okay the first thing we need to do this evening is to designate a chair All [Laughter] Eyes call the meeting to order like to read the public meeting if do that no uh this is a regular meeting of the fair planning board adequate notice the meeting has been given pursuing to provisions of the open open public meetings act at this time of the board organization in January of the past year the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year notice of the schedule was sent to and publish in hasur par press on January 6 2024 Two River times on February 1st 2024 that notice was also posted on the bulton board in burrow Hall and has remain continuously posted there as required by the statute the copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of the bur clerk a copy of the notice has also been sent to such members of the public has have requested such information in accordance with the statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary directed to include the statement in the meeting minutes of the meeting uh roll call uh Mr Borton here Mrs Bush here M Scot here Mr here Mr pello Mr Vault Mr nicka Mr Anderson Mrs anony here Mr Bailey here Mr BL here uned States any old business do we have any old business to discuss I believe so okay new business would be the application of pb22 4-01 I pronounce this correctly is it co four four sorry problem we take care of a couple of housekeeping things all your witness ask stand our Witnesses too stand SAR so we swear or affirm the testimony given before the board the truth the whole nothing but the truth yes I did okay just my general instructions um before you start test everybody sit down before you start testifying um state your name for the record spell your last name that way because recording if you have to have a transcript made of this that transcriber will know who was speaking at that time okay second for the applicants folks all the directions of your Council we're going to take care of some uh housekeeping items first so smoothly I have marked with your permission Council A1 the application of February 2724 also the minor subdivision A2 um I think that's plan A minor subdivision Plan B was a three uh these are both prepared by Insight engineering again date of February 27 2024 I also have our Engineers report of the signature Rich uh pb1 our planers report CCH excuse me the engineers report is 314 pb2 is the planners report from CC over the signature of Mike Sullivan that's dated March 15 I also received just now or just this evening a report from Insight dated 318 2024 which we will Mark as A4 so if we have any other any other documents for we Mark um just what's on the board here we do have the survey okay survey let's mark the survey is A5 what's the date of survey please 224 looks like 24 hold on let many glasses do we have stockage of [Music] that the only date on it [Music] is Pur 1222 24 yes okay you want A2 A5 I'm sorry and the date on it just A5 yes please and again that's prepared by Insight correct okay we did not receive that no okay any other exhibits you have here the proposed subdivision this is no anything that we haven't already marked yes the one behind that you have there's an aerial photograph okay aerial photograph we'll mark that A6 uh is there a date on that March 19 2022 March [Music] 19 not to fix how you described that exhibit may I confirm uh Sheila that we have jurisdiction in this matter yes okay we have jurisdiction any other exhibits we have some photographs taken by the applicant that he'd like to okay how many photographs do you have I believe there are five copies of five each four there four there's 20 20 four photographs four photographs and then copies of those there five copies of each photograph okay so we're going to Mark the five photographs four four four photographs excuse me as one packet A7 um can you represent to me that they depict various views in it about the property did you take I did yes the picture of the property yeah specifically the the porch um focusing on the porch section of the the property and a ACC AFF the current conditions of prop that's right okay so we'll mark that A7 photos any other exhibits I think that's it thank you I will I will advise you that we did receive a writing from uh I guess a neighbor I'm just going to mark this for identification um make a call at this point in time this is a writing just Mark for identification not going into evidence this is a writing as of March 19 2024 from Lea Vali expressing her views on the application um one of the difficulties in this and is that when you present certain evidence before this board though the technical Rules of Evidence do not apply words this is you know there's not a judge here call it you know objections or those tyes of things but evidence has to be able to be cross-examined and in this instance so we will market for identification as part of this record I'm going to share it with Council he can decide if he wants to have that come in but technically unless Council agrees to it because you can't cross examine this letter uh we should not be considering but I will give it to council let see let take a look at it I assume the whoever drafted it is not coming tonight correct that's correct I should have put that on the record as well let me share that with you thank you this has not been given to our board members understood um you may not have any objections to it if so we'll just read it into the record um [Music] no we're supposed to decide if we want the board to readen us I mean means anything so but I mean uh [Music] yeah smell the smoke from here John it's just confusing because it doesn't you know right because Hy protective gate really doesn't deal with the subdivision which is what you I think it's confusing so for that reason I just okay then why don't you put that CH in front of your table in front of you at this point in time we won't be okay um if I can let me just give you a little workshop quickly the applicate this evening is Su and certain Relief by way of a minor subdivision one into two uh principally the both criteria are I believe they're all conforming and it's a conforming use it's in the R5 Zone okay um they are not doing a site plan which is why I anticipate that you're not going to see proposed views of structures it doesn't mean that you can't ask questions about what what the applicant is planning to do but really we're just here is is the subdivision conforming and if not what variants should we do or might they need I do want to address one another issue because it was a topic and I know sometimes this gets gets back to you because you've seen some of the planners reports and you've seen some of the engineers reports um this board is Board of limited jurisdiction as you know we clearly have jurisdiction to here subdivision one of the issues that was raised was whether or not the applicant needed a relief by floor area ratio okay if the applicant floor area ratio relief that would be a d variance in this African would be would be obliged to go before the zoning board adjustment in typical fashion in planning we use some terms that sound a lot alike we have maximum floor area there's no ratio maximum floor area and I understand that they may need some relief with regard to that that would be a c variant just both variant in other words that the total amount of floor area we'll have our professionals address it exceeds what we would normally like to see so they technically need various relief um I will first let the applicant identify the relief that they're seeking this evening um and then let them have the floor but I just wanted to highlight that for you because I know some of you get on the board like when you start hearing you know floor somebody just said floor area what we're really talking about is the maximum not the ratio so we have Juris taking a look at the question our our planner raised the issue uh with us and I believe we also have a writing from Insight that I I believe the app will address that was what was Mark A4 that was given to me this evening I promise I'd get out of the way Council I'm GNA get out of your way thank you very much okay good evening everyone my name is Brad bat I'm an attorney I represent Scott core who seated to my right sworn in a few moments ago he's going to be my first witness tonight just tell you a little brief overview of what's going on U my primary witness is Bob HUD Hudak um who is a representative from Insight engineering and he's going to give some planning testimony to you so the one thing I just want to point out before we start is we we we submitted our appli a little bit unusually you might not have seen something quite like it in that we have plan a and plan B but please make no mistake about and my client's going to testify we are seeking plan a the only reason B was even there is just to give an idea of what we believe we could do by right um the goal here is to preserve house that my clients lived in for many years and build a new house on the lot next week so with that um just want to ask the applicant if you questions um could you just describe uh for the board you know just Council if it's easier for you you just be seated if You' like okay no I appreciate that um uh little bit about your experience with the house and what your plan is here tonight so my experience with the house is I've been I've been trying to move the family to fa Haven for a number of years um we had actually tried to build a house around the block on 55 for Street um through no fault of our own we were basically put in a situation where we did not have a place to live because of our Builder and basically this house saved the day for us so it's that simple anyway um I don't emotional about it but because exed and because we were able to bid in in an environment that was very difficult to to bid in you know to to be here in this town as you may know it's very difficult to to compete with um other buyers to to acquire a property we were looking at rentals I am I a blue collar worker I don't have the ability to to Really um throw that kind of money away we were able to acquire this lot through some help of a family this this house in this lot through some help of family and uh basically it provided a place for us to stay when we really needed it and um the house is a nice house it's not a little Cape C that needs um you know that that is that Is straddling a lot line that obviously needs to go I feel that it's a it's a sufficient Quality House it's built well it's um we bought it from the original owners actually the oral owners owned it before us from from from 1959 I believe she was 96 years old when she passed um from the you B from the estate so um anyway it's near and dear to my heart as far as that's concerned I also think that it's in a unique position where it's on the side of the lot where this can happen and this does conform and I believe that there is a good argument to be made that that the house should stay and can stay and and um in Le of potentially building two new houses and and disrupting the neighborhood further not that I'm going to be building two new houses I don't have means to do that but potentially that somebody else could do such a thing on on this lot so basically that's the full disclosure version of what happened and before we get to the next question let's get these pictures of they're already marked in Mark A7 these are four photographs copies do you need additional authentication or what you did before it was acceptable I I'd like to put that on the record now that he okay sure um so why don't you take the photos we start at the top and just describe each one and then we can hand them out to members of the board so they can take you want to have them in the board's hands yeah we I think we're going to be able to authenticate okay yeah I mean I uh I apologize for the last minute I just felt like it would be helpful to get a visual of the of the house specifically with regard to the yeah I'm going to ask you question to about the ports I'd rather have them see those for sure sure so so again you want to start with the so the the first picture here is a a picture of that's a picture a straight on picture um Facing East looking at directly at the porch from A Smith position standing on standing on Smith Smith 90 degrees can I approach the sure okay picture number two so um this is standing at the corner of Smith and Parker and a wide angle view showing basically the frontage on Parker and also the forch as it as it relates to the rest of the house okay next picture these are these are just other shots um somehow I guess SAU but basically other views of the same is thect this is the same picture they supposed to I guess they printed I asked them to [Music] print so as a part of this application um we we proposing one small modifications to the home which will remove a potential setback variance um that we would have had to request except that we're going to make the home conforming and that is there's going to be a modification to the porch so could you describe to the board that modification so to make this as um as as presentable as possible to the township um I I I realized that the porch as it stood was an existing violation of the setback off of Smith it's 23.7 ft instead of the required 25 so in the process of looking at this as a subdividable lot what I'd like to do is um basically correct that setback violation so that there's only one variance really being sought with regard to setback requirements on this lot I also think that by adjusting the address from Parker to Smith it would need an elevation change um to make it look to to to make it sit correctly to to put the front door there and it the way that the house is that's a porch anyway so it it lends itself to that um was actually a back door that's why I'm confused I thought i' prank this picture I apologize for that but there's a back door on that porch um that can easily be made as Ingress and egress off of Smith um with the proper you know when that elevation is changed off of Smith so what I'd like to do is basically if you could just imagine lobing off uh the required 1.3 ft to make the front face exactly at 25 ft and um put the put the door in there and and and basically make it look like it's