e e e e e e e e e e e e e e flag United States America stands na God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right everybody please be seated welcome to the township of Oldbridge Zoning Board of adjustment meeting April 18 20124 I one piece of paper adequate notice of this meeting of the Oldbridge Township only Board of adjustment has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of this meeting by primly posting in the municipal complex an announcement giving the time the date the location the agenda of this meeting also by mailing such announcement to the home news and Tribune filing a copy of such announcement with the municipal clerk and posting the agenda on the municipal website M pelli can we have a roll call please certainly Miss Andrews present miss chavalier here Mr ISO here Mr scagno here Mr Stoner here M tester here chairman Sullivan here all right as a matter of housekeeping if you have a phone on please silence it at this point so we don't interrupt the the testimony this evening the meeting is simultaneously being con uh conveyed over cable TV 15 here in the township and it's also on YouTube live if you ever want to refer back to the meeting you can do so by looking that up on YouTube I thank you for your uh understanding we're going to go in the uh order of the agenda if you happen to have a copy of it our first item on the on business tonight is resolution 73-20 23z Sean deuca Mr uh Clancy thank you um yeah this is uh an application that was uh heard a week or so ago at our last meeting this is for um uh T red Shaw Boulevard over in um in here in oldrid so this was for um a three season sun room that was being placed on top of a deck they were looking for um a uh a variance on this for uh maximum floor area ratio um D4 this was heard it was approved by the board and um there was in addition to our usual conditions there there the applicant is agreeing the sun room will not be used as a living space the sun room will not have any climate control or Plumbing um Mr chairman this is on for uh approval tonight fin thank you Mr Clancy board members you've heard the resolution someone move for adoption please test I heard Chevalier and I heard Miss tester roll call please Miss Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss testy yes chairman Sullivan yes all right we'll go to Applications now the first one on our agenda 79- 2023 Z that's a Barbara Ram Robinson Ramirez the location of that is 85 Bennett Road in Al the applicant is looking to legitimize a 15 by 45 foot uh approximate deck the deck is uh one4 foot outside the side yard property line where 10 is required the public hearing for this application has been adjourned to May 16th without further notice if you're hear in that matter tonight it's not going to be heard it'll be on the agenda May 16 our next item is 04- 2024 Z Heraldo Rivera okay you can come up Sir uh that's a medium high density residential R six block 15512 lot 16 one 613 the physical location 18 Holly Street this is the applicant seeks to legitimize a as a previously constructed 50 by 20 deck the deck is 4 foot from the property line where 9 foot is required so you're going to be the only one testifying this evening on your behalf yes sir board attorney will swear you in and at which time you can actually take a seat right here and sit in front of that microphone okay yeah go ahead and if you push the button on there it it'll turn to Green okay there we go can you just raise your right hand for me do you solemnly swear any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth yes okay put your hand down and just state your name for the record sir haraldo Rivera got it thank you Mr Rivera I know you have an application here for a deck obviously that you constructed and it has an issue with the variance so what we what the board would like you to do is tell us what you did how you did that why you did that uh our professional is going to tell us why you need a variance we may have some some questions of you the uh the Prof the zoning officer may have some advice for us the attorney may have some advice for us uh we'll listen to that at after that juncture we're going to ask to the public if anybody has a problem with this anyone here tonight if any want any comments at which time once I close the public portion I'm going to come back to you and I'm going to ask you if you'd like me to take your vote take a vote on your matter okay so you you're not represented by an attorney or a professional so just go at your own pace tell us what happened when it happened and what brings you here tonight okay uh thank you chairman um first of all I just want to say that I completely respect all variant all um ordinances of this Township and I appreciate everyone's diligence and uh what they do here um as far as my deck is concerned um this permitted was pulled in 2021 um very excited about it building it and um as I'm building and going it just seemed right that I just push it a little bit further um unfortunately I I was under the assumption that we needed to be three foot away from the property line so um that's why I got so close um and when when it was when the zoning officer came he uh notified me that it was not um in uh ordinance with the township so I went ahead and filled out a variance to try to uh make things right okay do you have any exhibits that you want to show us any pictures or anything along that line no just that I can assure that all my neighbors are okay we we'll go to our profession Mr Hol uh thank you chairman um yeah so he's here just um seeking a single C variant for the rear yard deck um this is one of those in the r six Zone where the setback is determined on the height of the deck um which is about a little bit over 3 ft high so it requires a minimum 9t setback um kind of going off Miss said he I beli he secured a zoning permit and construction per in 2021 um for a deck and then kind of as he built the deck he you know kind of went above the scope of the work which incude a variance with that rear yard so um just one single see ER in that rear yard chairman thank you uh Mr Holland board members questions on my left on my right Mr Clancy um so looks like the nine foot's what's required and four feet is what you have currently right yes and in order to um to if you had to bring it into um you know in accordance with the 9 foot it would actually require you to uh peel back the deck and remove some footings and put new footings in correct that is correct to accomplish that so it's a little bit of a hardship for you to bring it into into line with um with what's actually required there is that that kind of the reason for the application yes sir okay Mr Holland does it seem that uh you visited the property I assume no um I believe it was a code enforcement officer that was out there on a a complaint okay but from the survey it looks like it uh it does fit but setback changes because of the zone and the height right correct yes y you have anything else you want to tell us we're familiar with these situations and then what happens I guess the homeowners they don't realize what he was saying was because of this lot size the setback can change it's not always consistent like your house might be one but somebody else's house might be longer or shorter so that's why it's it's good to check with the zoning office uh before projects and that way you can figure that out you don't waste a lot of time uh I don't know what the board's going to vote but you know if it votes against then we going have to chop up deck so you know I don't think that would probably look good there either but you have to bear those things in mind and I and appreciate you being here tonight uh I'm going to go to the public and say anybody else in the public want to be heard on this matter okay I guess they're all leaving uh I'm going to close the public portion any final comments from you sir nope I appreciate you guys I do okay this is a matter the board seen many times before and uh this would be a C1 hardship yeah that's what it sounds like yes yeah be Grant enter to C1 hardship should you uh agree to uh allow for the variant do someone want to move this for the C1 variants test mov it is there a second is second I think it was I think it was Miss Andrews roll call please miss Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss test yes chairman Sullivan yes uh it's great when people re you know do things for their home it improves their value and it makes the community stronger just check before if you need any permits this resolution will be ready by our next meeting and uh then you'll you'll be kind of legal as long as you provideed uh proper permits if you don't call please call the building department I don't know if he has or he has not yeah once the resolution once it's signed maren we reach out to you um bring that resolution either to my office or the building office because you still need to legitimize the permit um and that resolution gives me approval to approve it understood thank you Mr River thank you all right have a good night okay the next item on the agenda board uh 0522 24z Michael Harris this is in the low density residential or 20 lock 11246 