[Music] ch sh in accordance with Section Five the open public meeting Acts chapter 231 public La 1975 he advised and notes this meeting was by the posting on the B board town hall and the officially designated newspapers list of the meetings annually uh indicating this meeting would take place Town Hall 7M on July 1st Joseph pfield pres Amy lawren here TR here here here Vice chair here here uh first up this evening we have approv Li minutes of 5 2024 any corrections are changed not vote everyone all right uh I have motion on that of minutes move to approve thank you a second second all those in favor uh next up we have two moralization first calendar 39 8124 Matthew and John roson at 46 East haror Drive Short Hills any corrections or changes eligible Amy Regina I'll make a motion to approve calendar 3981 d24 the second second Joseph Ciel yes Amy Lawrence yes Regina truet yes yes next up we have mization on calendar 39 7324 David mogam at one Alexander Lane in Short Hills no Joe Regina and all right so you guys got a motion to adopt move to accept second second Joseph yes reg true it yes yes first up tonight with calendar 3925 23 Lucky Express USA Carri from 520 from down how are you very well Mr chairman members of the board Anthony sillo with the law offices of Le and sillo in Milburn we've made certain revisions to this application I'd like to call uh one of two witnesses Mr oh okay so Derek is not voting on this case Okay so two three four five six you got five out of six and it's A's an F variance so just making you aware of that um sove ahead yes you're still under roath correct yeah what revisions we made actually real quick if anyone here tonight is here on this application if you'd like to come down on the front to see if not please continue go ahead go ahead made yeah I just want to talk about the origion we made uh first one first thing is we took out the garage we took out a garage the second thing we do is we reduce by we reduce a building footprint by 400 square ft and we the go a little slow so so you took out the garage I took out the garage okay so can you just identify where the garage was on the plan here before out and we reduce the putting footprint by 400 s ft where where was where is the garage now garage now is under the that's keeping under here it's Curr located ex the existing one okay okay so besides taking out the detach the new detach garage and just maintaining the existing garage what other changes did you make to the application you talked about a reduction of 400 square F feet of the building footprint yes of the the the main residence footprint yes if you can just identify where those changes were made so we uh 400 square ft come out from theing we are making and also the cross the garage the garage around 220 and the r of square feet we doce the proposed well so is it is a 220 square feet reduction because of the detach garage and 180 sare ft reduction for the propos the proposed addition and that was done mostly where in the rear yeah right here to be used to be something something what other the revisions did you make yeah we took out the uh before we have the sliding door out of the back from this room and we took it out sliding door yeah this a sliding door come from this room or living room to the rear yard Pi it up now now the window okay does anything substitute to the actual application that you amended oh other than this how about the floor area ratio what happened to that um the floor area ratio used to be 49% at the least we come down to 41% reduction of 8% be almost 500 ft out another talk to me about your front yard set set strong State we didn't change is the proposing will be 20.5% and and what about building coverage yeah building coverage confir used to be used to be um used to be almost 1767 now we reduce to we make it compound to 1767 like I said ruction your unoccupied issue okay why is your driveway so big in the back well that's because the the reason of that is keep the in garage and that driveway that driveway is what current configuration is I guess you need that for the Turning space when you park at the re you need a turning space for we make don't need I that's 36 ft the real I think that's 3 so that's around 35 35 I believe 35 I I mean like 35p for the Turning space I think that's that's that's what I do for the minimum I keep I can do this to 32 Fe but that will make the attorning cost a little bit challenge like I said that's the existing configuration of the driveway we didn't change it we can reduce to 35 32 but I want further any else anything else oh yeah we uh don't we made it but we took out we took out the living room at the first FL so it's only a family room now one family room to be Liv on the front and we took it out uh second floor we reduce the the size of the Met bedroom me bathroom by 30% and also the size of M bed which reduce the size also I change the look of the house I believe uh the design will be more compelling that's the front of the house and that's a side if you look at before is like very messy and the Vol just too big and reduces make it not not so big house and also that's the that's the rear and that's the other side no further questions and the board members have questions any the board have any questions this professional you front set is 1950 you change that want a foot closer to the street um actually sorry so quickly on your your schedule e attachment e you have 19 and a half but on your your V1 sheet you have 20.5 so I guess that's the extent of the yeah that's the propos so so shows 20.5 20.5 does okay right so he's a 19.5 foot deviation okay question so in general this sheet is correct have you had a chance to review the sheet that we received do you know if these numbers are all correct that was in our packet yeah I prepared that oh so it is correct there's no changes from so you're moving the house 5et closer to the street no let's do through the U let's do through the um right yeah yeah yes yes yes yes yes I'm not sure the rear yard unoccupied is accurate in terms of what's being proposed correct because they only have 1500 square fet backyard that pavement takes up a lot I don't di I'm is a much larger deviation prior but obviously took according to the's that are3 this is your house right it's 253 so let me open that just do you know the approximate size of that area of pavement this one yeah you what that is well what is what is the square footage of this WR over be I say2 do you agree do you agree 7.3% 7.3% for correct any questions quick question what why are you moving the house 5T for the the front yeah the front your back why do you need to move it 5et forward oh it's because of P we are creating Port yeah we didn't we didn't push the main wall out is the P just the p and what is the reason for the P the P will be important to the the house is it to provide coverage or to provide coverage or what is yeah uh the P going create I don't have P here if look at the house the house will look like very tall the front you look directly at the the house and the going create some kind of like um feeling or some like just the Overlook of the house is it more AES static with it yeah yeah yeah questions any questions from the audience anybody else yes Bridget Bart plan you sar from testimon that to give's proceeding you truth tell truth and the truth I do nameart did you prepare a landscape I did um prior to my testimony with regard to landscape plan I just want to testify uh to the planning benefits of the application and Mr chairman you mentioned why the why the uh the door was removed from downstairs uh at the prior hearing there was a mention that it could potentially be a two family with a rear entrance and so we felt that the door should be removed as a benefit and to ensure that uh we are Ensure this board that we are not proposing a two family so that's number one um number two uh the architect indicated and I just want to clarify from a planning perspective the rear yard unoccupied was reduced from 19.4 to 17.7 still need a variance but it was reduced lot coverage was existing at 51.5 proposed is 53.9 so we still need a variance but it was reduced from what we previously proposed the F was existing at for 28.4 proposes 41% um accessory use thought coverage 51.5 and was proposed and we reduced it um um but we still need a variance rear yard unoccupied by accessory structures existing is 19.4 um and again we reduced this to 17.7 all these are still variances but we really took into consideration um the board members comments with regard to the potential of a two family and reducing the variants um that are required we do now meet the rear yard setbacks we meet the side yard setbacks we removed the existing concrete from the front we removed the garage which are also a benefit from the planning perspective we meet the front yard well I'm sorry we can't meet the front yard because the existing dwelling as you can see in the plans the front yard setback is literally in the middle of the existing dwelling so no matter what we did we could never meet the front yard setback we added the Portico and it was testified uh by po at the prior hearing the Portico was added uh just to provide coverage as you're bringing your groceries and adds aesthetic benefit to for to the architecture we also um redesigned the facades uh to minimize the impact of the dwelling uh number of board members at the prior hearing indicated that they wanted to see additional architectural details so he added uh different roof lines and uh different architectural features to reduce the aesthetic scale of the D itself so all that being said we really took into account all the comments that were made by the board and lastly I just want to bring up the landscape plan because there were a number of comments at the last hearing discussing um that there was no Landscaping proposed so if I could put up the landscape plan unless anybody has any questions about the numbers I gave and benefits no I was just gonna say so Bridget the testimony that you gave support the variance relief of the last meeting that still holds true now especially because you reduced the deviation the ordinance conditions correct correct so I think this is A6 it's uh according I think it's A7 because I think A6 was a zoning chart that we marked at the last he there was some discrep about some of the conditions that were so this is going to be A7 which is a colorized version of the landscape plan that was previously provided to the board brid can you just get a date on the plan please uh June 5th 2024 uh so starting from the rear your property line there's existing cherry and existing Maple to remain and what we're looking to do is add uh eight uh giant Arbor VAR as a screening along the back property line looking to reinstall a lawn area Al not only in the rear but also through the whole front yard uh then moving forward Clos to the house we've got six um door Fountain grasses that will run along the front of the property or RI s sorry and then we have the existing holly tree along the uh Northern property line to remain also an existing uh pafia hedge to remain then as you move to the front yard uh what we're proposing along the front property line is four uh hydranges and then along the uh right by the Portico that's being proposed and then 10 uh sorry uh we're putting annual beds in in the middle right next to the ptico and then two Japanese Poly on either side of the ptico itself we're maintaining the existing man Manhattan unanimous hedge along that same property line and we're maintaining the existant tree in the front yard so we believe that this landscape plan addresses some of the comments that were made in the prior hearing with regard to uh screening in the rear yard and addressing the front yard and the ptico that's being proposed because we understand that we need a front yard bearings for the ptical and we're looking to just dress it up a little bit so the proposed site plan okay doesn't look anything like that it's the same plan well this what's that second FL well it comes out but the way this driveway is drawn here it like kicks way over way further over it's all the way over to the the what would be the west side of the building same your drive your drive way over with a paper walk that I guess was being eliminated but it still shows the driveway coming up that far your your line almost go straight and then you have stairs it looks like that go down into the backyard the stairs yeah right but see when you look at that line that shows on a site plan it goes it drifts Westward as it comes towards the house yours goes straight I believe that this portion of the driver is being removed maybe that's not what the drawing shows yes what yes yeah do anything you you wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on a second there's a question asked by the chair as to the removal of certain areas in the rear you testifying to that now okay what you okay go ahead you're referring to the Landscaping plan and and your site plan so do you understand what I was saying where your drawing site is very different looking yes that's a question will you mark it up out here okay you're now marking up the site plan with which sheet number you're marking up1 so this is going to be A8 yeah yeah yes and what's the purpose of the markup um to conf with the landscap to be consistent with the landscape plan yes all right so you're basically drawing a straight line from the edge of the stairs corre to the proposed addition correct does does that reduce your lock coverage calculation yeah reduce I probably like something 4 so you're decreasing the deviation first any other questions members of the board regarding the landscape plan any questions for landscape plan or any questions regarding appr of planner I think our last meeting we going to maybe look at other homes in the neighborhood see they I did look at that um they're all over the place um I looked at the state ta tax records as well as the the County tax records and throughout the street it runs from 40 or 50 sorry 45% to 20% and I don't believe some of those numbers are accurate because when you drive down the street and you look at the homes some of the homes um are two or three story two and a half stories and the tax records show 12 Square ft so there was no way for me to verify that they are correct other than opening uh Building Department Records how many Lots there compant there's a compliant lot 6,000 feet have 6,000 feet how many Lots on that street uh I guess question is how many of those are over you take 6,000 Lots uh there are only one sorry let me answer your first question one two three four seven lots that are compliant on the street as far as lot area the rest are undersized oversized or all over the place they go from the the largest one is 11,610 square fet yeah and then you have a number of 5,000 square Lots resarch about houses that no because the tax records don't show the number of bedrooms and like I said the only way to get that information is to over Building Department Records um and the T records are I don't believe they're accurate I don't think they're brought up to speed any other questions any questions from the audience regarding test come on down your name and address for record Andrew Pearl 10 Mount aat Road right across the street um I don't know if this is appropriate but um there's been just a question well the question is is is is uh irrigation and flooding an issue that's addressed during this planning session or is that addressed through a different department because in heavy rains the bottom of that driveway accumulates water and I didn't hear anything about any kind of a plan to address uh the flooding that goes on there okay you can this is time for questions you can certainly direct that inquiry to the planner who just g a testimony you can ask if there's any that's my question is there any provision toward I don't know if appropriate to ask now but is there any provision for remediating the irrigation issues uh that I I believe you mentioned this question at the last hearing um and the testimony was that if we get approval for our variances then we'd have to go to the building department and address all drainage inqu that happens next step Next Step okay thank you any other questions from the audience question any comments from the audience regarding this application I we close the public portion do you have any else application I appreciate that the applicant has um done what I think is their best to scale back um some of the Varian is that they're seeking I mean you know 5% of there Stills like a lot um and I'm still concerned about it's just too big for property too big for the street game um but I'm open to what everyone