okay this is a regular meeting of the fairen Zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board reorganization in January of this year the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 26 2024 in the Two River times on January February 1st 2024 that notice is also posted on the bulletin board in burough 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 in the office of the B clerk copy of the notice has also been sent to such members of the public as have requested such information and according to the statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement me 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 fa Zoning Board of adjustment the board is a separate and independent Municipal legal entity and its limited Authority is specifically set forth in burough ordinances and the New Jersey municipal anus law this quazi judicial nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and Council the zoning board does not enact the bur Landing laws and regulations the bur Council dos to act the zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the bur of fa Haven this is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of The bur's Landings laws or denials by the zoning officer an applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal Landes law and the Fair Haven ordinances by satisfying certain required standards approved the board has no authority to wave these requirements the burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that here she is entitled to specifically requested the applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment of the Zone plan variances relate to the future use of land and not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or unique personal situations roll call please Mr here Mr here Mr Ryan here Mr for Dr loer Mr Pella here Mr here here please join me FL Al to flag United States of America to stands naice all right we got a big agenda tonight uh we're going to start with the pal stre how I do Mark theist chair theist but very good good evening all mark a on behalf of the applicants and kist may I confirm that we have jurisdiction in this matter yeah ask you to bring all your Witnesses up toward ttif they might Testify the record Mr St ask you to stand up remain standing anybody else the app the applicant are not testify the board has particular question raise right hand please M testimony give one board be truth all truth trth I do I do okay ask Mr I'm going to swear you in also you swear testimony you board be the truth the whole truth the truth I do okay I'm G to ask that you before you start testifying that you spell your last name for the record all the directions of your councel okay um Mar some exhibits first uh we could Mark some exhibits yes let me do this here's what I have so far I have the application together with the legal basis for the belief checklist uh look like they were all received September 26 2023 and Mark that as A1 A2 is going to be the three shoots of images totaling of six images of the site A3 is going to be the permit Deni of July 12 2023 zoning officer A4 is be the survey of property prepared by Morgan engineering looks like it was March 30th 2023 A5 if the variance Plan F includ a 200 put list proposed demolition tax map zoning map key map prepared by Morgan engineering it's like April 15 revised April 15 2023 A6 going to be the architectural drawings three streets closed front elevation Clos Flo plan rear and side elevations and the FL area building populations also zb1 is the engineering review of November 9 2023 over signature CME Seco zb2 is going to be the engineering riew of February 20 2024 again CME um we hear permission any other exhibits that you want to have more yes D could you call them out I think we're at 87 so boards we have uh the first one is the site plan from Morgan engineering site same date coloriz colorized as requested um and then we have a breakdown of the uh of for plan here as far as Square buges are concerned think was part of I think it was already part of your re not yes yes it is okay yep and then we have a some photos here on this one along with the elevations looks like the second elevation rear elevation and a side elevation okay Mark that A8 Mark that for me we have a before and after photo we have a proposed and then the last one is the board plan along with the and and that's a photo of existing and that date on the on the third sheet that is that's 2624 2624 that's A9 A9 A9 any other exhibits at two that's all not this time uh actually I have one I have a combination of what has just been marked to to be identified as packet on 11 by 17 okay so nothing new in there so A7 A8 A9 one packet yes preliminarily I understand that the applican is also seeking some W from the checklist is that correct that's corrects yes we take care of those preliminar sure I can run through them really quick uh first two are draft notices which at this point I'm [Music] sure and then the standard three are agencies which are fine board PRD and the extent they' be required i' ask be submitted sit there that's combination [Music] I'm sorry I interrup um the last three are M County planning board pre-old SD and M County Health Department and to the extent that they're required they the applicant agree to sub um you recommend you Grant W I do recomend W any board members have any questions or concerns about the potential preparing the way condition approve there did very good thank you very much uh ladies and Gentlemen The Cry family has owned this property since 2004 they've raised their six children there five of whom have left the nest and one has left three of which have gotten married in the last 10 months and one of which is expecting a child the reason for the requested application this evening is so that this three-bedroom house which served the family well in the last 20 years and have a fourth bedroom that would serve as a guest W bedroom with an onsuite bathroom and we would be converting the existing two-car garage to achieve that and then we'd be proposing to add on an additional two-car garage and add in a notch where the bathroom in the suite that I just described uh would be located so um with that um the um I'd like to review with the board that the property is particularly uh suited in that it it forms an arc along Buttonwood drive and there are echelons to the existing ranch house and The Ranch House itself is only 17 and a half ft in height very different than some of the other structures in the immediate area that's significant when you're going to hear the testimony with regard to the variance for exceeding the cap the floor area cap um particularly because we feel that it is nestled into the existing configuration of the lot um the lot itself is significantly oversized at more than 28,000 Square ft where 11,000 sare ft is the requirement in the r10b zone so very significant size lot um we we uh will provide testimony this evening through the architect and and the planner to show that what we're proposing respects the existing rear yard nonconformities um and significantly I'd like to review with the board that in 2021 there was a there was a gut to the studs interior renovation on the inside and on the outside more than 500 landscaping plants were placed 100 trees and 400 specimens and I know that because I walked the property this afternoon myself and if you've driven by it's fair to say it is beautifully mascap I think that's an understatement when I say that on behalf of the calistic family so the the significant reason that we're here this evening is that we're we're exceeding the for a cap of 3,220 closing 3759 sare ft um also significantly for the applicant's benefit you'll hear testimony that the other metrics right lock carbage building carbage and F are well within range for the r10p requirements well within range so with that chairman um I'd ask that um I place credentials for the architect James Daly on the record sure we've accepted Mr Daly as an expert before why don't we just briefly very good uh Mr da very briefly um you license architect than have you been testimony before planning and zoning boards in your career yes throughout the state of New Jersey including this board cor chairman any questions about Mr D's credentials thank you chairman members okay Mr D I wonder if you can take a moment Orient the board to uh the existing kist residents the beautiful uh property that they own and let's talk about what's proposed in connection with the application this evening I'll do this briefly and then then we go to the plan but because it's a little harder to see on here but on the color drawing here the green is the lot obviously U that's the that's a supplemental Ona so the tan is the existing house this the patio on the back so these dark uh red areas that's the addition so it's the garage Edition and then this is a small it's going to be a bom and then there's a reconfiguration of the driveway that's the gray here so um that'll be configured uh it's actually going to be less Paving than before um but it's just preconfigured in order to park cars all the cars will be able to park behind the front yard setback line so you have two-car garage along with at least parking for three cars so probably five cars Mr tell me about the other lot is the other lot a separate lot it's a separate lot uh when I reference the 24,000 square ft that square footage of the extra lot across the street is not included that figure okay so that's we're not including that yeah okay it's just for the board's reference um it's also beautifully landscaped it's maintained as though it were a public park for all purposes and the kries invite neighbors to use it it sits right on the on the water again I walked it beautiful so that's that's that part it then uh it'll be easier to see on the plan well you know let me show you on this before I go to that so so we have the two setback issues so so the setback here um these are existing right these are existing set back so you have one that's the 26.4 I believe and one is 17 so we are maintaining the existing rear yard setbacks we're not making them worse but um and and the existing one's already there so we're just going along with the the angle of the building already and maintaining those setbacks so we're not Mak anything worse there but they do violate the set back of 30 ft and then um the only other thing is is the overage on on your your cap your your square footage cap cap correct everything else makes it f is in compliance lck coverage building coverage um obviously the height and then go to the plan here show the details referring that to sheet A1 of your plants correct and the darkened walls here that's the addition so this is this bathroom addition coming flu with the existing backyard and that that's the existing garage by the way so this is your existing garage right here this Square sorry when you say the existing backyard you do you mean the existing rear line of the house correct correct sorry where the garage is now thank you uh and then so that's the garage that's being converted right here to the bedroom sitting room and a bathroom and then this is the added garage right here so and this is Twisted at a slight angle in order to maintain that the rear set back here to not make it worse um that's essentially it for for the addition that's the whole thing right there followup question what you just described now the ranch question has three bedrooms correct and this would add another bedroom to make a total of four correct could you review with the board the dimensions of the proposed new fourth bedroom the new fourth bedroom is 11 by 172 yes it's guess with with an on Suite bathroom that is 5 by 1010 and then there's a small sitting room here 112 by 81 and then there's a small music room here adjacent to the garage that is that same 8 fo 11 like 10 KN and those are expressly not intended to be bedrooms correct correct they don't have closet they wouldn't qualify as bedrooms under the building Cod thank you terrific um there was a question as well Mr daily by recall from Mr Rizzo's letter is there access to this garage internally through the house or how would that be there is not and that was requested from the owner that they didn't want that access keep just private here so the access is to the man door in the back of the garage here and then you can also go through the doors themselves you know overend doors but there's a rear man door here to access the garage and will there be a walkway on the front of the garage towards the front side of the they're going to extend there's a walkway now coming off this doorway which is like side entrance right now they the main entrance here um and then that'll get extended in order to access and that's depicted on the site plan is it correct a ref okay can we go through some of the elevations for the ports benef sure since we're on this sheet let's stay here uh this the front elevation so here just on entrance that already exist everything exists up to this point here you can see and then this is the added garage the new addition will match exactly into the flavor and and materials of the existing house so they'll be this board and bat type look up in the gables we're going to use um Cedar Impressions siding to match what's existing same same brand of Windows uh and and Carri style garage doors keep the look at the existing once this is done you you won't know the difference between this and the rest of house as far as the materials are concerned uh just to go for Heights to the existing house is at 175 and the new garage will be uh the peak is 15 ft where as the Zone otherwise permits 32 ft 32t correct well under the right thank you then if we go around to the other two elevations this is the rear elevation so the Shaded in portion here that's the garage position that's your rear mandor to access the garage this shake little shaded area here that's where the B addition but it just integrate with that and then and here's the rest of the house here this is the side addition of the garage showing the garage doors um just single overhead garage doors and then the peak once again will match the peak of the rest of the house these are photos here this is this a photo of the existing uh this is a rendering of the POS right here and uh and this another shot the backyard of existing Mr J there were a few more questions I think on uh Mr R letter of February 23rd as well um he inquired as to whether there would be a uh no fixed staircase to an attic in the proposed garage that is correct all pull down stair staircases so there would be a pull down in the garage to access the attic and there's already an existing pull down in okay um and he inquired whether a drywell system was being proposed for any drainage or there any drainage there is not only because it's well it's an over size lot it's well under all the uh prescribed you know lot coverages so so the drainage should be fine given the existing Landscaping you know per grass area there's quite a bit grass around the entire house so so that's not proposed at this talk and his other question was whether or not this um parking complied with rees's uh with the proposed board bom it it does it does and the ordinance for for the town here with the requirement that most part can be behind cor chairman board members no further questions Mr D this time um since there's no access to the garage from the interior of the house did you consider putting a compliant detach garage on that side of the house there was but uh I actually the owner was going to answer that but um I don't think that was ever considered because you could put a detach garage on that side of the house with the full rear yard front yard side yard setbacks and it's already this configuration detached from the house basically because there's no access from the Interior right cor right well no you still you still would not me rear yard effects because we have existing re yards effects don't comply we're not making them worse right but I mean what you're adding could be 30 ft instead of 26 feet from the rear yard you'd still have your front yard set back you'd still have your side yard set back you'd have a detached garage which for all intents and purposes you have now because you don't have access from the inside of the house and that addition to the property would be compliant right right okay and the proposed condition for for the rear setback you have at 26.2 ft which is the rear of the garage that you're adding but the bathroom over here you're adding to the 17 foot rear yard setback is that correct correct okay so it was a little misleading in the proposed Condition it's both here okay that's one my questions so clity on the detached uh the setb are different for detached so you could put the detach closer to the property boundary as a matter of right understanding know is is that the um the operation of the cars in the driveway with the made that more difficult but that's that was part of the problem because you have the separation between Str Str doesn't really gain anything because you're not you're not you're not having the problem just asking if it was considered and because it would be a compliant structure instead of add to the the rear yard set back it's not like you're pushing it too far forward you're already well be50 yard so I don't you w to gain much by even though you could you you you do gain something if the house is getting very long and is occupying sort of a lot of space on the line if you were to take that and make that a detach and push it over to the far Corner what what are the setbacks Jordan would be 10 and 10 10 and 10 yeah and you would break up the massing of the house and it's a really it's it's actually a very interesting idea do you lose anything with regard to the design of the of the new addition to not have the garage attached well there's also the option of making an in I mean it wouldn't take much to put a a door from the inside if they want to in the future they're just choosing not to at this point but they're not try they're trying to keep their options open in order to have door from the inside at a later dat What's the total length of the structure once you're you're completed as proposed from if you walk from one end of the building to the other all the way to the end of the it's about 150 120 over 120 that's stru thear that stretched out too yeah correct well and that's with the looking at A1 the house says 122 and then 27 foot linear to the new is there a just to ask you to bring out the front is there an aesthetic reason to have a garage is it you know attached as opposed to detached well yes there is just to blend it in with the the same house and there was garage every before um and as I said they they do wish to leave the option the future interior that would be that would be here as I said in my opening remarks I think the way the new garage was configured is a function of the lat gym if you could please bring up the colorized site plan again so again if one approaches the house from the west side on uh Buttonwood heading East um and if you could refer back to the color picture gym in the bottom right of the A1 I think it is right if you could pull that up please uh the color picture sorry the next Oh Oh you mean the picture itself right bot bottom right right right so that's could you could you drop the two right bring that one forward please thank you right the bottom right photo right so that's the view essentially as you're heading east Buttonwood so it's it's and again I walk the site this afternoon so it's a very unique lot given its shape and its configuration and that angle provides a greater depth and if you will allows the nestling of that portion that's proposed to be in the back corner of the property as opposed to calling attention I think to a although we didn't discuss it to a detach garage I think that's the aesthetic consideration for the board um and it sounds to me like that's something that the uh the applicants and their Architects went through pretty extensively um also Mr sacko is is an associate of Mr J's he's a licensed architect and I see that he would like to add something so I think I'm not a licensed architect been working for New Jersey licensed Architects for 40 years and I was working let me swear you in you saw me swear the testimony you g to board the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth I did good can you spell your last name for the record sa just a little background chairman what's your role Mr Sao in the project working with The KES and working with Mr D um well I was uh I had done the the work previously on the project within the little office and so uh they asked me to to be involved and uh uh I brought Jim uh on board to work with as the license architect and what were you going to share with the board about this discussion relating to the sighting of proposed corruption well what I wanted to say was that when you put a garage in his back corner now you meaning the northwest corner yeah you you have to pull around around to get in a side entry now you can't park here because you have to pull out and then go down the driveway so you lose any of your other parking this way you can pull into the garage and you still have spaces for you're parking that's why we didn't go with the uh detach what if Street didn't work with the turn around what if it faced the street yeah but then you still have to back but then you have to pull in you're right up against the neighbor you lose those two spots in the back past and with this configuration you have less coverage you have this whole landscape corner here and you actually have more parking 500 less feet of asle payment which is less than what less than what we had so I I just