##VIDEO ID:T6mr6IEoins## this is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven zoning Board of adjustment adequate noes to this meeting has been given pursuant to the pro provisions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board reorganization in January this year the board adopted its regular meeting scheduled for the year notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 26 2024 and the two River times on February 1st 2024 that notice is also posted on the bulle board in bough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file with the office of the B CL copy of the notice is also been sent to such members of the public as have requested such information in accordance to statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minutes Mee before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight I'd like to say a few words to the applicants their experts in the audience about the role and authority of the fairen on board of adjustment the board is a separate independent Municipal eal entity and its limited Authority is specifically set forth in Bur ordinances and the New Jersey municipal landuse law this qual judicial in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and councel the zoning board does not enact the BAU L's laws and regulations the B councel does that the zoning board does not enforce the line use laws of the BL Fair Haven this is the responsibility of the bur code enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the bu's land use laws or denials by the zoning officer an applicant is never in titled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal Lan's law and the Very an ordinances by satisfying certain required standards of proof the board has no authority to wave these requirements proposing proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to specific relief request it the applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to the Zone plan variances relate to the future use of the land and not in Ed or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations roll call please here Mr ran here mrte here Dr here Mr Mr sh Mr Le here pleas me S to the flat in the United States of America to the stand okay uh we're starting late because we're waiting for a board member and I'm going to do something I've never done before when the board member walks in I'm G ask everybody just do one of these okay so what we're going to do is we're going to start with our administrative items and see if we can clean that up and as soon as Mr canella shows we will get started with the doyle application couple of admin items then minutes from July 11 2024 EXC me your microphone I can't hear people are saying well we have no amplification of voices but we can try and speak up and you're more than welcome to move speakers here and they used to be microphones yeah it's now taken by the AL System picks up everything yeah I I don't know anything about how the speaker system works we've never used it in fact the microphones that we used to have never projected or Amplified voices they only record them that's why I'm in front so maybe I can hear what you're saying and certainly okay as long as you don't get too close to the applicants if you can move forward if that helps you at all please feel free to do so okay um July 11th 24 minutes uh I have reviewed the minutes no changes to be made on my end I will make a motion to approve minutes from July 11 yes yes Mr Ryan yes yeah Mr ler yes resolution for Dion 36 to Normy I believe there was it an altered resolution that was submitted is that right and you have I did uh having reviewed that I can make a motion to approve the amended resolution for D Mr yes Mr D'Angelo yes Mr Ryan yes Mr Forte excuse back theer yes yes also resolution for fall 16 Church Street having reviewed the resolution I can make a motion to approve the resolution for second Mr yes Melo yes Mr Ryan I voted no so I don't think I'm okay uh if you voted no on that application not Dr loer yes yes the only other two things I have are the uh storm water rules if you want to go over those uh yeah Jordan how how long is going to take to give everybody just a quick summary of the uh well you've got a little longer but go ahead updated storm water so the state put out new storm water regulations they recently did in 2021 um that was a big set of changes and now they're doing it again in 2023 I can't hear you you're talking to that but we can't I can't hear you all right you want yes the state put out uh new storm water standards in 2023 it's the latest standards they were official uh whole state in the D in July of 2023 all municipalities had until 2024 July this month July of this year to formally adopt it in ordinance as well um it's a big change but it's as simple as far as ordinance goes the the real change is how uh precipitation uh is looked at um currently it was just current standards um or current precipitation but the concern now is to look to the Future not just you know today so uh Engineers applicants when they're a major development they need to design both to today's precipitation and to the Future which is 2,100 um that's really only applicable on bigger projects so major developments it's to serving over an acre or uh increased in perious quarter acre so not many you know residential applications will see that um you know some commercial might see that in town um but that's the gist of it it's just a lot you know a lot more for the engineers to do to ensure that the Basin data design aren't just for today but they withstand the change in weather in future so if the if the concept was that we need to look further ahead and be prepared for more water are the remedies and resolutions of how to deal with that water similar to what was in all the same you're just designing for Designing for more water sens got it Jordan is that is that put in writing can we get can we get a copy of that so I think it's official in the Jord as now well actually the reason that I asked Jordan to speak about it was because it was circulated I thought it was circulated to all of us but maybe it wasn't um Sheila if you could just recirculate it yeah I think it did it for last I think it was it was circularly when it came out it was between two meetings it could have been 45 days ago at this point thank you the only if I could just the only other minor point in it was they provided a timetable for applications that are sort of in process so you don't have to redo everything as to when it's going to kick in so you have some pipeline and then there's a cut off T when you have to start doing these things I think that's about it and I assume given their Rarity in Fair Haven that we don't have any major applications pending which is going to be nothing pending so at this point anything submitted where it's appliable to they would have to follow new standard is there some sort of table that is showing you there is waterfall it's basically taking the current levels and there's a multiplication Factor so it's the current one is it's based on Counting so it's Ty like 1.02 1.03 for the current and then for the future it's maybe like 1.2 times with the current reation values okay thank you um that concludes the administrative item do we want to try and lean into the doy application see making a stop oh on Doyle so you're not ready I'm ready Mr I'm ready oh let the record reflect that Mr canella has arrived sorry greetings I have this on for next week we understand and my wife said this morning do you have a meeting I said no you were wrong she's right again thank God she all right we're ready for doy Ry may I ask you to bring all of your folks up sure them in and Mos as well as you're going to testify I think you're going to testify might jump in might clarify we'll swear in so we don't have to disrup this presentation so the testimony get before the board be the truth all truth nothing but the truth yes answer that question yes yes same direction as I usually give before you start speaking when you start speaking state your name to the record spelling your last name we're recording this we're not amplifying it apologize we're recording this and that way if there needs to be a transcript made of this proceeding we'll at least know who was speaking and we'll be able to tie that up Mr BR with permission have marks and Exhibits see if they coincide with you they jurisdiction cover jurisdiction I'm sorry I want I wanted to cover can we have jurisdiction yes yes we do we do have jurisdiction thank you want to do application A1 copy of the zoning officer's denial letter I'm sorry the application plus the list of variances and basis to Grant variances all A1 uh copy of the zoning officer denial letter that's going to be A2 completed land use checklist AG A3 um the tax collector certification strike that Sign Sealed and Architectural plans prepared by Anthony pandis P that's great thank you dated while revised to um April 23 2024 see cover sheet first and second floor plans elevations three pages A5 signed sealed plat by the Canon group that's of October 31st 23 A6 uh photocopy or photoc copies of the exterior of the home and property uh says 14 pages I have 13 you might want to clarify that zb1 is going to be the engineering review letter of April 4 2024 the signature g um zb2 is again engineering review by George Rizo but that one's May 10th of 2024 and then we also have zb3 which is a Zone board resolution going back to August of 1987 um do you have any other exhibits that you want to Mark at this point yes um we do Mr K we' got the discussion purposes um a copy of the plan that has some revised numbers on it based on some four between MRIs and just Mar that as A7 and that's St today's updated revision today's date I'm sorry the revision date is when uh 81 August 1st look at that just in time this A7 you said A7 and that's the revision to A5 revision to A4 A4 excuse me anything else sir all I have for them that's all I have um are there any waivers that we want to take care of initially no there are no um checkl waivers are part everything's been provided so we're all just out there okay FL is yours thank you Mr chair members of the board Rick Rosy on behalf behalf of the applicants Gregory and um Harley Doyle the application before evening contains to the contains to the prop that's located at 109 Harrison ad uh the property is a single family residential home uh that the bo purchased in June of 21 um and the summon substance of the application uh seeks variance approval for the uh construction of uh an addition to the rear of um the existing house is to remain the house was built as best we can tell in around 1918 or so um uh all of the existing improvements at the front of the house right as well as the driveway and so forth everything to the rear of the existing addition is also to remain uh unchanged uh as you'll see as Mr goris walks through the testimony um uh to sort of how the the dos and there there two young children um and the fact that both of the daughters work from home uh good deal um you'll understand the proposed floor plan as as we go through it um and with respect to the lot as you can see from the plan it's it's um you know it's a significantly oversized lot for the R5 Zone uh and it's you know long and nrow uh uh Cons with a number of the other Lots U you know alone par and so provide for a bit of a challenge uh for people like Mr kandor is to try and uh uh comply and and and of course as one would think as as one would assume um there are a couple of there's an existing non-conformity with respect with respect that um which are not being exacerbated as part of this application um and uh you know as you would also expect uh as you would also expect for a property that's you know over three times the size of the minimum L size required in the zone uh the property is is well under on floor area ratio building coverage lot coverage but the the uh uh but does exceed the maximum floor area permitted uh in the AR zone so I think that is kind of gives the background on it um Mr BR is that the only variant far is you exceed the cap that's the only VAR uh and a side setback there's a combined side combined side combined side setback for oh counting the porch yes yes those are the two um so Tony you've been sworn in already if you could walk the board through the property starting with what exists would you like us to stipulate as Tony's credentials as a licensed architect wonderful anyone have a question about Mr Condor who's been accepted his license Architects many times no me nothing happen with your license um so Tony let let um now I you you you have an exhibit up there that's been marked as A7 which right we had t for the record it's a copy an exact copy of what's been submitted to the court except some changes in the numerical calculation based on some discussions on the that's correct that basement cor yes so let's walk the board through the the property as it exists today and then we'll go into the proposal and then talk about the uh the yeah very calul okay um so Mr BR mentioned it's a very narrow lot but one one of one of the challenges of this lot is the fact that it's skew you can see it's leaning so that creates some uh some setback issues for uh especially with the existing we have an existing side setback on the uh the south side of the property of 3.58 ft um that's an existing condition it's the front it's the corner of the front porch and that's not going to change but what that is doing is it's uh it's creating a variance for the total side setback uh because you'll see that all the other setbacks that we are of the proposed addition are all exceeding what the the minimum side setbacks are but when you do the total you have to still use the 3.58 and therefore that's why we need a variance for the total setback although each individual setback is compliant so so so Mr goris if you were to measure on the left and right side of what you proposed to add you would conform to the total but when you grab the lowest which is in the front pre-existing non-conformity that then throws you off that's correct thank you yes that was my question I'm sorry does that include the patio uh which the rear patio rear P yeah those setbacks are also compliant yes so that's one of the variances that we're we're asking for uh the other variance is for the habitable floor area now one of the one of the revisions that I made to these plans is uh after some back and forth with Mr RTO uh it was determined that we need to include the basement um which is a fairly recent ordinance change um and so that's something that I neglected to do originally so I I if I measure the basement to the outside of the block walls uh it's an additional 614 Square ft so that has to go into our habitable four number which brings it up to 3720 um that basement has been there for as long the house has been there it's a partial basement Mr cond have you made any assumptions or measurements um as far as the I I took some quick fuel measurements today and and from what I can see we are above that 30 in we're probably about 32 33 in so we are exceeding that 30 in sort of providing survey information you st measure you feel like you're over it and conservatively you're going to go with we're going to go with the with County the basement yeah and there's no addition proposed to the Bas No No in fact the addition is not going to have a basement number the proposed addition it's going to continue to the appros so I just want to make sure that the board understands the issue so that we can kind of set it to the side and look at the application as originally design and then we can look at the basement independently so we dealt with this recently with a pre-existing basement the first floor elevation requirements now establish a new line it used to be 50% or under uh well let me just avoid that we've changed the standard as a result of changing the standard what was previously not habitable area is now habitable area so the addition is independent of how we consider that basement area and so as we're looking at the proposed square footage of the house you can look at that with or without the basement but be mindful that they're not doing anything new to the basement which is the intent of the ordinance so as to keep structures at a minimum level above the ground that's correct and it doesn't change the fact that we need the variance for uh maximum have floor area it's just that you know the numbers are are higher than what we had initially supposed because we had initially not counted the Basin are but not only do we count the basement area for what is proposed right but we also count it for what what exists corre and the board's reference if you're looking at my review letter number two the numbers in here for square footage exclude the basement because until today I didn't know that number so when mror goes through the technical square footage for the variance different that's going to include the basement my letter let just ask a couple questions about the basement you said you're not add any new basement it's 600 plus square feet what is the ceiling height in the basement and how is it currently finished if at all it it is par partially finished has about a 7ot ceiling and the entire 600 square feet is not finished but that's I counted everything because it all counts so a portion of it is finished does it have Windows uh yes it does ESS or just uh trans uh just just regular basement no just yeah just regular we can come back to if something comes up but you establish that document with regard to your key on that document we have the habitable maximum habitable floor area you saying that number excludes the basement at this point yes well on this particular set of plans that we Mark a s I do have the basement included no but the one you the one you have right give me the total number with the basement 3,720 3,720 thank you and one more thing with that real quick is that the basement is a half story so and real quick do you have a half Story Attic went with a pull down there's a pull down but uh the ceiling height at the highest point is four feet so so the small could is a half Story Attic right so half Story Attic half story basement two floors get you to three floors which is an existing condition but it's it's notely existing condition everybody understand that you can be two and a half stories if you go three you need a variance the half story is the seller uh but a basement becomes a half a seller is a zero correct and then the attic is a half so if you add them up it's three the existing condition is three so to to clean up anything it has to be consed in terms of how we View thank you and Doug probably the additional number you were about to ask for is the existing square footage right the Bas yes because the basement also is included in the existing square footage amount which is 2664 okay which brings that existing above the maximum habital as well as an exist correct so the Delta is the same as far as um I can just walk you through the plan go away from the intent here um this is a very it's it's an old house 100 years old plus um it has a very sort of awkward second floor uh there's only one bathroom on the second floor there's three bedrooms and then a small little look in the front of the house that's only accessible from the front bedrooms uh it's currently being used as an office so um there's no master bedroom there's no um there's no second bath on the second floor so this uh the addition that we propos is providing a master suite uh an additional bedroom SL office uh the front of the house will remain pretty much intact um and those two bedrooms are still willing to share that Nook in the but it's U it's only accessible through the bedrooms so we're really only you know the the addition is really it's only about uh it's 20 by 20 roughly 20 x 17 uh that's happening at the rear of the house we are using the area that's currently an enclosed porch so that's also becoming habitable um but this Edition really won't be be seen from the road it's all happening behind the house the height is uh coming in at 30 ex the height of the addition is 25 fo9 so it's well below the uh the required height and on the first floor uh we created a family room in the rear and the house also has kind of an awkward layout on the first floor the kitchen's in the front of the house so we moved the kitchen to the back and created a family room again in that 20 x 17 addition the year and Tony I had mentioned that in my opening remarks we disting size 16774 sare ft 5,000 minimum required so so just confirming right we are we are um well below even in the in in the proposed condition for lot coverage right coverage floor area right even counting the basement right we still fall well below on floor are ratio yeah we're at 22 and4 is and also right exactly okay um and building well nothing affect that we're still 12 12 yeah 129 35 is permitted so so what's What's Happening Here is we've got an oversiz lot narrow and but we are over on the maximum Flor that's cor uh Mr Gondor can you just give us the split the the first floor you said was 20 by 17 which is 340 sare ft folded in a porch as well what's the total total square footage of the additional um floor area on the first floor uh 469 okay and then that leaves you with how much for the second 595 it kind of overlaps the back of the house any other questions for Mr um the only the property adjacent um obviously I'm looking