else has to say so I would agree with where yours are so lot coverage floor ratio and r i don't the tri fact for me when I see those three things sort of leads me to believe that this this structure is going to be large on the property the massing is going to be big and I'm not totally sure I heard any convincing testimony regarding the positive negative criteria how this is going to benefit the master plan zoning plan to have a house that's 5% over F and almost 9% overall lock coverage um but once again happy to any of my fellow colleagues here in their talks I'll go I'll go just briefly um the houses in the neighborhood are kind of a mi mix there's like one very large house at the very end of the street um and that's the only one that looks really big everything else looks very much like the houses that exist today so I I Echo what my colleagues have said that it might look a little bit too big for the neighborhood and it will be bigger than the neighborhood I think except for that one house um while I appreciate the reduction I I I would appreciate a few more reductions but I could give away I'll probably less articulate putting so much in to a small box so to speak um as far as Flor area ratio that's BL blck coverage there's a whole bunch of elements that you're looking to expand it's not that big a lot that's kind of where I am I I don't have any anything different to say he just Echoes what everyone else has said and I I haven't heard anything to your point Greg about the positive negative criteria why we should consider these a compelling reason to consider these these deviations you know based on um session please second Mr chairman we hear you again and uh we ask that we defer the vote to another hearing date fin when you have a date prob as soon we can hear it would be our September 16th meeting after that it's October sure please um for those in the public uh that are here today and those you at home uh this case will be carried to September 16th no further notice please look at Town Hall website for any changes uh next up we have calendar 39 6323 the matter is cared from 5624 melanya yanella do we have any recusals on that [Music] I understand I appreciate that so I had the meeting in March started so their hearings were on uh March 18th and May 6 we have t yeah we we had testimony in March yeah I have six eligible I don't know well so did did you watch the Youtube okay so you did not so you're not eligible to V this oh M Lawrence is not so you got five thank you okay yeah for members of the board my name is Anthony sorillo with the law offices of Le and sillo in Milburn on behalf of the gelas uh we're here based on certain revisions based on comments from the board members and I have two witnesses that I expect to call the civil engineer the planner we also do have the architect in in Bullpen again if needed uh I call John manella uh good evening board Giovanni manilo with Mana design still on your Ro accept by this board John review the revisions that were uh uh sure so I prepared a just a colored rition of the plan that was submitted not too sure where we're at with exhibits at this point no problem it's probably just4 we already have so I think all right so A5 is a colored uh rendition of the site layout with the Landscaping um date on that I sure it's entitled ganella residence site exhibit with today's date July 1st 2024 thank you so or no this is just a color rendition makes a little easier to see what's what has been changed what hasn't is that the only change no I meant I meant yeah it's not different than no same layout just color yes exactly no problem all right so I'm just going to go over the Chang that we made to the uh to the plans to the layout since our last uh meeting back in was March um so to start off we uh reduced the impervious coverage by eliminating some additional Hardscape uh so to the west of the pool was a pav area which had a a fire pit uh that has been removed um and additionally uh we had to remove some of the pool house uh so about four feet of the rear of the pool housee was eliminated um that had a portion that that had stairs going into a basement uh there is no longer a basement proposed for the pool house additionally that was a I'm sorry I said that that was a batter no no no I'm just stating but was changed um and then on either side of the pool house we had trimmed off about three feet of the those Wing walls as well uh further reducing the building coverage for the pool house uh lastly we removed the roof the covered roof on the Westerly covered patio so that is a trellis structure as now and not considered roof or building coverage um to go over the changes motorized or no uh hard just hard yeah um so the lock coverage variance has been eliminated ated uh with the last um presentation we had 16843 ft or 36.5% impervious we reduced it to 16,19 square F feet which is 34.9% per regulations 35% is is permitted that variance has been eliminated uh the building coverage is is still a variance um but we reduced it um to from our original application of 16. six uh to the last application at 15.4 and at this present moment we're at 14% uh with building coverage uh with the total roof area of 6,436 uh we a coverage of 5,992 is permitted or 133% so we are over by approximately 444 square feet on building coverage I do want to note that we are in conformance with floor area we're actually under floor area by u a little over 44 Square ft so even though we are um over on building coverage we are not asking for any floor area or any um anything to that effect uh lastly I just want to summarize the variances that we are requesting uh one is for accessory uses within a front yard where accessory uses are only committed within a rear yard unless you're a corner lot um as testified earlier or at previous meetings um this is a through lot so we do have a hardship with having two front yards um we are asking for Relief on height of a fence in a front yard again this is with respect to being a through lot with um Frontage both on Adams and Taft uh we are proposing a 4 foot black ornamental fence um twofold one for little privacy and one for protection and um safety for the pool and lastly the building coverage which I had um testified earlier of 14% where 133% is permitted again we think the deviation is is minor um um it's not perceivable from the street um building coverage is viewed from the top from an aerial from looking straight down um at atoms uh you can't see the pool house at all the only thing that's visible is the the main structure um and Taft is is a dead end actually not even sure if it's a paper Street to be honest with you it seems to be a private RightWay and again it's only traveled by one or two residents at the very end um that concludes my testimony any questions from the board regarding this appliation the reduction of the size of the pool house did that give you a bigger setback yes I'm sorry that's a good point so the front yard setback has been increased along Taft um so to the actual pool housee itself it went from 36.3 feet to 32 I'm sorry from 32.1 Ft to 36.3 ft and then um from the actual corner of the um I think there's the pool equipment and um outdoor shower that went from 28.3 to 32.9 so a little over four feet for both of them and it's a little different because it is on a curved right away so it's not exactly the same questions the drainage apparatus Remains the Same I know you've got like a lot of documents in here yeah correct we're going to comply with the township coordinates and obviously subject to the town yes any questions any questions for audience this application I call planner Catherine good evening board Catherine S thank you very much I have an exhibit to hand out to the board um I think we'll mark this A6 then a A6 A6 and it's a report dated June 26 2024 um that is entitled analysis of building coverage so as described by the engineer there have been some significant reductions in both the building coverage and they improve block coverage since the initial application and since the revised application the second hearing um those changes from the original for the building coverage were 16.6% which is 7,657 square ft which was then revised to 15.4% which is 7,100 square F feet and now is proposed at 14% which is 6,436 square feet which is 444 square feet over what is permitted um in addition as mentioned the improved lot VAR lot covered variance which was previously um proposed has been um eliminated and is now in conf performance with the uh requirements for the R3 Zone and is under the 35% requirement at uh 34.9% which is 169 16109 square feet um from in total the difference um from the original original proposed application the building coverage has been uh reduced by 1,221 square feet and the improved uh impervious loot coverage has been uh reduced by 789 sare ft um and I I mentioned those just to talk about some of the efforts that the applicant has taken listening to this board um and to address some of the concerns that have been brought over the past two hearings um in addition to that um another effort was was undertaken in that uh a a an analysis of the building coverage was put together in a report this this board had shown concerns with how this uh proposed development may be out of character with the neighborhood and as a result um a a planning report was put together and I'll just quickly run through kind of the steps that were taken and then the different kinds of analyses that were undertaken um so the report includes at the beginning portion of it U an aerial analysis using publicly available GIS data orthophotography which shows Aerials uh the most publicly available data through the through the njd for orthophotography Is 2020 so it's not entirely up to date because changes have been undertaken as you can even see on page two of 21 that the uh aerial for this site itself is not up to date because the previous home is still showing on the aerial imagery with that being said uh then a kind of radius around the site uh was was uh decided upon uh and this was not arbitrary it was intended to try and capture uh some of the roadways nearby some of the properties that are directly adjacent and then thereafter so it goes from um The Outer Limits are along Lake Road along Shore Edge Lane along parsonage Hill Road uh and then down along Jefferson a basically between Lake Road and just past Birch Lan so uh that totals 36 different properties that were analyzed as part of this um in in uh including the uh subject property uh which utilizes numbers from the previous um the previously built home there um and so there actually is uh mapping data through the njd publicly available that undertook impervious coverage throughout every single County in New Jersey including Essex County and so you'll see on Page Six and seven um what that impervious coverage layer or that file um that's publicly available showed um it was using technology to help um determine what imperious Co coverage and building coverage uh existed and as you can see there was a delineation even within the uh data set that showed the building coverage in blue and then other impervious coverage uh in pink clearly it's not perfect um you can see for a few reasons uh one is that it is based on an aerial flyover and so uh anything that existed prior to today was captured rather than up toate um and also it was uh any kind of tree lines or Shadows could have an impact on that so it's not perfect uh there are limitations to it but nevertheless that analysis was undertaken just to see uh a deeper dive into just looking at it from Google Earth or something like that because previously a window survey a driveby was done and then aerial data was used uh for a quick cursory review but this is much more in depth and So based upon that data set that shows impervious coverage a comparative analysis was done of all of the properties from the lot size that's available through tax data um and from the building coverage that was calculated from that layer and all in all um it provides I think a pretty good overview showing that um and again there are some limitations to the data so this is no means uh saying that any properties are over on coverage that may or may not be but um that's just just to say that the is provided that about half the properties um have coverage have overages on building coverage um and some did have on impervious but because we're not seeking that variance I don't want to go into those details but about half um and of those 17 that showed building coverage overages uh three were undersized lots and the remaining 11 properties uh were were um over over at or oversized and so um there are some footnotes also to that table there are some things that were not shown that I just captured just from a visual um kind of something I caught was that there was the prior home was there or uh the tennis court that's shown was not captured within that layer not there's no outline to it or pool that was added since the data set so those are just some quick visuals um that were added in to kind of complement that data set and just you know a a data heavy analysis we went in and did an OP request for all of those properties and we went through every single zoning zoning uh application number back to 1990 and did an over request for anything that was in the surrounding area and then beyond that even which are indicated in the table and this is just to get an idea of does it match up with that data and in this case um of the all the properties all the 36 that were in that area um 16 Oprah requests were were requested it says uh I think 15 there 16 um 12 of them came back with information four of them they could not Retreat those records unfortunately for four that were in the coverage analysis area um of the 17 properties that showed overages nine of them nine different applications um nine different properties received some sort of approval from the board and that's not saying impervious coverage or it matches up with that this was just nine approvals 11 applications in total for those 17 properties and in addition to that another 11 applications were looked at for properties outside of that area overall um of the 11 applications for that were in this that were over on coverage four of them dealt with coverage one of them with impervious coverage but four of them dealt with um different coverage variances that were s before this board um three of them being building coverage and outside of the pro the analysis area from the data set six dealt with with building coverage I'm sorry six dealt with building and impervious coverage one of them strictly impervious five of them building um and so I just wanted I know that was a question uh there was a question from this board about is this out of character uh it seems like a lot of these other properties are either undersized or um or conforming with B coverage and from this analysis it shows not the case some of them have SE have sought and received variance approval um back until I think our data showed like 1996 anything be prior to that they just couldn't retrieve the records they weren't in outside storage and so I think even some of these properties probably did uh also receive approval before then um and that just shows because before we have uh we have four requests that could not be fulfilled um that were in this in this coverage analysis um and so this is really just for the board's edification kind of uh show that we did our homework uh we looked thoroughly at would this uh application be out of character and um my conclusion is no this property is and what's proposed is not of character with um the neighborhood with prior you know zoning approvals for surrounding properties and I and I I'll talk a little bit more about how that feeds into this the variance proves um and so as mentioned by the engineer there are now three bulk variances that are being sought two of those remain the same as previously they C1 hardship variances for the for the accessory structure in the front yard because this property has two front yards along Adams ab and Taff drive and for the fence in the front yard which is a long tap Drive which is considered a front yard uh despite acting like a backyard here and then the other variance which has been changed now is for uh the building coverage which is section 606 point2 e. 2A uh where 133% is permitted in the R3 Zone 14% is proposed and the building coverage um that kind of pushes it over is the proposed pool house it's a proposed accessory structure entirely that push pushes over on the coverage um my professional opinion I believe that this um that this proposal advances the purposes of the mlul purposes a c and I um I believe that this proposal