##VIDEO ID:KUFyonaC7Uw## e e e e e e e e e e e e okay okay I hereby call to order the meeting of the zoning Board of adjustments for Long Hill Township uh September 3rd 2024 at 7:35 call to order and statement of compliance adequate notice of this meeting SL hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board and website by sending a copy to the echo Sentinel and cier newspapers and by filing a copy of the Minal clerk standard board procedures any hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to judicial hearing must be maintained at all times meeting cut off announcement is made that as a matter of procedure is the attention of the Zoning Board of adjustment not to cons continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular special meeting SL hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by members the then present to extend the meeting SL hearing to a later specified cut off time electronic devices all in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceeding Pledge of Allegiance would you lead us Tom PL aliance to the flag of of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation IND indivisible liy and justice for all we do there all right uh roll call Mr ronio here miss Brenan here Mr gianakas is excused this evening Mr Flatley is excused this evening Mr Rosenberg may be coming I'm not sure yet but C is currently absent Mr Watts is excused this evening he just texted me and said that he had told me previously in the summer that he wasn't going to be able to make it Miss Collins here Vice chairman Groff here chairman gret here and Mr gianakis is also excused I'm sorry Mr ganakas is also excuse I said that didn't you did I didn't I didn't hear you I'm sorry I didn't hear that okay sorry um okay now before we get started with the applications because we we still don't know if uh um uh Jonathan I think is coming but okay all right well let we have something else to discuss the uh biologue did you uh were you able to uh consolidate what we were talking about yes Mr chairman I sent out a copy of revised version back on Friday and I think Tom you had some comments on them because we had a uh I recall we had a uh a section there talking about a tire uh you know like no jeans and stuff is that did you leave that in there think I I don't think I remov that think did either but I was uh you didn't see it by move I mean I don't think I I don't think that's perhaps it was just something that I thought of after IID already reviewed it so there it is appearance uh you really need to mention that though is that any old bylaw ever been a problem with that yeah sometimes well we want to make sure that people know when they come on the board and they read the bylaws they they they know what's expected chairman I'm sorry Jonathan said he'd come over now so oh good okay well then we'll just talk about the BOS yep was there a section left in about no I was that in the previous B I think it was I don't recall saying you don't I I have the old one I easily slap something in here if there isn't something copy from already um I could have SW it was in there boy let me see if it's yeah if you could put um something in there about uh proper attire yeah just uh that U do you want to add a bikinis and gym shorts yes exactly a definition of what's proper yes well what's not proper you know no uh board members are expected to dress in business casual no jeans um college shirt I talk for no SP no no t-t you wear to a bar they have to pay an entry fee doar shirt there you go if you dress wrong you have to put a dollar in the jar just like a square jar yeah and we we got pizza at the end yeah what was the last time you went to far that you had to pay an entry come on now usually the shore bars then you wear exctly so Chris yes I would suggest finding some standard language regarding business casual and not any specific because we of right but we want to say no jeans and no t-shirts it's got to be college shirt obviously yeah yeah really oh okay oh no you I not no doubt all right other than that was there anything else you guess I would exempt any kind of religious related attire as well if it did it's not already understood yeah other than I have enough changes and Corrections in here and discussion points that we probably want to take take a look see if we have time after some of it's just grooming and some of it are genuine okay all right okay um well why don't you discuss that with him I can take it offline yeah uh time we talk offline I think yeah I think that's a good idea and then we'll come back uh next meeting and do it okay but uh I just wanted that attire thing for I got you do that um for the next version of this do you want me to maintain The Bold and strike through cut all those out just give us a clean version okay once you determine uh Tom's you will have some changes okay yeah so can we get the new changes right through I age Jer yes the new stuff anything whatever's existing now yeah okay just the clean and then whatever between Tom okay um and and then we can thank you do that so Tom the the changes that Tom is going to suggest those are going to be B and if you make there no bold you know he's not taking stuff out bold but he's taking things out through okay yeah all right um okay what other what else can we uh do before how else can we o here Jonathan gets here um um not housekeeping any uh what's coming up next meeting two more applications two okay residential commercial they're both in previous coverage is that the swimming pool uning there's a swimming pool and there's an addition you repeat what you said is somebody's coverage I missed that uh the next two applications in front of the board will be two applications for impervious coverage impervious coverage thank you one is a swimming pool one is an addition over existing perious coverage to which they're already over in perious coverage so they want more in no actually they just want to build over what's already there correct Oh I thought you oh they're not really increasing it six or seven of them the same footprint right yeah or they exp no they built this so on the rear of the house they built like a a huge patio yeah yeah so where they want to put this addition is over the p over that patio but it's already impervious correct right so so what it's already so they're not expanding the impervious coverage but they're over what they're allowed for the once they're over they got to come for thus they can't do anything without a variance yeah once you're over so they're existing non-conforming use not use existing nonconforming non are they propos are they proposing a net increase in impervious no yeah but they're already over a a net increase like like they're they're going to be increasing the amount of they're over the law coverage already right so that automatically cor right okay so they need a variance okay okay so we discuss that they're begging for forgiveness instead of permission right I I see okay there he is but for meing it's not all right let the record show Mr Rosenberg has arrived thank his you have his name tag out we got to get your name tag offici oh you can over there it's easier because we already have a seat set up there so with the stuff I'll go get you we already have the uh the toal there yes stuff so more than that you want to take away the one oh you can use that yeah because he's not coming yeah right so works for me there you go it's already there okay so now that we have everybody here good uh would you swear in the witness please and swear our experts in I think we still need to announce the case Mr oh that's true yes okay sorry no problem all I lost track of what our thing was we doing here all right we have the roll call now the first application is a use variance carried from 820 2024 block 10104 lot 5.01 zone R2 300 South Northfield Road application number 24-10 Z Teresa Gallow applicant proposes to convert a previously approved senior Suite to a two family mother uh daughter Suite okay applicant is present do you have any Witnesses or just yourself just myself okay sare the witness in and our experts real quick Mr chairman just on jurisdiction notice and stuff I'll just make a quick Point um you guys may recall at our last meeting um we announced that we were carrying this application to this evening last meeting being on August 20th what it happened was the applicant had effectively delivered the Noti notices to people owning property within 200 feet of the subject property but the notice wasn't published on time by the echo Sentinel so unfortunately she had to republish in the newspaper and I can confirm that that the right content it was timely served so the board is jurisdiction to hear and decide the case in my legal opinion thank you um so that with that predicate out of the way um M Gallow I need to raise your right hand as well as our Bo professionals do all of you swear or affirm just my microphone that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth I do I do okay great they are duly swor Mr chairman all right Miss Gallow um I remember from the last time when we approved your uh senior Suite would you uh explain in detail what's changed and the reason for needing the they changed in category yeah so I'm not looking for a two family I don't want like no rental my parents there I would not rent it um I just wanted to make it AAL mother daughter instead of having to remove the kitchen um I did not know that that was possible when I inquired several years ago I was told that I could put a senior Suite on because their health was failing Ed to do um if I knew there was an option to apply for another daughter instead I would have because we moving the kitchen and and getting all that having all that expense uh is not a financially uh Savvy move to put something in like kitchens are very expensive um and so I spoke with de and she said well you can apply for another daughter then so you w have to remove okay but what's changed in the actual use of it who's living there now or who oh nothing my parents are living there still oh they're still living there them yes so there's no change in who there's no change I just don't want to have to remove the kitchen um I feel like there are other other individuals who take care of their parents and would love to move into a suite that could accomodate their like accomodating mine and my now um without having to go through two years of per and construction in the future right okay so what you're proposing is that you're you're still using it in the same manner you just want the classification to be mother daughter as opposed to a senior Suite right so when they're no longer the weet that I could have the option to sell the house and Market it as mother daughter or convert it to a use that you could have it as a mother daughter as you said perhaps you would I think that my parents I could move in family I I believe so yeah because it would still still be a senior Suite but at this case you wanted to be more class legally classified as a mother daughter yes because when you sell the I um can I ask a question of our board attorney or Liz if you know so with a mother daughter designation are there restrictions on renting for you know profit to a non-f family member for example could it be used as an apartment it would have to be permitted Liz should hop in at any point um would have be permitted by use expence because then would become a multi you know family dwell right that's what I'm asking there's a distinction right so it's not like Miss Gallow would sell it and the new buyer could rent it as you know a rental property to a non-family member is that true or not true I guess it it depends is what the extent of relief is and and also what the distinction is between a mother daughter and a senior Suite as far as I in my experience they've been synonymous with each other yeah so what is our ordinance yeah can I Just Step W you yeah okay so senior s we don't have a definition for other daughter Suite so it would continue to be a senior Suite the the difference is there are regulations for Senior Suites in our ordinance that have things like when the person no longer lives there you have to rip out rip it out out or you know you can't have it anymore and there's other parameters and so what happened when Miss Gallow got the original uh approval um as part and this is consistent with the ordinance and it's part of I probably even the deed but it's certainly part of the resolution which is just that yeah you know and so I think if I'm not speaking incorrectly what she's looking for today is to not have to put all the expense in um of putting in a senior Suite when then um in you know a a future long in the future if it becomes vacant or you know that or she has to leave or move that she would then have to rip up the suite so I think it it's not I wouldn't say we're changing um the use necessarily because I think it's still a senior Suite but I think what we're saying is she is looking for Relief to not have to have that termination yes and so that it would be in in perpetuity right the the ordinance does permit um sort of upstairs apart like Apartments but they have to be specifically for affordable housing you know and so which is not what Miss Galla is is looking to do here so um that would be a separate application that would be a separate application it would be relief under separate a separate section of the ordinance and you know that that brings up a whole bunch of other uh legal issues with having to register it's an affordable unit so really um what she is looking to do is get relief from this one section of the ordinance that makes you you know rip it up and it it also would be an amendment to her earlier application where the board granted relief contingent upon those the termination of The Suite I have a question then if I stld the house would the new owners have to apply to be able to use it as a senior we so or would that restriction be removed so that it would be able to be sold as aior mother senior that is a legal question I I've never encountered a situation like this before because it's like you're telling me it's it's a she's effectively trying to continue what is a use that's already permitted but we're you're seeking a D1 so it's like think it's a essentially a conditional use variance it is and it isn't it's not a specifically specified conditional use but it's a condition of the use yeah which I know no so it's it has to do with the way that our ordinance defines the senior Suite it's not a particular conditional use right so but I think amending the prior approval amending thei to allow but I think the the concern is is it going to turn into a rental a two family home it's a yeah and I I think if you call mother daughter you put the provisor that the people have to be related that live in you know you could have you you could have two it doesn't have to be older person younger person but they at least have to be related that to continue to be senior members of the household I think sorry so the way it's it's it's defined in our ordinance it's a senior member of the household right so I think but if we change it to mother and daughter it would still be that and and what's what if it becomes her father okay I I the answer for us well I have a question slash comment as the zoning officer do you want to swear me in as the zoning officer might as well do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provideed would be the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please go ahead because of the way our code is written and Liz of and Chris of course you can tell me if I'm wrong but the way it has been looked at from myself and the predecessors before me as far as zoning officers in the township of LGH Hill because the code allows for a senior suite and accessory apartment deed without variances senior Suite gets removed if it's no longer a senior Suite the accessory Department accessory apartment is deeded for affordable housing therefore if someone wants to make it there we don't have a classification for mother daughter so essentially what that is it becomes a two- Family House exactly because under the zoning laws what when when I look at and any other zoning officer looks at or reviews an application that somebody is putting in a kitchen a full kitchen we consider that to be an apartment so therefore I understand the the class I mean to call it a mother daughter but essentially what it becomes in the zoning world and again correct me if I'm wrong is a two family because if the property then is sold it's not deed as an accessory and it's not deed as a senior Suite therefore it's a two family right so maybe we should bring that up to the planning board to look at that and and make a definition of mother daughter site that we can do that you could absolutely do that why don't you put that as one of our uh annual report because would be the point of having mother daughter and a senior mean the term mother daughter Suite is somewhat Antiquated senior suet is a more appropriate term yeah but the way it's written are it's kind of restricted we're trying to unrestrict it in the sense that you can yeah you know so I'm I'm they're trying to I'm trying to figure out a way of can I ask a question because I think this is just we're just spinning downward spiral and I have no idea what's going on and it's very simple right she already has approval for what people are calling a senior Suite correct okay so what's the problem did somebody come to you from the zoning department and ask you just cease that or what's going on here nothing at all it's just there's a deed restriction that says I have to remove the kitchen if there there and I would like and you just did this construction over the last few years two years yeah and your parents are living with you and everything's going well but In fairness it it's part of the prior application and the resolution so it was known I'm kind going down that path so you knew when you did this construction that that was the terms that you had a a senior suite and that yes and I didn't know if there was another option when I asked well apparently there is not another option well when I came in and I said can I toter and she said yes application what I did so now I'm understanding that we don't have a section of our ordinance that's calling it a mother daughter correct so there is no other option she does not have another option what she's doing is is permitted right and according to our current ordinance I mean she does not need a mother daughter because it doesn't exist that's right she's she's doing what's permitted because we what is it what is in our ordinance is if at some point the senior Suite is no longer occupied you theoretically have to can we deal with it then I think that's moving some soon and I noer need it then I have to rip the kitchen out unless I come back here and do this all over but do you plan on that happening soon because you just said before your children might be here timing matter when are they going come on or or not or them moving yeah fill out the application and pay the fee and esro and I did all that the likelihood I can't speak for this board or future boards or precedent or anything like that but the likelihood of someone making you rip your kitchen out after your parents pass away is