all right in accordance with Section Five of the open public communting act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 he advised that a notice this meeting was made by posting on the Bolton board town hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place uh at Town Hall 7M on March 18 here here here um okay first going to have approval of 12224 any corrections or changes the only change I made is on the top it says January should say January okay um Sean Gary Regina Priscilla nice uh I have a motion to approve those minutes would be noted change so second second all in favor anyone opposed uh next up we have two memorializations first one being calendar 39 6423 uh Laura hobber and Jose Valdez of 53 sagore Road in milour any corrections or changes isand Priscilla Craig would someone like to make a motion on that case Mo to approve to approve thank you second take second Joseph Coffield yes joh hardani yes Regina Tru yes yes yes next up you have calendar 39 5923 pav andha SAR 50 El place in Short Hills any corrections or changes same crew same people uh can I have a motion we move to approve calendar number 3959 d23 thank you I can second Joseph Coffield yes yes e Tru yes yes cor yes first up this evening of calendar 39 6324 uh Michael T canella at 35 Avenue good evening Council good evening Mr chairman members of the board my name is Anthony sorillo I'm with the law firm of Le and sorillo in Milburn on behalf of Michael and t gella uh this lot is in the residential R3 Zone District and the single family dwelling is currently under construction uh the subject lot is a through lot which means it has two front yards and no rear yard it fronts both Adams Avenue and tast drive this application involves the dwellings proposed accessory uses such as a pool house a pergola inground pool with Associated equipment covered Terraces patios and a fence located in the front yard of ta Drive our clients propose to plant 21 giant green abraid on the front yard of Taft drive and install a drywell system as noted in manara's plants the proposed accessory uses trigger variance relief from building coverage 133% is permitted and 16.6 is proposed and from lack coverage 35% is permitted and 36.6% is proposed the absence of a rear yard creates two expences since certain accessory areas including the fence are in the front yard of Taft drive I have three Witnesses Giovani manilo civil engineer Frank Troya architect and Katherine sad professional planner our clients happen to be on a prescheduled spring break vacation but a family member who's also part of our team is here Mr chairman if I may I'd like to call my first witness qualif giir testimon about to gight hearing the truth three times by the truth I do your name and tell your name for the record please sure Giovani G IO VA NN last name manilo m a n i l IO uh owner and president of Manara design with an address of 62 Grove Street in Somerville New Jersey your qualifications please sure so I have Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Syracuse University I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey for the past 15 years and currently in good standing um and currently licensed in New York as well testified in front of numerous boards throughout the state I haven't testified in front of this board but I have testified in front of the board uh the Township's planning board and our office is familiar with the township zoning we've done probably a dozen uh zoning applications within the past two years qualifications accepted by proed thank you so I'm just going to put up an exhibit this titled site exhibit um it's a color rendition of what was provided in your um plan set along with an aerial as well uh it's again Vanella residence site exhibit with today's date day one yes yes it's Market is a one today's date is that what it is yes 38 please advise if there's been any change to that plan uh yeah so we did make one minor change and I'll go through it with my testimony is just with regards to the location of the pool equipment and the Mechanicals for the pool house so that was inadvertently not included in the plans that were provided and there are some changes to the fence with some um discussions that we've had with the neighbors um in the past uh few days and again we'll discuss that as well um as Council has already stated I'll I'll kind of restate some of the facts of the property um property is know as 35 Adams block 36 Lot 21 located in the R3 residential Zone uh the lot is irregularly shaped um with Frontage on both Adams and Taff Drive Adams is obviously the main Frontage where the house um fronts and that's located here on the bottom of the sheet and ta uh Drive is up here on the top of the sheet um as you can see the property has no rear yard uh so pretty much any um Improvement to the property besides the principal structure any accessory structure would almost um likely trigger a variance and U appearance in front of this board um the property was previously granted zoning approvals for the new construction of the house U previously on the lot was a single family dwelling uh with two driveways an axis off of Taft and an axis off of um atams um the current application or the current um construction includes just driveways off of atoms so tath would um be utilized um strictly for a rear yard even though it's considered a front yard for the zoning regulations can I take a quick question when you say um the property previously received zoning approvals was there any variance or exception required or was it fully conforming uh so my office did not prepare the plans but um as far as I know it was fully conforming it was didn't go for any board for any thank you no problem uh so in the middle in the light brown is the um existing dwelling that's being constructed right now and I'm going to start my way from that going towards tap drive so being proposed is a patio area on the outside uh the two small brown areas are going to be covered so you're going to have a cover patio on flanking um a dining area in the outside of the rear dwelling um from the rear of the dwelling you take a couple steps down and you get to the uh proposed inground pool with a pool patio um right here and then further back into the site is a proposed pool house uh the pool house itself the U actual footprint is about 600 square feet but the pool house also has um on either side of it um these covered roof areas again no living space underneath it's just a a decorative and and a shade providing area um and initially in front of the pool house is a decorative uh perula uh behind the pool house um closer to Taff Drive is an outdoor shower and as um I mentioned earlier that is also where we're proposing to put the outdoor mechanical equipment almost like an extension of that outdoor shower it'll be enclosed with a fence or or some type of decorative um screening so you won't see it um additionally we are proposing the arbores as Council had mentioned earlier um roughly 21 of them um in the rear again providing additional screening to the neighbors and screening of the mechanical equipment um lastly we are proposing a six- foot fence um which is going to be a solid fence and going to be a privacy fence that goes around the side of the property so it starts right here at the side of the house goes along the side property line um the one change so originally the fence followed pretty much the property line um with discussions with some of the Neighbors on Taft um the applicant has agreed to move um this portion of the fence further away from ta drive and put the arbor V so means one two three four five six seven eight nine Arbor vites on their side of the fence still on our property and then the fence will come back and we'll go around the CAC um roughly 5 feet off the property line and then once it gets past halfway through the Colac it will continue following against the property line and and right here at the side of the house okay so yeah so referring to A1 and you're describing it that that's not going to be picked up by the court reporter certainly in terms of where specifically the to be located so you you talked can you be specific in talking about is there any Landscaping that you're proposing that is not going to be installed on your property your client's property no so all the landscape is going to be located on our property on your property correct so for the fence along the sides of the property it is going to be roughly um along along the property line give or take six six Ines or so um once you get to taas drive um the portion of ta drive that is not the cold saac will be roughly 10 to 15t off the property line so so the is the fence going a long ta drive it will go a long ta drive but 10 feet off the property line so on our SES okay between the fence and tap drive we will have nine arbores once we get to the cue saac the fence will be set back 5 ft from the property line along the cold saac up to the midpoint of the cuac and it was a lot to to take in um and then from the midpoint of the CAC again it will follow the remainder of the site uh which is the I guess Northwest portion of the site all the way along the west portion of the site along the property line again these changes will be reflected on the um revised plan um I do want to note you know per the um Township ordinance um obviously fences are not allow in the front yard but if this was a side yard or a rear yard uh there would be no setback requirement as far as where the fence would be so the applicant is proposing a a setback that is more than required for a side or a rear guard and the size of the fence is six feet uh it's roughly six feet it's it's a unique size I believe it's 69 in so it's slightly under 6 feet but to make it simple we're just going to call it 6et feet um and that's a picture of that fence is shown right here so it's a it's a modern um solid fence again if this was a side or rear yard it would be permitted uh per the township ordinance uh no fences are permitted in the front yard besides an 18inch decorative fence around landscaping or if you're on a County Road you're allowed a four foot high decorative fence is there any fencing currently along T Drive uh there's currently a chain link fence that um comes along I believe it ends right here at the CAC where does it go uh it goes along this side of the property originally this is where that driveway was that was previously there with the old residence so this is this a solid fence you're putting up yes aluminum right like yes detail yeah a Sleek fence and it's entitled Sleek fence um you know what I did have a print out on if this helps I could enter this as an exhibit it's from their website if you want to pass it around pass that around sure let's mark that as a82 and can you please describe what that is sure this is a um brochure that was um taken off the SLE fence.com and it's an example of the fence that is being proposed Ed as part of this application might be a little easier to see than black and white even though the fence is still black I put another relevant question to the to the fence the part that's going to be facing Adams Avenue is that also solid and six feet tall the part that's uh this parallel to ATS yes yes the whole the whole fence is this and the gates what are the gates going to same thing it's a just going to be same fencing y you're welcome how far how far in from the existing F location is it I can't because I couldn't really see initially it was proposed be on the RightWay line uh correct originally it was supposed to be along the RightWay line along Taft um along the I guess the stem of St Taft um now we're offsetting at 10 ft off the property line it's helpful is it helpful if the board has a smaller version of the was there any other fences that we consider um so I mean it is a pool so by by code and by Township ordinates a four- foot fence is required um again given the location of this property and I don't know if anybody's driven down T that is is decently wooded back here um and given the arbor VES that we are planting um we think it's decorative and it would fit the character of the neighborhood okay um yeah so as far as variances I'll just give a quick uh recap of the variances that are being requested we do have a planner that will provide some uh justifications for the variance es um so the the first two obviously are due to the nature of the site being a through lot again the tach of ordinance doesn't have any requirements or any actually it doesn't even reference through Lots in the ordinance as far as definitions or um exemptions can I interrupt sure just help me out on this so I understand you're characterizing as through lot because you have a right way front correct but what are you characterizing that final what I'll call the 55 foot leg on the um I guess the Northwestern corner there yeah is that because it's not adjacent to a road is what is that considered um when we did the setbacks it actually didn't come into play because once you did the setbacks for the front yard um that setback has as as no play as far as you know setbacks I mean if that was me I would consider that a side guard um but I leave that to I lean to front that's no front yard that's a front because it's forward of the house the street and it's regard all right so the um request that we're um requesting is that all accessory uses shall be constructed in a rear yard for residential um um properties except for Corner Lots this is not a corner lot and um technically the pool the patios and the pool house are all constructed within the front yard um I do want to note also that you know if it was located in the rear yard um there are setback requirements for um accessory structures for our our three Zone the requirement is 12T from a rear yard and 12T from a side yard um the proposed um improvements are over 30 ft from the um Taff Drive um property line and um 12 feet from the patio to the side guard so it would comply if this was a typical lot uh fening fences I've mentioned earlier so fences are not permitted in a front yard besides a fence that is 18 inches tall and surrounding landscaping or on a County Road a 4-ft fence um a decorative fence is permitted again we are proposing a 6ft solid elepant um for this property maximum building coverage 133% is permitted uh where 16.6% is proposed um I do want to note that of that 2.7% of the building coverage are areas that are not really habitable spaces they're just covered roof areas covered patios covered uh decorative um roof areas maximum lot coverage 35% is permitted where 36.6% is proposed um so we are over by 765 sare ft um unfortunately the pool um is considered impervious in in um Milbourne there are other towns that do not consider um pools as impervious um and we get it you know it is a hard hard surface it does get U rain water but I do want to know it does not contribute to storm water runoff you know anything that falls into the pool stays in the pool um but when we did our storm Water Analysis we took that into account so not only are we sizing it for all the improvements program including the um pool area is run off as well lastly mechanical equipment so that's the new um ad to the plan that wasn't on the original plan we are proposing a mechanical equipment behind the poolhouse adjacent to the outdoor shower um per the ordinance U mechanical equipment shall be located in a rear yard uh where this site does not have a rear yard and it's being proposed in a front yard again we are providing uh three levels of screening we're going to have screening around the mechanical equipment directly next to mechanical equipment we will have the double row of Arbor on Taff drive and we will also um are proposing that six foot solid fence um other than that the only other Improvement that we are providing is storm water detention uh so there's a series of dry Wells that's being proposed um not showed on this plan but it's located roughly in this area and again that's been designed in accordance with the township regulations what page of your plans is the uh page two of the plans that's it anyone have any questions what's on the left side of the property just left uh right here yeah outside of your of this property oh house over there yeah so look on the close are how close are is that pool yep so our property I I said didn't kind of skip the aerial portion so and yellow is our property um to the West there are Residential Properties there is a pool on this side I believe there's a pool over here yeah so it's surrounded by residential on all sides and on the edge of of of this property is there vegetation anything it'll be a fence prbly right but is there any you know any trees anything on that side this just the area discussing well coming down yes side of the house um so I I think this is a good depiction this is actually from Google it looks pretty um recent so you can see the new house being constructed in the area that's cleared in the rear um there's going to be a little bit more clearing to to get some of these improvements in uh but for the most part yeah this is what you're seeing here as far as the vegetation will be there on the side sorry see is it grass uh no there is some some trees along that property line yes I couldn't tell you if they're on the properties or are property but goodle clarification questions how far is the house on Lot 21 from your Eastern property yeah you can point the one if you you're looking at the aerial on A1 right to the right is right there right what the setback from that home to the common property um I don't know the exact number I could scale it off the aerial um again I'm not sure how accurate that' be right now the prop our building is 24.4 feet off the property line that's the right that's the home and the proposed covered patio 4.4 