is in line with the purpose of the R3 Zone which the purpose captured in the zoning ordinance say to provide a range of lot sizes for for uh single family dwellings development of vacant land in these predominantly built up neighborhoods to be compatible with existing development patterns and I think that the report support that I believe that the report also provides that this proposal is not out of character with the existing homes and development in the surrounding area uh as far as the negative criteria I do not believe that this that there are any negative impacts on the surrounding properties I believe the storm War Management on the property were promote the general welfare and improve improve conditions for the ne for this property and the neighborhood uh the landscaping and the new fencing will be an extended aesthetic Improvement along the Taft Frontage uh this proposal meets the set fact for uh for the R3 Zone which shows that the oversized lot can accommodate the development without detriment to the surrounding property owners and pursuant to the Kaufman case this presents a better zoning alternative because it will treat this Frontage uh along Taft as a true backyard it'll close off the previous access from Taft it'll focus more on typical backyard accessory uses like a pool and the pool house will provide an organized development for storage for use and we insulate the pool the actual pool area for visual privacy which is good for both the owner itself and the neighbors um and therefore I believe that the benefits including the storm order controls the treatment as a backyard rather uh then along Taft and access from Taft substantially outweighs the detriments of the variants being requested if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them so your chart here only has one hole has remotely close to the same amount of property this one does with a deviation and judging by that house is 17 Bir Lane is a much older home that probably had more property so when you say it's common throughout this area to see this type of thing I'm not sure I see what you're talking about I don't see any other homes of this size property with that kind of deviation most half the size of this I think there's a mix and of the 17 I noted this in on page eight of the 17 properties that exceeded the building coverage by the analysis uh three of them were over 40 thou 45,000 square feet uh six of them including those three were over 35,000 square feet um and I think that as I mentioned before uh in my proofs that the oversized lot the nature of the oversized lot does help accommodate this development because it meets the setbacks and it's not a visual impairment to the neighborhood it's not uh a detriment to the neighborhood and it's actually a benefit based on where it's located so speaking about the master Z I think I brought this up at the first hearing um and I will reiterate the 2018 master plan does talk a lot about tear down and rebuilds which i' consider you know this even though the house is under development that this was a tear down rebuild um and there was a strong Focus probably in the single family developments uh in the single family zones on that uh and a recommendation on page 48 of that 2018 master plan says the planning board recognized that the single family character of the R3 through R six zones the single family two family home character with R7 and the multif family character R R8 zones should be preserved and protected to avoid development that is out of sync with the underlying zoning and neighborhood character and I believe as I showed in the report I do not not believe this is out of character with the with the neighborhood um looking at the zoning applications through the opro request I do not believe it's out of character I think it promotes U that recommendation and um as I mentioned also through the zoning ordinance which has the purpose uh I also believe that you know this this promotes um kind of character with the neighborhood and not overdevelopment so speaking of character how many hes of lots of this size have this 20 Adams Avenue showed some deviation um if I look actually let me look at the final table which had the actual applications in [Music] the 50 Birch Lane uh the application decided on April 11th 2011 included 14.8 building per building coverage allowance which was approved and the board found that the lot is over 30,000 square feet and the large lot area easily accommodates the proposed increase in building coverage without a d detrimental effect on the neighboring properties which would I under that 69 but under that reasoning if the lot is significantly oversized in that case it's it's over 30,000 square feet under that same reasoning if the lot's even bigger and it's we're seeking less coverage than they were then it can accommodate on the margin though you have a lot more more there's not there's not much it it it it goes up incrementally based on the 13% so it's not that much more but what it's saying is that you can insulate the development 6% moreing is of acre whatever it is have 1. Z1 I believe the not quite um 56 Lake give me one second 41 atams is is larger 75 so it's about a quarter a little under a quarter smaller um I'm just talking about anything over that's sort of well that's I mean I wouldn't Focus too much that wasn't the point of the analysis and I totally understand your questioning but what I will say is there are four there are four applications pre 1996 that we couldn't get the data for that show overages on coverage 20 Adams have 15 Taff Drive 63 Jefferson and 17 Birch that we could not get I maybe those all those all don't have coverages but some of them do um and so it's impossible to say what those applications were approved for or denied or what they what the subject matter was but C1 issues on some of them have C1 issues I'd say exactly the same problem as having the that we have they they have du a lot of them have dual frontages is what I mean to say that's not I mean you have a C1 problem relation to your coverage no a lot of them if you look at the C1 it wasn't just coverage it was they were seeking offense or some other improv some some was as I read here has some anomalies with the property a property which these issues I I the report included a a notation on some of the limitations of it it wasn't intended to be it can't be comprehensive because we simply couldn't get all the records there are probably records prior to 1993 that didn't even show up on the Zoning Board calendar of uh applications that we have these houses are so old that they be predate zoning they may predate zoning may have sought their approvals around that time we did our best here it wasn't intended to be exhaustive to say look at all these houses that have sought variant it was just to be indicative to say we are not out of character with the neighborhood and under some of the same reasoning that was included for some of the approvals prior that this lot can accommodate the development and it can be aesthetically pleasing because it can be screened if anyone did have a problem with the development in the backyard but as I mentioned before I do believe that the benefits of this treating this as a backyard without access to Taff we heard from the neighbors Taff drive is not improved it's not wide you don't want traffic on that road we're removing any traffic it's closed off there's fencing it's going to be privately treated as a backyard and I think that's the benefit that outweighs the detriment here um and that's the focus really of what this report um the conclusions of this report uh anyone have any questions question for our council with regard to something the witness said do this board to observe that same logic that the the zoning board did in 2011 this witness made the comment that a previous Zoning Board in 2011 has stated that using a similar situation according to the witness that they said that this development was development for that particular property was acceptable do we have to abide by that same logic or are we considered unique board with our own perspectives from the data every application Rises and falls on its own proofs and its own circumstances and while um I will you know certainly commend the uh witness uh C for providing what appears to be as comprehensive an analysis as she probably could have done for analysis of building coverage in the area and I commend her for that for sure um we don't have the background other than some quotes from those variances that may have been approved in terms of having the full resolution having the full plan having you know were their objetives what was the proofs what were the proof that we presented so long and short is that um every application you know like I said Rises and falls in its own effects however um you know certainly there's nothing wrong um and I think the applicant should be commended for doing an opal request and finding some um similarly situated applications where the board may have granted um approvals and if if the two circumstances are almost identical if that's how the proofs ended up you know certainly there's a benefit for the board over a course of of of years for you know establishing some consistency in terms of how they how they deal with applications looking on the other side if a board goes ahead and grants 15 building coverage applica um variance applications and then every year the governing body gets a report as to what the board of adjustment did or didn't do and they see that 15 bill coverage variances for granted and the governing body ignores that that may be evidence that we don't want deviations but we don't have any of that but we're not bound to the same logic it's interesting and it's some it's it's good to have consistency we're not okay but but it's certainly relevant it's interesting yeah and I and I apologize in the report I did note that it's well established that each application has a unique context stands on its own merits in no way shape or form I even you know thought about not including some of the quotations because of the context is very important um I just wanted to have a full scope uh of those things because if I just handed you a chart of resolution numbers I didn't think it was valuable um but uh I I did look through minutes and things like that so on my own end I got you know some idea but boards change the comp the composition of a board changes the members change um kind of even the political direction of a town changes uh zoning changes and so no way shap reform was I trying to say you're bound to that uh my own in my own head the logic was you know uh I I thought the logic was worked there um but I was not trying to you know pressure that on the board impressive thank you uh any other questions any questions from the audience thank you any comments from the audience regarding this application close the public portion um V numers what are your thoughts I'm got to go first I appreciate all the reductions so beautiful back there by the way um but I'm wondering it's really I don't have any problem with the accessory use or the or the fence thank you for explaining why those are needed I think you really changed the fence to be my satisfaction I'm still a little bit like 1% you couldn't have come down 1% so I feel like we the applications come in front of the board I don't want to be unreasonable 1% is so small but I feel like the applicants are being unreasonable they couldn't have come down to be conforming 100% so that would be my only hangup I await the comments of my Coles I kind of echo that fact I thank you planner for your report I think I was the person that was asking for that additional info so much appreciate it um also uh for the engineer who took back on the setback on the U pool house think was one of mine too thank you um I see what Regina's point is I mean for 444 sare feet that's minimal take a couple of papers out that being said I could support the 440 over um they did scale it back and I could see what you're saying Planner on as far as treating it as a backyard I can appreciate that you did look to add all the trees the tree effects one of the things that jumped out of me initially the application was filed you guys remember the fence was kind of like a wall boarded wall that was the killer for me um I could support it at this point with how things are going I would also I mean I would again reiterate that if we could lose the 400 square foot that's be to yeah I kind of go along with the same sentim um you know we have a very large lot here which is very highly developed and um I don't buy the fact that backyard was contemplated when this house is built so to add another you know 400 plus square feet on a lot of this size is a little hard to swallow because it it really is over developed for something that's larger than this so you thoughts on this um I think the applicant has really gone above and beyond in trying to part his back and um go back and um I would support I also have never seen such an impressive um analysis and we really appreciate that I would yeah I I've been through like uh going through the three hearing I think the honor and the professional team is really doing a good job like making through everything negotiating in between and 1% I think I can be supportive as well a second is that a second I second Joseph Coffield yes Viria TR yes Priscilla yes yes yes good luck thank you very much thank you so much [Music] that's I was so close yeah here e e e e sorry St Rose uh 50 52 TR Avenue this matter was carried from 61724 are you going to start also Mr chairman members of the board for the record Joshua C appearing from the law firm of ss cus and gross on behalf of St Rose of Lima Church I was here last time and I appeared uh I guess as co-counsel with Mr scholnick who has decided to venture off to the Grand Canyon to travel on vacation so um on behalf of AM Solar filling in for him tonight I know you guys are very well familiar with h Mr cell yes Anthony cillo from Le and cillo in mbour on behalf of Emer so but considering that he's done two already I think I'll just take the lead if it's okay on this one go ahead give aak great uh just to confirm before we start how many eligible members do we have six great all right great so I assume the applicant wants to proceed six we will be proceeding correct yep everyone's been swor if you're bringing people back up if it's someone new just let us know that it's someone we'll do thank you so we were last before the board on June 17th and you heard testimony that evening from four Witnesses uh we had father Larry who was here this evening as well he spoke to the need of the installation from the church's perspective we had Mr Joey Tatar from solar mounts who's the carport installer Frank de Chico who is the chief commercial officer of AMG solar the Solar Company and then uh Mr Michael lanzafama who is a professional engineer and planner from Casey and Keller so we presented testimony that evening as to the need for the structure as to why it was cited where what where it is um and we heard the board's comments um after that meeting we regrouped as a team and went back to look and see if there were other viable locations on this property where we could move this installation and I don't want to get ahead of the testimony but the answer was no and we'll present the reasons why the areas that we assess and um we're back before you with the same location but we have made modifications to the proposal so just want to preview those briefly um we did decide to lower the car PT structure to eliminate the height variant which is one modification that we think will be beneficial and it won't impede for emergency access Vehicles Etc um we actually did talk about uh we actually contacted the Forester to make sure that the plantings were permitted where we talked about in the right of way to provide screening um Mr L will testify to that but the answer is they will be permitted we'll talk through that what they're going to look like Etc different species and what we hope to gain there as far as a visual buffer of the structure and then we also would present uh the option of painting the structure as well so it doesn't look like a stainless steel it will actually match at least in my view the fixtures that are out at the church today so if you're familiar with the light poles Etc some sort of finish to match that so those are what we'll be proposing this evening um if there are no preliminary questions for me I'd like to call Frank who was previously sworn so Frank just for the record please state your name uh Frank Theo with AMG solar by your last name please uh de capital cic okay so you were previously sworn and you remain