##VIDEO ID:GTsRsSZt-2w## this e e so if each of you would raise your right hand and repeat after me I state your name I you Solly swear or affirm doly swear orir that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of unit States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constition of the state of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and I will bear true faith and aliance to the same and to the government established in the United States and in this state and un States this St under the authority of the people under the authority of the people I do further solemnly swear or affirm I do further swear orir that I will faithfully impartially and justly Fai perform all the duties of the office of Zoning Board member perform all the of the office Zing according to the best of my ability of ability so help congratulations I'm just gonna ask that actually you know can you turn on your microphone M got um you would each sign and then I will uh witness and notor Rize your signatures oh I just signed that's okay so at this point I mean we'll take attendance we'll take attendance and then we'll proceed to our reorganization for calendar year 202 Joseph Coffield present Jessica Glatt here shandre here Jo Jen Pang here car Rosen here Regina Tru here all here David Bradford all right at this time I will take nomination for chair of the board of adjustment for 2025 I would like to take this opportunity to thank Eileen um but also to nominate Jessica glad for chairman of the lurn Zoning Board of approval um her dedication and her involvement in this Bo board has been exemplary as you've all known I think she would be a great addition not addition she's already Vice chairman but she would be totally on top of this I would urge the rest of the board to take a look at that and see what you think do you accept the nomination I do is there a second is there a second I'll second are there any other nominations Joseph Coffield yes Jessica GL yes shre yes yes Gary Rosen yes yes congratulations congratulations it's all yours the thank you um thank you everyone I appreciate the vote confidence um I would like to proceed with the nomination for vice chairman of the Zoning Board of adjustment um and I would like to nominate Joseph pfield um for this I think that he would do a wonderful job can I get a second I can second should ask if there any other nominations are you will to accept will accept nomination because I love this tab Joseph corfield you're accepting that's a yes I'm accepted Jessica Glen yes shre harani yes P yes car Rosen Regina chew yes yes okay um and moving right along um we have our appointment of the board adjustment attorney and I'm hoping that our wonderful board attorney uh Rob Simon will um agree to serve as our board attorney again for the year 2025 happily I love this town yeah more than any j a second Shandra harani yes Jo Pang yes Gary Rosen yes Regina Tru be sa yes Joseph corfield yes Jessica BL yes thank you thank you okay and um last but not least we have the appointment of our Board of adjustment secretary sometimes I get a little worried that you might not want to accept it but I am really hoping that um wonderful I davit will accept the um nomination as uh to continue to be our secretary glad thank you can I get a second wonderful thank you Shandra harani yes Pang yes Gary Rosen yes Regina TR yes Joseph Coffield Jessica yes thank and I think the only thing we before this is the calendar yeah so if you would just uh explain I me in terms of the approval for the uh annual notice and the calendar dates I circulated the proposed dates to everyone I didn't hear anything back I I noted we're closed on January 20th the days were closed obviously we're not having a meeting which is why we only have one meeting scheduled for J January went for February because itly came um other than that it pretty much followed the first and third Monday of the month um I didn't put a MTH second meeting in November because I Tech I typically go to the league the following the morning after the meeting and it gets a little problematic so if you want to put it in we certainly can and I could figure something out I didn't put one in the count but if you want to have a second meeting I'm sure I can work something out so it's up to you if you want to add one see how things are at the time okay in terms of um do you want to do um some sort of resolution doesn't necessarily have to be tonight in terms of establishing the I have the resolution of approval uh so if you want me to I this is the resolution that I will publish in the newspaper and put in everything else and and does it also uh talk about the um the chosen newspapers for publication uh it actually just said yes the item in the start yeah just just so the the board is aware um I think as of March 1st The Star Ledger is no longer publishing legal notices in the newspaper in published newspaper um so there's been a lot of discussion amongst the land use bar and the legislation as to what to do about that given the public notice requirements inal langage law so it's it's a little T me so I just want to or just so once that's made the decision is made with the bar you'll inform us we can always change it correct correct for now it's completely okay we have a motion on the on the resolution I'll second you want roll yes please sh yes jenp yes Gary Rosen yes Tru yes yes Jose Coffield yes Jessica black yes okay I um um I just wanted to make an announcement to everyone just before we get started um I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that passing of Joseph Steinberg who was a beloved member of the milour Short Hills Community and he was a former chair of this board for many many years uh he also served on our Town's planning board and on the HPC and um Beyond being brilliant Joe LED our board with a tremendous integrity and class he taught me everything that I know about zoning and L's law and I know that he was a mentor to so many others on this board as well over the years to say that he was devoted to this community is really an understatement um it was a true honor and privilege to know Joe and to work with him and he will be greatly greatly missed okay try not to for that one um so uh moving on we are going to um do our approval of minutes um we have two sets of minutes the first one is from um December 2nd 2024 are who's eligible on this I um who's Joseph shanu Gary Regina Jessica okay um are there any changes or corrections to those minutes um can I get a motion for approval I'll approve make a motion to approve minut second I can second um all in favor I I okay next one is from December 16th 2024 um any corrections or changes the eligible are Gary Regina and Jessica okay can I get a motion so moved second oh second I'm sorry all in favor okay all right next we're going to move on to the memorializations um the first one is calendar well actually who who for for calendar 41724 that's Michael and Tabitha Gillum eligible on that one uh Joseph shandrew Gary Regina Jessica okay do I have any corrections changes additions um anyone want to make a motion move to accept a second second Joseph Coffield yes shrew harj yes Gary Rosen yes Regina Tru yes Jessica yes okay the next one is calendar 39423 that's Ryan Lenny from Seven Park Circle who is eligible on that uh Joseph shandro Gary Regina Jessica um do I have any corrections changes someone to make a motion motion to approve the memorialization calendar number 39 45-23 second Joseph celd yes shandrew hor yes uh Gary Rosen yes reg Tru yes Jessica glad yes okay um we have quite a few applications that are going to be carried so I think the plan is that we're going to assign calendar I have the dates that um most of them have agreed to okay so the first one would be 3991 d24 which is 368 part sh Drive is being carried to uh February 3rd 2025 the first meeting so our iing for for each of these that are being carried is not is any further notice required no so just so the public is aware for those the matter the Brian Matter and the other matters that we're about to discuss in terms of establishing new dates those matters were originally carried to this state for purposes of scheduling so I's going to announce the new schedule date and no further notice will be provided by the applicant for those scheduled dates okay so the next one would be calendar 39 8424 that's 57 Factory drive for stogi and they are being carried to March 30 2025 and again no further required the next one is calendar 39 9624 that's 38 present place the applicant is Stefanos Ras that is being carried to March 3rd 2025 okay um the next one is calendar 43-24 the address is 34 Winding Way G Singh and they are being carried to February 3rd 202 okay the next one is calendar 45-24 the property location is 85 Stewart Road um and the applicants are the Roman Aros they're being carried to March 3rd 2025 I did receive a phone call from their architect today that they are withdrawing their application but I didn't get an actual letter from him so I thought let's just carry it in case they do okay um the next uh calendar is 412- 24 the property is 55 Locust Avenue Ashwin MRA they are being carried to March 3rd okay the next application calendar 3983 d24 it's 112 Brook Road the applicants were Mark and Nova bronstein um their application was withdrawn okay just for all applications that were carried to either the February 3rd or the March 3rd 2025 dates um those are carried to take place at in this room um on Milburn Avenue starting at 7 o' um so the next application that we have is calendar 3993 d24 the address is 61 Slayton drive and the applicant is Jonah rord hello my wife we'll get everybody you s Tes about to get proing the truth whole truth by the truth yes yes I do start with you we'll work Rich Keller engineer and plan Katy Ren owner John Rasen owner okay thank you right where to start so um let's see we moved to town on 22 uh 20 22 we purchased this home in 2021 um but we were doing a full reduce we were renting in the town during the remodel um this is our first home sort of Standalone home we've lived in cities before but like most people we started in the city moved to Hoboken and then moved out here um that was now what two kid two and a half kids ago we have our fourth coming um anyway so not a lot of experience in constructing homes we ended up um with a buil a Builder Ron Delano and architect Tim classie you know everybody told us this was a very difficult site I don't know if you've seen the plans it has a the property is divided with a pretty significant Steep Hill in the middle and so unbeknownst to us it was I think very difficult to make get plans that worked um we did get plans that were within accordance to all the town regulations um from what I understand my Builder went a little off book um when dealt with with dealing with building conditions uh in terms of how the uh excavation went and how to deal with mud how to deal with water coming into the side trying to keep the uh the workers safe from trees and then there was also some railroad tie um sort of rotting railroad ties kind of in this hill basically the back right of the property is a very steep 15 foot Hill that comes pretty close to the newly built uh property so it was unclear exactly how he wanted to approach that and he went a little off book and and built a a 12ft retaining wall he Rich has all our exact specifications of how this this came to be but um it's not the worst solution from what we would desire so we didn't fight him too hard on it we were told we would have to go to get a variance to get this accepted and approved um so we're here now hoping that we can uh show you why it was necessary and the hardships that we you mind just giving us your qualification yes um Rich Keller I'm a licensed engineer and planner in state of New Jersey I've been licensed uh since 1989 and 90 um I've stopped doing the math it ages me a whole um I've appeared for this board the planning board approximately 110 boards through the state of New Jersey um I am uh I have a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from ruter University University with the concentration of water resources and environmental engineering and I hold also hold the masters of architecture with the concentration in urban planning and design and that is from the New Jersey Institute of Technology where I was also an aent Professor for approximately 11 years in the School of Architecture mostly The Graduate division uh I've been the uh Board of adjustment planner and uh sorry board of adjustment engineer in Long Hill uh for three years uh just gave that seat up I was also provide planning services to both B of Caldwell and I am the uh conflict engineer so when the current engineer has a conflict um in South Orange we do we sit on the planning board as as a Engineers U my licenses are in good effect and it's always nice to be back for the board and see some new faces some old faces thank you your qualifications have been accepted thank you I figure you asked me just to make sure I say the same thing each time um so you guys can see for a second so um as was indicated um this is an application um which we hate to do it is to retroactively approve an excess deep slope disturbance that occurred during the construction of a new home at 61 Slate Drive the um my clients as they said are first-time home owners um you know we own a condo but it's different when you own home and certainly um first firsttime home builders uh is a totally different um realm alog together first and last um Construction actually there's a there's a there's a a land use attorney in town that specializes in land use and divorce and there's a reason go together um but uh at any rate um building also occurred during covid so communication wasn't necessar what it should be uh and the project project was complicated not only because of the steep slopes on the site but there was a a sanitary sewer um and sanitary SE easement that R up the rent R up the right side of the property uh that care needed to be taken and a lot of focus over the building between the engineering Department building department um my clients and the Builder was focused on that area of the of the development um both the grading plan and the house plans were unusual in some ways in response to the existing site conditions um again not being Builders or developers uh the Wrath buns were unaware uh of what the back of the house would necessarily look like as designed although they were committed to design building it as designed uh the architect said there was always the possibility we may seek to further develop the backyard and some kind of program with a variance relief once the house was built but we had a fully compliant plan in place and that's how construction started um as is often the case um especially in Co but as is often the case um we're not have we we survey the property um we get a building permit and we don't appear until we do the survey for the final closing unless we're call for an inspection we do inspect the drive balls as does the engineering department it's the only other thing that they inspect um as is often the case um the people who are there every day is the Builder having coffee um there's certain trust that naturally gets built up um and I think uh uh in that case the Builder citing difficulties in building uh a safe house as well as mitigating with he thought were some quirky things in the engineering and and Architectural design um came up with an alternative plan that would mitigate the need for a deep window out the back of the house of course there's always the you know the engineer doesn't what they're doing the the the architect isn't what they're doing we can find a better solution that's cheaper when questioned as to whether the design was consistent with the ordinance they were sure that it was because it does meet the height requirements for a nested retaining wall however the Builder was unaware of this steep SL restrictions that were applied at the time um and just to to back up um The credibility of of the the builders Asser uh assertation was that uh the the house got inspected by the building department the retaining walls that were built um had their footing inspections their base inspections so everything was inspected by the town it's just that the walls that got built were not the ones that were on the plan um and it wasn't until the end of the construction when the engineering department um did their final um grading permit uh inspection that the EXA that the excess steep slope disturbance and modification of the walls was flagged um that said um I believe I wouldn't be here um if I didn't believe that the variances we're asking for tonight could have been approved if we had come before this board I think they're defendable under Municipal land law and if we had uh come before this board before construction start I think there I think that they are defendable under Municipal L use saww and they represent a better project so um that's this that's the spirit in which we're within which we're going to present tonight um I know there's some new members of the board um I'm going to try to not to talk too fast as I always do but I do want to get through a lot of things because I think it's important my first exhibit will be A1 it is an aerial annotated aerial photograph I'm sorry there to see um and so I'm not sure if you're here for this application or not trying to make sure the board members can see as well as any public um so we have an meditated aerial photograph this is prepared by by my firm with today's J Jan January 13 2025 uh the base photograph is from near .c and stated photographic image is from March 3rd of this year 2024 and it is to scale 40 um what I wanted to show is just a a quick bit of information about the property the property is uh approximately 102 feet wide by 229 ft deep contains 23,46 square feet um which is 0 5389 Acres located on the north side of Slayton drive it's in an R4 Zone where 20,000 ft is required so it is a conforming lot as to the width depth and square footage of the lot um the property did contain um in the center section about 7950 s feet of steep slopes and those are slopes that are steeper than 20% so every time you go out uh five feet you go up one foot that's 20% um we uh the slopes that uh where we believe that you a fairly I've walked this neighborhood I've reviewed topographics uh Maps it's clear to me that the steep slope the swath of steep slopes and I'll show them on the survey in a second that run through there while there wor some steep areas they were exacerbated by the development of slate and drive and these Lots back in 1959 through 1963 um if you look between haror Drive which is to the East and lill drive which is to the West there's approximately 100 ft of gray change and the way the natural slope was from we arriv is it came fairly level until it got just passed Slayton and then it started dropping quickly so you have natural slopes on the on the the pre-development condition about 6% coming down Slayton and then it went up to about 14% coming down into long when this was developed and if you walk the site you know that the property at the corner of f inst sits way up high there's a cutting through there and this Pro this house sits about 10 feet back up so it was clear to us in looking at the topography walking the site looking at the old topographic maps that in order to soften this slope to be about 95% which is what it is from heart shorn down to Long Hill is that the first part is a deep cut and about 10 K feet of cut and then basically they continued that n and a half% roughly slope all the way through so the result is that to create a building lot in addition to lowering the front and creating a buildable lot they pushed or they carved away into that hill on the back to create a building pad and that exacerbated steep slopes if we look at what we project was most likely the the grade again having developed subdivisions for 40 years if we look at what we think was probably the original grade at the front to the back of the steep slope area it's only about 12.9 133% Which is less than the Steep slow threshold so in our in our estimate these slopes were there was always some slope in here but they were exacerbated through the creation of a buildable lot by carving in and creating a seep area and then the lot next door at 65 the reverse happened because uh it was narrower in the front they moved the house to the back there a 15% d uh 14% driveway that comes up on the right side into they created a buildable area in the back again pushing um land out again exacerbating that squat of steep sils that exist between these two properties and like many of the properties in there this sits at the top of the hill but like many properties in the area the house immediately to our left or west the 55 has a series of retaining walls that mitigate those slopes number 51 has a a 4ft retaining wall um but by a 6ot retaining wall and some retaining walls at the back um all these properties if you look closely you start to see where there are retaining walls um between the grade changes so even further down Long Hill they pushed a level pad push a level pad create a steep slope swap in between so none of these areas are virgin they are areas that were exacerbated we think there's pretty good evidence that the slope from the street to the back of the the sea barria before it leveled into that Plateau was considerably less than the 20% threshold about 