lot 2.15 physical locations 10 Sutton Court Oldbridge uh front overhang and rear aluminum roof requiring SE variant applicant proposes a 6.7 ft by 29 ft front overhang and a 16 by8 rear yard aluminum roof attached the rear yard aluminum roof is proposed at 41.5 FT approximately from the rear yard uh property line where minimum is required Mr Harris good evening uh is again are you going to be the only one testifying before the board this evening that is correct board attorney will swear you in just raise your right hand for me do you solemnly swear any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth I do excellent you put your hand down and just state your name for the record please Michael a Harris thank you Mr Harris you heard me uh explain to the other gentleman that was in here what the board wants to hear uh there's certain proofs that need to go on the record in order for us to have legit I or to Grant variances so we'd ask you to do the same thing at your own pace tell us what you're looking to do uh why you're going to do that and once again I'll go to the zoning officer and then we may have some questions same Pro process we'll have a open uh the meeting uh uh open to the public for comment and then we'll come back to you and I'll see if you want us to vote okay folks I uh last year I was diagnosed with skin cancer I had two surgeries on my back to remove cancer and also precancer cells on my scal scalp so I like the outdoors and I like to sit outside in my rear and front of my home so I decided with my wife to put a overhang in the front and an aluminum overhang in the rear of the house to protect myself from the ultraviolet uh Rays so I contacted several uh contractors and you get different answers from every contractor some contractors say you don't need a permit is the price go and do it so with my sensibility I says uh sounds a little bit too funny so I called the township and they told me you need a permit so I uh hired a contractor and he gave me the same type of answer just put it up so I called the township and they said no you have to file a permit so I gave the contractor a down deposit and then the contractor came back he came out he gave me a price he took the measurements and he filed for a permit and then there was a question of the rear that you needed 50 feet from the end of the aluminum awning which I did not have I have approximately 41.5 ft so that's why I'm here to get and see if the uh Council adjourn a uh approval of the variant C for the rear of the yard okay thank you Mr Harris Mr Holan uh thank you chairman um yes so the applicant is here seeking a single C variance for the yard setback for the overhang um kind of how these are written in the ordinances although it's some may not see it as an addition to the home because the roof is attached to the home it it's treated as an addition as to where it has to comply with the setbacks of the principal dwelling um being in the R20 Zone that requires a 50ft setback um where the applicant proposes a 40ft setback um so he's just 10 ft deficient in that rear yard um so just a single C variance the front porch in the front yard um complies with all setbacks um and doesn't require any further variances um I just have one question for Mr this is an open structure on all sides right it won't be enclosed that is correct that's for the front and the rear okay it will be open okay that's all chairman thank you um you picked 16 foot for a reason I'm assuming right is that where the sun favers oh okay and I want to put a picnic table out there so have family over so nobody would be uh on top of one or another enjoy it okay that makes perfect sense um and the same in the front Al although you don't need a variants for the front the front I just want to line up with the roof of the garage so it looks so it's going to look like everybody else's overhang in the front but my house did not come with an overhang so match it tell I will tell you on the record but off the Record you're not the first person that's actually appeared before me on this board and some other people with a similar uh requ quest uh due to uh skin cancer and they wanted to put a a roof to protect it was a uh a woman uh to protect her from from sunlight so it's it's a bright thing that you've done uh hopefully and mitigates your uh malady yeah so thank you I wish you luck again we have to take a vote first yes of course we'll see uh anything you want to tell us anything extra right now you want to to us no Mr Clancy you have anything uh I guess my only question would be in order to make this uh let's say you wanted to make this compliant you'd have to shorten the awning by about 10 feet and if you wanted it to cover all your pavers you'd want end up having to rip up about 10t of pavers yes yes it's a it's a bit of a hardship correct yeah they they uh contractor said that I said then well then you know it doesn't look right makes sense look right okay thank you so again we're looking at a hardship here then C1 it sounds like yeah right I'm going to go to the public on this matter this is uh 10 s in court uh number is 5-22 4z for an aluminum overhang in the rear yard anyone uh have comments on it or want to be heard in this matter no one has I'll close the public portion board members uh anyone you find any comments sir uh no just thank you for the board we thank you for appearing before the board uh absent any questions uh or comments I would ask someone they would be in favor of moving the C1 variants Andrew move it is there a second is mov in second roll call please miss Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss testy yes chairman Sullivan yes I wish you good luck uh with with the project and with the sir I have one more sure can i p a contractor so he could begin work or I have to receive a letter Mr holan's going to advise you so at the next meeting similar to what we did in the beginning the board will um take a vote to Memorial your resolution once that memorialization is done Moren will get that resolution signed for you have you come pick it up once you have that resolution in your hand go back to the building department submit to them copies of that resolution so that I can re-review the application based on the board's recommendation okay thank you very much next meeting is in like two weeks yeah so thank you y thank you sir good luck do we yeah let's uh we'll take a quick recess I don't I don't know if the attorney for the applicant is uh here yet did all let's just take a quick recess please e e e e e e e e all right we're back from Recess uh the next matter on our agenda this evening 9- 2024 z uh NVR Inc uh doing business this is Ryan Holmes this is a low medium density residential R 20 it's block 5,000 lot 20 for Farm Road deck expansion this is amended preliminary final site plan with C variances B mg govern is representing the applicant let me just read something in on also on the agenda applicant seeks to increase the size of the previously approved decks all homes within the previously approved major site plan and subdivision the approved decks are 8 by 10 uh and the proposed decks are 10 by 20.5 feet Additionally the applicant seeks a bulk variance to permit maximum perious coverage to exceed 55% on all three lots with the maximum coverage of 58.3% applicant also seeks to build uh seeks a bulk variance for the sidey setback requirement for the proposed text Mr M thank you good evening yes my name is Bob mcau I'm here representing NVR um this is is uh you know we spent uh many months and hours before the board in getting the project approved uh and now that the project is underway uh planning has met reality and the reality that it has met is that there seems to be a stronger preference for the smaller units than the larger ones but the preference is for the larger decks not the smaller decks so uh in order to be able able to give the uh the buyers and homeowners uh the greatest ability to maximize the use of their back home backyard and their and the back of their home um and so that we can avoid what the board I'm sure has seen over the years where the Builder builds the deck and then the homeowners come in and they say you know maybe they don't have a deck or they want a deck and now it's it's a variance and you got a mess of individual variances we want to create the situation where they will have the ability to have the size deck that they the maximum size deck that fits that works and gives a maximum enjoyment of the property so we have the smaller decks on the smaller units even the decks on the larger units do not go to the side yard necessary to don't forget this is a zero lot line which causes a good part of the variances that we're seeking if this was not a zero lot line development we wouldn't have that variance to go to the zero lot line so we're asking in that we be able to have the decks go to the zero lot line as the houses do so the deck can go straight out from the house and that it can be larger in the back to maximize the use of the backyard and with that I can have the engineer come up and begin to explain now let me say one other thing the plans that we've submitted were basically submitted to give the board