under roath you understand that correct I do okay just remind the board um you what your position is again with the Solar Company uh I'm the chief commercial officer for mgy solar okay how long have you been in the Solar industry uh I've been in the Solar industry for about 15 years and with AMG for just under six okay and at your time with am approximately how many solar systems have you installed in the state of New Jersey uh I would say probably somewhere around 75 okay now you did briefly testify to it last time and I reviewed the recording before tonight's hearing to confirm but typically you talk about three different types of solar installations correct correct there's there's three different things we can do we can do rooftop um we can do ground Mount and we can do uh carport okay just to remind the board and members of the public rooftop wasn't a viable option here because uh the church has a slate roof so that's not an option we can't install solar on a slate roof the shingles would have to be penetrated which would crack the shingles on top of the aesthetic look um you know the historic aesthetic look of the church and then a ground mounted system ground Mount you need a you know a big piece of property the other thing with trees are around you really need uh be set away from the trees because the trees could shade for a tremendous amount on the ground I know it's not what we're proposing here but I've worked on those type of applications for for example on landfills Etc that's what we're talking about right that sort of w Wide Open Fields and then we landed on the carport structure correct correct okay and then part of the reason it was cited in that location was it worked with the configuration of the existing parking lot uh absolutely it worked with the consisting uh the existing configuration it had the Middle Island which is ideal for the columns to go um least amount of shading there um and also the proximity to the building and the proximity to the building building and the electric room where we have to actually uh tap into the main electric okay now so Frank I know you prepared to exhibit and if you can let's hand these out but um we'll speak to it a little bit the board asked us basically strongly suggested that we assess other locations on the property correct uh correct and one of the locations that was yeah while while we're passing it around want to have them speak to this is sure okay so you've handed out uh what we're going to mark for identification is A3 um with today's date want before you get into testimony um what is A3 who prepared y I'm going to qualify it so Mr Sim do you want to pack Mark the entire packet or do you want to go Page by page I want everything's going to be A3 and A3 is going to consist of one two three four pages right yes four pages correct yeah okay so why don't we explain then if we could start with just page one just explain to the board what this is depicting so what I did the last meeting here um the board suggested hold on before you get to that this is an image an aerial image correct this is an an overhead aerial image and where did you what is the source of this image uh this is from Google Earth okay so you didn't prepare it but you took it from a publicly available Source right correct and when did you capture this image uh I took this image yesterday I'm not sure when the image is from you don't you know it could be from five years but you screen grabbed it yesterday correct okay go ahead and why don't we describe to the board what we're depicting in this area of the property so what I wanted to show uh the board had suggested the single spots in the back of the uh parking lot and asked we could use those so what I wanted to show is if you look in the back of the spot at the back of the parking lot the tree coverage between uh the residential and the parking lot um you can barely see actually the parking itself because the trees are shading the entire area there now Frank before you move on from that photo those trees are not on our property correct that is correct they are the neighbor's trees I think what would be helpful is if you just literally show the board right now because you're on the page where where you're referring to regards both the trees as well as the parking spots okay so the spots are underneath this tree line and I'll turn and show underneath this tree line here underneath this tree line here here why don't you draw with this marker it's I I want them to I want them to be Illustrated we're going to Mark we're going to Mark it's a it's difficult to speak to directions no North Arrow ET that's fair so A4 is going to be a marked up version of A3 A3 P1 so if you can see the the red outline um those are spots actually parking spots underneath underneath the tree line okay now do you want to go to A3 page two yeah and then what I did is on next page I pulled it down to street view just so you can get an idea when you say pulled it down to street view so you're still using Google Earth from a street view perspective correct same image capture date so yesterday yep okay yes and based on your familiarity with the site you've been to the property number of times correct I have yes and does this Photograph accurately depict it looks very similar to what's there today great go ahead describe to the board so basically what what I want to do is pull it down the street view just to give you an idea of the height of the trees that are over that Park spot those parking spots so on on the second page of of A3 are there any Vehicles parked in those spots that you're talking about does not look like it it looks like they're parked in the middle the middle median and when you talk about this the trees that are not on the applicant's property those trees are the ones along the road to on the second page of A3 so they're along I would say the fence line you could see Mr Simon if you back there they're behind the fence line and if you look to the to the left of the page a little bit where the white car is you can actually see the shading on the ground there caused from the trees and when you say the car on the so the second row white car to the left correct and Beyond that fence and a stting for the obvious I apologize but those are single family residential homes to the best of your knowledge correct to the best of my knowledge and those are their backyards correct okay question um you may have further testimony but what just to summarize what is going to Shield this from The public's eye if anything well the the structure we'll we'll get to that this is more of the alternative location that we've talked about okay but yeah Mr M will definitely touch on that we have a couple exhibits to show thank you sure any questions on this view okay so Frank why don't you move on to the page three of A3 and explain to the board what they're looking at here yeah so so basically um the solar industry uses a website called tvw.org and basically what it is it has track the weather um for over a hundred years and you plug in locations of where you're going to install the solar and it pulls the closest weather station to that location and just based on historical weather pattern there's so many rainy days sunny days snowy days throughout the year and then you just plug in the size of the equipment that you're installing and then it will come back and and give you an estimated production number um and this first P this page three what this is when you see the our proposed system will produce roughly about 142,000 kilowatt hours of electric um per year and this result is based on the current position correct correct the where we're proposing the solar structure correct correct okay and what information you said this is widely used in the Solar industry what information are you inputting into this so you you input the direction the panels are facing the pitch of the panels um the and the location the town the city and town and do you always use this tool when you're planning a solar site uh absolutely because part of what when we apply for our interconnection application with the utility company um one thing is we're not allowed to install a system that produces more electric than the customer has used over the past 12 months so when we apply for our interconnection application we actually have to submit a copy of this to the utility company along with their application and that shows that it will not produce more than the uh than the customer uses okay and then you said it's C it's customary in the industry to use this tool correct correct okay and just for perspective that 141 868 kilowatts you said right kilowatt hours kilowatt hours what does that equate to for Energy savings for the church uh that equates to roughly about somewhere around $22,000 worth of electric a year and then from a percentage basis uh it's it's going to cover roughly 100 just under 100% of their of what their usage was in the past 12 months obviously usage can vary but roughly 100% of their usage so real quick DC size is 122 kows correct you're corre generate from solar correct and that's like a th a service correct uh three phase in that I believe don't hold me to it I believe they do have three phase there and and what's the the service th service that sounds big I don't know what the service is um we we already received the electrical approval for this so everything was sized appropriately um I'm not an electrical engineer I do know a little bit about the technical but I don't want to guess and give you wrong information any questions from the board on this so just to date alternative sites potential alternative sites just go back to the roof you said it can't go on roof could you on slate rather could you remove those slate panels and put it in a square not on slate but on other like remove a portion of the roof just a small portion enough to accommodate the panels the roof would have to slate would have to be totally removed and then an asphalt shingle roof installed to answer your question directly theoretically you can do anything but that's not within the plant for the church the historic nature of the the structure Etc had been there over a 100 years it wasn't within the plant what but the car port is probably not also in the historic look of the church it wouldn't be it's an accessory structure so it would be in the parking lot but yeah right fa Point sure so it could possibly be put on the slate roof if you remove those pieces of slate and put it on Asphalt in those areas with the panels the entire slate roof would need to be replaced and panels I'm sorry we we would we would not fit yeah we would not fit this whole entire I'd have to go back and look at it but we would not fit this entire system up on the roof the roof has um all different orientations and and angles so we would not be able it would be a much smaller system and you haven't done an analysis of any type of visual impact from the roof it be took to correct if you had any correct Mr L of might be able to speak to that what he testifies as well because you put potentially in the back I mean I know there's the front is probably the most offensive for anyone look aesthetically concerned but just just saying most panels are on Roes generally correct I'm saying that but I should ask you that are most panels on I don't I don't I mean the witness can answer sure yeah I mean there's a mix of all three ground Mount roof mount AMG ourselves we do mostly roof mount but um but the industry as a whole I would say especially if you look at residential involvement obviously it's a lot more roof map than others but in the commercial in the commercial world it's probably an even split between roof and the other and churches and churches are well the major if they don't have a slate roof we usually put them on the roof well you did hear testimony at the last hearing from Mr Tatar who testified I believe he did a similar installation out of Yesa correct uh they did yes that was not an Amy install but yes they did sure so page four so and the last page is uh page four what I did was put the shading estimate into it and show you um if we didn't install it back there we say back there are you referring to the the red rectangular area on A4 I am okay go ahead um it would produce roughly about 59,000 kilowatt hours of electric um which is less than half of what the system uh in the proposed location would produce Frank to be frank would there be a project sorry would there be a project with this sort of output no there there's not one Solar Company or investor in the whole entire industry that uh would would do a project like this with with the production the return on investment is based on production um you know right now it would be a five to a sixy year payback uh with the current proposed carport uh with the 100 40,000 kilowatt hours if if if we did this we'd be looking at probably a 12E payback and there's not one company in the industry that would do that um that would kill that would kill this project and if there are no questions from the board on that you heard me profer in my opening remarks about the reduction and height can you just confirm what the height will be uh yes so the the the height will be just under 18 feet so we did not need a variance for that because 18 feet is permitted in the zone correct yeah so you so that was like you were was it like 14 feet under the lowest truss and then you went up is that was going up to 20 20.7 it was at the peak the correct yeah and so what's it now like what's your what's it now at the lowest versus the highest let's put that one yeah so what they said I believe was going to be 13 and a half feet in the middle right which is in the middle on the Medan that sits right and then uh the Y will go out to just under 18 feet Frank do any of these figures that are on the third and fourth page of A3 do they get alter due to the fact that you're reducing that height to below 18t whether it's the raid H or otherwise uh no I think that's consistent with Mr tatar's testimony at the first hearing when they talked more about height is a function of clearance Etc so I asked that question for but if it comes we're lowering it doesn't doesn't the arrate Tilt change well it's the angle Mr Simon I asked that exact question we were preparing for the hearing so right but you're saying so the asmith doesn't change either no it's going to be the same as was proposed and and then the reason we started at the 20.7 and can do it for this is what what was the like why was it 20.7 what was the the reason for that the company that that installs the carports for a solar amounts that's that's their normal specs okay so it wasn't for any particular that's site related reason that you had to be no they send it over to us and be honest with you I never looked at it the height another question about the angle um is flat or angle it's going to be a y it's going to be a y to capture the most sun rays I guess or solar energy what happens when it snows well snow will accumulate on the panels the panels are black inut the panels are black so normally just as if you're driving around and see a residential system that has black solar panels the snow will melt um off the panels um before anything else and the panels and I believe we talked about this at the last meeting um it's not a solid roof in there the panels are buted up against each other but they're spacing both long ways and widthwise and just as if it was you know it would melt and fall between the panels okay because in a residential if it's on a roof it's automatically on a pitch I would think this go down but so is the is the pitch of this y similar to the pitch it would have on a roof uh well roof pitches vary but most pitch especially if you're look at a residential most pitches for residential are somewhere between 20 and a 30 degree pitch which is pretty substantial so this is not this going to be pitched um much less than that so snow could potentially accumulate will that affect the energy that you acred uh well it's it's it's in this report this report is based on um historical weather and snow in this area and this actually has a breakdown each month um and the majority even though this gives you the annual production the majority of that production is going to be done in April May June July August and September um you're going to get very little production in the winter anyway um threw a little bit of snow it'll still produce electric um it's the UV rays that create the electric would you say that because it's at a less pitch than it would be on a roof that it will collect less than the average wood if it were on a roof I wouldn't think so I would think it'd be pretty s it might be it might slide off faster