, 8t then would would require removing the
ingground pool because you go back the eight you go back the 8 ft for the for the uh you you you move the dent back. Then we don't have we wouldn't have the requisite minimum 12 ft between the the rear wall of the uh the new rear wall of
the den as we suggest and the ground swing. How far could you go back? We have an audience that says the tool has to be 12 ft away from the house. >> Uh come out completely. I guess just a
domino effect that you'd be at the end of the day tearing half the house down. I know and there is my conundrum because again the pool and a financial burden is not
what this board is intended to relieve the applicant from. We're intended to relieve the applicant from the hardship flowing from the land, not from a pool, not from a shed. Well, it's more in in
in this case, it's more of a um more of a C2, which would be the better better planning alternative to to take an existing 50s60s era structure and and expanding
it in in a sensitive way to um to be in to be a good neighbor with the other houses in the neighborhood. And you and if you look through the photo exhibit that I uh that I um distributed um prior to the start of my my testimony, you'll
see that the u the um proposed uh final architecture, if you will, is consistent with the way that the that the um that the neighborhood has been
has been um developing over time. And I'll I'll start with start with photograph number five. The blue house of course that's the greenish blue with I'm from Poland so sometimes I don't see it right but the
bluish greenhouse across the street then photograph number six the u the the great home again across the street and photograph number seven. So the if you just take away the the um the public
walkway then we just talk about the garage the and you look at the the east elevation drawing that is on sheet number A1 you'll see that the that aside from the number the set you look at this
house and it is not overbearing for the property it's not overbearing for the neighborhood and aside from and and it it it fits the neighborhood very very nicely other than the fact that that we are requesting the uh the variance
relief for the front end setback which is a which is a function of the house itself the house location and and that is uh that that that is a point and one of the things that that
that is an architect I've been asked a lot is why is everybody tearing houses and build new houses. And there are many reasons for that, but what we're trying to do is to not do that. We've got we've
got a house that's been that's been wellmaintained and well lived in over the years, and the owners simply want to go the next step, expand it for their f future needs, and um and renovate it so that it it it continues to be in keeping
with the way the neighborhood has been developing. and the uh to you know and we want to do it in a sensitive way and not as as the saying goes throw the baby out with the bath water. You know I could we we could make a case
well just tear the whole thing down and build a a house that's in in in in conformance with the with with the ordinance but that's but that's not the goal of zoning. The goal the goal of zoning is and and and and proper planning is to is to take the the
existing housing stock and um and and create a um and and create a better um create a better environment than than than we have now. And I and I would also say that the that the um um the the
encroachment or the relief that we seek here is mitigated by the fact and lessened by the fact that the the uh we'll call it the the encroaching um portion of the structure is only one
story in height. The eve line is but is no more than than 9 ft above the grade. the the the front or the east wall of the of of the garage. And and you'll see that there's a lot of there there's a
lot of visual motion in in in this facade. It's not it's it's not just a straight two twotory wall which would have a much greater effect on the on the um the the streetscape. But I would I would suggest for the
board that you consider that that what we've come up with is is in is respectful of the existing streetscape and is is seeking to to enhance it not only the the applicants property but for
the sake of of the neighborhood as well. Uh the left side yard set back. What um the uh the nose at 15 ft that you'll see in um that's photo if
you look at photograph number two. That's the side where we're we're seeking the setback relief for the uh for the death. Um I'm sorry. the left side.
The left side you're proposing to go over um >> it's existing right now on the left side at uh right side. >> No, I I know I'm just I'm not there yet.
On the right side. So the right now existing 31.6 six on the left side. Um, you're proposing to go to >> Oh, 25 uh 12.5. Yes. But that uh No,
that's left side. >> Yeah, left side. 25.5. >> 21. >> 21. >> And what's the setback requirement at 15? >> 15. >> Yes. enough sense. >> So, and forgive me again, not an
architect, but why could you not go over another five feet and put the make the den um from front to back and instead of being behind
and push the garage back, it would be too narrow. So right now it'll be too narrow >> place there >> which is exactly what I saw which is
exactly what believe leads me to believe that this structure is asking for relief from building around the knocking the fireplace down and the pool. And that's exactly what we're not allowed. I'm not talking about
>> Yeah. I I I was clarifying what you said. If you know putting this is a 1950s split level home, right? So that is that's the den that you know has been part of my home
for a very long time. It I I'm not 100% sure. Um, we were trying to do the least amount of damage to to to to expand. I don't need a a a
huge huge home. Um, I'm updating it after 30 years of owning it. So, I I don't think it's visually um appropriate to have a narrow long
family room. um you know but you know I I I'm not quite sure I'm understanding that piece. >> So it's again >> I have I just I I just want to also say
um there are other houses on I owned one of them at 101 President Road um that was similar. This was the same um status in in that as well. So, I I don't really
understand why. Um, if if you're telling us that it has to be a twocar garage at this stage of zoning, um, I'm not 100% sure where you want me to put everything without, you know, I'm not going to
knock the house down. Um, I I I can't spend, you know, a fortune to to to keep um adding adding to certain things. So, I just want to just be clear that it's not um you spoke of increasing my value,
all that kind of stuff. I mean, this is, you know, the home that I plan to stay in. me if I may. I think the um having the the um the house wider
wider than we even showing it more would be more impactful on the the the streetscape than than huming forward the HP or the of the garage because the casual passer
by will notice the the distance between the left hand side of the house as you're looking at it and what is to the left because you've got the the evergreens and so on uh the thing to the left that would be more impactful on the
streetscape than than coming 8 ft forward with a one-story addition because as your eye looks at as as you're traveling down the street especially as your eye is is is looking towards the street you've got peripheral vision and people always they look left
look right when they're driving. I understand that that that view, that vision would be far less impactful um in a negative way than seeing the house wider than what we show it.