supposed to be that way another thing that I was considered and the reason why I um didn't go any further with this because honestly everybody that I spoke to um up to this point was like oh I don't know I don't know if they're going to go for that I was like how could they want to R house it's a good house you know what I mean and uh they're like so I said what I said was maybe what we could do is we could change the the roof line to make it match the rest of the house as part of the modification to that porch if that was something that was required I would would be willing to work with the township on on what they would uh you know I'd be basically be open to to suggestion there as far as what they'd like to see to to make to let the house remain but your plan for for the record is we're going to remove 1.3 ft make that the front door yes and that would be therefore compliant with the front Okay thank you and just to be good that's the front yard setback on Smith that's right of the existing and that's 4 point it's it's 25 right now there's 20 there's 23.7 so there's 1.3 ft adjustment that the applicant has agreed to modify so that we be complying as a part of the application okay um I'm going to be bringing uh our planner up to go through the engineer's letter and the planner's letter but I think you you wanted to Before I Let You Go you had one or two points um that you wanted to comment on with the engineers so part of the engineering letter specifically paragraph five say that there should be new sidewalks installed um along the Fage of Parker and it should be plan I think the question you have is since we did submit plan a and plan B is this an engineering requirement regardless of which plan is adopted and your question for the towns engineer is that true yes there were actually three different topics yeah let's do one by we're a little out of order here but you want me to jump in is that we're here yeah I mean if you're feel comfortable I mean rip make more sense so to start at the beginning though of your report well the beginning I'll ask the question you want to do it that way if it's easier to to digest usually what the board likes to do is follow along and I completely understand this was a little different just because my C had asked could we touch on these things we'll bring him back sure he's right there yeah he seems interested in the project but before we dive into this one thing I want to make clear and I put it in my report they did submit two plans for purposes tonight I reviewed the plan that has the existing house I did not review the other plan I'm sorry to say again the existing house yes plan a plan a which is really the one we have a but Le is literally a fall back like if it doesn't work by rate we could just have you know two mons empty sure but this is plan a is really what we're here for to so thank you for that um all right so uh next we're going to have a Bob hudek from Insight who is a planner and we'll be providing a planning testimony have you appeared before this board I have not appeared before this board however I a license professional planner state of New Jersey all my licenses are current I've appeared before numerous boards in fact last night it was in Rosel Park um I've appeared before in M County numerous ports including Eaton Town Oceanport Long Branch and Middletown most recently and you'd be presenting him as an expert in what area planning planning have you ever failed to qualify no okay accept yes can we accept them as okay thank you thank you um so you have have you reviewed a copy of the burough Engineers uh report regarding this project yes okay so can you take us through the comments some of them indicate the testimonies required and and and others have just some questions that I think deserve a response okay I think I'm going to go for it systematically again I'm I'm not an engineer I'm a planner a little bit different with the engineering report but I'll start at number one on page one um we talk about the two plans we've already discussed that we're looking tonight for plan a not plan B um number item number two the plan indicates the front door of the existing dring shall face Smith Street as you've heard from the applicant we are proposing making a change there that's an existing non-conforming situation here on this property we're making it conforming eliminating any kind of relief we would need for that that item just maybe add a little information why that's going to become the front yard because of the way the because of the ordinance the ordinance I didn't I was again my planning test talks about that but no Rich you brought it up so I'm going to go to the survey right now this is the existing lot this is A5 this is the existing lot it currently fronts on Parker Street and the reason this is is because the ordinance states that it's the shortest front yard actually because you actually have two there yard adjacent to a street it qualifies the front yard the front yard is on Parker Street Parker Street current Parker Avenue I apologize for that one of the comments later is about correcting this we'll be corrected So currently it's on Parker Street when the lot is subdivided as you'll see in the in the plan for this project which I'll go to now the shortage Street Frontage becomes Smith Street therefore this property will now have a Smith Street address this we will see changing the address for the property as well from Parker to Smith Street with the post office and obviously the interior lot will also have a Smith Street address there was a question which I'm kind of jumping out of order here about front yard the actual front yard setback whether it will be bailing or not we did do a study the aerial came out terrible so I don't have it with me you could not read it unless you had a magnifying glass but essentially the only properties that would qualify as counting towards the prevailing loot coverage or the prevailing front yard setback are these several properties here and then one property of these two properties here on Smith the prevailing front yard setback on Smith is 21 ft it's 23 ft I apologize 23 ft and I'm Parker is 21 so we show a 25t front yard setback which more than qualifies item number four concerns the curbs and sidewalks I don't think we have any issue with complying with that certainly there are new curbs and sidewalks along Smith three we had three too just a minor one but oh the copy of the W syrup letters yes yes they will be the utilities for the new building will be the new structure will be underground item four again the Cur and sidewalks we will comply item five again as we mentioned it will be required regardless of whether or not the subdivision takes subdivision plan a where Plan B occurs or is approved I understand there's some cracks actually in this in the uh in the curve or in the side walk I should say ter um regarding number six our client will actually get a tree removal permit I don't think there's any issues with that with have no problem complying number seven as I understand the property has been on Municipal Water and Sewer for quite some time can we back up to six walk through the history of that a little bit I think done to file a permit at this point in time um paperwork matter but I know I think the owner can speak more of that than I can did you file this is concerning the trees the removal the brushes and So what had happened there was um this is on the the north side of the lot the the neighbor stf Consulting the business um at ncf Consulting facing foran he was looking to install a fence a new fence because the fence was being engulfed basically by the uh the brush that was there like an uncontrolled brush situation we were actually away for a few days he tried to reach me I was unavailable so he just opened up like a like a I don't know six foot swap going it needed to be done anyway it was a mess really I didn't even actually know that there were trees in there until we finally got it all the way down to all the poison ivy was gone and all the the roots and the weeds and everything else I don't know if we have show show I mean this is it's it's it's in this area here unfortunately the yellow basic the the northern in this area as much as 25 ft of the northern section and closer to maybe 12 or 13 feet here but the whole section of the property was compromised this tree Still Remains there were two to your point uh rich is that there's two there were two um trees that were buried in there that were uh uh I guess either dead or dying and covered in poison ivy um so when I when The Neighbor cut the the SWA of five or six feet I had my landscaper I said listen can we just clean the rest of this up because it looks like it looks like garbage done just to give us a time this year probably last year probably when whenever he installed the print on on Forman it it's a for that for corn forn a lot whenever he did that it was right after that cuz actually the guy who who did the fence work for him Wilson he um he was the one that did the landscaping and that's the guy that was cutting the grass for me as well so I said hey could you just clean out the rest of it and there's a little bit of a language barrier between myself and him um and I didn't even realize that that would become an issue I didn't even know that I mean once we got it all cut back I subsequently applied for the permit um I for that I did not no no I did not that was my that was my error I'm not going to sit here and give you a different story that's what happened that's how it happened but to the extent that you need to apply for a permit so we can get our paperwork in order absolutely whatever is required whatever just for purpos of this record and I I don't need to step into your Council but the document that you were referencing for purpose of the record is A6 the applicant was pointing along the dotted yellow line line in the shared property line between himself and the property owner to the that's to the north northwest to the north thank you sorry thank you my apologies so we will comply with that as noted by the applican item seven and again the the property owner can speak more of this as I understand the survey property old survey depicted a septic and dryw as I understand the property has been in the again the property can speak more on this the properties had City uh Municipal Water and Sewer for quite some time we didn't have anything on our records of any kind of septic system again you know in my report as you saw there's a that that was survey we had on file with the burrow I'm really bringing it up to your attention because if this gets approved and a house does get built next door they may find us we to deal with and you have to deal you have to deal get a copy of that I gu we have a copy we have a copy in the report which we appreciate but again just so the generally as a condition of approval we'd want separate services to each one of the Lots is that going to be a problem to do that no we we're talking about separate no we're first of all this was a historic old system that just might be stuck in ground but the the existing home has public water so and the new home will have public water but your office hasn't probed around to see if no not no not it's just a matter of digging it up at some point and getting rid of it okay it's still there like the set shows itself and again it was arguably 40 50 years ago when it was connected so we have no record of the connection no idea what happened at that time okay so we discussed the dryw provided on each of the lots that would be required regardless of whether we went for plan a or Plan B now would that be uh subject to the new the new construction clearly needs that would the existing home needed if there was a grading plan that showed there was no runoff because it's an existing would that be subject to a dryw necessarily would it be to the I'm asking for it because it's part of the subdivision it would be nice to capture some of that runoff okay could your satisfaction if we were able to show that yeah we can make it to to my review and approval okay subject to my riew and approval just so you understand generally the condition of the of the board is that you know dry wells should be located on each of the Lots after consultation the engineer and the board may have some questions on okay so my comment was strictly to the existing home not not to the proposed new construction home I got you okay but thank so that so if if down the line you your says okay I agree with you it's not going to be needed that's fine but if he says no it's going to be needed I don't want to surprise yeah that's the language we we're expecting very good number nine is Amia culpa will be corrected number 10 and again the property order to probably speak better about this issue than I but the uh the ownership of the various fences as you indicated before there was some activity there I believe neighbor put up the fence is that correct yes we're burning again theal a A5 A5 refering against A5 the north I'm sorry A6 A6 the northwest corner this this um stf Consulting when he installed that fence I know that he owns that fence obviously because he just install the white aluminum fence that starts at the northeast corner and runs South and then over to the driveway uh of Parker I believe that that that's ours but it's it's very old it's in decent condition but uh I believe that that's ours and then I believe although I'm not sure the only thing I'm unclear of the section of fence it's it's a green chain link that runs between for lot 1.01 I believe that that's his I'm sorry I believe that that's 1.01 uh rear yard F I don't believe that we that yeah I was to say well the survey indicates that the fence I guess you want to call this what the Eastern property line that appears to be on our property the chain Ling fence along the north Long lot 1.01 appears to be on the airlot you indicated that this is the new fence is unlock one and I'm referring to A5 survey see see the fence it indicates within within a half couple inches so they're basically right on the line but the only fence that would be ours would be this fence along this Easter easterly property line correct okay all right answer question yeah I just it's better to get this out