from the property line yeah I don't have the you don't know what the distance is do the to that nearest property no again I could scale it off the aerial but I can't you approximate I say plus or minus 40 ft 40 ft yes than single story TW story structure uh two story um from the Second Story yes so seeing over the the six F fence yes and my other question was I'm looking at your sheet one on the engineering plan and you're showing average setbacks the T drive and it looks like you have outlined or structures on the subject property that are not consistent with what is being proposed here say Clarity that um so can you clarify that looking yes so you pull P your sheet one see what I'm referring to on the subject property you have average setback map and you're showing a setback to the right of way of 95.5 but I think that that's from a structure that's no longer there that that is correct correct yes right so the set and then the setback from the pool house to the cold de SEC is 32 feet and the outdoor shower to the cold de SEC is a little over 30 feet yes so just doing the math so if you exclude the that the dwelling that's on the current Lot 21 that you're talking about um the average setback for those two uh would still be 75.1 so it would be a difference of 0.1 feet okay thanks for the clation question there um you have a setback brought my attention to it you have for instance OT 22 you have 102.8 to the right of way and 122.8 you're going to the center of theway for your setb uh yes it was measured both ways to the center line and to the RightWay so the calculation that we did was to the right away that's the calculation did was to the center line no to right away so if you look at the below 102.8 yeah so our calculation is below it has the uh 75.5 the 102.8 47.3 47.3 okay right so if you take out 75.5 and add the two it'll be a difference of 0.1 147 divided two that's get 75 right correct um if you could just okay take through the fence line again that you mentioned and on T that's different than what we have on our sheet one right correct so originally the the proposal was to have the fence approximately six 6 in off the property line um we got some feedback from one or two of The Neighbors on ta Drive about moving it closer or away from the property line okay so you're like on that section of Taft before it hits the C act that is 10 how far set off the boundary are you clicking so that's 10 feet off the property line 10 feet and then the trees are going to be on our side of the fence or on the other side of the fence when you say our side the property owners uh no be on the neighbor side of the fence all right so as I'm driving down ta see the black you'll see nine or leves with the black fence behind it okay so okay yeah how you g to maintain those uh trees if if the fence is on the other side no AR are pretty pretty hard to begin with but I'm sure the app will have no issues with putting a gate if needed for Access we do have you know we're going to have 5T along here and 10t there so there is going to be room to access and to the see of public right away as well and just St with that fence you're not keeping it five feet from the actual culdesac at some point in the middle of the culdesac then you you're trying to reclaim right up to the boundary correct then when you go around the the trees are on the inside on the proper in side correct answer the question about the Abid I don't know who had it but uh I spoke with the Builder and there'll be an underground sprinkler system so that would take care of that so the fence is going to cut through that line of Arbor VY at some point like right there where the CAC begins it's going to take a correct it'll go angle soft right and then and did you give any thought to just keeping it uniform and keeping the fence inside the property line with on the other side of the treaties all the way around for uniformity reasons um I I think the applicant wanted some VIs you know with the Landscaping on their side as well and um speaking with the neighbor it seemed like they were satisfied with just having the dis portion half having Landscaping you're welcome one clarifying question on the building coverage tabulation that you have in the sheet m uh existing coverage is exactly 13% so it was to the te it was complied right so that was the previous um zoning approval that was granted I don't know if it was earlier this or earlier last year yes in early 2023 yes so the entire additions the patio the two paos and the pool hous is basically causing the aggravation of 3.6% correct roughly about 1700 square ft um I'll take your uh your word for 1700 square feet Yes it goes from 5972 to 757 7657 correct yep 1,700 about plus or minus welcome so you lost 17,000 square feet over the minimum correct 1,700 yes 17,000 I'm talking about the lot size oh lot size I'm sorry um yes how is it possible we can't squeeze this thing into a near 17,000 foot overage the building coverage lock coverage all those yeah um you know I'll leave it to your architect as far as seeing if we can strength some the building coverage um you know I looking at the area I I don't think it's that a character as far as size and and building coverage and and lock coverage just looking at you know visually what's out there and like I said this fence is there a plan B on this fence because having a big solid black fence it's pretty harsh to see The Greenery and so forth yeah I mean it's something that we could discuss um obviously we need obviously a four fli fence at the minimum um for yeah building code and for Township Code right um but that's something we will discuss and we'll get back to BU at the meeting anything else um if the fence is an issue for members of the board let us know what type of fence it's possible that we could Implement okay well when we get to that point we'll we'll discuss there you know something else the board would like it any other questions for this Mr Frank TR you swear from testimony to G tonight's hearing be the truth hold truth not by the truth I do your name selling your name for your sure it's Frank Troya t r i thank you what are your educational and professional qualifications as an archit sure um I am a project architect I plan architecture I've been there for about 10 years now I graduated from New Jersey Institute of Technology with a bachelor degree in architecture um I've been licensed in the state for about seven years and I am currently in good standing I've also appeared before many boards throughout the state this would be my first time in Milburn but all for similar single family multif family applications thank you your credentials are accepted pleas thank you good evening board thank you for having us tonight um starting out on the first sheet here a0000 um it's really just a sheet with some information on it but also some pretty pictures just to give you an idea of what we are looking to propose back there um starting in the top left picture we have a view that gives us a view of the house that is currently being built with those proposed cover Terraces you see that pool as the um middle grounds here and then we have the pool house over to the right side of that image going to the top right image um flipped it so now we have the pool house on the left side you start to see that perlar structure that's in front of the pool house and the pool shot of it on axis with the um house in the proposed cover p iOS on the right side uh down at the bottom left we have a center Shot looking at the proposed pool housee on that perola we have um doors that open up there then you see those flanking um symmetrical covered areas to the side of that um and then finally we just have another image from further up in the yard um all again at the uh believe it's the um east side of the prop no I'm sorry this is the west side of the property looking back at the pool with the house on the right the F House on the Left flipping over to sheet a100 these are the um four plans of the house that is currently being built right now um really not too much to focus on here currently you know it's it's a six-bedroom uh house that's being built including um basement all the way through the second floor and I really just want to highlight on here um where the kitchen is located on the first floor so we have the kitchen on this side of the house um that is off of a gallery that on the other side of that Gallery is where the um main living space is for that house and off of those two areas are where we are proposing these covered Terraces um also we have this single door entry on axis with the main entrance and foyer um so trying to keep symmetry in the design that we brought forward with the pool and the pool house F into sheet A200 this is the foundation and basement plan um but really what we just want to show here is where we are proposing those covered Terraces we are not proposing any additional volume or um basement space underneath there will be on grade masonry um Terraces um on the poolhouse side we are proposing a basement there it's accessible from the outside and it's really just meant to be additional storage for um you know just various uh items that would go along with the pool or um you know the kids down the line have play equipment to to store it in the winter time all in between here that's Dash that's just showing the pool and the patios so flip into sheet a201 this is our first floor plan so starting on the left side of the sheet here we have a cut line running through the existing house but we're maintaining to show where the kitchen and their eating area is as well as their living area so what we're proposing here are two covered um patios off the existing house with a central uncovered patio um The Patio down here located off the kitchen that's meant to be more of an outdoor kitchen grilling area for the clients again keeping its proximity close to the kitchen um so that it's easy for them to use it and um uh while they have guest over and also for their every day-to-day function um on the at the top of the page here off of their uh interior living room is where we're proposing an exterior living room outdoor living area for them to have a sofa another fireplace really just to get to enjoy the outdoors during the summertime and I guess the fall in the spring when we have the opportunity um coming off of this rear uh existing entry from the rear is where we have this line of symmetry that runs through the pool um all the way through uh symmetrical with the the pool house and the opening there um this line of symmetry is in line with the um we have a Sund deck located on the south side of the pool and then we have a spa located on the North side which is closer to the pool house uh the pool itself is surrounded by an ongr paer patio we have a little fire pit area up towards the um West End of the pool and then down towards the uh East End we just have the patio and then a Terrace is down with some planter beds to uh landscape around it and you know really just look at nice and make it look nice and stately going to the program of the pool house itself we really tried to keep it minimal there's not much in there but um there is an open area here for entertainment where they have a fireplace put a TV over um off of that on one side we have a bathroom that's accessible from both the interior and exterior um and then on the other side we have a storage changeing room that is again access from both the interior and exterior and then also fitted within there is a small laundry closet for pool bath towels and and other sorts um coming around to the backside of the pool housee structure we would walk down a couple stairs to get down from the Terrace and to just deal with the Graden so we don't have to build up the existing grent and mess with um you know retaining walls elsewhere we thought that would be better um so we step down a few steps that's where we had that enclosed outdoor shower and then off of um to the top of that outdoor shower is where we have the outdoor exit and entrance down into the basement so it's not from the interior is from the exterior um then I'll just talk about just we have these covered um side uh patios here it is added to some building coverage but we thought aesthetically it just really brought the um you know kept with the symmetry of the rest of the house and we really thought it helps accent everything else and it just provides an area where um walking in and out into the exits where they can have a covered space coming up to the next sheet is a202 um so really we're just showing here is the root plant but we're just trying to show that um where we have these covered proposed uh Terraces we are not um proposing to make them walkable they are just going to maintain as flat roofs we have existing Terraces off of the uh primary bedroom that's being built and then also off of the guest Suite that's being built um so those are to remain um and then that will just be a flat roof that will not we are not planning at the moment to have as accessible um the roof plan of the pool house I think is fairly self-explanatory we just have a simple Gable structure that does have a slope and roof to mimic some of these slop and hip roofs that we have on the main house um and then we have that per structure located towards the front of that um she a 500 it shows the partial elevations of the right and left side of the existing home and that's just cover cover Terraces are so on the um on the side where we are proposing the outdoor kitchen we have a solid wall there so if they can get cabinets in there they can get their uh outdoor grill in there and and not have to worry about vents or anything like that being seene um on the left side uh is where they closing the outdoor living and we have mostly open except for where we got the fireplace and chimney that would run up um the rear elevation you can just see that we are matching a lot of the same trim lines on the existing house as they run around um matching the same columns that we've already uh designed for the front of the house and areas where we have pilasters on the front of the house so really just designing everything to conform with the house as it already was designed moving to the poolhouse structure um you can see at the front elevation again everything is very symmetrical um looking at the house I don't know if you've gotten a chance to get out to the site but it is all you know symmetry was a big component of the design so we're just trying to keep with that we have the gentle slopes in the Gable we have some of the Arches that are um where those covered areas are and again it all just ties into the existing structure um as far as the materials go and I did prepare an exhibit for a board um so I guess we can call this I think we're off to A3 all right there's many copies here so just feel free to pass them out and um it's just to provide testimony additional testimony that what you're going to see there is a picture of the front of the current house as it's in construction pass around just describe what what it is sure and the data sure so it is dated um March 18th so that's today of 2024 and the picture is a um picture of the house that is current being built and we just wanted to show um you know in real life not just the renderings the material that we are proposing um for the pool house um so that it matches the existing house so for the pool house we're proposing mostly um Hardy uh plank lap Sid in with a smooth finish in the color arctic white as it is on that picture uh for a stone we have a thin veneer stone that is square and W in shape and again it's matching the existing house that we already have um all of the trim that you would see in the elevations will be a Hardy trim so it matches the same color um and you know the roof will match the same colored roof uh going around to the right side you can see some how far that existing TR or the proposed trellis and Pera will extend out you get a glimpse of the screened in outdoor shower in the rear of that structure um and and that's you know pretty much it you know again everything we're doing is just trying to complement the house that was currently approved and is being built today any questions what's the floorida ceiling in the basement of the pool house um we don't have that worked out yet but it probably be around 8 feet yeah that's that proposed for anything other than storage I no that's it I mean honestly it's it's in there I don't even know if the clients are dead set on having it but we'd like just if we couldn't get it approved and they want to make the decision later they don't want to build it um but every time as a architect or designer when somebody ask me should I do a crawl space vers a basement vers lab on grade I look at them I say well the cost isn't that much more you might as well do a basement because the way I find is I always need more storage so I just try to that outdoor shower is that included in your coverage analysis um well it's not covered it's just a screen fence around it like a a screen and around it so there's nothing overhead so it's on it on the slab though I assume uh yes I guess it is on the slab but I would prefer it after John to see if he included that or not and also in the pool house you actually do have a shower right the bathroom we do um that one's more of like uh I mean I guess the outdoor shower would just be more for the kids if they're playing in the yard get dirty so they don't have to go inside somewhere that's finished yeah or a dog yeah exactly get confirmation about whether the outdoor showers including your coverage um so so no um but we could add that in there I gu you that calculation um 30 32 square feet get you that calculation if you want I would bring it to 36.7% any other questions actually maybe