133% um but we have to deal with those slopes um our ordinance uh basically only only um defines areas of pre uh disturbance as being if there's an existing structure on it so if we can demonstrate even if we can demonstrate that these are man-made slopes if we disturb a slope and it's not covered by a building or a sidewalk Etc um we can only disturb a th000 square F feet under our ordinance and that's regardless of whether the lot is a 6,000 square foot lot in the r six zone or it's a one acre site in the R3 Zone you get one you get 1,000 square feet and there's been a lot of discussion about changing that we did some empirical studies years ago when the ordinance first switched from the old ordinance to the current one we said you can develop um under that ordinance between 14 about 12 to 14% of of a lot area is regularly achievable without the need for a variance but we are where we're at so we we need a variance because we are disturbing more than a thousand square feet the um if I go to the third sheet of your set and I will not mark this uh because it's part of your package this was the last sheet this is the upgrading plan that was approved by the building department and engineering department at s conservation service for for construction this is labeled as drawing number two it is the WRA fund residence raing drainage erosion control plan it is originally dated 1110 2021 and it was last updated on 325 2024 um with the walls updated and so um what this shows is the the light blue area is the area that was considered steep slopes and you can see again there's a swap that runs through where this upper building area was pushed this Plateau was carved away a steep section in between this goes back back to 1959 1960 so there have been trees that have grown up on there but we believe that this whole swap is is AR official and but also point out there's it's there's been a fair amount of other disturbance the town's sanitary s eement runs up up the side cuts over and you can see there's a faint outline where um the sanitary scho ran up behind these properties there a relatively large feeder actually takes pretty much everything from St Barnabas Hospital on that region comes down through this proc proper through the sanitary sore system so there's been a lot of changes up in that area this is the blue area is the swap there was a retaining wall in the back the old house basically had a driveway that came up it turned around this this where where there's no uh shading is where the gar the driveway turned around was a rear facing garage so the only flat area on the old house was actually the garage there was really no recreational space or very little recreational space behind the existing home the art to solve that problem uh Orient a side facing garage to take the heat out of that pavement where somebody have to come in make a urn and pull into a garage uh put that underneath the main body of the house dealing with keeping some of the existing Foundation but um essentially carving out what was to be a recreational area um the rear of the house was really tucked into that steep slope area um that required to go into that area required a window well that window well uh the bottom of the window well would sit just above the uh the windows in the family room family room having exposure on three sides actually um and then beyond that originally the architect showed a wall of about 3 to four feet with another Plateau we're fored we couldn't do that we go over our steep slopes that was adjusted to be about a six foot wall so you would the experience was you would look out of your room and you'd see a little bit of light at top but three feet away you'd see that uh that window well um not ideal and I think there was some discussion that they would build that and then kind of wrap their heads around how do we deal with this steep area of the back what can we do how do we take advantage of the flat area top um those were things that um being uh new homeowners but already paying a mortgage on a property they were just to get under construction so we called for that three foot off the building window well and basically the ground was just need coming down with a slight swell in front of it and meeting that kicking out and then we're providing a little bit of a flat area further on rebuilding walls around the uh around the uh backup area of the driveway all those requireed no no deviation no variances the um script here um so the the uh the area at the back of the house that required about 400 sare feet of steep slope disturbance and then the other another 530 Square ft was to create a little bigger level area um right behind the house we were basically pushing that grade out to the toe slope to create a little bit of flow we lifted this up with a series of retaining walls all these were not areas that were considered steep slope so these these uh these walls did not need to be separated by the same degree as the other walls and we created a small backyard but the quirky part was this came basically back right into the house a little bit of a squale um with a deep window the um unfortunately during the construction um no one's really watching what the Builder was doing back here because there was so much focus on this sanitary line here which did uh we had a camera a number of times it showed some cracks in it and my client ended up paying for the replacement of a significant portion of that large pipe so it was a bypass it was not an easy thing that they paid for they've had to pay for not only retaining WS to go over it these were all designed by a geotechnical engineer all the Wes were designed by a geot technical engineer um they ended up replacing that sanitor who were basically with a new manhole through the property U and then rebuilt the walls on top of that so a lot of the focus was on this area I probably met with the township engineer four or five times out there nobody ever walked in the back to see that the Builder had solved what he thought was a problem by expanding some retaining ones the um I go on to the just to this is A2 and this is a this is our photo board number one these are all photos were taken by myself on August 18th 2024 which is we were we were last scheduled to be here um I would say first thing I forgot to mention is on the application we were requesting a variance for the location of a generator the generator was really no place to put in the backyard or so we thought it was near the uh power supply that part of the application has been removed so we're no longer asking for the generator set back that was uh the neighbor next door to the right that was their concern we Adan we adjourned the last hearing because we wanted to meet with the owners we met with the owner their engineer um actually the husband of Mary esel which used to be a member I with the planning board board of adjustment I think um in the past year we met with them um while I think we demonstrated that it wouldn't they wouldn't have been able to see it they were still concerned by noise Etc so we've removed that that's not part of the application so any variant can I just in for a second so the current location of the generator is that a conforming location or you're going to have to move it no that's is as today it was installed in a in a in a conforming location at the request of our neighbors which we comp so if we look at um the neighborhood photographs first photograph um on this board which is uh A2 and again it's dated August 18th um is the rear guard between 51 slate that's two houses down you can see here's a 4ft retaining wall against six retaining wall large stce that comes up and then in the back there's another retaining wall that Terraces these areas so this terracing of these areas um which probably predates the current steep slope ordinance is not uncommon for these areas where you have a fair amount of gray change both laterally into the rear of the site if I move up to the between 51 and 55 you can see here's the stair that goes up the 6 wall there's another wall at the back and our neighbor immediately to the left at 55 slate you can see they have a six foot wall uh that mitigates their slope coming down and on the back right they have another retaining wall that kind of GS against that steep slope into the backyard so everyone is carved out as much as they could many under different ordinances that allowed significantly more than a thousand square feet but um but it is the sort of way that we deal with these changing grades if I move up to 55 Slayton like the driveway between 55 and 57 um 61 excuse me um the uh the 55 and 61 not 57 um these are the retaining walls I think if you got the original noce some people thought that this was these were the retaining walls that needed the variant relief and may have stopped at the driveway these actually walls did not need VAR relief as they're finally constructing grading out graded out they are compliant with the zoning ordinance as the height and location the property line they do go over that sanitary short easement all that's been inspected by the town that did not require any VAR relief if we move up up Street a little bit the house has constructed this is exactly um you can't tell that any deviation was made this is exactly the way the architect designed the house the gring plan sits circular driveway gets way the driveway on the left Hill continues up on the right you actually don't see the fact that we Disturbed more seeve slopes right behind the house on the right side so from the street perspective these are fully conforming where the problem came is behind the house so if we look at then um the first variant plan which was our as built disturbance and this is sheet one a in your packet this is the second one in your packet this is the abil disturbance so over the pl so you can still see where we had the the window well we superimposed these turquoise lines are the nested retaining walls up the Builder built um essentially for for uh two reasons one is to create um a safe environmental on the back of the house so we weren't getting mud and stuff sliding into the the excavation um tree issues and essentially what they thought was to create a solution that they think the art the engineer was too stupid to think have thought of um and so the uh the blue walls are what was Disturbed so the blue heavy outline shows the original seep SL disturb of 971 s ft permitted less than 1,000 sare ft and the red dash line adds an additional 775 squet to that disturbance and that's what exists today so when you go out there and you look today um what you see is that combine um 1746 s feet of disturbance where a th000 s square feet is permitted if I just go to our exhibit A3 which is photo board number two um this is what it looks like behind and I was a little worried that again because most people might have thought the retaining walls that needed the variants were on the left and didn't go on the back I want everyone to clearly see what what that look like and so the intent and again this is uh for Rob's benefit this is our A3 it is uh uh again all photos were taken on August 18th and they still do other than there's some snow on the ground they do accurately represent the site as they exist today all photos were taken by myself um we stopped work so we have not come back with our final landscape plan when when we we found out that we color we build it and cut Outside the Lines we stopped construction so this is this is awaiting completion some chinking of the wall some minor ressing of the walls um and uh Landscaping has not been put in the rich I'm sorry interrup what's the data of these photos all the all the photos are dated August 18 2024 and and they're taken before construction was completed they were taken after construction was of that area was completed so this is what the uh um this is what the assistant engineer came and saw and flagged as a problem because there was additional steep slope and these walls were not as shown on the plant while they do meet the detail they're consistent in a man that's they're constructed in a man that's consistent with the details on the side of the house where a similar configuration fully conforming up on this section um when you get into steep slopes you have to have um a slightly larger disturbance a slightly larger separation between the walls so so the original idea was that this grade was going to basically come down and you going to are you marking yeah but this is your right so um so this grade was supposed to basically tie in to a window well was going to sit three feet back hold that soil up and this this these walls were going to um they were basically stop in about here with this grading down to the Rain about grade um at the corner of the patio and this uh this toe of slope is actually probably closer into the foreground much closer to the patio again not a solution we were in love with but um given the applicants need to constructing um and the notion that they would kind of put a put a window well in there and then later figure out what their grand concept would be um they got under construction so that's photograph number five we turned we went a little further to the north and looking back at the house you can see there's the patio I guess that's the location where the uh the new generator has gone in I believe um close to the Pao you can see that the wall does get very close to the existing house and there's a limited amount of more landscaped area photograph number eight is looking on the east side looking up at the house you can see what you don't see is the separation between the walls so there is three ft separation between these three walls 4 foot 4 foot and six foot at the highest so you're a total of 48 uh six is 14 feet at its highest U most of the wall is actually down around it's actually considerably lower but at that one shamron point the Apex it does reach its highest point this retaining wall replaces R High retaining wall that kind of turned into the house um the idea was that the wall was going to sit right behind the last window and then the grade would come up so the back of the house and that window well were intended to be the retaining wall for the soil um and finally photograph number eight is if you're on that patio looking out through the back this is what you see Le will be landscaped but this is what you're seeing the um the plan uh basically um when it became obvious that the scenario of of thinking of the grand plan later um got moved up um Jonah and and Katie basically asked um what um what would what would you have done if we started coming for this before we before our Builder did the work and basically I said a couple things one is I would probably try to increase a little bit of room in this area get these walls back a little bit and technically just building a path to get up into that plateau of non steep slaps in the back of your property um sorry I W yet um does require some disturbance so I would say we would keep the walls that come basically to the to the end of the um the torch and I probably kick these out a little bit a few feet further out to get a little more Breathing Room between you and the patio so you don't feel like you're running out there into the wall a little better for watching the kids play and then I would design a a a landscaped path that basically came up in the most efficient way avoiding trees that allowed me to get access to the upper Plateau both for maintenance uh landscape tree maintenance Etc as well as use of their property it's a significant amount of property that's abandoned up on that Plateau um but that's not being propos yeah that's that's being proposed as as 2831 Square fet that gets to sheet number one which is the sleep sleep steep slope variance application and that's where um that little push back um the retaining wall it's the path ex itself causes quite a bit of disturbance but we are pushing that back so what we're doing is we're adding an additional th sare feet of disturbance for the path as well as kicking those walls back um we'd certainly we think it's a better usable plan with these walls if the board disagreed we leave what was there and and and respectfully hope that that's that we can do that but we would like to actually create a path that giv us access up into the back for both tree maintenance as well as use of the property by the family the um so this adds an additional as I said 1,85 ft 967 of which is the path raising the total disturbance to 20846 again with 1,000 square feet is permitted and again the ordinance only permits 1,000 square feet um with regard to the variance relief requested um we need variance from section 68.5 and that is for the disturbance of steep slopes where 1,000 square feet is permitted 1,746 was already Disturbed and we're seeking to take that up to 2831 uh this board's approval um secondly we need a variance from separation of retaining walls so when you get into steep slopes paradoxically you have to separate your walls higher so even though you're deep you have to separate your distance between them which means that your walls get taller um and it kind of defies logic but um I would say the variance we need six foot is required for a six foot wall we have 3.25 feet is constructed which meet the non- Steep s ordinance and four feet is required for the four foot walls worth three feet okay which meets the non- steep slope ordinance the township engineer on a prior Board of adjustment application on Far of the road indicated that the separation requirement was to limit structural interaction uh between the retaining walls and if the walls are separated by less the walls need to be designed accordingly these walls actually were designed by a structural engineer to soil soil information so they have been designed accordingly so that any interaction between the walls has been designed into it with regard to the proofs required um again both positive and the negative criteria we think parts of this come under uh C1 in the municipal land law and part under C2 clearly we think that the path with the 960 feet of disturbance to allow for access to the rear of the property uh can be approved as a C1 variance and that's where the existing we think is man alter topography and its location on the site um just a quick question um because I was looking at the um I don't know the the summary of the variance requested talking about like what you're saying the sear kind of I guess it makes sense right if you have retaining WS you want to have some distance between them as you keep stepping up then notice this two and a half propos and I'm here this thing says one foot um you're attachment yeah that's that's the deviation the separation is supposed to be um four we're at three so my deviation is one okay so the the two and a half is just actual three real yeah I've always thought that was confusing myself but so um and again the um with regard to that point um it just means that when you place them less than the height of the wall apart the upper wall starts to Bear some structural impact on the lower wall so as long as we design it accordingly we've designed nested 40 foot walls on a project in Springfield as long as they're and they're four feet apart as long as they're designed accordingly it's not an issue but sort of as a as a proactive approach knowing some people don't always do the calculations um the ordinance says when you get less than the height of the wall you need a VAR um but our engineer opine that the purpose of that is just need to be careful on the structural design so with regard to the positive criteria the path which is about 967 ft of additional disturbance uh to allow for the access to the rear of the property um can be improved under C1 and this is where the existing man altered topography and its location on the site creates a hardship in gaining access to the rear PL rear Plateau for maintenance and recreational purposes without the need for variance relief we don't think it's an unreasonable uh request um the rest of the variance relief we think comes in C2 and that is flexible C2 variants where the proposed plan represents better planning alternative to the one that would be conforming and where the benefits outweigh the detriment um under the purposes of the land use act under a is general welfare we think that this plan allows for the development of dwelling and a yard that is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and with the amenities one would expect for a home in this neighborhood the project as developed represents a net benefit to the community in the form of removing an age we removed an aging dwelling where the ailable flat area was paved in the backyard as a driveway uh for the rear facing garage and we provided for a reduction of the overall storm water runoff through installation of a storm water collection recharge system that was designed installed approved and installed um mitigating um so there's always the negative criteria and that is that there's no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan we think that uh again it doesn't uh it doesn't have any NE negative impact mitigating these impacts on the neighborhood are the fact that the retaining walls are at the right back corner of the property um so they're not visible from Slate Drive or from the neighbors because they're nested into the wall so the neighbor looks over the top of them there are no neighbors immedately to our side and the neighbors below us can actually see up that