##VIDEO ID:WyH89rWfjxc## 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Franklin's been provided board members applicant professionals member of the public please speak directly into microphones so that our recording secretary can properly process minutes applicants and professionals please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony uh can we call the role please okay so before we get started Cheryl Betha Joel ree Robert Shephard Michael Dy and kunala all asked to be excused this evening for various reasons uh Richard procanik here Alan Rich here Gary Rosenthal here Bim veras here farz Khan here and chairman Thomas here we can move uh on to the hearing section Le properties zba 24 o01 preliminary and final major site plan with C variances in which the applicant proposes to construct a four-story apartment building at 940 eastn Avenue Somerset block 385 lot 2.07 in the GB Zone has been carried to October 17th 2024 with no further notification required that October 17th 2024 meeting will be held here at 475 to M Lane and the meeting start time will be 6:30 not 7:30 again 6:30 p.m. we're going to notice that in the paper yes it will be noticed in the paper and beginning uh the first hearing that we will have tonight Carl bambo Parry zba 2414 C variance which the applicant seeks to build a one story 56 505 ft Edition and 162 foot patio at 19 Montrose Avenue Somerset block 332 lot 5 in the r10 zone and you are the applicant yes I am okay first we'll SL you in Mr Perry raise your right hand please testimony you're about to give is truth the whole truth and nothing but truth to help you God yes going to have to speak up a little yes thank you uh State your full name spell your last name for the record Carl bambo Perry b m p OE hyen p a r r y and you're at the uh address at 10 you're currently living at 19 montro 19 montro Road suers set okay what we'll do um as we usually do with homeowners is start with Mr Healey give us will give us a summary of what the app application is what's proposed and uh then you can let us know when he's finished if that's what your intention is and if there are any differences or whatever we can talk about that thank you all right so Mr chairman as you stated it's uh the properties on uh Montrose Road it's in the r10 single family residential Zone the property is currently occupied by a a single family split level home uh what this plan uh that's up on the screen is showing um is the this is the existing home here uh and then it's showing the uh I don't know why it's doing that but that blocking but uh there's a 500 squ foot uh one-story addition to the right rear of the house um on the architectural plans that were submitted um it shows uh basically the floor plan um looks like no additional uh bedrooms uh a breakfast area a bathroom and and a mudro again to the rear of the house um there are a few variances um that are that's why they're before you it's uh in the TRC report um building coverage impervious coverage um and a rear setback um the requirement for the rear setback is 40 uh and they're proposing 31 um so that's basically it uh architectural plan so that's the floor plan and then um this is the uh basically the elevation showing that it's a one-story addition to the rear of the house how are we on the impervious coverage numbers uh the impervious coverage they're the max is 30 and they're proposing um just short of 40 39.94 um building coverage is 20 Max and it's 26.440 uh is there anything that can be done in terms of reducing the impious coverage is there any uh I think you know looking through the plans um The Patio piece could probably be done with you know the the issue here is we have um my parents who are now with us in the house right and also our college students who have returned back from school and um my parents climbing and going upstairs to the um bathroom upstairs is very difficult for them so the idea is to you know um hopefully just make a little more comfortable for them you know so in regards to space the um patio area if need be could be eliminated from the plants so what you're saying is making it smaller kind of negates the reason a little bit for putting the addition on in the first place exactly and uh in terms of the uh rear guard setback is it possible to be uh wider on the addition as opposed to deeper or uh is there is there anything that can be done to reduce the 9 ft a little bit um in the in regards to the plans you know I'm looking at I look at it I know the part that has a patio P that's also taken part of the space right I feel we could could be eliminated in regards to the space inside you know um to have them move around freely be able to use the bathroom and different things like that you know that space is kind of needed that is why we're making that ask to have it okay any any board questions I have a question um I think you said if you remove the patio that is an option or that is what if it need if need be right and would how would that change the impervious coverage because it's the I'm sorry how much would it change the imper it will reduce to to uh the requirement or I think 10 and something feet it would reduce it um about by about 2% okay so still would need a yeah there'd still be a variance yeah what about the U concrete behind the shed there's concrete behind your shed behind the shed no it's actually um on the side on oh yes behind the shed there's a little patio little concrete piece and what is that for that was just for like um seats patio area like storage and things like that is that something you could take out and give you more uh if need be would that be better than the