have the alale lanu board at which formal action will be taken on the items listed on the agenda and upon any other matters which may properly come before the land use board the requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied through posting on the public bulleon board in a municipal building and on the burrow website and by publication in the record on December 29th 2023 with copies being sent to the Ridgewood news certain agenda items will be open to the public for comment Andor test ony the board will advise the public when such matters are open for their comment and our testimony uh I'd like to start please first with a salute to the flag I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for it stands one nation under God indivisible jusice for thank you Linda may I have a roll call please Vice chairwoman Bergen here board member rala here board member Patrina here board member agaro here councilman deloo here board member Dow here chairman cero here mayor wasinski here alterate Butler here and alterate Cony is absent okay everybody thank you for being here tonight I greatly appreciate it um the first thing that I would like to start with please are approval of the minutes from April 17 2024 of the Allandale L use regular board meeting um I reviewed them there okay anybody have any comments on them please okay seeing none from the board Linda can we have an approval please roll call we need a motion in a second thank you a motion please for approval of the minutes I'm sorry I'll make the motion thank you and second I'll second thank you I made the motion I did thank you Vice chair woman Bergen yes board member Theo yes coun deliso yes former ralo yes chairman Sero yes mayor wasinski yes alterate yes thank you okay next on our agenda is resolution application file number 2024 d05 uh I'm sorry the resolution number was 24-13 uh Ken magro 345 Hillside Avenue in Allendale block 101 lot 7 and it was to remove and replace the existing driveway greater than 35 ft I have the resolution here um Linda was everybody got this if I'm mistake if I'm not mistaken correct everyone did not get everybody did not get it so I guess I better I guess I better read it in the whole thing summary okay um all right I'll summarize it whereas applicant Ken Kenneth magro owner of property at 345 Hillside um was approved of variance relief from the alleno code to remove the current gravel driveway and replace with a pave driveway for the property that's greater than 35 ft uh whereas the proposal requires variance relief and therefore resolved that the Len news board um makes the following findings a fact there was a proper public hearing uh a description of the property variance relief is required because the property is located in a doublea Zone uh where um and proposes a deviation from the required book requirements as follows from a driveway width that will exide 35 ft uh the applicant uh provided other testimony relative to what they wanted to do with the driveway uh the board approved it under it we granted a a hardship variance and all fees were paid and that's I guess a pretty quick summary so if there's no questions on this I'd like to have a motion please for the resolution of Kenneth magro block 101 BL 7 otherwise known as 345 Hillside Avenue I'll make the motions thank you second linski thank you chairwoman Burgen yes board member glio yes councilman deliso yes board member D yes chairman Sho yes mayor wiin yes Al Butler yes okay thank you everybody just give me a quick moment all right so the next on our agenda is the public hearing section of our of our um meeting uh the first one is application file number I'm gonna I'm just give me a moment I'm just gonna put this ahead and then then you go thank you okay application file 2024 de 04 for the alale rehab condition in health care 85 harlton Road BL block 601 lot 7 and it was to construct an 8547 foot addition to the non-conforming assisted living and skilled nursing home this application at the request of the applicant has been carried to our July 17th 20124 meeting so we will not hear any of this tonight so if there's anybody you is here for that apologies it'll be here on the 17th of July okay Jo your night all right thank you all right now moving on our next uh agenda item is the review and discussion of fair housing the land use plan Amendment and Hazard vulnerability study uh that would be presented by our planner Mr Ed sik so this is purely a presentation de right that's right I to hold hold it down it's actually a switch that's it yeah hear you but I don't know if everybody can can everybody hear try that one want to try it all right let's try this again good evening everybody good evening uh Mr chairman members of the board uh what I have for you this evening is a quick synopsis of the fourth round affordable housing rules and some of the changes that have been established regarding those in addition to that I also uh just this evening handed out to the board a memo that I prepared which provides sort of a summary of the 2004 master plan land use plan Amendment and the hazard vulnerability assessment I'll touch on that in a moment but first I'll touch first on uh affordable housing and how that may interact with this board in the near future um what we're dealing with right now if you read about it in the papers or you actually looked at the the planner newsletter that's uh up at your deas um is that in March of this year Governor Murphy signed into law after the uh legislature approved uh what's called A4 and s50 which amends the fair housing act and it's pretty substantial the Amendments that have occurred um it does streamline some of the process but it does in fact change some of the rules as we work through that uh but yet official action is it officially abolishes COA uh COA is no longer in action it's now falls back to DCA and a uh a component of the judic the judicial system in order to review any uh objections associated with the a Burrows or municipalities housing plan uh but also establishes pretty strict time frames um the time frames are very strict as far as how things are going to be done and in fact uh there are many professionals as well as a uh even a judge I heard on the seminar scratching their head about how they're going to turn things around so quickly so we'll see how that happens but effectively it it uh the concept of full immunity is now lost uh we no longer have a municipality doesn't get full immunity if they have a court approved the uh housing plan like we do right now for the third round in fact what you have then as a court would approve it or DCA would approve your plan you have now a presump presumption of validity trying not to be the attorney in the room but essentially what that does is it just says okay this is a valid document come and challenge it uh you better have good reasons to challenge it so that's essentially if I am stating that correctly that's essentially what happens when you have presumed validity of the document in addition to that unfortunately legisl this legislature also imposes new costly responsibilities for towns for certain data Gathering and uh other challenges imposes new limitations on bonuses but it does increase the percentage of age restricted that you can have within your plan which is a good thing I think it's 25% up to 30% it creates a affordable housing dis dispute resolution program they're phrasing it as the program um at the state which will oversee and resolve any disputes and uh between towns developers and fair share housing center um it does have aggressive time frames I'll refer to the memo that I handed out or excuse me I distributed to the board hopefully you brought copies but I'll I'll touch on the dates uh we have a document dated May 15 2024 where we now identify on the on the first page that DCA Department of Community Affairs at the state is now going to be charged with calculating what is in fact the Statewide need as well as from that Statewide need what is the regional need and then also calculating the municipal need so what our number will be but the amount of affordable units that we may have to plan for and address within our housing plan um in addition to that as I mentioned the AOC is tasked to establish a resolution a dispute resolution program in addition to that um some of the deadlines we just recently on June 18th which was Tuesday there was a deadline for certain reporting from your trust fund um we had successfully sent that in that has been done uh and September September 16th is another deadline by which we then have to finish some accounting if we haven't done it already for residential uh um trust fund monies but yet there was a probably a mistake in the legislature in the sense that why did they break up the non-residential from residential fees but that's a whole another story um but yet at this point we just wanted to make certain deadlines which we did uh we actually sent them more information than they actually asked for in addition to that on the 16th of September we will need to report as to the status of our third round plan so that is something I'm working on but what's the good news is that you're in very good shape um we've done a lot of the work uh regarding that uh in fact we have more credits than what we originally started out with so that's all good work um but we'll we'll be addressing those issues and then on October 20th is the big deadline for Department of Community Affairs they will need to at by that date have the regional um actually the Statewide regional and local need established we'll then take that information we'll do our own review of that information and see whether or not we have any reasons to debate that those numbers and that distribution of numbers the next deadline after the October 20th deadline is January 31st at which each municipality is required to adopt a resolution which is a binding resolution that effectively adopts the need numbers that were being calculated that number that date that's January 31st of 2024 what's interesting is that some of this is gonna 25 thank you what's gonna I was hoping it was 24 because the confusion that that brings up is what if there's a change in the new year uh either in the governing body or what have you uh where you have uh certain constituents that may have agreed to a certain approach to a plan and it carries over to the New Year where there's a reorganization and now you hope that that next Administration will go along with the same plan so that's going to raise some questions in certain municipalities are probably not here but um that's that's just one of the things that we feel is a a little concerning from the from the legisl and then within 48 Hours of that January 31st res resolution we have to file it with DCA on February 28th any in interested party uh May file an action uh with the program challenging the municipality's adopted fourth round H housing obligations so whatever you adopt the number if someone feels that it should be different they have the ability to challenge that but by February 28th of 2025 and then by June 30th of 202 a year from now um we will need to prepare a housing plan that addresses the that need number when I say addresses the need number what you need to consider and keep in mind is that there are approaches to addressing the need number the number can be um adjusted in some way in other words if we only have so much vacant land and there's the need to adjust it based upon the lack of vacant land we can reduce that number and that's something we did in the prior round so we will be doing that again in um the remainder of that number though still is an obligation it's called unmet need uh the first number would be RDP or realistic development potential but the unmet need is still a number that then becomes a question mark as to how you address that especially since if you have an unmet need and you have a vacant land adjustment and now you've got all these other obligations how how is that supposed to work out because you already established that especially unmet need from the third round you have unmet yeah it carries forward it just becomes this big aspirational need um that carries forward so the number adds to the third yeah it does we have to address the third round as well as the fourth round so but yet we have an a an a court approved third round plan we can still work under but yet now as we get into the fourth round there will be now new challenges to that um plan that we established so that's something to be aware of and hopefully I know I'm the sort of the bear of the bad news but yet I think there are Tech teques to deal with this and hopefully we can come to a good conclusion so that's June 30th of 2025 Again by August 31st or essentially two months later any interested party May file an action challenging the housing element fair share plan uh if there are no challenges then on September 1st uh the plan is then uh certified um and I guess we then have the presumption of validity um and then if there are any challenges uh by that deadline then the municipality has until December 31st to commit to revising the housing element fair share plan so just to give you a general overview of that timing um and then what's also part of this memo we did touch on by March 15 of 2026 municipalities are required to adopt all zoning ordinances and other ordinances and resolutions to implement the housing element and fair share plan um so that's the ordinances to do let's say an overlay zone or some sort of infill development um that you may have and this is just the benit of everybody there's 500 some OD towns yes state is this everybody uh no there's actually 62 municipalities uh that are determined to be Urban Aid communities interesting what's in that Urban Aid list is uh you have Monclair Hoboken you have Hoboken you have Jersey City and hackensac and many of these communities have in fact some have added affordable housing in various numbers but many of these communities have benefited from economic Improvement that they've that they've done within their communities their need number gets distributed to the other remaining municipalities the base bone of contention yeah so that's I think a significant item but yet you may see litigation on that in the near future U there's at least some discussion about that on whether or not that is uh appropriate but I believe it's going to be done on the federal level which is has certain issues associated with that um but yet some of the recommended planning steps uh we had uh shared with the mayor is that uh to develop a affordable housing subcommittee whether it's some members of this board or even other interested parties and the reason for that is for us to start to pull together certain discussions about where in fact there may be appropriate locations where things may have changed from the prior round let's say if there was any development that didn't occur as a result of certain zoning uh that was required to occur I'm not talking about unmet need but certain things that were required to occur we can address those and then also evaluating our third round plan but yet what I'll transition into now is a discussion about this land use plan Amendment and Hazard vulnerability study and the timing for this is perfect because we feel that it's appropriate to re-evaluate our land use plan from the standpoint of not necessarily changing the Zone plan itself but yet addressing our goals and objectives um I think that's very important because your master plan as I've tried to uh present to this board in the past is your guide book by which your zoning falls into place um and that main book is a necessary guideline that we update we make sure it represents our current needs as well as our future needs um and certain things of context I think also fall into play for instance what scale and size and things of that nature do we see certain developments occurring at so there'll be goals objectives that I'll be talking to you about uh from the land use plan in order to update those items so that we feel it helps provide that appropriate uh master plan document for the community in addition to that under the land use plan um there is the sort of re-evaluation of the individual uh area descriptions that are um use descriptions for various areas those use descriptions correlate to your Zone plan basically they generally do in a sense that your land use plan map