of the way now before things start under construction and then the buyer of the house wants to replace the chain Banks or or whatever the case and then nobody knows anything and then we're stuck dealing with it so you don't want the phone call which I totally understand yeah so now let's move to number 11 at this point again we about the grading plan and that will be required regardless of whether or not to go with plan a or Plan B and we're fine with that number 11b with the uh no letters of no interest from Freehold soil and the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority we have no objection to that again 11c objection to ensuring that uh the RightWay permits are obtained 11d obtaining tree removal permits is necessary absolutely it appears on by May on the proposed new lot there will be a tree that needs to be removed again that will be when at the time of construction permitting I should say 11 11e the payment of the tax M provision fee no objection there 11f complying with subdivision notes is there a specific note that concerning to you is there anything specific on that one we go on um proposed tax yeah well they're all you're basically saying you're going to file by DED talks about the uh the survey it talks about it's some prop get property quarters to establishing the fields the tax lot numbers to be approved by tax assessor we talked about the front door because of the dwelling facing SPI Street and then there a common trees rather than regurgitating all that I just reference General yes sub okay are we good on that this time what you want me to go through no I'm just basically saying you need to comply with those notes and do the work that perform has has indicated yes yes we're agreeing to that just just one other thing I don't know if we cover in enough detail maybe the the engineer could weigh in on this you mentioned that there's going to be milling and Paving on Smith Street and so I think the applicant was in interested just to know um if there was going to be any particular deadline what's required specifically from the applicant there uh by way of that comment for does does it have to be in by a certain dat we know when this work is happening and what what what would the applicant have to do Visa that worse so yes uh the burrow this week or actually today just completed all the concrete work out there we are in the process of doing the restoration s is delivered to the burrow tonight we're going to start sing all those areas that are Disturbed and then eventually we're going to have a Mill and Paving grw come in most likely not for couple months or so early summer so the one thing we want to stress is if the subdivision gets approved you need to comply with the street opening ordinance the street opening ordinance was recently revised it will still fall under a road moratorium but there's certain steps you need to take and the problem is with a subdivision you can't stub out your utilities at this point in time the utility companies they won't all allow like the gas company will not put in a meter or a stub for a meter until a foundation's in the ground so you can't say all right I'm going to get ahead of it and bring everything into the property prior to the burrow milling and Paving well we can do is I can try to hold off milling and Paving and do this street we've got you know 40 different locations throughout the barl give or take so we could schedule it so I can you know hold off as long as possible and and and that's exactly what I was um looking to to address um we would look to work with you to to do it as quickly as possible so that I'm like a perfectionist when it comes to that I hate driving down block and if you see like a patch like they just pave the street I don't want to see that you know what actually the Water Company's going to be doing the payment because okay so the water company put in a new main last year as part of the coordination efforts we were able to get this road in this this year's Road program to put in all new curb and ada8 ramps so then we can Mill and pave water the water company utility company will now come in and Mill and pave which is in accordance with our street opening uh ordinance and you'll have a brand new Street um they're waiting for us to finish other sections of the burrow okay but they are anxiously in fact I did receive a call today from them to see where we were with everything so their subs are lined up to get the million Paving done you're right it's tough to see a road get opened but um we're going to have to figure it out you know and work through it so I mean we want to do it I guess anything on our ends to expect the process to to make it a clean a clean sweep for for the new road yeah um with with regard to the new law basically right right you're really looking at you need to tie in water you need to tie in gas right and oh separ Lins for everything you could probably get sewer you're going to have to go to them anyway to get your approvals you could talk to them about trying to get ahead of that you can talk to the water company and see if they can at least set a meter pit stub it out the gas company is the one that you you really for safety reasons you can't and you know based on the rules and rights but you don't have it exact they when the paving is going to ur you don't really now um I could say this summer which will be here before we know it so but that could be June it could be let's just keep the communication open take a look at the ordinance see what the requirements are and we can continue the conversation that's fair yeah okay thank you that's very fair I think that concludes your memo which I don't think there's any other items you have those you have any add questions um the only other thing is I didn't mention it but on the plan they show that they're going to be um they're proposing a site triangle eement so that I think they did Mark it did they they marked it so we would just need a description yeah Mark here y you need to me some yeah we'll need a we'll need a meet some bounds okay you know along with the Deeds obviously we're both y okay um so I think the next thing we're up to is um the you you want to address this first yeah we'll start with that okay so earlier we marked into evidence I think it was A4 a supplemental letter that was prepared by insight and circulated to the board yeah so could you uh discuss why this was drafted and maybe a little bit Yeah essentially there were two reasons one in light of conversations with your board attorney to discuss whether or not the variance qualify as a c variance or a d variance I think your attorney did a fine explanation of that so I'm really going to jump into the second portion which is the floor area calculation we use the Assessor's C and the calculations for the principal building and it it's clear that you're over the cap but you're not over the F itself the F requirement in in the R5 zone is 04 currently we're at 02 and if the subdivision is approved the existing house will have an F 38 and that's actually rounding up a little bit so we're well within the F what is the cap the cap is point uh is 2200 square F feet so we're at around 2786 and and just to clarify that 2786 was kind of a generous number based on what the assessor has on the based on the exterior of the home and it also includes based on the new version of how you define square footage uh the basement includes the basement yeah and a portion of the garage which was 336 correct um so without those two I believe the assessor card was which I've attached attached to this is 1898 of liable yes so you know it's a modest house when you factor all that out that's correct but it's a split level half so a portion of that basement is above grade and so under the current ordinance it would be categorized as part OFA right so that's the relief ofing which is a c variance where according to calculations there's 2786 we 2200 correct thank you um any questions on that from you guys before we move on to the planning letter okay can can I ask a question Mr chairman sure temporary chairman may I ask question don't um for the record I'm Michael Sullivan with Clark hint I'm your planner so it's nice to meet you um I have a question um regarding the house and there's been discussion about switching the entrance the primary entrance to Smith Street to avoid the technicality of the variants that would exist there what it what remains on Parker Avenue what does what does the house look like on Parker Avenue whether it still be a walkway to a a door will there still be a door what does that look like that would be effectively the side door so for visually there's no change right there's no change to the facade there's no change to the walkway it essentially looks the way it does today correct what would the change look like on on on Smith and that modification there's a couple i' be willing to basically work with the town on what they want to see but basically as long as it's into Conformity um I I wanted to make it look aesthetically pleasing so we have to reect it by 1.3 ft um what I what I would like to do is I would like to make that roof line match the rest of the house so that way we're on the same elevation and um you can you can enter through the front door on Smith and and it wouldn't be as much of a break in the um from the main living section of the house to the other I'm really again when I when I approach this um I everybody said to me they're not going to let you do this they're not going do this so frankly I'm not a I'm a an average Gel really when it comes to this type stuff I I um didn't want to go down the hole of basically spending money on on on plans where they could potentially just be thrown in the garbage you know um I didn't want to do that this this this process is expensive as you know um and um I'm basically open open to um suggestion here where we could work with the town and get something that's going to going to look right and we can go back and forth and uh from a planning perspective you feeling it's essential to move the door there or not no I guess I guess when I look at this this is an existing house an existing neighborhood at a scale that fits the neighborhood yeah all the mass of the house is pushed back to the back of the lot and it kind of comes down as the split level does towards the street so when I look at it I don't I would feel that if the door were removed and the walkway removed from Parker Avenue that might look odd right because that's where it's I don't think that wasn't right that was my only question are we going to create something that's you know out of sync with the neighborhood just to int and purp it's going to look the same with this you know bringing that back of foot 1.3 feet okay you unless unless the board feel that the way it looks now is is okay they would need to Grant a 1.3 foot variance and and I think the app can be be leaving it the way it is speaking completely frankly I wanted to keep the house exactly the way I didn't want to do anything however I acknowledge the fact that there was another variance here on the side and I didn't want to S the we had an ability to cure it easily by pulling it back 1.3 ft so that was the decision that was made but if we're hearing suggestions that that's not necessary and the board was inclined the grand variance that's also an option but are you if you kept it exactly the way it was is there going to be a higher elevation above that porch so it's pre-existing without any modifications and there's no exacerbation by going to second floor or anything like that you're going to leave the house as it is correct yes and that even goes to the point of should mean I'm just going bring up anyway I mean I think I saw somebody cringe when they said well it's been 65 Parker for 65 years right and then now it's going to be something on Smith and and is that necessary I'm willing to do whatever I have to do to save the house is that that's up for to you guys to determine basically let me ask the question to our profession that would be a design them as opposed to a variance or is that in our zoning section it's going to require a variance that's going to require a variance because it's a front yard setback but it's on a corner isn't it correct but it's but it's two front yards under the ordinance so it would require and it's a new lot so it would require variance Rel for that well it required two front yards before correct so that's an existing pre-existing now you're putting a lot Lin down asking the professionals at this point in time that's still an existing even though you know how to Lots but I'm I'm saying I'm focusing more on that aspect of our ordinance which says it's the short that require is that is that in our zoning or is that a design it's in the zoning it's in the zoning okay for the purposes application the rear and side yards flip that's correct corre so that's what's triggering this discussion on having a Smith Street address and that becoming basically front door I was just trying to see what the I just trying to see what the L was encroach into the front Y which is PR is is that speaking to the address or the front door itself just the address right the front door well the front door as well door have to face that street okay so that's the way the front so then I think we'll keep it the you know we'll amend our app application to include that as a variant it really you know as you can tell the applicant why don't we hold off at this point but we're happy to you're you don't have a yes yet so agree and again I'm not trying to jump jump the gun on anybody I'm not trying to upset anybody but I'm just saying that can be a topic for the for the board discussed with with the recommendations from our planners and the engineer but the just to end that point the applicant is open to to both verions of that we might seek additional variances if that would does leaving that additional which my calculation is like 2.32 square feet is that going to affect your I was just running the numbers that your memo it's not really going to affect them very much we're actually under the um 30 number yeah we're f is somewhere in the range of 37.6 37.7 so we round it up obviously so 21 Feet's not going to matter at all okay okay thank you so do you