##VIDEO ID:cgo8pjNmi1M## [Music] e good evening and welcome to the public hearing for the Livingston Zoning Board of adjustment today is September 24th 2024 if you're an applicant for a d or use variance you should be aware that such a variance can only be granted after showing that special reasons for the grant of the variance exists and that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the zoning plan of the township of Livingston you should also be aware that in order to be granted for such a variance you'll require an affirmative vote of five members of the seven member Board of adjustment other variances require a majority of four members to grant that variance if you're an applicant for a VAR any variance and your variance is denied by this board you have a right to appeal the superior court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of notice of decision and that Court May overturn the decision of this board if you're an objector to any type of variance that has been granted you too May appeal to Superior Court of the state of New Jersey within 45 days of the notice of decision if you f if you do file an appeal I ask that you please provide a copy of the com complaint to the our uh planning administrator Jackie Hollis pursuant to the requirements the open public meeting act also known as the Sunshine Law adequate notice of this meeting was provided to The Star Ledger and West Essex Tribune and a copy was also posted on the bulon board and municipal building in addition to having notice posted notice's meeting was placed on the Township's website members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions or to make statements regarding each application at the appropriate time when the time comes if you'd like to address the board please come to the front and use the microphone so that we so that we can make sure your comments or questions are part of the record we will now call the role Miss Khan Miss Khan is here Mr Kenya here Mr horn pres Mr sha here miss morachi here Mr Sherman here miss kanana here Mr Beer here and Mr jemus our board attorney is presid Miss Hollis from the zoning um board is here and miss alen the planner is here thank you Zoning Board of adjustment Miss Khan please please call the first application block 2602 Lot 29 25 Sycamore Avenue application number 2024 d24 DV try owners realy applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violate in new single family residents in violation of the following sections 17098 C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 36 ft proposed 14 ft variance requested 17098 C4 rear yard setback 40 ft required 25.4 ft proposed 14.6 variance requested 17098 cc3 habitable floor ratio 21% allowed 31. 7% proposed 10.7% variance requested thank you all yours thank you good evening Mr chairman members of the board Elizabeth Durkin from the Durkin firm on behalf of the applicant Tri owners realy um some of you may know this application it has had a very long path for a single family home I'll just briefly describe to the board and also advise the board that there had been a jurisdictional issue raised that that has now been moted and I'll explain that to the board um the applicant had initially made an application for uh certain variances in 2019 uh the applicant had purchased the lot the seller of the lot who lives next door and has a home there uh was under as most people would that since he had two separate tax lots that he had two separate Lots um in speaking with the Pearsons who are the neighbors to the rear their Council contacted me because they thought that the doctrine of merger had applied I did not disagree based upon legal briefs that the Pearson's Council Lisa John Baston and I had submitted in 2020 to this board this board then said we don't have jurisdiction you need to go get a subdivision of the lot in order to create the lot to give us the jurisdiction to hear that was jurisdiction question number one as a result of that there was litigation because the Barkleys basically and as I said I can understand how lay people would be must understood thinking that for all these years they paid their taxes they were a separate lot it had separate street address that it a separate lot but ultimately they did agree um in a settlement on the litigation that they would then make an application to the planning board to create the Lots the Barkleys didn't in fact do that the Lots were then created by the planning board in 20123 um the lots are perfected as this board knows you can perfect Lots by either uh you know minor subdivision two lots by either a deed or by a filed map the my client was the contract purchaser he technically owned the lot and as a matter of fact in in 2019 when the Lots were sold to him and I did not represent him at that time um the attorney for the Barkleys actually made a mistake and conveyed both lots to my client so that was another issue that we had to deal with down down in later in the application so the uh the Barkleys did make an application and they were approved by the board for a minor subdivision my client was not involved in that application we monitored it of course because there was a lawsuit there and my client owned that property or technically once it was created then we were going to do what you call um corrective Deeds to con make sure that ownership was corrected Barkley's Council prepared the minor subdivision Deeds their engineer was Rich Keller they did file the Deeds with the county the statute provides that it has to be perfected within 190 days the county had kicked it back um because they had erroneously thought they only needed one git when an actuality needed to because of the problem with the Barkley's conveying both Lots out to my client so and how that would work is the subdivision deed perfects the two lots and then we did corrective Deeds telling the story so that Barkleys would retain ownership of their lot and then correctly the lot that's before you this evening my clients would have ownership of that lot um during each and every of our applications or attempts U the persons who are the Neighbors in the rear uh with they with their attorney Lisa John Basta have objected um they they were present during the subdivision application they have every right to to be there I just want this board to know they were present at every single one of the planning board meetings they did put an objection on the record they did have a planner they did not file an appeal of that subdivision now we go fast forward the statute says because now we're here before this board Lisa John basa sent this board a letter and said whoa you don't have jurisdiction to hear this because that subdivision deed is 5 days out of time the statute says you get 190 days the statute also provides that the planning board can extend the time to perfect and the board can also do that retroactively so obviously this the board looks at this more administratively so if you recall we were here at the last meeting in August um the jurisdiction issue was before the board we hadn't time to argue it because our planner couldn't get here so as like that little saying don't let good crisis go to waste on my way home I was like okay the check the planning board meetings I was able to file an extension of the planning board approval so that it would be retroactive to the June 12th date which June 12th 2024 for the Perfection of the subdivision we went before the board the planning board just uh last week and the planning board on uh uh on September 17th approved in conference the request for the extension it was really technically Barkley's requests but we kind of piggybacked with them to help him get through this application so that jurisdictional issue is now moot it is not an issue before this board there are two lots that have been created legally by the planning board in Livingston so the subject application tonight is not improved the other lot is the Barkleys we also so cleaned up the title issues so that the Barkleys have title to their lot in their home and my client has ownership of the lot that's the subject of this application this evening we don't have the resolution I did speak to Jackie who's I don't need to tell you how terrific Jackie is and on top of things um I did see the resolution I did Proof the resolution I did speak with the board attorney about the resolution I've also been in direct communication with your board's Counsel on this issue and also uh the Pearson's Council Lisa John Basta who also appeared to object to the extension so there's everything is out there in the open um and then my understanding is the planning board is going to adopt the resolution at the next meeting okay so tonight that brings us fast forward to you this evening and now after almost 5 years my client is looking for certain variants reliefs to construct a single family home on the property in a single family Zone I will tell the board that the site I have three experts with me uh I have our engineer our architect and our planner U and they will each give testimony I want the board to also know that I've had open lines of communication with the objector because that's something you want to do you know is there something that we can possibly do to resolve whatever issue you might have absent telling us we can't construct a house on that lot and and you'll hear testimony on that because hence why we've had revised plans there were three things that in dialogue with uh the pearlson attorney they asked us to reduce the size of the house we've done that they asked us to move the house forward as much as possible we've done that and even though there's a significant Landscaping buffer there now there's very large evergreen trees we also agreed to put an additional Landscaping buffer on our property and then the force request that the Pearsons had was one that they did not want a raised deck they asked that a condition be that there would be no raised deck I don't know why uh I spoke to my client my client didn't have an issue with it so we didn't need to drill down on that point so if if it pleases the board and I assume through your Council he he's in agreement that the jurisdictional is is moot I would like to move into uh our testimony we're starting with our engineer just one point of clarification um if for some reason the planning board does not sign the resolution next month as the everyone expects them to then everything here can't go forward obviously right right so there's no right right so we we can go forward but if if the planning board stops then we can proceed to sign off on our resolution if there is one absolutely Mr chairman and I have a greater concern that the sun's not going down tonight or coming up tomorrow than that planning board is not going to sign off on the resolution fair enough so just to gives you why we're here I understand need to need to cover our to yeah we've lived with the property now as I said for since 2019 so we're looking forward to an approval Mr chair I don't know if Now's the appropri Time or you want me to defer until Miss cirin's done doing her case but there are two Corrections of the statements that were just made that I would like to address if I could I think that's all good yeah that's fine you identified yourself correct I'm sorry Lisa John basa with the law firm qua shahinian and Jan tamasi representing the pearlson on um bearbrook Road who are directly to the rear of the subject property that's before the board this evening uh in general the history the procedural history I do agree with Miss durkin's assessment uh however at the planning board subdivision hearings the Pearsons were not represented by Council I was not representing them at the time they were there on their own behalfs uh secondly with respect to the representation that they has been open lines of communication I do take issue with that uh in my opinion there has not been open lines of communication there was a communication between myself and Miss Durkin on some asks that we had before the last meeting we received revised plans at the last minute right before the hearing was about to start I mentioned to miss Durkin that we don't have time to digest this and there is no agreement on any terms that that the Pearsons are in agreement related to these plans and I have not heard from Miss Durkin since August AUST so I don't believe that there has been open lines of communication and lastly I'll just say that while this has been a 5year process it was only because the pearlson council raised legal issues that should have been addressed by the applicant themselves it's not like we were looking to do some wrong here we were looking to make sure that everything was done right um all Reserve thank you thank you Miss Durkin please good evening would you kindly uh state your name and spell it please sure uh legal name is Giovani manilo G IO v n ni I last name manilo m a n i l i o Mr manelo do you swear or affirm that any those statements and testimony you present to the board this evening will be true accurate and complete I do consider yourself under oath I'll defer to M der in further yeah thank thank you uh Mr de Mr maer are you a licensed engineer licens in the state of New Jersey uh yes I am and and and and your license is current is in current standing and are you the professional engineer who prepared the plans that are the subject to this application this evening uh I am yes and have just for the benefit of this board have you testified or been qualified to testify as a professional engineer before this board before uh not in front of this board before okay can you just briefly then introduce yourself to board and what boards you have been qualified uh to appear before just a smattering of them because I know there's a lot yep uh so I've Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Syracuse University I've been uh licensed in the state for the past 16 years I actually got my start out of college working for the town of Livingston as a junior engineer Under The Bobs and um have been practicing ever since and testify in front of numerous boards uh throughout the state uh local boards uh close to uh Livingston include Milburn chadam uh South Orange Belleville um and and the likes and at any time has any board not granted you uh approval to testify as a licensed professional engineer not to date yeah uh Mr chairman I respectfully request that the board accept the qualifications of Mr melio to to testify as a professional engineer on this application does anybody on the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness there being no objections the witness accepted as expert in professional engineering okay thank you very much okay so you you've been involved with this application for several years correct Mr manelo uh correct yes yes so we're going to go on the most recent uh plan that you prepared is that correct yeah so it's uh so let's just get a date on that yep so it's and then confirmation that that was submitted otherwise we'll mark it in as an exhibit sure so it's entitled 35 Sycamore Avenue variance plan with a date of February 7th 2024 last Revis August 27th 2024 and that has been submitted to the board excuse me S you were were not the plan that we just got this afternoon at like 4:30 is that the plan that's up there the architect that's the archit that's different yeah so we will get there uh so yeah so the plan that's on the screens right now are the the just just for the record you were not the engineer for the Barkleys in the subdivision applications is that correct uh that is correct I was not the okay engineer okay would you be so kind as to just walk the board through your site plan sure so I'm just going to just going me get my bearings over here real Quicks um all right so I'm on the first page of our our plan set that I just referenced on the left side is the existing conditions plan um so the property as as we know is 35 Sycamore Avenue located in the R3 Zone um the site is irregular in shape so as you can see here it's uh approximately 60 ft wide at the frontage of sycore Avenue and then along the rear which is kind of uh not it's not parallel to the front line it's approximately 5 ft wide uh with the average uh lot depth of about 125 ft uh the lot is currently um undersized for the zone so 15,000 ft is permitted per in the zone or required per the Zone um and the property is technically 9,160 ft uh but per the ordinance uh you have to measure the area within 150 ft of the front property line and that's slightly different it's 9,158 Square ft uh there is um one encumbrance on the property there's an existing a sanitary sewer easement that cuts through the back of the property where my mouse is right now um and that's a 10t wide sanitary sewer easement uh the lot right now is currently vacant uh there are some remnants of of the neighboring lot of that was subdivided including the driveway um and some um uh pads as well as far as the proposal I'm moving over to the uh second viewport of the plans uh which is showing what's being proposed as part of the construction um so we are proposing a two-story single family dwelling um with an attached two-car garage in the front of of the house facing Sycamore Avenue with the driveway that's uh two cars wide and approximately 20 ft in width um there is a small you know porch and steps that come down with with the sidewalk to the driveway in the rear is just a landing and stairs to come from the first floor down to grade um and then there's uh stepping stones that we're proposing and an on grade Pap patio in the rear yard on the opposite side of the sanitary sewer easement um as part of the application and submission what we had done is um design a storm water or dryw system uh per the the township regulations and obviously that's going to be subject to review by the uh Town engineer as part of their review for grading and drainage um one of the changes that we made since the original uh submission was we planted or showing uh plantings of 13 arbores um that would be uh staggered along the uh rear property line and we we did as much as we could um we can't plant within the uh sewer easement so that's why the Landscaping stops right there um so for Relief that we are asking for on the the property we're asking for for three items uh one is front yard setback uh so the the code for the um R3 Zone requires a 50ft setback um how however there's a a line in there saying that um if there are um houses within the area you should use the prevailing uh front yard setback which is 36 feet in this this case front as we could uh so we thought it would be prudent originally I believe our front yard was approximately 38 ft in the original submission uh with this one we pushed it all the way up to the average setback even though 40 ft is required uh we thought it made sense to make it in line with all the other houses in that area uh so right now the house is aligned at 36 ft for a front yard setback where 40 ft is technically required um and essentially the 36 ft is measured to the garage uh the remaining of the house or the the main portion of the house is actually 42.3 ft from the front property line uh second relief that we're asking for is rear yard setback um so again 40 ft is required for a rear yard setback um in the original submission that we we uh originally submitted the reard setback was 18.7 feet um so with uh reducing some of the size of of the dwelling pushing the dwelling closer to Sycamore and actually moving it closer to the uh to the left as you're looking at the plan we're able to increase the rear yard to 25.4 ft I'm still asking for Relief uh but it that increased about 7t from the original submission uh and lastly the habital floor area ratio is the uh variance that we're asking for uh as the third variance uh per the code 0. 