##VIDEO ID:vwjOgb9yxJ8## [Music] [Music] good evening everybody and welcome to this regular planning board meeting on Tuesday a little unusual October 22nd of 2024 um can everybody please rise for the pledge of allegion PL to United States of America to the for it stands [Music] all right um Madam Secretary can you please read the open public meetings act and then take attendance the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied with respect to this meeting of the township of Verona planning board which is being held in person in the ballroom of the Verona Community Center located at 880 Bloomfield Avenue Verona the time and date of this meeting were included in the annual meeting notice posted in the community center and sent to the official newspapers of the township the Verona Cedar Grove times and the Star Ledger at least 48 Hours preceding the start time of this meeting the agenda and instructions on how to comment will be provided at the appropriate time all meetings are recorded those wishing to speak during any public comment period should only provide their name and municipality street addresses are not required please be advised that should a member of the public choose to State their street address it will not be redacted from this recording M Parker present Mr Keta Mr Lily here Mr Heyman here Mr coody Mr y here councilman Roman Deputy manager o salivan here mayor amboro here Vice chair freshy here chairperson Pearson here Mr masara here and the there is no engineer this evening okay um also joining is who will become very soon our new board secretary Miss Caitlyn K ker so welcome and we're happy to have you thank you very much and we're gaining another person which is great so thank you um has everybody received I'm sorry has everybody received a copy of the meeting minutes from Thursday July 25th 2024 and all of the uh resolutions that were passed that evening yes okay does anybody have any corrections or comments on the minutes I move the minutes as presented if nobody has any comments or Corrections then the minutes have been moved by the mayor can I get a second second second by doc old um everybody who votes yay on the minutes please Voice vote y i hi hi are there any Nos and any extensions okay meting minutes pass um we also have a consistency determination the next item is a few updates to our storm water ordinance and this is to determine that there are no inconsistencies with our master plan um by way of brief explan explanation there were uh there was rather an entire section on solids and floatables that was inadvertently left out um it is sort of one of those sections that everybody knows that these things have to be done but in order to be correct we added it back in um as a result many of the upper section numbers and some of the Interior section references had to be tweaked in order to um match up with the new sections insertion and then there was um just a couple of definitions added um and uh one or two points of clarification I I don't know does anybody have any questions because these are very standard changes yeah were these changes from um one of the model ordinances the Absol absolutely well first of all the floatable section was from njac 7 colon8 period the um some of the tweaks like core Forest um Forest impaired water um including Redevelopment these were all from the Watershed Institute yes um they were just points of clarification that I think strengthened the ordinance and that were again inadvertently left out um and then again just reference updates that followed um also number 12 there is only one method now for determining St you know and calculating storm water and it said one of the following methods it should be the following method so very minor Corrections that happen throughout any other change any other questions I should ask I I find this entirely consistent if not more so than it was before I'm sure it's not in consistent okay it's not inconsistent um so I will happily make a a motion to find that the updates to zoning code chapter 150 article 25 are not inconsistent can be found to be not inconsistent with our master plan can I get a a second to that motion second Mr fresky seconds can I get a Voice vote please Mrs Parker you're allowed to vote yeah oh yeah we're missing two people Mr Lily yes Mr Heyman hi Mr deal yes Deputy manager O Sullivan yes mayor tamboro yes Vice chair freshing yes chair Pearson yes the motion passes and um can we send a memo to M Kieran uh tomorrow because they'll they'll put it on their November 12th we'll do first uh agenda in order to pass on second reading mhm thank you um right now I going to open to public participation anyone any that anyone wants to talk about that's not on the application that's not on the agenda so if anybody H from the public has anything that they want to discuss or ask questions about that is not on this evening's agenda please come forward to the mic state your name and your municipality and seeing none I'm going to close public participation and move on to we we have no resolutions and we have a subcommittee update um I want to just open this with I you know last night's council meeting and this past Friday they came out with the affordable housing numbers Verona is at 173 for the next round um not great news but it is what it is and I you know I don't exactly know um if the town is going to attempt to negotiate some of those I I would hope they would all options wrong okay um but whatever the case uh the township went ahead after not this past meeting which was last night but the meeting prior to that and they hired uh DMR Planning Group to do an element the affordable housing element of the master plan that would be normal for us to oversee um the the bid on that was $63,000 and it did not go out for an RFP it was just sort of a choice that was made without our input that said we understand that is um a big deal for the township and we need to get this done I did speak with Mr Hinman I did speak with the mayor and I did speak with Mr O Sullivan um because we all sit on the master plan subcommittee and I just wanted everybody to be updated and I think everybody agreed that we need to meet with these planners ASAP um generally we we we hold subcommittee meetings around 4:00 on Zoom is that amendable to to everybody yes yes Jay you're good so um is it possible for me to reach out to DMR and ask them or do you want to be the go between we actually have our our very first meeting internally tomorrow afternoon to discuss planning uh milestones and schedules and start presenting and figuring out what the right dates are for the the subcommittee meetings and uh how that schedule Maps out for planning board discussions and back and forth with mayor and councel as well so we will begin discussions tomorrow we will also then uh look to then schedule the subcommittee meetings immediately thereafter so we will be coordinating we'll have some some correspondents after tomorrow afternoon's meeting on I know dmore doesn't know this but we were very in rental in drafting the master plan with alongside with h2m um yes they would send a draft in but we would you know corrective data we would uh massage some of the word usage etc etc I want DMR to understand that we're a proactive subcommittee we don't just sit back and let them take over besides which the last time they did the affordable housing plan for us or the housing plan they had widely uh they had a lot of data in it that was from the DCA that was completely wrong they and it really upset me because when I asked him if they had read our new master plan the answer was no they they do understand that this assignment includes heavy involvement with both mayor and counsel and plan board and specifically with the subcommittees as well so they they are aware that it will require a very circular discussion with both groups uh tomorrow's meeting with which kicks off is actually with both DMR and h2m as well okay so at we're ready we're ready to sit down and ask Jay let me hand this over to you for a moment because when I spoke with you on the phone you had some very good input and I'd like to know what your thoughts are on on how to proceed with a schedule yeah I mean I think my first question Kevin mayber you don't have to answer this question that's more for you guys to figure out your came tomorrow but the first thing figure out is probably go with dca's number and I think just brought point last go around um DCA data that on together or housing wasn't entirely accurate and if that that is not entirely accurate so there a very strong basis for us to calculate our own number utilizing the formula that DC provided so I think that should be our first step tomorrow to figure out what our Target is going to be there I think we definitely want to be involved in that process of our this housing Al how do we actually uh achieve that that goal we decide what Reon actually is not just kind of relying on the blanket information we got this last week especially the fact that we know's might not be accurate it it definitely wasn't and Tommy um I should say our construction code official yeah um he worked side by side with somebody else in his office to actually glean the corrected very corrective information and the problem with