an understanding of the different size units and the different size decks but we are asking tonight for variances is to allow the larger decks to be on all of the units uh if the homeowners select that and would like to have that uh and then there are three lots that we need additional variances for and perhaps some setback variances but we've spoken about that our engineer is here Michael would you introduce yourself give your credentials be good evening my name is Michael waslaski I'm a professional license engineer in the state of New Jersey uh my license is current and in good standing I've provided testimony in front of lus boards throughout the state but I don't believe this board look St mrki can swear them in right just raise your right hand you solemly swear any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth I do okay can you just um spell your name for me certainly it's w s l o I'm sorry I missed the start of that apologize w s e l o ski s AI ski ski got it sorry about that I think my voice and the mic do well together it's all right all right so I'll turn over to my exhibit here this is our why don't you take the portable if you're gonna sorry because you won't be on on mic I assume that's on testing all right this is our deck variance plan that was submitted with the application same plan that you see see on the screen uh quickly to orient you Po from Road oriented to a South out a project on the right side of the plan and so as you heard Mr mcgaan speak to in his introduction the project is requiring or requesting several variances first we have the uh side yard setback to the zero lot line or the party wall line if you will that we're requesting it on all Lots on the basis of as you heard Mr McAn say again the prospective buyers have shown a desire for the larger 10 by 20 10 x 20.5 decks excuse me so despite the fact that this plan shows a few different deck sizes we are requesting that zero side yard setback on each lot uh next we have a few instances of rear yard setback first in the approximate center of the plan here we have on Lot 23 24 and 20 25 and 26 the deck as it's shown in the plan encroaches over the 20 foot rear yard setback we also have on the other side of Lucy drive three areas where the last couple steps encroach over the rear yard setback and finally we have the requested variants for impervious coverage that occurs on Lots 23 24 and 25 whereas uh 55 excuse me 55% was approved with the prior site plan application and 45% is required these lots are have been increased to 58.3% as a result of the proposed deck increase size Mr MCG that includ concl includes my direct testimony if you have anything further for me I have no questions but certainly if the board has any questions just one question first of all is that we going to mark that exhibit or has it previously been marked what are we refer we should Mark it for this is A1 appropriate A1 yes uh what's what does it say on it site plan this is the deck variance plan it's the same plan that was submitted thank you and before I go to the professional our professional there's going to be different side for different homes what there may be that's yes I mean they'll have an option but they they can't go beyond the dimensions that we're asking for which is 20 by and all homes will have a deck and all home well if they this is an option a deck is an option to begin with they have they have stairs and some have stairs even to a patio uh but the deck is an option that they would have to select okay Mr holl uh thank you chairman U yeah Mr M just to clarify because um not all the Lots show decks on this plant so you guys are requesting variant relief for decks on all the lots to give all the lots and option to build up to a 10 x 20 and a half deck I I agree that not all of the the not all of the Lots show that there are decks I believe that uh there was room to build decks on each of the Lots uh and I don't know if you can confirm that or not Mike but I believe that that was my understanding there was always room we sh what we did was show decks on the various units some smaller some larger and how they would look and what their size was but I don't think the intent was that if you wanted a deck you couldn't have one that's correct and I believe the only variance that would apply to the Lots here that aren't currently shown with the deck is that side yard setback to the zero lot line okay and I know you had said that they may require rear yard have backs um that 20t setback only applies to the principal building um so 10t is the required setback for the deck so I don't there's none that I see that would require rear yard setbacks I believe it's just side yard setbacks okay so you do view the decks as an accessory structure correct yes understood we had that discussion thank you Mr MC just pull that mic a little closer to you just yes I'm sorry dire there you go you got it thanks I see on Lot number 33 okay there a 10x10 patio there correct is there is the elevation that we couldn't put it you wouldn't put a deck there uh the reason there is because this building does not have a basement so it's a slab on grade design or it would just be a single step out to a patio as opposed to a slightly elevated deck so wouldn't the homeowner wouldn't want to alter that well they'd have to step up to the deck is what I believe you know so the thought is that' be happier with the patio it's like a walk out or put a put a bigger patio in or yes perhaps we could build a larger patio that's true but all correct yes that was our understanding from the original approval even though they weren't shown yeah on some of them they're not right that's correct but there was space in which to accommodate a deck certainly look not a large deck necessarily yeah it would look like there's plent space for instance lot uh 11 yes 9 11 uh that would be in the one the two unit twin building right on Lucy Lucy yeah Lucy and Lola would be as you look at the plan to the right the first one on the corner lot 11 here the corner lot I'm sorry lot I'm looking at the street number looks like 11 and nine right is that housing number those are house numbers yes uh I don't see the lot number on here so those would be lots five and six Lots five and six I see it now okay there's none there right there's no deck shown on this plan no is there room for them yes there would be room again with the exception of we would still require the zero side yard setback to the zero L line okay now on four and three and four right next to it there's decks correct so why is there not on the other one in this case anything that you see here without a deck is one of the affordable units that does not have a basement so we go to that same scenario where those are slab line grade buildings with a single step out to grade as opposed to an elevated deck from an elevated doorway it's like it's like a walk out whereas the other ones are a little bit higher up exactly these ones are actually at grade yes so it wouldn't make sense to put a deck on correct right I think I understand that okay why would there why would there be no patios on those think the Envision here was that that this The Landing requirement is provided for Access and should the homeowner decide to want a patio each lot was designed the project was designed to accommodate full impervious coverage for each lot so there would be no reason that the homeowner then would need to return to the board same thing with lot two and one also two I'm curious why one got a patio and none of the other ones did why wouldn't you just put a patio at if it's said grade you put a p you're back to this building here at the end of the the cuac well we could start with that yeah sure think this this was designed here as such to make the affordable units as affordable as possible should the homeowners wish to put in a patio that's an add-on item is my understanding I think the Builder should put that on automatically with the patio why would you want the houses looking differently well you know that was that was a lengthy process of course when when we started the proposal we were talking about multif family uh to satisfy the COA uh Vena was a Vigilant uh advocate of affordable housing she wanted to make sure that uh as you drove through the community you would find it very difficult to tell which was affordable and which wasn't and and we all agreed with that and and she certainly deserves a lot of credit for having stood so firmly on that um in the answer to your question however you you can't as you drive past you're not going to be able to see the paos in the back what the Builder is trying to do is to certainly satisfy the requirements that were agreed to but the cost of building houses that are market rate units but are going to be sold as affordable units is you know fairly substantial and and there's seven units in a relatively small project uh that have to be affordable and which we are building is Affordable but the cost of that is pretty substantial I don't think it's that costly to put a slab in well I understand but they as he said the reason to slab is there's no basement you know one of the things there was that again from the outside