at airl space to the back uh how will they be affected by by this are they again the same front yard set back plane as the existing they set back the street do you have any I don't have the information set back the existing thej property on your are there is there an aerial photo well there's there's a t map here um it looks like right there's there's a mixture of setback but again we're not we're not doing anything in the front everything's happening well to the rear so correct I'm just thinking if the other hous are pushed further back then you'll have a it's it's to the advantage for them to be at at the same front yard to be right yeah at least to the north they all appear to be um lined up with with the the subject property okay thanks how many how many linear feet is is in the addition including the uh the the covered porch it's not covered it's not covered well how many how many linear feet is that like how far back are we going yeah 17 17 you want to know the total no from the existing rear wall we're going at back 17 okay Mr why don't you tell us about your architectural design because the the house is um certainly very historic looking from the front can you help us understand you know how you thought about the design you've got 50% more square footage than what you typically see on a 50 foot wide lot um how did you sort of think this through and come up with what you came up with right well I definitely my intent was to preserve the uh this Bungalow style if you want to call it that uh of the house so I I wanted to keep the height down I didn't want the rear to distract from the from the look of the front um although these these roof lines the roof line of the existing house does create some some difficulties with the spaces inside so I did want to at least give them full stimul uh in in the added areas so but again Tred to keep the roof lines down U and keep the height low so it all do really Char from the street and What's the total length of the house from the front of the poror to the to the rear of the new edition Sor uh 67 PT Mr guras on the south on the first floor the South I guess the South Side that 3 foot6 jog in is that existing it is existing yeah it's the corner of the front torch okay and then you're making a similar one with the new addition on the North side corre a similar no I'm looking towards the back there so that 3 fo6 notch on the on the North side and then there but I see it's cut in on the right side it's cut in yeah that's existing though that cut in right this cut in is existing okay and you're holding that line and then making it cut right and by the because a lot is skewed by the time you get to the back the setbacks open up and we're well over what's required right yeah so the new addition on my point being the new addition on the North side is further away from the neighor than then it's not holding the existing the existing you got an extra 3 fo6 I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking but the 3 fo6 is on the south side I'm not talking about the set back I'm talking about the house actually coming in like this as you go further back yes yes it does come in yes so the end result I covered this earlier just to make sure I got it right the end result is that if you were to measure the two side yard setbacks at the rear addition that you would conform to the combined sidey guard requirements yes and so you have made up for that in the back and it is merely the deviation in the front the pre-existing problem that creates it's one size existing one size Clos that's why we have to use it total post and the existing the existing that's that's extended is all conform yes not with the total well yes if if you use those numbers in the total they would yes but if you measur left and right as you move down the house every bit of the new addition conforms to the total it's simply the fact that you need to grab the lowest number that creates the variant yes yes side setbacks of the new addition are 11 and 12 1267 respectively so 16 is a total points Mr bradsky you're seeing this as a C2 variant I am you gonna walk us through that yeah so so you know well I think I actually I think it would uh we can talk about C1 a little bit as well um because we do have an irregularly shaped lot which is this long narrow lot which is also few so there are especially with respect to the side setbacks we've got a we've got a side we've got a you know a lot we have a lot with that flies but based on the size of the of the lot is is relatively narrow uh so and U so from a c one perspective I think there are existing conditions uh contributable to the site that would support a c a C1 Grand which to see to you know I think you hear from Tony's testimony the benefits uh there are no detriment right so in terms of the benefit we're proposing we're proposing um a uh an addition that increases the functionality of the modernizes the interior so that it's usable and so that so that the owners can utilize it so there are benefits there um there's no detriment to the Zone plan from our perspective especially since the proposed addition complies in all respects with the setbacks on either side um uh so that there's no you know no detrimental impact for to any of the property owners specifically with respect to the property owners on side um with respect to the deviation from uh uh the maximum square footage uh exceedance that we have um you know again we've got this we've got this undersized law and so um even though we comply and and and fall well within the requirements for you know virtually all of the other bu requirements in including poor area ratio building coverage water coverage um I I think it's it's you know it's our position that this property based on its size being three times open three times times uh the size of the minimum L size required can certainly handle uh this 400t addition to the home which gets it up which gets it up to you know a modest square footage um of 2664 I'm sorry of 316 Square ft 3720 Square ft with regard including the Bas so again with respect to um with respect to that aspect of the application you know the benefit obviously are to um with the functionality of the home Etc um no negative impact we don't see with with respect to the Zone plan zoning ordinance of any of the uh neighboring it seems to me the negative impact is that we're in an R5 Zone and so regardless of the fact that the lot's oversized every lot in that neighborhood is oversized in exactly the same way I think that with regard to the The Zone plan and the negativity about developing it in this way got a long house and it creates effectively a PO L we do wind up with a with a an impact on airl light in open space I I'm interested in where the front yard setbacks line up particularly with regard to the Southern Property to your southern boundary because it appears to me that that house is set considerably behind you and that effectively I'm wondering where you're going to land in the back relative to where they are imagine this right so in an R5 2200s you got 1,100 footprint if you were going 20 feet beyond your neighbor to the rear the detriment is that on a 55 50 foot lot if I go to my back deck and I look out to the left towards this house no longer going to see anything other than house and I think that is certainly something to consider I'm interested in how you land what I heard from you which I think is is offsetting is that you kept the the ridge height down you've maintained the character of the house from the front you've intentionally kept the house low so as to not disturb the street Gat I also understand that in the interior you're taking a a kitchen which is in the front which is not the traditional development design you're going to move it to the back so you're going to add that extra space and upstairs you said you were going to leave the existing bedrooms and move your master bedroom something more um common built today into the new addition area so I'm hearing a lot of things where you tried to work around the idea that this house is going to be extended um I want to make sure I'm correct on the things that you that I understood you to represent and I'm interested in where you land in the back I don't have the setbacks of the joining property to the South so I put on your okay so the first picture in this what what is this exhibit that exhibits A6 so the first picture in A6 shows a garage on the right hand side of the photo and a two-tone House White below fireplace and blue the house with the blue and the white is the subject house correct yes so it would seem to me just eyeballing it that the garage which appears to be the face the house to your South lines up approximately with your fireplace is that fairly safe to say yes okay so your house already sits proud of that house by can you give me a measurement from that fireplace to the front of your P say uh 18t 17 18t okay and your total length of your house is you say 63 or 67 67 67 so you're roughly 50 ft back rough numbers but 50 ft back from what I'm suspect is about where the front of the house your SS is that is that fair 50 ft behind the front of the adjacent house with the garage yes right okay so I'm just trying to anybody else understand you already got 18 feet in the front that already exists that way so now you've got proposal of 50 ft behind that I don't know we have an Arial from from Google which might help saying it's going to dominate on the front and the rear you look to the north whatever that is right easterly it's going to be all house right I think that what's going to happen is that when you land in the back assuming that that house is similar in size to the others around it that you're not extending a full 30 ft behind what do you got so the Google Map I'm looking at P up today the date I mean it is a I mean like a hge podge of different depths and you know it's it's it's kind of up and down I think looking at the property to the South the one that set further back yeah I think once you had the addition you may line up with the back of that house that house we're not we're not even hit it we're not even hit it that house is Ste so far back it's it's little it's a little bit of everything calculation 25t 25t differential so it's 17 depending on where the Patty on the deck lands or whatever issue it's not right it's going to be that's right are you replacing the existing garage are you keeping the existing garage keeping the existing I use land Glide but it's the same yeah I don't think it's that was my concern as well I way better and and Mr gor the with regard to the second floor it are the plan developed um far enough to be able to represent to the board that the existing three bedrooms on the second floor are going to remain as built uh while the existing two bedrooms in the front let me go through that again there's there's currently two bedrooms in the front of the house and then there's a little Nook that's being used as an office those three rooms will remain although I wouldn't call that Trump room the bedroom um there is currently a bedroom on the back of the house but it's like under an attic so that's where we're taking the roof off and building the dish but yeah the front half let's just say the front half of the house will remain Inta yeah Mr Ros I think that that supports more more of a C1 argument because you're working around the existing conditions you're not fully renovating you don't have an opportunity to create new more modern spaces you're leaving those bedrooms as they are and there's some efficiency yes okay that's all I had Mr chair okay um any board members have any questions or comments at see no takers um are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments with regard to the doyle application no questions just comment come on come on forward you want to be able to pick you up on this microphone testim before the bo the truth the truth yes wife okay there no amplification I'll speak up no worries you also swear the testimony G before the board of truth truth just state your name record spelling your last name please Nicholas Hall h l Hall welcome hello we are the do Neighbors the 107 Harrison Avenue uh they've invited us over we've taken detailed look at their plans uh we're ful in support of the addition that they're doing we think it makes a lot more sense to keep the facade as they're doing keep the character of the 100-year old house and add the space that they need uh we've been inside the house as well very odly built with a kitchen set up and the upstairs so um we think the pl make a lot of sense should allow them and their their two kids we have two kids as well the room to live and grow within the community think make a lot of sense we support it um just wanted to formally state that Mr H which which house is yours when you look at that house from the front the one on the right or the one on the left we are the one on one left the one we haven't talked about so far right so how does the front of your house line up with the existing structure on the do property exactly almost how about the rear uh we go back a little bit further we have some patio back there but I wouldn't really include that um I think we go back a little further than I do but it's pretty pretty even I think for the most part and the extension is going to be 17 feet Beyond where the house is now and so when you step out the back of your house and you look to the South are you at all concerned that the massing of the structure in that space is going to create a problem for you no how does Mr uh no I don't believe so because uh as you uh were talking about 111 was set back in the front further it also goes back in the back further so this renov a it won't go past that house so we see a house already um so it's not going to make any difference really do so when you look to the South and you see that house at 111 any what are you looking at like an entire room is it maybe 20 feet is it more less um it's a pretty good amount of house we just see kind of like the siding of their house we also don't have a lot of visibility at the back to be honest so we don't really see much of anything they have trees and um we don't have Windows that go in those directions really okay downstairs you know we're in a house anyway right now have on the back deck to the back patio it's uh you know we're in our own little space anyway at that point so we go down some steps so we're not concerned any existing problems with water drainage over there are there any U ponding pooling issues things that the neighbors have been dealing with with regard to uh storm water there has been some water but nothing to we've never had any flooding issues personally um you know I don't just to be fa I don't mean in your house I mean just kind of around you're not struggling with issues as Waters we not anything else um I just have two letters that were written by other neighbors that I would like to read oh Mr kovat will deal with that uh we generally don't take that because I can't cross-examine those folks I could cross-examine you not going but generally our policy is we would not take those letters in um we'd rather have the folks come and participate and tell them those things otherwise we end up sometimes having a hearing by petition yeah fortunately it couldn't be here today so we figured Le try to I can say that um the doy invited us all over at the same time so we were in the company of these Neighbors in person uh when we went over the plans and they seem to have no problem with this addition great and and the letters indicate the say they're in support allowing your say you got it in I knowes a point we did not discuss um drainage no we're not done okay you guys are good we're good thank you thank you anyone else please sure you shall brother testimony board will be the truth the whole truth sir yes my name is Stephen Nolton k w l t n at 77 Church Street in car Haven Mr no we haven't seen you in a long time right you used to be here a fair amount welcome thank you um my concern is trying to keep the r zones working so the town is Affordable and keep adding the neighbors like it you do it that doesn't it doesn't go with me I mean we need to keep housing affordable and I've got a deep lot theoretically if croser a court or an improved Road I could subdivide it and put another house back there I'm not interested in that I'm interested in lower density and we built up and perhaps there was there another option of adding the space by going up and reducing the U keeping it within the the 2500 square ft 2200 square ft um that's just one thought is um why not do it that way it it'll the property won't be as valuable um those my basic concerns over some things um and I just know the sun to took percentage wise at 2200 square ft 3106 and I think maybe if you had the basement you got even more space just 3106 that's a 41% increase in po area so I got my math right that's a big big jump it's a nice house um be attractor from the front it would look different on the side um was thinking from an environmental is going a beer house requires more energy to run it's not as environmentally responsible as a smaller house when you have in Fair Haven lots that are r five that could be built to be um more environmentally responsible and we went overboard and we've got solar panels and so forth and so on and thick walls and but anyway those are my thoughts um nothing against building a house looking like that in a larger lot we have places uh Lots in town that are allowed for that kind of square footage and probably my comments would apply to other things that are coming before the board continuously where people say it's a hardship because we've got a deep lot or um over on be Haven Road um they spent 650,000 for the lot um oh that lot's going to sell for built a million something rather and let's try to keep the the housing in town affordable those M my comments thank you I I look I think there's no question that the points you rais are are are valid concerns that board needs to consider certainly from a planning perspective the affordability of of housing is an issue that the bureau considers you know at multiple levels at the same time on the other side you've got a piece of property that's 16,000 sare feet and so if this property were in the R5 R R15 or r 20 Zone in comparison the house that you'd be permitted to build would be substantially larger um than the house that's there today and so under the the C1 criteria we've discussed issues about working around um some of the existing structural problems related to a house that's about a 100 years old and trying to figure out you know how to find a balance between modernizing a house as we need to do if a house is going to stay there if it's going to be raised entirely and rebuilt um and then with regard to the C2 criteria what we're trying to do is trying to balance the unique nature of this lot versus the fixed nature of the Zone itself without any consideration of the specifics of the lot the Harrison Road lots are a challenge and have always been a challenge and we have seen a number of them um and I think that your your points are entirely valid and I think that there are some other factors that need to be weighed by the board um and uh we appreciate your comments yeah I'm not concerned about the side setback facts um that's existing but it's it's just adding more and more building on that lot um which will make it um much more valuable so look if you look at the density of this house relative to the lot as proposed it will be substantially less dense than most of the Lots in Far um and so as to the environmental impact of the improved structure relative to the land area um if you were to evaluate it on its own um under certain metrics you could see this as being entirely reasonable which is where the C2 variant kicks in um I think that the sidey setbacks are particularly important because when you look at this from a planning perspective if you allow people to build substantially longer houses you are going to impact those neighboring Lawns and I to me that's that's one of the most important things when trying to figure out whether something like this can work um but marad is isues to consider um and the Board needs to balance the all thank you for your you're hearing me out thank you any other questions or comments okay um does the board have any other questions or comments before we uh ask Mr Bry to close and move on to deliberate I I know that I just sort of thought about the idea of drainage Mr Brodsky is there anything proposed with regard to underground detention uh not not from my end but we we will have an engineer work we can simulate L coverages being affected I'm asking the questioned but there is an existing dryw well on the site right that's uh currently being utilized where's that located way the back way in the back yeah yeah yard so big in the middle of the if you go behind the garage to the end of the property line probably halfway the garage to the back of property line so in the in the picture that you have the blue barage that's are there pipes that go to that or is it just no pipes from the garage not from the garage from the house the pipes they go all the way back oh wow okay so in this picture that I'm showing you it appears to be page six of the images of of the A6 this is the what you're talking about here correct yeah and so it's beyond that correct yeah okay but thees run from the house Cutters to that dryw which