the dca's information is that every time somebody took down a garage or a pool or a shed or a deck they count as they count that as an entire single family or multiple family home demo and so when we first received the data in our subcommittee meeting we had something like 70 some OD houses were removed from her home and I was like wait a minute this is completely wrong that same data was regenerated in dmr's uh first stab at the round four round three uh housing element for us last year so I it it's just I can't tolerate that kind of data yeah erious data think the strategy being discussed not to disadvantage the township or the planning board on what we were looking to do moving forward but I think the strategy being discussed tonight is in line with what we are intending to pursue and to discuss uh we did have an initial preliminary meeting even before the numbers were uh released over the summer we had a meeting with both our affordable housing planner and the uh Township planner to begin having these similar kinds of discussions in anticipation of what that number might be or what kind of adjustments we might look to try to uh review through the process but again um it's I think it's part of the process that we kick off with tomorrow then we roll into subcommittee meetings as discussed tonight okay and how was the decision made not to RP there there was an RFP there there was actually it was it's part of the Professional Services RFP that is actually no I the the manager stated on the record during the meeting two weeks ago that there was no RFP there's there's an annual RFP for All Professional Services okay but not for that particular $63,000 contract they Professional Services are on an annual basis so we actually approved uh DMR as a our affordable housing planner every year in the last couple years so there was has been an RFP it wasn't an RFP lless um decision on that part but they have been appointed I believe every year yes as our for RFP on that there's a separate there's a separate RFP on the on the affordable housing planner so that con the the resolution that was passed the last meeting was to authoriz the contract for this work but they are still our designated they were previously still our designated so that didn't change yeah correct sorry okay um my computer my computer's not working what we say did you had to go old school go paper I am all right well um I guess Kevin when can we expect to be contacted on a potential schedule because everybody's going to have to coordinate their schedules to get on same page we to schedule something if not we'll look to schedule something if not by the end of the day tomorrow by by Thursday well the meeting will be I'm not sure exactly the timing of tomorrow but it's it's later in the afternoon so if we don't follow up with the proposed schedule at the end of the day it will be the following day so it'll be this week all right so would you um be able to email if if nothing else myself and Kathleen and Caitlyn and I can get it out to yes Jay and the mayor and and Greg yes okay um so moving what are you laughing at yes you have to be there um and you know for purposes of consistency I think we'd be perfectly fine if s was there as well since she was the author of The Master you know master plan um just to make sure that we're not running a foul of the correct numbers um all right um we're moving along if everybody is satisfied uh new business case 2024-25 Grove Avenue block 1403 lot 90 the applicant proposes to subdivide the property located at 176 Grove Avenue in Block 1403 lot 90 into two lots the existing multiple family dwelling will be retained and the subdivided lot will be developed potentially will be developed with a new single family dwelling welcome Mr Trum yard good evening Madam chair um Miss Parker's new and doesn't isn't fully familiar with the procedure of the board Miss Parker I believe you're going to recuse your because you reside within 200 ft of the property yes I'm recusing myself from this matter as an adjoining property [Music] owner M Parker need to there yes [Music] okay thank you again good evening Madam chair it's nice to see you members of the board um Alan trumac appearing on behalf of the applicants John and Michelle uh this is a minor subdivision application involving property located at 176 Grove Avenue it's block 1403 lot 90 on the Township tax maps um this property is an exceptionally large lot located in your r60 zoning District property contains almost 42,000 Square ft of lot area which is just shy of an acre of property um the minimum required lot size in the r60 zoning district is only 7200 square ft so this property is almost six times um larger than the minimum lot area required uh under the ordinance um the property is 100 100 ft wide um and over 400 feet deep so it's a long narrow property um but encompassing almost an acre of land we're seeking to subdivide the property into two lots um the proposed new lot would be a flag lot with 20 ft of Frontage along Grove Avenue leading to a much larger area in the rear of the property where a new house could be built you know provided a board approves this out application U grants the subdivision if approved the two new Lots would be 16,300 square fet and 2,457 square feet still substantially larger than the 7200 foot square foot minimum required in this zoning District um in addition to the site plan approval uh We've applied for two variances we need a lot with variance again because of the flag lot uh the ordinance requires a 60ft lot width and the lot width is measured at the street line and at the street line we're only 20 feet but when we get to the rear of the property it's really 100 foot wide lot U but it is a variance for a lot width for the the staff of the flag if you will um to allow 20 ft whereas 60 ft is is required there's a second variant uh it's was really a DI Minimus variance for impervious lot coverage uh the ordinance allows for a maximum of 40% coverage uh one of our proposed Lots has 41% slightly over the 40% um um maximum um I think this is a dominous variance but I can tell you right now that if the board is not U comfortable with granting that variance we can make some revisions to reduce the coverage to be within the 40% requirement specifically by removing a shed on the property largely which would get us to that number so it's my primarily really the lot width variance that's at the heart of the case um and um I just want to also note an interesting feature here um as you'll see from the the exhibits that our planner prepared my client's property as well as the property directly to the South 170 are very similarly size properties long uh and narrow Lots our neighbor's property interestingly has three houses on the property it's not subdivided it's all one lot but has three principal structures which is unusual it's really not permitted under zoning but it's a it's a legal nonconformity um um and again that's the property immediately to the south of this property we're not asking for three houses we just like two on two separate subdivided Lots um so having said that I have two witnesses to present this evening I'm going to have some very brief testimony from my client Mr Lampton followed by a testimony from our professional planner uh Matt Flynn so unless the board has any preliminary questions for me I'd ask that Mr Lamp be sworn Mr L can you state your name and address for the record please no it never makes you comfortable uh John L uh I reside at for shaie Road in ch Hills can you raise your right hand you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth yes sir thank you okay um Mr lampion you're one of the owners of 176 Grove Avenue correct okay when did you purchase that property in June of 22 and you own that together with your wife corre okay property contains an existing two family dwelling is that right yes okay do you live at the property no not proper okay so this is a rental property correct investment property if you will all right and we filed this application and we're before the board tonight because you're asking for permission to subdivide the property right correct all right can you just tell the board um if the application is approved uh what are your plans what are your intentions with respect to the newly subdivided lot I mean right now we don't have like a definitive plan um we just became empty nesters so we're trying to figure a lot of things out so I saw what my neighbor's doing next door and he's build this beautiful house so I you know we had a tree situation that I was kind enough to remove some trees so he could do his construction and then uh I just asked him I said how'd you do this and he go for a subdivision or something and then that was kind of that kind of put it in my ear and then as I've seen how beautiful I mean this house is enormous and I didn't even think that we were going to build something that big if we did but that kind of gave me the idea and then I was referred to a few different attorneys and here we are today so um do you expect to retain ownership of the subdivided lot and build the house or would you sell the property or don't you know I'm not sure yet okay okay one or the other one of the two yeah okay um will any trees um need to be removed in