P that' be better to take that out in the patio it'll be more disturbing you know like more there more disturbance I'll rather do the if possible through the piece that has not been constructed already cuz it's probably going to be about the same amount of space anyway so since we're looking to build it it would make sense not to even build it instead of having someone break all that concrete up and take that out any other questions you have a garage yes yes there a little garage you have packed with things what do you have stored everything in the garage what are you store in when I say every like old weights the kids um nothing flammable no no no no no no no anybody Elsey Mr Healey if the patio were to be removed what would be the set back from the rear yard if well the P the patio the patio doesn't factor into the setback the setback is to the structure that's proposed which is the addition okay if there's no other questions will open to the public if there is anyone here who wants to ask a question or make a statement do so there's not so we'll close and is there anyone who would offer a motion uh no no uh notices were sent right that's automatic notices well the applicant noticed to to the I just want to make sure yeah nobody's here one way or the other so we have great neighbors that's we'll entertain a motion I'll move to okay zba 2414 in which the applicant seeks to build a one story a 504 square feet addition and the Z variant in which the applicant speaks to build a once I'm sorry and a 162 square foot patio at 92 Montrose Avenue in serson I'll second I believe the applicant is indicate you want to approve the patio as well yeah okay and there's a second yes a second okay Richard pranic yes Alan Rich yes Gary rosenal yes Basim veros yes Barz Khan yes chairman Thomas yes uh good luck with thank you I knew I felt something on me okay next we have uh Marvel Builders LLC zba 24 O8 C variants in which the applicant seeks to construct a new two family home at five delar Parkway Franklin Park lck 34.0522 in the CR Zone good evening members of the board my name is Matt Flynn from the law firm of Sao shock Corsini Warner Gillespie ogrodnik and fiser and I'm here representing the applicant Marvel Builders LLC the applicant is here tonight to demolish an existing non-conforming residential structure and replace it with a two family town home uh as you'll hear in testimony uh our lot is narrow and will require some minor variance relief from the board for front and rear yard setbacks property is located in your CR cluster residential Zone where two family dwellings are permitted uses uh the lot is designated is Block 34.0544 in your tax records and better known as five delar Parkway notice has been provided pursuant to the municipal land use law and with me tonight I have two witnesses our architect William Duran to describe the proposed structure and our Paul planner Paul Richie to testify about the variances so with that unless there are any legal questions I'd like to call our first witness y Mr Bernstein have we have him sworn yes morning you're about to give truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God yes State your full name spell your last name for the record by whom you're employed and your credentials William Doran last name is d o r an I have a firm in South Brunswick uh 3D architecture uh I graduated with a degree in architecture in um 1980 sorry uh I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 1987 uh I've been in front of this board as an expert witness and many other boards uh throughout the state I think we can qualify as an expert license still current excuse me current license okay Mr Duran can you describe the structure we're proposing on this property so we have a uh uh two family or or two Town Homes um each around uh 23 just over 2,300 Square fet each with a two-car garage uh we have a uh bedroom on the first floor with a full bath living dining kitchen and then we have um three bedrooms upstairs with a Loft um the front of the building like that and we'll have to mark that as exhibit A1 for the board yes you have a pen you want to do it and Mr Durant could you identify the author of the exhibit and when it was who did it and when it was done uh This was done in my office it's a colored rendering of the front of the building done when what's the date on the exhibit 12 well 123 1232 24 A1 can you just describe some of the materials that are proposed yes we're proposing a um Stone uh Stone stucco and bordon Baton facade uh basically a a gray scheme light gray scheme with a a gray and black roof uh black uh windows and uh accented with uh some metal uh black metal roofs and this uh structure as detailed in the rendering matches the drawings that you submitted to the board correct and if approved the structure would substantially look similar to the rendering that you've provided to the board yes it will okay I have no further questions to this winess anything from the board how many two families are in the area two family houses our planner is going to testify on that okay good any other okay next you have how many bedrooms again Mr Durant four how many bathrooms just uh double check three full baths three full baths The Loft is for what reason uh playroom office uh it's open so uh when you come up the steps uh from the first floor it's it's open area there with a couple of Windows uh the laundry room is there's a little laundry closet that's off that uh that Loft area and we would agree as a condition that that would never become an additional bedroom it's solely for uh office play Spas yes the applicants offered that stipulation for