[Music] let e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e uh responses from board members was well we don't want to rely on on the state we don't know what's going to happen down there we don't know what the future of that is so what can can we do and so as we talked about it I suggested possibly uh creating a a different Zone because lot many of those properties in that area are well oversized so um that's what I was directed to do and um I think when we talked about this last I didn't have a map prepared so uh I asked Grace I provided Grace late I might add with a map entitled proposed BB district and the project was land use ordinance recommendations and um and this map includes the properties that would be uh placed into the BB Zone and and two that I want to talk about immediately are the lake themselves my reading of the uh the current Washington Township uh zoning map has those prop the Lake Properties uh unzoned um now you say Well they're Lakes why would you Zone them well there's land under those lakes and New Jersey has been requiring um significant uh remedial action be undertaken on a lot of dams and some places in the state especially when they're owned by local Property Owners associations have said we can't afford the engineering cost alone forget the construction costs and have been removing dams and when that happens the lake disappears so I do believe that having the Lakes should be in a Zone regardless of what zone that may be um the other thing they notice uh the large lot on this map is 3406 lot two it's long Ridgewood Road you all know it as Our Lady of Good Council church and the rectory and the former school um you may also be aware that under all tax maps it was listed as two properties I believe it was two and six um the the the current tax map data or current tax listing data uh for the township has it merged into one property um so that's why it's only shown as one property um so what I did like uh briefly is your ordinance is a little bit different in that list block and lots for every different Zone District so these properties are now with the exception of um block 21 in Block 34 2 which is the library say all these properties except for the lake are in the a Zone a 10,000 square foot zone so the first thing this ordinance does is it removes those lots from that designation and the second thing it does it creates a new designation for the BB Zone which is what I've described it as and then inserts those properties into the BB Zone um and then the rest of the ordinance uh section 22 uh 23 24 and 25 26 just follows your existing zoning ordinance because I try not to uh I try to use a scalpel when I'm amending ordinances I I don't like the meat cleaver or the hand grenade approach so but I did feel quite honestly um based on the reexamination report and our earlier reports to the board to make some changes um for instance right now you have a street Frontage requirement but no lot width requirement so I changed Street Frontage and lot area requirements section 22 to read as Street Frontage lot width and depth lot area and coverage requirements and the lot width would be the same requirement as a frontage which is 75 feet um we left the um lot area 7500 square feet which is on currently on your zoning map on a table and we established a uh impervious coverage of 40% because they're small lots and and we thought that was appropriate we also uh created a oh it's on another another ordinance I'll get to it later um we we changed the height restriction under 23 from 25 feet to 28 feet but leaving the number of Stories the same uh the front yard um and and this will be explain later on with the next uh draft ordinance um we we left the dimension of 20 ft and we made it to the closest projection of the principal building as opposed to the way it's currently drafted in section 24 and then 25 we made it we kept the same distance 20 feet but we said to the nearest projection of the principal building um and then side yards we left it the way it was at 10 feet but we said I think you're right now says every yard shall have two side yards well that works great until you get to a corner lot and there are a lot of corner Lots in washingon Township and they have two front yards so we excluded uh Corner Watts from having to have two side yards um we try to achieve a greater degree of internal consistency um then under the under Section 27 uh we allowed accessory structures and buildings to be within three feet of a of a property line and then uh on page uh six uh we needed or I needed to repeat all of those parameters for the new Zone because the new Zone doesn't exist so I left the mo i modeled it on the new the old ordinance so the uh use restrictions in your current ordinance are 20 are 27 or are 20 21 excuse me or 21 so I made everything 27.1 using the um the numerical system your your ordinance has um and then I put in what I believe to be appropriate uh dimensional requirements for lots of 18,000 square feet um and I used 30 ft for Building height um and one of the documents I sent to Grace had um a compar is dated June 24th had a comparison of selected nearby communities oh hocus since a borders Washington Township and his Washington Township's in pasak Valley I stuck with the pasak valley so we have Montville old depan riverville and woodliff Lake um of those municipalities only Rivervale has a Zone with 18,000 Square fet they have a uh lot width standard of 120 feet I was suggesting 100 feet so we're a little more generous um they have a depth standard of 120 feet um no I take that back they have a uh they don't have standard for lock depth I used 150 ft for front yards and side yard and rear yards they use 35 and 30 and for side yards they used 15 for one and combined of 40 they allow 25% building coverage in that zone since Washington Township uses 20 throughout its residential districts I left it at 20 and I believe um they they uh impervious coverage was 40 and I have 33 in the draft uh ordinance uh that's good question sure the building coverage so if we are looking at the impervious coverage and there's a inverse the numbers decrease as the lot size increases uh from B to Triple A that's correct correct wouldn't we do something similar for building coverage or no if I Was preparing your ordinance from scratch yes I would um however using the scalpel method methodology every single family District in the town has 20% building coverage I didn't want to introduce something different nor did I want to upset all the other residential zones um same thing with Frontage typically you would have different fundage requirements for 7500 foot well you do you have 7 for the 10,000 and the Halfacre in the acre you you have the same front requir um that's fairly unusual usually as Lots get larger uh in area the requirement for ster Frontage uh evolves and in fact your U ordance does do that with lot side yards with the side yards changes somewhat as the Lots get larger but applying a scalpel and not a hand grenade quite frankly I didn't want to upset the 20% that the township is living with all the years um and I couldn't just put up a greater one because that would be inconsistent internally thank you sure and just going back to the the map and the Lots yes uh you know you mentioned um scalpel vers hand grenade but when I'm looking at at this there's two sections that jump out at me one is I guess at the North End of the lake in 3304 there's uh 30 to 37 30 37 there's a uh sort of a hook yes Strafford Court Lots yes so those and then if you come to the South and yes there are lots 11 12 and 13 and then continuing down correct what what's the rationale for including or excluding them okay there were two primary ones first I went back to look at the reexamination report and see where and reviewed where the recommendation came from and it talked about