e e e e e e e e e e and welcome to the Bridgewater Township planning board regular meeting for Tuesday May 7th 2024 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 colon 4-6 on February 7th 2024 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the Balden board in the municipal building Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10:00 p.m. hearing assistance is available upon request accommodation will be made for individual with a disability P pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act or Ada provided the individual with a disability provides 48 Hours advanced notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting however if the individual should require special equipment or services such as a Cart transcriber 7 Days advance notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary would everyone please rise to salute the flagi to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for it stands oh I uh for the Public's College our board secretary has been uh temporarily hung up so Ashley Sakura will be the acting secretary thank you board attorney Mr Peck Miss sakuro could I have a roll call please sure chairman that's yo here mayor MCH absent uh councilman kersch here Mr papis here Mr mura here Mr Wang here miss sakur that's be here Mr banga here M choit here uh Mr chalry yes Mr Atkins here um Mark peek here Bill Burr and Katherine sarmat great believe we have a quorum you at this time I'd like to open up the meeting to any members of the public wishing to address the board on any land use matter other than any application that will be heard on tonight's agenda please feel free to come forward at this time seeing none hearing none we're going to move on we will be moving the resolutions to the end of this agenda this evening we're going to to be moving straight into our Land Development applications portion for the evening should we do minutes we don't have minutes this evening I believe they are still yes sorry no problem okay the first application this evening is hula block 150 Lots 12 and 13 commonly know as 147 Chestnut Street and who's returning to represent the applicant this evening evening Mr chairman board members members of the public board professionals my name is Michael silbert I'm an attorney at the law firm D Francesco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey and I have the privilege of representing Miss hulas connection with this application even just as a as a quick refresher the application concerns property located at block 150 Lots 12 and 13 as shown in the Township's tax maps more commonly known as 147 Chestnut Street property is located in the Township's r10 Zone um we are here to request variant relief in order to construct a single family dwelling on M 12 ordinarily as this board I'm sure recalls this type of simple residential application would go to the zoning board however we're seeking subdivision approval because existing Lots 12 and 13 are under sized Lots they are adjacent to one another and they are under common ownership so why they've always been considered in the eyes of the township as two lots lots 12 and 13 as a matter of law have merged under we discussed at the uh I think it was April 16th uh the doctrine of merger so what does this mean well this means without formal subdivision approval and again despite the the Township's continued treatment of the property as two lots the applicant may not sell Lot 12 and 13 individually without first obtaining subdivision approval from the planning board so just to sum this up the applicant wants to formally recreate Lots 12 and 13 so that they can be protected from the doctrine of merger uh the applicant also wishes to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 12 for which C variance relief is required uh for the setbacks uh this application does not seek to exacerbate any of the existing non-conformities with respect to existing Lots uh existing lot 13 and in fact some of the relief being sought with respect to lot 13 constitutes improvements to existing conditions which I would just like to clarify before I pass the Baton to Mr Styers um at the conclusion of last hearing and as I'm sure the board recalls the board asked the applicant to the better address the drainage concerns on the property uh specifically um Mr Burr and the board asked that we do some site reconnaissance work to try to evaluate whether there are drainage issues and if so where they they may stem from or originate from Mr Styers will address this in his testimony uh with respect to Lot 12 we also submitted Revis plans based upon councilman kersh's request that we conceptually demonstrate what Lot 12 would look like if lot coverage was increased uh potentially to its maximum permitted amount if in the future a homeowner were to own that property if the board recalls we were originally at 29% laot coverage on Lot 12 um where 35% is permitted and Mr our councilman kers wanted to see what it' be like if a homeowner was there and really utilized it and added its per uh that homeowner Personal Touch to the property um so what we did there on Lot 12 is we added Dex patio shed um Mr Styers will address all of that in those same plans and on lot 13 we revised the plans to show the elimination of the existing garage so what this does the elimination of the of the existing Garage on lot 13 and the proposed development on Lot 12 brings the total coverage between the two lots to a number that is almost identical to what exist today as it relates to lot coverage um so the applicant is prepared to remove the existing Garage on lot 13 just as a reminder that garage has been there for approximately 50 plus years and the applicant's doing that to address the board's concerns with with respect to lock coverage but with the caveat and and you know I I want to make sure it's clear that the applicant's willing to do this if this is really the only path forward to securing an approval um I want to impress upon the board that this is of course is not the applicant preferred course of action so we're we're hopeful the board might be willing to to consider other options to reduce lot coverage ultimately what Mr Styers has testified to and presumably will continue to testify to is that uh the difference in anywhere between 800 and 1,000 square feet of lot coverage between the two lots will have a dominous impact on the surrounding neighborhood um so so just to be clear um current plans before the board do show the REM removal of the garage but the applicant still uh impresses upon the board that they they wish not to remove the garage so uh I do hope that the that the submission of these rep revised plans demonstrates the applicant applicant's willingness to work with the board even though the applicant is firm in its its position they are willing to work with the board given the feedback that we've received um we also submitted an exhibit to demonstrate that the single family dwelling on law 12 will comply with the Township's height requirements and I'll just put forth on the record once again uh make it very clear that the applicant stipulates to complying to the Township's ordinance uh as it relates to height and F requirements for both Lots uh as was requested by the board we submitted pictures of the existing basement un lot 13 just to demonstrate that the applicant correctly did not include the basement in F calculations so the pictures uh in what's been submitted to the board shows that the basement's unfinished used for storage you know your standard unfinished basement um also as a matter of transparency just because the topic came up at the last hearing the applicant submitted interior pictures of the existing Garage on lot 13 again to demonstrate that it's purely being used as a garage not not being used in a in at least what I would characterize as an inappropriate manner um so uh I'll hats off to my team they were able to uh incredibly submit all these exhibits 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing so again April 16th uh we got these was our last hearing we got these exhibits in I think on the 24th or 25th so uh good work to the team so um before I call my first witness uh and yield the floor to Mr Styers there just one thing I wanted to clarify which I unfortunately failed to address at the last hearing hearing so the last hearing I indicated in the initial plan submission as I'm sure the board recalls that the um that the lot coverage on lot 13 would improve as a result of the shed's elimination and I think there is a misunderstanding on my part because I think the board interpreted what I said what I thought I had said was that there is going to be an elimination of the encroachment of the shed on the neighbor's property and I perhaps the maybe I wasn't clear but um what I wanted to to to clarify in the record is that I I did not mean to suggest that the shed was going to be just removed that the the shed was going to be removed in conjunction with the application um so if not for the application the shed was going to be located so as to not encroach on the neighbor's property that issue was brought to light when we submitted the application but the applicant spoke to me after the hearing and wanted to make sure that I put that clear on the record that um that wasn't the applicant's intention um say that because lot coverage concerns were were a major issue at the last hearing and just want to make sure that I I didn't misconvey any messages um so just as it relates to the to the to the encroachment of the shed um I think our professionals will test to the fact that there are for whatever reason encroachments all throughout Bradley Gardens it seems like there's sheds on a lot of proper property so my point is this doesn't seem like an uncommon issue in this neighborhood but um Mr chairman Ju Just for clarity so the shed will be have a limited relocation is what you're saying yes what I'm saying is entirely on the subject property not overhanging into the neighbor's property that's correct what I what I meant to say if I did not at the last hearing is that the encroachment will be eliminated by locating by relocating the shed on the property irrespective of this application that they're they're mutually exclusive from one another however be because of this application because we're trying to reduce lack coverage The Proposal was to just eliminate the shed in its entirety but but if not for the application the applicant would not have touched the shed now that it came to light that it's encroaching on the neighbor's property of course they have to take care of that they don't want they don't want to have this encroachment any further and is that shed on on a a pad of any kind or it the floor is whatever is part of the um construction of the of the shed have to defer that to okay all right at some point I just like Clarity there and um you know you know not to to um uh you know be too precise but I know we want to be precise here uh by moving the shed to its right full location um by probably a handful of square feet it may be more uh coverage because a certain amount of the shed is now in the neighbor's yard is that I mean you know we're probably talking about a handful of square feet um but you know whatever is encroaching onto the neighborhood I presume is not being counted currently but would need to be counted in the new condition i' again I'd have to defer to Mr Styers to see if that if the entire square footage of the shed was calculated it's very possible that it was oh okay if it was then then okay the shed only remains if the application's denied okay that's I it sounds as though I'm making like a threat that we're going to keep the shed there it's just it's just that I misspoke at the last hearing it the it was presented that oh it really isn't an improvement the shed is going away anyway I'm trying to just clarify that that was not what I was trying to no it's understood and I'm sure we'll get to this but I just want to make sure that I understand at this moment The Proposal if if if the board continues to be concerned about lot coverage and the existing garage is eliminated the shed is also eliminated no the the revised plans show the relocation of the shed um as Mr Styers can can okay all right I I I just I just want to be be be clear like what what stays and what goes or what moves and you know you know just because there are some moving Parts here and and you you know my position position I'm sure this would be the homeowner's position we want to make sure that everybody has sufficient space to store your recyclables your um uh uh uh snowblower if you have one shovels lawn mower those sorts of things and whether people to choose to do that in a garage or choose to do that in a shed clearly they need to go somewhere and that's exactly why the revised plans we submitted show a shed on lot 13 to replace the garage again very very well received from you counil was the concern that okay you're showing this on a plan but when there's a future homeowner whether it's a year down the road or 15 years down the road they're obviously going to make improvements to the property so we wanted to show what could be done uh in accordance with the permitted uh Max coverage so thank you I can uh recall my my first witness Mr Styers was sworn in at the last hearing um this on yep all right so why don't we start off with with what was uh submitted to the board 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing more than 10 days in advance uh what's the new proposal okay um I do have I don't recall the um exhibit number from the last meeting I think it was A1 if it was the uh colorized the colorized uh plan I'm going to relabel this one as A1 as well it's the same thing but I haven't I haven't over because I I think I think Nancy has the uh the previous one so the plan before you which I'm calling A1 was the colored rendering of the um grading and so erosion plan originally submitted so so you see the original house um you had the steps out the back the porch the um driveway on lot 13 you had the existing driveway existing house patio existing garage um we re removing various items um what I've done is made an overlay um okay NO3 A3 so what I did was I made the overlay to try try and show what we've Incorporated um one of the things was as Mike said uh councilman kers you wanted to see kind of the full development I guess you could say of Lot 12 so what in addition so the driveway itself is the stay the porch the pet um um the steps the pet um porch house what we've done in the back is we've added a uh a deck in the back we've added stairs down to the basement so you have an external entrance uh into the basement we've also included a believe it's 10 X5 shed in the back with the appropriate setbacks to the uh to the both the side and rear yard and on this plan as we said the removal of the existing Garage on Lot 12 and then this shed here would be the relocation of the existing shed to a permitted location so um that kind of shows the full development of the property and it also incorporates what we felt were the most um productive drainage measures I guess you could say we can we looked at whether to put dry wells in or not um we did actually go onto the site and we did a test pit in this location uh just one to determine kind of what the soils were but more importantly where the groundwater elevation would be uh when we dug the hole water did come in at a certain elevation and then became static at at a certain elevation so we obtained that elevation where it became static and then we used that elevation to reset the vertical location of the proposed house so the basement for the new house would be two feet above that elevation so what that does is it gets not only the basement out of the potential groundwater but also the sun pump so that sun pump should not run continuously as the neighbors have expressed on other Lots um in conjunction with that I think all of you should have gotten my response letter with these things outlined um so in response to that we also generated a um in the letter there's an elevation of the house and it shows the various elevations of the first floor the second floor the peak of the house and then ultimately back down to the ground elevation the document that the house is 32 1/2 ft high as we have proposed which is below the 35 ft maximum um with regards to the drainage we decide to remove the garage that ultimately ends up being a net 32 or 82 Square F feet increase in the overall impervious coverage of both Lots which is essentially as a if you're doing drainage that's that's it's equating to uh the existing conditions um the last thing that we did was we investigated if remember we were asking about the the drainage uh structures going on off the property so we have a drainage pipe on the north side of the property and then we speculated that it did it continued down to the South and then to the east so uh if you recall we couldn't go on the property but but we looked over the fence so we looked over the fence and we made observations these are all plus or minus numbers as far as the locations but we feel that they're pretty accurate and what we determined was that there is an inlet in this northeast corner there is an inlet uh right um essentially behind the G um the shed and then what those two are connected and then it goes to the property or the roadway to the to the east it should be noted the inlet that we found here was essentially covered up so we found the the perimeter of it but we could not physically locate it because it was covered by various materials um it also should be noted that there is a patio in this location that appears to be within the 20ft drainage easement in the inlet uh directly behind the shed on the adjacent property there is a shed that is right in front of the inlet which is also within the drainage easement all of these I would expect are impacting the drainage in this area um we did not go onto the property we did make these observations um it was brought out that there was a 8 in PVC pipe draining into the inlet that is behind the shed in this location here we did observe that um it appears to be heading in the direction onto our property and it appears that it's collecting the roof leaders from the garage because the roof leaders on the side of the garage go into the ground and just kind of doing the math and we did put water into the leaders and they did discharge into the into the inlet so I believe that this pipe was there prior to the development of this property because prior to the development the subdivision of this property there was a ditch that essentially went from Northwest Southeast and I believe what happened was when they developed the property created the necessary drainage easements and and then put in the drainage structures they Incorporated the pipe into the drainage structure and put it so that it drains to the the roadway to the east just so I'm clear for my not those inlets are on the neighboring properties yes very close to the property line correct and they are ultimately in the Bur of Ron as well yes so the the rear property line is the common line between Bridgewood and Ron so I think in summary um I think