order to um accommodate construction of the new house in the rear of your yeah there's one tree that's pretty much like in the middle of the property it's more like to the left of the garage and that's like the only tree that probably have to come down okay is it on the is it on this I don't think it I don't think the trees are depicted on the on the subdivision plan um it's not a huge tree it's probably 20 feet high maybe sir you just said that you removed a bunch of trees on behalf of your neighbor where no that was that you you that's how I met my neighbor because what happened was he when he was doing his construction he noticed there was some dead trees so I reached out to the township went through all the proper channels asked them what the process was to remove a tree they had the farest person come by tell me all the trees that were required to come down because they were dead and I did everything that the asked me to do where is the tree located that you would want to take down and what kind of size tree is it um is it I mean I don't know I'm not sure what document you're looking at I'm looking at the survey that you sent in yeah the tree is adjacent it's probably about 20 30 ft from the garage and it's not a huge tree it's like a it's a beautiful tree it's a beautiful tree I another one you would have to understand since you're I mean you've got familiarity with the town uh tree removal or and you understand that if you were to remove any Tree on from the property you uh would have to comply with the ordinance correct and and you you intend to like 100% okay and it would probably only be that one tree that's in the center and I think we're going to our next witness has an exhibit where he might be able to see the tree we're talking about but one tree so um are you aware about the rear of your property the rear of the property there's a lot of um tree back there it's I'm I apologize it's my 93 um the rear of the property is is uh listed as a rank three for endangered species in the state of New Jersey all those treat that treed area in the rear yes none of those trees would be removed not one not one of those trees there will be no disturbance in the rear portion of the prop see no the trees that there's only one tree that has to come down it's like right by the driveway it's to the left of the driveway it's not all those trees in the back none of those have to come down you can so you do have somewhat of a plan for a house well I just saw my I don't I don't know what I'm going to do but I'm seeing what's being done next door and I'm like you could put a house like the same size and you'd only have to remove one tree I mean you might be able to keep the tree if you made the house thinner but I mean I don't have plans yet but you do have plans to put a driveway that I mean we're we are allowed to remove trees in compliance with your ordinance and we're only talking about one tree not any of the trees in the rear of the property which are the ones that you seem to be concerned about it's just the one there's no way to build a house without removing this one tree that's sort of you know centrally located in the rear could be a front lawn tree to the house that goes behind the other house but anyway any other question subdivision though right you're not yeah allision so you'd still like even if it gave you the subdivision if you couldn't knock down those trees like we're not approving you to remove any trees at this point right you're not asking for that okay we're not ask asking for you know any anything from this board except for the sub well you're asking for two variances one really well it's actually two really ex% we will revise you know we'll eliminate the shed do whatever to bring it below okay anyone else from the board go ahead sir uh I just have a question the survey that you show the rear of the the property there seems like there's a on the survey there's a hashed out area that leaves a gap between the rear of your property line and the um Lots 72 and 73 behind it can you explain what that is I can explain that's a that's a legal issue that's a that's identified as a Gore and a Gore is an area that through the years somehow got left by of your need so there's not a um it's not it's not definitive as to who the owner of that is is called a Gore a Gore yeah what I learn today yep we all learned something um and that actually exists a Gore exists where the endangered species area is nobody owns it but it's not but it's not a um it's not easement it's just like no man's land it's somebody owns it but through the years it was left that that piece was left off of oods somehow um what what the survey shows is there's a filed map description which probably a filed map is a um it's a map like a survey map an engineer prepares it that's then filed as the map as opposed to a meets and Bounds description that is prepared by by the surveyor or the title company the meets and Bounds description did not match the U file map description now normally this isn't something that happened last last year last decade um because then it would be easily cured you could go back and find the people so my guess is it was 100 years ago at least we of this happened so and for the record M chair the applicant is using the inside line the inside line the Lesser for the the conservative line right um and also just a a little detail on some of the testimony that actually I I guess Mr trilac gave the house the property next door was in existence for about 100 years with three principal uses on it so I I just want to put that on the record that three principal uses on a piece of property that existed before Verona even had a zoning code maybe I'm not I'm not questioning it's totally legal it just it it's just I think it's important to note that there are multiple structures on a similarly Siz property next door you know in terms of whether we're doing anything that might be inconsistent or out of character with the neighborhood I think that's a relevant consideration even before you look at the unusual size of this property compared to other Lots um in this neighborhood which are significantly smaller oh my God my computer's messed up so I'm sorry um anybody else have any questions okay okay um our next witness um you can is uh Matt Flynn evening Mr Flyn state your name and business address for Matthew Flynn f l YNN business address is 101 jalter Drive CLS New Jersey play by John MCD Associates would you raise your right hand you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give this evening is the truth I do thank you not have a seat unless you'd prefer to stand um why don't to start by um giving the board the benefit of your educational background and your professional qualifications sure so my education comes from Ruckers I have my master's degree in plan in public policy I have my professional planner license in the state of New Jersey as well as my national lure which is the aicp license uh this is my first time before this board however I have been before over a hundred boards across the state um and uh both licenses are in good standing and you already indicated you're associated with the John McD's office that's correct professional planner correct that's correct yes okay the board accepts his qualifications as a professional planner thank you um Matt you've U reviewed the subdivision application for this property as well as the subdivision plan prepared by um Michael pesi I have okay and I know you've prepared I'd like you to review the plan and discuss the variances uh but before we do that I'm going to hand out a two-page exhibit that you prepare and then you sure uh for benefit of the record exhibit a one is going to be a two-page exhibit uh showing the property and the surrounding area is there title title block or somehow we can identif yeah we can call it planning exhibits for Jonathan lamin before I jump into this exhibit just by way of quick background I know that Council uh did a good job at introducing the case again this is a substantially oversized law um just under an acre at 41760 sare FT um only 7,200 square feet is required per zoning uh so as it is now this is a lot that's over five times greater than the zoning requirements and I think we can see clearly on sheet one of my exhibit here that most of these lots are substantially smaller uh substantially more in conformance with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and here we're looking at a lot that is clearly uh out of context with what the zoning is is uh considers as was mentioned uh we are proposing two new tax Lots uh one being uh lot 9.01 at 16,33 sare FT still over double the zoning minimum in terms of lot area and the other at 90.2 uh lot 9.02 at 2,457 Square ft that lot would be over three times the zoning minimum so even though we are proposing a subdivision application we're requesting two variances here uh we're actually not proposing any undersized uh undersized lots and again that's by virtue of the fact that we do have this substantially large property to begin with also by way of background in terms of zoning this is the r60 zone and single family is a permitted use in the zone so again we're not requesting a a use variance here um importantly due to the large uh uh generous lot