environmentally sensitive lives they talked about the lake and and the water and the stream the book so that was primary so most of the lots are those at front on the lake so that's why I excluded the ones along Stafford court and those are the ones south of or between let's say ridard Road and lot 10.01 in Block 342 I thought those were um just enough from the lake or the stream the other overriding Factor was um those lots are generally smaller so I and lots and that's quite frankly why Lots 11 12 and 13 I would I was proposing in Block 3 34 of2 to leave in the a zone at 10,000 square feet rather than increasing it to 18,000 square feet because those are those were small Lots not fronting on the lake okay and just if you if we extend that thought process in the very upper right uh very northern part of the lake uh there are two lots yes there are they jump out at you don't they um 11 is relatively small and then again 13 I kind of manipulated I didn't manipulate the data it does it's not Lakefront it is a small lot um it's bounded by Lot 12 which is owned by the the township as a recreation site so I I didn't add those could they have been added yes they could have been um but I you know I was trying to not upset too much and that's why I stopped 3407 lock 13 um not quite lak front and relatively small um their development potential is probably pretty much maximized already um yeah they might put a small addition on here or there or you know something but you not you're not going to see that lot subdivided I don't think so I I thought the current zoning um did what your reexamination was hoping that the Zone would do you know whenever you this this is a good dialogue when whenever you're taking existing zoning and and you see there's an environmental situation and you're trying to a achieve a greater degree of Environmental Protection there are going to be some lots that fall out for one reason and some lots that fall in for other reasons and maybe they're not all crystal clear but that's where hopefully the good judgment of the board and the good judgment of the council if they decide to adopt this ordinance and you know maybe take a lot out here maybe add a lot here maybe for the sake of consistency they want to add all those Stratford Court um Lots would that would that be wrong no it would not be wrong it absolutely would not be wrong I just didn't feel like including it and same thing you might add with lot 48 just north of Stafford Port it's the corner lot it happens to be very small I I didn't think it I didn't think it warranted if that's that's probably not the right word but it didn't I I didn't think changing that particular loot Zone would would ultimately make a difference um while we're here and talking about front yards if you go to page seven uh on the on the draft we're talking about 27.4 um and we'll talk about this later on I added two Clauses which didn't need to be there 27.4 doesn't exist so B and C it says this Clause is here and deleted those don't need to be there um that that was a a carryover that I shouldn't have shouldn't have put in there um then um 27.7 proximity of buildings and rear yards that's the last Clause uh which deals with the b b Zone in that run of Clauses but then if we look at um 47 Class C District that's Lot 21 in Block 342 that's the site of the library um because it is a larger lot and because it's Lakefront it's not L because it is a larger lot I thought it made sense to include it I also did the Optics of not including Township lot even though there are other township lots that are being included like lot 17 right next to it um it seemed like uh if it's okay to put the library in a commercial District it's probably better to put it in a residential district so I added that one so that needed to be added to the list uh that lot needed to be taken out of the glass seed District listing in properties um lot uh section 58- 83 at the bottom of the page minimum lot depth is hereby deleted its entirety and replaced with the following reserved this is the clause which the current clause which says that all lots have to have 95 foot of debt I'm recommending in an ordinance we got to in the second that that be changed for the AA the acre Zone and and the AA the Halfacre Zone to more appropriate um Dimensions right now those lots have 100 feet each if you were to have a 100 foot wide lot that's an acre you'd have 437 feet of depth behind you so um it it doesn't it's not a modern figure so so I change that and then you have a section in your current ordinance 84 which talk about requiring garages and how garages are supposed to be utilized alls I did for that provision was drop in the class BB District into the list of of H residential uh zones so in a nutshell what this ordinance does is it takes the lots that are shown on the map and converts them from the azone with a 10,000 foot minimum lot area to puts them in a new Zone uh I call the PB for lack of uh try to maintain your your um current ordering system and and and um requires 18,000 square feet Lots the lot area doesn't change the front yard doesn't change and the side yards uh change slightly okay thank you Mr Liden are there any further comments uh from any of the board members on this ordinance before we move on to the next one just one question um so it came up in a recent council meeting uh and I think I may have mentioned it at some point but uh auxiliary auxiliary not buildings but accessory structures yes yes sheds pool houses oh no no the um the Murphy thing where Murphy uh Governor Murphy Governor Mur access yes this does not address any of that this is silent on it that that's absolutely correct and I go tonight to bed each night and pray that that thing never sees the light of day that is a horrible horrible ordinance um it does it talks about in the Preamble but all the wonderful things it's going to do including solve both male boldness and everything else including lowcost housing but then there's no provision there for low cost housing none and then there's no provision on limitation on size except it's got to be smaller than the existing principal dwelling so if you have a 4500 foot dwelling you can build an an accessory dwelling unit that's 4,499 square feet and that's what it would be called accessory volume with six bedrooms and two dining rooms and I mean that's a horrible piece of legislation so I understand your passion in terms of what we're looking at there's no accommodation for that it's completely silent on that that's correct C okay and and I do that for two reasons although that's a horrible legis piece of legislation uh and I hope certain State Assembly woman Senators listening um it was very well written in the sense that there's a long list of things that towns must do and there a equally long list of things that towns can't do um so so I didn't I didn't address at all I'm hoping it dies a slow painful death um the next proposed ordinance which I I did tackle um is probably more interesting than the first one we discussed um and and Paul was a great benefit in in in uh preparing this I want to thank them um dis orance also comes out of our earlier reports which talked about real briefly um doing things like formalizing a minimum lot size for the B District establishing average lot width requirements establishing impervious surface requirements um and coverages and things like that so I don't think everything in the world needs to be Define but if you're going to have a frontage requirement or an impervious coverage requirement I think you have to define those as basic terms now again I'm not picking anybody certainly um right now your your term your ordinance has a lot FR requirement but you don't Define the term so of the I think there are five uh definitions in here so I I put a lot Frontage requirement in no excuse me a lot Frontage definition