##VIDEO ID:PKFUJMd1r5c## the gentleman who showed up with no attorneys okay turn your mics on folks in accordance with Section Five the open public meetings act chapter 231 public 1975 the advised noce this meeting was made possible on the Bolton board by posting on bolon board town hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers list meeting annually indicated this meeting would take place in town hall uh at 7M on October 7 just Pres shrey Lawrence here Rosen here Regina Tru here here here Jessica GL here here um okay so we'll start this meeting first with approval of minutes at 81924 uh any changes Corrections on those minutes if not can I have a motion uh presid at that meeting were Joseph Amy Gary Regina Craig all those in favor anyone uh next we have two memorializations for this evening two two uh first we have calendar 39 9224 Veterinary Emergency Group LLC at 720 Mars turn Hills there were several revisions sent out but the last one was the uh final vest yes so so this afternoon I sent out a revision that incorporated um some additional language referring to the variance for the corporate logo which was three feet except two feet maximum permitted so I um revised the resolution to incorporate that as a C2 variant uh if there any other changes Corrections can I have a motion sorry eligible Joseph Amy Gary Regina um motion cors or changes motion to approve a second Joseph Coffield yes Amy Lawrence yes Gary Rosen yes Regina it yes okay yes and our seconding is calendar 39 8724 Pap Playhouse of 2022 book Side Drive Milburn uh any corrections or changes uh can I have a uh a hood the head count on that same people okay um can I have a motion motion to approve a second second Joseph corfield yes Amy laen yes Gary Rosen yes Regina TR yes Craig clner yes so this evening um there's a couple announcements and we're going to move some cases around here little bit uh first being uh calendar 39 8324 uh Amar KAC and Nova bronstein property located 112 kber road that matter is being carried to 114 24 there'll be no further notice if here on that one that will be moved then there's a calendar 3991 24 that is Timothy O'Brien at 368 s and drive uh that matter will be carried we 1216 that's where it's going to 1216 okay to 1216 so if you're here tonight on that one that's being to 1216 and no further notice to be provided by the app no further notice correct um now this evening um the property for calendar 3998 24 33 South Mountain that case will be heard last as we have recusal on that one um so starting off this evening we have calendar 39 9524 which is 52 Meadow Brook Road this matter was carried from 9162 um at David Sher speak this evening or s s some testimony proceeding be the truth whole truth the truth is davel so who would like to speak first tell a little bit about life yeah we've been we've been in town for 14 years so we have three daughters uh two dogs so the dogs are the only males in the family besides me um and um just out through the house right so we just need more space that's what we're doing here yeah the short story is we want to get some additional space for storage maybe a little office and the best place to uh that we found was to a uh to increase the roof pitch of the house and so we'll create a a staircase up to the attic let's go back sorry uh Daniel duet I'm licensed architect uh since 2001 so it's been about 23 years I've been practicing architectural primary residential architecture in the mber Hills my office is here my license is current and in good standing still and um graduated a master's degree NJ 1995 and I've appeared before this board and and many others thank you thank you thank you so the short story is that we would like to add some additional space to the existing home and our roof his roof the existing roof is a Gable I'm sorry a hip roof with a very shallow pitch which turns out uh it's like the only house with a shallow hip roof in this area of town which is 52 metal Brook uh it's in the R6 zone so aesthetically we're going to get some cbop fuel and then we'll get some additional space for them so the three variances we need for this to happen uh all relate to the sidey yard setbacks and combined sidey yard setback because we have three existing non-conforming situations so the house on the left side is at 7.05 and the right side 7.9 and because we're going to manipulate the roof and change it um we going to be asking for this to to have the existing numbers remain the same um go through first what you're looking for you said three three so there's two side yard setbacks oh that's yeah so there's the left side right side and then the combined side set back and they're all a function of uh the existing house how it sits on the lot um so on the left side like I said is 7.05 the right side 7.9 and the combined is 35% of the lot width and his lot width is 50 feet which also kind of works against us because the minimum for the r six is 60 feet so of course if we had the extra 10 feet we probably would be here tonight um so that's the short story is that it's an existing non-conforming house on the lot that we'd like to elevate the roof line to to create some additional space we are well under on lot coverage building coverage and F and so really it's a question of uh does it fit does it look good is it acceptable and I don't see any negative impact to the neighbors uh and that's where I kind of surveyed what's happening is everybody has these very traditional Gable roofs I think he's the only one I couldn't believe it that has a hipped roof so it'll fit with the neighbors very well it won't block light in airspace uh I measured the distances from the sher's house to the other ones and there's 14 and 1 half fet between the two so um that won't change the neighbor on the right side is got this tall steep G roof with some attic space I have some pictures if you'd like to see um um so very little impact but I think it'll add them some additional space which they need basement is very small and I think the property can handle it sure show us what you got okay so I'd like to just pass this out real quick I call it exhibit A1 well let's see what it is okay all it is is it well because I apologize the plans did not have the basement shown so I wanted to show basement second floor at existing photographs that I took okay why why don't we do this why don't you let's hand them out and then and then we can okay we're GNA Mark the packet as A1 but we'll get into what that is in a second thankfully they're in black and white so you don't have to see the color of the house and luckily it was when I when the leaves of the tree so you can really get a good picture because I went there today and it's kind of cool with the with the trees the leav on the trees you don't get to see shows how it is thank hold on one so this is excuse me A1 is hand out consisting of four pages the first two pages you're going to describe as floor plans of various portions of the house and the second third and fourth pages are photos of the front and rear of the house and neighboring property correct yes and the last page is a picture I took today uh I had done a house read on mebrook it was five six years ago maybe more but it's same concept of what we're looking to do and yeah just how it fits nicely into the streetcape um just an example of a previous project I did which I think that's why he hired me right is true so okay so the first page is the basement um kind of small so um it's already no no room to kind of grow and expand down there second floor it's a modest uh first floor it has a family addition and um then the next page was is photographs of the existing house that I took luckily like I said uh during the more winter months and you could see the very shallow roof line and from the front and the back is nice because you get a chance to see The Neighbors on the left the left and the right of the home so you know we'll be uh symol to what they have already um yeah that's the application thank you so you consider the roof as modified or rised a g roof yes we'll be doing a gable roof so pitch from the front to the back and what he has now is like pitched on all four sides um and you don't need a variance for height no we're under the height are exacerbating any conditions that you currently have yes no I mean you're yeah from