we had installed so what's going to happen with the roof leaders from the new edition are you proposing to put them into the same drywall it's my intention to Our intention toach okay and so needed we can install second I have intention to keeping all the water away from have you had any issues with water um backing up through the roof leaders or bubbling out of the drywall in you re um we did have we did have a uh couple years ago we had an issue where our basement with some pump backed up that's why we installed the dry well the fact that the the uh this is too much water right and so that's why you put the dry in to move the water away from the property before that the the Cutters running on the grass right by the house right by the foundation so we installed all that to mitigate the water we have issues so my question is in terms of your knowled size issu thanks but but Mr Rizzo with a lot of this size um the idea that we're going to pipe the water all the way back has to be some sort of an improvement to actually having that water hit the surface right here where all the other houses are yeah absolutely so um the capacity of the pipe running that longer distance too which it's the Capac effective capacity of the driver so Mr brsy so my question was whether or not anything's proposed as to drainage what I'm understanding the applicant to say is that they're proposing to run the new roof leaders to the existing drywell I don't want to misstate what your client just said but I think that's what he said that's what he said and he also said if there's any determination that an additional drywell is necessary they're willing to will you provide note on the plan stating that the roof lead the addition will time yes sure trees to be removed for the year NOP no so one of the pictures I saw me think about you it's the one near the garage right but that's not going to be effective because you're not developing all the way back there right corre I mean that is need to go at some point for our compromise okay uh any more questions or comments with regard to the application okayy you have anything in closing just re just real briefly just wanted to reiterate um that uh and board have heard it a couple cries you know these these lot harison have always been an issue just due to their configuration significantly oversized lot um especially where we're looking at a situation where um the existing house is to remain so I think that based on the testimony that that's uh been provided to the board um there there has indeed been a thoughtful process implemented to uh modernize the house right and increase that functionality uh while working with the existing existing location of the Home Without Really exacerbating any of the uh uh certainly not any exacerbating any of the side setback um requirements um I think based on the size of the house it's safe to say uh as as you know the typical indish of overbuilding Flor area ratio lot coverage building coverage not only does this proposal comply with all of those but um you know it's well below that which is permitted in zone for all those reasons I think that the property if you will can handle this proposed addition and it enables the homeowners to be able to stay uh in the home with their family um and not being in position on any of the neighbors thank you Mr pres m c well when I when I first looked at this this lot corresponds more with the with the r-15 zone and the r-15 Zone has a uh maximum floor area of about 3,400 square fet and this is and this is even more than that however looking at the uh you know the setbacks for the addition ition are are all conforming uh the building addition is entirely in the rear which doesn't impact the look from the front uh it doesn't impact the neighboring lots and I think the Aesthetics of the house are definite plus so that's my that's my two cents on the issue and uh I think I think overall it's a nice project yeah I'll go I'll go next same I mean very similar to me the fact that it doesn't uh you know trip a lot of the ratios is kind of irrelevant right it goes back so far for me what's important is where it sits the neighbors how it it's oriented and I think we all prove that it's really not going to be a big imposition to the neighbors in the rear no one wants to go outside right and see a block of house behind them um so I think it's a nice design uh and yeah overall supportive of it and uh I think it's a great idea the drywall preemptively because it's a big hot button issue in the town and no one wants the water uh on their property so I think that's a huge plus so he done not much to add I think obviously working with the structure that's I think I heard years old or or more we don't want to lose a house like that in town 109 109 I think it's awesome that the appli are trying to work with the house and U I think they did a nice job Mr Condor really tried to mitigate I think with height lines and I'm support the application yeah I don't have much more to using the old house always I'm always a big fan of that and that not we know that that triggers srap for variances quite often because you could knock it down and build a 22004 bedom 2 and a half that we've seen many times on the um I appreciate keeping the old house and especially if you can less the impact to the neighbors I think that's fine we got a conference Aly H got a conference some she ready I agree with what everyone said I always want to the renovation rather than the PA down and working um with the design and putting it in back I think is a great is a great plan thank you all that I appreciate your concerns miss an open but um you know we want to renovate houses in Fair Haven and I think this is a good renovation and I know you have concerns about what's going on but you younger families moving into town are going of want these types of things it fits within our plan fits within the master plan they're they're saving a 109 year old house and renovating as opposed to tearing it down and putting up something else which we see around town so I fully support this also think the basements are relevant right it's off by a few inches and it's yeah I mean would be rather would rather people start to you know quietly lightly Mound up the house to avoid it I think not right so no and this is what ideally we want as a renovation not a complete you know rebuilding cookie cutter Cambridge a Dr R's observation about the R15 Zone it does fit in with the squ footage R15 3400 3100 we can look at that for a little bit of the guidance I know they didn't choose to up Zone but that we can look at that some well they can up look I I think the uh the size of the lot's a bit of a head fake um the truth is that this house needs to make sense without understanding how de theck goes and so I think we talked about it and I think that it critically addresses where that addition would make sense in light of the houses around it If This Were a new proposal brand new from scratch 3100 sare F feet I would feel completely different about corre um and I just want to make that observation um I think it's important that it is not going to be 30 ft behind the houses on either side of it I think that that is a significant issue um and I think that they've done a nice job making sure that that uh facade is preserved I also think it's important with regard to meeting the criteria for the approval that they are going to preserve the second floor as it sits and I think the efficiency of renovating a structure is important for us to consider those are legitimate hardships to work around it might be easy to say Hey you could do this that or the other but you know you're talking about you know a lot of money and it's not ours and and certainly trying to figure out a way to modernize a house while balancing the the uh the struggles of which you're working with is something we're always always thinking about and respecting the history of it to make sure it doesn't become another cookie cutter house I think that's right I think that's right um I think it's important number one that um with regard to any approval that the second floor uh be maintained um as it's reflected on the plans the existing veterans I think it is um also important um that any approval um make mention of the commitment with regard to the underground detention um either piping it to the existing system we're adding a new system to the extent that that's necessary um and it's important certainly that location and I think that having it back behind the garage is important because if it were to fail it's going to fail way back there and it isn't going to affect the neighb was motion it wasn't but we do need thank you okay well then I will make a motion to approve the uh loyal application as submitted with the stipulation that the V has been maintained on the second floor as Mr leader has outlined ex me consistent with the plans consistent with the plans and as well as the drywall uh addition should be required to be tied into the existing drall system and add second if necessary to I will Engineers I will if be done good yeah ACC and we um do we have the correct square footage now that's a good point um the 614 square feet is at this point really just taking their reward for it so we would want to see a plan showing that number right and so the uh so the numbers are accurate in both on oh well I'm gonna I'm gonna stop you um so in the past um what do we here's what I'm concerned about I'm concerned about throwing a number out there with regard to the square footage uh changing what is currently a basement to a living level and create and we also need to address the three stories but I didn't we stipulate that we did not recognize the um transition of that space to habitable or um War area in in a previous resolution for the purpose of trying not to artificially increase the overall square footage so as to not throw the assessor off oh good point Y there's just no reason to yes here yes I do it so so um well I I guess I would flag it for the purpose of maybe Mr kovat considering it um maybe we can add something into the resolution both acknowledging what we understand the final number to be once we get some measurements but also acknowledging um that we see this as the 3106 um and that it's simply a The Quirk in the ordinance with regard with the B yeah I think we did it on Glen Place actually for the same reason yeah I I I we we we've got to figure out what we're doing with it but I think we all recognized that it wasn't a big factor here and it shouldn't be no still need toire tax Mr chair you're comfortable with um including that in the resolution once we confirm it after tonight the exact number I think it has to be because I think that it's technically uh floor area but I think that I want to amplify in the resolution that we're not considering it for floor area in a traditional sense that we're trying to comply with the strict um definitions um but that it's been observed that it's a pre-existing condition that's simply changed based on the change in the you can provide that ahead of any resolution so are you talking about the 614 number that was calculated it's on these plans so what further calculations maybe give a letter that will actually with your signature on it that actually states exactly what the interior measurements are and maybe do we also need the Four Corners with a typ measurement on what it what is above existing grade so they're taking a conservative approach that with a tape measure um it's over 30 inches so it can't be any worse than that so we'll just call it that yeah I think I mean to spend money to survey it to show that it's over 30 inches is is the same thing as all right Mr koris wants to keep his license and he starts writing letters with crazy numbers I think we can you can rely on a number from him if he puts it in a letter to you with the signatures and what it is but we'll also submit the revise plan right exactly which has which will be sealed all right M motion but we need interrupted we never got a I seconded actually oh thank you yes yes Mr Ryan yes Mr Forte yes I yes Dr loer yes Mr yes Mr yes thank you congratulations I have's going to take a five minute Comfort break it's a land speed didn't even take time to address yeah that's good okay we're going to get ready to start again um let the record reflect that Mr leader is recusing himself on the conhagen issue and that's the next time I talk 11y terce we're g to call that let me spread the following on the record I did have a conversation earlier in the day with Council obviously with regard to a VI variance do this swear everybody in because you're all standing there w Raise Your Right hands testimony be the truth or whole truth nothing but the truth same usual instruction that I that I give before when you start speaking Please spell your state your name spell your last name to the record okay can relax now at this wait Mr Rizzo has not returned he has not returned Let's uh you can swear because we're we swear Mr establish we have jurisdiction in this matter yes we have jurisdiction let me do this um spread the volum obviously we don't have a full compliment of individual this evening Council and I spoke earlier in the day what we proposed to do was start the proceed because there's D variant involved Weir to go five since we only have be we get six right we've got six but what we're going to try to do is go as far as we can this evening hopefully we'll get some public comments on on this matter also then I believe we're going to raave time on asked to carry and I will make the commitment to the applicant that between now and the next time we schedule not they don't we can scheduled but you now and the next thing schedules now those matter those individuals who could not be here tonight that do not have a CL we'll review the record we have a process where they can sign a certification you that they have reviewed what was done this evening make sure that they have reviewed all the documents and that they're prepared to hear the balance of the of the application and vote on the application um with that understanding that I say that correctly Mr you did you did I guess there's always a hope that we could get to the end if we can you know but I it's it's your I I'm hoping you can get to the end but I I I am loathed to when you have a little more buffer understood understood when you have to hit a 500 and you really only need to hit a three it's a little bit different let me let me Mark the following exhibits that I have so far had the application list of variances and checklist is A1 I have have the May 29 looks like letter permit denial from our code enforcement officer I have A3 as the boundary and topographic survey that looks like to be dated uh January 19th 29 prepared by Insight survey LLC I have the A4 is engineering submission five sheets F plan construction details soil erosion and siment control plan uh two sheets of SCC notes um prepared by Insight engineering LLC revised to June 4 2024 A5 are the architectural submissions seven sheets cover sheet Flor plans um let's leave it at seven sheets I think that is as of June 4 2024 prepared by Asher and Shan white and partners LC I have zb1 which is the engineering Rie letter number one at L 5 2024 by CME over the signature auor r have A6 July 30th applicants engineer letter um from Insight over the signature of doulas Cam I have A7 an update of five images proposed for the site I have A8 floor area diagrams again prepared by the same architect uh second dat of July 8th 2024 A9 have an aerial exhibit which superimposes the proposed structure on the existing uh site and lot I have A10 again a neighborhood aerial image which uh also proves a superimposed image of the propos structure on the lot andin the immediate area you have any other documents that you wish to have more um yeah we'll have a couple of exhibits I believe we have one um so this is photos of the existing home as well as so these are images a12 existing and proposed and put a date on those taken by you um they are Cy of Google street gotta okay can you mark them as a 11 for me I guess just put today's date on 812 Markus sp24 any other exhibits a12 an additional areial um would you describe generally what that is so I have a reference an aerial view of the general neighborhood with a with the property in of self highlighted and drone lines superimposed thank you if you could Mark that HB for me may as well Mark them it's not Coss us two seconds worth of time existing to 13 images in and about the yes same thing put today's dat on it uh should we date those as August 1 also corre anything else agree that that's all you have okay great um we did establish jur any W have yes please I'll through um I have I have a good number listed however two of these have already been provided the ones that are provided are photographs of the property and then the uh the property owner's list the 200 put list the ones that are required tonight are complete plans of the existing condition and that's because the house today is going to be launched about conditional um second one is detailed calculation of the floor area um that's really just a small schematic showing I guess the the hatch area for each floor and then a sum of each floor um however my calculation goes consistent so while I would ask that as part of compliance at a later date I don't take exception to that today and then the last three are outside agencies it's m County planning board uh fre oldd and M County Health Department um the one out of these that I would expect to be needed is for SCB so I would ask the applicant to provide that at a later date okay you have no objection as to those outstanding matters be condition of approval that's yeah that's correct okay any objection to that part no any you would so recommend okay I'm on problem if we could if we could begin by don't I think there's a a good number of 10 or 11 Varian so we could begin by just running through what is we're seeing and what we're looking for yeah yeah what what I'll do that I just want to just give a little background right to to to get us where we want to be um so the application before you the evening pertains to the property located at 11 11 cloney Terrace it's an existing single family Welling um the um the the proposal before you this evening and you'll hear testimony uh in in that in this regard is uh to demolish the existing home replace it uh with a new home uh and you know various the a new garage front porch uh rear deck and new grading utilities drainage and so forth um of course you know this this uh just a little background the con haagens who are here this evening they they are Fair Haven residents already they have been not in this home but they've been residents since 2007 raised their two children there who are now grown and the idea is they found this property uh on the water uh to retire and age into and uh have it large enough for their for their adult children and their families to come visit and stay um as you see from the plan the property is significantly undersized right um it's 12,415 square feet right in your R30 zone right where 30,000 square ft is is required so it's about 28 Acres but there's also some significant slope in the back um so there are again uh significant hurdles and challenges with respect to getting a property that that uh getting home that works for for the cagans and their family in addition to the lot area existing conditions uh the lot width is also significantly undersized for the Zone 65 ft where 125 ft is required in the zone um there's also slight deficiency with a lot depth at 183 ft where where your or3 Zone requires 200 so as the chair indicated you know there no doubt about it there are large relatively large number of variances associated with the application but that's to be expected when we're talking about um an undersized lot such as this um and we're work working with Zing criteria that are based on a 30,000 ft property um where we don't have anything close to that we have a property that's mostly less than half of that which is required in the C so it's a challenge right um and I've heard many times from this board its preference for to renovation over uh over raise and rebuild uh in fact quite recently in fact a few minutes so so um so the applicants the professionals are all cognizant of that and aware of it and you're going to hear uh why you know why that may have reduced uh the the the variance necessitated that uh in conjunction with the proposal uh if there was to be a renovation there would still always be these existing non-conform and the significant grading to deal with not to mention you know the b regulations that apply to this property which are Al which you know requireed a lot of thought and a lot of Ingenuity and work to to get um to get the D comfortable with with what has has been proposed um but in the end what you're going to hear basically is that in addition to the difficulties of trying to renovate this house at the end of the day you know from the applicant perspective and and their professionals the end result is going to be something that's preferable over that which which exists today and in fact you will hear that there are a number of existing nonconformities that will be made better right uh including thisy stb including lot of now there are we do have other variances for f and and building coverage but again to be no way around it pretty much with a lot that we're doing we're we're