Because one of the things that that as you drive on on President Road, one of the things that that that's nice is that you've got the you've got the um um you've got nice open space on both sides
of houses. They're not they're not, you know, shoehorned up against the property. And we do and and we are asking because it's part of the debt. It's an open structure. It doesn't have
walls. It's got a one-story roof. So, so what we're the the two the two setbacks that we're asking that we're requesting right now are for structures that are that are low low slump. I mean, we've
got we we've got a um in in in this zone, we're permitted to be 2 and a half stories 33 feet. I say 33 ft to give some to give some context here. If I were to um to scale it and the
drawing is the the drawing was accurate to scale on the grade to where the to where the roof where the roof on the front garage expansion intersects with the second
floor wall. Here is at 11 ft. That's not very tall. And again, with your with your vision as you look from the street towards the house, you don't
you don't perceive the the the distance in that way as you would the distance left and right. So that's why what um what uh what we're proposing here is the least impactful
to the to not only the streetscape but also we're taking the the other benefit here especially to the neighbor and in the neighbor is to get rid of is to eliminate all all of this pavement here
on on the side and that would be that would be lawn and other types of landscaping. So, so that is a a better that would be a better planning alternative to um to making the the um the structure wider for the purpose of
of making the um the front yard setback request less. >> What is the proposed driveway with >> 22 ft? And that's in accordance with the ordinance required >> for for the garage. You mentioned the
minimum has to be 22 ft. But >> the the the depth the interior depth front is 22 ft. >> But I think 20 ft is sufficient and cool. If I'm not mistaken, >> 22 ft is is too shallow for vehicles of
of modern size. But the minimum requirement is 20 for a garage. 22 is extra 2 feet. >> I would say 24 would be generous. But uh but I don't know if any standard that that says 20 ft is sufficient.
That might be a that might be if someone has a very small car. Hey, maybe maybe that but there's no there there's no there's no planning standard I know of that says 20 ft is a is a is a natural
on the right side of the property you have 12.5 ft so and it needs to be 15 ft. Those are decks. Why can't you just not use these decks and make the 15 ft and at least not have that one? I mean, there
are quite a few variances. So, if you could get rid of at least one or and then one of the sheds and you know, twoc garages needed and I agree there. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with as many variances as I say that's 12.5 if you do away that I guess
those are decks existing decks to be rebuilt. I mean, and if you go back to the 15 feet at least, you should be able to do that, that gets rid of one variance. I mean, it's it's not a major one, but it's
still it adds to all the other ones. >> And it's 2 and 1/2 ft. >> Yeah. >> That's, you know, it just adds to >> I said it's 2 and 1/2 ft, so it's not significant, >> right? It's not significant, but it does help anytime you can, you know, go up. you
want. >> I'm sorry. I can hear. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, a couple board members are asking about on this the right hand side of the house as the street um would be um
we're asking for two and a half feet off the house. We're going to get five and a half people off the house there. um we need to be in compliance with the with the setback um requirements on the New Orleans.
>> So what I'm understanding is you said to move the right hand side move it in two feet >> 2 and 1/2 ft the deck on the north side of the house by the where that exit from the dining room exits. >> Correct.
>> Yeah, that's that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. >> Yeah. And can I can I ask >> impact bearings? >> Can I ask how and I guess Mquad and Mr.
Brick is how how how important is it to have that back shed in your property? I know it's been there for a long time, but if if if you had to choose between the two, and again, this is just >> Yeah, I would I would the back shed is
not important to me. Um >> because if if if you were to agree to >> if that's what what would block this whole thing. I mean, I you know, it's >> Well, no, it's not about >> there because I just didn't, you know, it's not about blocking. we're trying to do is we're trying to rem we're trying
to alle so many >> and try to meet in the middle somewhere because obviously >> yeah that that's fine with me. Um, >> okay. >> I don't have a problem. >> I have come in there. >> Yeah. When you say the back shed, are
you talking about the 8 by9? The 8 by9 shed. Okay. >> Yes. >> What about the other shed? >> Well, we need a shed. I mean, we have a >> I don't really want to move that maintain. >> So, we need a shed. It's It's very full.