and I tried to keep these definitions as simple as possible the distance between the side lot lines measured along the front lot line um your your re your reexamination report talked about defining impervious coverage and impervious surfaces so for imperious impervious surfaces I went to the D storm water regulations because they regulate imperious surfaces in storm water management so I took their definition and and this is what that is but then I did something different which the atts in a room may not like you don't Define imp perect you the township zoning or doesn't Define impervious surfaces in its main sections but it defines it or uses the term in your Clauses about generators and it says generators don't create don't contribute to impervious surface and then I think in one of the mount Boral housing zones it uses the term impervious surfaces so I or it regulates impers so I said as I defined it I said that um this definition of progress shall be inserted in every instance in chapter 580 where this term is presently defined or used and I give an example such that any other the use of this term will achieve consistency with the definition contained within section 582 which are the definitions so the again trying to achieve internal consistency the township shouldn't have four or three definitions for the same term so this one will provide a term and then make sure other places in the ordinance adopted um corner lot is an interesting term that's currently defined in your ordinance and it says any lot at the junction of and fronting on two or more intersecting streets with an here it gets interesting with an area and a frontage conforming to the requirements prescribed for the zones here and after created but a corner lots a corner lot it's a lot of intersecting streets it doesn't matter if it's way oversized or way undersized so I just struck the back part of the definition and suggest that we change the definition to say any lot at the junction of fronting on two or more intersecting streets and we leave the frontages and the areas out of it um side yard is also interesting under your current under the Township's current definition a side yard is an open unoccupied space within the lot between the side Lot line and the parts of the building nearest there too I think we all get that we've all mowed the grass in the side yard such side such side yard shall extend through from the street line or the front yard to the rear yard or another street but that's not what your uh definitions of front and rear yard uh defin it as because if you look at front yard at the at the very end of the definition it says no portion of the front yard shall be less in width than the requir Street furnish for the particular Zone in which the lot is located so my suggestion is the side yard definition should read just the way it starts off in open unoccupied space uh between site uh within the lot between a side Lot line and the nearest parts of the building and the parts of the building nearest there too such sh such side yard shall extend from the rear of the front yard to the front of the rear yard and no further so if you have a 40 foot front yard that's where this at at 41 or 41 and a half or I mean 40 and a half your your side yard would start and it would go to the back the street side of the rear yard because the way this is your side yard goes to the street line but that's not what the definition of front yard is so again to try to achieve that internal consistency I felt it was important to CH the definition of of side yard um and then with Mr Len yes is isn't the side yard specific to the building structure yes is there any way to reward that to reference the actual building structure make maybe make it a little bit more clear I'll be honest with you I I have to read that about three times to to to understand it let me let me work on that um but you're right it is a relationship to the sidey guard property line and the building and I'll you if I can rework please thank you sure are uh are Mechanicals considered part of the building or is it that varies with uh the town in some now in Washington Township you have something about generators I didn't see specific language about air conditioning units or other HVAC um equipment so generators are definitely regulated under Washington Township's code I'm not sure how the township has addressed other things Paul do you have any thoughts on that yes so we we have a lot of confusing language in the code as it exists so I agree with Mr L um so the thing relative to uh AC units conditional units in in the sidey there is there has been conflicting opinions over the years by the zoning officers at the time um but you could also then look at another section of our code that's not in the zoning ordinance per se it's in the property maintenance section of our code which defines incidental structures which could be interpreted to include AC units and incidental structures in States can be placed anywhere on on the on the property basically you know it's names mailboxes driveways uh retaining walls so that's why I mentioned to Steve that there are a lot of interconnections in the code that need to be taken into account so the AC condenser units has never really been fully defined I think a bigger issue that needs to be defined if we're going to uh amend the code would be with respect to swimming pools because swimming pools are not really regulated you know specifically within our code um historically they've been uh uh deemed to be accessory buildings so whatever standard existed in the code with respect to accessory buildings was applied to swimming pools and then you can complicate that even further to what part of a swimming pool are you talking are you talking the edge of the the decking surrounding a pool are you talking the coping front coping along the edge of the waterline or the waterline there there are a number of and then on pools you could then some towns uh speak of the water surface of a pool as being excluded from impervious cover calculations which right now we don't have that language so and other towns included specifically yes so there are a number of permutations and combinations of different standards that could uh come into play here so so the important thing is for the township to select standards that the board and the council think are most appropriate for the township it's one of those things in life where you really can't be wrong if you were include pools RS as impervious surface or if you were exced so there's there is flexibility but when it's in the ordinance there should be some internal consistency like right now the side yard is going to the front yard I think is contradictory to other parts of your ordinance it's fixable and I think that's what we're trying to achieve yeah my Mr Li my concern is that if we make it too definitive you going to be boxing potential uh you know uh Investments That owners want to make in their property right I didn't hear the front part of your your comment Mr chairman oh I'm sorry yeah yeah my apologies I'm not there in person but what I'm saying is if you make the side very definitive then what happens is the owner loses a certain level of ownership of his property right and and deters him from making investments in this property we we've defined them into this box as to what is considered a side Yar or what's considered an accessory in a side Yar that's my concern and do we do we leave it generic enough where there's some discretion of the zoning officer I don't think in that particular instance I don't think I recommended any changes to to um the width of the side yards in the various zones or what you can do with um what can be constructed in a side yard the only thing I may have done is in accessory structures um for certain I I did establish certain setbacks accessory