talking about here in addition um even though we're demolishing this house we of course made reference to the existing and so we make reference to the existing setback in the front we make uh reference to how it sits on the lot and and most importantly I thing um if when you're talking about the additional square footage right the additional massing that is being proposed over that which exists today that's concentrated in the back right so from a street skate perspective which setback is going to be almost identical to that Mr brosy could I interrupt you for one second unfortunately um we just had notice from the from Mr Akens who's here in the next case uh the if anybody's here for the goodwi Case goodwi Case could you please come forward um goodwi case is D variance we only have five voting members tonight which would require yes vote we've just heard back from Mr aens we're going to carry the um we're going make a motion to carry the meeting with no no need for re notice is that right correct um I guess we can go to Cha what does next month look like we have um two okay so given that I can't promise that you're going to be first but we will endeavor to put it put it on um for September and I think that date is what date is that theth September 5th so if anyone is here on the cou application in the pudle that matter is not going to be heard this evening it's going to be carried to September 5th that what you said she yes September 5th there's not going to be any new notice sent out under the assumption that you wanted to be heard we were here this evening so now you have that notice so to speak thank you for your patience I apologize uh sometimes you know Health matters conflicts they get in the way uh we're going to hear your application thanks promise okay thank you thank you sorry no worries no worries um I'll I'll I'll be quiet in a moment um so we're almost there so I was talking about the additional massing over that which exists in in in the in the current house which is focused in the back focused to the rear so visibility from the street um and and change to the street state from that perspective um is minimal is minimal at best um the uh and and you're going to hear as we go through the testimony about you know there's a there's a lot going on in the back of this property today um and um much of which is going to be removed um and so you'll you'll hear about um you know and and if if anyone was looking at the numbers and wondering how are we um uh so significantly reducing lot coverage in The Proposal versus what exists um that's why and you'll hear the detail you'll hear the detail on that um uh an answer to your question just finishing up uh I mentioned d I mention I mentioned I I didn't mention yet but I am going to mention now the seller in order to to make things work uh the basement area we we we only have a height of 7 and A2 ft proposed which is not ideal but you know another just another indication of the thought process that has gone into the proposal in terms of you know balancing trying to respect the zoning comply with EP regulations and deal with a property that is you know significantly undersized expensive but significantly undersized so bottom line um you're going to hear this this is this is not um you know something that is just put together and thrown out there and hope hoping for the best um a lot of professionals have spent a lot of time working on this to try and you know walk that tight rope in terms of what works for the app in what works for the neighborhood um and and and does not overwhelm the property we think we think we've reached that um and so that that that's that's kind of the bottom line on it um so so I would say yes we're cognizant of the number of variances but when you you hear us when you hear the testimony you'll understand what what we're dealing with um so what I'd like to do I think that covers it um there are a few other variances but I best through um and so what I'd like to do unless the board has any other questions is I have with me this evening I have the project engineer I have the architect and I also have the planner we see how it goes but what I'd like to do is have the engineer sworn in he'll walk the board through the property as it exists today and was proposed as point the application the engineer swor want to place cond sure uh Mr Ward if you would for the benefit of the record just set forth your event as a professional engineer here in state sure Patrick Ward Ward with Insight engineering um I have been a licensed professional engineer in the state for 11 years and uh in the capacity as an engineer I've been in front of this board multiple times been about a couple years I think last time I've been here but I've been in front this board M times in the past and Boards throughout Maman Ocean County and throughout the state um I have Bachelor of Science engineering from DX University from9 anybody have issues with Mr WS credentials none thank you okay Pat if you would um referring to any of the exhibits that have been marked let's start with walking the board through the property as it exists today sure so Orient the board we all know where we are we're on the north side of Cooney Terrace On The Water between gra Avenue and Hance Road a little closer to gra uh the gra intersection all N River this area of town as you know is residential so as Mr Bry stated this is a unique property and that is gly under sized for the Zone it's in um still has some depth but not meeting the R30 dep and has I think the most unique part is the elevation change and Mr Rosy touched upon it and I'll be discussing that somewhat at length from C Terrace down to there's an existing concrete bulkhead that makes this us sh at the rear pointing at A3 it's about a 17 ft foot grade change um to get down to to the beach of that bul to the north of that is a small Beach area then actually the water begins which is somewhat coexistent with where the mean high water um by deed this property uniquely since it is Waterfront the he ends at that concrete bu Waterfront prober go toine there right now as we're showing it in or lot area in all of our zoning analysis is based on the deed of the property which is to the B what that means and the reason I'm bringing it up and always say that on the onset is that all of the analysis is really conservative um arguments be made that we could extend that another 10 to 15 ft waterw to go to the bean high water line but that would be more of an aggressive approach we're looking for the conservative variance relief that we're seeking so today as you could see on the property there's a driveway off Cy Terrace there is a one and a half story dwelling and in the back is really the unique part of what exists today what one of the focuses of what we we're trying to rectify here there is an immense amount of Hardscape for what we would call a coastal BL Bluff property something that you actually couldn't get permitted today by the state series of terraces series of retaining walls um Stone in between the walls pavers in between the walls that leads down to that concrete bul I so the applicant here tonight seeking approval to demolish the existing dwelling and the associated heart the driveway patios the walkways and the walls um to replace that the applicant is proposing a new single family dwelling with an attached garage with we typical accessory a new driveway new drywall for the re front off and front front and rear porches walkways and a rear deck covered pork area which will be described in further detail later what we're proposing is a two-story home with a seller the distance from the Finish floor to the average distant grade is 30 in or less therefore satisfying that seller criteria in the ordinance definition um the seller will have a rear walkout the lower sorry a lower walk out area underneath the rear covered porch again show you more detail in a moment um exterior doors were added to the pl requested by Mr Rizzo and they're on the uh exhibit for ease of reference and I'll point that out in a moment there is no attic proposed and there's no proposed activity on the rooftop again those were comments from the CN memo and the chimney doesn't extend more than four feet above the roof just trying to touch upon those very early on and I'm sure we'll be repeating that so the rear yard that's where I'm going to start I'm going to start actually from rear to front so the rear yard from the existing house to the concrete Bulet is nearly all Hardscape as I said a series of Terrace patios chain walls with papers and stone between the applicant actually has similar desires like the DP does for a property like this which is that the restoration of a natural Coastal Bluff this area is a technically a coastal Bluff it's a regulated area by the state I'm sure we've heard the term when you're looking to do any work within a coastal Bluff usually they want you to remove things because they're there predating the rules and they're not something that's permissible in d's eyes today the DP Longs for removing any hardcap and proposing a natural veget slope surface and as I said we have 17 ft of relief from the front to down to that bul pin so what we're proposing and I'm going to turn now to 84 which is our F plan you can see the left here is the existing conditions View and a lot of things are being removed almost all all Improvement in the existing property what we're proposing is a rear area that vated and it's sloped we're removing a very great deal of that Hardscape now going to our our color rendering we'll show you a little bit closer of what kind of the ground surface represents obviously the house is here in yellow and brown we have the driveway and then we have a deck and walkway down closer to the water but you could see the amount of green area that's being restored or you know rated um what you'll see on the 3D renderings that the architect has prepared uh which I think are very nice and give this pro project a lot of context that that we have a variety of plantings down that rear slope there is a lighter colored um patch we'll call it amongst the plantings that represents a lighter colored mol it's not sand it's not beach sand it'll be a mol a brown treatment um in terms of other Landscaping the applicant desires to have typical Foundation plantings around the home um front and sides and for trees I know because that's going to be something that is discussed uh with every application the applicant's intent is to keep the ex in shade trees in the front yard and on the west side of the property so there is you see it in some of the photographs there's a really substantial tree right in front um the desire is to keep that uh it is reasonably close to the proposed footprint of the dwelling um at this moment in time it's the opinion of the professionals that that can remain um if for whatever reason that tree cannot be saved due to construction conflicts the app must and will seek a true removal permit from the bur that removal again the goal here and you'll see from the renderings that tree is to remain well there be should the tree not survive with the Demolition and such such um you will be required to replant in kind correct okay and that would that would be the reason why ra that's something willly so how do we achieve the transition from the existing Terrace Hardscape at the rear to the Natural vegetated slope um in order to not cause conflict with our neighbors to the west and to the east we must propose two smaller retaining walls that actually go perpendicular to to the river and that's really to make sure we're not impacting their grades and any of their improvements um those are proposed here and those are proposed as part of the D application so touch upon that the applicant has submitted to the state of New Jersey for two n capitals and it's unusual usually we have one in a property like this we have two and the reason is because of the complicated nature of the rear yard so your typical Waterfront project would require a general permit for the half Street construction we submitted that it's been deemed complete um some minor comments have been received and responded to by to the DP for the rear due to the complicated nature of what exists and trying to restore a natural slope with still working within the rules the applicant has submitted a caer individual permit for that we have actually two permits in both are team complete and again both have minor comments that have come back and forth and um based on those initial comments you know it's our opinion that we feel that we're we're going towards an approval we just don't have the permanent approvals in hand at this moment in time but that'll be a condition of any board approval anyway um more d uh the home existing end propos is outside of the blood Hazard area of the river just just for a point of context um and based on our offices site inspection there are no weapons on the property the driveway that I mentioned now back to the front a couple things from the CME memo there's a very small reference as a fence in the front yard that'll be removed there's Stone in the front yard that'll be removed the driveway is proposed as shown um it was the it's the desire to provide a driveway that can reach the now side facing garage doors allow for proper turnaround and allow for vehicles to uh exit and the reason for the width is and we we'll hear more about that as we go is to allow for additional offre parking and still being able to maneuver around and get out to the street without jockeying cars what we're proposing is more than adquate off tree parking for the applicant keeping cars off of coy Terrace um the Land Development ordinance requires three spaces for this home and RSI as requires two and a half we exceed both of those for new utilities to the residents we're proposing to comply with all recommendations the board Engineers letter and those utilities will be underground including the electric for storm water management and drainage so that all that Hardscape in the rear that's being returned to natural vegetation um that's leading to the over 1500 sare feet of reduction that you see on the the zoning information so based on that reduction of impious surface runoff will be reduced to all drainage areas including our neighboring properties we're also providing the added benefit of dry for the roof R off in the front as is over we there were comments in the C review letter about drainage and some clarification points we're happy to work with the board engineer to meet any of his comments and uh get uh reasonably get to his satisfaction on any of our details with so including disposition of War to now what I'll do is I'll summarize the variances um line by line and I'm going to reference the existing condition the proposed and then what's the required I think that's all that's important for context to set up the the other Professionals for their testing so the minimum lot area which is an existing non-conformity is 12,415 square ft there's no change the requirement is 30,000 square ft the minimum lot width another existing nonconformity is 65 ft no change required at 125 ft the minimum L Frontage again existing nonconformity at 65 ft no change required 125 ft minimum lot depth is an existing nonconformity this thing at 183.2 FT no change required to be 200 ft minimum front yard setback it's existing non-conformity that we are still seeking variance relief because it's a new home existing today is 46.6 Ft proposed is 46.66% which is a very slight Improvement requirement was identified on our plans as 61.7 as the average however uh acknowledging the CME comments regarding that calculation including the lots that were requested or should be included that requirement actually reduced to 55.2 Ft so we are closer to what's required than what was originally presented in plans I apolog there there's two ways to front yard set back in this case being that it's a new one do you want to talk about that or you want uh you reference in the river uh no sorry so there's the zones front yard set back and then being that it's a new dwelling it's based on the the set back the neighbor cop so for this case what we show on this exhibit what the plans will show moving forward is the average setbacks um of the properties of the block um that's what we are proposing to the board here uh so that's where we get the 55.2 we'll provide that calculation is that are you you want me to explain the other option I can do it the board so in this case but it being a new home we're looking at 200 feet on each side of the house on the same side of the street there's a couple exceptions in there as well um that they have to face the same towards face towards the same street so in this case the house next door to the left here to the West actually faces forward towards Grand Avenue so that house is excluded there's also an exception that if you if one of the houses exceeds the Rest by 50% yeah 50% then that one is excluded so there's one house that that follows that criteria so there's two homes um that were we're analyzing here and those two homes the average is 55.2 so that um is the greater requirement above the 50 Foot uh for the count well I well while Mr Mr so there's no issue with the the driveway uh calculation of the percentage of the front yard I didn't notice that in in the um I'm just looking visually it looks like a is overlay so we what the original we do oh okay I haven't gotten quite there the percentage of the front yard right right yeah I didn't see it on the maybe I just missed it that's on page five it's I yeah oh page five okay great sorry no worries so the minimum sidey yard setback another existing nonconformity seeking variance relief with the new improvements on one side is existing 9.7 ft proposed is 10.29 so another Improvement requirement is 20 ft both sides existing 19.4 ft proposes 21.25 ft another Improvement requirement is 40 so minimum setback from the river which is ordinance section 30-7 31e that's a variant so what we have today and I'm gonna this one's going to take a little bit of explaining because of our unique feed nature here today we have an existing setback of 90.8 Ft proposed at 64. and those are measured to the mean high water um and why that's something our office and Mr Rizo did discuss this for the properties of BU we have a unique circumstance here where like I said earlier our property deed end at the concrete bulkhead so this area that there's no raring BR either so this area that's on the beach is somewhat in question that we're not taking we're not just assuming we we have something that's being looked at by applicants Council but for the purpose of this application we're not including it so due to limited information we don't we don't have boundary surveys of our adjacent properties but what we do have is something that most of these war from properties are measured to in terms of their debt this the mean high water line so our average that we calculated for budding property setbacks from the river which we're saying it's the main high water line 68.8 ft and what we're proposing is 64.8 ft to that mean high water and that's shown on our plans and on on the U the survey as well so it's greater of 50 ft or the average the average will be greater than 50 ft to 68.8 so that is an improvement in our opinion from what exists today um and what is step back propos is 64 from the mean high water from the mean so the way I would view it though is to actually Pro your actual property line which in this case is uh 45.0 B yes 45.6 is measured the closest points in that for the purpose of the record that's fine yes question yes so the concrete bolt head is what we're discussing today but you are looking at food Council extending out to the repairing area it's I wouldn't say we're looking to gain more property we're trying to figure out what's going on beyond the title of what it of of the property that's between the mean High waterline and that compy bulk whether or not the applicant walks out there whether they're trespassing or not right so as you can see but but is there going to be possible development past the bulkhead that is will be heavily restricted by D but there's yeah that's what I was just going to get to Mr so something that actually just the aial itself kind of L into the the confusion here with with what that property is all the adjacent properties have these nice docks that go out into the river this one does not have that Dock and so say if the app was seeking this is why it's actually being looked into because you can't just Traverse someone else's property with with a dock or at least an extension to a dock so um that's why it's being into not so much from a zoning perspective but for just who lays claims to that it's in between what the state says they own and what we own right now yeah to be determined okay well the concrete bulkhead exists it's there yeah are there any other is that in pretty good shape I believe so yes not not proposed to be repaired replaced or any of that and are there other bulkheads being proposed on our property yes no does it tie into the bulkheads on the west and the East yeah so to the West lot one they have a similar Terrace Terrace in you can kind of see it actually nicely on the aerial ties into that and on lot three protection structure tyon because isn't further to the West aren't they redoing that whole bulkhead at the end of range I don't I don't think it directly ties into where to the