and um in accordance with Section Five open public meetings sorry chter 231 Public Law 1975 be advised that a notice to this meeting made by poting of Bolton board town hall on mailing to the officially designated new papers list of meeting dates annually including that this meeting would take place at Town Hall 7M on Monday December 18 2023 here Gary Rosen here Regina TR here pfield here Vice chair here CH here um first off approval minutes of November 20th 2023 that were previously circulated any corrections or changes uh's shrew Gary Regina Priscilla Jessica CL okay so uh can I have a motion to accept those minutes make a motion to approve the minutes from 11223 and second I can second all those in favor anyone opposed uh next up we have a couple more moralization first one being calendar 39 5323 uh Mason and enet Allen at 85 Street in Milburn any corrections or changes who's eligible to El eligible are shandre Gary Regina Jess would someone like to make a motion on that case move approval of calendar 3953 and second second thank you shrew Gary Rosen yes Regina truan yes Jessica glad yes yes next up you calendar 39 5123 uh night in Pandy at 25 over Road thank you uh any questions or changes I have a motion move to approve the memorialization for calendar number 39 51-23 thank you a second a second thank you yes Gary Rosen yes Regina Tru yes Jessica Glen yesner yes couple announcements uh or one of this case uh calendar 39 4623 uh that is hongway qu2 Winding Way Road sh Hills if you're here on that case this evening uh will not be heard the matter is adjourned to 2024 the applicant will have to R notice so that date um is not concrete yet so keep an eye out on the website or any other postings at town hall for when uh that case may be heard and owners within 200 feet will receive a separate no correct uh first up is calendar 3935 23 Christ Church in Short Hills 66 Highland Avenue and I will be recusing from this case so is G take yes swear or affirm the testimony about to again in tonight's hearing to be the truth the whole truth not but truth yes I just need your names for the record Arnold pado Pei n a o o e snas b o w i e SN o d g r SS and Richard tell thank you good evening my name is Arnold pinado I am in here in my capacity as owner as the application refers to it I am the um uh Warden senior Warden of Christ Church in Short Hills so what does that mean the uh Christ Church in Short Hills um on the lay side is run by a board of directors which is called the vest and I'm a member of the vestri and I'm actually the chairman of the vestri I was the junior warden for two years I'm now the senior warden so I'm the chairman of the leg side of the church um we are here to seek variance relief in connection with the installation of a 12T x 12 12T um by 11 and .25 ft High open sided wood Pavilion that we would like to construct adjacent to the Christ Church Nursery School um so this the Christ Church Nursery School is part of an educational complex that uh Christ Church has it's across the fields it's up up high in the back behind the parish buildings as you look at that um collection of buildings to the left is the Winston school which we do not run but we lease to the Winston school that's a school for children with learning differences and then we do run however Center and right of that uh of the east lane building is a Christ church nursery school so this this uh Pavilion would be to provide the children um for an opportunity to have an outdoor education there in the space adjacent to our building um as as far as process we've gone through the um uh review by the historic preservation commission and have received a certificate of appropriateness for what we're doing this is an open-sided Allwood Pavilion to be built on a concrete plat uh pad in our existing playground area so uh the certificate the HPC aspect of this process has been uh cleared we're now to visit you all uh to present our case for a variance for Relief um on on um the construction of this Pavilion I'd like to uh introduce you also to the recor of Christ Church Reverend broy Snodgrass who would like to give you a little context to our our initiative sorry sorry just to say I'm also an attorney uh with Milbank tweet in New York um I'm not the attorney listed in the application that gentleman who's been with the church for a long time has moved to Florida um as an attorney and also as chair of the vestri I felt that I could discharge the attorney aspect of this application U Reverend Bryce hi good evening um I'm the Reverend Boe Snodgrass I'm recor at Christ Church in CHT Hills I've been there for seven years and Christ Church started the nursery school in 1962 it serves about 150 kids we have classes for twos threes fours and a five plus class um the previous director was there for 16 years Barbara Pepe and one of the things she was proudest of was the uh development of an outdoor classroom so we do have playgrounds with playground equipment behind the school but this is on a corner on the corner of east lane and Forest and it's an outdoor classroom and most specifically it's used for gardening class of Jean Fong a longtime member of the community teaches gardening to the kids either once or twice a week and so uh and during the pandemic we used it quite a bit for music class and it was used for other things also during the pandemic we kept on putting up little canopies that were blown down and so in the spring of 2022 at our Gaya which is our largest fundraising event of the year um the parents Association decided to raise money for this Pavilion we did not realize how complicated it would be but they did raise all of the money in one evening for this Pavilion and the idea was to have a semi-permanent structure that the children could sit under when it was very sunny or when it was a little bit drizzly um it's used by one class at a time and these classes are usually um eight to 14 children who are very young and very small so they would fit into a small Pavilion with one or two teachers um also there are signs saying that the playgrounds in the Outdoor Classroom are available to the public during non-school hours so it's not a um it's a it's a semi-private space any questions any questions you want to wait to open up questions is that okay you may want to because these are may want to up public okay do we have anyone on the public who' like to ask either of these Witnesses questions could you just give your qualifications good evening nice to see all board members again I'm rich Keller I'm a licensed engineer and planner uh located here in Milburn I've been licensed as an engineer since 1989 and as a planner since 1990 I held a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering with a declared concentration ation in water resources and environmental engineering and they also hold the masters of architecture with concentration in urban planning and design and that is from the New Jersey Institute of Technology where I also taught for approximately 11 years both graduate and undergraduate divisions I have appeared before this board the planning board as well as about 110 boards at the state of New Jersey and I have offered my services as a planning consultant to the burrow of Caldwell and I for three years I was the board engineer planning board and uh Board of adjustment engineer for Hill Township my licenses are still in good effect and it's nice to see you all again okay my credentials are accepted um I'm only going to refer to the uh materials that were presented today uh as part of your packet so I don't think I need to mark this as an exhibit uh you'll see in the upper left hand corner um everybody has driven down Highland Avenue and seen the big playground that sits between uh the school facilities where it's at the north side of the property and the church which occupies the South House South End of the property the property is located um it's a 4138 Acre Site uh located with about uh 625 ft of Frontage along Highland Avenue about 675 ft of Frontage along Forest Drive and bounding to the north side of the property paradoxically is East Lane East Lane is actually a private uh easement um they own it's private RightWay I think um and the private access easement and chch owns up to the mid point of that road so it's not a it's not completely isolated island but it is a corner lot with Frontage on on three on two sides uh it is located wholly within the R3 residential district and also within the Short Hills Park historic district uh is indicated um well first of all Christ Church actually has been uh in its current location since 1882 and I think the building give that away um the nursery school was established in 1962 um the ex use obviously predates zoning um and it does not meet all the current uh conditions required for houses of worship or private schools so it can't be considered a permitted use therefore the placement of any structure on this property is considered an expansion of a non-conforming an existing non-conforming use which is a t a D2 variance so um which if you can just explain um in terms of the variance relief that you need so you're you're claiming that you need D2 variance 44 55 D7 D2 for expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use correct and that's because the use that's uh on the property right now is not permitted in is own Curr it's not permitted does not meet the conditions of the conditional use and so in terms of the so-called expansion I think it would be helpful right from the onset if you can explain to the board and we heard some factual testimony you know what is going on within that whatever it is 144 square feet and what is being proposed that's where we're going to is the center of the drawing you see the overall site um you can see again the primary uh religious building the school building to the to the North and the detail is up at the corner of east lane and Forest and if we blow up into the center section you'll see that uh there's a driveway that comes down some parking spaces in that area immediately off the eress out of the uh out of the school the nursery school wing is a walkway that comes out down out into a fenced area that is considered the Outdoor School area The Outdoor Classroom so that Outdoor Classroom um does uh has excellent proximity to the school so it's it's uh easily controlled through fencing it's not part of the playground with playground equipment Etc and that is further to the South but within that area uh there's a relatively flat section in the stone right now that they have been using as was indicated sort of temporary tents like you'd see at a soccer game um they don't last they don't weather well and they tend to blow away um so there was a move um during slightly incl weather and as indicated uh in under sunny conditions to have a structure that would cover that area so the kids could get out of the Sun out of the elements uh and they can Nestle in there and uh I keep reminding myself those uh three four and five years are little so you can fit 14 of them in a 12 x 12 space um and so what we're planning on doing is in that level area so we don't to do any grading or walls um we're planning on putting that 12x 12 concrete PAAD with a 12x 12 wood structure 11 and A4 feet high um it is wood with a shingle roof and the um that 144q foot uh Place uh square foot area is located sells from we actually you don't use your own property even though our existing church is only 13.46% um that requires variance relief interrupt you just for the record so between I see your show Dimension 3482 ft what's going on between that front Dimension to the street and the street itself well there's a uh I'm gonna I guess I'll mark this as A1 put some markings on it so there is a fence area that runs along on top of a Riv tie retaining wall that comes around there's fencing um comes across here and so this is a fenced area there's as indicated there's a railroad tie retaining wall that holds up the area right in there um that is to the um to the lower left or to the southeast uh corner of the of the stone play area there's a planter area that's part of the um the um outdoor gardening uh class space it's all protected so it sits within a fenced area and keep in mind it's really just four poost you see with with a a dark gr roof over the top of it so and then between the uh the fencing and the street it just continues to drop there is a uh there is a Swale that runs along the side of of Forest Drive uh and it's really just an area that's nestled in between the building and the uh the um stone swes that Define the uh the Westerly edge of Northern drive I'm sorry and do you need any relief um with regard to East Lane East Lane is a is a is private so I don't it's not a public road so we originally thought we did and we researched the deed work um our deed actually runs to the center line of an access easement and it is not owned by the municipality and I went through engineering to confirm that okay so as indicated um we need those two variances a d variance a D2 variance for the again you put anything on that property and by by case slots considered an expansion of an existing non forming use so we're not really adding more students we're not adding buildable area but it is technically a D2 variance and for that variance you generally need to show that you meet the positive criteria that you advance the purpos of the land use act I would point out that a school actually is an inherently beneficial