identifies where you want to see certain development certain types of development that land use plan map should be re-evaluated so that we make sure it's accurate because there may have been some changes also there may have been use variances that you have approved that now maybe we want to capture as new adjustments to that land use plan so it's important to keep that up to date so that's the next thing that we'll be doing tied with that whenever you look to update your land use plan as a result of changes in a legislation back in 2021 any change to your land use plan now requires a review that's called a hazard vulnerability assessment plan and it's also due to climate change is the true phrase I've shortened it to the hazard vulnerability assessment plan even though that's not too short but that document looks at where there may be changes as a result of climate change obviously the biggest issue we deal with as an inland Community is flood planes you know we're non-title we don't deal with uh High water table as a result of uh tital conditions but yet we do deal with flooding conditions and that I think is an important aspect that we need to take a look at you may recall there was also changes by the D to their determination of certain elevations for homes if there's going to be a new construction they're required to now be at a higher elevation as a result so that also comes into play Within that document so the study essentially looks at an analysis of current and future threats the increase in rainfall possibly increasing in flooding increased rain events um increased temperature such as heat waves things of that nature as we're experiencing right now um and also any other impacts from other related storms such as hurricane Ida uh if you recall there was a very unique uh effect it had on Bergen County area in fact I tried to drive back from a hearing that night and my car was actually floating at one point so it was really interesting so anyway um but the study will be um tying together with the land use plan it will also be looking at a buildout analysis analyzing any other potential threats we also in that effort look to have an Advisory Group that we can meet with whether it's the head of the DPW um other people who are involved in emergency preparedness so that we can identify anything that might be related to the those issues that we should be identifying within the document um also there will be a public Outreach session which we'll have here at this uh U municipal building and it'll be something that the planning board will oh excuse me the land use board will uh will uh over oversee um we'll also be uh establishing certain goals and objectives as a result of that document also certain land use plan recommendations um so from that I also in the document that I handed out to the board and this isn't something we need to decide on today but I just put together a tenative schedule for some of the components of the land use plan as well as the hazard vulnerability study and these are certain Target dates that I'm working towards to give you certain information to help you bring you along during the process so that I'm not just bringing the whole new document to you so I put those together and by October November we hope to have that document in line so that we can have a public hearing to adopt it those two documents the land use plan and the hazard vulnerability study so with that Mr chairman I don't want to take more of your time um that gives a general summary to the revious documents Ed um touch just for a sentence of two on that uh aspect of what's coming uh on Alternate dispute resolution I think the public and board might be interested in knowing how that might come into play in the framework of what we're talking about as far as affordable housing yeah yeah um what that'll be is where someone feels there is something that the municipality did not consider in their planning whether it be there's a there's a first objection for the numbers the actual need numbers because we may be doing reviews uh coming up with a different number than DCA comes up with and then a developer and or fair share housing center has the ability to scrutinize our information and object to it if in fact they find an objection what I see involved in that step is potentially what what's called land use land cover analysis that is being done done at the state level right now so you can imagine that's up at 30,000 ft looking at what is developed what is not developed we know it much better because we're on the ground knowing our specific details so we may be uh adjusting those calculations based upon our own analysis of the land use land cover for instance that that's just a for instance in addition to that as we develop our housing plan we come up with an approach to address the RDP and some of the UNM need because you always have to address some portion of the unmet need there may be a group of property owners and or a developer that could object to that um and come to that specific AOC meeting and ask for that to be considered what we'll be doing in that instance is trying to defend our plan and showing how we have an appropriate plan envisioned for the municipality in addition to that we have a certain context a certain scale a certain uh density that we've established within the community they will consider that within reason their the the past experience in the third round that was not very well considered in my opinion I'm hopeful that in this next round they'll look closer at the actual rules in the affordable housing legislation because it talks about the existing context of the community you shouldn't COA it says at the time um should not impose anything that seems to be drastically out of character the community so that's something that we feel is as as I know the mayor's smiling um we feel is something that has been lost in addition to that we also feel that in our vacant land adjustment we were able to Discount Wetlands where we knew Wetlands were but we weren't able to Discount Wetland uh buffers from those same Wetlands you can't develop technically in a buffer area you could but then there has to be a give and take of that same buffer so that still would affect the property's density or a developable area so that's something that we're hoping to bring back to the table as well because fair share was saying no no no we're not going to consider that we're like wait a minute it's in the rules so um that's uh another topic let's say that are going to be discussed and possibly Deb debated so again for the benefit of everybody in the third round a lot of these consider it was kind of almost forced yeah there was a lot more arm twisting that was going on yeah and and not necessarily I would say a objective response to that I wouldn't say that the court Masters were one-sided or not some were some weren't in my opinion I'm not going to name names but at the same time um it depended upon the situation you know and in sometimes certain municipalities were like listen we have to deal with this because number one it's getting so expensive to deal with it number two um we want to move on and get a plan so that we can defend that plan and move on from here so that's all part of it so and what we're trying to do in Allandale is to be Pro proactive so we've already got a team together I mean there is a lot of municipalities who haven't even done their third round housing and we're completely done with their third round housing they've completely advocated their responsibilities um I've been going to seminars for the past year in anticipation of this we knew it wasn't going to be good it's still it's not really good but we're trying to do everything we can to be proactive so it looks like we are do not looks like but that we are doing everything we can but also protecting our town and protecting the environment of our town and and everything else so um we've got a slew of experts Ed being one of them hire just hired uh two other attorneys so we're really um looking to to look at this in its totality and and do the best that we can you know for Allen gel because the challenge is not just us it's also the infrastructure of other municipalities for example right next to us is satle River who are proposing 400 units on our border that have to come through our sewer line for their responsibility so there's a there's a lot of place here it's not very it's not very clean so we're just trying to attack it at all angle and those those those that housing you just raised um that's part of their third round so um the one development of 128 units is part of their third round the second one could be put towards their fourth round could be of course yeah yeah Allen Del has always been proactive and I think that is a very important consideration as we get to the table and have those discussions hoping it'll pay off how do the the the credits work I think you mentioned you're kind of going into this assessments with credits is there is there a risk that someone comes in and changes how they value the credits going forward as we go into the fourth round or is that sort of standard in terms of what we are going into this but in my opinion will be that's an interesting question because in my opinion we're still able to use the third round criteria and crediting system towards anything that was developed in the third round now it's a good question that if you're carrying over credits and that credit let's say um it for instance in this round there are no more rental bonuses we can't have any more rental bonuses so all the rental bonuses need to be applied to any of the third round part of the plan in the fourth round we're hoping that we can bring forward uh just actual credits actual unit credits instead of any bonuses bringing those forwards so those sort of things will be interesting to see how that plays out uh and applies but I think in Allendale compared to some of the more uh impact municipalities such as por Sian Roy Hills that I represent they had a need number of 1300 units that they had to deal with that's just the amount of affordable units so multiply that times five if you're going to do a 20% set aside so that municipality has a lot of moving parts that have to be brought through but we'll see how those credits apply to the next round because they did more than they needed to as a result um because of certain infill that they they approved so Ed but is the uh the credits for um special yes that's all still good in in fact you get one and a half bonuses for a half however last time they told us that we had enough special needs so that we couldn't have any more so that's all yeah you know that all has to taken into consideration too so um the last meeting that I went to they said well you should work with your planner and find out the needs of the community well the needs of the community in Allendale is Special Needs because we're the Hub of it now it's also senior housing because we have a list and we're like well that's all great we can work with the our planner however then fair share housing comes and says well you have too many of this and too many of that so what there's no really point of that so there's a lot of that going on and it was interesting also at the last meeting one of the seminars that I went to and Phil Murphy happened to be at this meeting was all about you know flooding in New Jersey and all the problems with flooding and how we have to save save you know land and then the next one was all about fair share housing and all our new obligations and how how we all have to do these overlay zones and all the green space that's in our community so I'm like so I got to I asked the question like does fair share housing the D like ever even talk to each other because it's it's it's just was just very interesting going from one to the other like literally backtack meeting so it's it's interesting it's challenging but we're doing the best we can and we have a great expert here and this um what he's going through now the hazard vulnerability study is actually all a piece of it that we're doing to be proactive I think so and there's no more I remember going back years I haven't heard about this recently but wasn't there a moratorium because of Water Resources no that would be a municipality that's also another unfortunate it's it becomes a what's called a scarce resource order where you're then imposed to uh Serve by any future improvements you're you're required to serve your affordable housing developments first and any non-residential or non-aff has to wait in line until you get improvements done to serve them work so that's what happened to par as well they were under scarce resource order and had to serve by improvements to their Wells they have well water uh to serve their affordable housing developments first which they did and then they were able to open the uh valves for the non-residential development and that was quite interesting and politically charged as you can imagine so the mayor's point you wonder if people are talking to each other the issue of impervious coverage just causing more greater coverage is an important consider going forward dealing with climate change board members sorry about the news all right okay thank Youk you thank you greatly appre audience members I hope you found this somewhat form okay um yeah thank you again okay moving on to the to the next uh thing on our agenda here is application file number 20247 the applicant is 115 West Cresent Avenue LLC the address being 115 West Cresent Avenue Allendale blocks I'm sorry block 910 lots 5.01 and 5.02 the application is for a subdivision to two lots okay we will go through various reports and presentation good evening Mr chairman Madame mayor members of the board Andrew cohut of Wells Jersy and lemman 12 17 North Brams New Jersey on behalf of the applicant uh 115 West Crescent LLC as Mr chairman indicated the property address is 15 115 West Crescent Avenue it's block 910 it's Carly lot 5 and six um uh for those of you who have been on the board for a little while you may recall that we were PRI previously you were before us before yes I was I was giving give a little background and then get to the Pres please so we were here before the board I think it was last year the last couple years have Blended together um and we had proposed a three lot subdivision on this property and one of the property I believe it was two in front one in a flag lot flag and um when we were before the board uh we my client who is a happens to be a third generation uh Allendale resident um saw the board had difficulty with the flag lot uh portion of the application um some of the questions were why not just do two lots when you have plenty of room to do that and and the board historically does round better word okay the the board's opinion was readily available so what my client decided to do is go back to the back to the drawing board come up with the two lot subdivision present submit the application and that's what's before you today um it's a little bit of a unique somewhat unique situation it's already on the tax map as two lots um what occurred here is the Lots were under common ownership with one house on the property and what happens in those situations as your zoning officer determined is that for zoning purposes it turns into one lot so while it's still recognized as two uh Lots on the tax map it's considered one zoning lot and you need to reapply for a subdivision application for to to create two lots so what my client is uh is is doing is creating the exact lots that are on your current tax map there's no there's no deviation from what you see on your tax map um uh and and that's what's being proposed as a result there are two variances that are required for each lot it's it has to do with the lot Frontage um where 115 feet is required my client had the application is for 100 feet and for 1.56 feet um I'd like to go over just highlight some of the testimony you're going to hear tonight on this application and then I'll get to my two witnesses um this lot is significantly oversized for the Zone it's about it's over three times larger than the requirement for the Zone the requirement is 20,000 Square ft where it's 65,000 Square ft when you consider one lot um uh and although we will have insufficient lot Frontage the size of the lot will conform with the Zone it's actually over 150 time 150% larger than what's required