a measurement right no I guess you're not building closer let's go it that way no closer than what exists today yeah um any questions for uh Mr J or the app any questions from the audience regarding this application any comments from the audience this application public um thought I think it's a um modest ask and I actually agree that um it it will look nicer in the neighborhood I think it's absolutely keeping um in the character of the other homes in the neighborhood I think it'll be a nice petion I agree I think this looks nice I think it's going to just freshen it up a little bit and um sort of uh make a little more so fav I agree have a motion second second yes yes yes Gary yes it yes J yes yes good luck with r thank you guys nice to see everybody next up we're have calendar 3999 24 117 Cyprus uh James and Ena Glen s you vote in first you testimony about tonight's hearing truth yes your name for the reford uh yingi y i n g l i um okay um I speak first are you I'm the homeowner D okay thanks let's qualify you first okay um my name is Yin Le I have a bachelor of architecture degree from University in Shanghai China and I'm and car certified I have a master of planning degree from University of Pennsylvania I have the a registered architect in New Jersey since 2006 I have testified at this board for a number of times my license is current and it's in good standing very good yours are accepted by this Bo please um um as you can see this um the addition of the house uh the addition to the 117 Cyprus Street uh uh it's basically there are two uh two small parts the first part is to extend extending Den on the Southeast toward the backyard to align with the ex existing back of the house and the second part is to replace the existing canopy over the front entry um it is in the Wyoming his historic district but we have gone through the HPC here and it was approved um then uh in terms of a zoning uh as you can see in the drawing the side plan the only part that is the adding the foot the the only part uh of addition is adding the footprint of one 169 square foot and um and then the only barrance item is uh 606 to e2b um when it uh lot coverage the maximum allowed is 35% and uh with that 165 square footage square foot of addition we are adding less than 2% it's just that 169 square foot triggered that mod coverage varus um this is an undersized a lot and um the reason just like many of the house in R5 in that area they have um there is a detached garage for the all the way at the back of the property so the existing DET has two-car garage and the driveway leading to it contribute to 20% of the lot coverage so the small addition of 169 square foot is adding only basic 1.8% to the lck coverage but it does it does you know make it non-conforming this your lot 9375 uh you're 145 but I think that's oh yes okay it's existing at 145 right right yes that's typ so you're 9375 yes 9 five so you're 45 minimum yes okay so yes it is uh undersized and 9 9 9,375 in 14,500 foot hour R5 Zone and but the main thing is really the driveway like many of the house in the area and detached garage which is considered toward uh counted toward a building coverage actually no it's a lot coverage that we are it's a lot coverage so as for uh the Aesthetics of the house um the current if you look at the building elevation um the current there is a there's a bathroom uh at the front of the current Den obvious uh it's pretty obvious it was added later at a certain point to this 1920s home and you can see there is a like small window for the bathroom at the front it's quite out of character uh for the house so the design basically move that uh the bathroom to the middle of this long Den on the right hand side of the house by doing that we are able to have a row of casement window at the front of the building and the side of the building that kind of revert the house the look of the house more in tune with the characteristic of a d versus having the the current quite awkward look have a small window of the bathroom facing the street so we think by moving the bathroom to middle of the addition um it's actually improved the streetcape and then the small offense of 1.8% over the lot coverage it's the one and only VAR that cost the addition cost basically like in the application number 15 the addition at the back of the house essentially is is extending the existing Den to align with the back of the house the existing roof line is maintained to be consistent the new windows follow the dimensions proportions and the style of the windows in the existing them by relocating the bathroom the facade is improved by replacing the current halfhazard looking bathroom window with the windows that reflect the typical style of a den in an early 20th century home similar similarly detailing of the new canopy is consistent with the style of the 1920s home in that neighborhood that's it any questions from the board you said this isn't the historic district yes do you have a copy of the um uh we approved but we did you receive the resolution has it been received yet when would you get approval August before it's like a June yes it's June oh before end of June before school yeah just if I could get a copy of resolution before this before the per we'll make that as a condition um any questions from the board the bathroom which is front facing Ro facing when we move to this new area what is going to be in the place of this is that the den office office yes basically the yes uh basically the the the the bathroom is uh become inter uh will be between the front office small office and the back then so basically Tu between two interior spaces no longer facing the street any other questions any questions from the audience any comments from the audience I close the public portion of this application board members your thoughts okay so it's a modest ask one variance there's nobody objecting I support this [Music] application than I like what you're doing here I think the um the windows are a nice ad in the front it's interesting that the the things they did back in the 20s um bathroom the front of the house like that and I think that it just even taking out of all the the Windows like I don't know if that was a porch one point screen porch whatever it was up on the side there I think by making it look more modern and filling it all in uh I think it looks good makes some useful uh addition to the house and in terms of the you see there's clearly a C1 hardship here by having a lot that's substantially undersized for the Zone um and you're still you know you're still keeping well within the you know close about as close as you get in terms of uh staying within the confines of the uh the ordinance so I would be uh in favor of this application I'll go U as my colleague said I'm I'm for this as well like it's a modest ask and the fact that your your light on area and um Frontage um I have a motion motion to approve the application second I can second thank you Joseph Coffield yes shandre yes Amy Lawrence yes Barry Rosen yes Regina TR yes just yes yes good Lu thank you okay next up we have 1200 Mar c by calendar 4,424 [Music] e hi good evening everyone how are you good uh John wies Scala on behalf of el Short Hills LLC pleasure to be be be back before the board this evening I do have one witness who just stepped out and he's not here yet but hopefully shows up before I finish this opening statement so uh uh we're here before you tonight um Ealy Short Hills is a tenant at the Short Hills Mall uh they are currently renovating and fitting up approximately 17,000 square foot feet of uh space that was previously previously occupied by Marcato uh just kind of sort of an Ealy knockoff if you will uh they shut their doors in January of 20124 uh e Italy is very excited to be here in Short Hills with the opportunity toh to operate their facility within the mall uh they have been going through renovations if anybody has been there recently hoping to be uh open and operational actually later this month assuming everything continues to go according to plan uh we are here before you this evening seeking variance relief to permit the installation of an exterior wall sign uh we've got two variances in that regard uh we exceed the maximum wall graphic height uh two two feet is permitted uh and we're at approximately 6.77 feet