##VIDEO ID:k7lKRT4eOKs## this is the October 21st 2024 special meeting of the pr V Zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice the special meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act notice this meeting was published in the Asbury Park Press on as uh September 20th 2024 and the two River times on September 26 2024 notice is also posted on the Bulet board in Bur Hall on September 17th 2024 and has remain continuously posted that as required by the statute copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file for the office of the B clerk copy of the notice has also been sent to such members of the public as have requested this information in accordance to the statute adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minutes of need before proceeding with the formal meeting tonight I'd like to say a few words to the applicants their experts in the audience about the role and authority of pren on board of adjustment the board is separate and independent Municipal legal entity and its limited Authority is specifically set forth in the bur ordinances and the New Jersey municipal land use law this quad by judicial in 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 regulation the B Council does that the zoning board does not enforce the land use laws of the burough Bar Haven this is the responsibility of the burough code enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for relief from the requirements of the bur's land use laws were 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 in the New Jersey municipal land use law and credit and ordinances by satisfying certain required standards of proof the board has no authority to ra these requirement the burden of proof is always upon the applicant to show that he or she is entitled to specifically requested the applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance for purposes of the ordinance and that the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment to the Zone plan variances relate to the future use of the land and are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary or personal situation roll call please Mr here here Mr Mr here drer here here here States uh first not board tonight's going to be the good one matter care a couple of items if i y um last we did actually take testimony and hear a significant course to this application in July um since then the matter has not been reached July 11 since then the matter has not been reached but has been carried without the need to re noticed based upon what we have so far I have the following additional exhibits uh there was a revised architectural rised to July 18 2024 that marked as 7A we also have new board exhibits um up [Music] to zb3 which is the C review letter of July 29 2024 um we did have a certification from John rway is new at this point because he it's not here so up even three and I believe the next Mark if you have any additional exhibits will be a well uh no further exhibits other than the revised plans which she reference as 7A 7A cor I do know that we have some revised numbers that Mr Rizo was going to go through that might be a good place to start just so I just want to clarify really quickly because I don't like to continuously issue more letters but there was one additional exhibit provided to me uh specific to calculating floor area so a couple numbers in my July 29th 2024 letter um are a little bit different the first one is the maximum floor area which is 0.310 still a d variance and then maximum floor area is now 3,14 square feet um that change now eliminates the the BT varant just say that again Jordan sure both of them or 32 you have 3242 right and then that's 3104 now correct and and I'm sure they'll explain how we got there okay anybody's going to testify this application think they might have something to say oh what's the what's the new ratio and it's not 324 what's the isue yes 0.310 it's it's still it's okay got you you SAR or affirm the testimony before this bo be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do us should say pleas your name before testifying spelling your last name for purp Rec your thank you chairman board members mark aens on behalf of the applicant Samantha and Kevin Goodwin when we were last here in July we had gotten substantially through the application and as a result of the board's comments um we gave a careful thought to revising the plans those plans which have been submitted and marked today as 7A um reflect the number of revisions right obviously you heard the reduction in the floor area ratio variance that's come down to 31.040102 [Music] these were pursuant to the commentary directly received from the board so with that again I would recall Kevin he has been administered the oath of office chairman he had been previously qualified in July with regard to expertise as a licensed architect in state of New Jersey I presume is called assume we have no less licenses than we had in July that is correct still a good standing right okay Mr spin can you take the board through the revisions on the plans that were submitted and revised through July 18th certainly um in the last meeting there were um I need to say the name I'm sorry Kevin sping SP I NK from Kanan associate Architects thank you okay there were four U major points that the board had brought up um in no particular order other the way I would like to describe them uh the first one was that uh there was an issue obviously with a variance on all four sides of the house um which where three of them are pre-existing nonconformities and one was induced by us putting in a covered porch second one was the existing tree at the back of the house which me I that it is a 4ot round at the bottom um that we were planning on removing the tree and it was brought up that the tree could not be removed unless it was being replaced in time so obviously we needed to work around the tree and figure out a way to save that tree um number three was the overall square footage of the house um and number four was the maximum floor area ratio so taking in the four side yard setbacks to start with first of all we uh was the rear of the house uh the rear of the house we were putting a covered porch on we have removed the cover porch completely so the existing house um where we will be remaining is at 38.87 FT where 30 ft is allowed so we are we have no variance on the rear of the house um on the southerly side of the house the pre-existing condition has a variance where the property was set um at uh 9 ft to the existing house where the requirement is 10t we have taken 9 fo 4 and A4 in off of that section of the house in this corner here we take 94 and A4 block pulling it back at this point in doing that we are now removing that pre-existing side setback we are now at 10.25 10.24 ft where 10 ft is required so we've removed that variant the removal of that variance also covers some other uh major points on the house uh specifically I would like to go through the rest of the front the front of the house um currently the house is at 26 ft with 25 is required but the covered porch is at 20.7 we will be maintaining the covered porch at 20.7 and expanding it as we discussed last time both to the southernly side and to the Northerly side in order to make it one continuous porch across the house um the willow side of the house the existing garage is at 16.5 ft existing where 25 ft is required we are maintaining the garage at the 16.15 Ft but as we discussed last time we are changing the elevation of the roof so rather than having the Gable end we are now making a hip roof so it actually is reducing or pulling that portion back from that side although the house is still remaining right where it was um in regards to the tree the existing tree this is where the reduction of the existing four in this corner the existing tree 4T round at its space is 24 off of the corner of the house by us pulling that house back the 9t we are actually clearing and giving the root ball more room so the tree actually could remain and we will not be interfering with the tree which is place here I drew it on by hand um into the location just so we can see where it be um so we are now going to keep the tree it will not need to be removed at all clarification with regard to the souly lot line um the existing home as I understood it encroached on the sidey yard are you removing a portion of the existing Ranch in addition to removing the proposed addition on the second story that is correct we are removing 9 foot 4 and A4 inches of the first floor back in order to allow us to clear that the second floor we're actually removing from what our previous plan was it is approximately um 13' 11 in that we're pulling the second floor back so it's actually stepping even further back because the tree does have a slight sway to it so I'm keeping our house away from the tra and that's because the the the lot is that is correct yeah that's why that back Co yep but but now by pulling it Forward we're we're giving us more room and we're actually giving us space to put the air conditioners in that space the compressors within that space that are now behind the house out of the setbacks as well so those air conditioning compressors will be in a conforming location that is correct thank you so that covers the the first two points which are the four setbacks as well as the existing trade the next one is the square footage um first thing that we discussed is we we did remove the first floor we removed 9 fo4 and a/4 inch off the first floor so we pulled that back once we get to the second floor She you referring now to A3 of my architectural set she A3 7 a correct thank you on this on the sheet on the first floor you can actually see where the existing house was and where we are now removing it pulling it back we reconfigured the uh what was a uh a guest bedroom on that floor we reconfigured the bathroom we configured the bedroom pulled that section in order to make it it's the bedroom is smaller the bathroom smaller we got rid of the closet it's a smaller closet now um but we were able to get it fit and be able to save the location of the trailer on the second floor what we did was again this corner where we had been lining up with that first floor we've pulled it back and we' pulled it back further than that so we actually stepped the house in on the second floor so we were removing 13 ft 11 in off of this side in this area so those numbers have throw me off how many square feet did you remove from the first floor and then the second floor and then combine as a result of that operation uh well the total we had been at um go back sorry I didn't actually spell out specific foes our previous application when we came in was at 3,391 Square F feet total we are now down to 3,14 square fet total and that's where all the square feet come off right there the square foot comes from there are four locations where we've taken square foot one is off of this spot here two is off of this whole corner here three was the entire rear of the house we pulled in 2 foot6 on the whole rear the house and then we pulled in the two front Corners here in additional 6 in from where they were before yeah that was the question I was going what's the setback from the street what how much did we come back from the street in the front again the existing main part of the house the the front of the house is still lining up in line with the exist and it conforms it is at 26 ft so we were not ever creating a new uh second floor that was in back but we did pull this back in at additional six and six here it still allows the bathroom to work it still allows the windows to all be uniform across the front with the skirt roof on the front not interfering with the window so I calculate the pre and post as 287 Square ft reduction that's correct then the last item is the the maximum floor area ratio um by by us reducing this we are now down below the 3220 that we are uh technically the maximum allowed so we're now at 313.2 3104 so it actually falls under so we've got rid of that variance the last variance that we were asking for and we are still asking for is the maximum floor area ratio uh floor area ratio again if we take 28% of what the lot should be allowed at 11,500 that would be the 3220 our lot is significantly undersized at 9998 so we should be allowed 27 99.4 sare F feet um we are at the 313.2 um but I believe we've taken out u a significant amount of square footage even even cutting off portion of the first floor to allow the tree to be able to to survive so I believe we've and removing that nonconform correct removing that addition but at this point the only variance that I believe we are asking for is the f um as well as the pre-existing nonconformity on the front yard set back for the corner of the barage and I think the off street parking on Willow correct and um existing conditions today there's a defense I believe in the right way and you're going to be eliminating that fence and constructing property yes and that's going to be a compliant fence and you understand to corner and correct yep um the only issue that again the numberers difference between what um Mr Rizzo had had uh calculated and what I have calculated and the reason why I do have a a small exhibit if you'd like to see it um the code requires that the height from your finished floor second floor to the underside of Rafters under short roofs has to be less than 30 in anything over 30 in counts a square footage Mr Roso was counting all of it as Square footage um with the assumption that it was over 30 in so I did present him with a small uh detail which if you want to see it um it shows that