point where it's a continuous bulkhead okay it ties into something obviously but um it's distinguishable where this property both get started starts stop that makes sense that's just how it's done everyone has their own individual could be either way but I mean in this yeah does does water ever come above come over that buit conrete buit you know I guess answer answer it as an engineer is when you you look at like the the flood elevation so the flood elevation is higher than that c the the 100 year the worst case wave energy flood um what that's meant for is you know your less than 100 gear storms to prevent wave energy from taken away from the slope but there's no no proposal to raise that make it higher taller right now it's it's uh it's there good condition another variance height of structure shall not exceed 3T within the required River back so this is the existing non-conformity that we're seeking the varant because of the new retaining walls so today there are four walls that exceed 3 ft in height within the river setback today we're proposing two walls and the big difference there is the four walls existing are really parallel to the river so these walls like I said are perpendicular they're actually meant to protect the neighbors more than provide any other benef maximum driveway front yard coverage is asked earlier existing non for that we seing a variance with the replacement of the driv today it is 3.38% today I'm sorry yes existing is 3.38% proposed 30.2% which is slight Improvement requirement is 25% minimum side yard setback a deck this is a variance nothing exists today proposed 2.74 ft and that's to the wall that is supporting the neighbor's property here on the east side 2.74 ft requirement is 10t it's worth noting that there is a deck as you get closer down to the water that is meets actually exceeds the 10 foot side set Mr W I had 2.5 but I think I was just scaling it off um if you actually dimensioned it can you just put that dimension on future plan sure yeah we're seeking we'll seek the 2.74 so the new deck does exceed the side yard set back that it's really it's the retaining wall and the stairs down to the deck this deck down here is at 10 ft this actually exceeds yes looks like you jog in there where does that stair lead to I don't know the plan open to the correct page if you just so the the bit that's two two and a half feet so so there that ties into the porch it does so the there's there's this rear porch area steps that come down have I see nice rendering okay so I'm going to stay away from architectural testimony but um here's your rear deck area couple steps down to this side got call walkway and then down and you see it drops back in and that's what the deck is they look like this is just closer get bring it closer down to the water and the green area there that that right now is existing patio Hardscape right kind of te of you know segmento block walls you know pavers and and stone there's not a lot of veg there that's that's what I was referring to with the uh light colored mulch old dece it could represent sand sand is not um the most stable in this you don't want to have exposed sand on the slope like this so it will be a mulch ground tree is that de concrete excuse me is the deck concrete the no okay I'll that I believe it's a composite okay rear yard setback for the deck is a variance so existing not applicable and composing 2.94 ft to the concrete bual that's on the north side of the that orig requirement is 10 maximum building cover is a variance existing 19.22 proposed is 24.2 n% the requirement is 20% maximum habitable floor area ratio the proposed is 0.29 and required is .15 maximum perous coverage existing 54.96 proposed 42.6% so that's the elimination of over, 1500 ft of impervious we find is one of the bigger benefits of this application requirement 30% in this s so Mr Brodsky I that's the the conclusion of my direct we're to finish up by just listing the variances and hopefully set the table together professions Mr will anybody be able to testify as to what the existing house is with respect to floor area floor area ratio I just see does anybody have yeah so the architect is here to explain all that um what I do have I'll just let let the AR go through each part I don't want to give peace to anybody El have questions for Mr Ward chair can I said it to you I think yes of course um first thanks for hitting L CH so the front of the property do do many of the properties um on this street have sidewalks or curb is there sidewalk curb today and then are you looking to propose any we are not looking to propose sidewalking curve it doesn't exist today and along long C Terrace typically does not existing okay that the B engineer requires payment in L do you agree toide that can you touch on storm water management a little bit more I know that today there's a series or I think there's a series of inlets um not sure how much that actually actually collect but there're spread throughout the the pap area the rear um there's weep holes in the uh bulkhead are you looking to utilize that and then are you going to be collecting water behind uh retaining walls in the bulkhead and and you mentioned a drywall you to touch on where that is and what that's collecting sure I I'll start the drywalls be a little simpler that what we'll take is the roof run off to the front yard to the drive which is the typical requirement of the burrow that's that will be in the front yard we'll make sure we avoid any conflicts with utilities uh coming into the home in terms of uh the rear yard drainage on the slope and all that which is very important yes there are uh there is existing drainage infrastructure it's a little bit of a cobbled mess but there are discharge points through that concrete wall that concrete bul pad um rather than reinvent the wheel we'd like to try to reuse those pip penetrations so any collection basically northward of the home that we we will you know adjust and and we'll throw this to the the board engineer as a condition of approval we will tie into that uh which again it's not not going to reinvent the wheel with the drainage dischargeable so we want to maintain that with the reduction of coverage in the rear there will be less water coming through those holes which is positive you know for stability and all that we we can work on this at a later date but um your intent will be to collect the water Behind the Walls pokhe head instead of just and and the walls too yeah yeah so instead of draining over them and creating a waterfall situation you'll try to drain it with stone or pipe behind it and then bring it down the back and then out the front the bottom yeah we don't want to have any uh extra water or saturation Behind These Walls won't be good for them we'll make sure exactly what you're saying Mr yep we will we'll make sure these are uh some sort of drain you know behind the wall of some sort that'll get it and you'll agree to provided civil Conservation District certification their primary focus would be slowy obviously making sure that you're not creating an erosion and stable correct yeah yep absolutely and then coup pages of technical comments you'll take any exceptions and you'll address those at a later date no we reviewed those as an office we have no issues uh with any thank thank you question I think that Mr Rizo pointed out that somebody greater than 3 to one and on those areas we describe what you're going to do there is it like a geocell material or something that you're installing to keep the soil stable yeah so we we we've gone back and forth with Mr Rizzo um nothing obviously that's been firmly presented in terms of material or or product with the board but it will be some sort of geoc cell which are really anchored into the slope and the material the surface material is actually in within the cells it'll maintain that two to one slope um lot of the vegetation actually can be planted in the cells and then once everything's matured that stuff's permanent so that would be the intent we we will work with the applicant architect they have a landscape architect we'll make sure that the burrow is well aware of what that's that's if it's a condition it's a condition we're going to do it in thank can you can you just briefly May L because I differences in elevations to either side of the property sure obviously obviously from the property it drains to the back but I'm just wondering what the differences are the elevations to the to the right side to the left side and how we were addressing that because obviously it continues to go down I'm sure it doesn't go straight to the back does any of that drain to either side the property on lot three or lot that's lot one we start yeah I'll start with lot one and you can kind of see it's really a function of how deep their house is in the lot deep the right word but how much further back they are they have more of a flatter area around their house and then they have that those Terraces you see them here so they don't have the uh they're not doing what we're doing to say that negatively but we're seeking a nice continuous slope down a little bit long area we have to keep up their slopes or their grade I'll call it with something can't you know there's not enough room to make it work with just greater so that's why we have this there to trying to put Boulders up there to give a little more of a natural look but there will have to be a wall because at the highest it'll be about 5 feet tall right at that corner on on this side and then so there is no water in fact we're actually taking we're going to taking on some of their runoff which is really I think one of the points of Mr Rizzo's question about behind wall drainage on lock three we have somewhat of a similar circumstance of what we're proposing but it's it's a lawn that comes out of the back of their house and it's just at a different elevation different starting when we have that we have two different slopes that are kind of working with each other or against each other that this wall here is a little bit lower in terms of retention height and uh again it's really just it's it's actually not as long as the one on the left because you don't have to doesn't have to be as extensive we're just proposing what's necessary so same thing um Council that water is actually not none of our water is going out if anything it's coming in and it's going to get to the r okay okay any more questions anybody from the public have questions of Mr Mr Ward on Steen I was showing earlier How about hurricane sanding is that going to impact that property a a hurricane Sandy type storm would impact this property since water yes would it impact the home no the home is high and dry above the 100e plus because it's it the flood zone on the water side is a is a velocity flood zone which means it's prone to wave houses and even the seller of the houses is above so the only thing that would be impacted is really along the shoreline um natural vegetated established slope like that is something that the DP desires and that's more of a Shor line to prevent against erosion if it's maintained sure and no that's the applic intent they want a nice maintained property thank you anybody else thank you Mr okay why already been sworn if you would for the for the benefit of the board in the record just provide your uh experience with the arit I have Bachelor of architecture from the University of Notre Dame I've been a registered architect since 2001 registered in the statey since 2016 been a partner at AER s and partners Architects based out of Philadelphia any questions have you PR before this board before I have not been before your board I've spoken to the board in Rumson and I go before various boards on a regular basis predominantly Southern Jersey Atlantic thank you everybody okay with credentials thank you okay de if you would um I see you've got one of the exhibits that we marked earlier that a11 okay you're going to start with that we' beener of that and any of the other exhibits that have been marked let's from an architector perspective walk through the property as it exists today and then what's and the existing home that sits here at a Liv C Terrace was built in 1950 um well somewhat maintained it is definitely its age um the design of the home is not necessarily uh with the design of the typical Fair Haven desired home it does present two doors to the street front um it is one and a half Stories We investigated the concept of renovation as we do with any new project when the clients approached us um however this existing home again is not meeting current energy standards it was built in 1950s with 1950s construction it would need um a substantial renovation new windows new doors new Roofing new siding um the existing floor plan tucks the kitchen which is the heart of the home in today's world all the way up against the back shared wall with the garage so there's really very little natural light that comes into that kitchen there really I was I've been in the home several times no views to the river um the second floor is really tucked into the roof structure there are only two bedrooms and a very small office on that second floor um primary bedroom suite as well as an auxiliary bedroom it has no access to bathroom and in order to renovate this home to meet the kagan's desired uh development we would have to remove the roof um we are also intending to push the back wall of the house a bit further towards the water um to be more in line with the adjacent properties so we would have to be touching the foundation in short everything about this house would need to be touched in order to renovate it and in the end we would really have an inferior product than if we honestly great it and try again the proposal for a new home so this exhibit 11 um again courtesy of Google view this is the home and this is our proposed new development um the goal that on have is to create a modest home on a very challenging site both zoning wise even wise any custy and we're creating understated Elegance here where development of this property is with the home however through by raising an existing home creating new we've been able to avoid a lot of the challenges that the current home presents so let me actually maybe talking through just kind of a little of the idea of the design because you mentioned of course the existing home is not commenor with faan but this design beautiful but it is obviously well outside of the character of the of the town right so maybe if you could talk a little bit about that we're hardly an Architectural Review Board but I think I'm sure I didn't ask someone else so that be helpful about to your point our design is not a typical white shangle Gables ended home and the ining with the new design compared to the existing was intentional in that we fli the garage to the other side of the lot so starting with solar orientation in the concept of Street presence we did take the existing home flip the ground on the other side and place the garage door so you can't see it as much from the street um again very intentional move on the F's part and on our part this street the house as it meets the street the massing was intentionally left as a one-story building we are not not providing um attic storage Above This garage again the clients for wi all of that concept with the idea of keeping it simple keeping at quiet and the home itself again utilizing natural materials new energy efficient Windows um the massing of the house does not have a pitched grof um against the backdrop that your zoning code actually doesn't require a minimum minimum roof pitch which so many other zoning codes do um we took the liberty to put a flat roof on this home it allowed us to keep the massing of the house significantly lower it is almost 9 ft under your allowable rid height and again we feel like the presence of the home is very in keeping with the developments of the neighborhood especially The Neighbor Next Door um as we have already spoken about the house to the left of this property faces on Grange so we can't really see it from the street it's not really as relevant to the purely from an aesthetic perspective I think it complements the M mid-century not an next door very well that's that's just my take and and there are a number of houses that might not appear from the street side on the river side there are a number of houses one is right next to Club where I was today that has the same facade just based of where is opposed to the street subject to an extensive review by the sport I did not hear that hug why is your driveway so wide our driveway is wide um partly because well two reasons first the conans are a current Modern Family they have two grown children who will visit on occasion with their two vehicles um the intention is that we want to be able to as an everyday home occupant pull in the driveway make the left and park inside the garage and we'll through the floor plans and show you how um arrival would happen but at the same time we want to provide parking in the driveway so there can be a car parked and another car can get past it if we don't allow the driveway essentially to be two cars wide I'm constantly shuffling who's in the driveway who's in front and then resulting in people parking most likely on the street so we do acknowledge that it is wider than strictly allow your variance code or your your zoning code but it is again very similar to what it existing you don't think you can accomplish the same thing by making the entrance to the driveway a little bit shorter and then building it out as you get further back that is a Val concern right now we are building out this section so that when I pull out of the out of the driveway I can back out and can you need that section Mr Rizo is that I know it's there's a technical you know how much space You Need Is that required that little it's um it's 30 ft between the garage and the uh right side here of the driveway I think 30 ft is typically way you shoot quarter so okay I think it's appropriate in order to safely back your car out yeah that's what I'm getting turn instead of a 20 point turn it is 30 okay M did you um take a look at the CL plan and then the front yard setback which is a variance condition did you look at how you can possibly shrink the depth of the garage or Shrink the mud room depth to maybe that set back a little bit further so the garage itself is honestly a foot larger than a typical parking space we did want to give the conans a little bit of wiggle room to provide uh the ability to open their car doors within the garage so unfortunately the garage structure itself not been any smaller um we debated this the length of the mudroom um perhaps if I bring this forward um this was part of your uh package so this would be the A5 exhibits um Mr Rizo is referring to this length right here the length of the mud room so again our garage sits here T teris is out at this end if we reduce the length of the mudroom the corner of the garage gets ever closer to that front entry door and we were really concerned about how people are coming to this home how welcome it feels we don't want you to feel like you're entering into a tiny little um passageway instead we were really aiming to keep the entrance in the front elevation of the home lighter and brighter again one of the challenges of the existing home is there is no sun that comes in from the street side so we really with intention placed a large window here in um in interior it's considered the music room and again we didn't want this is a pinch point between that front corner of the garage and the front corner of the building if we shorten the mud room and pulling the garage closer to the front door it was considered got it um I see that you're Mechanicals are on the left side here the West Side they're on the raised platform outside of the house how are those going to be accessed so um the intention is to screen those Mechanicals so these are the condensing units that are required for um air conditioning so again as Mr is pointed out they are housed on a platform outside kind of on the back of the garage with this Luber system those doors the the lubric system would be doors okay and then I guess do you need a ladder or something to get up there no the platform would be 18 24 in off the ground so there would be really easy for uh for access all of the other Mechanicals will be housed in the cell of okay then there's sufficient room on that platform um to get in there and walk around too right not just just off of the mechanics exactly there's ample room for the condensing un themselves as well as being that you're starting from scratch could this house have been designed with less square footage valid question um none of the rooms in this home are oversized it's a four bedroomroom three B proposed plan um we are we did someone asked earlier this evening about the existing home in the the coverages we've had the opportunity to survey the existing house um the existing house f is 2953 sare ft our proposed f is 3,590 square ft so we are proposing to increase the livable area of the home roughly 630 square feet um in today's world our rooms need to be of comfortable size this lot is Riverfront we're developing a new project here the rooms it need to be commensurate with the expectation of a of a new homeowner buyer on this on this property yeah it's significant property even though the lot is small I think being underserved would not be a good thing and looking