21 or 21% is permitted um and with this application we're at 29.5% or. 295 um we the original application was for about 3,117 square feet or 34% so a decrease of approximately 5% in um habitable floor area um and a reduction of about 411 squ ft from what was originally submitted um that concludes the engineering and and the proposal as far as uh site improvements open up to the board or to council for any questions oh I have question sure okay have you had an opportunity to review the board Engineers report dated June 26 2024 I have okay so in the confirmation in there the property is not in the flood zone that correct that is correct it's not in a flood zone there's no other um environmental constraints okay so maybe if you could just briefly discuss with the board the proposed drainage um calculations and the drainage plant that you have proposed for this uh this lot uh yes so what we had proposed is a um a drywall system so it's underground concrete tank with stone that surrounds it and it's to uh store the uh the the excess runoff that would come off the site uh to not exceed what's exiting off pre-existing conditions so actually reducing the storm water coming off the site so any of the items conditions that are set forth in the board engineer rqa marci's report dated June 26 2024 you you don't have any disagreement with any of those points isn't that correct that is correct we have no issues okay and then is in your professional opinion although it might seem odd the development on the site would actually improve the the drainage as it exists today correct there's no drainage on the site today and there's existing pavement um that that would run off um off site without any detention okay and the proposed home can you do recall conversations that we had based on discussions with objectors Council that I had um an email communication that the objectors who home is in the rear but not in the directory of this property was looking for the property to be moved up the home to be moved up as much as possible possible is there any way that you could move that house up any further because I know that we've already done that and amended the application to show that correct yeah I mean so can the house be moved up closer to the street yes um but then that would be you know closer to the street than the neighboring properties and I think visually from you know the traveling public on Sycamore that 36 ft makes more sense in line with all the houses um so yeah we moved it up as as far as we thought would would uh be beneficial um and look good in the neighborhood and we move it to the left as as far as we could as well without uh asking for another uh variance for a side guard setback yeah so is it your testimony then that by moving it up as much as you have moved it up um in amending the application it is in Conformity with the other homes in the neighborhood and though technically you might be able to move it up it would not look appropriate is that correct that is correct okay so is it your professional opinion that where you have located or sighted the house now would be the best location in terms of the front yard setback is that correct that is correct yes okay okay and you're familiar with the site correct uh yes I am and you're familiar with the objector the Pearson's property to the rear correct yeah and that property already has a pretty significant uh buffer of evergreen trees correct yeah yeah I believe there's a evergreen trees on the on the side of the backler property um along the driveway but even given that you you showed to the board where you've amended the application based on Communications that I've had with the objectors Council that the applicant has also agreed to install an additional Landscaping buffer correct correct of 13 R proves okay okay I I have no further questions thank you very much does anybody in the board have any questions for this witness please could you point out where the obor's property is and where the current buffer is and where you'd be putting an additional buffer uh yes so well right now it's it's it's where my mouse is right here and I'll see if I could zoom in on the aerial as well that might help um so as you see here here's our subject site and this is the um neighboring property to the rear and this is the evergreen trees that we were discussing uh so the house is going to be sighted pretty much where it says site is where that the house would would sit um actually you know what I have another exhibit so um I believe this was submitted as part of the uh um exhibits so this is an arrow exhibit where we overlay um the house on the aerial um did I do anything there you go um and you can see how that is in relationship to the uh neighboring property behind us so again you have the Evergreen um buffer on the neighboring property and then the Evergreen um that we are proposing on our property as well okay can we get that exhibit back up oh it's not up there yeah just for the record that we did submit that as part of the application yes and you prepared the exhibit that's that you're testifying to know the aial that is correct yes okay and the yellow line shows the uh property line that's the subject of the application correct corre Y and maybe you could just show to the board where the Pearson's home is uh back up y so it's uh this is the dwelling and this is the lot and you wouldn't dispute that that's a IR regularly shaped lot right yeah that is correct yes and it's an undersized lot for the zone as it is exist today correct uh correct it's about 23 I got a question in please so just based on this AAL view the house to the right is actually situated much closer to Sycamore it does appear it does appear that way so in theory the house could be moved forward I mean I know you use the average of the lot but it this is kind of sitting closer to the on the left side so from the aerial um the numbers that we got were from the actual survey um where the surveyor actually picked up the mentions so sometimes the the arrows can be skewed because of how they're taken they're not directly taken 100% from you know straight up um so the 36.1 came from this the survey and the surveyor okay anybody else have any more questions from the board is anybody sorry please in terms of the surveys that are depicted on your diagrams and if I missed this because I didn't capture it who prepared those surveys uh that was actually prepared by Casey and Keller Casey and Kell do you know when uh recently um within this year was it in there there is a Casey and Keller lale title survey that was submitted initially it was prepared by Mr Lonzo Fama yes are those is this the same survey or well the one that I have doesn't so show the Dynamics but that's who prepared the surveys correct that's who prepared the original survey and who prepared the subdivision as well and they accurate depict what's there and what's intended to be proposed correct thank you I have nothing further Mr chairman problem thank you there's anybody in the public um question for this witness please come forward you yeah no you we let me explain that we can question each witness and at the end you can make a statement okay we have plenty of time to do that I'm leaving I justed to get did no we just can't do that that this is there's a format so luck so thank you sorry so sorry problem safe safe travels hi good evening again the record Leisa John basa um Mr manilo Right correct uh as was St by Mr there was an application that was filed in 2019 before this board in connection with what was thought to be legally created at 35 Sycamore were you the preparer of that plan in 2019 that was filed uh no I was not are you aware that variance relief was previously requested uh I'm not too familiar with the subdivision approvals um as well just for the record that application never went forward that application never this board didn't have jurisdiction to hear it application never went for forward this is a fresh variant application hi um the subdivision approval that was granted that was before the planning board um yes okay I guess I'll deferm my questions to your planner the the lot area that was permitted uh for the creation of 35 Sycamore What's the total lot area uh per the definition in the township ordinance is 9,158 ft and what is the minimum required law area uh 15,000 ft so is it fair to say that the the subject lot is about 60% of what's uh allowable for a minimum laot area uh approximately yes the requested variance relief that you touched on there is a floor ratio variance that's being requested which is why we're before the zoning board that question or Statum sorry it's a question yes okay and what is the proposed F uh. 295 and permitted is 21 and at the 21 that would allow a house of approximately how many square feet of habitable square feet approximately 1,924 square feet and under the Township Code the habitable square feet footage that deducts certain things um such as a portion of the garage is that correct that is correct an attic area um yes and also basement area is that correct that is correct okay so the 1924 that would be permitted that would not include a basement and attic or 450 ft of a garage is that correct uh that is correct okay and the square footage of the proposed home uh that's being proposed not including the attic garage or basement is approximately how many square feet it is uh 276 so it's over by approximately 782 square fet is that accurate that's good math yes about and there's also um a rear yard variance that's being requested here and you just provided some testimony that that the and correct me if I'm seeing something inaccurate but what's required for a minimum is is 40 fee and what's being proposed with this application is 25 5.4 that is correct if you could flip back to your variance plan that shows the propos house so the dimension of the 25.4 can you just point out where that is with your cursor yeah so it's the um top right corner of the house that's the closest distance to the proper line As you move further away the distance increases uh where it's actually conformance at the left corner and there's a square box right outside of the house that's I believe it's referenced of a wall what what is that uh that's a a patio that comes out to grade and what is the distance of the patio to the rear yard I don't have that Dimension but it's probably roughly 20 feet so is the rear yard than less than the 25.4 that's being proposed uh no I believe it's still 25.4 it's measured to the actual building not to the patio what is the dimension to the patio I could scale it for you but I don't have that Dimension right here that would be great if you could yeah and I'll report back to you on that it's not a problem um okay because it appears that there's actually a lesser rear yard stepb back than what is being shown on the plans by the dimensions so it would be great to know what that that is what that patio area is do you agree with that statement Mr Milo uh to my recollection I don't believe this re setb measur to the on grade patio there is a requirement within your code related to patios are you familiar with that code section one second okay was that a question to me or to the board to you okay you said there's there's a section that relates to patios that are um attached to homes and their distances are you familiar with that provision uh not off top my head okay um so there's a provision it's section 17098 Point C4 related to rear yards um and it states that there shall be a rear yard at least 40 ft except that a patio May extend into that distance for 10 ft if the lot is conforming in size So based on that representation um would you agree then that the rear yard stepback is measured to the patio um if that's the definition then that you may be correct but I would need to review that and how large is that patio area in square footage again I don't have that to mention um I get that that for you um that's just a maybe the architect could answer U when he gets up as well but I'll I'll scale it okay because there's also an an ancillary part of that setback requirement that relates to the square footage of the patio itself okay um and then in um on your plans if you can zoom out again there's another it looks like another patio that square block that's to the rear that is correct yes that is that's the second patio on the property well the first one's not a patio it's really a landing that comes out of out of the uh the doors but call it as you as you wish and how large is that patio uh I believe it's 20 by 20 so that's 400 square F feet about that is correct okay and what is the distance of the closest distance of the patio to the rear the second patio or the rear patio I'll say uh I don't have a dimension on the plan so I could again get you that Dimension and report back to you by the end of the meeting and do you know the distance of the patio to the side yard line I do not are you are you familiar with the township definition of accessory building off top of my head no I don't have it memorized the definition section of the Township Code States accessory buildings and I'm quoting subordinate building or structure on the same lot with a main building consider a patio would you consider the patio a structure no it's not a structure no what is it it's onr uh material as like calling a driveway a structure and you don't believe that a driveway is a structure either no okay building coverage oh I'm sorry rear yard let's go back to the rear yard I believe that you stated um in your testimony that the rear yard could not get larger the step back in the rear yard could not get larger I don't recall saying that could the rear yard uh step back get larger from an engineering standpoint yes the house could be moved forward there's different ways that it could be inre could be moved forward or could another alternative be that that house be reduced in size to create a larger rear yard uh correct or yeah and um you also I believe you also said that the house or the rear yard was in character with the surrounding properties is that right I did not I said the front yards were can you um can you flip to that aerial photo that you showed previously uh sure okay so um this is an area that you prepared correct okay um looking at the character of the neighborhood itself and just focusing on the rear yard would you say that the patio and the encroachments into the rear yard that's being proposed with this application are in character with the remaining lots that are in this Frame uh I mean it depends on how you classify a character I would say that the rear guard's in line with the neighbors to the left or to the to the West um and then where you see this the property does um kind of turn and that property line goes and gets smaller as you get closer to the intersection of Bear Brook so the Lots just from this the screen angle to the left um would you be able to Dimension uh roughly how large those rear yards are from the principal building to the um to the rear lot line uh no not off the string based on just uh the view of the eye does it appear that the the existing development on those lots have much larger rear yards than what's being proposed in connection with the subject application uh yes but I will also classify that those lots are a lot deeper than the slot as well right I would agree with that um and also yeah so that would relate to both the principal buildings as well as any