we've accomplished all the concerns that the board had from the last meeting um hopefully you know um councilman kers we've accomplished uh your concerns as well I think Mr papis you brought up some of the concerns about the drainage as well so I think that we have addressed these items but if there's any other questions um I'll be glad to answer them I could ask a couple questions so what's the what's the on this plan what's the proposed law coverage on Lot 12 and on lot 13 Lot 12 as shown would be 31.5% and on lot 13 as shown would be 45 4% so for for Lot 12 there's still room for further improvements without encroaching in in lot coverage yes okay and then obviously lot 13 is a substantial Improvement versus what exists now yes and if you were to combine the two lots with these improvements they'd be almost identical to the lot coverage that's on the property currently yes okay um couple questions so at the last hearing you testified that you didn't think that there were you personally didn't have drainage concerns with an increase and I'm going back to the original submission you didn't have you didn't have concerns with an increase of anywhere between 800 and 1,000 square feet of lock coverage you weren't concerned about drainage issues for Bots 12 and 13 based on the original submission no because if you get into 800 square feet when you do the computations you convert to acres and 800 square feet is what two10 or two hundreds of an acre so when you do that multiplication the the flow increase is negligible I'll put it that way and so you prepared these plans obviously based upon the feedback from the board but in your professional engineering opinion do you feel that it's absolutely necessary to eliminate the the existing garage to address drainage concerns which correct me if I'm wrong you're saying you didn't have any drainage concerns uh I mean Del lead the garage would be a net increase of about 800 feet so yes but but the net increase in your opinion wouldn't result in in measurable drainage concerns okay um uh let's talk a little bit about the the the surrounding neighborhood um would you say it's uh uncharacteristic of the properties in this neighborhood to have lot coverage issues generally speaking I'm not asking you to speak to any specific Lots but in your observations would you our planner will address this but would you say that that's that's a common theme in this neighborhood I would say so yes okay so if there are lot coverage issues on a number of nearby Lots would you say that could uh obviously impact drainage concerns in the neighborhood obviously yes okay nothing nothing [Music] further thank you Mr Cyrus thanks Mr silbert I'd look I'd like to open up to the board for any questions regarding testimony if no one else has a question Mr chairman I I have a a few um first of all thank you for the for the work in the intervening couple of weeks um the first floor of this proposed new house will be at elevation 85.5 correct yes do you know what the elevation is of the street itself and the reason I'm asking I'm not trying to make this into a quiz show uh you know I'm I'm I'm trying to understand you know will the lawn be relatively flat will there be you you know typically there's at least a little bit of a crown but you know will it be you know a a pronounced uh height above the street um it is approximately right in front of the house is approximately 80.5 so the actual finished floor of the house would be 5T higher about 5T and and it looks like the if this is accurate there's like a a twep uh uh two steps up to the porch so you know maybe that's about what between 18 and 24 Ines probably right yeah there's probably more steps than that I mean I would say you most likely would step down out of the house onto the porch which would be rough oh you had another step okay so so all right so getting down to the ground itself would be if you see there's a spot elevation of 81 right at the bottom of the St steps so there's 3 ft down from the porch down to the okay so so then this front lawn would be relatively flat yeah it probably has a 2% a limited it wouldn't it would have a limited Crown if I'm using the right phrase right okay do you know um the height of the first floor of lot um 13 it's a little bit tough to read okay and again the reason I'm asking I'm not I'm not trying to turn this into in you know into um you know a mathematical um uh exercise I'm trying to just understand you know how high is this going to be I certainly applaud the efforts to keep the basement floor above the um the water table I think ultimately if this house is to be built that would keep the use of the sum pump to a relative minimum and then even more water isn't getting discharged um so do do you have a calculation or an estimate of the the first floor of the existing the house on existing lot 13 uh it looks like it's about 86 so it's actually a little bit higher 8 so but very very close yeah okay so so these houses next to each other will look to be pretty proportional yes and and and you know 6 in plus or minus look to be at pretty much the same elevation and and pretty much the same the same uh grade on both front Lawns yes okay okay all right um going back to your comment um propo the proposed building on Lot 12 would make that coverage 31.5 lot 13 45.4 but the combined I think you said was very very close to the existing condition when we say the existing condition we mean with the the with the pool or the remains of the pool that's in the back is that there really what's left is that the the patio around what used to be the pool okay pool itself is gravel right now so we did not count that okay uh we counted there if there's residual patio area and then in the upper northeast corner there's like a little a patio where there was a fire pit so that stuff is all coming out so and then the the net 82 square feet that I was saying that's if we took the garage off okay so so subtract the garage subtract the items that are going to no longer be on lot uh 12 add the house you're at a minus 82 ft of coverage the house and the and the shed in the back in the shed and all the things associated with the house yes you're at a minus 82 plus 82 I'm sorry plus 82 from the current condition correct okay yep and that's now over two lots which is basically 100 by 140 or whatever whatever the depth is I think it was right uh on average yeah 130 by 100 total okay and so so you're suggesting that this 82 as a percentage of 13 by 100 is is is quite small okay all right that those are my questions any other questions yes sir um Mr styes could you elaborate a little bit more on the fact that I think you were use the word negligible to describe the impact of the water conditions I I I remember that word and maybe you could repeat for me the context of how you use that you want it in actual numbers if you want but you know perhaps not perhaps not you could just uh describe again what you were outlining before please for a 100e storm that would probably equate to 0.1 CFS CFS cubic Fe Cub okay um and I guess this is a a more philosophical or general question for you Mr Styers and would want maybe Mr BD a comment um I guess you know different people could assign an adjective negligible or not um but I guess my concern is if there are numerous negligible scenarios then at what point does how many negligible scenarios then become an issue for a neighborhood in your professional opinion it all depends on the facilities that are accepting the drainage um as I said you know the the inlets that are adjacent to this property are not functioning as they were supposed to be I mean that that one Inlet in the northeast corner is completely covered I mean we barely saw the frame let alone the inlet itself so they all play into things the other question since we didn't see inside the inlet and the inlet is covered with debris and what have you what is in the inlet that could be compromising the pipes so it's a bit of a loaded question um and it you know and Bill can probably concur with this drainage is not a linear thing it's it's there's a lot involved in it there's a lot of different characteristics and you know obviously impervious coverage is one of the big ones but also the ability the size of the pipes and the ability of the pipes to handle the drainage is another significant U um item in that question the reason I think you understand why I'm raising the question because i' I've talked about this other applications uh rain conditions are different than they were 20 years ago it seems um the 100-year storms are occurring much more frequently than every Century um and the the more quote unquote negligible scenarios we permit compounds The Challenge and um you know I I just think that that that's an real issue for me um I don't know if you've been able to adequately address it we're still not finished with the hearing uh but I guess one other question if this was not approved this application was not approved and the lot coverage didn't um increase with the addition of another structure what what does that do to the drainage um storm water drainage in that neighborhood uh it's hard to say but I think the other thing is that I was um you know like Bill mentioned in the last uh app last hearing was that you know to investigate potentially using dry Wells I'm not a big fan of dry Wells they're you know they're basically a hole in the ground and everybody just forgets about them um I was the one it pushed for the removal of the garage because if we put the dry wells in we most likely could keep the garage and it would be a probably a net wash but the advantage of the dry Wells you know I don't there's many of them in Bridgewater and I think there's a reason for that but I think honestly that the best solution would be to remove the garage because you're at a net zero essentially or or not have a second structure and that's another scenario here it is so yeah but that's a statement I guess more than a comment a question so um I'm sorry complete your statement I I think that the net I think there would be a net benefit if the garage were removed and even with the new structure one one one last question about the water table um how you mentioned that you dug a hole and water filled the hole and then there was a static level what how many what what distance was that from the surface of the I think it was approximately 6 and A2 ft down thank you that's all I have now Mr chair I have questions uh chairman Please Mr Char sure thank you uh maybe it's a it's a question to the billboard also so basically if there's Inlet is already covered by debris who is responsible for cleaning up that one because you know that always will create problem for whether it is neighbors or you or anybody else that's my first question uh do Katherine do you know who who is responsible for cleaning the uh debris for the inlet it's Inlet is block on the northwest northeast side within the drainage easement yes on the RAR and burrow side it's it's typically the homeowner's responsibility okay it depends how the language of the easen is written it's typically the homeowner's responsibility but normally there's language that states the municipality has the right to enter the easement to make improvements or to clean or to clear out non-functional drainage normally the first responsibility is the the individual Property Owners but without without having the actual easement in front of me I don't know if this one differs but that's typical because looks like that this is actually just by the side of their property but that it actually goes touches the all the two neighbors of property yeah this this is an interesting one because the drainage eement it starts in Bridgewater Township and as it heads East Downstream it cross crosses over into the adjacent municipality Raritan but it's all part of the same drainage system or drainage feature right so it does cross a municipal boundary but you know in this case I I would suspect that the property owner in Bridgewaters responsible for the infrastructure on their property and then as it crosses into Raritan that property owner is responsible again unless the deed or the easement specifies different language that's typically how it is thank you my second second question is uh you mentioned that there's at least know Inlet is uh just the future uh Shades side of the future shade right I mean the one is the inlet yeah right there go yeah right yeah there's an inlet approximately right here okay so in that case that means the neighbors's water should come in and it's all going goes that way yeah all the water is going this way yeah because last uh hearing I think neighbors uh complain about some of the waters goes there so you're basically you telling that the water will be going down and go to the r Barrow right so as you come up um Chestnut from south to North it drains from south to North said okay and then beyond north of our property line it drains from north to south so this is the low point so it essentially gets to here and then comes this way this way and then as far as piping is concerned it drains from this Inlet to this Inlet to this Inlet and then down to the road I I the name is escaping me but the road down to the east okay which is in the burrow of Ron so basically you have no control about that one or do you correct okay wa yeah it's Downstream and also off our property and not in our town so it's it's as Bill said it's a little bit complicated no problem thank you I'm done thank you chairman Mr Styers um tagging on to Mr Papa's question before regarding the test pit thank you very much by the way you know in the last two weeks for having um put that in for us you just testified the test pit was roughly 6 and 1 12 ft deep yes okay while the test pit was deeper the water ended up at 6 and A2 ft the water ended up 6 I think we were approximately 8T deep okay and then the water came in approximately like foot foot and a half but it stopped at that that elevation okay question for Mr Burr uh according to Bridgewater right uh would we classify that as a moderate a moderately high or a high water table if that is the water table it's it's a pretty shallow it's a pretty shallow groundwater elevation especially when you're considering constructing a new dwelling or structure which is part of the reason why I think Craig testified that as a result of that they had to raise the basement elevation so I would say very early shallow shallow okay and Mr Styers I believe you have in your report that it will be essentially the slab will be 2 feet above that elevation then correct yes okay uh I do have a couple questions regarding the overall drainage on the site um on the plans going back to the garage there there is a that 8 in PVC that shown to I believe the north of the garage and west of the garage it is in approximate this right so North it goes along the norly side of it I see two pipes within the plans that show that there's a PVC pipe that's on the north side of the garage looks like it not sure what it's doing I'm trying to understand what these pipes in the ground are currently functioning as they functioned as in the past uh I I saw it in the second and third pages of the site plans it looks as though they might have been attached to the garage structure yes so what happens is the um there are roof leaders that come down that collect the roof runoff from the gutters right come down the side of the building and then they go into the ground and they are connected to this 8 in PVC that ultimately gets into that Inlet that we located located okay uh perhaps a question for Mr hos if if she's going to testify she mentioned the last meeting that uh there was a toilet in the garage currently was that toilet plumbed to any one of those pipes do we know of now if if anything the sanitary sewer for the lot 13 comes in the south side of the house so if anything I would think it would probably keep going into the garage and we don't have that on the plan however correct uh the connection to the garage no the connection to the house yes connection to the house okay and if the garage is to be eliminated that connection is going to be eliminated as well correct absolutely yep okay uh just another question I'm glad I have this from your report on your second page here there's a picture at the bottom here that shows that Inlet and I do see that 8 in PVC pipe come into that Inlet there that's clearly I I see a a corrugated Flex piping in there as well um is that functioning as a dryw or is there I'm trying to just understand what the current drainage looks like on the site if there's anything else that's going on there so you have the 8 in PVC I'm sorry comes in this location this way correct so if you see the uh the black pipe that's the pipe going north okay so that's the pipe that's draining this way and then I don't know if you can see the other pipe opposite the PBC that's the one going to the east out to the road very good and Mr Burr if I could would you feel as though a test pit this time of year gives a good sample of what a storm water level would look like or what a uh okay thank you Mr bur that's all for now Mr Star Mr chairman a few other follow-ups based on all these comments um Mr Burr you use the word shallow you mean relatively close to the surface okay um looking at the existing condition um I'm sorry looking at the the two conditions by removing the area around the old pool and the fire pit and the garage and then putting up the the quote unquote new house um you'd be increasing coverage by 82 ft and you'd be how close to full coverage if we were looking at these two lots collectively you know because you said one is and they're about equal size so one of them is 31.5 the other is 45.4 so would it be essentially the midpoint between those sorry what was that uh so the proposed development on Lot 12 is 31.5% right the changes to lot 13 would bring that to 45.4 these lots are very very close to equal in size so if we looked at the two lots together would it be probably very close to the midpoint between 31 .5 and 45.4 yes all right and and and if I could just be reminded what is the maximum coverage would be 36.1 maximum is 35 and right now it's and the midpoint between those is how much uh it would be 36.1 over the two lots okay okay so so existing is close but but really on from that standpoint the existing lot is out of is out of compliance okay yes and then essentially the difference between the the you know those two numbers the I think he said the 35.5 and the 3 is that essentially the 82 square feet yes okay I could just address a statement that was made earlier obviously the board handles applications the board knows the standard that you know the the board is supposed to evaluate whether this application will constitute at least as to the negative criteria as our planner will address a substantial detriment so I just I want to highlight the word substantial and I'm sure every applicant does this when they go before the board but it's uh again it's not there's a comment about well well we could keep it the way it is or we could add a new home and that's not really what the the board is at least as it comes to lack coverage that that's in