##VIDEO ID:KDE73LPWSAs## all right good evening everyone we're going to come to order it's November 26 2024 Bridge order Township Zoning Board of adjustment the time is 7:02 both adequate and electronic notice this meeting specifying the time place and manner in which such notice is provided in accordance with the open public meeting Act njsa 10 4-6 specifically on January 9th 2024 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk of the township of water and posted on the municipal bulletin board Please be aware of the zoning Board of adjustment policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. if you're able please rise for the salute to the flag flag the United States of America to the stand na indivisible andice for good evening we can have a roll call please chairman f herey i here yes Mr here here here here here will all right thank you very much Nancy all right this time I'm going to open up the meeting to members of the public that would like to speak on any land use matter that is not on our agenda this evening all right see none I'm going to close that portion we have no board minutes for approval we have no resolutions so uh Rich why don't you give us a quick update on what's pending in terms of applications so our our list is getting a little longer but um so we have uh seven matters now that are being carried by the board they include uh 1200 Route 22 land investors and 1200 route22 LLC holding that is carried to December 10th 2024 with an indication that there'll be a new notice published I guess shortly by the applicant um and then the rest of this list that I'll read off are all being carried to the January 14th reorganization meeting that includes visions and Pathways um 821 Bridgewater LLC in the Jewish Community Center application uh CX Towers St Bernard's Church uh Bridgewater realy which is the Starbucks application and belly Holdings again all being carried to the reorganization meeting January 14th next year all right thank you very much much Rich all right so tonight we have 821 Hawthorne Avenue we have an applicant hi there is this yours this is could you move it to the side can face audience and kind of move it a little bit over that's perfect absolutely Mr chairman Excuse me while they're setting up you want to make an announcement announc it will be carried DEC I'm sorry to January that was in the list I just read off right visions of Pathways is off until January 14th at which time they'll get a new date so if anyone's here for that casee we're not going to hear it tonight we're okay thank you sorry I missed that all good good evening hi hi I'm the architect on behalf of the applicant and we have the applicant here as well great just get your name and like this excellent name is Gregory Ralph address is 1924 route22 East Bound Brook New Jersey 08805 last name is rph yep if you both would just Raise Your Right hands please you you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do and again for the record both of you your names please uh name is Gregory Ralph R A lph Jerry Ross Pierre last name is p r r thank you you guys can sit down if you like okay I might get up and down for the drawing um so I was going to lead off with the uh application on behalf of the applicant would you like my qualifications before I begin or yes so Bachelor of architecture from Roger Williams University licensed in New Jersey since 2011 well-versed in the field of residential architecture and I have appeared before numerous boards most recently in uh Westfield and panic and your license is current license is current and in good standing okay thank you all right we're going to accept you as an expert in architecture thank you very much all right okay so so diving into why we're here tonight so we are here tonight for three variances related to an addition to a primary dwelling and related to a garage uh construction that's proposed those variances are for f where uh 0.16 is required and. 23 is proposed uh front yard setback variants where 50 ft is required the existing dwelling is at 46.66% will continue with the addition and we are proposing a front porch Portico that's at 4.58 feet and then a uh accessory structure setback where 20 ft is required from the sidey we are proposing 10 feet at the sidey those are our three variances so I would like to Dive Right into an explanation of the property and the project and then I would like to answer the comments that were in the review memo so we have a uh existing property block 3.74 lot 14 in zone R20 the existing lot size is 15,000 square fet so we are a bit of an undersized existing lot and that's actually quite consistent lot size with the neighbors if you look at the tax map that's on the cover page you'll see that a lot of those lots are 100 by 150 deep the existing property is developed with a one and a half story Cape Cod style frame dwelling no garage on the site currently and there is a shed in the rear of the property that will address a little bit later as it was noted in the review memo there's uh some existing uh non-conformities that I noted there's the lot area that's existing non-conforming the front yard is also existing non-conforming and then the accessory structure setbacks for the shed are non-conforming uh the application does not propose oppose any changes to the shed so the nature of the application I would love to point you to the plans to kind of walk through what we're doing at a macro level if you look on the cover page V1 that was submitted these are the same drawings that were submitted there's been no alteration to what you should have in your packet if you look at the cover page um at the existing and demolition plot plan you'll note some areas of coverage in red and that will become material later when I speak about the offset in coverage it was our objective to remain under the 25% impervious coverage