##VIDEO ID:bDSvb8PNTwY## all right we're going to start this is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board reorganization in January of this year the board adopted its regular meeting scheduled for the year notice the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 28th 2024 and the two River times on February 1st 2024 that notice is also posted on the bulletin board in burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file with the office of the B Club copy of the notice is also been sent to such members of the public as are requested such information according to the statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minutes of this meeting before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight I'd like to say a few words to the applicants or experts in the audience about the role and authority of the praven zoning Board of adjustment the board is a separate indendent Municipal legal entity and its limited Authority specifically set forth in the B ordinances and the New Jersey municipal landuse law this qual out judicial nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and councel the zoning board does not enact the B land use laws and regulations the B Council says that zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the B Fair Haven this is the responsibility of the B code enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the bur lands laws for denials by the zoning officer an applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required with New Jersey mun anus law and the pr ordinances by satisfying certain required for stand proof the board has no authority to wave these requirements the burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to the specifically requested the applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations must Advance the purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to the G thing variances relate to the future use of land and are not intended or authorized to Temporary or unique personal situations R fall sh here here here here here here Mr please uned States One Nation God indivisible okay um as we communicated with B Bry before we came on air we're going to swap the Nelson and the Ryan application before we do that why don't we make a statement with regard to the forward application yes there is there has been a request to bury the Ford known as the the goodies application for 23 Fair Haven Road Block 47 lot two that's in the R20 Zone Mr vanar has requested that it be carried through December 5th through our December 5th meeting with out rening so that matter will not be proceeding this evening Mr vanar also advise if we would provide us with the writing waving this does anyone have any concerns with the postponement by two months and no um Reen notice is anyone here for the uh Ford application just a question which application is is being postponed uh Ford goodies 23 far Haven Road is that that where the House burn down no no seeing that nobody's here I don't have an issue with not read I agree with you anyone else have a problem with I do not do I get a motion I make a motion Tove for 15 Carri to December 15 subject to the stipulation of extension no obligation no obligation is December 15 or December 5 December 5 I'm sorry second okay we got a motion I got I'll second it uh Mr yes yes Mr Bridgeway yes Mr Ryan yes Mr yes yes yes very good oh well I don't know if you got get to me sorry sorry yeah sorry that does become a pattern with some certain questions again huh hope that doesn't become a pattern with certain professionals again okay um all right so we're good on that so we're moving on to the Ryan application yeah sure you want to cover a couple things let me cover a couple things we this is an application that previously been same property had previously been approved the underlying application relied heavily upon uh making certain modifications to the existing dwelling um we were apprised at some later date that they could not use the underlying dwelling by way of covering the record this was a matter that had been approved in December of 2023 December 7th was memorialized on January 4th 2024 there was a minor revision to the memorialization which resulted in a revised memorialization on June 6 2024 this application is now proceeding as an amendment to the original approval so we're not going to be marking a bunch of exhibs except to the and we're going to be incorporating down the line by reference the original resolution into the final resolution and with that said as it being an amendment we your permission Bry I want to Mark well we have jurisdiction yes okay uh Mark exhibit a13 as a revised application it's carrying forward from the last exhibit that we had marked fin resolution exhibit 14 statement of legal basis for granting will sought exhibit 15 A5 revised signed and sealed architectural plans as of September 20 2024 and exibit zb4 which is the October 7 2024 CME engineering letter the signature Mr um any objection to proing that none n Mr go before you start Mr Roski you're going to recuse yourself all right Mr U before you start I want to put on the record that um the uh matter at 9917 River Road um has been something that the bureau has been working on there was a lot of urgency to the situation and while the board has a completely full agenda I want to note for the record that the board um has accommodated the applicant by agreeing to see the applicant this evening on an abbreviated schedule um because we are certainly mindful of the situation and we wanted to be sure that whatever the board could do um to try to move this along uh the board would do and so that's why we're here tonight if I could if I anybody that's going to be testified may ask you to stand think you may be testified ra your right hand you shall spr the testimony get before the the truth I hope nothing about the truth I do yes before you start testifying please State your names telling your last name for Pur thank you Mr thank you thank you Mr chair members of the board uh uh Rick BR on be the applicants Dennis and Stella Ryan uh and indeed as as the chair indicated um Mr Ryan is very appreciative of the board uh adjusting its schedule to get him back in here um as soon as possible given given the circumstances and so I want to just talk about a little bit about the prior approval just real brief just to sort of give us give us a little bit of context of of where we were and then kind of give a little discuss little description of of how we got to to where we are now and why we're back the board will probably recall um I think you were all here I think the board will recall that the property 9917 River Road uh received uh unanimous approval from the board uh back back in December of last year the property 917 River Road is a significantly undersized lot right for the R20 Zone um uh the lot size is about 5132 square feet so as a result heard a lot of testimony last time about a you know a a a number of existing non-conformities with respect to a lot um uh like lot size lot width all of those the all of the existing non-conformities when you're talking about a a a 5100t lot in a in a in a R20 Zone um not withstanding that you heard testimony uh from Mr candoris with regard to the design of the of the proposed addition to the home his testimony in a nutshell was that there was going to be um uh a small 59t addition to the first floor and then a twostory addition to the rear of the home um there's a lot of testimony given with respect to uh maintaining the uh location and look of the front of the home which was proposed to remain so as to maintain the continuity of the uh the streetcape uh as well as the the subject property um uh Mr candoris I thought and I think the board had agreed did a great job in in in coming up with uh the proposed renovation which at the end of the day resulted in about a 700 and change square foot addition to the existing home and the resulting home at the end of the day uh was to be a three-bedroom home um uh and the resulting uh square footage uh of the existing home uh Mr candoris uh will will go through all of that uh about a 3411 square foot home properties on the water um there's a great deal of work that went into uh all of the plans um uh there were very few new variances created um any uh in in conjunction I think there were a couple of new variances that were created in conjunction with the addition again all of which dri all of which were driven by the undersized nature of the law significant undersized nature of the law you heard sub uh you heard uh and and and Tony will walk the board through just a reminder of of the proposed plan what happened since then uh approval was granted uh every everything was wonderful um instruction start went to to begin and it was determined that um the structure that existed and that was proposed to be maintained and added to and renovated was not salvageable um it's an old home 1920 something something home um but it was not known at the time that that was that that was the case um Municipal officials came out uh Nick Pinsky and Nick Fabiano Fabiano came out looked at it and said hey you can't save any of this this is this is not uh this is a code issue this is a safety issue Etc so everything was stopped um uh and so that's how we end up before you this evening because obviously the variances that were granted last time were based on the on the uh on a renovation and addition to the property which was the intention uh the entire time now we're faced with the with the burden of um not being able to maintain that structure not being able to add to it not being able to renovate it rather having to demo it and build a new home um what the T testimony will be from from Mr Pandoras and what I'm telling you is that um at the end of the day what's what is before you this evening as part of this amended application is a home that is exactly what was proposed and what sorry what was approved previously both with respect to um the addition but also you'll hear from Mr candoris that the portion of the home that was to be uh retained which was essentially the front portion of the home is going to be mimicked both with respect to style design size and location so that truly at the end of the day what would result there were we to get an approval this evening what would result would be exactly the same as what was previously approved by this board both as same variances same location same architecture same setbacks same street same street with same street stap so that's the difficult position we we find ourselves in um now you'll recall you'll recall uh that this is a home that the Ryan are looking to build for themselves for you know to retire into they have kids and grandkids in the area um that's why they bought this lot this is not a situation of a you know developer or someone looking to flip the property and so indeed it's been a long arduous Road TR coming up with various plans to try and overcome the burdens associated with this LW not only is it on theze it's t water and there and all of the uh ramifications that go along with that so I I think that um that kind of explains the Dilemma that we're in and and how we got here um and so what I'd like to do unless the board has any questions is um I'll have Mr kores just walk the board through again um but the home both both with respect to its look and its and its size and all of the details just to confirm for the record that indeed nothing has changed and when when I say nothing has