use so so it presumptively meets the positive criteria under under State um case law however um regardless of that we still do Advance some of the purposes of the land use act in that uh we're providing for the safety of of the Outdoor Classroom providing an educational benefit which advances General Welfare so we're certainly advancing uh two of the purposes of of land use the um regardless it is serving an inherently beneficial use so you really go to the negative criteria then the negative criteria and I'm not going to get into a seeka balancing test um because I think it's very straightforward I think we we advance the purposes even without being inherently beneficial so just to look quickly at the negative criteria um we see no detriment to the public good uh the location and the size of the size and materials of the proposed Pion were approved by HPC and that is the body we look to uh in this community to to protect the character of these historic neighborhoods and really the goal of zoning is to protect the character of neighbor neighborhood so uh who better to uh to judge that or help uh guide um the community than HPC and HPC decided this did not need to rise to the to the level of full hearing and it was given a certificate of appropriateness and so um I think that there really is no negative uh impact to the community otherwise rhpc would have uh would have uh modified it um I think there's no substantial detriment to the public good I think that uh again the location the size materials were approved as modest it's open on four sides uh the location is within an existing fenced play area uh and that all goes to limit its visual impact um and it's also used fairly infrequently throughout the day um but I actually am one of those people who think um kids activating a corner is good for our community not a bad thing so I think that even when it's active it's a good thing um with regard to the uh the there's no substantial impairment to the 10 purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance um again our our goal in the uh in in the master plan is to protect the uh the character of existing residential neighborhoods to encourage appropriate um uh land uses that promote the character of the township as a small suburb of the highest quality certainly having um an educational facility part of a nursery school embedded within the community in the AR3 and the historic district uh advances those goals and certainly uh uh it it helps to preserve the historic nature of this site and it was uh deemed to be historically appropriate so I think it also encourages the historic component of the master plan as well I see really no detriment to either and uh I'm happy to answer any questions I think it's a good use and we hope that you'll prove it questions for go first oh okay thank you um is there any power going to this no and just I mean I'm just scaling it it looks like it's about about 55 ft from the curve line itself right um it's it's way back That Sidewalk Oh Yeah from the curb line there's a sale on there so from the curb line it does sit considerably further it's probably about 52 to 55 ft will there be any benches or chairs or anything in there they will move small chairs out there um they won't stay out there permanently but they'll be moved in and out as needed sometimes they do sit and sometimes they uh the kids will sit on the ground sometimes they'll move throughout the the playground so there will be uh small furniture for small children that will migrate out there um uh periodically I don't think it'll be kept out there all year long obviously when you get to the winter months it would certainly be inside just one other question um how do you keep the children from migrating out into the room there's there's fences all around that there fences okay yeah it's completely fenced yeah we we looked at that pretty closely and this the fence posts are pretty significant there's some parking there but um we actually we felt it was a safe area for them I met with the director to go over that just describe the the height and the type of the fence that surrounds the structure I don't recall um do you know the height of structure fence about four foot fence approxim wood 4ot it's approximately wood four foot fence that's an existing fence in the front yard do people Park um at those six parking spaces that are adjacent to the structure they for the director and for the staff so whoever's parked there arrives before school begins and then leaves after school ends so there's not um any traffic in those parking spots thank you any other questions from board members any questions from the audience any comments from the audience okay board members you no nothing apologize for so before we begin deliberation just this board that this is um what's called the D2 variance an expansion of pre-existing non-conforming use and because it's a form of D variance it requires five affirmative votes uh from the board and in terms of the the positive criteria you heard from Mr talking about the fact that a school is inherently beneficial use and as a result of that automatically meets the the positive criteria um we also look for pre-existing non-conform use in terms of positive criteria is you know is there something that's being done to kind of improve what's what's going on with the property if if at all so you can take that consideration as well and in terms of negative criteria um it's again two-prong substantial detriment to public and whether there's any substantial impairment to the Zone plan and the zoning ordinance and as part of your consideration there is a call out in the application materials as to um accessory setback um on a corner lot where at 40 ft is required and 34.8 I from my perspective I think the app has shown has met the requirements for the variance and no objection I agree I don't have anything to add to that um but I support that application think it's a tasteful addition um there's nobody here from the neighborhood who is saying that they would be upset with that it looks like to put to go use and a safe way to meet their need and that's that pleasing um it doesn't seem to be any detriment to the public so I I would be for it as well um and I'd agree with all of those comments um I mean you know it's absolutely and inherently beneficial use um and there's no detriment to the public good it's small it Blends in um HPC approved of it um and I think it'll be really nice addition to the neighborhood to would someone like to make a motion make a motion to second I'll second Ashley yes Andre yes Gary Rosen yes Regina Tru yes Joseph Coffield yes es yes thank [Applause] you thank you thank you mer chist was really all right next up we have calendar 39 4923 uh Sally latar and star Joi 46 farb drive again have they sworn before yeah previously sworn so your previously sworn and timony on this yeah we heard testimony about this yeah asle was not at this meeting I think uh I was not I had Craig Jessica Regina shandrew Priscilla and Gary and Priscilla's not here right tonight so we have shrew Gary Regina Jessica so you know we need three you need three three five you good with that yes okay uh um you've already been uh qualified so whoever wants to go first so uh we definitely heard what was discussed last time that presented and all the comments in the feedback so uh we went to the drawing board we cut back on what our request was to uh substantially smaller disturbance uh and then obviously we describe all the details but what I wanted to outlay was like first of all we are definitely saving like one of the big trees was a concern but not even that like we are saving um like more than half of the trees I think it was 14 last time so now we are only cutting six in this current plan but at the same time we are only disturbing if at all on the variance like we we have shown the color grading also which is the steepest which is the orange and we not even touching that we just touching something that gives us somewhat of a backyard uh one of the board members had the concern of that the retain was when much higher so what we have redesigned is the retaining walls are less than 2 and 1 half ft across the board except for maybe one spot where it is 3pet uh and basically we have just reduced that footprint which gives us some backyard but at the same time try to address all concerns from board members about how large that variance was and so on and I think Tim will take over from here for technicals so I'd like to Mr class you remain SM yes I'd like to um submit this I guess as an exhibit because I I colored it okay okay so is this different from it's what is been submitted to the board uh dated December 7th it's exactly the same except that I I colored in the 14 trees okay so let's mark it um hold on let check so I think we're up to A3 is that sound right I don't know that puts a lot of pressure on me if you don't like but I'm willing to undertake that pressure so let's mark it 83 Tim why of you identify what you just marked as A3 it's the um A3 is a site plan for 46 barbook Drive dated 12723 revised for this meeting tonight and the only difference between what you have in front of you and what I have here is that or the exhibit is that I colored in the 14 trees that we added just to give you a better idea of what was going on when you say that trees are colored in of those trees that are newly proposed yes they're the proposed trees uh 14 and just to rest your REM of Mr Simon yes this is ath R of course we knew that we knew that heavy heavy side the uh I'd also like to distribute if I could a revised letter because after I wrote the letter that you haven't in front of you uh we reduced it a little bit further and um I'd like to it the reductions are actually correctly indicated on this drawing but my cover letter is incorrect right so one did you have copies yes is the is the revised letter still dated December 6 or did you date it it's dated um December 11th so we're going to mark that Mr cl's A4 okay I guess while this stuff's passing around I'll um I'll say I use this as an opportunity this last month to um try to discover a little bit of what this steep slope ordinance is all about okay and um a long discussion with a couple of people at the state level and also talked um with Martha Callahan who's our town engineer um and I I guess I would summarize this by saying that the concept of the steep slope ordinance was probably really um entitled to be in the highlands up in um northern New Jersey but the idea is to preserve the visual character of the slopes as your kind of walking or driving around let's say in Short Hill is the best way to related to us is as you're driving around or maybe from a neighbor's property to your property to try to retain this kind of um this modified or molded landscape environment to the largest extent possible but and to allow some sort of development to occur in that area but to retain the visual character of the neighborhood the um it's not too dissimilar from some of the words that's written in our tree ordinance which talks about preventing clear cutting and um destroying the uh the ground itself and you know turning the ground and then having a creating a lot of ER ion and stopping the water from being able to generate back into the aqua filter so really with talking with mortha we ended up that the way to well if we were to say that it makes some sense to put a backyard onto this site that's somewhat level so you could sort of have grass which is a stabilizing um element in terms of this res residual geologic overburden you know this dirt really that's all we're trying to do is hold it back then um it would make sense to put our our Pro our flat area probably in the middle and leave the perimeter so that the perimeter is maintained for the views of the adjacent neighborhood right it doesn't really apply to us from the street in this case because the street is way up here and you can't really see anything from the street but if we talk about these neighbors we would talk about how we want to retain this visual character in other words don't build a 20 foot high wall here and plain this site right so what we have done is we took where we were let's say back further into the rear yard and where the wall wall was continuous before and we've now dropped our wall and we built it and we brought it back to this point and then we can actually let our grade naturally go out into the into the existing undisturbed steep slope and then when we come here and we get in the case where we have a higher steep slope or where we want to build a higher retaining wall because this area isn't actually steep slope you know it was previously modified right this area also was all previously modified with the house that was here before our house actually came in this area in the back probably wasn't previously modified that's kind of the area that we're talking about that we should be looking at retaining so what we've done is we left all our area in the back and we've added these three shades of color we did that to sort of give the board a sense of what the slopes were because there's sort of a concept here that the steeper slopes are sort of better than the less steep slopes I guess I'm going to say that the um some towns and actually we had an ordinance at one time that allowed disturbances on different different amounts of disturbances for different levels of steep slopes and then that was later canceled