okay Jim you ready to begin I'm ready to begin sorry about that that's okay that's all right okay I'm GNA start this is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of the of adjustment being held electronically via zoom on February 28th 2024 at 7:30 p.m. pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the sunshine notice of the Princeton Zing Board of adjustment such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of this notice to the Princeton packet town topics the times Trentonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on February 23rd 2024 and has been posted to the municip ipal website www Princeton nj.gov meetings pursuant to the extension of the ongoing state of emergency by executive order number 292 in accordance with the emergency remote public meetings protocol for local bodies a to conduct a public meeting without physical attendance by members of the public notice that during this extension of the state of emergency all regular and special meetings of the Princeton zoning Board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April 20120 such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and order to be maintained throughout the year and by by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton pack town topics the times Trentonian Comcast media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex AIA can you call the rooll please yes Mr chairman um Miss Chen Miss Coulson Mr davich yes Mr Floy here Mr Shriver here Mr Tenon bomb here chairman Cohen here Mr Stein Miss Donna thank you okay uh the first thing we have is an administrative matter which is the end of the year report um put together by our zoning officer Mr Bridger um do you want to summarize it or do we just want to uh uh I mean it's it's pretty self-explanatory I was just going to suggest maybe you take a look at it if we can regroup next month if there's any issues or any uh discrepancies um we can address some but we'll we'll have a resolution next month for uh formal adoption of the okay report okay so we have minutes from three meetings although two are only listed on the agenda um what do we do Karen do we have to amend yes I understand from Claudia that the third set of minutes was circulated to the board uh we need a motion in a second to amend the agenda to add I believe it's the minutes for the October 23 2023 meeting is that correct October 25th 2523 okay so we need a motion and second and then a roll call vote that we can amend the agenda to add those minutes so moved second anyone second okay um Floria do you want to uh do we want to do yes yes yes Mr Floy yes Mrs Shriver yes Mr tenom yes chairman Coen yes thank you okay um I guess we can hear this one first we're going to approve minutes and the first minutes we just uh discussed amending the agenda four would be the meeting minutes of October 25th 2023 again they were circulated um if everybody's had the chance to review it and are comfortable with them if someone like to make a motion I'll move approval Floyd thank you second anyone second thank you Gloria Mr davich yes Mr Floy yes Mr Shriver yes chairman Coman yes thank you okay the next one the next uh set of minute notes is uh December 6 2023 once again this was in your packet um if it's okay if someone would like to make a motion I'll make a motion Floyd thank you second anyone sure second davage okay cloria Mr davage yes Mr Floy yes Mrs Shriver yes chairman Cohen yes thank you okay we have two resolutions to approve this evening again both were in your packet the first is case number Z 23-45 Mr chairman yes sorry there's one more set of minutes yeah the 12 13s thanks buddy what was that one 123 minut oh I'm sorry I'm sorry what I do that I thought I had I I oh I didn't do have it right here I'm sorry yes the the last set of minutes is uh December 133 2023 uh again uh if someone would like to make a motion if you're comfortable with it I do have a question on it sure yes um 20 London Lane yes um before the paragraph regarding the motion it says it was approved with conditions I thought we didn't approve the parking spot that was rejected I believe I think you're right that was correct we approved the garage but not the uh not the parking that's right good catch thank you much okay I will revise that okay um okay does someone want to make a motion for acceptance of these minutes with that thank Gloria Mr davage yes Mr Floy yes Mr Shriver yes chairman Cohen yes okay we have uh two resolutions our first is case z 23-45 110 Lee Avenue block 13.01 lot six in the R4 Zone in the Witherspoon Jackson historic district resolutions in your packet are there any corrections or modifications or an acceptance of this so moved thank you second average okay Mr davage over on that one you recused yourself Jim oh that oh Lee Avenue right yeah yeah all right we need another second another second I'll am I allowed to second on this one you are okay then I'll second good I recuse but I did appr I approved of the approval Mrs Scher yes Mr Teno yes chairman Cohen yes thank you okay our second and last resolution is number z21 d99 871 Mount Lucas road block 10001 Lot 4 in the o1 zone the resolution is in your packet and if it's been reviewed by you and someone would like to make a motion or any corrections that are necessary Mr davic and Mr Shriver and chairman Cohen are the only ones that can vote moved okay second okay cludia Mr davit yes Mr Shriver yes jman Cohen yes thank you okay we have two cases this evening the first is case Z24 d447 95 Jefferson Road Block 22.021 25 in the r3b zone Karen all the paperwork in order yes the noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight okay thank you um Mr Bridger would you like to summarize your memo on this yes sir Eric let me just swear you in for the evening do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you thank you good evening um great the applicants Andrew and francisa lifer leafer are the owners of 95 Jefferson Road and they are seeking a C2 variance toit construction of an attic expansion and except to the required smaller combined side yards setbacks and the height to setback ratio a first floor addition is proposed to the rear elevation of the home in exception to the required smaller and combined sidey yard setbacks as well property's located in the r3b zone in the former Princeton bur um the lot is non-complying with regard to the required 60 foot lot width the existing 50 feet um the existing house is not complying with respect to the required 8ft side yard setback the existing um is half a foot to the porch overhang um the combined side yard setback requirement is 20 and the existing is 7 and a half feet and that's again to the to the overhangs um the height to setback ratio on the right side is complying however on the left side uh the requirement is 3:1 and the existing is 7.94 to1 the applicants are seeking to renovate the existing house uh by expanding the attic and uh replacing the side facing Gable with a front-facing Gable at the lower uh at a lower roof pitch resulting in a higher ceiling to accommodate a master suite and there's a one-story Edition proposed in the rear which will encroach into the side yard setbacks the uh addition requires the following variances um the required smaller side yard setback is eight the proposed will be 4 feet 2 in to the roof edge of the addition and then the uh combined side yard setback is 20 and the proposed will be 11 feet2 to the roof Edge addition and the height to setback ratio um is still a variance however it does go down slightly um from the existing 7.94 to one and the proposed is 6.64 to1 and the requirement is 3: one and they' requested consideration under the C2 criteria um that's a brief synopsis of the case if you have any questions I'd be glad to address them Bo REM there any any questions of Mr Bridger thank you okay all right um hearing none uh who is going to present this for the applicant I I'd like to present it I'm my wife and I are the applicants very good Karen can you s them in I will is it Mr leafer or lifer which is correct lifer lifer alrighty Mr lifer do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you thank you to the board and the committee uh can everyone see um this uh slide here yes okay well thank you tonight uh we're here um in regard to the application for the variance for our house on 95 Jefferson Road um my wife and I are longtime residents here in Princeton this is a 26-year-old three-bedroom single family home um and uh our goals for this renovation were to increase the livable space with minimal increase to the home footprint to improve Energy Efficiency and to reduce our carbon footprint and so specifically we're going to be converting the attic up here um to uh and also this three Season room on the side into liable space and we're building this first floor Edition that Mr briders talked about in the back back um this will be a less than 300t addition then we're also doing a number of um Energy Efficiency upgrades we're installing new inst we're installing installation the current house doesn't have it uh new windows heat pumps and all electric appliances and we're reconfiguring the roof for solar panels which we'll talk about at any point uh members of the zoning board have any questions I'd be happy please just uh speak up and I'll do my best to answer them so as Mr Bridgers and the zoning office um pointed out these are the uh variance requests um and this is the using the metrics um that they've uh they've come up with in consultation with our architect based on the materials we've submitted um so by these metrics one of the points we want to make um in the presentation of the board is that if you compare the proposed to the existing the proposed is either the same or closer to compliance than the existing in on these axes that the zoning um