probably not very big especially consider that's incorrect Mr I don't think it's regardless at this point there's a patio it doesn't have to do with the board it has to do with the zoning on the flip side that a senior Suite is certified every year she if somebody comes apply for zoning relief whenever you want just so you know that time out C is this one way to maybe think about it Li I'm going to put this on on your shoulders unfortunately um would this could we maybe treat this as a bulk variance and this sense that they're trying to seek relief from one of the conditions of 24 24.8 senior suit it's not the use isn't really changing it's just well well the condition the use is permitted per certain conditions and what we've treated right other things like upstairs housing in the downtown zones we've treated as use variances okay so it still be a use variance I think the nature of the senior Suite is something you want to preserve right prior approval so the cleanest way I see it is it's a request to amend the prior approval to alleviate the need for the relief from the specific deed restriction of removing the kitchen the kitchen and as Deb noted there's an annual recertification so there is a zoning enforcement check on on the senior suite and the issue is not wanting in timeliness to have to rip it out you'd rather have that relief discussed tonight and voted on and that way you have some other I would think some other comparable mechanism into the deed or otherwise with the resolution that provides you know provides the the check and balance for the board to remove the deed restriction and ensure that it doesn't become a two family because that's really I think what we're struggling with is how do we make sure that the next person that buys it doesn't just start renting it and I think the an the answer is the annual zoning recertification right could could we also another way to potentially think about it I'm just throwing out things for discussion um treat this as a D1 use variance request for a two family home with a stipulation or condition that the secondary unit we call it for lack of a better term would only be occupied by a senior member of the same household of the the main unit does that make sense I interrupt can we regulate that because it sounds like process to regulate the existing but that's something new yeah and can does the zoning enforcement department have a have a policy and a procedure to do that I I was ask and maybe Miss Gallow you can elaborate further but that you said if ever you wanted to sell the house you wouldn't want to be restricted by it being a senior Suite I wouldn't be able to sell it as a vehic Senor Su because the de restriction would get removed right once the property sold I want to [Music] a and then them coming and putting it back in can I ask another question so every time somebody that had approval for a senior Suite property that's has those conditions as sold in our town they have to rip out the really that that is a little ridiculous silly down insane well J if you want to take a look I didn't make the rules section why that's why I wanted to this rule because that's what we're trying to figure out we're trying to get creative because we we want to make sure once it's not that particular right M Missy we're trying to make sure that whatever we do tonight is legally binding and and enforceable because if we do something that isn't it tends to it it it won't be enforceable and it's going to hurt you in the long run too God forbid unfortunately you know this is one of the things that we're going to bring up on our annual report to the planning board and maybe they can modify that so it isn't so uh ridiculous where you know you can't continue the senior use you know because you know there should be permits and I hate government but you should really just have it as a permit after it's established yes no you're right you're right because it's kind of silly to have to sell a house and rip something out when somebody else could be using it and put it back in it's almost nonsensical well miss G's point is that she would like somebody to take over and have a senior Suite already built in right but it has to be family specific I'm so sorry even if the buyer who approved who previously approves to buy it says oh I'm interested in that senior Suite this is why I'm interested in the property we would have to first come before us before the the closing then before closing he would have to come before us to get another permission so she wouldn't have to rip it out think a good way to think of it is I'm just saying so most most things we handle at the board yeah right we're we discuss the approval riding with the land right and this is a rare instance of essentially the approval riding with the ownersh it rides with the ownership and the particulars of that situation right which is UN accommodate a senior living Suite for for those people inhabiting at the time right and so I think the the struggle becomes the ability to maintain that after that changes and in a change of ownership the next person being in a position where the township can enforce it right or I'm coming back to what Chris you said earlier which is that we look at this as let's just not look at it as a senior Suite let's look at it as an accessory apartment that's not deed restricted for affordable and not deed restricted for seniors and the board evaluate whether that makes sense given this location given this property um and maybe Miss Gala can provide us I mean she did probably in 2022 but just give us some more information about your neighborhood the block that you live on what's surrounding um your you know your property and surrounding the senior suite and how big your property is things like that to sort of talk about it and maybe the board can evaluate it in that respect because then but isn't that then a different application because then there it's the request is to make this IL legal two family home in a single family residential area it is but she she came in for a D1 so it's a D1 for a D1 use I mean so it's sort of how are we looking at the youth can we look at this as not a mother daughter not a senior but just an accessory apartment right that's then conditioned for right okay's no separate so it has to be somebody in the same household again yeah would would be possible to stipulate uh related people to live in if if we if that were a condition of approval could that be stipulation that it's a member of the household yeah yeah yeah okay maybe that's how to look at it maybe yeah I think where the applicant's trying to get too is to maintain it as a senior Suite but without the requirement that these things you know that it be the person currently inhabiting it right right no well yeah that no no no I think we want to keep that right we I believe you want to mean you know when you would Market this house presumably correct me if I'm wrong you would want to Market it as hey this is somewhere where your parents can live if you know they want to stay with you Family of the same household correct but the way our ordinance is written it it basically implies that if there's a change of unique situation of the people living in the house right currently and that that's the that's the relief that's what we need to give them relief from and the question but I also maybe and maybe I'm opening up the Pandora's docs but maybe you don't restrict it to seniors because let's let's say you have a disabled adult child and they and you're you want them to live in your house so then you're they're a member of the household of the household yeah they want their separate kitchen they want to be right I I I think that's where we have to uh have the ordinance look so we would be treating this as the proposed use here is a senior Suite still but a senior Suite that doesn't require uh abandoned I guess abandon vacation vacating would that be a way to kind of I know it's a little choppy but you know all conditions of the senior use must be continued except for that section c right that's certainly a way right it's an easy way toed by member of the same family right right right if the except for C needs to meet it again then they have to come back for us again M we can make it specific to well does it even become a no a senior Suite or a suite anymore or is it just like a part of the house at that I would I would tend not to call it a senior Suite because you a definition for that so what you're looking at is a D1 use variant that you're then crafting the conditions I I think that would be a better way to look at it because then they won't fall under that ordinance so it becomes like an inam in family in family sweet okay that's a good term yeah I like that let's coin that term in family sweet I think that that's right cuz and we don't want to call it an accessory apartment because then it's like oh now you have to be affordable right you know conditions currently the senior Suite to continue no not because then she'd have to rip out the k no I said with the ex exemption of C like section c everything else is the same right there's other conditions a but we're not calling it a senior Suite though right but I think with Jerry was still even if we're calling it something else those seem like basic conditions would still right everything else would still apply say all else me you know Provisions in this section apply except right okay essentially the the amendment we're making is to provide the use variants instead of continue specifically being tied to Senior Suites okay sounds good okay and what would have to what would happen if somebody else moved into the house and I'm not on moving no I'm saying that they you would have to rip out the kitchen okay they I believe they would have depending on how they want to use it would they have to come back before us or not no they wouldn't no it would ride with the land de one it would go with the land so yeah unless it was found that they were doing something illegal right unless doing something else stud the conditions we still have we still have the annual zoning the recertification would be appropriate yeah and essentially if it's in inhabited it's inhabited by a member of the family right and if it's not if it's if it's not inhabited it remains vacant that's not an issue right underutilization of the property is not a problem it's just that they can't go advertising on the street and get some stranger to move in and there's also there's a provision that limits the size to 650 ft so that that in itself it's not a two family you know I mean you're not going to get in a whole another I mean hopefully no no never know and then no more than two persons by yeah oh that's a good way to do oh yeah yeah yeah that's yeah kind of cramped man it's a rough housing market out there you yeah right all right well I think through all this we crafted something that actually works thank you um okay so now the board attorney just has to draft oh God this gonna be a project well well let let's just be clear on where we are and what is going to be voted on I guess um and anyone feel free to stop me at any point um I think the way to summarize this is the applicant is Seeking a D1 use variants to permit an inam Suite right we're going to call it that um with the stipulation or conditions that all actually I'm going to list them all individually Chris can we just pause there like we came up with this in family term can you go back after this and see if there's a legal definition for what we are seeking to do here at least Define it as we want it Define something in case law or whatever but you know so that we're actually terminology there probably is I have to think that there is I mean there's I know of at least three senior Suite type deals in town that were sold recently as that so there has to be a way to do it when I was doing a little bit of research on this before this meeting I I came across the term uh like a secondary Suite which kind of you know doesn't imply any kind of familiar relationship but that obviously I think I think what we're aiming at here and what the applicant has even indicated is that we want to keep it the same family right so so we're molding those two whatever the terminology is that we use how many even live in a house with based on familiar relationship right I think that that's probably right well well the conditions the conditions that would would still apply would be the other portions of of the senior Suite ordinance which would be that um you know no greater than 650 sare feet no more than two per uh people occupying the suite there would be an annual uh certification by the code enforcement code enforcement officer to ensure that I guess that the the the dwelling is being the the secondary unit I'm just going to call it that is being in family Suite is being occupied by no more than two people by no more than two people and is being occupied by somebody in the same household as the the primary portion of the residents M right okay so just to be clear over 650 what is it oh was was that was per per prior approval that okay then put that in there yeah okay thank you it was 879 for I don't want to hold her to 879 you know that it not it not expand from what was granted I guess in the earlier approval oh boy a that's a tricky one um you got this yeah yeah I'll figure it out all right well I think we all I think we know where we're trying to go so basically basically we're I'm I'm just looking at the ordinance right now we're excising C that's that um you know upon the sale or transfer the property upon vacation of the premises um The Suite shall be removed and residents converted we're not doing that um now D is a little interesting at the time of the establishment of the senior Suite A new deed shall be recorded in the Morris County Clerk's Office containing a restriction right to the effect that if the suite is not occupied and used as envisioned by this subsection it shall be removed and the resident shall comply with all requirements for a single family detached dwelling applicable to the Zone in which we have to move that no it'll it'll still be applicable and I think that we should keep that because then that will restrict the next person as well well a deed restriction but it should be replaced right yeah it's we it's a um Amendment or whatever yeah but the deed restriction can can can be uh what's the word I'm using uh can be um transferred it it doesn't end with that that restriction transferred to the next deed so you should put that in there that the that section D can be transferred to the new deed right I would have to title the house well if somebody else wanted to buy it they would just buy it and put that same deed restriction in their deed oh right well I think it has to go in now as an amended that's just it yeah exactly right because it it has the language about removal right so yes you would have to change that yeah in your deed right because right now you can't sell it without without giving it out right so you could do that just de it to yourself and you know right change right the de restriction to be amended to um basically to be com hold on it would contain a restriction to the effect that if the suite is not occupied and used as envisioned by this approval as opposed to the subsection which it says in the ordinance it shall be removed and the resident shall comply with all the requirements yada yada yaada so you're removing the hook of if sold sold exactly right so it can be transferred to another owner right that's what you're fear so that's what we're trying to avoid so uh you know once once if if this does get approved once this resolution is done then you can take that wording and put in in your deed in the new one right okay so um anybody have any other questions based on what he just said no just I wasn't go go ahead no I wasn't at the uh your your prior uh when you came to the board are these two is the only way to access this second Suite is through the out this deck they're not connected in any one connect internally I'm saying you can part of your house correct you walk from Theirs to yours door there's a door in between though right there's a door in between right okay yeah I understand yeah but that kind of differentiates it I think I mean I understand you can always lock a door but I would think that that also makes it addition seem like it's part of the house and not rentable necessarily if there is access from the inside to the other I would recommend specifically keeping that in that that internal architectural component door between makes it part of the same yeah more cohesive uh with that in yeah in family it's more palatable but Jonathan raised a good point when he said you could always lock the door right but yeah but a door is a door not a wall it is it it it it's more uh together when it's a door than you know uh it's not where it's there's no access at all which is totally like a separate apartment um that be another condition yeah that there must be continue to be access an access door internal access right somebody can't wall it off yeah right so so basically I guess what I'm kind of proposing quote unquote is you know treated as a D1 use for an in family Suite um we're going to define the in family Suite to be you know members of the same household right um instead of me referencing any kind of referencing 124.80 um any other questions members of the public yeah do I'm sorry oh I know I know I just want to make sure we have any other questions you have any question no I do you want me to ask some proof questions yes sure please yeah go for all right so um in this instance is it your testimony that your site is particularly suitable to for the use that you're seeking the variance for yes and do you think that there will be by allowing this Suite to exist in per you know in perpetuity so to you know with with conditions that um will have any uh substantial adverse impacts on your neighbors or you know in your or the town no speak up in mic I don't it will um and with regard to um you know it's not permitted in the ordinance and so would you is it incorrect to ask you or ask um you know that the use is so specialized and that maybe it's not a permitted use so that the board can really take a close look at the specific circumstances of each case where somebody would want to do this um and that maybe why it's not permitted as a blanket permitted use across your ordance sorry if that's a leading question but do you understand what I'm asking you can ask a leing question yeah I know do do you understand what I'm asking which is that no I know giving you relief that is tailored to your needs and someone else can't say well you gave her the relief we want the same relief this is being tailored to your needs and your specific use of the property that your neighbor can't come in and say well you gave my neighbor the same thing I want it right and so and and it's a use that maybe we wouldn't want to have permitted across the board in Long Hill but in this specific Circumstance the board is would you say that your lot and your property and your home um lens itself lens itself thank you to that to this use yes okay I in fact I don't think you can even tell that I put on a senior Suite um you drive by it every day I walk by it every day I I see it do you too