changed I mean literally nothing has changed right Mr pandor is from a from an architectural plan perspective Tony simply you know as a practical matter changed the date and remov notes from the plan saying this is a ren ation in addition to it referencing that it's a new construction so everything you see here is exactly what you saw when you approved the application um back in back in F exactly the same am I am I am I repeating myself I'm sorry so if we could have Tony you've been sworn in yes if you could uh just uh first question is is the home exactly the same as it was yeah I got I got I got Anthony curas c n d r i so yes previously accept Mr canduras as an expert section um yeah so just to back up a little bit so um what Mr bosi said is uh is very true we um the whole concept behind this project was to try to maintain that street skatee but I pass it every day wouldn't want to see something that doesn't fit in there so that's that was the whole reason we tried to keep the we we originally we were going to do a new house but we decided let's do a renovation let's keep the front we'll work in the back and it'll it'll basically be what you see now except what's in the back so um that was the original concept um one might ask why didn't we know this was going to happen back then and the answer to that is there was there was somebody living there there was furniture There was sheetrock we couldn't go in there and just ripping the walls down so unfortunately and you know we've done old houses before and and we can work with them this one there were so many things done to this house that were not good you know Joys were cut things were rotting just the list goes on so once we saw that um it was determined that there was really nothing was Sav so um what we're trying to tell you now is that it's going to be the exact same house exact same size exact same height um but with all new materials new walls insulation everything's to code everything all the uh Energy Efficiency will be to today's standards fire codes so uh it's it's really going to be a much better project that now that we hopefully will have the opportunity to replace everything and the dryw that was that was agreed to last time that still be there yes and and and just with respect to the front of the home I mean basically you're talking about rebuilding it and and copying the look of what copy exactly uh you know when we do the construction plans it's going to be the same dimensions same window sizes Mr curas are you are you keeping the foundation no no it's that's we could try but it's really not worth it at this point because we have to do a lot of things for the flood for the flood uh flood regulations so we wouldn't be able to save much of it anyway at this point so and is is the height of the basement or the Celler going to be the same it'll be exactly the same yes what is the first floor elevation uh do you comply did you comply with the for first floor elevation we did it's um I believe it's 17 see oh 19.25 excuse Mr Rizo yes so my specific question relates to whether or not the proposed home the the original plans were working from an existing structure which didn't trigger the first floor elevation require so the the accommodation would have been to leave it just the way it was um what is the first FL elevation relative to existing grade and does it comply with the requirements I believe this was deed complete ree ordinance change it was well because it was a renovation the requirement to meet the first floor elevation restrictions that we have in place now is limited because they they wouldn't need to tear the house down to comply but they'll now be starting from scratch and so this house is exposed on the rear side and so have we done the math and do we know where we are relative to the new re um it looks like the average existing grade would be uh 14.5 with a finished floor elevation of 19.25 so it would exceed it it would be 4.75 ft so do we have a topo of the property we do so what are we seeing from River Road how many steps up into the half two steps and is that maintained across the entire um front elevation cor both front Corners are 17.5 so that's even both back Corners are 11.5 all right so 175 and you said 195 for the first floor elevation so you're okay everybody follow where I'm going with this so the the deviation is in the rear it relates to topography and it's because the basement is exposed to the river and there's a garage on the house right yes the back um I I what assuming that this predes tonight um there going be a lot of eyeballs on this house um the elevation of the first Flor will be something that will be very closely monitored so I simply want to amplify um that it is critical um that statements that have been made with regard to an exact replica of what was their before we'll be closely mon um okay Mr chair can I just point out um with the original application it was considered a basement so that did count as a half story at the time it did count as floor area on the bottom elevation minus the garage yeah so we talked about it was the final uh finished interior space 3400 what's the actual number 3411 30 and how much of that is on that in that base 73 736 okay very significant um so you're effectively you got cornered with the basement ordinance that counted the 34 um it less the less the basement spaces how much how much did you say it's 2000 number it's 2675 okay just point out that the original application had five um existing conditions um that didn't comply generally related to lot area Frontage width depth things that were in changing hold on hold on Crees nonconformities are those all relative to the lot well yeah that's what I'm getting to so these were related to the the LW things five nonconformities on the lot itself corre there were 11 variances granted and then there is one existing non-conformity so I guess there was six total but this one was related to the sidey yard setback for an existing uh portion of the house that was existing to remain that was a 5.6 foot setback on the east side yeah so given that it would be a new construction that would trigger a new variance because we cited it as a prising non-conformity because they were not exacerbating that wall correct yeah were you done mror um if nobody has any questions I just so just the fire not using any existing Foundation whatsoever no unfortunately so so based on that is there any opportunities to improve on some of the variances that were granted previously since you do more or less have slate here and I realized looking at the the buildable footprint there it's impossible to build on this this lot form I understand going get is issued lot of opportuni to improve and I I realize that you don't want to rip up the plans you know well very well done it's a beautiful home but is there opportunities to improve on some of the baranes well we we would have to of course we could we could do something U we' have to redesign it but um that's the answer that's fine wanted to kind of what what I suggest this why don't you actually show us where the variances are um so that we can actually see what was being accommodated so that we can actually confirm the magnitude and just how it feels please as to whether or not this opportunity to make changes to bring it into is something that we should consider Su and Mr Condor I think the context of what the building on is is important as well right the size of the building uh you mean the the square footage of the building footprint if you were to build a fully conforming house oh I see what you mean yeah I think that just kind of adds on to the previous questions right well yeah if you look at the uh site plan here you can see this dash line in the middle of the site that would be a perform house it's a sort of a trapezoidal shap so that's how it ends bual looking at a lot width of what 60 62 feet or 62.9 right yes so that's sort of driving the the setback so this is this is R20 so R20 assumes you have 20,000 square feet yes and you have roughly 25% of them correct okay and so when you say that you're showing the the uh building envelope a conforming building envelope what's what are the dimensions of that envelope I scalat I got here it's not a perfect square but it's it's roughly 23 by 27 okay so so we can stipulate that you're not building a house on this Law Without variances right without a doubt Agreed 100% yeah but that doesn't necessarily answer the question as to whether or not there are opportunities here given where we are to evaluate the 11 variances that were granted and at least quickly stick through them and make sure that nothing feels like boy wish that wasn't there we accommodated it um you know so we're not setting death last time we were using structure of course yeah I ask one question before we go down that path are there other things that are coming up in addition to the foundation um like patios or driveways or other everything coming up no we're gonna tryy to maintain the brick uh the brick papers in the front and because there's actually curb Cuts there and so and then the driveway will remain where it is okay so those are staying in place but the the foundation and anything behind the house also coming up for the most part yeah there really isn't anything in the back that could be saved so Tony if you so I guess what the question is going to be so we we look at this the setbacks right those variances now we also had rear setback let's take a look at that um which actually which actually the rear setback um that was granted was 30.5 ft where 30 is required right right that goes to the to the to the bottom of stairs in the back yeah okay the other variants we had was with respect I'm sorry slow down so again so we have the ability to put this anywhere sub to DDP and other things your rear yard setback is what proposed comp BL oh okay I'm sorry we don't yeah um another variance we had Tony was with respect to um just the AC units right the side that back we seven andt 10 is that is what it is but so you've got you've got two side yards on one side you've got your driveway on the other side you've got a small set back to the East and that's where you put the hbac units yes yeah that's right now um so is that the best place to put the hbac units given now that you put them anywhere is there anywhere you can put them that's conforming it isn't in the front of the house could kick them further to the say North the river further um I don't see why we couldn't do that there's a lot angles out that way it would improve the setback if we did that there's no reason why I don't think you'd have to move them that far back any just to pick up that two feet sure you can do that remove that variant uh what is it I don't required they're at 7.5 yeah I mean I don't hit 10 ft exactly but we can bring it as far back as we can and build yeah so just just to be clear the question's been asked is to whether or not it can be moved in order to eliminate the variant Sal the response that you've given is that it can be moved towards the river where the lot is wider and that you may be able to uh minimize the variance but maybe not entirely obviate your need Bo that that's correct okay but I we would we would definitely move them back okay and so you are proposing then to move them back to the uh northeast corner of the building and then run them forward from that so you would take a space set back from the house per code and put them as close as you could I mean I can try to give you some sort of