office is um paying closest attention to um and I just want to walk you through those we'll just go through one at a time each one so the first one is the smaller sidey yard setback um so under existing uh the the measure they're using is uh this to the porch overhang that's this thing right here this is the property line and so there's a very small half foot distance for the existing structure to the um side door porch overhang uh I find it also helpful uh and maybe you will too to think about the the um distance from the property line to the roof Edge addition that's this distance here that's uh 4 feet and one and a half Ines um so that's the existing structure and then let me show you what's happening with the proposed um so uh okay still with the existing this is a top down view of the property and you can see um this is the house uh that side side porch would have gone here and the proposed addition is in the back back here um and it extends this existing wall back by 7 feet um and because it extends this existing wall back uh it has this 4ot 2 in um proposed smaller sidey yard set back this right side here is the smaller um side yard and we wanted to just make a couple quick points uh one is um that and we'll show you this in the next slide as well so so just to be clear this red area is the um proposed first floor addition it extends this sidewall 7 ft back we wanted to point out that um uh it actually doesn't extend as far as our neighbor um property uh our neighbor's house so this is the the neighbor's house here this is the corner of the neighbor's house and then this is their patio okay um and then I wanted to just provide a detailed view of the addition so if you just look at the first floor on the left you'll see what the existing um first floor looks like and on the right hand side you can see the proposed and you'll see this area shaded in here this is the new addition um and you'll see this is the the seven feet of extending the existing wall okay um the two points were that it extends at 7 feet and that the total additional footprint is less than 300 square feet and another point we just want to make clear is the addition is only on the first floor this is the addition in the back you're looking at the side this is the street over here okay all right I wanted to mention the com so the I mostly talked about the smaller sidey yard um because that's what primarily is contributing to the combined sidey yard um setback um if you have questions on that I'm happy to jump back to that um the the third row here is about the height to set back ratio um as Mr Bridger said it's required is 3 to one the existing setback ratio uh is shown here it's 7.94 to1 under the proposed Renovations that setback ratio increase uh it gets ever slightly closer to compliance uh with a setback ratio of 6.64 to1 although still out of compliance this is the the um would be compliant 3 to one we wanted to make two um points about this is that the uh um the reason this gets smaller is because this proposed roof Edge at the small side yard is is lower than the existing roof and actually the overall height of the house is decreasing just a little bit okay if there's questions about that all right so the key point points for the variance request is that you know the proposed changes are the same or closer to compliance than the existing structure um this is a modest would we consider a modest addition that's restricted only to the first floor the overall height of the home decreases proposed height to setback ratio in crues relative to existing and more broadly um we've tried to make the changes reflect the spirit of the zoning laws and I have just a couple more slides that talk more about um uh the zoning laws and how we think this fits into the spirit of the more broadly than these variances so one based on the material um we we've seen from the zoning board um one of the goals is to promote a desirable visual environment we've tried to do that um by working with a local architect who actually lives Three Doors Down and lives on the street and also is very invested in a um Pleasant visual environment and we think she's doing a great job um and uh also we've worked hard to promote conservation of resources and valuable natural resources um and we're I'll just talk very briefly how we're doing that but the the one of the biggest changes is we're um changing the roof so instead of um the roof that currently faces East West we're getting a Norths south facing roof to optimize solar energy and so there's going to be solar panels all here and by by making this side of the roof um larger than this side and by tilting it to the South um we can do a lot better job of capturing energy from the Sun and reduce our carbon footprint okay um another Point uh in towards this point of preserving natural resources both we and our neighbors really love this tree here and we have tried uh well and we have designed the entire addition to work around the tree to preserve uh the existing tree um and uh pointing out that the proposals are um the proposed Renovations um would add impervious coverage of less than 400 square feet in in agreement with the zoning board requirements that's all I prepared um I'm happy to take questions and discuss further um maybe did I forget anything to add all right well we want to thank the zoning board the department Claudia the staff everyone thank you Mr leaf we'll just mark this exhibit A1 all your slides collectively that will be your exhibit for tonight they've already been submitted to Claudia I know I know it has yes okay board members do you have any question of the applicant is this not in the historic district this is not in any historic district that I'm aware of I want to I congratulate you on your presentation because I thought it was terrific and I I like your the way you did it I and and I like what you're planning to do but I I can't help but be struck by the changes of the windows you're doing on the front of the house and I don't know your neighborhood well but I'm wondering does does that really fit into the neighborhood um uh I mean I would argue yes um but uh I can try to show I think it's slide 37 there here's a better an easier way of seeing the difference to the front of the house you can see what's here and here and uh you know um I mean as someone who lives on the house lives on the street I think it'll it'll fit well I think uh our architect who also lives on the street agrees um let me know if there's a better way to address no no I I think it's fine I've just raised the question because I don't know the street that well but if you all are convinced that it doesn't change this know I believe you I I believe you're architect but I I was struck by the by the kind of traditional view into is slightly more modern change it a little bit to reflect kind of the the year that we're now in with the construction versus when the house was built but also still being mindful of what the original house looked like trying to not make too many changes but your your point is well taken thank you no thank you okay any other comments from the board um I'll I'll just comment as as far as you know the the visual Improvement it'll take some getting used to for me and I do live close to the neighborhood but there's all types of houses mostly older houses but all different styles in the in that block so there's there's not a consistent look but you know the switch from the existing roof line to what's proposed is is what it is and I'm not sure it's an improvement visual residential lots and and and yeah um but you know our area is not to criticize style well any other comments Michael no okay my biggest concern is this is visually a three-story house now in an area that's that two and a half stories are allowed in and um I think it's in my my opinion it's out of character with the area I recognize that the overall roof height is lower but the visual impact that the front elevation has on the street is truly a three-story home um and I think it's personally I think it's out of proportion with other houses in the area I recognize that that you want to create living space up there and in my opinion and I again I am not the architect on the project in my opinion you probably could have worked somehow with the existing attic space with maybe some Dormers or something that would get you the extra air you desire without clearly making this a three-story house I would just oh sorry please continue no it's all right so that's my concern I just think that it's it's inconsistent with other houses in the area that's Jefferson's a beautiful block it has very nice very nice houses on it um and I think this one I think the personally I think the full third floor hurts the visual the visual impact on the street the windows I also agree with Stephen it's not our it's not our re well not our perview to really comment on them I mean we have no design criteria but I do agree with Stephen that they're they're inconsistent with other homes in the area and I think with the character of the house um but my biggest concern is that is the full third floor I think it's really uh I would just clear hang on one sec please um I just think it's awkward to be honest with you okay please speak um I wanted to just say point out maybe one thing that we haven't really highlighted um in response to what you just said which is the visual appearance of the third like two story versus three story house so one thing that our architect um specifically added to make it less like tall looking less of like a contiguous vertical wall um is this roof like small roof that you can see on the um yes try to so that yes um break up the house visually and make it look less tall and that would also offer that the house is significantly shorter than several other houses that are in in the