I'm going to say I think it was about eight years ago when this new ordinance came in but we've left all of our steep slopes all around the perimeter here and then we came in we're asking really to disturb this area that I'm putting my finger around right now the majority of it is you know that sort of 20 to 25% slope and there's a couple of little pieces in there that are between 25 and 30 this area you know you anybody could modify because it's actually already less than 20% and there's this other thing about this ordinance that's a little confusing that everybody gets to disturb a th000 square feet of steep slope if it's on a 6,000 SQ foot lot like um Glennwood over by where my office is or over by um you know over by Southern Slope in Milburn a 6,000 foot lot or it's a 29,000 foot lot like the R3 Zone sort of right by the Short Hills train station all of those all of these lots and towns are only able to disturb a thousand square feet of of steep slope and that you know it may make some sense that instead of disturbing just one sixth of a lot area like in Glenwood that there should maybe be some great radiant to how much steep slope you could modify under this I don't want to get too far into that but under this premise that we're retaining the steep slope look on the perimeter and actually building really a short wall this wall as we come to zero comes up to two feet at this point goes to nothing because we're walking out then comes back comes to two feet here and then we brought the front wall at two we brought the back wall at two so that we could sort of get that gradient with a couple of walls and be able to plant in the middle here um all of that said what we've done tonight is ask for a variance request for 1,334 square feet of disturbance which is 6.4% of the lot area and the disturbance is actually greater than the actual area that we're asking to maintain in the end because the disturbance gets calculated to the other side of the wall and a couple of feet to work on the wall so I'm going to say there's about 200 square feet or 250 square feet of disturbance that is actually being repaired and going to repair to the steep slope that it was previously before before we did any of the work and then the next problem that you would try to address with steep slope is how do we stop this erosion or control all of the well like last night is a good example with all the rain we had all of this erosion Factor because of the of the Turning of the land and the exposing and all of that is really done by limiting the construction silt barriers to contain it and then restoration and ground cover so that the steep slope area can be restored and then we can Gras this area which is approximately 29 by 50 so it's approximately about, 1450 square feet that we're asking for it's um narrower than this room and uh maybe five feet longer deviation is 1334 yes because when I say that area I have all of this probably I'm G to say a quarter of it or a sixth of it that is not steep slope so we're altering it but we don't need permission to do it so I kind of can I confuse that issue right there you're 100% correct we don't real you know need permission to disturb something that's not steep so really all I'm saying is that if you look at all of our neighbors or our impact on our neighborhood we've visually retained the existing steep slope to all of the neighbors and all we really did was level out an area with uh shallower steep slope so we could create some sort of a yard into this house your testimony is basically that as little steep slope as possible to come up with a functional back correct yes and I will say that even when I say now that it's about this wide by 50 feet long it's um things look smaller outside than they do inside if anybody ever had an addition done on their house when they dig the hole it looks like nothing when outside this is a small area that the request is really for and I think that's I I guess I just no that's really all you know you had a a question about that large tree that was in the back I think of this Regina really and we can leave it it's no big deal we you know it was easy enough to modify this and to pull it back in and to control this a little bit um I think if there's any runoff onto the neighbors it's probably true that the runoff would be improved by this because as this area starts to level up the water starts to sit here a little bit instead of just flying down the hill which is part of that runoff so we've actually proably helped this area you know all of our storm water work is still going to be in place as required as we Disturb This you know we have to provide dry Wells for it we're water harvesting on this site so we're going to take all of that water Harvest it pump it back up and you know use it to irrigate the lawn and um that's actually also good for the neighborhood in general I guess I think I went on enough so where the first th square feet go the first thousand is here to get the driveway to work that's where and the the Assumption on that was to get the driveway to be able to come in so that we could get the driveway in and then come and come to the board to you know seek relief for the balance of it I mean it wasn't like it was uh was thought to desig this home originally to not disturb all this L well it's not that it's not that much disturbance I got said this is last the total disturbance is we had 10% of the lot 10% of the lot area right it's home existed there prior the home did exist there yes but you would have to pull the home would be pulled way in plus we had to push the house deeper as we put in the new house kind of repaired from the new um front yard setback ordinance that rich was talking about in the last case but we have to force this house back further into the lot which kind of made the situation worse the other driveway came came in came around and came under but the house was a lot smaller correct the house was definitely smaller definitely yeah it was a one-story house do you remember the house or you never saw that I never saw they the house had already been torn down when they it was the plan by the previous own and one thing probably is Tim you can suggest is that variance was probably also like we were talking about last time natural versus manmade some of this seemed like on this side was manade bigest house right yeah well what they did is this previous house was smaller they put the road in yeah so they left it they didn't need the width we needed the width yeah you go garage underne well the garage was was underneath around back around back it was almost worse you came around back and and narrower that house was narrower or is it wider this is probably you know we picked up that's 10 ft right there we probably added 10t to the width of the house any questions for the board yeah yeah I I visited the site last night when it was like dark and rainy and then I went back today just sort of curious to see how it would manage with all that rain and it was pretty impressively muddy and I could appreciate the hills and I could certainly see why you want to do this but I was also alarmed by the house that's next to you was really much lower than you and how do you prevent them from getting washed away I they didn't get washed away because they're still St but um how do you manage the water with disturbing all of this land that is my concern the drainage the effect of changing this particularly that neighbor that's much lower than you yeah they don't really have a they don't they don't really have an issue at all they were here last week or last month they were here at the meeting right yes they were here but clearly like one thing I would say is like this additional ask to create that backyard versus what is already permitted it's not adding to their problem in any by any means we convinced them also last time at the same time this as Tim was suggesting it is probably retaining more rather than let letting it run off so this is clearly like the previous like if I may add the existing house that was there before our house came in it was at that height it just did not look that Stark because it was not that high yeah but maybe we in a sense when we level this yeah that probably actually helps this we created this driveway it actually helps not but but they I don't know because they're not here but the that catch Basin would pick the water up and takes the water back out you know so this catch Bas that would actually help the neighbor really because all of this water which I guess was coming down coming down the driveway and going that way is now well being caught really the bottom of the hill because the house is on this side so higher yeah and in fact their comment to us was because one of the trees they had to cut which was right on the border and we were thinking that it's our responsibility turned out it's theirs they were mentioning that you guys should cut these streets before the stor because they're leaning on your house after they had done that so in in all fairness even though we are cutting these trees these essentially are leading on the house which we eventually would have to cut anyways but we are being very fair we are counting all those trees and threee planting based on that like thees are still on your property so yeah but if I take about all this water on the driveway is now collected okay it's actually probably a better situation for that I mean it was so muddy today who knows just like so much water there's a lot of water there's a lot of water around town but also it's there's a lot of clay it is getting constructed like it wasn't flood but yeah yeah why on the trees um appreciate you guys are you know putting in protein trees but you taking out five or six right yeah what's the ration for cutting sea trees which are away from the property I understand the trees which are closer to the property to be removed but the ones which are closer to this you know the flat area that you want uh the yellow on the top left of the yellow those are they I think and like again Tim probably will speak more to the like from what I learned for from the practicality of doing this if you are going to build that retaining wall to do the grading they will die anyways so my as well be up front say that we cannot preserve that to make this and have a replanting but the grade is probably cut a foot and a half a foot and maybe six in there like the one on the right could probably stay but these two are going to be too exposed that's the reason why not they just took those three trees this one is pretty much natural gr so therefore it could stay really is this based on like some specialist who is actually requested that this be taken out once you kind of create the walls that these will die as was suggested these two these two those two eventually will die Maybe not immediately but eventually because the roots are kind of high and when you cut the grade you expose it you know you're better off filling around a tree right and sort of tunneling down to it the third tree we could probably actually St we could leave it probably see if it makes it being upfront proactive saying that very likelihood only one sorry it may actually be helpful because was sort of so what are we doing we offering it up or what are we gonna do yeah I'm fine with it because it would be nice I think because it would form a little little barrier between this area and this to of the woods so in other words the the the 12 is it the 12 in tree to the north is being preserved yes yes have questions uh you define the the area as 29 by 50 50 is straight towards away from the house right 50 the width is 50 the width is 50 and this is 29 thank you any other questions from the board any questions from the the audience regarding this application any comments from the audience regarding this application now close the public portion um board members your thoughts as I I always impressed by how really is into the flat area your backyard C really do something if you want to have a back but it is a really big house um that's really high um so you can't go back in time you could have made it a smaller footprint and then you wouldn't have had to disturb so much but but but here we are so and I do appreciate that you've taken some pains to to disturb less proper if you feel confident and I'm sure the engineer will look at it to make sure that the if we approve this that um the water will be manageable W impact the neighbors so um I I'll wait to see what my colleagues say but towards so what's concerning me about these applications we're seeing this more and more with new homes when you build a home to like 10/10 of the building envelope this is exactly what happens and you know that is bothersome because we're seeing it more and more and more coming in front of the zoning board Now new homes looking for seeking relief and that's concerning because when you're starting with a blank slate you could say okay we want a black yard want whatever the the the accessories that we want in the yard then look at the whole project as one unit and say okay well how do we achieve all this now we're seeing let's build the house to 1010 and then come the zoning board and to try to get all the other stuff we want and that's what's getting very concerning about this type of application you know we've taken a thousand square feet already to put a garage under the house and now we're looking for another you know best part 1400 square feet to