in terms of assessing the detriment or possible detriment the board's really supposed to consider whether or not the improvements are resulting in a substantial detriment as far as drainage is concerned okay La last question about um ex you know the existing versus the new so the the we the new lot or I'm sorry the development on Lot 12 would have a front yard that's about flat slightly higher than the street um the current lot as it exists is pretty flat it sits up a little bit as well okay okay but by and large the lot itself in the build condition wouldn't be that different than in the current condition and the reason why I'm concerned about that is you know cuz again water is Flowing let me get my directions right water is Flowing um you know from what I'll call Core Bradley Gardens down toward the rtin border and I guess I just want to make sure that you know water is going to continue to to to flow no worse uh or would go somewhere different um because of uh because of the um structure that would be built well the other thing that we did um if you were to look um essentially between the two sheds on the property line um sorry about that if you go to sheet four or five in this packet yes revised plans the revised plans there's a a black Square there and what we're doing is putting a lawn Inlet there so we're going to put that on that PVC pipe and and drainage that is between the two houses it's going to drain to that lawn Inlet then into the piping system so that's not you know again that's kind of I guess you could say belts and suspenders you know it's not going to sit in the lawn or it's you know even if it's reasonably flat the water's going to drain along that property line and get into the inlet there's you know a lot of this right now the way it currently drains without the new house it drains to the north property line and then as uh Bill bur said the last meeting that North property line is a little bit flat so we what I did in the revised plans is that front yard is going to drain to the front and it's it's got a decent pitch to it but anything else is going to drain to the common property line and back to the inlet so I think that is ultimately going to be an improved condition by getting water off the surface okay um can I go to the next page the uh actually maybe it's the same one uh sheet four 405 um so the sheds for both properties are proposed to be in the back uh is there any um asphalt or or concrete or anything I don't think there's anything really I mean I have a shed in my back and I don't have any patio or walkways to it okay question for our attorney here um and you know we we're going to be very close on you know if there is um consensus to move forward we're we're going to be very close to maximum coverage and and that is a concern of the board I'm sure it's a concern of the homeowner that lives there um if they are less than permitted in the zone can we through our resolution lower that number for this specific property so even though they could go up to you know 35.5 the current build is 31.5 can we say yep you can build up to 31.5 or would that be considered too onerous yeah they can build up to what the ordinance would permit okay want to go past that of course that's why they would be all right and the reason why I say that is again looking at the two properties together you know lot even you know even with the removal of the garage lot uh 13 is still kind of over I'm I'm just you know trying to think outside the box here and say is there a way to essentially Bank a little area on Lot 12 and the answer is not really I don't I don't believe so not that I'm looking to penalize one homeowner over another I'm just looking to you know look at look at the neighborhood look at the the properties together is is is my reason for asking keep in mind we did what you asked us to do I mean this is worst case scenario they may not build the deck they may not put the shed in so this is what you asked us to do kind of belts and suspenders and show everything uh we didn't have the shed but we're I mean we're proposing the shed but so that 31.5 is technically me less okay on the deck I know we talked about this last time how did you calculate that deck based on our discussions it's not part of the improved coverage okay it's going to be grass or natural in okay but and I know this is relatively di Minimus and this is something that we are looking to potentially better Define in our master plan review um you know if there are however many footings circular square whatever they would choose to do that are concrete uh it would be my argument whe and this is not just this property this is anywhere in Bridgewater that you know those footings should somehow be calculated and counted um but you know it sounds to me like you're saying right now counting zero if somehow that got counted for the footings the footings are relatively small percentage of the whole deck and you're at 31 and a half so there's still some play correct okay thank you Council M K take you back so just to confirm Mr Cyrus the 31.5 that you have on one that is inclusive of those proposed like deck and shed that correct yes you can actually see a breakdown beneath the zoning table of everything that's included yeah I see that so that's about 249 yep yes and the coverage on lot 13 would be working I guess from front to back it would be the walk in the front it would be obviously the house the entire patio area and that includes where the steps are because you know that's Concrete in some form or another the driveway going back and turning a little bit behind the patio and then the relocated shed so that's about 2,652 squ correct yes and then taking the proposed lot size you divide that out that's how you got yes uh I had a question regarding the garage so in your proposal you have that to be removed we have it proposed to be removed yes what is underneath the garage is dirt is it concrete well I presume the pad inside it would be concrete and then beneath that be dirt in your proposal to remove that concrete all together yes uh and then just my last question with the new proposal are is there any proposed vegetation on both on on the New Lots uh not at this point no thank you Mr banga any other questions Mar board yes mura uh I'm looking at the driveway for the new house it's about 18 ft wide by 40 ft long do you really need 18 ft I'm trying to squeeze blood from a stone well I looked at it that way you could put two cars next to each other side by side instead of stacked you know a typical parking spot is 9 by8 so that would be two parking spots wide and then a car TP typical parking space 18 so I mean theoretically you could put four cars there and not park on the street so I I thinking the same thing I tried to squeeze it best I could but I think that would be more beneficial I guess you could say instead of two cards stacking and you're always backing out to get one out so you put them side by side they can leave individually okay thank you any other questions perhaps from our professionals I have I have a few Mr chairman um maybe a few questions a few comments but we'll get there Craig so back to um board member bango's question from a minute ago if and you probably took your calculator out when you take a look at your cover sheet where you have your law coverage calculations and then you have your zoning table it it looks like actually the math if you were to take a look at proposed lot 13 with 2652 proposed over 6510 it looks like that percentage is actually 40.7% is that correct probably this is where I where I ran out of time okay I didn't know if you I didn't know if you checked it so you your plan shows 45.4 it looks like the actual math would be 40.7% right for correct for lot lot 13 I would hold the numbers in the table fair enough as accurate so so when you take a look at the numbers 2652 is currently proposed and and that takes into account the removal of the garage correct if you compare it to what's allowed at 35% you're only about 373 Square ft over on that particular lot understanding that when you take both Lots together you're at about 82 square feet over but what you're showing on your plan for for lot 13 is an existing garage that traverses past the existing dwelling past the patio back to that existing garage if if your plan is to remove the garage would you then be able to remove this section of driveway basically from the rear of the existing house back to where the garage is just on a quick on a quick takeoff here you're right at about 370 square feet which if my if my rough numbers are right you essentially eliminate the lock coverage I don't know if you looked at that I don't know if there's reason why the driveway the area the area I did look at was right behind the patio right I mean that from the the edge of the patio back to the garage I I kind of I don't remember the number but I did look at that yeah it tucks it tucks back behind the patio but if you backed it up and cut it off at the back of the of the dwelling it looks like you can by removing the garage and that re portion of the driveway it looks like you can actually eliminate lot coverage altogether which obviously we're hearing is is a big concern both by the board and and me frankly at the last meeting we talk about drainage at nauseum these days for all the right reasons it's an important topic right and especially in a neighborhood like this you know we talk about you know what's in negligible increase in in runoff and I agree with you it's really hard to quantify that the problem or the concern I have is in a neighborhood like this with very small lots that are already at or over their coverage you have a couple of properties that are over couple thousand square feet here and there and that really does amount to Something in terms of of runoff impacts much different than if we were in the R40 zone or R30 Zone where we have Acre Properties th square feet of a patio is not GNA impact on an like it would on 5000 lot so certainly I think you guys are headed in the right direction with removing the drain or removing the um the garage but you know I would request that you guys take a look if you can if you can squeeze down that existing driveway even further get rid of that extra stretch that now isn't leading anywhere you may be able to eliminate it all together and then and then from my perspective the drainage concerns disappear um not really a question I guess it is a question would you consider taking or would your client consider taking a look at that because I think you're I think you're close otherwise yeah I would say we'd be amable to doing that let's see any other questions at this point Mr chairman I think that's all I have thank you Mr Burr board planner Miss Sid thank you I I do um I also Echo what Mr Burr said about the driveway it was something we were kind of whispering about over here um the driveway currently and this is just from a perspective of you know Bill talked about the drainage and the impervious coverage and potentially eliminating the improved lock coverage variants there um the driveway length is approximately like I'd say 75 or 80 feet long because it go it used to go all the way back to the garage that was at the rear of the property so from a parking perspective even if you chopped off about 20 feet you're still looking at a 60ft driveway to the back of the house so you know it would be stacked tandem parking but you could fit more cars and you know if there was a parking concern by eliminating that but I think they're probably fine with the length of driveway um up to the back the house um and just for as bill was mentioning the difference between what's proposed right now the 2652 total square feet in coverage the 35 to comply 35% would be two 2,278 square feet so like Bill said about 374 or so square feet so um I think that could that would be a you know a significant Improvement um I just had some question questions I guess you know there was a pretty good discussion about the existing elevation of the site and then the finished floor elevation um and I just want to make sure we're clear you know you said that I think the letter showed that the elevation was 80 or so um and then the the diagram of the home shows 85 and a half so how much of the foundation is is exposed um or is proposed to be exposed be the difference so well actually yeah so the foundation would be proximately 16 inches down from the finished floor so you're talking about four feet up four feet and what do you know what's on the existing dwelling if it's similar to that I think it is similar to that okay I I only mention that because you know there's no architectural plans what's shown in the letter and was I think provided in the previous hearing as an exhibit um that never got discussed but was handed out it's a pretty picture but I just want to make sure you know that's not what it's going to look like probably if there's a four or five foot exposed Foundation I would um probably recommend that the board require some landscaping or something to help uh Shield the exposed Foundation a little bit um just from an aesthetic perspective I think that could be helpful to help you know um screen that Foundation portion um I just wanted to point out one other thing from the plans I know that they were quickly turned over to get the resubmission I just wanted to make sure that the total sidey yard for proposed Lot 12 was noted um I think in the memo the original memo it shows 11 feet for the combin it should be 22 because both side yards are each 11 feet so it should be 22 I just want to make that's more of a housekeeping item um and I think that's all I have for now thank you thank you m s any other questions okay at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public that wish to pose any questions regarding the testimony just heard please feel free to come forward at this time I just ask that it just just be limited to questions at this time just because we have another expert uh witness that needs to go and so agreed timing that's all thank you agreed hi Paul veter 140 8 Chestnut Street um got some qu scenarios on your questions with the water I've been in that house about give or take 50 years please what's that please ask questions this of the hearing is just to question Mr Styers on his testimony there'll be a time at the end of the hearing where you can make comments and offer testimony right now for you guys just questions now right you'll have another okay yeah yeah for sure at the end you may pose any questions to the attorneys and and the testimony just heard Anthony GA I live on uh s berbert so I'm the I'm the house directly behind um and those are pictures of my backyard that are there and I'll say uh Mr is your testimony of where the inlet is behind my shed is is correct but I have my survey for my house you please refrain from from making comments right now just limit it to questions oh okay well the you're calling it an inlet in the top North part of my property where you said that there is debris and and dirt that is according to my uh a is a manhole it's a you please uh ask questions again you're making a statement um the PVC pipe that's going into the um the inlet behind my shed um from my understanding that's now are you going to be tying into the drainage pipe that is going along the uh North North part of the property into the manhole it's not an inlet because it's covered um with a metal um um a metal um I don't know what it even is but uh are you going to be tying into that drain drainage pipe no is my question no so where is the water that is going to be going off of the roof of the house where is that going to be going to if if there's going to be liters of of water off the roof going down the gutters where is that water draining too I'm assuming you know I'm the I'm the first um I'm the downstream neighbor so all that water is coming towards my my yard so where is that water going to be tied into how is that drain pipe going to be affected with the added water that's coming off of this house uh the souly side would drain to the common property line between the two properties and then towards you but as I said we're putting a an inlet in just before your property and connecting into that 8 in pipe right and that 8 in pipe did you uncover any ground to see where the angle of that pipe is going to or from we did not but we did put water into the roof leaders and that water discharged into the inlet and you were able to see that from from over the fence correct okay because on the angle that I see when I'm on my property and and I've understood now that that easement is not it's on my property but I don't own the easement from my understanding and did you get any approval from ridan to use or to add into that drainage pipe we did not but the pipe is connected into the inl it is but was that done through Bridgewater or rarin I mean I can't say that but uh knowing the fact that that pipe was probably I'm purely speculation that pipe was probably there before your house and then they connected the inlet the pipe to the inlet right because from the because where that um I spoke to the prior owner and he had a pool there which we've already stated and that's where that pipe is angling directly to is where the pool was so you know I can't see so for based on what I'm seeing here where your plans are the dash lines there which are going uh parallel to my fence line is correct from the manhole not the inlet to the inlet behind my shed but from your markings it's going along the garage line where when I'm standing behind my shed the angle of that pipe is coming directly from the pool well we couldn't verify that cuz we couldn't get onto your property yeah cuz that's that easeman is not my property it's it's I know it's owned by raran the easeman I'm you know I I live there I do have some material there but you know that area that easement the easement is on your property so it's it is it is on my property it's where my fence line is you're well within your rights to allow somebody onto your property to assess the the drainage conditions on and if I if I may say quickly um you know I was checking the website to see when this meeting was going to be you guys did say it was going to be May 7th um um the agenda wasn't posted until I don't know Friday or Saturday so it only gave me two days to you know kind of collect my thoughts and to approach with some questions so um I wasn't able to talk to anyone from ridan burrow if you're going to be giving testimony you should really be sworn in so that's why I'm I'm trying to make the best I can with the two days I had to try to phone my own town so I think that was you know I didn't have enough time to really put together my thoughts on on what we have here I also did inquire with the burrow of Ron lugera to see if there was any particular plans related to the subdivision that you're a part of and he did not have any documents he didn't have any any what was that any what he didn't have any grading utility plans because I was looking to verify where everything was going and he didn't have any plans for your subdivision on doing for your subdivision okay so there wasn't a an approval to tie into or