sort of accessory structures or patio features is that correct uh that that the that the rear yards of those existing homes the built out homes are are larger than what's being proposed here I'm still confused you say something about accessory structure in patio I just want to make sure that we're clear I know you're not calling in accessory structure so I rewarded it okay to the patio that's being proposed in the rear of 35 second the question I'm I'm trying I just don't understand what the question I think you already answered the question that what is being proposed is not in character with the remaining rear guards I don't believe I said that okay the building coverage that um excuse me one second uh Miss kanana has to leave due to a family situation um so um everybody else is still in play so okay sorry thank you for your building coverage calculation I don't know if I heard you say what is the footprint of the proposed home or how was building coverage calculated yep just get that for you uh so we came up with 1773 and that includes all the roofed areas I'm sorry all the roofed areas okay so that was the total building coverage correct the patios and Patio areas are not included correct that is correct the grading of the lot um can you just discuss generally how the grading is on site yeah so generally the the site right now um grades from Sycamore uh towards the rear of the property and um it is going to be maintained that way as well in the proposed conditions do you have um your grading plan uh yeah I was just looking for my full plan here I couldn't find it believe this might be it yeah so with the exception now so the driveway is grading towards Sycamore and the remainder of the lot is still grading uh the way that it was before is that it's hard to read from here but is it around I think a 308 elevation in in the front and then it slopes I guess downward to around 294 that is correct so there's a difference of grading about 14 ft uh which is existing and proposed correct um as part of the development is any soil or soil moving activities being proposed on site uh yeah in order to build the um the dwelling and the improvements some soil movement will have to occur um on on sheet three of your plans it IND it had some figures related to the soil moving activities that the that the lot area itself is 9,160 ft and that the lot disturbance is 9, 461 ft uh correct so that includes also disturbance within the RightWay okay so the entire site will be dis Disturbed uh so from the plants so I don't if you can see this line right here uh this rear corner is not being disturbed okay but the vast majority and including in the RightWay is going to be that is correct yes is any soil going to be brought on site to um construct the home uh it actually should be an export uh with a basement so no there should be no import okay there's um also on your plans there was a a calculation related to Building height M and that the proposal is 35 ft required and the proposal is 34.95 Ft correct on a prior reiteration of your plan there was um a a picture on sheet one there was a diagram that showed how the height was measured it's missing from this plan is there a reason why it's missing um I I don't know why it's missing but we could definitely add it back to the plan if it uh is a requirement or condition of approval not an issue and do you know if the height was measured from current grade or after the soil moving activities occurred uh it was measured uh pursuing to the town's requirement as far as average grade I believe it was the four corners of of the house so it's be before the soil moving activities occur on site um to be honest with you I need to look at the calculation but I know it was done per the code um and again that's up to the town engineer or resoning official that could um verify right before the board were to act on this I would U I would ask that uh a plan be shown how the um height was measured because per the Township Code it requires that um that the highest point of the building be measured from the average of the original grade so I think that's a since we're so close to the maximum permitted height here that we should or the board should know that answer and the public should know that answer before granting an approval I I just want to do state that we are we are proposing a conforming house as far as Building height um if the board wishes we have no issues showing those calculations and showing that it does conform as a condition of approval and um obviously if if it doesn't work we're going to lower the house to be performance um we're not asking for a variance on Building height but there are plans that are on file with this board and we need to make sure before the board grants an approval that there will be a conformance with the uh maximum permitted Building height that the plans fairly represent what is actually going to be built out there but that's a statement that's not a question I'll move on um if I might interject Miss Durkin do you are is there any testimonies going to be offered this evening with regard to that height other than this no we're not seing height no but I'm I'm talking with regard to the issue raised by by the obor's counsel as to how it was calculated so I I can if when I have a chance I can take a look at the calculations in my files and verify but it's not on the plans as far as how it was calculated so it would be a in my understanding that if if if if this application was approved it would be a condition of approval it would be a condition of approval or if if you give me uh 20 minutes after I'm done here I could I could verify on record that is part of the code as long as it's before you leave otherwise I would respectfully suggest it has to be a condition of any approval NE your engineer official the Pao or the height as an issue I understand I'm just I understand the Dynamics I understand that you don't know it right now y I just want to make sure that we're clear that we're going to resolve that some way either as a condition I condition of approval or here not a problem all right thank you will no that is correct sorry there will be no height variance requested by the applicant impervious coverage uh what is the post total impervious coverage on um proposed in connection with application just give me one second um so again I don't have the total I have the increase um from what was existing on the site which is about 1,815 Square ft sorry 1,800 that's the increase in impervious coverage I don't have the total um I believe that's not a requirement uh for the zone are you familiar with um quod section 17072 that requires a drainage plan be submitted for any approved addition or of impervious surface of 300 sare ft or greater yes did you prepare a drainage plan yep it's sheet to has the drainage calculations and drainage plan and um I believe we stated that we would conform and uh be subject to review of the Town engineer okay tree removal um I didn't see I just want to make sure that this is accurate is there based on the survey it didn't appear that there were any trees that were being removed is that correct that is correct the Landscaping that is being proposed which is appreciated by the pearlson uh I see that there's a it's 13 Green Giant abravesh and it says 6 to 8 feet tall is that a planting height that is a planting height correct and you also mentioned that there was a drywell system that was being proposed for drainage um or ring collection is there any issues with maintenance of those types of systems as issues as far as do they get clogged often do they have to have regular maintenance uh they have to be inspected as far as clogging often no not not usually um all they collect is usually the um leaders from the roof so it's clean water as far as um clogging is concerned has a uh has a maintenance plan for that system been submitted to the board uh not at this time now that's usually something that done during the Engineering Process if if the board were inclined to Grant the application we would respectfully request that as a condition of approval a maintenance plan be be provided in of record I I think a lot of that the lot of stuff you're discussing which is all extremely important is under the purview of the engineering department and they'll take care of whether it's drain AG or anything like that we don't have privy over maintenance of dry Wells or anything else or maintenance plans that I can't necessarily put that in I don't think as a condition I understand that typically it's outside of your purview but given the fact of how large this house is there's a concern as to the drainage so that's why we were just raising the issues understood so we we have no issues providing a maintenance plan lot surface drainage application to um the engineering department so any approvals any home being built has to be reviewed by the engineer correct as always okay thank you and um just one last question um from an engineering perspective could this proposed building envelope be reduced uh the build envelope yes I think the building envelope is set by the ordinance as far as setbacks but there's not I believe you testified that the appin is requesting variances from the rear yard stepb back as well as the front yard stepb back is that correct uh can the building be reduced I thought they you said the envelope sorry yeah uh yeah from an engineering standpoint you you could build nothing you could build a 100 foot house yeah engineering wise anything's possible thank you I have no further questions you're welcome thank you does anybody else have any questions for this witness please step forward and provide your name my name is new um I I'm the son-in-law of the owner of 37 sigmore Avenue would you be kind enough to spell your name for us yes first name y a n z h o n g last name new n i u I've um participated in the uh planning board meeting as well and express my objection on on behalf of my uh father-in-law could you state your address please my address is 6 Arlington Drive also Livingston thank you make that clouder please so um my question for you is um as far as the character of the houses on the street is concerned um because I recall during the planning board meeting the main argument of the applicant is that the character of the house to be built will be the size around 1900 and it'll be of the same character as the houses on the left of the street right the uh I believe uh Mr and Mrs pearlson um actually provided some information during that hearing that the council was there if you're not aware that's fine um so the council was at that uh hearing and the main so basically Mr and Mrs um Pearson provided information about the houses on the right and behind the lot and uh you know they pointed out that the character of the house based on the previously applied plan would be completely out of char character no no no sorry the what the applicant was claiming a 1900 house would be very inconsistent with those houses right because it's nearer to those houses so it'll be a very small house um but then you guys said well it's actually more the applicant claimed that it's it'll be very consistent to the houses to the left of the street so based on your observation your current plan this twostory house uh I guess it's twostory in the front but three stories in in the back correct this house if you look at the height of the house house and the total square footage how consistent is that to the average house on the left of the street uh so I'm not sure if that's a really a question for me or my yeah my testimony I do engineering okay I see sorry I'm a Layman so my question is so hopefully that'll be addressed and as far as when you say it's a two twostory house you are talking about from the front how many stories correct or is that also architect that's per the definition of the uh in the township ordinance as far as how to measure stories right right that's measured from the front right from the grade up uh per definition there's a how much of a floor could be exposed and what's considered a basement and what's considered a story so per the definition of the ordinance this is a two-story house okay yes all right I guess later on that question will be addressed by the architect or you come back up and ask it again okay cool that's all I have no just to recap the three variances you're applying one is the front uh setback and the other is a total square footage what's the third one uh rear guard set back okay thank you you're welcome no other questions thank you so much does anybody else in the public would like to ask a question on this witness okay Mr urin back to you I'm sorry apologize we ask our architect to please come up okay would you be so kind to state your name for the record and your business address Matthew martinque 23 Breeland Road Floren Park New Jersey and are you a licensed architect Li Sor would you spell your last name please m a r t i n i qu thank you are you a licensed architect license in the state of New Jersey yes I am okay and are you the licensed architect who prepared the uh plans that are the subject of this application this evening yes I am oh okay and um have you been qualified to testify as an architect before the Livingston Board of adjustment before not before this board now okay so then would you be so kind as to just familiarize the board with your credentials and what other boards that you have been qualified to testify as an architect of course I received my education from the New Jersey Institute of Technology as I said I am a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey my license is current and valid I have 20 years experience in the field of architecture where I've worked on small single family additions all the way up to multi-building you know mixed use complexes uh I've testified just last night in Cranford I've testified in Newark Manasquan Westfield you couple throughout the state of New Jersey but I've never testified before this board okay U Mr chairman I respectfully request that the board accept the qualifications of the architect to testify as a licensed architect um I'm going to do this rather than doing in the beginning because you started testifying do you swear or affirm that the statements that you just made to the board are true accurate and complete I do and do you swear or affirm that any statements you make for the board and testimony you give to the board this evening will be true accurate incomplete I do consider yourself under oath and that the statements you made before were made under oath correct okay um and and you do recall um does anyone on the board have any object uh questions objections regarding this witness there be no objection the witness is accepted as expert architecture thank you very much Mr chairman um so would you the plans that there have been several revisions to the initial plan that you submitted as part of this application correct correct and and basically that you've scaled down the size of the house and the houses was previously testified that the engineer was was moved up closer to the street correct that is correct okay and you're familiar with the property that's the subject of this application yes okay and you're familiar with the neighborhood yes okay and you're familiar with the Pearson the obor's home where it's located yes yes okay so let's just go with the exhibit um that is the most recent plans for you to testify to although we need to mark them in as an exhibit because I do not believe that we have a denial letter on those plans so it would be sheets uh pb1 through pb4 and maybe it would be helpful for the board if I say that you do recall that you had submitted revised plans that the uh Municipal zoning review officer had set set uh issued a denial of application on September 16th 2024 and lists the same variances that are the subject of this application but then included that the unfinished attic space described in the plans needs to be added to the habitable floor area C calculation since it's considered part of the second floor you recall that review letter yes I do okay so you did you revise your plans yes we did since the the submission of those plans to to remove that condition correct okay so why don't you be so kind as to just you know review your architectural plans with the board sure uh it's a this house is designed as a essentially A Center Hall Colonial when you come in through the main foyer to two-story space with the stair to the left is a study to the right is your two-car garage you get through the two-car garage into the house through the mud room also to the left of the entry is a dining room in the rear of the home is the open kitchen and family room uh tucked to the right of the house in the back right corner behind the garage is a guest room uh there is a full basement under the house except for of course the garage area on the second floor we have three bedrooms there used to be four bedrooms but to help reduce the size of the house we took away the one-bedroom and made it unfinished attic uh what Liz was talking about with the the including that unfinished uh space in the hital floor area so we we still had a door shown going into it so we since removed that door closed that space off and then just put an access hatch below it to be able to access that space CU any enclosed space you have to be able to access per code uh let me go to so some of the changes on the elevation you can't really tell on the front but the the left side of the house with the two large Gables was pushed back to help reduce the square footage um these rooms are you know not overly large uh how