##VIDEO ID:RZIt_i0ml7o## email to the off Mr Ross Yes here Mr Mr Mr Mr here okay please rise for the United States of America the stand indivisible andice all understand we have a guest this evening filling in for Mr Kennedy M okay so we want to cover some gu business and then we don't have any resolution so we just minut I have a motion to approve minut yes so we're getting right the first application we had on the agenda was for syia denstein 115 13 Avenue um her attorney John Hollen requested to postpone the application to January 30th meeting um he already noticed for it so he asked that we just carry it to January 30th without to notice we don't have to vote on just a motion I'll make motion to move to January 30 all in favor yes yeah the architect wasn't available bring them January okay so weeded cases tonight um Sorry if this a little repetitive for for the board members but In fairness to all four applicants we'd like uh each applicant to budget uh uh no more than one hour to um come up here and uh have your application heard and us to vote on it so if you can proceed accordingly with that um if it turns out you need more than an hour um we're not going to tell you to to rush but what we'll do is we stop you at an hour and then permitting at the end um we would pick you up you know s you in before you know 10:00 because we generally like to end by 10 o' uh if we're close to finishing on that last case at 10:00 and the board votes to extend the time um that'll be a board put Bo vote if we need to go past 10 depending on the composition of the board and who can stay and whether or not they're able to all right so with that the first application is Charles and Lorie this uh this matter was noticed is there anyone in in the public that had any questions or objections to the notice that was issued Rel to we do have great thank you Mr okay with that the people Witnesses testify haveone Christoph of the have witnesses cral please for you sorry credentials the law firm um been practicing for 14 years located where ocean gr okay great we know Miss Hearn and we'll accept Miss hearn's credentials and who else is going to testify their own it right yes okay and is this your wife it is you to testify as well no okay if you do we'll ask you swear do you swear tell truth TR I do yes we'll swear even everyone I'll keep the summary short as I know that we're thing um as indicates in the application the property loccation AT3 thir Avenue 317 foring to re access building to be using this reest maximage 30.2% maximum access stru and outs as you's being so I do haveed just put the exhibit that we have a one we have the application packet September 10th 2024 A2 is the application checklist A4 minor Z4 A5 is the as survey a is maybe we just add one more a absolutely this a photo board 12 photos of the subject property on the front one aiel on the back A7 okay proed thank you very much um good evening Mr um you are the applicant obviously uh can you state your name and address please Charles Croco 233 Avenue Belmar and how long you current address uh since this summer okay explain to the board the reasons behind the application yeah so we B the house in uh 2021 U we've been come down here for almost our our whole lives but we brought the house down here with the int moving down here in 2021 and my brother uh is 12 months younger than me he has asurs uh he currently resides with my father who's 82 and we wanted to uh do the apartment for him that was our goal with both house and and that's our goal now to do the apartment for him he doesn't drive he is self-sufficient he can live by himself if we're in the area he couldn't afford an apartment on his own that's why he still lives with my father who's 82 um and we want to transition him into living with us full time um we he did live with us in Co in a house and uh I was telling Mary Chris yesterday that he doesn't know boundaries he has Asbergers and he hasn't No Boundaries and he would come into my room you know at 9:00 at night to tell me that the S dressing expired in the bridge so while he n need to be near us we we want to have him have a sep residence and it would it would feel like his own too to him We're Irish twins he's 12 months younger than me and uh kind of taking care of my whole life but he lives with my father we really want him to come live with us uh he doesn't drive he doesn't really cook he is now he's using an oven for the first time now he roasts vegetables and things of that nature and he's able to do that he's able to live on his own but again social socialistic needs to be around us so and he can't afford apartment on his own so if he was able to have this he'd be able to come for dinner walk home we are we do not to change the structure at all obviously it's the inside see all the photographs um and that's really that was that was our goal to have him live with us for his own safety and for us and really for more me than him really because I I like having him around and and he loves walking the boardwalk he loves being here uh and he's loved it every time he comes down here um so that was our goal we bought it and that's still our goal now and again and there won't be any cars and I know talk I know there can't be a rule we wouldn't rent we've invested a lot to this house we're never moving we're never selling we're going to die in the house and hopefully he'll die in the house as well that weever going to rent it this is not for rental we put like I said we invested a lot in this property and nobody will be there ex thank you Mr goe thank you and next up I would just call M there's no questions not question qualify I don't think so I I appreciate it if I can offer to the okay with this Chris yes please a photo board of the back structure and that's the inside hillo and the outside and on the back is an aial that those were taken today so they're very current so I met um Lori and Chuck a while back in building their new home at the front the back structure was always there we didn't take it down and it's uh two stories it's not a second floor the plate height is lower than 8 ft but there is livable area down the middle and and a dormer at the front to that lens Headroom and you'll see um the garage the downstairs is used as a shed the driveway doesn't connect to the garage um but there's bicycles and the normal things that would go in a garage besides a car and then there's an interior stair already that goes from inside that shed or garage up to a second floor Loft and that loft is completely unfinished it's bare studs and rafters there's a subfloor down um and the hope would be to use that volume for the space for Michael uh Chuck's brother um if approved we'd like to have an open kitchen family room one bedroom and one bath it's very um but there's no living space there now so technically we would be adding a dwelling and that requires a use variant that we know is not normally approved when you don't already have one but we feel if it's all family that it was worth the ask um the volume would not change in any way when the front home was built they uh renovated the exterior to match so the has already been renovated um with the siding Roofing Windows nice doors that match the front home if you look on the back um as you are now Mr Al um you can see that the houses three houses to the east have very similar back homes already um I did not survey them I don't know if they're licensed I don't know if they're actual living uh DW you know dwellings but they are separate and they're larger than the normal garage and again our hope is not to expand physically this in any way but use the volume that's already there if we are approved um it triggers the use variants but it also triggers um or continues some bulk um items that are nonperforming one is the height you only 18 ft for an accessory structure the existing roof Peaks at 21.2 so 3.2 ft higher than it's allowed again we're not proposing to change that we're not proposing to make it taller or lower if we made it any lower we wouldn't have the liable height that's in there um and it sits only 2.5 ft off the rear property line required again we're not changing that but um that would be a pre-existing non-conformity to consider so there's height and distance to the rear property line there's also building coverage so we're in the r75 zone we're standard 50 by 150 lot and normally we're guaranteed or we're allowed a house of a certain size and then exempt a detach two up to 440 sare ft this garage is 500 square ft so we have to consider all of that space in our building coverage if it's a garage when it becomes living space the same thing happens we have to consider all of that part of the building coverage it is 60 square ft bigger than what would be allowed if it were only a detach twocc car garage at 4 4 ft again it's 500 square ft it exists we didn't build it it was there when the property was purchased so there's three pre-existing nonconformities building coverage height and distance to rear property line rear setback that we're not making worse but we would like to continue um so they're marked in our chart um the use would be a new variant that we're seeking the only other item that would be a new variant is parking because we have five bedrooms in the front housee we need three parking spaces there are three parking spaces in the new driveway as it exists and a little more um they can fit four cars but legally it's big enough for three cars per your size of parking space we can extend the driveway to provide the two morees that your ordinance would require for the back use but the crocos prefer not to do that if approved because Michael doesn't drive and they actually don't want more driveway if in fact the board wanted to approve this and wanted to make it a condition that the driveway be extended I calculated how far it would have to be extended which would be 242 ft more and if that were made hard surface or papers we would still comply with the overall required impervious coverage so I just wanted that put on the record we don't hope to extend it we're not assuming we're getting approved all all du respect but I just wanted to let you know that the whole property isn't overly developed that that couldn't be extended down the road and still app so the board in my experience has been very particular about impervious coverage about onsite parking and also about floor area ratio if this space on the second floor is improved that area gets added to the floor area ratio of the front house and if it was built it would still comply with what you allow we would be at 54.3% we're 55% allowed so if the front house was made bigger than it is now we would not be allowed to ask for this without also a floor area ratio variance but we're not needing that tonight and I just wanted to hear that because I know you care about actual volume of living space on any individual property so that's my Z is there any more