want to make sure it's clear here's the old driveway chairman the driveway the current configuration of the driveway is being reduced in size with this proposal okay it might not be perious coverage is being increased just so that's clear but it's because like more building coverage the existing driveway Parks like like a lot of cars it's not a normal siiz dri and it's enorm it handles the for whatever it's worth it handles the Kiser fames needs I I understand that I want to make sure it's clear what we're talking about though we're talking about the opportunity to put a conforming two-car garage in that corner versus a variance to attach it to the house so that's the first thing we're talking about and so you can explain how as a practical matter you think that this is a better design alternative and that's all fine but you're triggering a variance versus doing something as a matter of right the other thing that I think you're discounted is the potential that anybody might think that adding another 25 or 30 feet to the length of this house is creating something that is perhaps too big and so if that's the case the detached garage gives you I'm I'm wondering why you need a garage at all the the conversion of the existing structure into living space the house is already there right you can make one AR but to now add on the two-car garage that isn't attached um it creates a different factor to add on to the proposed so I understand the resistance to the idea as it's been put out and I'm fine with that I just want to make sure that you understand that it's important to work it through to understand how you got here and for the board to be able to evaluate the proofs it just seemed like it was worth giving up four feet to make a compliant now to get a driveway that worked and a garage that worked where I didn't have to where I could park in the driveway you to pull into the D I'm having problem with the conclusion that it worked because you have a lot of space to work with and so you can configure it in different ways and I'm confident that you could make it work you might need additional driveway that might create a different bar it might you might not like it as much and that's also okay it might not be as useful right all of those are fine arguments but to suggest it couldn't work given that you'd be starting from scratch is something I'm confused by so with that U if there are further questions of the architect we can answer those questions we also have a planner to provide testimony as to why we think this is a better plan alter so the current house is 3201 is that correct current house is yeah 3201 yes okay so this discussion about upzoning um we're not having that discussion I'd like to have it so the discussion of up zoning is in the materials and the reason it's important Mr Rens is because the upzoning concept is a concept that basically says that to the extent that you can meet the requirements of the net side Zone that you can without coming before the board um submit plans and proceed with an application if you were to up zone I'm understanding that the lot would conform is that correct that's correct but we can't because we have the non-conforming conditions on the rear yard setbacks right and so what I'm struggling with Mr aens is that if you were to up Zone what would the cap be for the square footage to house the R15 cap still brings us in a couple hundred feet under I recall for Mr 3,450 so 3450 so we're shy about 3 so the house has been substantially renovated and remodel the the rooms are what they are and what what's happened is that we we want to add a little bit more and I understand it but when you look to the R15 and try and understand what might be the appropriate size house for this lot in light of the up zoning ordinance not that you're trying to use it but rather what would the what would the scale be based on the existing the the table SE requirements it points us to the 3450 but we're but we're several hundred over that in terms of The Proposal well I think I think even with the r R15 up Zone and you're still at three4 of the size of a lot that we've got right 18,000 Square F feet versus 24,000 chant which is the minimum we're we're we're a third bigger than what's permitted in the R15 right but you know you know that no I understand ratio and we have the CED I do so so I think the challenge in this particular application is the scale of a ranch which this board does not see a lot and the issue being that it is low and and you you've identified that for the board and it's certainly important it's a very unique house it's a very unique lot it's prominent it I mean many many people drive by this house and walk by this house every single day and it's it's it it's beautiful I I think that I'm I'm connecting to the question of whether or not this garage not so much the renovation of the Interior because I think I understand that but the garage could arguably make this thing really big relative to the size of the overall up so I think that's the threshold question I think the board has to consider does it like the Aesthetics of a low slum for what the better term to Bay garage or a standalone TW B garage and that's this case is going to rise or fall on that to so no no no I'm just I'm framing the issue I I agree that's the issue for you all to consider right ranches by definition tend to you know tend to gravitate towards the edges of a property this property is particularly unique because it has that Notch and because it occupies this extensive Frontage not only on Buttonwood but also on Spruce which I didn't even touch upon that yet right it's got what's the front Spruce 100 100 100 and what's the frontage on Buttonwood you have it on that dimension on leeks bounds right there right where your left hand is go back it's a little over 150 yeah 150 okay so 250 ft of Frontage on the combined streets that's a ton of Frontage so we say gee we have a house that's 120 ft long we're adding another two Bay garage to it yes but we've got 250 ft of Road Frontage very unusual right very certainly I would dare say without parallel the r10 B it's interesting because you know if it were 125 ft long against 250 fet you'd have 75 ft on either setback and you don't because it's on a turn and the truth is that you're right that that the point is fair but what's also fair is that it extends all the way around the corner and as it is it is much larger than the ranches that remain in the neighborhoods because it's been added on to separate not to argue the ranch across the street is kind of Monolithic in its facade not that I'm a design professional I'm not I can only hope to be one but the way this is broken up with its different Echelon and features it breaks up the massing of what is again a very low line and not low line a low slum roof pitch Ro roof fridge that's and it works it works right now right and then and then we get to evaluate whether or not it would work with this addition and whether or not we would look at it and be like yeah that makes sense that that's the issue the thing that I'm look seeing though is you still have over 50 feet from the new garage to the to the property line correct on the side here just my personal opinion if I were to put a conforming two-car garage 10t from that property line I lose that sense of space between the the attached and the property line now all of a sudden I have structure there and I lose the sense the open well your point Mr I think what you do is you see driveway if you have a detached garage whereas with what we're proposing you see yard yeah so that's I think a very important planning consideration for the board as well so with that chairman may I bring up our planner Miss Gregory applicant thank you very much applicant now Catherine Gregory license confessional as you're getting set up Miss Gregory I wonder if you can share with the chairman and the board members some of your professional credentials please uh yes I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and have been so since the year 2000 I the principal of Gregory Associates with offices in Wall New Jersey and Fort Le New Jersey uh I'm a municipal planner myself mostly in beron County uh Edge hases uh prise um and I've testified for the last 24 years or so throughout the state of New Jersey on various land use matters um and have been accepted as a it you're a mammoth County resident and I'm a mammoth County resident yes oh and uh just by we background I have a master of architecture and I master of urban planning from the University of Illinois have you T no I have not any questions good Miss Gregory what can you tell us about this application from a plan stand okay um well we are here tonight for this addition and we are seeking associated with that addition uh two particular variances one would be the rear yard variance and also the um the floor area variance which is distinguished from the floor area ratio variance um so as was discussed earlier we are permitted to have 3,220 square fet we are proposing 3,759 square feet weie this for the record uh just as well we do have a 17 foot setback um at the point where the new bathroom is being proposed however that's actually at the pinch in the lot um so therefore when you take a look at the site plan where that particular variance is we where the bathroom is it actually becomes further away from the property line because the property line is not parallel to where that bathroom is um just as well we are seeking a variance for the proposed garage at 28.2 feet where 30 ft is required um then with that I would say that in this particular case uh that 3 point something feet I feel is truly dominous and terms of the naked eye and just as well when you take a look at uh the photographs that you your planers actually provided you'll see that there is extensive Landscaping along that portion of the property um in terms of the variances uh we have two types of C variances the C1 which is in cases of hardship it have to do with specific uh require sorry characteristics of a lot U we've already discussed the fact that this lot is completely irre in shape we are a corner lot we're not even um a corner lot that has a 90° turn we have an interesting um turn in the fact that we are at the intersection of um essentially well two streets but really three streets and we also have that extensive Frontage as was just discussed at 252 feet versus the 100 feet that is required so that is two and a half times the minimum requirement Zone ALS Al discuss the fact that the lot is very much oversized it's over two times the minimum lot area requirement um and so when we talk about the uh the minimum floor area um I think I'm going to go what to the um I think the intent of what your master plan talked about and I know that the idea was that you wanted to basically limit the square footage of homes on a lot of the tear Downs because the houses just seem to be too big for the loss um and that's where the floor error ratio comes in um I believe that this particular site supports this these variances because it is oversized it doesn't have a regular shape and we are actually only at 57% of the floor area ratio so if you just think about that for a minute I think that you know you have these two regulations and I understand that you didn't want houses that were too big for a lot I don't believe this is too big for the lot if if you were to divide this lot into two lots two 10,000 foot Lots at a floor area ratio of 028 that's 2800 square feet for both Lots um so then you're coming in with a total massing of 5600 Square ft that could be permitted on this property if it were two lots but we are only proposing 3,759 I do understand that there was a discussion about the fact that um perhaps the house long now I'm going to get a little bit into my architecture background as well as you can see this particular house has a lot of relief on the front of the building and just like that also this particular garage that's proposed is set back from the main structure it's actually set back into this portion of the property that also has that job so this becomes very organic in nature and I think that it is a better plan alternative than a separate garage which I know was discussed this evening because then what you're talking about is now you're putting this double car garage 10 feet from another property and I would think as if you know as a neighbor I would prefer not to have a garage 10 feet from my property line I'd rather have the open space so therefore I do believe that we also meet the purposes of the municipal luse law under the C2 variant are the benefits out we the detriment um in terms of what I just said I believe that we promote the public welfare General sorry perpose public health safety moral welfare because I do think it's a better planning alternative to have the garage attached to the house it is configured in a way that you're not going to be able to see the actual full length of this unless you literally standing across the street as a a very particular point where most people are just driving by or even if you're walking by you're never going to see the entire house in it of itself who for a portion right across the street and we also have an empty lot across the street um I also believe that we remote purpose C which talks about providing adequate light air and open space um obviously I believe there's better light air and open space with this than there would be from a detached garage um I also believe that promote purpose I which talks about promotion of a desirable visual environment in my opinion because this house while it does have um um additions that have been done over the years I go back to that word organic it appears that the house is really grown organic on the property to fit the property and I do understand we need a variance and it's mostly because we have this we have this weird jog back here that necessitates for this existing portion of the of the the the existing garage excuse me right now um so I believe that we do know a number of the purposes of the Minal land use la uh when I talk about the negative criteria I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the public good um or substantial Detachment uh to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance I'd like to actually I'm G to provide a handout to the board um so how many need to mark this we do I think we're up to uh a 11 okay a 11 could you describe that Miss Gregory yes certainly take pass it down uh what this is is a copy of the tax map for the property in question U the title of it is lots of homes greater than 3,220 Square fet as permitted in the r10b zone it's prepared by myself and please forgive the rudimentary nature of this it was sort of um something I thought of last minute I need to where's the data taken from this from the tax oh I'm sorry uh from the tax rers yeah from the tax you know they're notoriously unreliable yeah but absolutely can't be right the the the new houses that were constructed behind didn't get variances they're fully conformed okay well based based on the records the records are notoriously in inacurate we've been down this P many well let's Okay well you know what let's put it this way I'm I'm just going to go through the lot sizes um and the dwelling sizes on these particular lots for the the data that I found and what I can tell you is that if the data isn't exact I um would say that it is probably very close um but with that said um okay so um I've identified PQ for our property um and going forward um on lot 16 which is uh to the left uh the dwelling is 3,440 square ft um but that happens to be on a 10,454 squ foot lot that's new construction there that one that tall one is that the new construction if you know yeah I I I don't I don't recall every every single house I believe that's new we don't believe that house got a VAR for variance so it can't be 34 and change but well it's okay she she's testifying that that's what the records show and that's just a separate issue but it's certainly baffling okay uh with that said lot 17 um the records show that there's a 3,664 sare foot dwelling on a 12,196 foot lot lot 18 is showing to have a 3356 foot dwelling on a 12,196 foot lot uh lot 20 is showing to have a 3,654 ft dwelling on a 12,500 ft lot I'm going to block 71 which is to the right lot nine is showing to have a 3,675 foot dwelling sorry what was that number again apologize 3,675 foot dwelling on a 15,246 sare foot lot house is also brand new and I believe did not get a I don't believe got a varant on uh block 6C uh lot six shows to have a 4,11 foot dwelling on a 15,246 foot lot also fully conforming no variant on the house I I don't know how any of these numbers yeah the only one I recall is lot lot 17 on Lyon uh that's that Garrison Colonial that we did we did give a variance for that one that was about 89 well okay well based on the data I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the public good for the fact that the house is comparable to lot sizes in the area I also believe there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan mostly for the reasons that I stated we are a significantly oversized lot um we if we were to be divided into two lots we could have 5600t of floor area but we are only proposing to have a little over 3700 I also believe that we do promote as I stated earlier a few of goals and objectives of the master plan uh which I will get to in a moment there um sorry I went back to my data page so now here we are okay all right um under the Lan recommendations of a 2016 master plan re examination and Master Plan update it was stated that the size of new and expanded homes continues to threaten the character of neighborhoods a simpler alternative mechanism for effectively controlling bulk and the neighborhood should be developed and adopted such a mechanism should be calibrated to reflect the appropriate intensity for each Zone regulation through floor area ratio as opposed to the currently used um habitable floor area ratio provide a simpler more easily regulated means to protect residential and non-residential neighborhood character um as I stated earlier we are compliant and in fact only 57% of the floor area ratio that is permitted in the zone I think that is a significant fact um and we also align with the 2005 objectives that were fur the reinstated in 2016 master plan and PR examination uh which is to protect and enhance the existing character of the burrow and the residential quality of the neighborhoods um I do believe that we are still protecting and enhancing the character of the neighborhood with this design um and the quality of this neighborhood with this specific design I do believe that the benefits do outweigh the detriments for the reasons that I've stated um and I'm happy to answer any questions associated with this application thank you you have a question I just I I got lost because it seemed me that you you messed your C1 and C2 can you articulate me what the hardship is to build a conforming garage [Music] room there is no hardship per se but we do what I've talked about was the unique conditions of the lot but I did talk about how I believe that it's rooted in the C2 where the benefits outweigh the detriment I talked about the public health safety morals and general welfare I believe that it's a better planning alternative a better design Al alternative than having a separate garage because there is more light air in open space to the adjacent neighbor and I would think that I mean I don't know if neighbors are here but I get the C2 I get the C2 oh then scratch to C1 yeah I don't think we'd argue on a C1 basis well I I heard her say I think it means to C1 criteria C2 I didn't see that if you're just saying it's C2 F thank you I I mean I don't have a vote doesn't matter Mr Kat you carefully got the Bo in my experience Mr anyone else have any questions nope so we're U we're at the point where I think um while I know typically we don't have straw polls given by the board since there has been some consideration and discussion regard to alter that might not require new variances as an accessory structure I'd appreciate some guidance from the board as so so that we're not on the road to a denial here if we need to amend the plan and I don't even know if that's acceptable to the clients I certainly would want to chat with them but just I'm looking for the board's feedback as to you know attached or detached that's what it comes down to ladies and gentlemen yeah I mean what are you done with your case Chief yes sir okay I think we're going open to the public before we have any discussion are there any members of the public that have any questions or comments with regard to this application reflect not um well so I think that what we should do Mr Akens is I think that if you're done I I think the board should deliberate and I think that if during the board deliberation um you want to ask for five minutes then you should interrupt us and tell us we'll do uh so are you are you completed did you want to say anything in wrap up I'm completed thank you chair Mr Rizzo do you have any comments with regard to um the application anything with regard to the garage location or any of the other things to talk about um I think the one consideration um for the board is you know obviously it attach would be accessory um but at the end of the day it's still a structure so I think you just need to outweigh um you know complying versus not compliant but also the overall impact on surrounding neighbors as well yeah look the issue about the surrounding neighbors is those houses have just gone up like to 30 to 36 feet because of the fact that they are jacked up out of the ground and all the landscaping that's gone in recently has been put in