##VIDEO ID:8tjeKiFnB44## okay good evening this is a regular meeting of the Princeton zoning board being of adjustment being held electronically via zoom on September 25th 20124 at 7:30 p.m. pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the sunshine notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of adjustment such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board of the municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet town topics the times Trentonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on September 20th 2024 and has been posted to the municipal website www princeton. goov meetings pursuant to the extension of the ongoing state of emergency by executive order 292 in accordance with the emergency remote public meeting protocol for local public bodies to conduct a public meeting without physical attendance by members of the public notice that during this extension of the state of emergency all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Zoning Board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April 2020 such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board of the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are so maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town topics the times Trenton Comcast media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex okay cloria can you call the role please miss Chen Miss Coulson here Mr Floy here Mr Sher Mr tenom here Mr Stein here Miss Donna yes chairman Cohen here thank you okay we have a busy night tonight we have our our first uh order of business or resolutions our first resolution is case number Z24 d482 299 edstone road block 8204 lot 3 in the r2t zone the resolutions were in your packet um if anybody has any questions or comments uh please bring them up now or if none if someone would like to make a motion I'll move approval Floyd thank you I'll second thank you okay Claudia Mr Floy yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes thank you okay our next resolution case Z24 49712 Lafayette Road Block 4.01 Lots three and four in the r1b zone once again the resolutions were in your packet uh if you review them and have questions please ask if not if someone would like to make a motion board members I just have one correction to make it's paragraph 11 um public comment uh there was a comment from the owner of 89 Cleveland Lane uh it the last name should correctly be green it's Christopher green at 89 Cleveland Lan okay thank you I'm Mo of approval Floyd thank you I'll second thank you okay Gloria Mr Floyd yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes thank you okay our last resolution 20 side 22 Park Side Drive Lot 9901 lot 6 in the r3t zone once again the resolutions were in your packets questions comments or motions please I'll move to approve thank you second thank you okay Gloria Mr Floyd yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes thank you okay we have uh five hearings this evening our first is case number well Z 23-3 36 49 Paro road block 6820 lot 13 in the r5t zone Karen are the notices all in order they are the board has jurisdiction tonight okay thank you all right um Mr Bridger can you review your memo with us yes sir Mr Bridger we'll just swear you in for the evening do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful yes ma'am thank you thank you um the aunos are the owners of 49 parto Road and they received a uh approv approval for a 16t uh a variance from the 16t garage setback for front-facing garages and I believe that was in August of 2023 um and they're seeking an extension um they were supposed to be on last month's hearing but there was a noticing issue so they were carried to this month um that's pretty much it if you have any questions I'd be glad to address them oh the applicant I don't have any questions any board members any questions Mr briger no okay um is the applicant here do they want to say anything I can't I believe he's here cladia correct me if I'm wrong I see his phone number um what does that mean is he I see he's right there on the screen um I just told him to come on he's on now we need to see you hello oh good evening I'm on I'm on audio this is Stephen hi I'm on audio is that okay no no unfortunately it's not um sure I can join via video but I'm I'm at I'm at outside of a work event so I'm it's it's a little bit dark where I am but I will join via video okay that'd be great okay for badia can you bring him over he's in attendees Mr kunto I'm trying thanks he is there you are mrto you're muted can you get your uh audio on can you hear me now we can hear you now Mr aun we just need to swear you and do you swear or firm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do swear thank you okay would you like to uh present your application to us please uh sure I I just was applying for an extension of our existing application um and uh filed all the appropriate um documents with uh the city and my neighbors and everybody in that process and uh we just need a little more time to the project just wanted to apply for extension of the same um uh the same application that was approved prior this application Mr Bridger this application was approved in 2023 you're muted Derek yes sir it was approved in 2023 um mrto I think you had provided a letter and you had indicated you were encountering some difficulties with bids and costs is that correct yes so that that's the reason you're looking to get a one-year extension of the varant approval correct okay and I was I I misspoke it was approved at the April 19th 2023 meeting okay when do you anticipate being able to start uh we we're looking to start in the first quarter of 2025 okay okay all right have anything else you'd like to add uh no no not of this time thank you board members do you have any questions of the applicant no okay um hearing no questions um we're going to open this up to the public we have to have a public session during the meeting so we'll go into that right now so Claudia has anybody indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application there are no hands okay um I'll wait a second here all right we'll close the public portion of the hearing um Mr kto do you want to say anything before we go into executive session uh I appreciate approval of the extension so that we may continue on the path that we originally started thank you okay you're welcome okay we'll go into executive session board members any questions or discussion or would someone like to make a motion I move to Grant the extension thank you I'll second it thank you okay is uh okay no questions on no questions on the motion Claudia you you call a roll Miss Coulson yes Mr Floy yes Mr Tenon bomb yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes Sherman Cen yes thank you thank you okay our next hearing is case number Z24 d512 15 Stony Brook Lane block 4901 lot 13 in the r1t zone Karen is everything in order this is a car remember this remember this application uh began last month some testimony was taken uh I can confirm that those board members who are absent have indicated they have listened to the uh t of that meeting so everybody present tonight is eligible to vote so they didn't need to Ren notice everything is in order in that report thank you board members you're welcome uh Mr Bridger do you want to uh do you want to summarize the application again uh sure uh the owners of uh 15 Stony Brook Road Edward Gonzalez and Elizabeth Trego are seeking a C1 variance request to construct a swimming pool within the front yard exception in front yard and exception the required front yard setback um property located in the r1t zone in the former Princeton Township they are proposing to construct a 50 by 12 pool swimming pool pool equipment and 8 by10 Cabana within the uh front yard setback their pool Coman and Equipment are all considered accessory structures in accordance with 10B 26.2 2A accessory structures are not permitted within a front yard and a front yard is defined as the open space existing between a building line which is the horizontal projection and plan of all covered or roof areas of a structure whether permanent or temporary um and the and the street line in this case and the proposed pool is located within a 300 foot riparium buffer zone um the proposed plan utilizes a permit by rule in accordance with NJ ac7 colon 13 of the flood Hazard area Control Act uh conditions pursuant to the permit by rule are outlined on page gp3 of the submitted pool grading plan proposed development has been reviewed and approved by the municipal land use engineer for storm water uh project will result in the removal of four trees including two dead Cedars one Dead Ash and one live silver maple uh the removal of the trees requires a permit from the municipal arborist it's only the silver maple that requires replacement tree um yeah p should address whether there are any other viable locations on the property where the pool could be located without requiring a variance um the required setback of the pool to not be in the front yard uh is 307 feet and 6 in and the proposed is 105 feet and 4 in and they've requested consideration under the C1 criteria that's a brief synopsis of my memo if you have any questions be glad to address them thank you very much any questions of Mr Burger I I do have one um Derek they have the gp3 or we have to say if we approve it we have to say subject to it or no they've that's kind of outside of our uh okay our our charge our charge is just to look at the variants but they do have the uh permit by rule they've submitted all that stuff and it has been reviewed by Dan Weissman the uh land use engineer for the municipality and it's satisfactory so great thanks good question thanks okay Mr Kennedy uh you're representing the applicant uh I am Mr chairman thank you um um so members of the board Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee for the applicant um I thank those for uh started with this application last month there were some technical difficulties um if you recall and those of you who weren't here last month much appreciated you watching the the tape so you can uh join in this evening um we're here to talk about uh the putting a pool in really the only place that it can go on this lot and we put together some more materials visually I think to help the board understand the the constraints that make this appropriate for a C1 variants um you heard testimony from technically the the applicant um uh Rob uh Cortina from Cedar Creek last month you may have started to hear but didn't technically hear anything from uh the property owner uh so maybe um Miss Casey we could have her sworn in uh because she wasn't available by video last time um we could uh swear her in now um Mr Cortina was previously sworn um at last month Miss Gonzalez do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you thank you Elizabeth uh I know you've partially started or attempted to uh last month but now that we can we can see you want if you could take a minute to introduce yourself to the board and your connection to the to the property here and and your reconnection with Princeton uh recently okay so um I was born and raised in Princeton I've lived there for most of the most of my life um 25 years ago I moved into New York City when I met my husband and have lived there since but when we started to think about retirement um my mother still lives here I have friends here he went to Princeton so has connections here it was the obvious place to move to um and I don't know how much I should go into this but so when we were looking for a house we only looked at one house um 15 Stony Brook Lane was the first and only one we saw we didn't like the house but we love the garden the property is an absolutely an amazing beautiful piece of land it has um really unusual trees like bottle brush Buckey and um American forn beams and it's been tended by the owners who uh the previous owners who lived there since the 50s so it's really a special piece of property with um just a a beautiful beautiful um landscape um do you want me to say anything more that's we can um that's great and u u Miss Casey Mr chairman if it's if it's all right for me to share my screen and we've got one set of uh it's 14 slides for exhibits this evening if we can Mark those okay and Mr Kennedy there was already an exhibit at the earlier hearing that was exhibit A1 so I assume this will be exhibit A2 that is that is correct okay and elements of A1 were kind of incorp at in in uh what you'll see here this evening as well but uh um hopefully we putting it all together will will will help uh expedite things uh for everyone U this evening so uh Elizabeth if you could um this is a a part of Princeton zoning map uh this blue arrow to the left that points to your your property in the R1 Zone okay and uh you know you're I guess right on the edge this is the the edge of of Princeton the other side I guess once across the street is is Lawrence Township right yes and we uh next zoom in on slide three uh that's your property in blue with the Stony Brook Lane kind of in front of it yes correct and this uh you know I'm I'm from the area myself and I I think I remember when this used to be a a road people could drive through but you're kind of at the end of Province Line Road and where uh it breaks up and you can no long longer uh get to the other side anymore right exactly and then on the other side of the street maybe to the right side guess you could see ETS and Lawrence this is uh uh this other side of pretty Brook Road and the other side of of Province line is is Lawrence Township correct um next zooming in a little bit further on slide four again this is your house uh with the blue line um and maybe this would be a good time to kind of talk about what what your initial thinking was with um uh where you wanted to to site the the pool and and why was actually very helpful for me to hear you talk when we when we discussed and and just a minute ago you know about the way this property has been kind of stewarded and and you know some of the kind of neat environmental features that that you come to appreciate in what made you pick the house um so there were really two Poss possible sites um because of the large old trees and the you know the unusual and beautiful flowering trees and and so forth um there were really only two two sites and one is sort of near the greenhouse I don't know if you can see on there yeah around there um there's sort of a clearing there um and at first I thought well that would be good because that's near the H near the house and and so forth we won't have to have a pool house or anything but um if you see the photo that I have somewhere in there um it's very close to the neighbor's house and there's not much between that location and the neighbor's house except for just grass and so I thought well people come to this road because they want peace and quiet they don't you know they want that's what they're looking for when they buy a couple acres and um and I just thought that is just not fair to my neighbors to stick a pool right where they can see and hear us so then the second alternative is where we are um asking now to put the pool and excuse me for a second yeah especially to to the applicant and Mr Kennedy it might be easier for people to understand what you're speaking about if you put up gp1 um that shows the area you're talking about because I was wondering about that too um we be happy to come I know if this helps this is slide six of our presentation she's talking about this area here uh to the side of the home is that right Elizabeth yes correct that's yeah that's you know the the best document for that though is your grading plan cp1 but if you don't have it I understand well I also think that the photo of that area would really make it there we go that's that's what it would putting a pool is that is there is how it would look for our neighbors it's very exposed and close are you looking in this in this slide are you looking towards the neighbor's house exactly I would be standing in the spot where the pool would be looking toward the neighbor's house I see okay thank you and and on top of that and we'll maybe get back into this with with Rob but on your side of this line um there are also several U mature trees in that area that would have to come down as well yeah we have a very very large red oak we have a couple of White Oaks they're I don't know what kind of Pines but they're huge pine trees so it's you know it's just not for as far for for not cutting trees it's not a good spot and we'll get into this testimony in in a second with with the uh our our rest of our team but in addition to the having to remove the essentially what is your screening between the your home and uh your neighbor's home by removing the trees to put the pool there uh there's also some uh environmental conditions that uh Beyond just the the permit by rule that would be needed uh likely to put it elsewhere on the property that we'll get to but as your understanding as well that there's some additional environmental constraints on this side as well yes I have a question uh how what is the distance between the house and the property line the reason I asked is in that slide you showed the photograph it looked like it it didn't look like the distance that I see in this area oh well that I can explain that it's because um what is between that spot this spot and the house are lots of big trees okay but that that fence is your yours or your neighbor's fence right that's my my fence yeah okay so how far is it from that fence back to your house well that I don't I don't know I have never measured that so maybe one of maybe the Rob would know it's 44 ft to the existing shed if that helps so where she standing is probably in front of the bottom corner of the shed taking a picture towards her neighbors from the property line from that neighbor side to the corner of the existing shed is 43 feet 9 in okay if that helps okay thank you okay continue on please you so um Elizabeth generally though those were your your considerations the the the trees the screening from the neighbor and the I guess the environmental obstacles that will you're not an expert in but talk to a bit also the noise I mean I I have college AED kids so when their friends would come over I think it might get a little noisy and I wouldn't want to disturb the neighbors so that would be another consider another consideration okay thank you Elizabeth I we had some she's not going anywhere certainly and uh there already some questions but uh Our intention would be to move U Back to uh U Rob ktina from from Cedar Creek next to go through some additional testimony but uh certainly happy to answer any questions uh that the board may have before we do that I have one question please yes please Mich um the screening on your neighbors I'm trying to