yeah so you really can't tell I I noticed you let me just ask you your property and its size and shape has not changed okay just want to make sure because people do and nothing else about your property as far as the neighbor's uh access or ability to see into your property or view what's going on has changed no you still have complained right you've had no complaints from the neighb no complaints anyone okay uh you still have the same buffering trees around it and everything is still the same okay I I have no further questions okay you have any questions no okay any more questions by the board okay are there any members of the public that have a question for this particular application of block 101 104 l 5.01 zone R2 hearing none I'm closing it to the public uh for questions and comments since there are no public at all oh Fred's got a comment you have a comment oh come on up right do you have the microphone the microphone's not there trying to save the batteries until we had somebody to comment yeah okay comment is I do deed filings I'm available for Tes a for filing you know here just take this take here oh my hold my microphones Frederick zelli tenant at 53 Division Avenue Millington full disclosure I have represented Miss Gallow in the past actually I think I prepared the deed restriction that we're talking about if I remember Fred you want to be swor in got to s in sure think do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide be the truth whole truth and nothing about the truth I do please proceed so actually it's more of just a idea that uh perhaps the board professionals would want to consider on the board there is case law as I recall it might be Gallow but I'm not sure off the top of my head that if you have a situation in your ordinance that acts like a conditional use despite not being specifically identified as that you can treat it that way this might be easier to accomplish by saying that you're deviating from the condition of the kchen having to be removed and treat is a D3 it's a lower standard it's reasonable to accommodate if the site can accommodate the use which obviously this can because she's had it in place all this time just might be an easier standard for the board to meet okay uh and might address the exact issues that you're raising so just kind of throwing that out there and thank you for listening thank thank you Fred for your for your input I appreciate that ask your opinion on that quite frankly I'm not familiar with with the case well not the case but with the the certain uh vein of casw mril is referring to um I I actually think we've we've crafted something so unique here that we no longer want to just grant deviation from a condition for a senior Suite because we're actually sort of crafting some conditions that Ian it it it kind of isn't even a senior Suite use anymore in a sense right yeah but suggestion though Fred I I appreciate it yeah talk to you before the meeting what help my understanding of what we're talking about it Still Remains a a family use or whether it's senior children whatever relationship they to other it's still within the family it's not for corre for okay for public use the way went the other way with a D3 yeah we would be more narrowly confined the opportunities moving forward wouldn't have the ability to it into an in family right right see Jerry the way the ordinance defined it senior Suite is itself a use and it's it's got to be occupied by the senior member of the household right so if we treat it as a D3 it could still only theoretically be only occupied by the senior member of the household if we treat as a D1 as a whole separate use that's how you open it up to other members of the family sure you're going to limit the number of people that can correct two two all the master bedroom down theor Su okay sounds good yeah it's all to combinated all right now any um other questions or comments or Jerry would you start the deliberation I think that um it was a unique case um she has prior approval for uh for a use that really uh did not serve her needs and could cause some kind of economic uh harm to her in the future if they had to change their residence with even within her family um I think it's reasonable that we prove this can make as we have testimony from our experts that we are not harming the area the the neighborhood the ordinance um I think it's a it's a good use for our residents to have this to have a way to you know accommodate senior family members and other members of your family that may need assistance I think it's I think it's great okay I think we've done a good job of uh trying to respect our ordinance while we do this and make sure that it's not trampled on by creating you know multif family uses in residential neighborhoods so I'm in favor of the application thank you mered I Echo all the sentiments that Jerry said I think that you know paying a special attention to to um you know limiting the number of people that specifically can reside there and the fact that you know there's no other members from the public here that have come here to voice their opinion specifically about it makes a big difference um that you came here prior for prior approval for this use and again it's you know just not wanting to hinder hinder any of the opportunities for you moving forward because I know you're it's kind of a conundrum initially walking in here so um you know with all the testimony that's been shared here tonight it would absolutely favor this application Jonathan um I agree here we go I agree uh I think that you know the applicant has shown and I think we've crafted something that uh shows that um this is a special reason for this and that uh that meets the positive criteria as well as meeting the negative criteria that it doesn't do any harm or detriment to the neighborhood and so I don't see any reason why we would should not prove this thank you Jessica I agree with everything that's been said I'll add that unintentionally you've I think brought to the board and hopefully the planning board's attention that this particular ordinance needs some of attention and and maybe some modernizing um so I'm in faor of the application for all the reasons that were stated and and for the testimony that you gave I think it's absolutely a reason reasonable to ask that t uh first I'd like to thank you for bringing this to our attention and bringing this back uh up to this board where you could have let it ride out and just wait until see what happens when you sold if if and when that day ever comes and so thank you for doing this early and uh I think the town ows your Deb of gratitude because we all noodled out an answer that is going to work for you and maybe for others down the road so thank you very much as for this particular case um your home is lovely nicely situated you're fine nobody's bothering you you're not bothering anybody why shouldn't you have it I'm I'm in favor yeah I I feel the same way I think that um you've shown throughout the year the two years you've had it that it it is not a detriment to the neighborhood it is a positive it it it it need it suits a need in our uh Society of having me bo uh fellow um family members living together as opposed to and having a separate kitchen I think the kitchen is the big Crux here um I would prefer that our whatever you want to call that ordinance senior Suite family uh whatever wouldn't have that that um uh rather harsh requirement that you whip out the kitchen and not be able to sell it to somebody else to use it as a senior suite and you know like Jerry said maybe get a permit for it that you now can use it if you show the need for it cuz it's kind of silly to put money into something and have to rip it out I think that's something we have to address but I would be in favor of it and thank you for bringing this to our attention all right uh would you want to just uh read off uh go through it again yeah just sum it up I'll do my best Mr chairman yeah just sum it up all right so the applicant here is Seeking a D1 use variance to permit a quote unquote in family Suite um as far as conditions go um the applicant will be required to comply with the portions of section 124.80 79 s ft you know the same footprint as the existing Suite in the in the the dwelling um no more than two persons shall occupy the proposed in family Suite uh applicant shall provide a plan for the proposed separate housekeeping facility which provides sufficient information for the construction official to determine that all ordinance requirements will be met I'm not entirely sure that's applicable now that it's actually constructed so I think we can remove that one scratch what I just said there um other conditions the uh applicant will be required to well the owner of the property will be required to have an annual recertification to ensure that the uh the suite is being used as you know in a manner envisioned by uh by this approval you know that being that it's being occupied by the uh me same member of the household that they're complying with all their conditions of this approval should it be an approval um additionally applicant will need to amend the existing deed restriction to state that um if the suite is not being occupied and use as envisioned by this approval this approval being what the board is about to vote on right now it shall be removed and the residents shall comply with all requirements for a single family detach dwelling applicable to the you to the Zone in which it's located uh the applicant shall also well the owner of the property shall also maintain internal access between the uh the proposed suite and the primary portion of the dwelling and uh but we're removing the requirement that she eliminate the kitchen we don't have to Mo remove the kitchen no I'm not saying that no I'm saying she has to maintain the internal access between like the house and the other one but before that you said something about he's removing the requirement yeah we don't have we not making if it's no longer being used as a in family Suite meaning that it be you know let's say they rent it out to somebody who isn't a member of the family that that's when you would have to you know you or somebody else without yeah okay all right right yeah and uh I believe that's it okay yeah and that she can uh well put in there that she can amend her deed to indicate that she can that this approval runs with the land not the ownership okay can or must it will run with she well well yeah she must change the deed she would be in violation well I didn't what I meant by can is like she should yeah yeah I wasn't uh obvious she should want to because that's the whole purpose of it uh so yes that you know just make sure that just making sure the attorney got it right yeah yeah thank you it's G to be a fun one to write up but I fairly confident yeah we'll run it past big crayons yeah um all right we call on the uh oh I have the motion I have a motion I'll move it I'll move 24 who was the second I everybody was talking sorry I'm deaf in one year tonight so oh I'm sorry okay uh Mr ronam yes Vice chairman grcon yes Miss Brennan yes Mr Rosenberg yes Miss Collins yes chairman GRE yes motion carries thank you may have taken a little longer than I thought but we got there get back thank you and may your parents live with you for many many I don't know if or may may you lose the may you lose the key to the lock door move in and take care of you take I'll see you soon K thank you good night do you want a break uh yeah let's take a uh five minute break and then uh we'll come back have the uh pleasure e e e e e e e e e e e e e e back I'm ready all we're back on the air five minutes think I have to share that mic guys I'm sorry uh I oh the other one was it keeps going on and off I don't understand what well you need that one it's green again so it's green again yeah it's good all right it's good as long as it's green I'll keep try okay okay we are back in session at um 8:40 uh now the next application is a bulk variant block 1 13402 blot 1.05 Zone R2 known as 691 Long Hill Road application number 24-13 Z Kyle Henry applicant proposes to construct a new single family dwelling is the applicant is the applicant present applicant is present with Council and with councel very good could you identify yourself for the record record on of the okay uh and how many witnesses are you going to have we have two witnesses this evening the applicant chess who is both our engineer okay would you go over the legal aspect absolutely Mr chairman um so in my legal opinion the content and timeliness of service of this applicants notice is sufficient to give the board jurisdiction to hear and decide the case uh notice was sent to owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject property by certified mail on August 23rd 2024 and also published in the Echo Sentinel on August 22nd 2024 both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing so with that the board is jurisdiction to hear the case may I just add one thing just for correction for the agenda uh there is a use variance component with this application that I did not note on the agenda D variance not you yeah D variance okay D variance okay um all swear Mr professional with your Witnesses stand up please okay do uh do all of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do okay Mr zi please uh take proceed thank you this is regarding 691 lill Road it is block 1342 1.5 located in the R2 Zone the applicant is a contract purchaser of this property property itself is a vacant parcel that has been in existence since a 1985 subdivision by Patrick Terence gold back at that time uh this is the third uhli dealing with this particular lot starting with that subdivision in 2007 approvals were granted for the development of this lot very similar in nature to the relief that rece this evening I'm sure you're all very familiar with this stretch's own property that's been developed uh it is to say the least a challenging lot yeah it is slope all the way down from long road down uh but it is a legally created lot by your a essentially something has to so I'm not remotely saying that threatening something has to be done with this lot here this evening asking me to allow um Henry to be the one that can finally develop it after all these years as I said the Varian were seeking except for the ones that the ordin didn't existed in 2007 or 1985 what is different and significantly different is this is a two story home uh that initially will be a one story living area with a basement below it uh Mr Henry will testify that it is his intention at some point to uh fit out that lower level as well um the septic system designed for this property is being adopted from the original design the original design that was approved in 2007 was for a four story much larger and more bedroom home so you don't have concerns about that additional fit out running into running F SE design so I just want to go through very briefly what the variances are there are a number of them I'll try to go through quickly first of all the principal structure located withinin front yard uh we are seeking 27.99 ft uh 28.1 so almost the same measurement was approved back in 2007 pursuant to the subdivision relief was actually granted for that 35.2 ft was approved as part of the 19 subdivision whereas otherwise 75t next is B bar for accessory structure located within the front yard set 35 again was required by the planning board 1985 11.26 detach two car garage just one level anything like that above it next is the D6 use variance for Building height in excess of 110% of the limit uh new limit is 35 ft 46.3 3 was approved in 2007 5512 is being assult this evening but that is measured in the rear that is me measured from the slopes the actual height from Street perspective again is just one no near you're 35t height so we're not suggesting do you know the height from the street off the top of your head I don't have that right off the top of my head is part of the 55 ft uh part of the basement that's not covered buried there's almost no part of the basement that ised in the back yeah in the front maybe a little in the sides and all the front from the front perspective yes that's true and we know we know that it's within whatever the parameters are where we have to count that as a story yes okay can you I'm sorry FR could you repeat what was approved in 07 07 was 46.3 thank you the uh building in was fur rather story parents for development with critical areas namely St slopes this was was gr 2007 uh Varan for development created in excess of 7% on this L Varian for setback of the principal building fromal area the front yard required again we can't have any because area this relief was not granted in 2007 unfortunately your ordinance like most doesn't make it clear as to what was pass when so it's not always easy to both variant for set back principal critical area sidey 25 ft again ZT that that does not seem to be in existence in 2007 if it was it was missed both variant for excessive retaining wall height front yard uh we are seeking in our application it says 7.22 uh it's actually going to be more than that because of the guard rail which a professionals pointed out so Mr will tell you what the actual number would be uh 6.5 was approved in 2007 4 Fe is what's uh finally both variants for I'm sorry not finally second and finally both variants for excessive retaining wall height site rear yard uh we are seeking 7.59 and 6.44 uh where 14 and six are permitted um six was permitted and 14 and 19.5 approved in 2007 so what we're seeking for that variance is significantly less than it was approved back then uh and then finally your professionals pointed out that the ation uh Zone in front of the property the first 75 ft off the street uh will be obviously compromised since we're developing well within that area so to the extent our development is going to require removal of trees um that will require variant reliev from that requirement and that I believe is the list it's a lengthy list but again for the most part uh we believe this is a better application than what was already approved in 2007 clearly the home is more modest uh the height even though officially it's higher from the perspective of the street so we have two witnesses this evening Mr Henry himself will testify as to why he wants to build this house and then also who the AR not have the AR separately this evening for I think there any technical issues that Mr Henry won't be able to answer himself and Chris as I said is both our engineer I do have two exhibits that I'll bring up I like that idea absolutely Mr Z is hand out copies Pages uh with images and floor plan of a conceptual garage the detest garage call it a compendium exhibit and that stated today Mr Z thank you thank you sir thank you we're not representing that we building Gage but um second exhibit introducing really it's a matter oford in questions specifically this might be helpful make that this is the 198 subis thank you this is dated uh May 28th 1985 [Applause] December yeah December 19th September 17 oh that's December 19th I'm looking at the plan date on the bottom oh plan date decemberth was recorded December 19th okay it's file map 4432 correct yes we'll use the recording date then thank you all okay you are under already current mailing address is 7 pick