build the backyard um and I don't think this type of development is actually sustainable not every house can come in front of us and say okay going to build the house out and now I want to fly backyard so I I also wait my fellow board members public portions closed um hear what they think about this and I'll go um I I agree and respect agree with and respect what you're saying but I do think that we have to take you know the application on its own um and not be concerned about other applications um following it so um I would say for this one that you know they they have gone to lengths to reduce um the amount of disturbance um that they're creating um they're keeping in that tree and I I you know I know that this was a carried application and if we could open it up to the public I thought that they bought this house already in it was already I don't think that they were the ones who originally built it I don't know if we're I don't if if we could open motion open publiction meeting motion to open and a second all those in favor um did you did you design this house so may actually I wanted to exactly comment on that aspect is we purchased it when these like the plans were already there and that was Mr and Mrs Berg who sold that to us of course we are learning in this process as well by the way initially when that plans were showed To Us by the real estate agent there was a pool there was to be honest there was uh a backpac you here which include which added to the impervious C coverage and all that we said we don't want a pool we rather would like trees we were trying to preserve like more natural stuff here we were working with what we had we took out that covered porch so it reduced the impervious coverage actually on the site we put in just a deck and we like we kept it as natural looking to the back we want to plant trees as my wife had also suggested so we took whatever best we had and they were initially T you would know this where the pool was going and all that stuff we like when we went to and talk to Tim after when we had purchased a lot is like we are trying to just keep this so that we have the permits in place we want to start building because of we have a school year coming up for our daughter next year and we just wanted to progress with what we had but also at the same time like have some kind of a backyard at the end and that's where we what we are looking for so for further qualification on just question at what point was the development when you before the plans were permitted like it was sitting with the township we had to pay to get them to start building and that's what had happened so it basically anty lock it yeah there the previous house was taken out we could see this part which we have described from my visual sense was very steep exactly and now when we see it cleaned up by our like by the Builder it seems it's better for the Neighbors cleaned up like if you had seen it earlier when there was nothing when it was sold it was much mess here in my recollection because we were there last fall and the we had closed it on in December of 2022 we started building this year whenever we could finalize the rest of it so like I I feel that this they are better now we have just talked to them also here and otherwise and they didn't have any like they didn't come and tell our like like they were like they they like it their tree was gone and all that so um oh sorry if you want me to I can explain what the burgs one had initially planned but I don't know if it makes any difference at this point it's kind of comment of something that I from your original from you know the first um you know C but anyway so so for all those reasons I I think I could support the application so I I come out where with you Jessica I think from you know respecting what terms of the applications we are seeing keeping that in mind but I think they have a different starting point and I think what we just heard is they've actually cut back on a lot of things were originally planned and in the spirit of keeping it green and in the spirit of having a backyard for a growing family um I could is supported with this acation based on yeah I I agree with those comments I think you know would been nice to start over from the beginning and do this maybe slightly differently but I think given where we are um think it's hard to um really have much of a useable backyard without do doing some of this and I think that you know the applicant has uh made concessions and taken a number of steps to um alleviate some of the har that might otherwise has been done uh so I would be supported with the application any further comment then uh do I have a motion this case I'll move uh to approve with the Tre remaining have a second I could check Andrew yes G R yes yes Jessica yes CL yes the project thank you thank you so thanks I appreciate stoping all right next up we have calendar 39523 this is carried from 11223 uh Sharma at 29 Winding Way thank you chairman Richard skolik on behalf of the applicant we have very brief testimony from the architect we listened to the board we scaled back the house a bit we eliminated the F variant so there's no D variants involved tonight we uh also eliminated the building coverage variance were left with some front yard setback variances we believe they're Min uh modest primarily driven by the location of the existing home and building up I believe Mr Lon of is on vacation so we're blessed with Mr Keller tonight for some brief testimony as well to just talk about the remaining variances and the rationale for that so with that I'll recall the architect Keith ganis sir you understand you're still under oath yes I am okay and uh you still have your licenses yes haven't lost them in the last month okay would you uh for the record uh correctly pronounce your last name sure Keith jop that was pretty close Okay this is uh an exact replica of what we submitted with our plan set that's correct okay you want to tell the board what you did in response to the comments and the changes that you made sure so uh at the original meeting we we heard the concerns of the board regarding the floor area ratio and building coverage which were both over the limit uh we revised the plans scale back the footprint of the house by bringing the rear wall in which is actually uh the left side of the property and uh revising the full porch to a portico so the Portico size decreased by 100 or so square feet um it was uh it was 260 and now it's uh 78 square feet U so the floor area now is in compliance with the floor area rati itio we're actually one square foot under and the building coverage is under by um a good amount so we're 1% under on the building coverage have a precise Builder that all the numbers Mar for sure the zoning officer will be tenacious exactly and making sure assuming that where we uh can uh find room for an approval but th those are those are the changes to the architectural plans uh from the front from the street the the the main visual change you see is the the front porch revised to Port AO the height decreased by three and a half inches given that we brought that rear wall of the house in uh all the way across the back so we picked up one foot all the way across the back and that brought our square footage within compliance okay uh just to pre you Mr Keller's testimony a portion of the garage on the left uh is in the setback area the required setback so we still need a front yard setback on the left side correct okay you just point that out on the drawing so that's the garage okay and then um the Portico itself would be uh in the front yard set back also that's correct it's an open Portico no walls just uh sloped roof and the roof is a shed roof to decrease the amount of area and massing that is perceived on the street so okay and just to reiterate which I think the board knows you kept the the front setback of the existing home correct that's correct so the home is built up from the existing front uh Foundation of first floor and the existing right side Foundation at first floor okay and those lines were kept other than for the Portico that's correct okay chairman that's what we have at this witness okay thank you sir you any any any questions any of the audience have any questions yeah go ahead okay we have a a handout this is going to be exhibit A2 we're g call it setback exhibit with uh today's date uh no I'll start okay okay that's exhibit A2 for the record do we have enough there so rich uh you just want to pick up what I was talking about in terms of the uh what we have here so as you swear from testimony about to given tonight's proceeding be the truth H you by the truth yes I do yeah my name is Richard Keller k l l r Mr C you went over your credentials on prior application this evening you accepted by the board professional engineering profession plan that's correct please continue just reviewed by emails I saw nothing I took my license away so I'm still good not with your sense of humor cuz that's my joke that I'm supposed to be using you can't steal that joke okay uh so I was trying to express with Keith that we have it looks to be uh part of the garage is in the setback area yeah so so this exhibit uh A2 which is uh dat it's a setc exhibit dated September 18 2023 prepared by myself this morning uh what we wanted to show was U reiterated something about my partner stressed previously that this is it's an irregular shaped lock it's really a regul this huge curve uh that comes around the street uh and that you get an enormous amount of area that's technically in the front yard so while we are an oversized lot more than 6,000 square F feet 6141 square feet of the lot or uh 64% of the lot area is actually in the current front yard so and then we've got a location of a house which is not set all the way back um as ordinance permits in these days but allows for a little bit of breathing room so you have an existing house that's set at appropr what feels like an appropriate location within within the building envelope I would point out that the um the what's left of the building envelope when you apply the 12T side yard setbacks on either side and you apply the two front yard setbacks of 41.7 and 37 ft um you're left with an area buildable which is the um the sort of Light Beige tangerine color um that's actually about 278 square feet which is about 22% of the lot which is exactly what we're proposing on our building coverage we're under a building coverage by 90 92 square feet so we're coming in at at 22% well you if you did a sort of a space age design and filled it right to the back property line you could fit that same size property so we're not overdeveloping it but we're not tearing down and throwing existing house in the dumpster we're building off so when you do that um you're dealing with the hardship that's created by the existing dwelling and then the architect has uh chosen the opportunity to push the garage back um and get a two-car garage you can see that the air the amount of area that um is in front of the required setback if we Nestle that in is actually 125 square feet so we need a variance for the 125 sare ft of two-story area that uh that sneaks into the front yard setback and then for the p as as indicated we went from a 43 by 6ft Portico down to a 13 by6 Portico which is 78 ft again the Portico has a couple columns on front it's open air allows allows for some visibility through so it doesn't have the same kind of massing and as indicated um with the architecture what we thought was kind of critical was that the area that does poke in part of this um part of this uh front entrance here the mudroom part of the um the master CL uh the um principal closet that comes through part of the office that come through those really read as dormers on top of a one-story building so the mass that does penetrate uh into that required front yard setback is diminished in its scale um the house sets back which is kind of a a colonial sort of um attitude where you you you could keep adding smaller and smaller additions but one of the thing it does is it it modulates the mass it breaks up the front plane so the house starts to feel smaller and smaller we don't need the F variants but that's one way you break down the mass and certainly when way you break down the amount of mass that comes forward of the setback line into the front setback I think that what was also critical to look at is that um the red line indicates the existing setback and I thought if you look at the way the house is stepping back as for whether you're coming around Winding Way going counterclockwise or you're coming from the west and coming clockwise around the block um the existing house as you're coming down the road you draw a line parallel the existing house is about just about the same stepback a little further but not much more than the porch so as you're looking down the Vista coming down as you're heading to the east along Winding Way or from right to left is that as you see the corner of the building projecting um as you get closer and closer you start to see that one story Portico again porticos break down the mass and they're open air so you start to see but really no doesn't really um progress any closer to the street than the existing corner of the house visually if you're coming down uh Winding Way from the other way as you're coming around you see that one of the things that we did do is because the footprint got smaller these besides eliminating the two