on a high pitched roof um where you know where we're not here so it would on on a high pitch roof it would the snow would probably melt off sooner than this it would melting causes issues on a high pitched roof too with the sliding because you know keep in mind you know a roof that's pitched at like you know 30 degrees is sliding off this is going to be much you know much less right so it's not going to slide off asally so it might be less correct not less production this production number takes into effect I'm not saying I'm saying it would be it would be more energy production if it were on a roof because of snow would slide off faster on a more on a larger pitch it's possible I mean I don't have the exact answer for you but again it's very minimal production in January and February compared to the rest of the years by the rest of the months and that's consistent between roof mounted or solar correct or ground mounts less but even less with it's okay I do have one question you probably adjusted it before like um if we lower it I think I think the lowest point is like 13 ft and and the highest 18 ft have you consell any like emergency truck and then do analyis Mr L P will touch that our professional engineer will touch it great question any other question anything else not from this witness any questions for this witness questions oh actually I did have one I apologize the painting oh I don't testify remember I only just set the stage so just confirm yes um we would we we paint the color uh what was suggested is the the church has some light posts some decorative light posts that are black so we can match the uh um the painting of the of the array to match the light post but you'd be willing to work in consultation with the Township's professionals to pick a color that works absolutely Frank have you had an experience where you painted um car ports I have not but uh the industry does paint them all the time have you seen any painted car JY uh I have not any other questions any questions from the audience excuse me my name is jefford fil your address record 11 Alexander Lane Short Hills New Jersey prior in your testimony you talked about payback in an investor and and that if you didn't get the certain rate they wouldn't do the investment who is the investor is the investor the church or are you syndicating in a similar area because you use the word payback an investor who's the investor is the investor the church it's a common it's a common arrangement in the Solar industry but you can speak to it just explain it you know financing right there's a lot of different investors out there in this instance the investor is the owner of Amy solar so we are um paying for this and uh there's no money out of pocket for the church um we will recover our investment over tax benefits and the state incentive uh over time which is consistent with your arrangement with other right other investors do the same thing um other investors wouldn't touch a project like this they're very small the investors look for you know multi-million dollar projects um but the owner of our company um he takes on the smaller projects and does it for our the churches for the arch dasis of North which we have a partnership with your answer is obviously addressed to the question and person who said our perview up here is well outside the financing of the project um any other questions uh for this witness it'll be comment at the end if there's need to be comment or application like to recall uh Mr Michael lanzafama thanks good evening Michael lanzafama with Casey and Keller I acknowledge I'm still under oath from the last hearing you got ahead of me sorry that's okay and he was previously qualified as a professional planner and professional engineer yes and your license is still remain a good yes they are okay good so mik oh okay so after the last meeting we heard the concerns of the board about um the tree proposal that we had Crawford um so we checked with u the township Forester um Miss PL uh puffer I think her name is uh so she had indicated that she had no objection to us um planting the trees within the township right away um she wanted to make sure that when we made the proposal if the proposal were approved that she'd want to review the planting details with us she'd like the planting to be between the curb and the edge of the sidewalk and if any sidewalk were to be replaced we would put in the appropriate root barrier in accordance with the township standards we had originally proposed the lyen uh tree for the species uh she thought there might be other species that would be more appropriate and she'd be happy to discuss those one was the uh Queen Elizabeth Maple which is a very similar tree um what we had done in an effort to help present that to the board to get them a feeling for how these trees along the street might help obscure the view of the panels we prepared an exhibit that I'd like to hand out okay Mike while you get the exhibit this is a a rendering correct correct and this was prepared under your direction yes it do okay and as you hand it out to the board this will be exhibit A5 Mr Simon I believe correct so as the board members are getting it um why don't you speak generally to how a rendering like this is prepared and then we could talk about this specific um what we do is uh what has been marked is A5 is entitled P1 uh St Rose of Lima prospective view number one with today's date uh with today's date prepared by my office and what we do is we use the software called Photoshop to take a street view of uh the area along Short Hills Avenue uh which this represents it it shows the existing parking lot with the some cars already parked in it and then it's superimposed cles into that image the solar panels then on top of that we added uh renderings that showed uh the trees that we would be proposing at uh probably a fiveyear uh growth rate uh planting them initially at about 18 feet and then what's shown on the exhibit is what they are projected to be after about five years so as you can see they don't block it completely but they do soften the appearance uh of The Bu of the panels uh and the carport from across the street there's about four single family Residential Properties immediately across the street and if you recall from uh prior testimony or visiting the site those those homes are elevated from the street level so the the canopies of the trees will help obscure the vision of the panels from those homes across the street and my I'm just going to say it for the obvious the trees that will be planted if this application is approved won't be translucent correct that is correct okay good that's just to show the effect of what's behind it so just just to clarify for the record we haven't invented a new method of planting and and we we're proposing 10 trees to be planted okay M why don't you I know you have another exhibit yeah um I know the species is still sort of to be determined you want to show the board yeah we we uh downloaded an image unfortunately I I didn't enough copy so you may have to share and what this photograph is a photograph of is the Queen Elizabeth Maple and it gives you an idea of its shape um the reason we were proposing these types of trees is because they're somewhat colmer in shape um and they provide good screening at the lower level and as you notice as you go towards the peak of the tree that narrows up so there's less possib ility of these trees impacting the the solar panels by shading and where was the I you said you downloaded it where was this image taken from um there's a website my landscape architect got it for me um it's a website that typically is a nursery various Nursery websites that show these typical trees and you're familiar generally with the species of tree and that that's what it's what species of tre Queen Elizabeth Maple and this is what the arborist that was one of the ones the arbor right but we said we would meet with her and and finalize the species but there would be similar and it's just to give an idea to the board right of the type of screen that we're looking to achieve question is this a deciduous tree yes it is so in the winter leaves will be that's correct so in the winter it won't be camouflage that's correct and we certainly I think I could speak for the applicant to say we wouldn't be opposed to some sort of evergreen tree but we would defer Forester so yeah I was going to ask what is there a reason why you didn't um ask about or you know an everen tree well me remember we're we're planting it it's a street tree basically it's act a shade tree it's got to be high branched so people can walk underneath it not not obstruct the sidewalk an evergreen tree wouldn't wouldn't do that for us Mediterranean yeah there are some Mediterranean but and then I think Mike you just had one more um well it just I believe we had submitted this the last time but it was slightly modified this was slightly modified this is a plan view of um showing the location of the trees we just spoke about a seven and this is indicated as uh L1 and uh this is the oh I'm sorry so what is A7 A7 is a partial landscap plan uh identified as sheet L1 and it's uh still has the date of June 17 2024 um however we did add there two notes at the bottom of the drawing that we added uh just the other day um and we neglected to update the date on the drawing and Mike were those notes added as a result of your conversations with the Forester yes there were okay and and what do they say specifically uh what I had testified to that the final tree species will be selected in in conjunction with the Forester and that any uh if any new sidewalks are being proposed that a root barrier would be installed for Township standards uh in conjunction with the T Forester and this shows the the proposed Street plantings extending beyond the structure both to the left and the right correct that is correct following the natural curve of shill Avenue that is correct there's existing Oaks out there two existing Oaks and we're kind of filling in with the maples okay questions any questions from Mr I did want him to just briefly address Mr Lama as a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey you prepared numerous site plans in your career correct that's correct and as part of the preparation of those site plans you also design driveways uh Drive aisles circulation pattern and layouts for sites that's correct okay do you as a professional engineer have any concern with the proposed height that we were talking about the the cardboard structure no because the way the panels are arranged they're elevated as they approach the drive ises so the drive a area is well more than 14 feet above the travel surface so they should not impair any emergency vehicle or or delivery vehicle that might utilize that driveway area and I know you previously testified at the last hearing about the variance relief that we're requesting from as far as a setback goes to quantify that for the board we're seeking a setback variance in the rear portion of the property that's correct there was a 25 foot buffer requirement um we're proposing 11.2 feet um and in the front the front set back from uh Short Hills Avenue the requirement is 100 feet and at its closest point the panels would be uh 42.2 feet so really we're seeking Rel for that 58 feet plus or minus correct that's correct and in your opinion as a professional planner um do you believe that the mitigation um measures that we've proposed this evening which are a modification to the original proposal reduction in height the additional Landscaping the painting of the structure will mitigate any negative quote unquote visual impacts yes that that's my opinion as I stated in my initial testimony this Advan is um the major goal of not only the municipal land use law to Institute um solar panels or energy saving measures whenever possible your master plan as well speaks of that very issue where it suggests that we encourage private property owners to utilize solar panels and or energy efficient measures to improve not only the situation for locality but for all of us uh as as a species with what's going on in this world and I know you you you described you know the reasons from a planning perspective as to why this is a good location but just to confirm for the board if we were to relocate this anywhere on the property in the parking lot we would still be seeking a deviation for setback to the to Short Hills Avenue correct absolutely because you you saw you could see from uh the exhibit on my left which is the site plan drawing that was submitted you can see the usual configuration of the property that leg um that far left leg is very narrow so no matter where the panels go we would need a setback variance from Short Hills and not withstanding the alternative site um analysis that we undertook and that was explained in prior testimony particularly with location marked on exhibit A4 MH essentially putting it closer to the rear yards of single family residential neighbors right my mind that would have even a greater impact from the planning perspective I think that's all I have for time a couple questions what is the closest building on the shills Garden parment side from this solar array if you notice if you go to um drawing one of two which is the covered site plan you can see the closest building is actually a garage and that's located um probably about uh 30 35 ft uh from the pel then Mr L on that same Dr I believe to the left of the garages what is that a refu enclosure to the the garage on yes yes immed at the end of the parking stall is the refu en closure what's the closest uh residential use from the allay the closest residential on the shose apartment side oh on the shose apartment side um that's got to be more than a football field away so 300 closest more closest about 300 feet away more okay and then what about across on shills Avenue across sh Hills Avenue is about probably about 130 ft any other questions for Mr I just one in this drawing this blue line is the property line that's correct and can you just remind me what is what's up here this you're looking in the so we referring to to what exhibit is that mik this is L1 sheet L1 the landscape partal landscape plan exhibit A7 correct yes so the area in here is immediately behind the garages yeah that's this area right in here um it's a it's a a garage I believe maintenance garage that's the maintenance question then did you consider putting the solar pan panels on the maintenance Gage I I didn't it's it's not enough surf I'm being told it's not enough surface area it's not enough surface it's not large enough to put any of them I guess you could you split it just just thinking outside the box come so just if you can just repeat the question the benefit of this witness yeah so the question was did you consider placing solar panels on the maintenance building either all or portion of it yeah we we looked at it but it's just not big enough the the the panels are just give idea the panels are about six and a half feet long by about three and a half feet wide so you know we wouldn't be able to get many panels up there um and as long as we were doing the carport we just put it all up there and how how much trouble would it be if you put some of the panels on the brick garages would that reduce the size of the structure that's proposed uh no it would not because the amount of panels that we could put on there wouldn't it it just be enough to reduce it okay thank you thank you I do have one more question like have you considered this tree like it's look looks like it's a very high tree and on the image you already showing it's has the shadow on the location you propos already there will be some shading from that tree yes we're we're going to trim trim the tree slightly but there it will create some shade okay Lama asked Frank about the issue of painting these um carports do you have a planning opinion on that as far as painting them to help obscure the the view or or make them less offensive if you like of a better word um I've seen it done in in one location at um the Somerset Patriots field they put in solar panels and they're they're paint they are painted black and they do look a little less obvious so I I don't see it as a that's that's part of a a large parking field though correct correct correct correct the fact of the matter is I don't think we were we're trying to skirt it it's going to be seen Mr if it was put in a conforming location on the property it would would be see even though there are you'd still be able see them from even if we had that distance to set it back and as a planner that's the sort of give and take with these renewable energy projects correct that is correct okay I