##VIDEO ID:9MkXshgyiPE## notice of this meeting of the Zoning Board of assment was sent by email to the as Park Press and the coar our official newspapers and posted on the bu Board of the municipal building mross Mr Mr Al Mr Mr O'Neal here Mr here Melle here okay get started Al flag United States of America the stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all you do have to put your heart your hand over your heart for the pledge but you don't have to do it for the start back ask St got in trouble for not hard can I have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 24th meeting I'll make that motion second Mr Mr oal the first resolution is for 2 thir Avenue okay so Kevin tells me he goes through the resolution for every word so I if you have a question ask me he just does a quick summary a quick summ all right so he basically highlighted it for me I ke to do um use VAR approval for the exension of a pre-existing nonperforming use by allowing the installation of a pool on a lock containing more than one residential structure and the special conditions which he also highlighted for me um we want confirmation that the grass lawn area will be maintained on the site for the testimony presented confirmation that the proposed fence will inclose the entire property confirmation that the numerous replacement papers will shall be utilized in conjunction with the testimony presented and then um let's see he also has a check for record keeping purposes and as it very extensively discussed on the record at the public hearing the board here in is not legitimizing the existing garage Cottage rather per the on record discussion St of the said existing barage Cottage remains unchanged as a result of within and I those are the only sever conditions a motion to off that resolution I'll make that Mr Greg yes Mr ala no Mr F yes Mr Luben yes mril yes okay uh the next one is for the application of Lisa and John Cronin the 1501 C Street yes so Mr chair I understand there's an issue with this application and that uh there was an issue on a perious coverage during the course of the hearing where you were told there was no such variance but subsequent have anoun that there is a variance that's necessary that's understand profal here yes and so am I representing that correctly yes so it's our it's Kevin's recommendation and I agree with him that it wouldn't be appropriate to adopt this resolution tonight because things are going to change and it's really up to the applicant to determine whether they're going to um Ren notice and come back to reopen the hearing to put on their proofs for the extra variants that they're asking for um or to figure out if they could possibly do it without having to change the resolution in which case theoretically the resue could be adopted but I don't know how you would do that so uh but it can't but I would not recommend resoltion okay so let me just for the folks that weren't here and and just clarification um in the last meeting um we seemed inclined to approve that application and we went to a vote however the vote was contingent because we had some questions about the square footage um or the um total uh loot coverage and Total Building coverage calculations we seem to be um uh all over the place with that and I want to I want I would like to remind everybody and board members included that um you're testifying as to the accuracy of the information that's being provided to us we can only go by by the truth of your word appreciate the fact that you guys indicated you know lack of confidence in those numbers but had we had that confidence and we forward we would have been proving the varant that had incorrect information on it um so you know to try to help we went forward with that I think in the future we really should not get to a vote unless we know for sure that the numbers are accurate because we voted with inaccurate numbers and it turns out there's it appears to be that there's going to be two additional variances Tri one for loot coverage and went for building coverage and that possibly could have had an effect on board members votes had they known that prior to making the vote so with that um I believe if I'm not mistaken I don't want to speak for Kevin but I believe Kevin recommended that relo this be done you would have to um so one of two things is going to happen either they can build the application without those two variances in which case it would be okay but I don't think that's possible the board did we confirm that that that being in compliance with black cover disable we're being told by the applicants that yeah to just just St your name Joseph kba kba Engineering Services m I was uh I am the professional on the application and you're still under roath I'm still under oath as you recall uh the plan that was submitted was planned prepared by my office once we did actually calculate we found that there is a building covered variance and the imperious covered variance is larger than we had indicated from the calculations I cannot eliminate both of them without substantial impact to what's that oh I cannot you know eliminate both without substantial impact to the site uh especially the building covered VAR which was not you know on the application so so so so basically there's no way they can proceed on this resolution so it's improper to adopt this resolution and what is probably going to happen