immediate neighborhood like two houses down for example there's there's one house that is quite a bit taller than our house so even I understand your point but in in terms of the overall height that really is you know much much less than than some of the other houses that are on the same Block it's it's not so much the overall height that concerns me quite frankly and I saw the section of roof that sort of broke up broke up that front facade uh it's the it's it's the I I'll call it the bulk of the house visually when you look at it from the street and you look at other houses the sloping roof lines uh which slope back from the front of the properties or from the front of the home other homes on the Block breaks up the bulk of the building this one is a this one is a much higher facade which I think again I think it's inconsistent with the uh you know with other homes in the area and again as I said before I mean you're asking your asking for variance for the three Stories the full three stories and I'm just wondering whether it could have been done within the two and a half story context with the use of Dormers and uh to get you the space you want within that third floor I I recognize also it would have an impact on the solar panel if you have but I think that could be worked out as well sorry you is your architect going to testify tonight or are they available um they could be let me quickly check our architect is on the on the call line um so but one one additional maybe thing to not is I mean as you as you suggest as you said like you're completely right we could have stayed with the original orientation of the roof um there are houses exactly on our block that have the same new orientation where the house is facing the street so not all the houses have the roof you know away from the I don't know sure I I understand what you're saying yes so there are a number of houses that will have the same Ori roof orientation as the proposed um and we considered to keep and that was the original design to keep the the roof in the original orientation and you know use Dormers just like you s suggested but we realized that really that would not be optimal for the solar panels so that's was the main the main motivation to rotate so that we could face South instead of facing west and then increasing the area that was south facing and I can I can just to reiterate that I can speak to the technical aspects on the solar panels that by rotating the house to be Southern facing and making it asymmetric so that the southern facing slope roof is much larger you gain not insignificant I estimated it's over 30% uh increase for 40% um and uh yeah that was that's what I was going to say I had another point that I I forgot no I I understand what you're saying uh I'm concerned with this house relative to other houses on the Block and I think again as I said I I don't see the need for the full three story home and the variance required by it and uh I do recognize that the orientation of the roof affects the solar panels but again this is this is keeping the house within the existing character of the other houses in the neighborhood and I think that's important to other houses in the area and other property owners Mr leafer did you say you had your architect available you want that person to testify let me check um we weren't planning to uh our architect wasn't planning to testify uh so well that that's up to you but I'm just asking since this is your presentation at this point in the meeting if you want your architect then we should get them on the line for half a second I don't know I mean we're we're not sure yeah how to exactly address the concerns but because really our main our main motivation was you know the focus on the on the sustainability um while from our perspective you know being consistent and mindful of what the house will will look like um so this point about the Aesthetics um we didn't realize was was going to be so emphasized but I I made one other goad sorry I'll make one other other point about you know the concern about the house appearing tall um in addition to that roof line we're also planning to um break up the Aesthetics of having a very tall front wall with you know using different colors and different materials so the main house is STO and then the the top floor um is going to um use a type of siding so that also breaks up the visual appearance of having it particularly tall um so we've definitely you know put thought into that already you know with the idea of of not wanting to create that appearance that you're calling out um but again with emphasizing and and placing priority on the um on the sustainability aspect we really felt like this was the best um was the most important thing and this was the best solution that we've been able to come up with and I will just emphasize um that you know I'm a strong believer in metrics right I mean that's why the variance is needed in the first place is Heights and distances matter and if the concern is about the appearance of the height of the house I think it carries a lot of weight that we chose to make our house shorter um so the house height is decreasing um and with some additional yeah yeah I think I think you I think that is an important [Music] Point okay all right um do you want to have your architect testify or not it's up to you no I don't think so okay very good all right board members are there any other questions of the applicant okay what we're going to do now is we're going to go into executive session we public comment I'm sorry public comment you need to open it oh I'm sorry I meant public comment not executive session I'm sorry I'm getting ahead of myself yeah we we go we open this the stearing up to the public at this point so if you'd like to say anything prior to us doing that you know sum up where you're at make any additional comments you can do that now okay all right so at this point we'll open it up to the public Claudia has anybody raised andw quit quit sharing your screen oh yeah if you would take the uh screen share down thank you all right so Claudia at this point has anybody raised their hands to indicate they'd like to speak on this application just one person one second unmute can you hear me hear you we can't see you how do I do the camera thing start video that would work there we go Mr Su we need your address if you are comfortable giving it to us and we need to swear in so so I I grew up on 501 Jefferson Road uh Princeton New Jersey 08540 uh 3419 uh but I live across town now on Olden Lane and my parents still live there and uh they are aging in place so I uh representing my 93y old father and my cannot Rel uh release the age of my mother without being uh okay and Mr Sean do you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful yes of course thank you so uh my dad was a lawyer in Princeton for 65 years and his adage was uh uh the worst representation as you can make uh is for yourself and I think that these folks have done a really poor job of representing what they're trying to do and of of course living on this street I'm very familiar you know I had lots of friends that grew up in this house the Ivans family grew up in the South when I was a kid who was the uh uh uh High School uh PE director and then uh the director of the community park pool anyway uh what they are attempting to try to describe is they're going to rotate that the roof of the house keeping at the same height from being oriented from uh uh uh east to west to north to south so of course in in that the South being the optimal Sun capture is the thing that they're trying to do now this part of uh Jefferson Street is really densely populated so there's not a lot of room between houses that that's your guys call but I think that the switching of the roof they're not really raising or lowering the size of the house and I think in the sustainable Princeton um motto I think that that's a a great thing um it's a shame that their architech didn't get involved in this because in fact uh I've spoken with the guys that are building this stuff for the architect and they're keeping all the existing roof structure so they're just uh basically turning the pitch of the roof and so you know in this sustainable Princeton kind of thing I think this is a great thing I will be interested to hear if there are any other neighbors on this uh uh Forum that object to the you know closeness uh of the small overhang that uh uh uh is near the side of the north yeah the north side of their home uh but I I personally think uh it's unfortunate that uh Jefferson Road and including my parents house at 501 Jefferson Road is oriented east to west and not capturing the full sunlight of South and North well South most importantly uh and you guys got to get a lawyer you need to get somebody to represent yourself better than you guys do including your architect but I I don't think that this is like you know something that should be thrown on the scrap peap I think uh what they're trying to do is is admirable from a sustainability stand standpoint since like I can't run my uh uh leaf blower anymore and I'm I've moved on up to an electric leaf blower but uh I think what you guys are you all are doing is terrific and I'm bicycle to school up and down Jefferson Road more times than I'd like to admit to and to the library and so forth but uh uh I think the adage is only a fool represents the themselves so I I I would just be curious if your neighbors are on this call later on that have more skin in the game uh uh than I and I am not an architect or anything like that but I think what you all are trying to accomplish is great especially since uh my parents house was built in the 1800s and mine our house over here is built 1964 and my God I'm fixing more stuff than known Dem man anyway I will stop there uh thank you for