There some sport equipment in there as well. Could you >> Where would you want me to put another shed? You know, I mean, maybe I I can ask that question. Where would you want me to put a different structure if not
there? >> You can only have one shed. You need one shed behind the house. >> Right. So that's, >> you know, >> I mean, I don't I didn't put it up. I don't really want to take it down um to be
honest with you because it's been there for 40 years. >> Yeah, it's existing. Um >> so, you know, I I wasn't the one to approve it whenever it was approved or it wasn't approved. I have no idea. Right. Well, listen, the way the way I
think about this, again, >> I I I'm happy to take the the one all the way in the back down, but I'm I'm you know, the other one is really um it's like a solid structure that we use, you know, and I I don't think it's
really affecting anything in the front. You you don't even really, I guess, see. Um, >> and I don't think, you know, my neighbors have, you know, had any problems or they have a shed in their back that is right up against my fence,
too. So, you know, it's >> I think you'd have to take a visual tour to really understand that it's not really affecting um >> Right. Right. And to your point, Mr. regard. I I I I feel again, this is my personal opinion, with the fact that
we're you're you're you're um agreeing to remove the far left rear shed and the fact that this second shed that's on the side was already an existing structure. I I think I think
that's for me that's an agreement and to meet in the middle, at least you remove one of them that you're not going to use. Now, that's my that's my opinion. Um, and also the fact that you're agreeing to move back the right side yard by two and a half feet to conform
to our requirement is is also something that I'm considering that I'm okay with in terms of trying to make make an adjustment because at the end of the day, yes, I understand we all need to some, you know, the these type of uh renovations are needed for whatever
opportunity, but at the same time, we're also mandated to meet certain requirements. ments in the zoning board. But again, when you come to the board to in front of us with five variances, it becomes a, you know, quite quite uh a daunting task to see where can we meet
in the middle. But so far, my eyes, we already knocked it down from five to to or six. Yeah, five to to three, you know. So, um, but that's that's my point. >> Go ahead. >> I appreciate that. Thank you, >> Mr. Z. Go ahead. >> Just a couple questions, too. One was
regarding that rear shed also. Um it doesn't happen often thankfully, but I know we've had and you're very close to that area some flooding in town. Um recently during Hurricane Isa and
previously during Hurricane Floyd, um the water, how far up your property did that come during those two events that you did it come past that shed to begin with? Um the the really big flood came back um
beyond that shed. Yes. >> And the most recent one a couple years ago also or not quite >> was Floyd >> one was the one >> Ida was east. It was when Washington school
flooded that whole we rescued people down road there. Yeah, >> I think it came in it did in front of that. >> It didn't quite reach that shed during CO. >> Okay. Um and we don't have any pictures of that shed though.
>> Okay. >> Um because the way the way you described it as an open structure and that you store grass clippings and other stuff. So part of my concern was grass clippings back there. Really the >> No, no, not grass clippings. It's the
containers. So like when the landscapers came, they used it and then they put it back, you know, into their truck and then they would they're empty. I don't store I don't store anything. >> Because where I was going with that is I was thinking really the next step there
is just to dumping the grass clippings at the back of the property which I think is detrimental. So I was and still if you're agreeing to remove answers >> most of my questions there. Uh my other question was answered if you're in agreement with removing that little
piece of the deck to eliminate that setback. Um, and then just again from a zoning perspective, that that front covered prior to the stairs, uh, while I think it is absolutely aesthetically
pleasing and very welldeed, I think the the reasoning for it doesn't outweigh encroaching further onto the front setback than then the garage is already going to come. So, I would ask part of this to to reduce that coverage back to
flush with the garage wall. >> Right. I had I I mentioned that >> really the only other thing I ever like to see and especially in the area you're in where flooding is already an issue, the further or the more drainage we can
get into a retention area um versus just covering what you're adding on. So a as I always try to do with with a lot of the applications that come in is as much of even the existing structure that we can cover into that
retention well um is something that I would try to ask for as well as >> yes and and and >> agree that's something that um that we would not only do here but I I've done it with with my projects before this board in the past because it's not just
a matter of wanting to collect what what we're and do but we want to um like the whole thing that that improves whatever for >> whatever drainage issues >> within reason can't be accomplish I mean
if if water comes from from the back of the property we can't do anything about that >> and then do we know or was it before you purchased the property if that shed in that sideyard setback um was built prior to 1980 or after 1980
Were you in that house in 1980? >> No. >> Um, >> I was in that house starting 1986, visiting that house 1986. Um, and that shed was there then. That's
what I could testify. >> The initial shed ordinance was was in town in 1980. So if it was built before that and it's been standing, I really personally don't have a problem with that shed because there was no ordinance. So you're kind of stuck with whatever was built there. Nobody could
have foreseen how things change. So for me, if that was built prior to 1980, I really have no comments on that shed at all. >> Yeah. >> I have a question. I I get this way with all these houses like this. The rear
yard fence is not on the property line and there's a pool and anytime you have a fence that encloses a pool, it's, you know, my theory is and I know it's the high school that's behind there. I know that. I just feel that if that high school
decides to come and just take down that fence, now you have a pool that doesn't have a fence. And I always comment and I'm not sure what the situation is, but I hate the fact that you know the fence is not on the property line and therefore you have no control over that
fence. That fence is controlled by the school and if they want they could just come and take it down and throw it in your yard. I mean I I know that they have done that thing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That does bother me. I think when we put
when I put that fence in um I didn't I mean I got a survey. I didn't recognize that the fence wasn't where that line was. Like I didn't do that myself. Um we had a survey for it. So I
think what happens is it's wet too. Um, so there's some shifting and you know definitely I agree that um in pool safety and and the fencing um I had an existing fencing
um a double fence almost around the pool. Um >> but you know over the course of time it's just decayed and it's still pool um codewise I'm okay. But I I agree and
um as it's more wet back there, I I think eventually I would I would like to move the fence a little further to to get out >> I always comment on that >> get out of that wet area because it's not really um >> Yeah, I not something we'll ever use and
it's just I agree with you ma'am. The reason why that fence is off the property line to to the right in the back there was a large tree and the fence company back they just had to go around it instead of going in front of it they went behind it and and
>> right but it's just the fact that it is on the school and then the school can just >> you know there are people who are you know even if it's a neighbors I mean if that neighbor gets angry about something or is mad about you can just take a fence out and you don't have a choice you know I always comment situations
like this. >> Adding on to that, you do have a separate fence around the pool if I'm looking at the survey properly as well. >> Yes. >> Comparable reasons for the property itself. >> Mr. Berno,
um, if we were talking about taking the overhang away from the garage area, would >> the portico extension flush with the uh, >> would would that reduce the
um, the amount of the variance that you're asking for in the >> Yes, of course. we would because right now the um the variance request for that is um it's 36.1
from the lot and if we bring it back um if we bring it back flush with the front wall of the garage in the east wall of the garage being set back that would become 42.34 or 42t 4 Mr. Kimick, do you have anything else? I
I do to round this out. Um, Miss Rmaldi asked a question, maybe about 20 25 minutes ago, if we have something in the code for a distance between the pool and the structure. Uh, during this time, I checked the code. We do not.