structures and uh buildings of uh I think three or in smaller lots and 5 feet in the larger Lots but other than that the side yard setbacks um were not amended okay well again I want to address the concern of councilman Omen as to whether generators uh you know what constitutes an accessory you know on a piece of property J speaking and your ordinance does not have a definition of accessory building or structure um it talks about um well it does talk it doesn't have a definition but it talks about accessory buildings under 58-10 yeah and it says the current language of the ordinance in any District accessory buildings may be erected only in the rear yard provided that the building area covered thereby shall not exceed 15% of the required rear yard area of a minimum building lot in such District I I did change that a little bit I just stopped it at 15% of the of the uh yards um and then as as Mr jelina mentioned it says swimming pools tennis courts basketball courts and I'll stop right there those should not be considered accessory buildings because swimming pool is not a building a tennis court is certainly not a building and a basketball court I don't play basketball but that's not a building either uh and all other recreational uses in conjunction with private residential uses um May exceed the afores said limitation of 15% of the minimum required rear yard area they're considered impro though right the tennis court and the basketball court yes that would consider impervious coverage so the reason now I can argue the sidey yard two ways you know one it should be the building because that I think provides the most latitude for the owner of the house at the same time if they start putting generators AC you know other Mechanicals on the side yard and we have a 40 yard minimum a 40 foot minimum and it's you know 10 yards out or 10 feet out um you know we're then in infringing on the neighbor so I don't know which way is better I think it's probably what's well right now councilman the minimum side yard in all the districts is 15 feet not 40 and with the exception of the B Zone where it's 10 ft so right now the required minimum yard is 10 ft so let's say you had somebody with a 40 foot setback from the the side wall of the house to the side property line I would think that those features um like AC units would fit in the side yard accessory buildings though right now are limited to just the rear yard so even if you had a 30 foot flexible area beyond the setback your current ordinances if it's an accessory building it has to be in the rear yard but the side yards are a lot narrower than than you mentioned they're only 15 feet right but Mr light in in defining side yard and going back to ccan alman's point is it you know when we say parts of the building again is a generator air conditioning condenser considered part of the building maybe we need to better Define that well you you could do that and I think it's like with the impervious uh coverage for sloting pools I think if the township wanted to you could regulate them as an accessory structure or and I was a zoning officer for am Mars County community and uh it had a lot of Lake communities and the Lake community the lots are generally narrow so I decided that after looking at them um that air conditioning equipment is really equipment it's not a structure got it therefore because the that particulars Community dealt with accessory buildings and structures but not equipment I basically said that they weren't regulated by the zoning ordinance now that's very general generous approach I'm not suggesting you need to accept it but it's a way of looking at it um and I don't think we ever got a complaint from The Neighbors about it what I did do when the Lots were really close and and the uh uh equipment was very close to a property line I would suggest that there was a problem there but that a um a fence or wall would solve it and they'd be happy to do that so one thing you might want to consider is saying accessory uh air conditioning units are equipment and if located in the side yard have to have you know some sort of sound deadening or acoustical uh barrier between it and the and the neighboring property there are approaches to these kind of uh conundrums no no I I I like that suggestion so uh maybe what you can do Mr lien I know we have a lot to go through can you come back to us with a another recommendation as to the definition and maybe include we had just mentioned in your next version uh I I can but but um um I I try to keep definitions to being a def definition just to find what a microphone is I think I would prefer to put something in about airing units under accessory buildings got it slash structures slash equipment and if I'm hearing from the board right we're going to call air conditioning units equipment and therefore exempt but require an acoustical barrier if in the side yard did I get that right yeah that's my understanding yes okay I think you should uh attach generators too to the acoustic well the gener you have a whole section on generator section 58-11 um it's a page and a half long to tell you the truth I haven't that's one part of the udience I haven't read um uh it does say though that they have to be screened with shubber or fencing at least four feet in height um I could certainly stall acoustical barrier there I wouldn't even call it a fence just go acoustical barrier and without defining by DBA with acoustical barriers I would put a definition in the definition section so that people get an idea of what we're talking about so if we're going to go down that path should you strike an open unoccupied space because is the equipment occupying that space I I would prefer to leave it personally I'd prefer to leave it open and unoccupied and then under accessory buildings and structures and Equipment have an exception to the openend uh okay yeah I think it works better um acal barriers we're going to redefine side yard uh so it's more attached to the more tied in with the build the building and we're going to amend 5810 accessories buildings structures and equipments and I'll put in some type of fit there air HVAC I'm going to leave it broad HVAC equipment is permitted in the side yard regardless of any else any other Clause here in but um well um if in the side yard shall be uh equipped with an acoustical barrier Mr chairman can I add something to that yes please um Mr lien in the generator section uh section C3 it says a generator shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the side or rear property line could we do the same thing for the equipment that that you uh that you are looking to propose so we don't have equipment all over the place on a sidey yard but it's within 5 feet it's so it's it's at least 5 feet away from the side property line so it's not too close to the neighbors sure absolutely that's a good suggestion typically my experience is that you keep the HVAC equip pretty close to the dwelling but typically yeah yeah but having a minimum sure if you're if you're going to go if you're going to go ahead and Define the HVAC and actually put that in there you you might as well add that in there as well okay so now there isn't a stacking of equipment across you know to to the neighbor's property line um and every if everything could be tucked nicely close to the dwelling that would be ideal exactly yes and so h GAC um sh and you know what the 5 feet is also good because if it was closer than the to the property like that you probably could not put an acoustical Shield anyway yeah good point so having the hbac at least 5et this way it'll be consistent with with other equipment that you would typically put on the side of the house yes and for the Mechanical Code you need three foot clearance around all the hbac so that's you know works well with the flly for above I think it does Clos to