to try to mitigate some of that but the truth is that I could make an argument that there wouldn't be anything better than a building between those new houses and this house to create that separation I'm not a designer but but but my comment to all of you is there does come a time where adding things in a line becomes too much and so it isn't so much the overall size of the house I recognize the arguments although I'm not at all persuaded by the suggestion that because there's larger houses in the neighborhood that this is consistent because we haven't heard any of those facts we know that those numbers are wrong and I just don't understand that that that line of thinking but nevertheless I I think the house looks really nice the way it is it's it's it's really nice it's truly exceptional and as someone who also lives in a ranch I recognize the value in having ranches still in the neighborhood there's no question about that I can't tell you for sure whether or not when this is constructed we're going to look at it and be like that's too much it's gone too far and if it were detached which they can do as a matter of right I would never have to ask myself that question because we wouldn't have granted a parent put um May interrupt chairman so sometimes there is an architectural technique where uh you frame out or provide some kind of an example as to the you know the balloon if you will of a proposed Edition just for your consideration thank you so so you know I'm good I just kind of wanted to provide I usually talk try and talk last when we deliberate but I just wanted to add some context for kind of the way I see it I mean personally I think it's a better design than the t I think it's tucked back away from the front corner of the house by I don't know maybe 10 ft if my eyes are are terrible um and I don't think you're going to get that sense and I get what you're saying the more you go across I think if it were in line with the front side of the house I may think different but because it's tucked back and because it's around a bent I don't think it draws attention to itself um I'm not a fan of the detached garage as a whole in the whole neighborhood um and I think putting more structure on the left there you lose that like I said before you lose that open area and I don't want to lose that open area and plus functionality this this is a better design function gives you the option of going into it from the house um detached garage is just it's just something sitting there that that that doesn't get used and and I think this is a better yeah I agree I agree and to the Chairman's point we might look at this if we expand it out and say uh we could put the detached garage and look at it and say hbe we shouldn't have done that I agree with Peter in a lot of points you know I think it a very nice design I also like that it's keeping in the nature of a ranch which is a historic uh building in River Roads ranches and CLE Colonials and capes so to keep that ranch classic I think it really you know what we should be striving for because as we know there are a lot of houses uh in that area that have been blown up and they have gone up and if we can keep something low and in the historic nature of that neighborhood I think it's important couldn't agree more this house has already been gut renovated just so you know so there really is not the potential economically to divide this and create two houses but I do understand what you're saying and I do believe as a Rancher uh that we need to support um you're in a ranch and I'm in expanded cape and I live in this General neighborhood and I love to see the houses keep the historic nature for sure it was great to see this moment get got renovated as it did it I mean I I asked the question about the detached garage because I'm always looking for a compliant option for what's being added and that's one the other is that they've already shifted this structure maybe two feet forward from what it's attached to on the house and whether that could come another four feet forward still be attached to the house and still be compliant uh you know I got to wonder why that's not an option um living on a lot that's 50 ft wide with a new 70 foot wide house across the back of my backyard I'm sensitive to the the width of this house this is already 122 feet long it's going to be 150 feet long back of a second you're saying shift it four more feet forward to meet the 30 foot in the back yeah just more compliant but it wouldn't be that much it it would be less than 6 feet forward from the fa the face of the existing garage um that's I'm just saying that's my head looking for a compliant option that that wouldn't be without its negatives it is what it is yeah but it they would be negatives that would not require variance I I also just want to correct the numbers I don't remember exactly what they are but I heard a gas from the audience I don't think it's 150 ft long it's 122 Plus change I just want make sure it's approximately 150t long okay um yeah no no go ah no just fact you're like you know the house appearing behind you thing you know with this house if we keep the garage where it is if we move it to where it's compliant it's now up against six lot 16 17 so now you have a a garage structure that was never there and you know living in the St go by that's a pretty open area the street across the street facing this is is another house they're talking about the empty lot there that's part of their property but just to the left of that facing this where the additional length is going to be is another house that faces this lot would you rather see a longer house stretching out towards your view or would you rather see maybe some green on both sides of a of a considerable green on either side if you put the garage in that back corner I think it's going to be where I think there's plantings and you know as they said there's lot there lots of planings it's or it's going to be there's a garage well so I just want to say if if you pull the garage out and they just wanted to do the house and no garage I think this is relatively straightforward oh yeah because because the house exists because I think that the it's 37 plus I mean it's it's it's greater than the next Zone when you move up to R20 just for the sake of clarification with regard to the planning testimony you don't get to continue to use the 2.8 is 28 you now go to 0.8 it's not half not not even close it's it's it's not it's not a small house on the lot when you look add it under the right numbers but if you were to remove the garage all together it's a lot easier for me and I don't know the right answer and and I don't know that we need to have a better answer because no I'm not saying I'm not saying that either of these are a better answer I'm saying that these are additional options that are compliant so so and that's true but I heard but I heard one two three people that sounded positive on what we had we haven't yet heard from Mr Rich yeah I would agree um with what Peter and Sher and Paul have stated um and I know we're talking about the length of this property but it's not a straight line in fact I I don't see if you're on the one I look if you look at the proposed front of elevation you know you you think wow this is long but if you look at the proposed plan in the way I I believe things are designed and staggered I think it would be very difficult to even see this new car garage um from the one corner of the property so that's so so the saving grade to the extent they have one right you almost need to go across the street and look at it and you can get it but you almost can't get it from the road to the extent that it's going to work and I've said I just don't know but it's going to be for that reason because you're going to come down Buttonwood and it's going to look sized appropriately and you're going to come down Spruce and it's going to look size appropriately see and you're never going to see the whole thing and it's possible that it works because of that and it's going to be much more appropriate than other things and I know Al mentioned the property across the street is now looking at something that is of of this Mass I think the way things are set back too is a is a positive neighbor across the street and I think the the the taach conversation um you know puts you in the corner puts you 10 feet off of those property lines I think that's probably not a a negative for the homeowners on those ad adjacent Lots you think it's not a negative no I think it is sorry that isable I mean it and just it doesn't have to be 10t off of that proper line it has to be at least 10 ft off that proper L that there could be a a gap the size of the proposed garage between the house and and and the detached garage and you're going to have more light because here you're it's it's 150 ft long MH but that's what's going to happen with a range I mean you know to to an extent that's just part of it um look I I wanted to try and figure out where we were because we've got six you're going to need four sounds to me like you have four I certainly know that I don't know for sure either way but it sounds like you've got sounds like you've got the four um and so I think if you all agree with that I think you can make a motion we we haven't spoken about the interior is anybody you know I mean I don't have any to it's essentially just taking over the space that there right yeah there's a small addition for the for the bathroom oh but but you're you are exacerbating the 17 ft honestly I think it's [Music] 51 the exterior isue all right are we good yeah well then I'll make a motion to accept the property plan as submitted uh given accuracy the of the measurements wow that was really one of my best [Music] Angelo yes Mr Bri yes Mr yes Mr no all congratulations thank you very much ladies and gentlemen very much appreciate the thorough discussion good evening two more applications so M Dr I'm GNA ask you to try and get your group quietly to exit yes sir we're going to move forward with the Thomson application please something here I don't think they ever did the project okay we confront that we have jurisdiction on this matter I ask that anybody testifying on this matter please stand raise your right hand you the testimony the bo whole truth talk about the truth same direction as I gave before through the audience before you start speaking spell your last name name purpos of the record so that we know who's talking C Point coming um marks some exhibits commission uh A1 is the Zoning Board of Zoning Board of adjustment application A2 is Land Development application checklist A3 is the architectural site plan for plant elevations uh look like revised to May 17 2024 yes A4 survey of the property like that was by December 19 2023 A5 zoning Den zoning officer August 22 2023 A6 are color images of the dwelling I believe there a seven is list of variances and R requested and St for VAR applications we also have the market as ZB Zoning Board One that's C report of signature of Rizzo that's December 1st 223 we also have a second report uh zb2 that's May 20th 2024 are there any other exhibits that you may have yes one additional um just some additional photos for the board to a eight how many photos you total uh four four photos one one sheet sheet are there dates to those were Fox times uh two I think were from in I believe it was it was the fall and then two are from who were have but they appear be within the year uh the Google or's hard part said put remark anything else nope okay I think we have do we have some additional waivers we do I'll run through them quickly first one is ownership disclosure statement which was requested um which is not applicable given that it is a residence here uh the three outset agencies Mammoth County Planning field SCD and MTH County Health Department um to the extent they're required um will be submitted but at this point doesn't feel that they're required and then the last one is copies of all e me c de restrictions um and again if that was applicable they would be submitted but so I don't take any exception to these buiness waivers being okay anyone on the board any questions or concerns about the proposed waiver go Robert Thompson th s o owner well I mean whoever's going to test it's only at the beginning of your testimony so what because we recording so we know who's speaking Yeah put your name on um D owner and then alas architect last name Shi SS I Mr s you're going to be uh testifying with regard to your expertise and architecture yes correct going there an architect for by this board yes how recently uh I think one month ago yeah that's anybody have any concerns about Mr s over the last month all right thanks sorry i l My Voice last week so I'm like 80% bear with me um so Colette and Rob have lived in a a DOD Colonial for what about 20 years now yeah and for a while they've been planning doing some upgrades modernizing the floor plan uh doing an addition and and now come the time we ready to do so so I'll can I start by the architectural design what I really think we should do Mr SI is get a handle on exactly what baring are triggered I know there was a lot of confusion over this I know that the new um changes to the ordinance tripped you up with regard to the basement let's talk that through make sure we know exactly what we're being asked yeah so what happened through the floor area the existing first floor survey was requested by the town which was good because it showed that the floor area was just under 4 in up just under 4 Ines over the 30in limit of being beyond the average grade so the average grade taken from the four corners of the house when you do the distance between that measurement and the finished first floor elevation if it's over 30 in the basement counts only toward the FL area so that was not anticipated and that added to the FL so that was one issue so hold on so let's just slow that down we're looking at your zoning I'm looking at your zoning table right now and so just as to the floor area I see that the requirement what are we in R r10 yeah r10 okay so at the floor area ratio of. 28 you're maxed out of 2100 the cap is otherwise 3220 right um with regard to existing you're showing at. 34 and at 2600 that includes the basement that includes the basement and then you're proposing to go to 406 correct 3048 and that includes the basement correct that includes the existing basement but no new basement no new basement it's only the proposed false Bas actually it's existing CW I'll get so the new edition has no basement no basement so there's no impact on these numbers what tell us about the basement so we can just deal with that right away and I want you to translate these numbers Once you pull that out can understand yep so the existing basement is a pretty low ceiling I have it measured at 6'4 so it is used it is finished um but it's it's not an in basement or anything like that again 1930 colon you can kind of Imagine a finished basement without be like so that that's what the basement is that basement when added a diagram up front again it's VAR measures the outside the outside wall so the outside of the foundation wall that adds 782 ft okay so this is really critical so 782 fet is the existing basement you're not expanding the basement so your existing house I'm looking at your zoning table is a minus seven what is it seven1 I'm sorry basement size oh 6'4 no no not the height 782 782 y 782 so then if the board wanted to valate the first and the second floor and not focus on the basement um you would take in terms of the existing structure the 2609 and you would take out the 782 correct so you've got 1827 existing uh yep as of a year ago before we changed the rules correct and then as for what you're proposing you're proposing 348 yep that number is going to wind up being 2266 correct that's what's actually being proposed yeah do all the board members understand the issue with regard to the basement and how we got here and how they got caught up in that everybody understand the Delta there is four in and the focus of that was new basements and not existing basements does anybody like hearing this because I think we're going to find that we're going to get people Mr chair can I add one more thing to the path that you're going down um if you were to extract the basement from the calculation of floor area ratio would still be30 so that's fantastic thank you very what it's still 3030 so it's still a d variance condition and the and the requirement in the zone is 28 and we know because where we started that when we go 28 over this lot because it's small 2100 sare F feet would be the max so there're always requesting the D um it was just a technicality to show it this way and I'm going to button that up by saying that 2100 would be the maximum square footage based on. 28 and so the 2266 is exactly 166 ft over what theary rati would tell us is the most you could put on this land yes think we know where we are the other issue was the stories and I think there I have a different interpretation but we were conservative in Reen noticing to say that we were adding a three a proposed three story structure because of the basement definition being Beyond at 30 in it counts as a h half story then we have the first floor second floor well the structure without the basement is 2 and 1/2 plus the basement for that 30in definition add another half so the existing house technically is a three story structure the addition is and I'll get into this we're not actually building a new crawl space the existing but where we're proposing the second floor Edition that's a crawl space so that does not contribute to the stories the addition is by by ordinance I would say it's two stories because uh it it's not most most of the second floor is going to be Cathedral so whe whatever way you look at it the addition would be at most two and a half stories I will consider a two story addition so how is the existing attic used right now in the existing house unfinished unconditioned pull down staircase or fixed staircase p p pull down right now no it's a hatch I got to bring an 8ot ladder in and climb up in oh that's super convenient oh I've never been so so in in the addition there's no attic per se you're proposing to Vault ceiling and so it will all be included in the Second Story the addition is mostly Ved in the bedroom area there is going to be a closet and a master bath that will technically have a small not usable in any way but a small kind of leftover frame so that where maybe you can fall so does everybody understand that the story issue is also caught up in this 4 in issue relative to the grade of the basement and the elevation so Mr you do have a fixed as their case in the proposed condition to Attic So that's to access the existing attic uh Mr Thompson would like to even though it's very low height I'll get into that would ideally like to finish it as a small office space just make some use out of it also easier for storage so we're proposing adding a stair that's going to stack with the existing stair below the height uh is under 6 ft I think it's 63 to the top of the Ridge and the ridge is maybe 4 or 6 in deep and that's at the peak I can't stand up at the apex of the R so I would like you just clarify the record and make it as any condition that the attic in the proposed condition would never exceed 7 ft height unless a calculation is provided so I want to understand so so the new ordinance is while it catches you up on the 4 in it also gives you flexib ability to use the attic space and it doesn't count that's only if it complies with certain requirements with regard to the third and what not would it as proposed conform to the requirements with regard to a usable attic it's a half Story Attic and it doesn't count towards for so the half story catches us back up in what we're doing with the basement but what I'm wondering is is there anything irregular about that attic space look I'm very sensitive to the idea that I am I am intentionally putting weight on the 4 in with the basement because your numbers are huge and so everybody needs to understand them from go but at the same time I don't want to be taking advantage of the attic thing and missing the fact that we may not otherwise comply with what the requirements are in the Attic you know what I'm saying given that it's not below 7 no it's not 7 fet well that alone isn't it so it it it is it is that height and then it's the the pitch of the rout and it's only thir third in the middle so we comply with that so there's been no FL plan provided for the ad it's just noted on the plan that it doesn't exceed 7t I've not done that calculation yet I suspect it it does meet that most roofs of this style architecture do fall under that 30% well but you're de Colonial right so it may it may be taller and and it's important because you can't you can't F I'm focusing on it for you but I trust you want me to as to the basement but and then take advantage of the attic I realized that it's a very low height and you reusing it it's there but I just think we need to know whether or not that number should be in there or not but you you don't know I don't know for sure um I I I highly suspect it's not um I could follow up with that information well I really ref out right now the U the heights isn't is the max 73 or it's one3 at seven yes and so if everything's lower than that does that mean that it would have to comply correct yes comply me it's a half story does not count as FL area it does have a that's what you were saying yeah it does have a fixed so you answer my question five minutes ago yeah I didn't really understand the next part of the question was but thank you Jordan okay it it's uh it counts towards the story it doesn't count okay thank