proportions here we're also not requesting a density variance again we're talking about two substantially oversized Lots uh so if I could just bring the board's attention to sheet one now I've highlighted the the property in question in this bold yellow uh line and then I've done a hash yellow line over where where the uh proposed interior lot line would be to separate the two newly proposed Lots um again like I mentioned we are talking about a substantially oversized lot in the context of zoning I would say not only are we talking about a unique specific lot we're actually talking about a unique specific set of lots so if you look here you have I would say a pretty uniform I I could use the term cookie cutter uh lot patterns along lywood Road along DOD Terrace Samson Drive um the other side of Grove Avenue and then here we're in this sort of intermediary location between uh DOD Terrace and lywood road where the that that prevailing lot size actually breaks up and we're left with some very large Lots when Council mentioned that we do have this adjacent lot 91 next to us that has the three existing um residential principal buildings it is true that those are legally existing I think the important thing to note not only the fact that we are going to match up to that in terms of land use um but I would also know that it it sort of brings to brings to mind that what we're proposing is sort of The Logical development of a lot of this size when we look at what an appropriate development is on a on a uniquely shaped and sized lot we look to other uniquely sized and shaped lots that are similar and see what they're doing and and whether it works or not in this case we do have the benefit of that lot being directly next door and I think in terms of the intensity of the land use like Council mentioned we're proposing two uh principal structures not the three that's next door um so I think again in terms of compatibility in terms of the appropriateness of what we're proposing um the proof of that is is right there um I think also I just to while I'm on this this sheet one here um if we look at adjacent lot 87 which is another larger lot um you could almost call that a flag lot but I I won't um that that lot is very large and there's actually a large undeveloped area on that property that's adjacent to our property so in terms of light air open space uh conceivably if and when a dwelling is developed in the on our newly created lot there um it's not going to be directly in between two dwellings it's not going to have that crammed in effect that we try to avoid with with the zoning controls it's actually going to I think fit in quite nicely in the context of the openness that have in that area uh with that I think I'll shift over to sheet two now essentially just showing the board a a drone shot that we took uh earlier today uh showing the subject site I have some arrows here denoting the existing dwellings on the adjacent lot they do have um that property does have a a private roadway or private driveway private accessway whatever you want to call it um providing access to those homes which are all oriented towards that private access way um I think the board can see the the tree that was in question I think it's it's right in the middle of this existing rear yard on our property um obviously we're not we're not proposing a a tree removal variance at this time uh if and when that does happen the uh appropriate approvals would need to be acquired in order for that tree to go but again the board does have the benefit of seeing what we're talking about on sheet two um I think with that just to jump into the statutory criteria again in terms of sea relief we're requesting the the main one is the lot width variance 20 ft of lot width for our newly created lot which is that uh stem of the flag so to speak whereas 60 ft is the requirement uh ends lot coverage 41% is for the existing dwelling um the lot that the existing dwelling is situated on whereas 40% is the is the um maximum requirement so just over that requirement at 1% I'm sure that something could be done to reduce that if the board does have concerns about that but again it's it's pretty much right on point with what the zoning requires 41 versus 40% and I think that really speaks to the fact that we are sort of making this lot uh more in keeping with what the zoning anticipates here providing a lot coverage that's much more um in line with what the zoning requires um the well yeah so just to tie all that into the into the statutory criteria like I said I think we can look to the C2 balancing test whereby the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments um the pulling case does tell us that we need not look at the benefits of each individual uh each individual variance we can look at the application as a whole and assess the the benefit benefits stemming from same um so we look to the municipal land use law the purposes of zoning that are set forth therein uh purpose a promotion of the general welfare uh when we talk about providing something that's more in keeping with the the rules and regulations of zoning again here we're talking about a substantially oversized lot that could be conducive at some time in the future to a substantially oversized home obviously what we see in the general area on sheet one here not only do we see sub potentially smaller uh Lots but we do see a general uniformity in terms of building sizes when you have a lot that's six times the the lot area that's required you could conceivably get a much larger home which would be not in keeping with what the Zone plan um is really trying to to achieve here so I think by bringing that lot area down on both of our newly created Lots um you're creating better uniformity not only with the neighborhood but also with the zoning um purpose G of the municipal land law variety of uses in appropriate locations when we look at an area of this size and again I'm I'm going to Discount the actual shape of it just for a second the fact that we don't have conforming lot with but when we talk about an area of this size the zoning anticipates many more homes to be situated there on um so again we don't have the lot WID so technically you would obviously need the variants that we're requesting but again in terms of light air open space you could conceivably fill up an area of this size with what with much greater massing whether it's one building two buildings of much larger home um whatever the case may be um so in terms of variety of uses in appropriate locations again I think that what we're proposing here is is appropriate given what we have again if we look at adjacent lot 91 which does have similar size and shape there are three principal uh buildings on one lot which again I think speaks to the logic of what we're proposing here um it speaks to the fact that again we're not proposing I think if we if we were proposing this and we had this uniformity of lot size and shape like you see along dot Terrace Lynnwood Road the opposite side of Grove and we were proposing what we are right in the middle of one of those prevailing uh lot patterns I would have a totally different uh planning conclusion but again the the the reality is that we do have this right next door so we're not breaking up this established pattern that we see elsewhere in the neighborhood purpose ey desirable visual environment I think I spoke to Neighborhood compatibility this is not only a unique property it's a unique set of properties um the same Arrangement exists right next door we do have the benefit of having this oversized somewhat of a flag lot next door on lot 87 which does provide even greater uh light air open space um purpose m efficient use of land this is infield development it's not sprawl it's taking advantage of existing underutilized space on a substantially uh almost six times greater uh minimum required lot area um which does reduce the need to sprawl outward to fill a missing demand for for housing um so I think we are taking advantage of of a of a good opportunity on this particular property all of that goes towards the positive criteria uh what makes this a good application what are the benefits of this application the flip side to that is the negative criteria uh I believe there's no substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone I think we need to look at why we have these requirements in the first place um what are we trying to avoid what are we trying to achieve with these requirements I would say the primary purpose behind a lot WID requirement is to avoid this crammed in effect having buildings right up against or in between two other buildings um with little building to- building separation here uh one benefit of our is that we're actually not changing the building to building separation along Grove Avenue um by utilizing this uh this portion as as what I'm calling the stem of the flag or the pole of the flag you're actually keeping that building to building separation that we have now um we're not going to have a building that appears crammed in it's actually going to have really no impact to the streetscape whatsoever I would say another purpose behind lot with requirements is what I keep saying white Air open space by having a property that conforms