presentation um no I think that that covered everything as Rel to the application so okay we'll open up to board questions and we start with M hang Yeah you mentioned that you did a renovation to the that and it was a new house was a build new house mhm so somebody the 21 somebody approv 21t on the Gage it was pre-existing and it didn't come up y I guess my question and I I hate to put you on the spot um my understanding so I'll ask the applicant first so what happens if you decide to sell or you mentioned in your testimony you home um what happens to this situation um then with respect to the Le yeah well if my wife and I both pass my children are going to take care of my brother and that's where I'm even looking further down the road like your brother is not here anymore it's now we've got a two family uh struct you know we have two family lot what no I understand I couldn't answer that question I mean we're never going to do anything else with it when I'm gone and my kids are gone I my kids I are I want them to keep the house I hope they'll keep the house um but I as to where it goes from there I I know I know speaking to Mary you can't write something in that could never be rented or something like that I would agree to that in a heartbeat but apparently that's not possible you can't legally do that all I can do is give you my word that we're going to be in that house I hope a long time I hope my kids are in the house a long time hope my brother is and we'll all be long gone by the time something else happens down the road but I obviously I can't make any promises that whoever gets a from my c de and what they're going to do with it I I don't I could answer that question so that's my understanding too and I don't mean to put you on the spot but my understanding is we can't make it a condition to have a you know some sort of restriction or anything like that um I think there was a gray area though if the applicant offers it up I'm not sure about that I guess they could propose that but we can't make it as a condition of the approval that this either expires property or as a condition that they canot and I still think theity becomes an issue in the future corre so any condition that gets put into the resolution whatever it may be there is theity everybody would be enforcable by the term that my my family don't I certainly agree with that yeah no I understand just a struggle because I know it's not comment time but we get a lot of applicants to come up to us and say this is going to be the forever home and then two months later it's on the market I we invested a lot of this Mary designed it North End built it we're not going anywhere um yeah that's just that's just my struggle um there is a t year more exper on this I ask okay all right that's all my questions I'm not in favor of putting a two family upang work that doesn't exist but um there's no way that if if the house was sold it's not restricting the renting of it but just that they lose family is there any way that can be done that do still PS in that same area I think that that would be the issue um I'm not sure would be in favor of put the restri they R it I'm not sure how the structure be brother beity think power restricting the use completely maybe as a it cannot Beed outp use that could not survive change of ownership but at a minimum I have no objection that being written at least apprciate that do apprciate justy solve this problem you're not really opposed to what you want to do and I understand completely and I actually feel sorry for sit in and your brother I just wish I could something that say it can't be rented as a condition of the approval the board can put as a that property cannot be rented so that that ption can be rented out in the future so if somebody were to come in and purchase the property and they wanted to R out that resolution that says you cannot do so Mr I I would just I would just caution presenting that as an option only because we've been this before and that really was the intent ofri weed to do in the past was to make sure many will as if going from this is most of the there was already a back house that they wanted to expand renuse I don't any Cas to two families so it's kind of unique um compared to the others but I don't think that even a rental restriction is going to hold up I don't think so and again it's going to be enfor ability matter be and I don't know the town have ability to valid M you um a couple quick questions I'm just going to start off with that the aerial photo there the papers uh that are preexisting it's probably just a photo issue but when I looked at the AAL photo there it looked like the whole yard was Pap it's not correct no actually the survey that you have in your plans is an as based on an asilt survey yep all right um can you touch briefly on the bathroom on the first floor of the garage is that pre-existing no it's not it's something that they hope to use so you now allow a Cabana in your ordinance there's a lot of differences to what you offer in a cabana than what we're proposing typically it's a separate building from a garage and it is allowed a half bath and then an outside shower the outside shower existed when they purchased and it's been renovated and it's continues to exist and I believe and um Ted can help I believe the door to the shower can't go directly into the structure so that it can't be C pull back so the hope is while we renovate is adding a half path it's not priority but we figured while we were here that could act as a cabana bath for the pool um it was almost an afterthought but if if you can wrap your heads around ranting it we would like to do it we may give it up if that's a condition no I think that's in the ordinance already preexisting po yes is separate building yeah separate from a garage which we can't do here can that's in the ordinance has to be a separate structure free structure yeah that's what your ordinance promotes I don't promote it but that's what your new ordinance promotes Mr Al is not promot there you go um there you go um okay and so pre-existing garage current use up there is just strictly storage yes um it's unfinished obviously for the drawings and for the photos right those we taken again today two three and can you just touch on the if your applicants were to go to the planning board 440t auxiliary on story structure 18 ft tall with an attached one story is that correct cage I don't believe you're allowed a new one I believe you're allowed to renovate if you have one you can renovate it if you have one you can take it down and build another I don't believe you're allowed to add a cottage that's the cottage that you're talking about but I'm talking about in our ordinance there's not one there that was superseded when originally they were intended for retirees right right but you're saying that your belief is that you not allow to build a new one not for the ordinance is that I'm looking at April that's article about that it's 64 it's about 20 years old that ordinance now yeah it tells you that the S has to be told people the ground all kinds of District 650t also tied to a living at the time but you can buildu you comply with that can you build it yes I'm not only officer yes so but careful because building it as long as it doesn't trigger any variances that would have to be a planning right but I just want to be clear about that right like like yes you can as any additional right it has to right so let's not misle want to mate anything here because it isn't as if we can just now convert this to say a third structure and say you're good to go go build it it's it's much more conf no and and our hope is not to take this down and build something new but if there's the mindset that the town does allow Cottages it is a second structure a second dwelling structure then at least the mindset is that's what we're proposing here only in the Nuance of a second Liv apparently there's some capability to do that legally without having to get particular variant relief if it's a compliance and and planning board I don't think the pl would I from what I understand and there may have been one or two already you know the plan board they would have to approve it but I don't know that they have grounds to object either assuming that it's in compliance AAL use ining so I'm I'm bringing that up on behalf of potential alternative um and then just miss Hearn I know you're not a general contractor but can you just touch Bas with me on how you anticipate tying in potentially for the bathroom and the apartment to to come through the pavers into the main dwelling or take the M down yeah it doesn't have a separate meter it never did right no so it would tie to the house it would tie to the back right which would help somewhat thinking it wouldn't be rented separately but definitely want to tie to the house all right no further questions Mr Lu um okay so no no further sewer uh water is going to come straight from the house Electric's going to come no no there is Water and Electric already out there okay because there's a shower and there is that's true but there is not no separate meters no um I'm given that that building it makes it for me because I'm one that does not like the secondary use um based on what I've learned in my couple of years here um given that the building is not going to be expanded in any way on the exterior sit back that's all I have to say okay uh on the plot plan it shows AC units by the rear structure that's for the rear structure or the front house that's pretty far away they're for the front house that's what we yeah we we do that all the time put the on for the back you see one that's hatched and it says proposed AC unit the one that's hatched oh I got it so the other two and the generator serve the house MH and then that new unit would serve this structure if approved okay no that was my only question yeah Mr okay uh you just said there's no uh was line to the back is that shower draining into the ground I don't do you know where it's draining it's into the water it's already into the house okay so that so there is a a sewer W okay um my guess is it's not the appropriate size for a toilet though okay right okay and from your photos you have a open staircase to go upstairs assume that's all going to be FR and the storage so that first floor whether it's considered garage or storage has to be fire separated from what would be finished upstairs that stair would have to be in closed correct okay and then you're going to run uh Joys from the the middle the existing middle of that of the garage to the front to they're already there oh they're already there that second floor is already in place oh okay I the way I look I yeah no that's fine structures all in place so one of the questions um because you're you said you're less than 3T from the back we are okay yeah no I saw this and I didn't see four over okay my mistake uh because you're less than 3 ft is there any