you for going down that rout hold me okay so and so what I said was as part of any condition I would like it to be clear that in the future it will not be expanded to greater than 7 ft without F evaluation that it would be teed to this structure right so that's that's for the two variances that were affected by the updated codes from a year ago it's stories and it's the total square footage and and specific inary ratio yes the basement contributing versus not got it what else you got will we go over existing variances or just no don't tell us about pre-existing nonconformity because their grandfather okay but exacerbations count yep so um go down the uh minimum front yard setback 30 FTS required existing is 9.4 and we're talking about from Glen not from forest forest it's actually right at 30 so it conforms from forest on the narrow lot the wide lot portion of the of the lot L it's 9.4 and that's measured to the front step uh I think helps to consider uh that the front forch is set further back in that by a couple feet the uh Sor is it 6.6 6.6 to the proposed yeah 9.4 is exist and 6.6 to the proposed set all right so let's just tease that out a little bit please because this is really y there's not a lot of room here the existing house is 185 to the to the property down right correct and the covered forch and the stairs create um encroachments into that front yard step back even further which takes you to where so the porch the proposed porch would go down to 11.5 I want to know the existing first existing let me double check this I don't don't that numbers on existing is 11 propos 6.6 existing to the steps is 9.9 I think I had it at well so it would be the face of the second what's that it would be the face of the second so I think that's the then it would be yeah correct uh to the to the cover Port structure not included in the steps uh is right around 14 maybe a little more and to the actual house itself would be 18.5 How Deep The Porch existing porch is no no no no I'm talking about the proposed proposed porch is s on the Glen Place side how did you decide to make it set well what is it on Forest far is eight or roughly eight because that just lines up with an existing SU room I think that was original to the house so the idea was to measure that line that up and then we want the idea is it's going to be usable for as well as an aesthetic feature but 6 feet with the railing that's I have that at my house it does get tight that extra foot starts a feel did you design that no getting rid of it yeah um but you how tall is this front porch proposed to be off of grade um yeah do you need a rail by 18 Ines without it I would say it be a little more than three and a half ft maybe maybe three and half I think by Cod you need around 3 yeah definitely need a round okay so you need a front yard setback on Glen Place yep for 6.6 30 ft required um minimum sidey setback there's only one because it's a corner lot so that's for the property adjacent on fors uh 10 FTS required 5.2 is existing and we're exacerbating that extending out uh again the one story portion is already there we're proposing to rebuild that because construction is a little shy uh but also going up a second FL so would be extending that 5.2 so the the survey shows 5.2 at the rear corner but shows 54 at the front on for is that is that 54 the existing those are actually both the survey measurements there must be a slight skew okay so five two seem to be the most narrow okay there's an existing one story fortun the structure there that's there they putting the same they're rebuilding that put a second story on top correct keeping the foundation so you're going up stor yeah while we're talking about this do you have the the measurements from the from the sant's house what they are is step back to GL yeah so that was added to the survey for request of the U Mr Rizzo um Sullivan or Jones Sullivan Sullivan's on the back side they front on Lake but their house is their house is situated in a similar way they both both blocks line up the same way and their step back is very slight as well yes I I have an aerial you can see it's very close um number what's that you don't have that number we don't have it on survey I mean I can take it from a from an aial it's your best AR it's not I don't know how to get that on surve I mean I guess we could expand the survey um which corner on lake so the Sol so the solving lot was subject to to an approval by this board which was subsequently denied on appeal overturned on appeal subsequently came back and was approved uh for a very similar res uh uh renovation and I don't believe that they did any work on the first floor maybe the second floor extended in this way but it's situated similarly the way you are and it puts this proposal in context yeah had it they they haven't started construction yet on that second they didn't do any of that well $190,000 to put that so he's trying to make everything work out like C thank you another Fon DeTour for me I mean from the aerial I would I would estimate it's probably about 4T off the sidewalk and the sidewalk is maybe 2 feet past the property it's probably less than four or 5T from the property line I think it's 4.4 I really don't think you've got enough that yeah but but but I think it would be really good to know unfortun um so uh the other neighboring set that and this what I thought we referring to it first the neighbor on Forest this is one of the variant is uh distance between principal structures on adjacent Lots is 2 24 ft minimum uh we're existing at 15.1 and then if you take a DI measur to where supposed addition would start that's 174 I'm sorry I spaced that so you had the you this what was the last one you just covered so the uh distance between neighbor and properties on different Lots neighbor structures yeah4 minimum we're currently at 15.1 and then technically where our addition starts because there's an angle to it 72.4 so you're exacerbating that that preexisting yes why building on the existing footprint well we're going up so because we're going up technically it's within that 24 ft 15.1 exists the structure today 151 and the the Second Story addition is 17.4 so it's not any closer it's just going veral 15 once measured like 9 and then yeah the I'm not sure that that that that reir threedimensional like that but okay okay but you are just to clarify because we haven't let you really start yet you're actually building on top of an existing foundation so the footprint set already yes so what you're proposing to do y and you're demolishing the first floor rebuilding two stories up the porch is new the proposed porch is new correct and that's what you got front wraparound porch reconstruction of a on story porch of the house the long caveat there is the second floor Edition we proposing the can out both for some additional dimension in the master suite also it gives some architectural interest but what's yeah CH do you think that we can find um the Sullivan survey from the solivan matter you think you can put your hands on it yeah would you mind looking for it I I think it's extremely relevant understand where they are relative to Glen Place 47 Lake I have the resolution I I it my resolution says 4.1t it could be 7 re50 side set back deficiency of 4.1 from the Southern Property to 11.9 from both s North it's the North and this says Southern I'm just reading the Mr IR but that's where they put the addition on it's a pre-existing for the main house B yeah let's she'll find it she'll find it okay tell us about the house you want to go finish up on the variances oh they got more hold on maybe maybe when went through floor area number of stories minimum oh parking um the parking technically right now there's two spaces provided but they're not beyond the front yard setback um so that's also so that's existing but because we're going from a three-bedroom structure to a four bedroom technically it's triggering that as well you're not proposing to change that garage no you're not proposing to change that driveway no you're not proposing to add any more parking spaces no the garage by the way is of a dimension is really just a sword shed they do Park we talked about it typically they'll Park two side by side they also use street parking uh on occasion they have bit Bo when needed it's tight but right now what you guys have said it's serving what their needs are and we can also back two cars in U no to Bumper into the garage and we have to start PL weather okay so as far as that covers the additional Varan you want to stop now and talk about soling sure so solivan shows so the record reflect that we're looking at a survey by Charles Bell will mark it as [Music] only dated January 28 2020 for 47 Lake Avenue lock 15 block 20 this is the svan application from 2020 um so the Sullivan site plan your m is that 71 okay so as I remember the Sol an application little conjecture here I think that their additions are on the inside of the lot but the house is already two stories and straight up if you haven't been down there recently um it's twostory old sort of I don't know what style is FAL what is it Federal that was what I wanted to say um 74771 from the street but it's two stories and it's straight up it's it's significant and it's been there forever y anyone want the dimensions are 71 and 74 from the existing structure from Glen Place and just to clarify you're proposing what from Glen Place 66 66 to the steps and to the actual front porch would be 11.5 11.5 from where that is and you're proposing a single story covered porch with railings and roof structure and your existing house is is going to go up but only on the right side if you're looking at from One S twoot can be and that's at 18 something that would be that would that would be a 16 fo7 right can I ask a question about that 6'6 setback with the stairs there had you considered it all keeping the 11 foot and change setback putting the stairs in front of the house at the top top of that where it would actually connect with the walkway from the garage and it would give you an additional four feet of setback on that side to place did not look at that see I'm saying there yeah well I I think a couple issues I would take with that first I think it would look less inviting if the front door behind a higher wall of railings and the stairs going up on the side plus I think most of the time the way they use a house right now this this one Flor structure been proposed to be demolished you guys probably coming back a lot so this staircase wouldn't really work with the flow of the site so both from Aesthetics and practicality I think I think the way we have it even though it what you just said is that you're not going to use that staircase much but you're taking an additional four feet of variance for it not from the garage uh so they don't really walk that way they if they're parking on the street or someone's coming to their house this is the most likely way they're going to go and I I think to me I don't I don't even though it does infringe further in set back I I I don't think the alternative is preferable but I think it would look I agree I agree with this I don't aesthetically I don't think it look great it wouldn't Center the house no and the staircase kind of ss the house U you know said we just looking for compant or more compliant alternative done that on other applications where that actually um so as far as the proposed work on the first R uh what we're looking to do the existing rear portion one story structure we believe it needs to be confirmed that the foundation seems to be in good shape but the the structure above is not well built it's not insulated it's 2x4 walls we want to go down we've talked to their contractor it seems to be a much better approach plus we have to reinforce this reinforce ceilings anyway for the second floor Edition and headers and all that so right now it's an existing family room and full bath we're and going through a combined kitchen and eating kitchen facing off the backyard interor renovation relocate the room make a more traditional foyer that kind of complements the style the historic style of the house and on the portion for bar combining existing living and dining to make a more kind of contemporary size living room demo and existing wood fireplace replace it with an interior gas fireplace where that um where that fireplace was we want to add French doors that would also access the wraparound porch which again is both aesthetic but they really do want to be able to use the fors right now just a cover an entry um so that that's pretty much what's going on on the first floor second floor right now is pretty small it's measured to the outside outside wall it's only 67 square feet and that's given us three beds and one bath um so obviously that's tight the idea is they would like to get a more modern Master Suite which the only way we could really do that re the only way we could do that interior without adding would probably be go from combine two beds to one bed and then you're left with a two bed two bath which obviously doesn't make sense um for most people so we're proposing to go from a three bed one bath to a four bed two bath that is going to be the addition that is the portion that mostly Cathedral for the the bedroom and full bath small walking closet and reconfigure some other interior spaces so there'll be three kid-sized bedroom over um that would explain what we're doing on the second floor as mentioned before whether it be for storage or possibly a small office stack a staircase permanent stairs up above the existing staircase to the existing attic not the new structure um as mentioned existing base Bo plan was included uh the portion we're adding above is an existing falll space uh from the exterior uh elevation Glen we're trying to compliment and tie in and expand upon the D Colonial uh so we're turning a Gambrell for the addition for Glen uh proposing a wrap around porch with a cover entry accent centered on the the door that's where the stairs are going toward Glenn and wrap that around the forest which I think functionally is what the owners are looking for but I also personally do like when a Corner House appears to have two fronts and kind of leads the eye around the corn so even though it does infringe upon a setb I think it'll still be an improvement for the neighborhood what's the space below the gamble on the first floor that that is an overhang no on your the elevation above that yeah what is that um like this potion yeah the lower the first floor what's in your that's currently the family which will convert into the into the kitchen on this one there's a possibility to put we have a penetration issue there a lot that's a lot of wall without a window is really visually it looks like a lot of without is there is there a way um the only reason I don't know what the inside looks like there the only reason we so that is where the kitchen the back kitchen would go and we were trying to provide more windows on the sink overlooking the yard to and fridge so we went through this literally exactly last month right the issue is you got a really tight setback over there um I I just want to I just want to say for everybody this is the reason why we don't take the 36 the 35 the 34 numbers and just throw them out and say there's eight more that are this size this application is terrible on people terrible because you blow everything out you're not even close you have to see it in order for it to make sense um okay back to that so you've got a really tight setback over there and the first floor exists as it is today so you're not exacerbating that but you're going up yes the second floor we do have two windows in that addition but so this is the back saying that's the tight setback and make it look as Airy as possible if I could add U that is where our neighbor Sally Jones stores all the trash cans oh so we would have a hook everything else be looking at TR I get it maybe we do something up high maybe a transom exactly it doesn't have to be a window that up with roof lines we've done it with list your L project we did fly on something to break it up a little bit because it just looks like a lot of to me I'm a short setback like I think I would if if you know Rob and Colette are okay upper windows I just know from the way the kitchen's working out because it's an open plan there's not that much upper cabinets um we could probably squeeze some more on the back side that's the only reason I'm not hesitant to say yeah let's go for it I don't think it has to be a window you actually have the house is beautiful you have so many windows and I understand it you need a point where you don't have Windows and this is the best place for that to be could you extend that roof just extend that roof across okay well yeah I mean that I think that works really well when we don't have space for the window yeah is there is there an architectural reason that that doesn't work or just sound well but it shouldn't a couple things so we did talk about this a little bit and when when they originally saw the elevation with this Gambrell detail on the back they questioned the additional expense and I mentioned part of the benefit was for this purpose so on the second floor we were trying we're truly trying to achieve that the rout here is a wide overhang I think we could extend it I if it would help um I got to see how far I think it'd be fine at some point you run into fire detailing issues but there's ways around that stick out it's on about a 60° angle I want to say this over here yeah you know what what's the projection it's about 2T okay so that you know what 2T to five no we be we'd be okay we'd be okay but so we could tie that around and wrap it into we could wrap it in here besid you're the only person working on this application that's actually an architect Are We Wrong in thinking this is going to look better and will help break up that facade being mindful of how close it is to the neighboring law I I think the second floor does a lot of heavy lifting in that regard I I'm not so sure we're doing this just say I don't know if it's really making a difference myself if it was easy to pop a window in there that might help Miner to some degree but as you know as Rob discussed the way the neighbors Pro it's really utility Zone back there both for them and apparently convention units right on the back side of under that under that picture down that proper um I think submitted one but that thought okay and let me ask you about the second front I have a this over s i I do think extending the roof may help a little bit I don't know that it's needed but I don't think we can see see yeah they will from their backyard they certainly will look look that house isn't going to be there forever this one may not be there almost forever right but but when your house extends beyond that other you get that look and you know you got to work with what you got I actually think it's worth I'm old you know again I think it I think could help I don't think it's po but own so is there also a shot directly from forest to the side of the house that was the one um I think that was there's no door there there's no door there now it's the forest yeah yeah no no just the sun room bump out uh which you can see in the upper right hand corner and chimney going up yeah and right where that chimney stack is we're proposing the uh the there's no that's probably the idea to wrap around there functionally and end it for this purpose you're spot on about two fronts because you got two fronts and you know the thing is you made it a lot better than what it is now I I could see a little stare though and and actually making a little bit more inviting to flest just right between those two columns make it easier for come on you would need another look look you would need another variant when you're on a corner right you got to respect both sides I think it's not disrespectful very nice I don't know what other board members think um how do you feel about moving stairc I think definitely want keep the one on the just way works in the way that front door would you're moving the front door by the way yeah we're shifting what's the set back on the on the on the forest side 30t conforming any stairs would enro way yeah what kind are you you doing wood frame or you doing masonry stairs we have it as wood frame um I don't ever like to one or the otherwi people prefer I dislike our cor Bri St Cas the current brick St Cas we have now right we just like sure we certainly drawn as if it's wood frame yeah yeah and just kicking the the front entry in the staircase and is just so that the house gets centered right now if you go to the photo uh out you can see with the yeah with the addition just the family room that that that gray to the right it's just off kilter everything's out off center so we go that two story above the current family room it almost screams move it's also to get more of a Boyer and really open up your living room too whereas that would land right in the middle of it right now you have a sidewalk on your side on glad side yeah it's interesting so that picture upper left right we're talking about some really really small numbers the applicant hasn't put it in front of us but the truth is there's some additional space between the property boundary and the curb and and as you look at it from there certainly doesn't look like 18 ft um no doesn't yeah the property to the Bas of curve is like it's a little bit over it's about 8T maybe a little more from the property line to the curve yeah yeah where the r p is going you're showing electric meter and gas meter that is correct they are to um so so that's the architectural description I mean I I think a lot of the arship so to speak oh going legal