use the easement that exists I can't say that because he did not have any information all right so don't I think we should have some type of approval from a town that we're going to be using yeah so okay all right I apologize I'm just trying to do my best and and inquire the things that I would like to talk about all right thank you Mr chairman just a followup question for our attorney um has all proper notice been given for this hearing and specifically this case being heard within this hearing yes thank you clarify is that inclusive of res as well the notice was originally given the April and was after cond oh I'm sorry I me I uh any typically uh anybody any any resonance within 200 square ft yeah yeah so if you have a situation like this we havep I and if I could just answer that I submitted an affidavit because I I was personally responsible for the notice and of course I requested a 200 foot list from the burough of ridan as well as as well as the township of ran and so um notice was was proper and and just to make sure we we bring this to a this portion to a close Mr PE um our announcement at the last meeting that we would hear at this meeting that was the sufficient notice correct regardless of exactly when an agenda is posted on a website that is correct okay thank you and that concludes the public portion for this witness Mr silbert do you have any other Witnesses do we have our our planner who I'd like to call and uh planner was was sworn in at the last hearing just give us give us one moment good evening good evening can you just uh state your name for the record certainly Alexander dowy the last name is d g h rty Mr dowy I don't believe you were accepted as an expert planner at the last hearing so who wouldn't mind just putting your your educational credentials and background on the record uh in the field of planning cly my education out of R Clin with a Masters in City and Regional planning concentration development Redevelopment studies our license are current PP as well as National aicp um I testif finance capacity on a weekly and daily basis I believe this my first time in front of this board um I would say uh I've also presented at the league of municipalities scheduled to present next month at the state development Redevelopment conference I'm also the professional development officer for the American Planning Association for the state of New Jersey Bor objections to Mr D qualifications no please proceed and um just to recap because I stole your thunder at the last hearing I handed out a planning exhibit that Mr D already prepared it's marked as A2 so just as a reminder to the board um that that exhibit uh as I I refer to it as a planning exhibit is in your possession so I'd like to go through that exhibit uh if it pleases the board it's uh color rendering a little larger than this one uh it's 15 slides consist of maps and photographs photographs I took of myself um page one is just an overall uh Bridgewater uh zoning uh layout for the municipality on the bottom left you'll see a red circle red arrow this approximately where we're at within the municipality as we've heard we're essentially AB budding their a uh Municipal border um our neighbors to the rear um slide two um you kind of circled the area in question again in red and takeaway from this slide is really just the difference between the Green area as you see identified as the R20 the blue area is the r10 it's a little faded smaller font there blue 10 is reference to the zoning we're in as we can see just from the the zone map um again found on the town site um the blue area is really chopped up there's really no neighborhood uh continuity if you will by virtue of size at least from um this interpretation as compared to uh that R20 area where the lot seem to be a little bit more uniformed in character so that's the takeaway from uh this slide slide three is a drone shot I took myself uh when visiting the site on April 6th it's the property in question uh with the uh the the black sighting um row of trees uh garage poking off in the back with a white door labeled site green fence around it that's the property in question as we can see we kind of have a uh an area to the left that is uh fairly large visually uh lawn um so that's the area in question for orientation purposes for the proposed lot slides four uh I believe we discussed uh at the last hearing um some of the extensive Renovations that the applicant made uh when acquiring the property how it looked before um and you know basically um brought it down uh brought it back to life I'm sorry uh from its current condition uh its former condition so you know if please with the board kind of FL flipping back between slide three and and four you'll kind of start to see that transformation that positive investment into the site uh Slide Five again we saw at the last hearing was the ongoing process uh you know the renovation process and and what the site looks like uh the dwelling looks like from interior perspective on those bottom two slides left and right bottom slide six outlined in red are the lots in question lot 13 and 12 at the bottom left this is the uh tax tax lot if you will tax map I'm sorry um from NJ property fact if every uh proper tax map uh in the state filed as we can see here just from orientation purposes uh is is the various lot widths right when we look at the Varian we'll discuss in a moment a lot of the variances really do come down to the lot with yes we have the lot coverage issue um and we've really thrown that in uh through over the course of two hearings there are a few other variances and they will will kind of inter late with that lot width here um we can kind of see the um there's quite a few properties that have that 50 foot width where the Zone requires 100 there are a few scattered out that are 100 uh um feet in width as the Zone requires and uh the next couple slides I took Extra Care really to uh use NJ D's go web which has property uh information by way of lot area and lot width um as well as the uh tax map to kind of for ill illustrious purposes highlight properties not necessarily that are under and lot area but are under and lot with um and this is the immediate neighborhood shown on slide seven slide eight I take a about a one block radius out from the property everything in yellow has a lot uh of of less than 100 ft vast majority of that being 50 foot wide Lots there's one or two in there that are 70 75 60 65 vast majority of these Lots uh you see in yellow have a lot with of 50 um so when we talk about neighborhood compatibility Conformity and the characteristics of the neighborhood um the neighborhood built environment as you see from this uh slide slide eight here most of these properties are 50 foot wide Lots slide nine is an aerial top down view um from from the Drone um as we can see the existing conditions as of April 6th um the pool was removed some patio um pstes uh remnants little playground set that lot right there is again the property uh proposed Lot 12 um on the other side with the driveway the Large Garage the the shed that wasn't much discussion at the last hearing on the fence line um you know these are the items that we've just discussed in great detail of of essentially being removed and um I I think think your professionals have solved the uh the issues with lot coverage by virtue of essentially drawing a line off that that that rear roof line and that driveway to the rear that would essentially go to the driveway would be eliminated thus essentially coming in compliance with lot coverage so for orientation purposes um essentially everything behind that line as as we've just heard um is in consideration to to be removed essentially except for that bright white patio so everything behind that house essentially will be lawn and as we heard in great detail uh a drainage pitch there uh approximately right where that back of that rear uh garage would be to collect any storm water runoff between the two neighboring properties um but essentially that's existing current condition as it is um as it sits today close take a look at the existing neighborhood for continuity and perspective uh we do have some larger Lots uh uh to the left uh on slide 10 larger homes on 100 foot wide lots and when I look at this uh particular property you know and and essentially where we're at within a neighborhood um it has that missing void if you will uh that missing tooth from the public uh realm there's just something missing there um one one way argue I think we we had a discussion uh last hearing just to put a brand new large house there I don't think that's uh really feasible at the current moment given the uh extensive Renovations that were done and where we're at today in the process um but there is a a noticeable void in the uh the neighborhood makeup here on chess uh chest not we kind of spin the Dr uh drone around to get a uh a perspective of those larger Lots as we can see um just a few right in the middle and then off to the left kind of tapers down um to smaller 50 foot wide Lots the development behind us again smaller Lots as well spin the Drone around for some aerial perspectives right across the street as we can see uh we have some smaller um uh homes modest in scale and size and as as we've heard from the uh proposed layout in concept um as we are under an F on a smaller lot I think the proposed uh house and existing house is is more in line with some of the neighborhood uh um built environment if you will and existing conditions um the last uh um this last uh slide on 13 I'm sorry slide 13 is a masop really of just different angles and shots uh in the neighborhood um of the makeup I want to just point your attention to the uh top right slide there's a a little house in the middle there on the corner that's actually a separate lot so when we talk about um you know the the the makeup if you will of the neighborhood it is it is made up predominantly of smaller homes smaller Lots uh in the middle there um orientation purposes front yard setbacks and alignments we can see just on the corner um it's it has its own unique identity personality um and then we go to the bottom left we can kind of see again more of some more modern uh contemporary uh build out bigger homes than than we typically have seen um again smaller Lots so when we look at what could be there um by way of 100 foot wide lot and what could be built there on a smaller lot I think we have a good a good good mix if you will uh and slide 13 that bottom left I think is a really good indication of of what a modern home looks like on a smaller lot and and they do exist uh slide 14 just different perspective the same uh property question uh in the point of this this shot here really is to show um again that visual void and just how noticeable that that that that Gap is on what would be considered Lot 12 and we can kind of see going um to the corner there so you know the Lots over there are of the 50ft makeup and more more in alignment so I think we have like a good a more new modern potential build out here transitioning to um as we can see uh on the left there a a relatively recent uh uh new home so we have a good transition from some of the older neighborhood to some some newer development style uh page uh lot 15 the last sorry SL 15 the last one was shown at the last hearing it's just a conceptual idea I know uh it was called out that the dimensions here aren't exactly uh reflective of what would be there and I think uh um we just submitted a a revised plan to show you that this idea house this this visual look is is what we're going for this this small monoscale uh can work on a 50 foot wide lot and I think the neighborhood built out shows that newer homes as well as older homes fit on a 50-ft wide lot with that being said um existing conditions these are uh identified as two separate Lots as Council indicated technically by law they are one lot um but nonetheless um just looking at the uh the numbers here each of these Lots would be unders sized 10,000 ft is what's required um about 6,500 And1 for Lot 12 6,510 for uh uh existing lot 13 we'll go right into kind of uh the the meats and potatoes here on paper it looks like there's a lot of variance again that's at 50 foot wide width here so um minimum side yard setback would be required of 15 existing condition on lot 13 uh with just the one side is 6.84 um the uh the proposed new lot um would be 11 and then there's a minimum side yard setback for total uh which should be 40t given these are 50 foot wide lots that would indicate a 10ft wide house which is not realistic um and that's not what the proposed condition would be for lot proposed Lot 12 or the existing condition for lot 13 so virtually we would have a another variance for the for the uh combined side yard setback where the existing conditions on lot three uh would be about 20 and A2 and for blot 12 would be about 22 again as we saw the existing conditions of the uh surrounding neighborhood um many of those lots are 50 foot wide Lots thus many of the properties here would have that same variance uh list of variance by by natural uh development patterns I did not see anything reflective of a 10-ft white house and during my site visit in coming the neighborhood um as we've just discussed in in in really great details the um maximum improved lot coverage as it was testified before the last hearing we were concerned about additional amenities uh that are customary to residential homes uh the existing lot coverage for Lot 12 was 29% and it was question was raised is that enough to allow for a deck and sheds in that regards so we came back with a modified plan to show you uh those those custom amenities most detached swellings and neighborhoods have and we came back at 312 still under um the required 35% laot coverage for that proposed Lot 12 um and as we just discussed in in detail and I'm not exactly sure where we landed on this I'm going to I'm going to chime in here so I spoke with the applicant while you were speaking Mr Dary and the applicant has stipulated to complying with a 35% lot coverage requirement on lot 13 lot 13 so the lot coverage variances are now gone there we have it so essentially what we're here for today would be um lot width lot area and some some side yard setback which um when we look at these variances um I would like to note uh there was concern relating to F uh we are under the floor area ratio the back and app can test the Lots even though they are under size the houses are within proportion to those uh um regulations the bulk standards for that 50 and that uh 6,500 foot lot um the remaining relief would be classified under what we call the C2 flexing flexible balance um so let's here variance it's not a a use relief that um we're typically used to hearing um you know with undersized Lots uh with that being said the benefits of the application as a whole would stantially outweigh the detriment um I I bring that up because when we look at this the benefits of this application we have um an opportunity to provide for new housing for a growing Community uh I think that's Paramount uh we need uh to find housing but we need to be cautious of of environmental limitations uh I think here given that we will be complying with the U the lot coverage as we testified to at the last hearing um we will work with uh the engineer to satisfy any concerns from storm water management and drainage in that regards um given we are in compliance with lot coverage for an undersized lot I do not believe there would be a substantial detriment by way of storm water management and drainage uh given we do comply with those regulations on an undersized lot but nonetheless we have stipulated if there was an extra added concern that we would uh work with the uh uh uh Town engineer to to satisfy that the board engineer uh his concerns I think the application collectively would Advance purposes a uh e g i and m of the M land use law I want to emphasize on purpose I which is provide for a desirable visual environment I think filling in that void coming into alignment with the neighborhood continuity and characteristics here is certainly promotes desirable visual environment um I would say on purpose e to provide for appropriate population and suitable locations um this is a detached single family dwelling in a single family uh residential Zone I think the pro uh population is uh density is consistent with the neighborhood uh pattern here I don't not think we're out of character and certainly for more efficient use of land um you know we have an opportunity again to utilize uh kind of a unique situation here uh instead of you know essentially building on Virgin land infrastructure in that regards we have a well established residential neighborhood again putting that detached dwelling in an established neighborhood I think it's more efficient use of land of that 100 foot wide lot uh what I do want to point out about this particular property is this house has sat here for quite some time but what's unique about this property is the house is kind of offset to the side as you know versus if this house was more Central to the two lots you know or you know right on that lot line um I don't think it would be um at that caliper that is today for consideration um you know really uh it's just a clean cut down the middle taking that garage down that lot there is suitable as we see that existing neighborhood pattern um from a planning standpoint uh you know testifying most subdivisions do require a knockdown you know in that regards this this is here this is just sitting there off to the left propos Lot 12 just a large void in the neighborhood fabric a lot of the larger homes uh on the 100 foot wide Lots they're more centered so if this property was a little bit more centered I think conditions and and considerations may may be different um this house is just caddy corner off on its own entral lot if you will um I can't attest to why it was built that way when it was built it's been there for quite some time um but it does you know Drive some unique uh considerations by the character of the existing conditions there um I'll conclude um that we have an opportunity here um basically to present a better zoning alternative um you know the 100 foot uh line the 10,000 foot uh lot requirements I think this provides a better zoning alternative which is in line and key with that character built environment um with little to no detriment um when I look at this application collectively um again advances purpose a g i and m of the missal land use law and I do not see a substantial detriment by way of the biggest concern of these past two hearings which is storm water management lot coverage uh we have an applicant here that's willing and able to to comply and work and you know I think think we've had that massage where we landed on something that's uh something a little bit more pable than we walked in here with and I think the board can uh um look upon this application favorably that the criteria has been met and and um uh would be warranted for approval with no detriment to the surrounding neighborhood um Mr Dar if I could just ask so did you did you um cite the purpose a yes um isn't it true that now that lot 13 is going