entertaining my comments thank you Claudia does anyone else want to speak on behalf of this application oh here we goia we have another member we have somebody else on the screen yes sir yes my name is moit can you guys hear me yeah sure could you give us your last name sir if you're com moit Pasa could you spell that sir sure p a s i c h a thank you and uh if you're comfortable would you give us your address 99 Jefferson Ro all righty and do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful yeah yes thank you thank you um thanks for the opportunity to um let me chime in here we live next doors to Andy and franzy they're the most delightful people that we know on the street uh we've lived in Jefferson since 2018 now um our house is also a little over 90 years old and I just want to say that what Andy and panzi are trying to do in terms of sustainability and using solar power to um to generate electricity and save uh carbon footprint overall that is something that we have considered many times but because of the direction of our roof which is currently the same as theirs uh we haven't not been able to do that um and you know the we we got the same recommendation that hey you you need to rotate your roof to be able to capture sunlight better to to generate electricity um but because of the cost involved we we've decided not to proceed so I think what they're trying to do is is great uh overall uh is going to be great for the environment uh you know we we care for the environment in Princeton in in particular and overall um in general a lot so so I commend their effort in doing this um so that's one secondly um you know I just um went online was just checking houses in the neighborhood on on Google Maps and I do see a few houses in the neighborhood that are three U three floors um I looked at 89 Jefferson um 78 uh 166 so those are the three that I could just quickly during this call by going on Google Maps I was able to see that so um it doesn't look like they're you know they're doing anything out of character here as far as the neighborhood is concerned um and I know there was a point raised about the windows um I I've seen the the plans you know they shared with us um as good neighbors um and they look pretty much the same to me maybe with some minor minor changes um as far as the and I make one last point which is about the the height of the roof if anything um we will actually get more sun um by them reducing the height of the roof and you know uh switching the the direction um I think the roof is going down by about 3 and 1/2 ft if I remember correctly um my my son's room you know my our bedroom faces uh that Direction faces South um so we are actually looking forward to enjoying more sunlight by them rotating the roof so I'll stop there thank thanks for the oportun you're welcome okay uh Claudia is there anyone else would like who raised their hands who would like to speak there are no more hands okay hearing n will'll close the public portion of the hearing again once again uh Mr Mrs lifer if you'd like to make a comment before we go into executive session during executive session We Talk Amongst ourselves and uh we may ask you a question or may not and then we'll make a decision on the vote so do you want to say anything before we do that um I just wanted to ask if there's any other concerns that haven't been voiced yet that we could potentially speak to even though we're not doing a very good job advocating for ourselves apparently but um just wanted to take the opportunity to ask that question before before we close Okay well it'll come out if there any other questions uh the board members can ask you um okay and and I do think personally you made a a good presentation but so I think you represent I think you represented yourself well yeah okay so actually um while we still have the floor um here's just an example this is two doors down that also has the uh this is a street view I'm sorry with the glare but you'll see that um having a south facing uh roof is not completely out of character for what's the address Mr leafer of that 87 sorry say again 87 87 it's just what I could pull out quickly that's two houses over from us even though the number suggust it might be farther away there's only one house between us and it thank you everyone thank you okay you're welcome okay at this point we'll go into executive session board members any comments questions before someone makes a motion I like I'd comment again I think you did a terrific job presenting that you want to do and I you know I everybody has their own opinion of that I also despite the fact that I I noted that you're Chang into exterior view I like what you're doing and I think know we need more sustainable Princeton and and this is an opportunity to do it so I I like what you're doing thank you any other comments okay my only comment is as I said before I don't see the need for the full three stories and I think it could have been handled differently and the sustainability aspect of this could have been achieved okay but that's it so Steve let me just interrupt I've been reminded that Mrs leafer was not sworn in at this point that may be redundant but Mrs leafer will'll just confirm with you that all the testimony you gave this evening uh was truthful yes all right thank you okay okay um board members um would someone like to make a motion one way or the other anyone I move we approve the application thank you I'll second that motion okay Claudia would you like to any are there any questions on the motion from the board okay Claudia can you call the rooll Mr davage yes Mr Floy yes Mr Shriver yes Mr Tenon bom yes German coven I'm sorry but I can't approve it no thank you is approved thank you for coming out good luck with the house okay um moving right along our next case is case number z23 D 438 8 Valley Road Block 701 Lot 36 in the R6 tzone um Karen is the paperwork in order yes noticing is in order the board has jurisdiction to hear the application tonight okay um Mr briger can you summarize your memo for us please yes sir thank you thank you uh James mug is the owner and applicant of 8 Valley Road they're seeking a floor area ratio variance to permit the construction of a principal dwelling accessory dwelling and a detached garage C1 variances are requested uh to permit to single the new single family and accessory dwelling unit in exception to the required lot area with front yard setbacks and Adu setback in relation to the principal structure and driveway width um the property is located in the r6t zone in the former Princeton Township uh ordinance um the existing single family use is permitted the lot is non-compliant with required lot area of 10,890 square feet the existing lot area is 10,424 square F feet lot depth requirement of 85 is also non-compliant the existing 75 and the existing dwelling is non compliant with respect to the required side yard setbacks um requirements 15 the existing is 11 and then the front yard prevailing setback along Valley Road is 63 feet and the existing setback is 31 feet the applicant is proposing to demolish the uh existing house and construct a new approximately 1900 foot single family dwelling and a 770t accessory dwelling unit uh the home features a full partially finished basement living room dining room kitchen TV room three bedrooms a den and three and a half Bass the Adu uh contains a living room kitchen two full bass and two bedrooms a single detached car garage is uh also proposed the subject property is on a corner lot which is uh challenging as it has two front yards um I'll start describing the variances they're requesting a floor area uh variance the maximum permitted here is 26% they are proposing a 28 8% uh F and then there's uh lot area variance requirements 10,890 Square fet the existing is 10,424 the lot depth um the required is 85 proposed is 75 the front yard uh prevailing setback on Valley Road 63 is the re requirement proposed is 16 ft for the principal house um the Adu also has a front yard setback from Valley Road Again 63 is a requirement 22 feet 7 Ines is for the Adu and the front yard setback on Mount Lucas uh requirement is 35 and the proposed is approximately 14 and a half feet for the Adu um the front yard setback on Valley Road the prevailing for the garage uh 63t setback is required 49 is proposed um and then um I'm just going to go into the other variances bulk variance s which is accessory structure front yard setback for the Ado in the garage um section 10B 26.2 prohibits the location of an accessory structure in any front yard um the township definition of front yard is uh basically the distance between the building line and the front line so the yard is the space between the property line and the front of the the the principal building the locations of the Adu and the garage in the front yard facing Mount Lucas require variances in accordance uh with Section TV 26.2 uh bulk variance number eight the ad Garage Corner Lot setback uh is required to be behind the principal dwelling um again that's 10B 265.0 and at C requires that accessory structures on a corner lock shall be step back from any property line along a street a minimum of 5T from the facade of the grade of the principal structure facing set Street or the minimum required set pack pursuant to uh the required setback which in this case would be um 63 feet on Mount Lucas so uh the proposed location of the Adu and the garage on the mount Lucas Road elevation are both located in front of the principal dwelling and do not comply a variance would be required for that and then uh bulk variant nine the garage corner lot setback behind principal dwelling um 10B 250 265.0 C requires accessory structures on a corner lot be step back from any property line along a street a minimum of 5 feet from the facade of the principal structure