each one of the roofs that are the shed roof along the front the shed roof that will be in here and the new shed roof that will along the rear all of those are under the 30in requirement so none of that square footage actually counts towards the second floor if you're looking at sheet 83 which I think you're fly on already um second floor floor plan there is a white box there's a long one on the top um and then there's three more on the top left bottom left and bottom right I originally counted those this floor area and then this exhibit here basically shows that that's the the roof between the first floor and the second floor and that measurement is less than 30 in so I'd like to introduce that chairman since we're referring to it in both of the testimony respectively so we're up to 8A now excuse me exhibit exhibit a12 EX so uh can you describe this again please Mr sping what we're looking at so looking at as a side elevation of the house and it is showing uh looking at it from the southerly side of the house um it shows the three as proposed as proposed that is correct and it's showing the three roofs that would be in question um along the front the the shed roof that is over the front porch as you can see on that one can you just point them out for the board would be this side right here it is now 1 foot um just making sure I had this 1 fo0 and a half between what would be finished floor and the underside of the rafter on that so that doesn't count does not count right second one is a uh the shed roof that will be over the the stepped in second floor from the first floor at the side where we've pulled the side in that is at 2 foot three and 3/4 of an inch from the underside of rafter to finish floor so that one doesn't count does not count and then the last one is the rear skirt that will go across the whole back of the house um running along this here where we pulled the whole rear in by 2 fo6 on the second floor that finished floor to Underside Raptor 1 one and 38 of an in so that one doesn't count that is corre thank you there was an element of that in the original plan as I recall was it simply the generation of the new plan and the lack of specificity with regard to the dimensions that led to the miscalculation understand you probably pull in second floor a little bit on the second division to this yep you were using similar Design Elements before but they were further extending from the old footprint and now they're in play in the new footprint that is correct that was the reason why the numbers were a little skewed in the first application that we came I didn't know why that is the reason why have you completely eliminated the uh the rear porch yes completely gone yep there is a patio out there it's just slab or patio on ra and Mr Rizo what is the Delta between what the FL area ratio limits the house at given the lot size and the proposal the total square footage the the existing lot size yeah so we're we're beneath the cap we're beneath the 3220 cap but we're tripped up on floor area ratio and I heard thought I heard the number at 27 and change7 27995 2,800 square ft oh so 27.99 The Proposal is 30 314 3104 so it's 300 and five yes correct square feet Beyond so you would conform with regard to that correct what's the square footage of the first for 1678 second second 1474 first FL is 1630 16299 29.6 is the square footage of first okay I have no further questions of Mr Spain German board members I can recall Mr Hudak if necessary but I'm I'm sure he would testify that the reduction and elimination of the respective variances only improves his prior planning testimonies you agree to comply with any remaining teal comments that I have anybody yes so I recall from the last discussion could you pull your sheet down so we can look at front elevation I recalled some concerns in relation to the appearance of the home from the street and the overall size and fault as it as it appears from the street the majority of the square footage that you've removed is in the rear it's not going to be evident you did mention that you were pulling back the roof on the one side can you show us where you've added changes different architectural elements to soften the size of the homeall when looking at it from the front certainly with the reduction of the 2 and 1/2 ft off the rear across the hall piece the overall peak of the house here has actually lowered Down The House originally we had it at 3115 it is now going to be at 3.5 so it has gone down a few inches because of of us pulling that piece in the these two sides were what we really were trying to maintain to balance the two pieces um it will obviously look much better if the two roofs were at the same height but because we've removed so much off of that side and pulled that side in in uh from the rear on the second floor by 13' 11 it has significantly reduced this Ridge line has dropped down um the other Ridge line on the other side has only dropped fractionally because we only took six inches off of the front by pushing it in so we were trying to maintain the elements we do love the way the house looks it has a very beautiful the side we um so ultimately all we've done is lower the roofs down slightly in order to uh to make the backs of the house work did you pull back the two corners on the second floor as well uh we only reduced them in front to back the rest you not pull it in side to side right but you effectively set it back in additional six only six inches this portion and that portion have reduced 6 in uh if we go any further these windows would have to be changed to Shorter windows and it wouldn't be the balance that we have going across the whole front so we were trying to maintain the same elevation the same look um without this room that comes up interfering with the window itself but originally the entire facade of the second story was flat across no we always had a jog here this was always back of I guess it was about foot now we're about 18 inches back I okay any board members have any other questions for the AR you discuss the attic uh the attic is just a pull down stair going up into the attic space uh at the very peak of the attic scale give you actually I can give you the height the once it's a pull down though it's automatically at the rigid itself at the bottom of the ridge it would be 86 in the attic space and then it will start to slow down on either direction thank you I believe we have shown it on the new plans it was a question that was brought up in the original we do show the attic stairs pull down stair in the hallway so it will be pretty much dead center on the ridge so we get the most height as you first get up to the stairs to be able to put things into your any other questions to the architect okay Mr you're not going to call the planner again I'll just call him back just to just so that we have very brief testimony okay i' also ask chairman that you indulge me since we have six not seven if you could possibly offer any comments from the board before the formal voting that would be greatly appreciate since we're under the full board sure thank you great all right so applicate recalls Robert Hudak licensed professional plan lose any licenses Mr Hudak no I have not Mr chairman glad toar thank you so much and thank you for having you back again like yes before yes I previously swor thank you no ultimately like Mr aen said um based on our revisions what we've proposed tonight is an enhancement above and beyond what we had originally prepared for the board the reduction in the the overall size of the house results in US losing a number of variances including the F cap variance were're previously seeking so and I stand by my testimony excuse me the floor area not F the fa I'm sorry floor area not the floor floor area cap that's what I should have said Flor air cap my apology been um be that as it may um again it only enhances what I had said before that the property is in line with the current development Trends in the neighborhood that the site can clearly accommodate the issues associated with the larger f as you've seen we are creating a much more aesthetically pleasing uh home that fits in with a context of the neighborhood and the rest basically as I had said before with respect to the Sea variant relief that we had sought a lot of it is a result of the size of the lot and the configuration of the home such is the parking and the front porch area again the purpose of the municipal land use walk are Advanced I talked about purpose a general welfare light air in open space purpose C the population density purpose G sufficient space for various uses and purpose I desirable visual environment and with respect to the negative criteria I'll reiterate there is no substantial detriment to the public good nor to the Zone plan and uh zoning ordinance as a result of this application Mr HUD pushing on against D variance and 305 sare fet or at issue with regard to compliance um I think you said that the lot is particularly suited maybe you didn't say particularly suited I know that's term of art um for this house that the lot effectively can handle this size house the ordinances themselves indicate otherwise so what what is it about the lot what is it about this design what is it about this um that warrants a variance in light of the Flor area ratio limitation I believe this slot is unique in that as a corner lot already um typically Corner lots are much larger that's shown in your ordinance this is a this is a significant undersized lot the exhibit I had last time if I may this was exhibit a11 they introduced showed the neighborhood pattern and I did a review of the tax map which isn't 100% accurate however it does show that our lot which is located here at the center of a11 is smaller than the majority of the Lots in the same Zone which is basically the south side of Willow Street and the majority of the houses if you look at the yellow markings on a11 shows all of the twostory structures in the neighborhood this is a 500t radius from the property in question you said yellow markings G me green markings I'm sorry sorry my mind's on football I apologize I'm the Chain Gang anyway um with respect to those green uh those green markings that is those are the two story structures we are also adjacent to the R5 Zone which allows much smaller lots and as you can see a majority of those are also twostory dwellings so what we're proposing is in keeping in line with that also this lot is unique because we back up to the park which is not an area that will be developed so we in in all honesty we do not have neighbors if you will directly adjacent to our property along three sides we do have one neighbor on lot two along Oak Place or we do have a um a landscape buffer between the properties already that exists that's why I don't think there'll be any um impediment to light a in open space with respect to lot too and again there was no direct neighbors no J immediate J neighbors to the rear along Willow and Oak so it's a different it is unique in that sense that's why particularly suited M I think I mentioned this at the last thing that the issue is that being an undersized corner lot and while there are several structures there that had been renovated into two-story structures and I think Mr shet pointed this out at our last meeting was that most of those houses have a floating second floor a much smaller second floor uh setback they didn't plop a second floor right on top Ranch so therefore it doesn't present the impact to the street being an undersized corner lot and you're putting a second floor right on top of the first floor I think it exceeds I think it exacerbates the impact of the street because it's a corner lot and a 10,000 foot corner lot at that if you look at all the houses if this lot if this house were in an interior lot of uh r10 10,000 square F feet it would have I think would have much less impact than that corner because it's specifically because it's a corner lot if I today I we are extending the garage a little bit with the hole on it but that's really where the area that's adjacent to and I'm referring to A7 I believe it is that is the area here that is adjacent to Willow Street no place and the reason you typically want larger size lotes your corner lot is because of the slight sight triangle so that you do not have any any building within that side triangle typically it's 25 ft either direction here you already have an existing building that for well or ill already intrudes into this existing front yard setback we're not changing that at all we already have a building here and that's not where we're increasing our we're we're providing for the addition if you will we're increasing over the interior portion so that's why you typically have larger Lots as Corner Lots or require a larger corner lot here we're not doing that in addition as the chairman pointed out most of the square Footers that we reduced is from the rear so it has really no impact to the street and I I personally if Mr can you asked for some sort of color I would have liked to have seen a little more pullback on those two side elevations and I understand the window thin but if you're trying to reduce impact of the street on an undersized lot I think that was where that's where if you want to talk if you want to use the the the point that many houses have a second floor quit on them their second floors look quite a bit different than this they're well undersized for the second side you know house imately across the street and the one adjacent to it I know that person so no well there are a number of houses like I said I did take a walk around the neighborhood here I did see a number of the newer