number you want I think it's close I think the second one the one that's rear is almost I don't know I'm just eyeballing more compliant you looking at 7 and a half is from the front corner of the front right like the narrowest point I'll bet you that second one the one behind it becom FL but that's just fine but but but the point but but the point is we don't want to put you in a position where you find you can't do you've got you've got a a construction code issue with regard to how far those units need to be from the structure itself um and you've got a dimension of those units themselves the compressors are a size and as long as you pin them to the uh water side whatever that rear um rear elevation is and then run them toward Grier Road there's they got to be in a certain spot whether it whether it pinches and requires a minimal variance or not I think if we could agree on the location and again I just want to make sure we're not we're asking the answer is yes I'm assuming at $ zll it could just be pushed back starting over yeah 100% okay and remember there's a side and a rear setback that right right and we would we would comply with the rear yeah the house complies as long as you P it to the rear you right right other variance uh was with respect to lot coverage right lot coverage what's permitted uh in this in the in this zone is 35 the the home the existing home was at 78 and a half and what the plan what we're at that was approved previously was 70.7 it was a reduction yeah right we removed some patios and things in the rear to be able to achieve that and that what's happening your respective new construction or it works either way that's the standards are Rel because the standard doesn't make any sense giv start a lot corre um what are you leaving in place you need the driveways we didn't talk about adjusting the driveways the um imperious in the front is the impervious in the front you got two curb Cuts here uh I think it's three technically there's like two driveways in the front right yeah there's the driveway itself and two brick C very dangerous to get in and out of River Road from there we didn't talk about it last time there's no need to bring it back up again now what about what exists in the rear um you're not proposing any changes to what you did last time no and there's nothing about doing new construction which would facilitate removing more there's no natural okay right yeah we're far enough away from those pvers to be able to should be able to work around what's the next well uh F right right f is um 665 I I think you can skip it okay a lot uh the maximum we comply with building coverage um we're at 27.5 we're at 30 35.4 I have 27 7.5 oh sorry yeah height we're good height um height comply height complied yes so I guess the one thing is that's not 11 I I think five or six pre-existing lot non-conformities and then the front yard setb um side yard set back combined side yard set back so so the front yard setback is required to be what 50 ft which makes no sense in this lot it was what 14.1 and you were holding 141 yeah and you're putting a new Portico or something off of the front was before add over okay what's next what's the combined side yard so so sidey setback a variance was granted um the requirement is 14 feet on the west side it was 9.6 feet to the addition and then on the east side it was 5.6 it was an existing condition to the uh the existing one story portion of the structure okay so there there's not a lot of room to move it left or right but I'm curious as to how on a side that only has less than 10 feet you've got a driveway is a driveway that narrow the neighbor okay question so so it's a practical matter on that side you can't have any less than slightly less than 10 and then you're left with the five plus on the other side you could push the house this way but then now now you're starting right okay anything else combined combined side setback okay number of stories so that includes both a half and then um there's the one with the river the disturbances in proximity to the river which has beenin from the ordinance at this point um did we give relief for that or we we did this so before was [Music] eliminated and then there's set back to the river this is in proximity to the bulkhead so the uh setback is 7 feet to the bulkhead to the house um I was interested in appendages dorms that might have been pushed back or be able to be tucked in things that we were working around but what you really got is two very difficult side yards as it is we allowed them to go up slightly they put the bulk in of the addition in the rear where they had some room to do it where they would minimize the impact and I just want to amplify that they've got 700 plus square feet in the basement which is really sub Subterranean from r Road this house is 2600 sare I think that's right right 2600 ft on Floors one two um what about the um add um was there originally a proposal to have a have no just just a pull down St okay and that's not changing that's not changing and what is and what's your rid height on that third floor uh from the from the uh from the attic floor to the top of the ridge yeah [Music] space What's the total height of the house as designed 32 it's 32 to the average grade of the Four Corners existing average grade to the Four Corners so it's going to appear lower than 32 from River yes from River it'll appear to be about 27 feet okay so the the taller of the two roofs which is in the back uh it's 8 ft to the middle to the underside of the ridge but then diminishes very quickly um but again we're um there's no intention of having a walk upstair right yeah just thinking about whether or not there should be oh I mean I look I I don't care it's on my house but um that's re space um are you at the max with regard to the height what is the height in the zone 35 yeah we're we're at 32 um we certainly didn't want to make one of the things we were trying to do is not make the building too much higher than the the front part because that's what we're keeping yeah originally you were dealing with the existing structure and the existing R and I I I guess what I'm putting on the table is just a discussion as to whether or not it's it's wise um to to not try to take advantage of that space as you're looking to we don't need to go any further it how high is the ceiling in the basement oh it's um just why isn't that free space uh because it's not a seller because it's exposed in the back so when we did the first floor elevation rule we effectively created a um it is now more likely that when your foundation comes out that it's going to be considered a basement and with a house like this they're going to get tripped up on that um it's just it's just the way it is and and I would hope that in the end you're going to wind up having some nice useful space sping the river that that is the hope you're not changing any of the window but it's it's literally the same it's the same well we changed the um no remember um I think we we we had to get erress Windows in here so we had to but you originally did that yes that's not oh no it's the same window window pattern that we have um have you done a groundwater test uh it was done as part of the drywell okay that so are you so what we've seen are you going to use a pre-cast Foundation I don't know if that's feasible on the site um we have to look in we have to talk to the superior WS yeah okay I just don't want to see you get stuck with a new problem where they're going to make you be two feet above the water table and you're going to get your basement squeezed because you're locked in on the first floor elevation based on those plans see that's a good point because we reviewed it in terms of the drywell because the Basement foundation was there so now that it's new could be an issue well what the issue could be is that by um by the requirements of the construction code they may require that you do your slab um 2 feet above ground right and that's not you have a pre-existing slab now we didn't analyze that and nobody has considered whether or not your wording should be relative to groundwater under the current standards it's a very good point yes I I don't have an answer for you yeah I don't have the if the engineers report maybe could could squash your basement oh yeah yeah I realiz could the answer be to leave the existing slab as it is and just rebuild the foundation wall uh it's possible it's possible yeah we can also do uh spoken to Nick Pinsky about this and if we can come up with some kind of waterproofing system uh that could be acceptable an acceptable alterntive alternative to raising the slab you mean to actually have the slab be closer to the groundwater table than two feet yes oh that's I haven't done it yet but uh didn't know you could do that well I didn't either until I asked yeah I I thought that was instruction code thing with the two feet I didn't realize that we no both I've spoken both to Nick Pinsky and Nick Fabi and they said if you come up with a design that's that's you know approved by designed by an engineer you can waterproof them really okay that's cool I was told I was verbally told that not effectively like a drywall under it right or some variation there it should work the same way I guess do you think well it had been that you could drop a basement below the water table and either you know take the risk or Implement a system with with all of those things you do that all the time they change it's not cheap it's done with a membrane and the membrane actually almost creates a pool around the house so it's not cheap y okay soice to say we're flagging it for you we don't have an answer for you what we're talking about today is to construct it exactly as it was originally proposed with new materials versus reuse of the pre-existing materials if you have a problem with that basement you're going to be back but understood it just is what it is okay did we went through all the variances we did yes okay got rid of one maybe what's that we got rid of one yeah great job yeah great job um okay you done uh yes Mr chair I mean I I I I think the board is has a good handle on the situation I think you know what what we're requesting is for the board to approve re approve that which we previously would albe it a change in circumstances nothing intentional no nothing uh un uh associated with with this it was just circumstance that unanticipated it's been verified by your Municipal officials uh in addition to and or our Builder and anyone who's looked at it and uh as a result we would ask the board to vote favorably on the re approval of this application so I want to make a couple observations and then I'd like to have a little bit of discussion and then we can open into the public first observation I want to make is that when this house came in in December of 2023 I was very impressed with the way that this was designed um we are regularly favoring Renovations versus uh new construction uh the end result here and I understood from mr's testimonial over just about a year ago as to difficulty in coming up with this design but we're very pleased what we been wind up with I really felt like it was a good compromise and and I like it the way it's designed um the other thing I want to point out is that we have also as a board um been confronted with people that have attempted to reuse things they really didn't want to reuse because they were holding on to pre-existing nonconformities and variances and using that to leverage new variances when they