>> I didn't think so. Um, and I think this came up before and we were talking about safety, emergency access, fire department has to go in the rear. What's the typical? So, it's it's a it's a
non-code issue. Uh, the difference between the the deck and the pool is roughly I I scale it to be seven feet. Um, but there's nothing in our code that that that says there has to be a minimum distance between the structure and the pool.
Um, so um I have some roundout questions uh Mr. Bruno. So everything else on the survey except for the fence at the rear which will if the board acts
favorably the condition is that that fence will be relocated to the property line. >> Correct. >> And the shed in the rear will be um removed the the far shed in the rear >> and all other features
um in the rear will remain i.e. the ingground pool, the benches, the wood tie walls, the frame shed, the spa, uh the concrete patio, but the only thing that will get reconfigured would
be the deck. And and as I as I testified a few moments ago, the um uh storm water management system will be designed by by a um DJ license engineer and will will um capture the entirety of the roof.
>> The entirety of the of the I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. >> The total roof area >> the total roof area >> right which is appropriate especially in this end. >> Okay. because I I need direction on that from the board on what you're going to be designing for. So that's that's
certainly acceptable to me. Um so but we're looking at the new roof area of the building that will be captured >> total total >> total even existing. >> Yes, existing. Okay. >> Um new roof area or total
>> existing and newending that structure is all new. That would be because because to do and it's been my it's been my experience which has guided my opinion that doing part of any roof doesn't matter where it is doesn't do
much for you and in in in this case it makes it makes a lot more sense to do it and and in in in some total it doesn't create that much of a difference to do um to do art or
Thank you. Um, and I want to offer something to the board. Um, they were struggling with the shed, I know. And I would offer this that the driveway, um, as part of some mitigation. The driveway is being relocated,
I believe. Yes. Entirely out of the sideyard. Now, our our code doesn't talk about that. uh what it's allowed uh the driveway to be in the sideyard, but it's going to be grass. So, you know, the board could certainly look at that as some sort of
mitigation for that jet to remain there in the sideyard. Uh I just wanted to offer that. Um the uh just confirming for the resolution that the driver will be no wider than 22 feet. Um,
if you're disturbing more than 5,000 square ft, uh, you need a Bergen County Soil Conservation District uh, approval. U, you will need a curb opening permit. I mean a street opening permit. >> Yes. >> For the new curb cut on President Road.
So, that would be a condition of of approval. >> And just to clarify, the curb cut would be 22 feet as well. >> The new curb cut. And then we have the new curve cut. And then we have to remove the old cur curve cut which is new curving and disturbing pavement. But
that will be done in accordance with the municipal stand. >> Yes. And then finally you will need uh to comply with the soil movement section of the code section 565 because you will definitely be moving more than 10 cubic
yards of soil. >> That is a guarantee. >> Okay. I have nothing else. Mr. Chair, >> is there another question you like to ask about 50% of the >> I would like to ask that question. Um so
um Mr. Bruno um is is 50% of the structure going to be demolished as part of this work? No, on I the uh top middle of drawing sheet A1 I've got u
top calculation uh the existing total length of exterior walls is 172 linear feet. We um the side and front exterior garage walls to be removed are 36.34 ft or 36'4 in. If we
take 36.34 divided by 172 we have 21%. So 50% is the tipping point and we're at 21%. So we're less than half. >> Thank you Gary and thank you Mr. Bruno. >> Mr. Bruno, I do have one more question
uh regarding storm water management. Um is there any grading in the backyard by any chance? >> No. There'll be no no regrading at all. >> Okay. All right. Good. because it one of the one of the conditions for sure um it's uh at least for our engineer to
review the storm water management plan. Um just just to make sure that that we're okay cuz I going back to the comment made before by Mr. Ziko about the water from the flood that came up in the rear yard. Just want to make sure that we have somewhere where that water is being displaced properly.
Now you have to be uh as I testified the pearl here in in the presentation um the owner will be um um engaging the license civil engineers to design the site that will be that that will all the um all
the fire draage for for the project. Uh there are times when um when I've done I I've done the drainage u for various projects with the city you know review but in in in this case especially with the sensitive nature interior um it's
best to have it done by >> okay further questions. >> Any other questions from the board? All right, I'll order open it up. Um motion to open it up to the public for
questions uh of this witness. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? If any member of the public uh at home or uh in person has any questions for any of the three witnesses that would
have been sworn, um raise your hand or otherwise let us know that you have questions. Seeing nothing online, seeing nothing in the audience, ask for a motion to close.
