Feb 27, 2024 Zoning Board

SO WE'LL WE'LL GIVE IT A SECOND. IT'S SEVEN RIGHT. VERIZON TELLS US IT'S SEVEN. ALL RIGHT. UM

[I. OPENING STATEMENT]

[00:00:11]

FOUNDATION. TWO YEARS AGO. LIBERTY. ONE ENTRY. ALL RIGHT, UH, UH, CAN YOU, UH, PLEASE NOTE THAT SHISHA IS ALSO PRESENT. NO, NO, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH SUBJECT TO, UH, MY DISCRETION.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. UM IN THIS, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS, UH TO TWO OR THREE MINUTES. UM WHEN PROVIDING COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR AN APPLICATION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD.

IF YOU PREFER NOT TO PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE ADVISE WHICH TOWN YOU LIVE IN. IF COMMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE ALREADY STATED, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.

GROUPS ARE ASKED TO SELECT A SPOKESPERSON. UM THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR, UH, ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA. SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO DISCUSS MATTERS BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD THAT ARE NOT ON THIS WELCOME BACK. AND HEARING NONE. ALL

[V. APPLICATIONS]

ONLY 2% LOT OF COVERAGE WHEN 15 IS PERMITTED. UM. GEORGE SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT THE KITCHEN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THAT WILL CREATE A 20 SQUARE FOOT. ADDITIONAL

[00:05:06]

WE'RE ADDING 20 SQUARE FEET, SO BASICALLY THE TWO NE NECK NOTHING CHANGES. ALSO I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT IS THAT HE WANTS TO DO, AND JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION, YOUR APPLICATION SAYS ON THE PAGE FOUR THAT YOU'RE ADDING A 72 SQUARE FOOT KITCHEN EDITION. HAS THAT BEEN CHANGED? UH, NO. HE SAID. YOU'RE REMOVING 20 SQUARE FEET OF THE PATIO, AND THERE'S NO NET INCREASE. SO IF YOU 20 SQUARE FEET OF COVERAGE. IT'S 72 SQUARE FEET OR. WAS A CUBIC.

YEAH, YEAH. UH, CAN I, UH, LET ME GET EVERYONE TO SWORN, UM, SO ALL THREE WELL. THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S EXPERT IN THE THREE BOARD EXPERTS. CAN YOU ALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? AND DOES EVERYONE SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH. THE WHOLE TRUTH. NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. START OVER HERE. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD NEAR A MICROPHONE AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT OR THE BOARD AS THE CASE MAY BE.

THOMAS DECKER. UM THE, UH, APPLICANTS. ENGINEERING EXPERTS. AFRICANS ENGINEER DAN CLEF ENGINEERING. I'LL BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARDS TO ENGINEERING AND PLAN. COULD YOU TURN THE MIC AND YOU, GEORGE THOMAS? THE APPLICANT I'M GEORGE THOMAS. THE APPLICANT. YOU GUYS IDENTIFY YOURSELVES FOR THE RECORD. JAMES CLAVELL, THE BOARD'S PLANNING EXPERT. I CAN DO THE BOARD ENGINEER. RICHARD LET'S. OK, WHO'S THE BEST PERSON TO JUST EXPLAIN THE APPLICATION BECAUSE AGAIN THE APPLICATION FORM, SAID 72 SQUARE FOOT KITCHEN EDITION. AND THEN YOU JUST SAID YOU'RE ELIMINATING 20 SQUARE FEET. SO BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO SWORN IT IS FACTUALLY. WHAT'S THE APPLICATION? YOU ARE CORRECT. IT IS A 72 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. HOWEVER THERE'S AN EXISTING 52 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT THIS WILL BE TAKING THE PLACE OF SO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 20 SQUARE FEET. OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS FROM THE ADDITION. AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE 20 SQUARE FEET FROM A SECTION OF THE PATIO TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. NOW I GOT IT, OK? RIGHT. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION, BUT I. I. I GET IT. I GET IT. I GET IT. YEP. WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THAT BETTER. UM. YEAH, ACTUALLY, IF YOU IF YOU UH, BEEN SWORN IF YOU WANT ME TO QUALIFY. QUALIFIED. MR. DECKER, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE THE BOARD? UM AND . YES. UM, I HAVE A BACHELORS OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING FROM RUTGERS UNIVERSITY. I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SINCE 1993 . LICENSED PROFESSIONAL PLANNER SINCE 2000. UM I HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS BOARD ON A COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS, ONE MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND THE OTHER. THE, UM BE GOLF COURSE. UM I ALSO SERVE AS THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND REPRESENT NUMEROUS BOARDS. WE'LL ACCEPT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND WELCOME BACK. SO A AS I HAD MENTIONED, THIS APPLICATION IS FAIRLY, UM, STRAIGHTFORWARD. UH, WE HAVE, UH BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS AN EXHIBIT. IT IS THE SAME AS THE VARIANCE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION SET. UM, WE HAVE ADDED THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. BEHIND IT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THE VEGETATION IS ON THE SITE. IS THIS ACTUALLY THIS IS A COLOR RENDERED VERSION OF THE VARIANCE PLAN. CORRECT DO YOU

[00:10:03]

THEY SUBMITTED PAPER COPIES OF A FURTHER REVISED SO YOU'LL SEE IN ANOTHER MEMO THAT THEY REVIEWED IN JANUARY 24TH PLAN, BUT I DIDN'T GET THAT ONE ELECTRONICALLY. OK ALL RIGHT. SO THE ONE THE ONE THAT WE HAVE IS THE JANUARY 8TH, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND WITH THE PHYSICAL COPIES CORRECT. YES, OK, BUT STILL. SO WE NEED A PAPER COPY OF THIS EXHIBIT A ONE TO BE SUBMITTED. WE'LL WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. OK, ALRIGHT. UM. SO THE SITE IS, UM, IMPROVED. AS I SAID WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, POOL AND A POOL HOUSE TO THE REAR. UM IT HAS GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING. I BELIEVE THERE IS, UM, APPROXIMATELY 40 TREES OF VARIOUS SPECIES ON THE SITE. IT'S WELL MAINTAINED. TONIGHT'S APPLICATION. IS FOR A SMALL 72 SQUARE FOOT EDITION ONTO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. AND IF I CAN I'LL I'LL ZOOM IN.