uh the sign is also proposed to be mounted over the over that exterior entrance uh just above the uh the first and second floor plate uh and that's other variance under the code uh the variance relief we're seeking is actually similar to some other uh signage that's in the mall I handled Cheesecake Factory uh which was before the planning board back in 2011 and and we had similar relief to provide adequate signage for wave finding Etc I have one witness uh Mr Keller is setting up his easel right now uh he'll just present show you the sign plan explain the importance of having this signage for wave finding purposes is and he'll go over the variance relation you for from test you're about to in tonight's proceeding be truth the truth the whole truth and by the truth yes I do for the record Richard Keller k l l r I'm licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey and Mr Keller can you please provide the board with a brief summary of your educational and professional background and the licenses you hold yes good evening I have been a uh licensed engineer uh and planner since 1990 held a bachelor's degree in civil engineering with concentration in water resources and environmental engineering and I also held a masters of architecture with concentration in uh urban planning and design and that is from the New Jersey Institute of Technology where I was also an agent Professor for approximately 11 years my licenses are in good standing I've appeared before approximately 110 boards at the state of New Jersey is both planner and engineer uh and it's always nice to be back I thought I had I thought we were going last so I ran out got some water and almost missed the case so but I'm I'm ready to go we would not have done it without you Mr Keller maybe your credentials are approved by this board well I think we all know um where the mall is and uh uh this this site is um was previously uh um occupied by Marcado which is I I always thought it was kind of a knockoff on Italy and so now we have the opportunity to get the get the real thing um the space is located um that's the planning before you I have two exhibits one is um we're calling e signage signage exhibit A2 uh and that is dated October 7 20124 prepared by my office um photographs were taken today and we just superimposed at scale the signage over the and why don't we Mark that as exhibit 81 I was smarter the other way just saying yeah but I was going to talk about this one first so um wait wait so this uh this the first one is A1 A1 is sign A1 this is um a blow up of the AR of the engineering drawing you have before you with some additional information which I'll get you in a second shows the facade in a larger format without the red bubbles around it and then uh that was prepared by my office using exhibits that were uh taken exhibit is taken from the uh plan we have before you with some zoning added in and then uh as we already describ we're now marking A2 just to orient you in the mall Ealy uh the Ealy space is located uh it's on North facing facade faces JFK it is located halfway roughly between uh Bloomingdales and Macy's it's about 250 ft uh due east or um from the Cheesecake Factory which is which is off to the right the um wor the uh the building itself um has a facade that's about approximately 147 ft long um and it's about 43 ft High uh there is a second floor behind it but you don't see the second floor it's a brick facade um which is actually kind of attractive um and sort of parkens back to the uh to the Roman brick buildings um of uh of the Coliseum days which is kind of appropriate for Ealy there is no visibility of the second floor behind you the lettering will be pin mounted uh White uh set in an aluminum frame without Halo lighting behind it um and working with the banding within the building the architectural banding um between the existing bands you can infill there's the word Eat Shop learn and right above that is the word e these are individual pin mounted letters so technically the area is just the the area of each letter and if we look at the lettering themselves the uh the uh word Italy is uh at 2 foot n in where two foot is permitted and the words e shop learn are 14 in to as high again um that's where two two are permitted as a just to be conservative when we noticed we did put a square around the entire uh where eal each shop and it comes to 6.77 Ft but I think per our ordinance uh it really operates as two signs that are separated by some architectural banding again if you conservative on notice we notice that it's 6.77 from the bottom of the word e to the top of the word you can see in the uh hey has um re painted the facade they've been a new canopy they're working on the interor here now and the signage this sign this Photograph a large photograph is actually taken from JFK Parkway so I'm just on the grass I'm about 280 ft from the traveled way I'm about 20 280t from the facade that facade being about 300 feet from the traveled way from the eastbound Lanes about 350 feet back from the westbound Lanes you know I'll come back to that with my planning just to go back over the uh um the the A1 um again we've taken the uh we've taken the image is blown up for a little little better each you can see on the right side the finished floor at zero the second floor which is which with no windows no finra is at 21 feet in height the roof is at 42 and this another one foot power of it so the overall height of that brick massing is 43 ft and if you look at it you can see that um I think that the the lettering is actually uh fairly elegant and restrained um as it sits on that facade and uh it's appropriate to the scale of the I we point out that uh again overall 6.77 individual lettering on the bottom is 1 fo2 in 2 fo1 in on the top um for 2.92 so we're about a foot taller than what's permitted by the code but again if you look at that overall facade I think it's a more aesthetic Arrangement just as a as a way doing a little uh housekeeping we do need a variance for the height of the letters where two foot is permitted um under the development re 60911 a um we're looking for 2 foot n sorry 2 foot1 we're looking for um the bottom section is performing overall we're 6.77 from top to bottom the um I would point out though that in terms of the overall area that facade itself is 5890 Square ft um of the the signable facade is when you take out all the glazing the signable facad comes down to 5164 Ft the pin lettering just the letters themselves which is the way the ordinance say you take the area comes out to 16 square feet that is 31% of the signable area that's where 20% is permitted so about 60 times less than Allowed by code I think it's an elegant um uh facade if we were take the overall Square even we put a square on the entire facade of Ealy at meop that total area would come out to be um a total of 162 Square fet 162 Square fet over that larger facade we still will be 3.14% where 20% permitted and if we just took the first floor side just the area below that second floor line we'd still be um at 7.56% again well under the 20% permitted even on on half the facade so in terms of uh the the amount of sage is certainly under what's anticipated or permitted by code we think that this can be approved as a C2 variance where the um two of the goals of the master goals of purposes of zoning are enhanced first one is section A 4055 d2a a goes to talk about safety and general welfare um we think that um I know any of the times I've met somebody um up at Legal Seafood or I know people who go to the restaurants at the mall uh they open earlier on the weekends and they stay open later at night than the mall does and it's always important that people fly parking that's approximate to the entrances because either if the resta if the mall is closed they can walk through the mall but they're going out an entrance which is underutilized and there's a feeling of not being safe so by um apprpriate sign is I think it's actually still going to be hard to read from JFK Parkway but certainly as you come in the drive you're driving along the road it's important that people see where Ealy is especially if they're coming to the mall and they're specifically coming to Ealy so they don't come in on the opposite side park um uh Bloomingdales and the D over there are park on the top they