to comply with the maximum permitted lot coverage that this actually now constitutes an improvement to existing conditions certainly does and would you say that advances purpose a as well so purpose a um for the audience members of the board is to encourage Municipal action to guide appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare so again bringing that lot more into compliance certainly advances purpose a so just follow up on that just to to address uh councilman kersh's questions from last hearing let's just say hypothetically Lot 12 was to build out their lot and so that the lot coverage on Lot 12 was to uh reach the maximum permitted at 35% wouldn't that still also constitute an improvement to existing conditions certainly thank you like to open up for any questions regarding Mr dy's testimony Mr dy I just had a a question based on some of the photographs you took yes there's a row of trees in Lot 12 uh I think I only saw that one tree was looked at to be removed which is the maple tree but actually there's like a row and I I counted about 30 I wanted to get the number from from you specifically and what kind of trees those are I'm not a uh Mr Styers can can expert right so okay and where I'm going with this is so I have I have Ares and they they they suck up a lot of water right and if there's 30 of them that's sucking up between 300 to 600 gallons per per week maybe this is for Mr styres if we want to bring him back but I'm I'm I'm curious and and I appreciate you know uh the applicant reducing the coverage on lot 13 uh and I don't know if we've sufficiently explored uh the impact of removing those trees uh and and and I don't see and I didn't see in the plans if any other trees are going to be proposed on the Lots I didn't mean to yeah you know as we're waiting for an answer and this is this is not a minor point because um you know presence or absence of trees can make a a notable uh impact on um um where water goes I guess question to the applicant would be given the absence of these trees would the applicant be willing to work with our Engineers yes to plant maybe not the exact 30 but something in between that works for both us as well as absolutely I thought last time we were here we were talking about planting on a adjacent property and there was the talk about the pipe but I think yeah we it's something we talked about last time I mean there's discussions with the applicant right now that will that there would probably be a buffer between the two lots which would be done by way of trees but I don't want to commit to an actual uh Landscaping plan but but we would work with the township engineer obviously to to address your concerns because it's obviously noted that that trees are important for for drainage storm water management thank you could we touch on that point however regarding that burm between the lot that's Northerly I'm curious now especially we're talking about uh the slab being brought up about 2 ft let's say what does the existing structure that's Northerly how would that look like with the proposed structure on Lot 12 I'm I'm curious to see what that looks like and what a burm would look like and what type of Shrubbery or what type of trees are proposed for planting in between the two houses there I understand from what we've seen visually that there's a slope Nega a positive sloping going toward Lot 12 which which um the lot to the north I believe that's Barrow uh no I'm sorry that would be in Bridgewater okay in in Bradley Gardens the 100 foot wde lot the bigger house exactly the the large house next door L 11 potentially 11 yeah I think what we have here is a natural kind of step down you know that's a little higher it's larger correct be slightly like we talked about elevated but there is that dip and then we'll you know uh step down into the existing neighborhood pattern I think it's it's a good transitional build visually I I that's how I see it happening right chairman uh if Mr Styers can just have a chance to address your your comment question I think probably the best way to do is if you get page three of 15 of the planning um exhibits you can see the house to the north on the left hand side and you can see that it sits up very high compared to the existing house that's see the brown house on the on the left see the roof line going up but you still don't see the top of the roof I think page 14 shows a better example I just the scale I think this new the Lot 12 would be like a step down kind of approach to the smaller existing lot 13 and that be composed of a burm and Shrubbery or trees Mr banga had previously mentioned some Ares potentially there' be nothing north of our property because of the easement because of the easement if any if the trees were say for example the arbores were relocated I would suggest put them against the the rear property line so you'd basically same orientation but against the rear property line uh I would prefer not to because like I said I have a swell there that's collecting the water directed to the new lawn Inlet in the back so you're saying the Swale would redirect to the if you moved back the the arbites to the um the back of the lot is that what you're referring to Mr star so if you look on the plan there's a a Swale along the property line and then there's an inlet right here that would go into the existing Inlet that row of Arbor bities is right here just take them and move them back and if anything possibly supplement on 13 however at this time nothing is proposed north of Lot 12 correct because of the 20 foot easement so you have 10 foot on our property 10 foot on the property to the North and the pipe in that easement so there's nothing we can do here not even a rain Garden a rain Garden is not an option well that would be again that would be in the easement the front yard uh no I mean there is a fence there now yeah I would have to I'd have to check the the language in the easement and we weren't able to locate the no there is no there is no language in the easement because it it may be shown but based on five people searching it it doesn't exist so so there's a pipe there with really no easement and and just to there's plenty of easements that allow for certain things to be constructed within the E easement such as a fence or vegetation so without having a document that that shows you know what what can be done in the easement it's hard to answer what what we can do as far as screening and buffering but if we're permitted to do it we would we would then screen and buffer by moving them to the rear lot line are you impacting that pipe that's in the back that pipe is actually the same thing for our property so we would probably put it you know not right on the property line but in a little bit chair I have some questions Mr dockerty uh you mentioned in your testimony I'm referring to your your the the uh planning exhibits uh when you were on the second slide you said uh use the term chopped up chopped up lot design could you elaborate on that that just when I say that I just Envision like you know just chop uh s like a chef so it's it's a lot more um Lots there's a lot more here than just a what we saw in the R20 um by way of just uniformity if you will um there just a lot there's a lot going on in the r10 on slide two that's what I meant by uh shops the again the r10 uh requirement is uh foot wide Lots so when I look at slide two all those all those hash lines are uh reflective and illustrative of of lot lines okay U you mentioned or not mentioned I'm going to turn to page six guess that's a section of the tax map correct correct okay um so this property Lots 12 and 13 are part of block 150 right and uh in that row of uh Lots starting to the South um corner of Perry and Chestnut the corner lot is says 100 by was it 130 30 13.95 by 100 right and then Lots 15 and 14 are 50t by 100 and they each have a house yes and then you have pardon me okay and then um you have lot 14 13 12 we know about lot 11 uh what are the dimensions of that 100 by a little bigger than mine 100 by 13014 and is consistently about 130 in depth and that's a has that larger light brown house yes that's that's the neighbor we were talking about and then Lot 10 lot is again 100 by a little less 129 right on one side at least the north side and there's a single family home on that lot yes and then moving to the North Lot n again 100 by roughly 129 and is there a single family home there I believe yes and then Lot 8 100 by 129 is there a home on that believe so I believe I have on that immediate side of the street a one two three four five six I have six conforming lot sizes before they drop again uh down to under uh 100 so I believe so that's Lots 3 four and five are slightly undersized for the zone right correct and then Lots one and two are conforming believe I believe so and then across the street across Chestnut Street um you have mix you have some that are 50 lot one is 50 ft wide by 200 so they're deeper Lots um fronting on Chestnut and then you have lot two is 100 by 200 right I guess do each of these have single family homes going down that the west side of chestnut yes and they're all so some are conforming to the zone and some probably predate the zoning I would assume so yes okay um so you have a mix and then you go further west and again you see some informing lot sizes and some that are the older do you have any idea the lot the lots that are fully 100 ft wide uh were any of these subject to a merger of lots do you know I don't have that information um I will tell you outside of uh slide six um there the other portion um that's more reflective um on slide eight the um the bottom yellow lots and and L um when I looked at the tax map and then I looked at the uh existing um built environment actually some of those lots down there were actually subdivided the tax map doesn't show it um there's separate Lots separate homes SE separate addresses um so it it was kind of a balance to to Really balance the two um but as far as to answer your question I don't have um the extensive history of of all the lots that that were subject to that merger okay do you know of any uh other subdivisions in this Zone in this neighborhood first or in this Zone that were granted um you know subdivisions for uh smaller lot sizes minimum lot size no I did not send an opra request in for the r10 Zone um but I just I just referenced before the tax map had a larger believe was about two of my saw on the corner and then now there's Cur between that creation of that tax map um I'm going have the data on this tax map when it was created between that creation of the tax map and and the current um something was two two lots were subdivided at minimum okay but I do not have the oper for the entire r10 okay um because you know you you presented your perspective that this is not um I think you use technical terms that you know addressing the variances that are being sought um you used another term better zoning alternative and you're concluding comments could you elaborate on that and cly there's a uh um supreme Supreme Court case law referred to as coughman one of the uh takeaway sound bites is is provide for a better zoning alternative um and in this particular uh application given the existing built environment of that house kind of being caddy corner off to the side think there a better zoning alternative than then that strict adherence to the 100 foot wide lot and I think when we look at this it's not an isolated condition I that was still okay um are there any um could you so the it seems like the applicant is um removing the request for variance for lot coverage if I understand this correct uh but there are still other bulk variances lot lot size setback correct correct um in from a municipal land use law perspective or planning principles uh what weight do you give and what is the standard um principle planning principle either encapsulated in the municipal land use law or use a starting with the municipal land use law um is lot coverage carry a greater factor or greater weight is the lot size is lot is setback are those less significant in the municipal land use law uh standards in the standards um I that's what I'm asking about the standards I'm not start with that coverage right in in today's current uh atmosphere and climate is is a serious concern uh we just had all the the um D flood regulations uh for elevations and that purposes we just had an extensive uh two hearing session on on drainage and loot coverage as a professional planer I think the lot coverage and and where we're in today with especially with just just early top this month about the new tree ordinance Statewide and cutting down trees I think lot coverage is is a concern um character of a neighborhood uh this is a more Suburban it's not an urban um but rooting back to the the essence of which one's uh Better Sound planning is rooting in zoning so if your municipality says 100% lot coverage that's that's what you guys believe is sound planning as a community um but in this particular Essence in in this uh case here and in what I see collectively as a state I would argue that uh for a community suburban community lot coverage is is is critical um we have uh a huge effort um at a state level to to com uh combat climate change and and the flooding um you know we have preservation zones open spaces for a reason um but I don't think this would constitute overdevelopment um by way of virtue of the existing pattern and we are in conformance with that lot coverage requirement even for an undersized you're dwelling on lot coverage but I'm asking you you're not you haven't commented maybe forgot my question but the uh lot size and setback you you you've talked about lot coverage and the applicant has changed that so so that's not a consideration now now we're we're talking about bulk variances for lot size and setback so could you elaborate on that please so the lot size I think um when we look at this um from a mpal land use law perspective I don't I I don't think I can answer that directly um from a neighborhood perspective I don't think the lot size um is is a detriment when I look at the setback I when we look at this application proposed Lot 12 that house is as centered as it can get as far as the um impact that of the existing dwelling there of that I believe it's six six and change that side of your setback that's been a condition that's existed for for quite some time uh with with little to no detriment uh we believe we have adequate separation at scale visually in in Conformity with the neighborhood uh we have an extensive backyard um I think we have adequate light air and open space and separate ation and I think our adjacent lot 11 is more centered as well so again I think even though we are asking for that sidey setb back I don't I don't believe there's a a caliber uh for a substantial detriment threshold here so you mentioned that because the existing structure is on the one side that that is a uh an important Point as to why there should be subdivision granted is that what you said earlier I think it's Unique characteristic that that is uh here on this Pro property um which draws that visual Gap but do not answer my question so is it the the Lo the location of the structure you're saying it's Unique but I'm asking you is the location of the existing structure uh reason to Grant the variance variance is sought no the granted variance would be the advancement of the Mis laneous law um I think it plays into suitability uh for subdivision but I don't think just because the house is located here um at this side portion that meets the criteria for subdivision I I don't think that that stands the the threshold do you do you think that since this neighborhood is zoned r10 do you think that's an incorrect zoning district for this this neighborhood that's kind of what you're arguing you're arguing that the the the lot the 10,000 foot lot is not um appropriate I'm not trying to put words in your mouth that's kind of what you're it's kind of my takeaway think we have a lot more Lots as visually representative in the r10 that do not meet that uh threshold um it would be up to the municipality and a re examination report to maybe considering the existing conditions that are associated with that r10 neighborhood um but as far as a rezone I don't believe it's a constitutive reone the existing environment is what it is today um I I don't think we need to go to that extent I don't think there's a whole lot left here in this neighborhood from my visual uh um combing of the neighborhood of a of a large void and in the neighborhood fabric that would constitute consideration or or interest if you will from a subdivision standpoint I I didn't pick anything up do you know uh we've done any research as to when the this neighborhood was zoned r10 and what the I do not have that information available I do not I might have had it at the last year right now I don't have that um I think that's all I have for now thank you Mr chairman can I ask a can I ask a question um are you familiar with the Poland versus South Playfield case yes I am and do you think the fact that the and if you if you would be uh so KH can you explain the case or if you need me to I I'm I'm happy to but so the Poland versus South plane field case um I can get that to you momentarily you're joking you can let me know later oh okay sure the pulling we referenced that that uh case um the takeaway from that case law is the benefits of this application the court you know insisted that we look at everything um collectively as a whole do does this application and the benefits that come with it outweigh detriment a substantial detriment um we can look look at um variances and we can look at zoning um and in land use it's it's a matter of uh land use law um you're going to strike a variance from time to time you know there is and that's where the kman case also says a better zoning alternative um the the Poland versus to Playing Field um the takeaways collectively do the the benefits of this application outweigh the detriments and I think by virtue of the whole application of the whole application so so what so just the board is considering setback variances lot size variances but we also spent um I don't know maybe four hours talking about lot coverage right correct so the fact that lock coverage is improving now is the board allowed to take that into consideration uh as to the whole application when considering the other variances correct yes so collectively the the the benefit here is an improvement over existing conditions um talking about the lot widths and I'm going to just turn to your exhibit here looking at page eight what percentage and I know you don't know the percentage but what percentage of the Lots here would you say are under sized as far as lot widths are concerned what percentage approximately I know you don't have the exact number but over 50% right absolutely yes absolutely over 50% and and emphasize to the bottom left um I I did not go into detail to uh categorize uh under siiz lot with um VIs usually looking at that and combing the neighborhood um we're we're we're approaching more more or less 90% why as a planner did you focus on lot width and not lot size well