as I look at this picture is that pretty well screened on the neighbor side of the property line that is the neighbor side what we're looking at oh that that is from standing at on my property looking into their property you're standing right at the fence line oh in this position yeah in this shot I am and again again then where are all the big trees on your property then I'm getting confused maybe Rob and yes so they would be behind her behind where she's taking the picture of so behind her would be the area that would be possibly proposed to put the inground pool that's where all the trees are so for us to put the the pool there and remove those trees that would still be the same view behind her and behind the camera is is where the mature trees that are existing are can you go back to the other slide for a moment yes so I see the tree line but from that tree line to the house that's an open area as well or not as well but that's an open area there's still trees on the right on the property line it's it's they're kind of not I don't know when this was taken but that doesn't you can't really see the foliage so well it's it's also aome it's the driveway okay so if you put a pool there you wouldn't be able to get into the garage okay so the garage is right there right all right okay yeah I see the site plan now okay thank you Michael do you have any other questions um no well if I'm understanding right then basically majority of of the trees that we're talking about the mature trees are sort of to the right or of of the existing frame shed um is that correct is that what in between the existing greenhouse and the existing frame shed is where those matures and there's also mature trees along the whole right hand side of the existing frame shed all the way down the driveway okay I that it looks like to it looks like to me from the picture earlier but I as I say it's a little confusing to me that there's a fair amount of trees I I can't understand how it's so clear looking at the neighbor because I thought there was also a lot of trees on his property basically from the green you know in the greenhouse sort of area so just so just to be clear this is View standing in the Gonzalez property kind of uh on on the neighbor side of where our wooded area is to kind of to show the lack of screening from their side so that if we were to put a pool essentially where we're standing all that would be between us and them would be what we're looking at here okay but if if you put it a little bit to the basically what I call the right of the shed or I guess is that East a little bit closer to the road but still in that general area you know it would help if there was uh I know you do have trees you have a drawing but not in that area that drawing doesn't show any trees right and and and Rob maybe you speak to that you know that's why I'm confused they did the tree survey of the places that they're expecting to be close to than the rest of the property yeah it was done in where the pool was supposed to be plotted it was never thought to be over there at all because of the proximity to the uh stream bank and the repairing buffer it's very very close to the top Bank line um in that area to the flood plane um I think we had May helped it probably going to kind of start there and so you know we've been talking about this area here um and uh between the the homes essentially and near where this existing Greenhouse is and the driveway um right so we we pulled some mapping from you know from the publicly available um sources this one's from from Rowan their GIS system to show uh one this is a category one stream so you know we're mindful of uh you know they're never going to build houses like this anymore um um but uh this is the C1 scam uh the light blue Rob I believe is the uh actual Wetlands without showing the buffers and then on the right you can see uh the buffer areas uh both in in yellow and blue so Rob this place we've been talking about is that it's well within that buffer areas and that's not even the 300 foot buffer right that's definitely not a three you can see the 300 foot buffer on the engineering plan the only essentially is almost the whole lot except for where the driveway opening is here the apron of the driveway where meets the street is the only piece of property that's not in that 300 foot buffer so being this close to the stream in the wetlands where in the area that we're talking about in addition to the trees and the screening issue would require permits and de approvals beyond what Derek was talking about earlier on not that permit by rule thing it it absolutely could and we also have to think about the storm water management side I.E the rain Garden in that location for any additional impervious services that we're putting in that area we have to have enough room for the pool the patio if approved and a rain Garden to catch all runoff and all the elevations have to work to keep that without rolling into the creek and and so Rob while the house that was built here uh some time ago was put here before people were maybe cognizant of these issues they've since been imposed and and to be building on the back side of the lot now at the house lineer behind would implicate all of these uh the Wetland buffers and and the repairing issues as well correct correct so are you saying which I thought I heard you you would need permits to build in that area that you wouldn't need to build where you propose building % 100% 100 exactly you've got it exactly right would you get permits what what that what that says to me is you could build in that area if you get the permits and they issue permits for that so I me yeah it's a possible site unless you tell me it's impossible to get permits and that's not what you say uh so shaded here are the different levels of environmental constraints um the closer one gets to the stream the more difficult to Impossible these permits become um so this green shaded area on slide six is the wetlands and wetlands buffer area um that's likely would be an individual permit to put a structure or a pool in that area that is most of the area that we're talking about on side here that would be behind the setback line this whole part um is in uh what we've shaded yellow uh next is uh the the next level out of um you know shown on Slide Five here from the Rowan Maps um of the environmentally sensitive areas uh when we get further to L part we're talking about where the permit by rules uh are available um this is all that's within the 300 foot reparan um zone so as the closer one gets uh at 150 feet and then at 50 feet um it it goes from uh a permit by rule that is maybe not as of right and not fun to get but one that one can reasonably expect to get and the applicant here expects to and is applied for to get to something that would require considerable mitigation and and likely not be achievable for something uh like a pool so is it impossible no is it extremely unlikely and and and challenging for this type of application yes you're talking making sure I understand you're talking about the darker area as opposed to the yellow area uh there are if you want to view this as three shaded areas the white being still in the 300 foot repairing buffer area the yellow being the next more difficult area to get and the green being uh I I wouldn't even try to obtain so yellow being extremely difficult green being almost impossible okay yeah I was only considering the yellow and I you know since you said you had considered it at one point and decided that it wasn't good um yeah I wouldn't I wasn't considering the dark part I'm not even no okay and Rob from from this area if you want to talk a little bit about um the trees on our side of the lot line that would be in the way um of potentially putting a pool here yeah it's um so imagine that's the property line facing the uh Neighbors from um Elizabeth side and she's taking a picture and you do see some mature trees to the left and in the center so when you're looking at the satellite view you're seeing the canopy when you're taking a picture from down low you don't see a lot of the trunks so the coverage up above is way bigger so if if if she were to turn around 180° and get all the Red Oaks and the Evergreens and all the other mature trees which are actually in the spot where she was thinking about putting the pool that would take out all the screening from her driveway on her property from her driveway all the way to her her neighbor's property that deer fence line so it would be a clear from the neighbor's house to see through past their pool to their garage and driveway area so and I don't believe that that spot this is me personally believe that that spot is big enough to put a pool in a rain Garden um with to the property line from a number perspective Rob um while the site chosen has uh several dead trees and Ash tree and and and one tree that would ire a a compensation how would this location compare in terms of trees needing to be removed trees 16 18 trees would have to be removed and that would take away all the native screening in that portion of the property and the pool would take up all the space to actually plant more screening it would be really jammed in there and I don't think it would be screened very well now um focusing back to this portion of the the lot actually chosen um Slide the next couple slides show I guess the the screening U from the street um from uh from adjoining properties and the you know and and the the RightWay so this this this shot here is what looking at the driveway kind of towards the um the proposal pool area yeah and I I don't know if it's visible here but set back into the lot is a uh deer fence behind this tree lines and the uh the proposed pool would be behind that around right moving back moving to slide nine this is a little bit further down the street towards Province Line Road yep and and again uh if if someone had really good eyes they might be able to see a a deer fence behind all this tree line and then uh a series of trees and and other uh screening exists and behind that would be where the pool area is that's correct um All That Remains none of that gets touched and you know you've been to the site uh quite a bit do do you believe that any of this would be visible from the street or any adjoining properties no all right and so this is from the I guess corner um of Province line and Stonybrook I don't know what where the rest of Province line goes at this point but I guess it's technically a a road for which there's a corner but again looking from in this direction any way that this what you're what's being proposed could be seen no um next if you want to talk a little bit um um about the property uh about about the actual proposal this is kind of the part of the site map that's zoomed in to talk about you know what's actually being proposed um maybe this would be a good slide to to talk that about and then a I guess this is a um conceptual um photo for example from the property owner of the type of uh while perhaps no one will ever see it but them type of native Landscaping that they're looking to do around the pool yeah sure so basically the the 50 by 12 pool with a small um patio at the shallow end and I believe the 5ft pool deck on along the one side was proposed as like a waiting SL laap pool um that's what Elizabeth wanted um we chose that shape and size cuz that's how she wanted to use her pool knowing that it's going to be slender and long 12 by 50 um we really looked around the property of where it would fit most um naturally within the natur grades and topography um naturally within um the layout of all the existing trees um keeping in mind screening from everyone else keeping in mind away from the neighbors keeping in mind a little bit farther away from the house so was a little more private and we agreed to uh try to plot it there so when we did that and then we got the tree survey we realized that only one tree would have to be removed and replaced one silver maple everything else was dead Ash or a dead Cedar so and if if you look beyond that towards the edges of the property line outside of that the pool area you could see all the remaining mature trees that is naturally screening that area which you saw from the pictures that Mr Kennedy put up prior that are not going to be touched and this is also a good area to look at you see the pool the patio you see the rain Garden imagine that limit of disturbance that we're working in we have to fit rainard in storm water management wherever we put that pool we have to handle that in per pervious runoff so when you're looking at plotting a pool you have to think about all the other infrastructure that has to go with it and like if I put that rain Garden next to that pool in the other location I can't plant screening or trees in a ring Garden um the things that are proved in the rain Garden are very low or or grasses you know it's not I can't put mature tree stuff in a ring Garden so that's extra square footage it always takes up more space than people visualize as they're just plot in the pool but that's why we picked there so it's screened from their house from the neighbor's house from all the roads well off the road well within the existing um deer fence I believe our closest point to the road on our build for our pool is 100 oh jeez excuse me I apologize we're 105 feet 4 inches off of the road that's our closest uh build point and you can see it's screened very well with mature stuff according to the tree survey there and so the the idea is a a horizontal or I guess got a straight pool with a small uh deck uh around it um and a small I guess would call it a cabana house pool house building yeah and then the pool equipment you can see is uh blocked by the uh it's on the side of the pool housee which that is on the province line side so essentially as far away from any humans or or other neighboring properties as as as could be that that portion of the property is the farthest away from everybody uh a couple of other um things you know just thinking back to some of the questions were asked last time we did uh Rober I did some kind of historical research on the original sub division that Princeton University did here when they created it to see you know if there are other restrictions or thoughts about why um things were were houses were set back Beyond just kind of the proximity and beauty of the Stony Brook at a time when you could build things there and and now you really can't within those areas U But ultimately our our research didn't show any uh restrictions uh other than the small front yard setbacks and the uh uh and a kind of enhanced sidey yard setback along Province line all of which are respected here by by the application um Rob one one one last thing we kind of did a a tour of the neighborhood and and I guess it wasn't until I brought out the uh satellite photos that anyone realized that there actually is another front yard pool on the street across the street um you know you've probably driven by it a lot and never noticed it but you want to talk a little bit about the the screening or impact that you've noticed of the of the pool in the front yard across the street I um have spent a lot of time at Elizabeth Gonzalez's house laying out this pool doing a lot of surveys um a lot of meetings and I never saw a pool across the street um in the front yard right across the street it's right across from where you come out of the Gonzalez's uh driveway so this is this is their driveway here correct they probably pulled in and out to a couple dozen times I'm sure as part of this project yes and that pool is way less than 105 ft from the road but I I've never noticed it I don't know if you've ever been there but I I don't think Elizabeth Gonzalez knew it was there well now I we'd own the H house for a year and I'd never knew it was there until Mr Kennedy mentioned it um so uh unless anyone has any uh other questions for um I guess technically the applicant but uh uh Rob of the the developer essentially for the pool um uh that's the corver T I give a quick summary but happy to have Rob available for any any questions that the board or your professionals might have Mr Kennedy have you gone through all your slides that are part of this exhibit are there any slides that you haven't shown the board the the only the most important one uh Miss Casey which is to say thank you um we haven't got to but that that's that's it all the subs of slides completed thank you okay anything more Mr Kennedy or that that that's it I mean just you know in in summary uh this is an applicant to put a lot of thought into how to um best Steward the property here um ultimately the house is cited in a place that no one could build any longer because of the uh environmental constraints at the rear of the property uh a lot of sensitivity with was put to put it in a place with the least removal of trees in fact just one compared to more than a dozen that we heard would be removed um if put um in the sidey yard um respect for the neighbor to not put a pool with its noise and um you know the visual elements and the only place that's close to any other home and then the the lack of um I don't just say confidence but almost the the near impossibility um to obtain the Environmental permits uh to build a pool that close uh to a C1 stream uh uh likely if if someone were to come to me and say I'd like to build a house on this lot uh I would not expect that anyone could ever build anything as close as the home is uh to uh the this C1 stream um uh let alone um behind it as is required to to satisfy the technical front yard setback requirements um uh for the way that it's calculated in the township so with that we don't um really see any detriment uh to the public good um uh just positives uh from this unique lot these are environmental constraints um from uh the way that the house is cited and the uh C1 stream that it rears to um that are all unique uh to this lot and and create a a C1 uh hardship um in this case so with that um want to thank the board for both for listening tonight uh listening last month and those of you who tuned in to to watch it so you could hear it tonight much appreciated for your for your time in doing so so thank you you're welcome board members do you have any question of the applicant or the applicants Witnesses or attorney okay all right here no questions um we're going to go into we're going to open this up to the public um Claudia has anyone indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application there are no hands Mr chairman okay wait a second or two here all right I'll close the public portion of the hearing again Mr Kennedy would you like to sum up we go into exec session again thank you all um you know the the environmental constraints predominantly are what Drive the sighting here um but within the context of where something could be