thought of moving the kitchen from the that close to the property line to somewhere else on that floor there wasn't only because of how the stair leads you up and where we can get a window at of sink if it was a condition of of the board we would absolutely consider that we do have to fire rate that back wall if this is approved I think that's uh all I have fin only question is related to the half path that's showing on the first floor um you know I know sometimes these these um the rules somehow become mov because people have to garages and they just store stuff in right they'll never par the car in the garage and that right B never car but when we're counting spots that would count as a spot I'm concerned that the half bath might might make that not be one spot right so we didn't count either spot in the garage toward our calculations we already can fit three legally inj just the driveway okay so let me then justad clarify that assuming and I'm not suggesting that you'd want to give this up they assuming that you didn't do the half that yeah you'd have two two more parking spots there would but we could get eight at that point we're not counting on either I understand so so so those two garage spots are not counted in okay I don't have any further questions um we have questions here okay so with that we'll close for board question we'll open up for public questions if there's anyone here to comment or question on this application that would be to either ra your hand come forward to the microphone no one's coming forward Mr so we'll close the public comment public question section and I just want to clarify for five okay great so with that um board members are not required I just want to remind everyone in the audience and I think the Bo's where is not required toose how they want to vot might help the applicant by indicating which way they reading they don't necessarily need to tell them um which way plan so with that we go same more get our questions comments the only comment is I yeah that's a tough one I mean I I I also think that this is a great you're doing I just wish that we could trust people's word and I'm not saying that I don't trust your word but we've been burned so many times in my 10 plus years here where we get you know people swearing that they're going to be here and then it gets sold or literally a month later you know somebody leaves and and does something totally different and I just I don't know how we can I don't know how I can um just go off word like we to put a deed restriction in then I would have no problem doing that if we could do that I would vote Yes and but I mean I just think everybody's going to come to us and swear that they're going to be there for the rest of their life and all this great stuff and I don't know how we can we can use that as the standard I feel terrible I just I'm just struggling that that's why I asked Tony to bring up maybe that other possibility guys there is a a potential Avenue I think if you comply I don't at all because we've debated this if the range wasn't put in the kitchen then it would never be Beed in the building code as a dwelling would that appease any of the board is it something you might want in L of what we used to do with the I don't we don't know what to offer obviously we would like that for Michael but you know it's it's we would rather have the space for him than a range so I'm not begging I'm just offering that if that if that affects your if that affects you're worried about renting out if you took that portion out obviously nobody problem like speak I don't know if eliminating range will change the building code says a microwave is cooking appliance we can give a TCO out in the house with a microwave not a stove so all he's got to do is bring a microwave in got so that what that would do what just clar invid I'm saying for Mr Ross that would change your Viewpoint for maybe to trust one that's not going to be rented he could come cook in our place we we need to the board continue we don't like for each board member we're not looking to have an inter so anything I don't know I don't know if I could answer that right now it just complicates things I'm in the same position and I really do feel for you guys I think I'm going to V it as much as I'm sympathetic to the need I can't forego my opinion on our current ordinances taking family structure multi family use uh with that being said arguably you have one of the best Architects available in this her and maybe there's some possibilities with our ordinances they can get creative not to incur additional cost but potentially get something like this approved um my other suggestion would be is miss her maybe give consideration to locating the um secondary use on the first floor there and creating doing something that way probably still would have to go to planning but it's an idea and then maybe the LOF andain storage for the bicycles and things of that nature but as much as I appreciate uh the applicants and the story and how beautiful your pre-existing structure is like unfortunately we not in favor you pretty much what I said before the reason I could vote for it is the fact that you're not expanding any exterior to the structure um losing the entire kitchen does that make any difference not just oh you say you can't have anything habitable in a garage so you can't put I think so again I'm one all usually against doing this but the fact that the building is there softens it to me and taking care of family softens it to me I uh no comment I'm on the fence Mr um I would conditionally approve it if you took the range out that's I I think I think we clarified that though and that whether it's a range or not it's still going to count there's no um no I have a problem with safety issues with with cooking that close to the proper line that that's the issue for me is is the safety with u a range uh I understand that we're bending U you know some other rules but I would be fine with it if there was no range even with the microwave okay anything else Mr no that's it and and for me that's just a a very very large concern with with um taking a now making a multi family use of the property and um you know that's a big concern and as much as I feel for the current circumstances of the current owners and and know potential occupants um you know I think uh we're all trained to look past existing use and think about um you know future use when none of us are here longer um so um I would I would not be voting yes on this so with that um sum instu here V so um so choose we can put on conditions if the board acts favorably stat that make a vote my suggestion is take a five minute recess allow them to have a conversation and then decide if they want to proceed with the okay was thank you okay so with that we uh return for a few minutes and now asking if you have any modifications or changes or comments we are going to ask V be so we can go back and the application okay okay any other comments for this even comments comments no okay so that do you want to carry to a specific February 27 and I will comment in trying to help Kevin's absence here um you know depending on what your counter propos is going to be typically you would take to come back there's no need to re notice but depending on the nature of your counter proposal what you may change that may or may not require notice um I think that be completely situation depend on what proposal is going to look like going be so um normally we'd say no notice no no additional notice this would be the notice correct which again if you're not making modifications we offer car so uh we make an Mo a motion to adjourn this to a February meeting that [Music] hello how are you we're leaving did you just get here yeah see you later okay we're ready for the next application 12 M this matter Carri froming here me that there was some discussions with regards to um April has everybody is everybody here eligible to vote Yes ail just clarify [Music] the one that I hande revised on it is the new plan okay but does but he didn't say A2 on the date right he didn't put a revision date on okay could we just make sure we add that revision date what date were theseis there were 12 okay so have that got to ENT Mark hased A7 new Revis 12 to 126 all right Mr well actually sorry you were you were previously sworn in yesen arit offic 17 Main Street you swear that your testimony be true and accurate I do thank you at our last meeting there was U some concern that there was an attic that I was not aware of a third floor and a loft area um since that meeting I went back through the original Architects drawings when the house when the home was built who uh very conveniently had calculated the uh square footage above U 5 ft we have [Music] depicted the concern was the F for the entire building so the exting second floor area is 2284 Square ft we added the attic floor area of 7 ft or more at 270 Square ft which gives us a result of 68% for f and just say safety factor I also calculated 5 ft 5 ft or more and that area was 2284 uh on the second floor and then do that area about 5 ft 5 ft or greater is 335 Square ft which puts us just at 69.7% f so thankfully we are still within permitted was that an exhibit from the prior here this this is a new so let's mark that as a okay can you identify that that is the original construction drawings from the previous architect when the home was originally constructed the date par me is there a date there is 33120 there's one additional issue that my client pointed out to me tonight is that we had represented a reduction in lot area based on substituting uh perious papers for this large patio that they have the patio currently is Flagstone is fairly expensive they refer not to replace it I prepared a different an additional calculation based on the existing paved area the driveway the walks and the lot coverage and we still come at 53.7% lot coverage the allowable being 55 is that an existing exhibit as well pardon me is that an existing exhibit where is that on on the revised that's not on the revised matter of fact my client just told me tonight that they didn't want to U replace that mren just for everyone's sake and especially your client sake if you could please make the revisions to I'm sorry A7 all right so the first revision to A7 was the date is incorrect it's not 8224 it's 12624 please tell us what's changed especially on this right hand side whether it was two weeks ago or 10 minutes ago on this list of things what's different now because I'm looking at a lot coverage number 50.3 you're indicating adding 720 Square F feet back is keeping still keeping it under the 55 so variance relief wouldn't be required that's a statement you just made can we please correct all of these numbers if that's the only one that needs correction I'd like to just make sure you redo that calculation and make sure that you're you're not triggering a lot coverage variance I'm