it looks the same but at least the the cost to deliver it uh although more than it would have been if we could have done you know any kind of 4unit multifamilies uh none nonetheless uh we tried to accomplish some economies and still satisfy the requirements well not have I I can't see is there a slider for a walk out the back I don't know the unit well enough we have a representative Ryan Holmes here there is a door in the back so let's give him a patio if you give him some I think you should be uh uniformed in in your in your uh build obviously that's beyond my pay grade so oh mine too but with us tonight is Ken Mills from Ryan Holmes yeah just place the M there you go can you raise your right hand for me do you solemnly swear any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth I do and just state your name for the record can Mills m i l LS correct thank you sir in your position with Ryan Holmes I am their land development manager Ken can we give him a patio well there's a number of thoughts here um with the affordable housing units being slapped there's not as much of a ground opportunity for that patio to occur just make sure that yeah that's it's very direct so I think this is one of the cases where the 3X3 step out out of the door is the most appropriate for us to provide for them for them to move in and then make whatever adjustments or alterations they want to do the same way where each of the market rates some of them may not have a deck as well if the customer chooses not to so I don't know that I want to tell someone who comes in for the affordable home that it might cost a little bit more just because they are being told they have to have a patio that they may not even want maybe maybe they do want to put in something that takes advantage of the Contours of the particular lot and maybe there's something of a retaining wall or some flower beds or something else that might make that look a little bit more attractive so why did it look so good on lot uh 19 to put a 10 x10 patio on 19 I think it is yeah 19 is a market rate and that that is a a raised deck there um rais deck I don't think it is you know that it's just 10 by1 ptio we looking at the same one maybe not which is right at the corner of Lucy and lo no it's down at the end of the Bubble at the uh end of the C se he referencing a 33 oh 819 house 33 there you go keep going yep that's the one all right okay that is a that is a market rate attached to an affordable home same grade not no the market rate's going to be no no no talking about level the land the level same level the the the land yes the land will be the same but the the Lots the homes themselves will be slightly different so I get one in 33 if I buy it but the guy next door 31 doesn't get one well remember you have the option right you have the option to purchase fully understand okay well the the the customer that chooses to buy it the next door could do that they they they can if if that's something that well you put it on is no I am the only I I was there I just saw the one building and the land looks great I'm kudos to the way you've developed so far but you chose to put one on here but you chose not to put one next door and I don't that's not sold either none of them are sold right right I I think the chairman is is interested in seeing theable people get a patio if they would like one at least and and not have to upcharge them for it we got seven units though that have to be addressed that way why don't I let's see if uh the flavor of the rest of the board here where they stand on my left uh Mr Rizo any comments as to these well yeah well some continuity here I mean so lot number 20 versus Lot 19 Lot 19 has a 10x10 patio with a smaller yard if I was to read this correctly lot 20 home number 31 has a longer yard with a smaller little Landing to me it's backwards like he's got the room on on lot 20 to be bigger Mr Stoner any comment can the microphone I didn't think I needed one but uh can the funds be put aside in other words if the buyer then decides he does want that and then you would provide that for them well I would defer to our planner to find out how that fits with the uhak laws there might be something that we can do that there might be a way to do that so instead of them wanting to have a garden like you suggested they turn they want to have a patio but they don't want them to pay they want you to pay for it right can that be done I again I need to defer on that that that might be a litigious question that I'm not capable of answering that okay thank you but yes can I ask another question go right ahead if if the home doesn't have the larger deck it's becoming a a privilege of the buyer to make that decision is the buyer have to come before us to get approved for that our goal was to make each lot have the opportunity for the largest deck possible so that if someone comes and wants a smaller one we build that and then if later in few years they'd say hey you know what I kind of want that bigger deck they don't have to come in front of you they can just get a permit and build it so we're kind of taking the sins of the whole site okay and asking really only going to be a little bit of relief in the overall scheme of the package however I think that to save you from doing this 34 times that's all that's that's really what the purpose the reason they came is to get that done so they don't have to worry about setbacks so if we grant that relief they can uh go up to I guess you're going uh 18 uh 20 uh 10 by 20.5 yes rather than having 10 by 10 or something smaller that too would be permissive up to up two correct yes sir cuz I saw there's a 14 by 14 in there that's an irregular right and each one uh so yeah and then we would right and no uniformity it could be right you well like in any neighborhood you could have a bigger yeah and sometimes that build and then some may have step decks and some may put a patio below the deck and give the opportunity to make it unique and and of course they're they want to ex uh expand the impervious coverage up to 58 from 55 Max so just keep that in mind on the three lots yeah just and yeah and that may not even be needed if the smaller homes sold there again this is a worst case scenario I understand yes sir when did Ryan Holmes take over on this almost from the beginning in other words once it was approved Ryan was already in contract to be the Builder okay so I didn't see that until I went okay it's been a couple years uh so so you like the idea of uh putting the patios where they need to be excuse me do you like the idea of putting the patios where they should be if my neighbor has one I think I should have one too what if the wait wait if the neighbor doesn't have one do we still have to well in this case he does 19 has one he's got 10 X1 I step out my back door if I by number 31 and I step on a 3X3 that's a if can can we agree to a 10 by10 for for all the um affordables would that be and and that again that allows room for other stuff back there but 10 x 10 is a is what's shown here for instance on that one lot you're being picked up a number 33 um you would do do 10 x 10 for the affordables as well again I want to make sure that as long as we're not having any right I don't want to conflict with other laws if you'd like I'll keep I'll keep us in session you can step outside I'll give you a couple minutes I I don't know the answer to that I I don't do enough in well I I would like you to get no no I know and I'm not trying to get away from that question is there any problem with giving probably yeah why don't you come up y you saw me SAR any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth yes I do okay just have a seat and thank you make sure the microphone's right in front of you picked you up what's your name please good evening it's Christine nazaro n a zz a r o cfone c f o NE e business address is 125 Half Mile Road Sweet 200 Red Bank New Jersey is very familiar with Miss cun she just appeared before meeting or two meetings ago yes obviously we accept her yes and I'm also a court appointed affordable housing special master so if I can understand the chair Mr Chairman's question it is can you require uh NVR to put the patio on the seven affordable housing units is that that's your ask is that is that permissible so I would say that that I know it's permissible is it permissible or you know the to require it though now what you're doing is you have a situation where you are requiring them to do something on the affordable units suggesting that they're not doing on the market rate units so if the goal of that is uniformity we're not really achieving our goal because there's no guarantee that those Market rates are going to exercise the option to spend the extra money to have the deck so if that's our goal the other thing I would tell you is that I struggle a little bit as a court appointed master and I serve as a master in about three dozen communities a special master so what that means is I sit and I help mediate the these plans all the time it's it to me strikes to start to run a little bit of cost generative unnecessarily cost generative when we're requiring to do things for the Mount Laurel units that we're