done um we we're very respectful and mindful of the trees not just for the purpose of not wanting to remove trees from that close from a C1 stream but the important um aspect that they play in being really the only visual buffer between the only two homes that are even remotely close to each other um in this neighborhood and to to put the pool there um from the applicants perspective was insensitive to the the neighbor uh but insensitive to the environment but both the trees and uh uh if it were even possible and and my my recommendation um and advice to them is that it those are permits that are not achievable um for a um for a pool so with that thank you very much for your consideration here tonight you're welcome okay board members we're going to Executive session now questions comments motions discussion well I think looking at it um I understand what Mr Floyd is saying and and I think given a a perfect world with no environmental issues that may be a decent although I think it would be problematic to the neighbors given the size of the property um and the potential other areas to build I think this this pool location that they're proposing now um I think although it is removed from the house which I find um a little strange but I understand that's a function of the the site itself I think it's the uh one of the least least objectionable areas on the site I don't think it'll be visible from the street uh in light of that other slide of the house across the street so that's my comment no I I agree I think they really put the pool in the only environmentally feasible place on the property I agree I I think it would I would feel responsible urging them to put it closer or anywhere else honestly you might even make an argument for if there were little kids you might not want the pool is that all that close to the house so that that wasn't brought up but I don't you know I don't think that was a in it I I I'm just adding that as another good reason for it to be far away the pool itself does require fencing around it but Gates can anyway you know I'm just saying I think I I think it's a good plan well thought out any any other comments or if none if someone would like to make a motion well my last comment is I think it's a good plan too um I asked my questions based on limited information and was happy to hear that the spot that jumped not jumped out but came to to me as alternative was the first site that the applicant looked at um I accept the um the reasons and agree with the reasons why it can't be there uh you know it's a big difference between 16 to 18 trees coming down in that area versus versus four uh especially um so you know based on the testimony and the and the facts I think it's the best site but I just had to get there first because the alternative site should have jumped out to a few of us and I do if you agree with your comment from the last hearing that uh you know the house was pushed all the way to the back of the lot you know and I think a lot of houses in that area were doing anything yeah okay uh someone like to make a motion I I'm over Pro second second thank you okay any discussion before we vote okay Claudia please call the rooll Miss Coulson yes Mr Floyd yes Miss Donna yes Mr Stein yes Mr ton bom yes chairman Cohen yes thank you thank you very much thank you so much you're welcome okay moving right along our next hearing is case number Z24 d468 66 Lee Avenue block 6906 lot 17 and the r 9 tzone in the Witherspoon Jackson historic district Karen is the noticing in order it is and the board has jurisdiction tonight okay thank you um Mr Bridger can you summarize your memo for us yes your honor thank you um Ming ping G is the owner and the applicant of 66 Lee Avenue she is seeking setback variances in historic preservation plan approval to remit the construction ction of a reconstruction of a previously demolished Garage in the former location in its former location and exception to the required accessory structure setbacks um property is located in the r9t zone and it's also in the uh Witherspoon Jackson historic district um the subject lot is non-complying with regards to the required 6500t lot area the existing lot is 3,600 squ ft it's non compliant with the the lot width and Frontage which are both 40t the existing lot width and Frontage are 36 feet and the uh single family hous is non- complying with respect to the smaller sidey yard setback which is 5 feet existing is 2.1 and the combined sidey yard setback requirements 15 and the existing is 11.6 the garage is non-compliant with the required um 5 foot setback which is the left side setback the existing is 2.2 and the rear yard setback is zero um the applicant demolished the rear garage and uh begun reconstructing it when they were notified by the construction uh Department that historic preservation commission approval and Zoning Board review were required prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant is proposing to construct a new garage in the same footprint as the previous one uh the variances are re following variances are required side yard setback left side requirements five existing 2 feet 2 in rear yard setback requirements five existing will be zero feet and they have requested consideration under both the um C1 and C2 I note that the existing driveway has a fence across it near the rear of the principal dwelling blocking access to the remainder of the driveway in the location of the proposed garage the applic should address the proposed use of the garage and advise whether cars will be parked in it um that's my memorandum if you have any questions I'd be glad to address them thank you any questions of you I have I do have one question behind the behind the garage there appears to be well the property line obviously is right there then there seems to be an open space and a block wall and then the then the is it The Graduate housing uh it's the old uh stanworth housing project yes sir yeah and that's owned by the university yes sir it's faculty on housing I believe and our graduate students excuse me okay thank you thank you yes sir I have a question may I um Mr Bridger how does the Reconstruction garage compare with what was there before I'm not really sure what was there before except I know the footprint um I'm assuming it was the same height and size um but it's going to go back on the same footprint maybe the applicant can you know explain that there is an elevation that's very similar to the there's an existing impr proposed elevation and they look very similar thank in a word it doesn't seem to exacerbate whatever non-compliance was already there it appears to be you know almost exactly like the previous structure correct George I think it might have been mentioned and and Elizabeth I'll speak to it Kim um it might be a little bit taller I believe Elizabeth's memo said that was sent to us today taller 10 versus 116 to the peak of the roof go this good point Michael any other questions of Mr bger okay um Elizabeth Kim can you are you're there I I assume I am can youe we'll just swear you wi do you swear from your testimony this evening will'll be truthful I do thank you Mize your memo for us sure so uh the applicant came to hpc's meeting um recently um I guess it was August 19th and [Music] um the commission was kind of um given a summary of what happened to this project because um the applicant was a new property owner in 2023 and she wanted to demolish the garage but um she did she was notified that there was a certain process for demolition of historic properties so uh she decided she didn't want to go that route she was able to find a contractor who had advised her that he could actually repair it which she was thrilled about and I was as well um but I did ask them to reach out just to make sure that how they were repairing it in the material was still something that did not need an application um without hearing back um the garage was demolished and they started to reframe a new house or excuse me a new garage which was identified by the building inspector because he was looking at other violations on the interior of the house um so at that time she decided to come in and just asked to um have the garage taken down but I think after further consideration she decided let's see if we can keep it and ask for the variants um and so that's you know the summary that was provided to HPC so you know a lot of the discussion that HPC had is that they're concerned about Demolition and other alterations to Historic properties and historic districts being performed without them going through the proper process and I guess some of the comments that are made is they're concerned that the these demolitions these illegal demolitions are going to be now be wiped off the landscape of a St um neighborhoods and things like that so in the end they determined that it was really the contractor's fault that he had um stated that the billing department had told him that he could rebuild anything on the same footprint if it was the same well that was not the case he never said that so unfortunately I believe that the applicant was in a uncomfortable situation where she depended on a contractor who was licensed and worked within that neighborhood and was recommended to her by her realator that really was giving her false information proceeding on his own accord so in the end um HBC felt that even though the garage was an important contributing structure with the house and the house is probably one of the oldest one in the neighborhood um that the garage was gone there's nothing that they can do about it at this point um and because it wasn't the most prominent structure even though it was visible and her architect Louisa Clayton um she conjectured the dimensions on her plan as best she could with the photograph she had obviously it wasn't measured before it was demolished um so it was anticipated that the windows are you know located certain location on the the elevations uh the height of is approximate and we do know that it is a little taller because one of the neighbors had stated oh I see that's taller so I think that it's anticipated it's about four inches whatever but you know it it's not exact but um HPC felt that her architect did a good job of trying to uh put something there that was appropriate with historic um district and the property so in the end they did support um the application um but they are going to try to proceed with perhaps finding the contractor and um notifying him any questions I'm available to answer any the boards any questions of Miss Kim okay let's uh who will be representing the applicant tonight uh I'm here okay Louisa okay can you turn on your video yeah let me just do I have that option let's see um I just see audio here we go I'm getting you're muted and we can't see you okay I just was invited as a panelist so here I am thank you okay good um yeah I believe that the owner is here also I think I think you need okay I'm sorry you need to be we will we will swear you and Miss Clayton do you swear or from your testimony this evening will be truthful yes thank you um Al I'll just I'll just start off it's the story is exactly what Elizabeth had just summarized for you and um did my best to kind of reconstruct the existing from the photographs that I had I had not seen it in person before I was asked to help out with this project um so by the time I got there it was just the frame of the new garage that had been put up so um I did my best from the photographs and from other knowledge of other structures that I have in that neighborhood to kind of recreate what had been there um but at the same time um the garage as it was had been had been falling down and it was it was not in in great structural shape and when I was designing the new one um you know my structural engineer said that you actually cannot use those very small structural members in a current building so we need to just you know bul it up a little bit to make it a little bit more sturdy um so that it can pass the current building codes um so that's really why it's it's gone up a slightly in height um the um but but generally I try to match the roof lines um I'm also not going to we're not going to do um swing doors we're going to do Overhead Doors just because it's a little bit more convenient to use um um but the doors um that we've chosen do uh recall the the original swing doors that had been there um my sense is that those doors were Handmade by the person who built the garage probably and um now we can get you know overhead garage doors that are in the same spirit so we're just hoping we we're building it on the same it's on the same footprint of the garage that was there before obviously ly there's so many you know setback violations in every property in this neighborhood um and so we're just asking for you to let us basically rebuild the garage and and do our best you know in conjunction with HPC to um to build it back pretty much what what as it had been before okay um any questions of Miss Clayton I do have a question for the applicant yes let's let's swear her in ma'am um do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful G can you hear us oh yes yes okay all right thank you so my question is H Mr Bridger had a note on his um on his memo that there's a um and we can see in the photograph there's the um the fence that blocks the driveway to the garage so the question is what's the garage used for and where the car is parked I think that's the question that Mr Bridger had wanted answered yeah if the grad can be rebuilt it will will be used as a garage to park uh yeah to have the cars there so the fence will come down no it's not a fence that actually it can be opened it's a it's like a gate I see yeah okay okay Donna is that it yeah thank you I I have a question um how do you build it the reason I say how do you build it how do you finish the outside of it it's not on your the the garage is right on the property line and you don't own the other side of that and um you know with a zero zero setback on the corner and six inches on the other end how do you finish the outside how do you maintain it do you have the ability an easement from is it the university that owns that adjacent piece the universities behind yeah so you probably need something from them wouldn't you think um to give you the ability to to actually use their property to construct the G to finish the garage as well as an ongoing ongoing maintenance of the garage the reason I say this is I remember a number of years ago I was involved in a project uh adjacent to a university piece of property and the University at that time was um pretty adamant that they didn't want their property used for anything other than what they wanted it used for it may not be the same case here but I think it's a concern so I wonder what what does everybody else do though because this is not the only garage that's right on the property line I understand but it's it's it's a new it's effectively a new garage on the property line you know and and it's just a it's just a comment and um it's a difficult situation I understand rebuilding on the existing footprint and that's all valid it's just in this particular case there's no setback on one end and minimal on the other so okay well yeah we'll think about that just a comment yeah thanks okay anyone else have any questions of the applicant or the owner or the architect or the owner so so Steve what you're saying is you're talking about the back of the garage because the side of the garage would just be and her neighbors would encroach you know would be right next to her neighbor with another house yeah the side it's not up against this what is the side yard set two it's about two feet off little more two so the side yard setback is accessible um it's the back it's the back that's the issue okay yeah I mean there are about two I would say they're about two feet um between between the fence and uh the back wall there's a su of space yeah there's a back that's why I'd asked Mr Bridger there is a block wall there but it's on the adjacent property it's not on your property so that's a kind of a just an area in there between the university property and your property but I mean you don't have the right to use that without some sort of easement so yeah I just I just question it and U yeah well we can we can we can certainly you know think about how to handle that and you know Vis A the university okay well all right I mean the university says no you're you got a problem um okay all right that was my comment anyone else have any comments questions okay all right um we're GNA open this up to the public if you have nothing else either you miss Clayton or the owner to say will'll open it up to the public for public comment okay okay um Claudia have do we have anyone who's uh indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application there are no hands oh wait one second one second somebody just raing again does Mr SK want to speak on this application oh okay Mr SK you're muted no you're not I can't see you no he can't see me no no I can see you we can't see you you cannot see me no no can you activate your video it I can see myself um hold on there you okay there you are we can see you now sir if you're comfortable uh could you give us your address please yeah it's 64 Lee Avenue I live right next door all righty and we're going to just swear you in do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truth yes thank you okay my only question is uh is probably for Louisa um I just wanted to confirm we have no problem with uh your drawings to put the garage back as it was uh I think it makes sense um and I'm glad that historic preservation was happy with it um my only thing I wanted to confirm is that there and I think Derek mentioned something about this earlier on that there is currently framing in place from when the when the work was originally done that is not reflective of your of your drawings correct corre okay so your drawings were based on reproducing what was there by estimating and that seems totally fine with me and you're confirming that the framing that's out there right now is not what the information upon which you base your new drawings correct okay great no I don't I I don't think that framing is is that that that's part at least part of the at least the roof part of that's going to have to come down okay we get it we get the we get the a more appropriate roof slope and height okay all very clear thank you very much okay anyone else in the public want to speak Claudia hands okay um hearing no other comments from the public I'll close the public portion and we will go into executive session but before we do that I have a question so the drawings you the drawings that we've reviewed are not reflective of what's out there is it reflective of what you want what you're going to build yeah okay so those drawings represent