can park right outside of this of this restaurant they can identify it through wayfinding through the signage I think it's more appropriate at that scale and more appropriate it it advances um the uh the purpose of uh zoning under 4055 T2i which is this is a better aesthetic solution I think that is uh as indicated you can see that even when you're 30 fet away I had to get close because the sun was was beating down I had to get close in here I'm only 30 ft away you can still see that the signage is appropriately scaned the entrance for the architectural banding with the brick that sits above it when you look at the big picture again Feels Like An Elegant composition so I think that uh certainly in Aesthetics are enhanced I think if you did lettering that was only two foot it would start to lose it would feel under siiz for the facade uh it's a big facade and could certainly even handle more height we think it's appropriate it's adequate and elequent elegant um there's no substantial detriment to public good uh it is still 300 300 to 350 feet away from the traveled ways of JFK um only getting frame views through the through the generous Landscaping that marks all of entrances in but it does allow for some visibility when you're coming in the entrances or when you are coming into the entrance uh there's a Dell right in here there a spot where you can see eally and you know where to go so it provides that W finding so again no detriment to the public good uh there are no residences or U other um Residential Properties in the near area we think there's no impairment to the master plan uh and the tent and purpose of the master plan um the mall is a is a critical asset in the uh in uh in our master plan um I think it's uh I was excited as could be to hear that Italy was moving in um they are a favorite of mine in the city I think it's a feather in our cap when most malls are looking to uh close or spend off half the mall as residential I think we need to do everything we can to make sure that these uh these businesses that are moving into the city especially high-end marks like mey um have the proper signage they need so there's good way finding there's a a good presence I think it only serves to uh uh increase the uh the viability of the mall we think it's a great application we think they'll be a great member of the community uh and we hope that he'll approve it thank you nothing um any questions for Mr color let's talk about lighting on the sign the lighting is actually um while it it is there's white lettering it's got aluminum channel and understand it's Halo lighting from behind so there's there's a gentle blow that will go behind each letter it's probably Halo lighting is probably the most Elegant Lighting you can have on a on a retail sign and I'm I'm happy that it's pin pin mounted so you get to see the brick between the and will that stay on 24 hours for lighting or all night long I guess I don't know if they stay with all night long our expectation is that we try to keep energy efficient so we'd like to see it turned off after they close but that's powered from the store probably I the attorney I'm I'll just specify on that um probably similar to to some of the other like Cheesecake Factory I don't know if their policy is to shut the lighting off within an hour of closing uh that's that's kind of typical M though typically would it be part of the lease yes probably stay later open later than the rest of the M gu yeah well they they stay open later in the mall and they open earlier in the mall but I think it's important would be shy probably probably tied to within an hour of of closing of the restaurant if not if not just at at closing but I do agree I think it's more about Energy Efficiency then there's no negative impact if they were to keep those halo lights on on all night long but um but that's probably a w isue one more question are there any other ex this is the exterior signage not interior are there any other similar ones at the mall that have this SI yeah well Cheesecake Factory received a variance for 3 foot6 on their overall signage they have a c and a and an F that are expanded um mostly their signage on the mall I would say the Macy's from the bottom of the Y to the top of the star on the word Macy's is probably about seven feet the anchor storage blooming D is actually fairly small blooming D is is probably three to four feet um Macy's is probably seven feet the anchor stores always have larger signage and then those um they're not the full anchors but the ones that have an independent um identity all seem to be about between three and 3ot six um as they read on the outside so the restaurants all have a presence on the outside again because they stay open they have private entrances and they all seem to be uh as I said we looked at the Cheesecake Factory resolution I think it's included in in the application package and that was approved at 3 foot6 so this would be in character closed absolutely actually a little small but I think it's again elegant and appropriately scaled to the facade yes I was just saying maybe seemed a little small but I agree sorry I agree any other questions y I'm far with decis just have a concern that it says like the W off you might extend to the second floor yeah so what what what the out orance actually says is that the signage can't go above the floor line of the second floor and so um here here we show this is the floor line of the second floor behind in this particular case there are no windows on that second floor so it really reads as one tall building and so and again it's it's biased towards the lower if we were to try to lower that we would actually disrupt the architectural banding one of the ordinance requirements is that your sign should not interfere with architectural elements so I think it's uh it's appropriate it's down in the lower uh lower quadrant lower lower third um it's appropriate and I think because we have no windows no um no fenestration on the upper floors uh you would never know that it was uh it was that second floor line for all you know the second floor line could be foot above so again I think it all goes to composition so do we need to concern like in the future will the tenant need to open the window or now the tenant doesn't doesn't have that space up there but no that that that's existing tenant based um most retail don't like Windows because it takes away selling area so I can't imagine any way shap or form that that tenant behind Italy um there's a couple of clothing stores and behind that there's some uh circulation for U for distribution into those uh stores through Renovations um so I can't imagine any scenario where they would ever want to put ministration up there so I think this is exactly what this facade is going to say any any questions from the audience comments any other questions from the board close the public portion what are your thoughts I would be supportive I think um I do think that sign is appropriate for for the size of the facade if anything it does seem like it could be larger I'm not fine with the fact that it's not larger but I but I think it it certainly could support it um so I think I do think there are safety considerations especially where people will be looking for the building looking for this for this store um it's a popular location so uh I think it looks tasteful I think it's proportionate and I would be supportive thank I'm supportive and excited to have me too thank you motion I'll make a motion to take a second second just yes yes law yes yes yes yes good luck with your business thank you very much everyone appreciate it so the last application we have this evening is um 39982 24 33 South Mountain uh TR is going to refuse on this one and um you all in real quick so from testim to G proceeding truth PA by the truth I do Douglas Miller from ahm Architects located at 281 Main Street Milburn New Jersy uh deanz and I live at 33 South Mountain Ro Matt Flynn uh 101 jalter Drive Morris Plains New Jersey job M Associates you uh who would like to start uh I guess I can uh good evening every everyone uh so we live at 33 South Mountain Road for the past three and a half years and love everything the town has to offer uh we are proposing Renovations uh to build a flexible space to accommodate our growing family and also for