although I leave it to the applicant is the applicant is going to have to Reen notice to reopen the hearing to make those proofs on those variances they theoretically don't need to start from round zero they don't start from from the beginning if the board doesn't want them to because you already heard the application but they need to at least put the proofs on that they can uh get that their C of those two variances without any detriments but that's going to be upon full notice I think I think upon coming back we'll have discussion as to the level of additional detail to recover uh you might have a different composition of the board compared to who was here last month fa um you know that alone could change things um clearly if there new board members that didn't hear the original application they made I mean I know they could go listen to it but but context of what we have going on I think a recap of of the project and the changes that are submitted as well as the the the any other adjustments that are made numbers that are provided you know we have to have an opportunity to go through that again and then revote and just because we approved it under the previous presumptions doesn't necessarily mean any board member is going to be tied to to voting the same way that they did the prior time given the fact that there's two additional variances being requested here I I agree okay so with all that said um I think it's just a matter of you know re noticing and getting back on the docket and coming back and you know hopefully do it in short not an extended period of time but we do have to you know cover that ground so for for the sake of work members that aren't here absolutely and we certainly understand that I fully anticipated uh that I'll be providing my testimony again based upon the new numbers and the proper justifications for okay great okay so um oh Alber still under just to clarify a few things because our clients here scratching his so they bought the house still in Dr right yep they bought the house from the person I built built it for got the co met all the coverage the person they bought it from put that back patio in they put the shed in and they put the shed on the side of the house along with the Astro ter that's how he bought so he's not thinking anything other than he wants to add a sun room in the back and Jo particular I believe Tony was the one that picked up on it correctly so the numbers on the architect that the owner hired Mr Feldman the surveyor couldn't get to it so Mr Feldman did all those coverages that's all that Joe spoke about last meeting and then couple guys still talking Beau picked up on so with that said there's nothing we could get established last meeting understand it's not Jo's fault it's not the Jim if I could say I just want to be clear and and you know it's it's this is meant for a lot of people that aren't in this room right now whether it's an honest mistake which this apparently is okay or an intentional misrepresentation it doesn't matter to us as a board it's wrong right how it got wrong and why it got wrong the only thing that matters is when we have U licensed professionals coming in front of us and presenting numbers as if they're accurate we have to take the word for if if they're not being truthful with us or or it's an honest error there they still run the risk of losing their license if it gets reported as you know if it's off if it's di minous who cares but if it's if it's a in this case if it's a significant enough um move away from the numbers to trigger two additional variances understood that's a bigger deal right so I think we notice is in order you know no harm no faou come back but but had the original application gone out with those two variances requested you know we could have had a different outcome yeah so my my my point behind all this not to throw an architect under the bus is that the architect put the wrong numbers in that you read so that's why you guys picked up on it it was correctly so in talking this is just talk but in talking to Mr Cronin here he's going to move forward with replacing the imper the impervious pavers with impious pavers to get a credit to give a credit back towards the coverage the turf that was put in is pervious which Joe can testify to I we do have the documentation and so we basically want to leave what's there except switch out the Pap you're but we're not doing that tonight NOP I'm just explaining how we got to this point but my point is I don't think it's necessary this evening I think right now we're just deciding to to table this we're not going to approve the resolution tonight request that it be Ren noticed and you get scheduled to to to return with with be prepared to do a full application as you did last time it may not take as long as it did it wasn't that long just explaining out for right okay so so with that um I would like to make a motion to turn down or or you're not turning it down you're just taing that resolution okay we'll table the resolution for tonight I don't know if we need to vote on tbling it or not I would assume I have no problem with a a motion and a voice okay I'll make a motion to table the approval of the resolution for we and John Cronin uh to actually the resolution is actually um inaccurate now anyway so uh we're just going to table it until it gets modified pending uh the a rehearing of the application at