high because they're below us so there's really no visual impact to any of the neighbors the um the already Disturbed 1,700 46 uh square feet represents only 7.4% of the total lot area which is not a whole lot uh the proposed 2831 is less than 13 it comes in about 12.1% of the total lot area um when it comes to potential detriments of the public good uh case law often suggests that you look to the purpose of the ordinance um for which relief is sought and luckily because this ordinance was adopted as part of a uh a model ordinance required by the DP um it was incorporated into to our zoning ordinance with a background and the background provides information as to why uh we need to look carefully at steep slaps and keep in mind that the state when they um insist that every town adopt preferably the model ordinance this applied to areas in the highlands along the delare Water Gap um right down to hobok so um it applied to everybody although it's pretty broad based and it's really intended to protect the more pristine undisturbed portions of the state not necessarily areas that were previously um modified well within the background um there's the comments that um these controls are provided to minimize and the potentially adverse impacts associated with the disturbance of steeply soaked air sloped areas such regulation promotes public health safety and Welfare of the township by eliminating disturbance to soil and vegetation and controlling erosion in steeply soaked areas more on the background under 68.2 um there's the fear that disturbance of steep slopes will result in accelerated erosion processes from storm water runoff which I think um we can demonstrate the fact that this has been constructed for almost a year now um and there's no erosion above the area it's waiting to be landscaped there's no erosion um certainly none visible um furthermore there's concerned that subsequent sedimentation of water bodies with the associated degradation of water quality uh and loss of Aquatic Life Support may occur there are no water bodies that are downhill um of the properties that would be affected um related effects that they cautioned against is soil loss there's no evidence of any soil loss or erosion again we wish it wasn't that way but one of the benefits of this having been in so long is we get to see what what what the effect has been changes in the natural topography and drainage patterns we don't believe that the Topography is natural um and there's been no change to the Natural drainage patterns it still goes right where it always was except now we're intercepting all that roof water um in a uh contemporary storm water management and recharge design uh there's a concern about incre increasing flood potential which I just said we're collecting the water um and as part of the grading permit process if we didn't reduce the at least maintain or reduce the runoffs we wouldn't have gotten our building permits uh there's concern about further fragmentation of forest inhabited a in habitat areas uh no additional trees removed as a function of the additional uh grading that occurred in the Steep Sil area um and we have an approved truee removal replacement plan in place um and so there are some additional plantings that will go in depending upon the outcome of this board um and then there's the concern about it uh com compromise aesthetic values um the uh these retaining walls will really only be seen by the client we see certainly think they're are better alternative um than looking at the back of a window well um furthermore the or the ordinance says it has become widely recognized disturbance of steep slopes should be restricted or prevented based upon the impact disturbance of steep slopes the impact disturbance of steep slopes can have on water quality and quantity uh and the environmental Integrity of the Landscapes there is no negative impact on water quality uh again this is things concerned about up in the highlands and and Del Water Gap Etc um and we have that storm water management system um essentially we know how to build in steep slopes we didn't we wouldn't have Pittsburgh we wouldn't have San Francisco we wouldn't have the amaly coast we would have any the Greek Isles I mean we know how to do this and we do it better now than we did back then um the uh the St storm water the slopes that are disturbance in my opinion are not natural they're exacerbated and if if we had the original grading they would be under the threshold um the storm Motors perfectly managed um elevated window wells are difficult to keep clean um inevitably water gets into the house there was water getting into the foundation as it was that always happens during construction um we believe that this lot development is consistent with other development throughout the neighborhood uh and for the reason cited we feel that the um development scheme proposed represents a better planning alternative um than the approved plan that was um under construction before the Builder went I think off the reservation was what he said um the proposed development uh complies and will comply with all other bulk requirements of the R4 ordinance the plan allows for appropriately scaled uses within the rear yard thus advancing the intent and purpose Zone plan and master plan I would point out that our building coverage is 11.5% where 14 is permitted so we're under on the building it wasn't it wasn't done to get a bigger house um loot coverage is only 24.25 or 35% is permitted so it wasn't done to get more lot coverage uh accessory coverage is only 1.71% of the rear yard where 20% is permitted um so and rear and unoccupied where a minimum 25% of the total lot area has to be behind the house and unoccupied we at 52.5% so this clearly is not an O A grab to get more development potential to get a swimming pool Etc um you're not going to get a pool on that property um so we think that the uh the proposed house is consistent with homes in the community both in size and amenities uh and will reinforce the existing character of the neighborhood uh the benefit of the work having been completed for nearly year is that we can see the impacts of this deep silk disturbance we think that the proposed deep silk disturbance that was already the what's already been done and what we're proposing to ask as an add-on um to make sort of lemonade out of lemons um is that it protects the rear of the house from water penetration allows for easier maintenance of the dwelling that allows for a nominal amount of recreational area behind the building the dwelling and certainly not enough really for a pool given the given the retaining goals that are there uh is not inconsistent with the overriding purpose of the master plan to maintain the character the Township as a small subber of the highest quality um we hate that we had to come and ask for forgiveness afterwards but we think that um if I was uh I turned down since I did a steep slope application for some 15,000 sare feet on Sagamore I've been approached by no less than 10 people asking me to step slow variances and I've turned down every one of them because not all deserve them and not all not all can be justified I think this one can be justified I think it could have been unfortunately if we' come here I think we can make the case for why this is an appropriate development given the topography in this neighborhood how the topography came to be um I'm certainly happy to answer any questions thank you for all that I'm sorry this happened to you guys um so my first question would be could you clearly say are you moving walls from what is built there now is your proposal does that include moving some of these retaining walls that are built so we're looking to keep the walls that come up to the the black and white dash line we're looking to bend those walls out to create another approximately 15 feet of level area oh but not the ones that are super close to that you're referring to the first page of your submitted site can we Mark that A4 please I'm sorry can you the the actual photograph of the backyard with the walls to so what we're looking to do is basically um from about here just push these back about 15t and Cur so Cur instead of being convex towards them doing them concave slightly away from us and then that would nest in with the path go up right behind that so that's the uh the the walls that occur on the right side behind we wouldn't change those at all those would stay where they are we're just looking at roughly from this point forward of kicking those back instead of being again conx we make them concave just get a little more there so we contined the three walls um for the record you're you're marking a three to demonstrate the changes in the location of theing walls from what shown on the photos correct so back to that to the walls that you're moving are you going to give are they going to be in compliance with the with the stepping that you need like the four Fe for four for no continue they'll continue to maintain the the separation meets the regular ordinance but not the enhanced requirement for steep slopes and again because when again when you go it's it's as it's a paradox if you've got a steep slope and you have to en you have to expand your separation you have more more retaining to do so your walls get taller so the reason that um that ordinance is there is to make sure that if you go less than that you account for that structural interaction so we're looking at maintaining the same um deficiency of separation and steep slope between those walls as they wrap around okay and the reason for that is why because the the stepping is also for safety and just and also yeah well because if you have the opportunity to to make to do them well yeah but I can't um if if I because at the worst this is not quite one let's just it's not one-onone but let's just say it's one-on-one if I if I move the wall back two more feet the wall has to get 2 feet higher so the optimal spot for these walls is to be about 3 to four foot separation which is consistent with our regular orans the variance I'm mostly worried about honestly this 2.75 foot variance you're requesting on each step it's not just one this this minimum separation of a deep slope well only there's only the large one required for the five for the six foot wall yeah but then the four foot walls would be four foot is still but you're still not in compliance no that's what's I mean I've been back there so I know how tight it is and it's it's I'm I'm I'm frankly really worried about how close those walls are on the upper right it's not shown on this I guess back there it's so tight back there it's like oh boy if you could any you're gonna get mold anyway that's beyond well that's why the original design was actually to have the house designed without the windows in this area on this last window but to wrap around and use the foundation almost like a Basement foundation wall yeah I've never seen wall so close to the house well because normally the the foundation would have been the wall wrapped around would have been a window out unfortunately those weren't built in so the reality is if if the board was to not approve what's already been done um we really would have to excavate down to the 10 ft below this to get down to the original footing tie in a new footing wall bring up the window wells back up to height back fill in that hole a so we would disturb a lot and restore it but um you'd be talking about a significant and then um once you tied in that foundation on the back and side you would then build up that that uh that base of that inside the window well to just be about to put below the uh the glass and the architect did bring concrete up so it's not standard foundation where you hit it your top of your block is here and you have a and it's all wood up there they did bring cement up right below the windows for to keep moisture out but the idea was there was supposed to be that window well so if we had to reinstall that window well we'd actually have to come in that area pull these walls down excavate down 10 some feet we'd have to get some cribbing in there to reinforce this wall so we could collapse on people it it'd be a major or the house would have had to be narrower right or the house could have been narrow but the house is again undersized for the neighborhood no no it's I I mean I understand all that it's just very tight back there and andone I have another question if anyone else needs to I I'll just just going off of what you're saying I mean you're kind of testifying in a very confident way that everything is going to be okay that everything was checked and the footings were checked and everything else but you know for a contractor to just kind of go and do his own thing in such a substantial way I mean this isn't like we built our patio like one foot you know more than it should have been I mean this is like a massive deviation from what you know what was permitted I just don't like I don't understand how you can be so confident that this is all okay well and especially if you're now also you know you're willing to take some of it down to get what your client really wants why why you know you're not going to do that at least in you know conformance for the safety wise but I agree with Regina the part that really concerns me is that that corner by the by the house I mean it's scary looking back there because so tight yeah I agree could my eyes I feel for you we were shocked too was not it was not what was designed it was not it was intended um I will say there's a reason the Builder wouldn't come and testify who was the builder Ron Del oh there you go you can say it who Ron Delano and why didn't he come tonight um probably I think I'd like to hear from him probably because um I don't think his insurers carry would let him take let him take ownership because it would open to a lwuit okay do we have do we have any um correspondence from him requesting it from you and him denying I I have no there was never a request for me to alter the plan um there was just backyard conversations and I think as indicated when I talked to my client he said I didn't approve when the walls started going up I didn't approve them you know they're not they weren't living on the site so they were every day they come out week later and the walls are stting under construction and that's that's when they said is this me code yeah that could and the building department did do the inspection so so the the footing the base courses were inspected there was some fabric going in so there there were inspections by the township unfortunately not engineering but the building department um didn't say why am I why am I inspecting something that's not on the plants I I live in the neighborhood I walk by it three times a week and I've been watching this since the getg go the fact that nobody saw this going on is beyond me right this is way out of the bag here well look I don't I'm I don't do construction supervision I get the approval and we get called the back same with engineering engineering inspects the drywells in the front but they don't expect building department does the rest of the inspections who's the architect in this as well Tim Cy okay how come Tim's not here um Tim basically said he didn't think he needed to be here we show we showed a we showed a window well on his drawings I have his drawings we we showed a window well um I didn't build it so well I mean like what conversations he might have have with the builder the Builder said we're going to do this okay then we would have somebody to look I worked with Tim a long time I I think Tim's a good guy I think um I'm here because I my contracts say I don't if you de with my plans I don't represent you for a variance and I don't I don't work with you but I feel bad because I I know the way this occurred and I think that the you as often occur or sometimes occurs they got told the line of of uh of information from the Builder that yes the what was built if it wasn't steep slaps would be perfectly conforming and then backing that giving evidence of that was that the town did inspections so um why it wasn't picked up until the end again I know we were out of the site a number of times but it was always regarding this the the the protecting that sanitary sword and so that was where a lot of the focus was none of us ever wandered up into the backyard to see what the rest of it looked like because we were down on the neighbor's property 15 feet below and couldn't see it so it was a shock to all of us but again I think I think if I think it's all the the rationale and support of the Steep cell variance the fact that it's not natural the fact that um it really has no negative impact um and it's a it's a it's a relatively subtle ask for an area that's got prior disturbance now good look maybe making lemonades out of lemons is is not the approach and we don't ask for the we can pull the board's request we'll certainly be happy to indicate we would not modify those if you think it's just additional steep slope disturbance and they can deal with hiking up to the backyard somehow some way say some shape or form that's okay too um but we thought what would what would we have done if we had come if we coming before this board ask for Varian s how would we have handled it and so I think the plan that we proposed with the additional square footage was the one that made the most sense given all the parameters involved if board thinks differently we're certainly willing to modify I mean just staying with that the original like sticking with the the survey the original I mean one thing I'd like to ask Tim classy is did they ever Envision access to the non Ste slow portion of the yart which you're asking for now what doesn't appear on this I I don't really know I told I we were very clear with Mr classy we had two concerns we highlighted the encroachment over the top of the pipe uh and we highlighted the Steep SLS and we had our concerns um and we actually I don't know that I really ever I never thought we'd get the approval to build over the sanitary store so I kind of like I figured we'll revisit that whole back area when the time comes because they never get the approval so by surprise they got the approval to S load the garage because the sanitary store was so deep um not taking to the F that it was it was a clay pipe and quite old and those are brutal if the board would just give me a little wee a couple questions that to take up all the time here um but like I'm looking at the that that drawing right there and the original House you know what the square footage of that was I see the outline for the board it's the the very light gray on that picture what I'm getting at rich is what was the original uh footprint of the original building versus the footprint of the building that we have now the original one is about 1450 square foot footprint what's the footprint now uh 2700 all right so you doubled the house the footprint of the house all right right a little less but yes so I mean the reason I mentioned that is that if you were if given all if we started at zero and you came or you came with an application with Tim classy and the planners and said this is what we want to do including all this we might have a different way of handling that you might come with this presentation which is probably your age three and we might say that's probably not going to work you have too much speed slope go rework it but now you're ask us to come at it from the end and to say we messed up or contractor messed up or we messed up the goal Falls to us the owners nothing wrong about that but in addition to that we want more the extra walls and the access up look I I'm I'm not one um I'm not one who adds to an application to give ourselves a pound of flush to give up I don't I don't propose a 30 story building when a 10 story building is permitted knowing that we'll settle on 22 it's not it was not my goal um in looking at the site clearly that back area um scared us in terms of the maintenance and you know whether this house is this house has not really been constructed to accommodate that wall now um could it be made to absolutely it's just High money and disturbance um could it be made to accommodate that yeah so this area um I think is um it's certainly a better plan because the the client can come around the house yes could they have made the house smaller yes and would that have been an option earlier yes um is that easy to do now no um is the house still undersized it's considerably undersized for what's permitted in the zone so at 11 and a half% I think it was roughly where 14% is permitted it's not a house that's oversized for the lot um I think the clients will be the first to admit that now that you know you get an architect who tells you this is the standard you should go for I think the client would be the first to admit the family room is probably bigger than they needed but we are where we're at um and again it's not an oversiz house for the lot it's under you know we get so many siiz for a lot and I agree with you with square footage but you do have the Restriction that we have in this town is keep slope that is restricting your building I don't disagree or your building lot if you will y and that and that restriction was as before the this proposed yeah and I have to say um you know unfortunately the ordinance we've been talking about changing that ordinance for years we haven't done it yet so we're stuck with that ordinance there's been talking about how