at the size a lot maybe you know we're looking maybe at similar cultureal which is 3500 half any but but if you're somewhere between if you're somewhere between r10 and R 10 and and R15 you're still you're still looking at 3200 3200 square ft I mean you're you're you're still over you're still over the uh the 3200 square feet if you were in an R F 10 or R15 agreed um unfortunately there isn't a great guidance as far as the metric on exactly the number we have to reach because our lot is so under for our district and could I take 400 feet out of the house it would be a challenge but you know could we find it the bedrooms are 13 by3 they are not generously sized um the primary bedroom is 14 by 14 there is no extra space here um our seller we recognize Fair Haven's goal and not exposing and Bing whole basements our seller is not visible from the street we have a 7.5 ceiling height down there it's really not a generous living space it really won't be um as usable as some but you're not being penalized for for your square footage in so everything everything else is uh uh is the rest of the house the seller is non issue so you've got you've got 3500 35 uh 90 square feet you know between the first and the second floor and so you're not you're not being penalize it all for a solell work or an AEG could you have designed it with with less footage it would not have been appropriate to the scale of the economics of the lot to know place is smaller um it is a four bedroom house so could we have made it smaller yes we could have made it small I don't think it presents that big from the street though personally I think if you're looking at where this house has space I think it's all behind well behind the front which front which faces the river in Co so that that's just my my sense I think it shows very small from the street personally as as inang again as it the street is oneing yeah the bulk of that square footage is released at the back of the property and virtually imp perceptable from the street I don't know the person walking by is going to be able to perceive the difference between 32 and home because we did not place a large the does play into the side set back we've improved the side at best compared to what is there well yeah but you're starting from scratch if you met the letter of your zoning code though the house on this lot can only be 25 ft wide which really the size of the lot the width of lot really present a hard based on the zoning Bo the really is the lot was not intended to be in the zone in which it was placed have a 65 ft wide lot right supposed to be 120 12 so you added 650 ft 637 637 ft so that's the mass of the house you know I'm looking at this what is the reduction in the overall coverage square footage the inferious coverage comes all from what we're taking out of the backyard which exceeds the 600 oh far yeah yeah the net gain and L of is yeah yeah yeah all of the square footage has essentially added to the second floor of the home not the garage so again if we think about home as it sits the second floor is tucked within a roof structure this second floor existing is Tiny the ceilings are really low and they they've lost a lot of square footage because it is so so what you're saying is the 637 isn't 637 on the footprint no it's quite it's substantially less the footprint is virtually again that's they're loing quite AIT impervious right the patio behind the house exceeds the side yard setback did that right so that was that have been could that have been conformed well that's what I brought up earlier it seems like it's the stairway or the pathway leading to the patio that's the problem and not the patio itself so the patio itself the deck itself is actually in line with the house but in order to egress from the patio to get down the 18 ft to the river we had to put a staircase correct could there have been that stair so that it can formed I know aesthetically I like the kind of offset but given that you're only three feet from the side yard we have placed it somewhere could you have moved that staircase closer to the center of there you know further away from that yeah granted there's a retaining W there too exactly I was G to think so aesthetically I could have put it anywhere logistically as far as the engineering of it I would have to refer to my comfort would the enging firm as far as does that AB but the retaining wall or there it does so if you were to move it say 3 feet to the right then you'd have a three feet three foot strip between the staircase and the is that correct okay so how high is the retaining wall in relation to the scale it would as far as as the stair descends the wall does need to be a little bit taller again to retain the Earth coming from the neighbors yeah you see now looking at that it's because of the retaining well it's almost I mean I thought my originally when you look at the overhead you say why is that there and not there looking at that the retaining Wall's there anyway so we're utilizing the retaining wall is that the existing retaining wall with this with basically pathway or stair that's up against yes that reads to the walk out there is on that here you know we could take out a little corner of that um I think it I don't think it's law actually I thinken or Privacy Law well I was going to say that it does still here but it does it does visually we're talking about proximity to the neighbor it does visually um cover up the back to is that replacing the pathway that is there now or is that on the other side it's on the other side but we're not keeping the existing pathway and we're not reping though now if you can imagine the back of the home has a walk out similar to where we're placing ours and it has a series of stairs here that will be again to speak to the Dr up remember that we're dealing with a low structure as well only 26 and half speed there's no peak to the RO there's no excessive Dormers like we said on a lot of other houses which add to the add to the bulk of the street thank you I'm sorry to interrup there's no intent to out the exterior door the cell and then Traverse down to the water in order to get out the water and deck um you know you could Traverse through one of these mulch paths but it is not intended as a primary needs to get to water is there access to the water at all can you like is there down to the retaining oil or you just go to the retaining o that's it can you get to the beach you can get to the beach yeah this side oh okay sorry we interrupt any any more question any anyone the public have questions of the architect yes siring river is a category one Waterway how does that affect Your Design Mr Ward can speak to that yes thank you so I mentioned earlier about the njd permits So when you say category one that's that's a njd designation there're strict compliance with the c permits that we have to demonstrate um just kind of to generally summarize what we're doing is is advantageous for a category with water by replacing The Hardscape with more vegetation espcially as close proximity to the water but there's compliance that the D heavily considers that's already been submitted that we feel like so you don't know the answer oh we do know the answer I mean it's it's it's a long-winded answer there's the 300 inner 150 outer 150 we demonstrate compliance with both approving both with this application which DP will for that specific part of the compliance will look favorably upon Bas on yeah I can walk through floor plans if You' like me to I can here um he the previous testimony that there's no intent to um use the roof as any there is no stair there will be a pull down ladder to access the roof strictly for maintenance what's the construction of the flat roof I've had some horrible experiences with flight RS of my building life I hope it's improved over what I have TPO so our current intention is to use open web trusses for all floor and Bo structure um we would use taper insulation in order to create a pitch covered with c and then um there will be multiple stuffer locations coming through to which would be tied into storm water management um the garage building we're considering actually just having a single slope to one side and running a scuer the length of the backside of the garage to allow all the water to run off into a thank you great if you don't know already you should consider very regular maintenance because it will get Clogg seag and I've many not got be like a 22 right we'll give it 223 whatever it takes we have allowed for within the four to four ceiling night within the building for significant it's on the roof we will be SK from the street by by keep exactly keep just on the seller for plan yes yes I couldn't tell fromation the gym yes um those windows to the two windows they are two windows we are currently anticipating two windows into window well it is not intended to be a bedroom it does not mean the classification of a bedroom and that it has to a closet um well closet can be an armwall the windows are not currently intended to be egress windows if we need to make them egress windows to me code we can but that is definitely ask did you qualify it does not currently as design um the family room on the ground floor does have a door that does obviously address out but that is not intended to TV news so you can you can walk out from the basement to the backyard is that so Jordan considering that does this still qualify a basement as a seller so it's based on the average existing grade um which have discussions with the engineer on previously so average existing grade is is categorized by a minimum of Four Corners around the building in this case when they submitted they hope they provided five spots around the building now there's one corner that is much lower than the rest and the higher there their average grade is the better the project it makes it easier for them so I ask that they reduce their their points to four so that they don't like mute out or dilute the the lowest number so it it raises it a little bit they've done that um I think they've brought it on the exhibit they still need to formally submit it but with that calculation they're showing that the average eting grade to the first floor is less than 30 in and that's really all they need to do to show that it's a seller it doesn't count as a half story or thank you very probably actually few places in town it really matters though because here is on the Block it's an issue most really not interesting okay great um anybody have any more questions thank you hey Mr Janny you've been sworn so um if you would give your qualifications for the record professional plan certainly I am a licensed professional planner as well as a member of the American Institute certifi planners um I've appeared before this board on numerous occasions I have a factors and master's degree Engineering in the New Jersey instit of Technology currently serving as the planner for the burough of Carterette uh Freehold burrow as well as Redevelopment planner to South Amboy and planner to Livingston Township in Essex County I've been appointed by Governor mury to the State Board of Professional planners and an adviser to the New Jersey planning officials um and I I said I've been before this board many times as well as accepted throughout New Jersey as a profession thank you Mr J yes no no problem Mr Jan's credentials we've seen him many sign thank you thank you okay um Mr Jan with you would just just um sort of describe to the board uh what you were uh uh asked to uh review what you did review uh what the conclusions are from the planning perspective certainly um I was asked to essentially review the application review the corresponds with respect to the application review ordinances your master plan uh as well as uh any other issues that may impact the uh variance release that's affected this evening I was asked to provide a testimony this evening relative to the necessary statutory criteria to uh ensure variance relief uh for the nature of the variances that are sought this evening uh for the record this property is within the R30 District in the community and I have here what was marked as a12 which is an exhibit which highlights the existing property in green uh as well as shows the zone and as you can see the R30 Zone uh is along the riverfront we are within the R30 Zone even though we are significantly under sized but that is essentially the character uh here of essentially what's West sorry east of grain you see the Lots tend to be with the exception of one uh somewhat narrow and long and we are directly across from the r-15 district uh it is a single family home uh District we are a single family home this house has been there since since 1950 um and as you've heard from the architect it was uh explored in terms of whether this house could be renovated or somehow uh Salvage with respect to uh the necessary requirements to make this a livable four-bedroom home and the conclusion was that it would be significantly more practical and a better alternative to come fresh with the building uh with respect to that that that provided some opportunities to uh correct or to come into closer conformance with your District even though the plot significantly undersized and I'll go through that uh shortly uh so I won't go through the extensive list of uh issues that were raised through it where were the list of variances that Mr Patrick excuse me uh went but I will go through the justifications uh shortly um just for the record we had talked about application of different how different districts would would align with this um and there's been some discussion about r10 and R15 uh just just for the record um this lot is 12,415 ft and does fall within the r10 R15 but we look at the r10 standards uh the F for an r10 lot will be 028 we're proposing 0. 29 uh the maximum square footage permitted within an r10 would be 3220 we're at 3590 and you heard justifications for that uh the lot coverage in the r10 would be 45% we're at 42.6 the the building coverage would be 35% we're at 24.2 n Building height would be 32 ft we're at 26.75 uh the lot width would be 75 we're at 65 and the uh side yards would be 10 ft on each side and we have at least 10 fet on each side combined would be 24 we're at 21.25 um so we are as noted with an r10 which would be similar size lot to what we have very similar very close to what the criteria would be for the r10 um in looking at this application uh we actually have to justify this in terms of uh balancing this with the criteria within your master plan and the objectives of your master plan as well as public purposes as this board knows variant can't be granted for the sole purpose of benefiting the the property owner there has to be some public benefit and those are listed for us within the municipal land use law with respect to your master plan uh your master plan recognizes that there are variety of of homes that that are within the community some that have been uh essentially outdated or outgrown in terms of being able to accommodate and it does talk about the need to control infield development and to to preserve primarily the the residential character of the neighborhood and it reinforce reinforces maintaining a small town character and the character of a neighborhood I believe I heard a board member um discussed how this very well complements the home immediately next door which is that that single store story reads as a single story from the street of mid-century modern it is an Eclectic variety of architecture on the streets I do think it's complimentary to what's there so I do think we're respecting that character of the neighborhood with respect to the purposes of the municipal Landy law I believe there were three that we are promoting in this instance uh they are listed by letter and I'll read them as they appear in the ml e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and the preservation of the environment again this house is a single family home it'll continue to be a single family home it'll be a four-bedroom three and a half bath home uh it's maintaining uh massing that's essentially respective of the streetcape and and geared towards the rear of the house where it won't interfere with the views of either side of the neighborhood it's it's very respectful to that so it is properly concentrated uh it is properly associated with Ed density and in terms of preservation of the environment we are curing a lot of issues towards the rear of the lot in terms of impervious coverage bringing it closer to what the current CER standards are so I think we're very much on point with that public purpose G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial industrial uses in open space both public and private according to their inspect respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens um and we've heard discuss question about you know special characteristics of a waterfront lot and those those do have special characters special needs and and do require some special treatment I think we've achieved all that uh again our massing has been very carefully selected so that it reachs small reachs toward the back we are uh correcting some issues with respect to the slope to the rear we're still maintaining uh the ability to to manage Waterfront views of Waterfront AIS but very respectful in terms of how that slope will be maintained and getting that Hardscape that's essentially unnecessary and not favorably found by the D anymore and finally I is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement and I think the architect kind of nailed that in terms of discussing that even though this house has a flat roof which is not characteristics of Hair Fair Haven it did help in terms of protecting the massing of the house keeping the scale of the house down uh keeping the shape of the house somewhat unique to and with respect to the shape of the lot maintaining the minimum side guard setbacks that would be anticipated within this Zone in terms of 10 ft on either side even though we don't I'm sorry in the r10 zones um and and actually improving on the sidey guard setbacks that are currently there so it will be a desirable visual environment it won't impede any issues with respect to the neighbors in terms of uh creating any issues with respect to light air and open space they going to get essentially setbacks that are very similar to what's there today the massing is situated such that even though it goes back it will not create any visual view line imped Ms uh across the rear of the property it will not uh jut out Beyond those properties to create any view issues so I think it's it's been very respectful in terms of that and it has been a very desirable uh design with respect to the limitations of the lot which brings us to the variance Rel uh the first variance I'd like to discuss is the D variant for the floor area ratio and when we're looking at a DV variance for FL ratio the Coventry Square standard is what we apply not the Michi mean the uses permitted and we have to concentrate on what the deviation is uh in this issue the deviation is that we're exceeding the minimum floor area ratio uh part of that is because we'd have an undersized lot for the district we're applying a standard for an R30 or a lot that would essentially be twice as large as this um we we looked at as I mentioned the r10 Zone which would very similar and you know that permits a 0 28 we're at 0. 