with the dimensional requirements of lot size uh lot width lot depth um you're basically allowing a development to take place that complies with setbacks um and to have uh proper distances between our adjacent properties here I think that's going to be uh furthered again we're talking about a lot that in terms of area uh alone you could you could have over five properties um over five l in terms of why we may not see flag Lots all over the place why some in in certain instances we're not going out of our way to to provide flag Lots all over the place I think there's really three key reasons why boards would look to uh to avoid flag Lots one being access if you have a what I'm calling the the pole of the flag that's too narrow um or too close to to two buildings it might not be great for a safe efficient access in this casee we have 20 ft there so I think that's that's clearly enough for access in and out of that that newly created lot another issue is privacy again we're talking about a huge lot we're not talking about two lots that are just conforming in some in terms of lot size we're talking about one that's double the lot area and one that's triple the lot area um I think that a new dwelling could conceivably be uh constructed on that lot in the back um without necessitating any variance relief again we're not requesting uh a dwelling at this point but again in terms of the dimensional uh the dimensions of that area in the back it could be done without without requiring variance relief can you repeat that yeah so in terms of privacy uh one potential issue of a flag lot would be obviously you're putting a home behind another home in this case we have so much lot area that it's really not going to stand out as being crammed in whereas if you had a lot that was maybe uh right at that requirement of being double the the minimum lot area of about 14,000 you would have two much smaller Lots you'd have much greater or much less space between these two lots um and so it would it would appear more um more dense and then finally I think another another thing we should look at in terms of uh flag lot development is neighborhood character and again I think we can look at that prevailing context along some of these other roadways and I think it's pretty clear that we're not breaking up any established lot pattern that we see um elsewhere I'm still on negative criteria again no uh no impact to the streetcape this isn't really going to be visible from the street um the key here again is that we're not requesting a use variance we're not requesting a density variance we have two substantially oversized lots that we're proposing here um to speak to the master plan briefly the master plan does speak in very I uh in various Pages um that one of the goals is to not disrupt prevailing neighborhood patterns and again I think this is not something that's being located or breaking up an established pattern it's actually complementing what's right next door I know I've been before enough boards to know that uh we don't like to be the first to give out a variance uh and so I did see other flag Lots in Verona um just to put it on the record I saw one at 58 Chestnut Road I saw a flag lot located at 55 Grove Avenue which is a similar arrangement with uh one dwelling in the front and another dwelling in the back um again just just to throw it out there there's a couple out there in the town um this isn't going to be the first and I think really the the Crux of the application is this is a unique set of conditions that warrant the flag lot uh development um it's not it's not doing it so to speak uh for for frivolous reasons uh with that I think in conclusion this is a very appropriate development again giving the the property itself giving the surrounding area um given this the generous lot proportions um and I think approval would be warranted and granted based on the fact that there would be no substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone despite the variance for lot with we're really not going to see something that stands out as a zoning uh variance this is a unique piece of property uh so with that unless there's any redirect that's that's pretty much what I have anywhere I'm not going anywhere no further questions from you from me I'm sure you have some yes mayor I have a couple um you were discussing access before and I'm looking at your page one of this nice document here U I'd also like to borrow your drone at some point but um what what let's say you were to put a single Family Residence behind this in the back which would be let's say they were to put a single family residence behind this what would the access plan be right now the the stem of your flag runs adjacent to the driveway for the existing structure is would the proposal be to run an adjacent Drive parallel driveway or would you be proposing to share driveway access with the front residents obviously there are no plans at this point uh on paper but I'd like to hear this is a supposal to you honestly I can't really speak to the fact that we don't have plans for that but conceivably because we're splitting the lot is your question whether we would have a shared driveway right now would you have a shared driveway no the answer to that would be no and that's that's kind of built into the fact that we have that let's refer to the next page yeah all right um I am looking at the drawings here and assuming you don't have a share driveway the driveway would have to be on that 20 ft Frontage to Grove Avenue correct correct yes there is an additional tree there there appear to be a couple uh structures that would have to be removed there are several trees actually that have to be removed to accommodate a parallel driveway so I think it was disingenuous to suggest that only one tree would need to be removed um for this project when there are several that would be in the path of that triway um so that's that's one concern I have the reason I number one the trees are are certainly a concern as we have a major um problem in this town as far as where our water goes when it rains but there it looks to be several trees that would be there secondly uh one of the reasons of course we don't have Lots is for emergency services access um I can Firehouse which is adjacent to this building our fire trucks are very large um I I wouldn't see very easily how given unless you were to put in a an oversized driveway that would take almost the entire width of um that Frontage that we could easily access a ladder truck to the the back of that area especially if you put any uh permanent DeMar a between the existing driveway which is also not accessible to fire trucks to get in the back because of the fence and the tree and so on um but we would having a structure back there would significantly impair the fire department's ability to use a ladder truck to access anything back there as well uh was that thought considered I'm sorry you're talking I think I respectfully disagree mayor I mean we could make the driveway 20 ft wide um and we would make it as wide as the fire department wants to make sure I mean obviously we want fire emergency vehicle access to the rear and I think 20 fet which is what we have um is more than enough but we would defer the well your 20 ft is your entire Frontage right that would be the entire Frontage and that's almost what you'd have to do you know I don't think that's legal no your driveway can't be that large under our existing Zone what foot from okay regardless I think that the I I do have some that is my primary concern that's why we don't like flag Lots um I I uh came from a town that there were several flag Lots due to its rural nature that presented some pretty significant issues um we do have a limited number and I I do note just for the record that there are a couple other other than the places that the planner mentioned um yeah I think one solution that I'm just thinking is um assuming that tree was gone right in the front and again I'm going to try to address both questions the first being the tree removal again the the generous proportions of this lot whatever trees would need to be removed there's adequate space to provide the replacement of any trees I'm confident of that secondly uh to the point of emergency access I'm sure there's a way and I'll defer to council if again if that tree right in the front was removed we could come up with a emergency access easement that would allow and the property owner on the existing lot would agree would have to agree to the to the that would certainly be easy well he's here now it's it's it it's the same owner yeah that's why I said that would be easy Oh I thought it was sarcasm the the truck would basically be able to use both driveways is the point and again we're not talking about a substantial distance so I think in this instance that would be an appropriate solution personally so I can tell you my my concern is that um should we approve that this the subdivision that the the property owner would have relative flexibility to build what they want and to not consider these items when it comes time to building so I have a I have a a concern with approving a subdivision at this time without really having a plan for what's going to be the the next upep there there it