the lot width I think is important because when we drive down neighbor we don't know how big your rear yard is we're just looking at that that built environment uh and we're looking at that separation and in that neighborhood identity and characteristic which is why we have F uh prevent you know large warehousing and so forth but also the parachute mcmansions neighborhood continuity characteristics is is key its purpose ey desirable visual environment and that neighborhood identity um so I spent a great deal of time to identify these undersized Lots by width um because we're right in character with with the neighborhood um and going along with that obviously the setbacks are reduced due to the lot width and lot size but are the setbacks proportional to the lots that are fet in width what I mean by that and Craig had mentioned me they're pro-rated so yes does yes that make sense what I'm asking you yes we have an undersized lot and and it's like a ratio basically right they're in alignment okay and then just to follow up because now the focus is on on setbacks and lot size you think it's it's uh incredibly important for the board to consider the fact that the f is compliant that laot coverage is compliant correct uh laot coverage I think was the a big issue uh but the this entire uh process we were under F I don't believe this house is is oversized for these undersized Lots so f is it fair to say the f is usually the issue that you run into when you have undersized Lots correct yeah um and as a planner it's one of the the thorns on my side undersized lots and you want to do a modest addition and it's an f and it's F but it's an undersized l so we look at the neighborhood you know in that regards and you're not suggesting that the zone in the in the lot you know requirement that there's 100 foot width is inappropriate right you're not saying it's that the the zoning in place is inappropriate you're not suggesting it's inappropriate no I I I I do not um I I think what we have here though is is is an older neighborhood and I think that was established uh at the last hearing this is an older neighborhood um and these are some older homes so I think when we have this application in front of you this smaller home uh is more in alignment than a larger uh house uh for this neighborhood or this part of Bridge Water so you're you're you're simply you're you're not seeking a rezoning You're simply saying that the positive and negative criteria are met here to support a subdivision that's what your that's what your testimony is correct Mr chairman I have a COR or to followup if I can uh Mr Dr I think I may have forgotten this one question that I had from your testimony at made notes page uh 14 of your submission um and you were referencing the the proposed new lot or the lot property you use the term visual void right correct and so what what I'm assuming you mean vacant or a lot the lawn and the playground equipment is a void a visual void I've never heard of a open space referenced as a visual void the missing tooth uh could you uh you know describe what you what you mean by that what you mean by void certainly uh visually uh in the public realm just like we don't know where one zone typically starts and stops uh we don't really know uh as a general uh Community or or pedestrian what um a zoning makeup is my experience most people don't know that until they need to know it um so driving through the neighborhood you know coming to the property it just appears to be a void in in in the in the makeup and the massing if you will of the neighborhood so that that's what I meant by that that missing tooth okay thank you any other questions yeah Mr chairman I want to focus on um sidey setback situation um because uh you know through the course of this hearing um you know the lot coverage seems to have been resolved and that's not unimportant um you know the question of whether or not this is a buildable lot is um you know you know at at issue and at question but for a moment let's assume that it is um the property is 50 ft wide you're proposing approximately 28t wide house and then splitting the difference with 11t side yards roughly 22 feet total correct which lot are we talking about Lot 12 Lot 12 correct I have a combined side setback of 22 feet yeah and roughly 11 and 11 correct okay so 50 minus 22 gives you about a 28t wide house right correct okay can you can you describe to me how and why I should be seeing um a 15t requirement and saying no 11's okay um like like what what thought what thought process should I be having to come to that conclusion because because our you know our ordinance requires 15 ft right so you're asking for 11 so can you walk me through the rationale for why we want 15 you're saying on this property 11's okay I think the historical context is really important because every lot here was 50 ft everyone of these lots for 5050 ft and things have changed and I don't mean to to steal Mr Dar Thunder it's just that he had said that he wasn't sure of the historical significance or the historical background of these Lots so I'm I'm not really looking I I have a question about historical but that's not what I'm asking I'm asking my ordinance requires 15 ft you're saying this house is appropriate at 11 I I just I feel like I I need an explanation maybe I can help reframe the question could one of the sidey setback variances be eliminated could could the side yard setback be complied with at 15t yes if we shift a house one way or the other right but then the other one would be squeezed smaller was it considered I I think when we look at this we did consider that and that's why it's centrally uh that's actually not my question my question is I have an ordinance that requires 15 ft you have an application that says 11 ft is good enough here explain to me what is unique special and different about this piece of property why 11 is okay and you're asking for the relief against the 15 certainly when we look at the proposed um lot we have some additional feet in the rear um by by virtue of the size uh 100 by 100 will give you that 10,000 ft so we have um you know about 130 going to the the rear so I think what we what we lack in width we're making up in depth and when I look at the the context of a a detached residential uh Zone in a neighborhood we want certainly an outside uh historical residential feel I think we have that by virtue of an extensive uh backyard uh for adequate light Air at open space the sidey yard setback the separation certainly drives into the character adequate light air and open space I think um when we look at the existing conditions here this is is is right in line which what what's out there um as I think we were alluding to if we shift it over um certainly uh we can probably you know I don't I don't think you can shift it over because if it you know then it would be 12 and 10 or 13 and n and you know I'm not I'm I'm asking you know how do I justify that my ordinance say 15 and you're saying but this property needs 11 now one of the things you said is well the property's particularly deep and I'm going to actually disagree with that I think this property is not all that deep because on this side of uh Chestnut it's 130 on the other side of the street it's 400 from Street to Street 200 for each property so again however these Lots were laid out and the the the municipal lines I would argue that this side of the street is actually a little on the tighter side because it's 130 versus 200 right because of the way the streets were laid out and to kind of double back to the question it was your zoning and how does releasing your zoning your zoning is 10,000 ft spot um for a square area so that'd be 100 by 100 so we have approximately 30 ft going to the rear um versus having that width so I think it's proportional by way of of of keeping with that uh that that open space that we would typically find in a residential neighborhood uh when I look at as going back to your question balancing uh that that side yard setback I do not believe that this 11t separation or 22 collectively versus the 40 is a substantial detriment uh to to overlook the benefit that application brings by by virtue of lot coverage and providing for new housing out of these setback variances compared to the 90% of the Lots nearby that also have lot with issues as I mentioned early in my testimony given the fact that majority vast majority of these uh um neighboring properties are 55 foot uh wide lots that uh concern is is uh existing variance throughout the neighborhood excuse me excuse me that's a generalization could you provide be more specific about how many other existing homes have uh 11t setbacks it's not so much 11t setback by um what I by virtue of not conforming to the side yard setback okay non-conforming um we would need 40t for both side yard setbacks I'm testifying tonight before you I did not see a house that was 10t wide in that are well we actually discussed that at the first hearing um but I'm not even necessarily talking about the 40 foot I'm talking about the 15 and the 15 because you know you're ask for two pieces of relief one is well really three the 15 on one side the 15 on the other and the total that does not uh add up to 40 I'm more focused because I'm trying to be realistic here because I know you can't build a 10- foot house I I just really want to better understand what is unique special and different about this property that has a say no 11's all right now what I think you you might be arguing is you're in the r10 but this house is really if it existed is an R six and A2 or you know whatever the whatever it is right um but I'm still concerned you know well how did you pick 11 I mean like like why didn't you make the House 2 feet wider and then it was only going to be 10 like like why was 11 okay but like answer that question since he was the one who designed the actual dimensions of the I like factors of safety when you build so if we asked for 10 and the Builder made it 9.9 we'd be back here again so I just wanted to be a you know I mean technically we can ask for 10 and we're sending them at 11 I mean that was the really princip behind it well why then why then why why didn't you say well let's make them eight and make the house even more I mean if you had it 15 and 40 if we make I don't make them 15 and 40 I make them 15 A2 and 40 A2 you know what I'm saying it was to me it that's the reason behind the 11 and I think honestly it is proportional to 100 foot lot if you were shrink it in half to 50 it's proportional to the what the township standards are well and it could be proportional but you know then then you know you're you're just you're so tight on your neighbors and again I know some many of these houses exist and that's what people bought into to and that's you know it was there and you either chose to live there or not live there I where I'm struggling with this and I'm you know I I'm just being honest is you're almost asking us to look at this as though there was a house there you know uh you know there was a house there you know it's old it's dilapidated and we want to make this nice new house you know and and those and first of all I think you'd be before the zoning board not the planning board in a case like that um but you know I think the principles the principles are similar there there isn't a house here yet you know if there was a house here and it was dilapidated and you wanted to make it a little bit bigger and a little bit more modern again probably in front of the zoning board not the planing board I I I I I think the argument is much different I think here there's a threshold to get over for explaining why a house should be built here real reason why we're here is because the lots are in common ownership if the Lots weren't in common common ownership if if if it was julahas LLC and hulas not here but you'd be before the zoning board we'd be before the zoning board and the zoning board can be just as tough if not tougher than us so you know you know be careful what you wish for on that one Mr cor wa say [Music] and I actually I actually I don't mind that that house is centered and I you know I don't think that we should be trading a foot here for a foot there because then then you know there's a certain unfairness because uh you know right you know right now there's common ownership but if we Grant this there won't be common ownership anymore I I I think the question that you ask is very fair you know obviously a 10- foot wide house is not is not viable that's that no one would build it no one would want to buy it no one would want to live there but you know instead of a 28t house is is it viable at 26 ft feet or 24 ft so that at least there's a little bit more room on the sides you're a couple feet further away and you're closer to the sidey yard setback requirement so I just want to point out the sidey yard setback the minimum sidey yard requirement for one of them is 15 we're proposing 11 that that 4ot difference I don't see a substantial detriment now collect it's 15 on each side collectively the minimum side yard for both would be 40 so we jump willing to actually I'm this is just my my my opinion I don't know if I speak for the board I'm more much more troubled by the 15 than the 40 because 50 minus 40 is 10 a 10t house is not viable okay but something you you're proposing 28 with 11 and 11 what would be conforming on that measure would be 15 15 and 20 now a 20ft wide house I don't know if that's viable or not I'm suggesting maybe there's a number that's between 20 and 28 so that you're closer to compliance at least with the 15 on each side I know you're not going to be able to meet the 40 total but I'm just trying to understand that I thought you know you know could you know could a viable home that someone would want to build and live in be constructed somewhat closer to 20 feet wide so that you could go 15 and 15 I I'll just add to this you know we had the applicant here at the last hearing uh she testified that she purchased this in 2019 the existing zoning existed in 2019 and the planner is here to address the bulk variances and so you know my assumption here and there's nothing wrong with capitalism I support it and someone is wanting to invest a property and Improvement it's vastly improved and that's a great thing but this you know if the if the applicant did not know what the zoning was well that's not the Township's fault and this is this is a an an applicant who wants to subdivide to build a home and to sell both and there's nothing wrong with that but there is an ordinance and you've got to my opinion you got to do a better job convincing us convincing me that there's a reason other than allowing the the property owner to subdivide and build a house to sell that's that's really that's that's that's the that's how I see this with this subdivision comes an overall Improvement to the to the site by way of lock coverage we spent two nights discussing storm water management flooding drainage this subdivision is a benefit to what those current conditions are and and the lock coverage so so by way of granting the sub Vision it's not capitalism that that positive investment to the site is also felt throughout the neighborhood which which is advancement of of of that C2 criteria which is that also again the better zoning alternative I guess what I'm trying to say just to move this thing along and I'm not trying to negotiate I'm just throwing out an idea is a 24t wide house that is you know centered so now you're at 13 and 13 you still need variance but it's it's less is a 24t wide house and then potentially a little deeper to give you the square footage is that is that economically viable would someone want to build it and would someone want to live there I don't know I don't know the economic viability I've seen small hous I've seen lares But when I look at this location and what's on lot 11 I think the proportion and that that transition into the older neighborhood I I think we're right on par with where it needs to be put it putting economics aside looking at all of the lots that are undersized is this consistent with the setbacks and the with for example lot uh 14 and 15 would you say the setbacks for lot and Craig has an exhibit up there if you want to reference it I think it's uh a it has let's can we mark this exhibit it's uh we can mark this as as exhibit A4 um we that aerial view is that okay okay Craig aial VI aerial slide 10 slide 10 of my exhibit I think is a um a good um reflection of that side set back and in fact um that lot um I believe it's 14 the house is actually kind of sitting sideways in the middle of the lot as well so by by way of setbacks I you know as reflecting what we just heard here I think we're we're we're a little bit more generous than than our neighboring properties that are on smaller lots and going back for that sidey guard setback again we have a a larger house on lot 11 um I think you know for proportion and transition you know that that that middle piece I think that house is right where it needs to be uh we have a 4ot sidey yard setback on on the uh di Minimus by 4T I do not think that's a substantial detriment to overlook the benefits that come with the subdivision by way of that lot coverage and that drainage issue I let me ask the question slightly differently because I'm I'm also concerned about the person that's going to be living in lot um lot 13 and and and you again when when when we make when we provide relief it it's forever you know it's not the person that lives there now I mean it's it's it's forever um and I know that that house is not exactly um you know Square on the lot it you know it's it's a little bit off-kilter from the property lines what is the distance from what I'll call the front as you're looking at at the existing house the front left corner to the property line I mean it's about the width of the driveway that's there right because that driveway pretty much goes right up to the potential line if if if we do this subdivision correct I don't have the measurements or scale in front of me and and I'm quite honest but I mean the answer I think is going to be roughly the width of that of that driveway I'm I have no idea what lot we're talking about at the moment are we talking about I'm talking about existing lot 13 13 okay okay so the you know the existing house that's there the measure and again I I know it's not exact everything isn't exactly perpendicular here um but if you measure from that front looking at the house the left corner if you go to the property line it's it's about the width of the driveway right 13.7 feet all right 13.7 I'm sorry to say this but like every foot counts when you're talking about being that close on a neighbor every foot does count in my view um and um you know I you know you know without without getting to a to a to a literally a trade-off of one foot for another I I would challenge the applicant to say could a house that's another couple feet less wide giving slightly more Breathing Room on each side be economically and uh you know still viable for this space I think from from the applicant's perspective I think we've given so much um as it relates to lock coverage that to to save on