facing said Street or the minimum setback required uh along that street the proposed location of the garage facing Mount Lucas is set back 5et from the principal structure the location of the Adu facing Mount Lucas is not set back 5 feet from the house so Varian is required um and in addition section 10B 255 f2a um also addresses the locations on Corner lots and requires that a garage shall be located on the side of the dwelling furthest away from the Street intersection um that's an additional variance and then bulk variance number 10 section 10B 255 Point 2 I permits a maximum driveway width of 22 feet for the first 75 ft of the lot the proposed driveway is 36 feet wide um the applicant should consider reducing the driveway and possibly providing stacked parking in front of the garage to comply with the ordinance um staff does support the proposed turnaround due to the traffic flow on Valley Road and the proximity of the driveway to the traffic signal um I will just note that this is a you know extremely challenging lot with two front yards and um substantial prevailing setback on Valley Road The Proposal involves numerous variances the variance for the Adu and the detached garage to be set back from the principal dwelling could be eliminated if the location of the Adu and the garage were switched with the location of the principal house with the principal house being placed at the corner of Mount Lucas and Valley Road in the general location of the Adu and the location of the uh Adu and garage being placed on the Valley Road elevation and be set back five feet from the front facade of the principal structure this approach would eliminate all the variances except lot area lot depth driveway width and front yard setbacks the F variance which is mainly associated with the detached garage and could also be eliminated if the garage were placed behind the relocated uh principal dwelling in a similar location to the existing garage um garage is not exceeding 15 feet in height are exempt from uh up to 300 Square ft of f if they are located completely behind the principal dwelling um the corner lot makes this challenging the logistical reasons given for the proposed layout um appear to have been designed so that the owner could live in the existing principal dwelling while the Adu was being constructed and then live in the Adu while the principal dwelling was being constructed the applicant should address how the requested variances promote the purposes of zoning and discuss whether they harm the Zone plan the board has allowed in the past applicants to live in an existing house uh although it is a d variance while the new home was being cons constructed on the same lot under a temporary D1 use variance to permit two principal dwellings on a lot when only one is permitted uh under this scenario no certificate of occupancy would be issued until the old existing principal dwelling was demolished and a new one constructed along with all the site improvements the applicate has requested consideration um both under the C1 and C2 criteria that's pretty much my memo if you have any questions I'd be glad to try to address them board members any questions with Mr Burger yeah I have a quick question in the beginning of your memo um the first paragraph um you know below the date it says uh in the next the last sentence it refers to um there's an exception Adu height are they in violation no I'm sorry they're not in violation of Adu height um that's thank you thank you good catch okay any other questions board members okay um who will be representing this application this evening um do you hear me yes uh I will as well as uh our architect and engineer okay okay sir are you Mr mogg I am all righty and uh are you going to present testimony this evening uh I'll give a short intro okay and uh is this your wife with you does she want to testify yeah this is my girlfriend Nicole um and can we have your full name Nicole uh Nicole Orana uh last name o r e l l a n a all righty uh if you would both swear or affirm that the testimony you give this evening will be truthful we do thank you okay are we good to start yeah yes yes you are very much um so good evening everyone uh my name is James and as I mentioned sitting next to me is my girlfriend Nicole uh tonight we're excited to present our vision for the law at 8 Valley Road uh for the past few months we've been working with our architect Marina and our engineer and planner gym to design a home that works well for us and our future family and make sense within the context of the neighborhood and Princeton as a whole Marino Jim Marina and will present some of the more technical aspects of the project but I like to just give a quick intro to give some background and to uh explain what we're looking to do uh after moving around a whole bunch over the past few years Nicole and I bought the house at 8 Valley Road this past August to settle down it was pretty rundown and needed quite a bit of TLC but over the course of the past several months we fixed the place up to make it livable we're happy to be living there now but we realized it's only a temporary solution as the house still has its fair share of issues we like to achieve our goal of a comfortable home with multigenerational support in the following Steps step one build an Adu on the empty half of the lot while we live in the current house step two move into the Adu knock down the current house and build the main house ideally we'd want to start construction of the main house immediately after finishing the Adu but we may need to start to wait a year or so depending on our finances step three uh move into the main house so it can support us and our growing family Nicole's mom will then move into the Adu so she can be nearby while still maintaining Independence we appreciate appreciate you the board taking your time to listen to our presentation today and we looking forward to hearing your thoughts Marina will now go into further detail explaining the project hey Marina you'll need to be swor in yes abely do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do and you are testifying as the applicant's architect my understanding is that you are licensed in the state of New Jersey and that your license is current is that correct absolutely abolutely thank you for stating that yes you've testified before this board before so we'll accept you as a witness as an expert in your field thank you I appreciate that uh would it be okay for me to share a few slides sure oh goodness let's hope I can I can do this um see all right great hopefully everybody could see my screen yes wonderful thank you so much uh so as um James and Nicole um gave an introduction you may be familiar with this um house that um pretty much everybody who came to visit the municipality has seen um this is a view from the corner looking at the property and as you could see it's located away from the corner leaving a large portion of the lot empty uh the critical thing about the property itself as you could see the address is Valley Road but the lot is located perpendicular to all the other Lots the lot is non-conforming it's a corner lot so all the other lots are 150 ft deep on Valley Road and this lot because it's oriented the other way it itself is only 75 ft deep which causes the prevailing setback to effectively enlight any possibility of doing anything on this property without a variance um so the lot width is supposed to be 75 feet I'm sorry the other way around it is 75 feet while 85 is required and the lot is slightly undersized um but it's very similar in size to the other properties it's very you know it's a little bit bigger than Lot 37 and a little bit smaller than the other Lots uh so hopefully this diagram and by the way at any point in time please ask questions if I'm missing something or getting something or not explaining something clearly uh so this diagram basically shows where the front yards are so if you take the 63 foot front yard from Valley Road which is prevailing because the other lots are so deep you basically overlaps with the rear yard so there is absolutely no place on this property where one could build anything without being in violation it's just the situation it also the fact that it's a corner complicates our situation because we have a prevailing front yard this way and prevailing front yard this way uh so then here is our proposed site plan and I um will sort of point to what um James already described the existing house is located right here so the concept is that um Nicole and James will continue to live in the house the way it is right now while as you saw in the front picture this empty space at the corner um is available for them to build an accessory dwelling unit on their property the accessory dwelling unit is both the house and accessory dwelling unit are fully compliant um the only difference in um their height is compliant the size is compliant everything about them compliant but they're completely in the front yard because as you saw there's no where for them to be but in the front yard everything's the front yard um so the the thing that requires are um so the house and Adu conform no F issue because the garage is located bit so the normally properties have a 300 square foot allowance for a garage if the garage is set back so we have set back the garage from Valley Road and it meets all the requirements so it would qualify for the 300 square foot um garage credit however because it is effectively in front between the house and Valley Road it triggers an issue that it doesn't qualify for this 300 square foot uh normal allowance but it follows all the other requirements that would allow it to qualify if the lot wasn't so kind of unusual and unique uh so as Derek mentioned it is really important for us to provide a way for people who live on