up that mic please closer to you thank you like this yes thank you is it even working it should be anything yeah it's working yeah so it's more for the recording than us yeah my current mailing address is 7 steeple chase Lane in Asbury New Jersey 8802 okay and you a contract purchaser of 691 that's [Applause] correct believe about a year ago at this point and is your intention to develop a single family home that is my intention is it your intention to do that for your own residency or is this investment that you intend to sell it is for me um single I'm a single manjoy it while it lasts no comment is gonna watch this I'm gonna get killed I home the architecturals that have been submitted with the application do they accurately reflect essentially what you they do reflect it pretty accurately yeah just one second I'm going to show you what's been marked for identification as exit A1 ask you again not what you're exactly building but does this accurately the general concept what yes it does for the detached garage yes yes we place the plans for Mr Bell on the board is it working okay yes that's working fine so what I'm going to ask what I'm going to ask you to do is to Page by Page uh describe what's your planning to the board uh the first page I stand is a floor plan of the what we'll call the first floor the street level floor uh and then if you want before you flip over to the elevations describe plan for the lower floor but it shows on the plans now and what your general intent is for that floor if you would okay so over here on the right hand side we have the first floor so it's just it's very open so you have the entrance here and then over to the left you have laundry full bath and a bedroom with a walk-in closet and then straight from the entrance you have pretty much a very large open living room connected to the kitchen and then there's a walk-in Pantry on this side originally it was connected to the garage but we decided to move the garage because of the slope so that's why there's a detached garage now and then you can see on the left side of the first floor it's pretty much all master suite so master bedroom it walks out there's a deck on the back side of the house so the deck goes across the entire length of the house so you can reach the deck from the living room or from the master suite so again there's the bedroom there's a bit of a study like there's a break here and then it's just bathroom and another walk-in closet and then stairs to the lower level the lower level because it is above the slope we don't know if we want to call it a basement or not but we'll call it a basement for now now and mostly it would be storage so this half here storage all around and then this part this upper right corner I was thinking about making into a bedroom with a bathroom because again the septic was the approved septic was for a much larger house so we think it wouldn't be a problem to have another bedroom and bathroom and then this area again is just open but because there would be windows and light I think it would be fine to treat it almost like another living room because there's already storage back here so is there presently designed to be any kind of a deck uh behind the what we're calling the basement level I was thinking about it well something you might want to do it's something I might want to do in the future just because it is again above ground and there's a lot of Windows I think it would be nice especially with the slope it would look really nice I think so and then this board's very familiar with the view that's off of this property which is certainly it's it's Main Attraction uh you might have said this I just want to make sure it is there are two bedrooms on the first floor yes on the first floor there are two bedrooms nonas bedroom is in this bottom right corner here okay and can you show us where the detach garage would be located by way of orientation against the house so by way of orientation against the house the detach garage would be so here's the front of the building the detach garage would be this way I'm I'm sorry when you say front of the building it's which direction is that facing north south east west north the front fa facing north okay thank you facing the street yeah the street would be that way understood meaning down you pointed down down yeah down on the map but up in down on the map up in topography right all right uh now would you show us the next two pages with the elevations pleas so you can see here that looking at it dead on this is the front of the building it looks like a one-story building because most of the well the rest of the house is behind the slope here and you can see the rest of the house here so this is the first floor and then the deck which you it's two dimensional so you can't really see it but and then this is the second floor where I'm thinking about having a smaller deck underneath and these are peers which would support the deck there and just to be clear the top is your front view the bottom on this sheet is your rear view yes this is the front this is the rear I I understand that the entire front of this house home uh will be uh viewable from the street when driving by I was just there today right at your property and a lot of the homes nearby built years ago with different engineering but they're a little bit more they're recessed to the to the street you drive by you see the tops of their houses yeah you would see more the top of the house will be over go be going over that in detail but the house does sit down it does it is low within the street still off the top of my head around 10 ft drop yeah so you're basically looking be going that detail so you're basically looking at more of the roof of the house so it's going to look like less than a one story house sorry go ahead the the peers that you mentioned you said they were going to support the deck do they also support the house we're going to get to that when I go to the next page yes but a different set of peers are we ready to go to the yeah next page mhm so here's the side view and you can see the one set of peers here and then what appears to be a wall here this has not yet been drawn in but this would be peers to avoid having to move a great deal of soil basically so there would be peers here as well as peers here supporting this portion of the house a small amount of it would actually be recessed into the slope but this wall would not exist and it would be peers again to again make it so that we don't have to move all of this dirt which would be very expensive so that was one of the things that engineer helped me figure out in order to make this more feas so so what you're saying is your plan is not exactly accurate to what's being built as far as that one that the as far as this piece here yes okay so that we need that changed if that was the case and to miss Brennan's point so from the front perspective and standing on the driveway in front of the home you're not seeing any portion of that basement however because the slope starts so quickly uh most of that basement is in fact exposed yes okay all right and we are looking on the top looking at it from the west and on the bottom from the East I believe so yes this is East elevations west elevation board experts board experts you have questions of the uh this exper this witness I mean with uh regarding the basement and and I guess let's stay on that page just walking out at that basement level if you were to put anything out there it would be essentially just a lower level deck rather than an at grade patio right right cuz it's still then suspended above yes okay so it's almost like a whole another floor drop on the foundation line the peers right correct okay understood I I don't have oh yes Joey go ahead um are you you're a builder you're a contractor is that your trade no I am not you are not so this you're a resident or a proposed resident to build this house and you're going to contract all the work out yes okay have you ever built a house before no lu well you seem to be very knowledgeable yeah I've had a lot of time to go over this well good um I wanted to ask why was there only two bedrooms on the first floor you don't anticipate I mean I know you you said possibly building one in the basement but there was no thought of attempting to put a second bedroom on the first floor or you mind if I go back on the no go ahead yeah there's only two right the third one I met yeah IID wanted to leave a lot of room for the kitchen and I didn't want to make that house very wide because the slope does vary so for this width of house the slope is pretty consistent so for example we couldn't put the garage here because the slope is a lot deeper on the one side so I didn't want to make the house wide because that would make it a lot more difficult to continue with the idea so I wanted to keep it narrower okay and do you believe that a uh the configuration on the first floor is useful to you as being only a two bedroom or I think it's very useful to me yes all right you know one of the things we want to make sure on this board that people build something that is usable for them in the future and not something they have to come back to us and want to change and then have to add more so uh okay any other question that's why we brought this up now that you know if his family situation or whatever might change that he would want additional bedrooms the ability to do it is there is the Bas as far as we know the septic is Will accommodated obviously your construction Department would make sure of that you know basically what we're looking at if you're familiar with Shore Homes very often you have what we call a reverse floor pack so where you have bedrooms on the lower floor right and even though we're calling this a basement in reality most of it is is exposed the whole but it's still going to be going to be cement block and and the traditional built of a basement you'd have to finish the walls down there yeah the walls will be finished but on the outside it would be okay oh you doing put sheet rock on the walls down there down there yeah okay and your living room space in your kitchen it's all an open floor plan yes this is all open and detected there's not really any wall of any type in there I was looking at the South um side of the house too the South elevation that's it's all windows with two French doors that open up onto the deck so you're going to get a lot of natural sunlight that's coming in as well it's that's all windows there correct it's all windows yes okay Jerry yeah about the garage looks like a prefab structure I think that's what the handout said yes it's it's actually these are actually architectural designs it's 24 by 24 so okay if we prefab would have to be in units um so it's not stick buil it's pre it could be stick buil if it were modular it would have to be in sections okay the whole the whole garage is not capable of being transported right the question I have about the garage is do you think it's sufficient to handle two cars it says on there the handout it said plenty of room for storage does it have room for two cars and you know the typical things you find in household to maintain the property whether it's a lawnmower such lawn mow athletic equipment all that stuff that's stuff in my garage boing probably going to be in yours too some or whoever else might buy this property is that is that shed type garage sufficient what were're intending I had originally intended only for my for my car alone to be there in the first place so in the event that it was just me the entire time yes I think so in the event that say I got married in a th years and I had to have someone else share the garage with me I do believe that I would have to find a room for other things maybe park outside I'd hope not but that would probably be my first idea is to move move my car outside instead of trying to expand the garage all the stuff that you find in the garage will fit in there maybe not the cars with it so that's fun then the parking area outside of the garage is that efficient to handle several parked cars and also act as a turnaround because you cannot back up that hill on Theo roads do that I think you would definitely have room to turn around uh what do you mean by several cars you and your cars are not in the garage or in the future if like you said someone else owns the property and they have you know bicycles and lawn mowers in the garage and they park outside what does that look like I think there would be room for a couple of cars perhaps not three or four but I do think there would be room enough to turn around and maneuver such that you could drive out in a safe way thank you the board can also take notice of the fact that even a fullsize pickup truck or fulls size SUV is approximately 18 ft long so that leaves you another six feet behind each vehicle even if both vehicles were of that size so there is actually a decent amount of storage in a 24x 24 thank you is there any thought at this point where you have the columns in the back of your home to someday seal that off and make that some sort of storage facility faity or for any other possible use because of how high it is I do not think that would be very feasible additionally these column though they look like wide here they would probably be steel piling so think more rods so I don't think it would be as easy to seal that off as it might look especially because it's not like it would not be these four pilings and then a wall it would be these four pilings and then yet more pilings behind that so the area would be a lot bigger than what is shown by the idea of a wall back here so I don't think that would be feasible to turn that into storage no kind of would be more like being under a boardwalk since we're talking with Jersey sh yeah also it I don't know how you'd get down there with like a vehicle because it's it's like that okay where where are the utilities in this house back this way so you would this area in the back pretty much in half so this whole area back here could be utilities and for things like an HVAC like a compressor you could level out an area outside and keep that out there I don't think a fixing it to the house would be a good idea again because of the slope so you level out a small space for all that but yeah this whole quarter of the basement floor can I have a question so the um when you're looking at the southern elevation your rear elevation and the upper story which I understand is not an upper story you know at the front of the house what is happening what do you envision happening is it is it a separate floor is it open to the ground I mean to the ground floor or what you said the rear elevation yeah so like on the rear elevation you have the basement the ground floor and then the what looks like a story above it's just maybe a half St oh this yes this is just more windows so so it's just your your um ground floor is sort of double height or so imagine the roof goes like this yeah so you have Windows and then more windows and then here's the floor and then the second floor underneath it okay so so it looks like back there but it's just double windows right so here were those other windows oh I see okay gotcha okay Windows Windows like Frank right from the back right traditional from the front right interesting okay thank you right window I don't know think we talked about this yet and maybe you know maybe you don't know the building of this home on the lot we we do have um RightWay on the lot for septic is this going to in any in any way encumber any cleanup or anything that needs to be done in the future Mr can address there's another yeah I imagine you'll do that any other questions for the witness experts have any questions Mr Zell have any questions any more what no more okay yes um are there a member of the public that would like to ask this witness questions yes come on up identify yourself would you give him the uh mic share the mic sorry we don't have more than one we're a little micless here yeah please have say your name and address for the uh Jean Smith 205 Mountain Avenue in Gillette okay and um this is just a question for do you have a question for the witness uh more for for the town the zoning the zoning you have a question who then for for the witness yeah do well who do you you have a question either for the witness or for his attorney or for our you can ask questions of our experts yes yes I do um okay it has to do with the impervious coverage because I'm the lot downhill from him on the w I would suggest sir is after our engineer has spoken he's the one you would need to ask those so if your question deals with the engineering or that type of matter you might want to wait for their next expert yes okay all right thank you any other questions from the public okay hearing none I'm going to close it to the public at this time but I'm going to let you ask a question to the next expert which every expert is separate questioning Mr Henry okay could you state your name and uh your occupation please absolutely it's Christopher nuser N sser with French and Prolo Associates uh 700 Grand Avenue hacktown New Jersey I'm a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey I have appeared before over 70 boards in the state in that capacity um in front of your planning board never before this board um my licenses are in good standing okay I deem you as an expert thank you thank you expert for the record in both field for both Fields yes for engineering and for planning thank you were you tasked with the design in the engineering design for this project I was would you please first uh tell us the nature of the property and if you would take it from there and if you want to make reference to the prior applications appropriate times please go fore to do so absolutely I'm going to switch here quickly this is the submitted plans just sheets one and two of the plans here no changes made to them no Chang okay so again this is block 13405 lot 1.05 it's a 4544 ft lot surrounded by single family homes um and it's entirety uh fronting on Long Hill Road it's most conspicuous um condition is the one we're here for which is the fact that it loses just about 100 ft of elevation from the road to the rear of the property in about 300 ft so from the get-go we have a lot that's basically at a 3:1 slope on average front to back um again this as Mr zeli said this lot was created by subdivision in 1985 uh it is undeveloped uh there are um it is classified as being a wooded lot uh there is that access that we have talked about uh for what's listed on what is A2 which is the filed map as a 20 foot wide ACC access easement for septic maintenance that starts on lot 1.03 to the east two lots to the east of us uh comes across lot 104 through this property it curves through lot one and then comes back through everybody's lot again down at a lower elevation um and this is because everybody's septic systems are towards the rear of the lot and much lower in elevation so the only way to get there is using this Access Road uh it is graded you can see it on the on the plan you can see the that the it actually is graded out as a as a path uh through the property on lot 1.04 to our East that is it is improved to that point uh that property that's what they use as their principal access so it is both their