you maybe the board can answer this for me if the proposed pool house only has a setback of 32.1 from the front from T right correct you're required what you required uh per the average stepback for front yard it's 75.1 uh any questions from the audience for either one of these uh wites Ence okay so these are questions only of either one of these individuals okay no statements and uh well time that later okay feel free your name and your address sir uh David Lane 15 half Drive short New Jersey I'm across street so really it statements but I do have one question um on the building coverage um I think it was said that it was 3.6% additional uh yes I believe it's shouldn't it be measured by measuring the percentage increase over the maximum permitted I believe that's what they are is because the existing was 133% which is the permitted so how much bigger is 16.6% and 133% I think that's what they testify to as almost 1700 or around 1700 in terms of percentage oh in percentage it's 3.6% how much bigger is 16.6% than 14 % in terms of percentage so you're asking 1,700 square feet what's the percentage of that what's percentage of the it's 27% sorry where's your Mr Lan where's your please second just for the benefit of the board just looking at A1 right there where's your property um one right here so our driveway is opposite that back driveway that currently exists many of the guests on this property they're in the CAC and our neighbors to said the in Vertes are on the other side thank you like I said there will be plenty of time for comments I appreciate that any other questions from on need name and address Matthew guest 21 ta Drive um so I'm in this property right across the cue side just a simple question on the you said it was 35 ft um 35 square feet for the the covered shower or the outdoor shower what about is the pool equipment uh have you included that calculation in the coverage ratio uh yes yes so the calculation includes that as well yes so the 35 is inclusive of both the shower and the equipment yes okay all right thank you name and address for record please my name is Michelle Hubertus I live at One ta Drive I just saw your last h u b r t s i don't BL the old house wait what's your address one one I have a question about drainage somebody said something about extra drainage can you please articulate what that is as you know it's a it's for people don't know it's an unpaved Road and there's no Town storm drains on our street um so I'm quite concerned since F has been to my house more than once yeah sure so uh for the Township Code the requirement is to detain any increase in impervious coverage or any impervious coverage actually from roof areas patios uh excluding driveways uh so just to put it into perspective the house that was there previously uh before this was built and the improvements was about 13,000 Square ft just shy um what we're detaining um that means the roof that water and all the water that we're capturing um for this project is a little over 13,000 squ feet so we're detaining everything that was on the site previously um so what we're doing is we're capturing three inches of runoff essentially off of all impervious coverage and putting it on the ground in a seage pit so you're only only putting in what was there before You' assumed what was there before was adequate so there was no drainage previously on the site everything was run off that went straight to tap driver to Adams um so what I'm trying to say is now what we're proposing is we're actually going to capture alling purpose on site the only thing that's not being captured is the driveway which is permitted by the Township Code and that's going towards Adams thank you you're welcome is the is quality impervious other than then the front driveway being captured correct and that does that include the pool well the pool is being captured internally but when we sized the drive ball system we sized it as if the pool was generating runoff you're welcome also part of part of one of the drawing shows access to build this through T Drive yeah in light of that being a Stone Road why can't that be access yep so that was one of the concerns from the neighbors and um the African has agree that they would not access construction off of Taft any other questions for either individuals from the you said so you have an approved grading plan from engineering for the construction of the house correct so if you can approve pool you will then submit to her you may need additional okay yeah it would be obviously subject to um Martha's approval any other questions come on your name and address for the record please I'm Paige guest I'm at um ta um drive right across the street so directly across hold sa um 21 21 ta quick question to I know you're building this pool um how are you going to because we have that Stone Road we just want to know how you are going to access construction for the pool okay what they're going to do yep no problem I can answer that uh so originally on the plans we did show a construction access off of Taft um the applicant has agreed to take that off and everything will be off of Adams anything else Catherine Sam good evening board members Catherine few swear from teson about to given tonight sharing the truth truth nothing but the truth I do your name spell for the record Catherine last name spelled s a r m a d San K or c k Sorry k a t h e r i n e your educational and professional qualifications as a professional uh I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan I have a uh MERS in urban and Regional planning from the Edward J blin school at buckers University um I've been licensed as a professional planner in the state of New Jersey since 2017 I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners which is the national accreditation for planners um I have test I have not testified before this board I largely do not testify privately I represent municipalities just like this one as board planner um I represent uh the town the burough of Floren Park the township of Randolph um the township of Springfield the township of Scotch Plains and numerous other towns uh that we that my firm represents as a capacity of what firm Are You associated with I'm with Harbor Consultants uh business address 320 North a East in Cranford New Jersey thank thank you um so I just wanted to you know give the lay of the land um again this is 35 Adams Avenue lock 306 Lot 21 um the lot is 4695 square feet which is about 1.06 Acres The Zone the R3 Zone that it is located in is a single family residential Zone that requires a minimum lot size of 29,000 Square ft um this R3 zone is pursuant to the requirements of section Z 66.2 of the township development code um and the um homeowner as noted before uh previously received approvals and building permits to to construct the residential dwelling which is currently underway um and is well underway under construction um the applicant is seeking approval for largely outdoor um features construction of outdoor features to the site including the covered patio area outdoor dining area in ground pool surrounding Patio Pool House perimeter fencing um I had a chance to um visit the site so if you have any questions about any of the existing conditions that you asked question about before I can answer those um I also had a chance to review the township of mil Bird's master plan um to see what any of the goals and objectives related to the R3 zone or residential zones in general were um the last master plan was updated in 2018 um and under the section entitled status of 2008 issues and objectives on page 14 um it talks a little bit about the R3 zones and some of the residential kind of issues um that have been going on uh in the township so uh it noted that there had been a number of development activity um in the 2002 master plan which involved single family single family homes um including the replacement of existing homes uh such as this one uh it also noted that a large part of construction activity uh in 2008 had also been in residential areas so that Trend had continued um in the 2002 and 2008 Master plans um and noted some of the building permits uh which was evidence that there was uh demo permits and construction permits for single family residents that kind of offset one another uh and 20 2008 plan noted that this pattern was not in common and desirable builtup Suburban communities like Milbourne where the trend has been the Redevelopment of existing properties with larger and more expensive homes um in 2018 the current status noted that the tear down rebuild trend is still continuing um and showed similar Trends in the building and and demo permits um page 43 of the 2008 master plan includes goals and objectives goal one being to encourage appropriate land uses that promote the character of the township as a small suburb of the highest quality uh and an objective related to that goal was to protect the character of established residential neighborhoods and encourage land use and development at appropriate scale and density um and also included on page 48 recommendations um for the master plan uh which noted that the planning board recognizes that the single family character of the R3 through R six zones the single family and two family home character of the R7 Zone and the multif family character of the R8 zones should be preserved and protected to avoid development that is out of sync with the underlying zoning and neighborhood character as such they recommended that the planning board recommended that the following actions be taken promote clear userfriendly and transparent application review and plan public hearing processes for development proposals and applications so as to ensure an effective and well publicized mechanism for residents to report quality of life issues and code violations um there was two other recommendations with that that are not pertinent uh and then another recommendation was to monitor recent tear downs and new construction single family districts to determine whether additional zoning modifications are necessary to protect neighborhood character um with that with that overview in the master plan analysis um I'm going to talk about a little bit about the variances that are being requested which is why we're here this evening um there are are four C variances bulk variances that are being requested uh relief from um one of those is the um is under Section 69.1 pointb which is under supplementary regulations for accessory uses in residential districts um again this is this is related to the um proposed Construction in the rear yard um of the pool house the patio and the pool um as well as the mechanical equipment which are Tech technically in a front yard because of the location um of the lot along tap Drive additionally under Section 69.6 pointa requires that fences and walls um are not permitted in the front yard um whereas a solid six foot fence is proposed um in the front yard in the rear of the property along tap tap Drive um two additional variances uh from section 66.2 e. 2.a for the R3 Zone which is a maximum building coverage 13% is permitted um 13% exists and 16.6% is proposed uh from 66. 2E point2 point B uh maximum lock coverage of 35% is permitted 13.2% exists and 36.7 as amended tonight um with the addition of the shower is proposed um there are two kinds of C variances um that are outlined under the ml the C1 variance is known as a hardship variance um and in order to qualify for this sure get you just talked about the variances yes there was a reference earlier by um I think it was Mr Coffield about whether there's a front yard setback variance that's required off of T do you do you agree with that as the plan technically that's an accessory structure and so in looking at the bulk standards I I there's no front yard setback requirement for accessory structures it's because they're not permitted in a front yard so there's a front there's a rear yard and a side yard for accessory structures but not a front yard setback as I read the regs a front yard setback is related to the principal buildings because it's separate one access for the accessories so I did not I did not interpret it I'd be glad to put on testimony raised it so I want to get it for the record sure um and if anyone has any questions while I'm going feel free to Jack um and so the C1 uh the hardship variance requires that um the applicant prove that by reason of exceptional narrowness shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional top topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or by reason of extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting uh the structure lawfully existing there on the strict application of any regulations would result in Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional undue hard ship upon the developer of such property and a C2 variance is known as a flexible c um two proofs must be provided uh to receive approval they must show that the purposes of the ml uh would be Advanced by deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement and uh that also that the variants can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impair impairment of the intention permit of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance which is otherwise known as negative criteria um and so I uh it's my opinion that um two of the variances fall into the category of a C1 hardship variance and two of the variances fall into the category C2 and I'll I'll talk a little bit about why um for the c one hardship variance uh I I believe that the the nature of the um site it's very unique um in that tap drive when you look at the Township tax map specifically um tax map number 30 you'll see that tap drive is not re recognized on the tax map as a Municipal Road as an improved Road it's a 40 foot access easement at the back of the property which actually you know um cuts into the into the block and lot here into the site and so it's uh it's just recognized as an access easement which is a little bit strange um and and as a result of it being you know improved and utilized as a road um it it creates an additional Frontage which creates a through lot situation which is you know pretty pretty unique but I will note that there are two other lots to the east lot 22 and Lot 23 that have a similar condition um caused also by the accident seasment that runs the rear of their property as well um additionally to the Southwest Adams Avenue has a similar condition and that there's another access easement um in front of this property uh that affects uh probably one or two other lots that have through on Lake Road and Adams AV um so it's not entirely specific to this piece of property but I will say that it is I think a unique condition um That You Don't See often um that there's an access eement rather than a roadway that's creating through lot conditions and so um as I mentioned the variance condition from the uh requested the relief requested from the accessory uses for the uh pool pool house patios and mechanical equipment located in the front yard along Taft um I believe would be a hardship condition because um if it otherwise did not have Frontage on ta it would just be in the rear yard and it would be compliant um it's very similar uh are the the condition for the fence which the relief is being requested for the fence which is considered in the front yard um I think there are some questions raised about the design of the fence I think indicated from the applicant the Builder um you know the design is in question certainly I think they can entertain um other options in a black fence um it's intended to uh provide some privacy for the because it is a through lot um for the homeowner um but regardless of the fact that the fence is being proposed in a front yard landscaping has been designed um at the outside of the fence in order to um to create additional screening at the outside and inside of the fence um I also had a chance to visit the site today and I think the fencing is an improvement from what exists there today it's a green chain link fence pretty much almost right up to the curb line of the culde sack bow so um I do think that's an improvement um the two other variances I believe would be considered C2 or flexible C variants uh and so the proof is a little higher I believe um and so I'll get into that the um the home owner is requesting the applicant's requesting uh a maximum building coverage of um 16.6% uh whereas 133% is what exists for um the the home that's under construction right now um the applicant is building a new home to rec relocate their family within the township they're building a new house they're looking to um create a forever home and the outdoor improvements that are proposed or really intended to complement the investment of that um and for the enjoyment of the children and family to to make this you know um a forever home excuse me one second so so was all this contemplated in the original build I can't answer that question I don't know the answer to that question you can maybe ask one of the other Witnesses um and as discussed by the engineer uh the homeowner is proposing adequate and in excess drywell uh and storm water management system to help uh mitigate any concerns about storm water um even taking into account you know a a pool which is a basin although it doesn't percolate taking that into account for the storm water calculations um and so I believe that the granting of this variant specifically will advance the purposes outlined in the municipal land use law more specifically as part of this site to encourage Municipal action of purpose a to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will Pro promote the health public health safety morals and general welfare uh purpose C to provide adequate light air and open space