what you want to build not what currently exists right okay thank you all right so at this point but that's not to say I think probably some of the walls can probably stay I I just think that the roof is the wrong slope and the roof is the wrong height okay so we'll just have to see how much can be saved from what's there but but that the drawings are not based upon that and the roof that you're going to put on is the one that will ultimately be 4 in higher than yeah the previously existing grof at least from what I could tell yeah plus or minus a little bit Yeah okay all right um let's go into executive session board members any questions of the applicant uh at this point or do we just want to discuss this amongst ourselves or what's the pleasure of the board to me it seems like the um yeah applicant kind of got the r of a deal with the contractor that was misrepresenting things um I think the solution that um Louisa has offered makes a lot of sense um and I have no hesitation in in approving this any other comments questions I just have one question of our attorney um knowing knowing that this garages on the property line on the one side um does this present a problem with us approving it because we know that access to the garage is going to have to be on a piece of property they don't own oh my suggestion would be that we make it clear in the resolution that um this is a finding that sorry um just a minute there I go um we make it clear in the resolution that that's a finding the board is making and that the applicant understands that meaning if they cannot get permission from the property owner to the rear then you know they they won't be able to build it so uh I think if it's made clear in the resolution uh then it's clear to the applicant that they're acknowledging that and I I think that's accurate am am I correct in saying that M Clayton you I know the applicant's here tonight too she can confirm that but I guess I would say that um if it's a matter of pulling it in right now the drawings show it at um 19 19 foot6 all the way that takes us all the way to to the property line so I guess another option would be that if we if we found that we couldn't get permission to maintain it from the rear it would just be maintenance I mean and if and if we were able to you know put some kind of siding on the back that really is very quite low maintenance we don't have Windows in the back we don't have anything like that in the back so if we could well you have to build it you have to have to we if we could build the if we could build the wall and then we could turn it up you know I mean I know I know we're I I understand what you're saying no but I guess my point is that perhaps instead of saying if we can't get permission from the University to have access for the building and periodic maintenance uh instead of saying that we can't build the thing at all then maybe we could just pull it back and it's only 18 feet long as oppos right we give ourselves a little buffer off the back property line I don't think that's going to make a difference to anybody in the neighborhood or the historic nature of what we're trying to build um because it's just at the back I don't want to like throw the baby out with the bath water I guess if that's what the applicant ended up doing if they cannot reach an accommodation with uh the university would they need to amend their building plan then the building decided to change the dimension sure we would we would amend the building but we and we would we would resubmit to the building department with an amended plan that's a typical thing because would come and and check it and Elizabeth I'm assuming from the point of view HPC it wouldn't be an issue particularly since we're talking about the rear of the garage being pulled in so it' be smaller slightly smaller I think that we're talking about 18 inches is that correct something some reasonable amount of space to be able to get back there and what's the overall depth of the garage now 196 and you're saying you know so in order to be able to park a car there it would have to be a pretty small car if we start to shorten it anymore um but I'm just trying to look out for the for the owner get a garage I guess I I guess from my standpoint I don't want our approval to imply to the applicant that they can build the garage and obviously use the adjacent property for Access so I don't want I don't want it to come back to us saying we gave an approval knowing that the only way they can do this is go onto an adjacent property that they don't own then maybe we just put that right in the resolution yeah I I think we can we can put that in the resolution yes um from this discussion if the applicant decided they needed to or wanted to then to um reduce the depth of the garage it sounds like it can't be much in order to park um a vehicle in the garage um but I think we can we can put that right in the resolution so you know the yeah quite frankly this this is one of the findings that the applicant would still need to have access in order to construct it and the applicant understands that and that uh I don't I don't know how much it would need to be reduced in terms of depth to to give just enough room to to uh be able to construct it from a standpoint of construction it would need to be a couple of feet I mean you know somebody unless you find a very small Carpenter we only have two feet we only have two feet because the neighbor Mr sk's garage is right there say it again please the neighbor's garage is right on the property line and we've got two feet from that so already that we're constricted there you know so I mean I think look I'm just my concern my concern is just uh being able to build it and I think if we put in the resolution that you know we're telling we're suggesting to you that this has got to be you've got to get something you've got to get some documentation from the adjacent landowner in this case to be able to use that property to build and maintain your garage then we've done we've at least not suggested that you know again that you can go on that property and build it we're not giving you that ability to do you know to do that we're giving you the ability to to uh theoretically build a garage but you've got to work out the details of that with access and I would say and I would say I'd like to have Mr Bridger just look at whatever whatever documentation you get from the University just so you know we can assure ourselves that that um or assure the municipality that you've uh you've done everything you can to assure yourself you're not building on someone else's property we're not implying that you can do that by ISS well but I don't you but isn't it I mean if you allow us to build a garage then it's it's on her if she if she then is is trespassing like she's isn't that really up to her and not really up to you to put that in a resolution that we need documentation yeah to the zoning board to approve that we could build a garage or not and then she it's up to then it's the property owners between them but do you have to put that in writing in a resolution well Karen what do you think I I think I I tend to agree that um putting putting the board or putting the staff in the middle now because then Derek needs to review it he may ask me to review it too and I think Miss Clayton's point is uh pertinent that this is between the property owners I as I understand it though Miss Clayton you don't you don't want the resolution to say if if the applicant you know cannot get consent from their adjacent neighbor University to access you still want the applicant to have the ability if she can reduce the size of gradu so she can still build it that's your concern right if she can't make any Headway with the university oh I don't I don't have a problem with that I think just let me chime in because I I I agree with the applicants architect and and Karen I mean essentially how I interpret what you're saying Steve and what you're seeking we're approving a zero rear setback yes and the resolution can say with that setback does not you know does not come any inference that the rear neighbor can be a cro onor or any neighbor that's all I wouldn't condition it on submitting documentation or anything it's no I think I think what you're saying makes sense I just wanted to I just want to go I understand what you wanted to do but you know I'm comfortable that does it without I think i' I'd like to raise a qu point if I might um and I defer to people who have real experience in in building projects is it possible to get a pre Fab or you know offsite built wall that you can essentially just put into the the property without encroaching anything you know from a professional standpoint if you put a gutter on the back if your wall is on the property line and you put a gutter on the back so the water running off it doesn't run down the wall or just run onto the ground you know then then you're four Ines over the property line so it's it's it's a difficult situation but I we don't have a gutter on that side we don't have any kind of that's the Gable end you don't have what that's the Gable end the Gable end is on the rear so there's noter back there okay so nothing to encroach there's no overhang of the roof I think I appreciate that the zoning board wants to protect themselves I totally do I just am I I just prefer that that the onus is on the is on the property owner to take with the with the neighbor about access to the property and not have that be written in as part of your resolution which is in my humble opinion simply to say whether we can build this or not y well I think Mr Floyd's suggestion is valid because you know 20 years from now or when this gets sold and there's an issue I don't want it to come back to the municipality sure absolutely I agree with that yeah Miss G you understand what we're saying right you understand the point yes I do okay I'm sorry Elizabeth I I didn't mean to interrupt you oh no that's fine um so I guess the question was what asked was HBC going to be concerned if the garage was reduced in size and I think if it's a minimal reduction that they would not have a concern but if it start to look like a large shed versus a garage then they might question it so I guess it all depends on how much they reduce it well we'll we'll just have to see we'll H we'll have to see you know what the situation is but we're coming back to you anyway Elizabeth we're going to be we're going to be chatting about the design and all that so as we agreed in our in your meeting in August I didn't catch that last part can you repeat that I I just said that when we met with HPC in August um we did agree that we would work with them to to make sure that this garage was you know appropriate and I was going to stick around and make sure that this is built to to to the way that everybody understands it to be built you HBC so that you know they nobody's caught unawares again all right um does someone want to make a motion on this or we want we can further discuss it if you'd like or not we can make a motion and figure out how it's going to work I I will be um The Brave One and make a motion to approve with whatever caveats needed to be added to make it work okay that's good uh you had to tell us what you might think of in terms of the caveats to make it work I'm I'm sensitive to um both Michael's point and Louis's point so um you know I don't I don't know if it's overreach for us to kind of try and dictate how the structure is built or on Whose property they may need to go on to do it or what approvals are required for them to go on to a neighboring property to build so I would rather just limit this to what I think is our role which is to um I grant this approval or not so um that being said um I'm open to whatever other suggestions other board members have that would make them more comfortable in uh in agreement to this I think Mr I I'll I'll go back I think your suggestion Michael might be good perfect I I think it might be good too um I'm I'm sure Karen can you know if we're approving you know the Varian is fine um which I support and somewhere in the resolution it says um you know it is not inherent in approval of the zero line that you know we're authorizing encroachment something very simple that's all I can do that works for me I'm I'm I'm comfortable with that yeah okay trespassing or encroachment whatever harlon you made a motion are you comfortable with these changes very much sir okay I'll second it good any further discussion okay Claudia Miss Coulson yes Mr Mr Floy yes Mr tenom yes Miss Donna yes Mr Stein yes chairman Cohen yes thank you thank you sorry I just I just don't want to see a problem further down the line totally agree and I really thank you all so much I really appreciate it thank you thank you okay continuing our marathon meeting we five minute break Steve we can okay it is second it is 9:10 we will come back at 9:15 all right good night everyone good night good night good night e e e e e e e e okay it is in fact 9:15 we'll wait till uh Mr Floyd returns and uh then we can keep moving here okay okay we're uh we're back in session uh we'll go to our next hearing now which is case Z24 d522 169 John Street Block 177.0397 in the r4b zone also in the Witherspoon jackon historic district um Karen are all the notices in order yes the noticing is in order the board has jurisdiction tonight thank you thank you oh I just want to verify Claudia we're back on tape Gloria you're muted I just want to make sure we're recording well I I mean I see the recording I see the yes the recording is on okay good good okay um Mr Bridger can you summarize your memo on this case yes sir thank you Jane sharp is the owner area of 169 John Street um it's located in the R4 owning District in Princeton it's also located in the withers Boon Jackson historic district she's seeking a C1 variance to permit the construction uh the approval of a constructed rear porch and exception to the uh required side guard setbacks property is located in the as I said the r4b zone of the burrow um former burrow the lot width is non-requirement just non non-conforming with regards to the required 60 foot lot width the existing 18 and a half um the lot area requirement 6,000 the existing lot is 23125 square ft the existing house is non compliant with the smaller required 8 foot side yard setback the existing is zero and it's non compliant with required 20 foot combined side yard setback the existing is 1.8 it's noncompliant with the 4 to.5 to one height to setback uh ratio um the applicant replaced the existing rear port porch with a slightly larger porch without zoning approval staff was alerted by a neighbor and the applicant immediately uh filed an application and it was determined that um side guard variances were required um it's a 76 square foot trapezoidal shaped porch it Narrows as it moves away from the house um the porch features a a six foot high privacy lattice wall um between the adjoining property at 167 John and a set of stairs leading to the rear uh yard um section 17A 403 l2f um permits exceptions to sidey guard setbacks for non-enclosed one-story porches Portico porches Stoops entrance platforms uncovered decks they may project more than four feet into a side or rear yard the uh South Side elevation of of the porch is 4.8 and this is the smaller side yard uh of eight which when the permitted 4 foot exception is applied this results in a minimum setback of the 4 feet and the southern elevation complies um the northern elevation of the porch is um setback 4.1 feet and the larger side yard setback of 12 applies on this side when the 4 foot side yard seion is applied the required setback is reduced to8 feet so she needs a variance from the um larger sidey yard setback or the which is eight and the proposed is 4.1 and there was just one other item which I was kind of unsure of how to address there is a proposed lattice um she's got it framed out and you can see it in her pictures uh Mrs sharp stopped uh construction on the project when she was alerted that she needed permits and she hasn't done any additional work but I do think that um it's ENT it's essentially a fence which are limited in height to six feet um if they're in the building envelope they can be higher but I think uh an additional variance would be required for this lattice privacy fence um it appears to be about N9 feet tall um so I would say that that could probably be included and it was noticed for any other variances or relief the board May deem necessary so um the project is in a historic district it was reviewed by uh Elizabeth Kim and I believe um was just reviewed by her and she she advised that the porch is not visible from the public right away and no review by the HPC is required so that's a synopsis of my memo if you have any questions I'd be glad to address them thank you board members any questions Mr Brer okay so we don't have to hear from Miss Kim on this case so who will be representing the owner good evening Roger Martell the attorney been engaged Eng to participate this evening to assist Miss Professor sharp who's I'm putting her my hand on her shoulder right next to me okay um Karen do you want to swear the absolutely um Miss shark do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful yes thank you okay please begin uh thank you Mr chairman um m sharp are you the homeowner at 169 John Street yes I am and how long have you owned the house I purchased it in 2002 so 23 years and when you bought the house did it have a deck on the rear from the for the rear door rear kitchen door yes it did it had a deck and stairs extending Beyond it on two sides okay what do you do for a living I'm a professor of art history at Ruckers and a curator at the zimmerly art museum okay and do did you raise a family here in this house yeah yeah I raised my son here okay your son Sam Samuel hery yes who actually is also listening in he's upstairs and we we may call on him before the evening's over he's useful for the information of the of the board because he participated in in the construction of the of the deck with his dad um Miss uh Professor are you intending to live in this house for as long as you can yes I I am and and do you have some medical issues that pertain to the use of a deck yes that they do and that was one of the reasons why I urgently needed to have it rebuilt I need it at a level I've had neurosurgery I will have it again I've had hip replacements and it was very hard for me to get up the stairs and move around uh the deck which was narrower okay at the time so um the Bel the deck was rebuilt by your son and his dad is that correct yes yes this summer while you were away on on a trip a business trip is that correct okay um now when you first came here and there was a deck did over time that deck uh no longer serve the purpose for which you intended it yeah yeah I mean it was here at