the record just a question then for Mark it's nice we appreciate that offer to agree to that how is that enforceable uh it's it's hard to enforce but I I'm a little less worried about it in this situation than in others because you have to in order to access the other bedrooms you need to walk through it so I think in order to provide you know other times you know I'll be honest with you Architects they'll put a room off to the side and they'll call it a a den or an office and you know what it's going to be used for here again it looks like to me like the stairs come up into that Loft you have is that a washer and dryer closet yes that's a launch washer and dryer closet and then you have to walk through that to get to the two other bedrooms so could a future homeowner do it could they put a bed in there I'm sure they could just by the layout I'm a little less concerned about this than I am in other situations where again it's just a set alone bedroom and just by the nature of the you know the label that the architect put on the plan it's magically not a bedroom room but a l but a loft Den office so I think I think sorry I think we can call it a loft well I did call it a loft because we left it open right uh the staircase is open to that Loft space we have the launer room off of it uh so are these going to be rental or for sale I believe for for sale yes how many square feet in each unit is do 203 in change and it needs to be that big just that's how the rest of the neighborhood is or it's or is it like how does it fit into the rest testimony yeah our our planner will talk about um the surrounding area uh and and further his uh proofs in testimony with with respect to that to guide the board a little bit just so you understand why this is here uh and I think the attorney touched on this at the beginning this isn't a CR Zone that permits two family homes so I just want to when you're looking at this presentation just understand they're here for setback variances um there's a a front back a front setback requirement and a rear setback requirement um but it is a permitted use and it does comply with um building coverage and and and and and impervious coverage um now perhaps the size in shape of the building perhaps you you know I don't you you going to have an arch I mean an engineer speak no just a planner not an engineer is somebody going to present the plot plan uh we had hoped that our engineer could make it tonight she had a scheduling conflict okay so we're sticking right now to architecture and planning but we submitted the uh variance plot plan as part of the record okay but somebody has to speak to the plot PL the plot plan shows the setbacks and the dimensions of the building relative to the to the to the property I think Mr Richie as a professional planner will be able to uh read the plan and be able to analyze it for purposes of the setbacks are you going to present the that that plot plan to the board as an exhibit well it's in the record right because it wasn't in in 10 days in advance it is part of the record not but not in in evidence there's there's a distinct difference between simply submitting something for the board to have as part of the record and hear testimony regarding it leave leaving aside the plot plan you've also seeking issues relative correct me if I'm wrong mark on storm water and trees well they typically since this is a two family home um and they don't so they don't need site plan approval but they do get they do need building permit approval and they get plot plan review they will have to address chapter 222 which is trees they will have to address storm water um they don't need that that approval as part of a site plan approval from this board but they will have to address it administratively by staff I know that the environmental commission did have one comment about the extent of tree removal so we were going to if I may um we were going to stipulate to providing the tree survey as a condition of approval and obviously if pieces of your ordinance as they relate to applying for building permits apply to this project we have to comply so you know because we're exempt from site plan as a two family home in front of the board of adjustment what we had hoped to do tonight is really present what the home would look like and the planning proofs to further the variance requests which again are not they're not related to engineering they're related to the setbacks of the property if you look at the property it's fairly wide and shallow which is why we're we need about a 10-ft set setback variants for the front yard so to the extent that we can agree to any conditions of approval to aili any post resolution concerns we'll do so we're not attempting to you know hide the ball or anything it's just because it's a site plan exempt application we didn't think we needed a professional engineer because if it was a single family home I don't I don't know that that would be required again I think it gets and I defer to Eric but and we haven't heard from the planner yet but I would think somebody they have to present something related to the site because the the variances that you're seeking are not shown on there I mean they have to somehow communicate and show to the board Beyond verbally what you're proposing and what and you know setback of the of the of the building relative to the property if the planner can do that i i i i defer to Eric let's see what the planner's testimony is and we'll see where we are all right so I'd like to call Mr Richie if there are no might be premature but you have title to the land we're a contract purchaser sorry oh you you do