again 20,000 square feet is required we're proposing 31,900 and 33,100 feet requirement are consistent with the neighborhood there's many Lots there's several many Lots within the surrounding Community where the lots frontages are under 115 115 feet um given the lot sizes the the quote unquote density the two two houses are what is considered in the zoning ordinances because zoning ordinances requires 20,000 square feet or 31,000 square feet when the when the zoning orces were put in place this size of a lot this amount of square footage over 65,000 square feet was not meant to be one lot it was meant to be more than one lot um the reason I bring that up and I I I know your board professionals will be aware of this decision it's a Supreme Court decision Kaufman fee Warren planning board this almost identical situation was in was in play it was a a property owner that originally came in for a subdivision that involved a flag lot got rid of the flag lot went to two lots a two lot subdivision had insufficient lot Frontage Frontage the the requirement in the zone was 20,000 Square ft and the lot was Lot the the lot is one lot was over 60,000 square feet so it's almost an identical situation and in that case the Supreme Court held that um a better zoning alternative in this situation is to create lots that are more in Conformity with what the zoning ordinance requires and what's in the surrounding area it promotes it promotes uh appropriate densities and and you'll hear planning testimony on several of the purposes of zoning that justify the that justify application that's known as the C2 criteria um the other thing I wanted to touch on is that we are currently requesting no variances with regard to the structure or the the house itself um there will be a proposed there will be a builder who will come in and file an application for building permits to build a plan at that time everything that that is required to be reviewed as per your board Engineers report a plot plan saw saw movement drainage all that will be reviewed as any other single family lot is required to do um obviously it doesn't make sense to propose specific structures at this time without knowing what the end the end user will end want end up wanting however again no variances are being required if a variance is going to be required at some point they'll have to go back in front of the zoning board and get and get that relief um so unless the board has any questions I would like to call my first Witness board members I'm thank you Mr okay so please I'm Mr Thomas Miller thank that's Mr Thomas Miller Mr Miller would you state your full name and address Thomas pck Miller my address my address is 404 Great Bay Drive Summers Point New Jersey he your attorney will qualify you before this board but I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand and be sworn sir do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as you present testimony on behalf of the applicant this evening thank you sir thank you uh Mr Miller for the board's um edification your professional background um I've been U land surveying in the state of New Jersey since 1979 uh about 43 years I became licensed about 10 years later so 39 to 40 uh I'm sorry 33 to 35 years of licensure in New Jersey also license Lance of in the state of New York and and also in the Commonwealth of Virginia I do hold the planner license in the state of New Jersey however I do not practice planning I practice mostly just survey and and I've done so for those for those years for many many different U public and and private companies uh some doing public and private work and you've appeared before planning boards and zoning boards as as a professional surveyor yes I have you've actually appeared before this board at one point correct um is your license still in good standing yes it is okay I'd like to submit Mr Miller as a licensed uh expert in the field of surveying in land surveying surveying okay not planning not planning okay fine good thank you thank you um Mr Miller um you are familiar with the application materials yes I am you're familiar with the property in question yes I am um did you or someone under your supervision prepare the subdivision plans that were uh submitted as part of his application yes we did okay um does is it the board's practice to Mark exhibits that were submitted ahead of time or uh can we just continue let's mark it is that all right we can if you want something but we usually don't we usually don't okay so this would not be A1 it's part of the record because it's been previously submitted right thank you Mr let the record reflect thank you Mr Cy Council would you just hang off for one quick second please absolutely excuse me please not live scen number no work reping all right Council I apologize thank thank you U Mr Miller why why don't you uh discuss with the board the property in question and what's being proposed so um I originally did a a property survey of the property in question boundary survey and topographic survey and um for the purposes of of creating a subdivision document um the client requested that the subdivision document you know this is the generation as of today not the generation that uh we talked about previously that we wanted a subdivision memorializing two tax maps that already exist within the township so I I looked at the existing tax map and prepared a subdivision document that would exactly reflect the existing tax map dividing the the the property that's considered one lot and memorializing it to be two separate Lots which are lots five and six on the current tax bill okay so currently the the the lot the lot as as one lot is 65,0 25 square feet correct correct and 20,000 square feet is required that's correct so it's it's over three times as large as what's required by ordinance yes that's exactly what I okay and what is being proposed is to subdivide this property into two lots correct and what are the sizes of the two proposed Lots um so current lot six is proposed to be 33,105 acre lot five is supposed to be 31911 ft 0.733 so both Lots will be both Lots as as far as lot size is concerned will be uh comply with the code substantially over 20,000 okay however let's discuss why don't you discuss the with the board the law Frontage okay uh with respect to lot Frontage um as as we've been made aware the the ordinance Clos for 11 15 feet of Frontage uh in this zone for each one of the Lots we are just a little bit short of that lot five we have exactly 100 feet of Frontage around West Preston Avenue and for lot six um based on the subdivision and the existing tax map is going to be 10.56 and and as a survey as a someone a surveyor who prepares subdivision plans um do you take any issue with lot frontages of that size of over 100 feet okay um it's similar you've seen lot frontages of that size on other subdivisions you you've prepared absolutely absolutely um are we requesting any other variances with regards to the structure itself the building itself no all all other um required by the by the zoning ordinance ourselves okay and you've you've shown what the building envelope is on the plan correct yes I have B based on the standard there could be some changes uh to the setbacks once in fact a building is proposed that's not currently happening uh these are the standard setbacks for this C okay um and actually something that was brought up there's actually currently two driveways on the property right there were two driveways on the property there there were there are two current curve okay but we'll propose separate curb cuts for each each slot when it's required part part of great and then and uh and finally we received the memorandum from Mr vand dated June 2024 in that he had several technical review comments I know you're not a licensed engineer but I think you could just confirm that we will comply with all the review comments that were set forth in that letter correct absolutely which includes this requiring a soil moving permit require submission of a plot plan submission of drainage plan okay requir ISS not addressed here but they will be addressed I have no further questions Mr chairman um this may sound a little this may sound a little crazy but we usually look at these things and you know are there other possibilities or other things that could be done I'm assuming that you looked at having one of them be totally conforming at 115 across the front and then just have one of the Lots okay the reasoning behind the choice to go this way uh the reason that they go behind is because we're we're really we're really looking to conform to the existing tax map but not make any changes so because the existing tax M we're really looking for confirmation of these lots more than approval of subdivision because the Lots do already exist and we thought that would be a a better better fit rather than change having to change the tax maps to just be consistent with the tax maps that were were creat many years ago do you think it also may make sense to also have two law frontages that are closer to the Conformity rather than one that conforms and one that's further away from the Conformity well it would in my in my opinion you know it would be harder to get the barriers for the smaller one and and you'd have one conforming and one really not conforming rather invol small ma Andre we expect to hear from a planner discuss that Rec consistency of the streetcap absolutely with this proposal absolutely okay board members questions for this wits I got one question so when you surveyed the property you took elevations in certain locations yes we've heard other testimony that the rear of this lot floods what did you find with your elevation shots what's the what's the slope be the most current topographic survey that I prepared for for the what's the date sir when you say current what's the date uh so May 6 the DAT the field work was completed on April 26 of 2022 okay um when I do doing my to topographic survey I find that you know the street is one of is the higher elevation and in fact the rear of the property is the lower elevations as determined both by the spot shots and the Contours okay um there there are other mitigating circumstances that um we uh we are prepared to talk about relation to flooding and and some of the water problems that are with with an undeveloped La okay but but for argument sake for Testimony could you point out where those I mean I can read the elevations myself but for everybody else could you show where those low areas are okay so um back in back in this corner um this this is a about 106 this is I'm sorry 306 which is about the lowest elevation in the property you go from about approximately 314 at the street to about 36 in this back so we have an 8 foot slope of roughly or 3 a whole lot yeah it's a whole lot yeah yep did you take any shots along the property line because you don't show any on the drawings did you take any shots of the neighboring properties to see what the elevations are no no we didn't goer how about right on the property lines um they're close to the proper but not right on when when part of part of this when we do surveying uh the party Chief part part of their responsibility is to collect evidence and I'm ass set the boundary so when he's out there doing this shots he doesn't know exactly where the property line is okay because we do it all at the same time so um by by all means you know in in a future study um for the develop for development now that we know where the property lines are we could we could go get those to the shs yes I guess where I'm going with this is you know we in this burrow have properties that experienced flooding lately last several years and the mayor can attest you know we have a lot of residents complaining where you have resident neighbors where the water is shielding into their property we we know that there's an existing water problem here well we don't but I I wouldn't say we know there's an existing water problem we've had testimony from Neighbors and we've had historic one neighbor says it's just because one neighbor says it's it's there elevations kind of show there's low spots but regardless just because one no one neighbor says doesn't make it a fact okay so you're GNA tell me that the low spots no but what I'm going to tell you is is that no matter what these plans show this is for a zoning purposes and that when it comes time to the to to get to develop you have to Pride the drainage calculations and the proper uh remedies for that I understand but you brought your survey with elevations and Survey documents so I'm allow to ask questions about that but I'm he's not an engineer as far as drainage is concerned I didn't ask him about drainage I'm asking him about elevations but you did bring up water drainage I I think the two are fairly connected Andrew to him as a board member to ask and explore I have no problems with the questions I just saying a blanket statement that there's a water problem without Einstein Point noted for your record okay so we don't have any elevation marks closer to the property lines in the rear where the low elevations are low you have a couple which look 20t possibly more but nothing closer to the pr yes that's correct okay as as I had mentioned that when for development purposes another survey you know with with closer attention to the property lines would be performed okay and the center subdivision line is exactly where it's shown on the property on the tax M right not a sh okay the only questions I have for him thank you other board members I have a question so in we had the previous application with this property and at that time I I walked the property and and I notic you have a at the intersection of somewhere in the middle of this property that you're sub and there's an elevation of 30417 it sort of intersects U you know with the back of that like a group home and then there's another property behind it and there seems to be some sort of water collection dryw well and then it it all runs sort of uh South at the intersection of both the properties there and then goes goes beyond further south um I don't see any any related information related to that no if there is not um for the purposes of the subdivision um you know we talked we talked about the plot plan you know at that time when when that the development and all the water calculations are done we don't we don't know any any of the impervious uh none of this is part of that application at the time that that application is done then all of those all those questions would be addressed in front of the board no in front of unless there's in front of the engineering review unless there's a variance of question then it's front of the board any other questions yes any questions board please I one question I don't know if this is the appr appropriate um uh testimony if you're going to have other testimony on this but um your plan shows the 15 foot side yard setback which is a minimum and that usually is dictated by the size of the structure your building have you done the calculations on you know on the size of a structure that could be proposed what it would need to be to be in conformance I don't no we haven't analyzed that it would just need to conform to be right because that 15 foot is is deceiving of what actually could be built I understand but so well but if it doesn't conform it they would need to come for R to get it to get it approval I mean avoid that yeah we're trying to yeah I think I think maybe point should be made that you know you're here seeking a subdivision with with vars and the concern of the board is that side set back dependent on the building size but you're already starting with a lot if it's approved by the board that isn't quite as wide as it supposed to be if a house have requires a larger set back and just isn't doesn't fit on property and are you that is I guess too if we could identify what size house just back into the setback right so what size house potentially could be built without a variance they're proposing 15 feet or just for this purpose saying that it's going to be 15 ft on either side if we back into that number is there a way that we can the board could understand what size house potentially I didn't look at that I know I'm but that would be something that we I would like to know just to work back into that number we're not pretty much like pigeon hold with looking at something that's maybe not realistic