GO. ALL RIGHT, UM. SO THE ADDITION IS LOCATED IN THIS AREA THAT'S SHADED AND BROWN. AND IF YOU CAN SEE. THERE ARE DASHED LINES UNDERNEATH THAT. THIS IS A STAIRWELL THAT LEADS TO THE BASEMENT OF THE HOME. AND WHAT IS PROPOSED IS IN ADDITION TO THE KITCHEN ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

AND THAT ADDITION WILL OVERHANG THE ENTRANCE INTO THE BASEMENT. SO THERE WAS A QUESTION. I BELIEVE IN THE PLANNERS, UH, REVIEW LETTER AS FAR AS HOW WITH THE BASEMENT STILL, UM, BE ACCESSED. IT WILL REMAIN TO BE ACCESSED BY THESE STAIRS THAT WILL GO UNDERNEATH. OVERHANG, WHICH WILL BE THE UM, KITCHEN AND THERE'S 82 INCHES OF CLEARANCE THERE SO THAT THEY CAN STILL ACCESS THE BASEMENT OF THE OF THE HOUSE. ON EACH SIDE OF. THE STAIRWELL. YOU'LL SEE TWO SMALL STRIPS THAT ARE NOT, UM HATCHED IN OR NOT DASHED. THOSE ARE EXISTING NON IMPERVIOUS SURFACES THAT ADD TO BE 20 SQUARE FEET, SO OUR OVERALL ADDITION IS 72 SQUARE FOOT IN FOOTPRINT, BUT THERE'S 52 SQUARE FEET BELOW THAT THAT IS ALREADY A IMPERVIOUS PATIO ACCESS TO THE REAR. OKAY? BUT YOU'RE REMOVING THAT 52 SQUARE FEET. WHAT'S THAT? SO YOU WERE NO, THE 52

[00:15:04]

PERCENT. WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED BY THIS APPLICATION. LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EXISTING. COVERAGE IT'S OVER THE 19% TO REMAIN CORRECT. SOMEONE'S GONNA ASK.

OK, SO WHAT'S THE REASON THAT THE BOARD SHOULD GRANT THAT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE COVERAGE TO REMAIN? WELL, THERE'S NO. AS FAR AS WHERE THIS UM IMPROVEMENT IS. THERE'S NO UM THERE'S NO INCREASE IN ANY DRAINAGE. UM BECAUSE OF THE SWAP AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. UM THE LOT DRAINS THE FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TRAINS TO THE ROAD, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, ALL TRAINS TO THE TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. UM BACKS UP AGAINST THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, SO THERE'S NO IMPACT TO ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTS AS FAR AS DRAINAGE NEGATIVE CRITERION SATISFY. SO WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE REASON THE POSITIVE REASON THAT THE BOARD SHOULD GRANT THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCES. TO ALLOW TOTAL OF. I HAD A TOTAL OF 27.2. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 19% AND I KNOW IT'S ALREADY EXISTS, BUT YOU'RE STILL APART FROM RELIEVING THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY FOR. FROM ANY LIABILITY FOR APPROVING 27% THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY LIABILITY IS A TORT. THE TORT CLAIMS ACT GIVES THEM APPROVAL IMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO LIABILITY BUT ISSUING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR 27.2. I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT'S CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE WAS CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE TOWN, MONTGOMERY. UNDERSTOOD. OK? SO UNDER THE C ONE OR C TWO CRITERIA, GIVE THE BOARD SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD CAN'T SAY. OH, THEIR OFFICIALS MADE A MISTAKE. AND THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG. GIVE HIM SOMETHING TO HANG THEIR HAT ON TO GRANT THE MARIANS. I CAN I CAN I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU. UM IN YOUR PLANNERS REVIEW LETTER. UM AND ITEM NUMBER? UH 5-1. HE UM, MENTIONS THE YOU KNOW CONSIDERATION OF POS POSITIVE CRITERIA ANY. HE OUTLINES THE THREE POSSIBLE, UM, REASONS FOR POSITIVE CRITERIA, AND THE ONE WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE IS THE THIRD BULLET POINT. UM BY REASON OF EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION, UNIQUELY AFFECTING A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR THE STRUCTURAL HE'S LAWFULLY EXISTING THEREON. UM AS WAS STATED EARLIER, ALL OF THE STRUCTURES HAVE RECEIVED BUILDING PERMITS IN THE PAST. THEY FOR, UM THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED LAWFULLY. AND THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE 2016. THESE IMPROVEMENTS WERE INSTALLED 20 THREE YEARS AGO, AND, UM THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT

[00:20:09]

THAT MARK THERE. EXHIBIT A TWO AND LET'S HAVE THE ENGINEER GO THROUGH EACH ONE TO MAKE SURE ALL THESE STRUCTURES ARE COVERED UNDER THEM. HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE TWO OF THOSE OR THREE OF THOSE.

SO YOU CAN GIVE ONE TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, ONE TO ME AND ONE TO YOUR WITNESS. RIGHT. SO LE LET ME SEE IT FIRST. I'M GONNA GIVE IT BACK TO YOUR WITNESS. YOU KNOW WHAT? SHARON, LET ME GET YOU SWORN IN N. YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GONNA GIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING WILL BE THE TRUTH. THE WHOLE TRUTH BUT THE TRUTH ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR. OK, YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERMITS. I'M GONNA SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'VE MARKED AS EXHIBIT A TWO, WHICH IS A LIST OF PERMITS BY ADDRESS. THIS WAS A PRINTOUT THAT YOU REQUESTED. APPARENTLY. FROM THE TOWNSHIP.