requirement and as such we needed to remove some of the existing Paving to accommodate for the square footage of the new garage so that plot plan up top is indicative of some removals of paved areas and then at this plan on the bottom half of the page you see our proposed two-car garage 10 ft from the property line you see uh an addition to the side of the existing dwelling and then an indication that we're building over the existing dwelling as a quick summary of what the changes are that we made I'll just flip through some of the plans for us so on page V3 I will go to sorry V4 so just a quick summary of the expansion so it makes sense where the square footage is going especially with relation to the f they are the existing dwelling is two bedrooms on the first floor with some pretty limited living space what we did with this addition of about 265 squ F feet on the right side of the dwelling was we kind of just relocated those bedrooms that exist today so there's two bedrooms existing on the first floor we maintain those two bedrooms in the proposed Edition we just slide them over so they're a little bit larger 12x 14 and 12x 14 is a good siiz bedroom space and we reallocated the square footage that those bedroom consumed to a little bit more living space on the first floor so that was the strategy of expansion on the first floor again about a net 265 Square F feet um on that floor majority of the work as it relates to the f is the second floor in the Attic So what had been um a couple bedrooms upstairs as is typical of a cape under the roof line we're proposing raising that roof up to the second floor plate and having three bedrooms on the second floor so two regular bedrooms and then a primary bedroom suite so it brings the total of the home to five bedrooms and I think that's important to note because I know that one of the concerns with f is the density or overutilization of a property I would say that a five-bedroom home on a 15,000 foot lot is an appropriate size and scale of density uh in terms of that regard and then the attic we're proposing a walkup attic utilizing that under roof space right so so whether or not we finished the attic we would have that steeper pitched colonial style gable roof what we opted to do was make the most use of that by finishing that space you'll see it's called out as a recreation space a movie room with no window so that they can have the TV up there for viewing and then an unfinished atic space with that tray ceiling below so there'll be some Mechanicals utilities and storage and and it's no wor no worth noting pardon that the attic square footage contributes about 42% to F and why do I say that I say that because that 42% that 560 sare ft is tucked under the roof so in terms of massing and development on the lot it's kind of hidden behind that main roof line and it's more diminutive on the property so that's an overview of the Interior flow of the house I'll pivot to the exterior and I know there was a comment in one of the review memos from a planning perspective on the exterior ior aesthetic as it relates to the current design so as I mentioned we have a Cape Cod design existing with four bedrooms total we moved that up to five bedrooms we lifted the roof plate up to the second floor and we developed the second floor now this becomes a Center Hall Colonial aesthetic you've seen others in that immediate neighborhood and the greater area in in boundbrook in that R20 zone so I would say that um from a neighborhood compatibility perspective this is very comp compatible we kept the double hung window aesthetic from the existing Cape we kept the shutters from the existing Cape we even actually kept this skirt roof which would have been at a similar height to the existing Cape cod's gutter line in an attempt to keep the massing a little bit again more diminutive on the property by maintaining that roof line we break the scale of the house and you see the two stories and as I mentioned the attic is mainly behind this main Gable that you see and we have a couple front facing Gables again just for Aesthetics so that's the exterior I'll pivot to the garage and then I'll walk through the memos and then I'll be happy for questions so the garage was a bit of a a dance and a balance from a design and planning perspective on the property you'll note if you were to look back at the cover page that we shortened the length of the driveway this was so that we could stay under the impervious coverage but what that did is that brought the garage closer to the house and if you note on the cover page we have the garage at 20 feet from the dwelling uh we feel that this is appropriate enough for maneuvering in andout without risk of damage to the dwelling and safety concerns but with that said we needed it to be closer to the left property line for Ingress and egress into the garage so again this was a balance how far forward can I come to minimize impervious coverage while still maintaining access in and out of the two-car garage and the offset was to push it to the 10-ft mark next to the abing neighbor it is a two-car garage with two individual doors the design of the garage is designed to match the materials and the architectural language of the house we have a maximum height of 16 ft which we believe conforms and uh a couple other notes about the garage itself where it sits on the property as proposed would be well behind the left side neighbor's house so we're not proposing to build this structure directly adjacent to the neighbor's house and also if you look at um at least Google Maps and it exists in reality the two rear lots have detached garages that are closer than 20 ft to the setbacks so there is also a precedent that this would not be completely out of character with the existing development of those abing lots so that's my story with the garage the next Pages have some