thousand square feet is just too restrictive but we haven't changed it yet so we the ordinance with the ordinance is unfortunately um I don't like being here but I'm the only one who will show up so I'm the one can I um so you had made several statements that you think these Hills were man-made I also live in the neighborhood it's actually my dog walking we're beautiful home by the way we watched it going up but there's always been steep slopes there I'm not sure that wooded I remember when they started construction I was wondering how they're going to put a house there because it's really steep so prior to the construction of this it was a pretty steep hill Slayton is a very Steep Hill they call it Short Hills for a reason I don't disagree um so these were these are known steep slopes well my my point was I I was born in 1959 so I wasn't here when the subdivision was approved and that's when those in in my op opinion having done we don't do them anymore but having done 30 40 50 lot subdivisions I I have an understanding of how you you know balance cuts and fills and you try to match grade but there's times when you have to keep your steep your slopes your streets down to a certain pitch and so there's areas like if you stand and you look at either side the house in the corner fouth that sits up you know 10 12 feet above the road and our house it's tlit because that whole area was cut down to accommodate a reasonable slope on Slayton as it went from heart shorn to uh the next Treet Town um 50 years ago yeah 50 years ago so so we're talking about what is since I've known it and since you've known it it's certainly been steep back there but those steep slopes were not what the glaciers left behind there what was left behind after the Builder created building Lots by carving in creating accessibly barriers and leveling off and pushing steep barriers so they were left with the interstitial stuff between lots of lots lots of properties that gets above 20% but they're not but the ordinance was probably constructed after the glacier age so so we whenever I hear Glacier my eyes perk up a little bit as the board is aware the ordinance does not distinguish between natural and man slopes there's no analysis that's done to make that determination it's steep slope disturbance um and also since since the GLA age of the glaciers yes um that the newly proposed development is it fair to say that that none of that is mitigating any detrimental impact from the prior steep slope disturbance by the contractor another you're not doing something now with your proposal to change what we're seeing on A3 to make things better given the disturbance that was not approved corre there is nothing I can do to mitigate the steep slopes back in this area other than Excavating down 10 12 feet down to the foundation coming back up with that window well inst stalling that which would be a lot more disturbance of the Steep so if we can restore it back to his pitch but um there's nothing I can do to get rid of that now um if there was a way to do that we would have now is it an over ask saying as long as we're here um what we would have done was X Y and Z and Mr Crawfield is correct you know you it's it's absent the ability to horse trade with the board and say well if you built a smaller house we might be able to understand a little more steep self discern so if we're certainly willing to eliminate we've eliminated the uh the the variance for the generator we certainly be willing to eliminate the additional path up to the back and we' be willing to eliminate um the bo out of those walls and keep what's there I don't I don't know how else to mitigate other than say the only way to mitigate um is to well I can't mitigate I can leave us there wouldn't it also be if you could mitigate it by if you're building the new portion and re redoing that second portion that you would um mitigate it by conforming with the separation of the retaining rules I could agree to do that um and then the client would have to make that decision because what I would do in that case um is I would set my limit um at the back wall and I would come forward with the separation so what I would do is I would hold that limit disturbance I would generate the six foot of or five six foot separation here and kick this next wall in to be for foot so essentially I would go no further than that but I could bring these walls forward which would create a smaller but still usable area then the client can decide if that's worth the money um to so we could at least we can certainly say that these three retaining walls um while it does drive up some of the steep slope disturbance we could build those in a manner that would be consistent with the separation requirement and it would be done at the expense of not going further in the Steep SL but pulling holding these walls closer to the house you would still result in some additional steep SL disturbance I would still get steep slope disturbance but it would be sort of inside the limit of that path the path was kind of chose for the area where we get you know the softest um uh way up the slope without making you know sort of break neck slopes so it's within that area so yeah we would still require the same amount of steep so distance that we requested but I would I would eliminate the request um for relief from the separation between those walls but that's and that's also assuming that when you say that you have to talk to your client about whether they'd be willing to do that that we would be as a to yeah you you POS the the possibility and obviously if the board were to approve it we we would hold whatever's between these walls because I just can't bring them any closer to the house but where we're talking about modification I would certainly so I limit so I guess in question to in response to Mr s's question so the lack of Separation that occures between the lower turquoise wall and the Upp turquoise wall that separation variance would go away continue to the right side we'd eliminate the variant on the existing two walls and I create three walls that met the separation requirements by holding that backline and pulling these walls further for me just humor me here I feel terrible you guys are going through this this is terrible but I I cannot un conscience really approve these walls as they are that particularly in that right hand corner that's going to be misery on misery there's so much stuff that is unsafety that giant wall so close to the house with no separation and these walls are not going to last forever they're going to have to be replaced so what do you I mean so much pressure that they're holding the walls if Constructor properly and so we have retained except that they're not because the structural back no structurally I'm not talking about the the ordinance I'm talking about the ordinance cover some safety measures and some structural safety in it we're having that shut Landing according to the memo that was written by Miss Callahan is that was the reason for is to get those wall so they didn't didn't interact and and her comment was if you go slow closer that just means the wall needs to be designed accordingly so I just feel like there's just physics there's more pressure on it there isn't but but we can we can we can certainly build walls that will be what would happen if you push the walls back we made these walls further away and made them in compliance with terms of the step back it would increase your steep slope disturbance but they're so close to the house you're just going to be living with the problem I get is that by the time I get the separation I would probably had have to add a fourth or fifth wall behind and I don't have that Latitude to add to the right side so by the time because again if I if I go back two more feet to get six foot separation I go up two feet and if I had one more foot between them so if I go up a total of you know two uh one foot two foot and three foot I'm now I have six foot more vertical to accommodate and So you you're you're chasing you're chasing grade so could we do that um I think we could do that on the right side at more tree removal but I run out of real estate on the right side to kick these walls out because getting I see what you mean you're very close to the car l in terms of the the structural Integrity of the wall um the they were designed by by a geotechnical structural engineer based upon soil sampling um we assume that they were built correctly and they have to be signed off by that engineer um there was no point in having the engineer come out and do any testing because if this board said you have to take them down there's no point in paying for that work but um before the the township engineer will approve uh and give a CO um there has to be a certification that the walls are built as designed and if they're built as designed then there's no reason that those walls won't be there as long as the house is their build is designed but they're not up to code well when you say code building code and structural code is different than zoning ordinance yes so so I think Rich it would be helpful with regard to let's put aside the current ask okay just for a moment with regard to what you refer to as the turquoise roles you know and particularly what Gina is referring to as that the corner and the minimal separation uh between those walls in the corner and the and the house is there is there any zoning or even site plan ordinance that is violated by the putting aside steep slopes by the actual location of that rle no okay so just so you understand that so so they're in compliance of being 24 in off or whatever off the house right so the there's nothing that that's within this board's perview just as to separation distance between a wall and the structure of the home that's correct other than it's a steep slope that is right next to this yes the steep slope the servant is separate I just wanted but it's relevant I mean that's the reason certainly relevant but I just wanted to make sure that there's no additional variance that's triggered by it's just relevant because it's such a steep slope right next to the house y with with the need for a variance because of the lack of of of separation between the law sections correct and rich just so we know the turquoise walls which are there now in place they need a variance and the proposed wall to the black and white checkered ones they also need a VAR they also need a VAR although as indicate if the board was willing to entertain that those additional walls we could modify them to meet the separation requirements so I would still I would still exceed the steep slope ordinance by the same amount but I would remove the I remove some of the existing walls that don't meet the current separation ordinance and I would replace them with walls that could meet that so just so I know what you're proposing is where you're putting in the black and white checker walls you're going to eliminate the correct the colored walls the aqua walls y yeah so there's a slight benefit getting rid of some of those walls are too close replacing them with walls that would be meet the separation requirement I'd still be asking for the same 2,000 plus square feet of steep slope disturbance um if that was not pable to this board we would keep the existing walls um I don't think I have the ability to really get that separation much more um to offer any um changes on the proposed location but certainly as as I can make those modifications to any additional walls and we'd eliminate some noncompliers and you would still be able to get the path that your clients want up if even if you make them conform yeah even if I make them conforming because that sits right above that last wall and I wouldn't move that last wall location would stay where it is the walls would just collapse towards the house by a total of I think it was two foot and three foot that so five foot closer so these would separate get a little closer the path is really where the path wants to be and if you stand there and look and say I need to get up there I'll kill myself what's the best way to go you're kind of following contour lines and and getting up to um where you start to cut across them is where they're not quite as steep they're kind of running diagonal to the Cross to the Contours along the Contours and then where they're not quite as steep making to final lift up to the top plateau and the disturbance should stay the same whether they're conforming or or you know the the separation is conforming exactly y with that path what is the tree impact um we actually designed it to go around trees so there was no um actually there well we're in we're in the um we're basically matching grade so um I might have two small trees that are impacted we plan on planting a lot of trees was there was there a tree inventory done in terms of species diameter breast heght of the trees in that area including those that look like are going to be disturbed by this path and these new additional retaining walls we had an original um inventory that was part of our tree removal and replacement permit that was approved by um Stacy the Forester so obviously if we if the path requires the removal of any additional trees greater than 10 inches in diameter we would amend that plan to provide the required exponential number of planting so for a 10 in tree you provide four for 15 six whatever it is so so clearly whatever this board decides to do and and we hope that you'll approve it but if this board were to approve it we would still need to if this app I think we designed it so it really was kind of running along at grade and it's not a paved path it's not a it's basically where we had to we'll build in some steps so we're trying to be natural path with some Boulders some rocks on the side of it we tried to design it so that it would basically match the grade of what's existing so we hope it won't involve any more tree removal if it does then obviously we have to deal with Stacy who will require Replacements and we will be planting more trees on that hill just as is without the tree removal yeah everything got arrested during the when when we hit the wall Rich how do you think the prior owner got to the back um maybe they were more intrepid think he was probably able to get up there um it was actually Katie's grandfather was it he in town well there was the rail yeah there passed away but yeah he was um Jack mcder but he was a lawyer in town so they lived here been around yeah there was a there was a stair that came up through the Steep through the Steep slops and that's technically prior to service but there was a path in there um I imagine you kind of came up and it was little seep but you came up um came forward made right up to the upper part as a kid that's where I be I would have been skiing down there right my bike down there all that sort of stuff but what's the uh deal with this uh portion of fall map W 12 versus F map L 8 is there any significance to that on plan where is that so if you look on the top oh yeah right no it's just that at some point these came together as two separate file maps and at some point this property was extended um to go into the the L behind hunt so when we list the file map Lots the original um end of the property was where this dash line is and at some point they acquired through subdivision they acquired some additional property into the L behind but for our land title survey to take title to it we need to show the file map designations and indicate that this is actually besides the deed it's actually a combination of lot eight and a portion of Lot 12 yeah I'm just bringing that to the attention of the board because it seems that at some point the that whole alleged flat area was not what it is today well it was added on I don't with the topography was any different in no but it was added on in terms of ownership and use question um there so if you build this pathway which I think is really a good idea I think it is good idea it be nice to be able to use party your property the substantial that you can access right now is there gonna be a fence I know there may be variance for involved with that but to stop from falling down into the pit we have three young children four to come we will have a wall on top well we have a lot of a fence a fence can be placed on the uh back behind the wall with no variance relief required has to be 3 ft Back Fence is not required to meet the same separation requirements so in terms of getting once we do that walkway um three feet back from the existing wall we would put up a small fence to keep children from getting down coming down but that has to be that's Separation by three feet that would be not require any variance relief at all as far as the uh I don't know that you know we basically want to keep kids away from yeah definitely ret here once they go there you know I wouldn't do any protection the path that's just kind there is the int as long as we're three feet back we can put a um up to a six foot fence we probably do a three foot fence might have did a bar wire but but um no there would there would be a safety fence that's got to be install if we're going to uh allow P kids to get out there we certainly want to have some safety top wall there like I said I I didn't that because it doesn't require any variance relief but that would certainly be something that we would do anyways and we would agree to as any condition the board might Grant this we would agree to do that interesting there's no ordinance requirement but yeah it's actually not a building it's funny it's not a building code issue because it's not attached at the back of the house so it is it is a smart thing to do but it's not required by some required by insurers but not required by the building department or any building code but it's something we do recommend any other questions from the board can we just review The Proposal on of as it is tonight besides the pathway which I know and the new walls in black and white which you have agreed have you agreed that you could make them conform to the step back could requirements but what's going on with the turquoise walls these are the as exist turquoise walls will go from where the black and white wall start the turquoise walls to the left of that wall be removed okay and the turquoise wall to the right of where those black and white lines intersect those would be to okay thank do we have any questions from the public do we have any comments from the public I don't see any so I am going to close the public portion um and I would love to hear comments from the board yeah I mean I think I think you know it's twofold right it's coming it's it's asking forgiveness for what happened say but but could we also you know make a little bit more of a I guess a rectangular Square backyard um and I can understand the rationale and I can understand the slope but it does feel a little bit of a I'll go after you if you I agree with that um I can see sticking with the the drawing that we have here the red is where they're looking for now which puts 775 square foot that would put them back to a situation that would excuse the Builder Mal feasance for lack of a better term um as far as the new retaining walls and the path going up there that's seems to me to be compounding what something against the public um again what we do goes with the land and if we you know we have a steep slope ordinance in the town if it disappears then we don't have to deal with this but we are faced with that that's a requirement it would seem to me that agreeing with B that we could get to a situation maybe call a middle ground where we agree with the 775 foot give them the walls that are in existence and call it a day um I'm not sure how you Regina as far as like the the height of walls in that corner I I don't I wouldn't be the first person to say that let's make them dig down 10 feet put a new foundation and take Windows out I think that's a bit much but I think there's an opportunity for us to actually help them at this point assuming let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they were badly ex be badly treated by their professionals on this with the exception of Casey that's just my thought yeah look I I mean I I agree with most of those comments um I I do think we should um put them in a place uh where the um I was going to say Mal malens but I don't I don't want to I don't want to go that far but but what the prior what the Builder had done um got to get them back to to kind of where they should be I I to me the stepping stone path seems like a reason able thing to do it's a good idea it makes the property more useful um so I actually am not I don't have a problem with that I do sort of think that asking for the additional walls um or the change in the walls uh that are marked in black um seems to be a bit L um but I think the path to me just makes sense we might need to see if R can even do without W yeah we can reopen it yeah yeah I I can unequivocally do a path Without Walls actually get more separation so I can I can easily design that path um it would basically take the limited disturbance and kind of put it right around the stepping stone and we're not talking about major disturbance but technically where ordinance is written if I put a plant in the ground I did go home put a plant in that's disturb so I could certainly do just around the the the um the stepping stone path and eliminate those three walls leave what's there um and not does not require the three