were exacerbating by going up um if the applicant did that in this case they cost themselves a lot of money this is a terrible way uh to get approval for this house and so I I not think that what we're looking at is somebody that had this really clever plan of wasting um a few years worth of time um to put themselves through this so that they could wind up with something they might not have last go but but um uh we're sensitive to it and I I I think that everybody should recognize um that similar situations um with slightly different facts you could feel a little bit differently way you're being presented more discussion question I was going to say I mean it's an easy one for me I think the house looks good we BR it's a horrible situation hopefully you don't have to come back to the basement the upshot there is maybe you could work something with that third floor space if you had time to you know review it instead of being under the gun tonight to make a decision whether or not to get it or otherwise so uh I'm supportive of it and you know it's terrible situation thank you I have nothing to add I'm I'm in favor so the other thing is that you know when we granted the variances we were granting the variances as um an accommodation in light of the ReUse of the exist instruction um had the applicant come in with this as a brand new proposal we likely would have viewed it differently I don't know that we would have wound up with a different result the fact that the house can't be reused we're back to our standard well why can't you conform I think the easy answer to that question is you're in our 20 um and you're at 25% of the the lot size so you couldn't conform um would you it differently maybe maybe um but in order to fully that what that would look like um we'd have to go through an entirely different process um and we don't know in the end that you'd wind up for something better okay I members of the public have any questions or comments regard to the uh Ryan application okay uh there was no comments uh nothing closing Mr pres nothing to fur any further deliberation the the only condition that I would like where i' would like to express is that um that you do give us a value to determine whether or not you actually do need a variance from relocation the AC unit exact location of the can we comply sure until you've actually had an opportunity to stud if you still need a variance the variance was granted before but it would be a different sighting it would be a different value value right if you don't need the variance then I just cross that and all yeah so I I think what I would propose and I don't want to qu any further discussion if there is any but to the extent I'm making the motion it would be to Grant the variance to the extent it's required after uh Mr kandor shows us what the footprint would be relative to the other outside requirements of where those condensers need to be um and to the extent that that's minimized um you know my motion would be to approve whatever that minimal is not to come back to talk about it again but just simply to have evidence that uh we've got that it's been minimized um based on those reir problem Mr chair just the board's U reference any vote in the affirmative um would include the new variants for the uh the existing sidey guard setback that's not proposed sidey set right and the right I want to have it I want to make sure we're clear on that yes when we had the maximum required Building height is 2 and half storage the language in the new of the variance granted was maximum required Building height is 2 and a half stories consisting of a basement first floor second floor and an attic the finished floor elevation shall not exceed 30 in and 2.5 ft above the average existing grade the finished Flor elevation exceeds the average existing grade by 4.75 ft it I I thought we addressed it it did well we addressed it because with the exposure in the back they don't need it the the what we're discussing tonight is pinning it and nailing it to exactly what it is today and exactly what what it's proposed to be replicating exactly that so what what what I'd like to amplify is that we've got the two corners on the front we've got two steps up and we've got first FL elevation stuff I think I just need to backtrack I um I did include that ordinance in this review this C application came in a couple times oh okay so it did capture that ordinance what it what it also captured was the um the stream disturbance within 300 ft of the stream I remember they deemed complete just before that changed so that's what I was thinking of so that so that's in there plus anything related to average grade um elevation so we grabed the variance for that we did and what we did was we pinned it at the existing first floor elevation acknowledging where the deviation was in the so the number I gave you tonight is exactly what the original resolution read as far as the variance goes and for that reason that's why the basement area was included yeah yeah that's good thanks um okay so there uh so we would need new variances um potentially with regard to the relocation of the AC um condenser units yes we would need a new variance on the sidey yard on the east side is no longer pre-existing on Conformity it's now new construction and we have first floor elevation covering y okay anything else um okay then I'm going to make a motion to approve a modification of the Ryan application um the context for that approval is the testimony that we received this evening with regard to the hardship and with regard to the situation that developed uh post the board's approval in December of 2023 and the approval will be based on the accuracy of the information presented on the record this evening yes D yes Mr Ryan yes Mr yes yes yes yes thank you Mr chair Mard unless unless there is an objection uh I did have I did have the discussion iy about preparing the resolution for approval this evening in the light of what has happened and I you did not commit to doing that but if the board is comforable with it I can commit to having a resolution prepared for your next special session which I think comes up on October 21st that's true I thank you okay yes and again you can you see Mr BR some of the problems I was going to anticipate having but this will also give the board an opportunity to review the resolution without trying to have me so Frank and I have that special is the 21st of October is that correct Monday night Monday okay I will try I will thank you very much thank you good luck thank you you got it I five minutes let's just do a quick roll call please here yes yes R [Music] yes here yeah okay we're now going to hear the Nelson matter with the repeat appender Mr Bry if I could just may I confirm that we have jurisdiction on this matter yes we get a pack not you can have access to M all right I'll I'll share with this I was because of ending app all are on the record and no one knows what you want to talk about okay if I can I'd like to Mark exhibit okay then we'll s your Witnesses in I have is A1 and I I guess the record should reflect that this matter was not reached on July 11th 2024 it was carried uh this date um we did not take any testimony at that point in time we simply ran out of time at that meeting correct um A1 is the completed uh application and checklist A2 are the site Improvement plans prepared by midatlantic engineering Partners as of May 14 2024 83 are the architectural plans prepared by Richard Bano um loated May 14 2024 A4 is the soil report prepared by ocean development services dated April 8 2024 A5 is a copy of the prevailing setback exhibit prepared by Dearing uh dated well last revised May 15 2024 A6 is a boundary and topography survey March 3rd 203 mid engineering A7 statement of conditions requesting the variance that prepared back in January 25 2024 A8 are the geotechnical uh evaluations by kba engineering February 7 2024 A9 the May 15th letter check what that refers to specifically oh that was the engineering response uh from uh midatlantic response to the engineering review at that time and we have zb1 CME engineering report of March 26 2024 of the signature of Mr Rizo zb2 is the CME engineering report of the signature of Mr Rizo dated June 27 2024 um that is all I have as for exhibit at this point are there anything additional that you'd want to have marked or identified um we do have a couple of exhibits with the next witness should we go ahead and mark them me Mark them now so you can do it seamlessly okay so we're up to 81 let's identify what it is and the date this is a colored rendering it's titled new residence lock 41 lock 7 and it's a colorized version of the engineering plan okay and the date the date is 71122 anything else Mr chair is for the record there are no outstanding checklist submission waiters that anybody's going to testify I think you're going to testify if you have anything want to shout out please raise your right hand swear you in too you be shouting out you saw s the testimony give before the board be the truth whole truth nothing truth I do I do very good just before you start testifying please state your name for purpose of the record spell your last name for purposes of the record and follow your attorney's directly thank you thank you uh Mr chair members of the board R Ry on behalf of the applicant Nelson Enterprises uh the application before you pertains to the property located at 182 Fair Haven Road it is in your R5 zones it is a data blot as a result of fire uh that uh burn prior two family structure down um Nelson the applicant acquired the property in in March of 23 um and is seeking to construct a new home single family home um on the property um as uh Again Properties in the R5 Zone um it is an oversiz lde um it is just over 10,000 square fet in your in your R5 Zone you you purchased the property after it burned down when it was got okay and uh so so it's two times the uh the minimum on size required in the zone um uh the application uh seeks a single variant which is um a floor uh a floor area uh maximum floor area ratio maximum floor area the proposed home is 2,930 Square ft where 2,200 square ft is permitted in in your five Zone you say is 2 I 29 42 I think the chimney might have been excluded 2942 square feet doesn't change anything else um the FL air ratio is well below so yeah um yeah and so um in all other respects uh the the proposed home implies and indeed I think it's it's you know it's a deep narrow lot uh which is not inconsistent with the other Lots uh in the immediate area um we took a look at the r75 with r 7.5 Zone and and the reason the sole reason that we uh can't apply the seven our 7.5 requirements uh or uh it is the existing lot size uh I'm sorry the existing lot width right um our existing lot width is 50 fet 49.5 49.5 absent that we would be in full compliance with the r 7.5 both criteria including including um maximum floor area maximum floor area just as a reminder in the r75 is 3,20 square ft um whereas we're proposing the 2942 what's the minimum lot withth in R 75 60 60 and what is the setback requirements on our 75 see front set back in our 75 is 30 7 16 same as r five side's the same side is the same siid are the same front back is different I find that odd too lock coverage is 45% in 7.5 50 here um and uh f is actually. 