purpose I to promote a vis desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement um as far as the other variants I believe that um this is for the 36.7% impervious law coverage whereas 35% is permitted and 13.2% exists um this is largely related to uh I mean this is all the improvements but there are um the lock coverage is is includes the building coverage and the additional patios and covered patio spaces um I just want to note also that the pool is 1,225 square feet which is approximately 2 accounts for approximately 2.7% of that proposed cover cage um so if the pool uh wasn't as the engineer noted Mr Manila noted um in some cases in some towns pools are not considered uh impervious because they act as a base and they collect storm water and I just want to note that um swimming pools are a little different than pavement they don't create runoff they will you know retain some water but they won't create additional excessive runoff under reasonable conditions um and so for that reason uh I believe that this will also Advance the purposes granting of this variance will also Advance the purpos of the municipal land use law for the same purposes purpose a purpose C and purpose I and I can recite those if you'd like for the record um uh in in relation to the master plan which I went through some analysis of the most recent 2018 uh master plan which included um kind of a history of the 2002 and 2008 Master plans uh I do believe that there's been a recognition that there has been ter bound tear down rebuilds um as mentioned in 2008 master plan uh you know very common for desirable communities I represent other communities just like this where um that's the norm where uh older homes are are um reconstructed and um I don't think the master plan was kind of Silent about if that's a problem or not I think they said there's a continued Trend but uh I did see that there are recommendations related to um you know making sure that if anything if the trend was going uh South that um the zoning be looked at again to you know maybe maybe put some Protections in place if that was a problem um and so I believe that this is not going to impair the the intended purpose of the Zone plan and the master plan for that matter um I think that these site improvements are part of an overall proposed development um for a family to create a forever home and to enjoy um a number of the outdoor amenities associated with that um it's I don't think it's out of character with the surrounding neighborhood I think it's been Pro proven to further the goals the intended purpose of the municipal land use law and I think that they can be granted without substantial impairment of the Zone plan and master plan so you're heard of the master plan several times and trying to square your your negative criteria and how they allude to new development and tear downs and so forth but from a planning perspective when you have a home that you tear down and you start from scratch a lot 177,000 square feet over a lot minimum and then you get exceed the coverage how's that good plan so I I totally agree with you I'm usually on the other side of the table you know making asking the same questions um and I I think that um in this case you know you you mentioned before this is an overside lot I think the question was what is the what is a coverage look like in relation to the minimum lot size generally larger Lots can um can accommodate uh you know you have that yeah they're they're they're they're they're trying to build off of that they're trying to AC they accommodated basically the max size of the house I don't know if it was cont if the outdoor amenities were contemplated um or what at what stage that they were added in so would you agree that a pool and a pool house could lawfully exist on this law yeah I believe so I know you you'd ask a question earlier if they could be smaller well I say lawfully exists right however you want to phrase it yeah I think I as I mentioned before I think um you know the pool itself is is 2.7% of the coverage so you could choose choose your poison right well the I just bring the pool there because the pool is very different from a building or pavement so right but I mean I realize saying that you know in Milburn it's contemplated it's got what it is it is it is what it is yeah it doesn't matter town does um but all the acrs here um you think that could be scaled back potentially and avoid having a brand new house Blank Slate here Blank Slate right you can do whatever you want why would you increase the intensity to use the property over with Max well I I think right now you know as I mentioned before the homeowner is looking to make an investment to move you know to relocate here and they really want to make this a forever home and so they're looking for the you know the highest they're looking for what they've designed what they've spent the time designing um to you know seek the variance conditions under the proofs okay any other questions there in this neighborhood can you point to other instances where building coverage and law coverage have been exceeded I did not do an analysis look at other whether variances were applied for or did you look at the tax records to see what know even what f is in the area I I did not look at the surrounding you I I felt that this property stood on its own um I know the you know the previous home that was demolished in order to build this was pretty large um you know if you look at the the setback map it was pretty large and it did utilize access from both Taft and atoms which I don't know if that you know what previously I think this is an improvement from what previously existed there I think it's an improvement as far as the coverage and the uh and the arrangement of the buildings on the property I think it's an improvement as the access being a single access to the property and not utilizing Taff Drive which it's not a big road it's 40 feet wide it's not paved um and so I think diverting any traffic any driveways from Taft is an improvement as well um so I think looking at it in the overall scheme it's it's a it's a big Improvement did did this property ever have access from ta I believe the engineer mentioned that it did it had to driveway is that driveway existing right now um when I drove there there was a wooden board it didn't look like it was there it looked like it had been ripped out I'm not sure oh the apron well the yeah the a line at the curve line was but it was it had like a wood board like it was not in good condition I don't yeah so the intent is that the driveway will be removed as part of the project well I mean when the when the approvals were originally granted for the principal residents was was the access off T contemplated uh no so it's not shown on the approved plants that we submitted any other questions I believe we testified that t is actually a private RightWay it's not part of the public RightWay in the town it's it's an access easement it's very strange so the neighbors that have spoke here before they actually access their homes through that access they do the access heasman is on the Frontage of their property and the rear of the properties that front on Adams yeah any of those other neighboring properties like do they have any structures in their front yards that are within 30 ft of the boundary the RightWay L the ones that have through access or the ones on are there any other structures accessory structures on that on T you know it was difficult I did I did drive by and do like look at the site it was difficult with privacy fencing on the rear of um Adams along Taft and with the existing mature trees it was very difficult to see into the backyards tell like I can't I don't know anything else anything from the audience for Sor questions absolutely micophone please thank you just identify yourself David Lane 15 Taff drive directly across the street um did you say earlier that the pool is part of the water retention system that it catches water I did not say that I said that the storm water system has been designed with it as if it were just straight like as if it were runoff if it was creating runoff okay um did you measure the road the width of the road when you were went down half drive I did not but it was definitely smaller than 40 ft yeah much smaller okay were I'll ask us in question were you aware that it's 17 feet actually I could probably guess there around yeah 40 foot is the right way yeah um do you have any information about the prior home because you you sort of said that it was a you implied that it was this is an improvement over the prior home beyond what you know I've only been part of the project since the new home has been under construction so I only have aerial and historical aerial and okay from what the engineer explain so then you wouldn't be aware that that prior Chrome had a major reconstruction and renovation just two years before it was torn down no okay um also I think it was touched upon but just to ask this question question again um is the uh building coverage overage that's proposed 16.3 over 13 which would be 27% is that consistent with the with the master plan all when you say 27% are you talking about the the coverage that's proposed in relation to to the minimum lot size deviation the deviation oh understood um my experience in my opinion you know when I represent boards and and critique applications the impervious lot coverage is is a proport it's a percentage it's a proportion let talk about building coverage I'm sorry the the building coverage or lot coverage are both proport they're intended to be proportions and so you you I look at the deviation more as like a numerical number um or you know I look at it as a whole despite the site being oversized despite you know seeking a variance um it's it's proportion of the site size which is the intention of why that bulk standard exists the way it does so in your experience do you see a lot of 27% deviations that you bring the boards and say that they're consistent with the master plan again I don't I don't recognize it as a 20% I see it as 3% over the impervious coverage calculation that's permitted by the Zone um do I see that absolutely I see all you know everything you can imagine okay so the fence that originally proposed and yes we did have conversations to move it back but it was originally proposed the 6ft fence right along the property line um were you prepared to come here and say that that was also consistent with the master plan can you rephrase that so the original plan the plan you're showing today shows off fence along wait wait wait wait wait so the applicant to to its credit came in yes right off the bat mod modified to do they modified so permitted to do the application Okay so it's it's fair to ask questions of the planner based on the modified application because that's what's been presented to the board and to the public for cons and for the consideration of this board but I think it's a little out of bounds to ask questions about a prior plan that has now since been rised understood okay um question number 14 on the application ask State what efforts have been made to obtain the result you wish to accomplish without violating the zoning ordinance such is relocating the plan construction uh and there's a and a not applicable answer now you may not be the one to answer this but were there any um efforts made to try to build it within the permitted envelope um as I you know I think what we're seeking here is I I put on proofs for the Vance relief so I believe that I did not prepare that application I was part of this application but I not prepare it so that question would not be for me thank you very much I appreciate it thank you any other questions for the planner in this case from the audience thank you very much um this point we'll open it up for comment from the audience so if you have a comment uh please feel free to come forward regarding this application I just request that people do not get repetitive in their comments uh make your point and um try to be concise so if you do have a comment please come forward we will be swearing you in at this point once again name an address and we'll be swearing you in as well thank you just raise your right hand you swear orir the testimony about to be given tonight's hearing be the truth H truth not the truth yes your name and address for David Lane 15 ta Drive Short Hills New Jersey okay so one of the first of all I do want to thank the homeowner and the attorneys for engaging in discussion with us to alleviate some of the concerns that we have in mitigation I do want to talk about a couple things um first of all and somewhat unprecedented in short there's an unpermitted fence here wait wait wait wait when you're going to give testimony or statement and you're referring to an exhibit you have to say for the benefit of the court reporter what exhibit you're referring to and what you're specifically pointing to okay may I may I use your exhibit well it's in the record so you can ref okay so I'm going to refer to this exhibit right here which number I don't know so I'm going to point to TA Drive ahead okay and I'm going to show that this is the guest house this is my house and this is the hu's house you're pointing to properties to the north of Taff Drive yes I'm Pro pointing to the properties on the opposite side of the Taff drive from the applicant's house go ahead okay so there is um by including this fence we would now have this is over 450 feet of fence along ta drive that would be unprecedented that you'd have front yard uh fences this length in path TR in fact the ordinance it speaks about where it's permitted to have a fence in a front yard and it talks about South Orange Avenue I would submit that tap Drive is the polar opposite of South Drive a of South Orange Avenue so when the ordinance was being drafted they chose to make an exception because of extreme hardships that's South Orange Avenue that's not t Drive um secondly and maybe most importantly we have a deer problem throughout the town we have a particularly bad deer problem over here on PA what happens when the fence goes across the entirety of Taff Drive is the deer have nowhere to go but stay on Taff drive or come on our properties where this is most dangerous and our very large hardship is that when cars are coming down the road if they can't go one way because there's a fence they're going to dash the other way and that means you're either cutting in front of your car or they're cutting onto your property and I don't have copies for everybody but um typically this is sort of like what you see and I took this hold it up refer to it okay so so this is this is is two pictures of the same deer and so here's the deer popping out of the woods where the fence is next door to them and here's what happens when the deer pops out and stares at you while you're in your car and you have a little Showdown with the deer so can't to show pictures we're gonna Mark we're GNA mark them now you make them part of the record so we're going to mark this as 01 write it down going to o1 which is going to be two-page exhibit of a photo of a deer on Taff drive1 a And1 B to very Nifty antling I'd rather not have them though facing me aggressively who do I hand this to I'll put deer it's oh I have other ones name I other ones so regarding the drainage issue which again I'm not going necessarily in order related to the loot coverage and the building coverage um on ta drive we don't have any Township storm drains we actually had to put our own storm drains in and put our own drywalls in what we do have is at the end of the block over here around this curve somewhere is the one storm drain we have and this is at the end of the line This goes all the way down Adams Avenue so we get big rains we're at the end of the line we have a huge bottleneck most of that bottleneck actually ends up in my neighbor's yard to your purposes but a fair share of it ends up in my yard I haven't asked the guest what they get so this is another picture just happens to have a deer in it but this is what happens on our yard when there's too much water so now let me just say this the neighbors uh the gels have said they have drainage and they're going to not change the grad the grading of the property to have runoff come on ta drive to the extent they're given a variance we'd like to have this be part of one of the conditions so do you want this in evidence as well sure why not Market swiming drinking beer so I could go on and on about the deer problem having a situation where one side of ta Drive gets all the deer and the other doesn't with the the deer standing to the road what this has to do with our application well so so here's what wait so I think you're so far I think it's appropriate to raise an issue about defense there was testimony about storm water management so you asked a question about storm water but Mr s solo is right you have to be narrowly focused in your comments about the relief that the board is to consider understood go ahead so with respect to how far back the fence goes only part of it there's been discussion about pushing back the other part and I guess I'll leave it probably to my neighbor to the extent that there isn't a buffer between CF drive and and the fence that's there that's where the deer are going to go and cars come down the road if they can't get into a buffer on one side they're going to run out in front of your car and more than once deer have with the existing fencing that's there next door run out in front of the car or as we've experienced as my neighbors have experienced when you're trying to walk your dogs you're on a standoff with deer and you have to sort of position yourself so they go that way as opposed to just walking down the road so that's a little bit of