and I understand you're saying every foot matters but to save one foot or two feet in a neighborhood where this is routinely uh or at least systematic where the this is consistent with the setbacks in the neighborhood despite the zoning that's in place um it's just it's it's too much of an ask for for the applicant to to change what is already a very small well although consistent with the neighborhood as our planner is testified to um a house of this size is well then let me ask the question differently why didn't you go with a house that was um uh 34 ft wide and you you know we only want an 8ot side yard on each side I think we were trying to match the ratio so if the lot was conforming we were trying to come up with and I and Craig can answer this but we were trying to come up with a proper ratio so that the setbacks matched what was in the existing neighborhood and also if it were 100t wide wat lot we were trying to come up with the proper ratio um based upon the ordinance standards so the I think the ordinance standards and Mr Styers correctly if I'm wrong it it was taken in consideration when you came up with 11 feet versus 9et is that is that fair to say yes so you're essentially saying you you built you you're proposing to build a house that is appropriate to this specific property which is essentially an R six and a half if one actually existed if R six and a half existed as a Zone and everything was sort of proportional you're saying that's why that that's why we've come up with this plan I I think that the applican is looking at the piece of property and the surrounding neighborhood and is trying to come up with uh uh with an with a reasonable um building footprint that that that makes sense you're bringing up economics I'm trying to stay away from economics because I because I think the testimony that you've heard is that this is really more about being conducive and and um in line with the character of the neighborhood well I I use the phrase economics just just not not because I'm looking for anybody to make money or not make money at a certain point a proposal is viable or it's not viable that's that's what I'm saying I'm not saying I'm not looking for anybody to maximize an amount of economic investment I'm saying at a certain point a pro um a project is not viable and wouldn't be built that's what I'm that's why I use that phrase if if I if I may the existing for for Combined is 40 side yard setback both side yards have to which clearly you can't meet so if we were to cut that in half that's 20 we're given 22 so I for ratio proportion back and app can test I I think we're right on par if if we really do kind of nail this down and I think that's what what we're trying to put out there that when we looked at this this this was taken into consideration um and and to you know again going back to the conversation um the house if we look at slide uh 10 of the exhibit you'll see that our neighboring houses to the north 11 and 10 their lots are larger they're more Massy more scale so to put a a a thinner skin uh skin your house I think that kind of defeats the the purpose of of of you know what what we try to do here as that trans trans from the larger lots to the existing you know neighborhood with with a more appropriate um ratio house if you will uh within relations to that 50 foot width with that that adjacent neighbor has a giant evergreen tree in their potentially there by way of screening privacy okay I'm also very concerned as well with the privacy and the Shrubbery the lack of Shrubbery and the the non-p potential for being able to put something to separate the or the transition of the neighborhood from Lot 12 to lot 11 I still see a problem especially board uh planner Miss Sarma pointed out before we're going to be seeing the foundation of the new proposed structure so we're going to have to do something about also masking that Foundation that's going to be exposed so it's not exactly know we don't have a landscape plan have a solution possibly we could move the the home over to create a 15 yard setback as it relates to the adjacent lot uh Lot 10 move it closer to lot 13 the setback would obviously would would be less between Lots 12 and 13 again not inconsistent with the testimony we heard about the surrounding neighborhood however we're addressing the concerns um as it relates to privacy um for Lot 10 privacy is one thing but I also feel as though you know we're talking about at the lots and structures that are being referenced and compared to those were built more than half a century ago maybe the the neighborhood itself is kind of grown out of that throughout the decades and and you know you brought the missing tooth uh analogy before I I don't feel as though there's that much of a missing tooth there anymore especially with the neighborhood as you you know drive to the north it kind of it CH there's a transition now so we're trying to force something that maybe doesn't necessarily belong there today and age uh it's it's it's changing the the neighborhood's density the neighborhood's population the amount of cars the traffic the parking so I these are all questions that I have in my mind I'm trying to wrap around it so uh you know Council MC kurur brought up some good points before regarding um you know what what things would look like uh you know as it comes to you know setbacks and whatnot but you know I I see other questions regarding the the the neighborhood's density itself so these are things that I still have unanswered as well by neighborhood density um I think we're we're right on par I don't think this is overdevelopment for for the neighborhood it's a single family dwelling it's a small modest home um it's not a two family multif family proposed here I think the density is right right on par uh and I will just like to remind the board with this subdivision comes that that curing up that ailment of of that o lock coverage and drainage um you know uh we do have a 10-ft easement on our side of the property we're proposing 11 I'm not a a landscape architect I don't know if one foot's viable to put you know an arbor VES I I don't think it would be but um you know we just we said we'll shift it over we'll have more Landscaping um on that side um but um I think the benefits of this application um outweigh the detriments here um by way of that sidey yard setback uh we're we're we're four feet shy of what's required I I don't believe that's a substantial detriment here four feet on each side 8et and that the house that we are talking about is elevated and that sidey yard setback is is large um I don't think we're right on top of a a large larger home I do think we have adequate uh visual separation there and and then the smaller Lots you know that's that quaint small neighborhood uh uh feel uh that this that this r10 Zone has I personally would like to make it work but this is very trying the the the entire application to me is very trying comment if I may looking at history you know we've got to take it into account things happened in the past um a lot of those properties are 6,500 Square ft somehow zoning was imposed on top of that of 10,000 square fet I don't know how that happened but are we asking people to comply comply with a requirement that can't be complied with are we making them um oh gosh I don't know how obsolete H functionally obsolete yeah I mean is it functional I mean can we ask them to do something to comply with something that can't be complied with I just don't understand the 6,500 ft and then on top of that bridgew imposes a 10,000 square foot zone is that something we should look at in the future when we're doing um upgrading the uh well I think I think the over master plan review yes I I think the overall answer and you know I sat on the zoning board for eight years we saw a lot of applications in the Bradley Gardens neighborhood because almost anything you want to build is going to be non-compliant that's why we have a zoning board now we're here before a planning board because of the ne necessity of the subdivision but you know taking that aside this is essentially been a zoning board uh hearing um the types of questions the type of of concerns that we have um and you know again I think it's a question to ask but I think that typically speaking um you know you're not you're you don't want to spot you can't spot Zone you can't say all well these eight properties in a row are are r five and then you know these over here are R six2 and these are r10 I I don't I don't know that's viable I I think that the the the way it's intended to work is you are in an r10 even if you're non-compliant if you want to do something you have to go before a zoning board again this one notwithstanding because of the of the subdivision um and as on as side I grew up in a city the properties were 25 ft wide the house were 23 ft wide and you could reach out and touch the house next door you there's there was a lot of discussion this evening about comparisons to existing conditions existing structures this is the reality on the ground that home on lot 13 exists it exists perfectly so as to create another lot so it is not like we're we're taking down the existing conditions and creating two New Lots completely out of whole cloth uh not in continuity with the surrounding neighborhood or your ordinance What's Happening Here is that there's a home on lot 13 and a and essentially a vacant lot that is exists it exists in this manner because of the previous zoning it's it's not it's not like we're trying to create something new here you're not going to see applications like this because there aren't situations existing s situations are conditions that exist like this we're here because the unique situation in 2024 that you have a vacant lot next to you know a home that the testimony this evening suggests belongs there it exists there it it should be there it's that that I just think it's important to distinguish between or at least talk about existing conditions versus proposed conditions this is the situation that we're here with we're trying to make the best of the situation especially considering the fact that lot 13 just underwent a full renovation especially considering what it used to look like Mr chairman I just want to jump in I I haven't you know had a chance the professionals having a chance to come in but I did want to comment I think the board oh it's not on is that better okay thank you sorry why don't we take some questions from our professionals please I just I just wanted to jump in because I think a few questions have been good U Mr mura in relation to your question about how the zoning came to be um I had actually posed the line of questioning to Mr Styers at the last meeting and they got deferred to the planner and I think Mr papis had asked some of the similar questions I had asked about did you look at when the Zone changed did you look at you know uh some of the site history some of the zoning history because I think it does help tell story and it's kind of ironic that we're sitting here saying maybe we should look back at the zoning because that's probably what already happened so if you look at the even the online code it tells you when the Zone was changed by ordinance 9133 in 1991 in 2005 in 2006 and I was hoping the applicant would look into what those ordinances did change because I have a feeling and I didn't look into it I think it's the applicant's opportunity to do that I have a feeling that the zoning probably was 5,000 sare F feet minimum lot area and something triggered the town to look at that and say look at this area look at the development look at the patterns whether it be zoning board approvals or applications or variances and say let's make it 10,000 ft yes we're going to Zone some of these sites into non-conformity but they're existing homes and they're already maxed out on the impervious I have a feeling that's probably what happened so it's ironic that we're looking back saying maybe we should change it back because I think it was done for a reason and I think that history if the applicant had provided that probably would have told the story a little bit better um and I want to be really careful about how we're saying that Lot 12 is vacant because it was enjoyed by lot 13 it was utilized as portion as a entire lot as a single family home with a pool as its backyard because a garage that was almost the same size of the house existed on the property so I'm going to be really careful about how we talk about what should be on Lot 12 because maybe in 1991 or 1990 before the ordinance maybe there should have been a house there based on the zoning but we are in 2024 and the zone has been changed and does have regulations that are stipulating the variances that are required tonight so I think that's really important I think the aerial tells a very good story as well as far as um the type of houses and you don't get the full picture until you're actually on the ground and you do a site visit and you see oh those other homes that are on non-conforming lots that have less lot width and lot area are actually may actually be deeper and utilize the the length of the L Lots uh which this house I don't think or the proposed house doesn't do they're actually not as high they're about a story and a half so when you look at the context I think we have to be really careful about saying this is going to fit in exactly with what's there because it's a two-story home and it's 32 and 1/2 ft and I don't think any of the existing homes match that so we're talking about matching we're talking about fixing filling in the loose to the missing tooth we have to be careful about how we're generalizing um without the full picture without exhibits that show that without things that back it up and I just want to be careful that the testimony we're hearing is also the the full picture with that um and I think the the age of the homes around in the area matter I think the the development context the depth of the homes the height of the homes matter if we're going to talk about matching or we're going to talk about the development context which I don't think we've seen any exhibits that really detail that um but that's that's basically what my questions were going to be for for the planner we're going to be did you look at did you do a detailed analysis of these things what's the percentage of lots that aren are non-conforming what's the percentage of of homes that were built you know in the last decade when was The Zing changed what was it why was it changed Etc because that that would give a lot more backup to the variants I think that are being requested because it is 2024 and the zoning is what it is I hope that help second 14 and 15 so 14 and 15 14 15 yes so on the uh page six you'll see that they are 50 foot um wide and they are 3065 ft in depth okay [Music] 50 by 200 [Music] as we think about [Music] preexisting these are bigger houses 28 by 38 now and right now there's a fence there but it's the lot to the north I believe the owner there's sare be correct in a deficit of three versus four I'm sorry I want to make sure that I understand the the this this new proposal so this the property is obviously still 50 ft wide the house is now 26 ft wide leaving 24 but you're proposing that it be not exactly centered where are you Distributing the 24t of sidey yard 9 foot you get for the buffer CL if well since the easement doesn't exist we are going to create it on our side so we could put stipulations in there what we can and can't do provided the township is okay with it I mean if we could put at least Landscaping in there put that in the verbiage of the easement that will exist going forward what have ISS what what what what's the what's the purpose of the easement there is currently a drainage pipe that essentially parallels the property line okay we've looked Mike has looked Anthony Gallow has looked I think Tom janova might have delved into it very little bit nothing if the board proves this and um that's an if um I would certainly want to ensure that the the property owner would be responsible for maintaining any of the drainage structures within that easement that the township has no responsibility to maintain it that is consistent with what we have asked other applicants that put the pipe in no that that that a drainage easement that is on a private property is the responsibility the maintain maintenance of any drainage structure within an easement is the property owner responsibility not the township of Bridgewaters but it is draining a public road I understand that and it's also just immediately north of our like I said it's not on our property it's immediately north of it I understand that we're talking about your app your client's property right that's what we have done there have been other instances of subdivision applications where that that condition was included for one two or three lot subdivisions I remember that right Mr pe's not even on our property though yes yeah I mean I think in cases where there's established drainage facilities the requirement is to make sure like the inlets are clear and things like that I don't know that we've Oppo imposed a bill can correct me if I'm wrong but an affirmative obligation to like you know if the pipes get clogged that the property owner has to that's that's what I'm I'm asking for we have have required that I can think of I can think of two applications one actually had pipes in the ground uh new pipes that were being well existing pipes that were being replaced in kind and another one was an open drainage Channel conveyance way um those applicants did this is a little bit unique um in that there's really no formal other than maybe the rear corner of the lot the the storm pipe according to to Craig's survey is actually shown underground but on the adjacent lot but certainly to Mr Pap's point I think the applicant it would be reasonable to expect that they maintain on the surface of the ground any lands within the easement that may impact or affect the drainage functionality but there's no there's no drainage structure in the formal sense that they would have to maintain um but I think it's a reasonable request area clear right I don't even think there's an ability for us to Grant access it's not on our property I don't I heard Mr sty saying that you were going to create a 10- foot easement on the north side of your property there is supposedly on the tax map there is shown a 10- foot easement okay we it doesn't exist it's 20 isn't both 10 foot on our side 10 on the other but according to our research it doesn't exist so we are giving the opportunity to the township to clear that up but we can obviously only can we can only Grant an easement with respect to our property and the pipe that we're all speaking about isn't located on our property despite the fact that the easement is located on our property I understand okay all I'm saying is that we've had situations where there are drainage issues and Property Owners like to give the township easements and then the assumption is the Township has some responsibility to maintain that easement I deal with it every day all over town and because of the challenges of drainage issues I am just asking