okay board members I think what was what what being said is that you know subdivision as you show it it's it's somewhat incomplete it there should be a footprint of a house individually so we see a full picture of potential development and potentially further request for variance because it's it's not an it's not an opportunity to really look at a full picture I would I would submit that we're we're not we're SE simply seeking to create the Lots themselves um and that we're not we're not looking to get any approvals for any VAR es for this for the setbacks of the the house we're just simply looking to create two lots that are pretty much conforming except for law Frontage are conforming except for law Frontage um I mean we we could try and show the board a size of a house that could go there we don't want to be restricted obviously to what the house is going to look like but without knowing what a a potential person developing the property wants to build wants to build I think I understand that I think what theard wants is you get your approval and you sell these two lots that the perspective purchaser doesn't come in here isn't I I did note your comment about modifying the plan obviously will modify the plan yes um I mean that's goes without question if that's what the requirement is um why don't we continue with the testimony and see what we could do as we're as we're going on with the testimony with regard to the size of the house okay I I'm in agreement with that do I just had one question regard to the property I know you provided the regional analysis of wetlands but anybody do soil test in this lower area of the property just from the standpoint of theability lot we could we could have we could have someone testify to an engineer testify to that information not a surveyor all right yeah so that that's upcoming yeah we can have someone are you okay with that okay thank thank you Michael anything else I just go a couple clarifications problem com three question whether you were going to perfect this by do do it by deed if unless the board has a no yes with the legal descriptions yeah copies subdivision be provided and now the subdivision is provided there'll be two lots need to get full Ser letters uity Sy not a problem com thank you thank you okay board members any further comments what I'm going going to do is I'm going to open it up to the public for comments and questions of this witness on the testimony that you just heard just this there'll be an opportunity to make comments and any other question at the end on the whole application of her any questions to this uh to this witness please sir sir would you stand up and announce name and address Mark savano 22 breathing place um it's in reference to the statements I have a question of the attorney I believe it is okay can we do that he's certainly not on the roof he's not a witness but I'm sure as an accommodation he said something that you'd like to ask him about he he answer you yes um he made specific statements regarding uh flooding that occurs on the property and I would like to know if he's aware that the current owner of the property has altered I'm gonna object I mean well you can in a moment let him finish the question and then we'll well his question is gonna be a let him let him finish his question go ahead sir well it's in reference to a statement that he made right I allowed to ask a question about that statement otherwise I'll hold my comments till later you you are allowed to ask a question okay and if it's objectionable and the objection is is appropriate it'll be sustain at the right time sir this would it's a question you can yes a question regarding a statement that yes this is the time okay so he I want to know if he's aware of alterations that have been made to the property to prevent the natural flow of water onto now ne's property now I'm going to object to the question sustain thank you so when is the proper time to ask that question you've asked the question I've sustained the objection but you'll have an opportunity at the appropriate time which the chairman has announced will be at the end of all testimony yes to place comments on the record about what you've heard okay okay so the questions now are in reference to what that gentleman has testified survey yes the surveyor or You' said you wanted to ask the attorney a question and you have okay so I'll ask it in the general come back can see us at the end of the testimony sir thank thank you okay anybody else okay seeing none I bring it back to the board any further comments questions of this witness seeing none thank you very much sir okay thank councel second stream sorry Council address good evening first Aton a Frank t o n as in Nancy last name is savath s a v as in violin iqv address 92 Park Avenue rburg New Jersey 07070 please raise your right hand and be sworn do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as you appear and provide testimony for the applicant this evening I do thank you uh Andrew for the board's notification your professional background sure I earned a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from Bucknell University I've been practicing in the Land Development Land Development field as a civil engineer for over 11 years I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey my license is in good standing I submit is an expert in the field of engineering accept um you've heard a couple councel if I make just for one quick second Linda are you picking this up I thank you sir appreciate it thank you and two more questions if we just could Andrew uh have uh your qualifications been accepted in other communities and before other land use boards uh around the state of New Jersey yes last uh the week two weeks before I was before the Zoning Board of Morristown more recently the Maywood planning board Mawa zoning board I can go on if you wish no that's qu quite all right just want to make sure we have your qualifications and your experience on the record and some of the projects you've worked on are comparable to the projects before this board subdivisions in fact yes and single Home Development thank you Andrew your you've heard several of the board's questions uh why don't you provide answers to those questions I don't have any specific questions for you yes I I'll try to do my best to summarize based on the feedback received tonight I know some of it is related to the Topography of the site which you heard testimony from the surveyor on um based on the survey there's a grade change that flows um when you're looking at the survey from the left hand side to the right hand side of the property and then there is a low Point As you move your Way South or to the bottom of the page which we've which we've heard regarding the surrounding properties there is a grade change there's burms on the adjacent neighbors um to the north which you'll see as I just select it with my hand there's a wall there so yes evidently there is a low point on the property in the rear of the project and as forthcoming plot plans related to development on the property that will have to detail what's being proposed in conjunction with not only the impervious coverage that will be proposed they have to combat drainage they're they are stepping and by speaking to they I mean the existing condition of the property so that topography as it exists gets compared to the Future occurrence once something gets developed here the application before you this evening I'm happy to continue to elaborate on my understanding of the site and the surrounding area but it doesn't go so far as to specify those details as a reles to how much impervious coverage what what storm water requirements are applicable because that that level of detail is just not before you this evening I go taking it piece by piece I also know there was a question regarding the side yard setback I will leave testimony to the planner but as it relates to the zoning ordinance the minimum side yard setback is that 15 ft the ordinance sense splits it between the size of the gross floor of the building uh noting that if you are a building um within 2400 square feet it is a multiplier of 06 working backwards it comes to approximately a 2500 foot house that yields that minimum 15t sidey yard Additionally the second bucket or prong of the ordinance is a minimum of a 40 foot sidey yard setback as it relates to a 6600 square foot house again we're not here tonight with a house that's proposed on this property specifically but I think we can all acknowledge not only the surrounding area across the street a house of 6600 square feet with a 40 foot minimum side yard setback yielding a resulting 20 foot Frontage for this property is unlikely um what else try what other why don't why don't you just go over with the board what the requirement General requirements will be as far as drainage is concerned once once a development plan is in place sure yeah s to any site plan application a plot plan will be required that demonstrates what structure is being proposed all of the land cover associated with the property not to mention the zoning requirements the setbacks as they become solidified based on the size of the structure and you have to compare from a drainage standpoint what the existing conditions are and what the proposed conditions are making sure to um either replicate what's happening today in terms of the rate at which it flows or improve that I have no further questions thank you Council I yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna open up to the board members with questions please you know I mean no I mean the experts right it's difficult to ask specific engineering questions because there's nothing being exactly so you know as far as retention basins and all that stuff I know what's going there so it's kind of hard to even ask you something like that sure I have a a general question about um the existing property now and of course I'm you don't know if they're going to take down trees or not take down trees but um there seems to be a lot of mature trees in the back of the property where there is um some issues with the drainage that we're discussing can you is there any way that you can say if these trees were taken down you know how much of a difference that would make or you know the based on yeah it'ss it is is a good question um obviously shade tree commissions those advisory boards landscaping design all of it goes hand inand um what you build at grade in terms of grass flowing water down or pavement that tends to speed it up is all part of this forthcoming storm Water Analysis that will be required so the size of the system and I'm speaking hypothetically again but all of those calculations you're taking into consideration the lot as it exists and then the lot as propos conditions will have so the bigger the building not too generalize but there is more water that has to be held and slowed down but the ordinance is clear that from a storm water standpoint that will have to be compared and submitted to The Bu engineer and again usually that's all addressed when the design of the homes exactly homes are taken into or built or are put together usually part of the plot plan it'd be a similar situ no please it' be a similar situ situation if someone decided they wanted to knock down a house and build a new house that meets all the zoning requirements the same process this meet meets all the zoning ordinances the same process will be in place for these two lots correct that's my understanding yes could you just elaborate what you said about where' you come up with the 2500 foot house just theoretically yes and what did you say about 20 foot 20 foot multiplier the multip based on yeah do excuse me as I as I reference this just because I want to ensure that I get the the decimal places right here um so for the subject property in zone a um in the sidey setback specifically um and this is highlighted in the engineers review letter as well there's a minimum setback of 15 ft and then the second part of that or the two buckets I was um alluding to the first of which is um for a gross building area that's exceeding 2400 square feet you're multiplying that by 0.006 I thought maybe you were creating something in your head uh working it backwards a 2500 square foot house divided by 06 you created house in your would I don't know that Council would appreciate that but thank you um no okay you have any questions yeah I just wanted to see if this witness would know if in fact have you looked at that low point to see if there's any conditions that resemble wet potential impact for yes that is the the piece of the puzzle I apologize I didn't hit on um I have been to the site as recent as today um based on my my visual observation not to mention U the burrow engineer's more recent visit to the site related to a soil movement permit there are no map Wetlands on site good thank you Michael I take all my previous comments okay okay thank you board members anything that you just heard okay I'll open it up to the public questions of this witness only okay seeing none bringing it back thank you thank you thank you next um spatch trayan planner please hello yes would you state your name and address for the record my name is spatch s p a c h Tran t r a h a n business address is 70 Hudson Street Suite 5B in Hoboken New Jersey could you please raise your right hand and be sworn do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes connection with the testimony you're about to give in this matter tonight yes thank you m Tran for the board's uh edification your professional background please sure I have my masters in reg in city and Regional planning from uh Rucker blowstein School of planning and public policy um I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey uh since 2019 and I also have my national certification from the American Institute of certified planners your license is still in good standing still in good standing and I've been accepted as a planning expert here in Bergen County in Montvale Mawa tneck uh East Rutherford Englewood various thank you I would submit Miss Tran as an expert in the field of planning I'm satisfied thank you Miss Tran for the um you're familiar with the application materials yes I am um you familiar with the property yes I am I visited it okay um you're familiar with the the municipality's uh ordinances and master plan as they um are relate to this application yeah why don't you walk through with the board your planning analysis for the uh for the U subdivision being prop proposed thank you sure so first let's talk about the the size as it Rel the the lot the single lot today for zoning purposes as it relates to the various single family residential zones so this is a 65,000 sqare foot lot it's it within the a zone that has a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet now you go up one level to the AA Zone that has a minimum lot area of 26,000 square feet so still oversized by double in that zone then you go up one other level to the AAA Zone and that has a minimum lot area of 40,000 square fet so even in your most um I guess I would say restrictive Zone in terms of lot area this lot is one and a half times that size and now we are in the a Zone which is the least restrictive in terms of lot area so it's significantly oversized no matter which single family Zone you're in um and the 200 feet of uh approximately 200 feet it's a bit over um of of uh lot Frontage um is also quite wide for this uh area of town the lot depth is very long uh deep for for this area of town it ranges because of the the shape of the property um from approximately 320 to approximately 380 ft so this is quite an oversized lot um no matter which way you cut it it w width depth and area again this was technically uh two lots when the tax maps were created but as was uh Mr cohut described um for zoning purposes it became one lot there were two um apartment units to my understanding within one structure uh on this property previously and two driveways there are still two curb cuts um even though the improvements have been demolished and and and the site is vacant right now um so in terms of um the uh compliance as was mentioned uh 100 feet of lot Frontage or you could say lot width is proposed on lot five and 10.56 feet of lot Frontage is proposed for lot six so we need c variance relief for that um the lots that would be created are still oversized for the zone as