now we're going to go into IL legal okay um so house obviously built long time ago 1930 pushing in 100 years corner lot far uh below the width um was it 90 95's required 50ies there so obviously that's creating setback issues that has a lot to do with the porch and setback to the neighbor um uh the basement we talked about is contributing uh 782 that's about 10% on the floor area though to point even without the basement count it is still slightly over floor area if you were to look at an r75 Zone um that does kick up to a 35% floor area and that would be compliant um for what that's worth uh I also think when you look at even though the technically the basement counts technically it's a three story structure the max height permit is 32 and 32 and we're at about 27 and that's because it's low four to Fours there's not even any for floor on any of the levels the basement does stick out of grade but it's second floor exist like 76 the attic low because it's a d Colonial it's D story in half so the volume of this thing is way smaller than you're holding the existing rid right yep we're matching that time until it so I think obviously with a lot like this nothing's ever been conformed if it was a new house it would appear bigger and whoever would would be doing a new house would be in front the board with a lot of these same issues I would imagine I don't know how you get around uh I think in this case it's a really nice looking house I really do think this is not just going to be working with the existing architecture I think it's going to make it a lot nicer even and I think given his prominence on the transition between the gland and Forest between the addition and the front por to me it seems out negatives I you you can't put a conforming structure on this why not well it's 11 a half you're you're under by 4,000 ft on the line and I don't think you can get the set back we don't need to Tes talk about talk about the 75 though you said that that would move you up to 35% from the 28 uh what would the other requirements be still under on lot so if you went to an r75 and again I don't know if you want to at corner versus mid this is little more Midlock block the way the wi is set up um if you want to an r75 Midlock block we'd have a 60ft lot width uh a corner lot would be 80 uh a mid lot block would be 7500 Square ft a corner would be 10,000 so depending which it makes sense to look at if you're going to look at at that zone the setbacks for accessory are una affected so the garage will be the same you go up you go you decrease your setbacks a little bit single side yard goes from 10 down to seven so we still wouldn't be conforming 5.2 but it'd be closer and then 16 total that doesn't apply um I think the thing where it would help us Max that would apply to your set back to your adjacent neighbor oh it does okay that would be okay or existing condition be not worse I think the key thing it helps us with this floor area ratio the Flor area cap would go down from 3220 to 3020 technically you're still a little over that with 348 uh but we would still be on we'd be under the ratio of 35% um that's only because of the basement though right I mean the real number we're looking at is 266 we're still over the 4 ratio 75 you're right with the with the basement that off be5 30 it would still require variance but foring purposes yeah skip that completely by the way everybody just so you know the Bas the basement issue completely ski it's I I just want to make sure everybody recognize doesn't forget I mean it's going to have to be memorialized in any good um think anything else driveway uh I agree it definitely makes that worse from the villing ordinance but the reality is they have two kids one is not is off to it's College out and one is getting older so even though they're adding a bedroom for them it's not necessarily going to result in additional cars the way they've looked at it um think anything else here and and again I think I think you even mentioned it uh it it really would be modernizing the floor plan much more nice than what it is today and I do think then there would be a resale value I don't see after this proposed morone getting KN down so I do think it would keep a historic Shu save it I don't know if anything knock down anyway but I think it decreases that lik so yeah I think I think that's um standard question everybody gets given that you're increasing your building coverage and your in first coverage is there any consideration for a drywall something like we we did not um unlike the previous one I I do think if that was something would request I do think it would work because they do have basement right now and it is dry so I don't have see a problem with the Shale no complaints yeah our big old 300y old oak tree on the corner there uh absorbs all the water that comes off of that house so you know we're not looking all all of my scuffers dump onto my grass right now so you don't have a water problem and you're not interested in installing a dryw no no we certainly dryw we to so I know that there's there's serious problems over here I mean you may not be experiencing it on your law you're shaking your head we have neighbors and so the new house that's being constructed within two or three of you is flooding terribly and you have a problem on Lake Avenue with somebody's just inst start the pool which is creating a lot of problems but the number one flooding issue Beyond Colonial is right at your house yeah we're not seeing any water in the house at all now again that tree sucks up a lot of water tree I mean it's the trunk of that tree is 17t in circumference to and if you age it it's you know I'm looking for the brass plaque that George Washington had lunch other and get you know a Sor plat so what are when you construct in all seriousness so so I've lost several trees while doing renovations it happens because those root systems are very sensitive yours are close to the house and close to the road it's adjusted will you do anything special to protect that tree oh absolutely well we we've spent I don't 12 $15,000 over the last 10 years trying to get dead wood out of that tree because during B bad storms we we do get large limbs the size of of thigh coming down and uh we we try and keep that as maintained as possible uh the root system has popped up some of the sidewalk on Forest that needs to be addressed uh when they put the new storm drain in on the corner of forest and Glen there was real concerns because they actually cut out a lot of Ro um to put those new storm drains in there um that fact is not going anywhere uh We've added I don't know in the backyard along our fence line we've added I don't 40 something skip Laurels uh we had the two big pine trees in the backyard um on the corner y when did they put the TR how long ago is that 12 years ago oh so it's been a while oh yeah okay yeah the tree on the corner I think will be okay after construction but I think it makes a better argument to do a w frame deck per point you know as to out for full Well here here's what makes a lot of sense don't use forest for staging don't put a dumpster there don't do anything on that side that you don't have to everything on the Glen play side that's going to give you your best shot and and we could put everything you know the dumpster obviously in the driveway uh all the all the material can go right in the backyard um there's no issue there the picket fence around the house replaced so just to clarify you are okay with the idea of doing the draw sure so I just want to point out that anything that you're able to do to get your water underground is going to help your neighbors um and to the extent that we can incorporate that into what you're doing when you have all the equipment there that to it and with a drywall I would ask that you provide a soil yeah and a a detail you know which Ro leaders are going to it how much line and is there consideration with the drywell to respect the tree because we're going to be digging a hole in you put in the backyard okay yeah yeah the other side right there's only three scuffers coming off the house as it is right now uh one in the backyard uh one on the corner of uh Sally's yard so that would be on Forest the the point yep no no I yeah these are on now you one that pops out here which Feeds out into this planting bed there's one on this corner here and then that's the patio right there there's so what you should do Mr Thompson when they come in to put in your new gutters they're going to be able to level it wherever they can go and we would ask that you run everything to the backyard to the extent that it's feasible and capture it all in the backyard in a drivew okay and then what you're not putting into Forest is going to help with what's happening the several Doors Down where they're where they're FL yeah I've seen them pumping water there yeah and there's no solution uh next to Ash yeah and I believe uh m is the last a yeah that that that pool that went in is pushing water into the next door neighbors house I think there's actually a number of issues were definitely in a rabbit hole but apparently historically that L was there and has been a problem over a decade it just hasn't been as bad because you've got the new subdivision on lake and you've got some other inferious that's come in over the last 15 years and the combination of all of that is bringing it back to the surface l you think there's underground streams there going through the lake uh no actually that would be on on the other side over past beakman but there no it all drains to this one surface yeah and and the full thing is separate but it's not help got it okay um you're good yeah okay anything further no um any uh comments or questions from the public at this time okay um B before we deliberate I want to ask a few questions of you we talked about the stairway facing Glen Place and so I think we know that you don't want to adjust that we talked about a staircase um facing Forest I think that we're going to talk about that deliberation we also talked about extending your roof line and I'm interested in understanding whether or not those things are feasible um and and whether or not the appan is is is okay with that and maybe whether or not you think I think on the the roof line you're like yeah not sure it's necessary what about the stairs to create more of a second front for I would say correct on the roof line I think it could help a little bit I don't it's totally necessary I think most of it we're adding some interesting windows on a second story so I'm kind of neutral on that that's something the Bo want to see I I don't think we're against that yeah the roof line gives you the opportunity to continue the gutter to the back of the house and carry that water a good point it's also exactly where you're exacerbating the pre-existing nonconformity on SP yeah um I can one thing about the staircase um especially if there's a walkway associated with it by my quick math it looks like you about 172 ft left until you uh go over the threshold forp coverage I think we'd be okay with that because 30 fet so you figure it's roughly five just want it's a consideration um I I would lean more toward functioning of that as far as from your guys perspective if you want to see a staircase here know might have talked about it at some point I just I know why we didn't go that R yeah I no problem as long as it's sent I would agree would sent even more the two side nature of the house yeah so what we're talking about would be centered in the two columns on the left hand side you'd run something similar to what you're doing on the other side so they look the same and you would just break your RA in there here's what you would lose you'd lose the ability to use that pocketed area as a seating area or something specific did you did you buy furniture yet no lot of numbers does it strike you does it strike you as inconsistent with the way you were going to use that a porch on that side well you you'll be able to sit in the corn you know you might not be able to sit directly where their stairs come off but they'll still be a little see I think one other I'm not saying it P one the only other thing is without a ring there at night attach your living room you'll feel like you're a little more exposed to the sidewalk but that's pretty M you're still that the roof and staircase uh yeah I think so for some reason creates a lot coverage and I think we can we can make it work with that a lotm into the tree it would be kind of s stone you know maybe like slate or something CR you just lay then that's obviously back think every y are we good and if that becomes the issue uh I guess would it be a similar size to so what's that projection could be should be same right yeah it would be roughly should be roughly five yeah it's 5T so it be 25 yeah if you look at the left side elevation it looks like that end is higher up out of the ground is that correct that there roughly yeah so you're going to be hot you're going to be another this the rear yard um this corner there's grades on the plan yeah 523 this property is a little bit higher than over here 1.8T but I think the 5 ft would wor there it may be less you taking the CH out yes all right I want to bring it back to the board to deliberate so I want to make sure that we're done you're done we done with proposed bells and whistles okay Scot I think it's a good find I I I don't like exacerbating vertically on the 5 foot side but this is a much better use of the space than we're looking at now and you're already shy shy we know what Sol house looks like so we know that there's already a tight set and that's how and I'm willing to give that up because I think it's a really nice point I like the the the two fronts look great I think the staircase could look good I know you're going to lose some functional in forch but from support what about the uh the extension of the RO L yeah you know I looking at it I was kind of like yeah I guess it could work you know but but the Mr shetti brought up a good point it will give you an opportunity to run that g there good idea you're going to see it right the whole the other half stops as it sits that entire that entire side is going to be exposed to Backyard NE I mean ideally I'd like to put a little Transit window there but in giv that back it's either one or the other I don't think you need both but I think running the um I I think running the roof line will give you more functionality and we've seen that technique work before in so and agreed with the dry well we're going to have to do it we're going to have to run that it it'll help with that yeah for sure um yeah I agree about the roof line I think that um that makes sense especially with each other um I don't know that I don't know I don't really have a strong opinion on the stairs on the um on the Forest Avenue side and I would I don't know that that makes that big of a difference in terms of welcoming for for that elevation um I wouldn't be pushing for that especially because you're you're creating another setback issue over there that's my only that's my only thought on that though but otherwise I think it's a great plan well um I would agree with Mr D'Angelo um I think s the root is important for drainage issues the stairs you know one way or the other for me um I do think you know the plan as it stands is probably the best solution for renovation for this piece of property um you know again another funky Fair hated lot um I think it's good plan Martin yeah I don't a lot to add uh compliments to the the applicant and and their professional Shas for great application I said to the neighborhood if we get a dryw in that's that's even better kind of great Cherry about the Forest Avenue staircase and can kind of go either way um I do think having that Ro extension on the side would definitely be an aesthetic appeal um yeah I think it's very good application it's a difficult lot under size corner lot I think I saw something in here that the the building envelope is like 10t wide it's very difficult to do much of anything here and comply so I think they came in with a great application time with that 24 separation issue it actually makes the building envelope about six feet wide not much house uh I would agree with my colleagues nothing much really to add I think it's a good design I think it's going to be a nice property on that corner lot appreciate your work and what you put into it difficult sight to build on but I think they've taken everything into consideration I think everything that you made comments about the rain and runoff overall positive I would agree with Sher I'm not quite sure if that step off to the other Street as a big show breaker I leave that up to the homeowners to make a decision don't think it's anything that we have to make a proposal for no good can we do that I'm I'm going to propose it exactly that way okay I'm not sure about it I get the two fronts but you know could we add something my one concern though staircase aside that tree 300 old tree I had a very large tree on my property that I had to take down I wish I could have kept it because it was a spun it was fantastic oh and but not only that the hisor that's great and Oak I that's a prized tree for the town yeah so is there something we can incorporate is that our is that our jurisdication I think it would be okay for us to identify in the resolution um that the applicant is represented that they'll be sensitive to the root system of that tree when they're building um and that they will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide protection um in terms of staging location of equipment um and dumpsters uh time of construction um to do reasonable things to protect the the tree I know that the applicant will um but I think you can add it in yeah um and I think that would be proven um tree the tree is on the corner of BL place in so I want to amplify what I said before this is the reason why we have to go through these things and the numbers are Preposterous on paper but the reality is a beautiful renovation I used to live over here very familiar with the house neighborhood um this is just the best of what we do to take an old house um and bring it into modern times um I feel strongly about the second front to to Forest um because they're all facing that way and I think it's going to look really good but um I really do hesitate to redesign it and so what I'm going to suggest is that we give you the option and we're going to suggest that we give you the variance on the come effectively so you can evaluate whether or not you think it's going to work well and whether or not you want it is beautiful the way you've done it and you've made it much more front to Forest so you've done a lot of the work already um I feel like if you did a matching staircase though it would really add to that corner um forch effect um and I think it'd be really neat but but I think you're I think you're more than capable to make that call I think as much as it would look nice it doesn't add any utility because nobody's going to be coming to the house from that side you reduce the utility of the porch in that area plus you're building out a few more feet towards the roots of that tree which probably extend up to the house anyway because the canopy extends over the house and plus you'd be putting in a walk of some kind even if it was just a couple of Stepping Stones you know you're you're just adding a stresser to that let me ask you a question if I were to propose to approve the application and give the applicant the option versus leaving it out Al together would it make a difference in your v no anybody else okay uh I'm going to propose to approve the Thompson application uh based on the uh plans at event submitted tonight based on the accuracy of the record um and the information presented to the board this evening um the first condition is the install a of a dryw uh which is subject to the review and approval of the board engineer uh with the idea being that the design of the new gutter system um to maximize water um to the west side of the lot where the dryw will go to maximize what would be put underground um the second condition will be the extension of the roof line along the southerly elevation um to connect with the other side um to break up that uh two SC Mass inside of that setback area and then the third thing is going to be a proposal that the applicant um give due consideration to installing a second staircase um between the just just so you're looking at it D between these two columns um in which case the the variant would include a variant um for the front yard setback um that would be encroached by that stairway uh the only the only approachment would be the stairway itself you want to specify um that do not exceed um yeah so well it's it's only per stairs so the only opportunity to to to take the variance would be for the creation of the stairs the condition would be it's no further than what it takes to get back to the ground and the the the steps would be sized the same as on the other side and construct the same materials um and in terms of the maximum just tell me what that maximum would be and we'll we'll do not to exceed them for the setback yeah based on based on the existing um the proposal to Glenn so it'll be five more feet so it' be 25 but give yourself maybe an extra foot okay so i' say 24 feet does anybody have a I I don't think I've ever done that before so does anybody have a I want to make sure nobody has a problem and can we also specify we're not going to exceed the impas coverage threshold yeah um right we're not gring the grage for that so but we'll amplify that um because the understanding is that you can do some sort of a walk there and with the with the