a future date correct okay is the board uh able to identify a future date now considering the documentation is already ready know who's in charge of that January 30th so if we can just get a second on that motion and then you can just do it all okay we have copies we did subm those are the ones that were given to us right great all right thank you guys only additional information we'll submit is I'll I'll do a letter on the Astro turs or that equivalent to it's equivalent to a per cover sounds good thank right thanks resolution is for to 10 16 Avenue all right chairman this was approval ass request toate a number of existing home the Let's see we had specifically the proposed improvements include the following construction of an addition to the one lawfully existing single Town site the enclosure of a covered Paro at the site construction of a perious open deck at the site and modification to the existing shed at the and the conditions let's see with regard to the amended application request relief the board notes the following these aren't conditions yet initially per the applicate submitted the applicant was under the belief that the site contained a front dwelling and a rear dwelling unit a cottage the subject plans even reference the structure of the guest house the Burrows R 50 zoning regulations do not permit to to be located on one loots the applicant's representatives plans initially suggested that the two D units of the site consisted of a pre-existing nonform use constituted for pre-existing years as such based upon the initially submitted plans the zoning officer issued a zoning letter sugges the proposal to construct inition to the front well unit constituted and expansion of a preexisting nonform use the applicant Representatives publicly noticed for such a use variant for the expansion of a nonperforming use the out representative is also publicly noticed for The Bu variant as well during the public hearing process testimony was presented in reference to the existing back structure specifically there was testimony suggesting that there was no air conditioning service in the rear structure and no heating service in the back structure Additionally the testimony indicated that the so-called rear dwelling had never been had never really been occupied or otherwise utilized as a living space rather the testimony indicated that the O's grandmother would occasionally only using the rear structure for cooking purposes during the public hearing process the board members were ultimately advised thisal records including tax records show that the rear structure was not assessed was assessed not as a dwelling unit but rather only as a shed that is Municipal records did not reflect the thear structure with the guest house as reflected on the initially submitted plans and the initial and testimony rather as reference Minal record suggested that the back structure was only a shed the issue was a concern for the board members clearly the board members did not want to recognize or otherwise legitimize pre-existing non-forming use with regard to the rear structure if there was no legal B requir for doing so the board members recognize that the designation of a pre-existing nonform use is significantly is a significant property right which is and should only be designated with lawful pre-existing nonperforming use status when there was legitimate for doing so respectfully based upon the information reviewed by the zoning board members there was no basis to find the rear structure constituted a noning dwelling use so those are the facts and then the conditions there are a lot okay uh confirmation the special conditions are that confirmation that there shall only be one single family dwelling at the site confirmation that the rear structure shall not be utilized as a dwelling unit but rather the same will only be utilized as a shed storage area confirmation that the plan shall be modified to be consistent with the testimony information presented during the public hearing and consistent with the terms of the within resolution confirmation that the building coverage of the site shall be corrected reduced 38% confirmation that there shall be no Plumbing Associated within the rear structure of shed confirmation that the kitchen shall be removed from the existing rear structure which will be converted to a shed confirmation of the bathroom shall be removed eliminated from the rear structure which shall be converted to a shed confirmation that the existing fling shall be removed from the rear structure which shall be converted to a shed confirmation that the existing rear structure at the site shed shall be repurposed as a storage area confirmation that tire stripes with pervious material between the same shall be installed sight from the driveway to the Tov repurpose Jed confirmation that the impervious coverage shall be reduced to 65. 