29 so we're very much in keeping with respect to the scale of the lot and what will be anticipated in terms of a home and the R30 would permit a house that's essentially 5,000 square ft or larger we UND siiz to that so we'll did attempt to scale the house to the sides of the lot using your bolt standards for other districts as a guideline uh when we look at what the impacts of the of the changes are uh or what the increased f are is we have to understand this is again a modest four-bedroom home we're adding about 630 Square ft to the existing uh square footage it's all Second Story space we are essentially using a footprint that's very similar to what's already there uh the height will be under the 35 ft that would be permitted and I believe in the r10 a 32t height would be permitted uh which we are still significantly under so in terms of light air and open space expectations we're not impeding anything uh shadowing to the neighbors in an unreasonable fashion um so when we look at the impact of this and whether it's a substantial detriment to the neighborhood or to the neighbors immediately I don't believe so I think uh it's very respectful of the lot shape very respectful of the orientation of the neighbors um and essentially not something that's significantly uh imposing upon the neighbors we have to reconcile that again with the negative criteria do we meet the intent of your ordinance and your master plan again this is an infill site we are resp in terms of how we Mass the house and how we try to keep that streetcape small and keep that massing going uh essentially out to the back um we we uh understand that you have considerations in terms of infill lot I think we were respectful of all that and we think we are very close to what the bulk standard would be for a similar oriented lot in the r10 so in terms of reconciling that with your master plan in your ordinance I think we're on point with respect to the C variances uh the dimensional variances such as say the lot size the lot Frontage the lot width the lot depth those are things we can't change that that's a fixed uh issue and those are by all means hardships that we can't change so in working with those hardships we created a footprint of a house U that honored setbacks again we're setting back the garage at the existing house setback but we're separating the bulk of the house further back be more respectful of the streetcape and how that orients itself to the street um essentially we have to show that we're we're presenting a better zoning alternative by the way we've oriented the house by the way we've situated the house by the way we've honored the setbacks or considered the setbacks and I believe in all those instances we have the the variances we're seeking are very respectful in terms of setbacks again we looking at the r10 we would need a minimum 10- foot setback we meet that 10 although we don't meet the combined of 24 but we're just shy of that with the front yard set back we're very close to the average setback of the homes uh immediately to our East having said that that's for the garage then there's this space where the house gets set back further separated by that Breezeway so it reads essentially much smaller from the street than it does currently uh and will be set back and and we're not going to be looking at the garage doors I do appreciate that design I I was had a problem with the the width of the driveway but if we flip so you're facing the garage door and narrow the driveway I think that's a worse look than than what we're saying now I agree quite frankly the house that fronts on gra when when you come down the street all you see is the two garage do to that garage and and that becomes the anomaly on the street I I think the tradeoff of the garage width to the not seeing the garage doors is is in my opinion is good but I I would agree with you I would agree with you so so in going through all those variances that Pat went through U I would offer that when we look at the balance of of that in terms of is it specific to a lot it is does it Advance the purposes of the municipal Landing law believe it advances the three purposes that I read into the record is does it substantially impair the neighborhood or the neighbors it doesn't it they're they're all reasonable they're all scaled properly they honor light air in open space the mass is under the height limitation it's not any significantly different in terms of setbacks from side to side or from the front than today it's actually a slight Improvement and again the big benefit of this is that we are curing a big ISS with respect to overall loot coverage um curing all that Hardscape in the back creating something that's a little bit more palatable in terms of the DP regulations and how that reads it'll be softer uh it still provides access to the Waterfront still provides a very usable recreational area it takes advantage of its waterfront location but in a much more respectful manner so when we look at that on balance and you understand how this fits in with your master plan your Zone plan I believe all the both barings relief we tested can be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood and we meet the test okay thank you Mr J questions Mr J any members of the public have questions of Mr J thank you very much J okay um Mr Bry as we discussed earlier um does by the way does anybody have any questions for any other professionals as we discussed earlier oh yeah if I heard the engineer correct they have not yet decided on the type of material they're going to use to retain the subject they're talking about I think they mentioned celtech in on but I understand if I the engineers testimony correctly that hasn't really been a finalized detail Fair characterization that's fair all right do you have do you have any concerns about not seeing that at this point in time or making conditional approval so I can certainly review it um I know typically the standard is a 31 slope as a Max however um they did agree that they need their their free oldd certification and they're the agency that really dials in on exactly that you know the slope stability so I think so long as they can um get that certification in that agency I think that that really does satisfy the slope and then in addition to that I would also review it and make sure that'sa that that's thank you so given that we have six voting members and we have a d variance um up to you how you want to proceed can I can I ask you just for a quick five minute break yes of course so just discuss of we're going to take a five minute Comfort break while Mr Bry we're back on way okay um right now I'm going open to public comment there's any members of public who have any any comments would like to make uh regarding the application at all please excuse me oh roll call please here Mel here Mr ran here Mr here here here okay so any members of the public who would like to make comments let the record reflect none um going to open a board to discussion at this time thoughts questions concerns Mr ran sure I'll start very unique property obviously um you know it's basically a an r10 uh that's sitting in I3 is there's obiously challenges there um the there testimony the house would have to what 25 feet wide if just comply I mean it's I think certainly there needs to be some recognition of of the hardship of of the property um I am a little torn about some of the things with trying to compare to the r10 because we don't quite go all the way to try to conform with all that I mean I would have liked to probably seen the FL area ratio come in at 0 28 so you can kind of hang your hat on that a little more rather than coming in 29 um I kind of feel like you're sort of Charity picking certain things of each Zone to kind of fit uh the application but that being said I think we need to be cognizant of um the effort to get rid of a lot of lot coverage especially in the back and I think there certainly is environmental benefit to that without question uh very interesting application for sure um I do appreciate some of the efforts were made to to mitigate with uh respect to the bul massing uh but I am a little torn about some of you know the size of the square footage I think there probably could have been an effort to to you know narrow it down a little bit with uh the overage on on the square footage thanks uh sort of similar to to Marty's comments listen I think it's great you talk about respecting the river right trying to not abuse it and I think this by a long shot goes quite a bit of the way towards improving that obviously it's a skinny a lot it's tough um I think the massing of it is nice you know listen I I really do love the design I I like modern architecture I personally do not feel like it belongs here but that's just my opinion that's not a planning thing it it truly is beautiful you've done a great job um for me it's just hard to see that on that block but outside of that I think you know you guys have done a great job to reduce the impervious messing's nice I like to switch at the garage I do think there's a lot of positives to it so so I'll take the opposite I understand what Frank is saying um this is not a historic district no um there's a mid-century modern house next to it I think this house is an definite Improvement front and back this is the unique property that has Frontage to the road and the river and I think uh both sides are going to be a vast Improvement not only environmentally but just aesthetically uh with that said this is you know I think we say I I say at least every meeting that we have here another unique lot in Fair Haven where as Mr Ryan said if they conformed it would be a 25 foot wide house which is basically a brownstone and Hoboken which we don't want um I think that would be more of an eyes sword within the neighborhood as opposed to what they are proposing um you know the last meeting we were here we were talking about you know every application is unique and you look at them as to what they bring what they in Far of uh regards to improvements like the chips that they put on the table I think just based on the improvements they're making to the environmental aspect of what's going on there removing that of Hardscape uh the river is uh you know it's a jewel of our town well having to dry well I mean there there are certain things that I would want to make sure like past the retaining wall there's a uh an that repairing area you basically have a wetland there now with the grasses and everything I would want that to remain um I would want to um you know develop the stop at that retaining wall because the river is I mean it's an important part of our community and look I just I was on the river when I got the phone call hey we have a meeting right now we could we could tell by the hat and glass thank God it wasn't out of my boat because I would not be here um but I'm glad I'm here because I'm very happy to see this and you know like I said it's a challenge but the positives I think outweigh the negatives and when you look at the improvements and the hardships that they have um you know I think this is a good solution to that piece of property do you feel like this goes far enough to try to comply with the r10 as the testimony sort of us to I know Dr laer you had a couple questions along those lines too I did I'm not sure we're trying to comply with r 10 it's just comparing the the size of the lot because it's an oversized 10 or oversiz 15 well true and I I I shouldn't say comply that's not the right you're comparing do you think that it goes as far as it I mean I think the testimony though right the 13 by 133 room I mean that is not a big room they're not big rooms yeah they're not big rooms I mean they didn't we you know we see things that are you know on a regular basis where it's like oh we have five bathrooms you know this is seems like it's a very reasonable design for what is there just a tough lot yeah it's a tough lot I mean that's we see it every month these we these funky Fair haen laws you know they've been existing forever and we need to BR them that's remember the economics of the situation too we're talking about a waterfront lot yeah you know can put a small house on a war lot you need to have square footage somewhere to make it economically viable for the for the zone for the area I think that's an excellent point that that can't be forgotten and I do appreciate the um the scaling of the house um the mass does not the light air and Open Space is really handled nicely um and I and I do go back to what you were talking about Paul when Doug was telling us about the chips that there are absolutely tradeoffs and and you know they played some chips with the removing of all of the impervious from the back and vast Improvement of that um part of the property and um I think that that that's that's worth a great deal it's the same footprint overall right Dr here what what is the U how many positive votes do we need we need five and we have six voting on six voting members so basically we're we're having some discussion and then I'm going to ask Mr Brodsky if You' like to receive the vote and if not we're going to carry and um I guess it Mr rway we hear testimony and then we can um make a decision on the next meeting when Mr Ridgeway would be voed but uh that's where we are now so we not saying we're going to vote tonight but we wanted to give Mr pres the benefit of how the board saw things and how we're going to move forward your comments are always appreciated as you if you have anything further to get I I don't have anything further to I mean I hate R and fair enough that's but you know what they they and I and I don't totally agree that that this building fits in with the uh you know with the the nature of the property I'm a little troubled by the size of the uh of the building I understand that the nass is in the back it's a beautiful design and it's just I'm I'm T appreciate your canas I think that's everyone uh Mr Bry would you like a minute would you uh you're yeah I know that's why I made sure I C it early on yeah to say hey here's how I really feel not my that I know well one of the uh one very very difficult I think we're gonna um if we could just uh carry the vote if we would to give other members the opportunity okay um very good say again yeah we we'll motion to uh Carri to um now we have two last Street for a for September I don't think it will be a uh a long issue so when we meet in September so we'll try to just get you on to get through it five September 5th without issue without requirement Reen notice we already have two plus good one plus good one I think this will probably be not be a long discussion Mr Ridgeway will have to listen to the testimony there will be no further testimony As I understood from from the professionals so has any questions I think I think they I anticipate if I can guidance that to the extent that they're were carrying I would encourage the board to see if there was any additional input from Mr Brodin I don't anticipate that there's going to be any more professional testimony but I would encourage you that when we have folks that have signed off the certification that they have listed and reviewed the materials that you again engage in your discussion so you get the benefit of their thoughts as well yeah and then I think you I I unless there's more presentation Mr Broski anticipates providing I think it's going to be I don't want to jinx it I don't think it would be as long as we all as this hearing this evening okay I I agree I mean we've heard all of our test heard all of our testimony you know the board can't the applicat because the applicant has the advantage of a full should have the advantage of full board agre just because we have that super majority requ no fully understood um we wanted to V you mrby we yes we would okay and it's in my calendar it's in thear it's in my calendar set aler thank you all uh leave a did we vote no we did not I made motion to carry second you made a motion I made a motion second yes yes no okay Mr leader join we'll do it um actually we talked about it before came it was AEF profession com we don't need that's up to you that's up to you you think you their testimony we had public that we had board on that unless you think there's something else you're going to do the board does not require tell You2 um I don't know whether or not there is um a lot of purpose in trying to talk to the other issu because I think at the end well good um so Jordan there there's three issues I think that you've raised for the board um and those issues have come up through some review of application subsequent to the amendment of ordinances um can you just kind of highlight at a at a high level what those issues are and I think that um you figure out what to do as a next step in light of your observations certainly thank you Mr uh first one is sell basements which we saw tonight I think we've saw at a recent hearing uh the new definition is very clear for seller it's if it's less than 30 Ines if the finished floor is less than 30 inches we have to kind of piece together some definitions but essentially finished floor elevation is the distance between between the uh first board to the average existing grade which requires a surve profile of these four corners and then a basement is if you're greater than 30 inches and there's another section in the ordinance that also says if you're greater than 30 inches it's it's a variance condition we don't want that really for a new house that was intended more so I believe for uh brand new dwellings not necessarily existing but the issue I keep running into is when someone submits an application for addition we want to establish what the existing four area the four area definition excludes sellers doesn't exclude basements so we need to establish what that bottom floor is um when the application hits my desk the first time they almost never have the average existing grade determined so I have to ask them to do that or we get until you know the week before and they're still scrambling to try to figure out what that is which kind of happens um so I think either we established that the zoning office needs to put in their letter that the that a surveyor averages existing grades required or we maybe need to revisit how we're applying these or maybe reite it to some degree I think it was an oversight when we wrote the new because we wanted it limited to new construction okay not thinking that the definition of basement and seller needed to be change needed to be amended to kind of point that out because we certainly don't I mean we're trying to make it a little bit easier for people and not more onerous so do we need them to require to measure and existing construction no I don't think so that only time that comes into play that though does it come into play with these older homes like Harrison where they're peeking up above that 30 Ines and now all of a sudden it's it's included in it because we saw it now right but the intent was not to penalize a house that's been there that they want to put a back room on is there a do we just modify it and say that piece of it applies to you know new construction only just to if you read the definition of ffb it says applies to construction but I think what he's saying is you got to dig so far these no one's getting it right pie together a few definitions but the ultimate one is salary versus basement and I think it's pretty clear the problem is you're gonna have a house that was relatively new was built with that 50% seller basement sort of thresholds that compli now all of a sudden if somebody comes back you're going to be picking up all that square footage that wasn't intended to be square the problem with the two is it has a third floor which is a d then and it triggers D and that's totally not what was the intend you didn't want to drive a full of the applications cost because of something of theity system is unaffected except by the way you know calculates it board standpoint now you're you're approving a lot of 3800000 and we like like we had to do and like you mentioned earlier that you have assessments and things that are going to be you know can we put a date on it is that sufficient enough or but I I need to establish existing floor area where we know what we're adding to it so how do we determine what that bottom Flor is the okay so first of all the intent clearly was to guide future applicants and future developments to keep the first floor level down because the development unrestrained kept pushing the first floor elevation up we cannot limit the first floor elevation to new construction of additions because there is definitely not a sound planning goal to have multi-level first floors so that wouldn't make it the issue that I'm having with what's being caught up is that we potentially could be sending people here that wouldn't otherwise have to come here those that are coming here it is certainly relevant how high out of the ground they are and so if somebody were coming in with a 49% above grade for square elevation and we're seeking a variance for additional square footage it should be considered but I think that right now the zoning office is taking a pass on all of it as pre-existing the only reason you're seeing the ones you're seeing is because they're triggering other variances they're already letting them through and I think Jordan that the answer to the question is that we should have a discussion with zoning about how they're doing it you should come back to us and tell us but I support clarifying the ordinance that it is clearly only for new construction that said to the extent that they're coming to us it should be a condition of anything coming before the zoning board that we know what that first B ation is because we will be able to assess whether or not that's important um that doesn't mean that they should necessarily have that counter disc footage and treat it differently than everybody else but the data is important um because it it's important in understanding the massing of the structure on block so unless anyone do you have to ask what it's categorized at can you ask the measurement uh we we can ask for the measurement yes we can take the measurement and consider the measurement without flipping it from basement to seller here I'm not suggesting get that and we did that to see we did that right by saying we recognize that this would normally trigger but it is not being done because so so if that if that application tonight was ping to 30 feet and we had an actual number to learn that they had that basement down well or up high it may have had some relevance in how you saw 3100 versus 2200 and I'm suggesting that that is something that we would still want to know but that that is kind of an appendage to cleaning it up with regard to new construction the only people that can control what first FL elevation is relative to R so does that start with you or does that start with somebody else to I would like you to speak to the zoning officer about how they're currently treating it and confirm my theory that passing them through is pre-existent and once we've done that I already know the answer is the answer that is yes then then I will take it where it needs to go to get it cleaned up and I will ask you for some help in what you think we need to tweak in the ordinance to get that you or a footnote your phone your pH yeah look I mean I prefer not to have to do anything with the ordance and just have it Applause but the truth is that um that may not be fair