variances the front setbacks got a little smaller as well as the setbacks to the side and rear or the side the two sides and so as you're coming around uh counterclockwise you'll see that you pick up the one-story garage and then the next one-story bump and as you continue around they all appear to have about the same setback um as the primary setback which is the existing house of over so I think that again the massing of the house um has really been uh carefully modulated to minimize the visual impact of that setback that violates the front yard Corner lots are tough now you could say every Block's got at least four of them but um most towns generally uh Summit for instance when they were developing the town they requir that corner Lots be 20% larger because they recognize you have trouble fitting everything in some towns South Orange um have a front and a side front and the side front you're allowed to be almost like almost on the street because they realize you're when you have two imposing front yards if it's difficult what makes it more difficult and unique in terms of Short Hills of Milburn is that this big curving section it doesn't come out make a 90 degree Bend so I don't get to square off my house I have this chamfer 6,141 feet of front yard that really pushes back against so really we're taking is a a typical development uh from when this was done you you you honored one on front your act and may be violated another and you're really just extending that kind of thinking so the massing of the house the location uh the stepping back the one story with the Dormers all helped to mitigate and uh and lessen any negative impact associated with that variance relief so we think that again it's a uh I think Mike my partner introduced it as a C1 variance last time where the hardship was created by the location of the lofly existing structure and the shape of the property and I think that I look at to Mike's notes he talked about you know the lot lines not being 90 degrees to me the most unique thing about this the shape of the property is this big curving front that cuts into what you normally think would be a usable front yard again if this was a squared off lot on the corner i' I'd be compliant um I'd be much closer to being compliant it's a it's a it's when you look at the buildable envelope I think you really see the trouble you're against so there are some elements of C2 here where uh it's a better um it's a it's a better plan to go with the variances rather than taking that house down and putting a same siiz house that is quirky and fits into that regular setback then I'm closer to my neighbors um all for the sake of of honoring a setback that I think is not really overly offended by the way the architecture has been developed and the layering the massing ETC I think that it's much better to keep distance away from the neighbors we are removing that one section of the building in the back which I think improves where where is that again Rich it's up on the uh upper right hand corner or the southwest corner of the property we're removing a portion of it which is closest to the rear yard for our house to the left uh so we're actually pulling away from from our neighbors which is better for the backyard and I think the the mass mitigates the possibility of any negative impact in the front yard so we have some C2 really on the on the beautiful Aesthetics here would you just put that up yeah yeah I mean look I could certainly if I wanted to build a a very modern house that kind of filled out that envelope I can get the square footage but it'd be goofy um but whereas when you're add anytime you're adding to an existing house you have existing structure HVAC Etc um it always becomes more difficult I think the architect was really um was was really sensitive in the way that that house telescopes down as it cats towards the corner and that um look big porches are nice but it's not a neighborhood with big porches so I think that the the Portico is really a more appropriate solution for the neighborhood and again um that is relatively open you see through to the Windows you see the side you look right through it again they're open they're diaphanous they don't have much as much impact as a solid part of the map does so I think what does diaphanus mean um a DI a layering of space where you can see through layers of space okay that's okay I just want to know the uh it was an SAT word for my son 20 years ago that stuff's been outla you can't go on vocabulary so but they didn't teach me that it happen for college University of Pennsylvania it was an an architecture term anyway so yeah so again I think it meets the positive and the negative criteria supp of the variant primarily under C1 I think there are some aspects of C2 where it's a better planning alternative and uh we are creating an attractive home we're allowing for this house to be brought up to the standards that are current uh for sh Hills buyers these days uh it allows for the two-car garage I think it's an attractive project and I think it really will have no negative impact on the neighborhood think there's a reasonable balance here between the the relief and the benefits of redoing a house and some architecture I think the net benefits clearly outweigh any detriments uh here I don't see uh again you have existing houses already there it's part of the landscape yes we're ating a second story on it but it's a very difficult lot to work with and I think the architecture really comes was uh deply handled to manage that okay and now we we meet the uh lock coverage building coverage F we meet almost all of the uh requirements and while we are only one square foot under on the building coverage they'll be building with micrometers out there but um it is it is 92 sare feet less than on the on the uh on the building and one square foot less than the F so um we were able to get it uh there is some there is some breathing room on the building footprint not necessarily on the F but that is kind of the nature of these smaller loss that we develop these days chairman thank you for your time think we have have a a we listened to you we made some uh uh changes to eliminate those two major variances think you certainly it's a tricky lot uh being on the corner we think we've worked with it it's going to be a major Improvement uh to modernize uh this house I think it's got a a very nice aesthetic uh to it and uh certainly the ability to approve uh based upon either the C1 criteria given the existing structure and the unusual nature of the lot or the C2 in terms of the benefits to the public outweighing any minor detriment any questions from Mr K I'm if I could ask a question so I was trying to figure out how this compared to the previous Portico it's now Portico versus the porch where was the previous porch because I I don't can show you on that's the plan that you have before you the plan that we had before it was 6ot and it ran the entire length of the house oh the entire length do you have a you have a like a rendering of this okay that's let's make sure Rick what are you what are you picking up Rick has it was just the last version of the plant the so these were previously ex yes so what the architect has shown was the previous rendering was part of the orig the first Al call out the last revision 65 issued for board submission 6523 so this would have been part of your previous package I believe right and you can see that it does it does have a nice Farmhouse kind of appeal but it's really not one any way um I think that you see this is really a much more appropriate um reaction and the benefit was we got rid of a lot of building coverage not F but building coverage and I think it's more appropriate for the neighborhood any other questions any questions from the audience regarding application any comment um public um I think that this plan is definitely an improvement um from what was originally um in front of us um and I I do think it satisfies either when C1 or C2 criteria um you know it's it's definitely a a tougher um piece of property to work with um and I think that the architect did a good job of U you know scaling back and um making this a home that is going to fit um you know be a little more in line with the character of the neighborhood so I could support this um revised application yeah um I would agree with that I appreciate that you've taken the the porch down um in terms of massing to the Portico I think it looks better and fits into the neighborhood better it's it's a tall house for the neighborhood driving around it's sort of made pointt little houses and smaller Lots but this is a a bigger lot and I see you're taking pains to to reduce the impact so I would I would support this application so to be the first application was an application of of wanting with no regard for the lot this to me is is asking for what you need and taking into consideration the idiosyncrasies of the lot so I think it's a much uh better applied application and frankly actually I do like the way it looks better the the long porch that's give you a lot more light inside the house which would be a lot nicer so I would I would support this uh second go for sure uh do I have a motion this case make a motion to approve the application I Johnny Yes roosen Yes J TR yes J yes yes thank you for your see you in the new year thank [Music] you all right next we'll be moving to calendar 39823 this case from 12423 Y at 20 clont Drive good evening you cannot vote on this V it okay hold on a second so this was originally heard on April 17 23 and then was carried to June 5th June 5th there no testimony then go ahead and it was carried to October 16th I don't believe we I testimony that as well okay yeah I I had it to 7th and then what you say I'm sorry October what October 16th okay December 4th and then in December 4th we heard no testimony based on um um no show right GL it wasn't here right yeah we didn't have enough I think they we wait for John M yeah no right right we have Matt Flyn here who is from John's office okay okay so before we before we continue I'm sorry I cannot this one because I haven't I wasn't on the here on April 17th and he did not that's good did she okay you're free to go stay and hang out in lob I wait yeah yeah hang on one second have not least according to my record we haven't marked any exhibit yet with regard to this application you marked well I marked one an A1 you marked an A1 because I don't have a record it was pre-printed but well was it identical to something you previously [Music] submitted just want to make sure there was nothing entered on the April meeting I just want because it's a little bit of history in terms of being carried so the latest plan that I have I just want to make sure the board has it um architectural plans from your office latest revision date is May 3rd 23 yes but we're submitting another plan tonight so this is all post May 3rd of 23r this is allos first application [Music] January I mean the plan I have is zoning review January 1423 zoning application February 1623 revised per hearing May 3rd 23 yes that's correct so you're and you're going to introduce tonight new PL yes which are December 15 December 15th and I have no nothing's been entered the only day we heard testimony was the April meeting we heard nothing right I agree yeah that's what so we don't so this is going to be A1 that we haven't seen yet that's a new yeah this has this is a new plan now [Applause] yes so so we're marking as A1 new plans so why don't you first of all 12523 so so these are on this know the same as it it's close um so this is a new this is a new um architectural plan sheet yes right um are we ready to go do you want to sign him in well yeah we can swear him in um and guess credentials but all right so but before we get to Mr Flyn and Mr singer you consider you're still sworn yes from the prior hearing so why don't we start out as Mr clner appropriately stated first of all why don't you identify for us what relief the applicant is seeking the applicant is seeking the same height the side is what's the deviation is at the 1.29 feet yes it's now 1.8 it's now 1.8 yes so that's that increased yep and the flary ratio went from 2012 to 2011 okay wait wait wait wait no no no no under under attachment e your deviation floor area ratio was 212 square feet right and now what is it 21 it's the same okay what about building coverage building coverage at the time was based on an assembly use accessory use that was attached to a house counting as building coverage that's no longer the case that was right after the the new ordinance the new ordinance came out was there it was it was interpreted as what it said in the um supplemental um zoning section was that if an accessory use was attached to a house or was 4 feet away from up to four feet away from the house it counted as part of the house it was to be considered part of the principal structure for setback purposes so that would have to meet the setback of the principal structure not an accessory structure so there was some confusion at the beginning it was included in the building coverage initially it should not have been so do you need a building coverage variance now no F you said we have F and how much is that again 21 21 ft and and your front yard setback the deviation last time I believe was 4.49 ft now that's another zoning change that happened in the inum where the front yard setback is now the average of three houses on either