have title okay we have title you have title to the okay they don't have to be the owner though just to follow up on they have title no they don't they don't have to have title to the property no they can somebody be a contract at least have to have we have document if they were contract purchaser they'd have to submit the document ation of the planning office to show again I'm just I'm just trying to establish just just so you understand most applications that come before the board a lot of them are not the property owners they're under contract to to purchase it subject to approvals but we have an affidavit as part of our application process that the owner has to sign an affidavit that they're consenting to the application being made on their property just to follow up quickly on the Loft versus the bedroom uh idea you we put it in as a condition that it can't be used as a bedroom I'm buying that how are you communicating it to me as the buyer that I can never use that as a formal bedroom the resolution of approval should always be pulled by the real estate um uh the realtor for a purchaser I know you know that's custom practice that a realtor will go and get a historic record of the property from the Township in order to pull the resolution um have an issue in putting it in the deed no okay that's how just making sure all right any other questions I have one I have one um are you subdividing the lot or that's not on the table no because the two families permitted so we don't need to we don't need a subdivision all we're doing is taking a single family home that's in the right rear of the property demolishing it and then putting this structure in the middle of the property and are there any basements with that structure Associated there basements I will think be there would be a basement yes for both of them yes okay we have a plan for it a basement plan no we normally wouldn't do a basement plan for uh obing board uh approval we would do it uh in our next step in the uh construction permit drawings I don't have an issue with that if you're looking at me I mean as long as it's it's not going to have bedrooms in it it's going to be fine no bedroom it there'll be un it'll be an unfinished uh basement and if uh if the owner either during construction or uh once purchased and in the future decides to finish the basement they'll come in and get a building permit and if if it's a problem uh any condition that's fine no bedrooms in the basement I mean the the construction code wouldn't permit that cuz there's no exit but we can put it in the it would so just to be clear if we were I do it all the time we put uh bedrooms in basements and we put egress windows in but not doing that you can uh you can put it as part of the uh put it in the de it's acceptable thank you anything else next I would call Mr Paul Richie as a professional planner before I swear Mr Richie in who's going to address the TRC comments jointly we will and the environmental commission we got any other comments from anybody other than those um Mark review comments too yeah technical review in the committee testimony you're about to give truth the whole truth and nothing but truth so help you got M Mike you going need the mic I do they your full name spell your last name for the record your employer and your credentials my name is Paul Ricky R ICI I'm self-employed Ricky planning LLC um I've been licensed as a professional planner uh since the year 2000 I have a master's degree in in city and Regional planning that I received from Ruckus University in 1997 I'm currently a municipal planning consultant for six towns I I testified regularly in front of boards I've been qualified over 250 boards throughout the state we can accept you as an expert thank you sir license current just for the record license is current yes thank you Mr Ricky uh before I even attempt to to even address through a plan that I didn't prepare I did prepare my own exhibit and if that's not sufficient for the board to to evaluate the area and what we're doing I will then maybe potentially if the board allows me to maybe address an exhibit that was not prepared by myself if that's okay I you circulate the exhibit we mark it and the board can decide thank you there not enough copies of that be sure if they need it I'll I'll be fine I have PL okay thank you Mr Ricky before we mark this wi why don't we mark this Mr chairman unless you have a problem a uh A2 if you would for the purpos of the record Mr Ricky indicate what A2 is who the author is ETC a a uh two was prepared by myself uh consists of three sheets the first sheet is entitled exhibit one uh it is an aerial photograph that was prepared in the geographic information system um it shows the lot line the subject property outlined in Orange I took the plot plan or the variance plan that was prepared by the by the engineer and I Geo referenced the building onto the subject property so the board could evaluate the the size the location of the building in comparison to other buildings in the area we also Al show The Zone District boundary in in red uh you can see the uh CR uh and NB um distinguishing um the the the Zone lines there and then following that there are there are eight pictures taken by myself uh these pictures were taken um yesterday and they they show the descript they show the subject property and some surrounding properties uh in the area um so why don't you take the board through your planning analysis using exhibit A2 sure um and as stated the the variances that are that are being requested um is to allow a front yard setback of of 25 ft where 35 ft is required uh it is allow a rear