the beginning I had I assumed that it was permitted and uh it did serve my needs for a while yes but then what happened well it rotted it rotted and uh it was became clear that the supports were there was no footing I didn't know much about these things but there was no footing and it was poorly attached to the back of the house and so it had become after 20 years or so precarious and did you decide to rebuild it I did I decided while I was away that this would be a good time and who designed the port so my former husband the father of my son who is a building contractor and this is his principal business in the state of Connecticut he works with various building contractors and has for 40 years and this particular design of the what he built how do it differ from the the old uh uh the old old deck is it is it more attached to the house yes so this is one of the reasons for its width is that it was determined it would be more strally sound to extend it it is built so that it is screwed into the joists of the house now um all along the side of the house uh with 10in screws and this was the only level at which that would be possible and at the at the where the deck meets the house is it now w a little bit wider than it was when when you first came to this house in the old deck and why is it wider it's wider just at the um the joint the joint with the house and then it tapers it Narrows to accommodate the wider setback um but it's necessary so that I can turn around so that I can walk on I can have groceries I can put whatever I need there and walk around to open the door okay and and you've had surgery and then in the use of surgery there are recuperation periods that require you have some some special kinds of walking aids is that correct yes yes that has been true yes and what kinds of walking aids are we talking about I had to use a walker for a while and um with yeah probably canes are going to be necessary and maybe again if I have to go through the surgery again is that one reason why you need a a wider deck near the house yes okay um also was is the current deck on one level or more than one level it's on one level and it's on a level just underneath the door and and the old deck was on one level or more than one level it was on two levels so it was almost the same area but it was split in two areas and then it had stairs encircling it okay it's almost the same footprint not quite okay so the the picture of and and and and and I believe the board has has has the application and and and there's a picture of the deck um which we putting up yes on Zoom there's actually a series of photos would you just like to make them all an exhibit and then you can refer to them as as you go along now can we make okay Miss Casey can we just uh can we just make the entire application and exhibit as a whole um well I think basically you're you're referring to but but specifically it's these photos right that you want to yes it's the photos that there's two photos is and the the the tagline at the bottom of the page says views of new deck at 169 from backyard okay and that's there we have it well I'm not sharing yet I can share it yeah can you so we'll collectively make those exhibit a and um Miss sharp did you take these photos or or you know did you did okay yes I took thank you all right okay yes I'm going to would it be helpful to the board if we shared it it's taking up my think so if you if you could I would think this way the public can see as well yeah can you see it I I'm having a hard time oh share okay here okay there uh PowerPoint okay can you see that now yes okay so the next picture or well I'm I'm happy to um go to whichever slide uh might be this is the back that's the one that's the one that gives the clearest view so that shows the tapering and the attachment to the house the old attachment which was just the the top um the deck extended further out but that was the banister um and this is this is not in the PowerPoint but I just photographed it to show you uh to show myself what it means for me to be able to walk in and have groceries there uh this is the side this is the southern side this is the side that we no Southern not the northern side this is with 167 John Street this is where the variance is requested this side and you can see it is attached there and then tapers to 8 ft at about here which complies and I'm going to make a note that that we do have another witness and to testify in a moment and that witness lives in the house that's right next door that you see in the picture on the left where the the the the the where the where the there's the least amount of side excuse me of side of side yard footage uh and and that that witness will testify for this for the for the uh for the applicant okay and that's that's the picture anything else you you want to add about the pictures um not really I just you know we measured it very carefully we thought we were compliant of course I have pictures of the the drawing I have pictures of um the underneath of the deck and the footing this was what was critical for me there is a concrete platform that makes it impossible to put the footing anywhere else um and it's sunk at 40 in which exceeds into concrete which exceeds as I understand it it exceeds even Connecticut requirements but so there's that and then I just also added images of you know how narrow the property is under well just over four feet between 167 and mine and you know variances have been granted at this property that's sadly still under construction Street okay okay so um the only other if if anybody has any questions of of of this witness that this might be a good time or or I can I have one question will there be handrails along both sides of the steps and around the perimeter of the deck well that that was the plan but I stopped I had to stop construction but you are planning assuming it's approved you're planning on putting handrails on both sides of the steps and the deck well I wanted to consult actually with the building permissions you know to find out I intended it but don't don't yes I'm I'm going to comply absolutely with whatever yeah you will you will need railings there I know I need railings but I didn't know if I'd need them on both sides or one side probably both sides okay but you can check with the building official yeah that's what I was going to do yeah good idea because I move things in and out Furniture in and out in the back that's the only way really to do anything with the house but yeah okay yes okay any other questions for this witness any other questions board members I think um I have one question have you considered a lift attaching a lift somewhere to that deck I I haven't yet um you know that lot's so narrow I had thought if I need uh to have a wheelchair thing that's why the stairs are so shallow I made the stairs I requireed that was really critical that the stairs are half steps which is why they extend out a bit further because that's the hardest part for me and I yeah a lift would be a good idea yeah if I can figure out where to put it oh eventually yeah uh Roger yes sir um it's Michael Floyd I you may want to point out um an observation um you talk about groceries or whatnot um that you actually park behind your house you have you have you don't have a driveway that goes from John Street no to the side of your house along the side you actually have access through hillyer's parking lot that's correct yes so when you come home in a car you you actually come in that way right this has become the main entrance yes that's why main entrance and and it's relatively long yes quite narrow but relatively long yep any other questions of this witness I don't have any board members any additional questions nope please continue okay well now we're going to use the miracle of a modern zoom and and bring in Sam upstairs who has the the neighbors that live near closest to this deck um on on the North side um Bill and Tanya urian uh Bill uan Tanya uh his wife Bill some of you knew for when he was a burrow Public Works employee um I'm waiting for them to come in can they be let in Sam hery he uh is on zoom and I think you have to allow him I suppose we could also invite them downstairs uh and we can't get them in from upstairs yeah we see Sam is in the attendees but we do not see um I don't see he's he's there with him okay okay okay you want do you want to take this off the screen then or yes I can stop sharing okay okay yeah okay is that Sam's room upstairs uh nope okay hey Sammy Sam D yeah they're letting you in you're atende okay just waiting oh yeah so I think he's still waiting to be allowed to speak there he is okay there he is he's popped up where oh there they are great hello hello can we get the names again Mr marale of your Witnesses please uh yes well it's principally unless the three Witnesses are are if necessary or Sam who's on the right the young young fellow sitting down now with the beard bill or is is in with a hat on and his wife um nagger is is to his to Bill's left um the two NE the the the bill and Tanya uh live right next door they're on the the the north border their house is is is 4.1 feet I think it is from the from the deck and and if I no no there the property line is the property okay the property line is 41.1 Fe from the deck and if if we could swear in Bill and Tanya then then I think we're good okay uh ma'am sir do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful yes we do we swear all righty and could you give me your um home address please 171 John Street Princeton New Jersey okay okay um m Mr uran um you've identified yourself as a nextd door neighbor to to to miss sharp yes and we've and and you're familiar with her deck are is that correct yes okay is it cause you any concern at all no no beautiful I support the deck I support the application okay um I can see that Tanya is agreeing with that by nodding her head and and and and chipping in with her comment as well I have no further questions of these Witnesses okay well thank you okay any uh any other Witnesses or any other presentation you want to make and unless no unless the uh the uh the board has any other questions that well we'll ask board members if you have any question of the owner or the applicant or the witnesses or the attorney okay all right um we will if you have nothing else to add if you want to sum up before we open this up to the public if not that's fine you want to add anything well I just I guess to thank you for considering this and yeah I'm I didn't know uh I really didn't know that I needed to um go through this process because I assumed that it had been approved and I couldn't find any reference to what you do when you need to rebuild something that's falling apart so apolog well you know you know for the next time okay so um we'll open this up to the public Claudia has anyone indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this applicant um yes one second please hi um can you see me we can um ma'am uh could you give us your address if you're comfortable with that yes uh my address is 167 7 John Street and my name is all right and um if you uh we swear you in do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you please continue yeah I'd like to ask if the uh board members received my statement as I excuse me I emailed you back Miss Carol um you have to be at the board hearing and put your statement into the verbal record for it to be entered into the record the board cannot um take written statements okay free to do it right now all right I just wondered if they had the photos available to them so they don't have the document no ma'am okay all right my um uh I live at 167 John Street which is the dup that adjoins Miss Sharp's house um i' just like to say that uh she says that her deck occupies approximately the same footprint as the old steps uh but that's not really true um if you look at figure one I don't know can I share my screen how does that yes okay uh Claudia do do you have Miss Carol's I'm not sure what she's seeking to share but um here we go very good um Miss Carol do you have a series of photos here that you like the board to look at I just have four four okay why don't we make these your we call them your objector just okay last one is not uh really important all righty so we will call this your um objector exhibit one and you said it's four photos and did you take these photos yourself uh yes I did okay okay very good thank you okay so as Jane knows I've had problems with my kitchen roof and the gutter on it so I've been this is taken from my kitchen roof which is one story looking down at Jean's old set of steps so if you I think you can see it's much smaller than the new deck so it has a a landing about just a normal size Landing for a set of steps coming right out the door then it goes down a step and has another small landing and then two more steps Maybe be three more steps and uh that was it the new one um as you saw from Jan's photos is extends out at that level of the first floor right the step outside the door um quite far um it's it looks to me like it's at least 10 feet and then um the sh set of steps begins so um in addition uh well there's I'd like to there's my window which is as you can see there's the dividing line um between the two houses so the color makes it pretty clear so you can see that it's pretty close to the to Jam's door um and it's so that's my kitchen window um I'm in there you know 20 30 times a day uh so it's someone sitting on the deck that Jean's constructed is pretty close to my kitchen and can look right in at me uh trying to PR prepare my meals or whatever um and see that's her deck her new deck from my kitchen window so it's very close so you know everything in our in our neighborhood requires a variance I certainly understand she needs to reconstruct her stairs um I don't see any problem with that U but I do object to the large um uh what she's calling a trellis I mean it's a very substantial um structure that she says she's going to put plants on uh so that this is the view of that from my uh patio so it's uh it's pretty imposing um let's see I need to look at my text here so um [Music] sorry give me a minute so um it also I I mean this is not um a problem but somebody mentioned she would need a railing on both sides so that trellis doesn't seem to provide enough um safety on that side so and so if and if she covers that charous with plants it's you know more light blocked from my kitchen there's already she already has a large evergreen tree right on the fence that you know shaves my kitchen so it it just is beginning to feel like I'm really hemmed in so um so I'm asking you to direct Miss sharp to remove the tall vertical structure and to shorten the platform it's I really don't see why she needs to be sitting at that level um she can create a platform that's adequate for her um mobility issues without uh creating a a deck I mean it's not a set of stairs anymore it's a deck so um so the encroachment on the um sidey guard setbacks you know it's really I I recognize it's you know it's it's very difficult in our neighborhood with our small yards to build anything without some variance but the variances can be limited so so that's all I have to say okay thank you thank you so I'm trying to stop sharing um okay thank you very much Claudia has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak no more hands Mr chairman okay so uh thank you for the comments and um we're going to close the public portion of the hearing now and uh again the the applicant or the applicant's attorney can sum up and then we'll go into executive session although before we do that board members do you have any question of the neighbors any question from of of the neighbor I I don't have a question chairman I I just you know hope that um or expect the applicant and the attorney to respond to the neighbors comments yes I agree I agree okay all right so we'll close the public portion of the hearing would you like to sum up uh Miss sharp or your attorney I'm I'm happy to do so uh uh the and address Mr Floyd's uh request at the same time the the what has been built is according to the neighbor who looks at it on a daily basis uh aesthetically pleasing it's not too close to the house on the north which is a house that looks at the deck uh uh on a regular basis um the deck is an improvement over the deck that was there that was a safety hazard uh to the occupants and the occupants guests um it is re constituting the deck allows the homeowner to stay in the house uh for a longer period of time perhaps the rest of her life um and it is uh uh appropriate in the circumstances now as to the lattice the the the lattice work um um but before we get to the lattice work I I I I do want to note that while I heard Miss Carol complain that the area of the new deck is is larger than the area of the old deck um for the several reasons that uh uh Miss sharp outline and the gradual approach uh of the steps Etc I didn't hear any any indication from Miss Carol is that in any way um prejudiced her uh Miss Carol's interest um the deck is the deck uh the lce work um is visually uh or would be uh visually uh uh in in in in the uh uh in in an issue that that miss that Miss uh Carol could could you know reasonably raise um but I think we need to step back a second and and think uh these two neighbors live cheek by jow uh they share a property line their kitchen doors their kitchen window one the kitchen door the other within you just a very few feet of each other um they have a backyard fence that extends all the way out to the to the parking lot that Mr Floyd referred to um and they frankly I think would like to have the prophecy uh that a lattice work can afford otherwise they're going to be looking over each other's uh uh activities over the f um and and and the lattice work is a uh expense that Miss sharp is would like to undertake in order to protect the privacy of of both neighbors um there will be no ability to uh look into the kitchen window of Miss Carol uh if anybody was so inclined because the L work would be there um so I think it is a m ually uh satisfactory uh uh result to deal with a cheek byal kind of existence that is inescapable in the circumstances um uh I think the last work can can be utilized by Miss uh Carol she wants to to put plants or or other things perhaps it's in my yard it's in your yard yeah okay it's in my yard okay well she can back up stuff there if she she wanted to on her side um so it's it's not it's not it's not invasive it's it's it's protective um and I think in in that light maybe Miss Carol could could could could understand that that in the circumstances is an appropriate resolution to a a a tough sit situation visually uh for for Neighbors um um uh that are this close in in in their living quarters I would also just like to put out I I do have slides they're not in my PowerPoint but that the