modified walls that seems to make sense to me seem com I think the okay that the app would like to speak the public forun still open yeah okay just in terms of the path I our aesthetic and what we would go for and that design would be a natural path I don't know if that changes your minds or you know we're not going to put like blue stone thick you know rock thing it would be more much more natural into the hell would be our plan you know we'd work with Rich to figure out how to design it but it would be something that we built into the wall look like a nature path we just wanted to have some play space for the kids because right now they have nothing yeah and I would the last thing I would add is by the way we did speak to not only the esal and our husband we have actually spoke to all the neighbors around us and none of them are here tonight because we vetted the plan they have no problem now that we've managed the walls on the left side with towns um working on the sewer um we have met with the other owners in the area uh including uh esol us above us and they had no problem thank you I'm gonna close the publiction again um what one question that I have for the board is the idea of getting rid of the current walls from the you know the that that corner portion on to make them conform at least with the separation requirement because right now if we're saying just kind of leave it as is we'll approve that and then you can build your path um we're not getting the benefit of at least having that half of the property have you know conforming separation between the walls so just a you know question just something to think about so since they're willing to were willing to remove them in the first place yes right yeah I mean from my standpoint I think this is uh uh the way we posing about the the steps that will take up to the area which is usable I think that that's clearly fine in terms of the walls I think you kind of mentioned about bringing it closer U hearing what you just said about you know getting the Aesthetics and making it more usable at least have some portion you know dropping the current wall um maybe a little late but you know I I think just as as Joe mentioned about you know trying to work with what we have here slate but um I could kind of you know be okay to you know go ahead with that but but it's it's not something which uh we been happy with as we kind of laid out earlier but you know something which we have you know as a board be okay to support this not to interject I'm sorry I just want to let other thing for the board to consider I mean just remember that we are we are going to have a number of matters we have a couple in front of us now that it was designed a certain way and they went rough shot and they put up whatever they wanted to just remember said not we're setting a precent by this case but it's not the first time that this has happened so I I would look to try and be a reasonable to to help in this situation but not to expand upon it can can I just remind just one thing that you know we as a board or you as a board or a board of adjustment right qu BS and Strikes in terms of ranting and denying variance relief based on positive and negative criteria this evening for C1 or C2 and or C2 that es um we are not an enforcement organization right so um whether these walls were put up properly or improperly is really not before this board are they facts that have to be taken into consideration because they're facts of the case absolutely but you should really look at the relief that's being requested regarding the steep slope disturbance the wall separation Etc and determine has the applicant met the burn proof posi negative criteria um but in the context of that you are certainly permitted as part of your role in trying to mitigate deviations to say hey look this is too much whatever this this may be in your own eyes so just just to kind of so I'll go next I'm actually I actually think your proposal quite frankly of the black and white just for lack of better term to to identify them those walls don't bother me as long as you agree to do this separation and I think the pathway is an excellent idea I have less problem with that then I do with asking for the variance on the on the the the steps in between the separation steps on the existing walls that to me is a safety concern I also think there's going to be drainage problems that there's a reason those step back ordinances exist and I am very uncomfortable and I feel bad for you because I think it's going to lead to misery I'm also un concerned about the Integrity of the wall I'm concerned about drainage on that wall um so um I'm probably a little bit I agree with all your comments but I have to say I'm more comfortable with what you're proposing in terms of mitigating access to the backyard than I am with leaving those corners and I feel like these turquoise walls are a problem and I to your point Mr call field it's like if what if we say oh we'll just forgive it because it exists but it's sort of like wait a minute people just build things and it's so wrong and then we just forgive it because it's already up that's not really a reason to forgive it no it's not what I was saying forgive it that it's already up I mean just to give them the benefit that assuming that you take their word for it it's not their fault it's well again take their word for it it's not their fault that it's their Builder's fault that and inspections and there were inspections so we assume that that Le I can assume at that point that it was put up according to the way it was supposed to go but um like would I like I was to ask Jessica too like these the turo tur would you ask them to move that wall to separate it out yeah because he he testified that he can't do it too close to the proper but all I'm really look all my position is is that they had a situation where they were looking for 972 71 something like that5 disturbance and and all I'm doing is trying to stay with the the requirement steep slope to limit as much as possible but help them out in the situation that they've described to us and that would be the redlined area and inside of that is the turquoise walls without any other new walls or pathway that's all I'm that's kind of my thing in that nutshell so um for you might want to ask the applicant um if they based on all the comments of the board correct what they want do yeah especially because you know whatever the board's going to ultimately vote on it needs to be clear in terms of the actual calculation you can't you can't separated and do it all on the fly so um as our attorney just mentioned do you want us to go for a vote or would you like some time to discuss you know just based on our comments um you know how how you would want to move forward um we've indicated that we are willing to do one of two things one of two things when the path can be constructed um it would cut down on some of the steep slope disturbance um we certainly would be willing to either um increase the separation of the existing walls to conform or not build those at all um and so I don't think they're materially going to CH I think that can be described um orally or written I don't think it needs a redesign of the drawings per se I'm sorry when you just said the existing walls that can be separated are you talking about the like the walls that we're seeing right now down no no no like not on that plan on the picture on your photo board those walls that that are yeah no not that side the other side are you saying you're willing to take those existing walls that separate them you're so it's not the existing no I said existing I meant you the proposed this would um I'm not sure trying to separate these two walls to meet the minimum requirements starts to create sort of a similar sit situation that I have here where I'm starting to pull these walls forward and I'm losing even more area and getting tighter to the house so I don't know that that's really a viable solution I can either leave these walls in place or the proposed walls which were shown black and white I can those and pull them and separate them so that they meet the separation requir just for the words you would be getting if you if you did the proposed walls you would be getting rid of the current nonconform from right in this from essentially from through the the magenta line I would be kicking that back and I'd be getting rid of these two walls and replacing them with the three new walls in there and those walls could meet the separation requirements yeah so look I I know it's not this board's job to determine what our application is um it's our application and so I'm looking you know we've listened to some of the board members delivery um and I don't have a clear sense of which which way the board wants to go um we're obviously I think I think that's why the chair is let me let me not give up the the the uh the meeting yet let me talk to my clients for 15 seconds 30 seconds you want you want to take a three minute e e e e e e e e e e e e e e if you're here say yes Joseph Goldfield present Jessica GL here sh here Pang Gary loosen here Regina TR here here no one has escaped just check so we had a very um emotional conversation with um my clients who come from two different perspectives um Katie obviously really wants to create a play area for the kids um and that's important um I think that um Jonah recognizes that they want to get a CO and just be done the whole process and so I don't normally do this um it's hard to read and so I don't know if the board would be willing to take obviously um the I think what would make Katie most happy is the agreement to keep the walls internally and modify these walls as shown with the um kicking them out with the provision that we would um comply with the separation requirements on point them to A4 which is the first she pack so that's clearly Katie's preference because it creates a more usable area for small kids because it's not really in mean to have toddlers playing at the top of the hill um Jon is a little more sanguin and says you know the cost of repairing that would be astronomical um so let's just take what we can get if possible we'd love to get sort of a straw vote because our preference is to do um the the the black lines black white lines except separated to meet this meet the requirements eliminate part of the walls that don't meet the separation requirement and at least get some larger area to possibly get a swing set possibly get a little more usable area for the small children um eventually they'll certainly play up there but um you know if we had a better sense um if if the board is really um Dead Set against that additional disturbance we would certainly take the path up and we would agree to we would be happy to leave the walls where they are complete the Landscaping plan um I know sometimes the board is a Manimal Tak the STW vat um that would be great because certainly um help help the mar situation question yeah I mean you could you could reopen it to public okay we reopen second how about putting up leaving the black and white walls and get rid of the path we get rid of the path but I think the path is I mean we could certainly get rid of the path um in the grand scheme of things think they can navigate the same way Katie's Dad did at some point the reason I say that is you want more room for the children to play you mean on the lower on the lower the lower yeah yeah so again just a question I know the answer this one was the builder have you asked the Builder about what in the world happened with these walls um the Builder and I aren't really talking so at this point it doesn't matter so the Builder is not willing to help you okay s you can't answer okay so I I feel Comfort I think we've given other um you know we have some new members but you know other applicants we've done straw you know votes in the past so I I'm not a not going to a complete vote but maybe giving I think we've gone really back and forth we've kind of been a little wishy-washy so I don't think we necessarily need to go so far as to say I vote for this or not but maybe we could be I don't know a little more um concise and you know a little clearer in kind of which way we're you know leaning to give them an idea I I think we need a specific proposal so it seems yeah so so is that is your proposal to build the curved walls and have them conform in terms of separation and have a path is that what the proposal is I guess we just picked up a third proposal a second ago because the The Proposal was to just leave the the three proposals were to leave the um the existing walls as they are landscape them close out the permits um um and not do the path which was just brought up or to do U leave the walls and apply the path and the third solution was which was to essentially um put the black and white walls in except with the provision that the that we would go no further than the back wall and these walls would be SPAC out to meet the separation requirements under the steep slope ordinance so there's we had two I think now we have three which is get but if you know in the grand scheme of things I think my client would probably rather if it was give up the path or give up the expanded lower section I think my client clearly would rather give up the path to the upside just deal with it the way her dad did um and then just get a little more play area behind the house what what does that do in terms of the uh disturbance yeah how much disturbance are you getting rid of by eliminating the P the P I probably if I get rid of the path I probably eliminate about uh 400 square feet maybe 450 of disturbance so what would be the net number in that case so you're at 2831 if I'm not m y probably about 2300 yeah so um the total green area was 775 but obviously we're keeping the walls in the separation side would say you're probably taking about 450 out of that 450 minus that bring us down to 23 uh 81 or 2375 so G I get a clarification on the path um are you cutting into anything or you're just putting stepping stone on it what is what's going to happen on you're basically because because instead of the slope so you're probably cutting in about six inches on one side and filling on the other side or you're just cutting in about 8 inches on one side as it's not but you have to still I guess entitle it technically but it's not let's be honest it's not that much disturbance to do the path it's not like the walls no no the path is minimal although it does add numbers but it's in reality it's minimal planting a tree is disturb it's 20% 20% of 20% of your disturbance yeah yep yep so we would we would be happy to eliminate the path I think in favor of the wall configuration modified to meet separation requirements and just deal with the backyard as it is I think especially when you have younger kids it's probably more important that they have a play every year than they have a play area at the top of the hill and so they can deal with that I have a question for our attorney if we if I could just ask a second this pass if we vote no on the path are they forever forbidden to do a path or can they just take that off the plate so that it's not a no unless the state boarding still part changes it's not forever like it wouldn't be like Jud no so in other words if if this application as a whole all the asks um if it was denied they couldn't come back in with the exact same application two years from now they would have to make some significant changes to avoid what said uh a bunch of times about the doctrines of restri Cl yes so they can't if they decide okay we would like you to take but what I'm going to recommend to the board is that the applicant you know and I understand I think the chair had a great idea is to kind of based on the interplay between the various board members to have them sort of explain where they are with the application but not take any type of straw vote I don't I don't agree um that that would be the appropriate thing to do and then based on your comments then the applicant can make a decision as to what their ask is and then you're going to vote on their ask whatever it is I think that's I think that's fair just question the 2375 that you mentioned after taking out that pathway correct just to clarify that's over and about a thousand that is permitted so 2300 is disturbance or that's so the excess would be a, less 1300 is correct 1375 okay over what's permitted thank you for that cloud appreci okay so I'm G to close the public portion again um and I if it's okay with everyone would like to start to and then we'll we'll go from there I don't like for I don't think any of us do but I really don't like forgiveness cases I especially don't like forgiveness applications that are really substantial like this one that being said that's what we have before us and as Rob said we're not an enforcement you know agency that's not that's not our job so I think that it's really important that we look at this not from that perspective like it's not our job to you know enforce to to penalize either the applicants themselves or their contractor anyone who's involved in kind of this this mess of you know of what happened and that we should really be looking at it you know from the perspective of you know if if this wasn't there you know when we went and we saw it like let's look at the application before us and what would we be comfortable with if anything you know approving so I can say that for myself I I think it's too much to you know just kind of give you know give free reain you know for everything you know that that's being asked right now but I think that um Rich has really made a good presentation with the positive and negative criteria I think that he has met you know both of those both of those things and I personally would be comfortable giving the I don't know that you know the technical term but the the new you know black and white walls um I like the idea of getting rid of part of the non-conforming walls and non conforming in terms of the separation between them um in order to at least build something that has the correct amount of separation and is giving the applicant a more usable backyard because again we went through all the positive and negative criteria I think that you know that that those standards have been met um I would definitely be in favor of getting rid of the path um because that will substantially you know percentage wise cut back on the amount of steep slope disturbance that's being asked for over you know what they're um entitled to by law or by by Statute so that's where I stand on this I'll go along with that brev Sol sure um I agree with that the the path doesn't uh um I don't doesn't offend me um but I agree I I think actually if you make that change and take the um proposed black and white wall and make it conform and I think it reduces the degree to which you're requesting the variance um so from zoning perspective that seems like a better application and my two s like um we we coming for forgiveness and um I definitely agree that that we shouldn't you know take it as it is um I think the the black and white what even is increasing the the dip uh slope dis uh disruption and I do not see other alternations so I probably won't support that um yeah that's my stand Point yeah I would be supportive of um uh of putting in the black the black and White Walls I think um at least we get the benefit of having appropriate spacing either way we're going to have the disturbance unless we're going to just deny the application in its entirety so I think that's a better result I'm not troubled by the path um but um but um that's up to the mrit um agreed you know forgiveness cases not supportive but generally as as Jessica laid out uh i2m okay with the pathway but from a numbers perspective I think it's a huge decline now that I hear the numbers and it's only 1,300 versus 18800 which is out of uh you know compliance so so I think from an Optics perspective it does matter that we you know keep that out that would be my view and uh you know as everybody's laid out those three walls which come in the curve gives us little more space in terms of usage area with little kids uh and I I presume that this the turquoise wall will be taken down with those structures so I think that that's sort of the premise that I'm going um I am in favor of doing the the black and white walls it actually takes up of almost 30% of the turquoise fending turquoise walls so I think that's a brilliant idea and um I'm not worried about the Optics of granting the pathway because in reality you're not really disturbing that much even though it numbers wise you are but in reality of what is actually being disturbed that's not much of a disturbance in terms of the actual Hill itself that you're only doing eight inches down so I would be a support of the black and white walls with the proper um separation between walls and I would also support the pathway so clearly our decision would be to modify the what we're calling the black and white proposed walls from where they currently intersect the turquoise walls the turquoise walls to the left of that will be removed the spacing between the three walls would be modified to meet the ordinance separation requirements and we would eliminate the path uh up to the top so that would be I think consistent with the bulk of the the feelings expressed by the board and that would certainly be um that would certainly be acceptable to my clients who just given me the KN okay so so is