me and my wife because we mainly work from home um so I let Doug and Matt talk about our plans and thank you for your consideration thank you good evening yes uh Douglas Miller from ahm Architects uh been practicing architecture for almost 30 years I've been licensed since 2001 made numers presentations to boards throughout New Jersey as well as this board uh my license is in good standing um I have a bachelor's of architecture degree um I think that's it thank you qualif are accepted by this board please proceed yes uh D and his wife GA came to me with the goal of improving their house for their growing family uh let me briefly describe your project these are the same drawings that you have in front of you our lot is approximately 50 by 148 for 7,488 sare Ft in the R6 Zone um it's narrower than required for the Zone where 60 feet is the norm uh we're asking for FL area rati uh the house has a number of existing non-conformities they have four area ratio is non-conforming the the lot width uh both side yard setbacks the side yard combin building coverage lock coverage and rear yard unoccupied so we're starting you know a little bit behind the ball there's really nothing we could do without variance relief this thing was maxed out a long time ago yeah maxed out a long time ago so I think the house is a Charming codage style um the house is very similar in appearance to the way it was built in 1949 the only real difference is an addition at the rear of the house um the house is really just one and a half stories where all the bedrooms are created underneath the roof and there's a dormer out the rear uh from the street it really appears to be a one-story home with just a small Dormer on the right side it's unusual for the neighborhood to have these cottage style houses most of them have already been expanded and enlarged um the house immediately to the left is a a cottage style um and my client's goal is really to preserve the character of the house not take it down and build something much much larger trying to work with the aesthetic of what they had so we're asking for C variances they're almost a repeat for all the existing non-conformities we're asking for side yard setback side yard combined lock curve coverage building coverage rear yard un occupied and a d variance for floor area ratio um our house is uh cited a little bit further back from the street than required which results in a in a very very small backyard there's also a very large detach garage at 425 Square F feet and because it's detached there's a long asphalt driveway that goes all the way back to connect to it so just as a function of the way the lot was designed and the house was cited contributes significantly to the existing non performing lot and building coverage um the only real change to the house is this existing second floor addition this is the that addition they put on and what we're proposing to do is expand up on the second floor so it'll be a vertical intensification of the existing non-conforming side yard we're also going to be altering this deck slightly uh and then adding a stairs from the yard down to the basement there's also an existing buo door like a basement hatch door that goes down that we're going to be eliminating as well uh on the second floor here on the existing house there's a roof deck so we're converting that roof deck into livable interior space so these are the existing and proposed or plans um you can see the sun room is here it's just going to be renovated changing some of the windows and doors but it's exactly the same size as it was before you can see the deck is being just slight slightly widened to make it a little bit more practical it's so narrow now it's it's not really usable um there's no change to the rest of the existing first floor the second floor Repose you can see um you know the rooms really aren't the exact size as they're shown you may look at dimensions and say oh this room is that big but because it's under Dormers and under sloping roof the rooms feel a lot smaller and they're much more difficult to to furnish and function we're proposing to do is to take this roof deck here and just enclose it it's labeled as a study but it's really going to be a flex space a space that we can use for multiple purposes it could be a study it could be a sitting room it could be a fourth bedroom uh and so uh you know there is existing three bedrooms now a small office a primary bath and then a hallway on the exterior these are the elevations uh for the front of the house you can see that's that low slung you know one and a half Story look with a dormer added here uh part of the original design I believe that creates space for that small small office and then you can see if there was a room in the space it's very very small the proposed just no change to the front so there's really no impact to the street and this area here on the second floor that's the area that we're changing this is the roof deck that we're changing into that study so the before we go through all the variances I'll bring a planner up to talk about that I just wanted to talk about some uh to note a couple things and the planed expansion is at the rear of the house um it's not going to impact the curve of the PE appeal of the home um although we're asking for several Varian is I think in this instance the numbers really don't tell the whole story uh is unique because we are keeping that low cottage style slung style house um I have a photo board I'd like to introduce as an additional exhibit so these are photographs that I've taken uh throughout the neighborhood want to when would they take it today give few hours ago so we want to mark this Mark it as A1 okay so these are just some houses throughout the neighborhood our house is is located here you can see it's it's a very very uh small appearing home and I I probably cherry-picked some examples that look a little bit larger but these are a trend that I'm noticing in my office and throughout the town where people are taking you know twostory houses and really expanding them up to maximize the third floor um so it's you know you have a half story ordinance they really maximizing this attic area a lot of the houses if you look at aerial photos and you drive throughout the neighborhood they have big Dormers out the back so maybe they don't change the the curb appeal from the street but a lot of these newer houses are are really building up the second floor and you know when we're looking at it uh you know it's really about the perceived scale if you drove around and asked people which house on this example require required all these deviations in this floor area ratio you wouldn't say our house would so it's a a unique situation where the numbers don't tell the full story I think it's how is the scale of the house perceived in the neighborhood and you know a lot of these houses although they look very large they're not triggering the variance thresholds so they're being built in accordance with the zoning ordinance and we're not looking to do that we're looking to keep that existing character so Doug how close are these homes to the subject property they're on the same block next block block over so they're all within that South Mountain section of town so um I think you know if you look I think our the scale of our house is really appropriate for the neighborhood it's actually much smaller than what you typically see you've all driven around the South Mountain section a million times you know what these houses look like a lot of Colonials a lot of newer larger houses so we're really worked hard to really minimize the impact our setbacks are going to be a lot less uh than the existing non-conformities so um like to thank you for your time and I'll turn it over to our planner to to kind of go through things and I'm open to any questions you may have as well any questions for Mr Miller okay good evening I guess I'll just go over my credentials professional planers license in the state of New Jersey which is the um PP license I have my aicp license which is the American Institute of certified planners which is the national licensure for planners uh my education comes from Ruckers I have my master's degree in planning and public policy I've testified before this board um once before as well as over a hundred other