there could be conditions okay even though there is not a site plan right now there could be restrictions on what the applicant would be allowed to do you know such as you have to get the ement so we could we could have affirmative absolutely requirements absolutely and I'd also go further than that I I wouldn't have any problem my clients wouldn't have any problem if you POS the condition that you know this is subject to approval by the fire depy or to ensure that there's adequate emergency vehicle access to the re we want that then well I would hope so may I just chime in on what suggested and what you guys seem grossly edable to um right now your driveway length just to the end of the back of the proposed front line is 216 and normally a driveway that about right 216 21622 is that correct yes oh I'm sorry I'm asking for confirmation please yeah I understand is it where does it say oh here it is uh correct 216 26 and driveway is generally 10t wide without the without the fluffing it up for the fire yay yes okay I think that's so that's before you even reach the rear lot you've already added just to get there 2100 plus square feet of new impervia Surface I want to also say that I'm sure with what this gentleman has said on record about putting a big house although we don't have plans and you don't know what he's going to do but you kind of went off on this tangent about putting a bigger lot a bigger house there because bigger house would work and but I don't really know what you're talking about because you said we don't have any plants I don't think he said so wait I'm not going to speak for please I'll I'll I'll well first let me uh let me go back to your first point about the impervious coverage um wait because we have a storm water management ordinance for minor developments and it's already triggered just to get to the back lot sure okay wa right anything over 400 square feet of new ovious Surface which would be your driveway big time you would need to mitigate but I mean you're going to probably be a major development and I just want to say that in this back area that has been mapped out by the D you can't put any of your storm water mitigation in that area because it's an area that Fosters endangered species or it's environmentally sensitive we wouldn't okay but you don't know where you're going to have room to put anything can I can I just make two comments sure first of all the engineer we have a report from the township engineer he made nothing about SC order well I'm telling you we have an ordinance and I understand that can I can I can I answer the question yeah I just don't don't point to because you didn't hand plans in but you're talking about them this evening talking about what this evening your plans the only plan we're talking about is a subdivision no he was talking about the size of the house and now you're talking about the width of the driveway so I'm getting into it okay let me just with respect to stormw and any other ordinances that are applicable here we have to comply with those we have to comply we going heard this so many times and can I just answer yeah please respectfully you know we'd have to satisfy the township engineer have to provide grading and drainage plans if there storm order required we're going to have to meet the storm order requirements and submit detailed plans that would have to be reviewed and approved by your professionals particularly your engineer and your construction official to make sure we're in compliance we have to comply you know with all ordinances the tree ordinance St order anything else that like yeah and I would I would just add to that if if it turns out for some unlikely reason that that lot is undevelopable that's the that's the property owners risk I mean that it wouldn't be developed not according to the the rules that need to be followed um I wanted to address your point about impervious if if if you're accurate that it's 2100 square feet but again I haven't done that math for the driveway you're talking about 5% uh impervious you're allowed to go up to 40% that leaves you that hasin okay that's fine I'm I'm just letting you know that you have up to 40% allowed for this Zone a driveway of that size like you're referring to would only take up 5% of that you would still be left with with a with an adequate amount for for a home so I'm I'm just going to site chapter and verse please look at chapter 150 which 150 what 25 and you could look at seven and nine section SE 257 7 and 259 that's the minor development but you guys are probably going to be looking at a major development which is anything above 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface that is a major development in the township of Verona so I just want to let you know with that you have to uh mitigate storm water with green infrastructure so you would need room on your site to do that and it w't be able to be behind the house because that's an upward TR trajectory if I could the section you're talking about quickly uh it say for each square foot of increased impervious surface say that again for each square foot of increased impervious surface and then it gets into the storm water requirements my interpretation of that and I'll defer to the board engineer would be increased over the requirement if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I'm just increased over 400 square feet okay okay I stand corrected okay again whatever it is it is and we have to comply and we will comply if we can't comply then guess what we can't build a house back there we have to comply with everyone of your Township ordinances and satisfy your engineer on on storm water in particular so I I have a question um along that same vein but with the with respect to the flag lot and the lot width variance that is really the main variance here since you said that uh you know you can reduce this pretty large driveway and pad on um the existing lot to get you under right for impervious um so putting that aside putting storm water issues aside for the site that hasn't been designed yet could you eliminate the need for the flag lot variants um by instead implementing a private right of way uh along that 20 or actually I think it would have to be 22 foot uh area and then either having a c to Sack or wrapping it so that you would have adequate Frontage on that rear lot from a planning perspective I don't want to talk about the technical feasibility I think from a planning perspective is this become an as of right subdivision if you just designed it with a private right of light I would call it as of right so you would need relief from a section this is a variance that comes from the municipal Landes law not the zoning code section 35 um which is you're Pro you're now if I'm understanding you correctly you're now uh providing a lot that doesn't have Frontage along the roadway and the the justification for that actually comes from the following section section 36 um which is actually somewhat less discretionary because it simply states that provided that the lot has Le um has adequate emergency access um then then it's it's Justified so again seeing that if if emergency access is the concern here I think again we are talking about a an area that works for emergency access uh again we it wouldn't be a c variance it would be a variance that is simply Justified based on the adequacy of that emergency access which I mean I'm sure we would be amable to that I personally think it's well we we talked about that as an option to just draw the lot line you know in the rear there which would make it conform with lot with requirement it just triggers this deviation by not having Frontage on the street but that's easily satisfied because it's not uncommon to have a a rideway or an easement or a it's really a driveway um you know that would be set up by easement documents that would allow for access to the rear lot we could do it that way gets us it's one of those things that um you wouldn't know by looking at the property you'd see a driveway you wouldn't know where the lot lines are you'd see something similar to what we're proposing with a a driveway leading to the rear lot or it could be a common driveway yeah I was thinking more of something like two-way M right of way and then you could eliminate the existing asphalt driveway so you don't have you don't go from one curb cut to two curb Cuts we we'd have no problem and you'd have better circulation for deliveries emergency vehicles things like that um again the cost not being consideration you could also take care of your storm water management that way with um impervious pays or something like that yeah we we'd have no problem with that I have a question for um Mr merera is it appropriate to ask to see like um on the proposed plans like where the trees are and um you know maybe a better idea of where the driveway would go in consideration of this not I mean you can ask there's no requirement of the applicat to show that because again I think that's what they're trying to discuss the possibilities um this is a subdivision it's not um there's no building footprint um for for any proposed house um it doesn't show the maxim they have to build so wants to answer those questions but they're not OPP to and it's not you know part