and then to finish this up unless people have other thoughts um I'm going to change or adjust or revise the generators to um maybe strike the um shrey or fencing because quite frankly shrey does a good job of acoustic barrier by by simply hiding the equipment it doesn't do anything from a DBA perspective and and call for an acoustical uh barrier um okay I think I think those are are good uh good uh good changes okay so Mr lien can you continue certainly um so again with the assistance from Mr aelina he mentioned that your current ordinance defines yards as open and unoccupied space when it defines front rear and side yards and then in section uh 58-8 yard encroachment it says except as here and after set forth yards and courts required under this chapter shall be entirely free of buildings for parts thereof and then number nine is permitted projections where it talks about porches decks and patios patios don't bother me too much because patios traditionally never had had a building permit required for it because they were built at slab and they were at grade rather and they were um there's no building required for them um but forches and decks as far as I know have always required [Music] um building permits and have always been considered part of the of the dwelling so what I did was I left a which is an architectural feature of a dwelling which has as far as I know 98 % of the time been allowed to extend into a required open space and E that Chim your Smoke Stack Smoke Stack obviously being an older language uh provide the horizontal projection does not exceed 21 square feet that's pretty good size chimney and recommended that BC and D be eliminated and E be re be releted um this way when our yards are supposed to be open and open and unoccupied uh that's what they will be um failing that the other thing I would suggest doing is and this gets a little dicey is taking 10 feet off the required front yard setbacks but in the uh SE in the B Zone I think you're at 20 feet already so um that's getting awfully close to the street and you may have problems with um sight distance for the Neighbors driveway um I I I will be quite clear I do not know how many dwellings in the township were built under this Clause but I I think you'd be better off going forward allowing those to continue uh as grandfather you know projections but in the in the future if the setback is 40 feet or or 20 feet like it is in the B Zone that that's where the dwelling has to be behind and I have one more question about projection for the front yard yes some people like to put maybe a little re for the front door is that be included in projection as a projection I would consider that to be a projection yes and I would think that should be regulated by the front yard setback whatever that might be that so okay so that little feature that just sticks out for the front door has to has to abide by the front yard I have seen if it's enclosed yes if it's a use an oldfashioned turn Smoke Stack if it was a stoop type situation okay steps up to a conf with something over with a little roof over it then yeah and sometimes even metal I I don't think those rise to the level of a of a projection okay and and maybe that's how you could modify the existing uh projections with a little bit finer scalpel uh permitted projections maybe talk about Stoops of a certain size I I think that would be and and with you know unenclosed Stoops but allow for a roof project a roof projection so roof would you be able to add something like that in there uh sure if that's uh if that's the consensus of the board I could certainly do that I would make it uh bid that uh un um unenclosed Stoops and steps um with or without a roof uh of a certain size probably four feet because you have to have at least three feet for swinging door so it needs at least another foot to get around it so uh a five foot stoop or entry platform I'd use both terms so it's clear what what's meant roofed or unroofed would be allowed in both the front as well as a side joint because you may have a side loaded dwelling and I would put that under uh permitted projections probably under B scoops and uh roof or un roofed and i' probably you know if the door needs to swing three feet I'd probably make it people have packages in their hand or a child I'd probably make it five feet sound and maybe not to exceed so someone doesn't do the L front like maybe uh not 16 30 square feet in area so it allows for entry into a dwelling and it can be roofed but uh it no one's going to fall off it hopefully so I'd make that five feet uh not to exceed 30 square feet in size okay so getting back to the uh the one that the order the definitions if there's nothing else um here under under your current ordinance Street Frontage and lot area lot area requirements so because we use Street Frontage I decided that was a term that should be included in the uh in the definitions and and I expanded this a little bit um there was a suggesting that lot with be included so this was the place to put it and I also thought since you have 20% of the lot air the uh the building regulation here this was also a place to add impervious coverage [Music] um so I changed the name of these and this gets repeated throughout the UR and spe of the single family districts to read Street Frontage lot width and depth lot area and coverage requirements and and um the the the number if you will for those criteria are probably best reflected in uh a memo to the chairman dated June 21st which has on its second page a chart of all the zones and what I did was I put the I typed in all the EX ones and the ones that I was not proposing to change I left alone uh the ones I was proposing to change let's say under the AAA Zone minimum lot depth I struck out the 95 that's the existing criteria and put in 175 and then highlighted it for um so there's no surprise so you could clearly see what the change what the existing one is and what the changes are so this um these numbers didn't change much if you look at that I think if you look at this page I think there are six strikeouts minimum lot depth for the AAA and the double A Zone and then a few for Building height uh in the A and the B Zone I recommended that the uh Building height go from 28 ft in one zone to 30 and 25 in the B Zone to 28 the other changes the two larger lot zones I recommended the minimum rear yard be modified from 25 to 50 and this gets back to internal consistency of the ordinance you have a 20 your ordinance right now has a 25 foot requirement on an acre lot on a 10,000 foot lot it's got a 30 foot setback requir somehow that doesn't sound right to me so in order to make the the sea uh consistent I suggested that I'm suggesting recommending that the two larger lots have a 50 foot setback uh the the other thing that's on here is I've included the BB Zone which might be a little arrogant on my part since Township hasn't adopted it but I wanted to be complete and show you how would fit in with the other zones and I also included the maximum per coverage which shows that uh it's a lower percentage uh in the larger Lots but it's um it's a bigger area and uh it's a larger area but a smaller square footage in the uh 7500 foot lot ask question sure if today someone is in an AA and has a conforming lot in terms of depth so it's 95 ft okay or 100 feet okay um and this is adopted and it now goes to 150 there is no the existing homeowner there's no action that he needs to take at that point that's correct and if they go to put an addition on or you know uh they would need to follow the newly adopted so it would be 150 well so how how how does that they do need to follow the newly adopted that's con and this may be 15 years in the future but yes they would need to follow the at the time ordinance um if they had a a lot of a half acre and it let's say it had 100 feet of depth