driveway and a portion of the easement um so as I said we basically have a three to one slope on average front to back on the property on average there are some areas that quite possibly are under 15% slope um but per your ordinance's definition of a critical area where it's measured over a 10t rise of elevation um there is no portion of the lot where we have an average slope less than 15% so the entirety of this lot is a critical area that condition hasn't changed since that prior approval in 2007 um where as Mr zel said this board granted relief at that time so that that house and I do I was going to mount that plan on a board for you and unfortunately I don't have a full copy with a title block on it and I didn't want to hand in um something that was half um I do have a couple prints if we did need to get to there uh if the board wanted to see what it looked like but I don't know the plan date and I can't say 100% that that's the one that the board approved so just just so it's clear so if somebody wants to see it on the board um please ask can you give us a idea of comp to this yeah so that house um had a larger footprint uh it had as we said it was a it was a four-story house so from the street level it's a two-story house typical of the other homes um in the immediate vicinity the you know house to the east on lot 1.04 uh just the same and then it had a basement level and then a lower level below the basement level it had a side entry garage that came in at the basement level so you had a basement level um with a garage in it and then you had another level below it uh the driveway came out the driveway was Central to the lot um a little a skew with the road across the street and then came down at about 15% and had a big curve down into the driveway um and even the landing area at the bottom was 8% into the driveway or into the garage so it had quite a heavy slope going into into the house um it had a number of Walls it had a a what's listed alternatively as a deck as a patio there's some discussion in the prior resolution uh but there's walled sections beyond the house that were 14 to 19 ft in height so significant walls below the house which is in part how this house has a request for a greater height variance um than what was previously approved it's because there were basically walls raising the grade below the house and and lowering that that exposure in the rear um so we had a house that again really in in a disturbance perspective stretched all the way from the Eastern property line and it involved regrading of the driveway down through here so really The Limited disturbance was the whole top half plus the area for the septic which as Mr Z said is fairly consistent with what we're proposing just to stop you for one second so comparing current application to the 2007 application the actual elevation of the ridg line for the 2007 home was it sounds like the better part or a full story higher than ours the uh the height measurement is different because they artificially created a different level of the ground to begin with yeah the so the first finished floor previously approved was 397 A5 the current is 396 so we're actually proposing a finish floor that's about a foot and a half lower than what was um previously approved that house they were going two stories above that as oppos to one that we're that's correct so their roof line was significantly higher even though the overall height correct that's correct so just wanted to compare a little bit about what was previously approved with um what is proposed now and so what's proposed now is again it's a two-story dwelling and as Mr zeli said it's kind of an in an inverted footprint where you come in on on the first floor and then there's a a floor below it wouldn't technically be a basement because most of it is exposed on the side you from a building code perspective it would be considered a story um the house itself is sat at 35 ft back from uh the front RightWay line which was consistent with what that prior resolution sorry I shouldn't say prior resolution when there's two uh the subdivisions resolution what was permitted at that time for the lots to be at 35 ft so the house is at that 35 foot Mark that's consistent with what the prior approval was the difference here is we have a a front porch here that sticks 7 feet further in and because of a little bit of the angles uh we have a 27.99 ft front yard setback where previously it was was granted at 28.1 so a DI Minimus difference between the two and again similarly on that application the difference was they had a front porch on the house that was extending it forwards uh the the the driveway we went through a couple different configurations uh I think you as you heard the applicant speak he spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out the best way to develop this lot um and really thought through a lot of different options had geotechnical analysis done on the property to make sure that the peers um that he discussed with you were a viable option to you know go through the cost of that to make sure these things um were reasonable were appropriate for what was being proposed um so as you said originally the garage was attached to the dwelling that would have remove some of the relief the problem was you were Building a garage and the back side of the garage had a 15t tall wall behind it that you would have to construct fill compact build a slab on top of and hope didn't settle on you as you parked your car in it um you know and 15 ft of fill is is quite a lot to manage and there's there's some some issues and some risks in there um and so you know we've we've gone through a couple different iterations here as I said and this is what we've worked out as being the best solution for it so we have the driveway entering from the western side of the property that is the lowest portion of the road so we're starting on the lower part so you know already we're helping ourselves uh coming across the face of the house so we have we're losing we're losing grade till we get to the front door here at about 12 1/2% um till we get to the front door and then it levels out uh and then again you go beyond and you have the pad space the backup area uh which is not at 8% it's at 2% it's what you would expect from it um so if you threw up a basketball hoop you could play basketball um just don't let it go over the before you get too far into the current plan can I just ask you a question about the 07 plan since you spent a lot of time on that so do we know why the house wasn't built according to that plan or why that never moved forward I I don't did does the applicant the attorney now well we'll swear you in later and I'll ask that question so but but it was never done and I'm assuming it was it's expired right I mean the applicant couldn't take that plan and just build that house today without going through this whole process is that correct yes I legally that's correct okay so and there A lot's changed since 2007 right just in terms of ordinances and the area so I know you spent a lot of time on what was approved in 2007 but I don't know that it really matters that much to what we're talking about today so other than you're making a point this is smaller we get yeah I think the yeah I think the the point was just to compare that there was a prior approval your professionals um described the prior approval so I'm just going through to compare um yeah the the prior approval doesn't bind this board in any way um you know I think the prior approval makes a lot of findings that are relevant to the application at hand um but yes you're correct it does not you're not bound by that okay could that be built or is that expired he's saying could we know there's no such thing as precedent but when your standard is arbitrary prisions unreasonable if God forbid we had to start making arguments about that um you know if there was an approval already that was similar or actually more egregious some ways but it was so many years ago right almost 40 years ago the property hasn't changed Bas but laws and ordinances something new that most of it um you most of the uh requirements that we're looking at are the same now as they were then that's why we see isant well Storm Water Management storm water management certainly has changed since 2007 and I think that that's going to be an issue there so so I I think and I just let me just clarify a little bit I'm not trying to again to say that well this board approved it once and you guys need to do this again yeah no I understood that's in a different bucket and it's nice for background but yeah right and I think that's the point and that's why we want to just give the background and the understanding of what what it had been and what what we've moved into so um so layout wise again we have finally then the the garage which is um on the Eastern side of the property that is in front of the house number one and number two 11.26 ft off of the front setback or from the front RightWay line uh both of those things need relief and we'll get into planning discussion as we go through here um you know the the reason for it being in this location from an engineering perspective is that this area is um again we're building It On Solid Ground we're not building it on multiple feet of fill it helps reduce the disturbance and the impacts to trees that we would otherwise have um understand that we are the front yard and that presents its own set of challenges I will note that the Finish floor on the garage is a I'm gonna flip over here finish FL on the 392 grab your microphone for the record it's a it's movable you can take I know I know I know but then I got to put it back in so the garage is at a 3922 the road's at a 402 A2 so the road's actually 10 ft higher than the finished floor on the garage the garage will be approximately 16 ft tall so really what you're going to see is roof of the garage this you know the shingle side of because you're not looking at the Gable end you're looking at the shingle side so you're looking at the slope portion of the roof and it's just six feet sitting up so it's not a garage really in the front yard it's really screened by the topography and and how it's cited on to the lot is it fair to say that that's pretty much true for the home too except for the peak above the front door primarily looking at the roof yeah so the house again is at a 396 and the road there it's a maybe a little bit lower maybe we're a 40 2 403 402 at that point maybe a half foot lower um so yeah we're significantly below the road at that point um going up to the height you probably have about 15 or so feet I think to one of the board members questions about 15 feet above the road elevation of the house and from these the architecturals look at the carry it over if we look at the uh the the West and East Elevation really the the highest part of the roof is all the way in the back so you're not you know you're being presented yes you have this little Gable in the in the front over top of the porch um but that's that's lower by a couple feet than the ultimate peak of the roof so really the the highest part is in the back which then again is exacerbated by the fact fact that the ground is dropping off so again the presentation of the house as you're driving down the road is out of a single family house set down low which is typical of all the other homes that are along the road um the house again is situated closer to the front um where it's at 20 7.99 ft to the front of the porch uh let's see oh I almost skipped right over storm water and that would have been that would have come right back at me so um from a stormw perspective the this is a minor storm water project so this is not a major development um the town has a code and a requirement for such cases of what um what needs to be done for um a development such as this and it's basically to store the the runoff from the dwelling any roof area and in this case we're collecting the driveway as well so we're collecting the roof of the house in its entirety which includes the deck because the deck has a roof over top of it the garage and the driveway along with a little bit of the the grass area with it that's going to slope in that collects into a trench strain and they're directed into a series of four dry Wells that meet the code requirements for how much storage needs to be provided um I will note a couple things um from your engineer letter uh there's a request to do testing of the drywalls to make sure they work as I said the um the applicant already had geotechnical work done they had a boring go down 20 feet right about here which is a little bit downhill kind of off the back corner of the house they the um the company did a boring that went 20 ft down and they hit water at the very bottom of it so we're well above water which somewhat expected we're up on the hill um for the septic system the testing that was done for the septic system passed very easily it's a good sandy soil um so we have full confidence in the operation of the system that it will operate correctly that um we don't have a groundwater issue and that the soils uh will drain adequately for um for the dry Wells and that they will like I said they'll they'll work and mitigate the storm water impacts from the development also note in your engineer's letter question was why are we putting them in the um in the access drive because they are located within the access drive and that's because not to go back to prior approval but in the prior approval that's where they were located and they were located that way when you read the resolution they weren't originally and they were asked to be relocated into that area um during the hearing and that was actually a a discussion point in the resolution that they be placed there so um understanding that they would have to be load rated because that is you know that would be access if somebody needed to get down to use the EAS uh for maintenance we would we would have to do that but from an ease of construction uh limiting disturbances because we're putting it in an already Disturbed area not having to take down additional trees this really is the the best location to put it just for the record that was from the 2007 approval or the original the 2007 approval yes but putting aside the 2007 approval is it your professional opinion that that's the best location for these dry Wells today yes yeah because because again it's they're big concrete tanks that you got to get down there so from a constructibility standpoint you can back them right in down the access road and put them in place it's much easier than trying to Crane it down the hill somewhere because it's already the access road it's cleared of trees so we're not taking down additional trees really we're trying to one of the things that we're trying to do here with this design with the the way it's being proposed to be constructed on peers is to really limit a lot of the disturbance limit tree removal to the extent we can obviously it's a wooded lot you can't fully avoid knocking down and having to cut down any trees but the idea here is to try and minimize and mitigate the limits of all of that but from a functionality standpoint putting aside it's easy to get them there is there a better location for them okay because it's also easier to maintain them so from a functionality standpoint it's easier to check on them it's easier to maintain them when they're here um this is a very limited use access way it will get especially here right on lot 104 it's his main driveway again it's improved so that gets used all the time because that's how they're they principally access the way that this site is laid out uh the way that the neighboring property is laid out there's no reason to access unless you have an issue with the septic so in the event that the septic would need to be replaced on either lot yes somebody would have to come come in there and they would go over it but that's not quite answering my question lied from a functionality standpoint in terms of capturing the water and do you know dispersing it the way that it's supposed to is there a better location on this property than that access road to do that no I don't think so no I mean it's again it's it is downhill of of all those improvements so it's easy enough to get the water in there without running it too far um I think it's better to have it closer to the house than it is to find another location where maybe it was further away um because you're trying to C catch the slope right so you're already making up a lot of slope you're going to have water running too quickly through pipes from from just an overall function standpoint everything it's the best location to put it and Joe you agree with that I would it say particularly you noted the test pits at that location were down 20 plus feet before hitting ground water so there's an opportunity at that location to recharge freely downward and 20 ft down in slope from that location would bring you to the elevation of the the easement as it crosses back through the property so at the rear of the property that's the elevation of the ground water so anywhere further down the slope you're inviting that groundwater to reach the water table faster okay good thank you um let's just stop there for a second give you a quick Break um my comment 32 about uh load rating yes was really as a marker in case there was a swap out on the plans when they go to construction right recognizing that you're using pre-cast structures that's what we want to see in that location so it's by marker to make sure as we go to construction they don't become ads plastic non-loaded structures based on a contractor's swap out with the the owner um for three won the the access easement I I didn't put it into my comments but I thought about it as we were discussing the evolution of how that came to be is that is there a deed description to it or is it just a a a Murphy's and Hollow special um on the file map I haven't been able to find I actually thought I found an easan and then from the 2007 PL back it's 1985 PL that's 1986 similar to the chest run Jan easement actually so I thought I found an easement in favor of the township for this entire track but then it turned out Chris looked at more carefully he actually needs to bounce and realized that it was just for there's a right here on the corner of lot a drainage eement 103 there's a drainage easement and that's that was filed okay so so they did file easements just not that one so I guess it's a question both to the attorney and the engineer uh in your research would you say there's anything that's prohibitive to this easement being to all parties for Access and maintenance of their Lots uh I don't think so since the map is filed albe it without any verbiage to go along with it but it clearly delineates um you know where the where the path of the easement is uh these Lots were created by this map so they're certainly Bound by it uh so in a perfect world uh there probably should have been some easement and maybe there is and we just haven't been able to find it yet since the other one exists okay but we understand it to be an easement cross access and maintenance between all the lots of 1985 subdivision right so there's no issue with this applicant then accessing for the purpose of maintaining