existing photos and some renderings that you've seen so I just want to attend to some of the comments in the memo if anyone wants to interject a question certainly feel free but I'll be wrapped up in another five okay so I I won't go into detail on each of these but in the in that review memo that was dated November 15th on page seven um walking down the items item one we spoke about the architectural style item two references the existing shed and if it could be moved it would be the applicant's strong preference and I'll flip back to the cover page it would be the applicant's strong preference to maintain that shed where it is because with the garage placed here the shed can't really move forward enough without contacting the garage and if it moves over more it starts to encroach on the usable yard it's already an undersized lot they have limited uh rear yard space and they're trying to keep that as open and contiguous as possible and it's also in a corner that abuts those existing detached garages on the rear properties and there's no development on this left property so again it would be the applicant's desire to maintain that shed as it is um the the uh testimony for the C variant will get to in summary testimony for D variance we'll also get to in summary that's item four item five I covered in direct testimony um item six I alluded to a bit but I I want to restate that with regard to the F variance the f is intended twofold right to control bulk on the site like how much much development is on the site in terms of bulk and massing and also intensity of use and density of development as I testify to it's a five-bedroom dwelling which is very appropriate for a 15,000 foot home and the design of this colonial house with the skirt roof brings down the feeling of the massing we're not proposing some Modern two and a half story straight walls no breaks no ins and outs of the facade what we feel we're proposing is uh aesthetically pleasing to offset that F uh noted on number seven as well and and yes we are within one squ foot of the 25% impervious and that is as I stated intentional we wanted to use everything we could without exceeding and requesting that variance on the uh engineering standpoint there will be one tree we do not have a tree survey but empirically through the applicant's telling it's roughly a 6-in caliper Maple oh it's on the survey so we have a 6in red maple there we go on the that one tree that's on the survey which if you don't have the survey handy it it's also on the cover page we have that one tree being removed we don't have to affect any of the other trees on the property with the development um item two notes that we would note that it's a uh minor development and we would add that note to the plan if this was seen favorably item three the applicant has uh lived in the the property for three years they have stated to me that they have not experienced any standing water or any water issues on their property it is a very flat lot and it AB buts a flat block of um lots and about um a couple hundred feet to the South there are storm inlets on the street as well so our understanding of the drainage is it sheet flows to Street and then sheet flows to the existing inlets and I will state that uh we are only increasing impervious by 7% so 7/10 of a percent so I would state that it's a negligible increase in impervious as it relates to additional surface flow and that would actually be my uh answer to item four while we are very open to the board engineer and any requirements or requests they have in terms of on-site storm water management we are open to that if that's a condition of approval we feel that at uh 7/10 perious coverage increase that would not be necessary now I I did speak to Mr Burr today and he would like you to stipulate that if the township engineer does have any issues with this that you're going to work with him he doesn't think there will be but if there is we we absolutely agree with that okay so you would stipulate to working with the township engineer on any any storm water management and also are the leaders being gathered and put to the street or they just being dumped at the base of the house they are currently designed to be dumped at the base of the house again that would be something that we would be open to discussion with that's just something you need to run past asked him just to get his okay and I I think he will be okay just something you want to run by yeah understood and we agree to that as a condition thank you and then um I my understanding is that there would be no utility Improvement you do not need an addition you don't need a gas line Improvement or a waterline Improvement as part of I'm looking at you um no I don't I don't think we so so on item five was a um about a Road opening permit and our understanding is that the utilities are sufficient for the current and proposed dwelling and that we would not need a Road opening permit if during construction for some reason it was discovered that something was undersized um I mean we would go through all the required permits but again from our observation and us being on site we do not observe that yes yeah how many amps to the house now I don't know if I have that handy do you know if you're 100 amp or 200 amp would you dig this speaker I'm sorry I said I I don't know if it's a 200 amp circuit or not but I know um once we if approve we will increase it to 200 amps and it's currently an overhead service and you would keep it an overhead service that is correct so we would not be trenching it's probably 100 amps now and you're going to go to 200 amps correct thank you you're welcome I have a question please you know on the chart that uh is in our report y it says the maximum improved lot coverage what is propose is one square foot less than what uh it would create beyond the 3750 agree one square foot