stairs that you can work with what you got and you'll be able to make it work I actually don't know that you would even need walk you would still get the appearance of that second front and complete it um people could walk right through the grass if to use it at all yeah the stepping ston are easy too blue stone blue stone 2 by3 uh the TR what's that the uh yeah so and also that we would include in the resolution um simply an amplification of the discussion with regard to the protection of the tree the applicants representations to the board that they'll take um all able steps to provide protection um and it's within the the drip line so this is what I did on my property I didn't know and I used the area under the tree to store stop and what that did was that killed the root systems and so we lost two really really big trees because it wasn't smart enough yeah we're going to have to pay some attention to the sidewalk there back when they did the storm drain on the corner they replaced the sidewalks on the forest and some of those sidewalks have popped they never replaced the the concrete walkway along Glen place we still have the old aggregate with seashells and stone in there so that'll all be changed out too with the uh you know uh removed and reort with new concrete along there because that's all in rough shape too trees the corner yeah it's on it's literally at Point Property vage you can't miss uh large trucks have to go wide as the coming down GL to go up Forest because it's Branch it's only about 10 feet up off the deck so I made a motion I need a second yes yes yes yes yes best variants are over absolutely needed thank you thanks much good luck thank you what's that does anyone need a comfort break the record nobody needed a comfort break moving on to the fa application bring we have jurisdiction yes bring up all your Witnesses Council got one with me this evening Mr Ed O'Neal him sworn in he's going to be testifying both as a architect and planner the homeowners are here as well though I don't intend to introduce their testimony they'll be F questions if needed well a few questions bring them on up then bring everybody up tesy please stand raise your right hand s affirm the testimony to give before the B will be the truth the whole truth of the truth before you start testifying state your name spelling your last name purposes of the oh no not yet when you start testifying do that rela Mr Anders before we get started it's uh 9:30 so I want to use the time that we have but I also want to be mindful of the fact that we're not going to go past about uh 10:30 that's fair enough Mr later uh I I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to you happy marks some exhibits first I have A1 is going to be the Zoning Board of adjustment application guidelines also inclusive of the uh the checklist it's dated December 19 2023 A2 is going to be the copy of the development permit letter November 29 2023 be narrative the development together with the Zone board regulations and approval with exhibits marked that as A3 A4 is going to be 16 well A4 survey by Charles dated October 5th 2023 85 according to the architectural plans uh last revised December 5th 2023 A6 are going to be photographs of the existing home and surrounded homes I believe that there are three images A7 is going to be a St of variances we also have um zb1 is going to be the C report first one February 2024 open signature Jason Rizo CB2 is going to be the C report number two March 4th 2024 and zb3 uh we Mark the burough resolution we will be conferred to by the well I think the prior resolution with regard to this prop we have additional exhibits we want tomorrow uh Mr kovat just to be clear the architectural plans what was the last revision date you had I have last Revis December 53 all right so I I have a more recent set that was submitted if we want to mark them perhaps as we'll strike that give you the revised date all right so the last revision date I had was February the 1 13 of 2024 that'll be A5 thank you just for the record I have the same plans and have those okay we're good with that and then we have we have a series of photograph of the of the existing house I have we marked existing photos actually these the same photographs that we these are different this is a are different different okay Mark that A8 can you describe them um how many there are four photographs of the existing basement and existing cross existing cell and existing cross Bas existing basement and seller uh just would be seller that's my M stake to means a lot around here I know that's why I I call no basements just seller existing in this then there is also um a digital rendering of the proposed house9 rendering is there a date on that uh today 6624 and then I also have a smaller copies by 7D copies uh there are three uh studies of front setbacks house sizes and lot sizes within the general area of the subject property so very to characterize the setbacks of surrounding properties yes is that different than this survey that was provided yeah you have a date on that Mr again that's 66 and you're going to circulate those to the bo yeah I was anything else 810 that's 810 is that all of it that's it yeah should did is Mr O'Neal is there an aerial photo also there photo for sorry sorry you said that was thank you Arial approximate date the aial uh 2023 the Google image thank you is that it that's going to be it for now all right so Mr before we start I'm sorry I just run through check yeah yeah there's there's one submission waiver that's being requested it's a real SCD application however on this this project it appears that the 5,000 s foot threshold may be crossed um I don't believe that calculations has been done yet but I would recommend a temporary waiver and that um in the future if they need a permit real that's definitely reasonable anything beyond that that's the anyone a problem with that okay Mr we have to start at the beginning right this is the same lot that this board saw and considered variances on on a previous occasion in our recent Lifetime right that's correct a little bit uh more than a year ago okay so um what was that approval for uh I was not the applicant's attorney at that time was a prior owner um to the the best of my knowledge it was uh allowing the construction of a second story Edition over the existing uh single story or single story one and a half story home um it was going to require the removal of a detached garage removal of a shed and it was going to allow a very odd secondary second principal dwelling to remain on the lot um in the back corner of the lot with um deficient side and rear setbacks um and I I believe the board treated that as pre-existing non-conformity and the factual findings seemed to indicate that that structure dated to about 1922 if I'm correct um and that it was somehow um used as a second residence by tenants or other occupants uh continuously for 100 years or so uh hard to believe it's a very small structure but that that was the finding um other than reading the resolution I haven't listened to the tapes and I didn't attend those hearings so uh once that one of the struggles with that application was just Myriad inconsistencies of zoning and I believe that there were some improvements or removals that were done in conjunction with that is that correct uh I don't know that the removals actually took place okay so if you were to go to the site today as I did um the garage is still there go to the site today the shed is still there um it does not look to me that much has changed as far as what the board was discussing so so is it fair to assume from the board's perspective that all of that is water under the bridge and we are starting over again based on what you have today or are you building off of what was done before this board I think of a few of the things that the board previously um conditioned the relief on or previously asked for are definitely still included which would be the removal of the detached garage so that was something that you wanted that is something that we are still proposing the removal of the shed again you wanted it we're still proposing it um what we're saying about the um second principal dwelling is that if the board were so inclined to Grant the other relief associated with the application we would leave it intact in terms of the structure itself um but we would uh lessen sort of the intensity of the use of the lot the density of the lot bring it into more Conformity with the ordinance because what we would do is we would agree to take that out of the rental market it would not be something that you could rent to another family or another person for use as a a separate dwelling or a separate structure um what they say is that the the it would become accessory essentially to the main home um it would still require variance relief uh but instead of a variance a d variance for a second principal dwelling it would be a variance for an accessory structure that has a residential living space for the main home so just like a detached additional living space but maybe something that could be an office for instance for the homeowner position is not satisfying the conditions not satisfying the conditions but still trying to build upon this um I mean we I is there a particular condition that the board's aw that we're not my question is if you want the benefit of the variance that the transf before build on what you're doing now but you haven't taken any of the burdens can you still do that well I think I'm understanding you to say that the current proposal includes some of the things that were discussed last mon but you're going to take it from the top there was also a lot of discussion about the history of that structure when it was built um that took a lot of testimony multiple hearings so I think would you really be building on when that was built and the conclusion was that a preach ordinance I don't know that we would talk to you much about that structure because I think what we would be proposing to do with that structure is much much different and much much more in Conformity with your ordinance than allowing it to remain a second principal dwelling that somebody else could reside and you another tenant effectively another family we're saying we would not do that I think as long as it contains the structure to be able to do that than the uses you know as long as it contains a cooking facility and then it does qualify as a second residence we still question here before we get any further my understanding from dealing with similar situations in the past is this this is a tear down of the main structure correct yeah okay my understanding is that when you tear that down that thing in the backyard becomes the principal structure and then you need a variance for a second residential structure on the property you said that was a d variance we have notice for a d variance um what we noticed for primarily was to essentially utilize that second structure as additional living space solely for these homeowners um and in conjunction with Mr Rizzo he said even if you're going to do that because it's a detached structure where you have living space you got a notice for a d That's a d and we would put on some proofs for that but I think it's it's a step back or scaling it back dramatically from I understand that what I'm saying is what happened four was a renovation of the principal structure on the property and the variance to leave that where it was when you're proposing to remove that principal structure then that thing in the backyard becomes the principal structure I don't know if it matters because they're going to ultimately propose two principal structures I don't know if it matters which one's first or second I think if the demolition of this existing dwelling is in conjunction with an approved application it's different than getting a demo permit to strictly remove the building let time you know pass then sure I agree that that re structure would that's the way we' treated it in the past well let's assume for a second now that that's we we we we would let's assume we all agree as to that would that create an impediment to creating a variant to facilitate the Demolition and replacement of the house or you just want to make sure that we cover it it's different than allowing that thing in the backyard to remain which we did previously it is when you demolish this front structure that becomes the principal structure okay think on something because what the proofs what the substantial proofs were in last resolution the substantial evidence that presented was that the this two residential zones if you will pre-existing your Zone and that as a result of that they were allowed to continue that M to qu and therefore we're allowed to make improvements to the front struct condition on all the other things that we did but now since we are revisiting this and you're going to demolish the one structure and continue to keep which I remember looking at fire maps from God knows when they went yeah from you know at Insurance my grandparents time do we want to why why do you want to keep this nonconforming unit where even though you're going to say oh we're never going to rent it out you might leave in 10 or 15 years and then the next person is going to want to rent it out this is this is so in in those fire Maps there were many adjacent structures on these properties for whatever reasons they were there they were there most of them are G gone I think if the town had its way they' all be gone so I think you know as we look at this you know I would like to know why we're going to keep that existing structure and then build a new structure why not just incorporate that spur footage into the new structure certainly we can uh you know for Miss faol for Testimony as far as what are intended use of it is um I think it would be perfectly reasonable if we're sitting before you representing that it's not going to be rented to other people that that would would not just be a condition of approval if the board were so inclined to approve but that would be something that would be backed up by a deed restriction something that would be in the records at MMO County that would come up in a title search and be binding on future owners um I've already told my client that that's probably something if the board were inclined to approve that they would want so I just wanted to make it clear that it's not once you take that building in the front down it's no longer approving a pre-existing non-con forming second structure on the property it's it's approving a second structure on the proper the second portion of my discussion was I'm inclined to agree with Mr rer that if they demo the front structure noticing for a Dev variance in in a sense a a a non-permitted use and you grant that then they could do that it depends on whether or not the board is inclined to do that having this opport present now get weeds here but if they doir that existing structure down and this then becomes the primary structure is that then you know in compliance not not if they do if they do it if they do it the way they're doing it here as opposed to somebody just came in and demoed it and then said oh yeah I want to build a f matter right no too B for you so said Council would agree with me but if you did it in conjunction with a request they're not they're not believe me they're not demoing anything until they get their approvals they don't want to do that they want to preserve as much as they can if they demo rebuild and then this this according to a board resolution but this property this proper this building that we don't want like as I said the town a two family then it would be within now it's you know non-conforming would it be conforming them if allow it to exist it would not be conforming but you would have granted them the right to create in a sense we take the nonconform okay again I just want to I just want to make sure that we understand that that it's a different argument and that it's and and to understand from you what the different proofs are that I think I think the path to get there is different but the end result is still the same D variance that did you have something I a question clarification the variance relief that we gave previously was basically just the use variants for the second structure we didn't give any relief for any square footage to I understand no I think I think the if I recall correctly the um the new the renovation conform they weren't over on anything it really was the the so the structure in the back so help me out then were we going to be under 20 2200 square ft with the imp coverage wasn't there was a problem they moved a lot of impervious coverage that well they didn't I believe it conformed Marty I believe that the the the renovated structure was under and I believe that the size of the other little house was so small that when you added them together I believe that it conformed they reduced they reduced lot again remember this was an oversized lot for the Zone where 5,000 ft lot was as the minimum lot size they had 8,18 ft they did a couple of things to also bring it into Conformity they were going to take certain actions to remove the existing gr patios blah blah blah blah blah blah and reduce the lot coverage to 47.3% which was going to be conforming them to the Zone requirements so I don't think we got into all of those issues because they were otherwise conforming are the is s number in there I don't think I know problem we have because I did not see that you granted any kind of FL think right if it's 2200 sare ft and the accessory building in the back whatever you want to call a question is a 2993 inclusive of this okay thank you that's what so so I believe that approval the most they could have built with the renovation on the second floor was 1,935 Square ft the 265 I think that's right and I think it can since we didn't Grant variance relief then that's what it was I I do recall not focusing at all on the structure of the new house because it didn't really matter it was really your recollection is pretty good from my reading of the resolution it really was just the setbacks to that secondary building the use of the secondary building and the coverage coming into Conformity um again we wouldn't be proposing to change any of those setbacks to the secondary building so we'd still be abiding that we'd still be removing the garage still be removing the shed um we're actually reducing the lot coverage further than what we previously approved under this plan um so it's it's really just a matter of um in terms of new new variances new Uncharted Territory we're talking about two um the first of them would be the floor area um the maximum floor area as as uh opposed to the flary ratio and then the uh the second would be the front setback which is new to your ordinance when you do new construction you have not just the uh 25t setback that prevails in the zone at large but you actually um require the applicant to go out and field measure the setbacks within 200 feet on the same side of the street and so we did that we had to survey or do that and that number is larger than 25 ft we're proposing 25 fet so we comply with the prevailing but not the average in 200 ft that is a variance that we would be reflecting these well that would be the prevailing so you're you're proposing to conform with the the minimum in the zone but you don't conform with the prevailing which is what uh if you do it to the very front of each of the structures I believe it was 34.4 the surveyor also measured it to the front face of the buildings kind of disregarding porches there he had 41.1 we noticed for the 41.1 out of abundance of caution I think the 34.4 is correct all right so let's look at that more closely as we get into it so with regard to the accessory building is there going to be a proposal to remove the kitchen uh as proposed it's remaining uh if that were something that the board felt strongly about that would be a consideration that I'd have to discuss with the athle okay so I just want to put on the table for everybody that you know the the the de notice is a good idea and the removal of the kitchen is a good idea because it's not going to be rented even if it hadn't spoil it that would be a pretty sweet little office you wouldn't need the kitchen um if you weren't running out so we can deal with that as we go and and the last thing is we are stepping away from the old resolution you are applying for new variances for a new project you're going to tie it we've talked about how you're tying it together in terms of understanding what the board wanted but you're not intending to build off of anything that you already have per se I mean we'll we will discuss again those setbacks to the rear building we will discuss the the use of the rear building as accessory to the principle so we're not going to like omit that discussion and say that's that's you know uh water under the bridge we already got that one that's in the bag there'll be discussion dialogue well I'll tell you right now that it was very very clear that they tried to build the smallest house possible because they knew they had too much going on and the idea of now having an oversized house in the front changes the way all of that looks and I think that the board is going to want to look at this as its own thing certainly tie into the arguments and help us know when you're doing it but I think that what we're looking at is a new Fresh proposal with regard to how to renovate this property and make something I think that's there and just so that the board doesn't think that you know we're we're trying to steal a March or something like that um what Mr O'Neal explained to me before we came to the hearing is that um