SO CAN YOU GO? THROUGH THIS LIST. AND INDICATE WHICH STRUCTURES HAVE PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY. AND DO IT BY PERMIT NUMBER AND THE DESCRIPTION YEAH. NUMBER 2001 00 96 THAT'S FULL HOUSE. WELL THE FIRST ONE IS, UH 1998 1172 IS THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THE HOUSE ITSELF. THE NEXT ONE IS 2001. 01 32, WHICH IS THE IN GROUND POOL. THE HEATER, THE DIVING BOARD AND THE FENCE. THE FENCE. AND THEN THAT'S FINISHED BASE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. READ IT OUT. 2011 6 AND THREE IS A FINISHED BASEMENT. MOVED. LAUNDRY ROOM TO BASEMENT NOT APPROVED FOR USE AS BEDROOM.

2011 0603 PLUS ONE. IS A SINK AND SEWER PUMP. IN 2016 1296 IS AN ALARM. SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA GIVE THIS BACK TO MR DECKER AND ASK HIM TO SHOW WHICH OF THESE PERMITS COVERS THOSE WALKS, WHICH I SAID BEFORE THEY COULDN'T FIND A PERMIT FOR. OH, WELL, IF WE WANT YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH EACH ITEM. WELL. SHOW US WHERE ON THE LIST. YOU GOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT IF YOU HAVE LAWFULLY CREATED PRE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS

[00:25:06]

THE RAISED PATIO THAT'S IN THE S PATIO THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE BACK. THE LARGER ONE. THERE'S A PERMIT FOR THAT. IT'S 25 BY 30 FT. RIGHT BUT WE COULDN'T FIND ONE FOR THE BOTTOM SLATE PAD.

NO, I UNDERSTAND. BUT DID YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, FOR EXAMPLE FOR THE POOL AND THE POOL HOUSE AND SEE IF THE BRICK SIDEWALK AND THAT OTHER BRICK PATIO IN THE BACK WAS SHOWN ON A PLAN? THEY WERE. YES THEY WERE SHOWN ON THE PLANE . YES BUT ONLY 1200 SQUARE FEET.

I THINK WHEN WE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WE THOUGHT THAT THE CONCRETE POOL DECK THAT'S THERE NOW IS LARGER THAN WHAT THAN THE 1200 SQUARE FEET. THAT COULD BE A MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE ALL BUILT AT THE SAME TIME. THEY LOOK THE SAME. SO. YEAH. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, SHERRY, THE WITH THE DRAWINGS ON THE PERMIT DO INCLUDE THE PAVERS IN THE SIDEWALK AND EVERYTHING THAT IS REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING. IS THAT CORRECT? THE NUMBERS MAY NOT MATCH. BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY? YES. THEY CHOSE THE FULL AND WELL, ACTUALLY, YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THIS DRAWING.

BECAUSE THERE'S A SQUARE FOR THE POOL. THERE'S THE SAVANNAH AND THEN THERE'S THE FENCES OUTLINED. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THE CONCRETE SEPARATE FROM THE POOL, SO YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT'S CONCRETE AND WHAT'S THE FULL WATER ITSELF. I. I KNOW THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POOL AND THE CABANA AND THE PAST INSPECTION SO CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S NO RECORD WITH THE TOWN. II I RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS THAT WE COULD HAVE. WE COULD. WE COULD CONTINUE THE APPLICATION TO LOOK, UH OR OR WE COULD JUST TAKE A KIND OF A AN OPINION OF THE OF THE BOARD AND SEE IF WE WOULD LIKE TO JUST PROCEED AS IS I MEAN, WE ARE GRANTING. AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE FOR THE PRE EXISTING CONDITION HERE ON THE PROPERTY, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE BOARD'S OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT UM THE POSITIVE CRITERIA AND THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN KIND OF SATISFIED WITH THE ART WITH WITH THE ARGUMENTS AS THEY'VE BEEN OUTLINED. ANYBODY WANNA OFFER AN OPINION? I USED TO HAVE A QUESTION. MAYBE UH MR DARG DID. WAS THERE A CHANGE IN ZONING OR ANYTHING THAT APPLIES HERE? I KNOW THERE WAS A CHANGE FROM. WELL IT IT ACTUALLY. AND SO AT TWO POINT, UM SEC OF THE PLANNING, MEM. IT DOES TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE IN ZONING. FROM . AN R TWO ZONE TO AN R FIVE ZONE. AND THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED BETWEEN 2000 AND I'M SORRY, 1997 AND 2001. THAT'S THE QUESTION I ASK IN MY REPORT. I DID GO BACK

[00:30:11]

I CAN'T SAY THIS FOR CERTAIN BECAUSE I DIDN'T READ THE ORDINANCES, BUT THAT WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN R TWO ZONE, WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THIS LEVEL OF COVERAGE.

BUT THEN IT'S BETWEEN 1997 2001. THIS LOT CHANGED BEING IN THE AR FIVE ZONE, SO SUDDENLY YOU'RE COVERAGE LIMITS ARE MORE LIMITED. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO CAN SOMEONE SPEAK TO THAT ABOUT PUT IT THIS WAY. SO. WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. FOR THE C. ONE HARDSHIP VARIANCE IS THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO GRANT AC ONE HARDSHIP VARIANCE. WHERE. AND THIS IS WHAT MR DECKER TESTIFIED TO BY REASON OF AN EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION UNIQUELY AFFECTING A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR THE STRUCTURE LAWFULLY EXISTING THEREON. IF THE STRICT APPLICATION OF ANY REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN PECULIAR AND EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OR EXCEPTIONAL, UNDUE HARDSHIP, THEN THE BOARD CAN GRANT A VARIANT. SO HIS ARGUMENT UNDER THE C ONE IS LISTEN. ALL THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE. THEY WERE LAWFULLY. THEY'RE LAWFULLY EXISTING NOT MAYBE BY VIRTUE OF THEY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE, BUT THEY GOT VALID PERMITS. THEY RELIED ON THEIR PERMITS. SO THEREFORE LEGALLY, THE STRUCTURES ARE LAWFULLY THERE.