everyone understand the the current proposal would someone like to make a motion I would move to approve it as stated Mr second Shandra joh uh yes P um I will not be supported AR Rosen yes Regina TR yes that's St yes I miss Jessica Glen yes Joseph CL yes thank you I it was it was a difficult application for the first one of the Year thank you yeah first Mr did you watch the prev the this this case because we were we had already heard it I didn't realiz no I okay okay um so this is for 110 yeah 110 um yeah we we only have six but it's I mean you know so what is doing is she's going to recuse for now um because she would be eligible to vote if it goes for a vote today if would would not you would not because you haven't watched the you know the testimony um however if it doesn't go to a vote today and they will come back before us then you'll be eligible if you watch today's testimony and the you know previous time all said she's willing to do so I'm leave it to you if you want to leave as well or if you'd like to stay well so wrong for me to hear this and then watch the other one later no no no that's fine stay yeah well except that if we go to a vote then you can't I can't vot just here for the so is the before actually Beth before you go just one second is is the applicant here and ready to proceed on the application okay oh you time to see the moon cover LS um okay so next up we have calendar 4010 it is 110 Hobart Avenue um and it's a chargery family so just to remind the board so this is a continuation of an application that I believe had its first hearing on November 18th of 2024 the board heard some testimony there was evidence entered into the record um A1 A2 and then 01 uh 02 uh and 03 and where are we so do I need to S back in or well you you were SW the last time we can we can where SW in last I was the only one that sworn in I could just explain wait wait wait wait wait wait why don't we just swear in yeah everyone who's here on behalf of the applicant your right hand do you from testimony you give in this truth truth truth I do I do I do are sh owner no sorry I to apologize Brian Adams Larry surround Architects just spell your last name spell your last name oh c i r a n g l e thank you so uh so yeah Mr Adam represents uh this sun room who's the Builder of what you're proposing to do uh Mr Larry has joined us today as the architect uh you know obviously most of you were here last time they're looking to build a sun room on top of an existing deck a classroom to improve app life for myself and the family uh there was some arguments made against it and we're hoping to present evidence today to sort of refute that and uh and and hope hear from you guys so can I just if you're testifying as a architect can I get your qualifications yes um and what's your I'm sorry can you spell your last name c i r a n g l e thank you yes um I'm reg excuse me register architect in the state of New Jersey and I went to Don bosow Technical High School in Patterson and graduated with an architecture degree there went on to renier poly Technic Institute and I have a bachelor of building science and a bachelor of architecture degree and I've worked now since 19 uh 78 as an architect I had my business for the last 35 years and uh I've worked with New Jersey sun rooms for the last um 12 years we've done about 500 sun rooms together successfully and all different shapes and sizes and I'm here to represent Mr Chow's effort to get his sun room constructed and are your a licensed architect in state yes LIC in the state of New Jersey your license is good standing yes it is excuse me qualifications have been accepted oh thank you um yeah basically um the sun room that's being proposed is to be built over an existing uh deck structure that's been uh part of the house um and we're you know trying to show you that the the sun room itself is going to be an improvement for the backyard and for the user in terms of its uh you know positioning and things like that um right now the house which is about 30 foot tall um I guess the house was proved to be built about 11 years ago and there was no objection at all to that house you know in terms of its height any kind of Shadows it was casting onto the adjoining properties and our proposed sunro now um basically is not going to be much higher than the deck that exists the deck that exists um the top of the railing is approximately um 10 foot from the ground or actually 11 foot from the ground and with the addition of the sun room we're just going to really increase the height another 7 feet in terms of the U The Ridge Point um the benefit of the sun R too is that it will enclose the uh you know the deck and it won't be that much noise generating from the deck itself it'll be nice and closed space um and basically it's not going to cast any Shadow that's greater than the existing twostory um structure which is beyond it so we're just trying to tell you that there's a minimum amount of uh impact on the site in terms of uh shading there's no views to be blocked at all and it's you know really conforming with the existing um line of the house it doesn't project any further than the house and it is a low structure that's being proposed onto the existing de have have you made I mean you you heard the comments from the board well you I don't know if you watched the tape but have you made any changes to the sun room based on the comments um the sun room that you have seen is it's still the same but tonight we do have some uh you know documentation that may help everybody understand the uh effect that it has on the site's shadowing and that's through the use of a study that was uh done uh using the shadow map program and Brian and the owner of the company spend a lot of time putting together uh some pictures and you know diagrams it'll show that there's a very minimal effect um you know of Shadows on the property adjacent okay um before we started with that yes so this is so you're intending to present the shadow study for this for this project okay who um prepared the shadow study which one of you did that was prepared um by by the owner of the company along Sorry by the owner of our company along with the company that does a shadow they did it uh okay so did did the the person who prepared the shadow study are they here to testify as to the shadow study as to how they created the shadow study I was longed when he done it but he did it because he had more knowledge of it yes the owners are Peter Burley and Brian here is an associate who's worked with him since the company started so so Brian you're going to testify as the shadow study as someone who participated in creating the shadow study absolutely yes okay have you have you prepared a shadow study yes we have yes um what I'd like to do can you go yeah sure and take those away I get those mixed up it's quite uh a bit to look at but uh what we've done okay wait wait wait before you you're if you're testifying of the Shadow stud you're going to hand it out or I'm gonna hand it out I've got multiple copies I just okay um we've done it Four Seasons throughout the year and I've got the dates on there which I'll explain and different times throughout the day so uh we've done four picked four different times throughout the day to show the effects of the sun and the Shadows uh that's cast so if I can give these out um they need to be marked up obviously but I've got um a set for each uh season did you want the mark the map per set because it'd be a lot to mark up as a an individual well well did you provide multiple copies yes or do you just have one copy of each I'm sure could you repeat that yeah you have multiple copies of your complete present absolutely M copies of everything so do you have one for each member yes yes okay so um as you're presenting them y you're going to refer to them we're going to Mark how many different I've got four folders here okay so and each folder contains four you know Four Seasons okay so what we're going to do is we're going to mark them individually yes you know each fold whatever's in each fold yeah go through that of exhibits I'm just gonna ask you I believe that the um party that's interested in this application is here tonight I want to ask that you provide them with a copy as well so they can follow along as you're making your present absolutely yes go ahead so I think we're up to A3 yeah um yes okay this is3 this is January it's actually broken up into uh this is January Four Seasons Four Seasons January 9 2025 we have um March 27th of 2025 then June 25th to 2025 and then October first going to hand out about speak one at time apologize yeah so okay you just stated four dates in the course of the Year 2025 yes is that correct correct yes full studies for those months throughout the year for the year 2025 yes it says it on there the date on I'll explain that as as we give them out so why don't we start with 83 which will be what the January January 9 can you make a note on these ones this is A3 so for our copy just that to one because it's a compil compilation right if you give hand those give one to the there thank you okay we should have fun here this is going to be A3 okay hold on hold on okay so okay Mr Adams you prepare so we're we're looking an A3 yep which consists of three sheets correct different times throughout that day different times on January 9th 2025 yeah rather than just do one we we thought we'd do it a different time so you can get complete idea so so we're what we're looking at are um sheets that show a lot of green lollipops which are the assumer trees yes yeah that's the why they do it yeah and and and white what look like buildings one can't right so wait a second if if Mr Adams is the one who prepared the shadow study he should be the one who's testifying as the shadow study exclusively correct so I'm going to try to help you out a little bit Mr Adam just in terms of how you're explaining this to the board so starting on the first page of A3 can you please identify for the board the location of the subject property um the subject property where we hoping to build sun room uh where it says Hobart Avenue in the top it's the um there's a there's a large building there there the building next to it to its left is the neighbor's house and the next one along is a subject property can you hold it up in you I'll walk around very quickly that's subject property neighbor's house this is the subject property correct yes Inver question Inver oh yeah Inver is perpendicular this one yes the big one right before the split this is the subject this is the subject and this is the neighbor yeah at that Junction yeah so can you can you just ident so so the building if you see the the name Hobart Avenue yes is the neighbor property right below and to the left of the H and hob correct below and to the left of the ancient Hobart okay that's the neighbor property neighbor and immediately to the left of the neighbor property is the subject proper is that correct yes okay can you just show the neighbors right now just so they have a point of reference we got it got it think I understand this is our house this is your house propos I understand okay okay wait wait wait wait wait talk and that'll be the same with all the others so it be the same layout so go ahead so so you I think it's important for you to describe how you prepared this exhibit A3 before you get into what it shows and the significance of what it shows how did you prepare this document that you're presenting to the board there there was a system and it's in 3D um which is a lot obviously we can't show a you know a 3D system on a laptop here because uh that's that's how it was done and uh it has a Northerly point on it and it shows you the Arc of the Sun and the Shadows did it casts as you can see you see the Shadows of the trees on the first page there and this this one was taken at uh proposed to be like um no this is 7 uh 7:22 a.m. in the morning um 1 1925 uh so that the Shadows that it would be uh casting there is an intense amount of trees in that area you know and they cast a lot of the uh the shadows as you see at that time in the morning there's no shadow on the subject property no Shadows cast from that onto the house next door if you go to the next page well is it wait so is is a A3 on the top right hand corner it says 157 and then the second page is 246 and the third page says 311 correct yes okay do those three numbers represent the times during the the times of the day yes okay so it's not 722 but rather at7 p.m. yeah 156 157 a.m. a yeah yeah it doesn't should say that yeah we thought we started the day well I'll just give you one so it's 246 going on to 311 so like the major parts of the day so this first page is7 PM the first one7 a.m. sorry sorry put the wrong way my I just need to interrupt for one for one moment just before we before we move on go ah this looks to me and just before we go further this looks to me like a study of of where the sun is right in the sky during different parts of the day I think the issue that that the concern that was raised about Shadows was not where the sun is at a particular time of day the concern is once you do that addition in the backyard what kind of sh I'll be presenting that the next door neighbor so I'm not I'm just I'm not seeing that anywhere I just don't want you to keep going on and on you know about this if if you're not giving us the information that we need which is not about where the sun is in the sky it's about smacking that addition onto the house and what kind of Shadows that is casting on the neighbor's property okay yeah if you if you look at that that top page there you'll see with super ow we got the company to superimpose the addition on the left hand side and at that at that time uh that time of year is casting no Shadows at all on the laboring property wait does does this page reflect the addition yes it does that is this little piece is the add that piece that's what superimposed okay then obviously when it moves on to 246 the is what does and what does 246 represent is that 246 in the afternoon in the afternoon yeah he got UTC there the system should really show that but it doesn't UTC IND yeah now at that time of day uh there is Shadows that are cast but not by the uh sunro that those Shadows are cast by the trees that are surrounding it so at that time of day that time of year the only Shadows that are cast on at that time are from the trees so the sun room has no effect shadowing what kind of trees are these did I tell you what Larry can you pass these out we something else out now so that um you can see the type of trees that are there wait wait wait so what are you what are you handing out right the question was what sort of trees so we got an aial photograph showing okay so we're we're taking a break from the shadow St right just to reference of the property you want to uh because these are going to be in numerical do you want to start A3 with that one hold on already them out so A3 is the three page January Shadow study yes and A4 is what an aerial photo of the subject property nebor right thank you when was this picture taken this aerial photo um uh in the last couple of days January 13th what is it from this is what it does this does this reflect does this picture reflect what it looks like on January 13th January 13th maybe when it was printed printed yeah I'm sure ever all right so so this in the middle of the summer so what the board is questioning is the fact that you're showing a shadow study from January that appears to depict Shadows that are being cast by trees that are surrounding the subject property and the neighbor's property as if there are leaves on the trees and we all know that there are no these are not evergreen trees well let me ask you are there evergreen trees in the area or are these deciduous trees deciduous deciduous they lose leaves so the shadow study from January um cannot reflect the Shadows from the leaves of the trees that don't exist during that month is that unfortunately the system doesn't allow um you know to change the trees it just puts them in the trees it sees it from however this the systems designed but um but we've been told that this is the best system for doing the shadow study so I understand what you mean yeah if it was uh in the uh January as the other um A4 it um it doesn't doesn't necessarily mean it's true but you cannot do you can't change that on the shadow study but then why does this help us yeah why does why are we doing it why are we going through this if it doesn't tell us what the Shadows are yeah but as we get throughout the rest of the year you'll see it sh more often and depict it let's not spend time on that time when there's no leaves on the trees because it doesn't reflect reality so okay when does it reflect reality okay just just one more question I mean this looks like on the picture the CFT this looks like it's all similar height trees I don't think this shows that they're all similar height so does your program actually adjust wait so my PR is the program that uh we uh to use just for the height of the tee right I'm sorry Andrew you did you yourself input any data into this program you know how it works yes yes okay so what data or what they call morphology was submitted into this program that results in the shadowing that we see for example3 well what you give all all the you give the the addresses location State you put all that information in there first and it generates all the buildings around it the subject properties so that's something that's built into the program I'm I'm not a I don't understand it all I know is we do uh we along with the owner of the company went over this with us because we said we're new to this yeah we bought the program but we need and and he helped us uh create it okay so do you know Mr Adams how the information of the addition the sun room how that data is inputed into the program so that the the size and height of the sun room can be accurately depicted yes uh we we asked the owner were going to do that for us because he said said it was only showing the house as a as the box that it is but we asked him to show the sun room how it's going to be on the front that's why it's shown on there um the bit that juts out there but that's to specifications it's showing on here the height that the sun room would be the exact height yeah these buildings don't reflect reality right I mean the house the houses Don't Look Like Houses they don't look like like subject property I know that's we're looking at these pictures but they don't reflect like looking at where the Shadows go doesn't make sense because they look like other things I I understand you're right it it doesn't look like but that's the that's the how the program works yeah I'm not saying just representing the program I'm saying is the program of any value toss yeah because I think once you see like the summer months it will cast Shadows can I how did the trees get populated in here these two don't look like same it's the way the program works what the trees are if the real trees look like this why do they sh like this because you apparently it has to be in the program like that I didn't design the program so you don't know how it does no because you see the design is but but I think the point is the position of the trees here is not the same as the position on here and the position matters because of the Shadows so I don't know if these Shadows can be accurate the trees are so so so here's I think we have we have two issues here issue number one is that it's it's fairly clear that the owner of the company even know you participated in this process yeah that he's the one or she's the one who has the knowledge as to inputting the data and how to input the data into this program to come out with the shadow study correct okay so the witness um who performed really who performed the shadow study is not here to describe how it all works and that person then is not subject to cross-examination that's problem number one problem number two is as identified by various board members is that there's a real question even just based on A3 as to the accuracy of the program given A4 if you look at the trees that are shown on A4 in relation to both the subject property and the neighbor's property they appear the A3 Shadow study is not consistent in terms of tree location is what is shown on A4 is that I would agree with that yes so so something something is wrong and normally we would ask essentially the head of the company who would be here who did all this work how is it that there is a discrepancy between for example A3 and A4 but he or she is not here to to to answer that question so it leaves the board frustrated and not able to get the answers so that you can give a proper Shadow study presentation so yeah that's just my my thought uh the thing is if the program only does it in that that it's not going to represent I totally agree with you I mean that doesn't look like that because this is real life this is created on a program you know so but yeah I was asked to do a shadow study and this one come so so I I can tell you without speaking out of school um I have participated in applications involing shads a number of things and typically what I see because there's a complaint that oh the the subject development is going to cast a shadow on my house and my house and my house is that we actually not like this but in a but in a 3day 3D way just showing the two buildings that issue yeah at various times of the day various times of the year