um I would if I were your zoning officer um I would say that the loot depth was an existing condition that pre-existed this ordinance and therefore did not require a variance but if you've got a lot that's this large and only 100 feet of depth and he wants to do something in the rear yard he's probably going to need a rear yard variance because I'm suggesting that it go from 25 feet to 50 feet and um right now in that Halfacre Zone you've got a 50 foot setback so the house can't be any closer than 50 feet to the street line houses are 30 28 35 feet deep you you have a lot depth requirement of 95 fet he's practically to that back line before he starts so his if he has only 100 feet of Frontage and he meets the um he meets the front yard set back of 50 feet he's probably in a varying situation even under today's standards because I doubt he's got another 25 ft behind him unless he has an exceptionally deep lot I mean you know one of the things you fall into your traps when you read these you start thinking that each lot is just like the zone and in reality few of them are so there may not be one lot Washington Township in the AA Zone that's exactly 21,780 square feet sure um and and uh there are probably very few that are 95 feet deep they are probably much deeper than that um and then where the houses go through the years it's hard to just trying to understand as we change these as we legislate and make these changes you know what burdens potential burdens are we putting on existing residents people who want to come in people who want to invest uh so I'm just trying to well that's a good point and we did leave the building coverage even though you mentioned that typically it would go higher as or the number would go lower as you got larger Lots we did try to provide a a reasonable amount in the impervious coverage so it wouldn't necessarily somebody over automatically you know the idea of doing this wasn't to play gotta with your 10,000 homeowners it was to when you think about it go back to the pr periodic report and talk about Environmental Protection and sustainability so um you know and that number that's 33 if if the board or the council told me they want to make that 35 I'd sleep tonight as long as I don't pass that dwelling unit down and build Tren um if that if you want to be that 35 uh that would be that would be fine you know this is not uh as much as we might try to pretend it's all science there's a lot of Art and I'll be the first person to tell you that and this PO this discussion about the entry Stoops is a perfect example um I think that's a modification which makes a lot of sense or talking about the specifically allowing the air conditioning equipment in the side Jo with reasonable precautions for the neighbor okay yeah I think that's the light I think what we have you would your suggestion suggesting is uh is is reasonable right and to your point you know we we can vacillate on what the number should be all night uh but I think your suggestions here are are very reasonable based on the discussion tonight and previous discussions well well thank you but but I I do want to make sure board members feel free to say hey that 35 that 33 is too low make it 35 and my response is 35 it is um yeah I have one set of eyes and one set of experience uh that's why it's a board and not a zar Who does these things and uh and I don't pretend to have H perfect knowledge that's Mr aene at the end of the uh the days um M Mr chairman I am a little bit concerned though about the changes uh proposed as just to add to to councilman Olman are we now going to force unnecessarily our our our residents and future residents to go to the zoning board for variant because the ordinance is written in such a way uh you know we we we have this issue with garages today right and I and the zoning board rectified it about two years ago residents were unnecessarily coming to the zoning board for variance because of the way the ordinance was written back in the 80s um is this now going to cause that same that same issue it could I'm not going to sugarcoat it could however there is uh through the genius of the municipal land use law uh there is a remage that and you well know it the the municipal uh the municipal land Law requires Boards of adjustment to prepare annual reports and share those with the planning board and and the mayor and counsel so let's assume uh the planing board and and the maying council love all these additions that we made with the additions we're making tonight and adopted and then we find out that um the uh the BB Zone the um the lot depth shouldn't be 10 and uh what did I make it 150 it should really be 110 ft well the zoning board would have new ous applications let's say in a year they had nine well it's incumbent then upon the zoning board to share that knowledge with this board and the mayor and councel and say guys we like the new ordinance but you might want to give some slat you might want to change that particular portion of it so that we don't get so many variances coming before the zoning board and and you know it's easy for me to pick out one example everything else sounds fine sure sure maybe there are three um and then the mayor the planning board would be aware of it the mayor and Council would be aware of it and and hopefully reasonable Minds would say yeah we agree with our our zoning board we'll make that change so in the old days before there was a requirement for the board of adjustment to do a um an annual report a a modification modifications like we're suggesting here might cause a significant number a very significant number of people to go to the zoning board for variances for years before it finally got changed and it usually came up in the next periodic re reexamination report but now with the somewhat recent change uh to the to the law uh I think especially in a town like Washington Township I think if one of these Provisions becomes unworkable I I think your planning board and your mayor and counsel will know about it fast and will make the appropriate changes you know I don't like to get into Boy Scout land very often but at a certain point there is a trust factor and and and I think um the public trust the mayor and Council to do the right thing with the zoning ordinance and in exchange I think the mayor and Council have to have a certain amount of trust in the board of adjustment to let them know hey we kind of like things but let's modify this to some degree and you and from my perspective you know we're putting a stick in the ground here and to Mr lien's point and Mr Tor as you as you are aware when you were the head of the zoning board you know you had a number of applications around garages right and the size of the garage you brought it to to to the planning board we talked about it and then we changed we modifications to that ordinance right on the size of the of the of the garage I think from this from the perspective of what Mr Lon is saying I think we put a stick in the sand we monitor it on a continuous basis and yes if some of these numbers well if the ordinance is passed by the council uh and when then we start to see that there's a number of application before the zoning board then we you know let's let's revisit it at a later time but from my perspective I think we need to put a stick in the sand and say this is our perspective today based on the facts and then we'll continue to monitor on a go forward basis okay that's my point of view I agree with the chairman at the same time I think it is important to do you know take a good close look at the proposals and make sure they pass the smell test and if they don't pass the smell test throw it out right Mr chairman may I make a comment uh yes Mr Mayor thank you um I don't ever remember seeing this Z zoning board annual report maybe Grace is secretary to both boards you can bring