57% confirmation that the materials for the rear structure to be converted to a shed shall aesthetically not complement the existing single family home at the site in terms of materials color style Etc and inclusion of outdoor shower details associated with the rear structure be converted to a shed if the applicant so desires and further provided that the same appes prevailing mpal zoning regulations and then have some more um let's see confirmation that the renovated front structure will ultimately look like resemble The Illustrated rendering Mark into evidence exibit A8 confirmation that that to be repurposed shall be recited to match complement the renovated front single family home confirmation of the new deck approved shall not be covered and closed absent further former approval of the Belmar zoning board adjustment confirmation that the site shall contain a minimum of two compliant 9 9 ft by 20 ft parking spaces on the site and confirmation that there be no separate utilities for the 2 be repurpose shed uh they also shall perpetually abandon any potential pre-existing non-forming rights associated with the rear structure and I think that's it as far as conditions yes it is thank you Mr you're welcome have a copy of the revised drawings that show the calculations match what's in the resolution motion to approve I'll make that okay one more resolution I'm sorry no it's establishing the you you sent that out there I guess you're just the motion to approve I'll make that motion in favor um April if you don't mind I don't know if all board members are aware but we had four scheduled for tonight but three of the four actually could you tell us what the new dates are please um yes so the applications for 10312 Avenue and 12 Avenue were were never noticed um so those are we're not carrying them or anything we're just postponing them until they um notice for a meeting dat so that's a TV they're both TVD then in terms of dates two and four 1032 and 503 um 508 13th Avenue um the homeowner is um going to obtain an attorney to help him with appliation so he requested to carry his application to the January 30th meeting without the need to re notice and he agree to extend the time frame okay so I just need a motion to carry the application of Canon Annabelle Thor for 508 13th Avenue to January 30th I'll all in favor so as a general announcement I know probably maybe there are people here so Ken and Annabelle Thorne at 508 13th Avenue that application is not being heard tonight it's going to be heard on January 30th at 6: pm. you're not going to receive any further notice so if you want to be heard on that application you need to be in this room at that time okay thank you just some general asking for me we have a set of plans Mr Peterson we also have provided one is for the two they're for the two resolutions that we just talked about one's for 1501c and one is for 107 16 Mr Alber there's the cover letter and the two plans that they are for 107 and then1 was just single docent 10 completed right that's where the documents just clarifying the numbers that so yeah so I 10312 and 50312 I had already giving you guys in your packets before I found out that they weren't noticed so just hold on to them until they get added back to the agenda so we only have one application tonight um we just approve the dates but November has two different options oh yeah you guys are supposed to Mr Alber 1501 C is you right Mr Alber yeah that's gotta J's plan did anyone have a preference on the 13th or the 20th I know either for Kevin but the has a preference nov year whatever good for you April whatever wor I got a quarter if you want 13th is good with me if you want to right we'll do the 13th and then this way if we ever as the year goes on we need to back full back we can always 20th right all right looks like we're ready to hear this first this first and only application 1234 Bri so Mr chairman Mr Kennedy did U youw notice that be me about to this evening thank you very much and if I can Mark into evidence the following exhibit um exhibit A1 will be the new application package dated August 8 12 sorry August 1224 exhibit 82 will be the application checklist exhibit the minor land use zoning permit dated 44444 exhibit 84 is the minor land use denal form dat 6424 exhibit 85 are the architectural for PL and Elations dated 8224 and access of Three Sheets sheet one is dated 8224 sheet two it was revised was also dated 8224 was revised on I it's 94 I don't have does anybody have them what the what sheet2 is revised as of or maybe maybe they were originally dated 42424 and rev 8224 and then she 3 is is 8224 424 that's the original dat okay that's what so it was originally dat 444 and then it and that's all I have for exhibits and I I can swear in the applicant and their AR you do them all at once Mr chairman yes yeah okay do you both swear and testimony you're going to give this evening will be the truth the truth I do I do I just State your names for the record paulen and just name sir a n l c h e n k o and your licensed architect state of New Jersey yes sir is in good standing at this time yes yes and Sir you're the owner of the property correct I am and how long have you own the property uh a little over actually four years has this month four years and there's there's an existing single family home at the site y you live there I do and at this time you're proposing an addition uh yes and can uh you please explain or have your you're doing Mr explain the reason for growing family yeah so we're looking to extend the back uh my wife and I both work from home uh we currently have one kid and a dog and we have a baby on the way um so as we love the house and we love the area we take walks every day we love are but the the main reason why we're looking to extend is uh since we both work from home we need another office space um and we would be extending to go to the second floor for