I mentioned 20,000 Square ft is the minimum requirement and these are both uh close to 32,000 square feet and then over 33,000 square feet uh for this for the other uh lot so in the case of C variances as I'm sure this board is very well aware you can have two different kinds there's the hardship variance which is the C1 um you would talk about undue hardship due to some aspect of the property that's constricting normal development um or you could have a C2 variance which is called the flexible variance but essentially you have to prove that advances uh purposes of zoning and uh and also that the benefits of deviating from uh the regulation outweigh any detriment so here this is a C2 variance and that would be any substantial detriment substantial detriment yes thank you um so again recall that this is a really a technical variance in the sense that it's already mapped this way uh but for zoning purposes here we are um there are definitely benefits to zoning as Mr kohut already mentioned there is the case of Kaufman versus Warren Township uh which was a very similar situation um with a an oversized lot substantially oversized lot that was then divided into two lots and each had uh it was 16t less uh lot width so very similar to this situation because these are deficient by 15 feet and uh and just under 15 feet so incredibly similar and that case found that um providing the two deficient lot widths that that potential for detriment was substantially outweighed by having more harmonious lot sizes with the uh Zone characteristics um both in terms of what's required and what's on the on the on the ground what you see in the neighborhood so um I think that that is exactly what's happening here and I'd actually like to show uh an exhibit is it behind this one or yeah it is behind there remark this great thank you and why you describe for the board what this is so this is called deficient lot width in the a Zone um and uh this is um a figure showing the a Zone where this property is located and here in this blue color with a hatched red L I won't go too far from the mic but with the hatch Red Line um you'll see the uh the the the the property in question um this is West Crescent Avenue running in an East West Direction uh the zoning boundary is the dark blue line and here this figure in yellow are all of the lots that have deficient lot widths in this Zone in the neighborhood not only that in Orange we're showing deficient lot widths that have Frontage on Crescent Avenue so specifically the the lots that are similar to this where on Cresent West Crescent Avenue uh the lot widths are UND sized um those are also shown and I think that this is also very useful if you can see it from where you're sitting to show the relative widths of these two lots compared to their neighbors that are also undersized they're incredibly similar I could read out the specifics some of them are under 100 feet in lot width and here the smallest one would be 100 feet and the uh the the larger one would be over by just about one and a half extra feet but you have many Lots on this uh block uh on this street that are undersized and uh I don't think that they create substantial detriment to the neighborhood as they are I think that they are perfectly accommodating single family homes as they are um when I drove by the the the street it did not feel to be overcrowded or overly dense um given the undersized nature of some of these properties but it's definitely a a a pattern or a characteristic that you see here on this uh Zone and in this part of town so um I think that having the the the lot width as proposed is definitely reasonable uh in this context I think it the lot sizes will be more harmonious with the context of the area especially because you can see clearly that these have a depth that is much much greater than other properties here um if you were to keep this lot all as one single uh uh property it would be oversized in terms of its depth but not mitigated in any way it's really um you may you know if I expected to see a lot with excess width I would expect it to also be a bit shallower than I would expect so that the lot size the area is more in conformance but as it is it's just a an oversized lot today so dividing it in half creating Frontage and and Street access on West Crescent by dividing it in this north south of fashion I'm sorry I actually don't see the North AR so I'm not sure if it is north or south but as you see it on the page up and down um the uh I think that this is the best way to split the lot and and make it come bring it more in conformance with the typical lot areas in in the neighborhood so your thesis is that uh from planers perspective that uh sometimes it it does make sense to Grant variance relief providing the negative criteria is satisfied to to maintain a Harmony and consistency with neighborhood properties yes absolutely and I I I'll just go through for the record uh the the purposes of zoning that are Advanced by this uh the these lot widths um purpose a of the municipal land use law is to guide appropriate use or development of land in a way that promotes the public health safety morals and general welfare and this goes back to creating a more harmonious uh environment here purpose e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities that contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions while preserving the environment um and this is an appropriate population density there were previously two units on this lot so creating two single family uh two units because they were an apartment in a single structure but yeah let me just ask you go ahead with regard to uh uh reason e um would you Al want you I know this will also be part of the negative criteria for substantial impairment of the uh zoning or in the municipal plan but as far as appropriate densities are concerned um we have a zone that requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet we have a 60,000 SQ foot lot that's creating two thou 30,000 square foot Lots does that does doing that create appropriate densities would you you say in this in this Zone this property I think that it's a very low impact density because it's less dense than what's permitted um you could you could divide the the lot really three ways and it would be the the lot areas would be uh appropriate but we know that the shape is not probably appropriate for that and um but it it is it is less dense than than the regulations Envision the are but Frontage that you're asking for the variance is where you couldn't divide it into three if we were just looking at square feet exactly exactly so I'm not putting testimony that three is what should be done I'm saying two is is the appro is certainly an appropriate population density because it's less dense are in terms of lot area than what is permitted uh under the zoning and so less impactful um can I can I just ask you one quick thing just for the benefit of um the audience as well as as as well as the members of the board you have one two three four properties in Orange that are next to slash near so if you would be so kind can you read at least a lot with can you just supp lot withs that's read okay so on block 910 which is the same block that these properties are located on uh lot three has a width of 97 feet uh actually it might be 91 or there's an easement so that's why it looks a little bit uh uh narrower but it is 97 ft uh lot seven on block 401 is 93.2 feet same with lot eight they're identical in width and lot six oh I'm sorry those those two lots are actually on block 910 and on block 41 lot six the width is 10.11 feet so we have 101 and roughly 90s after that yes exactly going down you have 101 9090 10 and something 10 and something and 100 97 two that are less than 95 and one that's just over n 100 everybody everybody I think it to to P back on what Mr chairman said even across Street even across the street there are an additional five lots that all are have uh yeah insufficient the largest uh on the other side of the street is um let's see this is block 909 lot 1.01 and that's 109.0 n ft and the smallest is uh block 916 lot 5 that's 85 ft width so and then the others are um 100 100.5 and 100.5 so this is almost exactly in line with other lot width if not better in terms of wider hence the word harmony hence the word harmony um I'll just go go finish through um so I can take questions no that's fine um purpose G of the municipal Landes law is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential uses to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and I think that allowing for single family development to occur here in a single family Zone uh meets the needs of new homeowners that may want to you know that homes are in high demand uh single family home ownership is in high demand and uh I think it'll meet the needs of of many people who who would be interested in uh having a single family home on the street and on these properties in terms of the negative criteria we have to talk about if there's any substantial detriments to the public good or substantial impairments to the master plan and zoning ordinance and and and I want to highlight as M as Mr CI did the word substantial yes we're not saying that there may not be you know a little bit of detriment or minor amount of detriment but the key is that substantial detriment it's substantially going to impact the neighborhood correct right exactly yes um so again I I the the in terms of the neighborhood context there's not going to be a substantial detriment because this is completely harmonious I mean that's from case law that's just looking at things a lay person can probably readily see that this is harmonious um be based on this great exhibit um in terms of uh it compliance with the other standard standards of the a Zone um this was kind of discussed in terms of the set sidey setbacks but building Footprints can be compliant here and just to uh piggyback off of what Afton was was stating there is some um what do I want to say uh flexibility in your zoning ordinance where lot sizes or or building sizes that are larger on the larger side uh are required to provide more sidey yard width and um the way that I calculated I calculated two examples based on the standards that uh Miss savit already uh testified to if you had a house that was 2500 square ft so that's in two floors I assume a two two- floor house but the gross floor area were 2500 square fet the requirement would be 15 feet on each side of setback that still leaves here 70 feet of width to build on um if you were to build a 3,000 ft house again that's over two stories uh you would need sidey yards of 18 ft so that still yields you 64t of width on the lot on each lot to build if you had that 3,000 foot house it was two stories and it had 64t width so you filled it all up the house would only have a depth of 23 and 1/2 ft so it would actually be a quite a wide house and not a very deep deep house and uh it would definitely fit um so as you can see even with some larger uh floor areas I think that even with the adjusted setback calculations a home could be proposed on these sites that could comply easily so I don't think that there's any issues in terms of um you know future compliance with the azone and it would come before uh you know the building department to get a permit and uh and to show that the storm water you know works and that the calculation meet the requirements um at that time so we're not testifying to any specific building because it's not contemplated right now but it's certainly certainly within reason to think that a 3,000 SQ foot home could be on this lot without any bulk variances so um in terms of other impacts uh storm water Miss savitz testified that all regulations would have to be followed and the appropriate mitigation based on the calculations of increased bot coverage uh would have to be provided um as I mentioned before there were previously two dwellings here and two driveways that wouldn't change um and uh and there's sufficient width on these lots to accommodate those two driveways um again with the setbacks provided and and the building widths as I've discussed I think that it's perfectly uh uh wide enough to to accommodate two d driveways in terms of the zoning ordinance and the master plan um I've already gone through some of this the the density is per is is appropriate for the Zone I don't think there would be substantial detriments in terms of the other bulk requirements um this is uh very similar to other Lots in the area except these are actually much deeper and so there's more to work with I guess you could say um and uh and in terms of the master plan um goal one of the master plan says uh is to preserve and enhance the Suburban character of the existing one and two family residential neighborhoods by establishing and maintaining Zone districts and use lot bulk and intensity of use based on existing neighborhood development patterns and good design practices so the existing neighborhood development pattern I think this exhibit makes it very clear that uh these lot wits are a part of that existing develop M pattern so I don't see any substantial detriments to or impairment of the of the the master plan the zoning ordinance and uh no substantial detriments to the public good but open to questions I just have one further question with regard to that the ne the the substantial impairment of the zoning code sure uh specifically when when these ordinance were created in your opinion is the spirit of these these ordinances for 60,000 Square fet to be dedicated to one single family dwelling no I don't think so not even in in the more restrictive single family Zone the the AAA Zone um that's you know I guess it could be in in that zone and that would be more appropriate in that zone to have a 65,000 foot lot but certainly not in one of the uh the in the a Zone where smaller lots are what's contemplated specifically with regard to this area of town or this portion of the of the a Zone where the property is located do you see a development pattern that foresaw 60,000 square feet being dedicated for one single family dwelling no I think it would be very out of character with the neighborhood um the only large lot that you see here on the corner is dedicated to a house of worship um and other Lots it just it's not common and I don't think that it's that it's contemplated really I heard I have no further questions Mr chairman thank you I'm going to just open up the board questions question done I got a question please so the exhibit's great it shows that we have a lot of deficient mods but you want to create two more deficient mods when you look at the pattern just from knowing the neighborhood most of the existing homes on those already deficient lots are for the most part smaller homes they're not 3,000 or 3500 ft so you're going to propose to add two more deficient Lins potentially add homes that may not fit within that neighborhood because those homes were built quite some time ago so out of all the deficient lots that you identified how many of those are new constructions so let me go to your kind of your your line of thinking number one I don't know how many are new constructions um I didn't do that survey but I would say that uh your point is some of these homes are smaller sized uh or what is what being contemplated here small-sized homes or large sized homes I don't have an answer to that so because the white the Lots in the back that that that you don't have highlighted the single families those are all new constructions that especially the lot completely directly behind there correct I think you're talking about the subdivision on those all conform those are all pretty much the same size house that you're saying is going to potentially be proposed on to the more deficient Lots I think the difference with these Lots versus other Lots on the street that do have smaller homes is the depth the depth is substantially larger so it's a little bit more to work with in terms of creating a home that may have the frontage I don't see the back right I'm driving down the street I want to see the Harmony in the neighborhood like you keep saying I'm looking at the frontage I don't no one looks at the back so right we're just going to create two more lots that are already in a you've outlined in a very deficient area where potentially you're going to sell them to someone who most likely is not going to build a home