THE ONLY THING I WAS ASKING WAS WHEN I WENT OVER. TO WITH SHERRY. IF LIKE, YOU KNOW, GET SOME EVIDENCE OF THE PERMITS ON THAT. THAT'S WHEN SHE TOLD ME AND THAT'S WHY I SWORE HER IN THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE. SO IF THE WORD FEELS SATISFIED THAT THE ATTORNEY CAN'T TEST YOU CAN TESTIFY. CHERRY CAN TESTIFY. IF SHERRY TELLS US. YEAH, THE PLANS THAT THEY SUBMITTED FOR ALL THESE PERMITS. THEY SHOWED THESE THINGS. MAYBE THEY'RE NOT IN THE SIZE. THEY ARE. IF THE BOARD WANTS TO SAY WELL, BUNCH OF YEARS WILL ESTIMATE. YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THEY'RE THERE. IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT YOU COULD. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW.

STARTING THE S AND CROSSING THE T. IF YOU WANTED TO DOT THE I'S AND CROSS THE TS YOU JUST CONTINUE THIS THE NEXT MONTH'S MEETING. AND YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE MR DECKER GOING OUT AND SEE SHARING AND GO THROUGH THAT FILE BECAUSE HE'S UNDER OATH. HE CAN TESTIFY AND HOPEFULLY HE CAN YOU KNOW, FILL IT ALL UP. THEN HE COMES BACK AND SAYS, YEAH, WELL, ACTUALLY, THIS IS BOOM, BA BOOM, BA BOOM. AND THEN YOU HAVE IT GUYS OUT OF THE TS CROSS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT IT. MR. DECKER'S ARGUMENT IS THE CORRECT ONE ARGUMENT TO MAKE I JUST IT'S NOT MY JOB TO SAY. WHETHER HE'S SATISFIED AND MADE THE TROOPS OR NOT. IT'S MY JOB TO TELL YOU THAT. YEAH THAT'S A VALID ARGUMENT, AND I KNOW THAT MR DECKER LOOKED AT AN OLDER PLAN. AND IT SHOWS THAT ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS APPROVED UNDER OUR ONE ZONING, SO THAT MAY BE THE EXPLANATION. THE, UM THE ORIGINAL FILED MAP. FOR THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION PACKAGE, AND I BELIEVE IT'S ONLINE. UH, THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT FOR BEN BROOK FARMS. PHASE THREE. UM, LAST REVISED APRIL 10TH OF 1995 AND IT IS A COPY OF THE FILE PLAT. THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PLAN. INDICATE THAT IT WAS THE R ONE ZONE REQUIREMENT WITH THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF ONE ACRE AND THERE IS NO LIGHT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT LISTED ON THERE FOR, UM, AN R ONE DEVELOPMENT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ONE THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME OR NOT, BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT FOR A ONE ACRE ZONE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE WOULD BE UM, LARGER THAN 15% SHERRY JUST JERRY JUST BROUGHT THE, UM WHAT. MY LET ME GIVE THESE TO YOU, WHICH HARRY HAS BROUGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE JUST A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. TAKE A LOOK AT THESE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'RE SHOWING ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, BUT WE FIGURE IT OUT. BUT WHY DON'T YEAH, I SO I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED AGAIN AND SORRY FOR THE DELAY. UM IT. I. I GUESS IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S UH YOU KNOW SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY AROUND EVEN THE PARTICULAR ZONING. OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO DEFER THE APPLICATION TO A FUTURE DATE.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO DO THAT. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE LOOKED AT THERE IS NO

[00:35:06]

YOU HAVE A FULL AGENDA, SO THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE ON THAT WE JUST HAVE TO GET CARRIED TO APRIL. OK SO THEY CAN GET CARRIED BECAUSE THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE SCHEDULED HAPPEN TO STARTED YET. IS THAT CORRECT? OK, SO THE HEARING IN THIS FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S HERE ON THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT? SO EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE IS ON THE NEXT APPLICATION. OK? SO THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER IS GOING TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 26. 2024 7 P.M. AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR FURTHER NOTICE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND SORRY FOR THE UNCERTAINTIES HERE, WE'LL WE'LL PUT I THINK WE CAN PUT THEM FIRST. SINCE WE'VE ALREADY YEAH.

GREAT, GREAT AND JUST MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS CLEAR WHEN YOU COME BACK. OK, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK WE HAVE A GAME PLAN AND THANKS FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALS FOR FOLLOW UP WITH US THERE AND KIND OF GIVING US A PATHWAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OK, UM. SO IT'S NOT NOT USUAL NOT TO GET THROUGH THE ONE, BUT WE'LL SWITCH GEARS HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT CASE. UH, THE CASE IS, UH BAT 03 T 23. THE APPLICANT IS, UH TAMER. UH, KARUBI, THE BLOCK NUMBER 24 001 LOT. 37 CAME IS EIGHT COUNTY ROUTE 518, A BULK VARIANT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FELLA FAMILY DWELLING ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT. THE EXPIRATION DATE IS MAY 1ST 2022. AFFIDAVIT OF NO NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION IS REQUIRED. MRS UH YOU CAN GO AHEAD. WONDERFUL. MY NAME MR CHAIRMAN. FIRST IS A LETTER. DATE OF JANUARY. 10TH 2024. APPLICATION HAS BEEN PENDING SINCE APRIL. OF LAST YEAR. AND THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A THREE BEDROOM HOME. THIS IS A VERY

[00:40:08]

THAT THIS LOT WAS CREATED IN 1920. YEAH, THIS ONE. GOTTA BE AN EXHIBIT. OK? THREE. JK. CAN YOU SUBMIT THAT? A ONE RIGHT NOW? CAN YOU SHOW IT TO ME? THEN I'M GONNA GIVE IT TO SHERRY. AND AGAIN. THIS SHOWS THAT THE LOT WAS CREATED IN 1929 . FOR THE RECORD. A. ONE HOLD ON YOU GAVE ME. MR SHET, HOLD UP FOR A SECOND. YOU YOU SO YOU GAVE ME A LETTER DATED APRIL 1920 21. FROM MEGA TITLE. SO THE SOMERSET COUNTY CLERK AND A SEARCH. IT'S ACTUAL TITLE SEARCH. UH, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU . WHAT YOU WANNA PUT IN IS A TITLE SEARCH, RIGHT? YOU DON'T YOU NEED THIS LETTER FROM MEG. OH, YEAH. HOLD ON. OK, SO. JUST HOLD IT. HOLD IT.