houses that were recently constructed that are not as you described only a floating second floor they have no they're not but they're all brand new construction conforming new construction uh for the record on Park Lane there the gray one on that no down that's my house I am well I'm well aware of those houses on that street and the only ones that have came up for variances were ranches uh that had a second floor put on we did one that's the interior corner on that street several years ago back significant pull back second floor so it is pulled back no we did that two well the porch was the second yeah the second floor was disrupted than we did the par there was the porch that was added to the house after the second okay and and the variance related to the to the PCH not the second floor didn't need as a variance for the second floor because it was not slab in line with the first floor okay like I said I'm just talking about the fact that I'm just saying none of those houses that you have in green were subject to Bar relief nor is I insinuating that I'm just simply saying that two story houses are not out of the ordinary for that area that's all I'm saying but with respect to this lot again one of the smallest Lots in the in the zone in this particular area within that 500 ft foot radius here yeah so that's why I'm arguing it and with respect to being a corner a lot because it is under siiz it creates certain challenges that we have to overcome we're trying to do that in the best way we can you you could nip and Tuck this house any way you want is it going to be a pretty house is it going to feat with the context of you know conort with the context of the neighborhood not necessarily you can build anything you want it could be hideously ugly about and I think that goes against your policy I think it looks good I'm just worried that it's a it's that there was wasn't more of an effort to pull those Pull It in from the I think I think the architect's testimony though Mr chz is important right so what he said was that if if if these Corners get pulled back more then the heights of the windows get reduced understand and then you don't have the Symmetry that's been produced across the facade so I think that's a consideration I think the consideration because because it's not just taking you know one level and stacking it on the other right we have got a difference of about 150 feet you know plus or minus between you know just wondering if the if the foot setback is going to be recognizable you know if I look at it from the street can I tell that that second that those two sides are pushed pushed in a foot I don't know well there it's hard to see from a flat perspective it it it's it is hard to see from the from the plan view you see that the that the that the facade is broken at the corners and so it does bring the eye in I think from that perspective the other thing that's important I think is the applicant tried to fill in the porch the front porch That's existing remember we're not working with a clean pallet we're working with something that was created 60 70 years ago and trying to reconcile that fairly with current design as well as limitations of the ordinance on an undersized lot and so that's what we heard you know from from the board at the July meeting and that's why we made these these revisions you know eliminating several the variances along the way principle of which was the four area cap go handing him with the ratio yeah and I I will add it I believe if you look at this front elevation drawing this is A7 you will see the differentiation here so you're coming at theer Street you wouldn't be able to see that7 A7 a7a A7 a7a yes A7 yes right okay you will see some differentiation it's hard like you said it's very difficult on a plot piece of paper SC 3D picture but you will see the differentiation and again it's interior blot this is really the area we're most concerned about with respect to the front door setx because of that site Tri what's the existing elevation of the existing garage I know it doesn't have a cal on it now what's do we know I have the the the height this is the existing elevation the roof is still the same we're following what's there it's the same but you put that hip putting the hip we're cutting it back and then putting aoup on the top so the ridge height doesn't change that's correct you see it from the corner these are our older r renderings that we did um I have not revised them so the only difference is this pie down a foot but in general and this piece here is pushed back in an additional six in but you can clearly see the delineation in it what you look at it is you have the front from I think you can see the front and this is this is an older version that's 12 in set back versus 18 in that's correct yes so these two portions of the house will be pushed an addition as you can see in our original our original drawings original renderings the two ridges were very nearly at the same point on the two sides so this Ridge is now going to be down uh lower because of the fact that we took 13 and a half or 13.11 from the back of that and explain to me why you couldn't because I'm looking at the new I actually have your old plan here and then I look at the new one and you can it's more pronounced than the new one the difference in the ridge Heights from left to right cor why couldn't you make them equal uh in order to make them equal we would have to take this side and cut it back as well or change the pitches and when you start changing the pitches it starts to look a little bit odd I mean we can make them all match but you change the pitch and you lower one side down the eve line gets larger if you're trying to maintain a gutter line that's uniform all the way through um and it just it would look odd by having a much larger Eve line on one side than on the other okay thank so I just want to clarify I don't think the rub is the existence of the second floor uh the ordinances permit the second floor so I think the rub is the 3 5 S ft and whether or not there's an intersection between how the house is going to present to the front and from the side you know this is a corner so you effectively have two fronts and the 305 F feet if you didn't have the 305 F feet your building is a matter of right um and so the question for the board is whether or not the board feels as though that intersection is problematic um or whether it is something that we can accommodate given the existing um hardship in relation to the existing home in the there Mr hak have anything further unless you have any questions at this point anyone else have any have questions again just U ask to you know any feedback from the board appreciate Mr ch's comments we're goingon to open to the public and um and then we'll have some discussion okay so nothing further from me now nothing further at this time CH are there any members of the public that have any comments or questions with regard to the good one application but direct black not okay so you have nothing further Mr aens nothing further okay um to the board uh Mr Akens has requested that we have some discussion um in light of the fact that we're one member short uh the application before you requires a the variance only one variance with regard to FL area ratio um and so I'm interested in hearing what people think with regard to what's been presented I I think I've said [Music] pretty Mr sh um I think that the distinction made in the planning testimony that this would fit in with the character of the neighborhood as it is developing as opposed to the character of the neighborhood as it is um that's my distinction out of that second part there um you know you talk about the neighborhood and honestly in in my the neighborhood for this is the contigous block on o and you know that portion of Willow there across the street on Willow there's TW story houses but they [Music] are significantly older than this piece of development here um you know narrow almost Cottage type properties that are two story um directly across the street and on the same side of the street all the way to the end of the block are ranches um there are two properties on the far side of the street on that block that have second floors as Mr nesby was commenting those are both floated um significantly in from the first or footprint um so they they really hit more like a ranch than a than the two-story [Music] um house not not even like I don't know my opinion on that um I I feel like that's really the neighborhood and the the um character that this property falls into um the comment that there's no neighbor to the um West um and that it's surrounded on two sides by streets and not neighbors I think throws it a little bit because those areas are all really pretty high traffic areas for town because of the school that's there the park that's there hundreds of people go by this house every morning and every afternoon um and see this every morning and afternoon on their way to and from the school to and from the park um I I think this will be significantly more noticeable from the park certainly significantly more noticeable from the um corner for the vehicle traffic and the pedestrian traffic um I understand it's Point lot understand it's undiz um and I understand it meets the cap but the cap is something that is there to deal with oversized Lots uh where they're not coming near the floor area ratio um I can appreciate that they pulled some things in here and there to bring it under the cap um but on a on a a lot that's smaller than it's required to be the cap to me is not the the operative limit the um ratio is the oper um and as was stated before I mean the bulk of the bulk of bulk that was reduced was to the back it's not going to be seen from Willow Street or from play yeah I don't know that's that's yeah the extent of my thoughts on on the matter can I just make a comment and and thanks Al for kind of Jing my M we are tasked and hear all the time about two big houses on two small Lots in this and where it makes sense we Grant leave but sh the the uniqueness of the lot being how highly visible it is because of the school there because the amount of traffic that goes past there every day will I just for given the visibility of it and the the invariable comments that you're going to hear of well how they get how that house get passed well because technically you know the square foot they cut up in the back so it's still from but I really would have liked to would like to see more effort to get below that the 31% the floor ratio given that some size lot given the VIS visibility a lot given that people can say oh look another big house went on a small um and to Echo what what he said I know oh we eliminated the 3220 C the 3220 exists for oversized Lots it really is not the C the C is 20 or this laot nothing further to um I'm I'm kind of agreeing with you two and I and I actually would have liked to have seen um I guess I can't really picture how it would be a detriment had we had two smaller if the two two Second Story windows on either side um on the right and the left were smaller it would still have a symmetry in my mind not necessarily five across symmetry but still a symmetry on left and right it might have shrunk it to um so that the the front um would feel less of a mass um it's reminding me of the other lot that we talked about um on on Bar Road in third streets the same idea with the the light and the air in the open space and and um so many people walking by and driving by in that area um that it's going to feel like a significant change so those are also my concerns I really appreciate the the efforts made to pull it in um to to avoid um the need to take down the tree in the back I appreciate all of those I just was thinking maybe if it had more of an impact on the streetcape it would be helpful thank you Mr P um I wish there was a neighbor who would come to testify because I'd like to hear what their thoughts were about this um but I do I agree with M Dan Ang that you know you could change those windows and make them a little smaller and keep the um symmetry of the house you know you have considerably changed the design to get closer to where we need to be but it's a big house on a small lot um you know back to Mr sh's point that you know the context of the neighborhood I go through this neighborhood and I'm frankly you know there there used to be ranches there the ranches are going away uh ranches are very popular in the 50s and the 60s you know that's where you wanted to live in a ranch people don't want to live in ranches anymore so we do need to take into consideration we're going to have second floors in these neighborhoods but um you know to all the point this is a possibly one of the most trafficked Corners in the town um with the schools and the park uh we have the farmers market there now a number of weeks at in that General vicinity um so that's my concern too what do the impact then um visually because there are some houses that were tear Downs in this General vicinity that you go by and it's um you know you get taken to back by slightly so those are form yeah no I know you next um so we you know you need to find the balance then between you know a ranch doesn't work in 2024 but how do you make it work within the neighborhood um you know we have big houses we don't want big houses on little Lots but I do like the effort that you are putting in to you know renovate the house and kind of within the overall wishes of the town and the master plan I just I'm just echoing the concerns I guess is the best way to put it without double to further deep into it Dr L I'm really torn because you you've uh you've