not doing for the market units so I I as a special Master don't have a problem with leaving it as an option my understanding is that the whole motivation of this application was to give the prospective residents of this project the option to have deck a varying sizes that suit their lifestyle and needs so we're not the reason we're coming asking for a blanket variance is we can't tell you what all these we can only tell you what we're sort of seeing in the marketplace and we're trying to get enough flexibility to respond to that so that these 34 homeowners don't have to come back to you if they do want a little bit bigger of a deck because of the interesting way that these lots are set up with zero lot lines right the existing structures the the pro the property is right on the lot line unlike a traditional single family home we're where why you're here right so you don't have to waste your time on that one so that's that's my opinion on it I think if if I were making a recommendation and I were the master making a recommendation on this project and we were back before we had our housing plan I would make the recommendation that if they're optional on the market rates they should be optional on the Mount Laurel units as well you testifying tonight as a planner right not as not as a master not as a master right I'm here ton I just wanted to make sure we had the difference yes I'm here as as a planner okay we thank you for your comments you're welcome should I do some testimony on the variances or that's what I'm here for so we have to give the planning testimony is there by all means questions on that okay so statutorily I think the board can grant this variance relief under the C1 and C2 criteria I read the resolution and reviewed that of the original application when this use variance was granted I was not the Planner on that that was Dave Roberts but what he testified to was that he believed that the variance relief Advanced criteria a promoting the general welfare um as is an inclusionary project criteria G having sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses um given the fact that this was an irregular triangular lot but we were still able to develop it um providing proper access and the layout was um efficient and then also criteria I a uh creative development techniques a desirable environment and creative development design techniques statutorily the the board only has to find that one or more purposes of the land use law is Advanced to Grant the application those three were cited on the original use variants I believe they're still appropriate to be contemplated by the board and I certainly think that the variances can be granted with no substantial detriment to the public good or the Zone plan in my opinion they allow the prospective residents of this project to um maximize the usable yard areas which is certainly um a noble zoning goal and I think that this variance relief can be granted with no substantial detriment to the public goter Zone plan any comments Mr holl the only kind of concern I think is what if speaking generally just on the market rate units for now because how well first of all what's the do you know the elevation of these decks I would have to defer to Michael on thatal Fe okay so if one of the units opted to have one of the ra decks and one of them opted to not have the raised decks um there could potentially be some privacy concerns there or even if they're both raised decks and you know they're but up against each other they're potentially I just maybe seem more of a concern if one unit were to opt for it and one unit would opt out of it do that that's really only the only comment I have I think they could do that today though that that would be an option this is just really about the size of the decks I think that that is how the project was approved I got the impression and perhaps I'm wrong that for instance the building you have sitting there right now if you put the deck on the back side obviously would go would you not just put a privacy wall right in between we will we will we have on our that's what I thought proposed plans to place a privacy that's approximately 6 tall yeah yes which is normal to to see yes yes it is okay anything else Mr holler uh no chairman M Andrew you had a comment yeah just please correct me if I'm wrong this is how I understand it they're buying a house if someone wants a deck or a patio that's an option everyone is not getting a deck everybody's not getting a patio that's exactly right so it doesn't make any difference whether it goes with the affordable units or not uh they aren't going to be um overlooked simply because somebody does decide to have a deck correct if I decide to have a swimming pool in my house and The Neighbor Next doores doesn't have one it doesn't mean that everybody has to have a swimming pool so what we're voting on basically is you want a broad spectrum for the uh approval if and when they want to have a deck if they don't have it and someone sells it does that still stay in effect for the new owner so that's it's just the the the renderings on here of a deck are just for the purpose of a rendering correct nothing to do with this one's getting a deck that one's not getting a deck understand okay thank you yes this is this is the prevent the future as the community grows and becomes esta spot on you understand exactly as we're proposing it thank you you're welcome getting back to Lot 19 you you're placing a 10 by10 patio there right you are I I have you have it on the plans I'm asking you are you or are you not that's an option that we can do again I we would like or that home is not fit to have a deck is what you're say correct because it's a walk it's a walk out that is correct yeah it's ground level got it but again all of the decks and even the patios are there for demonstration of what it would look like not not because it's definitely going to be built you have a question I was I had a question earlier about if there's no patio and then the buyer wants a patio that cost is up to who in other words the Builder is offering that as an option they're going to offer I think two or three different size decks so when I come in to buy the house and there's no patio you will then say to me do you want a patio we'll put that in for you almost all of these houses are going to be built after they already have a contract in place the contract the the sales Act activity has been good uh but Brian Holmes uh the chairman asked before you know when Ryan Holmes take over and the cost of the patio will be from the Builder well what I want to explain is that the de that uh the original developer still owns the property Ryan Holmes takes down the Lots two three you know two they're duplexes so they got to take down at least two at a time but they take down maybe four or six at most and then the original Developers still owns the rest of the lots and Ryan Holmes doesn't take them down until they have a contract to purchase those homes or they're confident that by the time they get fairly along under construction that they will have a contract during the contract period is when the buyer selects their options both interior and exterior so they will not be buying the house and then having to add a deck later they'll know whether they're going to have a deck or a patio or stairs or whatever they're going to have okay thank you build out would not would not occur until they're all bought that is correct that is correct that's the Ryan holes system go ahead no that's I have nothing further Mr Clancy anything I'm just looking at the at what variances are actually being requested um it looks like we need if it's just for the deck I think it's just a it would be a minimum ex uh accessory side yard is that is that your understanding of this right yes yep which I don't see in the original approval I see minimum side yard setback of zero obviously they're duplexes I I believe when they got the original approval um those 10x Texs were the 10 X1 decks were conforming correct I I want to say yes I believe we showed them all as the one style deck that was more than the side yard setback dist mhm correct because I think those decks are situated more in the middle of the unit that's correct yeah they they honor the side side yard setback okay so I think the correct application the correct request is for zero setback on a minimum on a minimum side setback on an accessory structure correct correct plus the lot coverage variance on the three lots where we are proposing 58.3 I believe where 55 was approved we have just three lots that we show a maximum buildout um do you have the actual lot numbers just if you'd be so kind to read them believe it is L 25 L 20 oh the 23 and 21 correct 25 23 21 oh the lot number I'm sorry yeah I know the house numbers are on there kind of really you have those numbers one off are you kidding me Lot 23 so strike that it's Lot 23 Lot 24 and lot 25 got it thank you all right and that's for 58.3% where 55 had previously been um pered yes and that's maximum impervious correct okay is that your calculation of the impervious coverage with those decks on those lots the 23 largest de okay so should that applicant