HOLD IT. HOLD IT. I'M GONNA DO YOU WANT THIS LETTER BACK? I JUST. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA MARK

[00:45:09]

WE WILL, THEN, UH. I WORKED WITH HIM ALSO ON THE SPECIES. KAY, SO I JUST WANNA GO TO I WANT TO GO TO JAMES AND MICHAEL'S MEMO DATE OF FEBRUARY 20TH ON THEIR LAST PAGE THEY LIST THE RELIEF. I WANTED TO GO TO THAT PAGE AND CROSS OFF. WHAT THE, UM JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THEY REVISED THIS TO FEBRUARY 21ST. OK, SO, MR CHATMAN, HOLD UP ONE MINUTE. SO THE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN THEIR MEMO IS FROM ORDINANCE SECTION 16-5 0.14 C ONE D SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT AND ORDINANCE SECTION. 16-5 0.6 D THREE TREES, SO YOU'RE ELIMINATING THE DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE TREES, WHICH I ASSUME IS BOTH STREET TREES AND NO, THEY'VE ALREADY MET THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT ON THE PLAN, SO THIS IS JUST FOR THE BUT IT'S THE OTHER EXCEPTION. THE 14, A YEAH, WE'LL DO 14 PER ACRE, NOT THE STREET. YOU DO WHAT AS WELL. LET ME CATCH UP WITH MY NOTES.

NO, I'M NOT. I'M NOT READY YET. TO A 14 TREES PER ACRE FOR ABOUT A QUARTER ACRE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR TREES IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING. YEP. OKAY, WE'RE READY. I'M READY. YES. IT'S A COUNTY ROAD. AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE A COUNTY ROAD I ALWAYS ASK AN ENGINEER OR MYSELF TO CONTACT LAURA F OR THE ENGINEER. THE COUNTY SAYS THEY'LL DEFER TO YOU. OR THE SIDEWALK. OK, SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO SIDEWALK, THE COUNTY WILL AGREE, AND YOU'LL AGREE. HOWEVER. HOWEVER. I JUST WANTED. WELL KNOWS THAT SIDEWALKS IN MONTGOMERY AND AT THE EVEN AIRCRAFT WHERE THE CLUB IS AND IT'S MILES AWAY. AND THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE. IT DOESN'T. SO. THERE'S ALWAYS A

[00:50:14]

NO.

II. I. IS THE SIDEWALK ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, OR IS IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? THERE IS NO SIDEWALK. RIGHT NOW, IF THEY PUT A SIDEWALK IN, WOULD IT BE ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, AND WOULD IT INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY? OR WOULD IT BE IN THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SO IT WOULD NOT INCREASE THEIR IMPERIOUS COVERAGE? THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS. MAYBE THIS IS TO RAT. RICHIE. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION MY.

HE HE. MR IS ASKING IS WHETHER THE SIDEWALK. IF YOU DO CONSTRUCT IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE ON YOUR PROPERTY OR WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. HE SAID. IT'S IN THE RIGHT WAY. MICHAEL IS, WILL IT ADD TO THE RICHIE, LISTEN TO ME. WILL IT ADD TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE OF YOUR APPLICANTS PROJECT OR NOT? SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR MEMO IS WHETHER THE AKIN IS PROPOSING ANY RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION. IT APPEARS ON THE PLAN. THAT THERE IS RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION, IN WHICH CASE THE A LOT AREA WOULD THEN BE IMPACTED AND THEN THE PREVIOUS FIGURES WOULD HAVE TO BE RECAP. QUESTION. SO THE. THAT THAT'S MY QUESTION, CAUSE IT APPEARS ON THE PLAN. AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING YOU YOUR ENGINEER CAN ANSWER. UM BASED OFF THE PLANE.

IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE GOES TO NOT TO CENTER LINE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PLANE. WHAT IT APPEARS. UM THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE AREA THAT'S WERE NOTING FOR A LOT TO THAT RIGHT OF WAY LINE. THAT'S THAT'S SHOWN OR IS IT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH GOES FURTHER IN WHICH IS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROADWAY. RIGHT. THERE'S A GOOD PICTURE OF THIS ON PAGE TWO OF JAMES'S MEMO.

YOU.

UNLESS THE TOWNSHIP OWNS THE LAND UNDER THE ROAD. IN THE NEW SUBDIVISIONS. THE TOWNSHIP OWNS THE LAND UNDER THE ROAD, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THIS MAP THAT THE COUNTY HAS A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER YOUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY. IF THE COUNTY HAS A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT, THEN HE'S CORRECT THAT THE SIDEWALK WOULD ADD TO HIS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. WHERE ARE THEY IN? DOES THAT CHANGE ANY OF THE CALCULATIONS THAT ARE ON THE CHART? IT WOULD SLIGHTLY INCREASE, SO NOT BY A LOT. I MEAN, I MEAN, HE'S NOT EVEN FINISHED ANSWERING THE QUESTION RICH. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE IT BY A LOT. IT WOULD INCREASE. I MEAN, I CAN I CAN IF YOU LIKE. BUT LET ME JUST WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING FOR AS FAR AS IMPER COVER GOES YOU YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ABOUT 100 AND 40 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE SIDEWALK 4 FT. WIDE 4 FT WIDE. THE FRONTAGE IS 80 FT. YOU ALREADY HAVE AN APRON IN THERE. SO THE APRONS 12 FT WIDE. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

[00:55:04]

IT WOULD INCREASE THEIR PURPOSE BY TWO THREE. OK? YES. UH, LET'S LET'S HAVE MR CRIVELLI CHECK THAT. I'M SORRY. 16-2 0.5 OR 16 THAT.