Uh question period to the uh public for this witness for these witnesses. >> Motion. >> Motion. >> Second. All >> in favor? I
>> Okay. Um All right. So, just to recap, um, since the board had no further questions, I just want to make sure that the applicant is aware and restate that the applicant would um, if the board
were to look favorably on this application, the applicant would uh, stipulate to relocating the rear fence. Um reducing the right side deck to meet the sideyard setback.
uh re um I'm sorry um conform with all the storm miller management uh expectations as uh delineated by the engineer um and
uh stipulate to uh pushing back the portico or front portion to align with the 8ft forward garage so that the setback would be reduced to 42 ft. Is that correct? >> That would be 42.4 in.
>> Okay. And to removing the rear frame shed uh in its entirety uh with the other shed to remain is that so I'll just go over what I mean is the one the applicant would eliminate the right side
yard setback variance and to comply within 15 ft. So eliminating that variance, we would they would agree to remove the 8 by9 back shed at the rear to remove one of the shed variances. They would reduce the portico extension
on the front porch to make it flush with the garage to reduce the front yard setback variance request to 42.34T setback. They would remove they would um relocate the fence in the rear property to be
within their property lines. Um everything else is remaining except for the deck that's being reconfigured. The storm water management will be done by license engineer calculations and will catch the total roof area including
new roof and existing roof. Um, the driveway would not be wider than 22 feet >> and would be relocated away from the outside the setback line. >> They're they're locating it out of the sideyard and they would apply for a street
opening permit. >> Um, they would comply with, you know, in terms of new curb cuts required with an ordinance. They've also put on the record they're not demolishing more than 50% of the house. They said it was 21%. Either way, less
than 50%. Uh, if necessary, they will apply for any soil permit depending on the amount of cubic yards that are being removed. Is there anything else? >> I think you you've covered it. >> Do have a question for you though.
>> By doing this and mentioning the other SH that's going to remain, are we now codifying that as a variance granted for that? Do we need to grant a variance for that or would we just continue to call that pre-existing non-conforming?
>> You're granting it variance. Okay. We're eliminating they have two sheds. So they're reducing. So variance. >> Yeah. If I may. So uh looking at number five of our report,
the front yard uh setback goes from uh 36.83 83 proposed to 42.34. The sideyard gets eliminated. Uh the accessory building location only
one allowed in the rear yard. Uh becomes um you're allowing one in a sideyard. Okay. So there were two variances there. Now there's only going to be one. uh accessory building size combined it was
290 square feet. It's going to be roughly about 200 square feet now. Uh that still needs a variance because you're only allowed 80 total square feet. >> And u the variance that nobody seems to
have a problem with is that the garage size uh not be greater than 20% of the building area. Um, we calculated about it'll be about 26.5% of the building area. The the applicant has testified he needed the additional
area for woodworking and other things he would like to do in the garage. >> Okay. If I may, I just like to make one final comment about the phone. Um, and believe I understand the reason for the the
garage size. You obviously don't want, you know, the garage to be overtaking the entire facade of the house. Um but but I I would like to point out that while the garage in floor plan
um is bigger from these elevation or the front one cannot one cannot just make the assumption when it comes in the garage the ones that are to right of the door.
We we we've made this. We said it would be one big garage door having two garage doors that are widely spaced to give a lot of space to the car. The um the space is on the right hand side as you drive in and from the exterior it doesn't look
like it's an oversized. >> So in your opinion as an expert in the field of architecture that's more aesthetically pleasing. I could not have said it better. >> No, all all kidding aside that they
that's that's the u that's my point. But the the way it's been the way it's been designed the house it's got a lot of visual movement as as I like to say. It's got a big block. It's respectful of
the neighborhood and um and it makes it it it does it is available alternative to have a nice large green space to the side and and keep the um keep the house
as to skinny it up as much as we could, you know, left left to right >> and that um that I would uh I'll um end my testimony later. I thank you. I thank you for those comments. Uh thank you for your
testimony. Um all right, there's no other uh discussion. Um I'll ask for a motion to approve the application with the restrictions as outlined by our attorney and our engineer.
>> Good motion. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Grimmaldi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osmond. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bellon. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Todros. >> Yes. >> Chairman G. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you Bruno for your excellent presentation. >> Thank you. All right.
So, There you go. Thank you. A big in the garage. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, moving on to old business. Uh, we have a review of
resolution ZB-25-20 for 754, Cotch Peak, block 4104, lot 24. Um, the applicant had uh stated that the resolution did not reflect what he agreed to with regard to the uh 18
foot width of the driveway and was asking for clarification uh from the board. Um, in that respect, I believe uh I know I reviewed the um the tape of the meeting and I
um would ask that uh everyone let me know if they who has reviewed the tape of the meeting, who has not had an opportunity to do so uh so we can uh have a discussion on the matter.