you zoom in uh you know two-car garage at 21 by 20 is about as minimum as I would suggest for a two-car garage uh a study at 8 by 12 is not very Lar it's just enough to maybe have a little home office the dining room also at 13 by 12 not overly large you know the rear area is larger but you know widthwise at a 14 ft you know it's not uh once again not a huge space a guest room at 12 by 11 [Music] upstairs once again you know the bedrooms are around 12 x 12 13 by 13 the primary bedroom is 15 by 16 as a primary bathroom in a walk-in closet um nothing here is I feel overly large or grossly exaggerated for space I work on a lot of multif family buildings you know these are about the same size as the bedrooms and primary bedrooms we do there here's the rear elevation um as test was testified this is a two-story house according to the town definition and also would be considered two-story house per the international r residential code you know where it's measured from average grade and then that also from that average grade line you can't have your floor more than 6 feet above that which we do not so this is a basement and a two-story home let me open up the rendering we prepared a rendering for this to show color and texture and material on this uh we submited a little more of a modern color palette uh it's like I said it's a c Colonial home look but it's got you know the dark roofs dark Windows we're using a like a ledge Stone instead of more of a cobblestone look so you know and uh to testify to the character I do not believe this is out of character for the area uh the homes to the left and the right they are I I believe from the front are single you know story looking homes whereas this is a two-story home but uh I I do not believe that this home is out of character for the area Excuse Me Miss Durkin is that is that document part of the package that's been submitted to the board with the coloring in the house yes it was it was submitted to the board is that the most recent submission or the PRI PRI uh this was prob we've we haven't we've never updated this rendering so it was with the prior the prior one yeah it's just to show the materials correct correct and to that you wouldn't be able to tell the changes we made from this elevation anyway would you be kind enough to to resub submit that after the hearing please we have a copy because I'm not sure it's not in my package item maybe it just didn't make it way in okay not a problem okay so in your professional opinion the proposed home would would fit on this lot appropriately is that correct correct okay and that the home once it's built would fit in with the character and scheme of the neighborhood is that correct that is correct and from an architectural standpoint you you don't see a negative with this proposed construction do you no I do not okay it because as a matter of fact you're improving the the streetcape because you're adding new housing stock is that correct correct okay and in terms of the size of the home this is a moderately sized single family home is that correct that is correct okay and how many bedrooms are there four total okay and initially did the applicant request five bedrooms correct okay so the applicant has scaled down the initial application to four bedrooms is that correct that is correct okay and there's no living space in the Attic correct no living space in the Attic nor in the basement correct nor in the basement okay and and you're familiar with the uh applicant had is okay with the uh Pearson's request that there not be a raised deck on the home isn't that correct correct and we have not shown one okay okay I have no further questions of the architect Mr chairman thank you I I'll ask a question um this is obviously a two- family house and we you know there obviously been past discussions about the streetscape and everything else this looks like a three family house to me three sto story house to me uh because of the way the the height of the roof and the extra window up there this looks like it's maximizing not minimizing on a vastly undersized lot so can you explain to me how this fits as a two-story house on a house with smaller uh on a street with smaller houses well there are some smaller houses and there are some bigger houses you you you created a subdivision that was looking to say that said we're going to have you have S smaller houses that's the the public record so I'm trying to understand how we got from a smaller house in a small lot to something that look like it belongs on a much bigger I just want to make sure the record is correct we did not give any of that testimony because I know that speaking to the person person's counsel they are of that mistaken belief you did not do that correct I I understand that a matter of public record I looked at it and this is what was brought forth to the planning board you that was the the planning board only approved the lot they did not approve the construction hence why we're here tonight and the initial in 2019 the house was slightly larger than this and understood I was there y yeah okay I was not part of that so I I can't tell you why it's bigger than what was originally no it's reduced yeah but but you know it's smaller than what we originally had you know from last meeting or the you know before last last meeting um you know it's a two-story house it's a lot of roof in the front because of the garage how we come up from the garage so it may appear where's the you know as you can see you know we're coming up from the garage so it's a lot of roof it looks like but you know it's not substantial if we stop this roof from coming up and went a wall here and only had a little roof it might help reduce that look of that it's a massive house because you have all this roof it's really not a massive house I have you know worked on much larger homes um yeah I feel this is a very modest house especially for Livingston for new construction anyway from what I've experienced can you go back to pb2 please so in the top picture there it's unclear to me towards the bottom left is that a walk out basement or what is right here yes yeah it's it's somewhat of a walk out basement we have to create an area way and that's what the walls are on the site plan to keep back the grade so that you can walk out of the basement so those are some sort of sliding glass doors or whatever yeah it's a slide yeah it just would be a sliding glass door or French doors you we didn't get that far into uh picking things so thank you Mr yeah um just going back to the attic um I'm just confused also between the this current plans and the ones before because you seem to show the same Heights for the first floor second floor but somehow we've shrunken the house to 34 feet from 34 feet 2 and 12 in but then you've increased the distance from the first floor to the highest point of the ridge so did we yeah because it was 29 ft 3 and a half inches and now it's 29 feet 10 and I don't know why that's different 29 now it's just 29 ft 10 and 12 Ines before was 29t 3 and2 that's just I'm not sure why that is because we didn't we did not increase roof Heights or anything in fact by shrinking the building slightly this way that should have reduced not gained so I don't know exactly why those two are different because in either case then you're talking about a roof that's about the height of the ridge to the attic floor is any from 10et 2 and half Ines to 10et 10 and a half inches you're almost talking like a a stand up attic well you got to understand there's collar ties in there too so those are going to cut down the head height uh we don't have a stair up to that attic it's not it's don't have one but one could be added and you do have a you do have an unfinished attic on the second floor that could easily that obviously you would have the height now of double height so because you have the height of the second floor then also going up to the attic on the well it wouldn't be double heighted you're stuck with the roof line Ro you can't have a double heighted space in that room over the garage but couldn't the the only reason why the roof is that high is also because you have the double Gable that's in the front and the window and without the double Gable we could then lower the height of the attic the window is just into dead attic space it's just put there so it's not a blank elevation right there I mean that window could be a little you know gable vent or anything like that it was just side to do a window um once again this is not a habitable attic um there's no erest there up there there's nothing going on up there um I mean if you want to talk about possibilities and anything's possible I can't testify to what we didn't do okay I have a comment or two um so thank you so much for your testimony I'm looking I've been looking at this I'm looking at this um and we run into this quite a bit up here um not all lots are created equal even if they're in certain districts so not all our four lots are the same not all our three lots are the same some are oversized and some are undersized this is an undersized lot clearly to me it fits more in an R4 when I look at it um with the minimum lot area for an R4 is 9375 and yours is I don't have it in front of me something like that right so in my mind I'm looking at this more as an R4 situation um where the habitable floor area is actually under and sort of complies with the R4 what I'm looking at really more is I'm not so much concerned with the area but just the look of the house to me looking at the roof it makes the house look really massive to me um and I think like you said it's not a big house but the roof makes it look really big so perhaps there's a way to look at that and just scale that back a little bit and maybe look at the design a little bit but I think that for me in my mind it's more about the appearance than the actual size of the house correct yeah and like I said I completely agree that because of the roof that's why this house is coming off looking so very massive from the front right so the we should maybe look at that yeah anybody else on the board have any questions is anybody in the public have any questions for this witness what is your feeling about that least the record um I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name Martinique Martinique okay okay Mr martinque um there were a lot of questions that were asked I just want to verify one thing the plans you just demonstrated or or showed this evening and marked as an exhibit were they the same plans that were on file I believe within August date except for the unfinished attic correct they're essentially the same except for like I said we remov the door into that unfinished attic space closed it off and did an access hatch from the garage okay I have to look into why we have 29 10 and a half on this and the other one was uh 293 and A2 I I not sure where that 7 in came from um I'm just going to start with the basement and go up okay sure so there is a a walk out basement that's proposed in connection with this house correct do you know why there's a walk out basement why it's not more like a Sellar and um I believe because of the gray drop if you if the gray drops enough and you can have a walk out basement it's a lot nicer to have a walk out basement than a seller and how large is that basement area basement area area do we have that no but it's it's it's probably still around it's around probably about 1300 Square F feet because it's you know it's not underneath the garage which is 448 Square F feet but it's under the rest of the dwelling okay so the the basement area that's being shown on the screen right now that's approximately 1300 S F feet somewhere around there yes and do you know the ceiling height that's proposed in the basement uh yes 8 feet or 8 foot eight um top of s yeah 8 feet 8 foot eight yeah it would be 8 foot eight given the height and size is this a a an area that can be used for a TV room a workout room um it can it's usable it's usable space absolutely yes okay the first floor plan um first floor plan please I believe you went through the rooms but can we just go around again and just identify what the rooms are sure as you walk in the foyer you to your left is a study right behind that has the dining room behind that is the kitchen which is open to the family room beyond the family room is a guest room with its own private bathroom below that is the two-car garage which is you gain access through the rest of the house through a mud room and with the garage based on the Township's calculations there's a portion of that garage area that is is not included in the F calculation is that right that that is correct 450 450 squ feet I believe the first it says the first 450 squ fet so anything beyond that is would be included in so so those 450 plus the 1300 in the basement they they don't count towards the habitable um area that is included in the F calculation I believe the basement does I thought didn't it does it it does not no and then if you can move on to the second floor plan and walk through those rooms again sure as you come up the stair from the two-story foer to your as you come up the stair right ahead you'll have bedroom number two with has an on Suite bathroom to the right of that is the primary bedroom with a primary bathroom and a large walk-in closet and then to your right down the hallway is a laundry room and then to bedroom number three and then at the end of the hallway is a hall bath and you're saying it's bedroom number three but in fact how many bedrooms are being proposed oh there are four bedrooms this is bedroom number three on this floor with the guest room on the first floor being the fourth bedroom okay and the last reiteration of of the plan that was filed with the board I I want to say it was August 26th date um what's being labeled now as an unfinished attic that was previously a bedroom with a walk-in closet is that correct that is correct and it was relabeled for what purpose to reduce the square footage of the house the livable area of the house but the house itself didn't actually shrink it was just based on math based on the township code is that no the house did shrink some we we reduced the front setb uh the front the know bedroom area I believe we brought this whole area in 2 feet I don't think we brought the back in at all I think it all was right in here this laundry room got a little bit smaller so we did reduce the overall for putting slightly I'm sorry the the area that is now called unfinished attic which was formerly labeled bedroom number four did that spase reduce in size somewhat because of uh the just getting rid of the room the roof slope and everything like that you know it just it did and did not kind of you know it's it's it's I I forget how big that bedroom was I think it was 200 something square feet so that came out and up until the time that you presented this exhibit today that what's called unfinished attic area that actually qualified as an addict under the township code is that correct correct and and why was we had a door what's the difference we had a door going into it so it was part of the second floor you could just walk right into it so we got rid of that door and put in Access hatch to the attic and from an architectural standpoint would it be easy to convert it back and have a door yeah would the applicant if the board were inclined to even Grant this application would it be inclined to as a condition of approval not put another bedroom within the house well we wouldn't it wouldn't be so much as putting a bedroom but you're going you know you're going against you you put a bedroom in there now you're over your F so right but a lot of things happen in houses without boards knowing about it it's true so I'll take that as a no what do you as a if there was if the board imposed the condition that there wouldn't be another fifth bedroom is that something that the applicant would agree to I believe so he allowed us to remove it now so I don't think you know he you know like I said he couldn't put it back we couldn't put it back as The Architects without coming back to the board for more square footage and there's also aside from this unfinished attic on the second floor is there also another ad I just want to make sure what are we trying to get here because this zoning is about the restrictions of the front yard in the backyard of that front sideb so why are we going in details I don't understand because there's also a requirement of habitable floor area and that's exactly precisely the questions that I'm asking here he's already shown where's the habitable floor area right well if we believe the label change yeah I'll say a label change has has has changed based on the formula that the town has but I have I have another question related to is there also another attic or an attic plan well there no there would be an attic above this floor because of the roof geometry but you know there's just an access hatch up there to to you know get up to the attic two attics in the proposed house it's one big attic but you could call it two because you're seeing them on two different levels like if let me show you the so the attic you we're talking about that's located above the garage at the second floor would be this space right here and then the normal attic of the house would be this space up here so as as some of the questions of the board is the the massing of this house and what it looks like is it normal from an architectural standpoint to have two addicts in a home yes there's plenty of times where there's dead space above other rooms that you can call an addict