his structures not that I can see okay I would agree with that proceed all right and then I think finally to point out is there are a number of walls on the that are proposed as part of the development there is one wall located to the south of the driveway as you're entering in which does have a 30-in tall wood guide rail on it there is a wall located on the north side of the driveway between the driveway and the right of way which extends and then connects back into the rear of the garage and then finally there's a wall that comes from the corner of the garage the southwest corner of the garage uh wrapping around the driveway and then coming back into the house um and those walls all exceed the 4 foot for the front which would be the wall on the north side of the driveway and the 6 foot for the side and rear which would be the other two walls um height restrictions that are in your ordinance um I'm going to stop there on engineering let me ask you a question before you stop can you address the conservation Zone issue that was raised by the board professionals I was going to do that as part of planning but I can do that here as well clarify it from engineering perspective you know what to what degree do we anticipate violating that it has to do as I understand it really with removal of trees and that sort of thing not just disturbance in general but you can tell me if I'm wrong and if so to what degree that we're in violation of it in the first place that we need variance R so the the as I understand the reading of it the conservation easement and I actually think written out all all properties with Frontage on roads as designated on the zoning map which uh this road is on the zoning map so designated shall provide a 75 foot wide conservation easement along said Road in which no existing vegetation shall be disturbed except as needed for site access site triangles or any other purpose deemed necessary by the approving Authority which would be you um there are a couple of trees that are proposed to be removed with pin that's 75 ft uh you have two below the garage you have one under the driveway and we have three in the rear here which are helping um to effectuate the installation and the construction of the house and the septic system um so we are obviously disturbing within the first 75 ft and building structures within the first 75 ft um I would say that if you look at every other house along the road they're all right up in that same you know built in that same way um as what we are proposing it's a little bit more planning but we are we are even though I I have no objection in fact would ask that the board if approving this application in general approve this variant uh in your professional opinion are we actually violating it or are we only removing trees when necessary for the reasons included in this definition well it says for Access and sight distance and again the ones under the house are not for access the one under the garage the two under the garage I wouldn't say are necessarily for Access um so I think there would be relief required here yeah I think that's fair I think that's fair then what I would suggest is we keep things compartmentalized and I have nothing further for Mr ner on [Music] engineering all us I just got a quick clarification um the retaining wall Heights can you just list those for Us locations and and Heights of them again yes absolutely so uh the front retaining wall which is the one to the north of the driveway between the drive driveway and the RightWay line is proposed at 7.22 FT time out I thought Mr zo said at the beginning 7.22 wasn't accurate you were changing the height of that no that's not that's not the wall it's different yeah it's the other it's the other okay so on the the wall on the entrance to the driveway here which is under the side and rear yard where so the standard is 6 feet um that wall is 7.59 Ft however with the 30in tall rail brings it to 10.09 Ft 10.09 10.09 okay and then the wall between the garage and the house on the south side of the driveway is 6.44 Ft uh we don't show a rail on it uh but we should show a rail on it yeah let's just go B yeah um so that instead of 6.44 Ft should be an 8.94 ft relief request to accommodate how high a rail you talking about 30 inch so the it's a 2 and a half foot high wood wood rail so it's just so that's a vehicular guard rail speak yes would it be prudent to ask this board to allow something higher in the event of you talked about the basketball scenario so we don't have a human being falling off 2 and half foot is not going yeah I think at at that point we'd be we're 6 and2 ft above ground so we need a 42 in rail like if it's a deck it would be 42 inch so that' bring us to 9.54 I think that's safer yeah so we would have this wall would be 9.54 this would be 10.09 MH the wall up by the entrance and then the final wall would be 7.22 and that's located more towards the again the end of the driveway and where the where the shed is understood not the shed sorry the garage so we'll have we'll have a 30in tall guide rail at the garage wall along with which would you do it as a higher guide rail or as essentially a fence I think we'd have to discuss how we We Do It um it could be to the height of the 40 it would be yeah we would provide something that would be full Protection full fall protection to be 42 in in height and then in front of it some sort of vehicular barrier right right to prevent any uh impact right damage yeah because the the rail itself would be climbable yes by any child is my kids would probably jump off immediately first thing they would go to yes every time oh I did want to give um one one thing about the size of the garage um I think you had a question about is it is it enough space and is is there room I have a pickup truck not a full-size pickup truck but it's 19 feet long and I fit it in my garage um in a spot that's 20 feet long um it's tight she lived in hob too never actually but just kid but in you know so this that's in a 20 foot space I have it in there um I I just redid the reorganization of my garage my wife God bless her let me do it so you know um that microphone's turning red I think we need more batteries already okay yeah already you have to test the no it's not quite dead yet so I I would just say that you know I I manage storage space within there um despite having the my rather large truck within that space said that's 20 ft and we're looking at 24 dep right we have four more feet of depth in there which is you keep all your home maintenance stuff in there too and athletic equipment bikes the whole the yeah so I mean there's there's space within there to to fit especially you get that extra four feet there's more than enough room to fit all that all that and then the circulation outside of the garage for par turn around we hear it something wrong with about um yeah it's there's there's room to turn around within that if you have your cars in the garage and then you have guests come over you know the guest would have to move their car for you'd be able to come out of the garage but but it's doable it's turn around and pull out everything yeah yeah we certainly don't want anybody backing up you got it how's the Ingress and the egress from the end of the driveway onto the road so there's big plenty of sight distance along the road um you know we're we're coming up and we're almost we kind of the the driveway from the neighboring lot here to the left he actually comes over the property line um just a a touch so we are we're coming out right right about at the same spot as where where that comes out um and trying to get it as perpendicular as we can to the road um it's not perfectly perpendicular but there's there's room in there to be able to make movement left right to come in um so okay and there's efficient sight distance on the near the near side traveling eastbound that you can make the 90 plus degree turn yes yeah I think the one of the concerns I had with the original location of the driveway it was probably offset by about 15 by original I mean the 2007 approved location of the driveway it was um probably about 15 ft off of um kson across the street there and it just the ability to have bad interactions is higher when you're that close and you don't have separation so they you know get it further away push it down the road okay okay question about the trees that you brought up so it appears there are further back on the property uh about nine trees you're moving is that correct that's yeah yes that's correct why why why those nine trees that's to support the installation of the septic field okay um and you may look at it and say well this guy's pretty far away why don't you leave him alone the problem is the way the code reads the setic code you go from the drip line of the tree and you got to keep 10 feet off of the field because the drip line is where the roots are and you don't want the roots to be in the system it'll just clog it up um and lead for it to fail so unfortunately uh you know those those trees would have to be removed but you know we did our best to limit the limit the um the impacts how many trees in total are you [Music] removing 15 okay thank you total yeah and that's to accommodate the garage and the house garage the house the driveway driveway okay yeah so those are upon necessity you have to do those yes and like I said and was going to get into it a little bit more in the planning testimony but again I think I said it already once that kind of the goal here was to keep it compact to limit that those impacts you know not step out with walls off of the house where you need to do more tree removal you'd have more impacts um so just trying to keep it keep it condensed and keep the number of trees that have to go to a minimum sorry can I go back to the walls yes um just want to make sure that our engineer Joe you're satisfied with fences and protection on all retaining walls is that there's no fall hazards yeah so down the down the slope of the driveway entering that wall will have the the guide rail protection and then at the level area of the driveway nearest the garage it would be a combination of a guide Rail and then fall protection okay so one is to prevent cars from going over the side both will have car Lo that'll handle like you said handle a load of a vehicle or whatever it is yeah so and then the other ones for for like you said like your own children might be attracted to that certainly right C would might definitely would yeah definitely definitely would uh by by code those walls will require fall protection so to get through construction permits okay they'll need fall protection on this this one wall um what's the height that requires the protection in this I think it's over 30 in you need to have shorter shorter Rail and then and then over foot over four and a half four four and a half you need to go to the three and a half foot rail okay so that'll also come out that'll also flush out in the the the code per review um the the guide rails right they're called guide rails for a reason they are to guide a vehicle yeah they are not guard rails they are guide rails and so they are never intended to prevent a car from or any impact from exceeding through them but they are a preventative measure best we can put so then you know as part of my my comment regarding the stability calculations for those walls yeah and we would just noted that there will be an assessment of a reasonable impact to those walls to make sure that if they are struck the wall Integrity is not compromised by you know a car keming off of them okay thank you do we uher uh any more questions for the engineer I'm about engineering yeah are you done with your questions I'm good okay uh remember the oh before you you go um we had a member of the public obviously going to ask you who lives downhill yes the water runoff issue are you uh confident saying that you're going to make it better than it is in natural the condition I would say it's always a very tough thing to ask somebody to say that you're going to make it better um you're not going to make it worse certainly not going to make it worse uh we are taking steps to as I said mitigate it I think the permeability of the soils that I've seen based on the testing that it will work better than really what the minimum is that the ordinance is looking for um the size of the system is more than the minimum not terribly you know higher than what the minimum is I think so you're C you're essentially C cing all the runoff water from the structures you're putting on that property anything south of those structures is going to be natural runoff that would have been there anyway that's correct okay yes can I ask you a question about that yes what happens to the water that falls from the sky or comes off of Long Hill Road where the garage is where the garage is proposed or the driveway is proposed or the house is proposed right now what happens to that water right now uh anything that hits lill Road there's um it's curbed so it's running west on this page down um and and continues on and either goes down the driveway of lot one um to the west or would continue down Long Hill Road to whatever the next Inlet is or place for it to go down uh the area between the garage and the and the road it's a pretty small area that would ultimately get collected through what's happening right now the EXs before you put a garage before you put a driveway just coming straight down the hill runs down the hill yes as expected yes okay and then you're proposing to capture some of that yes and mitigate that correct so would it improve the situation oh absolutely yeah and I think one of the things to to look at is with anytime you have um water run off it's it's not just the volume of the water it's the rate of the water it's how quickly it gets there um and the longer you can give it to go through a space the more likely it is to go into the ground and get absorbed and so we're cutting off water at the top and slowing that down so you're not getting a rush over top of what is going on otherwise so you're kind of you're cutting off that whole upper portion of it um you did your testing soil tting put in that wasn't you to hit rock or shell you actually said you had a sand type of they they had a sand I mean it did further down it did change into like a a like a stier sand at a little bit more depth but you know up in that upper area it was it was Sandy which was consistent with what the soil logs for the septic were as well so just you you mentioned and Jerry's question about when the current situation the water on L Hill Road runs to the west down and then eventually it meets a point at the neighbor lot one their driveway it will run down it currently runs down their driveway because I assume their driveway is sloped as well so the water from Long Hill runs past this for the most part because it's curbed and then to a place where there is no curb right and to be perfectly Fair um memory serving me is you know I don't have that picture perfectly in my head of what the driveway is if they have a little hump at the beginning of their driveway to keep the water going down Long Hill Road I would imagine that when they had a p i mean if it was me when I was getting it paved and granted I am the engineer um I'd be very particular to make sure that the water on Long Hill Road stayed there okay so is that the intent in building this drive way to create something like a a hum yeah we don't we don't want the water to come yeah I know that's why I'm asking right and come towards his lot and come towards the wall you know that that's going in so the idea would be to keep the water where it's going now which is out on L Hill Road So when you say when we're talking about the coming off the driveway onto Long Hill Road not only will there be a slope a little bit of a upward there's going to be little bit of a bump as well yeah there'll just be a little bump right at the the top of the driveway to keep the water out on the road okay it looks like there's essentially a 401 Contour running across from the existing edge of curb as you go then West towards the far side of the neighbor's driveway so it's holding a constant elevation of gutter through there but there isn't a pronounced hump because you'd be  up in grade than to then drop back down into a steep slope of a driveway so it's you know it's really it's a Feathering when they get out there to build it yeah and I think M maybe two in yeah cuz you got to be careful of getting a car with any normal sedan clearance forget the getting through you know we don't have to get Ed's cars in there old car I think you know part of it is is the survey where they're taking shots is you know they're not getting the the super detail of it but you know for us yes we don't want like a big curb on it we don't want a big jump we because then every bit we go up we have to come back down too so um you know we want to keep that to a minimum but we do want to get it enough up that it keeps the water going where it needs to go since we are here when the cold weather comes and the snow comes and we've had two good Winters and we've been lucky but we're going to be hit with one sooner or later it's coming yeah the incline um a regular sedan or even a truck I'm not sure what you drive sir um will'll be able to make that and get up to the road safely he's got a Hummer with tracks on it cool yeah brought that back from Afghanistan didn't you um yes yeah I mean 12 and a half% on a pave Drive is is is very doable I mean it's not great but it's not you know terrible I have a colleague who's got a driveway somehow got built at 23% w um and and that's a little bit of a bear to get out of um you know when it snows or if it's icy mhm you know 10 to 15% is kind of the limit where you want it to be on a pave driveway which is why we tried to get it down to 12 and a half% to get as minimal as we can we're trying to cut that slope down noting that exact situation there's a reason the guardrails set about 2T back from the driveway Edge so there's room for the snow to go yeah uh when you clear it that there's a place for it to be um so you don't have it then coming into the uh the driveway so yes 12 and a half% is is manageable slope for winter for weather thank you very much and when I drive along Long Hill Road and I see some of those driveways I'm like I guess you're taking the week off yeah he does work from home on days like that my colleague okay okay any other questions from board oh can I just just sure just for clarity the dry Wells that you're uh proposing are are some in excess of what is required by code yes I think the way the 3.6 yeah so in the engineering memo number 3.6 the required per the township calculation would be 29.54 feet of height of dry well and we are 32 okay thank you thanks okay um does one question Mr chairman um are are you guys going to be complying with uh just because we're on engineering uh Mr vo's memo dated uh August 30th 2024 all the conditions in there uh reading the dryw for h-20 UHS all this stuff we didn't take exception to anything in there the only thing I would ask would be the the testing since we did do some testing if we could do maybe confirmatory at the time of installation just the sheer fact of getting a piece of equipment down here um just to confirm