is there some way you can reduce the driveway so that it's not just one square foot maybe like by 20 square ft or 25 Square ft so that you know um you during construction that one square foot could be gone and you will be uh again VI the the the requirements yeah understood I I mean I gather that we we would be open if that was a big sticking point for the board we would be open to that discussion I would say that we are conforming and we will be held to conforming when we do the proposed application um proposed development so we would prefer to keep it at the level that we're at just because we had to do they they took away from their existing patio size uh already and limited their their outdoor space so like a 6 in uh uh decrease on the top or somewhere somewhere on the side uh to to make it like you know 25 Square ft less than what is the maximum yeah as I said I we would prefer not to do that but if that becomes a major sticking point for the board we are of course open to to some modification and then the second question is for the applicant you know your house is going to be double more than double the present size right so uh are you planning for some um additional family members to join you or something yes uh my wife and I have been married for close to two years now and we're planning to um increase our family and we want to make sure we have the adequate space and a safe space in order to um have that for the the kids okay okay oh no no in-laws plan to to move with us I mean my my wife originally is from France so her mother in um her mother does come visit us uh quite often because that's the only relative I mean she doesn't have much relative here um but no one plans to live with us but we do plan on on growing our family in the near future question um where can I see the garage in relationship to the house which drawing that would be best seen on V1 the cover page V1 yep and on the bottom drawing labeled drawing two proposed plot plan there's a block it's got a small label but that small label says new proposed detached garage so it's that block with that left diagonal crosshatch and then if you look closely you'll actually see a dimension tick there with a little Arc line and that says the proposed 20 ft from garage to dwelling um I must be blind I can't see I I could walk over there I don't know if you look that that this block on that that bottom drawing is the garage block your hands this is the garage no that's that's the shed this is the garage okay so it's almost attached to the house or no it's it's 20 it's 20 feet away so we have required step back distances and then we were just again best practice so that cars could maneuver safely all right are you going to have a covered walkway anything to no there's no intent to connect the two thank you very much you're welcome question uh the one thing that caught my attention in your application is the floor area ratio and you did address that once or twice and spoke to how from an architectural perspective you've tried to minimize the massing effect of what you're proposing to do um spoke to me about how the proposed structure fits in with the neighborhood so there's been some other applications before the board and I absolutely know that every application stands on its own Merit so I'm not using it as a point of reference for that but there's been applications before the board for other development similar to this in terms of raising because that the old texture of that neighborhood is definitely a lot of one and a half story capes but there are um signs of development and some redeveloped properties around there that are moving towards the 2 and a half story Colonial and again there's been other applications approved that have a similar aesthetic and so my long answer to that is that this fits in with the current landscape because there's enough variety of dwelling types in the immediate say three blocks in each direction that this this will not stand out as the only two and a half story type home and and and again my argument that I'll restate is that the you wouldn't drive by this on this lot and feel that this must have had an F variance because four and a half% of that f is within the attic space itself not across the first two floors um I'm concerned a bit also about the massing impact on the home that's directly behind this home and when I drove by I thought I saw a picket fence along the rear property line is is that right is there a fence F back there uh yes there is a fence that separates our property and the property behind and it's a picket fence right so it's about 6 ft High I'm guessing is that about right I I don't think it's six feet high because um when they were cutting the tree I stood over and spoke to my neighbor so and I'm only 5' 8 inches okay so it wasn't any taller than you no uh no it's May if it's taller than me maybe by an inch or two but I don't think it's six Fe is there anything else back there in terms of shrubbery for example that would act as a buffer between your proposed home and the home behind you uh no there's only a tree uh that is at the border of our property and the property behind so there is a tree yes there is a tree okay and I'll just also respond to that which is it's a great question fortunately while a 50- foot rear yard setback is required we're upwards of 72 ft so we we do also have that extra buffer and now with our development maxed out we couldn't push any to them without revisiting the board thank you is there anything you could do I think Mr Sweeny raises a pretty valid point here in terms of vegetative buffer you're you are taking one tree out and I was asked by a council member to go back and pull all of our cases for 2024 and come up with a gross tree loss tree gain and we've done a really good job as a board we're we're a net positive and you you're going to put me into an an