I'm secure that it's an accurate calculation just gave you and that's 50 for lot coverage is 50 what 53 it's 55% allowable we originally had and I I didn't want to wait until board questions for it but but you add an addition on I'm not really sure what the dimensions of the the addition might be but let's just call it you know 12 by 20 or something what's the the area in red you don't the area in red on the front just it's IMM material just I I just I'm just trying to 12 all right so 12 whatever how do you how do you do a 12 by8 addition and and in your lock coverage calculation it's not showing to get to that 50.3% you have existing you show patio Drive walk I don't see the addition the area in red added into your lot coverage Paul you want my plans maybe just now I have the calculation here thank you there seems to be an area winded out that says 18879 but it doesn't State what that is with with the addition we have a total we have a total building coverage of 1128 with the additional porch an additional 48 square ft I calculated the drive to 200 at the patio for a total of 2018 Square ft okay guys follow with me and I I I I apologize if I'm being up to here you have you have a lot coverage number of 1808 you have a loot coverage number of 1808 and then you have proposed Lo public of 1802 so I if you could understand my confusion here I don't understand how we could add a 12 by8 structure and keep the lack coverage the same or l or less right the proposed addition is 216 the existing is 9912 for a total of 11 117 78 1128 pardon me it looks like you're you're taking about 214 ft off the patio because you have 720 existing and you're going to 506 plus 80 so you took out some yeah we would be planning to remove part of the papers in the Pao where are you putting thect so this 1802 you got da the 216 that's what's missing on the propos to get to your 2018 sare ft yeah I I hear you but if you go 24 by 30 which is existing right and then the proposed is 23 by 22 you only get one foot by 10 that's only getting 10 square feet the addition is going on top of what's already not so we can move on here let me just ask a question right in your proposed section you're reflecting um a reduction of the patio from 720 to 506 corre okay with the dimensions that are provided that's not possible that the patio is only going down by 8 square feet yet you're showing 720 versus 506 for the patio I understand what you're saying truck this is this Theo population because it's off by it's off by 200 square feet the P the total patio is 6 + 80 586 this is showing 200 the patio is 23 by 22 in the largest part and 8 by 10 in the small area next to the air conditioners okay just please read through the numbers on the proposed again you got porch 4X 12 48 driveway 200 walk 56 Pao 506 plus 80 right yeah and then on on top of that which ises to 182 is correct on top of that you're adding 26 for the Str for the for the structure so your new calculation should be 2018 right and now you put your 208 over 3755 and that's how you get to 53.7 okay all right I just want to be reflected corly okay all right all right proceed Mr those basically were the two issues that um were left unannounced discussed at our last meeting um so I'm bringing this information the new information for the board U consideration okay great we'll go in the opposite direction um we'll start with Mr diorio on West Side I have no further questions I think most of them were answered at the last meeting except for the mystery attic Mr so the variances you're asking for only rear yard set yes the the others are pre-existing conditions based on the lot size Nothing questions okay is there anyone here from the public that wants to speak on this application please raise your hand and come to the microphone close the public session will open up the board comments say more no further comments com I'm incl to votee in favor um I just ask Mr that in the future let's have more definitive numbers and clear numbers shakes our confidence a little bit in what we're approving I mean I think we clarified everything and corrected things that need to be corrected but we really like to go with um you know your your word and and and 100% accuracy I get presented to us okay before you move to vote if the board is going to act favorably going to list some of the conditions that would be part of that approval um first would be compliance with all promises commitments representations made at this meeting and this meeting comp all rules regulations rules regulations certific requ um post construction certification from the applicants uh profal confirming that all of the improvements are ConEd testimony tonight and plans and approvals any Outside Agency approvals required 24 months to obtain building permits grading drainage details to be included in approved by the bur engineer unless waved by the engineer uh perpetually maintaining and replanting any Landscaping on the site any other conditions that may arise one additional condition the plans of A7 to showcase the 53.7 calculation as well as including the revision date 12 we to proceed we're good to proceed we're good to proceed okay that um anyone make a motion to approve this application I'll make to approve the application Mr Mr yes Mr yes congratulations thank you thank you very much I did have another question though is it possible for the 45 day grace period to go to a 30-day grace period um there's a 45 day appeal period it's by Statute and it's by the date of publication of the resolution that's when that appeal period starts we the board doesn't have jurisdiction or authority toy that you you can so the you can do what you feel you would like to do but you would do it at your own risk during that F period got it okay was that accurate would still be issued be issued even though we get a letter that states that they understand their proing at their own risk okay thanks for Tak listen right [Music] the yes yeah so we're going to hear the four case this morning 5th Aven Jonathan for the record Mr stepped down because he lives within 200 feet and Mr Greg stepped down because he wasn't here for the September 2016 when this application was started okay with that um please state your name and credentials um George architect before we jump into that chairman just want to conf sep um but I don't believe I wasn't the architect I was newly hired on this project since the last meeting okay right so you swear orir to tell the truth and whole truth I do you please State and spell your name to the record uh George spelled TSA I I you please provide your qualifications for the board so I uh have a masters in architecture I'm en enar certified hold the license in New Jersey New York it's been practicing for close to 25 years so I testified in various ports not this one but um a lot of the boards around M County and pretty much throughout New Jersey we accept those qualifications and welcome to bore thank you so um how we would like to start is I wanted to get you a little background from the owner and like his purpose for all this and then I techical information from there that's good sounds great thank you I mentioned years now GR in April simply out House Down does anyone have any questions of them then I'll just can proceed right into it typically what we do is we allow the presentation and and make the case um okay typically um I I don't see an attorney present but typically um you would St you're seeking okay and then what hardship you're incurring relative to us trying to give variant relief okay um so you know we'd like to focus on the variances and the hardships if we could okay that's really what our job is if you have any additional information you want to share with us be afraid so this property in questions a corner lot on 15th Avenue in D Street in the r36 zone um it currently is is the lot area it's an undersized lot the lot area is um I believe it's 39 what do I have oh 3942 is the existing lot area we're for a corner lot because it's on a corner uh the Zone uh mimal lot area is 4950 or roughly you know 1, give or take a few square feet there's ex there's two existing houses which uh my client is already stated already currently on the property um the they're both single family as he mentioned the back house is um rented and it's uh the footprint 867 squ ft the front house which my client lives in now is 640 Square ft um there's a several non-conforming things besides the lot area we have um a um well the minimum lot area is non-conforming one then we have the minimum lot width at 50 we're at 4.02 feet so that so that's a non-conforming on width then we also have a front yard setc since it's a corner lot we have two front yard setbacks at 20 right so we don't conform on the dside street because we only have an existing front yard setback 7 ft there um and as well in in the on on the Avenue side we do have the required 20 ft in addition there's no parking right now there's just a driveway there um part of our application is to add parking and I'll get into that so the other um non-conformity is the the back house doesn't meet the side yard requirements it's only um 2.5 ft or five is required so that's a non-conform in itself in addition the the uh building coverage is over by um in this Zone we're allowed 30% building coverage and we're at 38.2% currently um so we're 88.4% over or 8 8.24% excuse me um and then um those are pretty much the the nonconformities of the lot itself both Pro both existing structures meet the height requirement they're really they're both only ranches with a very uh slope roof the the back house has a little bit more slope than the than the front house as you could see from some of the picture from the picture here that's what we're looking atck okay um you have total existing building coverage of 15 1507 right or 3824 so you're saying existing is 3824 where 30 is required right correct and my assumption when you say total adjusted building coverage that's what we're proposing we typically use the word proposed so your proposed building coverage would be 1768 32 which would be bring us to 44.52 per. we 30s required right exactly and and and that's with no change to the footprint of the re that addition that additional percentage is all related to uh changing the footprint of the front yeah and it basically is we're building a porch in the front and that that that porch um PES over 250t correct correct there's a little bump out in the back that we're adding which is 13 Square ft is for the stair Landing that we were going to I was going to Canali it but I just you know so so that's incorporated into the number okay before we continue just for just for a clean record I just want to enter in a few things for the exhibits because we are talking about an exhibit here um is that was that was that plan submitted with the yes that was plan so we're going to rev that's going to be A6 well A6 is a new langage denial and then A7 is the