window she's referring to actually has her refrigerator in it and it's set back I have pictures it's very hard to see much of this deck I I just not it you know I'm interested in the privacy in part because she does have a surveillance camera also that peers down into my yard so you know I I I thought we shared an interest in privacy and that the lattice would um be the most appropriate way to to address that and plantings and plants and just the last comment is that in terms of the setback variance uh this deck is exactly where the other one was on her side um there's only a foot distance between my door and the that edge of the deck the deck at you know facing the souths side so there's nothing I can do really about that and it seems to me that I don't know I should be able to have a deck and on one level because of my needs so that's all thank you okay anything else you'd like to add not not the applicant thank you though okay I have a question in Miss Carol's slide that she showed looking from I guess her upper level or the roof down towards the adjacent deck in the for in the foreground it showed another fence in front of lower and in front of this this proposed screen whose fence is that uh that's the fence that we share she and I share a fence whose is it it's on my property it's your survey it's on my property yes okay so and how tall is that fence it's um it was built with zoning board approval it is under six feet okay so my only comment when you look at that and you look at the new screen you have I happen to like the screen the thing is that that fence and the screen just beyond it which is very tall relative to the fence is uh almost presents itself as a wall and and cutting down on the light in that area which will affect the neighbor so I think the screen itself is very high uh um and I think that has an impact on the neighbor's property I would just say that you know her property is the south south facing so there's no shadow um the tree has existed there for I don't know how many years 50 years I have nothing to do with that it's always been there um it's it's I who receive Shadows because my house is facing north so yes it would probably it could I suppose but it is about 5T away from the fence and from her kitchen window it's more than 10 feet away it's just again it's an observation that it's yeah two fences in close proximity to one another and I think that in my opinion is an intrusion um okay well let's let's do this let's uh if you don't want to add anything we'll go on to go into executive session and discuss it amongst ourselves um and make a determination thank you okay so board members um comments hand raised I'm sorry um I agree with you Steve and I'm wondering um that lce fence you know I'm assuming it's up there for an aesthetic reason not for anything to do with a medical situation reason and I'm wondering if it can just be lowered to a point where you know the parties can both accommodate each other um I agree with you that it does start to look kind of intrusive um from the other side and um I think that if if the purpose of the deck is mainly so that Miss sharp has a safe way to go in and out of her home um given some medical constraints and given where she Parks then you know I think the lattice perhaps could be adjusted yes mik are you done Donna yes okay Michael um first thing um actually I think I have I have questions for Derek and my first question is actually Derek you started in your presentation you mentioned that the lattice would require a variance because it's too tall anyway um and I believe it it could be what from grade six feet is that it correct and from grade as proposed it's at what size I'm gonna guess 10 10 yeah just under 10 just under um so the lattice may be as of right but 4 foot of it is not as of right um you know I hope yall the could work it out but even if you can't work it out I uh I wouldn't support a variance for the extra 4 foot I will say that and regarding the size of the deck itself um Mr Bridger do we have any control over that given how small it is does it just factor into impervious coverage or something no I mean um there is no impervious coverage issue it's less than 400 square feet and especially when the old deck is taken into consideration um the deck is restricted on the sides it's not restricted in the rear so you know my my perspective is with the neighborhood character exemptions for sidey yard setbacks the four feet out of the eight side 8 foot smaller side yard and then 12T larger side yard that that could go back to the rear yard setback and be compliant which is further back than it is now it's it's it is a deep lot as Roger indicated okay thanks sir board members any other questions comments okay I I agree with Michael um I would I have no I take no issue with the size of the deck itself or the steps I think the steps are functional I can appreciate the position that miss sharf is in having to get access to the to the house I don't think the deck is significantly larger than the previous deck I just uh I have an issue with the screen and I think Michael's right it's the height that only requires a railing on that side and uh a railing height would be half the height of that even less so um that's my comment I agree with uh I agree with you Steph I agree with Mike um I do think that um for purposes of privacy if they want to continue to have some kind of Separation it it must abide by the six foot rule um I don't know if there would be increased privacy if that first fence went up to six feet but you know that that's kind of a moot point um and more up to them to decide than than us but um otherwise I agree with what you said with M yeah I'd like to make a comment if I might I I make the point about the the the lce work but um there no barrier if people wanted to put um various types of of trees and so forth that would have have the same effect I don't think that would be an issue for the for our board would it put trees where in a way that would be where the lattice well parallel to where the lattice would be on the deck or on the ground ground yeah they there's no there's no restriction on plan exactly and things grow so there you go right so it could be it could be planting but the the deck is still going to require a railing yeah yeah but that's just for for uh safety totally yeah that's a good comment okay so um does someone want to sort of put this all together and make a motion I'm hearing at least that we're supportive of the deck and the steps and not the laders not the lest Beyond a six foot um is is what I would phrase it it's approval of a variance request permit the approval uh construction of a rear print porch in exception of the side yard setback and it's a denial of a variance regarding the height of the of the lattice being just under 10 foot so it's that's that's how I would phrase you was that a motion you made Mike excuse me did you make that as a motion yes good that's that's a motion may I may I ask a question of the of the board sure um thank you um my client indicates she has an an interest in asking the following question could the could the outline of the frame of the that you saw remain but not be filled in with lattice work and then attach a railing along the uh at railing height um but keep the frame of of the work as it is so that it could be used for a variety of purposes like like you know for Vines and pl PL to yeah have plants hanging from it it was a you know the the issue is what defines a fence Mr Bridger is right the requirement is six foot above grade and and um so the lattice itself almost uh again I don't know what what the height of the deck is I don't know what the difference is between the height of the deck and the height above grade how high would that lce how high could that lattice be and not be more than six foot above grade it could be the the deck is four feet high so so it's a two foot you'd be able to put a two foot piece of lattice there I guess I'm more interested in the frame so that I could have plants growing at least if she for example Mr chair she she agreed not to fill in there would be no lattice it would be just the frame but the frame could be used as a as a basis in which to to to have Vines and other things hung from climb up I I don't know I don't know it's it's a question for Derek it's a question for the for what is offence right that's all it is yep Derek how would you see it I think it still needs a variance um you know that's what the zoning officer just said so that's that's the answer it's not a board it's not a board question it's it's a you know zoning officer question exactly uh message received okay all right so we're back to the motion uh the motion is to approve the deck and the steps and uh not approve the motion for the lattice to extend higher than the maximum allowed for offense could we tonight um approve can or would the variance for that frame let's call it not a fence but a frame would that have to be a would that have to be a separate comeback for that or that's not something that we could uh add to this as our motion well I mean it's Mr Bridger has already defined this as a as requiring as a fence in a sense and requiring a variance to allow it to to go in that way as a frame so that means we have to come back for that part of it is that right well come back or be heard tonight well wner what what would they be coming VAR is being if the variance gets denied can't come back it doesn't come back right exactly right if they if they yeah what I'm asking is can we can we redefine or can we can we add that to what we're talking about tonight just are we allowed to do that or does that have to be a separate application if they if they get approval tonight just to do the deck the steps and the necessary railings to comply with safety requirements then they could theoretically come back in at a later date and say we want to extend the the railing up higher and then come before the board again and Michael's right if we reject it tonight they can't come back before us we if it's if it's defined as basically a trellis even if it's the frame right now that definition doesn't change when they come back with the same thing it's over with I mean Derek unfortunately for the applicant this got built uh it's existing now and your position is either the board gives a variance for it or it's got to be removed correct yes ma'am okay so I mean pull the board if they're six foot lattice up and then the framing but it's still a variance you know I think it still classifies as a fence even if it's on yep it's framed i' I've talked to my if I might I've talked to my client and and and she would agree to remove the framing above the six feet and and withdraw the application for the variance to revisit that question uh some other day perhaps or perhaps not but in any event since she face she's facing a a a a request from from Mr Bridger to to take out the the the the the the structure that's over six feet she'll do it uh and then and and then keep up she wants to keep open the opportunity to come back at a later date uh should that be appropriate um in time so if we can resolve that issue by just withdrawing the application uh on the lattice work um uh and and and and and move only as to the other part of the of the application uh that would satisfy us now and and and in in the very near future should just take down the the L lce work that's over that's over six feet okay but that's over six feet from grade so that would mean if I understand it right that what's existing now the structure could only be two feet high then that's yeah I don't know I mean the have a railing that high the code the code would allow you to put a railing up on the deck IR respective of the height above grade above the ground to the top of the railing but it doesn't allow you to put a fence up higher than 6 feet from grade so you could put a 36 or 42 inch high railing there and and that's a railing would would there be a maximum height of a railing it's whatever the code requires the code I think I can't remember if the code is 42 or 44 in it's somewhere between 36 and 44 whatever the code is for railing and that's that's construction code not not that's a const that's a construction code yes not zoning Mr Bridger can you help us on this Michael just said it perfectly have a railing um I believe it is 42 Ines it's for safety uh it could have spindles or you know um yeah but lattice has to be limited to six feet unless the board gives a variance for that frame framed area which I don't think I hear uh you know a lot of enthusiasm for railings require a basically a safety Rail and a hand and a um and a uh a safety Rail and a and a hand rail the openings in a rare in a in a railing can't be any bigger than 4 Ines ah so so that means in theory it could be solid to 4 42 in and still be considered a railing yep but that's a building code question that's that's you talk to the building official about that so do we have a motion think there is a motion already on the floor and the motion is to approve the variance for the um deck and the stairs and to deny the requested variance for the 10 foot lattice frame you hav't withdraw fence no not the variance the the the the fence well then are the is the applicant permitted to withdraw the question of the lattice and then therefore our motion does not touch that no it has to come down basically yeah but and then it's got to be removed it it will be it will be removed correct but we would like to withdraw the application for for that that second part that that part of that the lattice work on the deck well as the person that made the motion and if it's okay with Mr Bridger if it's not um I defer to him if you withdraw the the request for a variance on the lattice work there has to be something as the person who made the motion in the resolution that notice that lattice is already up and in violation and will come down to a permitted length the lattice is not up sorry well the frame that frame well okay then the lattice is up the frame is the lattice is the frame and the frame is the lattice that all counts yeah I think I I could speak for my client to say that she would agree to Mr Floyd's uh with the idea of if if as the moover of the motion if he would amend the motion simply to say Grant the grant the the deck uh issue and the sidey guard issue did not and and not and we will withdraw the application on the on the frame of the lattice and the work uh the lattice work and the frame and save that for another day just no what I also said what I also said is the resolution has the note that the frame is up the lattice is up it's in violation and it will be corrected I want that on the record that's fine I agree if that's okay with Mr Bridger also I I don't know if it's all no it has to be dealt with so I I mean it's built now they'd have to submit plans that don't reflect that then let's let's memorialize it that it's it's in a violation so that's the motion I will second the motion Stein okay any more discussion okay Claudia would you call a rooll m Coulson yes Mr Floy yes M Donna yes Mr tenom yes Mr Stein yes J M Cen yes thank you thank you thank you all and good night good night night good night he okay our last and final hearing of the evening is case excuse me case number Z24 d460 760 Mount Lucas road block 2701 Lot 19 in the r2t zone Karen is the noticing in order it is the board has jurisdiction tonight to hear the application okay thank you Mr virger can you summarize your memo for us yes sir um Christopher and young sha Terina are the owners of 760 Mount Lucas they're seeking a C1 variance request to construct an accessory dwelling unit and related parking within the front yard set back in exception to the required setback um property is located within the r2t Zone in the former Princeton Township the subject lot and house comply with the applicable bulk regulations applicant is proposing to construct a 1,39 foot detached accessory dwelling unit the one story unit features a full walkout basement a deck a carport two bedrooms kitchen and two full bath and additional parking space turnaround is located off of the main driveway the applicant is proposing that the Adu will be fully handicapped accessible under New Jersey Barrier free subcode section 10B 255 c3c permits fully accessible adus a 5% increase in the total maximum floor area allowed the F for the R2 zone is 125% a 5% bonus equates to 0.625% which allows an additional 453 square feet a floor area ratio to be utilized for either the Adu or the main house or both in accordance with Section 10B 262a accessory structures are not located within our front yard our yard is defined as the open space existing between a building line and the adjacent most nearly parallel building lot line um building line is defined as a horizontal projection in plane of all covered or roofed areas of a structure whether permanent or temporary the following variances are requested um to comply the Adu would need to be set back 28621 feet um The Proposal is 20t to the adaa ramp um the front yard parking setback requirement is 25 5 ft The Proposal is 13 ft um side parking setback is five The Proposal is 4.75 ft and this is for the space which kind of reads like a turnaround space but is actually a parking the dimensions of a parking space on the other side of the driveway um and the driveway width limitation is 22 feet um the proposed drive to the Adu is 30 ft and the proposed parking space turnaround driveway uh is 22 ft the applicants narrative indicates that placing the Adu in a complying location would result in the loss of trees and violate the required height to setback ratio adus are not subject to height to setback ratios um the proposed location of the Adu and its impact on nearby trees um as well as the the parking space on the other driveway should be addressed and the applicant should also address whether any alternative locations have been considered and what specific factors limit their um ability be put there and the applicant should also address that parking space located off the main driveway whether it can either be reduced to a size less than a parking space which would not require variance or move the space to a complying location um it appears the space is exceptionally large for it to turn around and a 20 plus foot wide driveway leading to the Adu provides two parking spaces um the location of the turnaround appears to encroach into the critical root zones of nearby trees the applicant should discuss the placement of this space and its impact on the trees um they requested consideration under the C1 you have any questions I'd be glad to address them thank you so the so The Proposal complies with the front yard setback or not no it doesn't that's why we're here the setback for it to comply would have to be 286 feet back and it's 20 feet to the 8 no I I I understand that because of the