this property to pull in and then be able to turn around so that they are entering forward towards Valley Road and not backing up onto Valley Road um that's a much safer for everybody that you could see where you're going You're not backing up on Valley Road um we are from the property Corner 67t 7 in away from the corner so I think 40 is minimum recommended so we're substantially more than that um it's also worth noting that um maybe if it wasn't there used to be trees that were located um along the front of that property and then I suspect what happened is when the municipality put in a sidewalk when all the road improvements were done the tree died and the municipality cut them down so these trees were cut down so we're proposing um to straighten the sidewalk so that it creates a more consistent configuration of what's Happening further down on Valley Road where there's Green Space and then the sidewalk so that the pedestrians are not walking right near the road uh let's see am I forgetting anything uh hopefully not so this next slide is the diagram that shows where they existing houses so again as I showed in the picture there's a big empty space here so the concept was that they could still live in the house construct an Adu as sort of normally people who live in a house they would be able to build an Adu and then if as Derek suggested we were to reverse it this would be a d variance so then they would end up with two main houses and our fear was that a few year you know after all this construction if they were not able to start un building the you know the second portion the second phase of this project right away then they would be kind of stuck not able to have they would either have to demo the house and just live in the new house and not be able to have the secondary supportive income to help them kind of build up their reserves and do this um so then here are some pictures just to give everybody context so this is the view from the P side looking at the site you can see there's a little bit of a dead tree situation going on um and then this is the view from their side towards the municipal building so it's kind of an interesting situation where it's the end of the street of the single family homes but all of the other properties right across from them are not single family homes there's the municipal building the there um let's see right across the street there's the Valley Road School District building where you could see it's already a very different vocabulary and then so here we go and that's the parar building so what we try to do is we try to sort of it is residential but it's also trying to kind of be part of that more institutional Corner what I would call uh so not an easy Corner uh so that's how we came up with this design and what we were hoping to do is the larger home is located towards um where the current home is right now and then the Adu is set back so as you're approaching the corner the sort of fuel opens up and the corner building is smaller so I put together so that I wouldn't forget the FR in the cons let's see if I could go through and explain and again at any point stop me if if anything's not making any sense so again as I said the smaller building at the corner because the Adu has to be set back five feet which is what we're doing it opens up and creates a better View Corridor um the Adu being smaller also allows for better View Corridor um we feel that as large larger buildings the the main house will be larger and it will have a tendency or more likelihood to have kids there it feels a better place for it to be located away from the corner have a larger yard especially with all of the fire trucks and things going on it's more a quiet location and a better protected yard with all um again having a family away from the pears building seems like a more appropriate place to be uh allowing uh to build an Adu on the corner allows these guys to have a way of living in the house building an Adu without a d variance and I you know again if they need an extra year to live in the you know have two homes functional that's possible should they do it the other way around as Derek specifically mentioned that's not a possibility so anything on the property will require a variance because this is a corner and everything is in the prevailing setback um so one possibility I guess is we could have just come and asked for an Adu to be constructed that would be a variance for all the same reasons because again everything on this property would be a variance then you know two years down the line come back and ask for a variance for a main house and again then we feel that looking at it more holistic ically Allin one go is a better approach and we're not wasting stuff and you know it's respectful to the time of you guys on the board to review this once um we feel that although this may be a funny reason but it's you know logical to have big house on Valley Road address and the little house to have the mount Lucas address um and then again this is really important to allow the ad where sort of these is how the adus were meant to be people would live in the house and then build this accessory structure so then we try to think what would be the reasons against this so uh locating the U closer to the corner does not allow us to qualify for this 300 square foot credit that we would normally be qualified and we we would be qualified if you're standing and looking at from Valley Road it's the mount Lucas conditions that triggers this problem um then the mount the locating again if the reverse s true if the house was located on the empty portion of the lot there some of the variances would go away but it in no case would all the variances would go away and instead of having a c variance we would be having a d variance which sounds like a bigger problem and then um worst case Ario one could say like okay well um why don't they just big a big giant house and have less variances and we feel that's very much not in keeping of General way that Princeton is moving where a lot of the discussions during the master plan suggested that we're trying to encourage smaller homes being built in walkable places like this one where people could walk to work and families could live in multigeneration um Arrangements together so that's what we've been able to come up with we would love to hear your comments thoughts anything you need me to I have all the drawings also if you need me to put them on the screen if anybody has any questions thoughts mbina just a a housekeeping question these slides have been provided to the board secretary is that correct uh no they have not been yet but we'll be happy to provide them so you want this to be collectively your exhibit a is that correct I think that would be a really good idea all right Mr Bina Mr timc is here tonight is the applicant seeking to have him testify too or um possibly yes oh sorry possibly yes that's Mr mber okay when when were you proposing to do that because this is your time for your case so right right so we were hoping to see if any questions suggestions ideas discussions need to be happening about where we are thus far and Mr chimc would' be testifying as a planner engineer or both uh both both okay well I guess I'll I'll make a suggestion and it's going to be very blatant you build less building and go for Less variances um well that's a good suggestion uh so let me just rephrase one more time that uh the only s variance that are required for the size of the building or the garage the both buildings are fully compliant and meet all the requirements so um does that help in any way no you you have setbacks variances don't well the the entire property is in the setback variance so we have no other setback variances apart from the fact that everything is in the front setback as you could see there's nothing we can do on this property without having we are not asking for any variances this way or this way the only variances are due to the fact that this entire property is in the prevailing setback well it's not the entire property I'm not sure why why it is the entire property yes so if you measure from Valley Road 63 feet ends up right here and if you measure the rear setback 15 feet the combined of them are larger than the property there is Absolut isn't the applicable setback the prevailing setback yes that is exactly that is different isn't it nope it is 63 feet prevailing setback so we we are not asking for anything there we're we're not too close to the side we're not too close to the back our problem is that there is absolutely nothing on the property that could be built without being in the setback you could ask for Less you could ask for less than what you're asking you can build right so what would be build less that's for you to design not me okay I I hear you you asked for comments oh no this is a great comment we're absolutely asking for comments and I'm hoping to provide the answers the best that I can do you want to answer that now or do you want to wait until you hear other comments uh well I am struggling to suggest what uh the only thing that is triggering any size related variance is the garage the homes are fully conforming they're they're not too large they're not too high they're in full compliance with all the other requirements we can't really you know I don't know what else to to drop here so we would love all the comments okay it sounds like Derek has a comment please I'm just saying I mean the whole point of the all these ordinances want the garages and the adus in the corner and you could easily switch the house and the accessory dwelling unit and you do have a d variance right for the garage correct so I'm just I'm just saying you're saying there's no variances if you switch those two houses you would eliminate all the variances except the ones for the