want and that's with the largest Deck with the 20 by 10 okay so should they want to add a patio something later in the future they potentially would have to come back to the board if they go beyond the deck yes okay that sold that's the With That Big Deck okay they would be Max and then all of the other Lots um remind me what was the approval for lot coverage with the original and all the other Lots 55 okay that's it chairman one more question so the patio and the decks they're considered upgrades like you go into your kitchen you want a cabinet this I want that cabinet and you pay for that that is so I I I want a deck so I have to pay for that I want a patio so I have to pay for that so you're not providing that on your build we're we're providing that as an option as you were saying you go into a kitchen this is the standard if you'd like this higher level you can have that or you can have the maximum level but most homes have a patio and a little concrete patio back there well yeah they have a landing pad really they have stair if if there's an elevation difference they have stairs to a landing pad which is like 3x3 something like that you can't just walk into the mud but you know you don't really have a usable space so if they choose not to exercise their option to upgrade and get a patio or a deck then they will have a little 3x3 Landing out there so everybody will have that regardless of if they choose to exercise their option to purchase an upgrade for a Decker patio well they have to have that it's the way to get out of the house right uh will will a uh a unit be built only when both uh sides of the duplex are sold that's correct so I have to wait if I want one I go to wait to the next person next to me that's correct that's all right option only then is what that's what you're telling me chairman if I can just make one more comment yeah um typically like developments like these where there's that whole bulk schedule um we typically don't usually every lot will fall under the same bulk criteria right like going back to the lot coverage right if you guys are requesting 58.3 for only three of the Lots it may be beneficial if the board would consider should they grant that variant grant that to every single one of the Lots you know that way it should someone exceed that limit but keep it under the 58.3 they wouldn't have to return to the board and you know if we're granting it for three to make it more uniform across the whole development you know maybe that's something that the board may consider thought that was the purpose of it I didn't know it was limited to three perhaps I read wrong but uh I thought well we I know it's going to only affect that but so you don't have the problem with the people coming back in I would suggest that's an excellent suggestion we we only saw the problem in three but sure to make it uniform and easy that's the whole purpose for this so aren't coming back here yep correct absolutely all right so the affordable housing uh units are going to be treated it the exact same as the regular uh market value sales correct correct all right what is the maximum impervious that's under the ordinance 45 I think yeah in the R20 Z it's 45 there was a previous approval for 55 correct is a slight increase y yeah you have no further Witnesses right no uh let me go to my left again we'll go questions for the planner none none good ladies good on this side and Mr Clancy no I'm good thank you thank you uh why don't I go to public portion see have any comments right that's okay with you sure please thank you 92024 Z location is Port Farm Road this is uh minut preliminary final site p c variances regarding U maximum lot coverage and decks anybody want to be heard in this matter please raise your hand uh lady in white would you come forward first and then I have two others and I'll get to all of you uh yeah if you could lower that a little take thank you for the help I appreciate that perfect thank you thank you and just state your name Deborah Marquez and board attorney will swear you in you solemnly swear any testimony you provide before the board will be the truth and the whole truth I do thank you how do you spell Marquez m a r q EZ thank you hi I live at 37 Brewster Circle and I am the homeowner association president for the Meadowlands at Oldbridge you you've appeared before us on on matter this application absolutely I recognize you I kind of you know know what's going on but you know a lot of this I'm going to tell you the truth is Greek to me because I'm not an engineer I do know a lot of people are upset this is literally in our backyard especially I look out my window I see everything and I'm worried about our privacy I mean it's already this whole development has been so evasive thousands of trees knocked down I couldn't sit outside last year in my backyard and I'm not exaggerating the dust the dirt it's it's been terrible my car so all over it all the time but now I'm worried about what they want to do with these decks how high I know you were talking about privacy among them what about the privacy of all the people directly behind this and I mean 30t is nothing it's nothing I'm I look out my window I see everything that's going on and I have a fence in everything so I I'm really concerned and I'm I'm I'm here representing all the people of of Oldbridge of Brewster Circle and what's you know how high are these decks going to be and how it it's going to affect our life and our privacy you know they're talking about perspective buyers well we are taxpayers we already live here you know and and I I really do respect you guys a lot for all the decisions you have to make all the time these technical decisions what's right what's wrong but I just want you to really consider how this impacts our life I can just the traffic the street isn't even wide enough I'm going to tell you the truth there's going to be an accident engine ing really needs to come in and ask some of the homeowners if they will sell their land because you can't even get up and down Poor Farm Road never mind when all those homes come in and children playing you know I'm all for all for growth and all that but not when it directly impacts our life negatively and it really does have a negative impact on our life so I really wish you would consider you know uh I think every homeowner um you know they pretending that they're they're here for your interest so that homeowners don't have to come with variances I don't I don't buy that their interest is selling the homes and the bottom line is making a profit here that's that's what they interest is they're not interested in oh people coming listen I didn't put a deck on my property till like 10 years later so not everybody has the means to do that right away you know so let people decide what they want for themselves but my main concern is how high are these decks going to be and how how far are they going to be close to Brewster Circle because we're right there they put up a little fence and we're right there we're right there so that's what I want to know how far their backyard is going to be close to us you know and and it really does affect us in our everyday life so if you know if you guys could really help us out and really think this through we would really appreciate it that that's all I'm going to say I'll make a couple quick comments I don't know if they're going to be beneficial to you but obviously this is a uh build that has been approved absolutely I know that we know that's that's going to I know that but now why can't they follow what's been regulated to them already why do they need more variances that's what I'm saying the deck level would be at the level where there would be an exit from the home if you have a deck on your home it's probably on your first floor level that would be the level it's not going to be up high I would i' never heard of anybody putting a deck on the second floor but that's not what I don't think they're talking about uh from from the plan all they're doing is trying to make the decks looked uniformed probably on the duplexes uh with with a courtesy kind of panel in between so that's not going to change anything from what they really did what was approved you cous coverage what you're talking about is it's the amount of area that can be covered by ordinance okay so we're talking in percentages you're talking 3% it's kind of what they call Di Minimus it's not really a large amount they were already approved at 55 they want to go to 58 so for for you and I we wouldn't notice the difference right professionals would notice the difference okay and by ordinance they have to come here of course those decks were going to be there whether they were they're going to they were 8 by 10 M 10 by 20 well yeah personally I think for vision I think you'd rather if you were going to see it at all you'd probably want to see something uniform that was what one of the questions I was asking before that things looked uniform absolutely I like your questions so I I did go by just the other day and I and and I did travel through uh jcpnl was in there for some Purpose with a truck up on the up on the bubble uh and um I mean it it it looks exactly