anything that you would be able to stand up in would be considered an addict and that's 30 in they consider in the code would it be possible to remove the top floor that's the proposed you you mean up here yes I mean without going to a flat roof no if you want a flat roof house then yes I'm assuming that there's a way to to redesign the roof or take off some of the massing on the top of there's another attic space of course yeah and then um a question was grown your way related to um The Patio area there's a patio area that's I'll talk about the one that's attached to the house area way we I've never seen us call a little you know areaway out of a walkable basement as part of a p as a patio you're not having a party there you're not putting a chair there that that's what the engineer called it so that's what I was referring to what is a what is an air way area way area way it's just a small space that allows you access is there a pavement or any type of P there's got yeah there's got to be a there's got to be I mean I guess there doesn't have to be you could walk right out onto grass you don't have to have any kind of pavement there excuse me I'm sorry um as my colleague said if there's a reason for this for these questions about the patio and so forth let's move on um is there is there a reason for asking about the patio yeah it related to whether um the rear yard setback was measured from the area that I'm referencing now or or not because there's a provision within your code um that states that rear yards there shall be a rear yard at at least 40 ft except that an attached Sund deck or patio May extend into the required yard for a distance of of 10 feet if that was in fact a patio it's in a yard that's less than what's what's permitted so I would submit to this board that the rear yard stepb back requirement is measured from the patio okay so we'll take notice we'll take note of that thank you um you had a you made statements relate to the character of the neighborhood and the homes correct have you done any sort of survey related to the the square footages of the homes on Sycamore and particularly on the west side of Sycamore yeah that that's not mine okay I I I can defer it to the planner but um there was statements made by this professional that it was in character with the just as the aesthetic I was just talking about the aesthetic of the elevation I'm not talking about Square materials colors you know look of the house okay I'll I'll reserve for planners comment thank you thank you and I just want to let you know I spoke with my client toor I spoke with my client and he agrees to a condition of four bedrooms so that's fine okay thank you please come back yeah um one question question just so please just just state your name and your address yarting to drivek um can you go back to the Chart where you show the rear um rendering of the house with the thick line showing the approximate grade yeah just want to uh you know make sure I read this correctly so that um thick line approximate grade that's a hypothetical calculated right it was based off of the grading plan right so if you scroll down so we can see the back of the house yeah here yeah this is the right so basically that walk out basement is basically the regular walk out basement right so you you open the door you're walking onto a flat surface yeah and then you have to come up a little bit to meet grade okay understood that's all I have okay thank you thank you does anybody else in the uh public have any questions for this witness anybody else on the board another chance okay I turn it back over to you is it possible I apologize is it possible that we can take a five minute break perfect so much chair I'll give you six thank you I appreciate that okay we're in recess for a few minutes Li e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay so You' had okay we're back in session oh sorry we back in session back okay so you've had an opportunity to listen to what some of the comments to the board was regarding the design the attic and the height correct correct okay so based on those comments and the feedback that you just received from the board are there certain modifications that you can do to that plan absolutely okay uh there's a number of things we could do to help create a better looking area here we could delete this little Dormer lower this you know garage roof or maybe change it to a different you know Gable and kind of get a wall here to reduce the massing here this massing can be reduced if we change the you know slight you know you don't want to make it too flat but we could play with the you know uh the pitch of the roof to help reduce that we could take out you know instead of having Windows around like a you know on the sides and everything up in the attic we could just do gable vents so that it doesn't look like there's a habitable livable attic up there um so yeah we're open to that okay and and the restriction on the height the yeah we could come down if we change the pitch of the roof we could easily come down a foot foot and a half to around 33 336 or something like that so we can make sure that we are under any ordinance height okay thank you um anybody want to make a comment on that on the board thank you thank you I I guess the only other comment that I would make I that's great thank you for uh you know reducing the height my only other concern would be the because depending on what you're talking about doing would be that still that space that says unfinished attic and and as you said you know um things could be done um would uh would you also consider deed restricting that area that it can't ever be living space I don't own this I can't deed restrict anything so that that's you up to the what we've agreed to is a condition on the approval to four bedrooms like I said you can't you know and when we get a building permit it's based on those plants on those PLS I'm talking about for future because that could always that room could always be changed but they would have to come back they would have to go they would have to get a permit or if you're doing work illegally you're doing it illegally we can't we no one could stop that I've been in you know plenty of you know apartment buildings that have been on fire where you know there's beds in the living area you know so yeah you can't stop a legal activity and the windows are being removed and the windows are being removed correct so that even goes further to diminishing any that ever becoming any living space correct correct yeah yeah okay would you like to have any questions just for this change it it sounds like it's moving in the right direction um but would it be possible to have revised plans that are filed with the board that can be looked at before a vote because yes we we'd have to have revised plans at some point to see what you know a foot or foot and a half doesn't mean anything really yes we would want revised plans before a vote not as a okay okay great I I I can't approve a concept thank you okay uh so if the board is going to require because as this board knows you can make as a condition revised plans that are approved by your professionals if the board is is so that they want us to bring in revised plans and particularly given the night and I know there's other applicants here then we should just you know stop here submit revised plans and move on that that's my idea I think that's probably the best way to go um Jackie does that work with our schedule or it it's not unusual for the board to to send an application back to for staff to review base on the comments but it I it's not my call whether you adjourn it or or or not right do we need to have a vote can we approve something with it my I I think my concern is the um what what's the word I'm looking for the interpretation of what you know we might be thinking three inches more you might be thinking three inches less I'm not saying that you are but you know and it's not what we are envisioning at that point I mean I'd like to hear from other people on the board you agree or disagree yeah that this is me can I also articulate that the town's planner is in the room and if you were to subject to um she's heard the testimony so maybe she could be the person that would approve B but it has to be fully articulated on the record what this board is looking for I'm sorry Mr chairman I understand your concern because the Dynamics of this application and I'm not characterizing any which way is you want to make sure that all the t's are crossed and the eyes are dotted so that if if and when the board makes a vote they're making it based upon what's presented to the board and the board has a clear understanding of what it is I'm not suggesting to the board which way to go on this I'm just saying that as as an attorney yeah we consent we just need a date huh we consent we just need a date okay it's just that I know the docket is kind of kind of kind of stiff so we'll see where we go work with you do you have a question um sure okay let's just I'm a little concerned that we're already talking about approving it that maybe I misheard it well that's what trying to decide how to proceed the correct way I think right right so I'm also hearing like approve this was throwing around thrown around maybe I me heard it respectfully when when the board Bo's using the word approval they don't mean that they're approving it they're just meaning that they're going to vote on appr very good thanks and I guess before you guys vote I can make a final statement right everyone will be allowed to make a final thank you um I better to see it um Jackie do we have a date I think that might be the safest way to go to with so much action going on here everyone page yeah Mr chairman that date would be uh Tuesday November 26th just have to make sure that the board has a quorum that's right um before the holiday just want to make sure that we're good for a Corum for that night I I have everyone will you be here turkey will be served um does does that work for the um for you ma'am yes it okay Mr chairman before before we do that if if you can give us some clear instructions as to what we should be looking for I I think that's fair um let me try to summarize and I'll ask my fellow board members to uh dive in if I missed something um you know we're look we're looking to reduce the Ming of the house uh specifically the appearance of a third floor uh so reducing the massing of the attic and any other adjustments you can do um to to reduce the the massing maybe in the back too a little bit um I just lost my train of thought sorry um you had you had indicated somewhere around 33 to 33 and A2 ft so we we' like to be in that range I think that's fair that'll uh leave comfort that the attic is truly not usable um by nefarious people down the road um not you guys um anything else that we're anybody want to chime in please yeah we talked about um removing the appears that the Dormer is in that unfinished space so we talked about not having a window in the unfinished space right there thank you and showing the setback to the Pao okay anyse it's not a that's it's not a patio by code you have to have a landing on either side of a door so it's not a patio we have to provide a landing okay can we at least show the size of the landing yeah in the dra please do we not show the dimensions are not there right I don't think they're there yeah NE dimensions of the landing all there right because it wasn't clear in the original drawing whether that was a walk out or not now that we understand it's a walk out want to understand what that Landing is when you it's a 4X six we just have that added it wasn't clear oh it's on this exhibit it's a right thank you anybody else we're good I think I think that's pretty clear what about pushing the it farther forward the whole house I mean does anyone have an opinion before I chime in on moving the house a little further forward I think it makes sense for it to be equal with the neighbors I think it's looks funny if it's pushed out which will wellas there's two neighbors one's a lot further out than the other so the question is whether you kind of set it in the middle between those two setbacks as opposed to the neighbor to the left and I want to make sure my fellow board members understand that'll change the front yard setback correct to be a greater number but if we feel that it's giving more Relief by moving the house forward then I think that's not a bad idea everybody yes no okay that was a good point okay thank you so much thank you very much Mr chairman and members of the board thank you very much Mr chairman before you do that just want to get a a sense of when we can expect the revised plans because um I made the decision to send this application to the town's planner so that we can get a review memorandum done and so that everything the varen is can be articulated ated and um apped on by the town I know we do have a zon and Annihilator we also have the engineer memo but I think it would be a good idea to have a planner memo and also just for the record we cons sent to any statutory adjournments you of our notice noober 2th how about October 25th that work Jackie think it's a month a month a month that gives a month to go through the system is that good so October 25th is good Mr chairman as a courtesy I would just ask if the applicant could please send us a copy of those revised plans because i' I've been chasing all the revisions to date thanks noted um anybody else M Durkin you good thank you very much thank you you appreciate it yes thank you so much okay let's call the next application everyone have a good block 503 lot 68 Harding Place application number 20 24-34 DV noren abas applicant seeks approval to extend the garage with New Foundation and second floor Edition above in the violation of the following sections 17-9 C2 front yard setback 40 ft required 36 ft proposed 4T variance requested 170 d99 C4 rear yard setback 35 ft required 31 ft proposed 4T variance requested 17087 cc4 habitable floor ratio 30% allowed 33.0 4% proposed 3 3.04% variance requested come on in you get the hot seat have a have a seat turn on your turn on your mic please for the little button and then let the good evening hold on one second okay can you hear me yes okay could you please state your name and spell it please um my official name is nigut n h a t middle name nor n o u r e n last name ABB a BB a s I go by norin Mr Boss do you swear or affirm that any and all statements and testimony you give to the board this evening will be true accurate and complete I do consider yourself under oath I thank you okay why don't you tell us why you're here and feel listen a little bit sure I bought this house last year in August moved from Pennsylvania with me two daughters and um I'm a single mom and I moved for my job and this house that I bought has only one full bathroom and I have two teenagers so we are trying to make a new bathroom um on top of that we are extending the garage and built the bathroom and a bedroom upstairs um on top of the garage and the den so that's the scope of the project okay me one [Applause] second you need some no the zoning table one second no no the one there not on there I check yeah hold on one second let me just call up a piece of paper the lock size is 7292 I it up oh is it oversiz or it's 729 sorry not working Miss Hollis I have a question there's um findings here the these were old owners the Sperling and we approved this but nothing was ever done so these are basically the same plans is that what this is no yeah it it there's an increase on on this uh uh the board previously granted the variances listed with slight increase on the um front yard and rear yard yeah I saw that but it's okay thank you I just yeah the previous owners uh splinks they had the plan approved back in August of 2021 they never went for construction they had five variances I have three variances yep okay so let's talk about the variances that you are you're looking for okay so yeah why don't you walk us through that and are they existing are they changing from what's existing out there why don't you explain that a little bit Yeah the front yard set back there is a 4 feet variance the required is 40 ft proposed is 36 so I'm going for four 4et variance for the front and that's because you're changing the plans or are you changing is the existing 36 now or you bringing the house forward required or allowed is 40 proposed is 36 what's there right now it's 36 now yeah yeah that's my contractor Le why you please why you come forward and you want to join her I don't have an architect but let's let's swear you in I checked if I need to bring my architect but they said you don't need here you have to go by the microphone yeah you can sit my name is leor Kalani and um Leo could you spell you leor l i o r last name Kalani k a h a l a n y and um I'm we are friends and I'm actually and I'm and I'm her contractor as well so do you swear or affirm that any statements you make to the board or testimony you give to the board will be true accurate and complete I do consider yourself under oath yeah okay so now maybe you could help out the existing house is a 36 inch a 36 foot um yeah is that back so you're not CH you're not changing the front changing anything the only thing we're changing we're just adding another fouret to the garage which is not affecting the front right and then in the back we're not doing anything we're not even touching the back so I'm not sure what is the so you have an existing non-conform everything is existing right that's what I was trying to get to the only thing that