the same size that's already on those deficient Lots they're going to seek to build a larger home because 2400 square feet over two floors is not is I mean it's unless you're you're talking about 55 and older where there's no kids involved those those size homes don't work so um you know I think that uh well number one the lot width compared to what's required which is 115 feet that's what's required so the deficiency is 15 feet or less um I don't think it's substantial if you were to add 15 feet to one of these Lots I don't think it gets it doesn't look too much bigger let me see if I can find one that is 115 ft approximately just for visual purposes so I'm pointing right now to block 911 lot three uh it has Frontage on Ivers road is how I'm reading it here I think that might be cut off but um this has 11 15.15 ft of of width visually this is not substantially more than what you're seeing here we just don't we don't we want to move forward we're we're very Progressive town we don't want to move back right so you have you have a lot of lots that are deficient we don't need to move back into continuing to build deficient lots and I don't think that I think I think the PO one of the main points is though is that the two lots that are being proposed right here are more in conformance with your code than one lot that's 200 feet wide and 65,000 Square F feet in size and I think that the having two houses on these two lots are much more in conformance than what could be built on the lot as exists as it exists as one lot of 65,000 Square V so I agree with you that yes it's not compliant we can't AR you know that's an arguable and it's but and it may not be consistent with every single house that exists there because the house is has existed there for 80 years or however long it's been however the Lots those houses that can be built on these two lots will certainly be more in conformance with the neighborhood and the houses that exist than what could be built today and and I'll also go back to the case law you know that in an incredibly similar situation when presented with a massively oversized property the courts found that dividing it in half and having two slightly undersized Lots by by 16 ft in those cases um and this is 15 um that it provided a more harmonious environment because it brought the the property itself more into conformance with the Zone standards and with the neighborhood in general and again these properties are a bit different than their neighbors because they have this extra depth to work with so we're not talking about um you know we're we're it just it just the density is still very low compared to even what's permitted and the lot width I don't think it's even a visual detriment I think it'll blend in seamlessly with the neighborhood with these two lots brought um you know made as one lot previously because they wanted to build a bigger home my my my understanding is that there's an there was an older house on the lot for sent for decades and that it just automatically turned into one lot based on uh it's called merger by operation of law it becomes one lot automatically there was no affirmative action that made this into one line it's just it automatically is triggered um it was one house one house straddled the straddled the L line one house pretty CER ownership developed and utilized building I Believe by administrative action lner versus Camp POI and the 50 cases that came after right so when you looked at the other non-conforming homes in the orange around it um were those homes centered on the property Lots were they kind of skewed I don't have uh I think it would be more helpful if I had the building Footprints laid out there is mapping that can show that um I don't have it with me right now but um I think uh I think regardless of the arrangement of of where those those Helms are located on the lot um the the you know what is contemplated here there's plenty of room to work with to comply with setbacks so I guess my dilemma and I don't disagree with what you said right you have a lot of room in the back for a very narrow house if you wanted to do that Allendale typically doesn't have that you know if you were in a town let's say like Falone we have a lot of Cape cods I agree with you no problem I can't imagine and obviously you this is more of a comment than a question but I can't imagine somebody's going to want to come to our town and pay for a piece of property like that and put a tiny little house without coming before us looking to seek a variant and I think that's you know I feel for all the cases that I hear of everybody on the non-conforming laot and that's most of the town that they have to come here for simple additions and have to go through the variance process so we as a board try to avoid that in the future where we can we don't like to put that detriment on people I would I I I understand that that comment and that sentiment um grew up in faon so I know exactly what what you're talking oh you're from Fon okay yeah class to 97 I'm a cutter 89 there you go um um I we're never going to have here the perfect situation it's just not it's it's impossible to happen but I think what you have to what the what I believe the board has to look at is is this a better zoning alternative than what exists and I think in my opinion and based on the planner I think it's without question that this is a better zoning alternative than monster big monster house and I think and and I yeah and I understand I I understand the Dilemma of someone having to come back for board and get a variance but at the end of the day they're gonna have to justify that variance and you're hearing testimony now that there's adequate front there's adequate um building envelope to build a house of more than adequate size that that means something you know look I don't disagree with that you know I mean it's I guess to to John's Point earlier you know if you had some kind of a preliminary little kind of hatchmark of what could potentially fit that would help the board kind of imagine it more again you know I mean I don't want to be able to sit here and say okay we approved it because you're right yeah you can build something there the odds of somebody doing that in my mind I know it's probably very slim and I don't want somebody to come to me in the future say well you let this happen you guys have approved a lot that you knew nobody was going to build on and then they have to come and and shoehorn something in there that's that's my dilemma that's not for you to testify to but that's my dilemma in my head I just want to explain where I'm coming from you know you're right if somebody was going to come and put a small little house there beautiful little house I'd have no problem with it at all but I can't imagine somebody's going to come here and buy that piece of property and spend what they're going to spend for it and put a tiny little house I mean maybe that's possible but and I know you can't testify I don't I I wouldn't characterize it necessarily based on the dimensions that Mr Tran provided that could easily fit on this lot characterize it as a tiny small house and I and to Mr petrino's point it may not fit exactly in with all the older houses that exist there um but it's I again I think it's certainly a better situation than what exists today yeah and I I agree with that you know what I mean the one positive in my mind that if if somebody is able to come and fit a house that fits they're going to take care of all the elevation issues and all that stuff so I get that part of it so that's I'm kind of I understand just struggling a little bit with that that's all other board members questions okay yeah just one one question that I have I appreciate your testimony thank you um in the map that you provided you gave to mention lot that what about the quantity of lots one of the things that we look at when you look at substantial impact into the Zone plan is are you swaying the the Pendulum In One Direction or another as a result of a proposal as far as quantity let's say along the of Le pres sure so right now I count 14 Lots uh in this a Zone on West Crescent Avenue that are already non-conforming in terms of lot wit I count how many lots are along the entirety or how many are conforming rather let's count three four I I count nine and that includes the house of worship um so a majority of the Lots in this a Zone on West Crescent Avenue are already non-con in terms of lot width exactly Michael any further questions of the board all right uh once again I open it up to the public questioning of this witness only Mark Mark 22 place you mentioned twice in your Testament about there being two dwellings are you aware that it was only a single building and not actually two buildings yes I am it's my understanding that the single building had two apartments in it my my understanding from from the owner are you aware of what the building looked like in relations to the other buildings on the or in the neighborhood I did not see it when it was when it was was erected but uh I it's my understanding that it was not in the greatest condition but in in reference to how it fit in with the neighborhood are you aware of whether the character of that specific home was similar or not to the other hes I'm not aware of the architectural details of that home compared to others stood on the property I'm I I believe that it was mostly in the straddling the the property line that we're uh proposing so it was towards the front of the it was towards the street I would say in the front half of the property from my understanding and it straddled um what's being proposed as the uh the subdivision line so you're aware of where it stood the frontage of it I'm not using the correct term the distance from the street and its position on the lot with once I don't have the specific information and like I said I didn't visit it um when it was uh constructed but uh but that's my understanding from conversations with the applicant who uh obviously purchased it with the house on the on the lot thank you any other questions from the public okay bringing it back no other questions from the board okay Council I have no further Witnesses Mr thank you okay um Bo has anything further perhaps she may to sum up before I summarize can we ask the public if they have any comment and then I can the yes all right I will now as I promised at the beginning open this up to questions on everything that you heard questions general questions about this application and the testimony that you heard and thank you and comments thank you okay Mark please this is the proper time to make statement statement I understand the desire to split this um because two pieces of property concerns are what have been expressed in questions from the board members um regarding changing the character of the neighborhood the size of house that could potentially be built there and rightly the concerns regarding water um there has been modifications to the property since it was sold to change the way the I have numerous photographs of flooding on that property in locations other than what has been described in tes it fls to Great extent on the right side near the center of the property and also the back and uh changes that were made when nagler Port was developed also created part of this problem and now the property is being damned up to prevent water from flowing the way of the nor I'm going to have to stop you sir at this point this is more than just a comment you're you're actually providing what I think you believe to be factually relevant information for this hearing I'd ask you to raise your right hand and be sworn placed on the root so Mr uh the attorney for the applicant could cross examine you abut okay name and address again for the record and the testimony that you are giving and or continue to give yes uh will be true and uh accurate yes Mr can finish your comment and just know that he has the right to cross-examine you yes so my concerns are for how this property will be developed and what water shedding uh from both the structures and changes to the elevation of the property how that will affect surrounding properties and rightfully you are asking questions about how that could be addressed once plans for buildings are going to be developed and the size of the buildings where they're placed on the property and what might be done as was when the church sold their property a catch patient was had to be installed to make sure that water not shed anywhere else and remain on the property itself so I'm expressing my concerns for the future development and also the character of the neighborhood the house that was there fit perfectly well in the neighborhood it may have been run down because it wasn't taken care of but uh sat in the middle of the property at the same distance from the street as the other on that side of the street and it fit in perfectly with the neighor I don't know if it's possible to keep it as one lot and build a larger home how that would affect the water problems but my concern in the long run is putting two homes where they're currently was bought or they're I should say in the past person and changing the character of the neighborhood not only by uh raising the water table and I can provide photographs and videos to substantiate everything on stage you have them with you tonight I don't have them with me tonight I if you don't make your decision tonight then I can and for future development so again I'm expressing concerned were changing the neighborhood changing the land and my knowledge of 20 years of owning that property gives me a substantial reason to know not only what the current situation is but what's going to happen depend that that conclude your statement sir yes it does uh good evening sir yes um you talked about changes to property that were made by my client right yes are you aware that all those change those changes were reviewed expected by the burrow engineer not aware that I spoke to the Bur engineer and I think that so you're not aware not um so is he are you a license engineer no I not understand this I did I ask a question well this was the time for comments and if you had questions to ask of the witnesses they've been presented and you've had that opportunity did you have a question of the board a procedural question what did you have in mind my question is whether witness or the attorney has any reference for doubting statements that are made questioning my testimony except whether I acknowledge of what the engineer has has a I I think your question is whether the attorney or any witness what is knowledge of the property theoric nature of land on property I'm not allowed to ask that question it's not a question of allowed the record is what we must dutifully obey and that is based on the swor testimony in the record from professionals as well as any lay Witnesses including yourself okay thank you thank you thank you any other questions from the public okay bringing it back to the board sum sorry summation first I apologize for Mr chairman Madame mayor members of the board I appreciate your time hearing this application um uh I think we we've covered substantially why this application why these variances are Justified both positive criteria um appropriate densities we have a lot that's 65,000 square feet 20,000 is required we're proposing 2 30,000 foot Lots we're proposing lot frontages while yes variances are required you heard testimony about significant number of lots that are either equal to or less than that within the Zone um it's as far as quantity of lots we're not changing the the scope or the or the lay or the the overall layout of what exists on Crescent Street um I I think from just a zoning perspective I I think this application makes perfect sense this is what this is obviously a better zoning alternative than what exists today you have a lot that's three times the size you're putting lot having lots that are still one and a half times bigger but they're going to be more in keeping with what the neighborhood what's in in the neighbor so I think from a zoning perspective I think it's unquestionable this is a better zoning I do understand the board's concern when it comes to there's no we can't see the bill building we can't see the dwelling we don't know what to you know there is what are the drainage concerns those are reasonable questions but this is an application for zoning with people