want to go through um Mr su's letter first I I mean essentially what all the items that have brought up in Mr Sullivan's letter I'll go through it my testimony on if that works for you again kind of made my case already we miss so I'm going to try to truncate this a little bit because I had a lot of discussion on what we're doing here but I think we really understand at this point what we're looking for is we're looking for two variances with respect to what would be the lot 31.0 where we have a variance relief for well now three items I I'll include the front guard setb I'm referring to the proposal which I don't think we marked I think it's already in evidence we're looking for the the cap if you will we're above the 2200 sare feet floor area that's required in the zone that's an existing non-conforming condition at this point we're not looking to change that we're looking to keep the house as is as you heard so we're looking for a rear yard setback variance because as your engineer pointed out the lot changes with this subdivision this becomes the front yard and what was previously a side yard would be become a rear yard therefore we'll need to seek relief for the rear yard setback which would be what required and what is so the requirement is for the rear yard setback is 30 ft we're at hold on I 18 yeah think 18.8 we the side yard setb current again we're not changing anything here and then the front yard setback was 24 we said it was for change it was 2 23.7 I take that back I stand correctly 23.7 so those are the items we're seeking relief from you also talked about Street trees as well being a design exception so has noted the lot is around 7,000 is um I'm sorry get my math correct here we'll have two lots each lot is conforming lot 31.0 01 will be 7,382 square ft where ,000 ft is required minimum for Corner Lots in the zone proposed Lot 31.0 2 will be 6,654 square ft in area where interior Lots require a minimum square footage of 5,000 sare ft as noted we're looking to keep the existing house on the lot so with respect to the Burrow's code AS noted um we're changing essentially the lot lines will be changing from the what was formerly a side Lot line will now become a rear lot line and that's essentially why we're here tonight seeking that relief go into the C1 variance at this point the hardship variance I'm sure you understand that variances under this criteria typically granted when relief must be based on the exceptional narrow narrowness challeng or shape of the property location of legal existing thereon or other exceptional situation affecting proposed development that results in practice difficulties or hardships in our case I would argue that it's an existing house respectfully um we want to maintain what is existing there is again we're not exceeding F but we are exceeding the cap it's currently exceeded the house is built in approximately 1959 well before uh the the cap requirement was required there's just practical difficulties with changing the setbacks they are again the subdivision itself is as of right to do that in order to maintain what's existing we would need the relief I argue under the C2 criteria known as the flex C criteria the positive versus benefits I I'd argue there's actually a stronger argument there because it keeps the existing streetcape it keeps the house intact the existing dwelling is functioned for a long time as you've heard without incident and really and truly the existing setback when you call a rear yard setback or a side yard setback to lot 30 which is the adjacent lot here will not effectively change there is no change at all so they're not going to see a change in what they're currently seeing further there is um you know this this will further the aesthetic purposes of zoning in my opinion it'll keep that consistent streetcape the neighbors won't notice any real discernable difference with respect to that setback keeps a desirable visual environment as well so it's my opinion that the benefits of keeping the dwelling on the lot outweigh any detriments I really don't see any detriments because there's nothing really changing at all here and with respect to I know there was a question about Street trees I mean we there aren't many Street trees to my knowledge in the area and really the standard for design exception is reasonableness and I think reasonably to add additional Street trees would not be necessary of course any variance cannot be granted without satisfying the negative price criteria that the proposed plan will not substantially impair the public substantially there will be no substantial detriment of the public good and the proposal does not substantially impair the intent and purpos of the master plan or the zoning ordinance again this house predates the cap on the on floor area there's no real substantive change I notice taking a ride around the neighborhood there are a number of houses that are actually larger than this house so I don't think there's any change really or anything that's going to affect the Zone plan if you will the existing Zoning for the lot I think the modifications that we're proposing here the subdivision again that's in line with what's permitted under the under the ordinance so I don't think there's any any detriments really to this application that I can really speak of so essentially that's my testimony okay thank you very much a couple question so um how large is this lot relative to the other Lots in the zone and this neighborhood this lot is more than double those lots um the existing lot you mean yeah it's it's 14,37 Square ft and the and again the corner Lots require 7,000 s ft and interior Lots require 5,000 ft minimums so in terms of uh appropriateness of scale and density from a standpoint of this the the sub Vis addition of a new dwelling unit or home and this would be consistent with the neighborhood fabric yes and in terms of the purpose of the zoning which call for the appropriate appropriate uses in appropriate places this is an appropriate place for residents yes single family Zone will maintain the the requirements of Zone and in Fair Haven and in generally New Jersey is there a need for he yes there is yes okay thank you other questions any other issues I don't think so I think I think you covered most of them I think the only issue that I saw is blaring was the trees but that was it not exception reasonable which I think again as you know in your report they aren't any adding them what we add to I mean I'm a landscape AR too so I think trees are good so that we noted on our plan that we would be willing to add them so if it's if it's something you want to add we can certainly there there's two aspects to that there's the easement that's required and the trees that are required so um and which tree are you which trees are you taking down we asked the question and you know we we've got a 42in oak tree in the middle of the site we've got a s more that looks like it's about 24 which is ose I'll let you answer that question because you have more knowledge the little one's not important to me you're talking about these trees here on the on the existing lot more than likely verbalize verbalize where you're pointing to on the exhibit A5 I'm going to let you answer the question now and if you want to mark it you can Mark Mark it on there if you have a highlighter so on on a five the only tree that would need to be removed then that would be the one we'd be seeking to remove would be would be within the building envelope the 42 in tree marked 31.12 that's 42 in over yes correct and so in terms of protecting the sore which is closer to the sidewalk this one here no no no it's closer to the existing home no no on the on the new line this one here yes to the front are you able to I mean as I recommends conditional approval that at least that tree be protected and uh through construction it's still got it's still got 50 60 years this one this one here yeah I mean I just I I wanted to keep it so that um the with regard to the to the other lot that was bu inform according to what the town is looking to accomplish I have no plans to remove that um I think we can work around that so I will I would be open to that yeah I think the only the only tree that I see that really needs to be removed is this one um purpose of the record Sor 42 would be the one that's removed in the center of the property would like to keep or you would like to keep that one would be removed the the planner had asked about the syamore sore this is the 16inch syamore right is it 16 right the reason the reason I asked about I'm just trying to get the description I got the syamore is so that was that was an estimate it's laed here 16 in tre is that the it's the the diameter the okay in one year I mean my my intention was to and again we have to look at this further my intention was any new dwelling would be a North a North Side uh driveway so to your point I don't see why that would have to come out um okay so any other issues I don't think I have anything outstanding the report be C was covered any further present we don't have any more witnesses or presentation at this time any questions I any questions from the board yeah anybody questions comments uh I have some concerns about the trees that you're that you've taken down and are proposing to take down and I find it a little bit unsettling that you just went and took some trees down with the house going through the top of toel and I am not sure we can't Grant you a variance for taking that tree down that you want you're going to have to go through the right channels to get permission to take the tree down you have to go through our tree expert and there's no guarantee you're going to get permission to take that tree at no we we don't have the jur as you correctly pointed out we don't have the jurisdiction in terms of from a from a planning perspective and I think from site planning I think you have a right to know what who's proposing to do and and make comments on those things we certainly don't have the right to Grant you a treat removal permit and there may nor we're not seeking what you're not seeking that M but but you're going to have to understood we would have to apply and I think the record reflects we'd have to apply for a permit for the removal of the one tree that um in the applicant's opinion would need to be uh will that tree um that we're talking about in the back the 42 in tree will that be on the new lot the proposed lot it is on the new lot it is on the new lot yes both trees are on the new lot right correct both the ones we're talking about this evening on the new lot and there's a a tree north of that as well there's another tree a little bit to the north shown on there yeah I'm assuming that stays um like you said the the driveway most likely will be north of that so maybe that tree stays as well right yeah I mean there's enough room there to the driveway I'm looking to disturb as you can see disturb the property as little as possible um I can't that one we're discussing that that large one unfortunately it's got like root structure that goes like it's very very large so um that's the only one that I was really looking is that the you'll seek independent independent yes questions the chair yes um I had a question about the dry Wells um there is a long history of flooding on Smith so um unless there are drywells there I I do not see how and drywells in the existing and and the existing and in the proposed I think um there's already a problem and I would be very concerned about um putting more hard surface in the area so that will be less uh uh less surface for the to percolate down so yeah I would really say that you need to put drywalls in both the existing and of course the new structure would have that okay and Rich can speak to that the flooding on Smith we've been working with that for years uh I also have a a question about the fencing you you indicated there's three different fences on the property but you're not quite sure who they belong to at least one of the fences I mean I believe firm can't believe if you move I deal with this every day when clients are buying and selling homes people don't know whose fenes they are we know if they're on their property or not but you unless you have some ability to look back to the person who constructed it sometimes you don't quite know these fences are all within inches of the property line we can tell you based on the survey that the fence along the northern side is on the neighbor's property so you would argue that that's that neighbor's fence but it could have been mislocated by uh the applicant who was in installing a prior owner you know if you put it in yourself we know what you did but sometimes if it's the type of fence that doesn't face the right direction like you know the nice part faces the neighbor but when you're dealing with a chain link fence sometimes or or stock a fence they're pretty much the same on both sides so sometimes it is difficult to tell and ma'am to your point the that that fence in question the the pretty side does face me and it's also an older galvanized chain link fence that predates that owner and myself so I believe that that's the case I really have no way to confirm that so we suspect it's the neighbors because of those two reasons but we don't have any personal knowledge of how you know who installed it do you know whose property is it on your neighbor well it's on it is on the survey survey does show where they are located right who put it up we don't know right the one property it's on this one is is shown on the survey that it is on the the neighbor's property by 05 six Ines half a foot and they don't actually have a reading here but you can see just by looking at it it's over oh yeah 08 here and7 so it's it's on the neighbor's property both f is in the rear and as I understand the neighbor and L one didn't get a just just for purposes of the refence just give me a direction on give me a direction along lot one on the Northern line the fence on the Northern property line is on the neighbor property both the chain link and the vinyl fence and then the third def is on the Eastern side fence on the Eastern side is on the property line for the most part they don't give a distance off so it looks like it's pretty much right