averaging but okay I understand the rest of it thank you yes sir board members any question to Mr virer okay um Mr Kennedy are you representing the affan I am uh Mr chairman thank you so much all right um so uh Ryan Kennedy from Stevens Lee again for uh the applicant here the homeowners at 760 Mount Lucas Road um we'll have a couple of witnesses tonight try to get through as much of it as we can I appreciate everyone sticking with us on a a marathon evening as you as you refer to it uh Mr chairman uh much appreciated um so we'll have uh likely two and a half uh three Witnesses uh this evening we'll have uh uh Chris um and Ronnie the the homeowners we'll have Jim calik uh he's our uh civil engineer um and Marina rabina uh the architect protect on this um as as Derek uh Bridger M the zoning officer indicated um this is a another uh you'll have two in one evening a front yard um setback case where the homes are pushed back uh very far for for reasons uh in this case we'll go through the reasons but the home on this slot is pushed back very far so really um everything in front of that um would is uh requiring a front yard setback variance what we'll show you though is a series of constraints um a stream that goes through the middle uh some steep slopes the the buffer areas that uh keep us from going further back or behind the house uh and ultimately show that this is the you know appropriate Place uh for the Adu we'll we'll talk a little bit also about how if this were the main house um how we would comply with the 25 foot setback uh the 20 foot setback that's that's referenced that needs the variance you know essentially what we would describe as the front porch and accessory structures don't have front porches that can uh uh step into front yard set packs like main houses are uh but we'll talk through those those Provisions so you can see kind of a a a a similar um situation as if this were uh uh the a main primary structure rather than the Adu um you'll you'll you'll also note um Mr chairman you noted um you know prevailing setbacks this is a unique spot where there's actually no other Lots within the range to do one so the you know normally you have a prevailing setback or the default 25 foot here um I don't believe it's C it's one could calculate for the main house the front setback that the variance issue is really that we're just in front of a house that's set very far back uh again we'll go through the the issues about why the other locations aren't appropriate or would be variance conditions or not possible to to site an Adu why they chose this front location and then as to the what we'll call the bucket of parking setbacks um some of them we believe are kind of engineering issues that our engineer will talk through um are either necessary or we feel we might be able to either make go away by revision of the design as Mr Breer said um there is a what we intend to be and the intention is to have a kurn area and because of the Topography of the site uh where this part of the driveway is frankly um is a bit into the front yard uh and uh for reasons that our engineer will kind of go through we feel it needs to be this size not so a car can park there that's not the intention and then in fact I think of a car parked there we'd almost have a kind of stacking situation where the other car might have a lot of trouble getting out of the uh of the the actual space um but be that as May we'll we'll go through that in in some detail um so we'll have uh I'll call them four different people I don't know that they'll all speak but we'll have four Witnesses this evening uh perhaps we could have them all sworn in uh right now Mr kamalak our engineer uh Miss Rina our um architect uh and uh the two homeowners perhaps we can have them all it once all right if you would all raise your hand do you swear or affirm your testimony will be truthful we do I do thank you thank you um and uh you know considering the the hour that we're at um we'll do our best to strike the balance between getting you all the information we think you need so we can get some some feedback and get through this but understand uh the the time constraints that we have so obviously we're um available to answer all the questions and and have a full presentation but we might at some point kind of start skipping ahead to some things we'd love to have some feedback on if we approach some type of witching hour let me say that so uh Chris uh uh and um and Ronnie if you want to introduce yourselves to to the board and and talk a little bit about your your your connection to this property here and and and what you're looking to do with this Adu sure all right thank you Ryan thank you board uh thank you for everybody for staying late tonight tonight to uh to hear our request here with my wife Ronnie um we also have two young daughters that live with us here in Princeton we moved here three years ago but been have been connected to the community even longer through my wife's work as well as our our children's preschools um and we moved here because because of this home has very great nature feel as well as it gets us more connected to this community have loved it so far um like many others we we have a strong connection with our parents our parents have played a huge role in the upbring of our children and um getting emotional sorry um yeah so uh we actually primarily try to build this Adu because we want to bring Chris's parents with us I'm so getting emotional um Chris's parents have been instrumental in helping our kids they live in Long Island pretty far away about two and a half hours but they have made every effort to come join us um but it's becoming more and more difficult um my mother-in-law actually is um deteriorating from dementia in a pretty fast rate um in the two and a half years that we've been actually trying to construct this Adu in order to bring them closer to us um per situation has deteriorated even further which actually prompted us to make it even more important to have the ADA Compliant um to give them that uh ability to get in and now and be close to our family thank you um Ronnie Chris um um if if it pleases the board uh we've got a our our set of slides so i' like to mark it as our one exhibit tonight we could start uh taking the board through it with our with our homeowners if it's all right for me to share the screen oh Mr Kennedy do you know how many slides you have in your no I don't believe we'll use all of them there are as many as 21 some of them are are things we may not actually show but uh 21 is the the most we would show okay um so uh Chris and Ronnie um you know this uh slide two here is the the zoning map showing the R2 Zone in the former chhip that you're in uh that Arrow points to your lot is that is that right that's correct now note across the street uh uh hodgepodge of different uses on this uh on this street we'll get to when we see the overall map but it's a a very different type of Zone across the street is that uh your been your experience yes very very much a commercial area on on the other side of the street there so moving to slide three here's the area map and aerial uh this is Route 206 kind of uh to the left of your properties I suppose hopefully the West if I'm oriented correctly and then uh behind you uh some Residential Properties but none of which will front to mount Lucas Road and then across the street series of you know kind of commercial and institutional uses yep that's accurate um zooming in a little bit further further here slide four and you've got your lot um if everyone can see if you can see my mouse cursor your your home is is tucked to the back of your relatively deep lot yep uh and then surrounding you behind you these are residential lots uh but the uh property on the corner is is uh I want say vacant but not a not a built out home that's correct I think it's just part of that HOA Community behind us same on the other side of you yep that's correct and so kind of flipping things here's an aerial map where we kind of tried to co code a few of the constraints and we're gonna start digging into Digger deeper detail but this shows uh right Mount Lucas Road uh to the front left here you know the commercial use across the street um the cluster of homes behind you kind of close to your homes here and then maybe talk me through a little bit from a high level what what drove you to to start finding places to you know to site this on your property yeah sure so as you can see our home set to the back and probably the the highest location on the property um as we look forward to options you know obviously we don't have any space on the back would be do two close to our neighbors on the sides two close to our neighbors we're left with then everything looking forward the first patch looking forward where you have that that label of wooded steep slopes is exactly that it's very mature trees through that whole section of space on a on a pretty noticeable slope there too so in order to construct anything there still would require that variance in front of our property as well as the removing of multiple mature trees as and trying to figure out how to build something on a pretty steep space there moving a little bit further you then also have have a small stream that runs through our property um so trying to F you the space for which we're approved to build that 50 foot uh setback gets you all the way into that wooded Zone that I just mentioned and then 50 feet to the other side which is now the clear side of the lot so looking towards that front side of the lot there closest to the road is already is the clear space on the on the um the property right it is ideal where it's still set back from the road cuz there you will show you how there is additional space for that sidewalk there um and just felt like with all of these constraints in terms of the topography the stream the wooded area and having the least amount of impact on those the the nature right this seemed like the most logical space to potentially build a dwelling for my parents start digging a little bit deeper here but this is the uh I guess a view through your driveway I guess your house would be way behind here um and uh we've got another slide that shows a little bit more detail but but this uh I'll say Trail or sidewalk um is actually not your property is that correct so your your property starts a good 25 feet almost from where the street line is yep that's accurate close to where you're uh guess we cycling was set out the day that the Google camera came by yeah probably just a little bit ahead of that slightly closer to the road yeah so on on this exhibit we again kind of turn it sideways but start to um dive a little bit into those uh areas where um we've looked at some of the constraints and and uh maybe this would be a good time to uh switch well let me let me finish a few more questions with you guys before we get to Mr kamal's uh um testimony just in the interest of time we we'll kind of get through some of these but uh again in the front this in this view this is um Mount Lucas Road here to the right um here's I suppose that uh uh Trail slide sidewalk that's actually really part of the road you know with a good maybe 20 25 feet um between the road that's really just the the towns essentially then you've got your lot this is where the location that um you've chosen for the Adu uh and and this area here is what's been kind of mapped out as wetlands and buffer area yep that's accurate y um just kind of over laying on to that uh for the back portion and we'll see this in some more detail I suppose uh but these are the steep slope mapping for the back part of your property that show um uh the areas unfortunately uh so this red line being the between the red lines being the the wetlands and the wetlands buffer that you can't build on and then unfortunately as you go between your existing home and uh that line that would be buildable as far as D is concerned you have steep slopes and a very wooded area in between that um you either can't because you might need a steep slope variance or uh you'd be clearing a lot of trees to to build is that correct that's accurate yes so then uh I think this is a photo that you took so help me out this is standing maybe kind of near the stream or in the Stream looking uh towards your house yeah that that's accurate so this is sitting on that opposite side pretty close to to where we're proposing to build that first line of shrub is is the in that Wetland space or that natural um plant life that that grows around that tree and then beyond that you see the red line is sort of the zone that we need to stay outside of for you know so that we're not within the Wetland space and then where you see now all that those trees is where that slope begins and then all sort of you know that mature plant life that is that space between our house in the river got it so again from from this perspective you're looking back towards your house which shockingly you can't even see because of the the the the foliage I suppose and the and the and the trees you'd have to remove But ultimately this cleared area is the wetlands buffer and then when you get beyond that then you get to this the the steeper slopes and the wooded area that you'd have to clear yeah that's correct so that's a picture from my house a few days ago and yeah right now you cannot you can barely see our house from from the road right it's all it's behind that that uh all those trees there so I think you took a couple more pictures that we've represented here of that back part of the property that says wooded steep slopes area you want to just take us through you know uh you know I don't know if which one you want to start with or just kind of Orient the board or talk about what types of things you know are essentially in that area that you'd have to go through if you were to somehow try to build something um closer to your house yeah so if you're your the first top left picture is um just another angle of looking back from our driveway up to those trees basically towards the house just from a slightly different angle the the top right is just giving a better appreciation of how you know how mature those trees are they they are they are old trees they've been for a long time and definitely not something we want to disturb the bottom left is looking into our driveway right this is us looking out towards Mount Lucas Road and that is that space right behind that vehicle you see is where that slope begins to go down down to the river and then bottom right is where if I'm looking out to the right side of M towards Mont Lucas road is just showing again that that space is covered with mature trees and wooded area and slopes as well on that side of the house and may is we're we're here this this back corner here where there's a little shed this is also a maybe the the high point or well it's close to your neighbor this is also uh wooded and and sloped yes that's ACC I've got some mature Oak um and two the poplar trees that are that are back there that are also pretty sloped and also very pretty confined space right to be able to work in there all right um probably a good good time to switch over to uh Mr calik but I'll um if the the board or professionals have any questions for the homeowners obviously they're not going anywhere but happy to um have them uh you know try to respond now that that's the board's pleasure right uh with that um uh Mr Kik Jim if you want to unmute yourself and I know you've been uh been before this board many of times but if briefly give them the benefit again of your uh your credentials and you know involvement in the in the project here Mr Kennedy yes yeah it's Michael Floyd um I did have a question but I was I I was muted I just want to confirm um the last area you talked about uh back in the area uh to the side of the house that area where the shed is yes now in your earlier drawing are you saying that steep slope classified too because that's pretty that's pretty flat no there it's terrist there and and maybe Jim could speak to this as well when he comes on but there there it definitely are like layers of Terrace there on that side of the property you see what is that man-made uh Terraces uh I yeah I assume it's some old retaining walls that that were put up from by prior owners yeah okay because it it is fairly flat I can speak to that Mr Floyd as well okay can I make a comment yes um there were two plans submitted by engineering there were several months of part and one of the plans that I was hoping would be in the submission but it wasn't um was the toppo so that might help discuss some of the you know steep slopes issues Ryan thank you yeah maybe all let's just um I think Mr Kennedy you were qualifying Mr chimac I I was if that's if it be I think he'd probably be the best person to respond to the you know those questions so what before we do that Jim if you could and I know it's they you sure spoken here before but uh briefly uh connect yourself to this project and your your credentials sure again um James kamalak professional engineer with Ken show resources here in Princeton um been practicing site planning and civil excuse me for interrupting you will accept you as an expert in field thank you much appreciated Mr chairman so Jim what um I guess we'll call slide 21 this is one of the ones we weren't sure we did but we you were you were smart to uh uh um anticipate uh Mr Brier's uh suggestion um this is the existing this is the existing site um topographic plan as you can see as you progress from right to left down the driveway and then you start to go across the stream which is down you have to go down the driveway across the stream and then you come back up towards the main house um it's a considerable you know steep slope in order to get to the main house and Mr Floyd as you can see in that area near the um the shed in the garage there's there are some retaining walls that were constructed like over time in the past um but still with the proximity of those Contours you can see that even in the absence of those retaining walls there's in excess of 10 feet upwards of 12 feet of relief from the driveway to where that um shed is at the rear so and that's in a very you know limited distance so um it is Terrace in a few different areas with help from those retaining walls but still that's all um a steep slope area and you know some of these slopes which again we're not touching um they range upwards of 40% in terms of you know vertical relief so these are these are these site constraints that um are really driving the location and taking a look at the feasibility of these areas also too this vicinity Mr Floyd that you're talking about D is up elevated and directly overlooks the neighbor's backyard and pool area um where there is like a direct viewscape in that location as well so um you know we're sort of cou L with um the potential