done a lot of work to make this work and um and yet I understand the uh uh the overall concern I I really wish the bulk of this house could be more into the rear than uh been on the Front Street side um and other than that I don't have anything else to I would like to add just follow up um you know I really do appreciate what you guys have done um it just you know this is really kind of a unique spot it's difficult because as a setback goes the second floor is within the setback but it's the size of the second floor that's problem and not the setback itself and the rear of the house is already established and just happens to be established not close to the you know the setb no understood so so again those are existing conditions not of the applicant's creation yeah yeah look I think the issue is the 305 Square F feet and how does it intersect with the design I there's no question as I look at it that it's a beautiful house the house itself fits in Fair it's it's very very nice and on a different LW there's no question that we'd all be proud to own it live minut it live next to it I don't think that's the issue I think the issue is the rug between where you are relative to the Flor ratio and the the the feeling of bulk from the front um you have it from the side too but there's there's greater limits in terms of what you can do with that and so I think we're not really focusing on it um but it it's all about those Square feed and when we come up against these limits these are real hard limits that we need to really think carefully about um and I think it's unfortunate that with the reduction that you've made in the square footage that we haven't wound up with a feeling from the street of a softening um of it and it's it's it's a shame because I don't think anybody up here would argue that 3100 is too big in terms of a lot in an r10 Zone um the issue is the accommodation of of the house by the laot and and I think what I think what we're struggling with is is just that issue I also I like the C Mr Kenan because he got away from the nested Gables that we see from a certain architect whose name shall be named name us all over Ros um and it looks a hell a lot better than that it's just so chairman with that may I have five minutes to confer with my CL yeah thank you yeah sure what do we have for admin anything oh quickly administrative item one administrative item uh approval resolution for Ryan 917 River Road uh having read the resolution I would make a motion to approve the resolution yes um Mr yes Mr yeah um that's the only thing on the agenda she the minutes from October 10th did you no I was gonna put that because I'll put on the that's give it a few minutes then we on the record why there no self coverage better than Wii Branch there wi-fi here yeah the only way I is that right it's just this little black hole new thing when I Chang my phone I guess I was on some like Antiquated plants where it was like dirt cheap they don't offer it anymore so I went up like five bucks a line wiand I don't know if you guys get that it says W next to it and it's yeah it's a game changer because before that I was like I can't get service they trying to get me to change right here what do you at Verizon yeah I got Verizon there's like this thing now you can had like at least for whatever I had to be unlimited it was like some want to create a plan guys like five bucks more you this Ultra wideband and you get it now and shows 5G Game Changer not just if you want to watch vide would like to actually I oh yes your wife already have she paper they don't existing customers you got a complaint new vones no here's the thing though the guy in the store like we got a work R he says on this plan two lines is $110 55s he says on the same plan more lines was $120 he says we give you two new lines and you take the new phones from those put them on the lines P have your numbers and just other two sit there bur phones you need to out oh see to no she justes I'm take comfort we shut this up uh yeah we're going to take minut yes here here uh Mr you have for a break uh we finished that break uh I think that the board had discussed their feelings about the application and you had asked to for us to pause thank you chairman I did board members and I'd ask at this time that the board carry the matter so the applicants can further consider the board's comments I know how busy your agenda is and U just doing some quick math right the next regularly scheduled meeting is the 14th which would mean re plan revisions would have to be in by the 1st of November that's 9 nine days I don't think that's especially realistic that'll put you to December potentially we already Carri one December CH what's the uh current agenda for December so uh December we have the board application the Gil application and we did carry Nelson but I need to confirm with Mr bronsky if we're g to continue with that because the app did come in and talk to me about submitting a new zoning permanent application to build the okay so so we have two on one carry that may not be heard anything else no okay um the applicants been work on this a long time um I think that if we move you to the is December the 5th December uh we'll figure out how to hear it on so with that no further notice you yeah anyone feel strongly about notice uh no anybody wants be no yeah age so I'll make a motion to carry the good one application to the December 5th meeting with no obligation to Reen notice and a stipulation on behalf of the applicants of an extension of our time to act so stipulated chairman yes yes yes yes yes thank don't go for next application on tonight is the Nelson application everyone may I sure problem [Music] [Music] AB [Music] so it's the first one also [Music] quiet one all right Mr ra you're back we're back okay we've been on the record the whole time find go ahead and get started with announc application just like to Esta we have jurisdiction in this matter yeah thank you very much good evening chairman board members again mark aens on behalf of the applicants Keith P Trish Nelson ladies and gentlemen this is an application you want to Mark point or I run to the checkl item sure that'd be fine I'll do my intro after the exib that's fine they'll remember that's fine okay um with your permission Mr Ain like to Mark A1 the attorney cover letter of January 22 24 A2 will be the zoning board application guidelines plus the addendum the A2 A3 will be the completed Land Development checklist A4 will be the zoning officer denial letter of December 21st 233 A5 will be the images one sheet and four images on it A6 survey prepared by Mor engineering survey dated 6 2623 A7 Signed Sealed architectural plans additions and alterations uh inclusive of floor plans and elevations revised to August 2024 uh A8 will be the response letter of the architect uh M Cronin April 5th 2024 zb1 will be the Fair Haven historic preservation commissions memorandum of action need that referencing a meeting of November 24th 2022 dated the memo appears to be October 30th 2023 zb2 is the uh CME engineering report March 12 2024 SEO zb3 will be the C engineering report May 31st 2026 of Jordan us I believe that's ex um you have addition Mark I'll have some to Mark add Mr CR goes along so you're up to A9 then when we get there A9 so noted thank you Mr chair um there are a few checklist requirements um first one is elevations of all sides of the structure now they provided three sides on the elevations the one side they didn't provide they're not making any modifications to and they provided a photo the existing addition is so I don't think the exception to that and then the the last three are the notice to be published in the paper um board has jurisdiction so that's been review M County planning board in count Health Department applications which appear to be notable so I don't see there any exception any questions about the CL W no okay second okay thank you very much uh so ladies and gentlemen this is an application um on behalf of Keith and Trisha Nelson property is located 28b gesp Avenue it's in the r10 zone um it's a fairly significantly undersized lot at 6,336 Square ft it's actually a 1930 era Cottage one of two built in this neighborhood uh which was originally designed as a wedding chapel and used for wedding of the estate owner's daughters the cathedral space over the living room uh is approximately 351 Square FT Property now fronts on Captain's Point Way which is actually a private road the house and property appear however and function as though it were on an improved public Street and it's a typical single family house on an improved public street we have some existing non-conformities uh there's one4 area ratio where we're at 34 we're proposing to increase that to .39 by 3177 Square ft and lot cage is presently non-conforming at 45.1% where we're proposing to go to 46.7 uh percent that is uh the equivalent of 101 Square fet um so this would allow a proposed third bedroom on the second floor uh with a study and bathroom on the first floor and at the same time we would be removing a one and one half story portion of the existing residence on the west side side of the house there's currently a rear yard setback variance due to the poos lot depth of 52 ft very shallow lot not surprisingly uh and the proposed addition including demolition of that portion that I just referenced on The West Wing We Believe would better balance the house aesthetically especially from the streets gate perspective lastly the front yard existing condition to the house is 20 ft we propose 29.1 ft where 30 ft is required so just a little bit less than a 1T deviation there on the variant um and with me this evening um are Matthew Cronin licensed architect as well as Robert Hudak licensed professional planner so I'd ask at this time Mr KZ they both please be sworn and I'll Place their cren on back anyone testifying in this matter I as you stand swear airm the testimony give for the board to be the truth the whole truth the truth I do I do I do okay I would ask that before you start testifying that you state your name from record spelling your last name thank you mat Cronin C and Mr good evening do you possess any lication in the state of New Jersey we canor Mr CR you lost any licenses since you were last approved by the T I have not okay EXC Mr Hudak have you lost any licenses in the last time minutes weate as the qualifications here thank you great all right GR what can you tell the board about the proposed application of the DS um let's mark them a a A9 now A9 is a handout that the Nelson's put together but it explains the existing house and some the history of the house that will be gone over have a copy thank as Mr an just mentioned the house is uh was built in the early 30s and it's in what would be called the tutor style which um is is a um which is uh uh typified by uh stucko walls steep roofs uh dark trim wide overhangs and low uh roof bearing um so it's uh we are at 28 V gesp and you were G to mention the uh the wedding shop I did in my introductory remarks all right yes okay so if um I have the proposed elevation but we can start with that um so let's mark this now as uh a 10 this is a rendered copy of the sheet that was provided to the board that was submitted rendered copy of the elevations previously submitted 8 okay the house is really uh separated into three different volumes as you can see in the photographs in the in the handout there's a center a large Center Mass that's a pull two stories then there is a low mass that is one story with a large Cathedral space and then currently there's another low kind of short mass that in that gr level up to the to the left of the house we believe that that originally was a garage with storage above and the those floors do not line up with the floors of the house uh the floor actually there is is a wood sitting at grade it's not separated from the grade terribly well uh we have to really dug in to see if there's any insulation so the existing house is you you enter the the center mass and I've got the just plan here you enter the existing portion of the house and there's a large open uh living dining living dining kitchen great room kind of room in the in the center of the house which was opened up by the Nelsons in the last five years then there is the large um as Mark mentioned wedding chapel room the cathedral space over on the left side with a large fireplace and then there are down three risers there's a small study with a bathroom and a laundry I'm sorry a bathroom and some storage and then up the stairs which are uh skinnier than uh required today you get to the top and there are uh there's a master suite with the closet over top of the left mass and uh a hall bath and a second bath so right now it's really a two-bedroom house with three bathro um I'm sorry so there's two bedrooms upstairs yes okay there are two bedrooms there's access to the the space over the left area there which is the closet and laundry for the master there's no other closet in the master the vaage ceiling on the right side of the house if you're looking at it from the front is there square footage calculated into the size and your measurements based on the vaulted ceiling yes there are uh we went through that with Mr Rizzo and um the numbers that we show AR correct so what's the end result of the vaulted space that isn't actually habitable space uh 351 Square fet over top of the cathedral space is counted towards the floor area okay my second question relates to the configuration of the house now to the private road what was the original configuration was there a private lane or something and do we now have vested rights to use the