can't help myself have you considered Mediterranean cypress trees they're tall skinny trees in there ever we would talk to the talk to the forest so you can make that recommendation to her of them would really obscure the view from short out I don't I don't think we' have an objection to whatever the whatever did did the Forester um recommend a minimum height Atomic planting for those trees she did not but you Mr L during your testimony I believe you you made a reference to it right yeah about 18t 18 of planting so they get to 25 caliber you about a 3 in caliber which is not an in insignificant trick so scale of this isn't too far off that's correct that it projects probably a fiveyear growth after the initial planting any other questions for Mr any F testim not at this time any questions from the audience from that's all I have right now Mr chairman subject to my right to briefly sum up after the public yes no um any comments any other questions from the board regarding any testimony so far um then I will open it to the uh public for any comment uh your name and address as well great do you swear from testimony about to give stting be truth hold truth on the by the truth I swear to God your name and Frank farbach 49 Lyon Street Melbourne New Jersey my wife Tiffany farbach f r n b a c my wife and I have been norn residents for nearly 20 years my wife ran PTO Wyoming school and multiple other schools been involved with Milbourne Short Hills Youth Baseball many years Scouts been an active parishioner at St Rose it's interesting if everybody could look up here the township of Milbourne established 1857 this church established 1852 older the township of Melbourne wasn't at that location moved after but this church is literally the Cornerstone of old short Hills Road in Milbourne Avenue you all know it passed it hundreds of times this is important for father Larry he's spoken about this every every week at the church right over 1500 families and when you all sit here and look at this we're talking about a parking lot right this isn't a stream of colorful fish right now it's it's a parking lot that's a black top and we're talking about putting some solar panels on top of the black top that's going to make it carbon neutral and beneficial to the environment so I was kind of surprised that by asked a few of us to come and speak tonight um anyway I think uh think you know where I stand on this it's important for the church I think it's important for the environment and I think it's important for Milbourne Short Hills thank you uh any further comment in that the only thing I would just add wait wait do you s from testimony about the give truth truth yes name Jeffrey Feld 11 Alexander Langan I just my only comment is to make sure the record is complete at because at the first hearing the chair asked question she swore in the board secretary and she talked about the application and why we're here I think the application that she referred should be part should be marked as an exhibit for why we are here it has nothing to do based on the testimony as to the church is that something happened fell through the cracks that we have a contractor that we I think the testimony this is their first car pool and something fell through the cracks and I think the record should reflect the reason why we are here something fell through the cracks and I think the record should be complete when having the application yeah I'm was going to advise the board the reason why applicants come before this board because they need Varian for right and um why or how it ends up that they need Vari relief we don't get involved with that they have an obligation if they want to get a permit to get to get a variance under certain circumstances and that's why they need to come this any other further comment from the audience areir testimony about tonight's proceeding be truth all truth truth I do name and address for the record Tiffany farach um it's my husband Frank also 49 London Street and Melbourne I just want to add one more thing um I understand your objections in terms of visuals but this has come before you and been notified to the public twice now and no neighbors the people who are the ones who are going to be looking at have come forward to object to this also two of the houses that are across the street are owned by the parish so they probably won object to the carport but I do want to point out that there have been no neighborhood objections you guys might not like how it looks but the people who are looking at it aren't here and they haven't objected to it and you know you driving by yeah there's the high schools there shanle the old shanle is there but it's not you're not taking away much you can still see the church without looking at the carport you can still observe the beauty of the church and the historic of it I don't think that the carport which is going to help cut the cost of the church and help the environment are going to is enough to take away from that so I hope that you will consider application thank a com so um just again to reiterate regarding housekeeping uh there's a use variance former use variance or use variance is required as part of this application it requires five fir votes um there's six board members so that means you have to go at least five or six does the applicant um want to proceed with a deliberation and vote on the application alternatively uh the app the applicant can decide if they so choose um to uh carry the application until such time as another board member can become eligible by listening to the tape Etc and then the applicant would have a full compliment of seven board members they would just have to go five for seven versus five for six Mr Simon appreciate the council I I always do um I've confirmed with my client we would to proceed to a vote this evening so thank you very much for your time so let me just kind of remind the board and I got into this a little bit the last meeting so um we're dealing with a a solar carport array that's being proposed here um at a church so um solar panels under Municipal luse law specifically by Statute not just by case law by a judge but by Statute by the legislature um they've been deemed inherently beneficial uses that means that they are a use to words to be included for various reasons throughout the community not just the Milburn but throughout the state New Jersey um so and also uh churches does so happen to be inherently beneficial uses so here we have double apparently beneficial use so what that means is that uh the presumption is that such uses satisfy the positive criteria for the variance relief that is being sought by the Advent now it's presumption because that presumption can always be rebutted by testimony by the public by objectors Etc um and as we just heard recently by by Tiffany no neighbors have come up to provide any evidence or testimony and OPP position um with regard to a rebuttable presumption on the positive criteria so then you get into the negative criteria and typically for a pure use variance application you're trying to put a use in a zone that works not permitted um you have to meet what's called this far forart seek a balancing test where you um first identify the public interest at stake and then you identify the detrimental Effects by the application and the third prong is to see if there's any mitigation or conditions that can be imposed to reduce the detrimental effects and then the fourth prong is you weigh the positive negative criteria to determine if on balance the positives that weigh the negatives that's for a pure use variance not permitted in the zone here we have a use that is certainly conditionally permitted in the zone um solar panels solar arrays are are known to be accessory to permitted uses such as church and institutional uses so we look at the conditions and we have two issues both of which have to do with setback slash buffer one to the apartments and the other um across from from Short Hills Avenue and I think that what you need to do I don't think the burden is so high on the applicant um that they need to even demonstrate entitlement to the negative criteria review the seeka balancing test I believe that the appropriate uh review although that can be persuasive is whether you evaluate the impact of those setback deviations upon adjacent properties and whether they will cause such damage to the character of the neighborhood to be deemed substantial and then also even for inherently beneficial uses you have to sh you have to prove not just that the particular deviation um will cause substantial will not cause substantial detriment to the neighborhood but will also not substantially impair uh the master plan and the zoning ordinance and typically especially when you're dealing with inherently beneficial use such as solar panels uh where to sustainable energy is promoted by the master plan it's usually found typically that a board will you know the applicant will need at least that second product of a negative criteria regarding inherently beneficial uses so with that longwinded or otherwise all so with that I I would say that from my perspective I would support this application and I do see the positive outweighing the negative and the potential detriment besides the fact that their operational expense benefits to the church and certainly benefits to the environment I'm happy we came back here a second time because I think it's better right I think by by I appreciate you went to the Forester and you considered that we could have these plantings which I think are are beneficial uh for the community I appreciate that you lowered the height of this structure I appreciate that you consider painting it and maybe that makes it less intrusive and I appreciate that you looked at various Loc and other ways to sort of um achieve what the church needs to do to cut down its cost and and simultaneously support the I I appreciate you all of those things so I think you know in weighing the positive and the negative of this from my perspective I think the positive does outweigh the negative and that you've given real consideration and you know I know you guys wanted to get it done last time but I'm glad we came back again and I think it's better thank you F thought I I would agree also support so you I'm t on a couple things I really appreciate lowering the height I think that's fantastic U I don't know if I want to paint it I think that's that's something that concerns me um so not only does this create a maintenance issue um I'm not sure that I want to be the guy that says I want to paint in a certain colors so at the end of the day I'm not um I'm not really a fan of that um I would like um the some more consultation with the town um Forester to make sure that whether this is actually the best possible treade um or to what my colleague mentioned um is true regard is something that may be more all year round and not have something with a please fall off so once again outside the perview of this board a little bit in terms of the species but I would I would uh appreciate further consultation regarding the best uh with the objective of of screening um not so much just screening when the leaves are on the trees but you know Four Season screening um other than that I do appreciate the lowering of of the unit I think that's fantastic I happen to drive past one of these things over the weekend at 20 feet is is scary High um especially in the scale of this lot and scale the neighborhood but across the street those homes are only a story and a half so you know it's almost like the same size of the house which is probably little extreme where bringing this down I think is uh is beneficial um I like the fact that that it really you know once again we don't deal with costs but I think the benefit here of having it really cover the cost of of the usage is not only beneficial to the church but certainly beneficial to everyone around the fact that this this this large L building will not be consuming as much energy so um with the with the tweaks that were made I think uh I would be support the application so I'll go I'm the person who wasn't here last time so I appreciate all the testimony on both nights it was so fun to watch it but um um I'm a little freaked out about the the 60 foot almost 60 foot variance the minimum setback accessories and I have to say I'm still a little bit freaked out about that but I I could probably get over because I think it's a benefit to the community ways that um the neighbors are probably not here because a lot of times we know from other testimony a lot of times people don't get their mail um when they mail it but they're not here um so that is that is correct um what would make me feel better is if you had an evergreen shading so that the it is it is kind of a modern looking Appliance next to a very historic church I also would have felt better personally if there had been an extensive review of what it would take to put these panels on the roof and I know your the slate roof is a problem and you don't want to do it slate is so lovely but I I for me personally I would have lik to have seen that analysis of what it would mean to put those on a roof which is more traditional I think more useful quite honestly in terms of energy so there um the messing still bother me a little bit to be honest like it looks very massive um but I do understand like the benefit of the old panel is it's definitely everybody's looking for um and also I believe the analyis is we have some sort of analysis but again I I don't think it's it's it's thorough um I'm I'm wiggling but I if we can further divide the the messing a little bit it will give you know the surrounding a better look but um yeah I understand why we want the soda eny um I'm seeing the FL the vot would um I have a motion and if somebody wants to make a motion in the fr ative with a particular condition they should St that particular condition or conditions okay I'd like to make a motion um contingent that you get Evergreens that would fit there if at all possible I don't know if I can say that let's put this way let's do condition on further consultation with the town Forester regarding screening that is a for season screening yeah natural for season screening correct right so uh rather than rather than having it do we need to restate that or do yeah you're fine we got it we got it I got it so it's condition you're making a motion to approve condition on consultation with the township forest or um as to uh the most appropriate um trees to be installed to provide for season screening that sounds perfect is that acceptable to the applicant do we have to get his well at this way if if the town Forester says no it's no so it's it's we can request it but at the end of the day yeah she's not well there's concerns about ens too because you have the bases and how big they get and so Mediteranean Cy it may not fly but it's gonna be police is gonna have to be discussed invasive just say that the we understand the intent and we would do our best to achieve that right I'm sure that she'll do her best to to either research it or say that's on and and a minimum of 18 feet at the time of planting as as represented by the applicants professional engineering plan whatever it's GNA whatever they choose with that so it's fair uh anything else regarding your what we doing painting anything else a condition from your you know we didn't discuss lighting but yeah we did last time you did did you talk about a maximum time of lighting it's yeah it's dust it's dust of dawn okay oh it's dusted Dawn yeah it's a follow parking lot okay so any uh anything else second La yes Regina Truitt yes Priscilla s yes J Pang yes Jessica Glen yes yes thank you all very much thank you appreciate all your time folks take a two-minute break and then we're g jump into MW [Music] short e e e e e e e e e e next up we have calendar 38 39 8624 this matter is carried June 3 MW LC yes um thank you Mr chairman my name is Susan Rubright I'm an attorney with Brock Iker in rosand New Jersey um to my right is Christian dimer who is my witness this evening um we are here on behalf of Blair image elements on behalf of MW of Short Hills LLC um which is a a Mattress Warehouse entity um so I'm going to just give a brief introduction and then I'm going to have U Mr dimer discuss the site and um then I would what I'd like to do is provide the fact Mr dimer is going to provide the factual basis and then I'll provide the legal analysis for the for the variances the property is 752 Mars Turnpike in the Short Hill section of Milburn Township it's block 9 1 1904 lot 17 the property as I'm sure you all know is on a busy heavily commercially developed portion of Morris Turnpike including