and shows the Shadows that whether they're there or they're not between the two buildings or between three buildings like three dimensionally not not like this I'm not being I'm not disparaging your program that you chose I'm just saying that that clearly from the first hearing there was a concern and an allegation that the sun room was going to cast a shadow on the neighboring prop correct and I'm assuming that you decided you wanted to do a shadow study to debunk that theory yes and I just don't know based on what we're seeing so far whether um the evidence is even reliable for you to make your presentation right as as the board wants good evidence from everyone from the applicants interested parties so that they can make an the board can make an informed decision based on the relief that's being requested so I just don't know whether we're there yet I I don't feel comfortable accepting this as evidence because it's too far removed from from the the reality of the subject property in the neighbor's property so I don't think it's worth you know taking up more time going through all these different studies of you know the month and the time of day when it's just not accurate enough for us to accept as as evidence understood I think there's obviously clearly limitations of the software itself I I do disagree in terms of positioning of the trees because it's hard to imagine from here where the trunk of the tree and where the position is but besides the point obviously clearly this software does not meet your requirements so we'll should me the the problem is when you're saying that most of the shadowing is coming from trees but you're also telling us that it's January when there's no leaves on the trees you I mean you know there's there's no legitimate legitimacy to what you're saying so um that's that's why you know again it's nothing against you but that's why this program is just not acceptable to us as a reliable Shadow study um Mr Simon could I ask you a question you you mentioned about you see a different type of study because it's new to me in my 30 years in America and 20 years in England doing all this I've never had to do a so we went and asked which was the best Shadow study and this one came up and they assured us that they've used it um at these such meetings before so we took them on their good word you because I gotta be honest when I saw it I said to Peter he would no he said he said it's like A1 it's like uh they've assured us that will be good enough for the meeting so I I take it there may be a rationale for that it may be that if we had the owner of the company that has the software here and could ask him questions he might be able to explain I'm not sure how but he might be able to explain why the pictures in A3 actually do reflect what the sun would look like in January for these subject properties yes but you don't know understandably you don't know and what we look at doesn't seem to suggest at all that it give us any indication as to what the sun would be like in January so the exhibit and the program aren't of much use to us without the owner at least coming up with some explanation as to why A3 actually makes sense that would that would be uh the obiously the owner of the uh the design it you know um I don't know where he is but I don't think he's local you know I mean a lot of these people come out of California they're fighting fires at the moment so uh so but I understand your point if he was here and he could say well but I don't know whether you'd be comfortable if he even if he was here because of the difference that it's portrayed on here I think thaton to skeptical but obviously there could possibly be an explanation as to why it looks the way it does but but we don't have that person here and so just looking at this exhibit it is very difficult for us to come to any conclusions about what the impact of the sun would be on the two properties and given that you trying to present evidence to us as to why the concern that was expressed that the sh that there would be shadowing which would be problematic for the neighbor um you know this doesn't do it so you've got to have something else to Y explain to us why this is the concern is not really a concern can can I just want to be clear about one thing though that you know the pro to prove and they can do that way they right and it's up to the board as to determining whether those proofs are adequate to meet that burden okay there there is no technical requirement to submit a a shadow study and I believe that the applicant probably in good faith attempted to um try to put together a shadow study to address some of the concerns from a neighbor who presented at at the last meeting they don't have to go forward with the shadow study however the objector or the interested party they have a right to present a shadow study or not present a shadow study that's up to them and in the end it's the board's job to weigh the evidence that's being presented by the applicant and ultimately uh if any by members of the public so a long-winded way of me of saying you can if you want to proceed with demonstrating that there's not going to be a shadow cast from the sunro I don't know if this particular presentation is the way is the way to go you don't have to present a shadow study but the board you know may take that in consideration in in determining whether um you know you meet your burden approv in terms of no negative impact on suround property yes yeah it was brought up by a member of the board about doing a shadow study so um I said I'd never heard of it but um you know so I'm still green about these shadow studies and and I I take it with what everybody said about the study does it really you know um but it's just taken the trees you know all year round as the same trees when we know they're not you know so um I I don't know whether you want to look at the High of the summer one where where the sun as we all know is higher in the sky you know I mean or I don't know I mean uh I'm going to be a bit mythed because it wasn't a cheap thing you know we would I can only go on what people tell me and this was represented as like being the best Shadow study so you know so and I as I said I don't disagree with what the comments you've made about it can I ask a question what is your conclusion of this Shadow study what was your what was the point you were trying to make you know what I think it's best if you see this one although it's lollipops there's more there's four season yeah I think the summer one will show exactly you know uh because it's higher in the in the sky the Sun so can I give out the sum of ones and and you can see to the chair person but but do would you agree that it's not only about the trees having leaves versus not having leaves that the trees themselves with you giving us this picture and then this picture pretend that this was July okay when like every in full blo that this is not reflective of this in terms of where the tree locations are do agree with that I I do agree with that yes so so so again if if there's going to be shadows that are cast by trees and not by the new addition I don't I don't see how that's relevant if the trees are not in the correct positions even if it's you know the summer when the trees would be in full bloom and the Sun is the highest in the sky if we don't have the trees in the right positions then how is that helpful at all I don't know where they going ask their information from I me obviously they have to look at like uh Google Earth or something like that you know and uh so they can get a a visual a satellite picture of the area and um that's part of the programming so which I don't know but I think it's clear I think rather not waste anybody's time you guys are not going to accept that it's not acceptable so should move on to other arguments and see if you can still persuade you guys is that fair I mean I think that's your choice you know if that's yes what you want to do so I think again largely the two arguments obviously that made one the shadow itself that being cost based on not just the trees but the existing structure of the house again the exhibit that's already been displayed to you guys um again it's marked as 106 which is neighbor's property 110 Hobart which is my property U as you can see the existing structure is already quite ahead in terms of where it's at where it's spilt out including the sort of 30 foot sort of you know structure there and B wi as you can see it's considerably ahead the property already the deck is towards tail end is not displayed here in terms of the new structure that we're proposing that's the existing deck Google photo and we're looking to put something on top of that uh the argument clearly is that by putting a sun room on an existing deck 7 feet high higher than what the existing raing is is not going to materially impact the shadow that it casts on the property of the neighbor or the views which are the two main arguments made um I have only one sort of set of photographs if I want to sort of submit these into evidence and pass them around uh again these are taken this afternoon at about 3:00 so today uh and so it is January uh and there are a few of them I'll just explain the first one before I pass it on just sort of explaining okay so how many photos are these um so five five so why don't we mark this 85 series of five photos taken by the app today right yes correct um and so the top one is basically the shadow Shadows costing um right I'm sorry Shadows costing at 3:00 with the existing structure obviously um not simp opposing the ft that would go higher than that arguments to make besides that yeah I think if you think of the sun room I mean almost as a giant umbrella at discovering wa I just want to did you just did you just describe one photo and hand out five yes no no no no no so if we're going to have those be part of the evidence you said there were five photos corre I want you to describe what each photo was when you took it where you took it from and what it depicts okay sorry I didn't know that that's okay no problem uh so this is taken from the deck at 3 o' all of these pictures taken the same time around 3 o' today um all of these pictures are U you know the first two pictures are from my property from the deck facing our neighbor's deck and to sort of depict the shadow that is costing uh the third picture is just uh from my backyard showing my property and showing where the de where the sun rooms would be placed on top of the deck um uh the fourth picture is also just a picture of the Shadow being cast uh and then a view the last one from my deck showing my neighbor's property largely to depict how far back it already is from our existing deck so the what the structure that we're building is uh mostly be going to be already be covered by my existing living room and not the deck that is being you know position that that they're putting up in front of it that good that good thank yeah are they all at the same time sorry what is this a pho uh that's from our deck uh with the neighbor property so it's sort of kind of showing how far back we already are obviously for my deck is my living room so this is from my deck how how high would the sunroof sun room go up against the house because I see like a large it would be below that upper window there below that window yeah so it's like halfway up there so um all the shadows will be cast by the taller building because if you look at the orientation of the neighbor's house is in back from it when the sun it's going to hit the upper building so it would be in Shadow from the existing building is as it is now so the lower building will have no effect on it that's all phots nobody pictures surprisingly they're not expensive to print I forgotten how you know cheap they are to PR um since you you wer in here last time right this my can you so you understand one of the variances there's two variances one for side yard setback and one for Combined side set right and you understand that regarding the sidey yard setback um what's required is a 12 foot setback and what is being proposed as 6.2 foot setb yes along the the common property line that separates the subject property from the neighbor side corre you understand that um how much of um how many linear feet additional linear feet um deviates from the 12 foot requir based on your plans see um it's pretty much power no no no this question for the architect yeah right now the sun room is in line with the existing profile of the house there's no projection further we're keeping within the line of the home I understand that but the but the home itself is deviates from the setback report doesn't yes okay so how many linear feet additional linear feet are now going to be in violation of the par please the whole that Mr Adams when the board asks questions of one witness the other Witnesses should not be speaking okay basically it'll be 14 foot the length of the wall on the side that projecting okay so so you're going to have an additional 14 feet that um are going to deviate from the sidey setback correct as well as the combined set right thank you g you ask this but the overall height from the ground to the top of of the structure what is that top of the proposed structure or the the proposed structure yes sorry yeah that's um wait wait what's what's this be you're gonna ask your question yeah what's which witness are you gonna ask it um I guess the architect would be the yes I can answer that let me just get ours right here the exact it will be from the ground to the Ridge Point to the top of the yeah top of the ridge there's two left and right comes down 21 ft that's to the ground yes right below the window line of this twostory Edition okay and is it currently with the deck what is the distance between the currently three and 13 feet to the top of the railing oh and the to the railing what about the floor floor finish is eight floor of the deck 9 ft so it's a okay so it's a 4 foot railing okay that's to the from the ground to the right he said 21 to the top yes 16 and a half yeah I it shows 16 well on their drawing number 06 it shows from grade to the top of the roof at 165 in so not sure what's on 06 that's oh that here yeah well that's the top of the existing floor deck itself it goes 10 foot higher 120 inches yeah it's a full that's one from grade so yeah yeah so it's 9 19 129 that's 10 um 19 ft yes do you have a correction to make and some of your answers the height from the ground to the top of the sun rail yeah it's 19 ft not 21 righte the ground to sorry the ground to the deck sorry still deck would be 9 ft n9t and it's a four foot railing yes or three three foot high rail so it's adding 10 feet of height yes sun room should yes 10 feet do you have any other um did you bring any other exhibits that you wanted to show up that that was a my that we bought with you I mean um it's okay for me to think yeah sorry I've been interrupting and uh part of my uh nature everyone complains about it including my wife that's um the basis is that was a concern for the neighbor uh that it was going to interfere with a lifestyle um the first first and most important thing is they're not on an even playing field the neighbor's house is set back halfway of the length of the existing house so it's set back quite a long way so there's that to be taken into consideration and the other thing is that uh Larry has spoken about which is another thing that uh she wasn't happy about noise and things like that at the moment an open deck can be a noisy place but by enclosing it it's going to cut that noise out it's going to be contained within the sunro so that's a plus it's not it's going to make it better for her you know so um so those are the main things really I mean it's uh and it's it's lower than the previously approved um variance that's we're building onto which is a much much higher we're only going to halfway up that uh space so and the the side walls are only 7 foot tall and the roof slopes away gradually slopes away to form an apex roof so I think that's it I mean I can't think of anything else that I can add to that I don't think it will have that much of an impact I think the impact will be lessened because of the where the house is set back and and what we're building onto it is going to improve the quality of who knows who's going to be in the house after Mr ches out could we have lot wild parties on the deck that'll create a lot of noise I don't think he's going to be doing that but by that is a plus by building the sun room any noise is going to be contained inside there and it's not like a brickbuilt uh sunroom where it's totally obtrusive it's a nice like GL glazed sunro so it's going to allow light to pass through it does anyone else have some any questions from the board um do you have qu just questions right now I have a yeah overshadow study but right now we're only taking questions if you have questions we have all Shadow yeah yeah please do you does any member of the public have any questions for Mr Chow based on the testimony that he presented tonight do you have questions for Mr Chow based on his his testimony tonight should I no no no no you don't have to be sworn you can just get up and ask this is just time for questions so let's start with Mr sh I saw you already ask very question I just ask a little bit more wait wait hold on first of all come up to where I come near the microphone this is just for questions for Mr chry okay you have any questions for Mr CH is no the applicant he gave testimony you have any questions for him you have this okay do you have any questions no you have a question for him do you have any questions for Mr Chow oh for him no no no I have question for him okay hold on that's fine do you have questions for Mr chry I have a speech no no no questions questions no questions question okay okay we have a lot question wait wait wait do you have do you have any questions for Mr Adams do you have questions for Mr Adams based on his testimony you can ask the questions from Mr Adam and first Our concern is winter After Time afternoon okay we can wait wait you got know this is not the time to present any evidence that's my key point so we only concern about winter they took the picture the last two pictures and one two 46 one 311 okay okay just for this these two pictures and these two pictures shoes the fake tree hide the their proposed the sun shadow right it's just a highight sir I'm sorry first of all when you ask question has to be in the form of a question to the witness yes and I'm sorry I I this is my fault give me give me your name and address please Steven W same address we s family 106 Hobart Avenue Short Hills New Jersey 07078 okay thank you okay ask the question okay the question is you put this to pictures here for these two times and both use Tree Shadow to hide the sun room Shadow but at this time tree has no le just like that picture just like that this picture no no pictures right now okay no pictures asking questions why you make this Shadow study it's totally not effective right your question is this is something that we've been over yeah they already ask but my focus is Winters afternoon other so many pictures I know I just focus on Winters afternoon so just concern these two times 246 and 311 okay yeah these two are totally not effective right do you agree because at Winter's time no leave at all okay they already right here agreed I finished so that do you have any more questions for Mr Adams at this point uh no no okay do you have any questions for the architect at this point um you said um the height from the bottom of the sck Yes To The Top of the roof how much 10t 10t yes but the document said wait wait wait wait wait you can't speak yeah um we saw your document says 12 feet now you say 10t all right 120 in is shown here so you're referring to drawing number six of your plans yes we 120 in is 10 ft it's 10 ft from the bottom to the top yes this is not rear top rear top is here right this is the the shadow Mr Mr Wang Mr Wang the the plan the drawing 06 it speaks for itself yeah you have any questions if you seeking clarification I understand this is not 12 ft it's 10t 10t 10t from the bottom of the sand deck right the top of the existing deck to the top okay now I understand my question finished to so so hold on do do either one of you have any more any more questions okay yeah we need a presentation okay so now I would like to know if any anyone in the audience has any comments comments we did a stud so do you do you have a comment that you'd like to make okay so why don't you come up yeah to to there okay yes they need to be swor in if they're going to make comments are you making a comment also the later first she made presentation to show our shadow study we just do it at the same time yeah why don't you both still do it because if you're making coms s or from the test about proceeding be the truth the truth I do state your names for the record on your address Ste spell just spell it yeah j i n g c h a n g is it g or j i n g j July July July this is should I give it to him I um hold on one second what can you tell us what what is that this is wait wait one at a time this is my uh property survey the the rest of almost is a shadow study all the pictures hang on hold hang one second hold on second so why don't you can I see one of the copies please before you start is exit give me a second okay so just give me a second last hold on okay that okay so at the last hearing we marked as 03 your written formal