that if this is approved that there be a condition that any drainage structure within the easement that is the respons would be the responsibility of the property owner up to the property line that's that's all I'm asking if there's no structure then there should be no issue but there is no reason that the township should be responsible for maintaining a drainage structure on private property that's the that's the only point I'm making if I could just make an announcement it's 956 just a reminder no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. thank you Mr papus so I can the applicant can agree to that it's it's a moot point because there is no drainage structure on to my knowledge on the applicant's property so if there is then the applicant can agree to that don't know if that addresses question Mr B I'd like to give you an opportunity to ask your questions as well if you have any thank you Mr chairman I actually don't have any questions thank you Mr are there any other questions from members of our board are there any questions for any members of the public regarding Mr dar's testimony that that will need to be reserved till later if it's a question that's directly related to the testimony that was just given you may come and pose the question I I I'll need you to come to you'll have to come up and be sworn in you're giving testimony now and please ask in the form of a question yeah but first before we get going do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the course of this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes it will thank you could you state and spell your name for the record please Mary Mrs Mary Pius p i r r s I live at 150 chest street directly across the street from the home that wants to be passed now I have to turn it into a question the pipe that's running along the fence the original I've lived in on in my home for 47 years the pipe goes across the street we put it we had someone put a pipe in our property running from lynen Street and then Mr Russo took the original owner of the home put another pipe going alongside his fence which I understand is 2 feet of his property on that side of the fence so if you plan on removing it it's going to cause my home my backyard to flood from lynon Street and we had it it was okay by the I guess it was the zoning word back then the question are we going to remove it but are you removing the one that's across the street we're not going to remove any pipe okay right which I understand I understand the other question is I don't know how I'm going to put this in a question that property floods if you were to come with our 100 day rains it's flooded and I know for a fact Mr Russo again and the second owner who she had bought it from had filled it in several times the property's been filled in I'm not an engineer years ago my husband was told that when you dig far enough and you hit water you're going to break up the water line and if he found water if water was found in the ground no matter how deep it is it's going to come back up Miss Paris is a general commentary yeah okay I'm sorry but that's well well no I mean potentially the question is have they H may maybe this is for a a different um a different witness has the engineering considered the the concerns that have just been raised because there are Springs there's 12 Springs in my backyard then if we we wanted to add on another room to the house in the back and they the town you didn't let us it was the zoning board because of the location of the water table at that SP the water table that's right because it's all clay you know for yourselves no matter where you live in the township but just as a thought I think to answer your question we consider the page four of the plans with the additional lawn Inlet that describ would how deep how deep is the pipe again arbori is and things like that I don't think that root system would go that profound please come forward my name is Cheryl rcky spell r k I'm the owner of lot 11 which is a lot directly north of you um there was some discussion previously about removing those trees in the middle of of the lot next to us my question really is around the large pine tree that sits between our house and that lot um that pine tree is probably over 100 years old and probably sucks up about 10 times as much water as as our pieties my concern is in building that property so close to this tree this tree will probably die will have to be chopped down so has the zoning board considered what will happen to my tree and or is it likely that this if this tree does not survive it be replaced right now the this section of the meeting is just for you to ask well actually no testimony you can board these questions when the applicant is done putting their okay then I'll ask him a question have you considered my tree and the impact of this building property on my tree and I'm likely having to actually chop that tree down I will say confident of of that additional 15 feet uh plus that 10 foot buffer you know easement nothing going in there um I think the tree though I am a land use in case you know planning uh a planner here I'm not a a landscape architect or a gardener I I think the tree would be right these are probably the this is probably the question for for engineer but just to point out our the house is house is now going to be compliant with the setback so that answers your question right now compant setback will have it so it's basically right next to the tree in the trunk and this is a big tree so I expect these routes are way down so any digging is likely to build a basement and there is likely to impact this tree just just just for just for clarity so so you're you're the house it's like a tan tan color immediately it's the it's the biggest house on the street and it's and you're talking about the tree that at least I'm looking at page three of the um the handout it looks to be roughly halfway between your property and the property line yes that's is that the one you're talking about it's taller than our house okay it's Lely it's probably the largest butan is it accurate it looks from the picture that it's about halfway between your house and the property line it's correct yeah okay cuz what what we're now talking about is this house if built would be another 15 ft from the the property line so it your house is dramatically closer to that tree than this proposed house my concern really is is this tree will come down in a storm if you start digging around its roots because its roots are visible at the property line I'd also just like to clarify that you know my house is probably on more than 100 you said it was five you say your 50t um y lots and width are consistent with the rest of the houses in the in the area yeah my house is definitely not on a 50 foot wide lot yeah I identified your lot as one of the few that are yeah yeah so when you say generally consistent I think you're right next to the biggest property in the street thank you thank any other questions okay that will close the public portion the meeting for this witness Mr silbert I believe we've run out of time for any other Witnesses for this evening have any other Witnesses Mr chairman um public comment we do have public comment oh okay any other comments from our board at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public that wish to comment on any testimony that was given this evening I no they are carried to May 21 seea did not give proper notice but that's that we didn't send that out the the applicant sent it out without well that but that's the deficiency thank you and and you know M Mr chairman since we are you know in a scheduling conversation um you know independent of of proper notice for that case we now have some amount of time that's going to still be necessary uh for this uh Chestnut Street case we then have not tonight heard um you know the other case we anticipated I just want to make sure that you know we have a reasonable expectation of how much we're going to be able to accomplish on the 21st I'm representing the uh Gerardo application so um just before I got toe myself the the person from the audience that was speaking from the public was not speaking about the Gerard application is that correct it's a different application sure okay um so your your uh the suggestion is to carry it to the 21st I'm just checking my my calendar here I personally have a conflict at evening I could probably get somebody from my office to cover the conflict I I'm okay I just have to check with my team I I have a okay the 21st is good for Gerardo thank you Gerardo yes okay will that be sufficient to hear comments both for the board and the public for hoola as well okay so 21st works for this hos um I did just want to point out because it seems like we're coming to a to a potential close here that you know I don't know if if there's time just to make a very quick statement but the applicant tried very hard to work with the board based upon the board's comments last weekend uh last hearing the applicant came back presented plans and made con sessions more than what the board had even requested originally um so it's I think frustrating from the applicant standpoint because it seems like when we as soon as we address the one issue raised from the board or this issue from the board the goal posts are moved to then address another issue and I understand that there's a lot of variance relief or not so much so a lot but there are multiple variances that we're seeking so if we are going to come back and now that we've heard the testimony of all of Mass's app applicants um before we conclude you know it would be very helpful to know the the outstanding issues that the board may have um but I did want to make that representation again I know the board can probably appreciate that we made so many changes so I I I'm sorry I know the hour is late we've all been here a long time and maybe there's a level of frustration um but I do need to object to the phrase the goalposts are moving there's nothing that has moved other than our desire to make sure that we represent what is right for Bridgewater there's no movement of goalpost there's no changing of rules um you know you know if that's an opinion Everyone's entitled to an opinion but I I can't I can't let that that just be stated without being countered um have we been demanding absolutely um has the applicant shown flexibility absolutely um but I you know again I don't I don't think that it's an accurate portrayal that the the rules are changing or the goal posts are moving councilman I think you're doing your your job as a as a planning board member as a council member and as a resident Bridgewater and I understand that but you know the board can certainly appreciate that it costs a lot of money a lot of energy for somebody to come here and present a minor subdivision of this nature to the board and that's a business decision that the applicant has made but um it's just the applicant spent a lot of time to address the law coverage concern so again you're looking at no I I i' been using as an example and not to turn this into a debate but you know lot coverage we talked about we covered it but then we got into a conversation about sidey yards you know I'm not going to accept well you already we already gave in so much on on lot coverage well you know you know now just give us what we want on sidey yards I I don't I don't accept that I think we we addressed certain things and then in this hearing we addressed certain things uh and you know again if this has become far more complicated than the applicant ex anticipated that's just the way the process sometimes happens but you know you know I I don't you know I don't think I I don't think I or anyone on this board should be hampered by well we already beat um uh you you you know beat one area to death um you know why you asking us so many questions about this area I understand you're coming from it I don't think it's uh it's not a matter of of trying to evaluate the application on its whole that's that's not what I'm suggesting you should evaluate the application on its whole I'm more so saying that if there's an issue that the applicant can address or multiple issues it would be helpful and that's and that's a very fair question and I'll I'll answer the question the others on the board certainly I don't know what the public is going to say um but I am satisfied that all the issues that are of concern to me have at least been placed on the table I again I don't know if everyone else on the board feels maybe not satisfied yet there are still some open questions but I believe that any that the issues have all been stated I also uh I think I I like to uh support M uh Mr cars uh in fact what happened is it's almost like a were really difficult situation was that you know joining board changes the requirement and as M shat says so there's difficulties itself is a placing a house you know 20 ft 24t or 28 ft at least you know you have accommodated that one that is very nice of you uh so ultimately at least I think as far as we know we have addressed everything uh probably covered everything also you have actually accommodated that one so hopefully you know next 21st it will be quick hope uh nothing else will come again we don't know what public will ask so that's a different thing but thank you for the opportunity and also basically I we can understand your frustration also uh you know I would have been in fact I was telling her I would have been even probably you know left by by the half an hour before but anyway nevertheless thank you for at least staying with us I'll just say that uh as Mr kersa said I've presented my concerns and my questions uh they have been responded to it doesn't necessarily mean I'm satisfied with the answers but they've I've I've addressed and put on the table everything that I'm concerned about and then regarding the first hearing the applicant was the first witness she addressed what was appropriate then Mr Styers and he addressed what was appropriate and then we were told there'd be a planner to address the variances and so I think that was that's obviously been the progression of the discussion and the issues that have been raised tonight were not raised previously for the most part part because Mr styes was the primary witness last time thank you Mr each application that comes before the board is unique and I think that most of the members here this evening would agree that this is excessively unique in this scenario but we do appreciate the work that Miss H has done up to this point and I think most of our concerns have at least been brought to the table and uh there any other comments I'd like to give Mr silbert one last chance to provide any other questions or comments I'll I'll conclude by saying that I do appreciate the uh the flexibility of of the board members to throw out possible solutions um because it does give the applicant something to work with and we're doing the best we can so thank you thank you Mr Silber is it does the board we were not planning on on on submitting additional documents um unless the board feels that it's absolutely necessary which is would be helpful if it would be helpful for me if you could give a bullet point of I can do that think res where you guys stand right now i' I'd be happy to do that and I can we present it we can update the rendering since you know we updated the plans we didn't what you think is just the 10 days in advance well the other thing is we updated the plans and then get an updated review so I think would be just as good doing an updated exhibit and we can come back and flush it all out with everybody to answer that where yep because of timing what I will commit to doing is that I will send Mr peek a bullet point list I can set I can send an updated Zone table as soon as possible and then at the next hearing it'll be presented as a supplemental exhibit as opposed to being presented or submitted 10 days in advance it'll be on the board so that we can see the changes and visualiz it's just miss sarman Mr bird does that work for you that's fine thank you any other comments thank you very much Mr silbert thank you this meeting will be C carried to the 21st of May without further notice correct no further notice will be given on the hos application will they be first yes and I'm sorry Mr chairman do you want to just also specify what we can reasonably expect is there'll be um we'll have summation and then public comment correct and then board comment and deliberation correct correct is that that's what's left whatever Chairman's pleasure yes okay and then we will go to the the other case that we did not hear tonight corre and then we may go to the the other matter if it can be handled quickly and if their notice is appropriate okay and also for any public who is here on the uh Gerardo application involving Mountaintop road that will also be carried to May 21 without any further notice so if you're here about that and you want to be heard or you want to hear that application be here next uh well Tuesday May 21 all right did we need to do do we need to do resolution May May 21st okay that closes the application portion of the evening we're going to move back to our resolution portion this evening each board member should have received a resolution for Dr Bradley McAdam Co kathle Connor LLC are there any questions comments or changes for the record if there another comments would anybody like to make that motion to adopt motion that's Miss Sora could I have a second that's Mr banga could I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes thank you m propes the Hidden River Farms is pending we will move on to our discussion for the evening Mr peek we do have one very important um yeah we'll uh sorry to to interrupt on the AR Bridgewater 2 the agreement regarding termination of rights this just has to do with the continuing um Saga most of the you know what was once the center of for excellence that now is the advanced realy uh the advanc project is moving along nicely but uh you still had Center of Excellence had uh obtained final approval for one phase of their project and preliminary approvals of the other so you have these approvals still sitting out there and they have Advance with their approvals and there's litigation going on which is now all being resolved so this termination of rights is them announcing and terminating the prior Center of Excellence approvals so they'll be dead and buried so we'll just need a vote to authorize uh execution of the termination of rights so then that will put the center of excellence you know finally to bed so that's Mr Papas Miss sakur could I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes please yes and lastly but not least Miss sarmed would you like to provide an update on the upcoming master plan public information session on May 22nd it's taking place very good back to back back to back to back Tuesday Wednesday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday right yeah any other comments from the board with that I'll take a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion that's Miss Sora second I second Mr chadri roll uh all in favor I I all right that was um fun