boards across the state um both licenses are in good standing and I'm happy to be here again thank you please receive thank you so just by way of very quick background uh as Mr Miller mentions we're looking at one tax lot block 601 lot22 which is approximately 7,488 square feet in the r six Zone single family residential is a permitted use in the zone and what we're proposing like we uh just heard about is that we're adding a second story to an existing single story area on the home the rest of the home is already uh two stories and this is the one single story portion that that remains of the house so with that I do have an exhibit that I'd like to pass out to the board I guess what are we on now Rob 82 82 so while that's getting passed around uh exhibit A2 is a three-page exhibit consisting of some photographs taken by my office um using uh drone technology back on September 13th of 2024 um so now that's been passed around I'll just start from the top here photo one shows the existing property from the street there from South Mountain Road like our architect mentioned the actual front setback the actual front facade of the building none of that's going to be changed as a result of this application what I like about sheet one here is that not only does it show that the scale of the home or at least perceived scale of the home from the street is consistent with the homes to the left and to the right but also we do have something that the front setback is virtually in line with those houses to the left and to the right and therefore we do have a front yard that is as spacious as those neighboring properties as well so really from a compatibility standpoint uh we do see something that's that's going to remain uh compatible at least from the street uh flipping over to sheet two now this is an aerial shop looking down on the property we can see that bump out that single story bump out in the rear um one thing that I want to point out about that bump out is that it is more or less in line with the rear setback of the home um on the top of the page here so we're not extending a building substantially uh into a neighbor's backyard or anything like that the other important thing about sheet two here is that uh like our architect mentioned currently that bump out is actually a roof deck so it's already usable space there's already activity happening there and what we're proposing is to enclose that which I think is to the betterment of not only the property owner but to the neighbors um by enclosing that space better for privacy um perhaps noise and and the like um one other quick thing about sheet two here is that we do have the benefit of substantial mature uh trees on this property as well as some of the surrounding properties which obviously is going to remain we're not extending into any uh undeveloped area of the site simply keeping the existing building footprint exactly what you see on sheet two um and just expanding um up rather than out and finally sheet three is a zoomed out aerial photograph um basically noting everything that I already mentioned um keeping the building footprint that's there today so from a scale standpoint um from a building footprint standpoint what you see here is essentially what you get not expanding that building footprint um towards any property line not getting any closer to our neighbors on either side uh the front is obviously going to remain the same not extending into the back anymore than existing um another thing that I want to note here is that we do get a a greater sense of the neighborhood and we what we do see is that this building to building separation is also consistent even though we are requesting a side setback which is an existing non-conforming condition when we look at the area as a whole and we look at the spaces between buildings it is consistent with everything that's happening around us so it's not going to appear crammed in um or anything like that like I said uh this is an area that enjoys uh the benefit of many trees none of which are to be removed as a result of the application so with all that said just from a zoning standpoint this side setback is actually decreasing by 04 feet um it's still a variance condition because it's an existing non-conformity but we are improving that non-conforming condition um building coverage we're de we are decreasing that by about 54 square ft um for the same reason as that side set step back in terms of lot coverage we are increasing lot coverage but we are only doing so by about 2.2% we are also increasing uh Milburn has the standard for uh rear yard impervious we're actually increasing that again by 2% uh 2.1% and I would just like to note that we do have an existing detached garage on the property so to the extent that we do need that variance it's not specifically or necessarily because of uh too much quote unquote house in the backyard it's also because of the fact that we do have a detached garage in the backyard a variance nonetheless and finally a variance for f uh which is simply an increase of 3% and so the reason I give the board all of that uh data off the bat is really to say that the the increases to the property are really modest in nature again a 2% increase in uh in building coverage a 3% increase in they are uh I misspoke a 2% increase in lot coverage not building coverage an actual decrease in building coverage um but still I would say that these percentage increases are actually di Minimus and really will not have a perceivable effect on the on the grand scheme of things so the One D variances that we're seeking is a D4 F variance we're proposing 42.6% uh 39.6% is what's existing so we're increasing that by 3% that's not how it's measured it's measured off the standard right and the standard is 36% right correct keep talking about what going up by but that's not how the application is applied right so let's be like be more genuine sure so 36% is what's required 42.6% is what's proposed um 39.6% is what's existing I just think it's important to not what's out there today just because we are working with what's there um and trying to improve something that's already there making it more in line with uh modern living standards just to tie this into the positive criteria we look at the municipal land de law the purposes of zoning why we have these standards in the first place um in terms of purpose a promotion of the general welfare like our applicant mentioned this is something that's more in line with modern living standards obviously nowadays we do have more people working from home this is something that's a lot more prevalent today than it's ever than it ever has been um that's not only to the benefit of our current applicant but for any future tenants that that want to live in in this home purpose G variety of uses in appropriate locations again this is a permitted use in the zone um I think that what we can see here is that it's not going to have a crammed in effect it looks like it fits here um and we're actually improving something that's permitted in the zone uh purpose eye desirable visual environment again I think by virtue of the exhibit that I passed around this is something that's responsive to the existing conditions on the property not expanding the building footprint uh working with what's there and I think really doing so in a way that is a very minimal uh uptick over what we have today uh purpose M efficient use of land again the addition is taking place over an existing single story portion of the building not introducing any new uh building footprint or any new building Mass on any portion of the building where they already isn't building Mass um so the flip s side that is the negative criteria no substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone like I said the building footprint is substantially the same it actually is is decreasing as a result of this application um like I said this is already a usable portion of the building we're simply enclosing that and I think the massing of what we get here um by virtue of the fact that we're not going to see it from the street by virtue of the fact that we're not going to be getting closer to any neighboring lot lines um I think is going to fit in and not have a substantial detriment to our to our neighbors or to the Zone obviously this was um properly