of part of what has been presented or you know part decision yeah I know yeah thank you [Music] there's been a lot of reference made to the house the houses in the area do you have any idea which direction you're going to be facing this house no you don't I do not okay you don't okay well you don't but maybe the owner does Maybe the owner of the property does um here's the bottom line we we I messed up before Mr trilac I did not open to the public M to allow the public to ask um the owner questions so that easier so they can right right right so we can revisit that in a few minutes um to allow the public at this point does anybody have any further questions for the planner I think Jay is working on something here oh no I'm just looking I think I can answer the last question on behalf of if my client corrects me that that that that any house built in the rear would the front would face towards Gro Avenue you not going to have to face towards the sides or certainly not to the Rear Front similar to the house on the next door the so you're saying the front of the house will face the backyard of the house in front of it right just like the house next door on on 170 Grove right which that's no precedent so it's no precedent it's there it works I I'm just you would you want to face somewhere else it wasn't granted okay a subdivision I I would just draw a difference respectfully between precedent and compatibility just because it's there we're not saying that we we deserve it because it's there but there is a compatibility element that's all does anybody else from the board have any questions for the planner J you want the gr of this property goes from the re put your mic on yeah grade of the property I assume is from the rear and slopes down towards the street right so all of your any of your mitigation or sewer lines would have to go along that driveway that's your only option right I'm not an engineer so I refer to your your engineer what about um utility to to Vice chair fy's Point what about electric it's not underground at this point I I don't believe on Grove Avenue so are you going to have wires tension wires going into the back of that lot over one of the house over one house to get to the next how are you going to power I'm sorry what was your answer presumably I mean was there plans to go underground on that or was there plans to go mam chair there's no plans again there is a plan to put a single family house in these are things that we need to think about no yes but but it's not part of I mean I'm asking a question if they can't answer it please allow them not to answer it we're we're we're not able to answer it we're not required to answer it we haven't designed the house we haven't thought of any of those things they have the house is going to Face Forward I just want to know how how electric is going to get to it I mean conceivably if we didn't propose a house in the future as a separate application that faced forward and the board didn't like that and said can you please Orient it a different way that would be a conversation for for that application but again I think the what that what the of proof is for the African this evening is whether the subdivision uh works not whether a hypothetical home well that is an argument against flag lot sir just to let you know it's about getting utilities past one house to the next and the the strange overhead wires or the you know this is definitively one of the arguments against putting a flag lot or allowing for flag Lots not only emergency access but also utility so you can tell me that you don't really think that it's of my concern to ask but I'm asking because it is an eyesore to have those lines going all over the place we're not saying we're going to have those lines you're not telling me anything we're not we don't have plans for the house and you can't require them it's inappropriate I don't have plans for the house I know that that's right but you've told me you're going to face it this way and that you're going to either have a 10 or a 20 foot wide driveway but you can't tell me how you're going to get electric to it thank you we haven't gotten to that point we will if this application is approved we're certainly going to do something you know my client is in a position where he owns the entire property and if we need easements or whatever to put lines underground to make it we you know to make it look correct and comply with whatever the the the Township's requirements might be we're going to do that I was asking about the deny this application because you're concerned there might be overhead electrical lines total speculation it's based on the fact that I have no testimony on how what your game plan is to even get electric there you won't I mean you know the owner might want to answer this you're not even giving the opportunity we're not here asking your permission to build a particular house on the property okay okay we're not required to do that or to get subdivision approval when it comes time to build the house we have to comply with building codes whatever requirements your the township may have regarding utility locations and how they I understand that 5 minutes ago you were bending over backwards to widen the driveway by 10 ft but you're now you're screaming that we don't have to we're not required it's fine I'm gonna open this up to anybody else on the board can I finish please um I'm not questioning the driveway at this point as I said before we're willing to do whatever you want with respect to the driveway and we're willing to to to be subject to review and approval of the of the fire department to ensure there's good access and whatever they want will provide whether that's 20 ft wider or [Music] whatever does anybody else on the board have any questions for the planner um I just want to revisit my point about the uh private right of way and just be a bit pedantic that I looked at the statute I don't think it requires a variance per se we would just have to uh approve the right of way as part of the subdivision plan and then that would provide Street Frontage so this theoretically could be a as of right application if you did it that way right Street I think of private right away just as a matter of discussion apart from the applicant requires a certain width yeah and it also requires storm motor Inlet structures which are it has to be approved um St Inlet structures which would let and uh establish the pros access conforms with the standards of State Highway access management code adopted by the commission of Transportation so and that would actually undermine have all of those the green infrastructure uh to the extent that it would simply pump water offsite into the municipal system but you could do the uh impervious paper system of stormm water uh storage underneath under the current RS They Don't Really hold water those systems they just sort of if you do the the gravel system it holds the water and then it recharges so there there are ways to do it right but I just there would have to be idea testing better because it eliminates variances and it's better for emergency access so that's just my two sense why don't we take a 5 minute [Music] recess okay keep that to yourself um were there any other questions for the uh for the applicants trer by the board from the board yes okay at this time I'm going to uh ask if any members of the public have any questions for the planner if you do you come to that mic just give your name and your municipality and again the questions are specifically for the planner based on the planner's testimony and any of the dialogue that you heard back and forth okay seeing none um Mr Trac I would like to offer the public the ability to ask the applicant questions sure so if he would come up to the table or yeah Mr Lamp you're still on your o Mr lamin really quickly because your planner made a lot of comment about the large property next door there was no discussion with the property owners on the other side to do any kind of merging of property from their site with your property at any time right no I mean just he gave me the idea when I was there with them I've only met the gentleman three or four times I'm talking about the property if you're facing your house buying mine no talking about a different property we're talking about the property if you're facing your property to the right okay because uh your planner referred to that site okay but there was never a thought of that okay um and you only have plans you you said on the record that you plan only a single family house whereas the front house the front house is the two is it two family yeah I mean I haven't done any plans I just looked at what the guy did next door and I said oh that's that's that's all I looked at and I said oh maybe I can do the same thing it it would be a one family house that that's what the zoning currently requires does does anyone else from the board have any questions for Mr lamin anyone from the public have any questions for the owner of the property Mr lampin you have to come to the do you have to come to the mic not necessarily questions from Mr L but I'd like to address the board oh that happens after okay thank you um if I remember to do it I'm sorry about that guys um all right so uh at