35 um in r75 which we comply with so we comply with so 10 everything so except for that so the structure as proposed complies with all r75 bulk requirements straight up the lot doesn't you don't qualify for the Zone uploading that's exactly right okay having said that do you know how much how at po area that was there previously with the two fames I don't have the answer I don't have the answer let's see what the county says we know that's not accurate but might give you yeah um you know you have know the Flor was the the house that burn the two family that burn family house it was 2600 foot house 26 that's all that's all I know just identify I'm assuming we're taking this in this testimony that's where you in before excuse me were you one of the people that stood up when I S you were in before no I stand up let's get I didn't wasn't expecting see it's okay I'm hard hearing so you got to Tony you get for bo be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth okay state your name for the record Glen nelon n okay thank you and Mr Nelson you're affiliated with Nelson and prises I assume correct okay great um so you you your understanding with that home was approximately 26 2600 two family yeah it was a two family brought fire burn down and previous owner removed it demolition it went to town got a permit did everything the right way and then I then put it up for sale I bought it got okay okay Mr Bano you've been sworn in and I understand that you testified before this board but it's uh it's been a long time okay 20 years ago okay um if you would just for the for the record just you can stay seated for the moment um you could just provide the board that your credentials and experience as a licensed architect here in New Jersey I graduated from the University of Kentucky in 197 78 received my degree to practice architecture in 1983 I've been working up and down the shore for the last 35 40 years testifying in front of other boards besides this one um and I my office is is in Spring Lake Heights used to be on Deal Road in ocean tent and uh I moved since then down to spring so okay Mr B you're familiar with the varant ordinances and you're familiar with the recent updates with regard to removal of habitable from our definitions the insertion of the first floor elevation requirements and things such as that some things yes so something are the are the plans that you've drawn um designed and um noted with regard to Fair requirements have youed string Dimensions exterior Dimensions yes and such as that yes [Music] yeah any questions about mr's credentials okay okay uh so Mr chair members of the board I'm I'm putting Mr Bano up as the architect because um uh uh now my next witness is uh Mr swager is going to be going to testify both as an engineer and as a planner so I thought just continuity wise we'll go through the design of the home with um Mr Balano and then we'll have Mr waiter come up as the engineer and as a Comm that okay Mr Bano if you would um you prepared the plans that have been submitted part of this application cor yes yes I have okay if you would and I see that you have them on the easel there those are exact copies of the pl that have been submitted as part of the application correct that is correct okay so if you would if you could walk the board through uh the floor plans uh as well as the elevations that would be in what we have here is two single family grown approximately 2900 ft covered entry porch in the front leading to a fer with an office and a living room on either side of the toyer progressing down through the middle of the house the have the dining room counter room staircase at the second floor large family room kitchen room out the back with the bra pat on the second floor there are four bedrooms laundry room three Bs that's it let's take a look at the uh elevations the elevations comprise of Cedar final St [Music] signing Anderson Windows Jersey Shore Style we have CED stone veneer on the base CED stone veneer on fire raise patio in the back behind this building there's a two-car detached garage 484 Square ft with p and again Ste Shake siding the max the house really quick on the kooup just for the record um it can't exceed six feet are you going to comply with that and then ultimately show the dimension in your plan yes we will fly with the six feet I think right now Ridge to Ridge is full four it's just the weather vein that I need to make small what's the length of the house front to back there are 69 including the uh rear R patio and the front covered porch it's 55 F 4 in building to building and 69 inclusive of the rear elevated deck and the front porch yes 69 includes the front porch and the rear elev Mr R are we looking at a basement or a seller so originally it came in with a basement and then the plans have been revised so that is now seller it's 2.5 ft a finished floor elevation really yes as BR correct how many stairs to the front how many stairs up to the front there sure does four steps to the porch One Step at the door four steps a level Lot 8 in 8 inches a step they're show I mean they're showing a finished floor of 2378 an average existing grade of 2128 so not not based on the plan I mean it's just by ey look at your basement windows I mean how big are the basement windows on that drawing 12 or 18 you can use that as a frame of reference you can double those guys up and you're still not fing the space is it an is it an optic illusion with the the cultur stone stone goes higher than what you would expect no the stone is higher than the level of the porch maybe yeah that's what I was just about to say is it an optimal illusion with the porch if look at it well that that's true that's true you do have cultured stone that's exceeding the first FL but it's still tight stair what's the what's the grade on the lot does the lot drop drop off to the rear it definitely drops it does so aage average grade was taken by four building corers um obviously the stairs in the front and back are in the middle and they happen to be a little bit lower um in the front it's about4 ft almost 6 in a little bit less in the back it's over a foot different than the corners so I think that's why the stairs are elev do we have a topa we do and so what is so so why don't we put your credentials on the record oh you got okay yeah sure my name is Louis zner Zu g n r I'm a licensed professional engineer in state of New Jersey as well as several other states graduate of Virginia Tech I've been practicing for approximately 25 years on the founding principle of midatlantic engineering we are operating in multiple States testified before numerous zoning and planning boards across the state of New Jersey number this area but throughout the state also a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and I have testified that capacity as well not before not before this board before this board okay are you Amil with pren ordinances I'm familiar with ordinances here yes okay um so can you help us understand the answer for the question relative to the qualification of your Subterranean level as a Bas your uh I don't know if I'm going to do very well specifically to numbers on it I know we had as Mr Rizzo had said started with a basement and then had gone through a redesign uh and shown I think a few uh iterations to his office on that to get the elevations correct based on the average grade for the finished floor I don't know the exact numbers in terms of the the Del on that elevation off the top of my head does the architectural plan show um the Topography of lot it does not so the architectural plan has the elevations doesn't have has been labeled by number but it's not visually depicted with changing gr so so to the extent that five or six steps in the front is less than 30 in isn't that our requirement 30 or is 32 30 is that let's start with that how how high is step is it 8 in plus the thickness of the tread my stri plan says 4 8 in R from for degree four times it's 32 right there 32 okay plus the width of the St thread plus there's another stair up once you get up to the fortune the house right right so can we stick that we don't reach 30 in at the front we exceed it it would exceed it based on that calculation okay and what happens when you move back in the lot does it does it drop off does it go down it does drop off is the house going to be tilted backwards or is it going to be flat smart out question I'm not I'm not understanding why I'm struggling through clear to me that we're going to have more exposed basement than we should uh it it's it's not a seller look as I look at these plans this is a very large immediately adjacent to this house to the South is a single story story and a half uh probably a Sears kit home you have the um what's your club called over there Columbus Club you've got a tremendous amount of visibility that goes straight through that house to this lot you've got Third Street which is the heart of Fair Haven every single person that lives in Fair Haven that has a kid will be there a million times everybody is going to see all of them so I'm glad it's going to have cedar siding I'm glad it's going to have stone on the foundation but it looks really big so starting from understanding whether or not you have a seller or basement is where we have to start you've also got appendages in both directions which is making it appear even larger than what the house is so I'm trying to understand how much foundation's coming out to start and especially with the culture Stone it's going to look like more Foundation because you got the stone going up the sze whether it is or it isn't it's going to go proud of the of of the uh of the porch and it's going to look all a lot taller which is something that we specifically are trying to mitigate well who worked up I mean so we we're supposed to be doing this before we come in today so we don't have to do this so so the calculation based on four building corers as I mentioned that the elevation of the stairs in the middle of the house is lower you were to take the Finish floor elevation to the bottom of the stair it's 2.55 ft so that right there is really close to the 30 in for whatever reason the top of stair is noted to be um a few inches higher than the finished door so that might be a mistake on the plans but based on the Four Corners it's exactly the two and a half I think I head around about four steps at 32 in it can't it can't start at 32 drop off and average 32 around off the distance from the finished floor elevation to the bottom of St is 2 and a half fet so that that's should 30 inches what I can maybe add to the conversation is the intent is to comply so if there's an error or something been done wrong and that needs to be lowered what's the ceiling height your Bas gone through calculation had expected that it had met that is the grade going is it is it bowling in the middle is that what's going on is it some some I some height here and and the grade comes up in there's no there's no scenario just simple math where the 32 is weed average essentially of this but then somehow still it's a b it doesn't doesn't math you know what I mean there's something funky with this you know what I'm saying average 32 get 32 if you have a the back is higher than the front I mean I know Third Street pitches up but the the the two corners in front are 215 and 216 so very similar the back two corners are 21 even so it's 6 in higher than how do I get but is that based on but but these these dimensions these measurements need to be taken from the existing topography the lot been a mess is it cleared and graded now no it's not it's got a big depression in the middle so are we just going to grade to this was this how who was working with you to