a hardship for us um so one of the things we're going to ask for or I'm asking for to the extent that they are granted well me cut back uh our property our the property lines are in the middle of the road our driveway is 17 feet away from the Belgium Block herb line on their property so we're not 40 feet away we're not even 20 feet away we're 17 feet away so the further back fencing goes down half drive around the culdesac the more room we'll have to clear out when we're coming down the road the more room we'll have to play Snow when snow has to be plowed and generally the safer condition it will be but from a visual perspective having a a fence that high close to the road line would be very difficult to look at now again I want to credit the homeowners the attorney they've agreed to push the Pence fence back um we'd like to see a little bit further back than 10 ft but if they're going to fit two rows of trees put the fence I think that does mitigate part of the situation but not all the situation so this is one of the reasons why we're concerned about the negative effects um finally as part of my comments um the statute mandates that there shouldn't be substantial detriment to the public good and it focuses an impact on the specific adjacent properties affected by their permitted deviations so in this particular situation because of the way that tap Drive is an environmentally sensitive area it's not a paved Road it doesn't have drainage it's narrow has a lot of deer in it we're asking that the board consider all of these factors uh when you uh if you're considering the variants to be part of the conditions that's it thank you thank you for your comments anyone else have any comments regarding this name and address the record s from testimony about to give and tonight sharing be the truth all truth nothing but the truth I do name and add Matthew guest 21 Taff drive your last name please uh gu EST uh I just have just a couple very brief comments to make the first is um I uh I also credit the homeowner and their represent atives and not only now but also I spoke to the homeowner at the commencement of the construction and and he actually uh agreed previously to move uh at one time it was it was expected that excavation trucks would be using Taff drive and he after we had a conversation agreed to shift the the traffic so it wasn't uh traversing Taft which was very much appreciated and I appreciate the the uh statement about not using Taff for construction it's not suitable for that purpose um so that's the first thing I'd like to acknowledge uh I would um like it to be considered that I believe that the the construction site has not been wellmaintained um and I don't have any pictures to put a exhibit but it's something we've seen uh every day for whatever the more than two years under which this has been uh it started off in in in a well-maintained state but the gates are never closed uh the fence is falling over both on the tap Drive side and on the atoms side uh that's something that I think should be remedied uh immediately and and certainly I wouldn't want to have to look at that um uh as the construction intensity and uh increases on the TA Drive side um the last thing I would I would note is um uh I I just want to Echo the concerns about the fencing I appreciate the accommodation that's been suggested um that style of fencing and I also appreciate the acknowledgement that that there will be a different style um I think that that would uh and I'm not sure how that fits in within the statutory considerations but it would dramatically alter our s sight line from our property and and just as a in terms of the style of the surrounding properties I think it would be a dramatic departure to have a fence of that style and that that close to the sight line so I think with a little more buffer and with a different style it could be a an Improvement in in terms of our enjoyment of our property and that's all I have to add thank you thank you any other comments regarding this application anything further Clos to follow portion of this uh board members think I'll start um um I'll start by saying I'm I'm concerned about several things but the first thing I'm concerned about is the the fencing which I think is enough character with the neighborhood um It's Too Tall it's too solid it's too dark I think it would impact the the view of the the character of a neighborhood so I would not be in favor of this fence this type of fence this height solid dark metal I I don't feel like that fits into the neighborhood there my second concern is of course um even the modest um building coverage which is it seems like a small number but it's such a huge property I count I trying to count how many kitchens there's going to be I think there's going to be a kitchen inside the house a kitchen out in the outdoor grilling area and then and I think you said there was going to be a kitchen possibly or cooking some sort in the proposed pool housee and I'm thinking wow that's a lot of kitchens you're allowed to have kitchens but it's a lot to ask when you're asking for 3% over particularly consideration of the drainage issues that have been spoken about that may or may not be mitigated completely so I've anyway wrap that up just concerns go next so I Echo very much the same concerns that that has and to to further it you know as I alluded to earlier we're starting with a clean slate clean sheet of paper on a very large lot all of this can be contemplated beforehand and it seems strange when you come in front of a zoning board massive blot and all of this going on that it couldn't have been somewhat far about to say hey look you know can we possibly do this um and keep it more modest and and that's the thing that I think is the real deficiency when it comes to proving a C2 variance that when you have a new lot as as the planer alluded to in 2008 and so forth regarding Redevelopment uh and then you basically say yeah we're going to redevelop it and oh yeah we're going to even exceed these this massive lock coverage ability on this lot this lock can Ki a lot of stuff yet it still goes past that which I think is definitely detrimental to the master plan and Zoning plan now this fence um I don't think it's an adequate buffer um I would like to see this fence brought in a minimum of 15 feet off that back property line and continue at the 15 feet all the way around till it meets the culde saac on the far side um and then have adequate planting in there I would also only like to see a 4 foot a state fence um you know driving down tap drive to see all that fencing is absolutely brutal it is not a nice aesthetic and I realize it at these people's backyards but for the people that live on Taff drive to them with the stair fencing it's really not attractive and it's certainly not in keeping with with Stewart hars or's vision of Lawns rolling into Lawns which is what you know his whole thing was and here we have basically a road where one whole side of it's gated um so you know that's not something I think that's particularly goodlook there's a lot of things that could be done with dispensing to not push it out to to the property line and as far as I'm concerned the way it's currently um I would agree there's a hardship here because it's very unusual situation to have a street uh behind and Street in front of the house that's not that's not common in town but I think the treatment um is H certainly not well fought out any thought Al go um I agree entirely with my two predecessors just said I would even add to that the um accessory use in the back um I was going to suggest the same thing about moving the fence back further than what they have if that's the case and you're gonna I it's G to have a close enough to that accessory use in the back um I was surprised that none of the neighbors said anything about about having a building like a pretty substantial building within within your Sidelines um but I think even that's too close um so I would you know I would add that part of it not blor I I agree with the comments of my colleagues same comments so out of courtesy to council um what would you like to do uh please hold the vote and um May I just Broach a couple of topics since I'm here or no no not do that if you like to to car hold hold the vote hold the vote fine one can you hear it next my next open is May 6 works for me for you guys May May 6 may6 sorry say this um if you have any new plans please submit them in time also I highly recommend you take consideration of the thir here in your comments to that uh there will be no further notice given uh regarding this so please keep an eye out on the website if there's any plans that are submitted for the neighbors that are here tonight um um once those are submitted you come to town hall if they the website you can review any other Provisions that on that L and when do they need be submitted if there going to be revised plans just so public is aware 10 days so soon 10 days prior to the the hearing uh plans will be submitted by um thank you very much we'll be moving on to our next case calendar 3969 24 15 Park Road Short Hills we doing 15 15 Park Ro just raise your right hand right here do you swear stim I do first name last name add um y Le y i n g last name Le l i and you're and you're going to be testifying as a AR evening yes I'm testifying as architect for the addition um at the 15 Park Road okay so are you going to have are you going to say anything this evening home your call yeah go ahead sure let's start we qualify your okay so come on come on all the way to the microphone hi we bought the property in July 2021 and we've tried to take time to figure out how we live there how our lifestyle is we we think that adding on 8 feet to the back of the house single story where our kitchen is the first level it's a split so um we'll really enjoy uh we'll really enhance our enjoyment of the house it's uh it's a typical split so that part of the house is a little small and cramped when we do entertain with three or four families it just gets a little little small um uh and and we thought about uh the previous uh homeowners their original plan was to increase or to add on 25 ft at the back of the house we want to do only 8 feet and a deck because we think that's good enough for us we don't want to do anymore we really like our backyard we have all the neighborhoods kids playing there um and we want to keep it uh as it is uh so that's where we are okay thank you uh your credentials please um I have a bachelor of architecture degree from a university in China but it's um Anar credit University and I have a planning degree from University of Pennsylvania I've been licensed in New Jersey since 2006 um my license is in good standing I have testified in this Bard for a number of times um um the current home is a split level single Family Home and um um we are basically are extending as the in hand out in color you can see the red the code the red is uh is the extension of the kitchen which we basically the addition is um involves extending the kitchen um8 feet and um the deck is 14 ft um so the only variance we are seeking is the um sidey setback um the current building has existing non-conforming side setback of uh 11.2 feet from the property line on the west and um the placement of the existing home is a skewed on the property so when we extend the building and the deck it to a greater deviation to the current side yard setback resulting at the narrowest AP part of um basically the uh the West the corner of the deck at the 10.83 feet side setback um basically to satisfy the 15 fet sa setback um we will the internal if you look at the uh the the first floor plan if we set back uh 15 ft from the property line that will um impact interior circulation of the kitchen and that also will make the it will involve a deeper extension toward the backyard um and another CA um another I gu gu that's number uh yes that's the only variance we're seeking it's the non existing non-conforming inside y setback um where the required minimum is 15 existing non-conforming is 11.2 because you the house is placed the skewed so that um um right now we have 10.83 ft sidey setback uh we believe it's a small ask and that addition is minimum it's 8 foot toward the back of the yard and another um another situation with this property is the previous owner um had um um basically they saw this uh they they sort the the same um sidey setback um variance and and in the year 2020 we March uh deeper addition at the 25 or 26 feet and that application was approved uh we understand that we cannot grandfather the previous um application or so now we're in a much smaller scale um but uh with that in consideration we think that this is a reasonable scale of addition and uh it does not prop um POS negative impact to the neighborhood so that side of the house is any of it conforming currently or is that's the only existing non-conforming and then that's the only variance we are seeking so the actual home itself is notal correct yeah uh anything further or um yeah basically it's a mod is the addition and back of the house and the addition and deck are buffered by existing mature landscape on the west side of the property so we don't think it pose any negative impact to the neighborhood and to the street backyard our side is also the neighbor's backyard because they face old Short Hills Road that's right um okay uh any question questions from the board for just a b question how far would you estimate this extension that you're making to the kitchen from the neighbor uh building area Okay um actually the survey doesn't show but um if I'm looking at the area map on the first page L 100 it's the Fest building is actually his garage the house is much further yes toward or I guess men is mentioned that um the left side um neighbor um it's the backyard basically their front is the oore hill road so it looks like I don't see any structure from the area map looks like closest one actually the detached garage if an eyeball is at least 30 or 40 feet away it's not they're not fronting Park Road they're fronting o Road so that side of property basically the the driveway comes into the garage for that neighbor yes yes correct yes it's our property line then his driveway and then the garage first driveway and then on the other side of the garage towards old Jordans road is the house very yeah have a quick question confirming the deck is first floor deck or second floor deck it's a great level it's it's a yeah it's basically less than 36 in above grun okay thank you any questions from the audience any comments from the audience regarding appliation then I'll close the public portion of this meeting uh board members are any thoughts I think it's a very modest ask it doesn't seem to impact the neighbor in any way I I have no issue with it meets burden proof agree you know really not exacerbating the the condition other than of course the trop line happens to fall away a little bit um since your neighbor doesn't have any significant living areas near uh that new Jack uh I really don't see this as problem support I would agree with the F board members here and I think it seems to be a mod ask thank you I have a motion this case make a motion to approve this second I can second Joseph CFI yes yes Gary yes yes yes yes yes good look for the project thank you next up we have calendar 3967 244 terce good evening how are you I'm okay how are you good uh to swear everyone in that's gonna speak tonight so two of us Nam for the record ly debner d m b r Cindy bner architect b o e r n e r I'm GNA give a little background just to why um I have called 14 Great Hills terrorists home since 1991 and my husband has called it home since 1978 we raised our kids here and now our kids can bring their children back home and we would like to make it comfortable for the entire family to enjoy um we previously performed many improvements and res Renovations throughout the years to make the home work for our family we added a master suite second floor addition pool for the kids to enjoy we upgraded our kitchen and bathroom in 2001 we finished the basement we've also made some minor improvements such as adding a generator and updating a master bath in 2018 and installing a new roof we love our home our neighborhood and being in Milbourne we love the fact that our kids can bring their kids back to the home they grew up in and to the town they are raised in we do not want to move from the area that being said we are getting older our family is growing and we would like to make some more improvements to make the homework for us once again um currently our laundry room we have a stack La laundry room we're getting older bending down getting into that washing machine pain in the neck so we'd like to make a laundry room where the washer and dryer are next to each other raised up a little bit on the main level so we don't have to run up and down stairs um we have young grandchildren now and extended family that come home and we would like to open up the kitchen the dining room and the family room having the open space where we can all fit comfortably and we can entertain and gather is important to us in addition we love a place where we can put the grill closer to our kitchen outside so we don't have to deal with the stairs in the winter time um we have spoken to our right side neighbors James James and Ying P ten Great Hills terrorist and he reviewed our plans and has no concerns expressed approval we also spoke to our left side neighbors Cindy and John clear 16 Grey Hill haris and they have also expressed no concerns in fact Cindy is here and James and Ying are here tonight um we hired our architect Cindy and began working on plans to mainly open up the kitchen dining and family room and provide better laundry facilities we