whomever was thinking that you could support the weight of a second story on the existing Foundation may not necessarily have been studying that adequately he explained that there's a difference between a a cinder block and a cement block that was previously lost upon me but apparently it's a cinder block type construction and I'll just do to check that's why we have the other exhibit the exhibit of the photographs of the existing basement I think clearly should that it's inadequate another store I have a question so the number we're looking at 2993 is inclusive of the second dwelling unit look say yeah if we remove say we remov the kitchen it ceases to become a ding unit so we back that out is that right if we get that far what is the square footage of the second unit uh I believe it's 268 265 265 2730 or something like that the house is 2688 2688 that's the number I well let me tease that out a little bit more so if they were building If This Were a clear lot and they wanted to build a 260 square foot um office in the backyard do we permit a structure like that no yeah I'm not sure what constit a dwelling unit that's you can build a cabana and such right you can build a PO sheds are also limited on how big they can be too true if it's defined as a Shen well structure is different so it's called a Shen it's 10 by 10 it be called an accessory structure doesn't Happ uh so it it's now it's approach 10 now but Mr Anderson I just want to at least present to you the fact that that may be significant if if there is an argument that you can modify that structure in a way that as a standalone accessory structure it doesn't need to be folded into the envelope and the overall square footage it materially changes your numbers and where you're at um and so to the extent that there is a way to do something like that hey it's pre-existing and it's location so we've got previous nonconformities as to its exact location but how we're going to renovate it will leave us in a different category now it's a garage a really nice garage but now it's garage and then is it even a d uh because so I I can read for you the definition of dwelling unit I don't know if this is going to get us all the way home but maybe it sheds a little bit of light on the question I think it's a good one um so you Define dwelling unit as a building or part thereof having cooking sleeping and sanitary facilities and so it's an and not an a designed for occupied by one family and which is entirely separated from any other dwelling unit in the building by vertical walls or horizontal floors unpierced except for access to an outside or a common Sellar it kind of seems like it's talking about as being attached but they they do focus on cooking sleeping and sanitary so the the trio of those things so I don't know historically how we treated it in terms of square footage but I know we've gotten into some kind of hairy Cabanas where the issue becomes the cooking facilities so I know that by removing those cooking facilities you're definitely facilitating what we would like to see with regard to whatever this is I do not know whether or not the square footage should be looked at based on the overall lot or whether or not we have an Avenue in the ordinances to create something if you were doing it from scratch which would effectively be I assume this is both heated and cooled and has a toilet it's going to feel an awful lot like a small Cabana without a pool um but I I just don't know and to the extent that by the time we get here next time you do know um I think it may substantially affect the way that the house feels at the front because that building could be viewed on its own is maybe not the right spot but not entirely um in congruous with what we have for organiz you know with and I'll be delicate because I know we're probably approaching our cut off here but um one thing that uh was apparent to me is that we are an oversized lot as Mr kovat said over 8,000 square feet in a zone that only requires 5,000 so I think we're about 62% larger than what the Zone would require of us I hesitate to stray into the up zoning but you did mention on an earlier application chair um we do meet I guess two out of three of the requirements to be uh treated as an r75 lot so we meet the lot area um and we meet the lot depth what we don't meet is the lot width so we have about 54 ft in lot width give or take uh I believe the r75 calls for 60 ft um if we were treated as being up zoned it takes the maximum F the cap from 2200 which we have now in the R5 I think it takes it up to 3020 and so we'd fall below it even crazy jump it is a crazy jump any of the setbacks question the way that reaches lot area width and DEP app is you all so we need all setbacks both sides uh and rear for the main dwelling you meet the Prevail uh the prevailing step back in the R5 uh let me see what the r 7.5 is we already established the actual for the for the front not yeah let me one second s Point blood [Music] is 30 ft yeah so we uh we do not need the front setback um either under the 200 foot average in the R5 or under the prevailing in the r 7.5 so so the while you don't qualify for up Zone what what's what's relevant is that the board has the metrics of table C to to sort of try and understand where council is trying to set the size opponents and so that context of evaluating your lot relative to another's own is good context even though Theon doesn't fall um and and it's C certainly you know you see it with the setback right you see what's happening with a bigger lot the expectation is you're going to push it back fur you're arguing to come forward and be proud of your neighbors relative to the prevailing um so look forward to getting into that and we will I mean I I think what you should know now and kind of just ruminate on it over the the next couple weeks before we come back and see it is um I kind of believe the prevailing um sorry not the prevailing the average setback on this block to be a little bit deceptive because I think the Lots uh on the same side of the street to us uh just to our South there's about three or four of them before the next Corner they are all deeper Lots than ours and in turn their houses are set a little further back though as you look at our house and our lot depth and then you look at the homes going to the north along the same side they are all set closer to the street they're all shallower lot or even a corner lot so it to me and and you Mr O'Neal can put the planning testimony onto it I sort of view it a little bit as a um a phase in as you come off of River Road the homes are a little bit closer to the street and then you get a little further down church and they set back it is exactly the intention of the ordinance that we engage in that discussion and that we figure it out in context so so um you've got a receptive audience for the discussion okay just a question about that measurement um the way that I broken I don't don't remember is it 200 feet or is it on the same side of the street it's uh side of the street isn't it yeah I don't think the one the street matters so much that's not how it's worded I believe it's worded as the same side of flock let me let me same but I'm saying you Circle and you mentioned you mentioned on the other side of the street I don't think we care about the the street I mean we can discuss it but as far as it's irrelevant it's really you don't want this hold on it it is relevant to the extent that it's not written correctly so the intent was on the side of the street no doubt because we did we did we just wrote um it doesn't back say on the same side of the street your ordinance say same side of the street so 200 feet of either side of the subject property and also are located on the same side of the street okay so what it dist guards as the homes on the other side of the street as well all of those are much closer to the street than our side of the street but and the reason it does that is because it is not relevant because the idea is that if one is proud of the other why and what how does that impact the neighbor and you know there are a few houses in town that we can point to where you'll see it where the house sits proud and what happens is now in the other house you're looking at the side of the house yeah anyway where we're into uh legislative I agree with you that it's more important to focus on our same side of the street I think there is some relevancy to the opposite side of the street and I think what we'll highlight when we give the testimony is the the homes to the north because they're going to sit proud no matter what because those lots are very shallow or they're Corner Lots they're they're much closer to the road so if not us them you know it's one lot over it's do lot yeah yeah and and understanding it in context is is what we really intended um to make sure that it's right okay um I just want to follow something you said before that me over siiz to briely is but you're in the r five Zone and the FL area ratio would put you at 2,000 square feet right you had 5,000 foot lot right4 times 5,000 which had 2,000 so what way we've interpreted this is that the governing body has said okay if you have an over lot we you get to 2200 square feet in an RI Zone you agree with that so far um you should okay so so now you're proposing to take this house down so tell me why you can't come in with forming house we'll get into that in testimony I maybe we should unpack the point4 because I think the 04 is a dynamic number that allows you to take account of different size locks within the Zone then you have your static number which is a 2200 so I agree with you in some regards and maybe see it slightly different because I I think they're two different you're knocking down a house why you can't build a conforming house on that lot um that's really a global question it really it really is and it's a question you're going to have to answer because you got to establish the proofs with regard to the variant looked at this if you're taking a house and you're renovating it you're you're working with an existing structure and there's could be a hardship there or if you've got a nonconforming lot weird setbacks y there's there's some hardship to deal with destruction yep I'm going to want to know l yeah we'll have to give you a C2 analysis on on that and it is a c it's not the D I just want to nail the point that you made because it's a fact that if you are a minimum loot we don't talk about it enough Mar if you're a minimum size lot at 5,000 ft and your C at 0 40 with regard to floor area ratio then you cannot build more than 2,000 in the r10 it's 2800 because it's 28% of a 10,000 foot lot which is the minimum once you go up you can reach the cap but you can't get to the cap without a d variance it is intended to provide that exact flexibility we forget it because the standards we don't they're not suitable for us anymore we don't like them but it's exactly right no I agree with you just one clarification you can't exceed the cap without the C because the c one is a c variance versus the floor area ratio being the yeah yeah but you can't exceed you can't get to the cap without a d variance on if you're the minimum size right correct absolutely right okay you 20 minutes all right so um I have a few just opening remarks then we'll get to Mr Neil's testimony so I I am John Anderson of fan Phil B Mill representing the folks you know the property it's been before you um previously um just want to make sure that we covered each of the variances and then we'll we'll get Mr O on so so we did talk about the secondary dwelling being accessory rather than a principle that could be rented out still going to treat that as if it requires a d variant um if we uh are so fortunate to gain your approval that will be remaining in the same spot which you could either treat as a pre-existing non-conformity as you may have done in the past as far as rear setback and side setback or treat it as a fresh variance um what I will say is that if we become accessory rather than principal even though we're not physically moving the structure on paper we're coming into closer Conformity with your ordinance because you have differentiated setbacks for an accessory than you would for a principal take it for what it's worth I don't want to oversell that argument to you um but it it is something to be cognizant of uh we did mention the front setback we comply with the general setback for the zone at 25 ft but um we need a deviation of about 9 and 410 Fe the set back on yes and then what we didn't mention before was waivers for parking my general understanding is that we have adequate parking in terms of number of parking spaces both under your ordinance and under rsis we'll go over that in detail what we don't have is adequate parking that also meets Your Design requirements because you do not uh allow for parking in a front yard whereas we have some parking in a front yard and you do not uh technically count a garage parking space if the garage is not set back at least 30 feet from the street here the garage is 25 feet from the street so in physical space we have sufficient parking for a home of this size both criteria but we will be discussing labors with you Mr O'Neal's been sworn Mr O'Neal would you put your credentials on the record for the board uh yes I'm licensed as an architect and planner in state of New Jersey and have been since 1987 um I have to appear before we scor on at least to my memory three occasions it's been a while though probably pre pmic um I am also the head of architecture program at for Community College and have all years I have a bachelor's degree in architecture I have a master's degree in architecture and a master's degree in City Planning from the University of pania um again besides Fair Haven I've been accepted as an expert in dozens of towns in nth County I can list them I'm sure which is your licenses are active both as a professional planner and a register yes will the board accept Mr O'Neal's credentials as a licensed professional any questions about Mr oal we're good all right and Mr on would you just spell your name for um for the record um capital O Apostrophe capital p e Mel and I do use J um Mr O'Neal are you familiar with The Fair Haven ordinance yes the master yes are you familiar with 16 Church Street yes have you visited the site yes yes your office prepared the architectural plans that were marked into evidence this evening yes they did um would you Orient the board to the site and you can use any of your exhibits to do so if you can just try to reference the exhibits I'll get you a list here uh ref exhibit A1 which would be an aerial view of the site so this is Church Street r Road A's place we're on the property on the west side of Church Street here it's an existing house which we' talked about with it's existing back building it's a 54x 150t lot 8,18 Square fet in the R5 Zone which has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square fet so we're about 62% larger and the minimum lot size uh we've talked Mr ners you talked that the lots to the north to be larger to the South they tend to be um and could you just describe a little bit of the existing improvements the home the shed the garage the site all weer to sheet A8 div A8 uh this is the existing seller in crawl space in the house um in my estimation and my business partner who was also really the he was the initial project architect on the project but he's a Mr s he's at a family wedding irand sitting in um we have looked at the house and we took these pictures recently um one of the things that we noticed very quickly is that the walls of the cellar are cinder block and we tend to use the terms cinder block and concrete block together and they are not the same thing so concrete block is concrete ped into a form and dumped out and concrete is very very strong and compressive strength meaning that when you ply a think on top of it it carries a lot of weight but cinder blocks were developed in the 1950s as an alternative building material for cost reasons and what they did is that rather than it all being concrete is about 40% of it are Cinders which is the waste product that is used comes from burning Portland line into Portland cement so the waste product is cinders and they mix the Cinders with the concrete to create a lighter cheaper block and this building is made on Sy LS and I do not believe that you can add the live load of a second floor onto that wall consciously I think the only way to build using that Foundation is if this was the foundation and I took Mr Anderson's chair and put it on top and those four legs were carrying the entire building was the only way to do it supported from the side or the outside Yeah okay or the outside so my estimation as a licensed architect this is not a foundation that can be reused also noted in here if you notice and I know your it's distance from you this is in the cwl space these masonry um um footings are really they're they're not footings they really supports have no footing what they used was they took a solid block and laid it down to spread the weight of the point load but it's inadequate and it sits on top of what was called a rat slab and a rat slab is not a structural concrete slab it's just what it says it was done to cover up dirt so that vering couldn't come up and the term of rat Li it's required by Cod building but it's not a strural situation and that's what's holding this up last thing I've noticed is if you look at this this is a temporary what people call L to a l column is not a pipe column and it's not a steel column they're different things a l column is a temporary brace this is permanent and what they did here is they attached it to the existing concrete slab and I strong doubt that there's a footing so my estimation the FKS asked me to renovate the building and add a second floor I'd have to say no thank you because I'm not going to take the liability of using this foundation for the building is there anything about the existing Foundation that makes it unsafe with regard to the structure that's there today or if you to repl that structure with a like structure I think if you replace it with a leg structure I would be I would think that this is going to start to crack and buckle and all sorts of other things I think once you start to take it apart you're going to see it start to fall apart my own experiences within the last six or eight months I did consider a p in po neck and as soon as we took the floor Jo I saw two of the foundation wasall paved in because without the bracing to keep it rigid it's like having a a bookshelf and taking some of the shelves off and will sudden ws and it's the same and then it since they have it has no tensile strength you know you can't bend concrete it just RS so I don't think it's habitable I don't think it's reusable I think it has to go and replace it just does seem silly so the proposal is it start completely fresh yes you know Marty's got a question about whether or not we perform at that point but okay yeah mean from a structural and building standpoint yes okay so we thought that was important to discuss with you um because you do generously Grant a prior approval in Reliance on the fact that somebody was going to put a second floor on this and people are saying well why don't they just put the second floor on it and so I think that is the um the rational feasibility should find the architect that was on the other one and not used them I'm not saying that not saying that either everybody has their opinions um uh the site improvements that are being proposed as Mr Anderson talked about removing theseis attached Dr removing the shed retaining the building that's in the back but removing the parking area that's behind the building it's a stone parking area and um when we get done with a lot coverage calculations we reduce even further to 38% okay so I'm looking at the survey I don't know is it this got a exhibit number on looking at the survey it does yeah I'm going to start at the back of the law the one story dwelling as as identified on the survey is proposing proposed to remain correct yes moving to the left the shed that's marked shed right under the word lot that's supposed to be removed correct yes the garage immediately under that proposed to be removed correct yes the stone area that goes all the way from the front left of the house all the way to the one story dwell in the back you're suppos remove all of it yes 100% what about the two strips of um concrete that run back to the garage they removed also all removed now move over to the back to the rear of the house you've got a wood patio there this this is all the stuff we talked about on the last one that's gone that's gone all gone everything on the South Side yes all gone yes and you're going to remove the front walking everything the only thing that's going to remain on this on this lot is the one story dwelling in the back and the staircase stre okay thank you right Mr Anal maybe you want to show the board uh your architectural elevations and go over the floor plan for the proposed structure we'll focus for now on the um the primary structure the single home residence so there's as a New Foundation system there would be a new seller seller conform to your ordinance as to the definition of the seller U on top of that would be the first floor which just 1,195 Square ft um dining room kitchen breakfast area living room uh a power room and and one you you calculated the space of the garage in that 1195 or no no that's the um okay liable area as we then get it to the max the garage is a little oversized for some storage in the back um but and then there's a cover front porch is on that's the entire first floor yeah what's the square footage