that up to them maybe they're not aware of it or something or or if they haven't been preparing it we did do one year S I think the first year second okay yeah just a reminder to them thank you do it it it really does become an effective Tool Man it sounds like it yeah yeah especially when I I wouldn't call these wholesale changes but there's I haven't counted them but there's probably 50 or 70 changes here and if you count the number of lots changing from proposed to change from a to BB there's probably more than there there are more than that so the next couple of years having an annual report would be very if this gets adopted would be very important upset on that topic so [Music] um I I do throughout this ordinance and that's why this ordinance got to be six pages long because of the format of your ordinance you know when I changes the front when I change the front yards for the AA AAA Zone I had to do it for the double A Zone I had to do it for the a Zone had to do it for the the B zone so there's a lot of repetition in here but basically it's um it's repetition with the exception of the number and in all cases I don't think with all cases except for the rear yard and the larger zones I did not um change the the the proposed setbacks from what you've been using for the last uh number of years um the lot depths for the two larger zones the mum rear yard for the two larger zones and the building height so that's trying to use a scal on and trying to um work within the boundaries the four squares of the uh of the ordinance and um I did I do strongly recommend that someplace in the body of the ordinance a schedule um either of your existing ordinance or the modifications be inserted into the the zoning ordinance and and uh I know we talked about this last time the the zoning if if this or anything similar to this BB Zone gets created um a new zoning map one need to be prepared and that would be in my mind the time to take out the legend from the zoning map I think and um and and put a schedule into the into the ordinance um and and because I wasn't using the holy hand grenade quote Monty Python um if we were redoing this ordinance in a in a comprehensive way we would have taken out a lot of these uh 580 16 front yards 580 17 rear yards side yards and see c Schedule a um but we're trying try to use a scaffold um and and I think that's really uh the significant portions of of the second ordinance with definitions on in front and I am going to make some changes to the uh the side yard definition uh includ include the acoustical barriers um I'm going to do something about the accessory building structures and Equipment um and I'm going to exempt hbac equipment in that side yard but that they have to have uh two things they have to be at least 5 feet off the property line and they have to have an Inus barrier um and we're going to change the generators to have an Inus barrier well and we're going to change section nine to have the Stoops roofed and unroofed five feet can extend 5 feet out from the dwelling as long as they're not greater than square feet and 30 um and and that's really what this uh June 17th Now talks about it talks it sort of um summarizes the changes because I know there's a lot to give everybody at one time and and I thought a comparison of some of the surrounding community uh zones might give you a better feel as to what appropriate numbers for rear yard setback a front yard setback or or a building coverage might be um but I think it's important to remember as you read these that just like Washington Township can't be right or can't be wrong neither can these other communities so they may have a standard um well like well here mon can be long they measure their their front yard step back from the center line of the street which that's that's there's no reason for that I don't think anybody so and the other thing towns some towns do a lot of our neighboring towns do um they have a I don't think wash Township they'll have for side yard one number and a combined side yard that's greater than taking those two numbers and adding them together and and I don't quite understand that because if your neighbor to the north is worried about what your side yard looks like he doesn't really care what the neighbor to the to the side yard to the South looks like so U I always recommend that whatever the side yard be the combin just we double it um so so I I think this might be informative and maybe will give you one of two things it'll give you give you a better idea that maybe my numbers are reasonable as a chairman might have suggested thank you Mr chairman or maybe that in one or two cases or three cases they are not reasonable and you'd like to see a different number so I am going to be coming back with some of these these memos so I I uh I I would suggest you might want to spend at least a little time looking and with the other communities in the pasac valley and alcus has got the other ordinance um I had for you was the one that changed um the east side of pasak road from one lot south of Ridgewood Road to include down South up until but not including Hampton Court the that was these properties on the east side going back to the brook I I recommended the uh the Double A Zone which is a half acre be adjusted to an acre um I'll give you something else to think about I'm coming back um I did that quite frankly because these are all oversized lots and we had a Halfacre Zone with in and I was suggested to me make to reone them to something larger going to the you know never mind I'm not making any sense I was going to say use the BB Zone that's a smaller Lots on so forget it um but that that's that could be considered a significant change you're doubling the lot size requirement but no we're not changing the lot Frontage or lot width requirement and all of these Logs with the exception of one are and even that's 221 ft deep are exceptionally deep Lots so the extra and they're all over an acre with the exception of one which is half acre uh I don't think this would create non-conforming situations with the councilman was talking about for any of those lots so you wouldn't be able to put a flag light in the back no the other thing you wouldn't be able to do the other reason why I don't think you'd be able to do that and I don't have perfect knowledge on this I think the Brooke well I know the brook has a 300 foot buffer where you really can't do anything and there may be w there are well back there um so between the DP limitations and and your Ence w't allow it now because your requires 100 foot Frontage and most of them all of them with the exception of two have 100 feet of Frontage and only one has double of that so um without variances you wouldn't be able to do a flag lot um even the way written now so so that's what I have Mr chairman uh how about the ordinance on the uh the vehicles that's the one I um I was focusing more on these and I did I I ran out of time okay I you know I was trying to do more research on trailers and it took a little bit more time and I should have asked for help in the office and I didn't so that's that's on me Mr chairman but I'll pledge you this next time I'm back I'll have something definitive for that for the board to take a look at okay great so uh when before I get to that point uh any of my fellow board members have any additional questions of Mr lien so I give my parting comments on these ordinances so I guess really a question so so the next time we meet you'll have those suggestions included okay sorry yes and and I will also have uh ordance recommendations for modifications to the uh commercial vehicles um allowing one and probably exempting RV uh and I was looking for the classification I think that's the C classification but without my notes in front of me I'm not sure exempting RV trailers because those generally aren't what