impacts of of uscape there from from the pool area off property just on top of the page and you can see the Contours and the steep slopes here and the this this exhibit is present conditions it's not this is all existing um the existing survey with the existing Contours and we basically got topography for the the entire lot so that we could paint the picture of you know where the opportunities are or are not um so this is all existing condition yeah um I mean I've I visited the lot so I know there's not a lot of places to put it yeah as well as well as the encroachment of the driveway on the adjacent property uh but I I I I did the area of the shed seemed to be a place that it might be able to go so um with that and and and Mr we'll we'll certainly you know talk about that more as we go through the the the testimony um uh and and with apologies Mr Bridger I I see your hand up if do you have something else or is that the prior okay I didn't I didn't want to skip over you if you still virtual hand raised sry thank you uh so Jim then looking to the front of the uh of the site so the top left is the overall kind of lot um and then um you maybe we could start talking a little bit about the uh uh the front in terms of constraints so this this blue line or tell us what you did to you know what your role was in in kind of understand we basically coordinated with um with d and and obtained what the an Loi and an FHA verification in order to pin down with accuracy what the constraints and the buffers are um we receive those documents from the state and that blue line is the outer restriction of wetlands buffers uh flood plane um limits as well as riparian Zone limits so the blue line is really our constraint down on the slope in terms of how far we can push back the proposed Adu from the road um so we we sort of started there and then worked forward um and and and then I guess well and and just just for context we'll show the actual design in a bit but you know just to kind of help us understand that the um you know the site flows and and you know slopes from the road down to the stream and then from the stream then back up severely so this blue arrow is kind of to show the side elevation of the uh accessory structures you can see how it's kind of built into the the slope of it and you I don't mean to oversimplify but this is essentially as far as that Wetland the the stream and and wetlands buffer area goes um essentially pushed back as as as far as it as it could be correct and then at the along the front edge of the property we basically have just a one-story facade that's fronting on the road and because of the topography at the rear of the Adu um there's a greater vertical exposure just because the land drops um in that fashion but you know what you would see from um entering the property and the entry driveway is basically a one-story structure from that that perspective um and and we have other exhibits we're talk a little bit more about that but it's also set down below the road because the grade is dropping from the road several feet at the point at which you hit that front facade um so it's even set a little bit lower than you would think by just looking at these plans um but but but overall we're really we're working with um providing vehicle accessibility to the Adu in this location while we're negotiating the slope of the existing driveway and you guys have been to the property so you know coming off Mount Lucas it drops down down um and we want to get a vehicle to be able to to access the Adu and to pull off the main driveway and then I think in terms of Ryan why don't you go to the next slide where we show these vehicle movements no in terms of providing a safe um and most appropriate first of all for the entry in the existing driveway from Mount Lucas down at the bottom of the page you would pull in and then pull to the left and the vehicle can pull up to the Adu and then adjacent to that we've included a an ADA striped area um in accordance with code for Ada accessibility um but we're providing basically one one parking spot in that location um for the Adu and then for the vehicle to leave of primary importance because of M Lucas and the vehicular travel along Mount Lucas the most safe and effective egress scenario is for someone to be able to pull forward out of their standard withd residential driveway out onto Mount Lucas we want to avoid a situation where somebody is backing out onto Mount Lucas similar to a situation of any other single family residence you know within the Township therefore um we analyzed the Turning templates and the radiuses necessary for pulling forward um basically backing out towards the main driveway which um Ryan has indicated here this vehicle would would do a reverse movement and then with the attempts of pulling forward to go out the driveway apron we started with a rather shallow k- turn pullout area of N9 or 10 feet um but based upon the geometric constraint of the radius necessary in order to meet the driveway width at the property line which is existing we needed to depress it further to the rear or approach that side property line because of what was necessary to make that turning movement and pull forward out to mount Lucas so this was never intended on being a parking space any kind of overflow parking you know you've heard the intent of the applicants and the purpose of the application uh even to the point where I think when we submitted the plan I even put a note No Parking with the thought of if we needed to put a No Parking sign there you know certainly we could do that it's really to facilitate safety and vehicle egress onto Mount Lucas given the constraints that we're dealing with and the topographic relief here Jim a couple of kind of comments here again showing the side profile of the building kind of gives some idea from a left to right left being you know Mount Lucas Road and right being further into the site so if essentially the idea is to try to create almost as as much of a straight backup as possible uh if you were to pull this into the the driveway further back you'd be kind of backing up into a you know onto like a a sideways slope essentially uh and yeah you would have a steep you would have a steep cross slope on the vehicle so you know if you're driving like this you know you would be tilted like this as you try to make that maneuver then also the rear of the car would be proceeding down you know that steeper slope of the driveway downhill which in inclement weather really is not ideal so we want to have as level of a um driveway surface area as possible as we back out and go across the driveway and then pull forward it won't be perfectly flat we will still have some slope there but that that was a major consideration on how do we mitigate this and you can see our Contours on the plan where we Tred to space them out and that demonstrates um that we wanted to have a flatter area in order to do that that's why we don't have the flexibility to push that kurn turning area deeper into the lot because the deeper into the lot you go um the grade drops even further you know so the vehicle would be backing down or there would be some substantial um elevation change where you would have to build that up with even larger retaining walls to make that work noting the fact that there would be more impacts to a few of the trees in that location if you pushed that parking stall deeper into the lot Mr Bridger asked us to address that and this particular location would have um minimal impact to the qualifying trees in that location which are further down slope or up on the page than the parking stall um currently shows on the plan we did have our surveyor go out and locate the nearest qualifying trees in that vicinity and um their removals will not be necessary for that they're you know separated away from uh where this is proposed really it's sort of understory very small diameter um saplings that have grown up in Brush in this particular location where um this little turnout area is proposed so that's the reason why we're we're we're sort of proposing it where we are there was another question that came up with a sidey setback of this turnout area where um Mr Bridger said it looked like about four four and uh 3/4 feet 4.75 and we need to provide a 5 foot setback to the side property line you know that's that's a 3-inch difference you know so that can be a accomodated such that no variance is necessary in that location so we can satisfy that with just um you know a minor shift to the left at that location and then also we did identify these two red lines that Ryan is highlighting these vertical lines with the circles at each end where Mr Bridger measured a quote unquote driveway width as I'm understanding of the turnout area to the right in excess of 22 feet permitted at 25 and then using sort of the apron or the edge of the apron to the left going to the Adu um of 30 feet where 22 is required and really what we tried to do here especially on the um on the top part where it goes down the hill towards the stream and ultimately to the main house was just to flare that in and tie it in um we weren't necessarily cognizant that that would trigger a variance condition um I did look at the plan since then and looked at the turning radiuses that we are showing on this particular plan already there are Dash lines um on on the PDF plans that we submitted and from my assessment um I think we can accommodate the 22 foot maximum on each side here um and this is a little clear indication of how we would do that so that we have 22 feet on each side and um shorten up those tapers as it ties into the main driveway to make that work I mean it we'd prefer to keep it wider uh if possible more space is always better than a little bit less but if we did need to do that and eliminate you know the variance relief from the sidey yard and from these two 22 W with um driveway widths uh we could still make that work and then uh again uh this were intended to be the kind of turnaround spot but if it were you know um to be considered parking that's that's the part that's shown in front of this 25 foot setback line going back and slide here the actual parking space is here where the the arrow shows a car headed towards and that is entirely behind the 25 foot um location that's correct your belief while we' as for the variances though that the parking set back to the side Lot line and the two WID of driveways could be accommodated and you know I I I hope I'm not oversimplifying you tell me if I've got this wrong but ultimately it's this um this motion from the the house backing to the catr area and back um doesn't require these kind of smooth Corners um if someone's headed back to the main driveway they would just go straight and not have any reason to kind of turn in in those directions correct also and this this exhibit with the Turney radiuses demonstrate what you just explained like it's all on here that it works um I'm also curious if someone were to park in this kurn area um would would you believe that someone could certainly knows into the space but would it then be possible to get out with that kind of stacked situation there um or or at least back out um you know to to turn around and get to M Luc that car would be blocking the movement so they wouldn't necessarily be able to back out into that k- turn area and make the turn that's why it's necessary for the pull forward exit movement so ultimately if someone you know despite it not being the attention or maybe a sign or something like that if someone were to park there it would kind of defeat the purpose of the turnaround area you wouldn't be able to get out essentially so right right also too can I just point out on this slide that from a front yard setback standpoint I'm identifying the front yard setback of this kurn as 11.4 because I just did it conservatively um to that point Mr Bridger says 13 feet irrespective of that if you look down on the page you can see this 29.4 Di mention that goes to the curb so we have basically 30 ft from the roadway to the front property line plus another 10 feet so there's almost 41 feet of clear distance from the road to the front edge of this kurn pullout area parking stall um it's not it's not 12 feet it's from a functional standpoint because the road curves and the RightWay stays straight there's a pretty large Greenway um public pedestrian area that gives you a net effective you know 41 ft setback at that location and then as you Traverse to the left um as well you can see that they're we're instead of 29 feet it's still about 24 plus the 25 foot setback so that gives you about 49 ft about a foot less from the front uh from that particular Park stall um for the Adu or the the main house setback it's it's almost 50 feet from the road this shows it a different way so here's those same dimensions kind of turned sideways so you could see to the street and kind of overlaid onto the photos you can see where the actual property line is relation to the you know perceived front yard appears to be I just think that's an important Point like the net effective appearance is that we have have a 50ft you know set back from the road at this location where in most areas you have a smaller right of-way area and this is very very unique and just to be clear while you believe that we can redesign this um to eliminate uh this driveway with variance this driveway with variance and this um setback variance the th this variance here the 5 foot setback is not a driveway variance but a a parking variance right so that the variance to for the front yard here and the side yard here is based on you know having to consider this k-turn area even though it's not intended to be parked as a parking space essentially because yeah yeah based on the zoning interpretation which is what we're working with then um you know uh lastly and this will be a good time I think to switch over to our our architect in a second but um uh shaded here since we're talking about front yard sa back again um this is the accessory building shaded here um the what's shaded in red is the uh Ada um uh I guess ramp or or access way you know kind of front what I would on a house I perhaps referred to as a front porch I suppose is that right Jim correct yep that's correct um uh this will be a good segue to our architect but but but at this point we're we're not we're not done with this part of the front yard setback we'll have uh uh Marina rabina speak about that as well but I think it' be a good time to pause before we continue on um it is after 11 um we are probably not too close to finishing this at this point we haven't heard from the architect we haven't uh open it to the public yet um do you think board members do you want to continue this to the next hearing or do you want to carry on continue to continue to the next hearing sorry George did you say something I I agree with de again continue to next hearing okay Michael yeah if that's what um she meant when she said continue yeah a continuation versus continuing taking testimony tonight let's be clear yeah yeah all right what would be Derek what would be the next available hearing date Derek can you take down your screen please so we can have see everybody sorry excuse me um I didn't realize I was muted um it's October 23d please October 23rd yes sir okay is that is that what you meant by continue continue tonight or continue it to another he which did you mean we guess she's not answering me we can't hear you Donna but she may not be able to hear us continue to another hearing day okay what I me I'm sorry I I thought you meant continue tonight which as tired as I am and as early as I have to get up tomorrow I would I would hang in there but I also don't know how I feel like it may go a long night yeah so I do feel I do feel some um you know some empathy sympathy for um the some degree of urgency to try to move this forward for this family well I don't disagree but it is kind of late and we have a long way to go so we're not sure we' even finish tonight anyway fair fair enough Mr chairman um since we've gotten through most of the testimony and we just have architecture left if if if there's maybe two minutes if if what what I would certainly hate to happen is we finish up next time and to find out that perhaps there are some big glaring things that that people in the board would like to see more of or something different uh if if anyone has anything that would result in a perhaps another deliverable that we can get to them I I would and it pleases the board I would mind hearing that now so we could get that uh for the board I understand you haven't heard all the testimony but ultimately what remains is what the Adu um structure looks like frankly so um um would if if if there is anything that we could bring with us when we come back we'd certainly love to to hear that so we can make sure you you can finish this up next month really kind of hard to tell but I would think I would think if we're at the point that the um that it's the architecture we're going to discuss next um I don't think that that's too controver in my opinion too controversial but you know again I think the site had you know quite a bit of discussion and then again we have to we will open this up to the public and then internally discuss it so I think possibly Mr Kennedy um a topo map that is is a little more legible no thank you very much that that's that's that's exactly what that's very helpful thank you I didn't quite get that Donna what did you say a topographic map that's more okay well the too was the Topo was there but I I understand what you're saying something that I heard early on from Mr Bridger that concerned me so if this is something that you could um address a little more directly or more and if you could help with this is that I heard him talk about the trees and the um some damage um to root systems and and so if you if there's a way that you could clarify that that would be that would be helpful to me excellent again thank you so much okay um so since since this is being carried and the next state is being announced tonight the applicant will not be required to Ren notice so if there's anybody in the public who is watching at this point um the hearing will be continued on October 23rd 2020 for the record the only other person left is is one of my colleagues here at Stevenson Le so [Laughter] okay thank you I'm sorry we couldn't finish tonight but it is pretty late thank you very close and much appreciated you sticking with us this far this and again I I can't say enough helpful that those last few comments so we can get you what you need to see next next month and much appreciate it thank you so much night all okay thank you all right uh board members I guess uh we are adjourned for the evening and we'll come back to this on the 23rd of October thank you okay night thank you Steve good night night night