an dangerous singled digit area I I'd like you to plant some trees to to create that vegetative buffer I guess is my long-winded way saying this sure I'm happy to plant some trees and it's also my wife and I plan on keeping the small red maple because we actually like it so we plan if we can move it to the front yard that's what we were planning oh you're going to transplant it yeah we were trying if we can that's your testimony was wrong I was unaware of that um yeah but yeah I mean we're removing it in order to accommodate the um the addition but we would if we can move it to the front yard would you want to commit to any other plantings on the property yes we can uh as needed by by the board I mean the area Mr Sweeney just mentioned back we certainly can do that yes great thank you you're welcome right it's a that's a very fair statement and and to your point we would accommodate that within the approved coverage oh appreciate that okay so yeah so there's other so so the tapes themselves in this neighborhood would generally be a 9 on 12 to a 12 on 12 because they need that pitch to have the space of because most of them have two rooms in it so that we opted for a 12 on 12 which is probably the steepest I would go for a colonial past that you start pressing into tutor and some other lines but it's still within the range of again a 9 on 12 to a 12 on 12 and the the pitch of it itself would be pretty imperceptible the difference between a 9 on 12 and a 12 on 12 would be pretty imperceptible from the street if that answers it but it it's in the range of what you would see in that neighborhood yeah correct and that yeah what the current house is is a cape to and that I don't have the pitch of the cape I don't think I might have it on the elevations but I know it would be between that 9 and 12 because that's the only way to get living space under it I I I agree and I think if you if we look at um this is a relatively indicative view on sheet v11 that 3D when you look at it from ground level you don't perceive it the same when you're looking at those flat elevations that I presented to you it looks quite tall I agree with you but in perspective from the street it's going to taper away just like the capes and everything the pitch gives it more space and the pitch allows for the the you know aesthetically pleasing pitch of these front facing Gables if I go too shallow then these start to get shallower facing the street and the whole aesthetic of a colonial kind of falls apart bedroom where in the no no no no no no no no bedrooms in the Attic that egress window is most likely going to be on the side where the master bedroom um it's going to be um unfinished attic space no we do not have a basement yeah that was correct I should have stated that earlier yeah it's a slab on grade existing slab on grade so they don't have the the basement space so We're translating some of that space into the attic question professionals thank you the board has asked a lot of the good questions that I would like to have asked but um I appreciate the insightful insightful questions on the and the testimony by the applicant um I think a good point was made and I raised that one square foot uh under the C the 25% allowance I do not disagree that it is it is conforming in respect to that but I think as this board has highlighted if there is even um a field change for construction or the addition of a generator pad or an AC pad you might want to um be a little bit lower to make room for that a generator pad or AC pad is usually about 30 square feet Max so um they aren't on the plans and they probably should be shown on the plans because I assume that they're going to have probably um central air I think there there might be some room um maybe in the patio or other places where it can get shaved off but I also um I I brought up the it kind of works in tandem the shed um is is non-conforming but I wanted to ask the applicant and when they're done um I can ask if the if the garage has any additional space for storage that could take the place of the shed the proposed garage has additional room for storage of things that would normally go in a shed is there any room kind of built into that garage yeah I mean we would love to to keep the shed um because if we have like lawnmowers and things of that nature we would store it in there um the garage would you be used for the vehicles um and also potentially kids bikes and kids toys and things of that nature okay um I do see wiggle room there if the shed is is you know something that could be up for grabs to take to to to lose some of the impervious coverage of there is wiggle room for other things it's about 85 square feet so um that's just a consideration that the applicant might want to have like I said they are conforming in the respect of the impervious coverage but I think that that might give them um some potential wiggle room for future um additions you guys hear what's what's happening here right if you have any kind of problems you're going to have to come back for a d variant okay as long as you hear it all right yeah and my sidebar with the applicant was to see we have a little tail that we added of the driveway to the side of the garage and in discussing with the applicant the intent is for them to to be able to pass to the house there so if they pull the cars in or Park here they'll have somewhere to walk that's not on the grass so my suggestion to the applicant was oh can we push this in their response was we would really prefer to maintain that so that we have a pathway to the house so I'm we're listening to the feedback and seeing if there's somewhere to lose square footage is what I'm saying shed does sound like the easiest place to lose it and it buys you a lot of breathing room and they make smaller sheds too yes and more I mean I is that a wood is that a wood shed um yeah I