next to and across the roadway from several uh shopping centers this portion of Morris uh Morris Turnpike is unique and busy as it is also between the split to Route 78 and Route 94 uh 94 excuse me Route 24 and the exit the exit access way coming from direction of those roadways in all these unique characteristics require that motorists trying to locate the mattress Wearhouse store be able to see the location of the store by the highly recognizable sign to safely maneuver the roadway and to turn into the property this was a this uh this unique circumstance stance of location was part of the decision regarding the size of the sign as you will hear um we submitted some photographs um of the site as well as some of the some of the surrounding properties and U Mr jar will discussed that those were from a Google search we are proposing to install the standard Mattress Warehouse branded sign on the facade the the sign is standard as to letter ing script and color what's their name I'm sorry what's their name um there's a we'll get into that but it's yeah so so what's there right what what is there now is a fully conforming sign um what we are proposing next point is that we are seeking to permit a sign with 28% maximum wall graphic area whereas 20% is allowed and the second variants we're requesting is for a wall graphic height for a sign whose letters range in height from 2 Fe 6 Ines to 3 foot 8 in whereas two feet is permitted is there any photos uh that you've submitted of the existing sign yes there is um in the initial in the initial submission that we made um there is a series of three uh Blair image element right um brand and it's this there is um I think it was sheet two yeah so they're side by side you see that yep you see you see that okay um so we're obviously we're requesting the variances under the C2 flexible C the 2C flexible C standard the benefits versus the detriments test um under the C2 standard the board must also balance the posit positive and negative criteria and so as I indicated what I would like to do is present Mr dimar with Blair image Elements which is the representative of Mattress Warehouse in this matter um as Mr dimer will go through briefly Blair image elements is assigned designer manufacturer and installer um okay so we could swear Mr dmer you sore from testimon about to give us ni proed be the truth whole truth above truth yes your name for the record spelling name please Christian dmar di TT M thank you um so Mr dimar if you could um just go over briefly with the board um who who is Blair image elements and um what is your position with them okay I'm a field services manager with the company I oversee on-site installations uh I run safety while installations are happening uh as well as any type of maintenance required on site uh during the process the company we are a a small company based at of Aluna Pennsylvania we actually have World body accounts um with most major brands that pretty much anybody recognize um Pet Supplies Plus BP um Home Depot uh we have a lot of them all our signs are Custom Design uh and built inhouse uh and each when has done per effects for each customer based on its location have you done has your company done other work with Mattress Warehouse uh yes we've done a approximately 300 sites in total okay now it's your understanding that uh as part of our application we submitted signage site plan as well as a number of photographs of the subject's site and support of the variant correct yes and who prepared the signage site plan that's um part of the submission uh that was a l project management staff okay and then we've just referenced the comparison of the two signs um the existing uh sign that's there which meets the ordinance as well as um a mockup correct of what the proposed sign would be like if the board were to Grant the variant yes um and that was also that was um designed by this the by Art Department by your art Department okay great thanks and then again there were some um photographs that were printed from an internet search of the area in order to show um the area as well as other uses and other signage yes that's correct project management team uh routinely pull photos if we don't have any readily available for the proposal for a customer uh using a Google search or whatever else we might have about the USS and have you been to the property yes okay and you can describe the surrounding area um but was it is it your opinion that the surrounding area is as I've described it as well as what the photographs show in terms of commercial uses and the roadways yes okay did you drive on the roadway yes I did okay good for you um because I don't do that anymore um can you um identify the space um so so Mattress Warehouse is um occupies if we want to take a look at the site photo that was prepared um It's actually an aerial photograph and is it your understanding that um that that the Mattress Warehouse is is it one of two one of two tenants in all right and what's the other tenant uh I believe it's bagel for us okay all right and it's is it surrounded by parking areas um is it surrounded by Green Space I mean what what what is it located there's a parking area in a front going the side I believe somewhere around the back there's a I believe it's a law office to the left of it shop right across the street and there's another shopping center um immediately before uh The Mattress Warehouse okay um if you could just describe briefly U what is the process for Blair in designing a sign for the Mattress Warehouse uh franchise in general and with and also with this site um once we are contacted by a customer um that there's no that they're thinking about having taking over or moving into or upgrading the sign we get all the information for that um we'll dispatch a team uh from either an in-house installer or any of our installers that we work with all over the nation um they go out they take measurements of the existing signage or the facade where it's going um or even if there's any road signs they take photos of the surrounding area um and all F information that we need they bring it back to the office um then I sent out with a code check uh by professional research company uh to check everything that we possibly can for that and then everything is turned back over to the project management team to and the art Department to develop that further um with regards to the customer reaching back out to them with it so do you um given the location of this s I'm right that given that the location of this of this building um and its location on the highways um do you know if does Mattress Warehouse have a typical type of view um in order for the for a sign to be visible to the greatest to the greatest uh customer base possible try to get a 180 degree view on all their tour fronts if it's possible um and with that it's between a faade and 180 degree view is how we base our signage along with the code was this sign able to was this Pro uh property able to achieve that that with the current sign on there uh no not in my opinion okay and is that so is that important then because um you're not able to achieve the 180 degree view if that's not attainable what then um what did what then does that mean for the type of sign or the size of the sign that you want to install 180 View how's that detered um it's a customer brand standard they'd like to have the um their customers be able to see a sign as soon as possible so they know where they're going if it's somebody passing by or if they're not familiar with the area or they're not familiar that there's a new store there um it actually just helps guide the traffic to them so is there is there a sign a pylon sign also no not at this location or is not so the one that says match the Pyon down by Panera Bread p uh no no because I believe the one for Panera Bread is for the larger shopping center there right bagels for us and currently Mattress Warehouse it's just a divorced building separate from that there's actually a split in the parking lot and once you get past the small adjoining entrance between the two I believe there's a curb or uh some shrubs separating the two of them um so what's what I'm just trying to get my head around that so at 180 degrees you're telling me that can you drive past it at what distance is this 180 degrees measure that I would I don't have that Vis the property right I understand they're trying to do it from a typical roadway where we might not have any trees or anything else blocking the view so as you see I guess the most notable thing for a mattress where is the bright red letters so as you come up that's what they try to the gain is at 180 gr view here unfortunately we have just a oneway load div roadway for the most part so they're not you're not going to get that from the oncoming side they know that but because of that does that make it more more important um to Mattress Warehouse to have a sign that's visible yes oh yeah that's larger CH yes definitely how long has the existing sign been up um that I don't I don't have an answer I believe we were brought into the project from Mattress Warehouse I believe I was retained in October so it must have been sometime around then and you you installed the current side correct or your firm my firm does um I didn't install this one yeah but I mean it's your did this card yes so it would have either been one of our in-house installers um or a Blair crew or one of our teams that work with us um we use a lot of independent contract but um they're affiliated with so it's seven eight months um 10 months at least six months um if everything came on in October yeah I probably seven months or so eight months so so I I think you know I see where you're going with that like have we had any issues have we had any complaints but I think when you look at the overall roadway system and the fact that there is a myriad of signs in that area all competing for a attention from drivers um as well as when one looks at the sign and relationship to the facad and the fact that it's next door to another use um aesthetically that would be our argument as well that it's just it's it it matches better and we have have we had complaints I that wasn't something that we really looked at has anybody driven by it I wasn't all right it sounds by no means I was just trying figure out you know I know you refer to as a highway but it's really a secondary Road you knowe 22 10 Highway you know umet well there's I I mean so you have the funky U-turn in front of this thing all that kind of stuff so so it's a it's a very you know you have to go pretty you're go pretty slow when you pass that place if you're do an - well if you know it's there because there's a good sign local knowledge I mean that area to me like the bagels place is a huge advertising tool any make the place that thing goes non so please continue right all right so um so so to to to the Chairman's Point um knowing that we would not be able to install the stand that that we would not be able to um install a larger sign but nevertheless wanting to have a sign was that the reason why the the conforming sign was installed pending our ability to to come to to the board to get the sign that Mattress Warehouse really wants yes that's what was asked for um and again you concur that the the variances that we're seeking are 28% maximum wall graphic where 20% is allowed and then we're also seeking um a wall graphic height for a sign whose letters range in height from 2 feet 6 inches to 3 feet 8 Ines whereas two feet is permitted and would you um there is that range um because the the sign the standard branding sign has some capital letters and some lowercase letters correct house has just one capital letter all the rest are lower case that and that's the reason why yes it's varies all right and then um just provide the board the details of the sign as to lettering color script and and well the size of the letters we've talked about okay um the general construction on these uh faces are all red acrylic uh trim CL excuse me trim cap is red um all the returns um on the backside or basically the can of the fixture of black aluminum Rel red LEDs are used to illuminate um each Channel letter power supplies and all related wiring are actually housed in an aluminum Raceway um that's actually painted to match the facade or the building itself um so what I'd like to do now is just present the variance rationale under the C2 flexible standard um and then prior to that if there's any other questions for um from Mr dimer just confirm the the graphic is this it's very small we we don't have a picture of what it's going look likea um we do yeah and and I do apologize for not bringing um a board to place the the exhibits on but the it's noted I had an initial submission and then a a uh supplemental submission but the initial submission does have the um the signage on it the comparisons no we don't have it but that's okay [Music] thank you should I proceed with my variance okay sure thank you um the the relief is being requested as noted under the C2 flexible C standard this standard provides impertinent part that a board May Grant a C2 variance where in an application or appeal relating to a specific piece of property the purposes of this act I.E the municipal land use law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment um the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the C2 variants and gave further direction for its grants in the Kaufman versus planning board for Warren Township case where the court found that the grant of the C2 variants must benefit the community with a better zoning alternative and present an opportunity for improved zoning and planning to benefit the community and again under the C2 standard the court uh the court board must also balance the positive and negative criteria IA so in our opinion granting the variance the variances here satisfies the C2 standards as to the positive criteria um the positive criteria will further the sign will further several purposes of the municipal land use law I would argue purpose a to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and G G General Welfare General Welfare I'm sorry it's really late for me um and I've been on a board so yeah it gets tedious for the board I'm sure as well at any rate um in our opinion this really does help to satisfy the safety yes I I do talk like this um satisfies um and promotes safety because of the ability of of motorists and customers who want to easily be able to find the store um although yes we hope that they're going slow Mr chairman um but it it does um in this area it is a very odd um and busy area um G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses both public and private um and again this is a a sign that is helping to promote a a well-known um retail brand and then purpose I is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement and I would submit that when when one views the um the signs that the larger sign is actually a more attractive sign than the than the smaller sign it helps fill up the space and it is um it's balanced it's a balanc sign as to the negative criteria um this this is again an area that is um quite um developed um in our opinion the sign will not be a detriment to the neighborhood and as discussed the property is on a busy and heavily commercially developed area including next to and across the roadway from shopping centers it's located in a busy and unique portion of Morris Turnpike between the split to the left for Route 78 and Route 24 and the exis exit access way coming from from the direction of those roadways the unique conditions require that motorists trying motorists trying to locate the mattress wherehouse be able to see the location of the store by the highly recognizable sign and safely maneuver the roadway system the sign is attractive it's not detrimental it's well known um it's it's highly recognizable the second prong of the negative criteria requires that the grant of the variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan or the ordinance and unlike use variances reconciliation of a dimensional variance with the Zone plan and zoning ordinance is as cited by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and Lang versus Zoning Board of adjustment quote relatively a relatively uncomplicated issue and depends on whether the grounds offer to support the variants either under subsection C1 or section C2 adequately J justify the board's actions in granting an exception from the ordinance requirements in some it's our position and we hope you will agree that the positive and negative criteria have been met supporting the grant of the variances thank you for your attention any questions Qui one I quick couple are there