yeah do we I can provide some documentation documents on on the prior obviously you can't certify them because they weren't done by you or your Associates right but I can say you know I can provide you a letter saying I've reviewed this information and that and and with that it the condition could be loosened to at the time of construction we provide inspection for your contractor so I we do that on lock rating permits and and others so knowing that there's confirmation behind the 20 foot test pit that was done in that location then I can inspect at the time of installation just to observe that there's no groundwater and we could is that acceptable okay we're talking about comment 3.8 with the yeah that would be 3.8 okay yeah so I'm sorry what are you suggesting as an alter the submission of Prior logs by other Engineers okay for verification of the testimony in combination with my inspection at time of time of installation read that last part one more time my inspection at time of installation your inspection Township Engineers inspection yeah Township engineer as opposed to board Engineers inspection in case there were to be a political wind that changed okay okay um on that point Liz do you want to wait to get to your memo until it's plan testim okay yes because I want to uh uh the member of the public do you still have a question for this witness yeah we'll stand up and come on up and ask just identify yourself again for the record yeah Jean Smith 205 Mountain Avenue and Gillette thank you so go ahead and ask you a question yeah so um I know stand closer to the mic so okay yes I'm sorry uh just to let you know my background I'm the lot to the Southwest on the south side and before golden developed those properties I've lived there since 1976 never had a flood I'm I'm very sorry it's it's got to be questions otherwise I have to swear you in yeah yeah you have a question oh is just background a little bit of background is okay but little background is okay don't tou don't get to I'm going to get to the question yeah all right uh once he developed the property and the curve you were talking about um on Long Hill Road was a big issue because he developed it from his house all the way to the furthest west one that dumped water down that me I spent tens of thousands of dollars and and remedial work to divert that water catch basins French drains pipe work be safe why don't we goad going to do a Mr Z but yeah we're going to swe you all right I need your raise your right hand thank you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide would be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth yes I do please proceed so now you can give us more background and then ask question you got do that legally so so I understand that that you know engineering is is a you know there's a design there's an there's an implementation and then there's um maintenance which is a problem I spoke to the town for after that flooding started 15 years I I tried to get the town engineer and the county to do something about it nothing was done so I had to spend all that money and try to continue to divert the water damaging my property extensively and flooding it um then they finally came and took put an easement down on the U on the other side of um what would be the his property um Mr K's property Mr Henry's property and um they said they were going to improve my Swale and twot retaining wall by putting this uh drainage pipe in from L Hill Road which is catches the where the where the break is in the curb catches that in a man in a in a storm drain and takes it down the easement to to Mountain Avenue so in order to uh eliminate my Swale that was two foot deep and and my bulkhead that kept the water from coming finally over they put a Swale in only one foot and two drains in and here's my point about all this drainage the drains and who know what he maintains them so in this case you have these um four drywalls as soon as uh the um gutters clog on on Mr Henry's house who's gonna who's going to deal with the runoff so we glossed over some of the things within the engineer M as I just said get closer to get Clos to the mic um I we glossed over some of the things in the engineer's memo because I just said yes we agree to that uh but that includes I think the original application sorry not the original application the 2007 application again for background um they were required to put in gutter guards uh but now the township doesn't allow you to just put in gutter guards you have to have like the the cap covers on it so the leaves don't get in and don't clog it because even the gutter guards the gutter guards just give you another spot where you're cleaning out the mess they don't really ever solve it the gutter helmets the helmets thank you just going to go searching in memo for it appreciate it um so you have the gutter helmets on there to to keep the debris out of those of the gutters um there's maintenance requirements that the applicant will have to make sure that the you know the systems aren't getting logged up so there are procedures in place um the world's a much different place in 1986 um the township engineer the board engineer when he puts his other hat on and becomes Township engineer they inspect this when this goes in to ensure Conformity with the plans that drals actually go in that the gutter helmets are actually installed so there's checks and balances on it um and and a little bit more is done to address those issues because those are you wouldn't be the only person to have a pro have that problem um there's a reason that the the township has change the rules as as times progress to to react to those different situations to make sure that these systems that they're requiring are doing what they're supposed to do yeah I see them sorry I see them mostly not doing what they're required to do right now the drain and on the Mountain Avenue side is clogged from that that drainage that we were just talking about so can I ask you a question yes here the one that was done like recent times like five or six years ago yes it is the township funded that right right then they bought the easement NE from uh already cloged I mean it's already well the drain is totally blocked so not addressing that if you called them well who's who's supposed to maintain that D call down the public works the DPW they usually come around after the rain cuz what's happening like you said you got a cover of leaves and debris over it it's mud there mud it's mud I from if correct me if I'm not mistaken the dry Wells aren't susceptible to that same clogging cuz they're getting the water coming under and into them except for the gutters potentially but they don't have that same thing for the great uh gets clocked oh I understand that yeah but I see gutter guards all the time that don't work you know those gter helmets do work I had them on my house they actually do work well with all these trees High trees that we have I see them not working and um so the the purpose of that section of our Co code is to re to specifically require pre-treatment right um to make sure that the infiltration systems are not then clogged the pipes the conveyance so along with that then it's items 39 and 310 in my letter um that as well as an ensuring that the system is adequately maintained as a minor development um I cannot impose the requirement of deed restricting maintenance like a major development can but by having these conditions in in my letter and then becoming compliance after the fact they are then uh a code enforcement hook for lack of better term if you were to have issues and downstream detriment on your property come to the township engineer or the code enforcement official and there is an opportunity for us to then inspect and issue and a violation for maintenance if that maintenance is not being done specifically to cleaning the gutters and and the devices that may have then accumulated um and also the dryw itself being inspected and and then maintain because I also noticed on his um down spouts they have a a default outfall for if the down spout yeah there would be an an overflow right to right to a splash block that would go right to my property so that the the overflow will still be there MH and the requirement of the code um is 4 in runoff from from the attributable areas so every impervious surface in this site is proposed to be captured and conveyed to the the drywalls there's roughly 108 and a half or so percent um over the required so there's a couple vertical feet of additional Factor safety built in so in a storm that occurs within 4 in of roundoff there's adequate capacity in the drywalls to hold that enti of that storm over those improved areas if there is five six or greater inch storms the dryw is at capacity and then the conveyance system up to those down spouts is is at capacity there will be an overflow at that location and that is is per specifically permitted for the minor development that is kind of The Benchmark of the standard and you're designing 6 in Cutters or or 4 in or 5 in I but that's not your they'll be yeah those would be speced at the time of construction permit because uh five five inch won't really do the job uh and then in the driveway situation um I I've been up there a number of times on Long Hill Road when when it's heavy raining and that 2-in bump is not going to stop the water from going in his driveway is there going to be a catch Basin in his driveway that there's no catch Basin propos ready for floods would would a catch Basin uh perform adequately well the problem with the the problem with any of that is there has to be a place to send it okay and the place to send it has to be downhill and the only place downhill is towards you so you know I think we'll we'll have to look and see what we can manage and what we can do about maybe making it a little bit taller to make sure the water trench train you say won't work because you're afraid of where you got to send it well I have to it need to connect into something connected to something yeah um and I can't put a Tren strain in the right of way and then convey it down the street because it's the town's Road I can't just start putting drainage in I'm sorry I'm not understanding the discussion can you put a catch Basin at the bottom of the driveway and then direct that into your we are we are doing that already we are doing that already the bottom oh yeah so catch Bas at the bottom of the driveway that goes into the retention bits pits correct oh there okay the trench drain yeah so everything that comes down the driveway will gu will make it to that system oh okay so there is something the concern would be that that that system is sized it's greated to come in right that that system is sized for the impervious area of the two roofs and the driveway so you're directing the additional well the concern here is Municipal runoff in the right of way entering through the curb cut okay so the only way point of capture would be at the mouth of the driveway right but it's all all the waterers um directed toward that area by the slope of the everything on site right all the impervious ons sites collected on yeah but anything that comes on from the street is also going to be directed down it gets directed there but it's not sized for it would be it's not sized for the 50 Foot of the right away Li the curve too H didn't you say that earlier that there's Aur a little bit of a curb well what I was saying is when we install it we would install it with a lip and d and yeah the point the point was that 2 in isn't really going to cut right right so if we can again same thing the higher we can go the better but there's a limitation to you put a pipe under the driveway where it meets the road well the again the problem is is where does it how does the water get in there and where does it go keeps going yeah but it's going to be it's it'll be at subgrade level right so it really would so the the only way would be to Tren basically construct an upgradient Basin and then convey down down lill to the next available storm sewer which would be essentially the length of the neighbor's property' be off trck improvements that are not yeah not not not a trigger point of minor development then we're we're talking about off track improvements that are more equatable to major major right multi house yeah okay um or if somebody was subdividing and building multiple General engineering the um I know I think of this it doesn't bother me so much but uh they have to they've had deal with it with Mountain Avenue they they get a discharge on that sand layer and I know which sand layer you're going to there like a 2 in to 4 in layer of sand like a sheet and it carries the water out onto Mountain Avenue that's why they get that slick spot in in the bend all the time and if if that's charged more with this that might only make that worse you know they tried to do that with a a French train years ago it doesn't really solve the problem so I don't know if that's the sand layer that's going to be charged by these dry Wells there's something that was put in to direct the w no I think it's the you're saying it's the the natural yeah that's the natural yeah you're going to you might charge that part of the glacial overburden essentially over the rock on Hill hits the surface now and put it right into that sand layer going to shoot out there the natural daylighting of the groundwater at topography and there's no there'd be no more water falling from the sky so it would be no more water other than what's you know there's a bit running off off but yeah maybe there's a little bit more going into the ground that me it's not going to go off that discharge usually happens days after rain and it just as as the ground weeps it comes out on the road so you know I think that over the charging it more so by you know not just what permeated naturally but now you're you're sending it right through that layer it might might just be a consideration but think about any other questions for the that's good thank you thank you very much okay um are you done with your engineering aspect of it I am can we take a five minute break certainly can real quick ex other gentlemen in the oh yes do you have any questions of the engineer okay Mr chair you'll have questions with your planner or as a five minutes will make oh okay minutes bring us to 10:30 oh that's right yeah I didn't realize it was so late yes I can uh be very expeditious in my testimony all right then I'm not going to take a break I was not even realizing the time it yeah we should probably all right do I have motion to extend to quarter to 11 so moved second second all in favor I okay we're extending the qued 11 all right be quick thank you I appreciate it speaking as a planner speaking as a planner now hat turned so again we have um I'm just going to reiterate the relief we have a D6 variance for the building height where twostory 35 ft is required we are twostory 5512 feet proposed so we exceed by more than 10 feet or 10% both in this case um we have bulk relief for the front yard which is proposed at 7.99 ft where 35 was allowed for the subdivision and 75 was required by Zone the accessory front yard is 75 ft required same as the front yard 11.26 is proposed and it is also located in front of the principal building which is relief 35 75 orinal well it's 75 per the Zone MH um there is relief for the critical area um was going to make a point but maybe we'll just skip it in here uh one is Construction in a critical area because we are building within a critical area because the whole lot is a critical area uh number two is minimum contiguous non-critical land I don't believe that actually applies because it's Lots created after the date of the um ordinance that ordinance was from 2006 and the lot was from 1986 so that shouldn't apply but don't check here nor there uh we seek the relief if necessary uh maximum coverage in non-critical land where that number is 70% again if I wanted to be pedantic about it we actually don't have any non-critical land so we don't exceed the 70% but it was relief that was previously granted in 2007 so we seek that as well uh the crit can I stop you right there I I thought the entire lot was critical land it is so there is no non-critical area on the lot so the 70% coverage limit is 70% coverage of the non-critical land I don't have any I would seek the variance yeah we're just seeking the variance just seek the variance what he just explained is a seek and you shall complicated way to say he's going to make a C1 for that not a C2 for that that's right thank you I'm trying to be not complicated about it but I'm failing I see uh critical area setbacks uh where front and rear you need to be 50 ft from critical area and side you need to be 25 obviously whole lot is critical area um the maximum retaining wall Heights as we talked about front yard where four is required 7.22 proposed the sidey yard side and rear where 6ot is required we are 10.09 for the one at the entrance driveway and the one between the house and the garage 9.54 ft and then for not providing the 75 ft wide conservation easement now I will stay on script and I have one page to read so we should be um like I said fairly expeditious the standard for the D6 is whether the site can accommodate the problems associated with the increase in height as was found in the prior application while not binding um that while tall in the rear elevator it would not be especially visible to neighboring owners to the rear and would have a low profile along the street Frontage again the purpose of having height restrictions is to maintain especially in residential neighborhoods um your frontages to make sure all the houses look uniform as you go down the street this application does that we do meet um the same basic profile of the houses along the street we're not overly tall we're actually probably shorter than most of the houses going along the street as viewed from the road um the main issue here again is because of the slopes on the property so the the lot obviously can handle the problems associated with the increase in height I think it's a very clever way of constructing the house on peers so that it um you know limits the disturbances on the property uh there's no negative impacts on the public good or nor will it substantially impair the intent and purpose of your master plan um because we are consistent with the other adjacent homes um not just on the front elevation but on the rear elevation as the houses on either side of us are four stories um on their rears as well the bulk variances are all at least slightly hardships uh due to the topographic conditions on the property the critical area relief so building in a critical area the area setbacks and whether the other two apply or don't um as well as the retaining wall Heights are all clear C1 hardships uh because of the topography the lot has no non-critical areas as I said before has an average slope of 3 to one front to rear so it's not possible to comply um retaining walls have to be built to be able to give a level area to put a car on it um and on a 3:1 slope being maximum permitted the average is 3:1 the only way to accommodate that is with with taller retaining walls the remaining relief is a better zoning alternative driven by the topography um the placement of the