DON'T QUERY YET. LET HIM LOOK. YOU ASKED HIM A QUESTION. LET HIM LET HIM GET THE ANSWER. 2.1 IS THE DEFINITIONS LIST RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT IT, WHICH, UM, WHICH DEFINITION IS THAT UNDER THAT IT INDICATES STRUCTURE, OK? THAT IS CORRECT. UM, I JUST. UH, JUST SO THE BOARD CAN BE ASSURED THAT I USUALLY TRY TO DOT MY I'S AND CROSS MY T. I LOOKED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. IT'S UNDER THE CHEST, THE UP AND STRUCTURE. SO MY APOLOGIES FOR OK, SO WE'RE GONNA GO UNDER THE ORDINANCE, SO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE YOUR FRONT YARD, MARRING ITS CORRECT CORRECT. WELL, IT'S UM DON'T DON'T QUERY IT. IT'S NOT DONE WITH IT. YOU UNDERSTAND? WE? WE'RE NOT DONE. YOU CAN'T START THROWING UP QUESTIONS UNTIL WE'RE DONE WITH EACH ONE. SO FOR MY LIST, THERE'S THREE DISTANCE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO SIDE REAR AND PRINCIPLE. SO THOSE THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD ELIMINATE FROM THE LIST. ON YOUR LIST.

TELL ME THAT AGAIN. THERE'S A SO . A LIST OF VARIANCES. SO IN OTHER WORDS, FRONT YARD SETBACK.

NO, NO, NO. OH, YOU SAYING ACCESSORY DISTANCE OF YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OK, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TO CROSS OFF THE THREE DISTANCE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VARIANCES BECAUSE UNDER THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS A STRUCTURE AND IS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY. A SEPTIC SYSTEM IS EXEMPT IS EXEMPT. OK, NOW I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU, MISTER SCHATZMAN FOR LOOKING IN THAT AND FOR TEACHING ME OK? NOW YOU HAVE OK? AND. OK? YES, THERE'S A SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAYS IT CAN, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT LIKE A REALLY WAY OUT THERE CURVEBALL. BECAUSE RICHIE, YOU HEAR MY THAT'S MY ANSWER. YES, IT CAN.

IS THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAYS SO NEXT ISSUE. WHAT DO WE HAVE NEXT? EXCELLENT. EVEN

[01:00:07]

RICHARD BARTONE BOARD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. GO AHEAD. IF YOU. YES. I AM A GRADUATE OF BROOKINGS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING. I HAVE BEEN A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN NEW JERSEY SINCE 1989. PROVIDING TESTIMONY BEFORE A NUMEROUS PLANNING BOARDS AND ZONING BOARDS. IN UH, NEW JERSEY . I'M ALSO THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER AND THE COUNCIL.

FORMALLY THE ZONING BOARD ENGINEER THERE, FORMERLY THE TOWN. ALSO BEEN THE ALTERNATE ENGINEER IN CONFLICT ENGINEER ON NUMEROUS PLANNING BOARDS AND ZONING BOARDS IN THE STATE.

RIGHT? WELL, I DO ACCEPT IT. YES, I DID. YES, I AM. COURSE. YES, I DID. THE PROJECT. YEAH, SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT EIGHT COUNTY ROUTE 518. UH, ALSO KNOWN AS BLOCK 24, 001 LOCK 37.

IT IS A EXISTING PROPERTY. I WILL REFER TO MY PLANS WHICH ARE UP ON THE, UH I'M GOING TO SCROLL DOWN TO SHEET NUMBER THREE. ZOOM IN ON ZONING TABLE. RHYMES. AS WAS DISCUSSED AS AN EXISTING UNDERSIZED LOT. IN THE ARCHIVE ZONE WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA IS FIVE ACRES. THE EXISTING LOT IS. 0.272 ACRES. GROSS. NOT PERFORMING. REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IN THE ZONE IS 300 FT. WE HAVE 80.72 FT. PERFORMANCE. IS BE REQUIRED. THE. 2 FT. IT'S A NON CONFORMING LOT. NOT THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE 500 FT. NEAR 176.54 NON. AND IN THE ZONE. THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE IS 15. WE A RE PROPOSING 29.12. MAYBE ADJUSTED THE SIDEWALK. HOWEVER THAT IS A PROPOSED NON PERFORMANCE REQUIRING A VARIANCE. WITH RESPECT TO THE. BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE FRONT YARD ACQUIRED IS 75 FT. UH, REAR YARD IS 100 FT. BESIDE THE ARTIST OF 75 FT. SO THERE IS NO BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THE LOT RIGHT NOW. WE'RE PROPOSING A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 27.0 FT.

SIDE YARD OF 11.0 FT IN A REAR YARD OF 80.5 FT. EACH OF THESE WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE. THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 32.51 FT, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FIVE. AND UH, THE BUILDING COVERAGE MAXIMUM. ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE IS 8% WE ARE PROPOSING 15.13% AGAIN. REQUIRES A VARIANCE. SO ESSENTIALLY, EVERYTHING WE'RE PROPOSING IS GOING TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY. ALSO HAVE. AN EXISTING COVERAGE AS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER THERE WAS AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB. THAT COMPRISED 3.48% OF THE LOT. WE ARE NOW PROPOSING A DWELLING TO DRIVEWAY. SOME CONCRETE AREAS AND MISCELLANEOUS STEPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHICH UH, A TOTAL OF 3444 SQUARE FEET OR 29.12% OF THE LOT. THE LOT WAS. THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS

[01:05:08]

ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT IS A MINOR PROJECT WITH RESPECT TO STORM WATER. ON THE NEW JERSEY STORMWATER REGULATIONS IN THAT WE ARE LESS AND ONE QUARTER OF AN ACRE OF NEW AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE IN LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBANCE. THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP LAND USE CODE DOES REQUIRE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON THIS SO WE EXCAVATED SOME SOIL LOGS IN AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR UH, THAT AND THOSE ARE SHOWN ON THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY OUT NEAR ROUTE 518. MOVE ON TO MY THOSE CONDITIONS PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE. COMING IN OFF OF ROUTE 518 WITH A DRIVEWAY ACCESS. UH, INTO A DRIVEWAY. AND THE HOUSE IS A TWO BEDROOM HOUSE. UH, THAT HAS GOT A GARAGE IN FRONT. AND A THE TWO BEDROOM DWELLING IN THE BACK. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE HOUSE. MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP LAND USE CODE AND SEPTIC ORDINANCE REQUIRES A PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA AND A RESERVE DISPOSAL AREA. THOSE WHO ARE EACH SHOWN ON THE PLAN HERE. WITH A ADVANCED TREATMENT UNIT FOR SEPTIC, UH, TREATMENT, SO THAT WILL HAVE A VERY HIGH QUALITY EFFLUENT. GOING INTO THE WE'VE ALSO PROPOSED UTILITIES. UH INCLUDING, UH, ELECTRIC. GAS AND UH, PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.