yard setback of 47.8 Ft where 50 ft is required I note that you can see the building uh to the left of the of the white building on the on the aerial exhibit where 10.4 ft is is existing so that rear yard setback is bring um brought much more into Conformity by by looking at the exhibit I know some board members asked some questions about the area because we're a permitted use I didn't really do a full land use analysis but I you see in the pictures this is a zone that allows two family homes single family homes tow houses uh as as well as Garden Apartments so when you look uh to the left on the aerial if you see North is essentially uh turned to the left the lot to the left is almost The Identical size as the subject property it's not that this is a prevalent lot size in this this specific area but there are two lots that are very close uh in in dimensions and part of the reason that I Geo referenced the building on the lot is so that the board can see how it related to the to the the to the lot to the north and and while to the right to the South that's in a commercial Zone and that's a commercial property you can see from a street skate perspective how the front yard setbacks are fairly consistent on that portion of the street if anything the the building and the the residential building to the north is located closer to thear Parkway and the rear yard is also located closer um you can see across the street the the numbers represent the the block and lots um at the intersection of I'm not sure how to pronounce that but the Clare Lane and delar Parkway block 3405 lot 40. 806 you can see how it it shows the building lines in there those are two family homes um across the street also to the building to the left um Lot 48.0 4 that has two family homes and then um if you look all the way to the bottom left we only show a of that property um but that's lot 52.06 that contains apartments on it and I show a picture of it that I'll describe in a moment maybe I'll just go through the the the pictures now um picture number one is a view of the subject property there's a dilapidated abandoned house on the property it's in very poor condition um I do not know how long it's been abandoned but you know I think the pictures show that this is a house and a property uh that's in need of of Redevelopment and and repair picture number two shows that as well picture number three shows the some of the wooded nature of the lot the building is located that's at the intersection with the CLA Lane um located in the right portion of the picture and then we have a picture of the building that I call to the north on the lot that I describe as being almost of identical size um and then when I spoke to the the the apartments to the building of the lot that's just still further north on on lot 52.06 that's the the apartments that are located on the subject property and then there's another form of of multifam which I don't show on the a is this is essentially a a culdesac road uh relatively Short Road and at the end of that cue saac uh there's more multif family housing and then across the street uh in picture number seven is a similarly styled uh two family home uh to the subject property you can see that on the aerial on lot 48.0 6 on on the the front page and then I just showed a picture we had to fill a space uh of the commercial land use at the intersection of Route 27 and uh delore Parkway um we're seeking the variance relief both under the C1 and C2 criteria um the the law states that um where a lot has exceptional narrowing shallow shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property that results in an undue particular hardship the applicant is entitled to a hardship variance and I'm also going to demonstrate that um the way that the applicant is designed this site also results in improved Zoning for the track the reason that the variance is plainly stated or needed is that um while this lot meets the the minimum lot size for the district it's slightly oversized at 26,000 and 626 Square ft or 24,000 square ft is is required The Zone call requires a depth of 200 ft and this lot has a depth of 107.8 3 feet um The Zone requires a width of 120 ft and we have 237.55 ft so the way the lot is just it's wider more than deep um and that's what's resulting in in creating a hardship uh for the applicant um in terms of looking at this from a uh like from a land use perspective of of why this still results in in sound land use planning um if you look at for this to conform uh to your zoning you the house can only be 22.83 ft in depth we think it's a better zoning alternative to have a traditional sized house with 35 ft in depth by way of example because this lot is so wide and your Zone plan allows for a 15t wide side yard setbacks and Theory you can have a house that's over 200 feet wide if you meet the building coverage impervious coverage for the lot we don't think that's a better zoning alternative we're we're proposing a home in style that's consistent with the neighborhood consistent with the house to the north and consistent with the the homes across the street but I wanted to just give you um a couple percentages like based on your Zone plan if it requires 35t front yard and a 50ft rear yard on a 200t lot that represents 42.5% of the yard area that means you can build in 57.5% of the yard area under this proposal even that we don't meet those requirements we're only building um 32.5% of that yard area so 67. 