new plans just date for that plan so each sheet I'll mark as a different exhibit no no we don't need to do that only the stuff that I'm adding that's not part of what I initially said submitted I have a couple photographs okay okay so this is as set and the date of that plan uh date of this plan is 127 2004 uh 24 excuse me so then continuing on on this so th those are kind of the the existing impervious coverage is allowable 55% in this Zone and um even with all it's it's it's a nonissue in our whole application because we conform and we're going to continue to conform even with everything that we want to do so the end result just to go over the numbers um the existing impervious coverage is um 52.6% and we're going to end up being at 53.3 1% when we're all done so we're still under that 55% the I didn't do an F calculation because we were so far under the requirement for the F it's at 78% and even if I added this twice added this and added the at let's just say the attic is all usable we're still under the requirement at at 78 because it allows the 78% allows us 3,000 sare ft basically and we only have a footprint of 6 640 we at that 1280 we added that again for the third floor let's just say even though none of the third floor is really usable you know we just we have a window in the gable roof as a decorative feature there just a pull down stair for Mechanicals basically because this particular house um has has a basement but it's very very shallow and it does and in my inspection you know it was a possibility might have been some water infiltration you know coming from underneath so don't want to put any mechanical down there so that that was our thought process so the main change to the application is we want to add a second floor to the existing footprint and expand this house from a one-bedroom into a two-bedroom house taking the existing bedroom downstairs and making that into like a dining area sort of keeping the kitchen exactly where it is I'm going to just uh uh bring up the plan which is on the other side of this just so walk you through so so basically the bedroom existed here we are changing that into a dining room the living room pretty much in the kitchen stay where they are we're adding a stair to to access to second floor and the existing bathroom is roughly in the same spot that we're just renovating it it's an existing bathroom then on the second floor as you come up St stacking the bathroom adding another bathroom there and adding the two bedrooms one being the main bedroom and the other being you know U an additional bedroom there on the second floor we're also adding a stack washer dryer and the porch that we're adding is a two-tier porch so there'll be some porch accessed off the lower level and some act up off that uh bedroom it's access off actually off the hall there it's like like an L shape so just to give you an example that's what I'm proposing this is the existing house and this is what like a massive study let's say of what it would look like and I I have um I can pass this around it has the existing photos and that can mark that as A8 that would be A8 and those are what are they they're um thre dimension massing studies and existing photos exos you have ex photos um yeah those photos are we're taken today so just um in in just walking through um basically that's what we're proposing it's a it's a it's a nice upgrade to what what create what exist there architecturally we're trying to keep somewhat into the into I took a lot of pictures of the neighborhood in that area there's a lot of houses that have second floors a lot of tight Lots there as we know um so A9 is all the street skate photos that I took in the area to give you kind of a frame of reference of the neighborhood and what houses there there's a house that's about three down you you'll see in these photos pretty much kind of what we want to do and that that's basically what it looks like so that I don't know when it was built but it's it's only about four or five doors down along 15th Avenue it's kind of like similar in the type of feel and architecture that we wanted to kind of achieve and I'll pass these around this is going to be A9 those are A9 we're taking today so getting back to um I'm just going to go over what we're adding and why we're adding and I want to get back to the site plan because we did talk about parking um briefly I talked about it but I wanted just to clarify what we what what our plan was what what we're thinking of so the existing house in the back has no parking whatsoever there's no driveway there's nothing there's just a walk up to this house there's obviously a separation this it's um 18 ft from house to house basically and then in the front there was an existing say gravel driveway where I guess you parter car so what I want to do is cut the Cur I want to take the curb cut off of 15th Avenue and add it to D Street and access this way and add three legal spots but you really could use it as four but the maneuverability would be pretty tight with the with the four so I only show the three cars there and so then you would enter in and just go one two three helps with the parking situation here because there is none really and um th those I calculated would be the legal spots that the burrow would require one is front to back one is next to it and then I didn't show anything here but potentially you could put it another car there but you'd have to pull all the cars out to get out so I didn't really show that and then the porch that were adding is really not we didn't really go crazy in terms of making it a big porch it only it only comes out like 5' 10 and it's not even usable at 5' 10 cuz you got the railings and the columns so we I try to make it as minimal as possible because we wanted to get the architectural look of the front porch to kind of upgrade the house in keeping with the uh contextual environment that's there and U and and same thing on the second floor you know I was able the way I design The Columns The Columns I'm can't of leing the second floor over of being to to allow to have the deck on the second floor but not impact the parking Itself by moving the columns forward so the variance that we're seeking for that the porch creates a variance for coverage and it creates a variance for setback off of 15th Avenue because the existing was 25.4 and we're going to be at 18.96% be the front of the house so the front of the house faces 15 there's actually two entrances to this house but our mean front entry you I don't want to put the stairs there so I wrap the stairs to the side so you would come in and enter that but I appreciate that you're saying you've got three legal spots but I do want to ask a question that nonconforming part you're basically it's all nonconforming it's nonconforming yeah right well but let's that's why we stop I take breath because if we're proceeding as if you're providing three compliance CS you're not right okay so let's not say that we are I'm I'm just saying I'm improving the situation present as if and I until the question was raised I think you know he's he's he's providing three compliance pots that's not the case because it's in the front yard zero compliance pods yeah it's zero because there's nowhere on the site to PL to put any parking because there's two front yards we could have a discuss when board's questions but presentation point of view I just want to make sure that the public as well as the board is informed that there's zero parking being proposed to because it's non-compliant because it's in the front yard right but I think you stated that you're providing three ilal spots well dimensionally I should clarify that clarify that yeah they're not legal because they're in the front yard you can wind up in jail Jail's right [Laughter] behind I got it button under here I can push so they're dimensionally legal but non-conforming because they're in the front yard so that's a good clarification thanks for bringing that up yes um so because of the porch construction you know it triggers the front yard variance and we and we already went through the building coverage we're over because the PCH now counts towards building coverage so it brings us over to to the 44 point 5 4% other than that the house is basically we using the same footprint basically acept for the porches and the porches is from an architectural standpoint I mean the house is just going straight on top of the existing footprint there's some can of levers um in the back we're can of Levering a couple feet to make the bedrooms work but no foundation work where the existing Foundation I examined it structurally cuz I know I know there's problems going to some of these boards where these everyone says the foundation's good and then when you go build it you know guess what the foundation goes crashing down unfortunately I've had this experience before and I had to go back to the board so I spent a lot of time analyzing the existing foundation and it's sound we're not really changing the framing of the first floor deck so that's pretty much going to stay intact I think my client's plan is just to rebuild the existing entry tree steps and some of the concrete is damaged there and and kind of fix up some of the concrete that's there there's a existing structural columns and beans there that are in good shape so that that's that was a concern you know that we've addressed um let's see any other I think um I covered most of it we're conforming to the height restriction um the total height is 32 ft you and um so we we conform to all the regulations in terms of height the house is going from the existing house there is 15 ft high so we are that's the amount that we're raising from 15 to 32 from Ridge to Ridge let's see if I missed anything else um as you can see um so if you look at this Photograph uh I think I I think I gave you a list of photograph this this this is the elevation exactly across the street so this is exactly across the street from the from the property they have a porch a second floor granted I I didn't go and measure the lot size or get a survey of it but the lot seems to be somewhat bigger so um and you can look at some of the other photos if you're going towards the water a lot of these houses have second floors so the idea that we wouldn't we'd be changing this and we' be like sort of this red flag because we have a second floor I think there's a lot of context there that shows that a lot of people have built second floors there I don't know if they got variances because a lot of the lots are small in fact some of the second floor ones that I witnessed there must be only 5 ft between the structures and and there's two set there's second floors on both of them so we were concerned and we don't want to over build you know that that was a concern so we're trying to do this as economically and as uh but still upgrade that existing house tremendously architecturally so that that that's