get it from a basement to a seller was that with the architect of the engineers the engine office someone else from the engineers office okay so getting the numbers to work is different from making it work right it looks like we got numbers that work but it doesn't make any practical sense okay and uh just one previous question what's the height of your subterrania level Al call it so we don't get involved with the Bas versus very politically correct eight and a half eight and a half and and what's the what's the finish on the basement or the seller or whatever you call is a finished proposed to be finished it's not proposed to be finished my so is there any reason why we need 8 and2 ft in the basement we basement okay it's a single family home right that's what being proposed yes so I derailed you took you down R hole I don't know where you were no I think if there were no if there were no other questions are there any other questions for um I have have a question looks like front elevation has maybe three stairs I'm looking at this correctly but but then the right elevation has four it's got more than no no no the same staircase it looks like on the front elevation I think it has three the left looks higher than the right same staircase right there if you count is that three stairs there's a half a stair at is three steps do you do you need a half a stair trip I don't know if your front elevation the same St do we have the tobo here tonight we do what's the drop so the how to set back what 30 ft in the front of porch remind me to get back to the two neighboring homes as well we have we looked at the prevailing front setback issue on this yes we're at 34 34 is says proposed that that's the that's the front B of the front step right okay so is that behind the house adjacent to the left that sits in the corner of Third Street looking from the street the house to the right is little closer and the house at the corner is a little further back from the street than yours there's an exhibit that shows that okay that's that family see your did you describe your too uh I I thought I had it as a board by I don't okay Jordan do you have a copy of the Topo yes it's in the P so how much how much rage we lose as we move from the 34 foot mark back to the I'm sorry Mr Mr Bano was it uh 69 69ing the and the back yeah so so so just roughly going back 60 70 feet what do we lose on on the grave from front to back yeah um at the corners it's 6 in um from front stair to rear stair it's 21.25 to 19.9 two so maybe a foot and a quarter so it's not that much it doesn't fall off that much I think we're starting too high in the front but if we Dro at 12 in it might comply they're not dealing with a 4 foot deviation as they move back I'm sorry I I believe you're correct okay so it's it's likely a fixable issue okay if we were to you're talking about moving the house no I'm talking about Dro in the front we need to have fewer steps in the front which I think is achievable I think it's just the way it's schematically shown have you done a um groundwater test with regard to the basement in the placement your slap we have done testing for groundwater are you set based on where you need to be relative to your 2 feet above groundwater is that why we are where we are that's what yes that's what this exactly so maybe we can't touch the so you I think it's an issue with the stairs because the finished floor elevation is noted to be lower than the top of stair that's not possible you can do it you lose a foot in the basement you're not going to get 8 and2 ft in the basement step down into the house no no no we're talking about could you drop the house down by a foot you yeah you go down to seven and a half s that's like consequen is the half Riser necessary is this what that's I'm saying the the Finish door to the bottom front stair is 2.55 that's that's your 30 in right there right yeah but that doesn't permit for any deviation As you move towards the rear and it drops back it drops off beyond beyond the house it drops off so sloping all the way to the rear property it drops off significantly it drops off but not at the Four Corners correct it's already average correct okay that's the difference is that I think the half Riser just needs to come out I think that's issue must mistake yeah because the top of St is noted to be above the Finish floor elevation it certainly does not okay so if I understood your testimony at the beginning before we spiral down it was is it the applicant's intention to comply with It's Our intention to meet the seller definition and have those have the height in the front steps be compliant with the 30 in super tight it's super tight to the extent that it works it's to pending um you you've got no room to fly around and if it were 2 ft taller it would be material I'm concerned with an issue like the and that we know and the deception from the street oh well I'm still concerned about that too but we're just talking about what happens whe whether it works as per okay we back to you Mr BR okay well I was going to I was going to I think we had I mean unless if the board has any other questions for the architect if not we could have um we can have Lewis go ahead and testify a little bit with regard to the some of these side issues as well as the variance that Associated what I just was curious to ask I know you're talking about it is the is some of your concern in just the visual of the water table like if that's lower that it's more preferable to you the cultur stone or it's just the overall height well yes um it's it's the overall height so so you're below the maximum the the issue is is here's the heart of it for me you seem to have designed a house based on the fact that you want to be able to up Zone but you can't and so you you've reached towards the 3020 with the idea that while you're 10 feet short and WID the argument is that we're going to accommodate the 7.5 requirements the problem is you're brand new construction and you don't meet the requirements for 7.5 so the assessment has to be is that reasonable under the circumstan the lot is exposed it's in a high visible highly visible area you're not tucked in in a block where no one's going to be able to see your dep the reason that the 75 permits the additional square footage is because it's presumed that you have 10 more feet in width and it's not going to be super long the fact that it's super long here is exactly the heart of the issue so it's the square footage the square footage is your red light that's what says you're over and it's a problem and we need to be looking at it the question is whether or not creates an issue or whether or not there's a hardship that we're working around and so I'm struggling to find the hardship I'm sure Mr brodsky's got some arguments as thought of but the the overall bulk of the house towards the rear is where you're having a problem there's nothing wrong with the problem because I can't tell how big it is it it you know looks like you want it to look um and then the foundation in terms of how that looks we are extremely sensitive to that in Fair Haven in 2024 because a lot of people have abused the issues related to first floor elevation and the problems with water table in order to cram really tall basements in has additional Living Spaces that don't count and so we have houses that are five and six feet above existing grade which in my view and this is all in the record look horrible and so we're trying to make sure that houses are down low and that they're fitting in with the existing neighborhoods your your stucco your your cultured stone is creating the impression that you've got a taller basement than you really do because it looks like you overlap by 18 inch maybe over the over the first floor and and I can understand why that's appealing the Stone's generally appealing um but I don't know in this case whether or not it's it's it's creating the effect that you want it to in light of at least my concerns relative to how the house is going to look towards the Mr chairman we put a concerns on the record are out there if we have to consider I just don't know why we can't comply if we have a slate if you're going to say there was a hardship because of fire I understand but that's why I asked what the existing square footage was you came back and said we want put up the house that's similar to what was there with respect to a area maybe I can buy that argument but we literally have a PL SL here and it's north 5 zone so you know it's point4 times your lot area um 5,000 sare F feet gets you to 2,000 the governing body recognizing oversiz Lots let you go to 2200 and that's really what the Orin is so I don't know why we can't build I I would add three things to that the first thing is that you can build a seller and you can finish it and you can live in it and it doesn't count and so with your footprint that's 1,200 square feet 1500 whatever that number is that's liable space the other thing that we've done is you've got a habitable addict with three that you haven't taken advantage of because you only at 28 but you can go to 30 all that space up there can be finished if it's designed correctly and you're starting from trash so you could have a free ad you have a fre seller and that would create a problem with three stories you'd have to ask for a variance but you could get PR spaces sandwich between the first and the second floor be limited at 2200 and you could live like 3500 and it's that way on purpose um so as to avoid some of this um that was the one two and the third was that we haven't given you a chance we're jumping all over you you haven't put on your testimony you told no no but I we appreciate the uh the feed back very nice and and the chairman makes a very good point about where the lot is being exactly where it is if that lot is four Lots towards the north maybe we lose that argument but it specifically where it is you're very exposive it it is brutally visible and I was going to say when I first opened this the first thing I thought was why is this house so big with a lot like this to Marty saying I understand you right know developer want to develop make as much money I I get it all I think it's a hard argument for a hardship and it is it's like shotgun house over there when you come down Third Street you can look over and you can see all the way through especially that house on the left is low slung as it is so you can see over you have lot coverage my suggestion would be you pair back the size of the house and maybe you a mantiz the backyard if you're looking to sell it and you have to play with some of this lot coverage to make some other stuff to sort of you know up the ante to make it more appealing and I think you get rid of the apron I think it's unnecessary The Cedars are really nice touch those real cedar take it off put it on the chimney the bottom probably looks better uh I just we could adjust and we could adjust the seller and well yeah listen they make they make a great point right you get the free space in the Attic now and you can do the seller this is kind of like a you know when you go for something and you say hey what are the hot buttons and you're like I want Max of everything that's kind of what this feels like and I get why you're doing it I would do the same thing but it's kind of like a Max ask on all fronts and it seems a little bit egregious that's just my perspective and we talk about other cases where we gave something and get something I don't see what we're mitigating here