private street that the new road that's been cutting off the last we I believe there was there was an easement to um the there was there was a subdivision I believe that to the uh south and east of this property and as a result Captain point w was created and the PRI the private drive that served this property has been abandoned and now there's a inessence a curve cut onto Captain's way okay so the house now fronts onto the new road it does and there legal rights to access the home there is and there's no other current access to get to GES but for but for that correct but for Captain's Point Way that's correct here Mr Cronin the the that number for the vaultage ceiling that we counted what was that number again 350 31 there's a line shown on the plan that shows where the 30 inch line is yeah my plan massive I can't put it you can see it on Mr car's plan right there yeah on the second so the we propose to remove the the left side the small Mass on the left side I'm sorry before you do that what what is this square footage of the house say it exists please has it exist and this is um I found a typo on the on the chart uh I the chart on this shows 1,70 sare ft for the second floor it is actually 178 so I can hand out the corrected left that includes 351 so that's a 11 yes and what's the combined square footage of the existing structure um than the existing structure is 2174 that's what I calculated did you you say 178 ft on the first floor uh 178 on the second floor 1096 on the first floor that's what I and so we intend to remove 195 off of each floor which is the existing uh left Mass there and we intend to add 341.50 square feet to each floor for a net increase of 46.6 per floor or proposed totals end up at uh 1, 242.4 for the first floor and 1,2 24.6 for the second floor for a total of 24672 and an F39 is that without the cathedral ceiling that counts that's counting cathedral ceiling with the cathedral okay so without it we 211 6.2 is that correct um you have to back out 351 okay all right so that's the number whatever that calculation 26.2 thank you I just want to say for the board's I'm gonna be referencing my second review letter db3 um the four area ratio and four area numbers I have are a little bit different I am in agreement with the numbers that have been shown tonight on this exhibit um there have been a number of iterations and uh so we ended up at 2,467 Square fet for the floor area and a 0.39 for area ratio 354 is not so existing is 0.342 oh okay and proposed is 0.39 so um what we intend to do like I said is to remove the the left mass and add uh the larger 341 square foot uh addition that will be built at the first floor level we would have uh the same entrance to it a full death whether you exist full dep exists a small study uh opening to a side family entry door and a patio outside and then a small mud room off in the corner we propose stairs coming up to a guest room over top of the uh the addition there where we will grab a piece of the addition for the walk-in closet for the master and put a laundry in the corner um what we intend to do with the elevations is carry on some of the some of the detailing that we um that we see in the existing house the existing main body of the house the um the wall that the roofer sitting on is that the roots bear on is 6'6 it's not the traditional 8 foot for a second floor and and a house we are proposing six feet in our addition so that we can set the RO down just a little bit from the existing Ridge and kind of keep the mass of the house down we then show show a a dormer similar to the existing Dormer on the front of the house with a a front facing window for the bedroom the existing home really isn't touched at all and then on the side we show a a side door three High windows for light coming in a window at the stairs and then at the rear just a small window at the stairs and no other windows because we're ref Fe from from the property line so what are the dimensions of the piece that you're taking off it is um it's 195 Square ft but what 10 fo8 by 184 so it's 18 deep from the side the drive and 9t wide and the footprint of the proposed replacement addition is uh 1781 by 194d where's the extra depth going to go to the rear to the front to the FR it actually improves the rear setback doesn't it slightly yeah it improves the rear well the rear setback is counted to the can of from the existing over the existing second floor we're aligning with the first floor and then you you can see here that we are coming out about a foot from the existing mass that we were moving m we are 29.1 where 30 is required to the front but we figured um this is about as small as we can go we didn't want to go any further back so and we're still several feet behind the existing mass of the house we didn't think it would be that uh problematic and there's a considerable distance to the side there is we are uh 20 foot6 from the porch to the side property line okay which is uh which is substantially buffering it right what what's the Delta on the on the left side of that what's the the difference in the the difference the difference in size of the left side of the hat if you're removing something you're adding something else what's the overall change we're adding about 7 feet to the house and then we're adding three feet for the porch so the overall distance on the numbers is 10 foot as far as the setback goes because the existing house doesn't have a that doesn't have a step it just it doesn't have a porch it just has a step to grade and are you still meeting the that that setback that sidey yard setback the side yard setback is 10 we're in 20.2 it's a generous sidey setback and it's buff Mr R what's what is the nature of the easement to the private Drive do they have I mean who maintains the lawn between them and the street street so so um my understand understanding is that the applicate maintains it right to the right way I think if that's the applicate she may want to speak swear you in you Solly swear that for the testimony you give before be the truth whole talk about the truth that's a yes out there you go and you spell your last name for purpose of the rec uh Nelson n okay be sh right here okay so I I wasn't really asking who M I was asking who the legal right to use that property and the reason I'm asking is because it's apparent that nobody really has the ability to use it the way you do it's substantial amount of property given the size of your lot and I'd like to take it into consideration the fact you Mo is appreciated that thank you um but does the easement give you the right to use it does is it effectively your front yard no it gives me the right to use the driveway okay but I I in all Essence because I maintain the property it appears to be by FR but it is legally not and is it used for any other purpose to your knowledge no thank you is there a shed between the left side of the property uh and the uh uh and and the uh the boundary yes there is there's a shed an existing shed on the left property line is it right on the line it is right on the side yard line and 6 feet in from the rear now is is that considered are you considering the shed in terms of that side yard set pack where does that shed fit into that side yard setback it's an accessory side yard setback it's an accessory side yard which would be required to be five it would be required to be five feet but it's existing condition at zero and and what's the what's the the distance between uh the left side of the house and that um the proposed existing 226 right it's 12T to the steps and it's about 15 and a half to the house ex iting your propos so the cross hatched area on that drawing is the addition the next box to the left is your patio and then your your shed is there yes it do shed legally ex have a permit for that Che I'm going to guess it's been there a long time chairman yeah I'm going to guess that that prates my question is the the distance from the proposed condition of that side of the house to the shed is about 16 ft not including that the steps 15 and the wall steps and have Che it all [Music] it's about 10 by 10 there a picture of the sh it's uh if you look at page two of exhibit A10 you can see it just in the middle of the FR kind right a little white uh white little chck I have it a little bit too on page seven of my report again it's pretty small yeah just pop it up there so Mr Hudak has an exhibit and aial that may be of assistance to help locate the uh shed should we Mark that as a 12 A2 11 a 11 I have is dat the we have a data B through that please yes prepared today I'm sorry pan 1124 P 1124 aial of the Nelson residents and surrounding neighborh 812 okay and and is there testimony that the shed predat on is that what we're going to with I'd have to ask the applicant chair yeah Nelson hi melson come back up chairman has a question Michelle okay there was a shed I replaced it with a new shed so what does that mean did you get permit for it no okay now we're to the bottom of the shed okay I'll get the facts out on the shed thank you okay please continue we uh we did go to the uh as you see with the uh historic um preservation committee memo we did go to them two years ago and their memo mentioned that the they agreed that the proposed addition is consistent with the Integrity of the original structure and will balance the overall stale of same um the one change that they requested was we originally had a row of two windows on the stairs they thought that was too modern looking and they asked us to reduce it and we came back with just one window on the stair you don't have to re resubmit to them so we're just but there was discussion that this was acceptable solution or would be an acceptable solution were there requirements in the letter from the architectural uh committee with regard to um materials and are you stipulating as to using the materials that they require did you present to them perhaps materials and did they agree that those are the right materials we pretended that we would uh remain said that with materials with the difference that we would probably be using some sort of a composite for PVC trim versus the painted wood if I made the language says as a result it unanimously approve the application and so far as the existing finish together with the gunters and downspouts will remain consistent with that which is existing in addition the applicant agreed to Omit top vertical lar depicted on the West Side elevation and reconfigure it so that the proposed 2x6 window will become a 2x4 casement window and that's the only that's all I see just for the record just so records clear what are the materials currently and proposed let's go let's go walls and rooms windows just half currently a hard coat stucco which appears to be original We propos to match that both in material and um texture and color uh the windows are uh black wood frames uh the trim the window trim is black wood frame we would again mimic the size and the color but we would use more modern material the windows have been swapped out since the move there but we would match the the uh window grills for the muttons and mions as shown here and uh the roof is a black afterall chingle roof we would match that and the the the chimney and the porch is bricked with a slate um with slate uh Treads we would match that on our side porch there and so it's your testimony that those materials and colors would meet the requirements of the approval granted a year ago by the historic preservation commission yes it is okay I have no further questions of Mr gr chairman board MERS what about the fenestration in the rear to the addition as I'm looking at it you've got a single window on that side otherwise you're just plain wall what's the the rationale behind that is that all staircase we're there's a lot of stairs here you can you can see it uh uh dotted in there but it's also we're right up on the property line and there's a fence there too there's a fence right behind us so we're three feet off and there are some restrictions I mean I I could get a window in there but there's really no reason to add a window there um is does no one see that side of the house it's right up on a bring up the are that side of the house is right up on the fence on the property line with lot 35 there and um there's a 6ot fence already there the upper Eve is kind of low so we really wouldn't be putting a window there we would have to add the Dormer to add a second floor window and it didn't seem to make sense uh on the first floor I would love to gotten the window in the bathroom but um we're like I said [Music] we're the 3.9 from the fence something we're 3.9 to the fence are you saying that you're prohibited from doing that because of the building code with regard to a window that close to a property boundary I could get a window in the bathroom if it was a little bit of poic and a little bit of safety with the with the fire yeah there's no is there I recall this from several years ago on a house that was on a property line that that there's a fire goow that you can't have there there were different increments under 5T you can have 10% under three feet can't really have under three feet to zero you really can't have any and you have to have um uh basically GPS some sheathing on the outside of the house the house has to be protected from the outside as well as the inside M because you have no control over what's 2 feet away from your house or 3 fo n away from your house so why didn't you put the the window in the [Music] bathroom it with the fence there it just didn't seem like it made sense the window of the bathroom because you would be looking out at the fence you would be