75% of that yard area will remain as open space and that's why this home will not look overcrowded or or out of place uh in this area also we're proposing sidey setbacks as 75.9 ft and 86.9 ft where 15 ft is required currently is a non-conforming sidey setback of 12.5 ft so we're rectifying uh that non-conformity and then when I look at it overall as a planner um you know is over we're seeking variant is overdeveloped velopment curring here and I think absolutely uh that's we're not we're not close to that your Zone allows a 20% building coverage we're here uh 10.5% so we're building almost half of what's permissible on this lot from a size of a home um and in terms of impervious coverage uh 40% is permitted and we're less than half again at 16.3% so I think it's clear that this does not result in overdevelopment at a minimum Advance is at least one master plan goal maintain the diversity of housing but encourage infill and stabilization of current residential areas rather than continuing sprawl patterns of development so I believe that um we're entitled uh to a hardship a C1 hardship to the relatively shallowness of this property and I also believe um that this application qualifies under the C2 criteria uh as it results in improved Zoning for the tract uh in terms of areas of the mpal land you saw that this advances provides purpose G provides sufficient space and appropriate locations for the needs of New Jersey citizens even that we're requesting um setback variances I believe that this provides adequate air and light and open space due to the percentages that I that I prescribed or indicated and also that the substantial setbacks uh on the sidey yards uh because we meet the minimum lot size for the District this application promotes proot appropriate population densities um and also the removal of the the existing abandoned home on the property promotes a desirable visual environment on this property uh as well uh I I did in terms of the negative criteria um I don't believe that this result in a substantial detriment uh to the public good namely s surrounding Property Owners you can see on the aerial uh we're proposing setbacks that are consistent as I mentioned to the property to the north on the same siiz lot ours are actually improved uh the lot to the South is is Zone commercial has uh substantial uh wooded buffer located to it the lot to the to the South um we'll call it South and in in in southeast is a commercial property with with buffering between it and across the street or residential homes that would not be impacted so there's no reason that the public good should be negatively impacted here here uh in terms of the this will not be a substantial impairment uh to the intent and purpose of your of your Zone plan again we're conforming lot size uh we have while we don't meet your front and rear yard setbacks we uh substantially um meet the sidey yard setbacks and we're not proposing a condition that does not already exist in the the immediate neighborhood so that the neighborhood would not result in a a detriment to the character of the area as well so from a planning perspective I think this is a very good application um it's one that adaptly uses a dilapidated structure builds a building consistent with the type of use in the area and it's being placed in a manner that's consistent with you know a property that that has the same uh setback requirements excuse me that has the same deficiencies in it's it's a lot that the property so I would open uh it up to the board for questions of Mr REI anyone um so I think you spoke to this but using your exhibit um you know the applicant could have placed the home um in the manner which they have which with the setbacks um of 25 ft in the front and almost 50 fet in the rear or they could have moved the house further back had a larger front setback and a smaller rear setback can you can you provide some testimony on why you feel the you why it would be appropriate to place it in the manner in which it is and the consistency of those setbacks with the surrounding properties sure and um I mean this is an area that allows multiple uses as as as I discussed and some of the lot sizes vary significantly um I I focused on um block 34.0544 subject property um and the reason that we don't have you know perfect information the reason that I I geore referenced the building on on the lot so as the Border can understand its relationship in the neighborhood and that the building to the north um has a 25 foot or less front yard setep back so same property essentially has so we were trying to match um the similar property in the neighborhood and then while it's a a commercial property uh at the intersection of Route 27 on lot 50.01 you know that building's also pulled on the side it's corner lot not sure if you consider that a front yard on the corner lot there um but it's also pulled close to the street so if someone is driving down the roadway on delar Parkway looking to the left there's a consistent streetcape of housing setbacks that would remain as a result of of this proposal okay thank you and then I have a question I'm going to pull up the um the submitted um plot plan because it it I think it's going to help the question uh this is really for the architect and I think this will help the board understand the the variances um see if I can get this to show up here system seems there we go seems seems to have Frozen here we go Mr Rickie just while we're waiting for Mr Healey you indicated purpose G was met by this any other purposes under the uh yes I said um through my notes I don't want to said even that we're seeking setback variances I believe advanc purpose C provides light light air and open space based on the ratios uh and the amount of um those ratios that are consistent or exceed ordance requirements because