>> Mr. Ziko reviewed it. Mr. on that did not >> I read the minutes but did not see the tape. You >> did not see the tape. Okay. >> I listened to the tape. >> You did? Okay. >> I did. >> Okay. So, uh I'll ask that uh we limit
the discussion to the members that did have an opportunity to review the tape. It's in in its entirety. Um just for practicality so there's no confusion. Um, I was not here that night, but I did review the tape. Um, from my
perspective, I know the issue was the uh 18 ft curb cut versus the 18 ft um driveway with maximum driveway width. Um, from my perspective, I heard that
there was well, at first there was some discussion uh from Mr. Rivera um about an 18 ft limiting the everything to 18 ft generally and I believe the applicant
had responded to Mr. Rivera at that point and said an 18 ft curb cut question mark and Mr. Rivera said um responded positively to that but uh that
part was unclear. However, um from again my interpretation of the video, Mr. Gantonio did restate twice uh if not three times that there
was an 18 foot uh wide driveway restriction. That was after the discussion by the board. Um and the applicant's architect did also agree to that. Um it was a few minutes later, but
again after Mr. Gant Antonio had stated the 18 foot wide um limitation on the driveway without any objections that the applicant was asked, do you agree to all
of that? and the applicant did say yes. So that's my perspective. I'll ask the other board members that uh reviewed that. >> Just to piece right on to that at 1 hour and just over 18 minutes into the meeting, there was some heavy discussion
on that right as we were getting to Gary's portion and the discussion centered around the reason for the 18 foot curb cut instead of 22 was to reduce the impervious coverage area. Yes, that was uh Mr. Dagastino uh yes
relied heavy on that in his uh questions and comments in um discussion >> also further backed up in the um resolution under 11. >> Okay. And that was my interpretation as
well again that the limitation on the driveway uh width was a direct result of the discussions about limiting the impervious coverage uh in order to uh be able to grant the variance. Anyone else
have any comments or perspective on that? >> I think I have the same exact one. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> that's fair enough. >> Okay. Um, our engineer uh has probably reviewed the tape as well or not. >> Did not.
>> Did not. Okay. Uh, did he review the minutes? Correct. >> I reviewed the minutes and I think what's most important is board members reviewing tape. Quite frankly, I didn't want to eat up escrow to listen to review the meeting.
>> That's fair enough. Uh, Mr. G Antonio, did you have an opportunity to uh review the minutes or review the tape? >> Yes, I reviewed the minutes and I listened to the tape multiple times. >> Okay. >> And I just don't see anything that is
>> different from the resolution >> from the resolution. Again, it's I defer to the board to what their interpretation and what their you know what they what they meant by what they approved. And we had a you know this was the resolution was the
application was approved I believe in November of 2025. We then had a resolution that the board members voted on which was approved and there was no changes mentioned at that meeting and I don't see anything else further to
change anything unless the board thinks that something is incorrect from their reviewing the tape in their own memory. >> Okay. >> Yes. And I I and I and I I remember I was the one that put in order to compensate to reduce the previous
coverage. And that was the only opportunity that I thought would be um would align with the idea of reducing or the easiest reason of reducing coverage and there was no there was no um
revolution to that to that to that idea. >> All right. So, I think we're the board members uh that did have an opportunity to uh uh look into this are all of the same mind that the 18 ft wide
restriction on the driveway should stand in the resolution as written and as was approved. Is that uh general consensus? >> Yes. >> We'll we'll take an informal straw poll,
I guess, on that. I um you want to read the role of those members that um we you know discussed that had the opportunity to review. >> Okay. Mr. Zitco
>> I'm in agreement with >> Mr. Rivera. >> I'm Mr. Mr. Todros. >> Yes, I'm alive. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I agree. All right. So, the resolution will stand as written. If the applicant
wishes to challenge that, they can always bring the application again. All right. Uh, next, all business update on 891 Manhattan. >> I could I could provide that, Mr.
Chairman. >> So, um, I had >> Sorry. I understand that that is all finished, but was I able to add any kind of to that? No, because unfortunately then
you'd have to we'd have to hear the application and revote on the application and I don't think that's probably in uh uh at this point you'll have to discuss that with your professionals but um the board feels
that what was approved and agreed to in order to vote to in order to grant the variance um relief was that the driveway had to be restricted to 18t wide total. >> I I I understand that it's all, you know, finished and completed and the
resolution is done and everything, but you know, I wasn't asking to go over the coverage of the property or anything. What I agreed to with the curb cut was 18 ft, which is fine. >> So, again, unfortunately, if you wish to challenge the resolution or amend that,
you'd have to bring the application again because that's the way that the board granted the relief from the variance. So if you want to challenge that restriction, you'd have to talk to your professionals and you would have to bring the application. Again,
>> I thought that was the purpose of this meeting. Did you have me coming? Our purpose of this meeting was to confirm and give you clarification as requested that the resolution was written in conformity with the way that the board
voted that night to grant the to grant that relief as uh as was posited that night. So unfortunately there's there's we can't argue it again tonight. Um, if you
want to bring it again and you want to reargue the case, I would say again discuss that with your professionals and um, the board secretary would probably uh, have to put you on for a new meeting
and I'm not sure if you'd have to you'd probably have to renotice and new application >> new and file a new application. >> Oh man. Geez. Yeah, the board voted on it. The board approved the resolution based on the request. Board members,
board professionals reviewed the minutes because, you know, we want to make sure we get it right. What we believe happened and no one saw any reason to change anything. >> This is, you know, my mistake and the excitement of being maybe um granted
permission to do what I wanted to do. You know, I was excited. and I didn't really pay too much attention to uh you know the resolution being set in stone. So I guess can't blame anybody else but myself. >> Yeah. Sorry, but again that's the way we
have to act and another application would have to be brought to change it. >> All right. All right. >> All right. >> All right. >> Good luck. Thanks. Have a good night. Uh update on 891 Manhattan from Mia
Kick. >> Yeah, I was started but uh then I realized that there was a zoning issue there. So um you want me to report on that Grace or >> Yeah, I have nothing. >> Okay. So I think there were two things. One, the curb had to be uh repaired
properly. Actually, three things. Escrow had to be uh made full. Um the curb had to be repaired and the zoning officer had to uh issue a ruling with regard to the second shed. And I believe you got
that today from Grace that the zoning officer ruled that um don't kill the messenger. The second shed was okay. >> Is he saying that he's saying a pragola is a deck? I mean is a shed. Is that
what he's saying? That's the second one. >> I >> I believe so. I believe. >> So he's saying the first one is a shed that's been there and the second one is a pergola or pergola. Perola. I knew I wrong. I knew I was a pergola. Well, you
know, >> okay. And >> maybe >> can the zoning officer give us >> a code >> that he's referring to in his decision? I think we need to ask for the code that
he is backing that up with. Yeah, >> because >> but he said it was part of the full project years ago. So it's existing, I think. Well, unless he refers to the resolution that was in or that was, you know,
>> that projected by Buckmeer engineering. >> That it doesn't matter. >> Oh, so so was there and it was inspected and approved by the engineer at the time. >> Yeah. Which I understand. Unfortunately, that's not our purview is zoning and
it's noncon it's a non-conforming structure. So, unless there's a code provision and not a inspection by a building uh code officer 20 something years ago,
I would think that he um needs to revisit the site and revisit the uh ordinance before um and give us some justification
pursuant to an ordinance on why that's okay. Again, does any board member disagree or have any other I mean >> have another opinion have another opinion? That's fine. But um
>> I agree. >> I I would think that we need more clarification. >> Yeah. >> Did he pay any of his money that he owes? Has he given you all the money? No. >> And that's the most important thing. >> Yeah. So I I >> our professionals need to be paid as well.