on the property line do you have any information Scott about whose fence that is on E side that I believe like with 99.9% C these hours only because it continues the same F continues along the E property line and it continues and terminates right at my drive makes sense so so I do believe and that one's right on the property line but again these that fence two was probably 30 or 40 30 100% sure I got a question as part the plan that you guys have currently in front of us U with changing your Frontage to face I guess that's Smith Street the like you asked before the side of the house then that's facing Parker the existing you would leave like you said you would leave the front door there you leave the driveway there as well correct okay and then no changes to the roof line then if that's you were speaking about changing the roof line I would to what we discussed before I would prefer to just keep the house 100% 100% as is you know not withstanding maybe siding changes in the future but uh the appearance of the house you know the elevation and the roof line all that stuff keep it the way is does your address change regardless of whether or not you put a door there I don't know the answer that question my experience has been the post office and and the towns have different perspectives but this is a surely zoning this has nothing to do with the post office or where you put your mailbox or anything surely a zoning we we've had this issue come up over and over and and the the post office you the federal law trumps to the town whatever the Government Federal Government wants to do about what your address is we can't really fight them you want on that I the post office wants the mailbox on the street it's on the street it's on yeah I usually fight with those guys so I'm still a little bit on clear about that are we at a point where we're not going to move the front door or we still have to move the front door I think we were looking to the board to perhaps have an opinion or discussion on that point because the applicant is flexible he's he's proposed a plan that's before you to um I think we have to move the front door either way um it's just whether he would you know take off that front um if we don't move the front door we would need variance relief in order to not have to move it so that certainly would be welcomed by the applicant but we're before this board right now on the application that we will comply with moving it so we don't need relief for that we will move it back 1.3 feet so there will not be an additional setback variance it's it's a one the applicant preferences if you don't have to do it then just leave it as it is and rather do that but it it does it does bump other variants I will tell you that in my reading of the of the notice that that's adequate because it's sort of a give and take as to what's happened during the course of this this hearing um so I think I think you can you can grant that relief um I think there was adequate for that purpose because there's what I would characterize as catchall and such other relief as the Bulls bonds necessary that's what you explored so that's available to you so we'll talk among ourselves okay yeah I would just say that that's probably the most confusing part of the testimony so far is is your your testimony was very clear that keeping the house intact is positive and the owner is a tested he wants to keep the house intact yet you're talking about what looks and I'm looking at it on street view here as you're talking about it and it to me it would really change the appearance of that corner if all of a sudden you're trying to direct foot traffic to that side I'll call it the side of your house for now um whereas it just sounds like you might need to tweak your language and you'd actually all the dominoes would kind of fall in line you know what I mean like it the house would stay the appearance would stay I think that would look good you know aesthetically from the the street um the address is a completely separate item and and now that we're hearing this from the planner and some comments from the board we're on board to do that and as as Doug mentioned our notice suggested that any additional variances that the board might suggest or professionals um would be available to us tonight can I just add one thing the I do not want to modify the porch the only thing was I was looking at this people like they're not going to approve two variances to keep this house the house is not gonna that's what they told me that's what everybody said to me I said I want to keep the house so what I Look to do was to present the most um correct form of the house so that it would stay even if it meant a minor modification instead of a demolishing of the structure my personal preference is is not that at all I want to see 65 Parker on the door and I want it to stay that's it okay right so if possible can I ask you a question and I may have missed this in your testimony uh the new proposed lot what would your new rear yard setback be everything on the new ones fully comp it would be a fully compliant rear yard setback of 30 30 ft so from from the back of your house to the lot line would be 30 ft yes yeah but it will change the side yard that change the the everything with the new lot is going to be fully your question are you talking about the new lot I'm talking about the old lot the old lot yeah okay the lot that you're looking to to keep the house on maybe for purpose of the refer to that as the corner lot and the other lot that's going corner lot the corner lot so uh that's the one variance we're seeking because because of the ship it would change that to be it goes from it's 18.8 ft right correct and what's existing and uh 30 ft is what you're required right is there on the north side of the house that would now become the sidey setback corre for yes and what would that be the side yard setback actually is 7.7 feet where 7 ft is required so we comply IM we comply yeah the only set back issue we have is the one in rear that's which leaves you very little property you know on the side you know on that corner around your house the eastern and the northern corner it's pretty pretty yet it's because of the placement of the home right but yet it is an oversized lot it's 77 front of the house right yes that's a fair comment understood I had a question about the streetscape could you talk about the existing streetscape on Smith because as I understand it there are no other lots that divide it up in this way um as I driving down Smith it's two and two and two houses I think our aial shows there you have the house of worship here you have this lot which actually fronts on Parker directly across the street again it's a narrower lot it's more the proposed lots are more in line with the size of this lot similarly along Parker these are long narrow Lots here as you can see there is one lot here that appears to be similar in size to this lot although it has a much much larger house on it agree okay but the other Lots in the area seem to be more inline with what we're proposing rather than the existing lot um okay I'm not sure if I agree with you on that it looks like uh in my reading going down Smith it looks more like there's um a house or so in each one of those block when we looked at there were some narrow houses down there as well in future yeah that's what yeah that's what I'm thinking anything else from the board Next Step would be to open up to public I believe or because we've got testimony interx I don't think there's any further presentation from our planner any further presentation so we've covered that just from public yeah I mean before we even get there I mean I think I think we should discuss a little bit more if it's worth changing the entire View and streetcape of the existing hous he wants to stay completely there okay fair enough any public comment yeah step forward please state your name spelling your last name purpose of the record Brad Mo you Mr Moore would you spre the testimony G before the board be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and spelling your last name is m o o r e correct first name is Brad yes thank you um I think this proposed plan the front yard becomes somebody's back like that's where you're going to barbecue what I don't understand is why we need to have like a giant thought on Smith when you only need 15 fet and so like everything then the House on Parker retains everything and then you could probably saving some of these trees and then you know the house par is really set a shorter back but if otherwise I you know I think we're we're making combinations to make a goofy house and uh with a weird lot and you know just seems a little weird for the neighborhood but I I I don't understand why we don't do 50 ft on SM it just makes more sense else want to have a comment step forward please state your name please your last name for the record Josh Hal thank you J L RN clarification do trees came down already when when your neighbor had that problem we talked about when he came home the trees there were two trees that were along the neighbor property line I believe that's I thought there was only one that picture that believe that there is two small so two trees that came down there another tree that we suggesting would come down on the new property so that's three trees as it relates to how we calulate clear cutting of the W is that accurate Rich possibly yeah we we haven't gotten a formal submission on L there definitely looking to plant a new tree to compensate for the one that would be taken down if that's the case so so where where I think I'm going with this is you know trees have obviously been a very very [Music] um isue um I just want to make sure that we're not bypassing the two trees when we just talk about the one tree after I don't think one tree is going to survice and I think that's I'm just getting ahead of that so that the discussion is had now and it's understood that when it comes before the council if there is some sort of relief that's needed at that time that the council and the governing B is most likely going to impose the entire tree ordinance on the out thank you so he's referring to if it's considered clear cutting or whatever number of trees were removed there's possibility that it has to come before the governing body for an appeal because most likely treat permit that gets submitted after denied reles to the work that's been done because of what happened with the as it relates to the prior work that was done without a permit and then whatever the applicant is proposing right we haven't got anything formally submitted have plan that shows that's not before this board to well we're just making you aware of that that it's something the something happened in the past we've had we've had things happen before us where somebody took somebody else's fence down you're going to have to make it right one way or the other that's what the ORD is for the one thing too and one of the board members mentioned tonight we keep hearing the word I believe I believe I think the owner of the property should know what what happened and the purpose of being here tonight is put that on the record that's why I brought it I'll do my report that's why we walk the property we look at everything as it relates to a property for subdivision so um I think there's some clarification that needs to be done there and some additional work that needs to be you know taken care of but I think the testimony was that it was you know very thick brush over there and and it's a part of clearing the brush the were treeson doesn't recall exactly what what that was I think a lot of people go through I've heard people in town jump through hoops in front of the council to make sure that they're doing the right thing I think the issue is is the right thing wasn't done here that's what I'm hung up on because it is a process to get trees removed correctly it didn't seem like it was done this this way so problem and and I don't think it was the traditional like I'm GNA cut my tree down kind of thing and let's go I think it happened in connection with clearings and brush was the testimony with the neighbor and learned about you know after the fact and like oh gosh I guess you got to do this you know people make mistakes my client obviously didn't stop what was happening and hit pause and go back and get it done the right way and was kind of initiated by the neighbor so I understand you concerned but you know that's that's what the testimony that was presented today do we know real quick um what the condition of those two trees were that were taken down I mean I keep hearing about brush overwhelming the area on that side what was what what an anexpert opinion of what this condition of those trees were I have two small children they're three and five and the we would play in the backyard here and there was so much poison ivy back here that the one landscaper didn't even want to touch it and it was wrapped up around the tree I believe the tree was dead but by the time was it it was exposed you could actually see it once it was cut back so I you know and then this entire swwa it was it was 20 for purpose of the record talking an aerial view up near the northwest corner the northwest corner But continuing along the north property line toward the east corner almost the entire thing with the exception of the northeast corner did a tree there I believe it's a cherry I'm not tree expert but I believe it's like a cherry tree or one of those type of trees which was not touched all the rest of this was was I was concerned for my for my kids going back there and it was it was a total mess it needed to be um looked at anyway and the neighbor putting the fence in kind of just like ProMed that and again I apologize for well no Ju Just to your best recollection to the question that was asked you've mentioned a cherry tree you've mentioned some brush how many other trees do you believe will remove I believe there was only until I believe in Rich's report that you said a second one I thought there was only one stump that I believe was the one that was totally wrapped in IV and I just and and to your knowledge they're both ill trees right correct that's correct the whole prop that whole area was like do not go there