looked at a few few different options but given our existing non-conformances unfortunately there didn't seem to be an option that would avoid a variance which is why we're here tonight um I'd like to pass this off to Sandy who can discuss the specifics of the Varian unless you have any questions for me first any questions qualifications for board please yep um graduated sumacum loud NGIT 1996 with a bachelor of architecture I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2000 my licenses in good standing I've appeared before various boards throughout Morris Essex Union uh South hunon County I have been before the Milburn zoning board multiple times in the past though it has been a few years um and I've been deemed an expert witness in the field of architecture your standing your CRS are accepted by the board okay I'm just going to start by briefly uh walking you through the projects these are the same drawings that you have in front of you start with sheet number two cind is that sheet number one I see an orange rectangle is that orange rectangle it is not is not why don't we Mark as A1 i s you try to get that yes unsuccessful exactly right we're gonna want don't you give us the date of these plans as revised uh variance on January 10 24 so it's the same the same drawings it's the literally the only change is that orange Square ahead okay sheet two uh first floor plan so on the first floor uh we propose this it's basically there's a little indent um here which we plan on infilling um again as Lynn was saying to get the laundry room um onto the first floor with machines next to each other and to be look up relocate the powder room so that we can create an open kitchen dining uh family room space the other addition is a small bump out on this side here to accommodate a chimney um we're also adding a small deck and patio space off the back again as Lyn was mentioning to be able to get the barbecue uh closer to the house so they don't have to go up and downstairs to access the barbecue sheet three is the basement plan no changes here um the new addition will be on crawl space um the second floor also no plans of changes on the second floor we did look at the um option of trying to locate the laundry room on the second floor to avoid an addition on the first floor um it wasn't working without either annihilating a bedroom or important closet space and again Lynn didn't really want to be dealing with stairs she spends most of her time on the first floor uh during the day so she didn't want to be going up and downstairs to access the laundry room sheet four so the rear elevation uh really the only changes here are we're doing the these box out windows one will be a um like a small sort of uh sitting area in the uh family room adding French doors off the uh eating area that goes out to that small deck in patio space and a box out window in the kitchen to accommodate wom's growing plant collection um on the right side you can see the infill so right now that's the existing kitchen this is the existing garage and we're kind of infilling a little uh indent uh there on the side and on the left side you can see the Small Bump out for the chimney and there's no proposed changes at the front uh so you cannot see the additions um from the front or from the road uh going back to sheet number one um zoning and sight plan so we're going to talk about the variances that we require uh we require two variances one for side yard setback and one for accessory rear yard coverage as you can see by the required sidey yard setbacks our home is already existing non-conforming on both sides 14.5 and 14 feet to the new additions whereas 15 feet is the required this is due to our lot width being narrower narrower than the required our lot width is 71.3 feet whereas 100 feet is required if our lot was the required width we wouldn't be here tonight so we have the hardship of an undersized lot in both area 158116 square feet versus the 20,000 square feet required and in width the other variance that we need is for rear yard accessory coverage again this is an existing non-conformance and it's mainly due to the Pool and Patio area as well as the undersized lot while they love and enjoy the Pool and Patio they'd like to have a small deck P deck and patio space closer to the house they love to grill even in the winter and having to shovel snow off the stoop to get down to the yard to grill has become more and more treacherous having a small deck where they can keep their Grill without dealing with steps will be a huge Improvement the small patio area will give them a space a gathering space closer to the home without having to check to the pool area again we have a hardship of an undersized lot 15, 816 square feet versus the 20,000 foot required that is causing this non-conformance if we had a conforming lot we would not be here tonight while this Z zoning item is non-conforming we believe the lot can handle the additional coverage given our lot coverage is conforming and our building coverage is well below the allowable in addition improved grading and storm order management will only improve water flow and drainage on the property creating an added benefit to the site and to our neighbors we believe our additions are keeping with the style and character of the home and we're also consistent with the neighborhood as a whole we believe our additions are minimal and do not conflict with the attent of the zoning regulations neither addition is visible from the street both are one story in nature and both are minimal in square footage 73.4 Square F feet and 13.6 Square fet we believe our additions are a positive change to the home including a detention system which will handle the addition runoff satisfying a C2 variance where benefits outweigh any potential negatives we also have the hardship of existing non-conformances which were not worsening and the hardship of an undersized narrow lot therefore satisfying a c C1 variance for all of these reasons we hope the board looks favorably Upon Our application thank you any questions from the board any questions from the audience regarding this application any comments from the audience you from testimon tonight truth truth and the truth I do name Cindy clear c e a r y and I am at 16 gr Hills Terrace I'm Lind neighbor to the left and my husband and I have no problem they've been great neighbors they always take care of property everything's always been fantastic and anything that they do to this property I'm sure is going to be completely and you know perfectly to improve their lives their kids lives we know their kids have lived here since uh 96 known them since 96 never had an issue love their family they'll be good give them this thank you so much any other comments from the audience can I close the public portion of this application uh board members thoughts yeah I I think this is well thought out it's you know I like to talk p on bra um I think everything here is uh can be uh taken care of I support the application so motion to approve second second yes yes yes yes good luck with the project thank you very much next up calendar 39724 15 Greenwood drivey don't mess up the pace I actually thought you g take a break it depends on how long you're gonna go I only got I only got a little bit of time 58 years [Music] old oh no I gotta go home after this my dog is apparently eating white out my wife yeah my wife is still white out he he found some way out and she wants to you know she already did that that's why I've been running that scary and you know the dog is the only kid we have left at okay we're ready sorry we Tes these were from testimony heing truth truth truth yes yes names to the record please tell your names James Queen j m s q SAS s o l m a z fose last name f i r o z Timothy Cy k l SS C start we'll start good hi everyone um so we live at 15 Greenwood Drive we've been there for about eight and a half years um I grew up here we moved back here when my daughter was 6 months old we love the neighborhood we love the town we really want to be able to stay in that house we are outgrowing it we have two young kids now um so we just are hoping to um renovate it in a way that we can stay for you know ever basically so um we hope that you'll approve our application today and thank you for your time thank you I actually worked in her parents house when she was I don't know 15 the um okay it's 15 Greenwood Drive in mil oh I'm sorry um I have a I'm a degreed architect and a licensed architect in New Jersey and New York and been licensed for 30 years and my license is in good standing have you reped before us before yes okay super okay the site is 15 Greenwood Drive it's in the or6 zone it's a undersized lot 5,650 square feet where 6,000 required it's a good looking house it's a colonial revival um situated on a block that's really contains uh that really is two to two and a half story home so it's really compatible with the neighborhood what tonight what we're attempting to do is to renovate the interior clean it up redo it sort of restore it and um really here tonight to seek a variance for building coverage to add a portico because we're existing over on building coverage and to add a dormer to the third floor because the front yard setback is 40 feet and that actually impacts the rear Dormer if this all makes and I'll take you through it a little more we were hoping that when the ordinance changed related to front yard setback that it would prevent us from coming but because we don't have enough streets to enough houses to create an average we have to default to 40 although we are act there's one house to the right that we could that you could camp which is actually closer to the street than we are okay and that document is inside your um application I think it's page 15 but I'll come back to it in just a little bit U I'm going to start with the uh the drawings that you have my drawings are exactly the same as yours and what we're and I'm on my boa1 sheet now what we're attempting to do is to add a portico and to add a dormer on the up in the third floor where is the P oh the Portico is actually at the side door it's a side Portico the um as part of it I'm now my boa two sheet what we're doing is we're renovating the interior of the building we're renovating the bathrooms up on the second floor and then the third floor is where we're adding this and two bedrooms and a um and a bathroom the third floor is presently occupied space and it's really James's office is up there now and then a storage area on the right side now what happens to us because of the zoning is I guess it's best for me to show on would be best to show on the oa3 on the left side elevation which is up this one up in the upper right corner our front yard setback is about 15 ft so if I measure from the property line This 40 foot Mark is coming right here in the rear of the building so this portion of that Dormer is actually requiring a variance because of front yard setback and that only happened to us because we had the default of 40 because we couldn't use the average but the I shouldn't say I I'd say that the adjacent house is about 15 feet which is about the same as we are but it's not a legal average for us because the only one is requires three properties to the right in this case in terms of the three properties to the left or kind of up the balance of Greenwood we conform easily and our Dormer that's up there is way back off of the average line and we've done other things to the building I minimized the visual impact of the Dormer by pulling it in two feet off the sides of the edge so that the Builder would appear to be you know subordinate to can you see the Dormer from the front yard um well it's a corner lot so you can see it from the what I'm gonna say is the side front and I have a good picture of it to show you tonight but that that's our new Dormer coming in and you can see how we push the Dormer in so that we can show a lot of roof in the foreground of it so that we can minimize the impact of the door this line that's coming up here and then going on the angle is the side yard setback which is sort of like the rear yard in this property and you can see that our some of our existing building is getting clipped but what we did is we pushed our dorant enough so that we would miss it on when we added to our building as we came up I just like to show one more I'd like to enter an exhibit I guess so this is my A1 A1 is a photo board consisting of five photos yes and um if my first photo is this is the Greenwood side elevation remember I'm on a corner line so that's our building our dmer is in that area this is the house to the left arm on the Greenwood as it wraps the corner this one is the best photo to show it where you can see the existing roof and you're ready for this I just blocked in and white out to give you an idea it was the only thing I could think of to do it this is where the dog got the no no it's not I did this the um but that's really what we did because you I pushed the Dormer in the two feet and pushed dmer up off of the roof line so that it's minimized but that's really what that Dormer is doing in this case then we come I swing around and now when I come to this side of the building the Dormer is not visible the front of the building where we're actually adding the Portico is back here because that's our mudro entrance right there and then I just wanted you to see that there's a lot of Green Space to the right of the building itself and this is the adjacent house which is actually closer to the property line than we are on um the Greenwood side Greenwood starts here and takes a turn and goes all the way um almost to Main Street because it's a long road this is really the beginning of it do you want me to take you through more I'm going to correct the description of A1 is consist of six photographs sorry yeah that's true that's correct correct see that's attorney go on um you know I I think the site can easily take this it's a corner lot you know the nice thing that a corner lot does is it shows a lot of green space in the foreground right we have been really careful to take our addition and sort of minimize its impact on the building by pushing it in off of the picture plane right they pushed it in that door and they pushed it in off the the gutter side of the DOR so that we could minimize it still gets some space up there to make his office a little more livable but also to um minimize its impact because it is visible from this side of the road okay the um additional building coverage requests for tonight is 0. 2% and that's like 0.2% I'm saying and that is really to um allow us to build this overhang so they could kind of open the door and get the kids into the house with a little cover the and we did it on the side because it was a little less impact on the building which we kind of already thought was a little close to the street as it sits but it's uh it's really kind of small in terms of what we're trying to pull off today there any questions or we still this this site still forms the lot coverage believe it or not so building coverage is2 but you're actually 5.5 deviation over standard yeah I'm sorry I should have said your point2 over your existing we're go we're 02 over existing but the existing building coverage is um 28.5 or 28.3% yeah any questions you raising the uh the fireplace on that yes yes yeah we got it comes up about two feet I think and where the porch is now it's going to be the same roof height because you have the windows the second floor yes do enclosed or the porch it's it's enclosed yeah um any questions so what's causing that point two sorry I miss it's a portico because it's additional we added a P so we added new roof we added new building coverage and that that's what's the dimensions for that it's 6 by two it's 14 square feet it's between the two buildings really any questions from the audience from Mr Cy home any comments from the audience uh thoughts I think it's again I think it's kind of a modest askas it's not much different from existing look better ultimately and improves theer existing space done motion second yes yes yes yes yes yes good Lu project break and then we're hear our last case so come on down and get up e e e e for e e D my hair uh my name is Michael Bonner I'm an attorney um with uh the Freer Law Group in Cranford New Jersey last name b o n n r um we have a very simple question I think it's a simple question um it's an appeal of the zoning officer determination um where she added a detached garage to the floor area ratio calculation um and I think if you anything of that sort should be determined by the milir zoning ordinance and I have a professional planner with me tonight I'll put him on shortly but essentially what you have here is your ordinance doesn't specifically include garages in the description of floor area ratio residential which is for Section 301.8c because it clearly excludes other uninhabitable areas in fact if you go to the R7 um description of the bulk standards for the Zone um it describes a cash garage as an accessory use and that would also lend to an interpretation that it's not part of the principal building and therefore shouldn't be included in the floor area ratio uh having said that um there are numerous cases in the state of New Jersey that deal with topics like this this topic and similar topics I decided to sum of them in the application submission uh without going into the citations effectively New Jersey Law in this area talks about restrict and zoning ordinances must be clearly expressed and doubts are resolved in favor of the property owner um further a zoning restriction should not be interpreted to prescribe a given use of a private property unless it does so with reasonable Clarity further zoning regulations are restrictive of