any other signs of this size along moreis turn um one of the reasons why we submitted the photographs is that while we did not go out and do a Sign by sign analysis there are some that are uh large as well um there are some that are smaller but it it is an array of different size signs okay and how big was the Calico Corner sign this is the old Calico Corners uh I don't have that information do you know no you don't know and U are there any other signs along more ter that are as long as this one I don't know if lens is part of the ordinance no no it's not just yeah thank you any other questions I think you sort of answered this by saying you didn't measure but how does this sign relate do you know how it relates with angles for you um I think if we can look at one of the some of the photographs it's larger it's definitely larger but the bagels for use store I in my opinion um it's not as many letters and it's it's a it's not as um tall of a building and also bagels for you has a side has a sign on the side of the building which serves the purpose to have the sign on the side of the building serves the purpose that we're trying to achieve by having a larger sign on the front which is to let people know where he is any further questions the current side like maximize the dimension limits already like on the on the that's a conforming sign conforming sign right I mean the the image scale definitely not the same it's it's confusing at least me right if I understand correctly the the maximum bu code is 20% and we're requireing 25% and it does not give me any comparison I you know what I I have to defer to the to the to the exhibit that was created by the the um art department and there are measurements on that sign um and it was scaled that's my you know that's a professional it was professionally done by the Blair group so yeah Ian but actually your question proves the point that it's kind of an oddl looking sign it really is out of out of measurement it's out of proportion and that's another reason why we want to have the sign the size we have it that we're proposing it uh any other questions any questions from the audience regarding this application any comments in the a regard application publiction uh board members thoughts all right I'm G always want to say this I feel like the ordinance exists for a reason and um I think it's to minimize the chaos of an already chaotic stretch of road having said that it's a big facade so I wait to see what everyone else says I'll go I passed it probably a dozen times in the last week I think it looks great the way it is I'm not sure that size necessarily matters I say that I actually I think it's actually well spaced and well proportioned for the the white batter on top of it so I I see actually to Pony on to your point is there for a reason it looks good yeah Donuts but not too sure that oh I would just say that Mattress Warehouse doesn't share your opinion but well that's fine is closed oh I'm sorry strike that realize I'm G to go next year I think that sign propos completely out for the area that's something i' expect to see on 22 or some massive shopping thoroughfare this bu this building also benefits be considerably closer to the street than almost anything else proposed in exhibit um which is a benefit to this to this uh to this facility uh I think the current sign that's on it also I think it looks great uh like the fact it's conforming and I don't think this alternative that's being proposed is one that's even within the reason so uh I would not not at all um you for this applications um I'll just add I I would have really liked to have seen some kind of exhibit showing what the measurements were for other signs along um you know along the road because I think you know this the what's being proposed looks completely out of scale for the street skate um but I would be curious what you know what what what the other how how the other signs measure in you know in relation to um what's being proposed yeah Side Y uh any other thoughts before vote um one thing that I would like to ask the board is um if we were to come back with you know and I appreciate um Mr cawfield your opinion and I didn't mean to you be be rude about it um opinions can vary um what I I what I would like to do is to ask the board um to perhaps adjourn it if we could come back with something perhaps slightly and I know you slightly bigger but perhaps not to the extent of the variance that we're asking for would you like to see something to that effect that's your that's your call no I know but would you would you allow us to adjourn to another we can that yeah you may you may also want to think about retaining a professional planner to provide the proofs and be able to answer the questions that the various board members had as to signage in the area and how that relates to whatever you're okay all right um if we could is that one second you you have we do have another application I know I'm sorry okay um okay so could we adjourn this uh to I'm sorry October 7 October 7 we only have one meeting in September October yeah you know what I figur it's July October 7 um it's probably not much left for this I don't know well this was a half an hour so I mean I I I I try to be no prepared so that we can move quickly through applications um if if you have something before that it would be appreciate and we well we do need to we don't need to adjourn it to a certain date at this point because I'd have to R notice anyway unless you're seeking other right well I may guess if we're seeking a different yeah I mean if we're going to be reducing the size yeah AB yeah so are we still looking for another date or I know on the 19th prilla is not no in this but I'm still [Music] I'm not really sure paper mill maybe well we do them first anyway and another use so let what on for that I'm sorry a August oh that would be great thank you apprciate see what you got all right so if there's an additional subsequent submitt and submission I will send it uh for those at home please uh note 394 and of Short Hills will be carried to August 19th no further notice the website for any changes next up we have calendar 39834 road yeah I hope that was a mischaracterization good evening Mr chair chman board members I know it's counselor yes good evening uh Mr chairman board members attorney Dennis Francis 37 Liberty Street little fur New Jersey I'm behalf of the applicants amarat K and Nova bronstein they are the Property Owners at 112 Canoe Brook Road here within your burrow located at block 512 lot 17 in the R5 Zone currently the property uh houses a one family house the application this evening before you pursuant to the plans which are submitted uh is to uh renovate and expand that one family a home as uh a result of that proposed expansion there are five in total variances requested of your board this evening um the first uh variance would be the maximum floor ratio size to which your municipality has a in this Zone a maximum of 30% whereby the applicant proposes a floor area ratio of 36% uh the uh professional will testify as to exactly what square footage that means and overage the other four Varian is a bulk C variances the first being a minimum size side yard setback uh whereby because the uh building uh currently is over 18 feet in height now 12 feet is required and 10.99 ft is uh existing uh in line of that same variance because we're uh increasing uh the height uh that same uh variance is also required 10.99 ft existing uh 16 feet required uh the third variance is the combined side yard setback to which um minimum side yard setback of 35 percent of the lot width is required and we have 30% and then finally the maximum front yard coverage where the ordinance has a maximum front yard coverage of 30% and we have a proposed 38% uh I know the hour is late I know you uh have been here some time I'd like to call up uh first witness will be oh I have two uh uh professionals here this evening to testify those are the ones who prepared the plans that are before you first being har Harry Tel tuvel he's a professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey I'm going to have him testify first on the professional engineering side and next I'll have our professional architect Mr Joseph Donado testify us to the architectural plans and then bring back Harry uh to testify from the planning perspective but his professional planner so with that said i' like Harry toel war from testimony about the next proceeding name for the record Harry last name tol tuu v l thank you Mr why don't you to give the board uh your educational background and the license you hold in the state of Jersey yes I have a bachelor's and Masters of Science degrees in civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute technology and I've been a professional engineer for over 40 years and a professional planner for about 30 years have you ever testified for this B before if I have it's been a while I don't think I I have I testified about a couple of years ago in Maplewood but this is Milburn so I know those are two different towns are the licenses that you hold still in good standing today yes as a matter of fact I just renewed everything for three more years okay and when you did testify before at Maplewood uh you were accepted as a professional engineer professional planner yes I was chair we asked qualified as a thank you B you heard me give a brief overview I'd like you to take uh the board quickly through the engineering aspects of the application okay so as as was discussed this is a 14,622 existing square foot lot with an existing one family home located on the south side of Cano of Cano brick road the uh Northerly side of canri road is U I believe it's not entirely it's mostly RightWay for Kennedy Parkway so that that area north on the other side of the street here uh along Cano Brook Road is a uh an undeveloped uh forested U forested area so all all the houses face that that area on on canu road so what is what is proposed here uh the uh is to build a on the Westerly side of the home to build a second story edition of 157 square feet on the Westerly side and then an additional 550 square foot twostory addition at the rear of the property and then there's also an additional small 100 8 square foot um porch uh porch extension on on the front side of the property and then you you'll see the architect's uh renderings and that that's a total of of 8 42 square feet of additional uh living space well not living space the porch is not living space but 550 and 157 square feet are the additional additional living space um the U the also a feature of this new development is that the driveway that extends that's on the easterly side of the property will be removed currently goes back to a a garage that's located at the rear of the existing house and that will be eliminated in and there will be a new two-car uh garage located in the front of the house and that driveway going to the back of the house will be eliminated and that driveway is in the sidey yard and even though that that will become more of a true side yard with and a true buffer TR side with the removal of that of that driveway um the uh the other feature to the uh to this engineering design is that seage fits for the roof drainage will be located in the new driveway in front of the house and U the calculation the drainage calculation has been included U on on the plan and I believe that that drainage calculation is in is in conformance with Bill bur requirements that's right I did do a drain another drainage calculation in Milburn but I didn't have to come before the board for it so I did do another job in Milburn within the last couple of years um I I think U that that basically covers it it's covers the the engineering aspects of this as M Mr Francis went over we do have variances for the existing nonconformities of sard and uh the U an F variants which is probably the main variance and then there's also the front yard coverage variance which is created by the addition of the new driveway in in front in front of the home now uh does the ex proposed expansion increase the sidey yard uh setback uh conditions they remain exactly the same so essentially going up on that same line is that correct correct and as far as the overall uh building coverage or maximum uh coverage this property uh Falls within that limitation is that correct yes it does the uh I will I will go into that further uh with the U with my with my testimony I would also point out that even with the addition of the two-story addition in in the rear of the home we still have a uh a 56 over 6 56 foot uh rear yard setback where only 18.75 is is required so the rear yard is still is still quite large even with that uh twostory addition constructed in the rear question I thought you said your the F that's being proposed is at 36% is that correct there the plan say 34% at least the ones I'm looking the attachment ask is 38% the plan I have has 36% on the and the front yard coverage is 38% I got 38% on F here 34% that's Comin uh so I don't know these numbers I have 34% as that are 3% here we we did we did a I did a uh I looked at it again with the architect while we were waiting numb on application this is my problem here like I'm try to all together and you have nothing on your attachment have you have nothing on your attachment nothing it's all just blank stuff well yeah looking keep saying 36% but this all this all says 34% how they this application mine has l they make copies before they by copy the original has attachment a filled out [Music] well I don't have any square footage nothing nothing exist right so so I don't know where we are and on top of that none of the numbers match J well you're this attachment indicates you're seeking 3 but attachment has se 38 and then this shows 34 and also shows 3% cover and you have Max FR at 38 and so Mr is there is there anything on your plans yes wait hold on yeah there's a a zoning schedule no I I understand I see zoning schedule right but but you have here to the Chairman's point on the left hand side you have proposed F 34% here you have proposed F 36% so that's a discrepancy and you don't do a calculation to determine how you got to um the 36% or how you got to the 22% exist one all those numbers folks we're not moving forward we got all the numbers the other thing I want to know is how out to 32% your proposed house is 29 tell me thator the house right now house you're saying it's 32 feet high and you're saying your proposed house is 29 ft High well 29.99 30 feet right I don't see how that current house you have there is 32 feet high I would like to on my attachment B denial letter I did indicate that I was not given any existing and proposed grades so I was not able to DET he I am not will entertain this application until we have all the numbers Mr chairman when you mean by numbers you mean the summary of the variance was requested yeah paper filled out properly I mean I got 38 34 36 yeah all the documentation should be consistent with each other and any any exist I did 36 um your only denial letter us said 34 well and your attachment F says 38 also you have a discrepancy with your coming side setback you're showing you're showing your proposed usage of 30 but here it shows 34.12 as I was saying it's important not just to make sure that that everything matches up and it's accurate but you provide calculations as to how you get to these particular percentages yeah that that definitely wasn't provided you have to go back and sharpen your questions guys not GNA hear this I'm not gonna play games and guessing with the numbers okay okay because you have you're asking for you know you're asking for a lot here right a brand new home with a lot of variances on so we want the numbers have to be tight so don't know we can see again but we got put it together so is that when's this one we looked at October October it iser October and go over all the numbers okay can tell you there's more discrepancies in here there's no question these aren't legit they can say right now existing home is up 32t high right so TI all up um so so wait so then regards to the notice yeah what we're going to do is we'll carry it right okay to to a date certain but whether you need for jurisdictional purposes to re notice is up to you absolutely okay if things are wrong got absolutely and what date was that October 6th or 7 October 7 7th 107 107 um so calendar 39 8327 will be carried to October 7 um no further notice any Chang Corrections will be noted uh on the website or town hall with with the caveat that the applicant reserves the right to re notice should it find that needs to yes thank you thank you um any anything further the audience tonight that is not on the agenda