an office space off of our bedroom um off of our primary so um it's so we can live here the rest of our lives there is is that it for your presentation in terms of why you feel you need this expansion um well it's more of the space having a family um there's definitely more to build off that me but u i we love bmar so much we don't ever want to leave please my questions are to try to help you so don't take it the wrong way typically somebody would come here with an attorney right use attorney attorney would would assist in providing um hard hardship or reasons why you need these variances so I I I hear that you have a growing family um you're working from home which wasn't the case maybe when you're ring for of home um so you need additional space not only for the family but to use it as work space given to change of the working conditions right correct okay so those would be pretty much your do you have any other that you um be able to site in terms of the current issues you might have with the home the property layout that we use as Port justification for GR environments well it's really the other part of the family aspect the first four is going allow the the kids to play more um right now okay all right all right great thank you we do have an undersized lot Mr chairman uh what are the current mentions 24 the requirement is 5,000 ft lot in that in the R50 Zone we have 3755 it's a 40t uh Frontage instead of 50 um so obviously we have uh we have that pre-existing condition so you're you're approximately 40 by 9 96 is is the lock Dimension okay okay very good all right so that would be an additional uh part perhaps that is is requiring you to trigger these variances because if it were potentially if it were 50 by 100 foot lot either they'd be much more in compliance or fully in compliance okay thanks thank you Mr for pointing that out okay I I have I have a a revision in my calculations because I guess I couldn't read my own handwriting but lot coverage 55% is required listic 50% of our our new lot coverage that we're proposing is 51.9 3% instead of 41% I apologize for the Mis number but we still you point us to where in the documentation uh the modification we made so we we could all make it especially um in of the zoning information table got an error that on the submission that he's requesting that we Ed at this time so we got to make note of that yeah I'm just trying to get all did you get it what the changes were okay we have it okay so what point me to it what numbers changing it's under the under the zoning information the number instead of 41.93 would be 51.9 3% and that's the um which coverage is that the building lot coverage yes is it impervious or building lot um that's impervious impervious temp yeah we're reducing the size of an existing patio uh in the rear and the front the front walkway that we're adding is going to perious papers but if5 is required it's still within it's variance you're just you're just correcting a number okay yes okay so there's no variance associated with that that addit so that's good okay is the 50% Credit in those calculations I'm sorry sir you you said you're doing perious papers so you get a 50% credit yes but these look like the gross numbers without any credit for perious papers I calculated based on perious papers the uh the the new walkway right so the so the 56 the actual area is 112 you took the credit out of the 112 is that what you did correct yes reduced the size of an existing perious paper patio okay no I just wanted to make sure that we know where the credit was for the previous paper than okay make sure you understand it right so we're proposing a 12T by 18t addition to the rear of the home and Sir let's just Mark that in because that's you've written on it right all right so that be ex a just it's A6 and just tell us and just tell us uh what is this this is a this is a you've drawn over the the plan that's already in their possession correct that's correct colored in the existing site plan indicating for the boards um approval the addition to the rear and also a 4ft addition to the front porch currently the existing front porch is 6 ft wide we want to add 4T we're still within the front y setback but it would provide a little bit of extra leg room for family comes over where they could sit in the front yard on the porch and and that addition out the front is not triggering any uh any bars no sir okay and Sir can you just write A6 on there so that you a sure so just to keep us all together on the same page literally here it appears that um of the four variances being requested um there's no change the pre-existing for three of them for the lot size the frontage and the lot shape and the only variance that you're requesting tonight is the rear yard setback which the existing is 36 which is in compliance because 35 is required and you're proposing 20 2323 so uh approximately 12 ft um going into the rear set okay that's correct the extension on no okay Mr henko if we if we focus on that um that re setback um VAR that you're asking for that would let us get through this relatively easily the the other if you want to call it a hardship but basically the configuration of the LOD is that it it does slope it's on an angle in the rear in the rear yard uh we're actually at 26 ft if we took the longer Dimension but the shorter Dimension is what we took and that's 2323 uh from from the rear