the these two lots which are single family lots will go through the same review the same scrutiny that any other single family lot in this in this town goes to they'll be submitted to the to to the borrow engineer they'll submitted to the zoning officer they'll do their review they'll review the drainage calculations and they'll and they'll make sure that the issues that are the board has raised and what a neighbor has has raised are addressed and any statutory requirements any ordinance requirements with with regard to drainage with regard to tree removal will have to be adhered to we're not asking for any relief from those requirements so while I do understand the concern I think the concern is easily addressed just as any other single family dwelling that wants to put on addition that wants to knock down the house and build a new house will go through the same process so I think we we reviewed the B Engineers report we agreeing to all the uh comments and do all do all the requirements and stipulations he's agreed to um I think you've heard the testimony that a more than adequate house can be built on this lot concerning the sidey yard SE side yard setback requirement um and I respectfully request that the board approve the application thank okay thank you appliation [Music] okay so have a discussion on the board question comments I think there's there's some risk here in the fact that these Lots will ever be able to be built up built by I think that's what comes up between the war and you know some of the details that I don't understand in terms of the zoning but it seems like there's a question marks that probably should be resolved before we decide to approve the the vote yeah I I mean I agree I I mean I agree with um the size of the Lots being in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood um but I'm just I am concerned about what can be built that and if it will come back to us with the variance like we were saying what's the outcome of us approving this in the long run without more information on on that it's hard [Music] to you want to respond to either comments Council can yes can I re um hi oh my name is my name you're you're still on the road okay okay is it the applicant please raise your right hand be sworn after you give your name and address sorry Cindy chanis 18 albrook Place Bloomfield New Jersey 07003 do you swear to tell the truth the whole I do I do um in this application process I would also note that I up on 6 SE Cherokee Avenue in Allandale New Jersey um for the record as well um s h o t t a n e s i n a n e s a NRE to address the board's comments and questions about whether this is buildable and whether two people would like to build homes on this I do want to disclose that the property is under contract to two families that are related that are hoping to build their forever homes in Allandale they love the community and they want to raise their children here um so with the board's approval we'd like to see that happen I I think from a legality standpoint the fact that we're creating two subdivided lots for someone to come later on and say there's a hardship with regard to C1 criteria not the best argument to be made um so I you know we're creating the L here so you know I you know someone coming in and say well the lot's too narrow I need a sidey guard setback variant and lots were created a year ago I wouldn't want to take that case understood your point self-created generated hardship does anybody have any questions of this witness I have one question so the the people that you say I mean look Allen we love to have new families I mean do these people understand that they have to fit within the requirements yes they do and they fully intend to fit within the requirements because you know like like I said before like we're creating a lot where they have to come for entance I believe it's their intent to use the engineer that testified before you yeah but that doesn't that's not what I'm saying so that're they do understand they're working with a builder that's also built in Allendale they understand the requirements fully and they understand the size of the house that can be built yes I I just it's it may be something that makes sense or not I know you were trying to keep it the subdivision within the tax map does it make any sense and maybe our engineer can can look into it where the rear of the lot you have one lot that's 98 you have one that's 77 does it make any sense to to maybe even them off so that it lessens any of the potential problems I know you you try you just followed a line that was on a tax map and I don't know Mike if that makes any sense to because the back the back lot of lot five is 7758 and lot six is 9826 so they taper so I don't I mean lot six is is more rectangular whereas the other one is kind of a little skewed does it make any sense I know the tax map showed one thing but at this point would it make sense to potentially make it just so that they're the sidey yards are going to be the sidey yards and they're going to be consistent with each other as opposed to maybe one being smaller than the other don't I think you know I think the line grown out of convenience replicate maybe maybe not considering splitting the only because it's 20 feet usually you see a subdivision where it's maybe three to five feet but this in the back is is 20 feet it may offer the opportunity for I mean short to doing the calculations substantiate we we don't generally exactly I'm not looking at design it I'm just want if we create something to the applicant for consideration the the squaring it is that impacted though by the direct by the orientation of West Crescent like I'm talking more in the I mean the back I see what you're saying back is there's different dimensions there yeah I got it the front's very close just five feet in the front and it might be something that the engineer would probably again it's it's to Mike's Point it's a consideration at this point it's nothing that I think would make a tremendous difference but I don't know if it makes sense just make sure that you know they say I'm just thinking about you know when you have that variance that comes before you where they're seeking a variance for like 1.6 feet and here we have 20 potentially eliminating a VAR in effect you're maintaining the almost the current depage requirement on West Crescent but you're dividing it so you're in essence you're strifing the angle of the bot line me again I would I would prefer your professionals because ultimately they're going to be taxied with the with with doing uh all the math we can we can do that if that's the desired it was it was purely to mirror the Tex existing counselor excuse me I'm sorry councelor you want to take five minutes while this board breaks that would I would greatly appreciate and we can get an answer to that board member's question I think that might be helpful we may have a U if his professionals can say we can we can make this happen and by the way I'm not due back to the assisted living facility to the uh Vian table till 11 so you have plenty of time I know better than that Mr all right five minute break yeah actually like talk I'll make yeah did you say yeah I wanted to see with these guys I talk to Jo back it was good question no you think with that double lot set the bigger never they'll be a quart million doll landscap it just again what are you I mean you know what people don't understand there but that's only 10t on the one side yeah see it get show I mean there's not many in town you can and I was worried not [Music] know what they do be what I want tolight mention and the kind of make sure they stay stand up here make all right L you ready okay all right everybody I'm gonna restart or continue I should say the meeting [Music] um Linda you know just just to make it official just do a quick roll everybody's back please thank you Vice chairwoman Bergen here board member warala here board member Patrina here board member Garo present councilman deloo here board member here chairman Sero here mayor wasinski here won and Butler here okay right counc yes we can go ahead all you counselor you've been given some opportunity during the break to speak with your professionals do you have a response to the pending question Andor a recommendation what we wanted to do is uh Miss Tran wanted to give some just an brief analysis on what can be built there based on using the dimensions out shown on the plan and then she'll comment briefly on why necessarily moving that lot line won't accomplish what the board necessarily thinks could could be accomplished I think that's trying to address the comments okay go ahead so we don't we're all good we start we're good we don't have to on you're on okay mon thank you so um I was getting I was hearing from the board and uh the impression I think that what is built here will need a variance for sidey setback or some other aspect of of the of what could be built here both that they're both homes exactly yes you would you're projecting that they would need variances no I I'm saying what I hear from the board is the assumption that that is the case that's what I'm hearing sitting in the audience that that may be case I just wanted to talk through what the dimensions you're seeing are and you all should have this plan this is the one that shows the building envelope with the setbacks shown so I talked earlier about our hypothetical 3000 sqare foot home and I just choose 3,000 because it's neither too small nor too big it's just sort of you know you could see somebody building a brand new home and saying 3,000 square feet is a good number I could see it at least but in any casee it's a nice round number to work with so over two floors if you were to have this hypothetical home the building footprint to create 3,000 square feet would be 30 feet by 50 feet you do 30 feet time 50 it's, 1500 over two stories so that's where you can get 3,000 square feet of home you know you know floor area so we're thinking about just conceptually a 30 by 50 foot home I just wanted to point out the front setback that's shown here and I'm just going to try to draw on this exhibit draw along the front yard setback this is 35 feet so if we use this Dimension as a reference point for our 30 by 50 foot home making one on each lot and again this is completely hypothetical I think you could create a box that could be similar to this the short end being 30 feet the longer end maybe being 50 feet we know that there's 70 feet between the two side yards so that's a 3,000 foot home and again this is very rough I don't have a ruler anything like that so when we talk about now going back to the the gentleman's question what if you square off these Lots at the rear because you know then you won't need a variance for sidey yard setback and my comment excuse me my comment is that I think the change will have almost no marginal benefit because it just doesn't even come close to the areas where you might put a home given that there's vegetation back here I don't think it's logical to assume that the homes you know you're trying to squeeze them in to these footprint areas um so I just wanted to give the board that reference and obviously there's no dwelling being proposed so you don't have a plan in front of you but just for reference I think there was maybe the Assumption or the idea that the Builder would have to come back and would just need a variance and I just don't see that being the case on these size lots that are one and a half times but they're required to be in this Zone despite the width uh deficiency I don't know if that's helpful if you have any questions for me at this time but I just thought that that might be a helpful kind of demonstration the D Minimus if anything yes that's my yes the Minimus so in other words the recommendation is to leave lines I think that there mean to put words in your mouth but I think that's what I'm hearing yes I would recommend leaving the lines because I think the change offers almost no um practical benefit to what somebody might build and that brings it back to conforming what's already in the text map exactly for that correct and it's keeping two lots of almost similar size instead of making one larger than the other type type of situation board members questions comments okay I don't see in here I'm going to bring it out to the public am are we good with oh Ed I'm sorry Ed thank you engineer I'm sorry none okay public I'm gonna open it back to the public this witness what you just heard okay seeing none bringing it back to the board discussion no discussion I just think uh you know to Mr show tannis's Point the fames that she's talking to I just hope they clearly understand that if this does go through tonight that we as a board will be looking for them to fit a home within the criteria so I just you know I don't like to turn people down so I don't want to see a nice young family come here and I got to tell them no doesn't fit and we have done that a couple I know we have we have done that I've been on the receiving end that this tries to accommodate but there are certain things that we take into consideration um Council uh guidance please go ahead you call for a motion Mr chairman I unless there's a discussion that precedes it I think everybody's had an opportunity to listen to the testimony I'm not sure what our role is here the issue of water and some of the other issues that came up is that not a valid discussion point for this ruling I guess that's what I try to get um well I mean I way the way the code is set up someone is putting and and you know when we look at other applications most of those types of issues are addressed through the plot you know even if someone is looking to put up an addition right that requires we'll hear the testimony with regard to the variant that's we s for into the setback or front yard coverage something that doesn't conform with zoning requirement and quite often then they receive their approval here at the board the way the code is set up if they're building a new home or they they're increasing covered by more than 500 square feet have to then file the pl plan approval which then include full grading the drain calculations that get submitted for revie but the client who is selling the land doesn't have to do that when they're just selling yeah they're not you know technically right right structure really isly that's so Michael I think I think what I mean if if if this goes through you have two people building a house okay there's no variances needed it comes to you you do all the things to make make sure that the water is mitigated just like any other down reild same situ okay okay and it's only just to be clear if there's any requirements for variances that's when it comes before us that's when we do our ideally if this gets approved tonight in an Ideal World you'll never see this piece of property again because then will file PL plan that's F right [Music] and by your office without any touching of the board or counsel or anybody else yes great that answer does that does that help you any yeah it makes it simpler okay okay so having heard that um is there a motion on everything that we've heard for this for this property uh to be split according to the tax anybody make a motion so Mr chairman based on the test testimony and the discussions we had I will make a motion for the fact that the lots are already technically two lots uh provided testimony and the applicant you know understands that whoever the potential buyers that she fully discloses that we are expecting that homes be built that fit in the neighborhood fit the property and are going to enhance the property to help with existing issues that neighbors have shown concern about so I propose and presumably the conditions that are set forth in the engineers correct all of them yes I was getting to that is that what the motion would exactly and anything to that have anything you have anything your no so everything in the engineering FL everything under the sun everything in then that's it okay do I have a second second whoever okay second I'll second all right um Lind can we have a roll call please Vice chairwoman Bergen yeah Bo member Wala yes board member patrino yes board member golio yes councilman delisio yes board member d y chairman Sero yes mayor wasinski yeah yes thank you I'd like to thank the board for their time I appreciate your P thank you we appreciate your time