side instead of 40 ftre so prevailing so that prevailing setback issue went away also do you have that documentation though because I did not do you have the prevailing setback of those three houses no but I have a diagram that within the scope of what we're talking about okay pretty clearly shows that so you don't need the front yard set back variants no so what we're left with is the you've increased the side set back greater than 18 ft in height M right for 1.29 ft to 1.80 feet and you kept the F the same yes and because of the ordinance change you eliminate building coverage variants and you eliminate front yard set back there yes okay okay go ahead all right do you wna stand up SC you in and just raise your right hand please do you swear from testimony about to given tonight's hearing to be the truth I do nothing but the truth I do your name for the record Matthew Flynn f l YNN and your cren the board pleas yeah uh my education comes from Ruckers I have my master's degree in planning and public policy I have my professional planner license in the state of New Jersey as well as my national licenser which is the aicp license I've testified before this board virtually uh and about a hundred other boards across the state and Li good standing yes please proceed um okay so the set of drawings that we submitted um by the way before and I neglected to mention we have six eligible board members and you understand that it's an F variant so you need five affirmative votes yes so you don't have the full compliment of seven board members and you still wish to proceed we still wish to proceed go ahead so the set of drawings that you most recently received um you received them yeah you did or you should have theed that's the last so Mr singer I'm sorry again the reason why I painstakenly went through that is the last set of revisions that I believe the board has before them are dated May 3rd 2023 you've now marked as a one I believe a new sheet that the board has not seen before yes and has not been submitted to the to the board or to I this drawing was submitted to the board and I what is the date on that because I I mean I'm telling five 3 23 okay got it okay okay so what I'm trying to point out is that we went through an effort of reducing the f in this case we took two two feet off the back of the building tried to adjust the interior to accommodated at the end of the day we went from 212 to 81 um square feet of variance needed um and the bed the master bedroom ended up being 12T by 13 ft one or 2 are you're going somewhere with this I'm going somewhere with us okay so we tried to reduce the house as far as we could and we discovered we reduced it substantially more than we could because it just didn't work at the size the reduced size the master bedroom was 12 by 13 all the bathrooms were very tight it was no family room and there's still no family room on the ground floor but we just didn't have that floor area to give up during the meeting on the previous application how many bedrooms is the final product four starting and therefore four kids in the family um what appeared to be the largest objection was the front Dormer and the mass of the top of the building um and we took that to heart we we took a look at the street the board was right it was a reable comment the well most of almost all the grooves run parallel to the street you're going to be submitting so far we've marked but you haven't referred to yet or new new architectural plan sheet dat December 15th mark is a one looks like you have some other I have so why don't we as as you're referring to them if you can just for the benefit of the board and the public just identify what the AR A2 and so what what is A2 A2 is a photograph of the street from the did you take it I took that okay and approximately um three weeks ago leaves on the trees three weeks ago that's impressive uh it was late fall it was before the last meeting that narrows it down um why why don't we say is it fair to say that photo was taken September of this of this year yes okay so we looked at this more carefully well all the ridges are parallel to the street with the exception of the immediate neighbor what's outlined in white here is the house in question um two things happen one is this street sort of Ellies out a little bit um and so do the houses but when you get into the house in question it's substantially lower than the rest in fact when we when I looked at the um the heights of all the houses on the street and the and the elevation that's both the shortest house from a height standpoint and it's got the shallowest roof slope um and I'm going to go to A3 which is a sheet of of uh images phot so so these are renderings two renderings and well four renderings and two photographs okay four colored renderings and two photos so let's talk about the photos first did you take those photos uh no those are Google photos Google photos do you know when photos were from um two days ago the 16 16th and the colored renderings you did yourself yes good so I mean these are the existing renderings that's the actual house and it's aside from being short small with a pretty diminutive roof uh it's also I mean the roofs are about the same value as the walls it's pretty bland it's um not doing anything for the character of this tree um so what we did was tried to make it match some of the other sort of elements in the so the the front facade has a higher roof line like these more of a base we took the roof pitched it up a little bit that got the height of the building higher and that's why the height the set pack variants came in we eliminated the front large front Dormer we put in two smaller Dormers just to be ornamental but and to to mimic some of the other things going on on the street those aren't necessary really and uh on the back we took the pointed Dormer turned it into a shed Dormer um which mitigated or we think mitigated most of the the issues with the first time that [Applause] so the main roof was originally 5 and 12 or is currently 5 and 12 uh our proposal is to raise it to seven and 12 the average on the street is 8 and 12 so we're trying to fit this in so that it m matches at least in scale and character the rest of the street um we added overhangs in order to cast some shadows and make some interest create some contrast between the roof in the walls um and eliminate the first set of Dormers that were overbear and not consistent with the rest of the street uh um to the rear the the rear dorm is now lower because it's no longer peaked um the square footage is down on the attic um by 90 square feet um and uh that gets us to the variances uh so the height to sidey yard um the house was built in 1946 the code change in 2005 which was known as the uh colloquial is he as the mcmansion ordinance um added a height to set back on the side of the r six districts and R5 districts the house was in violation at the time that ordinance came into place and as it got larger so did the um the Hy the side yard variants um was never cited to accommodate that because the sighting didn't exist on side is it it's on the right you referring now to A1 it's Mar it's marked for identification December 15 yes so the height to side yard the building got a little bit taller so the height to side yard got a little bit worse it's 30 fet instead of 28 the Aver on the street [Music] [Applause] is um 28 28 fet 28 ft it's still two feet under the the height limit um but that's a small little rectangle that shaped until it hits the existing or what was the existing roof and that's the only bulk variance the use variance um we had a 15 foot by 30 foot by 15t by 12T master bedroom when we cut the thing back we ended up with 12 with 12 by 13 which was smaller than most well anything that would be called a master bedroom or a principal bedroom um and the other bedrooms were um on average 144 square feet each which would be roughly 12 by 12 so it's a modest house there's no family room on the ground floor which most houses have sum up um I'm still so let me ask you a question you know you have a conforming lot 6,000 square fet right okay and you're over by 20111 that's not a foot off a bedroom that's a lot more than that well the back is 20 feet and that's 2 feet 20t 20 20 by 10 yeah that's so you take two feet off of well it's 11 and you get nine and that's a pretty big percentage but it's pretty tightly packed I mean this sort of works with the street it's got consistent facades it's got It's got fenestration that matches the adjacent houses it kind of works in there the back we're working with an existing plan and to get it into any level of what one would expect it's taking a little bit more I mean frankly the other option is and the new front setback low would end up allowing us to build to here so then we could build up to the street to stories with a roof but that's not what we want to do it's not good for the owner not good for the town not good for anybody any other testimony yeah sure let's go to question any other questions yeah you question um you initially submitted a plan that was February 16th 2023 right you see the revision dates on your plan that was the riginal one with the big front Dormer Big Shed dor in the front yes okay then you submitted a revision which was May 323 which we have in our packets right okay so then what you were saying is that that May 3rd revision was the one with the small bedrooms 12 x 12 12 x13 master bedroom right then you just switched it this week December 15th which is what this A1 is yes okay the difference between the first plan you submitted in February in this plan seems to only be that instead of having a shed dorm in the front you just have the two single Dormers yes so everything else is the same yes so there was no also there was no family room initially there was no family room the first floor that you mentioned oh and just because it seems really confusing to me the entry what variances are we looking for just height to sight set back set back above 18 ft and the floor area rati and what what do we required and what are you proposing so on the um at the 30 foot level the required variance that's the required sidey yard is um easier here 11 foot 11.81 ft that's the height that's the setback at 30 30t so over 18t you have to have an 11t set back so over 18 no well it goes back AT3 feet per foot so under attachment a that's in our file we have in terms of the side setback maximum so what's maximum allowed or permitted by ordinance of 1139 yes the house was two in two feet shorter and what's being proposed at 30 ft which is the new proposed height of the roof right it's uh 1.8 no that's that's the variance that's the variance okay the total is well that's the variance but the the setback itself is 11.81 [Music] okay just getting back to what my question of what bar are looking for the height which I'm still trying to figure out what's the next one uh well it's height to setb the height is 30 feet the allowable height is 32 feet gotta so we're under that right there only two variances okay one is the height to setback which is this diagonal line starts 18 it's going to be just on that right side just on that right side and the other one is the f which is the 211 morly spread the 211 Square Fe left so for Mr Coffield because it is a little confusing when we do the height to side yard set back so in this particular Zone the r six Zone has a required set back of 8 feet for the portion of the structure up to 18 feet in height once you get beyond that for every foot above 18 feet but below the required 32 you have to be an additional 33 feet so it's not the entire thing that's it's a small I don't know if you can show them on the pl it's a small so at 19 ft it has to be33 has to be 8.6 right triangle what's the number so sing Mr singer I can hear you sorry you have to repeat get a set okay the whole board okay so the height to side side yard setback is a diagonal plane that that starts at 18 feet at 8 8 feet from the property line goes back diagonally 3 feet for every F foot of height so that plane in this particular case intersects the wall of the house here and creates a small triangle and that triangle is the m that's the bulk of the variance what's what's what is the required setback above 18t for your project uh it varies as you go up right but at it at the worst at the worst case it's 12 feet something like that that's what it has to be at 32 at 32 feet it's it's 12 feet right you're not at that we're not that high 128t we're somewhere on the Spectrum you're 12.8 ft at 20 six correct yes 28 28 sorry yes 30 30 13.8 what no 13.8 what's 13.8 what 13.8 right yeah so because you're you're at 12 feet at you're 11 feet at uh 18 feet correct you're at 11 feet at 18 no you're at 8 feet at 11 feet no I'm sorry 18 feet at 18 feet yeah you're at 11 right now correct at 18 feet we are at 11.1 I think what's the he's at 10 point 10.2 10 at 18 feet right so you don't conform at 18 feet weforms at 18 feet it's the above 18 feet at the worst case he's at 10 he's at 6 feet below so 24 feet is where it starts non-conforming because it starts nonconforming 24 feet right and from your 24 to your 28 that's where you have the 1 point8 foot deviation then right to 30 though right well the house doesn't house 30 ft high right the house is 30 right so 30 feet you're at 1.8 at uh yeah 29 ft you're at 16t Z yeah and then the area the width of that is 18 feet at 16 feet just a few questions um thanks for this um so with