looking out at the fence we are poed property line right this is the first four year yes did HPC ask you to revisit that issue HPC was just concerned was what they can see from the street and we added this this the window in the stairwell after we got their their response just because we wanted to get more light into the more light into the house we one facing the one the window facing the the rear of the house the window the only window we have here here the window on the stairock oh okay to orient everybody that's the north side of the house right yes okay and the um Second Story in the in the middle is that can levered in this direction it is two feet and the proposed Edition is going to be flush with the first FL correct yeah okay anything further from Mr con okay thank you Mr Cronin um applicant now calls Robert Hudak licensed professional planner um chairman I would note that um I'm advised that only a lawnmower is stored in the shed and it is not an essential shed for purposes of the applicant's use of the property there's no garage or other exterior storage there is not this is a could be relocated could be done away where would it be relocated to there's not a lot of options you could move it 5et down to 10t between the New Edition and the shed remove [Music] it but the the fence is 6 feet and the height of the shed is 15 15 ft so your your your neighbor is looking at the 15 is I don't think it's 15 that's what it said says the access structure 15 let's let's bring just so we're clear I don't think that respectfully I don't think fence the uh shed 15 can you come back up for the just give us some Dimensions it's 78 s it's does have two bicycles less than 15t yeah okay okay so this flexibility from the applicant standpoint in all sincerity as to the shed we don't want the shed to be whacking the dog so to speak to totally fix that is the shed on a concrete pad no okay Mr HUD do you possess any licenses yeah I'm a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey qualified just moments ago as an expert before this very report matter of fact I was yes thank you thank you Mr chairman I appreciate that I want to jump right into this because I think we've hit on some of the major points involving this application this is severely undersized lot and a very unique location to seen on exhibit 812 because it is located in essence without any Frontage located on that private Street as noted earlier so with respect to the variances we're seeking tonight we are seeking an F variance not the cap but the F itself we are also seeking C variance relief for the front yard setback as noted for the rear yard setback uh that we're we were extending and the block coverage with respect to the d4 variant we have the as you well know the Randol Town Center case is the case on point which notes that the board's focus should be on how the site can accommodate the impact of the larger than permitted floor area the use itself as a single family dwelling is already permitted in the zone and as noted in the 2016 master plan re exam report the primary intent behind the fpr limitation is to ensure that new or expanded homes are compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood I believe our proposal respects both of those as noted in the October 30th 2023 historic preservation commission's memorandum of action approving The Proposal the prop the memorandum States and I quote the addition is consistent with the Integrity of the original structure and will quote unquote balance the overall scale of stene so as you Mr Cronin has noted most of the house will pretty much remain the same at least architecturally blend seemlessly into what is already there and is considered historic in the sense that it is uh unique to this to this area as noted the lot is severely undersized had our lot been compliant we would certainly conform to the F standards and what we're really looking to do is to update the house and bring it into modern living standards Mr fr indicated the stairs would not be something that building code would permit today um as I noted the cap we we do not exceed the cap I also note that 351 ft as the chairman had noted of the habal where isra open space in that we'll call it the chapel area of the house was for or the area forly used as Chapel space with respect to the setbacks from the neighboring properties you have 147 ft to the East and 44.8 ft to the West this does not include this is this is from the building itself not not including the shed these setbacks far exceed the minimum required 37.5 ft that is required by ordinance of separation from the neighboring property proper the principal structures on the neighboring properties so clearly what we're proposing tonight is well within this the confines of the ordinance if you will so with respect to any kind of impacts I think there's very little impact upon the surrounding properties in essence what we're looking to do is keep the architectural Integrity of the house and and like was noted in the um historic preservation emissions memorandum we seek to balance what's existing now there's to the hardships again you have the C1 variants the hardship variants I think the hardship variance in this case for both the front yard and reard setback homeo self-explanatory you a 30 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yard and we have a 54 foot wide lot so regardless of how you slice it we're going to need some sort of variance relief we are bringing that front yard set back um in a in a bit where the new addition is located so that it does provide some Contour to the house as well but again regardless we're going to need some sort of setback variance from the front yard with respect to the rear yard again we're maintaining the the existing reard as Mr cron noted we are not extending it all the way out to where the can lever is today with respect to maximum lot coverage again the lot is severely under siiz pretty much anything you're going to do here is going to result in some sort of Need for variance relief we have a driveway on site as you noted in my exhibit a12 see there is a driveway on site all of this is included in the lot coverage requirement we do not exceed the building coverage required however so in order to accommodate a driveway on the site with the existing house would would still regardless be over lot coverage and our lot coverage variance is not that significant and had the lot met that minimum 10,000 square Fe we would certainly be well under the lot coverage requirement for the Zone with respect to the C2 variance criteria again uh we're trying to keep this house consistent with what's existing on the site um it is a beautiful historic house we want to maintain that of course with unfortunately it is a severely undersized laot so there's little we can do without triggering some sort of relief and we're trying to ensure that what we're reques tonight is in harmony with what is existing already and um again the you know we're trying to maintain the current setbacks as much as we can or reduce them in any way we can which I believe that this application advances perpose of the ml which aim to provide adequate L air and open space while lying the property modern living conditions and standards without extracting from the surrounding neighbor character perfect G promoting efficient use of land and helping fulfill the goals of sustainability by updating the home as Mr Cronin had said you may not be an installation in it in certain sections of it stairs are probably not to we're going to bring this house into code compliance with modern modern standards the adjustments also result in a advancement of purpose ey promoting desirable visual environment I can't stress enough that the house is uh is a unique in its character and it's it's aesthetic and we hope to maintain that and then there's also purpose J which is I really like this purpose of the zoning or of the of the ml to ensure the historic structures maintain their existing character I think it's a very important purpose of zoning that we're hoping toat by this proposal which of course means that all of for all of these reasons we ex Advan purpose a the general welfare purpose of the or of the ml but based on these proofs presented within the C2 criteria I think you can comfortably Grant this relief of course no variance can be granted without finding that the the negative criteria is satisfied there's no substantial detriment of the problem's good and again our proposal respects that existing architecture the aesthetic of the home the historic character of the home again light and air and open space we're maintaining that I want to add that that existing shed that we've been talking about is also J into a garage that appears to not meet the setbacks as well so we're not really affecting the house here per se but there's an existing garage I'm referring to a12 that is adjacent to our property um we're not affecting the house itself but so this chip which is located about here is adjacent to that garage which appears to be not bu it as well what's the setback of that garage supposed to I don't have an exact setback on that CU I don't have a survey how you determine that it's not compant well I'm saying it appears to be not compliant it appears to be very close to the lot line based on the a it need to be Gage on the property to the west to the yes to to the north this if this is North this would be this this Garage on block 35 lot 35 yeah we don't have that one I can't see it but based on the aial it appears to be pretty close to it's definitely not L Fe but I can't tell exactly what it is I don't want to be an exact measure it looks to me like a house that if you look at this house your house from the front the the garage on the house to the immediate left is significantly loss of property that's not the one doctor the one who this is I don't have yeah if I may just the do this my next this is the garage building I'm speaking of here North is to the left on that this would be to the north so this is where the shed is this is where all mission is here there this large tree line here and this is the accessory building I'm talking about thank you okay and with respect to the house if I made doct house here this is the house to Theory build we're not we're in no way really affecting the light not to this house here there is a accessory building in between their house their house and our property it can also be seen on I don't remember which exhibit this is this is the a a11 you'll see it in the A10 I'm sorry guess this is the second page if you look at the top photo it is 8 28a and 28b gese on it by may you can see where the in the sidey yard here you can see the shed on our property and the accessory building on the adjacent property that's you see what I'm talking about that's why I'm saying it appears it's pretty close I can't tell exactly it just appears that it's less than 5T I can't verify I do not have a survey of it and again with respect to the re the reard extensions that back we're maintaining that existing setback we're not going further and with respect to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan the one thing I'm going to say is again U the historic commission put it best we're trying to keep the historic power of the house and that's directly goes to your 2016 re-exam reports goal of historic preservation and the importance of preserving historic structures in town so that pretty much sums up my testimony with respect to this application I welcome any questions that you may have not a question but just a comment so it's r10 on that side the opposite side of street is R5 and the lot really reads I know I lot in essence yes I would agree Mr reens are there any drainage improvements proposed uh no drainage improvements are proposed I'm not aware of any drainage issue certainly as the applicant as there's certainly a drainage issue on bu and to the extent that this house is draining to the private Street draining to theie then winding up in the river and there's significant issue there my question is whether or not there's anything proposed the answer is no my next question is whether or not there's potential to install dryw in relation to the um to the new roof leaders maybe even more than going to recall Mr crown and chair there are two large storm grades like storm Gres that would be in a street in the evenement in front of our property you identify them for the board they um there's one uh sort of directly in front of the front door and then there's one for the to the on your they're on the plan okay M yes if you look at my sheet 204 you see the metal gr the two metal grates are just Orient the board where where's Captain's w w at the bottom of the sheet the this is part of the uh the the RightWay the easement um this is the lawn that Mrs Nelson was talking about mowing and um there is a there are two large storm grates in the easement that I assume carry the runoff down to gesp I don't know where they carry the runoff too but they're there I mean it's right that they're there I don't know if they're necessarily at the low point it's it's hard to tell I don't recall that they are they were subjected like nine years of back and forth and engineers and planners and the courts and frankly they still probably don't work because I know the ones on the south side of the property don't work they may not tie in anything they just may be why why are they in the law what's that why are they in the law must be the they didn't want to any runoff going towards the 20 dby letter I don't recall that the the lawn the lawn in the front of the house on the right looks low looks I went by it today