the lot size meets the minimum lot area I said it meets purpose e appropriate population densities and also the removal of a of an abandoned structure uh I believe promotes purpose I to replace it with a home that provides needed housing that's consistent with the housing and I result in a positive visual environment desirable visual environment c g and I DC I the way thank you I appreciate it okay so now um can you grab a microphone sure thanks so what this is showing this is you know visually showing what the planner just spoke about 100 foot depth lot um right here with my cursor I'm kind of showing the 50 Foot um rear setback the 35 fot front setback and that results because the lot is about 107 ft deep the 20 foot 22 feet deep building envelope that's that's the area where they could build a compliant building so my question to the architect is in your opinion is there a reason why uh a compliant building couldn't be built within that 22 foot deep space well I think the planner answered that question um yes could we design uh two units that fit within the 22t depth but they would at this square footage they would be um each one is about is 41 feet wide so I'm not going to do the math but it's going to be 55 ft so 22x 55 would really not uh fit the character of the neighborhood I think the way the buildings look now they're consistent with the widths of other buildings in the area okay so I guess that is that speak to the C2 criteria then results in a better design I'm sorry I'm sorry just for the if you could switch sorry yeah I I said the C1 for the hardships from the death but also that results a better zoning alternative because uh having a house in the conforming envelope you can theoretically I said have a home that's 200 feet wide uh I don't think that's a better zoning alternative that to have a house that fits in your building footprint here um I that the applicant is and that's why I prepared uh my exhibit to show how this proposed home would relate to the neighborhood relates to the the the property uh to the north that's on the same size lot that this is substantially consistent but smaller and uh less offensive in terms of how it impacts your yards so okay and you raised a number of issues addressing the negative criteria including the consistency with the front yard setback of the adjoining properties to each side yes and I also mentioned we're also eliminating um the non-conforming side yard setback of 12.5 feet the the current rear yard setback is 10.4 feet so we're at 47.8 FT we're very close uh to compliance and and a lot that's close to half of the of the depth that's required um we're very close right thank you so Mark does this mean that if the other houses are similar to you know to what they're asking here that those must have been granted a variance at some point um I I don't know uh it could be it's possible I don't know the history of so it's so particularly Lot 50.0 4 which is the property to the I guess when you're looking at the map to the left um it certainly doesn't comply with the front yard setback uh as it is right now I mean the required front yard setback is 35 feet that looks like it's do you have a figure it's looks to me like eyeballing at like 10 or 15 feet um so this would be set back even you know be more than that uh I don't know if it was a variance theoretically the zoning could have been different at that time I those would would be one of those two scenarios any other questions um the review comments you can agree with all them yes we we agree with uh I'll go through them briefly uh from the TRC one is the testimony of the C1 or C2 variants two is various administrative approvals that we'll need uh as part of the permitting process we'll comply with all of that uh number three um I mean for two uh homes I don't know if a condo association will be required I don't know if we could do like a reciprocal maintenance agreement or of some kind I mean we really kind of defer to what the board's standard practices for that um I don't know if you usually require a condo association for just two homes on one lot but I mean we we can agree to some condition to make sure that the owners share maintenance responsibilities appropriately yeah I don't know if we have a requirement to tell you the truth it's really more of a question just because you have common property how does that I know what I've done in other towns because I get to sit in Mr Bernstein's enviable position in a number of towns is uh require the applicant to submit a uh maintenance agreement that will be recorded with the property and run with the land it will bind all future owners for any shared uh aspects of the property which really is limited to the wall that cuts the homes in half and the roof what about the maintenance of the property we can put that in as well yeah because you're not subdividing as I the question was you're not subdividing the lot right so it's a common ownership lot correct now is one of the O developers going to own one of the homes they're selling them both we're gonna need sure yeah I mean I understand the the obligation and reviewed by my office before approval sure we need a condition on they're going one of the they're going to provide a maintenance agreement to be reviewed by Board of council before that's acceptable right uh number four number four we we are in contact with the sewerage authority we know we need sewer hookups and approval so we'll comply with that you need a developers agreement with them I don't believe they mention that but if that's required we'll we'll agree I'd ask them and I'll state so every winter where I'm also general