objection yes right yeah is that also included in this new exhibit yeah the end I because it's different same thing just I put a date on it okay so this is fine so we're going to mark this as 04 and what you're going to need to do is slowly go through you can hand them out to the boards sure okay give one to the applicant okay than thank you thank you and these two okay okay so you're going to make a present so you're going to make a presentation right now based on 04 yes okay okay so why don't you just go Page by Page and tell us what what's on each page may I speak the the S um yeah we mention the photos okay I started first first tell us what this is okay so we know what we're looking then you then you see okay the first one is a for our property survey then the next one is a we uh we took a photo every 30 minutes from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. on December 22nd 2024 about every 30 minutes we took a photo and the photo six I have a lot of explanation to it okay so so the the the photos that you was described you took every 30 minutes those are photos one through six uh one to five actually uh six is same as four as the same as four yes but I want to explain it okay go okay can can I stop okay thank you so much good evening my name is Jin my husband Steven W Steven W is also here with me we appreciate the opportunity to present our foundings to the sunlight issue that is one of the concerns we expressed at at the last hearing held on November 18 2024 as you may recall our house is is at 106 hot Avenue and we are concerned about the proposed building of a c room at the home of our next door neighbor at 110 Hobart Avenue we like to start with a quick reminder of our specific concerns as presented at the last hearing to help you remember what I stated at the last hearing we provide you with a copy of a statement last time the first handout today is from our property survey which shows the size and the location of our house relative to our neighbor's current house and the proposed sunroof as you can see from the sketch our neighbor's house extends past our house by 12 fet they are proposed sun room on top of their current sck would extend this to a total of 28 ft in addition the sketch shows that their house and the sun deck is in a close proximity to our house and this uh backyard as mentioned at the last hearing this has raised the following concerns first the proposed sunum will cause a further reduction in our privacy second the proposed will severely limit our Westward View and the last the propos proposed will block the sunshi from the West on winter afternoons consequently we believe the proposed sunum will negatively impact the quality of our lives in the home we have enjoyed for 24 years in addition we believe the propos sunum will significantly decrease the market value of our house to address the sunlight issue raised from the last hearing we have included several additional photos that illustrate why we believe the proposed Sun were C caset on our back rooms and the backyard five photos of our backyard and the back rooms from photo one to photo five were taken about every 30 minutes between 1:30 and and 3:30 p.m. on DEC December 22nd 2024 as you can see due to the extended back of our neighbors house and their wide plastic fence the shadow grows over the two hours on our side obviously this situation will be much worse with the proposed 12 foot high sunro We Believe this sun room will further brought the wintertime sunshine to our backyard and the back rooms the following is our justification with evidence after past Thanksgiving our neighbor installed a several metal post for Holiday decoration lights along the edge of their current Sund deck the height of this post is estimated to be half the height of the proposed sunro photo six shows the two metal post marked with green and orange colors on the sun deck and there are corresponding Shadows cast on our backward vinyl the post marked with green is located on the corner of the sunnd deck and its shadow actually indicates the Contour of the shadow that will be created on our back wall if the sun look is built based on the height of the post shadows and the height of the proposed sun room it can be reasonably predicted that once the sunum is built at least the area below the DED Red Line will completely lose the sunlight that our back rooms currently can receive in Winter afternoons we can also reasonably predict that the propos sun room will block the sunlight to part of our backyard in addition to our back rooms the further blocking of the precious wintertime sunshine to our backyard and the back rooms will be a large loss for retired seniors such as us who spend considerable time at our home and in the back of our house enjoy the wintertime sunshine and its health benefits this will also decrease the market value of our house both are completely unacceptable to us we want to thank you again for the opportunity to present our concerns with the proposed sunu we wish we had understood the importance of the hearing in 2011 when our previous next door neighbor first renovated their house and extended in the back of their house way past our house this was a painful lesson we don't want to make that mistake again so we have come to this hearing to present our concerns with the sunum proposal we believe the photos that we presented at today's meeting provide you with additional evidence for our concern with the sunlight blocking that we raised at the last hearing we hope that with this evidence you will agree with our objection to the sun proposal thank you question who owns the fence the vinyl fence they they put the VY fence yeah just last year that was that so painful we bought a house with beautiful view now they cut it and the west side of VI I can see half of it so they put the fence in and they even even menion they even tell us just they put there one they are they put the fence and all we have a narrow narrow backyard it's all the way not I just can I bought how because the open view not just a narrow view very painful thank you is the fence in compliance yes and your sun room is in compliance do you have a sun room as well that's in compliance as far as you know I know it's good they don't have to apply for but just tell you the know how I feel thank you yeah any other questions and that's all I want to say uhhuh I hope you understand quick question yeah sure this last this past week have you sat out in your your your sun room a lot uh the last week yeah last week yeah the last CL you sit out there a lot oh I didn't get it the the the past week yeah have you sat out in the sunro my husband take a nap there all the time because the sun because the sun is so great they always sometimes he Sun baithing there your we your we got any other questions Mr way do you want to make you're done do do do you want to make a statement or no do you need to make a statement um give you have questions I want to no this is time testimony you want say say something else I think before you have question I think she stated very well okay good yeah yeah if you have question I can answer thank you yeah oh one statement maybe I make because we misunderstood we s is 12 feet from the bottom of the deck s deck right now I know it's uh fet so the doded red line could be lower a little bit very little the number six FAL six because this is based on the 12 ft and I made the minimum minimal estimation for 12 ft but now I know it's 10 ft so could be a little bit higher than the doed the red line thank you yeah um do you do you have any questions for the Neighbors uh a question no I've got a statement to make if I can is that okay well if you don't have any questions that was what the chair asked yeah do you have any statements that you would like to make no sorry don't with Jo reality um I would would just like to point out on Photo six of the of their of there of4 yes that was um submitted yes and the last page there was photograph number six on December 22nd at 300 p.m. at that time of year it's getting towards the end of the day it's going to be dark pretty soon after that when I'm looking at their sun room there are shadows there but there Shadows from trees if you if you look closely at that all all along there there's Shadows of trees there's no building yeah there's no building Shadows at all on there they're all tree Shadows so um between 3:00 and 4:00 around that time it's not going to make uh no difference at all and the Shadows that only cast on there are tree shadows and it's clear you can clearly see them Mr there's also you can see the shadow of fence that comes through there so that would give an indic yeah yes would give an indication if there's something higher than the fence that would also cast a shadow you can see the the trees cast The Shadow but but then you've got the fence casting the shadow so if you have something in between the fence you know the trees true yeah it's not knowing where those what orientation those trees are in though it's a I thought i' just bring it up because it does show that but um I don't know whether they're behind or to the side at all so but there's still some sunlight that's I mean there's substantial sunlight that's coming through not blocked by you know where where the trees aren't casting a shadow and above the fence so presumably if there's something on top of that fence then that entire area would be shadowed I think that I think it's very logical that there is a shadow being cast from our house I think our my biggest argument has been it is casting in their front yard or their backyard sorry uh beyond their house if that's a concern then there's clearly no argument that we can make yes it is going to do that and I don't think we can dispute that in Winter which is their concern I don't think they're spending a lot of time in their backyard outdoors and yes they're going to be casting a shadow to it then we put up you know sun room on top of the existing structure well it's not just the backyard though I think the concern is that if the sun room were built that it would actually cast the sh into their porch thing is now the twostory structure cast The Shadow sun room won't make much of a difference it's more minimal yeah sorry that's Lely the argument and based on the picture that we presented sure now that time at day 3:00 well we all agree it's getting towards the end of the day in the dead of winter it's going to be like 4:00 so the Shadows that are going to be cast on there are going to be minimal a part of the day for an hour maybe partially so you know I'm not going to say there's no Shadows but it it will be a very minimal part of the day well it may not be minimal Shadows it may be for a minimal part of the day that's the time yes yes yes sorry I didn't yeah it's a minimal part of the day that casting a shadow yes and plus your existing conviction is already nonconforming and even though it's minimum you're making things worse we're GNA have time for our comments but any questions yeah do you have a question I I want to see something the one second that's up to the is this gentleman done with this statement yeah I don't I don't know are you are you done yes I make that point about this the Shadows Shadow the trees and I agree with Mr Rosen that uh yes there's going to be partial there but I think it's minimal if it was all day long it could be a big point but it's not going to be just at that one hour in the afternoon thank you do do you have a question or just add something do you want to open open it to allow the public to say something to say something okay okay like a shadow that moves but the you building started with a whole thing just stay there okay I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting um now and um I'd like to hear comments just just to remind everyone this is an application for sidey setback and combined C right yep the applicant has a burden of proof to prove the positive negative criteria either C1 or C2 depending you so can I ask how in terms of how that translates you right so there's been a a um uh a concern expressed uh by W by witnesses that uh this will have a negative impact on their property because the for a number of reasons but one of which is that Shadows um their ports maybe covered in Shadows for some part of the death does the applicant have to prove that um to be able to prove the negative criteria but that no one is articulated correctly but there's no negative impact on surrounding homes um do they have to do they have to negate that allegation do they have to prove that it you know that there won't be a sufficient negative impact to right cause them to meet that bur cause them to fail to be the bur so the applicants have as a burn proof to prove either the positive negative criteria under under either C1 or C2 C1 is a hardship right and this board has made a determination on occasion that because of the existing location of certain buildings that already violate setbacks Etc that that can be deemed a hardship there's case FLW to support that um there's also under the positive criteria for C2 variants you uh the applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that one or more of the purposes of zoning has been has been met in other words that either um it's this promotes light air in open space it's a good visual design um you know Etc and there's other you can go through them if the board wants to um in terms of the negative CR and and remember in the for the C2 flexible C2 the Board needs to determine that the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments in both positive and negative criteria I'm sorry for both the C1 and C2 the applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that there shall be no substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood it's not no detriment it's whether you find that there's no substantial detriment that's what you're you're charged with um and the rule of thumb is typically that whenever there's a variance that is being requested because it goes against the ordinance there's always going to be some detriment in any application that we see the question is whether it rises to the point where it's it's going to be substantial or insubstantial and then the second problem negative criteria is that there's no sub stantial impairment to the master plan Z I don't know if that's helpful thank you so who would like to start so I I can pick it up like um again I want to reiterate that this is already a unconforming situation um and according to our Mr Simon um I do not see with this new Sun house it's going to bring extra benefit to the neighbor or to our master plan right and I can't tell whether there a substantial not substantial detriment to the neighbor but at least there's something there um unless with this new proposed plan you can tell me it's better than the current situation I would prefer not to make it worse that's probably my standpoint we take it order I'll go I'll follow up on sh um there was was you have a situation where you CH that you have um a side your setback requirement of 12 feet and you already at 6.2 so you're just looking to essentially exacerbate that that problem um for me when we have a neighbor that comes out and says something I give a lot of weight to that um if for some reason you could come to some type of agreement with her maybe remove the fence that might make her happy and you can come with this that's outside of us but my feelings are or if you want to cut this thing back and give yourself a 12 foot setback that might be something that's between you and your designers um as it stands now my thought is not to exacerbate the the U the sidey setback that's being violated now I'm just gonna step in for a second to say that tonight has really become about shadows and a and a Shadow studies and and there is so much emphasis that's been put on this but the truth of the matter is this is about more than just the sunlight and the Shadows this is about you know substantially exacerbating a you know already pre-existing non-conforming condition and this is you know the second time that this application is before us this is continuation where the neighbors you know came with you know some pretty significant you know concerns and and complaints and I think that you know you you didn't come back to the board with any changes whatsoever instead you just came back to the board with um and your neighbors with with with the same exact application and just a shadow study that you know again I think we're we're getting away from the real problem putting even Shadows aside you're trying to build you know something that's going to box in these neighbors you know the the surrounding property even more I mean it's you know it's already continued it's already you know over six feet closer to the property line than what it's supposed to be and now you're talking about really boxing it in so I think that that's really my concern um I I just don't want to get too off topic with with shadows because there's a lot more to this application than just Shadows yeah I mean I agree with those comments completely and and you know the reason I asked the question about the burden of proof is that it does feel to me like uh the applicant hasn't really come back with anything today to um to address uh or to um explain why there isn't a substantial uh negative uh impact on man neighor and um I think having uh failed to do that I think they don't meet their burden approve I would equo all those comments me as well I agree with all that my colleagues have said thank you all for your testimony we did go down Shadow Lane pretty far um I think the thing that was disturbing to me is that your neighbor said that this was going to impact your quality of life and shadows were one element and you came back and kind of tried to Discount your concerns which felt wrong but I understand you were trying to make a case um I agree with you all the didn't meet the the burden of proof that there was a hardship in fact this does nothing to promote light air and open space I think we can make a good argument that it decreases it so I would not be in support of the application um so you've heard you know the comments um from the board do you want to proceed with a vote or would you sorry one of my choices here I guess is it withdrawal or necessarily do you want sure so so um what you can do is you've heard the board and some of the comments of the board the chair is asking if you I think what she's asking is whether you like to carry the application to a future date to see if you might want to consider making some modifications based on the comments of the board you can always withdraw or you can come back and say nothing this is what our application is we don't want to make any changes and we want any take away so you can do one of those three things but the first question is whether you want to go in for a vote tonight or whether you want to carry it to another date and think about it I do not want to car It Forward I do have another question I guess if I do withdraw can I still come back in six months two years down line with a changed application clearly yes you can okay so because if I take a vote I guess if it no I can't come back with the new proposal at all well want to clarify that's we were talking about before so that if the board took a vote it was a negative vote you would have to um propose a significant change to the project So to avoid What's called the doctrine of rest your D flal stuff and I would have to prove that I have a significant change I guess that time that's that's part of right what I do but it's it test I just withdraw and then come back your arit could probably help you okay if we try to stay within the setback that would help out substantially that's the first ex existing I okay well that you guys can talk about that so so what do you want to do at this point uh we would like to withdraw okay so withdraw you don't want to get another date on the calendar where you could come back with a perhaps a a different like a changed plan you'd rather just withdraw for now uh yes okay so any any withdrawal so the applicant has indicated they want to withdraw the application that withdrawal my recommendation to the board uh would be without prejudice so that it would allow the applicant if he so desires to come back at some sort of future date with either same plan different plan or otherwise can can I ask you given all the expertise on the the fo panel here uh you know I'm obviously looking to use the space more and that was the intent of building this in all the time including winter obviously clearly in in the current proposal that's not acceptable I understand that and thank you for the late hour to still you know be around citing that uh but if I were to put just a retractable awning or an awning is that something that I have to come back with a variance or I'm not clearly sure not for us for you guys okay different gr that's you you know for the town you know the building department board cannot provide what what I think you're asking for which is an advisory opinion okay fa enough thank you for your time thank you okay okay so the application has been withdrawn at the request of the applicants and that'll be sorry withoute that's the end of the application for now okay thank you so much okay thank you um are there any I don't see any other people in the audience but any Matters from anyone in the audience not related to can I have a motion to second all in favor first