AGAIN. IT'S A THAT WOULD BE EXTENDED. FROM THE COUNTY LINE ROAD TO THE EAST. AND WE DO HAVE A SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE'RE PROPOSING PERMEABLE. AND.

HOPEFULLY AND INFILTRATE YOUR GROUND. OUR SOIL TESTING WAS NOT VERY GOOD, AND WE HAVE A HIGH WATER TABLE IN THIS AREA. WE ENCOUNTERED THE GROUNDWATER TABLE OF JUST OVER 2 FT. BELOW THE GROUND SURFACE. AND SO THAT'S GONNA IT REALLY RESTRICTS OUR ABILITY TO DESIGN ANY STORM WATER FOR THAT. THAT IS REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND OUR PROPOSAL. QUESTIONS. MY UNDERSTANDING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. OH, YOU DON'T. TECHNICALLY, WE.

NOTHING IS DONE ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING A. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AS AN EXISTING. IN MY REALLY? TO YES, YOU ARE. ON THIS MEMO. I'M REFERRING TO HIS MEMOS. FEBRUARY 21ST 2004. TALK ABOUT. WHERE IS THAT? IS THIS A SLAB ON GRADE? THERE'S A BASEMENT ON PAGE. UH,

[01:10:03]

DID I MISS THAT? A HIGH WATER TABLE AND LOW VERY, VERY LOW PERMEABILITY. HOWEVER, OUR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS DESIGNED SUCH THAT WE CAN MAXIMIZE WHATEVER IRATION CAPACITY THERE IS RIGHT. BUT IF THERE'S A HIGH WATER TABLE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BASEMENT WITH A HIGH WATER TABLE. YES, WE ARE GONNA HAVE A BASEMENT. THAT'S SO WHAT'S THE LOWEST ELEVATION IN THE BASEMENT? AND WHAT'S THE HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE WATER TABLE? THE ELEVATION IS 1 48.00. AND ELEVATION OF THE WATER TABLE. HARD TO LOOK AT IT ON THESE THINGS. I HAVE TO GO TO THE RIGHT. AND. NUMBER. 10. AND UP. HERE IS A CROSS SECTION. ARE DRIVEWAY.

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IS 1 49.80. AS I SAID, JUST NOW, THE BASIN ELEVATION IS ONE THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR SOME PROMPTS AND OR FOUNDATION DRAINS. SAY THAT AGAIN. THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR SOME PUMPS AND OR FOUNDATION DRAINS. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE WATER TABLE. BELOW THE. PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE. IS SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN IT WAS, UH AND THE AND THE BANK LEA LOGS THE IN IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, SO THE WATER TABLE GETS DEEPER AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS THE NORTH. CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE.

SEPTIC SYSTEM. SO IS THIS A MOUND? YES, IT IS A MOUNTED DISPOSAL FIELD. UH AND IT IS.

AND IT'S A MOUNTED SYSTEM BECAUSE AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE HIGH WATER TABLE HIGH WATER TABLE. YES, SIR. AND BECAUSE THERE'S THE SOILS NOT PERMEABLE. CORRECT. IN. YES I. I IN THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WERE ABLE TO DO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMEABILITY TESTING THAN WE ARE FOR STORM WATER. OKAY? AND, ACTUALLY, UH, NOT SURE IF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN WAS INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS, HOWEVER. I DO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. AND THE WATER TABLE IN THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS AT 1 52.58, SO IT WAS HIGHER THAN IT THAN IN THE FRONT. SO AS I SAID IT, IT IT DOES GET DEEPER AS YOU MOVE TO THE NORTH. OK, THANK YOU. YES, PLEASE. YEAH.

183 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE COUNTY, RIGHT AWAY TO THE COUNTY. OK, WE HAVE A LETTER FROM. COUNTY PLANNING BOARDS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DATED JUNE 13TH 2023. WE HAVE THAT IN THE FILE SHARING. JUST ASKING HER, RICHIE. ANYWAY, JUST TO PLAY IT SAFE. CAN YOU MARK THAT AS EXHIBIT A TWO. SO I. I'LL TELL YOU. WHAT CAN YOU CAN YOU OK, I'LL GIVE YOU MORE. YOU.

[01:15:17]