noticed otherwise we wouldn't be here um and again just going back to sheet three we can really see that the scale of the of the building the front setback as well as the rear setback are really right in line with what we see happening around us the building to building separation is right in line with what we see happening around us like like our architect mentioned what we do have here are some variances but again the numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story I think that accommodating the needs of this resident um are being done in a way that is really having the most minimal effect on the on the property and as well as the neighborhood so with all that said I think the D4 F variants is met here we're looking at something that's a a creative and uh responsive architectural uh element in terms of the sea relief like I said all of which are uh existing conditions some are going to be in improved some are going to be increased the combined side setback of 17.4 feet as opposed to the 17 feet that is uh that's required um that's a04 foot uh actually hold on one second side setback 8.6 feet and 8.8 feet is what's proposed uh whereas 8 feet and 12 feet is what's required so 8 feet on one side 12 feet on the other side existing we have 8.2 and 8.8 so we're actually increasing um the the side setback on that 8.2 side making it more conforming with what's permitted um likewise the combined side setback we're required to have uh 17.5 feet and we're at 17.4 feet uh the Minimus deviation there 0.1 foot like I said the rear yard unoccupied space we're proposing 16.7% we're required to have 25% whereas 18.8% is existing so that's a 2.1% uptick over what's out there today building coverage at 26.5% versus 23% is uh required it's actually a decrease like I noted uh going down from 27. 31% so that's a decrease of about 54 square feet and finally lock coverage 51.9% whereas 45% is what's permitted 49.7 7% is what's existing so to tie that all together uh in terms of the SE relief I think we can look to the C2 balancing test whereby the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments all the positives that I went through for the F variant I think Carry Fourth here uh in terms of purposes a g i and m again bringing this home more in line with modern living standards and doing so in a way that's responsive to the existing home and the existing use of space uh the flip side is the negative criteria again but in terms of the the SE relief this is an area that's already uh used we're going to enclose it I think this concentrates the outdoor usable space to the to the ground floor deck area which is actually buffered to our neighbor by the actual building mass as opposed to keeping that outdoor area up on the um on the on the roof deck so I think in that sense it is a better zoning alternative than out there today it's a better use of space um and really I think to to wrap up I would say that what we're proposing like I mentioned what you see from the street is what you get what you see from the sky is what you get we're not in we're not increasing any built-in footprint we're not changing the front facade we're not changing any setbacks uh really this is a pretty unique F variance in that regard and I think the board can uh can vote favorably for all those reasons so with if there's any questions I'm here to answer them so I look at these numbers I get scared um so you know incredibly intense use on a lot that's 23% larger than the Zone requires that's a huge Advantage you have a house that's already built out to all the way out that and now we're going for another by the app how many other houses in the neighborhood have 43% FS I don't have a a statistic per se but there they are out there oh really that's what I'm asking you where are they that none of these are are they in front of us no on this photo she I'm not sure I didn't compile these photos Okay um trying to find so mat did you do any analysis of within let's say 200 fet the um the f is given you know even the tax records to compare apples to apples so what I did was I essentially looked within 600 feet or so of the property and I found the properties that had similar uh what they're called on the tax records as livable area and I clicked into that and I found the uh the ratio of building square foot to lot area which would be the building coverage and I did find several properties that are that have greater 600 in neighborhood fair I mean 600 feet taking many streets over you know it's one thing R3 i' probably granch that one this is 200 feet here you're not 200 feet and you're over multiple streets here so you know I would like to think that you're you know give me something Clos to this this the 3% that it already is is a big ask and now we're going to 6% 7% over the standard on F that I mean the other thing I mean this this the yard un occupi is concerning the the building coverage yeah okay that's going down a little bit but your lock coverage is massive and like I said we have to keep in mind that you have an incredibly large lot 7500 foot lot 6,000 foot all I'm concerned that your C2 criteria has not been that uh anybody else have some questions um so I looked at this um and all the variances that you want as it's a modest house but this is asking a lot so just for clarification if I can discuss this so of the existing nonconformities you are exasperating everyone at this experiences to say no we're actually uh improving side setbacks as well as the building coverage okay thank you you still need back but there's still still still non-conforming so Cor sidey you're improving and which one and building coverage oh thank you and the reason you're building coverage is improving is because you're taking of the deck you're exaggerating all the six that we're exasperating which ones are they is that so no no so four of the six variances that you're asking for they are already nonconformities and you're you're exaggerating those this worse let me even though they're non-conforming existing they making them worse let me just be more specific just to make sure that I'm coming across properly side setback is improving there's actually two variances for side setback one is for each individual side setback and the other is for Combined side setback we're improving both of those so you side set back side combin where's the other side there two side there's two side yards measured individually which I'm saying is one variance which is typically how how we uh how we couch that we're improving that then there's the side setback measured uh collectively which we're improving for the same reason uh rear yard unoccupied is becoming worse uh building coverage is improving and lock coverage is becoming more non-conforming so one two three I have five C variances and three of those are actually improving it might be helpful if Mr Miller if you show the board where those improvements are taking place into what degree of course so we'll start with the side yard setback so we're asking for vertical int ification and it's at the corner where our addition uh has extended over the second floor so the closest point of the existing second floor of the house is the front left corner and that's 8.2 feet where we're expanding it at the rear is 8 uh six 8.6 so so isn't it worse no it's greater we want a bigger number I made got it got it so where our addition is is is greater than the yeah talking inches right we're talking inches yeah inches better but you know when you have an existing footprint and we're trying to go up you know that's that's the answer fair enough right so then the side yard combined because of that side yard is increasing the side yard combined uh increases which brings us closer to Conformity so we're a tenth of a foot deviation for the side yard combined so almost conforming if we pull that addition in uh 6 in uh it would be conforming so that's what we're talking about we're talking about inches for the sidey guard setback and the side guard setback combined for even for our Improvement as well as our deviation it's it's it's very very close um the other uh change is over the uh deck here in the back there's a covered roof section um that we're removing I don't know if I mentioned that during my testimony but we're going to be removing that covered deck area which is