that are driven by the prevailing front yard setbacks which I agree is is a big obstacle but right so what you're saying is there's no you in agreement there's nothing we can do without being I'm saying that you could easily switch the primary house to where the Adu is and the Adu and the garage back in the corner and you would have a fairly you know you would deal with the variances that you have control over well we could do this right the size of the house will not change the house the size of the Adu will not change if we were to reverse them right if we were to have a house here and the Adu here the sizes of them would be the same all the the setback variances due to the prevailing setback will not go away they will be the same what would go away is the fact that garage will then not need a variance but it could be the the same right but what would be lost in that configuration is their ability to continue living in the house build an Adu and then keep the house and Adu at the same time that ability will disappear and they will sorry Mar can you can you explain that because I don't I don't understand what you're saying here they would lose the ability to keep the two of them at the same time yes so what we could ask for D variant for them to to live in the house and construct a house at the at the corner right that's a d variance because that at during that period they will have two main houses on the property right correct so that that's what Derek explained to us they if they were to live in the house build a house on the corner that's a d variance right so for them to remain here stay here as they would like to do do they would would they would need a devarian to build a new house over here right so the sizes of the two homes won't change they would be the same but we would be asking for D variance temporarily so then as Derek explained before they can have a certificate of occupancy for the new house they would have to demolish the old house and then they would be living in a new house and they won't have an ability to you know wait a year to rent you know you know for example if they're living in Adu they could rent the house save up a little money and then do the phase to construction so they don't have that option anymore so the size of the two buildings wouldn't change but the the phasing and the opportunity for them to do this in phases that works with their finances would be a problem but the two homes are compliant EXA variances correct I mean Vari you'd have two D variances if I mean you have a d variance now right for the F for the garage correct and that's a permanent Dev variance versus a temporary Dev variance if you switched the location of the houses the garage could be set back and you that would be exempt from F I'm just right that's stuff no no no you're you're absolutely right so then the question is so what do we do but the overall we're not asking for the homes to be any bigger or smaller anything it's just where where they're located on the property and then I personally feel that having a larger home away from the corner is a better configuration for the reasons described because that for example if we were to say okay great let's put the main house on the corner right remember the house has to be 5 feet in front of the Adu so then for us you know let's say the house is here then the DU will be 5et set back to meet all the requirements right so then the house is closer to the corner to me in this particular configuration with PS and with the all the municipal buildings it would be preferred from my understanding of architectural standpoint to sort of push the building back in right so that it's kind of opening up towards the corner but with the main house then would actually have to pull the main house forward to create that 5 foot um requirement see how in our case we have here's the house and the Adu is set back and to meet that requirement um and I think it works better from its Corner location but it still doesn't meet it I mean but it still right because it works the front the whole idea is they want the adus behind the primary dwelling in this code so I mean yeah right but there's no behind over here unfortunately right if no if you switched it it would be behind the house then it would work if you put the primary where the accessory is you don't have that variance have the F variant for the garage however like for example I think if I understand correctly what it contemplates is here we have people who live in a house and they du would go in the back there is no way for them to put it in the back there's no back right like from their existing home they don't have behind the facade of the property right which is impossible in their case because the they it has to be like right here and that's already rear well could it be right here no because it's where you place the front house you're going to need a variance anyway for the front no no no no no no I'm saying let's say they keep the existing house the existing house is staying and they come and say I'd like to put an Adu on the property with just the front the existing house stain right where the only place for it to go is here but that's the rear setback they can't do it here because it's the front and they can't do it in anywhere on this really large empty space their only option is here if they would like to continue to live in their house what if theu in the house were attached that's another possibility the Adu in the um I am not 100% sure whether if everything was attached in this configuration Derek what do you think if everything was attached I'd have to see design but I mean it would you'd still have the front yard variances it's just when you break up it's still the whole thing's in the front yard still that well that's we can do anything we're talking about the variances that you do have control over when it's all driven by the fact that the Adu is located where it is and the primary home is located where it is so I'm just these the adus to be back in the corner the garage to be back in the corner and that's and that's just not even being really paid attention to I'm I'm just wondering if um if this is the correct form for us to be redesigning uh architectural plans you're Jim you're exactly right right so I guess my question it's har well so I I mean unfortunately zoning board does not have a concept review format so we're we're presenting what we feel is the best solution here um but we're very much interested in in everybody's suggestions and opinion and Marina does that mean that you did not it would well were you unable to meet with Derek to to have him offer these same insights and suggestions prior to this meeting no we have met with Derek and we have reviewed this multiple times however his opinion about the reverse of the two buildings came pretty late in the process okay do you think it's valid I think it will reduce the number of variances I completely agree however I think it's not a better design from a city planning Master planning perspective I think it's and the fact that it triggers a temporary D variance that I find problematic I purely by number of variances would be reduced but it would be nowhere close to zero it would be still substantial number but the F variance will be a permanent D variance correct unless there's no garage correct you know I I understand why he keeps we keep saying unless there's no garage but the D variance is related to the F which is related to all the buildings together added up so the F variant could go away if something other than the garage is reduced so I I think the number of times you said it's just the garage is a little misleading well let's pretend there agregate of all right so let's pretend that you said we're not comfortable with issuing an F variance a valid point so then if you were to talk to the homeowners and say would you like to lose a living room or would you like to lose a garage so I am guessing I would like to confirm with the homeowners but I'm guessing they're going to say look I could live without a garage and I can't live without a living room so I would suspect they would say well what if there was no garage would that make anybody's life any easier well I think it's I'm sorry or or they might say Let's Lose a li maybe we can go with Derek's idea of switching the buildings maybe oh however thus far in our conversations we felt that that was not the preferred solution because it does not work with the way that they would like to approach the project of building something first moving there and maybe waiting a year Gathering up their finances again and then doing the construction so that raises another question Derek isn't there a um a specific time during which construction must commence two years and would that so so we're assuming that the first building would be complete within that two-year time frame then they would be able to kind of pause the project and then depending upon whether their finances are in place for the second one within that two-year time frame well the variance there's a year under the variance to G get a building permit and then as long as that building permit's open the variant stays open for as long as necessary I mean it's they could it's it's it's not a hard and fast thing they could add a couple boards a year to a garage and the V you know the building permit stays open so okay so it's an open-ended permit basically I mean if you if you continue to work but it's you know that's why some projects take forever and Marina I'm I'm um um look I I I think you've done a really incredible job I love the design I love all of your work so I me it's not a question of that I think right now um the board has given you some input and some insight and um if you want to proceed and if the homeowners want to proceed then I'm going to um move that