um for those that really do study it and understand it um they may get down rabid hole that I don't want them to get okay everyone right that say you all what's the second the second one is addicts the definition it's a paragraph one of the sentences is an addict shall not include a kitchen bedroom or bathroom unless authorized by aival place so I understand between the zoning office and then the building department in bromson that um also does Fair Haven is that there are no applicable codes that prohibit a bedroom bathroom or Kitchen in an attic would that be a third floor that that's how I that's how I would or if you have a wrench and you have a second floor above it which you want to call an attic you don't have to consider the square footage of it so you're kind of cheating in that sense yeah I mean an attic is in my opinion once you have one of those three you're probably not an attic anymore you're probably have FL well so remember what we're dealing with here the attic that we're talking about that's relevant is free attic the free attic was offered because we were constraining the measurement of floor area and we were trying to liberalize the ability to live within the structure um by being practical because it's there anyway why not let him use it the constraints on that is that only 33% of that attic can be 7.2 ft or above right is that the number seven whatever it is so they're not large spaces per se um by definition in order to be a free ad the other thing is that we are not similarly restraining any sellers so those of you that either live in or know people that live in a modern 3200 in an r10 know that that seller is usually spectacular space with tall ceilings and wine rooms and Nanny quarters times kitchenet and bathrooms and everybody's pretty much okay with that because it's buried and no one has to look at it and so I'm a little bit torn on this because to me whatever they use that adct for as long as they're complying with that 33% I think that's generally within the spirit of what we're doing um I don't think that the structure is going to look any larger and if the legislative intend is to let them use as much of that interior space as possible and someone has a design to put a master suite up in the third floor instead at instead of a bonus room or whatever else they wanted to do with it I just don't know that it materially matters to me but it is true that when we did it we didn't think we could do it we thought they were restricted from from uniform construction code to putting those improvements up there put in the bathroom up there is one thing put in the kitchen up there as a second did you know where that language came from or unless precluded by Cod I I have no idea was that just like a throwi in just well no I'm just wondering if there because if if there were you know mean that could also you need to address that language because if for some reason bokeh does something day after tomorrow now there's a provision or there's a Code as opposed to war was that I don't remember I I think I think the real question is whether or not for a starting point whether or not anybody is offended by the idea that you can do a first floor second floor and you know call it call it500 1500 and then upstairs is 500 7t clear so if somebody decides to make that into a master suite and figures it out puts a dorm room I don't know what it is do you care no we look at the house in Ron when I moved down here 10 years ago that probably did the same thing it was an attic and there was it was a beautiful Master Suite see you see out into the uh the ocean here's what here's what happens there was no kitchen up there the more the more flexibility you get them the more they will push the envelope on what a free atct actually is and so maybe before we make it car Lun to do what you want we need to be really sure that particularly those dormed areas and the total measurements are being calculated correctly and that we're not going to wind up with bigger spaces than we expected and I'm not I am not a fan of any form of minimal regulation as possible but I think that needs to be spelled out as to what you can kind en Camp you up there you know in free space you're talking about a master bedroom what if somebody then decides well I want to turn it into a mother-in-law suite and we're going to put a kitchenette up there yeah like a little wet bar in the whole night but remember you constrain to B area under 7t it's not a lot of areas it is but we know that people will try to do whatever they can play that out play that out why do you care if it's a mother if it's a mother-in-law sweet that then could be rented further down the road no they didn't say that a second dwelling unit inside of a structure like this would have to have some separate entrance no one's going to let somebody some renter walk through their living room Don't Say Never Never weird any sense it was beautiful had big the they turn the attic into a wonderful Master B it was lovely had a little deck out in front of it that looked out you know so so what if somebody wanted to have a kitchen at in their closet what if they wanted to have a sink I just happened to be at my buddy's house and he did this he didn't have a sink but he had a microwave and a coffee maker in his closet and I thought it was really silly but so what was it his office no his walking closet think you like a master bedroom and you had a little wine fridge in there like that's how but that's how it starts right I like the way you think I don't want I don't want you to be an applicant but I like the way so right now so right now in the finished sellers people do bars they do kitchen like things so what if their nannies living down there and that's used or it's for the kids I don't I do you care yeah I don't want to dwell in I'm not saying I just think it needs to be and like I said I am not I am the least regulations possible but I think it does need to be somewhat corraled because as we know people will do whatever they can and by the way they might do anyway you know I think we need lock down I think we can get ahead of it as long as we're comfortable with how we measure because we've always had this does this part count does that part count which leads to part three never under never underestimate the PO so remember what a kitchen is right so you've got water already because you've got a bathroom a fridge plugs into an outlet um a cooking element can be electric that can plug in um you're kind of you're you can do that anywhere I we can tease this out I think think that the question back to you is is there Clarity to the measurements because it is critical that we are maintaining a reasonable slope to the attic space because we're getting regular roofs I don't know what's happening with Dormers and what we're permitted but I think that they wind up taking square footage above s feet so it's some somewhat coralled as it is and it seems to me that it's relatively safe and if it is I don't think it MERS um but if wanted to say no kitchen's fine but then you get into well what the heck's a kitchen no flat RS um Let it go Let it go so the good news is that it doesn't sound like anybody has any strong feelings of a bathroom that's consistent with code that's consistent with the definition I guess we can just let everybody marinate around the idea of should we Implement some additional restriction as to going beyond that and we can talk about it what you're saying is consistent with office and the building department however I've been personally asking the applicants over the past six months or so do you agree not to put a bedroom bathroom or Kitchen in your attic and everybody say no we're not going to so you until we got to one application that didn't want to do it that's no one was going to build over the garage either yeah I always thought that um I always thought that the Third floor required a separate engine because I did a renovation project in Matan and the zoning officer told us we couldn't finish it for habitable space because it was too far from the exit and it was fire hazard and I'm not entirely sure that Rumson is right but I do respect those guys a lot and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt um and at the end of the day I like I said I I I don't care what they do up there as long as it looks like it's just an attic and it doesn't look like a third floor I I see Ruth I will open it to the public um I have a feeling I know we so as it sits the ordinance is interpreted in a way that allows it I think what we're telling you is that nobody here feels as though you need to tell them they can't do it and then we can revisit the issue over time if the kitchen issue feels like it needs to be addressed got it thanks and then the third one is is really quick uh it's regarding up zoning um so the way I understand it is for the most part they probably wouldn't be coming to this board if they comply with everything in the zon criteria because you have to do everything um one question that came up is regarding number of stories so be Haven doesn't require or doesn't permit anything greater than two and a half stories so if someone were to be converting a half story addict to a full story addict does that take them out of their the previous up zoning that they got by with which would then open up possibly several other Varian is another criteria you're going back down to your let's go back to the beginning upzoning permits them to do a job without coming for a variant 100% if they're coming to the board they're not up they can't be so if there's any variant at all it doesn't work that means the okay so I think that that's clear is the ordinance clear on that and it was just a matter of how we read it or does the ORD I don't think the ordance clear on it but I'm clear on how we're utilizing so you're saying that you can UPS with everything I don't have any comfort with board but I'm creating a third story essentially well that doesn't nobody's allowed a third story you have to so there's no up zoning if you have a third story pretty much the full attic yeah I mean it seems to me that that would just be a variance condition right there may well be a good reason to do it but there may well not be I think the idea of the upzoning you know look at the applications tonight like if there's a way that they can say using these rules we fully comply can we avoid having to go before the board and all this time and money that it takes that was the purpose and so once you're coming here you can't hide behind the fact that you've complied with most but not all and I don't see how the story is any different can you can you so so if someone were to go to the zoning office with a fully compliant upzoned plan proceed and then in the future come back to convert a half story addict to a full story addict they no longer follow under the UPS opening criteria and now it triggers a whole bunch of stuff that oh I understand what you're saying again I still don't isn't that separate though I mean cuz then you're going to go back to the zone that you originally in so the regular attic is 33% so to make it a full attic you're saying they want more than 33% up right well of course that would come back because the idea of not just for that one variance but now you're opening up you're opening up all the other variances that would have triggered conditions now they've already bu right so the question is whether they can modify the attic they could do the slippery slope but they may not get the attic but but the initial up zoning was all compliant so then they're left with something that worked okay right yeah you're right because then they will be pre-existing when they wouldn't Tri okay again the free reversing the thought if they did that up front they would be here right correct the the free attic is something that we're trying to let people use more space inside their house we have to be really careful that it isn't abused um and everything's been abused in the past so the question is not if it's one but you got to watch for it and all those Dormers and the 33% is where those measurements are and you know the other thing that just came up is that there was an applicant that was trying to describe like a roof section between a recess second floor and so when Jordan presented it to me well how do you calculate this space I said well it's either first floor or second floor and if it's on the second floor then the question is whether or not it's under 30 Ines because we gave them a certain amount of room and so that's super important but unless we look at it the same way every time unless we get that measurement from them then we're right back to where we started um and if it's more than 30 in that amount of bulk warrants calculation as what yep I'm clear there thank you Miss Blazer could I ask you to step forward so the owl can pick you up I can't can you project as well as you can please yes Ruth Blazer River Road still there um years ago the criteria for for an attic was whether you had pull down stairs what you had yes is that no it's it is part criteria well we changed it what we did was so so Ruth it's kind of a long story that stretched out over about a decade but this the short version is that when we decided to constrain first floor elevation make sure people were not sticking their basements out we restricted a lot of people's ability to build a large seller as a result we said well is there a place that we can allow people to create some EX extra space because like it or not people need more space our Lots aren't getting bigger so is there a practical solution and so on balance what we determined was a true attic and that's determined by the roof pitch and that's determined by the interior measurement of where from the attic floor and the bottom of the roof Raptors hits 7 feet and above okay so as long as it's only oneir of that footprint true attic they can use it they can then put a fixed staircase to it and the pull down doesn't count they can independently do a pull down and they don't need to meet that criteria as long as they're not living in laot house and make their beautiful job toing Ro several years ago but just follow my mind become the aesthe to me if I own a piece of property and I love something that is within set back no matter what it looks like I should be able to build it well so you can build it if you build it greater than 33% above 7et then we consider it to be a regular living level and we're going to count the square footage and go ahead I have a question yeah why do you have a minimum square fo for some dou AB a minimum square footage for the house we don't I don't think Fair Haven does I know some towns too that that's the whole tiny house thing that's not allowed because they I don't think does I'm not aware of that but you don't need it once you have lot shaped diameter and then you have sign is created by your set actually so not to be funny with the flat not to be funny with the flat roof but play out the attic situation with the flat roof now you get like a little block on top of a block imagine if they did it here and they had a little section if there's no dormered area to to delineate out where it is you would get a flat house with a little section on top that was 33% if they had a fixed stair you would get like a thing that would look like Lego box built up because there would be no pitch of the roof some people like leg box but I'm just saying could you imagine what that would look like in flat roof no it would not be over the height it probably not look at these guys they were 9 feet under just saying I don't actually know that that would be the disaster that you're presenting yeah I think would be anti flat roof and then you get people walk with with doors walking out onto their flat roof because you be tall enough to walk I know I can't believe they don't have why we Ro why do he care if they wanted a roof de I don't understand why it's so important I don't know I I don't I do not like the aesthetic of it here I love I love it I think it's beautiful I do not like it here it looks like it belongs in the Hampton this is so so the AR anywhere that's not here so the architect pointed out that many towns have that restriction on pitch and you don't I think the reason is the way I always understood it is because you don't want to look commercial and you don't want them sliding a third living level so that what you really have is a three story part I think that's the reason that in the beach now they don't want it because you're going to squeeze a whole extra floor in there we were talking about it before I said it it is true in galma that you have a roof pitch your OED and they Grant every variance as long as there's no electricity as long as there's as long are no way to Drunk reelers on the roof fall at off di all right remind me what I promise you I will do and I'm anything else up no it's just a seller first basement all right we'll take care of that good so we got absolutely everything today uh can you double the length of the the meeting on September 5th and just make it 13 hours you took care of all the administ we did it prior I'm gonna but what are we doing because we've got now two plus two so here's the thing my my thought for September for this application was realistically it should take 15 minutes max to the extent that I understand what happened I'm guessing that you're just getting a new vote with seven people and there's no additional we will have discussion there's no testimony Mr Bry can do a quick summary if he wants to at the beginning we're going to have discussion for uh ridgeway's benefit when he's here just so he hear you want to certify both oh no should I isused oh he's refused we can recap our thoughts on it we should take no more than minutes and then why he refus I think the weirdness about it is that they didn't have anything to take away they used to right his father well they took our discussion didn't have to take away potentially change because it wasn't clear with regard to the trepidation from the two of you that changing it by any particular amount would have made a difference and so I think what you're going to get is the same plans simply the addition of Bridgeway and then a vote but everything changes if they feel like they need to present something or if richways have some questions I mean I can't imagine coming here without my professionals again being ready but let's just assume that's quick then we're going to go what to the people that were on for tonight good well Goodwin's the one that we couldn't get to with the I feel like they've carried it many times at this point yeah don't know and I said well one or two carries because a was late and all that other stuff too guarantee that you're going to be first how many times is good went carried on their own to N I don't think they have I think we right was April ju oh the first night was the the one with the Sprouts remember all the whole rally they car today because they would have been 100% vote in order to get their I'm I'm going to say this again and maybe Mr ridway will get this far in the tape it was really upsetting to lose a member today Al got sick and I'll had a recuse alone conhagen no matter what but please be mindful that if we had an extra person here that project the last project would be presumably or they'd just be rejected and then they'd have to go back and start again but they'd be 30 days in advance of where they're going to be um these other people I think that Mark would have gotten here and we could have heard them like majorly disruptive if you have a I understand that you didn't see your I spaced out spaced out I literally thought it was thank you very much for being receptive and getting over by the way did you notice everybody in the room CL for you they were all but anyway Ju Just just be mindful it because stuff happens Al got sick and so we have to be ready for that and so we got to have nine so that if we get get get down to seven at least we get seven um that's it so so I think we need to hear those two first and then the other two are just going to have to be behind them it's just the way it is yeah I mean good one we we we need to get that through we heard most of it we heard one one full session of it a I don't even know what they're presenting you know we've heard well it's maybe comes back I'm happy I'm happy to sit here I'm happy to sit here with just real quick I'm happy to sit here through Goodwin but don't forget Marty's out on Goodwin so am I so if it goes really long those people are going to get pushed I'm happy to come here vote for for um Kan or whatever his name is and then it's going to be him so I'll go on the back but if it's a long thing it's just GNA be the only thing is second presentation good one I don't I don't expect it to be a third right so so do you guys have a preference in terms of Goodwin or conhagen first I want to get through conhagen first and then we can she go conhagen first Goodwin second and just let the applicants that are first and second on the agenda presently know that we have two that carried and they're going to be behind the two that carried and the just is what it is don't give them my number all right oh oh and also and also that we have two recusals already withagen and we need seven and we have two refusals already with regard to goodwi so we need seven so we need perfect attendance in September in with a two day alert and a 2our alert po the