it's scary for the kids that type of thing yeah Pi that's the one I remember the other one okay if you want to highlight what you're referring to so we're looking at the the attachment to the engineers uh letter dated March 14th um that was marked I think is P1 yes pb1 pb1 the very end of it there are two photographs and at the bottom photograph there's a stum that and that's the one that I recognized that was wrapped that that appeared to be decaying and was wrapped from stem from from top to bottom in Ivy and uh and I didn't think it was I think you can look at the St and probably have someone [Music] DET he's going to have to Grapple with that with that'll be you know to the extent that you don't have any recollection of any other trees besides this one okay the engineer made that a condition I think the app said they're going to address that I do have some omitted questions I wanted to ask by way of proofs if I could um you understand that and if you don't or if there's a disagreement that separate utilities serving each of the properties has to be placed in the utility plan will reviewed by our engineer yes okay um I understand that you're going to comply with the New Jersey coordination act either way by what map or D yes okay um that in this instance the I guess the extension of certain facilities are not going to be at the expense of municipality but the expense of your client such water line okay um you did mention that you're going to have to do some I believe your PR mentioned that there's going have to be some grading on the site we submitting a grading plan with the request one one of the burdens that the applican has is to demonstrate that you know any that there's not going to be any adverse effect on drainage we didn't hear anybody give an opinion with regard to drainage at the site and or the drainage problems is there going to be I do know that there was some one board member mentioned is there an opinion with regard to whether or not the changes that you're proposing will adversely affect rage inight we don't show any on our plans so I'll say no okay we're also stipulating that we will provide a greatl for the bur do you have an opinion as to whether or not the develop this side will affect adversly affect any further development in and about the area I'm assuming the answer is no because it's fullly no the answer is no um have any portion of these lands that are involved being involved in a minor subdivision within the past three years I'm seeing shaking your somebody say no no okay thank you I can't um thank you Mr chairman any other public comment no public yeah close public discussions by members of the board I I do want to highlight some of the relief that that's necessary in this instance you've heard I'll leave you the items I think you already you've already been need to discuss we have that discussion and we'll come back out and we'll frame a resolution one way or the other but I do want to the applicant did discuss C1 variance that's a hardship variance I think that's generally applicable to the existing structure that they want to maintain the site they do get a benefit to demonstrate that that's hardship um now self created hard C and you're putting down the lot line down the center uh to the extent that they have presented testimony that that new side yard if you ask ask to put sure that that new sidey yard that you have now between the two lots leased upon the testimony that's presented obviously you don't have you don't have what going to be present built there but they at least have testified that um with this variance relief and I'm assuming they would agree that they're not going to need any further Varan G that they can build something that's conforming and that the both sidey yards there are going to be conforming to your Zone requirements um the other issue that you have is because of the placement of the existing house and because of now the new side yard lot line that discussion of flipping as to where the rear yard is makes that you reard non-conforming so that's something you're going to have to Grapple as to whether or not that's that satisfies the hardship criteria the other criteria that was discussed and I I In fairness to the board I think we need to amplify what that talks about is what's known as the flexible C or C2 variance um in that instance with regard to a C2 variance Arch doesn't have any it doesn't have anything to do with Arch and because it's not really based upon the individual Property Owners hardship or the conditions that exist at the site in a sense what you're looking at I'm going to read some of the words from the court is does this new plan have a benefit to the overall master plan in our development regulations you heard some testimony about character of the neighborhood you heard that it's going to be residential to residential um our New Jersey Supreme Court in cin versus planning board for Warr and Township um speaking on the general concept of C2 variants stated that by definition no C2 variants should be granted when merely the purposes of the owner will be Advanced the grant of approval must actually benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property the focus of the C2 case then will not be on the characteristics of the land that in light of the current zoning requirements create a hardship on the owner warranting a relaxation of Standards but on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improved zoning and planning that will benefit the community so in this instance the applicant is presenting to you an oversized lot and saying that we by dividing up a lot and granting me the variances that I've asked for will still keep a resident but residential house that's in existence but we will also be able to create another conforming residential lot in the area I leave it to you to decide whether or not how it's being designed is consistent and I think you can look to the aerial and say okay how are other properties not only on this block but facing the other block where they'll be facing in and about the area I believe one person already identified that we have some discussion on that again as to the other criteria every variance is to a certain extent a detriment to the Zone plan and Zoning ordance but the language that you Bound by is a substantial detri does represent a substanti because every every little tweak that you have for the variance it's not conform that's why you're here you have to say whether or not it's a substantial detriment and based upon what the applicant is willing or or ready to do concession I look at those as little chips you know if you having nothing to do with this application but let's say you couldn't provide a buffer between two houses because you were nonconforming as to a side yard lot line what was the applicant willing to do maybe it's a fence maybe it's AR green ARB those kinds of things to ameliorate the the negative impact um the applicant has gone through the engineers report and the planner report and I believe I I don't recall anything that they said that it's not they're not going to comply with those it's going to be performing I think you need to discuss whether or not what they're proposing is a substantial detriment because it's conforming use pretty much conforming lot except for we you know ideal if you could move that house and just shift it one way or the you might be able to do that you've heard the applicant's preference for we trying to keep that there as they can but because of the nature of the subdivision they have to flip the rear guard and that's non-conforming and it I they didn't really discuss carving off anything off of that but off the backside I don't know that that's a practical reality so I leave that for you folks to discuss about that I leave that for you to discuss what your thoughts are with regard to you know the additional variance that you would be granting if the applicant doesn't do anything to that Corner lock porch refer to it that one they say on SNL Talk Amongst yourselves share your thoughts this is this is what you is it too late to ask the applicant a question it's not too late to ask you no no I don't think so um Mr Moore brought up um uh a point that if you kept the new lot at a maximum of 50 ft which is required by zoning that would make your new sidey yard step back wider correct the Norther side it would make the corner lot side yeah um would that save the tree then the tree would straddle a lot it would yeah that would make it very close I believe it's right I know that the root structure would definitely travel out and to your point I definitely looked at where to draw the line per se and I thought that giving the most evenly spacing the most the most even spacing that you could to the Lots was more important because the corner Lots by nature of being Corner lots have to be slightly larger their their mandatory minimum is 7,000 square feet versus the interior is 5,000 so what I was trying to do is just kind of make it as close to even as possible with still keep creating the deformity it would have been 60 um 65 and 70 is what I was looking at but with the POs with the position of the um the Mechanicals on the back of the house the air conditioner on the back of the house um that extra foot was needed to create and and that's how we came up with 71 it wasn't an arbitrary number I did look at at that um and I just Tred to keep it as even as possible can I ask a followup question on that with the proposed this is more of a planning thing with the proposed width of 64 our ordinance has a provision about an oversized lot does that allow them to increase the floor area where the home for R seven and a half so there's a there's it's in table C I don't have it in front of me I don't know if they're planning with that so if you have an oversized cable C or a attachment three in zoning referen that would increase above the cap that would increase there's a potential that that would increase above the cap for an R5 Zone which is currently 2200t [Music] I know the side yard there's a sliding for every but I think there's a provision in there regarding area which would mean the potential Rick regardless um of wanting to make the door B mid Street if that was the route they decided to go we're leaving it existing as is the property since is being subdivided meaning the shortest side is that area that he was talking about putting a door in that's going to be the front yard no matter what we decide to do here right by code Now by zoning right even though front really going to be facing other street is well he's he's going to have by definition yeah that's going to be the designated front guard he's got two front yards shorter corre so definition whether you show it a 50 foot wide lot or a 60 foot lot for the interior the corner lot the rear yard will become what is now the side yard as you see it guing side rear on Parker Avenue than you do on Smith Street what defines the the names is the is the and that's and that's that's that's that's our function of our that the shorter is your FR but in terms of granting the relief we're in a sense saying I don't know that we're changing that that's anything there other than he wants to maintain his front entrance not do that it's almost yeah yes but technically the way the house is currently sits on the lot and is used the back door is really in the rear of the house you know behind Parker uh which by definition I'm assuming I'm assuming and I'm not asking that but I'm assuming if you grant him the relief not to have to do any modifications of the house he's he's going to enter his what he considers his front door and his driveway from property like like existing I don't think anybody really I don't think everybody's gonna know you know same you know you you'll have that idea but and for purposes what we're doing acoss and eyes to make sure that if you grant that leave I'm not say you grant that you know he has done what he's he has carried through on his paperwork and done everything he was supposed to do right the question now is regards to this far now it's based the question was offered by the engineer ask question repeat the question my question was there was discussion about size of the lot size and the lot based on the current proposal does the applicant have the administrative right to build a larger home than permitted in the R5 Zone since there is a provision I believe in our code that allows them to go up to the next Zone and if so do they would that lock meet that that PL so the answer is no they do not have the right to it only applies to existing lot it only applies to and that's no 10 oh it's 11 it's 11 if an existing residential existing residential lot contains lot area lot width and lot depth compliant with the Zone above it on the chart it may be constructed uh in compliance with those standards so since this is not an existing lot it does not follow the note 11 right would not apply and we could we you would unless there unless there's a concern or objection you could you could address that a matter of timing you know you could add it to the resolution we can add that to the resol that was a good mental exercise if it was considered what is the what is the square footage then you're allowed to happen I'm sorry I said if it was if it was allowed like like a rich sign or if you can build bigger what is the what is the limit or square footage B of that if that if that provision did apply right if that did apply the next Zone above would be the um R 7.5 which requires 75 it also doesn't comply with the comply with the lot size even if ex that right it have to comply with the frontage and the setb in the if it did it would be so Talk Amongst yourselves I mean I feel pretty strongly at the front everything St stays as is like it I think I think it's going to look silly to put a front door on the side with the front door existing in the driveway like I feel pretty strongly that it stays as is I just have questions again about the street skate on Smith this really does make Smith more de you're adding um a whole another house whereas in the existing Street gatee on Smith it's deeper yards a garage parking lot of the uh uh place of worship so it does change it a bit and I've already mentioned that I'm really concerned about