might be a variance is the height but if you look at the house next to it it's a monstr I have pictures we didn't we weren't told to bring uh if anybody want to show you we have a building right next door is really like 6 s ft over it's a corner according to your plans there's no problem with the height and that was reviewed by the township so that's fine and then you're going to be a little bit over on the habitable floor area right The Habit floor ratio rather we just heading 450 sare ft just the master bedroom above the garage correct the ratio if it changed I'm not sure yeah the habitable ratio is 3.04% the variance proposed is 33.4 required is 30% correct and your existing lot size is undersized for this you're under sized for this Zone I don't know what's the threshold of sizing but I think it's 1,700 s 72 almost 7 7292 I think it is oh I don't know it's on the plans the lot 7292 the covered square footage oh wait I'm sorry wrong one I'm sorry no that's wrong sorry sorry sorry sorry no sorry that I don't have that big of a house 7500 the lot size or the square foot the lot lot area 7500 Square ft so this isn't correct so you're about so you have an undersized lot and you're just going a little bit over on the um habital floor ratio right yeah so just yeah and if this was a full-size lot you probably wouldn't be coming before us for that is that correct yeah correct okay thank you does anybody have any questions for this witness no did we say it was 7501 is that what you said I just looked it up I saw 7500 on the building area calculation okay yes yes would you uh would you confirm that in your opinion there's adequate capacity here if you make these changes to accommodate what you want to do yeah and that it's consistent with the neighborhood yes and that any benefits that are granted to you by approval of this outweigh any detriments there's no substantial detriments to anything no thank that's all I have Mr chairman okay any other questions on the board anybody in the public have any questions for this applicant anybody like to make a motion I'll make a motion second go okay Mr Kenya yes Mr horn yes Miss KH votes yes Mr sha yes Mr morachi yes Mr Sherman yes um Mr Beer yes congratulations thank you very much thank you now I can go to my thank you for helping out [Applause] yeah okay I got it okay moving along block 1600 lot 62 168 North Livingston Avenue application number 20 24-36 DV radak Builders Livingston 3 LLC applicant seeks approval to construct a sing single new single family residents in violation of the following section 17087 cc4 habitable floor ratio 30% allowed 3 5.97 proposed 5.97% Vance requested good evening everyone my name is Matthew pad I'm with the law firm sils cus and gross and I represent rodak Builders Livingston 3 LLC in connection with this application seeking have floor area ratio relief for the subject site located at 168 North living Cav the applicant is here tonight proposing to demolish the existing improvements to develop a new two-story single family home on the subject lot itself The Proposal itself is a advancement of the ml because the application itself is going to eliminate an existing front yard variance although we are requiring ratio relief you will hear testimony tonight that about 600 square fet below is the actual floor area itself being proposed comparatively what is permitted within the area the purpose of why we're here tonight is a triggering of the fact that our lot size is significantly under siiz comparatively what we can do within the zone as it's about 2,000 square F feet below the requirement but anything I say is deem argumentative so don't take me for my word take my Professionals for their word with that being said I'd like to introduce my first uh professional for tonight which will be uh Mr sadra yes hi Mr sedra would you say your name and please spell it for us sure um Ian sedra the spelling is a y MN last name is sedra s edra and Mr cedra do you swear or affirm that any and all testimony and statements you make to the board this evening will be true and accurate and complete I do consider yourself under oath I'll turn it over to Mr pada for your qualifications great thank you so much Mr cedra can you please provide our educational credentials whether or not your license is still in good standing and please also name three boards where you've been qualified in the past as a professional in architecture sure uh I graduated from faculty of engineering architecture Department from Egypt um I became licensed in New Jersey in 2016 um also I'm licensed in New York Pennsylvania and Tennessee um I testified in front of this board um and other boards in New Jersey um Bon Jersey City Rutherford Wayne justtin INF few and my license in a good standing terrific this this board accept them as a professional architecture uh does anyone on the board have any questions or objections regarding this Witness there being no objection the witness is accepted as expert in architecture thank you Mr SRA are you familiar with the r for Zone yes and did you take those bulk requirements in consideration when proposing these architectural plans here tonight yes and are you the professional that was charged with the responsibility of drafting these floor layouts and Elations yes I am great why don't you walk us through we're proposing here sure um the first sheet which is a01 one uh introduce the the floor plans for this uh building uh the the drawing on the left side shows the first floor plan um and uh we enter the house through an entry porch once we enter we have a a twostory entry foer to the left of that we have the dining room to the right of that we have the two-car garage um going back to the back of the house we have the the family room and the kitchen and as a transitional area between the kitchen and the dining room we have a small Butler Bantry and a powder room uh on the top right side of the plan we have the guest Suite um you know it has its own bathroom and and its own walk-in closet um entering from the garage to the house we walk through the mudroom and then we enter through the the family room area um also going from the family room to the backyard there's a sliding door with the wood deck small wood deck uh 4x8 um that goes down to U uncovered patio um the livable area for the first floor is 1, 1883 and the garage area is 406 um now to to the right of this plan we have the second floor on top and the basement at the bottom the basement consists of um one big open space uh which is the recck room uh on the right side of the build the back right side of the building uh to the left of that we have uh a bedroom with the in erass axis uh also in the basement we have a a full bathroom uh closet for the bedroom and storage room and also we have the the mechanical room that's needed for this house um to uh the tub uh the second floor which is the the plan on the right side on the top uh consists of four bedrooms um and we have the one of these bedroom is the master suite um to include the master bathroom and Walken closets um one of these also one of these bedrooms uh considered the inlaw in Suite has its own bathroom and closet and two of the bedrooms sharing uh a whole bathroom um and also in this level we have the laundry room um as and also as you see in this level you walk up the stairs we have uh an open below uh volume which is uh counted actually twice uh toward the floor area ratio but only used uh in the first floor as per uh the town uh as per the township ordinance we have to count the two story uh two times and um and this area is about 36 38 Square fet that's the open that's counted twice actually it's more it's 6 by I'm sorry 6 by 10 so it's 60 square ft uh the second floor uh livable area is 1,440 uh the total floor area ratio proposed is 2623 with the total of 35.9 7 where the ordinance is 30% we're asking for 5.97 variance for this condition um also I would like to mention that the R4 Zone the habitable floor area as for the ordinance is 3,2 220 uh the proposed is 2623 which we are 597 Square ft below the habitable floor area uh requirement um moving to the next uh the next sheet uh which is the elevations of the building uh this is is a colonial style home um we're using a mix of material between stone at the base we're using a horizontal uh Hardy uh board we're using board and Baton some areas uh the vertical ones um the colors for this building also will be uh we're using white white siding um and white hard uh board and Batton we're using black windows dark roofs um dark shingle roofs and also we're using black uh standing C Mill roof in the transition area between the first and second floor um so the the the front view is the drawing on the left the rest of the building which is the the left side the right side and the rear elevation will have um a horizontal board on the first and second floor and hard the uh vertical bord and batten on the top Gable end of the roof um now this this this uh we uh this wasn't submitted actually the to the we mark this in as A1 with today's date thank you thank you this is the rendering that shows the what I just explained um as you see we you know the the building just a white building with black roofs and dark roofs um and uh stone at the base um now regarding the building height uh we are required by C to be 35 our height is 3220 so we're we're almost approximately 3 feet below the the required Building height I want to also mention that we have the first floor at 10 ft ceiling we have the second floor at 9 ft and the basement at at 9 ft and also I would like to mention that the basement is not accessible to the outside we don't have a walk out basement it just um enclose the space um lastly I'd like to mention that the attic um there is no uh livable attic just unfinished the space was pulled down the stair no access no erress to the attic um um that's it and one quick question regarding the attic itself in your expert opinion it would not be habitable correct correct yes pleas walk us through why aside from the fact that it's a pull down say again can you walk us through why it would not be habitable uh because we don't have egress access to that there is no stair that goes up except the pull down stair that this is not an access to the attic what would you say the Pinnacle height is within the attic the attic uh there is a flat part there is a collar tie the collar tie is 5' 7 and the height from the attic floor to the collar TI is 7 ft okay but it's just limited to that one specific middle area just to the 5 foot s in the center terrific I have no further questions for this witness anybody on the board have any questions for this witness anybody in the public have any questions for this witness okay back to you Mr pada great thank you I like to call my last witness my planner Nick raban would you would you be kind enough to state your name and spell it please my first name is Nicholas with an H last name graviano g r a v is inv viictor i a n o Mr gra Mr graviano do you swear or affirm that any statements you make and testimony you give to the board this evening will be true or accurate complete I do please consider yourself under oath thank you thank you thank you uh Nick can you please provide our educational credentials whether or not your license is still good standing and also name three boards who've been qualified in the past as a planner yes I have a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University a master's degree in city and Regional planning from Ruckers University a law degree from the Temple University School of Law I've been qualified by this board on multiple occasions as well as over a 100 boards in 18 different counties including uh West Orange East Orange South Orange here in Essex County along with others I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and I also hold the aicp certification and are those licenses in good standing yes sir terrific does anyone on the board have any questions objections regarding this witness there being no objection the witness is accepted as an expert in professional planning thank you thank you great thank you so much uh Nick did you have an opportunity to review these proposed architectural plans yes I did and did you also have an opportunity to review the civil and Survey as well yes and I've also had the opportunity to visit the site in the neighborhood on two occasions all right can you please walk us through why you think the subject site can justify the relief being saw here tonight certainly just quickly the applicant is before the board this evening for a specific piece of property known as block 1600 lot 62 it's an undersized lot in the R4 District as you heard in the previous testimony uh the minimum lot area is 375 the applicant's lot is 7292 um that's existing and proposed uh the applicant is before the board this evening requesting the habitable floor area ratio variance whereas uh 30% is required the applicant is proposing 35.9 s uh that's roughly 435 Square ft uh as uh indicated in the architectural testimony this Zone does allow a habitable floor area of 32 20 uh the applicant is at 2623 so it's definitely a reasonable proposal in terms what the district allows and what this lot can accommodate uh when you look at the applicant's proposal the applicant is meeting the average front yard setback of the surrounding properties as well as meeting all side and rear yard setbacks uh when you look at the F variants uh the applicant obviously must demonstrate the positive and negative CR criteria in terms of the positive criteria it certainly advances purpose a of the municipal land use law advancement of the public health safety and general welfare and there are two key reasons how this application accomplishes that firstly the applicant is introducing storm water mitigation to the site there will be a dryw and uh direction of storm water to that drywell additionally the applicant is providing a improved driveway scenario uh when I went through the property earlier this evening the driveway is very narrow and covered by an existing retaining wall that is a busy street The Wider driveway in a scenario will certainly provide a safer condition for the residents of this property to pull into the property uh additionally this proposal advances purpose G sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens and then lastly as you can see through the impeccably designed building and site it it advances a a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement uh looking at the negative criteria the applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed building uh given the request for the habitable floor area ratio as I stated before all the setbacks are being met the off street parking is being met so the applicant's very modest request before you this evening can be accommodated on the site without substantial comparment to the Zone plan zoning ordinance or to the public good so in your expert opinion the site can accommodate the proposed Improvement certainly great I have no further questions for this witness does anybody in the on the board have any questions does anybody in the public have any questions for this witness do you have a question oh oh okay um I think that's I guess that's it great okay um do you want to close or uh in the interest of brevity I wave my summation okay um any I just want to say I was stuck in traffic coming home yesterday on har like by by Harrison School it was right when the school let out so I was right in front of the house um so I was able to look at it I didn't get out and but I was able to look at it and I think that this is a um great design and um it'll be perfect on that street um and it's great visibility because people drive by all the time and I think that um just having a brand new shiny house on that street will be terrific thank you I appreciate it any other statements anybody want to make a motion motion second okay I'll second it she beat you do it clearly you got it on my left okay Mr horn approved um Miss morachi yes Miss con votes yes Mr Kenya yes yes Mr sha yes Mr Sherman yes Mr Beer yes thank you okay stay there no break oh you're back all right okay I'm coming yeah block 4100 L 3625 Hillside Avenue application number 202443 DV Road act Builders LLC applicant seeks approval to construct a new single family residence in violation of the following sections 17098 C2 front yard setback 50 ft required 35 ft proposed 15 ft variance requested 17087 C cc3 habital floor ratio 21% allowed 25.99 proposed 5.99% bar requested good evening my name is Matthew pada it has not changed up from the law fir SS cuson grov and I represent the applicant Road act Builders LLC in connection with this application for hital floor area ratio the applicant is here tonight proposing to demolish the existing single family home in order to develop a two-story single family home although we are here for a ratio the floor area that we are proposing is about 370 ft below what would is actually permitted within the Zone we wanted to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and not be deemed as overdevelopment for the subject site but unfortunately we are here before this board because the lot itself is under size by approximately 20% for the minimum lot area tonight I will have two witnesses for the subject application Mr cedra who will be my architect and Mr Grano who will be my planner and if I may like to introduce my first witness my architect Mr cedra would you please state your name and spell it for us please uh s c Mr cedra again any statements and testimony you you promise will be true accurate and complete I do you