this time no no further questions from the board um Mr trilac you can give your closing wrap can I can I wait until we hear from the public first so I can address what whatever the Public's concerns might um at this time member of the public may come up and give your comment yeah your statement my voice good evening to everybody um let me just clear state your name Mark and SEL I reside at 31 East Reed place you can just say Verona the owner of 170 one of the owners of 170 so just to clarify a couple points before I give my statement um Mr Lin and I had discussions about the dead trees we had discussions about the even not I don't know no little light there's no light on so we had discussions about the dead trees the dead trees that fell one at least one of them fell partially and and hit my garage and those were taken down as the de [Music] okay um and there's still a the treat back there but that'll get a to some point I'm sure um I'm the owner of the uh joining property at 170 Gro and would like to submit my thoughts on issues that I believe the planning board should consider before approving this request for a subdivision some of which have already been addressed touched upon um so I ask your Indulgence um my wife and I have owned the joining property since early 200000 um it is a legally pre-existing non-conforming property and note that the rear yards of the properties from 184 Grove to the subject property 176 Grove and our property 170 Grove continuing through the rear yards of the properties on lywood and DOD are essentially the only forested land and open space identified in this area of town and that it also connects to the open space of the West Essex rail trail I therefore feel that new development in this area warrants careful consideration this includes the area zoned as a single family residential requiring a 60ft frontage the existing parcel already includes a non-conforming multif family unit if the property is to be subdivided the new lot 9.01 should comply with current requirements and be converted back to a single family unit in fact the front housee and our property had to be converted back to a single family upon my purchase in 2000 so it's inexplicable that a multif family should be permitted to remain in circumstances upon subdivision of a lot and no variant should be granted to allow that pre-existing non-conforming my understanding is that the burden of proof is on the applicant the board is reviewing the board in in reviewing is essentially proving very es that are required for subdivision which the applicant has asked for we believe there is um basis and case law that a subdivision is arguably a significant modification of pre-existing use and would require a VAR variance to continue this secondly the proposed subdivision with a request for a variance of 41% in perum coverage on proposed lot 90.1 should also be carefully evaluated especially considering the listed intents to add another single family dwelling unit in the future on propose. 9.02 given the town storm water requirements I do not understand why a variance presumably with no storm water management requirements would be approved for a new lot even at a 1% increase when it is likely impermeable impermeable coverage could be reduced or the lots reconfigured to meet the existing requirements for example we s we sought to reduce imper impermeable coverage with our recent work to remain within the regulatory requirements and have effectively done that as the board undoubtedly knows the variance for 20ft Frontage on proposed lot 92 is intended for a new road cutter driveway onto Grove Avenue which I believe I'm not certain is a county road and in a location close to a school zone I believe this would mean that an application must also be submitted to the county and do not any see any indication this was done in general the proposed subdivision should be configured to create two lots that comply with current regulations rather than seeking Vari variances at this stage continuing ngd's landscape project identifies a portion of proposed lot 90. 2 as rank three state threatened species-based habit habitat for the W wood turtle which has been listed as a threatened species by New Jersey since 1979 based on this classification we requested the board require that the applicant complete an assessment of the area in the spring when wood turtles are no longer hibernating finally in furtherance in my original point that this area is the only forested land and open space identified in the section of town that it also connects the open space of O Essex rail trail the hilltop and Beyond I emphasize that maintaining this open space should be approached in a more holistic way that would be in keeping with the town's Master plans and goals to promote the conservation of environmental resources and the natural appearance appearance of the township to improve neighborhood quality in existing residential areas without increasing housing density in those areas and to preserve the environmental resources of the township by locating conservation Parklands and easements were necessary by limiting development in environmentally sensitive areas the open space in the rear of these Parcels also connects to a designated Historic Site in the town 190 Grove Avenue which I offer and profer could be connected to other space through for example Trail easements this is consistent with the town's open space plan which provides the township may consider preserving land that is already developed depending on what whether an entire property or portion of the property may be suitable for recreation or conservation expanding the definition of potential open space to include Parcels which may have structures on them repes represents an opportunity for open space preservation thereby maintaining this open space which reduces flooding risk maintains Urban Wildlife corridors and more we therefore request that the board consider this and seek input from the environmental commission before approval of the proposed plan which expressly States the intent to develop a new single family dwelling I thank you for your attention thank you sir is there anybody else from the public that would like to make a comment or a statement seeing none I'm going oh hold on hold on [Music] TR we have a jurisdictional problem okay um we're reducing the size the subdivision would reduce the size of a lot with a non-conformity on it therefore the subdivision would reduce the size of the lot with the two family the two families not permitted right so the zoning board would have jurisdiction that would be raspberry one of the few cases I know that I I know the case and I don't disagree with anything and that's something I don't know why this was not flagged you know generally Boswell does a great job um would pick this up so our zoning code official did just now apparently oh you I everything that we get goes right to the board of adjustments from now on but I didn't um you know quite honestly I didn't know that two family was not permitted oh you didn't know you know I knew it was Zone but I mean I knew you know but um because it's not you know we're exacerbating the nonconformity of the two and we don't have the authority to do that in effect the zoning board would have to rubber stamp the two fam you know if if in fact or they could you know hear testimony about why the two families still uh would still be proper with the subdivision where does that put us tonight motion to close well can I no I'm just I'm like I would just ask if I could have five minutes or less just just talk to my client about this sure okay um we we we'll take a break yeah thank you um feel to talk I just thank you for the time I just wanted to explore with my client the possibility of removing the nonconformity with the two family and um I mean the decision is that they're not prepared to do that in which case I I agree under to the raspberry um opin iion that this then has to go before the zoning board and in a way I think it's it's may be better for us in a number of ways because I think we're going to probably revise this plan to draw the lot line across the back provide a common driveway one one driveway one curb cut that would be shared and would provide more than adequate um emergency vehicle access to the rear lot eliminate all of variances really so um Mr CH I did want to put on the record In fairness to Boswell um the the original application submitted um um it was a one family was a one family and that's what Boswell had originally reviewed so right the fairness to them and then it was modified as as as Kathleen picked it up and and a question right motion to turn yes so excuse me so Mr CH it's my understanding you're going to withdraw the application we have no jurisdic withdraw it without prejudice you and then I'll talk to cine about we have to file a new application or can this just be transferred over with all the changes you're going to make and go in front of the board of adjustment it's going to actually have to file zon yes so you're going to have to do everything you come for Z permit um okay all right we'll do that adjustments are being filled in Jan up to January February at this point M okay okay all right thank you motion to return second everyone have a good night