structures and the lack of the conservation easement results actually in less disturbance of the critical slopes and of trees over alternatives such as the prior alternative this advances several purposes of zoning namely um a the general welfare by having less impervious U Less potential erosion from less disturbance and I to provide a desirable visual environment because again we're doing this so that we're consistent with the other homes in the area as I mentioned earlier where the house is being placed although it is um forward of the 75 ft that's required it's consistent with the other houses that were constructed along the road so you'll have a consistency with that the only house that's slightly South down slope is actually the property to the East and the reason for that is because he has the axis eement that comes through his property so he can't build in front of it so he's building just behind it uh which is why he's slightly further south um I looked away and I lost my place um no actually I just went right to it um and and again with with these bulk variances there continues to be no negative impact on the public good or substantial impairments the intent and purpose of the master plan um the master plan would want consistency in the development of the homes alone the road uh which this does it would want to preserve critical areas to the maximum extent practicable which this application also does do um on the whole we understand this is a very difficult lot to develop however it's my opinion that the application presented by you was well thought out um to address the the concerns of storm water management from the neighbors construction concerns um again limiting impacts to the maximum extent practicable while providing a usable um lot not just to the minimum but something that's usable for not just this applicant but anybody who would own the home in the future so I think uh it's my opinion that these variances can be granted by the board again without any negative impacts any questions for our planner uh no I I would agree um with uh the applicants planner engineer I think the board could potentially look at all of the the variances aside from the D6 height variance as a C1 hardship variance this is a very difficult site a lot of if if they were to they have to have a garage for the ordinance so that creates issues um that you know but they have to have the garage so that that um you know triggers variances there are things where you know you have to have the house closer because if you didn't then you'd be as as was testified to way earlier on you're doing a 100 foot drop over over you know the length I guess of the of the law right so there are um certainly a very difficult site to work with so I think you know as a C1 variant I know the applicant um indicated that you there were sort of c2s driven by topography but I think you could probably say all of it with C1 because this is just such a difficult site I do have some other questions very quickly unrelated to the the proofs but just some couple things I forgot to ask initially one is that I know the um potential owner was saying that he May um have some mechanical HVAC equipment if that is the case will it be screened yes okay yeah um um when you I guess do compliance plans I guess um I had some something in here about how to to just denote the areas of the steep slopes and the aages well and I yeah I saw that and and the reason that we didn't put that on there was because it's just the whole the whole thing's over 15% CU you're looking at that 10 foot prise set so it's it's everything so I didn't do the normal shading yeah because I think it's worth it I think it's worth doing it just to just to put it on just do a table the way you you have done in other applications okay um then I wanted to ask and I should have asked um Mr Henry um that uh what will be or what are you proposing for the materials and the colors of the um of the house cuz I know you you presented a garage which was just sort of um generic generic thank you yeah they would be is this yeah it's on should they would be fairly tame Earth Tones uh vertical planks it's nothing too crazy okay um and with the garage match the main house the garage would match the house okay um and then one question I had just uh I'll be very quick with this but you know the conservation easement I think is to sort of protect or you know uh preserve that sort of bucolic view down L Hill Road for all the reasons we've already talked about it's very difficult to place the building or any of the buildings on site further back but you don't on any of the what I've seen so far you haven't proposed any Landscaping along Long Hill Road and I understand that there is a retaining wall there you've got your garage you've got the driveway is there a potential for some green plantings yeah it's particularly because there is a retaining wall yeah there certainly is I mean we just didn't go into a single family house not something we typically put Landscaping on like would you be aable to um on your compliance plans putting some Landscaping along there okay thank you that's it any questions from the board about the plan aspect I'm sorry Liz for the the Landscaping out front um would that need to be in accordance with Section 153 or are we doing something separate that wouldn't be fully up to the ordinances my reading of 153 was that it's not really geared towards single family residential um and it would just be something to we would so Landscaping subject review the best way to do it delegated to our planner is that yes to the planner and the engineer I think just because professionals yes species I yes in terms of totally okay fine with that okay any questions from the board about the planning t Okay um and just one question on that Liz obviously you're thinking screening and protection from the wall and everything else is that that's right softening the law you don't want to be looking at retaining wall necessarily you know so as any Landscaping that can sort of pretend you know whatever it is low shrubs anything um from the from the roads side you are not looking at that retaining wall though cuz that it's retaining the other way down yeah it's retaining the driveway not the not the road no I'm well then I'm a little so put it at the base of whatever retaining wall on the other well but then it would be I mean it would just be into the driveway for what is this okay that wall yeah that wall what the top of that wall is at is below the street level the street level yeah from the street you're looking at the tops of every wall okay um but you know if there's some I mean we granted we have the garage the side of the garage it's 11 feet up so you know putting some Shrubbery in there would would soften the view of the of the I think it would it would be an attempt to meet the intent of the conservation easement which obviously is I mean it's difficult to meet yeah C appeal yeah so buer the view of the building and just talking about what what you see walk and driv going down the road you want to see some more vegetation I think everybody wins on that because again you have a road coming in so you're going to want some shrubs and you're going to want some stuff in there absorb some water right right you would ALS it'll pick up some of the water and and it'll block headlights coming in windows at night so okay um taking we have no other questions from the board uh Fred would you like like to you know know what oh yes does any member of the public wish to make comments or questions um closing it to the public then um are are you done with your testimony I'm done uh Mr zi would you like to have any comments one of the benefits of having a planner is I don't need to sum up because he just did it okay fine upon our plan's testimony we thank you for staying with us this evening okay we appreciate a positive vote okay um would you uh do a summary yeah I got you Mr chairman okay um as always I'll make the the disclaimer if I get anything wrong or you know everyone feel free to jump in and correct me as as needed if needed hopefully not um okay so the applicant here is Seeking a D6 height variance to permit the proposed dwelling to stand at a height of 55.2 fet as measured from its rear elevation whereas the maximum permitted principal dwelling height in the R2 zone is 35 ft that's our D6 uh number of bulks uh starting with ible dwelling front yard setback 75 ft is the minimum required at the proposing 27.99 um accessory structure front yard setback that's for the detach garage minimum required is 75 ft they're proposing 11.26 ft uh the next is the uh location of the accessory structure relative to the principal dwelling the ordinance requires that any accessory structure be to the rear of of the front of the pr of a principal dwelling they're proposing it to the front of the principal dwelling here um next is for the location of structures within critical steep slope areas as you've heard from the testimony the entire property is a critical area um you're not the ordinance prohibits any you location of any structures within a steep slope critical area and they're essentially proposing to locate all structures in in such an area um next is for contiguous non-critical land area with access to a public strip Street for a lot with a septic system um again they can't comply with the 20,000 ft minimum requirement here because the entire property is uh critical area um next I'm probably going to need a little bit of help with this this is the lot coverage within non-critical areas variance uh what are you permitted 70% maximum coverage Liz could you jump in and help me out here I'm sorry correct they're permitted 70% but I think what their argument was we we have 0% that's not critical area but I think they still should just seek the VAR so you get as a as a clean up 7% in an area that is non-critical non-critical and so a critical area they have no coverage you can't there's there's no permitted coverage but we have no non-critical area in a critical area there's no you can't put any coverage it's really not applicable because they don't exist but I have no problem with listing the variant okay and the see to your point that was the first the first one in there is no doing anything in a non-critical area critical area yeah right sorry nothing in right it's the maximum coverage in the non-critical yeah go ahead yeah okay all right moving right along uh principal dwelling front and rear yard setb back from a critical area um 50 ft is a minimum requirement from both both sides um they're providing zero feet uh principal dwelling side yard setback from a critical area the minimum required here is uh 25 ft again zero feets provided because the entire property is a critical area um retaining wall height for the one located closest to the street in the front yard uh the maximum permitted height there would be 4 feet the proposing 7.22 feet um retaining wall height in a East I'm sorry in a side and rear yard this is the one that's on the Eastern side of the property uh the maximum permitted height here would be six the proposing 9.54 ft same variance but for the other retaining wall on the west side of the property um again 6 feet is the maximum permitted they're proposing 10.09 ft and then finally the last uh requested variance uh the ordinance requires you to provide a 75 foot conservation easement from the right of way they're not proposing to provide any such easement uh yeah so that's that one um as far as conditions go I believe they stipulated to everything in uh our board planner Liz leen's memo dated uh August 29th 2024 with the exception of comment 8 which was that they would provide Landscaping in accordance with Section 153 of the ordinance instead they've agreed to uh provide landscape screening subject to the Rie and approval of the board professionals a little bit more leeway there um next they agreed to comply with all the conditions in uh board engineer Joe vo's memo dated August 3 30 2024 with the exception of uh 3.8 that was with the permit logs so let me just go back to my notes because I wrote this down uh okay yeah they would instead of complying with 3.8 they're going to submit the prior logs that were uh provided by other engineering firms um and in conjunction uh the township engineering department will inspect the site at the time of construction I got that right y wow okay wow I'm impressed with myself thought um so that's it for the memos there were other couple a few other conditions I picked up during the hearing uh first is that they would revise the plans to show the correct locations of the peers that are supposed to support the proposed dwelling uh top I'm sorry you also mentioned topographical if you want right just just in the within the compliance plans that um yeah that theyd be clear with the even though it's 100% critical area I still think it should be shown in a was that in your memo Liz yes it was in your memo okay so it's in cap okay I got it um another another couple things here with me got that one already any mechanical equipment will be appropriately screened in Liz's memo oh it's already cover oh it's already in the memo y it's in there yeah um the only other even better the only other one I picked up was that the exterior of the garage would match the exterior of the dwelling in terms of architectural appearance and I think that's was testify too so that's it uh we need five votes motion second roll call and then we need uh five votes yes for an approval and then uh you know it's because it's a D6 variance you need to you know the super majority so um I don't know Mr zelli you know we we have six do you want a straw poll or do you want to normal procedure is for people to make comments before the vote and we just have an opportunity to make or not request want it out vot after comment okay okay do I have a motion to extend the meeting to 10 minutes to 11 five minutes to 11 good okay moved so moved okay we're 5 minutes till 11 okay Jerry would you like to start sure I'll start um first of all as as our planner pointed out there plan pointed out it's a very challenging situation here um I don't think there's anything you can do with the lot as their attorney said if we can't develop it then it has to be purchased by someone so I mean it's economically I guess not feasible to do that um so it has to be developed I think that they came with a good plan um and they considered the environmental impact and they tried to minimize that with the design of the building and the trees and the water collection that was I guess mandated by our by ordinance but they still made a good effort I think um I think they're dealing the best they can with this the height ordinance is a pet peeve of mine when it's violated in most instances but in this it's unavoidable anywhere you go on long road on the southide you have to violate the height ordinance to build a building so they're challenged there there's nothing they can do it's the whole the entire property is encumbered by critical area and there's nothing they can do to avoid that so they're and taking the steps they need to I think they've made a great effort they've satisfied I think all the requirements of our Professionals in the board themselves um does not impair our zoning plan or our master plan in any way um it's typical development um I don't love it but there's nothing we can do about it it has to go through we have water concerns of the neighbor to the South that's been there for a long time we've talked about that that's the town and and and the the residents down there have been arguing I don't know what the solution is water goes downhill um they're trying to retain as much as they can um it's again it's not ideal but I think it's the only only available solution for this property um and I'm in favor of it that's it's that I mean begrudgingly I'm for it that's that's really where I'm going thank you Jonathan yeah I mean it's getting late so I will agreee with everything Jerry said pretty much took my words and uh I would say you know it is difficult to build on this and I wish Mr Henry good luck on this and I would be uh supportive of this obligation Jessica yeah I will not bu lead I'm also in favor of the application I'll just add to what Jerry said I think in terms of the the D6 the site can absolutely accomodate the height variance and um to the point on the streetcape there is no variation um so I don't see that as being you know an issue and there's really no detriment on the D6 in terms of the height um in terms of the C variances I agree that these are all C1 that there is you know you you basically came to us in my opinion and obviously the opinion of the professionals here with the best plan that you could present to make the property usable in a way that's not detrimental to to either the zoning code or um the you know the neighborhood and I think that the conditions that we've put on the plan including the water um management and mitigation obviously you know offset any detriment that could be expected from that so I'm in favor of the application I'm going to Echo the same Sentiments of my fellow board members with what's been shared here this evening I just wanted to make a comment to that you know you had said that you had planned on building the structure as a home for yourself which I certainly think think makes a big difference too is you want to make sure that what you're standing is is a sturdy structure you want to make sure that it's something that it's aesthetically pleasing to you and to the rest of the neighborhood and certainly too you want to build something that's uh going to be there for a long long time and I know that the um there's been some concern sure here about uh you know water runoff and I'm certainly don't think for a second that living on a a slope that steep you would want to uh you'd want to go forward doing something that's going to to you know stand for a long time and and not be a detriment to the rest of the neighborhood um you when I had originally seen the application to I'd seen the thing about the height and was in wow that's such a big difference but you know seeing where the lot is I drove by there earlier today um you know it's it's unavoidable and it certainly makes sense too um so I approve of this application I too uh would uh agree go ahead forgot about you sorry I'm glad it agrees and I agree with that done I I just want to say that thank you for your accommodations and the plans and uh I think that I personally think you're catching of that water will actually solve some of that problem going downhill because you're actually putting in dry Wells preventing the sheet run off that you're getting now or the the just unfeathered runoff of the water downhill so I'm hoping for the sake of your south southern neighbors that it does help them but I would also be in favor of it so those comments not requesting delay do I hear do I hear a motion so moved second okay go call okay Vice chairman grov yes Miss Brennan yes m Mr ronio yes Mr Rosenberg yes M Collins yes chairman gett yes motion carries very much minutes early congratul welcome to the neighborhood yeah thank you guys nice job I was a no to start 55 ft what are you looking at this to good job nice layout it's good make a motion to second all in favor all in favor I e e