how how would that be that would be the they buil two forming right right that's that I think that's that's that's where you're trying to Grapple because I think that's what the applicant has presented to and said look you know by right if I if I don't get this relief here is by right what I'm allowed to do right unless there's a change in your zoning so I it's a valid point I think you have to take a look at and maybe that aial is is helpful in that instance you know it's clear that there's a gap you know that's F but to your point yeah oh I would say to add on that that aial is is a very small window of this neighborhood so you if you if you scroll out just a little bit um I would say we talked about it already so 66 Parker um is a similar size lot with a single home on it 53 Jackson at the next next block so Jackson and Smith is a similar size lot the adjacent corner of Smith and Jackson looks to be the future of what this could be which is two homes on that same lot 173 Smith and 61 Jackson um so you could argue both ways um it's it's clearly taking away what were intended to be larger Corner lots and making it smaller Lots but that's permissible I mean I I I see no need my opinion um to rip a foot off your porch to put a door on it you know especially when you're trying to keep the house and not knock it down like everybody else does around here and build some giant thing um you know again in my opinion now I understand it also created an issue in the back now because you're 18.8 instead of 30 um you're again getting to this division line that you decided to draw down the middle of like you said trying to keep kind of even St down in the middle right that that other lot would be considered an inter a lot and that is it can be 5,000 ft correct and it's currently at 6, 6600 so is that extra 1,600 square feet of that line I think we need a minimum of 50 you need a minimum front yeah yeah so even though it's deeper so the smallest it could be was 50 by 104 which a little bit larger find it can't be smaller then and I just I my again my personal opinion kind like we're all sharing is if you're looking for Relief and and trying to do you know what's best for the neighborhood that's a reasonable request to consider is giving yourself a little bit of a wider backyard and a little bit of buffer with your potential new neighbor um to keep that kind of Green Space around the house that is quite significant now at least trying to give yourself a little bit more green barrier on that side make the lot even smaller than it is the recommendation on the floor was to make it 50 which is the minimum I'm saying I think that is something that the owner should really consider because it would rather than try to Lop off a porch which has a foundation and doesn't sound like that's really practical you're seeking certain reliefs giving up and maintaining that buffer of green zone on that side yard which is effec going to be his actual backyard um that it is today I just think that's a reasonable thing to [Music] consider it's just it can't be no Street no additions this is not the same picture what does man they're discussing right now which ask what does moving the property line it I guess uh to what Sean was saying it keeps a little bit more of that streetcape in that corner lot actually have the corner lot being a little bit larger which is how it is usually in corner lot whereas now it seems like it's a little compressed particularly your that the TR I don't know there for do 14 ft save that train it will definitely push the side back of the potential new building it will push it away from the the tree as it's drawn on this it'll push it away I I you know this is me chiming as a planner so I didn't mean to intrude in the discussion but I think there's a a validity to the point that homes need you know the space on the Frontage from now it's got It's got two frontages that's public space basically or semi-public space there's no private space once you draw that long line that close to the house really is no rear yard anymore to your point and to the extent that that can be enlarged so you have some place in the rear of that house I think that's a benefit to not only the home but also the neighbors so that um in the future somebody's not trying to put a fence up in a front yard to have some privacy or something that so I think that there's some validity that um I do think that I don't have any hope that that tree in the middle is ever going to be saved because the roots for that oak tree is all the way across the yard and once you start biting into that it's going to fall even if you were able to save it for a few years there'll be a dead tree walk you know you got you know you've got Roots at least at the drip time yeah but technically the build on that house right if you your property line moves 14t to make that a 50ft lot and then your setback of your build it has to be what that' be 7 ft off the side of that property line so you got 21 fet that you're same yeah you're moving and saving so I mean it's a little more significant than just a 14 thinking you know where they can build where are the Mechanicals in the existing house are they I'm sorry question yeah she asked where are the Mechanicals for the existing residential structure on what's going to be the corner lot we get the survey shows the is there an air conditioning unit outside yes A5 the survey in the if you will the curent the current house in the rear up against the uh up against the house there's also a generator I believe yeah there's a generator so by adding like another 14 feet to the back of the house you give yourself a little more buffer with those Mechanicals for the house next door the new house I also um I don't mean to harp on this but this I am on the environmental committee and the planning board so the tree issue is just really sticking I'm looking at a Google image of the property I don't know when this picture was taken but it's you can see it's Lush and if you go back to your last image that where did this all go you know this is this is a big problem this is clear cutting to to create space for a piece of property I'm looking at my phone from I'm not sure when to be honest and this image this they don't even look like the same property this also taken in the winter all the trees around here dead in the summertime it might have looked different also this is a ton of canopy these look like massive trees I mean I I understand I have young kids too I don't want anybody playing poison ivy but this they don't even look like the same properties so I think that it needs to be set you have to you have to prioritize replanting it's not going to it's not going to equate to what has been pulled down but that definitely needs to be a priority for both properties going forward I think that you can't you know there was talk of just we'll consider it it has to be a priority for sure especially if we were looking at something like this at one point [Music] you guys want to have some talk we've got some other business we can do you want to take some time to discuss we've got some other business we can take care of but I think it's more we're trying to understand because it seems like a few people mentioned moving the lot line make it more maybe more palatable to keep the existing VA so one fault was moved all the way back to 50 um maybe there's some compromise in between the thought was that you didn't want to just kind of squeeze the smallest interior lot possible there and since this is a really very oversized lot it's 14,000 and only 12,000 is required for a corner in an interior lot maybe there's some space in between that would make more sense for both properties going forward and if it if it isn't you know we just like to know kind ofe with you but in this case it's where the house sits in that uh northeast corner that really makes it tight that if we could maximize the amount of space between the existing house and the l i I would be more amenable to that okay I me just think about seven feet is like me to Mana right just like to put it into perspective it could be moved to maximum would be 14 feet right which would be like yeah right outside the wall and then another seven into the build 21 ft it's a lot further the board's consensus to move at the maximum distance rather than somewhere in between maximum we would also make the interior lot the minimum size it could be to to the point once you move that line now you need your side yard so you're moving your the envelope closer well not you're really not you're probably try to maintain that one side Jim said it's seven feet the testimony from earlier is Ian you look at if you look at Parker Avenue 50 feet is not out of the I mean it's it's let me let me just say this this is an as of right sub we take down this house this can be appr this has to be approved as the B wall am I correct as a right if this house comes down this isn't as right sub yeah so there really is no way it could be denied per say divided into two lots I tell you that that the term as of right is no longer recognized how about compliant compant we'll do compliant compliant that's fine but it's a compliant subdivision we could move this lot line it probably won't protect this tree I would argue it wouldn't right I think your planners agreed that this tree give you a bigger we've already agreed to protect these other two trees on the proper correct yeah so I mean those are protected I I can't speak to what happened in the back here I can only say that we know that there may be two trees back there that were that were cut down I and apparently they were dead that's the testimony we're hearing tonight and there were some brush back here which may you know I can't really tell from the photograph exactly what it is and looking at it now it doesn't really help so my point is that they are compliant Lots we could make it we could make this lot a little bigger but it will make this lot a lot it will make this lot smaller and you'll have a smaller house in the lot so it'll be more you know it'll be like these houses here it'll be the same it could be it's going to be 2200 sare ft it's just going to be a smaller L it's going to be the same side because you can't go over the going to be kind of CED in and and and the applicants thought was like let's make it a little bit more balanced let's comply with the setbacks on the sidey yard um but if the board feels strongly we we can adjust line we just didn't think if it was adjusted it would go all the way to 50 and you know so it would be the total distance over here is what 135 135 so 7164 yeah so you'd be going you know 80 85 and 50 which is a really big lot and tiny little lot so the 61 and 70 or 64 and 71 seems more balance I I was just trying to balance the the view the both perspectives I understand what you're saying completely and I just trying to balance both perspectives of hey if we put a new house on that lot how's that going to look 50 is the minimum but wherever possible you don't want to have the minimum you want to have a little bit more than a minimum um right now they're close over so I tried to make them I tried to make them as equivalent as possible as far as Dimension is concerned um should that they you and I would say when you're on Avenue that totally makes sense that line of thinking of making them look equal totally makes sense but you're not you're on a corner and your house is offset on the corner so I think that's the only thing we're observing from what You' shared about not wanting to adjust you know you don't want to tear down your house as as someone who's been in your shoes before and not thr down my house I love hearing that that's great um I just think that's the feedback is the you know your intention was was right but I think it's the it's the context of being on the corner so if if we were to modify this application to propose a lot line change I don't think we need you know we don't want to come back but we'd like to as long as the attorney feels like that's okay to incorporate just a simple lot line change from what's been proposed proposing and and in that same breath we would then be creating a much larger backyard if we go with the not I want the applicant to feel comfortable because you know us usually what's going to well several want the board feel comfortable too because what you know usually one of our conditions is as as I've alluded to is that you know the applicant can build without the need for having to come back with the further variance relief so and if you're going to do that lot line and you're going to do a you know because we ar we aren't here for py plan you know we're here they what they're going to do is they're going to give you a building envelope they're going to show that they can you know there was I I don't know if anybody has touched on it but one of one of the applicants one one of the applications was the lot shaped diameter has that been addressed at La well talking to my client he he suggested that if we are going to move it he would ask that the smaller lot be 56 um because of he's built other homes recently not I built that one home built one home another home then yes and based on the layout he's trying to squeeze into a small lot then he said 56 seemed reasonable so 56 would then uh take it from 64 down to 56 that would be an 8 foot increase would be 79 and 5 56 so you still gave instead of having a seven foot set back there you'd have 7.7 you'd have 15.7 would would that be maybe a fair compromise just having the extra six feet on that smaller lot so what you're proposing is that the along Smith that proposed lot 3.1 would then be 79 and proposed lot the interior lot 31202 would be 56 that's right Frontage along Smith Street um that would increase obviously increase the side yard on lot 3.01 at the expense of lot [Music] 31.2 and 5824 it would it would change some of your numbers with regard to um when their F gets a little better f f probably gets a little bit better but it's already it's already below the the cap it's below um and there no variances associated with that with respect to that sidey of the the variant Still Remains in the rear yard but that's yeah you're still doesn't exacerbate anything we I would want to have new numbers as to what the