consider yourself under oath yes I'll turn it to Mr pada Mr sedra are you a qual are you a expert in architecture and is your license still in good standing yes terrific does the board accept him as an expert in architecture I think we can accept him as an expert thank you Mr sedra why don't you walk us through we're proposing here to do in this subject site in the R3 Zone sure um so this this house here uh if we look at uh sheet a01 uh this is the floor plans for this house on the right side is the first floor uh we enter the house through the entry porch we have a twostory entry foer to the left of that we have the living room the dining room to the right we have the two-car garage going to the back of the house uh we have the kitchen on the left side side and we have a one story family room uh of the back of the house uh on the right side we have the guest room with its own bathroom and closet um we enter from the garage to a transitional area uh for the mudroom where we can enter enter the rest of the house um uh next on the right side of the kitchen here we have the pantry and also we have The Powder Room um facing the the hallway uh coming from the from the garage um the area for uh for this uh plan is uh the livable area is 1,629 square ft² the garage area is 440 Square ft the total floor um we'll come back to the total floor area ratio after reviewing the rest of the pl plans uh next to that we have the basement uh the basement plan consists of a big rck room area at the back uh bedroom on the right side uh with an egress AIS bathroom with bar we have a small media room and a mechanical room also uh the Rick room of the back it's accessible to the backyard through a sliding door um um going back to the first floor I forgot to mention mentioned that I have a wood deck uh with a sliding door from the family room and the guest room and the wood deck has an staircase to access uh to go down to the grade um the next sheet is the the second floor plan which uh is kind of like typical what we do uh in this kind of lay layout we do four bedrooms uh the master being included the master it's a master suite with its own master bathroom and closets uh we have n Suite uh bedroom with its own bathroom and closet we have two more bedroom sharing a bathroom and also we have a laundry room um and this is the the twostory foer which is counted uh twice toward the square footage but only used in the first floor and the square footage for this two story Foy is 62.5 square ft the area for this second floor uh is 1, 1518 uh the total floor area ratio uh as per this is 3,147 and with a percentage of 25.99 now um let's let me finish the elevation then I'll go back to the bulk table um the front of the building uh this is a colonial style home with the stco facade uh just at the the front of the building uh we have dark roof we have white stuckle uh black windows um black standing seam roofs and also we have these pilasters at the end at the corners of the building just to control the transition between the stacco and the siding um The Roof is just a hi roof um the the wrist of the house the wrist of the elevations uh they're just uh James Hardy horizontal lap siding this is the rear elevation this is the AIS from the basement to the outside this is the family room window above um this is the right side here elevation again it shows La siding and this is the left side elevation uh this is the rendering that shows this is wasn't marked so we have to Mark Mark this is A1 with today's date is that acceptable yes thank you very much this is the front view of the building it shows the stco facade um shows the pil blers in the corner of the building dark roofs uh M roofs standing seam middle roof um going back to the elevation the building height in here is 34t 8 and2 in that's the building height from average grade to the highest point of roof we have uh 10t ceilings in the first floor 9t ceiling in the second floor 9t ceiling in the basement uh the attic is not a livable space it's only accessible by a pull down steer um the height of the attic from the attic floor to the underside of the ridge um uh 5 foot 5' 6 in that's it and again the attic is a pull down correct pull down yes correct and can be habitable no it cannot be habitable terrific I have no further questions for this witness does anyone in the board have any questions for this witness I have a quick question um if this was a full-size lot um would we have a problem with the haval flary ratio or not no we would not nope that's only because of the size a lot yep it's under by about 20% anybody in the I have one question oh go ahead please on the floor plan for the first floor um wait maybe I read it hold on I nope I got it I'm good never mind I was looking here instead of there I'm good never mind okay uh once again anyone in the public have any questions for this witness back to you sir all right I like to introduce my last witness my planner Mr Nick ravian spell it for us please yes Nicholas with an H last name graviano g r a v is and Victor I a NL swear I do thank you Mr graviano are you a professional planner and is your license still in good standing in the state of New Jersey yes thank you we can accept you as a as an expert in professional planning excellent Nick can you please walk us through why you believe that the jus ifications meet this subject site certainly uh this application is very similar to the last application uh the applicant is requesting habitable floor area ratio relief as well as the uh review letter indicated front yard setback relief uh for a specific piece of property known on the uh Township's tax maps is block 4100 Lot 36 this property is in the R3 residential Zone uh as indicated the minimum lot area of the district is 15,000 Square fet uh the applicant's property is 12,15 square ft which as you heard before uh triggers the need for that habitable floor area ratio variance um when looking at the habitable floor ratio variance it certainly advances purposes of zoning a uh promotion of the general health safety morals and Welfare uh this application also does it in two ways although they're different than the previous one this application is actually reducing in prvious coverage on the lot from exists today from roughly 30% to 26% the lot today has a very expansive front yard driveway which takes up the majority of the front lawn uh the applicant is removing that for a lot more of a modest driveway Additionally the applicant is providing the storm water management uh system on the site which will help uh mitigate the effects of storm water uh it also advances purpose G sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens and then lastly it also advances purpose I desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement uh uh when we discuss the negative criteria the applicant must demonstrate that the lot can accommodate the proposed building given the request for the habitable floor area ratio variance um as with the uh previous application the applicant is meeting the average front yard setback of the surrounding properties is also meeting the required side yard combined side yard and rear yard setback variances as well as meeting the required uh maximum Building height of the district so this lock can certainly accommodate the proposed dwelling given the request for the increased habitable floor area ratio uh looking at the front yard setback variant uh that could certainly be granted under the C2 criteria advaning purposes of zoning AG G and I that were given in relation to the habitable floor area ratio variants and there's certainly no substantial impairment to the Zone planner zoning ordinance with the granting of that setback variance as well terrific I have no further questions for this witness um just to just to clarify the um front yard setback um there's a variance of 15 ft is needed uh for the denial application and uh you test ify towards the average setback yeah the average setback of the uh lots and the setback study is 34.9 one ft the applicant is proposing 35 ft so there therefore you feel this is uh adequate to resolve that issue it's adequate to resolve the issue and it's also adequate enough to provide two-car parking in the driveway I just have one question about um I was going to ask about the um front yard setback so on the plans where it says variance that says No it should be yes correct yes that is correct those are the plans that were submitted which therefore led to the denial letter the reason why we said no right here it says no so that should be that should be yes yes that is correct and the reason why it's not necessary it was not the applicants intentions for misrepresentations but the understanding was that provided that it meets the average setback that that would be acceptable but the new exercise is that even if you still have to go now before the board to get that relief so moving forward so it's like no and a half it's not that's your words on mine okay yes I need the relief tonight okay that certainly could be rectified in the event of approval through resolution because I was ask I was looking at the same thing and going back and forth so just thanks for clearing that up absolutely uh does anybody else have any questions for this witness anybody in the public have any questions for this witness I think no more questions do you want to summarize all or nope okay um does anybody want to make a statement or a motion I'll make a motion okay I'll second it all right and this is with the provision that you will correct that um front yard set back absolutely correct yes did Mr K second yes he did yes I did okay Mr Sherman yes Mr Kenya yes Miss Conan votes yes Mr horn yes Mr sha yes Miss marachi yes and Mr Beer yes thank you so much oh who are you I got to take this one out to get mine in back in a second yeah we're fine guys 11:59 is a long way from here okay all right block 3803 L 51 99-111 West Mount Pleasant Avenue application number 202 24-33 ms-uv J Investments LLC applicant seeks approval to subdivide current lot and proposes to create lots 5.01 and 5.02 lot 5.02 will front gr terorist to be developed with a single family residence terrific my name is Matthew Pam with the law firm SS cus and gross and I represent the applicant jab Investments LLC in connection with this application seeking minor subdivision approval with the D1 use variants ordinarily a project like this with a minor subdivision would be going before the minor subdivision committee itself and under the good fellow's case it would be a fully since it's a fully conforming subdivision application it would quote unquote be as a right nevertheless we decided to take a longer exercise specifically because of the interest of planning and also the master plan itself what I mean by that is that the subject lot itself is in the B1 Zone District right which only allows for commercial development therein what we're looking to do is subdivide the parcel when we subdivide the parcel the rear lot lot 5.02 will now be on Grand Terrace which is an entirely residential neighborhood itself with eight single family homes in the surrounding area so for all the obvious reasons it would not be consistent with either your master plan or your zoning code so rather than seek the minor site plan only to come later for the D1 use fans to put a single family home in a residential neighborhood we figured why not do a two for one show at 9:30 at night so with that being said I like to hand over hand it off to my witness who is also our surveyor engineer and planner and maybe lawyer I don't know I'm not that would you please state your name and spell it for us certainly it's Michael Lonzo Fama that's L A an Za f ma I'm a licensed professional engineer land surveyor and planner licensed in the state of New Jersey I'm a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated 258 Main Street Milbourne New Jersey my life licenses are current and in effect Mr lanzafama do you swear or affirm that any an oil statements you give to the board this evening and your testimony will be true accurate and complete I do consider yourself under oath thank you sir and does this board accept him as an expert in surveying planning and also civil engineering we're going to qualify as all three yes um I'm licensed as a professional engineer and land surveyor since 1984 and as professional planner since 1985 I've testified before this board in all three capacities as well as the planning board here in Livingston as well as numerous uh communities throughout Essex and Union and moris counties terrific does anyone in the board have any questions or objections regarding this witness there being no OBS objections the witness is accepted as an expert in engineering survey and planning thank you Mike can you please walk us to the subdivision we're proposing here tonight certainly let me just look at the uh the area map that you have on on the plan sheet the first sheet in your plan Set uh that was submitted you can see that the property in question is tax lot five in Block 3803 uh the property is a through lot that fronts on both West Mount Pleasant Avenue as well as uh Grand Terrace uh the property is the former uh Jerusalem Restaurant which is now vacant uh and has occupied that site for decades um immediately to the west of the existing structure uh there is an extensive gravel and bituminous parking area that extends uh partway down to Grand Terrace um the property in question has a total land area of 32,5 181 Square ft or 748 Acres um the property is located in the B1 Zone District um um the area surrounding the property immediately to the east uh is the VFW uh as well as uh the uh Temple that exists uh immediately to the east uh to the West are commercial uses that front on West Mount Pleasant Avenue um recently the building that uh is on the immediate adjoining lot to the West um is a um Yoga Studio by JD Fitness recently renovated that area and occupied that space um along uh Grand Terrace across Grand Terrace from our property are all single family residential lots located in the R4 Zone District uh the Topography of the site is such that um it drops uh pretty quickly immediately to the south of the J Jerusalem Restaurant there's a small steep slope area and what that does is create kind of a a natural divide uh in the property between the frontage on Grand Terrace and the frontage on uh West Mount Pleasant Avenue um the property is not impacted by flood planes or Wetlands it's been fully developed uh over the years um let see we want to get to the site plan oh I gotta switch gears here for a minute come on there we go there we go and what I currently have up on the screen is the minor Subdivision plat that we have prepared and what we are doing is we're proposing to subdivide the property into two Parcels um the parcel that currently uh would retain the Jerusalem Restaurant uh would become tax lot 5.01 um and that that lot would be 22,690 square ft it would retain its entire Frontage along the uh West Mount Pleasant Avenue Frontage and the frontage along Grand Terrace would be reduced to just slightly over 50 ft the new lot that we were we are creating would be uh a rectangularly shaped parcel that would be 9,958 square ft it would have a frontage of 79.6 5 ft and a depth of 125 ft and this lot is consistent with uh what is permitted uh in the R4 zone so the lot would have the appropriate width and size to support a house that a single family house uh that would be consistent with uh the neighborhood and consistent with the R4 zoning so as far as the subdivision goes it is fully compliant um with the B1 Zone uh criteria there are no variances being sought with regard to the subdivision what we are seeking is that the newly created lot 5.02 would be used as a single family residence which would require a D1 use variance because we're still Zone B1 and in my opinion I believe that the positive criteria can be advanced in this particular application because the site is particularly suited for this use because of the surrounding neighborhood when you look at the lots that are long Grand Terrace um there are primarily uh Residential Properties of the 14 lots that front on Grand Terrace nine of them are used for single family dwellings that's over 60% of the lots that front on Grand Terrace um by providing a single family home uh immediately across from these other homes in my mind continues the existing neighborhood character by proposing a single family home and creating a lot that is consistent with the others in the neighborhood in my mind uh the general welfare is Advanced uh again because this is consistent with the state's master plan and objective of smart growth by introducing new housing opportunities in areas where infrastructure and mass transportation already exist I also feel that the general welfare is being uh Advanced because of the positive impact on the neighborhood that the investment in the neighborhood and likelihood of a new home to be constructed generally has a positive effect uh on the values of the homes uh in the neighborhood uh other sections of the M that I think would be Advanced would be G uh provides for a variety of housing types um this provides the opportunity of a modly modestly sized house uh opportunity within the community and finally the promotion of a desirable visual environment I think the single family house fronting on Grand Terrace is certainly a much better image than you currently see of this gravel uh surface that was once used as a parking area um you have the opportunity here of providing new plantings new vegetation that would be installed around the home as part of