property rights and ought not to be too broadly interpreted against the possessor thereof there are others that I cited to but I think that gives gives you a flavor for where New Jersey Law is on something like this where your definition doesn't specifically state that detached garages are included and implicit in the language of that and the fact that it describes a garage as a excuse me as an accessory use I think we can exclude it I think it should be excluded and if you look at the variance for floor area ratio we only exceed the floor area ratio by the square footage of the garage otherwise we would be in compliance um having said that unless you have any questions for me so so um without giving you a soft work answer because that's how we do it um can I can I say something before you so I just want to um remind the board because it's not typical that this board hears what is being um submitted as What's called the 70a appeal and what a 70a appeal is it's under section 40 55 d-7 of the municipal land and it provides that under circumstances where the appellant which is the applicant here they allege that there's an error in a determination in essence made by an administrative official in the interpretation of his own words so you have a a certain period of time you you think that you don't need relief from something and you go in you get confirmation one way or another from the zoning officer and the zoning officer doesn't see your way just just an example you have a certain period of time to file an appeal you can file an appeal with this board board of adjustment it's uh a majority vote and basically the applicant has the burden of proof to determine that based on whatever evidence they want to submit that the zoning officer in essence got it wrong in terms of her in this case interpretation of zone so I just wanted to sort of set the table so ahead no so it is our interpretation that the way we've always done a your Township that detached garages are 100% part of the FL ratio as it's not stated otherwise um I don't know if you care to elaborate on that but I I thought you were addressing that to me but yeah yes but go ahead uh I would say then it would be Inc coming upon maybe the planning board to look at how these things are defined and change your definitions to make it clearer so that applicants clearly understand that garages are included it be very easy to amend your definition of floor area ratio residential to say including detached garages that are uninhabitable you you you you create a dichotomy between where you talk about attached garages you provide an explanation of what the space above it that's included you talk about uninhabited attics and you and your definition of garage indicates that it's a structure um I don't think I have garage is a structure used to store Vehicles other items associated with residential structures a garage shall not include kitchen sleeping or private B bath facilities clearly uninhabitable space Cas and again I point you to the R7 bulk standards that say um a garage is in accessory use as opposed to principal use I don't think that's clear enough for an applicant to understand even if it's the way you always do it I'm certainly not the most senior member here as i' only been on the sport for about 10 years uh but I will tell you that it's the first time it's ever been questioned or um even attempted to not includ and I like I said I have no reason to to not include it in an AR sorry I ask you where where you um just give me the section that you're talking about of R7 uh where the garage assessor is uh is 60 606 6063 I don't uh I believe it's access uses section c uh no I think it's I think it's D or E I apologize um the information we got from the zoning officer cited the violations as being 66.2 which is not our Zone 6063 is our zone right um all of 6063 is the R7 Zone you scroll down I think it's either D paragraph D or E towards the bottom describing accessory uses above that are the principal I don't see any refence right now I see reference Toes that make sense to you under accessory the paragraph describing accessory uses Yeah by hang on sorry I didn't write down the section because it's one of the sections of r describ r 60633 it refers back to R3 R4 five and six for yeah I mean um just thinking with what you submitted think that I assume that that's your submission right I mean it seems that the section 30122 reads the area on the first and second floors of the building computed by using the outside dimensions of the exterior walls of the building the building is the home the garage is a detached garage that is not part of the the principal use I okay wasn't sure I don't think it's already planned no I know and and that's what I'm what I'm what I'm trying what I'm trying to get across here is that your ordinance isn't clear it talks about the building the building is ordinarily associated with a principal use accessory use is something different floor area ratio I've never seen a garage and I've been doing this for a long time even longer than Mr Simon um never seen a garage included in floor area ratio calculation in any municipality whether it's attached or detached it's not habitable space so you've seen places where it's attached to you know the first floor of the building and it's not included in floor or no it's including coverage but not it's difficult to say to compare that because whatever their definition even your ordinance describes the space above an attached garage as being included but doesn't specifically state that the garage is included what what I'm trying to get across is that it's it's confusing and and it it it it's it's hard for an applicant to make a reason decision this all came up because it's an architect the architect on the project is someone that I work with on a regular basis uh and she said I don't understand why they're including the garage and we talked about it we looked at the definitions consulted a planner and the applicant wanted to challenge the determination so that he didn't have to to either tear down the garage or get another variance because everything else on the site complies the original plans we submitted had a coverage variance but the plans are being revised they have been revised um and they've eliminated that variance so eliminating this variance you have a fully compliant piece of property with one pre-existing non-conforming um bulk standard and that's a front yard setback of just a few inches but your but your floor area only complies if you calculate it the way you're calculating it it's not Crush otherwise you're going to be over right that's the township that that's what I said the applicant wanted to do this so he didn't have to tear down the garage we can't tear down the garage that's an option you have to have aage for the ordinance so but it's not habitable space under right a garage has to be is part of the ordinance you cannot so that would fail but so so so to your way of thinking even though it's a detached garage uninhabitable it's included in floor area ratio even though it's a separate use from the principal use the building has applied in all of your definitions the building is the permitted use which is the single family residence and the detached garage is an accessory use are all accessory uses included in Flor air ratio just had the pool house that's that was it's contributing to the M on okay um do you want to hear from our planner or question already decided already um thank you I can appreciate your that you want some clarification that makes sense to me but I the further down in this ordinance 30122 does talk about defining habitable are habitable areas now you defined it as having I think you were talking about a bathroom or some other way but but it looks like cital areas are defined by having a ceiling height of greater than six feet six inches so perhaps that is why this is considered part of flid ratio based on this right but there are there are numerous instances within your ordinance where you talk about uninhabitable areas and they are not included right but the definition for habitable versus right and but if you look at your definition of garage it would EX the word habitable or inhabitable no it doesn't yes but but it describes items that if they were included in a garage would make it habitable Space by implication I'm not disputing it describes the garage as a place to store a car I think that that's not hold on hold on I think and this is all helpful and productive but I think at this point with all due respect the way we should proceed is that you should present your case right then the board will ask questions public will ask questions Miss davit I I suggest be sworn in and weigh in right and then and then we'll go from there so let's kind of keep it sort of I'm done except for our planner well no they have the right to to to make their case what's that I know what we're asking for evening well now the only thing that is on the table tonight is is a for an appeal as to whether an F variance is required as part of to Grant or deny the an application we are not hearing if the board determines that there's an F variance we're not hearing any proofs in support of that variance no we're revising our application to include that variance it's the interpretation of it's just basically an appeal of a determination by the zoning officer saying that they need an F they say no we don't and we're going to hear why and then you're going to make the call uh like to introduce our planner yes give them your qualifications sure good evening you sar from testimony about to get in this hearing tonight to be the truth allal truth nothing but the truth yes I do your name spelling your name please uh first name TJ last name r i CCI business address 92 Park EV retherford New Jersey uh qualifications uh licensed professional planner in state of New Jersey uh nationally certified by the American Institute of certified planners uh bachelor's degree from rer University master's degree in city and Regional planning also from Ruckers University I've testified uh in front of well over 75 different boards throughout the state of New Jersey I've been involved in uh variance justification testimony as well as testimony uh and supportive appeals like we have here thank you right so you've heard um Mr boner give a brief introduction on why we're here tonight just seeking uh appeal with regards to the F uh denial so this is a property uh in the R7 residential zoning District was alleged that the uh property exceeds uh the increase in F specifically for uh inclusion of the garage in that total floor area um so the applicant uh had given me a call asked me to review and interpret and read definitions prepare uh my thoughts and opinions and that's why essentially we're here tonight uh so the first thing that I do is I go right to the zoning orance definition section and I read if there's a floor area ratio definition and there is specifically for floor area ratio residential and the measurement is you include the first and second floors of the building which is what the applicant did uh uh and then there's a provision it says not including basement and uninhabitable attics now it doesn't mention garages but it's it's leaning towards don't include uninhabitable spaces uh and then further in that definition it does talk about garages but it as Mr Bonner mentioned it makes that distinction it says habitable spaces above garages should be included the fact that they made that se that piece where it separates itself from the ground level of garage makes me think that if this is included habitable above the garage therefore the ground level of the garage shall be excluded that's the way that I interpreted the the reading of that definition uh furthermore talks about garage garage is defined way TJ if you're going to refer to provisions of the ordinance it would be certainly helpful to me if you refer to them as section with Section numbers right okay so I think that what you read so far is a definition of floor area ratio residential that is in section what 3011 or or 301 30122 which is in the definition section correct correct okay go ahead and then per section 30123 of the zoning orance garage uh is defined as a structure used to store vehicles and other items associated with residential structure and then the next sentence says a garage shall not include kitchen sleeping or private bath facilities now we've we've already concluded based on the at least my opinion of the FL a ratio uh definition that uninhabitable areas are not are are not included in that F calculation and if a garage is not to include kitchen sleeping or private bath facilities which this unfinished garage does not it's just a further indication that this is exempt from the F calculation um now that being said because the definition has some vagueness in it uh we as planners uh we like to consult uh other uh planning uh books or planning literature uh when we seek additional clarification on definitions uh so as the board or Mr Simon may be aware we refer to the complete illustrated book of development definitions uh by Harvey moscowitz we call it the moscowitz book uh they talk about floor area ratio pretty standard definition ratio of all floor area of buildings to the lot area um they have additional commentary and it says that that floor space in that calculation is to be used for dwelling purposes um once again another just kind of indication F typically includes areas that are habitable garage is unfinished um it did have I know we were looking on what's defined as a habitable space or not uh it does have a definition on habitable room it says any room in a dwelling in a dwelling unit other than a kitchen bathroom closet Pantry hallway Cellar storage place garage or unfinished basement so once again I I'm thinking habitable not a garage um yes I mean based on the interpret my interpretation as a zoning ordinance based on my consultation with additional Planning Development definitions commonly accepted industry standard books I I I really think that habitable is the key here think that that is the provision that you use to include in your F calculation I'll provide a little bit extra testimony in my experience uh I've done a lot of these applications before uh single family residential duplexes multif family garages are very very very rarely if at all included in the floor area ratio calculations very atypical actually to include it um so it's my opinion that this wouldn't require uh an F variants I did actually look at surrounding areas of what they Define as F uh Maplewood does not include garages in F Summit does not include garages in F Union accessory buildings are included but not space used for off street parking AKA garage uh that's my opinion as a professional planner in reviewing the application as well as the town's definitions uh and my own definitions uh but I'm happy to answer any questions quick question on your interpretation of FL area ratio residential definition yeah the very first part of it says area on the first and second floor of a building a building could include the Standalone garage wouldn't it be if it's on the property it's if it's on the lot it could it it comes down to what's then the def of a building I mean the way that I interpreted that was it's it's referring to the primary building or the principal structure of the property instead as uh instead of like accessory structures like a garage so the I guess the answer is the way I interpreted that is the first and second floor of a home because you wouldn't really have a second floor of of say a garage know sure it does I mean go on to say that computed by using the outside dimensions of the exteror I wall of the building so it doesn't say just the residential building where there is habitable space if there is another building I mean it doesn't clearly lay out terms of that that should be excluded if it's a standalone garage just asking you know your interpretation so essentially two buildings Stand Alone one habitable one garage which is inhabitable should that be added in the Flor ratio that's that's the question I would have uh from from your interpretation perspective well further that a pool house does not have all space so at what point does your definition end I you know there is a certain vagueness to it the township is always interpreted a a garage as floor area ratio okay um but the way you're saying it it picks and chooses what an exterior building would be in floor area r so if you have a pool house in the backyard that would be either I mean if I put a chair in the garage and I called to a pool house is that now space well wait wait Mr B he's the witness let him please answer the questions that are asked I I I think there's a lot of speculation around what would be considered habitable or not if a chair was in a pool house um it would depend on if you have utility going AAR I a packet full of stuff or refrigerator I mean refrigerator it's still a garage this is still unfinished I mean whether he has a car or uses a bicycle to get to work or whatever the means of transportation you would be using this garage for or refrigerator I I still think testimony is it it's it's unfinished there's no cook ratio is to look at the entire property and say how much development can this property take so if I had a two-car garage on this property and it was an extra 20 by 20 that's 400 square feet that you would just exclude from the development and add another 400 square feet to the house in an R seven loot you're now going to have a floor area ratio of a house with the massing is going to be excessive relative to the lot I think that's the essence of this is that it looks at the property in its entirety and says anything that's there whether it's the garage