cap is then cap on cap on on which on the it wouldn't change it wouldn't change no 2200s on both locks it wouldn't make a difference and the ratio goes down on the larger lot and and it's to be determined on the new one where are you folks well I can tell you I have no problem with you leaving the house exactly the way it is I think I think it would be awkward to try and don't either take putting a half off the side or adding or or changing the elevation I don't think that's necessary uh but I really feel if you move it to the 50 yard line and you I I have no problem with the what now becomes your rear yard setback Varian for that but I would like I would like to see the maximum amount of space you could give to the new to the Corner House new existing side block so the their proposal to 56 it's not because I'm willing to to give on the other two issues but I feel that you know you're building a new house anyway you're not accommodating something that already exists so you can build a house to the to the to the zoning standards for a 50 yard lot but that's my opinion how do other people feel and I think to speak to uh saving the tree the further you move everything to the north the better chance you have well I would I would ask I would ask our professions I don't know that you're saving that tree right either way I don't know I don't know that you're saving the another group I but at least we're making an effort to I'm not I'm not disagreeing but I don't want anybody to misled I don't I don't know if you're saving the oak either way um you're probably doing better is there for the Sycamore is there other um Lots on Smith Street where their Frontage is facing Smith Street like we're proposing here there's only onew one and what size lot is that just curiosity I know it's uh so 173 so the record is clear this is Mr Moore speaking tax card it's 52 by 135 52 56 yeah right where are people with regard to either 50 or 50 well if we say no has to be 50 they sayock house down and put a line down do they want right by law right so that's something else we need to consider yeah right I'm to me that would be adding well then then the issue goes away anyway then it wouldn't be in fact they wouldn't even need to come for any variances for the planning board as long as they to we're worried about a couple trees that came down whether they were old and rotten or not old and rotten but you know if we say Hey you have to move this to 50 and they say no they'll just knock the house down and do whatever they want to do and build two houses right so if we're if we're concerned with the way it looks now and we appreciate that he's keeping the house and not Chang anything then maybe there should be more G there on on them splitting these two lots that works out for them as well because again in the end if they want they could just say hey we'll put it right down the middle where we want I'll knock the house down I'll build two new houses you have two new houses but they don't have to no they no they they don't have to right they might agree to the 50 yeah forcing them but I'm was saying that that that option is there so based on what we decide here they can say all right thank thanks but no thanks we're going to knock down there's a house um that's being built on Ridge Road across from the high school have you seen it that the corridor between the back of the new house and the existing house that sits on Ridge Road it is so narrow I I don't even know how anybody could walk through that space and that's what I'm afraid of is going to happen here so I'd like to see as much room as I can between the two structures so the property line off the back of the house was as these guys propos is going to change to 15 ft and then if they have a 12 yard set back you're talking about 27 ft between the houses M right yeah um well I think right the other one says 12 yard set back is there a reason 12 there a reason this is 12 comb it would only have to be it would only have to be uh seven I think okay if if we yeah if we shifted it and then we'd be proposing to add another eight feet on top of that which what which was the last proposal we had with to 56 which I know one board member was not in favor but you know we thought that was a reasonable compromise and you're still having a pretty good distance between those two houses and you're not just making new structure or the new lot as small as we could possibly get how did you sell it 56 and not say 55 and even number a do you have any um my wife and I were were forced to um to we had to squeeze a house onto a 56 foot lot um around the block that's where that's where we're moving to right in the process of doing that now um the I just know that the detached garage which is probably going to be part of the plan when you're factoring in that and you're factoring in the setback for the garage versus the lot line versus the house and all the different things that need to come into play it's better to have more than the minimum I mean again I'm not I'm not um stuck to to what we presented here I just really tried to make the loots even and that's because of the Frontage that you have for the house but then a driveway that you're going to need about 10 ft on the side to go back to a detached yeah and I believe that a det is going to be you know what happens here so to make again it's it's from the perspective of both Lots both from the corner lot and from the interior lot when you're thinking about the interior lot perspective we're really going to be marginalizing both the interior lot perspective and in my view that adds to density as far as density going forward you know going going north let's say on the on the on the area because if you squeeze this here um then everything you're talking about here is is these are 50 or 50 these are 52 each right because that's 104 so 52 each um by making that you're just you're pushing everything that way making that area denser at the expense of that I have I I I didn't want to get held up um with regard to I was just really just trying to balance both sides of the equation and look at both perspectives and not one at the expense of the other so it wasn't completely arbitrary he just went through this and it's just realizing it's really hard to squeeze things into 50t and it's seems you say you were moving he's moving in town around the corner yeah around around the block there's a long story there that do you not live in this property we're in the process of moving right now they do live there but he's building an new home around the corner oh we're we're we're moving around the block the story here with the my Builder has basically ruined my life and that's I don't want to board you I I would CAU you for making public about ready and I I they just ask a question your this was your youing moving town he's the owner of the property he's the owner of the property he's living in this home he's also building another home he's going to be moving through which is down the street he wants to save this house not for himself but to save the house made a lot at the beginning I still stand by my 50 yards I'm sorry 50 yards 50 yard yard my yard football I knew what you meant I knew 50 yard line um there was testimony about you know how there was this house that yes he was building I thought the whole thing fell through oh no it didn't fall through it just got delayed and he had to get this house in but the way you were talking was like I love this house I want to spend the rest of my life and this house just wants to walk by I know it's still there still has it it it's in every sense of the word it saved the day for me if not for that I don't know where I would be I'd be renting some you know anyway I'd be throwing money down the down the drain so not living in Buried that's for sure so what are our options what are your options I'm going to frame a resolution at the proposal that the applicant because it's ultimately it's the applicant's app the applicant has put before you modification of 79 and 56 everybody understand what I'm referring to yes okay the app on frame a resolution I'm I always frame it in the positive that's not too influence you one way or the other for the relief requested for subdivision relief it's not Cy but for subdivision relief modification to the uh lot line between the two properties so that the frontage along Smith for the corner lot will be 79 ft and the frontage for lot 3 1.02 the interior lot will be 56 we've heard the testimony of the applicant in this instance uh largely that they're going to comply with all the requests and requirements uh and uh suggestions made by the engineer and by the planner those will all be conditions of approval in this instance um the lots are largely conforming except for the variance relief that was identified to you before uh which now largely goes away except for the for the rear yard for excuse me for the new rear yard on three 1.01 it will still need relief of the 18 ft pre-existing for the 30 30 ft required we don't know that you need any other relief then as a result of that no they still need relief on on the front yard on the front yard setback if you will because they're not proposal also is to leave that so they're going to need front yard setback Rel leave there but the uh cap variance is no longer needed so you really have these keep the existing front keep the existing porch on 3.0 we still need the cap yeah oh that's right the garage need the cap I'm sorry so it is we may need whatever that you know zoning because of the the corner facing not the shorter side FR facing not the shorter side as well so they're still going to need the cap relief that was the discussion that you had before where the maximum floor area from 786 and the requirement is 22 again technically a pre-existing but because of the lot line creating that situation um we would incorporate all the conditions of approval that we discussed and also the standard conditions of approval by way of and as we discuss also that if they were granted this variance relief they can build what they need to build and keep what they need to keep without coming back to additional parents relief are you are you going to include the dry Wells that we yes all those the applicants testified they're going to do that that was my the purpose rather than reading through into the record all those the applicants basically said that they're going to the thear to dry Wells yes to the extent that on the existing property uh if they make it an appropriate submission to our engineer and the engineer agrees that it's not necessary that's fine but if our engineer says no it's necessary they're going to comply with that same thing with regard to the curbs same thing with regard to the sidewalks same thing with regard to placing utilities and separate Services underground uh trying to coordinate as we had a discussion before with regard to the that's presently happening they're going to be doing grading one way or the other again they're going to have to submit that to our engineer for their approval to make sure that they're not after there so impacting any drainage at the site um they're going to have to comply with the tree removal ordinances um they're going to have to get the will serve letters they're going to have to um well they're going to have to make some modifications make sure that they know that they're a Park Avenue as supp as to I suppose to Parker Street um and I say that's not to the exclusion of any of the conditions that were placed in by app a positive vote is a rest vote there is a yes this can go forward a no vote is a no can not not go forward Doug can I just confirm one thing sure just for the board what you're voting on is a subdivision they're looking to keep the existing house once it gets subdivided the applicant can come into the zoning officer and ask for a demolition permit but he right but he will not be able to ask for any variance for Praises so I just wanted to let you know just to be able to yeah ask for any additional Varan going have to build perform the way we're going to craft this resolution is that as proposed the a will not need to have any additional variance the new proposed structure will not require any variance that will be fully compliant yeah the new structure that they're going to build on lot 3 point one has to be compliant that that keeps the board and and and I'm not casting any aspersion that keeps the board from getting whipsawed if the person takes this application packages this application says great I'm selling it yeah I'm selling it now you develop new developer comes I need new variances the way we're going to CFT this resolution is you know you made representation that you can build what you want to build keep what you want to keep without additional Varian from including existing right so they knock down existing they to build they have to build correct and that's why that extra Su speed is important because it gives them I'm just framing the resolution not opening it back up to discussion got it and and you can certainly make that comment at the time of we vote okay um I have it first put the motion before you doesn't mean if you if you say yes it doesn't mean you have to vote for it it just puts it before the board so the action can be taken I have a motion I make a motion motion second I'll second okay do you have that Sheila okay roll call Mr B yes Mrs Bush yes Mrs k no Mr new yes Mrs anonin no Mr Bailey yes Mr bletcher yes carries thank you very much congratulations hey we a couple minutes to scramble then we have other business to before the board yes other things to do okay ative items approval of minutes from January 16 2024 you guys had a chance to look I get a motion to approve motion second yes yes sorry is answer yes yes yes okay I guess y we need approval of the executive session minutes from January 16th motion second yes yes yes yes Mr yes yes next to are resolution can you do these same you do these com agenda for C and D for resolution authorizing contract with board attorney and board planner for 2023 yes yes Mr yes Mr n yes Mrs anonin yes Mr Bailey yes Mr yes listic confirm you have both of those contracts right I do okay we're going to open up the public comment right yep no more public comment anything else okay pH