building coverage and that's for a net Improvement of I believe 54 square feet so we're decreasing the amount of of building coverage on the on the lot so those are the three uh variances that are being improved and uh you know there the issue is although we have a big lot a lot of the area that we could is contributed to the front yard our house is back very far and when you're starting with an existing non-conformity and a two-car garage you there's not a whole lot of rear unoccupied remaining so there really was no choice we're not changing it um you know any place we're building or adding is over impervious coverage the only real change I guess we are changing it is just this the staircase at the back that goes down to the basement so it's very low slung it's not really going to impact the neighborhood and the neighbors perception of your of your backyard any other questions regard so there's three that are improving and three that are getting worse correct yeah thanks any other questions yeah prevailing setback applies here correct or 40t minimum um yes yes I know our building is 45.9 ft for setback do you have any corresponding we did if you look at your yeah we didn't we didn't survey all the uh stablished setbacks a prevailing setback because we weren't making any changes to the front you know we didn't want to go through the expense of survey or come out there we're not going to change the deviation or increase it um and if you look at the aerial exhibit I believe if you look at a what do we say this A2 A2 so you look at A2 photo one view the front of the existing D it looks like that the setback front yard setback is substantially similar at least to the setbacks of the houses to the left and right corre correct the reason I asked is that the architect keeps mentioning that that that is a an exacerbating factor that prevents that's creating some of these issues but if B if it's prevailing right but if the rear yard is taken for the available free space in the backyard if the house is pushed back from the street even though that's consistent with the neighborhood it leaves very little rear yard I would I would say that if you look at the houses very similar I don't know if you have any data that talks about the rear unoccupied or at least just lock coverage I think a lot of properties are nonconforming at least my you know cursy uh aerial view and working in the neighborhood a lot of these houses have these existing non-conformities when they have that detached uh rear garage yeah I would just add to that a lot of the even if we look at sheet three of exhibit A2 I know there's a lot of trees in the way but especially if we look on the right side of that page there we do see that most of these houses do have detached garages some are much bigger than ours so I I don't have the exact statistics on that it would be kind of hard to to get but I would say that it's likely that it's a it's a it's a common variance condition so it's not a variance condition I'm sorry it's not a variance condition if everyone has it it's not a C1 VAR you're you're about the rear yard unoccupied right my point is that if it's a common thing for the neighborhood it's not a C1 hardship oh no I didn't say it was C1 it's not it's not even a variant it's not even it's not a thing because if everyone has it it's not exclusive to a single piece of property so it's not a negative if everyone has it that's what I was trying to make the exact same point that everybody has the same front yard set back within reason then it's not it shouldn't be considered a hard for you guys right I I would I would agree and I would I would say that we're not relying on the C1 standard right yeah just looking at at page three of A2 the areal shot of a neighborhood how many of these home it looks like many of these homes have some have a bump out in the back but they're not they don't build up to the second floor so you do any analysis of of that how many other houses is many of them look similar to what this house looks like currently and I'm just going off your area picture I have not done that analysis by you have so will you be the only house in the neighborhood that would have a second floor F bear with me one second so actually to further that I I would I would ask also you know we keep talking about the front yard massing what concerns me about this property in particular is the rear yard massing is that when you look at it from the neighbor's perspective it's going to be very large development now from the rear kind of speak to what Gary is saying that it's now you know even when you look in your drawings the back almost looks like it's eating the front because you have this the shed dor in the front but the back is a full two and a half story kind of look to it in the rear so the massing is large so how many homes the further what gy saying have that type of large massing in the ear yeah I mean it's it's certainly true that some houses do have the single story bump out as opposed to the the two-story bump out um but I would also just mention that you know we are substantially conforming with height when you look at this property from one Vantage Point you're not seeing the entirety of the building so you're really only seeing that one side so if you're the neighbor you're seeing that side it's conforming in terms of height we're not changing the setback uh so I would say that when we look at it from one vantage point or the other it's not going to appear as the entirety of the F that we're seeking but if you're the neighbor to the South you're going to have a serious some back well again we're not extending that farther than that home no just going straight up correct but we're not infringing on his usable rear yard area is what I mean that's why I'm saying sunlight I'm not talking about space right but again in terms of sunlight we are compliant with height so I think you know it's important to Just note that any other questions I think uh if there's nothing else I just say let the record show there's no one in the audience to ask questions thank you for that yeah uh I would just say if there's nothing else if we could just maybe take five and discuss with my client feel free thank you it is that was the fastest hey if you could read the room I don't think we needed five so what we're gonna do go back to the drawing board take a lot of the boards feed back see what we can do to uh eliminate some variances or at least decrease them try to bring this more into Conformity and also do a more comprehensive neighborhood analysis to determine you know answer some of these questions how many of these other houses have bump outs out the back two stories how many other have these the same degree of deviation you know although you know our house is cited a certain way you know let's see how many other houses are cited a certain way and maybe have been expanded as well and so we could show that maybe we even though we are asking for deviation we are more consistent with the neighborhood and the way it's developed over time you're listen all right thank very much thanks okay no not saying thank you very much no yeah I was talking to Mr Miller saying good night I don't know how much time you need what's the next available date the next available date is November 18th and how long ahead of time should we we need everything resubmitted I would need everything more later than November I think we can make that happen but we would have to Ren notice if we're improving things correct no well no themse we think them worse you have to Ren notice if you're improving no okay we don't want to add any but but but if you you know you Happ to make five things better and one slightly worse then yes you have to re notice but let's see let's get another date and say you know we'll carry it with uh no further notice being required unless it turns out that you are exacerbating or making worse any variance condition or your add Varan got it November 18th no further notice to be provided by the applicant unless there are changes to the application that results in uh the need for greater or additional variance relief than what is currently good is it thank you good night good night uh the recor show there's no one else in the audience regarding uh so I will ask for motion to Second all those in favor yeah