counsel of the sewage Authority okay that's not that's not my requirement do you have to ask Mr Danielson for that one if if it's required we'll we'll we'll provide one I know want to come up here you want to get sworn in come on up come come on down I know you were in contact with the sege authority so I se author requirements so yeah he started testifying he want testifying I'm sir raise your right hand just for Testimony about to give truth the whole truth is nothing but truth self you got I do spell State your full name spell your last name for the record and your relationship with the applicant oh my name is VJ vas last name v y I am the one of the partner of the Marvel Builders LLC so I one of the owner of the property and did you reach out to the seage authority and what did they yes subsequent to the uh this memo we reached out to the seage authority and they have communicated through email how we can apply for the separate connections and they also advise us that the current sewer connection which is uh to the existing property should be disconnected that has already been done and they have witness that thing you've been here for the testimony of your planner and your and your architect correct sir yes you agree to all the conditions the council has indicated that he's agreeable to on your behalf yes thank you the signature block being revised that's acceptable I don't know why I don't know why we don't want to keep it at Perle time um as to the environmental commission uh they mentioned uh that we have to comply with the uh ordinance that governs tree removal we will comply we are in the process of doing a tree survey and we will document to the board um the removal that's required as part of this application um the other comment was relating to pervious Pavement on the driveways um we would like to avoid installing that uh just due to general maintenance issues with it uh moving forward um so we would prefer to keep the driveways as designed uh and just so the board's aware and it was touched on by our planner we way under on building coverage and impervious coverage so we'd prefer to keep the driveways as designed I don't know if the commission's asking for a different driveway or the type of driveway but I'll leave that to the I mean that's really I I I have a feeling staff is probably agrees with the applicant that you know previous driveways for residential they they don't get maintained um so I mean if the board is inclined you could say they can you know look into that to the satisfaction of Staff but I know our engineer is not too keen on that know for shopping center for apartment buildings warehouses things like that where people are maintaining the property but to make that requirement on a homeowner long term it's just not realistic especially when they're what less than half the impervious coverage M they they they need to be flushed to maintained and cleaned in order to to you know preserve their permeability long term I can't imagine homeowners going to is going to do that I would recommend passing on that recommendation for leave it the way it is okay so basically then to the the extent of all other comments we will comply any other questions comments public okay we open to the public uh it appears there is there's no other public here except for uh your Witnesses or owners so we'll close any further comments anything you want to say yeah I would just think that um we'd hope the board acts favorably on this application uh we feel that we have demonstrated the planning proofs that are required we will comply with uh the building permitting process to make sure that uh the township is protected and again I think the real function of this application is that we're asking for the variance relief uh because the way that the home is designed in our plans is based on the testimony uh of our experts just a better layout than installing a property or a home on the site that is excessively long and would not look aesthetically uh uh aesthetically similar to uh the properties that are on the surrounding uh lots and again this also ameliorates a dilapidated condition in the township there's an abandoned home there it's non-conforming uh it's more non-conforming than what we're proposing here so not only are we trying to bring the property more consistent with what your zoning ordinance requires we're also making a number of aesthetic improvements supplying good housing stock to the township and we hope you look favorably on our application okay any board comments or motion okay I make a motion we approve uh the U application for Marvin Builders Mar Marvel Builders LLC zba uh -24 d008 um with the following conditions um there will be no uh no extra bedrooms anywhere um in the house or basement um what bedrooms are there that's that's all that's going to be there um and they they're going to comply with all the review comments except for um except for nothing they're going to do a maintenance agreement uh a maintenance agreement for it's not a condo association but they're going to do a maintenance agreement and and the pervious pavers I thought I had that maybe I didn't enal commission no environmentalist back page okay and they're going to comply with everything on the um environmental commission except for the perious P per perious pavement I think that's it got it I got it first time wow think we need a second I'll second Richard procanik yes Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Bim verdos yes farz Khan yes and chairman Thomas yes good luck with the project and is there a motion to close so move second second all in favor I HST meeting ad jour