the first floor 1195 1195 it seems small seems real small go ahead so then if I go to the second floor second floor consists of two bedrooms and a master suite um one bedroom in the front corner back corner the bedroom here um primary bathroom walking closets laundry um stair in the center hallway that is 1,490 Ft of pable area did you can a lever or you have a cover porch in the back well this part of the front entrance is over the covered porch okay so you can't really notice it from the elevation okay at this Canever um the back is also hand lever I believe 2 feet off the back I'm sorry so the first floor was 11 what um 119 yeah9 I'm going to and the second floor is 14 what 149 for the record three three bedrooms total inclusive of the master yes and how many bathrooms St um there's a powder room so half bath on the first floor two baths on the second three bedrooms two and a half bedroom and are you building a usable attic the attic has a has a the staircase that through the middle goes up to the attic the attic is 375 Square ft as defined in your ordinance by the the 7 foot wall so everything that is in Gray there would be would have adequate head of 7 fo plus so areas to the side are the attic excluded then for purposes of floor area calculations included I it's in excluded I'm sorry so 7 foot Dimension that's from the floor of the roof Raptors yeah and the attic wouldn't be used as a bedroom tisue no absolutely and then the building and then you treat that as half half story right half story no floor area makes it two and a half stories and then the building itself this is the front elevation to have back um it's kind of it's again if you look at the back of of the sides of the building structur system this gell area out you front um and that again has about 12 ft of usical space here one of the things I think in the question that you had about the calculation is that I think that the small variation on the second floor your calculation versus mine have to do with this area here on the second floor which is really not accessible you and I yeah you and I couldn't stand the counts if it's over 30 in 30 in if it's over 30 in from the floor it counts only well I have to look at it in section because it might be a foot it's part of the new definition if it's under 30 in it isn't going to count but I need to understand that that attic space because I don't understand it when I'm looking at the elevations because you've got what which direction does the attic run this runs all the way through and what's happening to the left and the right they're frame yeah but I don't think you qualify I don't think you can do it that way the because the idea is that the the roof needs to come down and so you need to not have seven feet because it isn't physically capable of getting seven feet framing over doesn't get you there this is this is the space we yeah but what's happening on the third floor or the attic space to the left and right those are really just decorative door on Ma but if you showed an attic plan you could so I think Mr later it's occurring to me you have a valid point here Mr O'Neal is we're looking at the home you're you're sort of looking at you described it as Gambrell going front to back what would you describe the roof as going side to side uh it's the Gable the gable gable roof how fli in the other direction okay and think I I think what we need to understand is how whyde that Gable is how much space is up there look at either of the side elevations well neither of them have 7et the Bridge height is the same both directions right it should right there but you're right it doesn't run the whole line it T's if effectively it's a cross right but there should be a cross space I agree cross shaped 7 foot I agree it seems to me that when they intersect and you head out to the to the left and right side of the house that you're going to carry that seven feet in that direction on the wings on the FL I see what you're saying I see what you're saying so what's that square footage I would have to come back when we come back 13 10 and you were on a101 your attic floor plan so online there's a there's a bisecting line it says 13 10 and a half on either side of that that's your number right yeah but it's on the plan it's kind of above the staircase there's a line that go that's where that piece is right the window wondering should there be a gray box that's inside ex right and I don't know that off the top of my head I think you're not going to get there um I think you're going to wind up being over and and Jordan I just want to point it out for you that the problem and I'm not blaming Mr O'Neil for but it's inconsistent with the intent the and you know we're just figuring this out as we go because because you're boxed the whole way you're going all the way up to the 30 and so the idea is it's got to drop off and that's the reason it's free um and when when you put the uh the Gable in the other direction you defeat the the planning goal um of effectively keeping the house not looking any larger letting people use the space but I we have to keep seven feet or less at 1/3 of the 1490 so if it were it's supposed to run exactly Mr O is exactly what we want to see the trend it's right there and if it were designed exactly like that it would be fine but as soon as you put the other Gable in and you create the cross in the additional 7 foot area and it doesn't have to be framed that way it just has to be capable of Being Framed that way you violate the spirit of what it is okay you're looking for effectively pretty much 500 square feet up there or less in order to honor that one3 Rao it's one it's one thir of the prer or the G just be lower right right right if you don't hit the seven feet then yeah but you're not but I but but you're seven feet all the way to either side of that so you're not coming down a foot you're going to come down multiple and we only have uh basically about 125 ft of play a little bit less so we we'd have to analyze that Mr yes yes I'm my so we're now I'm glad that it came up this evening so that we can so we're so we're over so what what I find really interesting about the way that you design the house is that the first floor feels small the second floor only has three bedrooms and I know that we can do 2200 sare ft with four bedrooms upstairs and I'm guessing that it's the size of the rooms and the layout and you it's certainly your purview you're requesting the variance but you're starting from scrap you got you got a big hill decline to get to the C2 um not withstanding the the house in the back you understand I understand all right was that a motion to carry without an obligation to reot yeah July 11th installator is that right I think that is right there a question while all here sure so thinking back as we're going through all this you know we're looking at those fire plans we're talking about these existing non-conforming structures that used to populate the area they've been whittel down to a handful at this point they have come up in the P say've been a problem me one of one that I remember 11 on the board isn't it in our best interest and the wishes of the overall plan to remove these structures let them wither and die on the b a pretty quick no no so there is no policy behind what we need to do okay the pre-existing non-conforming protections are intended to find utility in existing structures and I think in concept that the that the purpose is to bring things into Conformity generally over time but you can take a non-performing structure and renovate um you can until you do s so much that you're really removing it and starting over again the law allows you to keep it in place and keep it safe and up to date in the meantime yeah I just look at since this is not a renovation this is basically a par for the existing structure primary structure yes is it maybe time to look at this but you're saying the other the other ordinance again we're now getting back getting back to the basis of his VAR I I think that's right and I think if the applicant we're arguing to keep that as a rental unit and do the house I think it's very different I think the applicant has indicated a willingness to have a discussion about how to capitalize on the fact that they've got this little thing this little quasi dollhouse and it's me some value that's the only question you design everything check all the boxes there's also an ordinance that says that no accessory structure can be built before the principal structure so that's something that's going to have to be addressed as well again it though I would agree if someone tried to do something on the wrong without coming before the board by coming before the board and saying okay we know that there you know we're going to demo we're not going to take down the rear Stu for to do that right but I me and and again I don't when we had a similar situation but it was a consideration that once you take down the principal struct and and this is separate from the two principal structure issue if you if you do something to that to turn it into an accessory structure and you define what accessory use it's going to be you tear down the house principal structure and now technically you've built the accessory structure before the principal structure so it's not accessory to the intent is to then build the approved I understand that but I'm just saying what the ordinance says so we have to I I definitely understand where you're coming from Mr Sketti um I'll give you one example I have not um been before you too too many times in the recent past but one of them was on tapan Dugan's property uh you may recall it's on the corner of uh Browns Lane and River Road and that was one where they also had a weird funky little like garage thing going on keep the they wanted to keep the garage and the board allows them to keep the garage and they demolished the house and they rebuilt the house with the garage so it's it's not as if it has not happened it has not happened in this town because it's happened on one of the few applications I recently had before you I I do understand the consideration and I think where where the intent may come from is you don't want a bunch of lots to get developed with an excessive structure and then nobody follows through with the main structure and you just got this weird thing sure that we discuss it and that you get the relief for that particular ordinance if we choose to granted it's all okay um the other one that ties into that is a pool you demolish a house you're not allowed to have a pool without a house and you wind up in that situation anytime you're going to take a house down with an existing um we'll find our way through that so it's carried without further notice and then just so that I kind of understand some of the more immediate concerns of the board to go back and have a dialogue with my client one of the concerns stated this evening was will there still be cooking facilities uh in this uh secondary structure the successory structure right now there are I hear the board to be saying that if that could be changed or modified that that would probably be preferential and then we also have to be analyzing this um Gable uh roof that goes side to side on the property to see what that does to the floor area in the attic and one option for that if if the architectural look is do love that and married to it um switching to Spix stase to it pull down yeah maybe not ideal that get you away from well right I mean to the extent you want to take advantage having space up there that you can use then you got to you got to but you don't care you make it a pull down and it's done and in the floor area in my letter includes those two small squares that we talk about one the questions is how you calculated it you answered it but I think we can agree that those should be included into calculation perimeter wall perimeter wall anything over 30 in right so I think it's going to be a number between yours and mine so I don't know is one of them above the G and is there an allowance for an unfinished space above a garage well there's a measurement it's around 22t so the issue is whether or not the area above the garage can ever be finished in something that has ceiling height in excess of seven and can be uh fashioned in such a way in the future you don't have to do it now but we're not hiding any space all right um just so I understand is the 2953 inclusive of those two little squares or exclusive inclusive 953 includes those that's discrepancy because I had 1533 on the second gr right that look to the extent we're talking about what you got clear issue here is that you're going to start over again and you've got every opportunity to compl thank you for your time this evening every you appreciate it you stayed late I didn't think I'd get any air time thank sh what what do we have we need to make a motion um but yes have currently on the 11 Nelson 120 days 714 Dion was carried from 411 to the 711 date and good one which was also cared forward July 11th date so in terms of like 120 all right we're gonna so so we're gonna we're yeah we're GNA we're going to have to sort that um you're going to be in touch with them and at this point I think we're going to carry to the 11 and we're going to figure that out but we do have we have a number of issues to address but there's no reason to believe we're not going to spend more time with you on the 11th I I I can't tell you that you're first we'll just have to see how it plays out thank you ask you put your stipulation on the record time uh yes the applicant will agree to extend the time in which the board can hear and decide the application all right motion to carry the I'm sorry who are we again that was so easy too motion to carry the fa application yes yes yes yes yes okay some extra copies of mr's package thank you we'll bring more next thank you couple small ad items minutes from the May 16th meeting uh I reviewed the minutes and no Corrections make motion to approve yes yeah the revised resolution for 917 approve yes yes Mr ler yes thank you resolution from mine 270 H road I will make Mo approve estimated than yes yes yes yes any members of the public wish to make any statement didn't make it but I have a have a revised or back and forth on Mad River river river the sticker Mad River can all right we had we had a shorter I could take it over please H we had a shorter turnaround time obviously because special meeting so we had little shorter time um we sent some stuff out Mr Ain I'm going to draw your attention to page three uh we had a back and forth dispute on page three um I did not want to combine the building principal building height with regard to the cupula good for you because they're separate so I I'm going to Simply tell Mr aens that with regard to his revision um on that he's proposed here including the height that we're just going to limit to we're not even going to mention principal height because he didn't need a VAR he met he and then take the cupula WEA one and put that down into the next bullet point so well well hold on but dou I think it's it was important that what we were dealing with was a story and a half and the truth is that we believe it's actually taller than perhaps originally proved and what we don't want to do is to by lack of mentioning it create any opening for them to increase that instruction M okay that's simple enough I can just take it out of the new variants and put in in our factual findings at the maximum height of the structure is 22 as as as one of the bases for us to Grant the approval from yeah yeah and then drop in the and res ospre whatever the heck it's an ospre and put it and put it into that so I have your approval the other the other and this was simply the wrong iteration came out in office and I apologize for that you may not believe it or not but I have to touch these things a couple of times but based upon the trajectory of mad one after I sent this out I wasn't going to send another one the correct height of the sign is 7 feet um it's actually 68 but then there's I guess the post are a little bit higher yes 7 feet and the total square footage is 20 I'm going to make that adjustment so if you saw those I think the only other and again this was I don't care one way or the other on page seven you'll see uh Mr Akens wanted to strike out that there is a large I put it with a Weather Vein centered on the main of the roof building some reason he wanted that struck I don't really care we've mentioned enough times don't know why that becomes important um paragraph 9 page 8 um M this I had some trouble with but before I go and cause a problem for you uh moment condition nine originally read conditions of relief applicable to the 1968 resolution and I quote where resolutions have subject to additional conditions of approval here and after an applicants agreement to address site conditions in the future have been sufficiently addressed uh and or will be addressed by the applicant what he wanted to put in instead was have been sufficiently addressed Andor are no longer required as a result of this approval I don't know that we went that far he had the issue with the parking and that clearly was no longer required um but we don't want to accidentally sweep out stuff that matters and also did you attach it as an exhibit the um original 58 it's going to again yes it's going to be again that's why we specifically referencing address previously one thing that comes in mind is the radius of the curve at the intersection R been completed so they no longer have to address it well there's some that they don't but I I don't like his tell Mark we can exclude things if he tells you what he wants excluded we can exclude them by name but not vagaries on that item on page seven you are are you striking out the the weather part that doesn't exist the KOA does but this seems to be oh that's a description of the existing conditions so there is a large KOA centered on the main roof of the building but there's no weather now that's coming later okay okay F page eight and then the other other one was and again I I page 12 condition 8 um these are the conditions of approval about 16 of them this is number eight coordinate with the bur with the board engineer to ensure that site trage is not exiting the property onto Smith Street and if so agreeing to implement prohibitive measures as directed by the burough engineer in the event and he is added I don't have a problem with this independent of the requirements of this approval that's additional language original language the parking area is subject to renovation Andor significant Improvement he has added additional language in the future comma such as involving the repaving of the entire parking area he's he's defining if you will attempting to Define significant Improvement applicant agrees to consult a bur engineer and comply with recommendations for improved training Solutions what about moving towards sufficient to permit underground trage improvements because if you qualify the materiality based on what what it could do then you're going to open the door you doesn't have to replace the driveway on the par side in order to get there that wouldn't matter at all my other comment about arresting the water at um whatever that wrote Smith is that there's two ways that that can happen the first is that we see the water coming and he's going have to deal with it but independent of that is to the extent that he isn't able to verify that he is in compliance with the 68 resolution so nobody's ever really proven that that thing runs the way it's supposed to run it could be independent I think I think that language is there you know that's the prepatory you didn't change that okay with that make those Corrections so say you all I can do that yeah motion approve I'll make the motion oh second yes yes Mr yes Mr yes um a couple of comments um we've moved through some applications the last few months and that's all great um but we're still backing up and so my expectation is is that we're going to make it we're going to ride the summer out but that come September or something we're going to have to stick another special in to catch up um I think we spent the right amount of time and we got to three today which I think is great um I think what we did tonight was really good actually U but it's hard sometimes to get through them as quickly as we did so I came in here mindful of that everybody else should be as well um when we only have one we can spend whatever kind of time we want says says good um I don't know about any summer traveling I I I I think I'm probably going to schedule around the 11th and then what when's the meeting in August the first def for that just be super mindful of those dates and be super mindful of getting ahead of telling us if you're not going to be here tonight we had the D we scrambled a little bit in terms of making sure that people are going so you know like Paul to react to that if for some reason we wound up with you know skip being here unexpected and we wound up with six we would have hustled to get in touch with Council to make sure that they wanted to sit before six um and so we never really know I forget why but Frank told us in advance he wasn't going to be here but you know it happens that fast and there's just nothing prier than coming in and not having enough people and paying your people and having to send them home all right anything else do have all of our phone yeah we did to the public kind yeah okay great yeah actually don't always check so sh I I I told you to call today you can call whenever you think it appropriate if you're sending an email you're waiting 24 hours just you know not everybody checks yeah you sent an email I didn't see the email I saw your yeah I just