we kind of go forward um if you would like to sort of say why don't we reconsider based upon some of the information that was shared this evening that's also an option um but um as of right now uh I'm going to suggest that um unless other people have a lot of other comments I I think we kind of an understanding of of where we are on this is that correct everyone or am I am I speaking prematurely I generally agree with you harl yeah I think I do as well I guess we would love to hear other people's thoughts and suggestion so it sounds like Michael is concerned that uh with the F which is valid concern um are other suggestions well I I think Mich is also concerned about the number of variances that are being sought when I don't believe that the accessory dwelling unit regulation should be subject or or a project involving accessory dwellings should be subject to so many variances that those variants are are triggered because of various sighting I I think um so there's more to it than um than just the f I also um have a comment I don't believe in getting into applicants pocketbooks unless they raise it as a a a reason why I should vote for a variance which the pocketbook issue could be valid could not be valid um you know you're worrying about their cash flow now everybody can be Googled and maybe I can speak directly to your client as far as what business is he in is he in the real estate business is he in the property management business business does he have access to other properties where he can move to or that he moved from is he has properties with um I don't know um uh B&B type or or or the family member that may move in I don't know it appears from some of the Google that property is not a scarce resource so you keep but I keep hearing oh cash can't afford not to do it this way and don't well I I think your your point you're making is that if I'm hearing correctly that if the two things were reversed right and if the house was here and the at would here you feel that that would be a better solution no that's that's not what I'm just talking about because that would eliminate a tremendous number of variances but it will also eliminate the ability to occupy this property that the way that they're suggesting I was only speaking to the need to occupy and whether it's real a real need got it okay that's what I was saying got it okay so do we hear any other comments or feedback of how how we should be so it sounds like uh Mr Jenn and bound's comment is he um likes the design that is very much appreciated if there are other comments that would be really helpful for us well I have a question I I agree with Michael I don't think we've ever had a come before the board the board with so many press variances and I'm just wondering if if there aren't some property that won't support uh adus whether this might not be one of them I mean if you look down the rest of the street certainly you're you were correct R and saying that your design looks more like the Emergency Center or the school building than it does the houses that go down the rest of the street and I'm just I just wonder whether that property would support to to buildings like that with that many variances so right but let's think about it so if let's say we were to re reverse this again I don't want to go into the design I'm just looking at what you have here and I don't I don't think that property supports those two go all with a garage okay but if there was no garage there would be no F variants yeah but there'd be a lot of other Varian right correct and then um would would the board prefer to see a one large house at this property it's we we actually Jim davage said that we're not here to to sit and and interactively redesign this that's that's your that's your job and you come to us with a with a proposal that you feel is applicable to the site so far you've gotten a lot of comments and you've gotten good suggestions from our zoning officer as well as the board members and so it's up to you to decide which way to go you have a you have a situation where with a d you know you're going to need five affirmative votes and M Reina I I believe you're aware that tonight the board has five members in attendance but that would mean you need each one of them to vote in your favor so understand all right so at this juncture do you want to continue with your presentation if I think that what we would like to do is um if there any other comments that we would love to hear in opinion of the board members who um either haven't spoken at all or haven't spoken much um I think that we should probably hear everybody's opinions and then probably carry it to the next meeting um and then at that point um they'll hopefully be a larger board present or maybe we'll modify the design okay do we have any other suggestions that we would love to take into consideration I understand that you're you're not here to redesign it for us but we would love to hear sort of the feedback on what we have presented thus far and what feel I think you have heard it Mr be you've heard from Mr Cohen Mr shriber Mr Floyd Mr tenam and Mr davage if there that's that's who we have at the board tonight I think you've heard from everyone I um I do have one more comment regarding I I prefer the buildings to be switched around like Derek had suggested but my additional concern is for the directly adjacent neighbors the neighbor to the uh North I believe the bigger building moved towards um Witherspoon would block less that small neighbor building um then the Adu would if they were switched I think also it would impact less if the bulkier building the bigger building is switched on the neighbor to the east although I realize they're set back a bit but it it would have less impact on the neighbors themselves no that's that's really good feedback so um unless there's any other feedback which we would love to hear um we would propose to uh continue at the next hearing okay let me ask a question Mr Burger um if the design does change you have to in order first of all can they be heard at the next meeting because I believe we have a pretty packed agenda in March you we have uh three or four cases I mean I um could either hear it and push those cases back and hear this first uh if we can get people to read the uh you know listen to the tape and review this hearing um or there's room in April um when would they have to resubmit if the if the design is modified when would you need to see it for your review and then we would as a board need to see it before the hearing the latest uh would be like the hearing is on the 27th of March so the 13th that week of the 10th okay and that's assuming that we can switch the others the other cases I'll just have to let them know they'll be if there's pums I mean maybe the discuss will be less lengthy if uh depending on what they bring back sure Mr Bean is that feasible it's not much time for you to prepare different plans well I absolutely have to discuss it um with the homeowners first and assuming that we can figure out what the strategy would be we will make our best attempt to bring things back well the the real reason Reon I ask is because either the board carries it with a firm date or it's simply indicates it will be carried and that the applicant will Reen notice uh I think it's probably a safe bet to say that we will make it to the next meeting we'll be able to resubmit um as per date that Derek suggested the 10th of March okay let's see well the 10th of March is a is a Sunday that week sorry so that that would be the 11th that would be the 11th actually excuse me I'm on I apologize I got my dates mixed up I'm on vacation from the the 12th to the 19th so 12th to the 19th of March March unfortunately um well fortunately well it would seem to be more practical at this point if you're going going to ask for a continuance to do it till April um is that okay is that allowed yeah you could be first on the agenda because I haven't set that agenda yet so um then then to what date though in April DK the date the 24th April 24 um April 24 um James and Nicole can you pop back in are you guys there turn your sound back on do you think that would be okay with you guys if we carry this to April 24th that's okay if March isn't available April's okay yeah and then that would not require additional noticing that would just we would decide today that it will be carried to April 24th am I understanding that correctly uh you are I I uh obviously they would have to be submitted to Derek in sufficient time and also it would need to be posted now um on the website so that any changes you make uh yeah should we make any changes they would be available ahead of time right and when when would Derek when would drawings have to be resubmitted to you um that first week of April the 8th of April that week of the 8th okay okay I'm writing this down so no later than April 8 cor right but before would be okay yeah sure I'm pretty sure we can have something before okay should should James and Nicole decide to change then we'll we'll try to redo and come back okay reach out to board members to hear the tape view at the meeting excellent all right great well I think then we have a plan of how to move forward okay very good so we'll conclude the hearing at this point again it'll be held the if the new hearing or the next hearing on this case will be April 24th assuming we get all our drawings in time so thank you very much for coming before us um and do what you need to do thank you I apologize I had my sound off and um thanks for hearing and we'll see you back in April okay very good all right thank you all right we're adjourned that's our last case and Michael say something I'm sorry Michael did you want to say something no okay it wasn't me okay sorry okay we're adjourned thank you all board members we'll see you good night