kind of like in a nutshell the whole description of the project I'd be glad to answer any question questions or clarify some of the numbers if you need need B yeah just under any impervious coverage calculations real quick sure I see where you removed the existing driveway but I don't see where you added the new one so is going to be some sort of material I'm assuming right yeah let's see I at the driveway um yeah because the proposed driveway with the three spots we were adding 725 did I did I not include that yeah I see that yeah I think I might have not included that I that increases your yeah that increases my impervious coverage quite a bit quite quite a bit so the idea here is and I don't know what the requirement is with the board is there different materials that we could use that that would stone and you get 50% so probably po semipro papers you get 50% for that right so we probably do something in Alliance with like that it's the existing driveway now is Stone and I counted that actually as 100% impervious in my calculation we're not too far off if we add that existing driveway and we get that 50% you're talking about we'd be we'd be pretty close but I I can amended I and get you um a calculation for that maximum WID of a dryway in the ordinance is 10 ft out already right so so you're you talking about your curb cut maximum is 10t maximum width 10 ft okay so you can't you can't side by side park okay so we're really at two you got a problem I got it I understand the parking is an issue we're trying to mitigate it basically as best we can here uh I guess the other question I had concerning the driveway is um I'm just eyeball I can't really tell how wide the apron there is but I think there's a I can't tell this this is something new to me this plan so I looked at three different plans and this one I didn't see okay so yeah I didn't have a lot of time I was like about a week or two I guess my question then is like I think that apron looks bigger than the one that would be legal at 10 12 you're allowed 12 12T yeah next question would be if our engineer would have to look at that right to make distance from the corner right my my own thought process on it was Sor okay anything you testified before and going forward that tell if you please note the conversation was about the cut on D Street and and the width of it and the location of it okay needs to be clarified um for these drawings and for us and also for the buo engineer so my thought process in relocating the curb cut to D Street was just a visual inspection that 15th is more travel than D Street and so I thought that would might be a better alternative in trying to mitigate the parking stuff so by by changing it to that side I felt it was less issues with oncoming traffic because at 15th there's a lot of cars that go back and forth as opposed to D Street when I was there taking the pictures I sort of kind of visually inspected it and that that's how I came up with that that that alternative to try to mitigate this the ordinance requires that you use the side street as the driveway right right and that would be considered a side street correct correct the problem is though the distance from the corner I think and that's probably the yellow Maring Zone there yeah I I think um yeah we're I mean just in a visual inspection the house that's across the street on D Street their curve cut is like right near the corner so I don't know if they got a variance or it's a preexisting Vari for they probably did it before the ordinance was adopted yeah probably yeah so I just noticed how like some of these houses are pretty close already all right hang on let's just I don't want to gloss over this point okay that would become a nonstarter Right there'd be no conversation around reducing the size of the yellow zone driveway right Department engine is not going to approve that right nor nor do we have the per the the authority to approve that this support U that would be the B engineer he would have to take a look at that right as a board cannot approve a curb cut location that's cutting into the yellow because it's we don't have the authority to do that right that's the engine it's a safety issue and we got to defer to that okay we definely have a problem right now yeah that's problem now how much further we go given that problem because you can't have the driveway go to to 15th even though you might be doing that now can't have the driveway go to 15 has to be on the side street and it has to be 12 side street can't be there so the way it is we're sort of out a you know we're stuck in the mud right now yeah so like the question is what's the distance and is it the yellow I I have to confirm this with the engineer basically because he didn't get a chck chance to review any of my plans cuz we're talking two weeks here the turnaround was really quick here option postponing yeah um I don't know where we go with this at this stage because if if if we don't have a Defender dancer on that because you're not you don't have the jurisdiction to approve that to approve give yellow curb space yeah I don't I didn't I don't I have to figure out what that Dimension is and whether we could even get this to work on that side the the porch might have to get narrower to be able to allow for that distance to work I'm have I might have to push this back you know if if this distance has to be X you know but I can figure that out listen we're not here to design this right I understand but but I I can say you know again given our history that we've seen with these older structures and you know more often than not by far a New Foundation needs to be board um if this is going to ultimately be a new Foundation moving the entire uh building closer to 15th and having parking behind the building would make a lot more sense than trying to man two spots in what it looks like a front lawn from 15th Avenue you know currently we're not planning on doing a New Foundation because it's in good it's in decent shape I understand no I'm just saying given our history in the prop of preexisting foundations not being able to support the structure right and then subsequent you discovering that it looks like you can't put the driveway there that may be your only option is to move this house follow agre I can't I'm not not going to definiely because you guys have to do that like not me right but it looks to me like having a driveway behind the house is a lot more intelligent than having yeah like moving the house just for conceptual purposes moving it forward and parking off this I think that the problem that you're going to have there is the gra there's retaining walls there the grave it's up like at least 21 Ines there there's steps that you walk up to access this house and this house you're walking up three steps this this is an existing retaining all there that's why I didn't really go there because I was worried about like how do you how do you even design that you know with with being able to slope the driveway at the percentages of what the driveway needs to be you can't just put a giant Hill or it's going to come you guys have to tell us given where we're at right now whether you want to continue presenting should should yeah I'd like to get all your feedback so this way we can address all those maybe sound like you might be returning go ahead I I think I'm I'm pretty much set and and I value the feedback that I got from you guys so it it it's the parking is going to be something that needs to be addressed here okay yeah so real quick the retaining wall that was my next question are you leaving it or getting rid yeah we're leing it on that side on here I I was going to try to it's not as bad when you get closer to the curb so I felt that I could probably manage that with the with a new curve cut there yeah I just don't think you'd be able I mean you're not going to get three cars there if you probably around the wall would be impossible so that would be question um real quick just running through questions um my other question my main question is this is a expansion of a non-conforming use I don't think I heard any positive negative criteria other than the desire to continue with a good financial situation with having a rental um and I'll just real quick I don't know as if I see the parking situation as being a benefit if I was a neighbor I don't think I'd want three cars in the front yard looking sitting on my porch looking at that so um I would be curious what other benefits the rest of the community might have with this proposal as opposed to just s the homeowner even though the is under size as a corner lot a lot of the lots are much much smaller so if you actually cut this into two lots it's it's a lot like a lot of the properties that are there even though there's two structures on it so I didn't think like oh my God it's it's like a little small lot with two houses like crammed right next to each other cuz it is basically almost 100 we got almost 100 ft going back so that that was my thought process um obviously we can't do anything about the existing structures that are there I don't think it's a negative impact based on the distance of all these houses with each other currently it's not changing the contextual nature of that area because all the houses some of them are less than 5 ft from each other okay can I just ask you just mention that it's a big siiz lot but you're under size and begin with yeah because there's a different requirement for a corner lot in terms of square footage I'm minimum is requ is 0 yeah it is a smaller for your requirement for the lot area but in relation to some of the other Lots neighboring this it's a lot bigger okay that's my point yeah okay I think you if you come back you're probably going want to clarify that positive criteria Community yeah positive and negative criteria like like a lot of the planners testify I understand Mr Ross on a number of the things that I was concerned about but um it's really not a question it's more of comment you're just not going to get I I having a difficult time with this parking issue and this is a small lot for a single family house there are two homes on this lot right and to expand that non-conformity is is just something that I will struggle with thank you um can we get a little bit of brief testimony how many bedrooms bathrooms in the the second structure I was in three bedrooms and one b and that's currently rented now certificate of occup occupancies in place for rental um Chuck hit on a bunch of mine and took my right so just keep moving down uh front yard set back you have two front yards on the corner you know parking is going to be is going to be a hard no for me I don't have to ask any questions about it we can't have lights facing into uh neighbors porches um then I also too was questioning here on my notes the distance from uh the corner back into a potential new curve cut one of the questions I think that might benefit the