blank lot there there there was there was a discussion at some time about the nature of the lot and whether or not there was the right to put a two family up but I haven't heard any argument with regard to that we're not giving up a two family because I assume there's no right to build a two family yeah I mean I think I think that's gone I think it's gone when it burned down um and we can I say have a moment sure why don't you guys why don't you guys do that we'll move on to some admin yeah perfect than uh couple of small administrative items September 5th 2024 minut minutes uh having reviewed the minutes and made any changes uh I will make a motion to include the minutes yes yes yes I was I was yes yeah um the next one is I'm not sure Mr it's the resolution for the Smith 15 William Street I was not here on that meeting can I make a motion to approve it make a motion that simply just presents it to us so I will make a motion to approve the resolution for Smith you submitted second I wasn't second Mr yesel yes Mr yes Mr ran Iain I don't think I was here for the discussion uh yes yes Mr yes yes I want to be clear on something making the motion if you were not here to hear the application I can't vote you can't vote on got procedurally and again I want to be very clear procedurally simply presenting it to the board Motion in second you didn't have to be here for resolution that just present to us I realiz I I realized when I answer to you was confusing would not be eligible to vote on resolu Robert R I think know that uh okay KH haen 11y terce I'll make a motion to approve a resolution submit I'll second that yes yes yes yes uh yes yes okay um I didn't see this in the packet we have the proposed 2025 dates but I'm assuming Sheila that you're going off the email that I sent you I am okay I am um I don't know that anybody's had a chance to review them do you did you see any conflicts with so um I did it kind of off the C all I wrote made notes of it that I have I have I have fa Haven schools are closed on February 7th okay um SE that winter break yeah so the the just like as a note it's not a high school very Clos but not or the exactly yeah the is elementary schools are closed for students on the seven so so skiing on is that m is that end the Monday Tuesday follow yeah oh so that's that weekend yeah okay so you know if that was a problem because it's the Thursday before for anybody I think we should hold it vacation I think we should we should hold it doesn't actually conflict so let's keep the sixth of February um the July meeting is the question whether we want to hold it on the 3D or push it to the 10th I'm ambivalent but or different in different if it if it is pushed I think the is if it's pushed to the 10th I may not be I may not be here let defin do so the third I assume because it's so close to the 4th is more likely to be the holiday yeah I mean because it's GNA be a long weekend because the fourth Friday let's push it yeah makes sense okay 10th of July so 10 makes sense and the November I believe we move it to the 13th yep yes these are alternative none of us know if we're going to be here in 2025 to ad I just noted that the reorganization meeting for 2026 would be on yeah it's not it's that's right that's why I moved it to that's what I suggested the n9th rather than the previous week because I can't I don't know why the reor meeting is so all right um rain Garden webinar I don't know any more about it than that Council Cole brought that up at the last meeting yeah so um uh Miss Cole had presented to the board um a request that uh we inform ourselves with regard to some rain Garden information being presented by the state uh she had circulated a link to something that downloaded to my phone I didn't get to actually see it I don't know what it is exactly but I thought it was some sort of a video of information about rain Gardens uh the relevance is that um with all the new storm water issues and flooding and all the rest um the uh council is focused on where we can try and accommodate more water and ring Gardens I assume everyone's familiar enough with them you know to understand that they will provide summer Lea um and could be built into um Mr Rizzo do you have any um thoughts as to the um utility of AR R Garden generically versus a dry well um their capacity and function certainly I mean if we get to it tonight this this plan actually has rain Gardens and dry Wells so maybe you'll see some testing on that drywell as you know is is really toh collect the roof run off it has to be clean water from the roof and it goes into the ground I think we've seen that a bunch of times now rain Garden is similar it's above ground now it's usually planted with specific plants that can tolerate the water um there's a very specific soil type for it that's the D specifies and then that soil actually gives you like a filter so as it goes down either infiltrate into the ground or you can put a perforated pipe and then pipe it somewhere but once it gets down to that pipe it's considered clean um so you could in theory take a a rain Garden collect uh water that drains there overground goes down through the soil filter collects into a pipe and then to a uh like a drywall and get your storage there wasn't that part of the plan for the thing was was approved for where the Soko is yeah would you like to be heard on Main Gardens uh just com just just just step forward please and your name and address for for the record Sten noon 77 Church Street in Fair Haven and Rain Gardens are little ponds and they work well provided they're maintained so sometimes some people would use them as greenh but a dryw it's enclosed that's probably a better place to put water than in Rain Garden if you're really going to maintain it that's one thing but if it's just for the homeowner to to keep up and be the place where you where you need it if you need it to collect the water if it's not maintain it it doesn't serve as thank Mr thank you okay um yeah so the point in that is flatten for you all that that email was circulated Sheila maybe just recirculated so everybody start watching the video and no pun intended but it was really dry they just they didn't get to rain Gardens for the first 10 15 minutes or so was a 1990s New Jersey no no no it was current like S Zoom style almost but so just bring it the top of mine okay Mr BR I notice you're back I'm back but early night tonight for you guys I think I SP to the client we we heard the feedback of the board and uh we've got some ideas that we think can be responsive to a lot of the concerns we Hur what I'd like to do if the board is okay is to give us the carry gives the chance to submit some revised plans and come back um I guess Mr Brodsky what I would ask you um is whether or not you feel as though the two professionals here and the opportunity for the board to hear more and perhaps react more whether or not there's anything further that you think would be a benefit um some of what you heard was basically it wouldn't matter if you were 23 24 or 29 they're they're difficult to get Beyond and so I would hate to see you sort of work with something in between thinking that there's a compromise I haven't heard the argument yet you're asking for a c variant you know what those standards are you've been here many many times and you know this board pretty well and so I guess to the extent that you'd like to test out some of those theories I would encourage you to at least consider it I would hate to see your client spend time and energy and money I'm trying to shoot for something where we're going to feel pretty similar about it understood understood I mean look just cutting to the chase you know the thought was that be and I know I know the town fathers the maximum is the maximum but typically you know clearly the S given the size of the lot double size can hand we think can handle a home larger in size than the than the max for the R5 Zone especially in light of the fact that you know yes I understand we don't meet the r75 uh criteria in totality but we meet all of it except for one except for one that's a lot with that we can't do anything about so just sort of summarizing what the planners some of what the planner's testimony would be and yes if I could get some feedback on that that would be great would be that um that I'm correctly if I'm wrong but you know is that the certainly um that the lot based on its size can handle something something more than 2200 square feet um uh and as a without any negative impacts um now I understand the visibility of this particular lot is of specific concern to the to the board which frankly I hadn't thought about frankly I hadn't thought about um I don't know let I think and one of the reasons I think we wanted to maybe have an adjournment and come back is I think we understand to some degree the way the ordinance is written uh is to maintain a character of a neighborhood and I think quite correctly we thought more from Street side we've heard know from Third Street in the back it's important and so I think we'd like to explore the ideas is there architecture is there a way to construct a home here that achieves those sort of visionary goals where it's not a big box where it has a lot of architectural feature uh your master plan talks to this in some ways and and we're go too deep into that at the moment but I do think there are Arguments for why the right building here could be a great building and that doesn't necessarily have to be at the 2200 square ft maybe it does too in your but I think we'd like the time to try and work on some of the visual aspects of what you brought up come back with something that is more appealing and fits that concept better and I see that we can't convince you it's a great house a great place I'll tell you my my view I mean you heard a little bit of it at the end but I think there's a lot of ways to get much more square footage than you think and that can still conform to the ordinance I think and it's hard to see it was ping the way but I think the length of the house is very deterring at least for me probably some the other people because it just seems so long and then you add in that sight line you should drive up Third Street it'll be hard now because it's dark and then come back down and you can see like right through right it's like like I'm having a neighbor that all their trees are bare and you see them outside like in their you know roll drinking like it's so you see it's it's just so it's just it's just going to be big like that and I mean I Dro my daughter off at school every day everyone goes down the courter people riding their bikes they're going to see it and say who approved this and and why is this here and how come everyone else can't get bigger houses but this person got it's it's just it's going to be it's going to be a bullseye on this thing for all of those reasons and there's probably designed ways you can minimize it I think there's a lot of square footage you can get that is within orbits is my opinion certainly design wise especially if this front setback is going to be proud of the how to the South that you reconsider the fact that the front third of your South elevation is completely unfined there's not a window or a door there but that's the third that you're going to see from faen Road um you know just one small thing yeah look it's a sheer wall on both us there's absolutely no question that with the same footprint you could do a lot more a lot better to make it look a lot better but at the same