what like they said what they were going to do yeah um I I'm going to tell you the truth I'm upset that I was hoping this would be done by the summer you know that now wait economy driven I know but we have to wait for each unit to be sold in order because this impacts our life the noise the banging the dirt you know it really does it really does quicker the quicker gets done absolutely everyone can get back to some normal abely you know at least we know what's there then you know but uh the board always has has in its mind the effects of any build on neighboring uh properties that's why they're forced to put proofs on the record and resolutions are written so they have to comply with them M Kon spoke uh uh at length uh here tonight concerning issues that have to happen issues that are permissive versus uh uh mandatory and she's 100% right she's a specialist in her field and she's a very well-known player throughout this state uh I was just trying to look for some uniformity for for the neighborhood you're going to see some of the rear builds but I depending on where you live on Brewster you may see nothing no I'm going to see it defin okay I don't know personally where you live but I'm just saying some will some won but all builds are economy-driven and uh yes they don't do this not to make a profit that's the society we live in if we want a home we have to to pay for it uh they're not giv away free I guarantee you they would like to sell all of them tomorrow and have them built by next week would I be right amen okay and everybody knows that unfortunately that's not reality in life yeah I feel for you but I don't know if you were there first or how about this the a build across the street from you uh just up from you a little that that VI SE yeah they were there first I they came first and you came I bet you they were made at you guys too probably probably and I know and it is it's not it's it's not right I I I I fully understand it but uh this was an approved application right now they're not that I know they're really not asking for anything more than what they were M concern was I didn't know how high they were going to be and in actuality no nothing has changed on that okay and no a deck would just look like any normal deck that someone would put on the back of their home all right so don't be alarmed by that the height isn't going to change anything okay so yeah that I was concerned I didn't want people to be looking over our fence we think about that all the time every member of this board particularly when homes are close together where's the Privacy left right we understand that but again this has been an approved uh application they're actually trying to help the future homeowners by not having to come back here before this board oh I I get they have a little tiny deck and all of a sudden I have four people over and I can't stand there I wish I could have had another 10t well this is to alleviate that that's why they're here before for the board so it's a one trip that the Builder is doing versus having the homeowners come back here uh 24 times okay thank you and we appreciate your comment and we're thoughtful of all of our neighbors here and all of our residents at all times I hope so thank you we are ma'am thank you sir you're next once again you probably have to lift that microphone up a little bit can you hear me uh just turn yeah it's got to come there you go all right uh could you just raise your right hand please do you Solly swear any testimony you provide before this board will be the truth and the whole truth yeah okay put your hand down just state your name for the record please uh Gregory WLAN Gregory yep and what was the last name WLAN r i g g l e m thank you um I oppose the bu making the buildings any bigger um closer there yeah thanks it's very directional you almost yeah speak right now thank you all right yeah I've come to OPP POS that making the buildings decks anything any bigger uh anybody who knows about Poor Farm Road uh it's always it all goes downhill so us on the other end of Brewster down on the other end of poor farm there has never been drainage there's no storm drains no nothing so now since they've cleared the land all the water does roll downhill I have never had water in my basement I have had never had anything now because all the water rolls downhill and it's not being stopped by them it's now making it bad on our end down here because there's so much water I've uh actually my wife sent the emails to the town I had the Town come out and look at the storm drains of the uh tension pond because uh it has nowhere to go and uh you know if you're building making the buildings and decks bigger there's nowhere you're taking away the uh the grass and everything else you're already clean the trees there there's nowhere for the water to absorb so now it's just going to make it worse on our end so you're saying that and I have hundreds of pictures time are you on Brewster as well no I'm on the opposite side of poor farm down by Cheesequake okay um so you're saying water's flowing towards Cheesequake Road yeah would you like to I could show you everything no I I don't I drive through there I I know it does pool down there not pool since they start it nothing pulls every time it rains it flows down the road and not even that without the silt fence and everything all the uh silt now has filled up the tension Pond and filled up the road so the road floods bad and uh so they told me actually during the engineer when I came down to the town they actually had someone come out and they said that that the tension Pond is actually on the higher end of the uh of the road so the water is not even G to the tension pond it's coming right down and I'll show you my my yard the two yards across the street are lakes and I'm talking I've never had water I've been there since 2002 and the house I bought was my wife's parents house and they never had water in in there and we've they've been here since I mean years since the 70s um I'm going to have somebody check into that because the detention Pond is built by spec okay and it's not supposed to be able to release the water there now I'm I'm in no way do I disagree that it's there because again I drive I Traverse that road and I have to drive slowly to go through water out there um you're saying it's a direct result of that I have uh like I said I've been there and we even put the addition on I've not I had a walk out like a walk out door for the basement I had the Town come out I've been approved I had everything for all this because of the fact I've never had water now it used to there's no storm drain by the tension pond so where the road goes in there's no way for the water to get down so first they cleared the pipeline um the property of pipeline that goes up Cheesequake right so now that side is all cre uh falling in now since this it just all it does is pull my aunt lives across the street and she's never had water in her yard um and I'll tell you the Lakes the wood the water in the woods itself goes above you can't even see like where the uh the leaves or anything like it it's above it at the end of that road and your comments are you're you're thinking that it's as a result of undermining that land yeah if you the more we build the more the build Builder the bigger the decks are there's nowhere for her to take the water it's going to make it worse the decks are raised so there's only but when you come when you're coming down and it's rain in the building it has to go somewhere it goes in the drains it goes in the storm drains it all goes somewhere well decks don't normally cause any kind of uh flooding issue um what soever even if they're only here for an extension of size not height and none of them are on ground level so I don't I've never heard of we make the buildings bigger where's the water buildings are not getting bigger making the deck twice the size well they had approvals on 10 by8 they're going to extend their linear they run right across shim on me for be prior did it's not I didn't know was going to happen they're not coming they already had that permission nothing is changing in the size of the building or the properties what they're asking for is relief from impervious coverage on three of the Lots because by extending a deck onto it's an accessory issue uh with sidey so you're putting more coverage on L on grass that would be otherwise impervious so that's all they're here for nothing else was changing except they wanted to extend the size of the deck so homeowners didn't have to come back before us to do that and the impervious coverage has gone from 55% to 58 which as I explained unless you're a builder you wouldn't know the difference and I wouldn't know the difference professionals know the at the same time we've been told that I will I will have someone looking I'm going to try and get to to someone to find out why that water's coming down there if it's a result of their project then they have to mitigate that if it's a result of something else they do not well they added drainage up there there's never they didn't look at the exterior area that the effect that that was going to have and now we have saying