applicant is area in between the two houses could that potentially be a driveway could potentially be a driveway potentially potentially possibly you have some great issues to work out there meing that you might use a fact you might lose a backyard we call front dwelling but then you gain a front yard so I mean just from the dimensions that exist there now you would get maximum you would get one in front of the other that's a yeah basically two one in front of the other would have a potential for a performing driveway so my one question would be and this is a question for Ted mostly would that be conforming because it's two front yards now well in order that requires that you have a driveway off of D Street okay because it's a side street it's a so it wouldn't be a non-conforming parking situation because it's off a dick parking yeah a parking space is 20 by9 right according TOS so you're required to have how many bedrooms in the front three well two two what proposed two one right now okay so you're going to need two spots there and you're going to need two in the back that's spots yeah the back the back has none zero right now the yes uh I might be wrong but this you said the potential structure is going to be 32 ft correct we're going to have a functioning attic there or half story as we would call it yeah it's not it's not functioning it's mechanical only only with a drop downstairs there's no stair access to I'm just well because the house is already up 21 ft because of the grade condition you have to walk up three or four steps just to get to grade get to get to the first floor and then we're going with the existing like 8 ft but it's 35 ft from the average around the structure right from the crown of the road right so I'll have to figure that out make sure that we're in conformance I believe we'll be in conformance yeah I mean I could change the roof pitches a little bit to make that work I'm not questioning that I'm questioning you have the potential to have a habitable thir floor at 32 ft maybe we change the slope to make that so it's not the the average grade around the structure here are you hearing what I'm saying yeah you get what I'm saying yeah um so potential for it would actually be in your in your case we would be if you're taking it from the average grade we' be less than 2 ft because of the grade condition for the house right right um driveway with not concerning a not concerning parking not the retaining wall is that calculated in the I I had that in the coverage retaining wall it's calculated and I I added it into the existing driveway calculation but I could break that out you know further just so you can see the coverage yeah with the potential improvements potentially to the front loing is there any consideration to doing any improvements to the rear structure architecturally siding okay I don't U at this time oh and the last thing is I'm sorry floor area ratio which brought me to that attic question in the third floor if you you know 64.38 * 2 plus 867 right you did 2147 97 right the LA is 3,000 the L is 3,000 right 78% of the lot areas R left like 3,47 yeah so me full circle on it which is why question 32 ft I thought judging by the window on the exterior might be we were putting that in for decorative reasons but at this time I don't have any yeah I just have one question T Ted if this address is 15th Avenue do they have to have access from 15th Avenue it's supposed to so that's nonconforming having because the front door is sping 15 correct no there's two front doors there's a there's an ex if you look at the elevation uh my front elevation that's the existing door I'm just replacing it and that's facing 15 and then if you go to this elevation there's also another door here it's like say the mudro door okay but there is no access from 15 to get to the house you can access you can access the side the address has to be 15 right okay so that's not an yeah that's a good point anything else CH no I'm okay okay and then I the questions that I have are things that I have already come up but I just want to to um just summarize or at least repeat um it seems to me that the there's going to have to be a solution where there's going to be parking between the two structures I I don't really see any way to figure on parking on that what looks like the 15 front La I me that's obervation I could be wrong you have 18.6 ft I I don't know I don't know if any consideration has been with more serious consideration hasn't been given to to to redoing the footprint um of the front structure um you know given that you know the board you know seems amenable to allowing the improvements to happen um and retain the back structure which isn't a given by the way um I do think necessary to make this palatable that um a Rie of the foundation or or new footprint has has to be considered and I really think you got to give and um actually there was an official in town who suggested to me that you know the board may require an engineering study be given on reuse of Foundations in the future and make our approvals contingent I appreciate you saying you cuz I had the problem in like Walmart right right but but many have come before us and told us that that they've inspected it but that's not the engineering inspection needed for the structure that's being proposed so one the solutions to that which we as a board have not discussed yet is requiring an engineering study that that reaffirms that that foundation will stay as is right this way we don't have the house knocked down and then a New Foundation going in and then we're stuck with what we thought was the old footprint when we had the opportunity to change the footprint so having said that if you're going to do that a a garage facing e stream could be one of your Parking Solutions as well right right whether you used a garage or not is a different matter but but you know for the purpose of counting spots you could pick up at least one spot by showing the garage facing on onto the D Street side ideally to the right of the structure which would pull you away from the corner and you know that might be part of your solving your parking dilemma and then I believe the question was answered but I want it noted for for the record um because it would my vote would be contingent on making sure that the rear housee is in is resided to match the front house that we don't have sort of like this nice new house in front and and a rundown mental in the rear um so with that I think we're done with board questions I'd like to open this up to the public or if the public has any questions or comments please raise your hand come forward again seeing none Mr Aly we close the public session and I think we'll go right to board comments Al we kind of did questions and comments at the same time but I think for protocol we'll just go through it again go through quickly chck sure well I think you have to come back um some the answers to the question I person until you do that so one of the things I would like asked is that I think that bur Engineers should review the plan prior for us coming back because there's some things here like hold on pause for a second let's just I'd like to I'd like to um make sure clear just Chu Tru could you just reiterate what your questions were that you expect to be answered uh sure the driveway situation like where the parking is the size of the apron um I think they have to address the fact that it's strike yellow right now whether that's even allowable the engineer on that um and then you like to hear some testimony on positive negative criteria with respect to expanding a non-conforming use with you know two M oner think that's important I I hate to ask for either of you taking notes watch the video watch the video I'm I'll probably just summarize to myself afterwards but okay so so first was the driveway a size and the yellow striping and then the positive and negative criteria for the expansion of non-conforming yeah to the community not just right right we're required to have that to be able to approve the variant it's got to have some sort of beneficial so let me ask you since you it was brought up by some of the board members if we end up moving the foundation forward it creates more of a setback issue but that would be a good tradeoff putting the paring between the two buildings we're helping is that the sense I'm getting we're trying to help you solve the parking problem while being allowed to keep the rear house okay that's what we're working on but no one's making any commitments in that regard I understand yeah all right it's nice to get the feedback Mr Mr Ross we got um it's a tough It's Rec it is a tough lot it's a and it's a good location it's a good solid investment for your it's tough so it's going to take some thought some time at this time I would not be in favor strictly because you have variety of different parking being number one ISS they great yeah parking is definitely an issue I would even look at if you get two spots between the houses and then the third spot if you do a side faing garage on the first floor of the house that way you would get three spots out of it but parking on the front BS it's not stter to me yeah my issue is with the parking Solution on that and my my I mean obviously you know similar concerns across the board with the addition of um I'd really like to um uh ensure if we that s that same Foundation that we get a better sense of whether it could support the structure assumption is you're looking at that um probably considering moving it which you said we'd have to look at a front yard set back on 15th as being the possible alternative um you know I would just like to be clear you know both to the applicant to yourself you know the solution for this is put a single family house on a lot and eliminate the reare house right right and all your problems are solved understand the economics of it but that really is not the board's concern as to you know the the financial impact of of doing this the right way that we are not supposed to weigh that in as much as I understand it that cannot be part of our voting criteria that says that says oh we feel bad for you that we don't want you see give up that rent we do we do but we can't vote based on that our vote has to be based on what is the lot what are the Varan is a lot capable of doing this lot is quite capable of putting a fully compliant single family home on it without any problem whatsoever so we start there right and why aren't we doing that right and now we're trying to work with you here and if that means a new foundation so be it but really the right solution is to SLE family home fire and do it the right way and and you got to give up the back house is it possible if we moved the front house and were able get two spots next to each other or two spots behind that would be four spots cuz I'm a little concerned about oh am I saving half the foundation or I moving the whole