mean the the thing is if we I mean I don't think my wife and I would be opposed to to moving the shed but the fact that it is non-conforming if we were to move it then it would have to be conforming um and then it would mess up the function the function um functional ability and the usability of our yard um it's your application and so so that's that's the reason I mean if if if the board would allow us to keep put a smaller shed there um I think we would be okay with that but if we have to remove the shed completely and then you know this is something that we can address during deliberations if it is an issue with the board and we can we can open the discussions back these were just suggestions I just wanted to more hear from the applicant because I I agree with you 100% I want to make sure you guys address it and you hear it and the disclaimer has been aired and you guys know where we're at I I appreciate it thank you um as far as the um f I've outlined what what the calculations are and what is is proposed what's allowed and what the variance looks like I think we've heard a little bit about um from the architect in particular about how the building's been designed um how the that helps with massing from an F perspective I think um the the PO point that I brought up about the garage is that F does not include utility spaces or garage spaces and so it is a separate building um but it doesn't contribute technically to that calculation so let's say if you included it it would be even higher the other thing to note is that um this is an undersized lot I don't know if I provided that um that calculation difference but if it was a 15 a 20,000 foot lot they' be about 185 square feet over so just keeping in the context of if this was a conforming lot what the f calculation would look like when it's 0. 23 um it would be it would be about 185 square feet over versus the almost 1350 over right now um as mentioned by chairman fous um Mr Burr is not here tonight but I think that he would uh as we did in past applications when he's not present to include um something in in the resolution if this is approved about him having um the ability to um include any kind of storm water management um mitigation if it's so determined at the level of um engineering between the the applicant and him um other than that I don't I don't have many other comments um as you can see um from my memo there are there are some pre-existing non-conformities there are some bulk variances there are some Dev variances so there's a lot going on um and I think um as long as the applicant is willing to work with the board and some of the kind of commentary that we've had back and forth uh like the plantings like maybe the a smaller shed like making some wiggle room for um other things in the future um that is something that the board should consider as it deliberates thank you thank you all right there's nothing further from the board I'm open I Je I have a question please Mr cat um I have a question about the location of the garage in relation to the main building it seems like the alignment is odd to me like if you were looking at the garage from the uh Front Street that you would see like half of a garage door of um I'd say the left garage door is that right like the rest of it would be blocked by the house yeah yes and no yes you are correct if you were standing straight on facing the house you would see a full garage Bay and the half of the right garage Bay you don't often experience anything statically so that that was part of the reason for showing the the bottom left rendering on v11 shows you the experience of as you would drive down the street you'd see the garage in full and then it would disappear past the house did you consider like a side entry uh where the do is facing the side of the lot we that's a great question and and pushing the garage maybe closer toward the center of the lot yeah we thought about that the two offsets to that is number one it really would kill usable space on the yard which is not ideal and but more importantly to do that we would add another 500 square foot of impervious to achieve the side entry pavement because you to maneuver in and out from side entry because of the K turns you need a good 30 feet of of pavement before you enter the garage this is extremely um efficient use of pavement so again not ideal but I I did mention in the beginning that we we really played with permutations of garage location try to find the best compromise okay thank you you're welcome all right there's nothing further I'm going to open up to members of the public that would like to ask questions on anything they've heard thus far in this application all right see none uh back to you if you want to wrap up yeah the only other thing I'll say that I didn't say would be that um just regarding the front yard setback specifically I just wanted to put it on record that it's a 34 SQ foot open porch That's encroaching on the front yard setback it's just at the first story height so it has a really minimal impact on the neighborhood and I will also point out that the two homes to the left and the right the entire principal dwelling sits in front of our principal dwelling so while we are non-conforming our neighbors are actually even less conforming than we are with regard to front yard and I'll leave it at that all right thank you thank you all right again I'm going to open it up to members of the public that would like to speak for or against this application all right seeing none uh Rich could you take us through any stipulation and any other matters before we deliberate so there were a few things we discussed as conditions one well more of a stipulation with respect to working with the engineer in the event he felt that there was some additional storm water to address that you would do that you'll provide a new Landscaping plan uh along