and and uh it's it looks very low in comparison to the uh surrounding property the train is well all right so look so just from a casual Observer looking at a survey seeing two metal grates in the middle of lawn that's been newly constructed my guess is that somebody thinks there's a water issue um I'm going to go back to my original question is there an opportunity to improve the drainage situation on the existing in relation to the new Square fot so what I would say chairman is since there's no Topo that's shown on this plan maybe give us the opportunity to submit to Mr Rizzo should the board deem appropriate to to issue an approval this evening of a grading drainage plan if Mr Rizzo feels that it's necessary to install you know supplemental um you know STW recharge system I think that's a reasonable request we are seeking a lot coverage variance it is slight it's an existing non-conforming condition you certainly don't want to ex any condition in the neighborhood we do have a survey actually with with Topo that area I think if the if the applicant had a water problem the applicant probably be proposing it on her own what I'm focusing on is the opportunity to improve the situation for the neighborhood overall not necessarily you can't drain it off site and get it into these metal grades but whether or not there's a better solution if we can put a dry well on this property but but part of that is whether or not you have a location for it and that's really it excuse me I'm looking at the survey um A6 and it does look like the inl rates are but that's a great start um I don't know that those necessarily I don't know what they do I don't know if they detain the water or they connect it anywhere I don't know if they the point is that they're not on the lot per se they're easy in the if there's a way if there's somewhere we can put something did you also look at answer might be no to offset that VAR by by removing 100 square feet somewhere corre I'm asking you just look that up what's the patio to to the east used for is that accessible from inside the house is that a yeah it looks like there are steps there are um we could reduce this patio the patio to the the East Side here by 100 by the amount that we're over how old is that patio pardon how old is that patio did you build it put it in I a permit I had a permit to do the house to do the renovation was the patio part of the plan when the house was renovated was it on the Construction Construction the zoning office it could can you can you just come so the microphone can pick you up I I didn't for I had I just had a renovation so there there wasn't a plan it goes It goes through zoning and because it was approved it couldn't have been shown on the plan because you would have wound up here because you currently are not in compliance you're you're exacerbating the the the non-conforming condition by adding additional impervious as part of the application so the so I guess what I'm going to say is I replaced an old wooden Deb with with with stone so you're saying I couldn't have done that I mean we're we're over by like six square feet I mean that's that's a very easy calculation error from existing conditions so what's so what's what what's the limitation right now what's the existing and what's the proposed 45 in percentage is that okay sure 45% required 45.1% is existing 46.7 is proposed so an increase of 1.6% and that's only six square feet you're saying no six is the one10 per over the 45 we're proposing to go over by 101 square feet the existing being over is by six correct so we're six square feet over now we proposed to go to 101 Square ft so the Delta is 95 squ ft so I take back what I've said it could be a rounding error in terms of the plans that you showed and what eventually got it's postive wasn't on the plans but it's fine okay so I would say I would say we can find 95 square feet or 101 square feet that's what we need can we just get to the compant number you can eliminate that's 101 square feet Yes we can stipulate to that I'm more interested seeing some water get into the ground um but I haven't heard any clear indication that there's a place to put a dryw and an opportunity to get some water into recharge as opposed to being thrown into that stone sewer but you don't know at the end of the day you don't know today whether or not you can do that I believe the applicant did testify that they would submit dur calculations to the engine and if there was a viable opportunity so I don't think we need to sorry because we have the survey now which I I realized so the survey shows the existing too okay doesn't show anything for post but it does it does at least show that the inlets that are there are at a low spot and the applicants una aware of any drainage issue affecting her do they drain anymore anywhere is it more tension I I can't speak I don't know what happens once it goes in there whe they connect to anything or they don't go anywhere I think it's pretty unlikely that it's that it's retained I think that that's also OB that's that would be my guess without anybody knowing any better than that well you I was thinking something that he thought it not actually go anywhere okay so all right I've got ideas when we get that far okay uh is Mr Hudak done no further questions Mr Hudak anyone else Mr HUD I actually have a question the portion of the grass here that that's maintained where the grates are shown what is the approximate square footage of that I know it's a wild calculation because it's got the overall area the overall grass area that exceeds where her lot line is right but it's not but it's in the right way that she maintains what is that know to the east of the driveway yes to the east the driveway that's correct yes I know it's a tough just BP Park you please yeah di this here I'll Cate behind the house give just just gross numb roughly 78 yeah 30 2400t I'm talk about it 2400 square feet almost 2,200 22 22 all right thank you appreciate it thank you all right so you got the answer to your question any other questions Mr hudo okay Mr Mr HUD uh only if the board wants further questions the applicant about water conditions on the property to assure themselves that there's no water issue presently and again we do think we can get to get down by 101 square feet so that we're at the number eliminating that variance I don't anybody have any further questions the ask me not not right now for sure okay that's we're good rest all right let's open to the public any members of the public have any questions or comments with regard to the Nelson application Aven hold on hold on Mr Mr W hold on just G to make sure that we have all the information that we need before we get started we're going to swear you in can you spell your last name w h t l a w okay you saw me SP the testimony G before the board to be the truth whole truth nothing about the truth IED 44 gas where is this is the L this is the White House right here so just on the water issue just to let you know I've lived there for 20 years and the only time there was ever flooding here was in the winter and it was on the old access room so I've never had water come from new property okay so just as a as an experience right Mr the garage that was in question I assume that's your garage then no the garage thing you were talking about was on 35 right no this one right here yeah okay yes can you tell us approximately how far that is from the property I don't know we went to the board 18 years ago and did a renovation and we met all requirements so 8 to 10 ft whatever it's supposed to be from the line great thank you so um as we talked about so this new addition is what we can see from our yard when we come out this is our side door that we use all the time I mean right now that roof line is so large that just by going up two stories I don't really see it making much of a difference in our perspective of seeing it and I actually kind of like the one window because it's from a perspective of privacy so I I think what they've done is great and I like just say that I think the house is really intriguing I mean I felt really terrible to knock down the Lucky House you know I mean and that's so this is part of that neighbor that I love about being here and that's why we're in this old town and I think that they're going keeping that and I mean the Nelsons own prsh cotage I mean they love tradition and all this kind of stuff so I know they're going to do an awesome job on this project so personally I'm excited for what they're doing I think it'll be great for them and I don't see this as being an issue for us so I fully supported 100% thank you Mr White thank you Bri your name spell your last name cor Henry this the first name n n m r testimony before the the truth about the truth yes I do thank you I live um 28a which I can't quite see it here directly to the West Mr nson directly to the West we share a common fence and um I've never had any kind of water issue coming from their side over to my side and I've lived on this street for quite a long time about 26 years there used to be a big problem in front of that house that the Nelsons are in but a lot of that got rectified uh with some of that storm the drain that's existing by the easement just to underscore that so I think it's only improved since Captain's Point Way was created okay but one last thing I want to confirm because the numbers went pretty fast this whole bump out that's coming in my direction was roughly how many from your house now the addition on to what's there what's the going you want to know how many square feet it is or how many feet it's m from the existing side house to the proposed left side of the house I mean I've talked with the Nelsons a few times and I just couldn't quite hear in the back what the final number was it's a little over seven fet okay yes that's all I have does that shed bother you thank any other members of the public questions or comments please let the record refle now okay M I can see have anything in closing um other than to um again indicate to the board to the extent that um the board has an issue with the shed that could certainly be dealt with sounds as though the neighbor Mr NE has no issue with the shed there flexibility there the stimulate to reducing the U impervious lot coverage by 101 sare ft to get to the 45% thereby eliminating the request not only for the enhanced variance but also the existing non-conformity that would become a conforming condition then at 45% so on behalf of Mr Mrs Nelson thank you for the opportunity to make the presentation especially in the context of this very historical home thank you thank you thank you all right so look the vaulted ceiling throws you off that has clearly has historical value um there's clearly an effort here to work with something that is worth saving um the shed is a little problematic but um I propose to actually Grant variant so it could stay where it is you've got a very tight limited lot um and while it didn't get there the right way uh it seems to me like it's not a problem where it is on the other side though I'm not inclined to reduce the lck coverage as much as I'm inclined to get some underground drainage um and so that's kind of the way I feel about this I don't know what everybody else as in don't require them to remove the 101 feet and instead do a drive well I would not I would not ask them to remove the 100 although I I do acknowledge that it's certain well within their rights to remove it to remove the request for the variant and perhaps the way to do it since after probing the applicant didn't offer to do it would be to give the option to the applicant either to put in the underground retention or to remove the um Inver I would just say to explore the possibility of underground retention I just don't know if there's a spot given where we're going to add roof line to you may not have room to put you know what I mean it may it may be a net zero I mean I don't know where they can put it they can put it either to the far side of the driveway on the west or you can put it in the lawn on the right it's disruptive you have to take a hold it then you're just going to throw grass back there are other issues where your utility connections and other things um there's certainly the value in understanding whether or not there's capacity for the ground to take the water um but but the net reduction with regard to What's going at the last be is important um when Forefront um de with their building there was um a lot of concern about their drainage subsequent to their development um there was some alarm as the amount of water that was projecting down gaspie and headed to the river um when you take a house like this and improve it the the the net reduction is valuable to the neighborhood um and I think you have an occasion here to include it um at least include the exploration of whether or not it can be done um in a meaning away and so that's what I propos we do think I think the East West uh span of the house is pretty significant uh and uh I'm I'm a little bothered by the shed I think it only adds to the east west span of the house and uh I I I personally if it doesn't bother the neighbor I guess it shouldn't bother me but I think in terms of looking at the house from the from uh sailor's Point uh or Captain's Point um I know the area is buffered and it's buffered you know front and back of the driveway but um I I still think looking at the house from the front it looks a little bit more extensive East West uh without with the shed and without the shed well agree with you on that but I think given the lack of storage in the house overall and no garage I think you really the