there's nowhere I'm not saying that it is or isn't I I I I'm not an engineer so I wouldn't know that but our engineering department would have to look at that to figure that out and I'm going to get that word to find out why this project is being built correct and that's my point was the Town Sent Me to the engineer and we still haven't had an answer but I I assure you and everybody else buildings are not getting taller they're not getting wider they're not getting smaller they're the exact same size that was approved by this board nothing is changing on them no additions no extras size of the decks that's it so they were still 10 wide they're just getting long uh against the rears of the homes if they if people chose choose to put one in it's totally optional I thought the homes were being built and coming with it I was wrong they built a spec and they're built uh one at a time I'm now I hear now would you like me to there like I mean you can you can certainly call the engineering department I have your name I did um we actually my wife's name is Janette she's emailed actually like I said went to the building they actually had me send and uh pictures like multiple dates everything of the river and everything I'm going to ask Dan to help me out because he is actually an employee of the township whereas we're just sit on if you're going to hang out after the meeting come see me I'll give you my business card and then you can call me in the morning all right appreciate it all right thank you for bringing to the board's attention thank you all right thank you lady in the back did you want to be heard no okay all right seeing no one else in the courtroom I'm going to close a public portion sure Mr chairman I just like to make one comment I agree with everything you say I thank you for your comments the only thing that I will correct a little bit is that some of the house may actually be smaller as I said we're finding a uh preference for the smaller uh unit style rather than the larger so that actually some of the footprints that we've shown and had approved uh May shrink so could shrink but they're not going to get bigger enough they're not going to get bigger and that's what we want him absolutely higher bigger and and the deck is if you make them smaller that's yeah yep that's up to you that's up to the build correct go ahead you have anything else Mr M I have nothing else to offer anyone has questions yeah uh let me the board sitting here um I think what we're going to look to do is keep the three lots at 58 okay all right only without doing a blanket throughout okay all right because we don't some them aren't even going to reach it yeah so if it only applies to the three lots we'll do as proposed uh on your application that's fine if there's an approval okay okay and then uh the Dex to a Max of uh 10 by 20 that is right yes any final questions I'd like to get a feel of the board before we call for a vote I'm going to ask Mr M if it's going to be a vote satisfied with all the information okay Mr Stoner satisfied good go ahead Dan I was just curious what with the grading of the property what be the highest deck like like just tell me how high it's going to be off the ground that I don't know I pose that question to the engineer um trying to count the see they said it's a slope so I'm just kind of curious is there an average of what it's going to be off the ground and what's the average of the first floors yeah I'm sorry you repeat what's the average of the fir height of the first floors first floor not the slabs home the the site has quite a bit of terrain to it yeah I know the homes that are along the bottom of the picture will have almost a four to five feet of elevation the other ones that are facing up the rear facing uphill be very very close to the first floor elevation so there won't be much there the one the two that are going to face the Basin they will have elevation also because of the Contour of how the the Basin works so answer the question I looked at lot one and usually if no elevation provided I will count the steps with typically 8 in risers um so it looks like lot one has nine steps that would make it approximately 6 feet tall offg grade is that accurate somewhere it 60 in but it might be a little higher there okay and the six lots that are what I don't know what lot numbers are facing the retaining wall that retaining wall stands over six feet tall also so there's a level of privacy for the The Neighbors which will allow for people to be on their rear decks without being seen or even probably not even heard from The Neighbors which are is helpful just just to point out that Brewster circle is higher than this development and all of the decks will be off the ground floor the first floor so there are no absolutely yes yeah absolutely am I right any U questions Miss test anything no Miss Andrews no she as the same question counselor no I think we've covered everything on okay you rest ask for a vote right please uh may I just interject I am sorry no go ahead you mentioned 10 by 20.5 Max what if a resident in the future did want to extend their deck or no they need a variance for that and they should they got to be happy well that's the biggest one we want to do chairman I could potentially that's on them that's on them absolutely I can potentially answer that question so should being that they're seeking approval for 10 by 20 and a half should an applicant propose something bigger at a later date as long as it complies with all the bulk standards that are approved the part of the application they wouldn't necessarily have to come back to the board um should one of them you know further encroach into the yard setback than the 10t that's allotted should they go over the lock coverage then they would have to possibly come back excellent yeah as long as the zero lot line is granted that cures a lot of the problems right and I don't I don't think that was I've been through I've been checking these previous resolutions while we've been sitting here and going through this I don't think the I don't just wasn't addressed or didn't make it make it in but the it's an accessory setback that's needed and it was never really captured so it kind of either way you need this it sounds like even with the the Decks that you had before you it looks like you might have been in the same boat because I don't I don't see one I don't see one in here so well the decks before didn't go to the zero lot line the decks before did not go to the Zer they did not no being extended now is what what brings that into contemplation yes okay that I I appreciate the clarification so we have a SE varant for zero zero foot setback and we have um also for uh the three lots the maximum impervious that's Lots 23 24 25 they they have 45 is what's permitted 55 has been the previous approval they're asking for um an increase up to 58.3 on those three lots and 23 24 and 25 right that's what we that's what we have um and I believe that's it correct we forgetting anything I don't think so thank you okay okay Christine did we forget anything I don't think well covered thank you okay so let's do the C and then we can amend amend it preliminary and final right yeah so as to the C is someone uh interested in moving it that would be for the coverage and the ma maximum coverage and the uh size uh upping the size of proposed decks to a Max of 10 by 20.5 scog now move it is there a second Andrew second moved in second roll call please as to the C Miss Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Mr Esty yes chairman Sullivan yes uh amended preliminary site plan someone going to move it oh CH I'll move it is there a second second Stoner roll call amended preliminary Miss Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Mr testy yes chairman Sullivan yes an amended uh final site plan once again CH will move it second Stoner R call please miss Andrews yes M Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scogna yes Mr Stoner yes M testy yes chairman Sullivan yes thank you Mr mcgau and your Professionals for being here tonight wish you luck thank you thank you speed up the build speed up the builds oh they're they're they're working on it okay I promise you that'll be that'll be best for you and best for the rest of the community thanks very much every sure man' let me is that in your wife yeah sure go ahead yeah that plan is on uh on the website you can find that Mrs Marquez yeah you can go on the you come in the office too if you want there you might sure Mr MC has one it's even better any question yeah no board members there's uh one person left in the public he sir you didn't wish to be heard on any other matter right I'm guessing not that's it okay all right so there is no public here we'll close that uh general public comment anything from the legal end no we'll have three resolutions for the next meeting thank you Moren anything next meeting is May second May 2 right yes okay next meeting of the board May 2nd 7:30 I hope to see everyone here having said that call for an adjournment someone want to move T Mr Sir second oh and okay all in favor I I any opposed We Stand adjourned thank you everybody that's usually the easiest e e