the rear property line right to create a buffer from your rear neighbor it'll provide an as built calculation of the improved lock coverage to confirm that you did not exceed the permitted amount and on that landscape plan you're going to show the red maple this with the six in trunk we're going to move that to the front of the house all right yes for the record how tall is the the tree we've been talking about for about 40 minutes now the what I'm sorry how tall is this tree that we've been talking for about 40 minutes now about it's it's not very tall okay so probably easy to okay just curious it's a it's a small it's a smaller tree we're going to open up the liberations um and if we also you know talk about the shed and uh you know if you feel it should be a smaller shed or no shed or movement of the shed you can let us know and open it up with you Mr Wy um actually I was this morning I drove past the property I'm famili with the area I'm down there almost every day for something um one thing that caught me was um if you drive down your street on your side of the road most of the houses are all about the same like I said you someone has a front deck or something like that but then when I turned around the driveway next to you and then parked in front for a minute just to get a view of the back and the shed and all that uh I noticed across the street someone had expanded their house and one is under construction on the corner I believe so then I came back and then I was driving out back to Mountain Avenue and there's like you said there's several other ones that have done a similar type of construction I guess over the last few years and I came back looked at the plans I said let me do it while it's fresh in mind so I had it looked at it so my vision was that it's going to be a similar type of expansion to what the other people have done which is probably correct um as far far as the shed I really I'd like it smaller it's not going to affect my decision it really won't um so basically um for the application I'm glad you want to stay here expand your family do everything and all that it's a nice neighborhood so I'm in favor of it and it it'll fit nicely in the neighborhood with what other people are doing too thank you Mr CA let's start down to you sure um you know as I mentioned before the alignment it it does bother me a little I I just I I understand why due to the impervious coverage trying to mitigate that um aside from that I have no other reasons to not support it so I would support it thank you Mr bessia uh looking at the area and comparing U the plans that are proposed to this board here I do feel that it would would be um appears to be the largest structure you would have on uh orthon Avenue height-wise um we've had other cases in front of this board um in your neighborhood with 15 15,000 foot lots that were non-conforming uh and one of the reasons I've used to um you know prove in behind those applications was that you know if you look at that square footage of lot and if you kind of looked at 20 square foot and what that would give you in terms of uh square footage they were generally all under that and this application is about 200 little under 200 squ F feet more um in the current stand I I would not uh be for the application I think there some very easy things but I I think my line here would be that um it would not exceed the 3200 square ft uh in in in size right thank you Mr Sweeny um as I noted earlier my my primary concern was the floor area ratio and I appreciate the comments that the applicant through the architect has made about how they've tried to minimize at least the appearance of that massing um I also took a look as others have mentioned at what the square footage relative to a 20,000 square foot lot would be and it turns out to be .1 169 as opposed to the .16 that's allowed I don't look at that as a big problem uh I also drove around the neighborhood and it's clearly a neighborhood in transition there are some newer big homes going up in fact I think there was one at the corner of Hawthorne and Shephard which looked like it still had the stickers on the new windows and it's a big house and I suspect it's comparable and size to what's being proposed here so it's a neighborhood in transition you're going to see big homes popping up where used to where the neighborhood used to be dominated by small homes I think overall the neighborhood would benefit from this work and I'm in favor of the application thank you Mr Sweeney Mrs amen the uh applicant is uh expanding the house making it bigger to accommodate his family members and all that and uh my only concern was about the uh driveway being too close to the improved coverage law so if that can be addressed and uh taken care of along with the other comments I'm in favor of uh approving thank you you know it's um it's 15,000 squ ft it's it's a tight lot I went back and I looked at previous applications of your neighbors we heard a house on Shephard uh we've heard a house on Park and I think we've heard a house on your street and they're all very similar there's really nothing here that's fundamentally different than what we've seen in other applications the shed I I think you would be wise to just maybe punt on it but it's not going to affect my vote um when you come down and you look at the positive criteria for a D4 can the site accommodate the problems associated with a greater than maximum F permitted by the zoning and I do think that is definitely possible I think you have a very skilled architect and I think he's taken great pains to to maximize um the floor plan without you know basically going over other impervious uh limits um I certainly don't think there's any detriment to the public good here if anything there's a positive benefit to the Improvement in your neighborhood um and I certainly don't think there's any