yard the the addition that we're proposing and we already have these in the place correct this is not a new you did thank you I just shaded in the partitions here indicating um the the addition on the first floor which will be an extension of the living area and play area for the kids uh we we have a set of scares uh which is currently coming out out of the rear we're going to keep those we have a pass through over here for barbecue area and on the second level that's what Mr Adler had pointed out we're going to take part of this area of the bedroom of the extended Minister bedroom and create an office book for them uh to work at home there's no there's no third floor there's no attic well there's an existing attic but it's totally storage we're not proposing Zing area of the third level all and then this indicates the front porch extension which is one story with similar roof uh little hip roof over for shelter it's really our presentation all right you're done with the presentation so with that we're going to open up for board questions we'll start our friend on the west side over here uh quick question Paul the garage is already there right yes okay okay just that was one question and then this is just the bookkeeping thing um you have the height of the houses as 28 but in the land use form you have 3485 so I I just look consistencies and inconsistencies I'm corrected or ordinarily we put that in that we will retain the 35t height no matter what we do I usually do that when we do our preliminary submission but then looking back there's no reason to increase the height of the roof in any way and the the existing house as you say is 28 it is 28 yeah I think that's all I have okay thank you Mr no question no questions in FL Z no and then just clarification we ratio at preexisting is 60.8 this is for me questionss questions questions okay and uh what's the access to the how are you get to the attic what's the the method access the pulled out uh right now yeah it's like well what's it is that if it's right now is that the way what are you what are you planning to have uh I think the same thing we have on the thir just a little access no stairs nothing it's just for the the air flow okay so so worst case scenario you would do pull down staircase to the a yeah if that's needed we could just make not that like he's not even you're not you're not proposing that though no we're not proposing all he has now is a hatch I'm just trying to make some reference to the fact that there won't be a fixed staircase going up to the attic right so but you don't want to put down that he's going to add a hold down staircase material the only reason I mentioned that was just so there's no plan that we don't know about that there'll be a fixed staircas okay so so so so we'll know that there is we don't want you know build no and sees a staircase going up to the attic right okay any appliances up there no no heat no we don't know currently or future in the at the future today yes there's no no appliances or anything like that there is an aack unit in the third floor no no he's talking about appliances do you mean h get access to that right it has to be a 22 by 30 in opening to get in the okay so he's going to need a pull down staircase to get up well sorry in the existing building today on the third floor there is an HVAC unit which is those Dimensions can we start over the pr existing structure as it is now is three stories two and a half stories uh three stories in an attic you're not you're not changing the recogniz he's saying the existing house is three and the elevation on the other one is not right it's two and a half it's currently a two and a half story house there's no living area on the third floor correct that's what they're so it's so it's a twostory house two story two story with an attic right is what you have is it finished on your third floor yes that's what I'm trying to understand your definition yeah so it's called two and a half story house you have the first floor you have the second floor then you have the third floor which above that so you have three floors which as two and a half your addition is going to be two stor with an it's where my office is it's not on the okay but that's okay well it's it's that's just that window we have a board member that has a question so please thank you goes back to my question on how we got I I he said it is right it is the third the third the third FL is finished yeah there's a full bathroom there's an office so so here's what's going to happen from a legal perspective tonight this board can't go to this application tonight because the plans don't accurately depict what the house looks like like right now I wasn't aware of the third floor right and that that that's that's a problem so we're not blaming you but but there obviously there's obviously an issue and calculations are going to change based on the fact that there's more living space than than you know this is nobody's fault there obviously some type of miscommunication but this board cannot vote on this application tonight you're going to have to revise your revise your architectural we submit them to be there might be another variance that comes up we don't know so but I think he has it just for a matter of record I think you I think you have a four ratio determination already at 6.8 which must have captured a portion of that existing it didn't