Foundation it's just a thought you have a lot coverage issue yeah it would be a lot coverage issue but we would solve the par parking problem you you'd have four spots you still might need five right you need five but we're very close you're not solving it but you're getting better yeah right there there's been frequent times where you know ired we allow the three we give a park a variance for the one right you know uh four are required two are provided we get a variance for the two like like again I'm not speaking for other board members I speak that in the past we're sensitive to some level of parking relief um but what's being proposed here is is is is nothing like the relief that we we typically expect right and that's what I'm saying I I can look at this and say you could probably get three spots with the garage and two between the two buildings you could probably get three spots that way so real quick too I think one thing that maybe you don't have the driveway included so wherever you put the driveway you got to include it it's not included in the calculation so you know we're saying all this places you can put the driveway but you're going to create another problem by putting a driveway anywhere it's going to make it your imp yeah the 50% reduction with the materials will help so just don't to think like hey if I put the driveway here that's the board the board's going to be happy now you got to because you haven't included yet and just for matter of record we didn't discuss if there's any if you're eliminating parking potential parking spots on Street bying an apron you would be so you got a tricky one yeah okay but but if you take the curve cut just to clarify if you take the curve cut off 15th you're adding one so I figured it was a replacement but I'll have to figure all that out that's possible thank you okay so we're going to adjourn um this application um to a future date in which they'll come back with revised plans again depending on nature of the revised plans I believe re noticed the neighbors could be required um I don't know really my assumption is that would have to change significantly enough that re notice would be necessary we have a DAT that you want to carry 27 February 27 okay um all new plans need to be in at least 10 days before the meeting so that the board and professionals have time to review them so I suggest that if you are going to submit any new plans um that you do so with enough time okay my suggestion is that I'll send these plans to the engineer for them to review and give their comments because then that might help figure out what to do there could be things in there that we don't know like a drainage issues that we don't know could be issues that are not and then also please take into consideration April to make the February 27th day um would it would they not be um um what would be their notice like how you back in they have to notice by what Le 10 days before okay so so the existing noticing has to be if you sorry I would suggest that you do Ren notice it's up to you but ultimately uh if there are going to be changes to the plans you should re noticed to capture those okay typically if the changes are minor in nature we W would need to R notice but we believe that we could be mistaken but the changes that you're going to make are going to be significant enough that the notice see provided to the neighbors is not adequate got it there might be new variances that you didn't notice for originally and there might be an elimination of the variant if we deal with the parking off the 15 correct right yeah again exact neighbors the neighbors have a right to know that as you would in your neighborhood you don't need the boards CU it's not approved correct those are Mark exib so you want me to keep those I leave those because they're the same because there's going to be a lot of changes so unless you unless you want to keep them I I would also recommend don't rush if you can't make the February 27th meeting regarding this then I would a lot of I would like you to advise April so we can get another thank [Music] you um could we do five minute break y [Music] back on the record still present okay uh we're going to hear the um the last applicant of the night Jay Donovan and Michelle Buzzy at 1032 Avenue um just chairman yes um if there's anybody in the public that has any questions with relation to notices that have been issued from the appli SEC have clean items evidence entl A3 Zing denal 4124 is arital PL 92224 thank you Mr all right um Good Luck wish you well um but before we get too far down the road um it's been brought to my attention and I just want clarification to see if um this is correct or incorrect but the um you know when we follow for the lot area calculation um when we when we look at the plot plan the lot looks like it's 36 ft by 100 ft that's it's incorrect Mr chairman okay yeah let's you let's have you sworn in first I'm sorry let's let's let's everybody with offic at Main streetm you so just for the board's sake I apparently you may have quote this already but um the lot calculation should read as um 3,661 and it's reading as 6700 is that correct that's correct it's it's incorrect I have corrected them for the board what number was that what is that for um the uh zoning requirements for an R50 uh on the first line of of I don't know what exhib this is but plans that large plans that were given out uh it's reflecting the um required is 5,000 and the ex 700 is actually required is 5,000 existing is 3,661 and we would assume that any additional calculation that is based on the percentage of loot coverage would also be incorrect is that I did I did catch that earlier today and I have recalculated that but but not on the plans that we're looking at and these are the given to the public you notice that's correct I mean can't have this I mean if if the public is being notified of plans that are off by almost double that's a problem I mean it's a problem with the notice I I I I see no one's here from the public to object to it but we as a board should have a problem with that notice that a significant difference ask it's a relatively low flood risk it's in X500 Zone and I you I'm not well vers on our new flood plan I know we have a flood plan administrator my my question is simply I took the time to look at it um in that zone the next 500 Zone and maybe you don't know the answer but it's worth asking you uh is it safe to assume that the renovations of the structure can only be can not exceed 50% of the assess value of the profit not in can you explain what you your your home um ma' is located in a very low flood risk it's a X500 Zone I I I own a property too that's an X500 zone so with that being said I'm not low vers on flood planes but I'm enough to be dangerous I own a property that's an X500 it's the lowest FL plane that's available certain municipalities and I might be missing but to the that bmma requires that if you are on a significant flood zone your renovations to your property cannot exceed 50% of your assess value without bringing the property to female compliance which would mean raising thewell Mak your mechan systems are I I believe that you are and if not I'm sure administrator would probably in advance so 50% does app the no chairman I review the the notice and I don't believe based upon the variances that are being sought and uh the clerical error with regard to the lot size has any impact it's not necessarily SI unless any anyone else on the board has an objection we accept that your your view on that and we'll proceed um I would like to correct all numbers right now before we get started though so the notices are related to the notice provides for side set the lot are is not going to change it's based upon just the lot size right those Dimensions areay pered side and those are the two VAR imperious coverage variance could well based on the the calculation proposes 75.1% number show it will be will okay so then the notice would be insufficient with that whether or not appropriate okay let's get the revised numbers all the way down you read us the existing and the proposed U correct numbers Mr yes okay please go ahead the building coverage can we do please the lot area first the lot area is 3600 ft and remains that okay okay the next calculation would be building coverage right building coverage increases to 80 3% wait from 24.3 yes 80 what you said 83% 83 for existing existing the calculation calculations were rone is based on 6 6700t that's a lot area versus 3600 squet here's I have two questions what is the building coverage on the 3661 lot the building coverage existing is 39% and proposed is what 40 44% building coverage we have price waterhous checkings numbers there for years okay that's good okay uh and then the next um calculation would be impervious coverage right impervious the impervious coverage will be increased to 76% existing or is that the proposed that's the proposed you know what the existing is by any chance 83% the reason for that is that we're redoing the driveway with per papers so you're actually going to go from 83% down to 76% that's correct um does the F change I would imagine it would the F increases to 82% from what chairman I understand we're doing essentially putting this on the record but from a from a clean record perspective for theit of the app and the of I don't believe we should continue with the we not we not um the numbers that are being provided are just estimates and I think we as a board that can take a vot on whether or not um we're going to continue to hear this given the accuracy of the information that's been provided to us whether we noce is required or not um adequate or correct numbers presented to us or or parent so so I think re notice is required notice re notice is required okay all right so let's just let's just take care of this now all right I'd like to put up to a vote does anyone want to make a motion to um postpone this application B on the fact that all in favor anyone [Music] Al just so you know I believe two board members are not going to be [Music] present VAR you want to wait oh that's right sorry participate okay okay all right so we're Jing until February you agree to that right and that's based on your need not and just for clarification um you have to submit new notice and then when you file the new notice make sure you capture all of those variances that being s and submit any new plans corrected plans or otherwise 10 days before the application if February 27th is not feasible please open up that date for another applicant if it turns out you can't get it done by then they'll be Janu January Mee I just in February I believe I have to um let's anyal might be in February myself and Tony I know me and Mark for sure Tony May February so we might have three out on February which get usone elseed and plus we have to figure out what we keep we so you want to keep the applications for 10312 and 55 and 2