>> Mr. Collins reached out to me last week and um he was complaining about some charges on his bills for the escrow account. I returned his phone call this afternoon. I said that I would be more than happy to review all of my bills
with him um and make appropriate credits where um it's it sounds reasonable, but I'm not going to wipe everything away from my from my bills. And then I also set up a
um or or gave him a heads up that I'll be setting up an appointment with him uh to look over his curb and um determine um what repairs need to be made. He claims that the curb was constructed
full depth that it went down 18 in. I asked him if he could provide me with some proof through photographs or um me talking with his contractor. He said I could not get his contractor and he has no photographs.
So um it the the saga continues. >> Okay. >> All right. But we're trying to do this with it to try to get it manageable. Um, so that's where we stand with that.
>> Okay. Well, I appreciate you trying to manage the situation as uh and make it uh as easy as possible to get through this. However, again, we still have some
questions. So, if we could ask the uh is it the zoning officer to again revisit and give us or if he doesn't need to revisit the site, just give us a reference to the whatever ordinance that he is basing his opinion on because
otherwise I'm going to have to defer to a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey to who's giving me a little bit of a different opinion as far as I can clean. Um, >> we need assuming that the board
>> need backup to his decision. >> Yes, we need some backup to that decision and then we can, you know, go forward. >> Can I just ask a question about the driveway? Um, you're talking about the depth of the
>> curb below the ground line. >> Below the ground line. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Wasn't there an issue with the width? >> There was, and this board granted that variance. >> Okay. I didn't remember whether >> and one of the conditions of granting that variance was that the applicant had
to pay all his escrow >> and fixur the curb >> right fix the curb >> and and make sure it was constructed in accordance with township standards. >> And then where is the shed coming back into that now? Because I don't remember
now. the shed came in into when uh this board reviewed a um a site plan of the entire site. Um massage noticed that there were two sheds on it. So that became an issue. Uh and also we were talking about
impervious coverage that he was >> butdding up right up against and he actually probably went over but he was grandfathered on a lot of the additions because they occurred before. >> Yeah. Now, now I remember >> when he did this addition. I mean, this took years.
>> Yep. No, now I now I remember. I couldn't remember where that that shed and the the pergola were coming in, but now I remember. So, thank you. >> And then what's the enforcement mechanism to that at this point? Who who does that whose lap does that ultimately fall once the determination is made?
>> I think recently it was determined it's the construction official. >> It is. Y. >> So, >> yeah, the the township attorney opined on it. There was a long email that was >> I mean, I guess the reason I'm asking is we're asking for clarification
on on a structure that we're going to then if we say, well, we don't agree with you, we're going to dump it back to the construction official who's the one who's giving us the opinion. >> Correct. Am I am I getting that? >> The zoning officer a answers to the construction official. the construction
official is essentially the manager of that entire department. The township attorney uh issued a ruling that uh even though this might not be a UCCC matter, the um uniform construction code matter
that the construction official has the right and the power and the duty uh to issue violations. That's the way I read that. Grace, you're looking at me a little differently. Some of the discussions we had here were more like
um at least what I took from it is that the construction official is only dealing with the structure and the exterior of the property is um the purview of the property maintenance. Please do
>> and they look at it as property and >> and was that in that memo that came from Mark Carlo? >> I have to rem I think it It might have been >> might depend on what's happening >> outside the structure. >> The construction official is
responsible. Does he necessarily write the ticket? No. It might be the property maintenance officer that writes it, but the construction official is ultimately responsible. So there's a nuance there.
Um but the you know enforcement lies with the construction office >> and the fact of the removal of that our granting of the variance was related
or subject to the removal thereof. >> No. No. That's where we're still vetting out right now. Why is it being allowed to remain uh the double shed, >> right? >> And and the zoning officer, >> right,
>> issued a ruling that it's he felt that it was allowed but didn't cite any any reason >> cuz we didn't technically grant a variance to allow the non-conforming structures to remain. >> Yes. But they're already non-conforming.
But just as we did tonight, we had to in our resolution, there needed to be the granting of a variance to allow the nonconforming structures to remain otherwise they have to >> go.