being honest I wasn't aware I wasn't aware for the homeowner I don't personally I don't foresee a big deal here you know I I S looking this way I can tell there was a habitable third story then above that you have an attic where your air handler correct your addition is only two stories with a very small attic is that correct yeah storage at correct and the HST is not changing correct is that right nothing's changing in no Theory way it is correct nothing Mr ad tells me that there approximately a 10 by1 area that he uses for an office as a bathroom so I guess I'd kind of like to see it on the plan it's going to have to be because you're going have you're going to have to you're going have to check the calculation there's no way to beight especially he's telling you it and they're being they're being completely honest which is goodard M question question on the same top it with that we call it Loft area what you were calling third floor it's actually a half story uh because it's not all where is the HVAC the air handler is it above your office that's correct it's above so you walk up the stairs there's a whole Loft area and then there's another room uh where my office is and then there's also a bathroom but on both sides of the house there is full storage that you can on one side to almost walk halfway around the entire house um but when you walk up the stairs in a loft area there is a 20 by 30 in area where the HB and heating system is above you correct with a pull down stair no stairs just a hatch to me that would make that house taller than 35 I understand okay well I'll take a measurement of the third floor area and I'll give you the accurate calcul so Mr Lex let me make sure that um I am confused first time um we are not seeing any floor plans for the ex half story I suppose is that is that that's my understanding you I I personally do not have the plan to I understand see any we do not see any reflection nor would we know that there's even a half story had we not conversation tonight Mr had not had not asked that question no one would know that would be the first time sorry I screw screwed Paul and his applicants over sorry Paul okay so so so um so I guess what the board is asking is that is that you come back with revised plans that reflect the um pre-existing half story above the existing two stories including what the habitable square footage is of that and then roll that calculation into your floor area ratio number which which here is reflecting 6 to 60.8% we we hope and trust that it's not going to make it make um with the project you're presenting variant for the floor error issue but it's possible I don't know I don't know about how you do that well we'll all find out so so Mr chairman what I recommend is that you carry this application to whatever meeting April says that de on April can I ask question pavers in the front driveway and the pavers it's going to come up for me later the pavers in the front exist in the front driveway and the pavers in the patio in the rear is the patio in the rear to be built or is it preexisting it's pre-existing we removing part of it and putting removing part of it keeping the existing papers but then the walkway is going to be per yes that correct that's correct uh December 19th so Mr chairman I'd recommend that you carry this to the December 19th meeting without further notice if a new variant is discovered obviously they're going to have to re notice but if but if you're lucky and it doesn't create a new variance then you could just come in with the corrective plan in comment section of this um board question I'm sorry we're in the board question section of this um what's getting done here is not going to add any what would be called technically called a bedroom requiring additional parking I just want to make sure that if parking variance is required that we're not just overlooking that there's no new bedrooms being added okay and what's your current parking situation how many cars garage and one full space and then to the right so three cars fit on the rocks to the right three beds two spots okay so as long as you have the two spots the third may not be yeah I don't think it's May you're only three and two required you're good it is it is it's and that's why the third floor is not a full master or another bedroom because it's not three okay so you're three now you're saying three correct okay and there's two spots so you're okay good okay we all good uh Mr all right thank you for your help I don't know if we need more summary there we should uh we need a motion to yeah we'll make that motion but before I did I just want to make sure there any we need to recap on anything or I just did I I don't think you did I I think you just did all right so with that I'd like to make a motion that we carry this app to December 19th without further notice without further notice I'll say and I think thank you all right so for the public all right so for the public um for the record if you want to be heard this application you need to be here December 19th at 6: p.m you will not receive any further notice if you want to be heard in the application you need to be in this room at that time thank you Mr Lex I don't see anyone from the public except for uh our lovely uh videotape uh expert Sandy so other than her anyone else it's good for the record record we want to make a motion to adj are we adjourning