time if I take the chimney back and cut it off what I see is something that's in proportion to what the neighborhood scheme is and that's all the excess and so that there there's nothing wrong with the front of the house but that excess which is 700 square fet is is I mean I can see it and and I certainly I'll recognize it for what it is every time I look at it the the other thing things that you can do is you've got the rear porch that you can do you can cover that porch you can create structure that is their Loop BS I we're now I'm telling you about them but you know there's there's there's covered porches in the back that can feel like really nice space which doesn't count towards towards floor area your front porch is minimal but you've got all this de and so you could create a larger front porch you could have a house that has more amenities that that feels more generous um all within within the ordinance um I like the detach R I think by not having the bulk of that garage in this structure you you've done yourself a favor and you've also taken advantage of your depth which is exactly what you should have and you don't have a problem with lck coverage so you've done it the right way um the garage is rare like how many of these things the garage is rare to be able to do it and I think to his point it's what I was saying earlier with ameni it's not enough new construction homes in general to have these amenities because most of them cannot accommodate it you have the ability to get a little creative with it and it's a differentiation Point um I think that you could offer master plan talks to having detac yeah but not there's not a lot of places that they can be accommodated is the reality because the L mostly yeah SI of this slots but but Mr Bry with regard to the oversized R5 they're all oversized um it's it's pretty rare to find one that is 5,000 sare F feet Mr Ryan does a Terri Ric job summarizing the design of the ordinance it's really a 2,000t house in R5 the extra 200 ft is intended to um accommodate um the arguments with regard to the oversized Lots because so many of them do exist um and in fact to the extent that you know people want larger houses and certainly they do and certainly we recognize it we hear from people every single month the places that we have directed you to put that square footage so you don't have to come to us are the places that we've already talked about and those spaces are not small when designed properly um and you can utilize them we we we created them for you CH can I add a few things unrelated to the house just for the appc benefit sure tonight um there are two existing pipes that run along the back of the property there's an 8 inch sanitary pipe again is are here today an in sanitary and then a 60in storm pipe it looks like the sanitary has an existing easement but I would ask that the applicant just verify if there's an easement over the storm pipe and if not look to provide one there is not one there now and we've assumed that to provide okay and then also just consider as part of that easement access because if there isn't also an easement on the property to the south then there would be no real way for the bur to get there so maybe just some type of language on how they access that that pip in the Mir so miss Mr Nolan is standing up and um I do appreciate that he's been here tonight and I don't know if he has any questions do mind if I just oh no I'm sorry thank you um there's one design waiver being requested as the plan currently shown today that's an eight foot wide driveway whereas a minimum 10 feet is required I don't I'm G I'll leave the testimony to you but I don't know if that's necessarily because impervious coverage um because they're they're well under um but I did just want to point out that that design waiver is currently sh well well let's ask that question what why are we doing so the 8ot wide driveway which is compliant to rsis standards uh and it's actually wider than what was there we think it's sufficient and it's just seems nicer because we're taking it down the length of the the property line to just to a minimum right and we think it works well enough at 8T again it's permitted by rsis so making it wider just doesn't seem great in that location um there is enough width to the house to make it the 10 ft the chimney would have to be adjusted we just think eight works and it just seems to be a more attractive solution what's the set back on that Stu it's 10 feet to the chimney which 10t to the chimney 8ot proposed for the drive line 12et to the building yeah I I I I I kind of agree if you can deal with less I prefer to see deal with less given how far you're going back yeah it's a lot of dve some Foundation PL well it's last of perus nothing wrong with that and then the last thing I have storm pipe that I mentioned opens up uh to a head wall outside of the property line but I I would ask that in this time that you're you know looking at the plans and possibly redesigning that you submit the jurisdiction determination to the D and uh see it anything comes up on their permanent list is that is that a storm sewer Creek so so so you're draining in Fourth Creek and you're coming across the property from Fen Road is that what that is south to North yeah okay that's an existing condition right it's an existing condition but it opens up right proper we had looked at it um and we had determin it to be under the 50 acre drainage limit uh but if you would like us repairing Zone standpoint right to DP I'm not sure they called it JD anymore but I understand exactly what you mean okay than okay any more discussion that's all thank you we're good we're GNA open to the public um if anyone from the public has any questions or comments with regard to the Nelson application now be time do I need to be yeah you do and we need your name and address for the record one more time 77 Church Street fa New Jersey and um you saw Mr the testimony G before the board be the truth about the truth yes thank you very much so um I've got something L just comment is is it possible in terms of creating some space the third floor if you had lower ceilings a ceilings I think dra so maybe you could have some space on up in the attic area that um would would give you more space for home [Music] um and and let me read what I wrote here the AA Nelson Enterprise prizes purchased the property for 625,000 March 17th 2023 the lot is narrow and deep approximately 50 Deep by 200 ft plants include total habitable area 2,923 Square ft which do not include a full basement with a high foot 8 foot high ceiling be Haven has zones where 20 2,900 would be allowed for example the R7 Zone allows for larger [Music] homes I look I'm sorry I didn't see a lot of positive things about the plan but I understand you pay $625,000 for a lot it it poses problems to making something making a profit so I like fact there two dry Wells for the house and one for the twocc car garage and Rain Gardens next to the garage and negative which you've already brought up the size of the building one of the growing shows the first Flor is 1,488 sare Ft the second at 1,442 two total 2,930 this is more than the 2,200 permitted in the R5 zone I'm sorry Mr n I'm going to ask you to hold on for a second you said that the first floor square footage is 14 and change the second is 14 and change what was your conclusion pardon what was the next thing you said after total total those two by my calculation 2,930 Square ft right which is which is what they f for right okay so I'm just pointing out this is a lot of lot of footage in the in the building sure and I can go through you know there a dining din kitchen family room office dining room and laboratory in the first floor the second floor four bedrooms and three bathrooms and as I also mentioned there's a full basement which has 8 foot ceilings while it's unfinished it could clearly be changed into habitable area in the future particularly if you added an exit on the South Side so that people can go in and out and have a a a bedroom down there the appearance which you've already mentioned the front of the house looks out of the place as compared to the neighborhood the planting what happens to the vegetation at the rear of the property behind the garage the burrow engineer says that all will be replaced with long the drawings do not specify this if all the trees are removed back there and the property has no trees since March 2023 Nelson has not cleaned up the area poison iy mugart free of having Black Lotus Etc are back there above the area where this little line runs if Nelson only proposes lawn and Rain Gardens the rain Gardens are greenwashing trying to make the project here environmentally friendly and Rain Gardens need to be maintained since they can accumulate organic and nonorganic matter the plans do not show that Nelson will plant any trees noise there's Nelson plants a generator on the north side of the house it will be noisy for the house just to the north environmental concerns Nelson Enterprises plans as they exist have nothing to do nothing to make the proposal good for the planet example thick walls thicker walls with insulation radiated Heating in the floors solar panels on the south facing roof solar hot water heat pumps for AC and trees and trees behind the house the board should not Grant it variance for the project unless Nelson makes some significant changes and that's all I have thank Mr would you please ENT into the record sure Mark that as uh A1 Mr BR do you have any questions Mr M no thank you thank you okay uh Mr Ros you are GNA propose carry yes please um sh what is uh Mr how much time you want I assume you need 30 or 60 days yeah I think more like 60 60 sh how we looking 60 days out is that December yeah how many are on for December right now uh what two and as of right now two including Ford yeah okay so we have two schedu for December as it is and we have other matters that are pending completion we have some that are close yes pardon me we have some that are close to complete okay yeah that gation right so that's where I was thinking that was gonna go third how long's G been around I issued a letter last week saying that they're not complete um the items were more administrative which I understand have been submitted um the p couple days I just had actually I have it right here I think okay it's it's quick on my end but right now they're not I have to check the 120 day window to see if that could bring us to well they're not they're not complet right so then they have four months yeah schedu yeah but but I I don't want to do that um that's what we have to have so so Mr BR I guess under the circumstances I think it would be okay to carry you to December but uh given what's happening it's not clear whether you'd be third or fourth but things are falling out all the time so we we can put you there and there and see what happens yeah and then we can always carry what's the date December yeah okay um I'm gonna make a motion um to carry yeah Mr BR can we have an oral stipulation with regard to extension time to act please so stipulated yes okay uh uh subject to the stipulation I'm going to make a motion to carry the Nelson application with no further need to notice for the December 5th meeting second yes yes yes yeah thank you appreciate it appreciate the inut uh public com yeah um any further comment from the public before we close Okay um motion to retreat all in favor someone someone get over there get this place open uh Hopkins s 24 all [Music]