Version Control I'm a little confused and also I'm not sure that I ever received the latest so I'm you didn't that has okay I'm looking online and the variances that are online there's four of them that's what's online right now so the four of them well yeah when we started discussing this the first two one was um the uh building coverage because it includ it included the area of the deck as part of the building coverage that's uh since been removed uh yeah the ordinance has been altered well the interpretation of the ordinance has been altered okay and the other one is the front setback um we had a variance because the um the Dormer violated the 40 foot front setback we no longer have a 40 foot setback except in sort of a new street with nothing on it so and the the new ordinance refers to the average of three properties on either side of the subject property so remaining is the F and this unusual ver hi to side hi to side okay all right so what's online is not up to right so according to my calculations it's 30 feet tall correct yes so he would be required to have 11.96% 11.02 so your variance is N9 that's what you're showing 94 you're asking for Point 92 to be VAR 92 or 94 actually is 1.72 exactly oh I'm sorry it's three okay so it's a 0 292 variant Rel he's required to have 10.10 I mean I'm sorry he's required to have I get back to 10.10 at wait 6 feet below the yeah so for the board to appropriately consider your application in the guance request we need to lock in on what the dev is so M DAV was in the process of helping you okay clarify and it's not easy when we haven't gotten these plans until tonight understood Mr s just we're still on questions right yeah sure um just on your just having difficulty with your columns on your plan on the upper right side the the bulk columns you have existing original proposed standard so the standard is what's required by code standards required by code okay what you're proposing I grab what's original is what the original house was what's the difference between that and existing the first application sorry okay so the original was the first application yeah which was a first application and the last one that the board heard Okay so sorry sorry just the so the required setback is 11.39% back but you're required to be 1139 correct 11.8 now 11.8 so it's an existing nonconformance uh no because the roof is currently um at 26 feet right so he's raising it so so because we changed the pitch of the roof to match the other roofs on or get close to the other roofs on town uh the house got larger taller the bridge got higher so I think you would said you think that the proposed design that you're now here with tonight is more consistent with the neighborhood yes are there any other houses in the neighborhood that have third floor third Flor Dormers or um anything like that well they all have attics and they're all at that about that height okay any Dormers or no this might actually simplify things just I do have a package that has the calculations for this for what for this scheme it also has I got it well you can wait what what do what do you let's see what your it's the problem Mr singer as you can probably imagine it's very I confusing all of you from well it's not just confusing everyone but it's for the board members and Miss davit to see for the first time all these new calculations and requests for Relief implementing some relief and showing new elevation um um had these materialized earlier I would have gotten them to the board like the last set but right so so the before we hand these out under under right side setback greater than 18 ft what you have here existing 10.10 is that accurate 10.10 is the setback now yes original based on what Joseph just asked you that's what you originally proposed that's the existing side of the house it's got an existing side y h pack of 1.1 so is existing an original the same it's not how could the standard be higher than the proposed the existing and the well the original is existing yeah and just before we go through this can I just get an answer to my question which is are there any other houses on the street that have Dormers or Flo Windows yes yes but there's no third floor on this is there there is no third floor it's an adate it's an attic with dors and why did you make the ceiling higher the roof higher basically because these were just kind of they look like Shacks they look like sh they're small the the the massing is not consistent with the rest of the street they look like what's this the the the roofs no so you felt like for aesthetic reasons for aesthetic reasons caller yeah okay question so there so there is one set in that package there's a set of um calculations that show the wait wait we we haven't done hold on all right just take a step back so Mr Sing you you've given us before we mark it so we're clear here you've given us a a three-page document right okay you want to you want to mark it uh sure okay so if you want to mark it let's mark it we're now up to 84 and is this something that you prepared yourself uh some of it were were prepared by the planner some of it was prepared by me the calculation sheet I did and the last sheet this came from Google Earth uh it's the height on the B at the base of each house on the street the height of the ridge the height of the eaves and the distance between the Ridge and the EES so we're so so we're going to mark this as A4 we're going to mark it with today's date of December 18th yep okay and this is a thre page um set of um relevant data data calculations right so why don't you explain to the board what this is what each page is and what's the relevancy to this application uh the first page is a planner the study by the planner of the houses on the street that he's going to discuss the second page is a okay wait hold on a second so this the lock comparison table on page one the planner Mr Flynn is going to go over that and that is going to go to your F proofs I assume that is going to go to the F proofs okay yes let's move on to page two page two is a zoning calculations who prepared this I did okay so in terms of let's let's look down first it says there's two calculations for gross area yes and you you shaded those that as in no it doesn't conform right right is that still the case today so that is still the case today okay so when you say gross area still doesn't conform what what does that mean in relation to this application um we're at 39. 52% of lot cover of the lot area and we're only allowed to be 36% so you need a a variance for 200 Square fet I'm sorry what a variance for 211 square feet where do it say 21 Square ft you subtract the um for 3.52% variance which equals 21 feet Yes from standard original on this chart is what you proposed that we're no longer considering correct so we can wipe that column out you can wipe that column out super next let's jump up to the right side setback thing okay over 18 ft the standard is not 11.81 the standard is 11.81 30t but it's not tall your house is not 30t tall it says it's 3.69 right so that oh 3.69 anyway that number is based on 39 30 you come up with 11.8 required at 30 ft to at the 3069 at 18 ft tall you're required to be 8 feet right off the property okay so so what this is trying to say is that the standard at the height of the building is 11.81 ft and the building is actually 10 foot 10 it starts at 10et 10.10 and it goes and it doesn't change it goes straight up at 10.10 but the required setback goes from 8 feet to in this case 11.81 so so that's this crossing point I got and your height let's just go over that real quick again your building pip um you have the standard is 32 and you're looking for 3.69 correct yeah but I'm not looking for it that's looking for no no no I'm I'm trying because that's what your your right side setback is calculated off right right it's kind of an important number yes uh okay okay I think I been really handy if you give this out first but I kind of wanted to but and then this last page what's that all right so the last page is these numbers came from Google Earth and they are the low Point around the building for ground uh the eve height at the edge of the roof I mean the ridge height yeah the eve height at the edge of the roof the ridge height in the middle of the roof and the distance between the the horizontal distance between the Ridge and the E the the X in 12 column is the slope of the roof so the first number would be 8.3 and 12 the Bold one which is us is 5.25 and 12 and then the height of the building is the difference between the ridge height and the ground height right what you're showing is 28.25 um that's that's the current average current average not the we're 26 feet high now currently yes currently okay and the 5.25 is the current slope Repose slope is seven okay just sticking with that last page sorry the ground bridge and E those are elevation Heights those are the elevation Heights of the ridge the from Google Earth from Google Earth is there a plus minus it is a 1 foot increment okay as a one foot increment it's not bad but that's not terribly accurate accurate but it does give you a relatively a relative scale of things so this is for the these are for the houses around this is that entire side of the street okay and that's ground is 169 ft above sea level is that what they're saying is that how it's calculated it is Google Earth Statum I don't know do you know what it no so a mythical number then it's so theoretically should be height overse low I I'm guessing 169 is about yeah is I think I think the purposes of the record certain Mr Flyn will testify us the first page of4 Mr singer testified as the second page of4 and we make a paper airplane out of out of the page three I didn't say that here we go okay disre page three the relative number numbers are pretty consistent they're just approximate I mean they're they're not all right done the decimal points any other questions for Mr s anything else for us Mr s um no I think I tortured you guys enough any questions from the audience for Mr siger all right Mr Flynn who next what's okay so just by way of quick background uh we're looking at block 1804 lot 13 it's a lot area of about 6,000 square feet we're in the r six Zone uh where an F uh maximum of 36% is required here or permitted here and we're proposing uh 39.5 1% and I'll get back to that uh setback variance in just a second I think we all might need a break from that uh basically we're talking about an increase or an additional F like our architect mentioned of 21 square feet um basically the prevailing case law for an F variant is the Randolph Town Center case and the essence of that test is whether the site itself can accommodate the proposed increase in F I'll come back to that in just a second I think uh I'll start off with the Positive criteria in terms of neighborhood compatibility I guess it's sheet one on that packet that shows um other properties on this street either on this block with Frontage on the street or across the street um with Frontage on the street that have an F that's actually greater than what's being proposed this evening and I think the number was there's six other houses on this street um either on our block or the block right across the street there um with higher f um and I can tell you that 17 Clara uh was approved as recently as 2020 for an F of 39.7 uh percent uh so all of these properties that you see highlighted there are like I said relatively close to the subject site um I have it mapped here uh one of those properties lot 15 is actually two doors down if you're facing the property um that would be two doors to the right um also right across the street lot six um and lot five um I would say those three properties are are very very close to uh to the site in question and then those other three are relatively close as well um just to give the board some background in terms of the prevailing Fs in the neighborhood um like I said the the Randol Town Center case does establish that the f variance is a site specific test but again I think that we can look at we can and should look at neighborhood compatibility in terms of whether this uh home will stand out in the context of the neighborhood but again that goes into that negative criteria um just in terms of positive criteria This is Home Improvement that'll add value and quality to the property which in turn adds value and quality to the area um as a whole um the project provides a Better Living environment for a growing family that wants to stay in Milburn uh conceivably this is isn't the only family that has uh four children um there's plenty of other families that have a similar living Arrangement and this will uh bring that house up to up to par for these types of families um the building appearance will be attractive and in keeping with the neighborhood currently there's actually a patio area uh in that area that right side area that's right on the lot line this application proposes to remove that patio area and push it behind the building uh where it won't be um I would say infringing on on the neighbors uh use of their property um again we're talking about 21 square feet which I would say is uh tasteful and modest especially when we look at the negative criteria but again I'm going to get to that in just a second um all of the above promotes purposes of the municipal land use law including purpose a promotion of the general welfare purpose G variety of uses in appropriate locations purpose M