or otherwise is considered part of this floor area ratio because of the fact that a garage has to exist you could not duplicate this house today or your your your client could not tear the garage down and say great now I'll just absorb it into the house well I think that's why there's multiple requirements for these Lots that's when lot cover would kick in that's when building coverage would kick in those are other means to regulate intensity of a property very s do you have FL ratio not building coverage as a you know is also in many cases right so I mean they sort of run one in the same I mean it does offer that second line of defense like I'm saying I've read a lot of codes where f is excluded where you get the exclusion up until a certain square footage of your garage so you don't do what you're saying you could potentially going get away with so people don't do that can I build sixc car garage bur off the top of my head I can't say yes or no let's say hypothetically the answer is yes right there's no's nothing to prohibit that so that sixc car garage building based on your opinion would not be calculated as part of that are I mean it would depend on the use of that I think that the fact that this is an accessory structure it's garage is it a primary use or is it a you know is it a standalone is this a parking garage your definition you're saying that it's a accessory use I'm saying it's it's an accessory use incidental to a single family residence so let's let's break this down so is it your professional opinion that accessory buildings and accessory structures are not to be included in the calculation of f correct well okay wait hold on is that correct yes that is correct okay so where in the Ordinance do you find support for that conclusion I mean I I go back to the testimony that I previously presented with regards to the exclusion of uninhabitable space of the garage not being included specifically with the floor area ratio residential definition in section 3012 2 okay so in 301 22 does it distinguish between principle buildings and structures and accessory buildings and structures it does not okay so can I ask you as a professional planner when you are trying to understand what a municipal zoning ordinance requires um you say you would look at you have looked at the language of the ordinance which obviously seems like the starting point you've looked at what other towns do and how they interpret that what what fa what is included in F and what is not is it appropriate for you as a professional planner to consider what the township itself uh how that Township has interpreted its own regulation in in terms of figuring out whether there's any ambiguity and if you found any ambiguity in how Milburn Township has interpreted its importance I think that's more of a legal question and I'm asking him as a planner what he looks at does he think it's appropriate it's a fair question you you can comment it mik but he can he can answer the question is it is it appropriate to look at what the township that you're actually looking at um how they've handled those questions historically yes it is and I and and that's backed up by the case law that I cited to excuse me allergy season sorry um and by the way just so just so we're clear and and actually I just spoke about this at a state seminar two weeks ago which is that a consideration by any board in interpreting in ordinance um includes how the board has historically interpreted a particular provision it's a relevant Factor established by regardless of how it's interpreted in it's a it's no look the applicant can present whatever they want to present right right that's up to the board to make a decision I'm just saying that as a matter of law a relevant consideration is how a board has historically interpreted a particular provision it's a factor for sure that's you know OB to take your interpretation and apply it to our Township we would have chaos I I mean it would just you know I realize you you don't like the vagueness of it and maybe that is something that the township committee needs to address but to do it your way would be total chaos especially dealing with r six and R7 Lots these are very small lots that ordinance require a garage so the garage isn't arbitrary so if if we were to start getting rid of all of the garages in town and saying okay that doesn't count towards F everyone gives what what's what's the allowance is it is it 200 square feet is it 400 square feet Ian what is it if you have a two-car garage do you go to benefit that I only have a one car garage I'm not sure and maybe this is more of a legal question I'm not sure that using my interpretation uh would cause chaos to the town I'm not sure that that's on the burden of the applicant to prove and I was able to I had a three garage you know and believe it or not there are some around here that that were anomalies that were built back in the days with larger garages and things like that and I was able to add 400 or say 600 square feet to my house in the r six or R seven okay and then you maxed out the F you would effectively double maybe more the size of the house for the ordinance I I yeah I think once again that's where building coverage comes in that's where lot coverage comes in that's where building setbacks come in theoretically you can't do anything you want I mean I know we're we're saying that but you can't there's a lot of other regulations will get triggered that guide how intense and how big a structure can be on a lot can municipalities use f to control those it's one of the controls yeah said that maybe Milburn does that actually Milburn does do that before just before you go um just did you do you know the history of mbour Short Hill with when I say that I'll give you a little history it was but the later half of the 19th century steart Arch put together are rolling hill me everybody had Carriage Houses back then they still exist there's four in my neighborhood they have second floors where people have dens family rooms man caves some have electric actually pretty much all them have electricity so when you said before that you can't Envision a a a second floor garage they exist and they've existed in this town for over 100 years so our the town has acknowledged that and that is what appears in this definition that's also not permitted anymore and I and it's not yet right and I think that plays into the floor area ratio residential definition because it says areas above garages are to be included AKA The Carriage House if there's a unit up there if the whole garage was included maybe they would have said garages or Carriage Houses on the ground floor in addition to says the area the first and second floors of building of a building I once again I I you know poly interpreted that as singular building the principal primary structure but it doesn't say principal primary structure it does it doesn't but your ordinance also differentiates garages in this Zone as accessory uses as opposed to so when you're talking about a definition in the singular that talks about a building he's talking about the principal building on the property as opposed to an accessory building all of this all what the only point we're trying to make here is that it's it's ambiguous from an applicant standpoint and I think if you look at the case law you'll you we're not going to challenge this in court I'm telling you that okay I'm giving away whatever leverage I have but if it were I think it would I think we would win because of the ambiguousness of your definitions and the fact that an applicant can't determine whether a garage is included in F because nowhere in your ordinance does it state that you're pointing stuff that you know and asking us to kind of prove a negative I would ask you to point to me in your ordinance anywhere whatever section says it whoever can do it where it says garages are included in F you can't because it doesn't state that anywhere that garages are included and I think that works against you in this instance it's not something that necessarily has to be applied broadly and create chaos throughout your municipality but in this instance the architect couldn't determin it TJ and and I are both of the opinion that it's not clear enough for an applicant to determine what whether a garage is included in F that's all we're trying to say here today I'm done okay so why don't we unless you have more question if there's any other there any questions for the planner at this point so why don't we swear in M stav yes so miss I'll ask you this the status you've been present for the testimony of Mr Ricky and the the legal argument of Mr Bonner in support of the 70a appeal uh which is currently before the board um can you please provide the board and the public with the benefit of of the background of this and your um interpretation and the reasoning behind it uh based on previous definitions we initially I think this was from the I started in 2006 here so I think this was in 2005 previous definition of was was termed gross floor area but it was expressed as a percentage and it was the area on the first and second floors of a building computed by using the inside dimensions of the exterior walls not including basements detached garage is and an unhabitable B and so the def the definition specifically ex excluded did when they reot the definitions to make it for area ratio which was approximately one I think this was in I'm gonna say had to be at least whenever the F came into maybe 2008 2010 maybe okay and it continued the the area on the first and second floors of a building computed by using the outside dimensions not including basements and unable LS they took the exclusion of detached garages out of the definition so it was interpreted at that point that okay now detach garages are going to be included and I know we've had many potential ordinances we've had the planning board discuss it and they've just been reluctant to not include detach garages up until this point we've had ordinances that have been proposed to give EX in other words they were they were reluctant to exclude correct they you know they were reluctant and I know we've had ordinances which have been proposed which had gone for first reading and then Fallen flat where we were G to potentially give applicants 300 square feet to kind of play with but it nothing has ever happened with it so we continue to include detached garages and calculation so there's the historical use well it's not it's not just a historical interpretation it's also the zoning officer providing testimony as to the the history of the ordinance provision that impacts the interpretation that was mared you you said you've been here for about 10 years I've been here for 17 years 17 years so you're heing to 2008 when the definition was changed can you help to write that I did not write it now it's not you had input into it um not at the time not at the time were any changes made to the coverage definition at the time and what what in your opinion what is the benefit of well not the benefit what is the difference between using coverage in F in order to keep a proper let's break down the questions so your first question question was was there any changes to the cover block cover I withdrew that I stopped okay clear to me so go ahead because I wasn't sure where I was going yeah that's right never ask a question right I know how it works so question my question is you have a coverage standard and you have an F standard both of them are ostensibly or actually used to keep properties from becoming too crowded yes so in in well I I would say f for massing versus coverage for you know keeping the keeping the property open our application has been revised to eliminate a lot coverage variants to me it seems more important that a detached garage would be included in a coverage calculation as keeping the property open versus F okay if we were building adding a third story or a fourth story and we had we're trying to put 5,000 ft on this 5,000 ft lot then I would see including a garage or not including a garage is a relevant inclusion versus coverage I mean question what's the question I'm getting there trying to give her information so how do you how do you interpret coverage versus F and and do you always include a garage in F the only time we don't include a garage is it's a basement garage and it's under the house historically always included detached garage ining tax garage I I I I think it this rests on the legal arguments of ambiguity um you know I don't think the planner or I can add anything more to the arguments you made um I don't think an applicant can accurately determine whether a garage is in included in your f as I asked the question I'll I'll ask it again to every member of the board and miss David to point to Something in the ordinance that says garages are included in F I don't think an applicant can tell whether they're included or not yeah we're say it's not right so and and like I said that's been our practice um and I you know it's always been our practice tocl them I'm not arguing with that and I said if the town if the TC wants to adopt a new ordinance that's more clear which not I haven't tried to do um Unfortunately they have not done most the time Architects do come prior to designing if they're not used to dealing with this Township they'll come in they'll meet with us to determine here's what I'm looking to do is this doable what do I need to include do you this do you that I would just reiterate you know there's several cases that I cited there in the document that we submitted that say ambiguities should be determined against the board in the township the state of New Jersey all well first of all so this from from a legal perspective a couple things you know what hasn't been what has been talked about which I think is appropriate is number one how what the history of the ordinance was okay which is factual which um certainly um I would State should be taken in consideration by the board I think the history of how this board has interpreted the ordinance should be taken consideration by the board I think additionally um you have an ordinance that for purposes of f does not distinguish I asked the question between principal and accessory buildings and structures for purposes of calculating F and in fact if you look at the municipal land use law which the ordinance States should be consulted in other words and um Mr Ricky I think it was appropriate to uh mention the Harvey mosz book um and I think that's it's certainly fair for the board to consider in terms of how an outside treati that is respected interprets various terms and that happens when um there is pure ambiguity in the interpretation of a and it usually comes down to if a what was intended by a particular use if the use is intended in that particular Zone um but I think more important than the uh mosat F definition is the definition of f or FL ratio in the Mis Banus la which the township ordance specifically um refers to and it states um Flor area ratio means the sum of the area of all floors of buildings or structures compared to the total area of land that is the subject of an application for um development um including non-contiguous land if authorized by Municipal ordinance or by or by a plan development the point being is that even in the municipal landuse law FL ratio does not distinguish between principal and accessory buildings or structures in in fact states that Flor area ratio is the sum of the area of all Flo of buildings or structures it doesn't talk about principal buildings uh certainly um and similarly the definition that the floor area ratio residential that has been relied on by the applicant you know States you know the area on the first and second floors of a building and there's no mention there of principle or or accessory um and building by the way is defined I think in the M yes it is in Municipal anus law of um combination of materials to form a construction adapted to permanent temporary or continuous occupancy and having a roof right so you can have temporary occupancy further in the ordinance definition of garage it refers to not just to house cars but also um for other purposes as well and then it has that exclusion you can't have a bath or a kitchen or what have you but that doesn't mean you can't have other things potentially um so those are issues to be considered by the board but I do think that um the applicant you know um made some some Fair points in terms of their professional planning witness and that's up to the board to interpret anything further Jo no no I close the public portion um so this is sort of an up or down vote so I guess we're to make it easy we can frame it in the positive um in terms of um do you support the request to have can I make a suggestion my suggestion is that unless there's any other discussion amongst the board members that the motion should be whether to support Miss davitz interpretation of the ordinance requiring a floor area ratio um variance for this application including the the tax that's how I I just have a quick question before get into discussion you were defining building as for the municipal land use and I lost you there does that talk about habitable or inhabitable it doesn't so the only definition we have impa in our code is anything that's six foot right and also for definitions we Define an accessory use accessory building we also Define garage you do so they obviously they identify them as being a separate situation not all gares under definition any other comment then I would have a motion move to support M dav's interpretation a second Joseph Coffield yes Shandra yes Gary Rosen yes Regina TR yes priscila s yes J Pang yesner yes with that are there any other things uh any mind like to discuss that's not on the agenda