and all the presentations that's right live right by thank you see you tomorrow night be from to that kind of EAS was going to come at you so no one so I mentioned I like I think I uh put my foot in my mouth you know all right that's what makes a wa what world thanks a lot appre good thank you all right everybody I would like to bring forth the next application which is file number ladies and gentlemen could you take it outside please we're starting another hearing thank you application file number 2024 d08 Donna and F deck 34 glay Avenue Allandale block 9913 lot six addition to allow for an enlarged kitchen and living space additional garage Bay and three season screen porch uh front yard what we're looking for is a front yard setback variance against 27057 B so how are you I'm well how are you good good both be testifying know sometimes he talks let us do this my my fear not my fear my expectation is that you will because if he doesn't do what you want him to do you're going to supplement both raise your right hands and be sworn and state your name and address all deck 54 gray Avenue donad de 54 gray Avenue you both to tell the truth all truth and nothing but the truth in connection with this hearing this evening yes he thank you and a quick summary why are you here what do you want to do well we have a uh in a regular lot and uh it's bit under sized we wanted to take our mid-century home and make it a little larger we plan on staying in town we've been here for 30 years I'm a northern Highlands graduate by the way and uh so we needed a little bit more space we don't have the ability because it's a front back split we don't have the ability to go back there's no way to enlarge it there's only one way and that's forward and off to the side okay and it encroaches on uh the setback the current setback right um so we're seeking a variant you provided to us pictures plans whatever Linda asked me to do I did she's great you're the best Linda we think so too yeah I if you wouldn't mind not I we need to say it for the record as part of your submissions you had an obligation to submit a certification the tax collector's office that taxes were current correct did you do so yes we did you did okay so as you stand here and provide testimony or sit here and provide testimony this evening you've complied with that requirement yes and we have okay uh because the statute in that would apply does require that at least it be on file uh in connection with any application or any approval uh and the condition upon the certification that taxes are PID so I just want you to understand that no cosos are given no approvals are given unless we have that I understand thank you okay so basically with what you want to build you're looking current the current structure you're roughly 25 A2 this on the side now I'm referring to the side uh by where you're proposing to put or where your existing garages yes okay you're roughly 25 fet existing with the exist with the addition of the garage and the porch the shortest distance will be 15 feet 18 feet with the uh with the screen porch okay um with the work that you want to do in the front you're currently at 32 feet you are requesting to go down to 27 and a half and we did a setback study of the of the uh Street as well and submitted that okay um board members I'm gonna I mean let's just have a discussion here so I open it up to everybody to ask questions that's I'm okay so board members we all know what to do we all know the questions please okay so you're so your um the new proposed sidey setback will be 15 fet which is in compliance yes and that is in compliance using the what we were just talking about in the other application with the the multiplier yeah the only thing that isn't in compliance is the front right corner of the house which needs to come forward a couple feet so it's so it's probably triangles maybe 10 square feet okay but the rest of the house is in compliance with the backyard setback and the side yard setbacks and you're adding um onto your garage yes make it a two-car garage we have a two-car that existing today we're going to take half half of one Bay of that garage to create a hallway to give us access to the screened porch in the back of the house so we'd like to add a second garage to be consistent and then in the front you're also what are you doing there just bumping out the house to create more space for the kitchen and the living room yes so we're making the kitchen a little bit larger by coming in coming forward and currently there is a front porch in front of the living room and we're going to basically take that front porch space and enclose that to make that part of the existing living room currently you have one big Bay or you're proposing my uh two singles it'll be two two sing it'll be two it's single now so the design of the new front of the facade of the house is to be consistent with the neighborhood we're not looking to blow up the house make it you know non-conforming to the neighborhood we're going to make it consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood it's a small home to begin with it's less than 15 1500 square feet so we're just you know looking ATA roughly 200 50 square F feet of living space in the front of the house and then the screen and porch in the back which will not be a Four Season screened porch it'll just be a screened porch that'll be used you know during uh warmer temperatures I noted that in the pictures you're showing it um to where you're proposing to put the G it might not be the exact it might not be the exact location but I see you have a car that you're already parking to the side so now just essentially covering it correct you know for sounding simple but essentially yes and what is there's a is that a a ra you have a stone row wall there so and then a wire fence so on the other side is that um a rear backyard of somebody else's house no it's actually runs along the um PSC and G eement you're okay you're e yes you're not proposing anything in the front corner it's that's existing that got triggered because of the additional space is that why repeat that please so you're not proposing any additions in the front corner where the issue is are you there's we're just bumping out pumping out pump out yes they pump it that's why we're here is that variance typically the code requires 35 ft but in a provision in the code that says that you can average the front yard set how's in the area so you take a look at that that average front yard set back establish 3 so on their plan the dash line show and then the front right corner of the building they have that represents the addition and like the applic indicated that little triangle piece in the front right corner that's I don't know exactly how many sare feet not not many not many is is what encroaches into the calculated 30 foot yard so did your architect looked at maybe reconfiguring your layouts you oh we I have all of the variations of plans yeah none of us none of them actually gave us footage around a center Island um that would accommodate a wheelchair you know we plan on living here you know until we can't and so we have to accommodate for some space and movement around aging seniors my parents know that well I've been putting this out for quite a few years so I and I you know both Mr hacket and myself did have conversation along the way you know once this need for a variance was identified uh time was spent I think by the I can confirm that time was spent by the architect trying to avoid coming to the board whatever reason they rather provide testimony he wasn't able to come up with the solution that was satisfactory I mean that's appreciated you know our board we always ask that what was your what was your other plans to make sure that it's you know because we've had applicants come in say it's what I want and that's the work I want right you know we always like to see that you did your homework in your research because you know we don't variances are for situation we have no options so I'm glad you explore a retion yeah we just wanted to be able to have a sit down dinner be able to have you know some space around to move around the kitchen and it just that's why we're good you always like to hear that right sure oh yeah we always do we always want to hear that um um before we go f Michael again I'm just going to I'm going to ask you to go colors finishes idea everything's going to be seamless the addition isn't going to be finished anything different than no we're redoing it everything needs to be done any exterior lighting proposing I imagine uh we haven't we haven't really gotten to that point in the planning however I imagine we'll have soft lighting uh currently we have eight bolt around the home that really lights up the proper pretty beautifully but um I imagine we'll have stet lighting and uh front door lighting and so forth and we love our we love our Street Lamp I mean that makes a sense reason we explores that is want intently in addition going up withing on neighbors or things like that nebor um and then I I I pointed out in my memo that there's some what appears to be existing since Beyond property and obviously the board doesn't have jurisdiction to approve those so if this was to be approved by the board it may be worthwhile including some language that the not or improving do you understand that that should approve your setback variance request it does not mean that it is approving previous encroachments understood understood Prett much okay that's pretty much it are you adding a chimney in the new screen of porch or is that we're thinking about it it wouldn't be a chimney it would it would probably be a either a pellet stove or a um wood burning stove a wood burning stove you know just with a it's not going to be a stone chimney or anything like that gas we we're considering gas but I think we're going to go with with burning some regards any roof leaders on the new bution right we always asked and I'm sure you know Mike mentioned that as well we don't like pitch towards your neighbor's property for any drainage run off we want impact your neighbors know things like that any lighting you do have long as it goes down not out neighb yeah the actually the pitch of the property um runs off away from my neighbor so we've never had a water issue on the property Michael you don't see any issue waterwise no um and you know because they're going to be increasing covered 500 okay and you you understand I do yes okay we do board members further questions okay I'm g i I'm sorry just real quick it seems that with any other alternative with your kitchen you were likely going to be pushing the addition closer to your neighor corre yes correct you would have gone in that direction wouldn't have solved the squaring off of the kitchen it not not at all so this seems to be a better also from a public yes we did consider that and we did not want to encroach any further into our neighbor you know we do like the the distance that we have the setback between our home and their home and we didn't really want to move the kitchen any closer to their home thank you sir Michael no more right good no nothing okay Ed we good done okay board I'm G to open up to the public uh any people any any uh residents in the public people in the public here to make comments sir please if you wouldn't mind coming up your name Richard Moon thank you I'm sorry Richard Moon of 99 titis Avenue uh and my back I my home is um to the south west of Donna and Paul's house um and my rear yard uh kind of um Buffs into the side of their yard and um after hearing what their plans are um uh I don't have any um issues with their seeking of variance and I think um during the entire home renovation and the audition would be probably a a positive upgrade to the street and to the street facade as well okay all right thank you thank you thank you very much okay anybody else in the audience okay seeing none bringing it back to the board further questions no um you have a comment please so you know your lot is I mean this is exactly why you have variance because there's not much you can do on this correct yeah you know this is exactly why people come to see varant because there's not much you can do with big triangle that you have I just want to put that on the record as a comment thank you we also welcome comments especially positive ones from Neighbors that was unsolicited better even better even better just for the board's consideration in the record this is a odd shaped piece of property it's located at the end of a cck right so there's not much in the way of impacting the streetcap as you drive through and also you know they're looking for a front yard setback again on F sack where street is wider there's probably additional separation from anyone across the street versus the difficult situation there's some unique characteristics of this application given the configuration the lot where the lot's located in the fact that there a separating them from the property across the street so it's a combination of a hardship and B the unique or um unusual configuration and topography of the property that would justify the positive criteria for the variance relief would that be a fair statement Ed thank okay so board members motion for approval I'll make a motion to approve second thank you or any discussion on the motion one Linda please Vice chair Wan Bergen yes board member Wala yes board member krino yes board member B Aro yes councilman delicio yes board member D yes yes CH serito yes mayor wasinski yes wter Butler yes so the next meeting we do if you heard me at the beginning you did the resolution for magros yes okay we do that at the next meeting okay in the meantime all of this is going on you can start to get everything together okay um we we recommend that you start until the resolutions completed next meeting that's fine okay but you can start to get yourself ready okay our next meeting is I believe it's the 17th you don't necessarily need to be here it's just okay understood um is there anything else I missed I think that's it okay well best of luck I hope you never need the wheelchair need wheelchair thank you you very much thank you thank you okay uh board members oh we open up the meeting now to anybody else in the public who might want to make a comment okay seeing none bringing it back um the only thing that I have here I have two two requests please I know that most of us if you haven't done it please do the storm order okay I finally did it yeah very long it's long okay um I also no actually I have three things there was um something also from coband computers there was some else thank you cyber security okay um and that's it I also I I want to thank everybody because everybody's here tonight thank you very much I just have one request um please try to get back to Linda I I know I know that there's a volunteer board and things like that but please try to get back to Linda in a in a in a reasonable amount of time this way we make sure that we have a qu especially in the summer I know things are difficult I know we have holidays graduations etc etc um and I want to say how much I appreciate especially tonight we spent a lot of time here tonight going through this thing I appreciate everybody's time and all the work what was done I just want to do one final thing um two final things I know we've been going through a lot of stuff here Paving we're doing you know the town is doing the best that they can do and I also want to thank uh mayor Amy and whoever the rest that the crew were um especially Andrew 2 I think Saturday night was I really do okay thank you I really do I think Saturday night we had a d on the Dell thing and I thought it was I thought it was great my great I hope it I hope I hope it helped okay any other comments anybody okay I don't think everybody heard you with your first requests about this storm water and coin okay got to speak a little louder sorry all right well we have we have the storm order that's all been passed out please do the course please please get it off okay there was their course okay and then there's a cyber security that cand computers put out there that we have to conform with so please do that I still have to do the coand thing I did this stor order okay um I think that's it anybody else have any comments no okay everybody motion close thank you second okay all in favor I thank you good night everybody see you on the 17th