>> But unless they were that and just forgive me for playing devil's advocate, we're we're now we've took it we gave it to the construction official to or the building official to make a determination. He said that XYZ it's
allowed or it it was granted. However, now he gives it back to us says that's matter's resolved. Now we're going to send it back to him again saying we still don't agree with you. >> Well, is it the construction official or the zoning? The zoning is they're different people. >> Either either way, my point is why are
we giving it to somebody who's giving it back to us to give it back to him again? I think >> because we're they're two different people. So the zoning official has given us their opinion but the ultimate decision relies on >> So the construction official did not give us an opinion. Correct. Okay.
That's where I'm misunderstanding. >> Yes. The only the zoning person uh zoning uh official has given us an opinion and that opinion is going to end up in the construction code official's hands at some point. >> That's okay. Now now I understand that's
why that it was coming from the construction official and that we're passing it back to him. Yeah. So, in order to avoid that, we need to get some more clarification from the zoning official >> so that we can kind of work this out and not for long. >> Totally changes my question. So, I don't have a question anymore.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I I know that was a little unclear. >> Yeah. Because there's a lot of hands in the pot, so to speak. Um, so we'll just ask for if you can clarify that for a little bit a little bit more and maybe that'll aid the construction code
official, Mr. the committ and all the other parties to try and figure it out. >> I hope so. But that addresses the the structure in the back but the curb. >> So what makes and this is kind of
related but not but what makes it an accessory structure versus not is a plastic shed an accessory structure. >> Is something without a roof an accessory structure? >> Yes. Without without a roof. >> Correct. So like a pergola has a roof
but it kind of doesn't. >> I I I can't speak freely because you have to look at the code and you have to read the definitions of structure. >> Seems like they leave things open to interpretation.
>> I mean I mean I think the purpose why this board they wanted the zoning officer to look through the history of the various applications for this property. I think there were three. Some came before the board, some didn't. >> Right. >> Um and
>> and I mean I I the reason I'm asking that question is more to lead towards future, >> you know, is there something that needs to be further addressed? You know, an accessory structure is a is a raised garden bed an accessory structure even if it has no roof and it's dirt ground.
>> Does it have to have a patent accessory structure? >> Kevin, I have the area here. It says in any district a sensory building may be erected only in the rear yard provided that the building area covered devi shall not exceed 15% of the rear yard of the subject lots swimming pools tennis courts basketball courts and all other
recreational uses in conjunction with private residential use in residential zones may exceed the ad for said limitation of 15% of the rear yard. Nothing in this clause shall prevent the owner of a single family dwelling from installing in a conforming location a
singlestory freestanding accessory building with a footprint not greater than 80 square ft. >> Right. I've read that. So, but what makes it an accessory structure versus a fence around a garden? Single story. >> You have to look up this definition of
building and building says that has to have a roof to be considered. So it so is a pergola considered a roof or is it considered screening? >> Perg >> because it's just got a pergola just has slats. It's not a covered roof.
>> So and again the reason I'm saying this isn't for this particular case. It's for is this something that we need to recommend that they address somewhere down the road to clarify? >> Yeah, I think they should >> because I think a pergola could be argued either way. So why don't we get
our further recommendation and then look at that statute with regard to that and put it on the agenda to discuss whether that's something that we would recommend. >> Does an accessory structure have to have a floor? Building has to have a floor. >> Does gravel count as a floor? So all of
these things are something that that are going to leave something down the road open to interpretation that is going to be an inconsistent interpretation because we may see it one way the next zoning board or the the next planning board or the next zoning board may find differently.
>> That's why it's supposed to be >> well they'd be wrong if they disagree with us. >> Um >> but it's an interpretation and an opinion rather than being able to say it's black and white. is it's got this so it's this or it doesn't have this so it's not this. >> So that is again a valid point. We could
definitely if there's inconsistencies in the code we can definitely take that up and put it on the agenda just see >> if that's something that might need revision. I mean, I think the goal is ultimately to make it to where there isn't opinions based decisions other
than saying, "Hey, you know what? You proved your case that that a variance is warranted because of this hardship or that hardship versus saying, I don't even agree that this is an accessory structure, but you might." >> Yeah. It shouldn't be, you know, you're right. It shouldn't be just uh
somebody's opinion. I mean to me my opinion is that a building has to have a built floor and a roof. >> Those two things to me make it a building. >> Yeah. A lot of codes talk about a foundation and a roof. >> Yeah. So again, like I said, I'm just
looking at down the road applications that come in >> way back when there used to be if anything if it was like 10 by 10, it was 100, it had to have uh footings. if it was less than a 100 square feet in this town the rule was you didn't have to
have footings you could just put it on cement you know you didn't have to have the footings so when they changed it and and as I say it was 90 versus or 90 something versus 100 and here now they went down to 80 >> I mean the town just put this one in the
80 it's not that long ago >> the the >> so they must have had >> accessory structures was 1980 and then it was amended in 24 I think That's what I'm saying. I mean, it's It was a long time. It was the other way. >> Yep. >> And you had to actually have a building
permit to put that shed in. >> If it was 100 square feet. >> Yes, you did. >> If it was 99, you didn't have to. >> I remember looking into it when I bought my house. So, I remember it exactly. >> I did too. And I actually built went under it and I didn't have to get a permit. >> Yes. So, um anyway, that's something I
think we should continue to look into. >> Um that we want to put that on the, you know, a future agenda. Um, and we will be prepared for that. >> Tighten it up. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Um, last thing then is status report view.
>> We were kind of into that, Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Jefferson Avenue. What's going on there? >> Moving along greatly. >> Yes. I I couldn't