sheds neity and to bring it into compliance to move it 5 ft closer think you'd be knocked down at about 10 feet if that that would also make it look even more squ yeah and substantial because they'd be connected rather than having I'm incline with the chair to agree with the chairman that we we can memorialize the shed and grab leave and leave it where it is I don't I'm not I'm not thinking about about moving the shed thinking about eliminating you're removing I mean and I agree with you on that but you the lack of storage you have to we're going to wait wanting to see other that's just my take if there's a garage and a shed I agree with you 100% if you're doing The Shed from scratch you do half that shed you know bigger than it's 10 by 10 that's pretty big really 5 by 10 would handle two bikes in a one all point taken as far as the lock coverage numbers and I'll give CH the voled ceiling kills you on the on the square footage I read the lot as an or lot and you know given that context although it is in the r10 zone across the street is R5 uh you hit the you know it's 40% um floor area ratio you come within that number you're 50 fet inside the 2200 cap it just and Visually it's almost the opposite of the application that just came before us all the extra grass in the front this house this lot appears to be much larger than what it actually is yeah when you're driving down when you go down that street I I really until I saw this I assume that was part of the of of the property can't imagine that that ever going to happen on that piece of property they don't it from how she described the easement she has an easement to just her driveway not the uh you know the lawn on either side right the that that square footage has got to be part of what was considered throughout all of the the litig litigations it's probably part of the the lot that the house is on at the far side and was included relative to their Capital not 100% sure of that but because there is a piece of property there that was owned by the developer and there was I think there was an easement to the the whole thing honestly the the there are greates on the south side of the development um that were set up to go into dry Wells so I'm assuming the ones on the North side probably set up the same way however the the grading throughout at least on the south side was such that that they were ineffective they the the homeowner had tear them out and Route stuff around to another existing drywall in order to keep the backyard from becoming a mudbath and and honestly in the whole course of everything here the sanitary sewers are just barely buried to a legal depth because of the grading of the whole property so it it's it's been done to death as far as the drainage there is concerned there was a big concern on the 28 Gillespie people's part because of the water issues on the private drive there but that's gone and yeah that the road is so that must be they didn't want the sheet flow from the private Drive exiting to gpie so they tried to capture as much water before it got to possible and put it into a dryw that makes sense are you suggesting noow that as a result of all of that that it wouldn't make sense to put a dryw on this property for the N um I'm saying that I don't have a problem with the reduction of theia surface by 10 one square feet to bring it into compliance not require the variance you not to try to put a dryw in there because um you know ly I don't know where go unless you built it underneath and I don't know if this patio to the uh to the West is existing or if they're going to build that after they do the addition they build it after they did did the addition I suppose there's a possibility to put something so under there but it's on the plan you know honestly it's it's the drainage in the area and and sort of including these properties was was beaten to death for years that's up there it sounds like it has been this is the drainage issue has been fully explored it's fully explored back and forth and um you know I would love to see drywells but if this Frame is a drywell and I think that we need to find you know find that out um you know instead of them looking for a drywell have somebody water engineer come in and figure out what going on there but it sounds like it whatever is there is the best that can be done if there previously was a wooden deck on that east side and they replaced it with a patio I don't know what the material the patio is unless it says it on see it's a SL wood border slate steps yeah it's a SL s patio who knows what was under the wooden deck but that was probably a whole lot more permeable than a sleep patio and the fact that that wasch added later you know I I don't really have a problem with asking them to cut that back to be compliant and remove that one variance check yeah so but to move on from the train ises but TR it seems like a lot of very smart people looked at this problem for a very long time and this is what they came up with you know just looking at the application you know very historic house very unique house um you know we look at the trade-offs that are going on you know it's bringing it up the code I can only imagine what those stairs were like um you're keeping the character at the building you're removing some non-conformities so you know I think the neighbors everyone seems happy with this design um you know I have no problem with this I think it's a you know a very unique piece of the history of Fair Haven and instead of ripping it down and putting up something else keep that character in the history there I think is what you know what our uh you know one of our orders is U through the master plan y I did a little bit of MTH trying to figure out because I mean looking at the pictures and everything of that vaulted ceiling there and the fact that 351 square feet of that counts against as as um area floor area thanks because I'm I was about to um honestly if you back that 351 feet out I believe that they the f we come in compant you under R5 it's it's pretty close no no no I mean actually comes out 01 Bel what 2125 216 okay 6336 it's 334 yeah I got 336 but it's basically 34 it's under under what the requirement oh it's under it's under what it was previously but it's there it's not all right let's split the discussion up let's talk about the house and structure itself anybody have any problems with it that they want to talk okay next issue is the shed and the last issue is the lock page what is every you think about the shed I don't have a problem the sh no problem problem I don't have a problem with the shed either I think it's worth noting that people should pursue the proper permits when they do this and not just expect they can replace something especially for people who renovated it sounds like numerous houses before so well within the knowledge base that would the shed is not going to make the difference in my decision mine mine either okay uh let's talk about drage um I think what I put on the table was that the applicant be given an option either to to take the variants and install drainage that would be approved by uh Mr Rizo or to not take the variants and remove the lock coverage and bring the property into compliance that I'd be okay with it everyone else there's an expense involved as well right and you can choose to the patio is worth the expense and put the drywall in I'm not talking about us and I know we're not supposed to talk expense but I'm saying it's a good are you are you suggesting leaving it open beyond tonight or for that decision I'm suggesting we Grant a additional variants that would include the obligation to install a new dryw to deal with and we haven't talked about wtwat but I think it's going to be a matter of what's feasible um in light of you know their opportunity to develop it or um no variance for it and they would simply have to remove the impervious that puts them over and if they don't want to go through the exercises proving that it doesn't work they just remove 101 A or B no C I just want to say with regard to the drainage while this property was turned over a million times the boundary of the property that was turned over and analyzed did not include this one and while I appreciate that the neighbors have said they don't have problems with water coming from this property onto theirs um the that is really the only thing to consider and think about um when you're you suggested granting a variance for the shed would that be specific spefic to this particular shed if they ended up changing the shed to a smaller shed then they' have to come back the the nature of the variance would be to Grant it for a shed of that exact size and dimension and that exact location I do think we need some verification that it's inside of the property boundary if everybody says it's on the line um but then that would run L and you could replace it out of that point um with a an identical sh there's a p so we don't have to mind you if you're proposing something different which is to Grant the variant for the existing one you can talk to the lawy think if they were trying to to lower their impious coverage one and they wanted to maybe downsize the shed and that get you some portion there and then take some from someplace else and that might tie their hands if youve granted them the variance for that particular ship certainly they already placed it in the last I have a signed survey that says shed on one okay so it's on their property doesn't need the setb but the options or can still be a or b is it on one line or two I'm sorry is it on the exact one just on the side no it's on the side chairman if you word the U if the motion is worded to allow a in the alternative a 101 foot reduction at the applicant's choosing then it could be shed Andor patio Andor slate patio yeah we're not specifying it has to be that patio to the north side at that point if you reduce the shed reduce it away from the property of course I think the idea I think the idea is there's flexibility flexibility one Fe but something that wasn't permitted on the on the line and I'm I'm trying to address the spirit of the comments which they put a Dr we all agree there should be DRS right not defense not defense just be very detailed also the 101 square feet would get us to the existing condition I think we should take it all the way to the 10 oh my apology I thought 101 got us to where it gets us to 45.1 so add the extra six feed so I thought that too my apologies sorry I misunderstood that no 107 chair not 101 107 okay so um I I think the issue with regard to the block coverage variance with dry well or no dry well and no variance I think that much is clear with regards to the shed I feel like this is one of these properties that's really hampered with regard to square footage and because of the configuration of the other Lots in immediate proximity to the shed this is a place where having a shed on the lot line doesn't bother me at all it bothers me that she didn't get per but I'm looking beyond that because I'm trying to figure out how to make sure that the property works I don't want to see the lawn mower in the front yard under tarp um and I think it's important that that that be thought about in terms of the the ability to use the house in the this is on a slab no I asked that question it was not volunteered but it is on but block she block BL uh gravel inside so the floor is gravel it's uh Shed off the back of the truck is it so there's no basement there's no there's no floor there's no floor in it there no garage gra floor a tag they create a perim they put the stone set the shed on it so it drains underneath it doesn't sit in water and rock I was asking about the the residential structure um the none of it's a slab the thing the piece were taken down looks like it was built on sleepers over a garage for the first floor because it's really close to the ground and I can't imagine it being any other way but the the main part of the house is as a seller you went through the m Mr Rizo it is truly a seller it is not a half story um but is does that answer your question Mr all right so unless somebody wants to talk me out of it I'm proposing to approve the shed exactly where it is on the lot line I'm proposing to Grant the variance for the uh impervious provided that they provide a dryw uh to take as much of the roof drain uh water as possible given Mr Rizzo's review with regard to feasibility and in the alternative uh they ruc the law coverage to conform um and that no variants be BR and that last but not least that we approved the addition as designed the the approval would be conditioned on the testimony this evening also the representations would have made to the board this evening with regards to the materials as echoed in the historic District's mem and the removal chairman pardon me was 107 square feet that's right I just sound like that's 10 yeah any way you get to 107 was acceptable it's not about getting to 107 it's about getting to 45% asking whatever it has to be 45% however you get to that yes thank you so that's my proposal I'm happy to have deliberation or second I have second or Mr consult second Mr yes yes yes yes yes than you congratulations thank you very much ladies and gentlemen good even appreciate your time thank you for arranging the special meeting as well we're very grateful on both [Music] both yeah so we'll just quickly open up to other public comment there's anyone else here that has any questions or comments to the board generally I'm seeing no one so I do want to thank everybody I know it's you're all volunteers to make a special meeting to get here no better way to start well everybody but for John except for