efficient use of land and purpose I desire visual environment uh like I said the flip side to that is the negative criteria so no substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone um like I said the heart of the D4 F variance test is whether the site itself can accommodate the increase in F and I think really uh that's shown by the fact that uh in terms of Zone conformance we comply with uh the left side setback we comply with the combined side setbacks we comply with the rear setback we comply with uh this standard called unoccupied rear yard um we comply with building coverage lock coverage we're actually about 10% under in terms of lot coverage um we just went through we're compliant in terms of Building height and finally front yard pavement uh so all of that I would say speaks to the project from a mass and scale perspective despite the fact that we're requesting 21 additional square feet of floor area we are not requesting any additional uh bulk releas aside from the one uh side setback that we just went through which is actually an extension of the existing side setback um so by virtue of that substantial bulk compliance I think the proposed building will not stand out in the context of the area it's not going to stand out in the context of the Zone plan um really what we see from the street is uh I would say Building height we see uh the percentage of the lot that's covered um which in this case is the coverage requirements we see building to building separation which is the setback requirements so again I don't think that the uh proposed f is going to result in a building that's going to stand out in the context of the neighborhood um just to go through the the C variants I think I'll just suffice it to say that 11.81 feet is required and that's on I guess I would say a graduated uh scale from the top down to 18 ft and for that entire scale uh we are within 2 feet of that required setback uh we went through the details of that I'm not going to go there again unless unless you need me to um but again that setback is actually existing today we're not actually getting any closer to the property line it's really just a result of um bringing the building up a little bit higher still in conformance with Building height um but again to the extent that the uh intent of a setback variance or requirement is to uh limit the uh distance to our neighboring property uh the the proposed application is not actually uh getting any closer to that lot line uh so in terms of the planning rationale for that c variant I think there is in essence of C1 hardship test whereby the relief relates to an existing building there is a case law it's known as the Haro case where the court found what I would say similar basis for relief for a vertical extension of an ex existing building in other words not bringing that building closer to the setback line but just building up uh what is there today um but I would say that we also do have an element of the C2 balancing test whereby all of those benefits that I went through for the F variants uh carry forth again getting rid of that patio that's on this side uh moving it behind the building um and overall resulting in a building that I would say isn't keeping with the with the rest of the buildings in the in the area and that again is on sheet one of I guess exhibit A4 um so with that I think with all that on the record this is uh an appropriate application despite the F variance uh we are talking about 21 square feet but again we have evidence here that uh that floor area both in terms of a a ratio and in terms of a a hard number is in keeping with with the other homes in the in the area uh so with that unless there's any questions that's that's all I have so for the benefit of the record where'd you get your deal lock yeah those are from property record uh cards yep um what about the data that's missing for the Recently approved in terms of first floor second floor and garage for the 17 Claremont yeah uh that was from the uh resolution but I'm saying do you look at the plans to see with the first floor second floor and garage were I'm saying for comparison purposes you're missing it data oh okay yeah so that data comes from the property record I'm sorry I we gave you uh that data comes from the property record card and we it's not up to date for that property that's why it's missing any questions for Mr Fint anyone the audience have questions any the audience have comments thanks oh I guess I did have any other testimony from the applicant for professionals I'll close public thoughts I'll go first go yeah um when we looked at this in April uh I think for me the big thing was when we drive into the neighborhood it was what they were planning was a massing in the front that was my understanding was what I thought and I'm looking at the plans all three versions of it and except for the middle one because that we threw that out because they took it Tone It toned it way down and we went back essentially to the original plan with in the only difference being instead of a big front shed Dormer we now have two smaller Dormers I still get the impression of it being massing at least from the street line that plus the fact that you know I like to have this beforehand we spend my Sundays the day before going and driving and looking at it and not you know we play with the numbers at home um not having it here we're only getting it here at the moment it's like studying for you know my con law exam um so that kind of threw me at those are my initial thoughts I would agree this is unusual application to sit here and try to try digest it for the first time um and we certainly have had more than enough time uh since the first time we saw this application till now to have a really nice concrete plan um I still am not a big fan of the asking either um you know when you get to these 6,000 foot lots and you see these deviations F deviations really show up and when you look at this it's evident and my my concern is when you see these build and you drive past them you almost can tell which one at the VAR and I still look at this as saying it just it's just big so and I'm not and I know so I'm not the camp that you know from a C2 perspective with this lock ten M but my uh I reserve my opinion at this point to to adjudicate the case as as affirmative or not but I would like to hear said C2 D4 s I'm sorry D4 sorry I'll go I agree with everything that's been said so far um if I if I took down my notes well look be went from 28 to 30 so we're actually increasing a little instead of going back I know you would decrease some things but in terms of the massing for the neighborhood it is a modest house to begin with that's honest and the neighborhood does have a few houses that I think could approach that I'm mostly spinning because I didn't get this in advance to to drive around and really look at the plans in front of me and look at the rest of the houses to compare so I feel like it's a little unfair to us um so I I I don't know I'd feel better if I'd had this in front of be and all of the numbers so I could really make a a coherent decision hly um I think it's better than it was I think the two Dormers are better than the one big dmer but I also do think it's still looks big out of courtesy to the professionals what would you like to do would you like us to vote um two things I have a motion to open the hearing second second all those in favor one is as far as these two Dormers go we can stipulate that we'd like to remove them I don't think they do anything for the plan and um if that changes anybody's opinion it's great does that do anything to the F no not really it's just a matter of visual they were there for to give a little detail to the house but they're not necessary a lot of the other houses on the Block don't have it that's fine since we're since we're open yes so that so I'm still sort of struck by the height of that roof which is to me it looks like the same height as the Second Story are there any other houses in the neighborhood too I very specific question that have that look that that very tall roof vertical roof that very tall vertical roof is the you said there's no third floor so you said the height was really just thir that would be the lowest slope roof on the street still the angle and the height the distance from the bottom of the roof the top of the roof is still the lowest this is seven close to 70 and all the rest of the house is are higher than that s second the high point in the Attic is s feet the high point in the Attic is probably closer to nine what's the height of the second floor the height of the second floor is 8 feet right so so it looks yeah because it looks taller than but that's not contributes to F none of this contributes to so it does this design Mass it does go to massing go it goes to massing but you know that's not contributing F out there so either that's right so even if you eliminated it the f is still the um so what are your thoughts I mean at the end of the day here I think this smell what's being cooked um do you want to take some time to actually present us with so we can actually see what you're doing I mean if you want to eliminate the Dormers eliminate Dormers I mean it you know you hear the board comments they're not comfortable making a decision based on seeing it from over there can I make over there me that they weren't get it physically get the package you you recommended removing the Dormers to tell you the truth the Dormers look good from my point of view from my opinion that whole High sloping very tall 9 foot roof 9 foot interior that's the bassing I mean actually the Dormers break B up actually I agree with you in that but it's still big look that's that really speaks to your architectural design because you know at the end of the day your heke complies you know but without without your triangle you know that's it so like somehow if you shift that thing over the center made it super ugly looking you could make it comply but that's probably not going to look any good well I mean the move to make it comply is to take this roof and make a peek here right because then we're out of that sidey yard setb and then unfortunately my next move is that we can bring that shape out to the front of the house as a FR um as long as you don't have yourf as long as we don't but but then then you have to trim the back well you end up not having to deal with the first floor so you gain whatever is in the garage and the where to go right so it reduces the requirements a little bit BS to your court what do you want to do you want us to vote or not that's all I can offer you at this point what you want to do what okay no rush come back so well we don't have a 2024 calendar yet right we hav't adopted we have to carry it to the first meeting of January which we do have in order to schedule it what's that date most likely January 22nd no no what's the first sorry January 8th is our first meeting so we would have to determine that when we can next hear you on the 8th of January okay as we've not adopted a schedule yet okay so here's here's would you be interested in doing this based on seeing the plans making the approval contingent on no not no no no we can't do that it because because it has to we have to have the public has to be able to question it I you can't can't do that so what we need to do is to see a nice clean set of plans with the data that you're requesting not the first the second the third a clean application and if could I I would suggest those four pictures that you have up there they need to be I would suggest that you put each one of those on its own sheet of paper so that talking about the elevations or correct where you show the actual deviation because it's very small number one and then to be looking at it unfortunately we didn't have it so it just makes it I think in my opinion a little more difficult to understand and Prof attachment E and F and everything so we know exactly what you're looking for so on the 8th you'll determine a date okay um and go from there area yeah be on re we're just to carry it to schedule it announce at that time they don't even all right so then um for the sake of those in public playing along at home uh we will move this case to the 8th of January uh and at that point that determine when uh it'll be heard further and in the metime I could a yeah to your to your benefit we maybe another one more one so that's that we so in that case we'll see you in the new year gentlemen um no any other comment from the audience regarding anything that has not been on the uh agenda this evening are you in related this case or you have any comment I I kind of try understand like the word the is looking for and I I really want to add case h okay well so you know at this point okay yeah very well thank you have a good evening thanks um real quick as I mentioned Ashley will be leading the board I want to thank her for her service and uh there has been some recommendations to the TC for so we should be able to bring someone in pretty quick which is good so we'll have a full board so happy to see that there's been a strong number of applicants uh over the last weeks and um so I'm looking forward to making a decision in adding other than that I wish everyone a happy holiday season and happy New Year I look forward to seeing everyone back January 8th and uh any other comments questions in that case you have a motion to adj happy H I'm staying right I after