substantial impairment to the intent or purpose of our our master plan so I i' I'd be in favor and that the shed I think is something that you know you're going to hear the rest of the board deliberate with um it sounds like we already have one member that's kind of on the fence and you you may want to you know chime in here but um I'm in favor overall Mr bonjour now um I I am thankful that uh as you had stated that you try to stay within the requirements for this particular Zone um because you are the first applicant that I have seen that has done that and I appreciate that um I think again it's a very small lot um you want to grow your family this is the only way to do it um I'm in favor of the applicant and uh good luck Mr gaski yeah I I would agree everything the board members are saying I think the lack of a basement too is something you really have to take into consideration a lot of us basements have a lot more space right so it contributes to a lot of that far as a shed in the back um um I I don't think it's a a big it's a deal breaker for myself either I would warn you particularly since you're talking about having children that when you don't see something in the back and doors are left open animals move in right so be careful um other than that uh I I think it it will add and enhance the neighborhood and I I hope you're building a house that you want to live next to and you're there for a while thank good l i too would agree with most most of the comments that the board has made as I've driven around the neighborhood I saw a lot of the improvements that were cited I saw similar examples of garages where they were not fully visible but they were large garages I think 840 has one as well and as everyone has said this is a neighborhood in transition you're improving not only the look but the usability of the homes I think it's going to be a great addition and I similar similarly would approve this it yeah so uh we mentioned earlier that you're real close on the one limit uh the impervious coverage but uh I will caution again things happen but assuming that things don't happen I don't see any detriment to the community as a couple people have said it sounds like it'd be a nice Improvement to the neighborhood so I would be in favor all right you've heard our deliberations and yeah may like you have a comment I do um so we take the impervious coverage in the shed commentary to heart in a quick um quickly conferring with the applicant what I would like to suggest is that we knock the shed to a 6x8 which would be a 48 foot shed instead of the roughly 80 squ foot what would be extremely ideal is if it could be in the same location but downsized so then we accomplish two things we minimize the size of the shed and we also create the buffer of impervious which is well noted so now we would be about 40 sare feet below the impervious threshold to give not to add back anywhere to give a buffer that that's what we would like to um associate with any approval that you find okay based on the additional testimony is anyone have any further comment to add to the deliberations would it be separate detached from that or is it possible to so so what I'm proposing is we have the shed here now yeah would pin the the closest inward corner and locate the 6 by8 shed there so would be improving the setbacks nominally but the bigger Improvement would be on the coverage so I have a question yeah please so what would the rear yard setback be and the side yard setback be at that point did you have it dimensioned here at 7.04 yeah what I'm not clear on right at the very moment is the exact dimensions of the shed otherwise I could do the math for you but I unless well are you working off that point that's 7.04 no I was actually suggesting working off the inner corner and then going the 6 by8 and so then we would actually we'd have an improvement of roughly two feet in each direction again I do not have that exact figure but it would be an improvement we could furnish that okay so so then it would be better than what we're looking at okay all right so if the board's okay with that as the definition that it would be improving this situation from the setbacks okay yep right okay Bas on additional comments do the board have have a motion I move Mr widley with the change with the change second Mr bonjourno in the second yeah take time yeah we're just looking at yeah so they may actually then comply with the sidey yard right yeah if at 10 ft we can agree to comply with the set you can hold a 10 foot side we would we would reposition the new shed at 10 foot from both property lines we just write the resolution to reflect that but not thank that's helpful but not the rear yard the rear yard you're still going to hold around seven we no no I'm I'm saying because of the reduction in the size of the shed we would be able to accommodate 10 foot from rear and 10 foot from side from both okay so then it's conforming right okay perfect great yep we have a motion we have a second get a roll call can I just tell me who made the motion uh that was Mr widley and the second was Mr bonjour chairman yes Mr Wadley yes M A Mrs Aman yes yes Mr Sweeney yes Mr Fresco sorry Mr bjo yes Mr G yes Mr yes all right best of luck to you Happy Thanksgiving thank you Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for your time all right we are done with our cases for tonight um our next meeting is scheduled Nancy December 10th and I believe we have a solar case and a residential case yes we have have the property solar landscape all right tennis Sante Lane solar Landscapes 3 to five Fern all right if there's no other board business we'll see you December 10th 7 p.m. could I have a motion to adjourn Please Mr bouro thank you everyone Happy Thanksgiving is that mine or yours this is my packet you're welcome to it no no no I have nice and what you want it's all yours