any development that's done on the property in addition um storm waterer management elements would be employed as part of the requirements for any single family home to be constructed uh within your community uh under your lot surface grading ordinance so you also see uh a benefit there as far as the negative criteria goes I don't see a substantial detriment uh to the public good um in my mind this proposal will not have a negative effect on the streetcape as a matter of fact it would maintain the the neighborhood character um I believe the benefits outweigh any detriment the benefits include reduced uh bituminous area from what might be permitted in a B1 development if this property were developed under the B1 criteria you could have almost the entire lot covered with uh building and parking areas um new Landscaping elements that would be installed as part of the home um there's no uh substantial impairment to the master plan the 2018 master plan uh section two goals and objectives um on page three they site to preserve the and enhance the primarily residential character of the community I think you have an opportunity here to introduce a single family home into a streetscape that has almost nothing but single family homes along it and also to preserve and improve the quality of life I think by introducing this house you will be advancing that goal of the master plan uh under the objection objectives section uh of the uh of the master plan uh item number five is to promote the establishment of appropriate land use uh standards that contribute to the well-being of persons in neighborhoods and preservation of or Improvement of the environment and the quality of life and sense of community again I think this does that uh finally number 10 uh to ensure that retail establ establishments that would be adjacent to residential neighborhoods or would be uh larger than any now in the b or B1 districts are restricted to locations where destru destructive impacts are minimized by allowing this lot to be used as a residential lot you're reducing the potential impact uh on that neighborhood finally under uh the land use Element Section one of the recommendations uh for the B1 zone is identify specific small B1 districts which this is little pockets with residential districts change the permitted uses to only those which exist or to include others which are most compatible with those already present in such locations so in my mind this recommendation of the master plan is to me telling us that this is the appropriate use for that street for that Grand Terrace the not only the the separation of the properties on two streets but also that vertical separation that exists in my mind says that this is the appropriate use for that streetscape and not an expansion of a commercial space down into that area that would negatively impact uh the residents across Grand Terrace be happy to answer any questions I believe that summarizes what Mr Lonzo I just have two quick questions for you sure if the applicant himself on his own I did not seek this use variance is it correct that upon the minor subdivision approval that he'd be allowed to have a business Improvement within a residential neighborhood that's correct and is your expert opinion that essentially what we're doing is correcting an unintentional outcome pursuing to the zoning clue that's that's my after reading the master plan and those recommendations that your spot on that's exactly what we're doing I don't hear that too often thank you yes hi good evening how are you both good how are you doing Farber I have a few questions regarding your testimony can I interrupt you for a second can you just identify yourself for the record so it's on there yes uh my name is Barbara alen e Len I'm the um licensed professional uh planner and I am Planner on behalf of the board thank you very much thank you um with respect to the number of residential uses I know you mentioned them as being nine of 14 along Grand how many of them are on the same side as as our lot just the one the one that is further to the West so there's um so it's one residential use is it two over at two over it's on lot three is that does that share the lot with a commercial use it does okay so that's kind of a an anomaly yes an anomaly I was looking at that and the current configuration as you proposed still maintains lot 5.01 having uh Frontage along Grand Terrace was the purpose of that to provide for potential um egress for commercial use possibly to uh to allow access to the back of the structure um they in the past they have utilized uh access through that back area to sometimes do loading and unloading so they were hoping to continue that practice the building is currently vacant we don't know what might be developed there but whatever would be developed would be consistent with the B1 Zone okay I guess the concern is that there'd be a single family home with a commercial driveway on one side and a yoga studio on the other side right being kind of isolated and um do the other commercial uses along that side ESS to Grand Terrace uh yes they do okay so it's not uncommon for the commercial uses to come through and use that is correct that is correct okay um and then there was also a D6 height variance correct well you don't know if if we be if we get the D1 variances it's assumed into the R4 criteria would would be that's usually that's bulk variances it's not quite other use variances so the D the D6 what Barbara is talking about is um if we went to the 30 5 foot height that is permitted in the R4 Zone technically we would need a D6 variance because the maximum height in the B1 zone is 28 feet so in my mind that you know the the lot as it is being proposed could certainly support a structure of that height and would not be inconsistent with the R4 Zone um there's plenty of Separation it's not like it adds to intensity of use uh or additional Square footage it's simply um the geometry of the structure and looking at the Topography of the site with the high side being at the rear and Grading down towards Grand Terrace I I seriously doubt that we're even going to reach that 35 foot height I think based upon the average grade plane you're going to see something more in the in the neighborhood of 34 3 33 or 34 feet but but in my mind a D6 VAR could be granted U because I believe the lot can support that height would have to consider in this application is the introduction of that residential use along although part of grand tffs is characterized by single family homes this is more cized commercial structures that do do have that secondary Paris are there any questions that I can answer I I was just curious when he said it was 6040 the 40% of commercial use on the side where they're proposing the residential property what are those properties so um as you said the property immediately to the West is a yoga studio right and then one immediately to the east is a VFW hall and then following the VFW Hall is a temp temp temple and on the other side on the yoga studio it's a mixed use property that has a single family home along long Grand Terrace and then a commercial building yeah there's like a learning center and some other and all that that's all on Grand Terrace yeah actually they back into Grand Terrace if you look at yeah the other parts on on Mount Pleasant Avenue but just to clarify the the house J there's JD Fitness which I know is immediately next to it technically that mixed use house is really also JD Fitness and it's his house it's not a house it's really an office it's not it's in a mixed use lot but it's not a house okay so it's still commercial it's there's only commercial to the west and it's and there's nothing to the east because it's all fronting on Mount Pleasant and so the residential is just across the street is on the opposite side of the street yes JD finish is still using that as a house he's it's it's a res he's renting it as a residence that's what I was I've been in it but it's there's a office space or whatever there we're not introducing here say tonight no but you know when you look at across um the houses that are that exist across Grand Terrace I I guess the question in my mind is would they rather see another single family home opposing them or the expansion of uh the old Jerusalem Restaurant whatever that may become and pushing down toward Grand Terrace which also brings up another question If by building the house and we're reducing the lot then isn't that also restricting any commercial like you're kind of limited now to what's there right where the you can't make something wider you know versus being deep you could you could you you have that whole area to the west of the building that you can still configure parking in um you have uh the the building could slightly be expanded to the rear towards Grand Terrace um and you could still as I said you have uh a significant area between uh rout 10 or West Mount Pleasant Avenue in the face of the building so that could come forward and still be compliant with the ordinance so there is opportunities to um expand the building if if they want it to so you're not rendering lot 5.01 into into in utility by doing this proposal um you're giving us the opportunity to get a single family residence on Grand Terrace and still allow the majority of the property to be used according to the B1 Zone one last thing sure so but if but the other thing is would would this cause somebody in developing that space if a commercial development wanted to maximize the space now pushing that development commercial space further towards grand Grand Terrace the long way you know and then putting parking in between that and now this new residential lot which then is affecting both lotes keep in mind that this lot line is our is our rear lot line the VFW controls that area that's where this dumpsters are correct okay I got you so this the building is there was a restaurant possibly to become a restaurant again yes um and you there's there's going to be sufficient parking yes for this because we always run into a parking issue in this town exactly you yes it's my understanding that the applicant himself is looking for a new tenant to come in specifically for restaurant usage they're not looking to expand the Improvement at all and part of whomever that tenant is they will have to come to the minor site plan committee and receive approval to make ensure that there is adequate part paring um as a followup just to the introduction of the single the residential onto the commercial how would it be affected by buffering requirements for setbacks for parking because where typically we commercial adjoins residential there's setback and buffering requirements so would that impact uh yeah some some of the area immediately behind proposed lot 5.02 would require a buffer strip uh between the parking area and that that new lot line uh but there's still adequate depth in there to get a driveway and a road parking in there can you talk about I don't know if this is too premature about the Landscaping plan because the house would AB but this business so well we can absolutely say on the record although we're not I just want to make this clear we're not proposing any single family home or any improvements on the proposed residential law but just rather that the opportunity to do residential within that perimeter of 5.02 with that being said if it would be fined favorably upon this board we would agree as a condition of approval that the perimeters of the proposed 5.02 would have both a fence and also landscape buffering so landscape like green giant opy absolutely okay 12 to 15 feet but absolutely okay and then the other thing Mr Lon of and I know that this is very premature but when you mentioned um modestly sized house just I would keep that in mind when we do the plans um because it is it's an undersized law well it's it's the smaller Zone in the community so you end up with a smaller home right because it's even under size what is proposed in that area uh will the lot itself just so so so we're clear is going to be proposed at 9,958 FT whereas 9 9,375 is permitted by the zoning code no no no worries but with that being said we'll also agree as a condition of approval that we will not have to we will agree not to come back for ratio variance okay good that's that's sort of where I was going with that okay and I hope my client's not watching this right now good thank you um the um engineering department uh put out a document which I'm sure you have a copy of and there's a few comments um that they say you should provide testimony on one being um the condition of the existing gravel and dirt parking as right yeah so if you could well that that's what I was talking about that by constructing establishing this lot and constructing a new single family home a lot of that gravel parking area that is kind of extended down to Grand Terrace would now be removed so that what about the existing stuff up up front that's pretty uh shabby yeah that's going to have to be addressed at the minor site plan for the new tenant that comes in we' already had started that dialogue with the municipality okay yeah yeah and I I I do have a copy of that memorandum and all the other items that uh Mr maruchi and Miss Hardy had indicated we will comply with thank you um anybody else have any other questions or comments if I might Mr chairman Mr pada we're going to we're going to go forward with the use the D1 and the D6 is that correct that's correct yeah that's correct all right thank you yes Robert do you have anything else no okay I I assume the notice was given to all yes all pars within 200 ft so every one on the street got notice of this right yes yes pursu to Asser by P produced by the tax department of this municipality don't see anybody out there just for clarification on sheet three where you show proposed lot 5.02 and you say front yard setback without a number that's going to be yeah if you if you look at the table above uh which is the r R4 table that shows the average setback uh being I think it's 31.5 6 ft uh and that's based upon the two structures uh immediately to the West because there's no other structures uh that front on that side of the street so I I use the not applicable for the B1 criteria um but use the average setback for the R4 criteria that listed in the table okay the average and there's the five the 5.01 lot on the Grand Terrace side the 50.0 2 feet opening that's currently a driveway no that's just the remaining Frontage um there's there's really no curb cut okay a long Grand Terrace but it looks like they brought the gravel right down to the back of the curb and it looks like like a trucks are driving over it without benefit of a curb cut so in the eventual plan you'll have to provide if you want want plan yeah or make that side probably make look pretty too but because we can't testify to that just thinking out loud yes um okay I got a question yes please right now the cars are going from the M Pleasant up and down in the back going backwards to the Grand Street Grand Terrace is that going to stop are they going to still allow the cars to go that down they it looks like they're doing it now yes yeah yeah but eventually are they going to stop stop yes it's a cut through that's kind of a cut through I've done it I've done it yeah I don't that must have been done recently because years ago we we did plans for this property and that was not the case no I I've gone to the restaurant when they were open I bought the food I went down the other way right out this man to escape from my wife I I do have a just a question for clarity because like I know you if this does whatever go go for approval that there's no house or no nothing yet it's just really just about the subdivision so are we saying that we're that if we are we voting if we vote to approve the subdivision are we saying that it's contingent that that subdivision plot will meet all aspects of I know it's not an R4 because it's really a B1 but are we saying that this is a approved with the condition that whatever is going to be built there will meet all R4 criteria without any variances is that what we're basically saying that that's what we're saying we're saying that we want to use the property in accordance with the R4 Zone as a single say set those conditions on that so for clarification what I can say is we're seeking a minor subdivision application where lot 5.01 with the restaurant is will continue operating as a commercial property itself where the proposed 5.02 will operate as a residential Improvement itself with two conditions of approval number one being that we would if whatever the single family home is it would include a landscaping plan and also a fence as well with our provies or whatever the uh Township engineer recommends for the subject site and in addition we would agree to a fully conforming single family home on the law pursuing to the R4 zoning enir that's what I mean because it wouldn't it wouldn't mean be meeting all the B standards no no fast meeting the bulk standards of the AR all bulk standards okay any other comments what what am I doing now you want to make a closing statement No three for three would anybody like to make a statement or a motion oh I'm sorry anyone for the public have any comments the person in the public okay um okay I I I'll make a motion to uh approve this okay um Mr Beer yes Mr horn yes Miss Khan votes yes Mr Kenya yes Mr sha yes Miss marachi yes Mr Sherman yes okay thank you so very much thank you very much we'll we'll see you in uh 1 hour and 45 minutes noed no I think we started at a quar n so we got yeah that was crazy