cause complaints It's usually the the Mason dump and the landscapers trucks which Mr chairman uh just one question you P I did not receive the comparative analysis with the other towns memo I don't know if the other board members did but I didn't rece that I'll send it out tomorrow okay yeah I didn't get it either I just got a two that's what I thought it's not Grace's T I got that to her very late uh that's on me for sure okay just um from a uh a process perspective do we know where the uh litigation is with the corner so we can address it as part of an ordinance so we we' backed away from that given the existing litigation my understanding is that that litigation continues Friday at 2:30 until Friday at 2:30 Friday at 2:30 I me I'm not telling AR trial was Friday 2:30 all brief ARG Friday is it on Zoom no it's actually calling it's it's it's by phone somewhat bizarre the way she handles it which judge do you have without going in too much detail I think we have a decent position based on the negative criteria and the master plan never being amended that zone is still there's that so y we will see I'm not overly optim this but I have some op I can I guess I'll report to I usually report to Ken Ken to so or feel free to reach out you know just for my two sents we had the earlier application what four five years before the current one that was withdrawn that it was um first yes first har Corporation har landas CVS that was that was contentious uh a lot of public following it and then it was ultimately withdrawn and the mayor and Council didn't CH chose not to change the Z correct so that to me means that the mayor council didn't want to so you read my brief no actually but I think that's an next I don't know how to get around that one there are two Supreme Court cases that based to say you know the town didn't change the town father's intent is to keep it residential especially because there's only one commercial Zone in the town the SE zone right so if they want to extend it they can certainly extend it they have it their argument is it looks like a retail commercial zone so it should be allow meet here wow I would think that if zoning board had approved it I think the mayor and councel would have a good argument if they want to go to court yeah the zoning board can't abser the mayor and council's Authority it's a use are so very hard to get so see interesting so I haven't changed I hav anything that but if there's a judge Fon usually decides fairly quick yeah not judge P who take who might ex so so maybe we want to discuss that the next time I'm here Mr councilman Mr chairman yep no makes a lot of sense I'll uh I'll get together with uh the mayor the councilman and and Luke after Friday and then we can discuss uh whether we want to dis we we we discuss amongst ourselves what we want to discuss at the next uh planning board meeting I'll let Ken know uh I think the last one we did with her she had a decision that was The Vape uh The Vape shop that one to me was a little less a little more uh little more more of a difficult case um meaning we did have real like to stand on that case here I think there are some really difficult issues she's going to have to get through so whether she has read the briefs and has an opinion ready or whether she's going to take some time to write I don't know so I The Briefing was very extensive uh but it really comes down to me the negative criteria is just not met because of the uh own is V for you know residential and not commercial okay so with that being said uh Lou I don't should we open uh have a motion to open up the public portion of these ordinances you can uh I if anyone's but we're not really taking any action so nothing to concern but if the public someone wants comment they surely can okay yeah I think for uh parliamentary procedure let me let's open up for public portion do I have a motion to open up the public portion no I'll make a motion to open up the public I'll second all in favor all Grace is everyone in the audience or on uh video who would like to comment on these ordinances proposed ordinances sorry no okay well I have a motion to close the public portion motion have a second a second second all in favor okay we have H no new business uh so with that uh are there any board members who have any issues which they would like to discuss at this time I do l one issue uh yes Mr Mayor and I don't know if the councilman has brought it up I've missed the past few meetings uh because I have a conflicting thing of our first meeting every month about uh not allowing Zoom for public comments have you brought that up Mike to follow the council's lead I have not okay I mean do you want to go into it as the council reper would you like me to speak on it or you're welcome to speak on it okay um the council has pretty much decided uh because of an incident that happened with people uh calling in uh making derogatory comments um that they're no longer going to allow the public to comment over Zoom that you'd have to be personally in person at the meeting uh that way you're showing your face and state your name um and you know the pandemic is mostly over um so the council is moving in that direction uh for consistency sake I would suggest that the planning board at least consider the matter and uh again Grace if you want to let the zoning board know that way we're consistent among the governing body and the boards uh so I don't think you have to take a vote tonight think about it maybe we can talk about it at the next meeting okay thank you Mr Mayor so Grace what we can do is let's put that as an agenda item for the next uh meeting okay okay and then Mr Lon how quickly can you change uh turn around these changes will you be ready the next uh planning board meeting with the um July 4th holiday I don't know I'll have the commercial vehicles done that's turned into kind of a bear chasing my tail and I'm trying to come up with a different way of doing it so um but I think at least the proposed ordinances we discussed this evening know if we can keep progressing forward I I could have those done if if if I could reach out to Grace by let's say Tuesday if I can get the commercial because that way it'll keep me you know nose to the grindstone that'll keep me um engaged and maybe if I can tell Grace I'll have it done by Tuesday or by Tuesday I'll know if I can have it done for the next hearing which is what I'd like to do quite frankly no that'd be great because I want to be able to uh at least conclude on these three while we're working through the fourth one and we can give the mayor and C if these ordinances proposed ordinances are approved by the board then at least we can push forward what's been approved so the mayor and Council can start to uh review them uh from their perspective and decide whether they need modifications or they can be approved as ritten I I'll be here at the next hearing then Mr chairman I will make sure I'm done all right I will get them done all right Mr Liden I have all faith in you that you will get them done for the next next meeting when is the next Grace do you have that date handy yeah yeah it is um July 10th I will have them done to you and I'll have them to Grace beforehand so she can distribute them okay oh that's great Mr L I appreciate it so uh just want to keep progressing forward yes okay so uh any other uh comments from my fellow board members none okay do I have a motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor I all right everyone again thank you for uh your participation tonight tonight and uh look forward to the uh next revision from Mr Leiden and our further discussions on the 10th thank you Lenny good job from Miles Away have a sayfe yeah it's it's two o'clock in the morning I have a s o'clock flight so I'm just gonna stay up oh jeez safe travels thank you take care everyone bye [Music] now