THOSE CONDITIONS, RIGHT? SO ON THIS RIGHT? YOU HAVE. WHERE IT LISTS THE BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SO GROSS AREA IS 11,828 SQUARE FEET. IN THAT AREA IS 10,645. VERY GO BACK. RIGHT? UP A LITTLE BIT. OH, OK. THERE YOU GO. SO THAT THAT YOU'RE LISTING THE NET, THE AREA GROSS AREA AND THAT AREA. THEN AT THE BOTTOM. IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY SHOW THE RIGHT OF THE LINE. OK, THAT IS THAT 33 FT AT THAT POINT THAT IS, ACTUALLY, UH, IT, SAYS 34.7. I THINK WHAT WE HAD THE COUNTY ACTUALLY ASKED FOR AN UPDATED SURVEY. AND SO WE'RE GONNA GET AN UPDATED SURVEY. THE OTHER THING THAT'S CONFUSING TO ME. IF. A RIGHT OF WAY IS TECHNICALLY AN EASEMENT, BUT THEY SAY RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ANY OF THAT. YOU GUYS YEAH, IT IT'S. THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT 11,000 GROSS 10,000. IS THAT WITH WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA CALL IT, THE DEDICATION OR EASEMENT OR WHATEVER IT IS, YES. THAT IS TRACKING OUT WHATEVER IS IN THIS RIGHT OF WAY HERE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A DEDICATION, NOT A RIGHT? OK, SO IF THAT'S GONNA BE A DEDICATION, THEN YOU'RE ALL YOUR PERCENT. YOUR COVERAGES AND EVERYTHING. COULD BE CALCULATED BASED OFF OF THE NET, RIGHT? BECAUSE I BELIEVE I THINK YOU GOT TO CALL THE COUNTY BECAUSE IF THEY SAID RIGHT OF WAY, EASEMENT THEN YOU'D GIVE THEM A RIGHT AWAY EASEMENT. BUT THEY SAID IN THEIR LETTER RIGHT OF WHAT DEDICATION AND YOU'RE SHOWING ON YOUR PLAN. WHAT MR DARG SAYS. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A GROWTH IN THE NET BECAUSE THE NET IS BECAUSE YOU'RE DEDICATING THAT PROPERTY. YOU'RE NOT SIMPLY GIVING AN EASEMENT. PRACTICAL PURPOSES. I THINK ALL THE ARGUMENTS ARE ARGUMENTS AND THE ARGUMENTS ARE ALL THE SAME. ALL THE SAME TO IRON OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE, BECAUSE IF WE GIVE A VARIANCE OF 28% AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN YOU CAP THERE, BASED OFF THE 10,000 OUR FEET LIKE YOU'RE AT 37% AND YOU'RE GONNA BE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD UNDERSTOOD? THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. BUT. SO, YOU CLIENT YOUR CLIENT NO LONGER GONNA OWN TO HALFWAY THROUGH THE ROAD AFTER THIS IF THE BOARD APPROVES IT, CORRECT. OK? YEAH.

IT WAS. YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

[01:20:21]

LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF THE SURFACE. SO ABSENT A. AND WHERE'S COVERAGE VARIANTS? THE A WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH MAJOR PROJECT THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE AN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A REDUCTION IN PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF. OF THE. POST OF OUTBREAK MUST BE 75 50% OF THE PREDE DEVELOPPED FOR THE

[01:25:01]

DO. I THINK THAT'S CLEARED UP. WELL, IF YOU TO CONTINUE ON MR SCHATZ'S QUESTION. FILL IN THE BLANK. UH, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE, UH EXTENT OF IT. THAT WAS IT. THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ELSE IN HIS REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT A CHANGE. YOU'RE AGREEING AS A CONDITION. WELL ACTUALLY, THAT'S WHAT HE ASKED YOU I. I HAVE A SO FOR EXAMPLE, LANDSCAPING, YOU SAID ON PAGE FIVE. LANDSCAPING NOTE. ONE. MR SCHATZMAN SAID NO CROSS THAT OUT. THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE THERE IS NO EASEMENT. THAT WAS A MISTAKE. ON MY PART, HOWEVER, THAT WENT OUT. SO WHAT? WHAT ELSE? MR SHAF WANTS TO KNOW WHAT ELSE AND MR DAR'S REPORT ARE YOU REQUESTING? I CROSS OUT.

THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING YOU. HOPEFULLY THE ANSWER IS NONE SO UP ON THE TOP OF PAGE FIVE.

UNDER FIVE. AS A MINIMUM OF 1. FT SHOULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE STORAGE BED AND THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE. CAN'T COMPLY WITH THAT. IF YOU GIVE US, UM I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S A SHALLOW WATER TABLE YOU HAVE CONSTRICTED BY SO IT'S A GRADING DIFFICULTY. IS THERE A UM. FOR A DETRIMENT FROM FROM THE GRANTEE OF THAT BRANCH. WHY ISN'T THERE? WHY ISN'T THAT A DETRIMENTAL? UH, GIVEN GIVEN THE, UH LOT RATING. AND THE HIGH WATER TABLE. WE CAN PROVIDE 1 FT. ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE STORAGE PIPES.

AND THE HIGH WATER TABLE. THE GRAVEL BELOW THOSE PIPES. WE PROPOSED A PHOTOGRAPH BELOW THOSE PIPES. THAT WILL HAVE, UH, SATURATION WHEN THE WATER TABLE COMES UP AT SOME POINT. BUT WE CAN PROVIDE IT AND WE PROVIDE IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN. AND AGAIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE GRADING.

ARE SUCH THAT WE CAN'T PROVIDE THAT FOR WANT SEPARATION. I MEAN , WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON? IS THAT A PROBLEM? AND THEN I, UH THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AND MOST INFILTRATION. UM B MP S. IS TO HAVE AAA LEVEL OF FILTRATION THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE WATER WHERE THE STORM WATER ENTERS THE GROUND. AND THEN SO AND THEN GETS INTO THE WATER TABLE. IN THIS CASE, UM WHAT WE HAVE IS A OF COURSE, PAVE SURFACE WHICH ACTUALLY THE CHOKER COURSE. 10 TO SERVE AS A LITTLE FOR THAT, AND WE'RE WE'RE IT'S. SOMETHING. WHERE WHERE I HAVE THE DP ACTUALLY HAS IN IN CASES IN CERTAIN CASES, ACTUALLY ALLOW THEM. THAT SEPARATION WE GO TO ZERO WELL, BUT I DON'T HAVE, UH, OBJECTION. TO WE PROVIDED AN OVERFLOW TO CATCH FACING DOWN AND MOVE 518 THAT'S AT THE TOP OF OUR OF OUR STORAGE PIPES. SO THAT. WATER TABLE DOES COME UP.

[01:30:01]

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES BESIDES HIM? DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? BESIDES YOUR PLANNER? OK, CAN YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP SO I CAN SWEAR THE APPLICANT IN RIGHT NOW? CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD ON THE TAMARA KUBI? TAMARA KARUBI. AND YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH. THE WHOLE TRUTH. NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. YES, THANK YOU. CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF ONE MORE TIME FOR ME, MATTHEW FLYNN FLYNN. YOU WERE A PP. OBVIOUSLY, YES. AND THEN A IC P. UM MY EDUCATION COMES FROM RUTGERS. I HAVE MY MASTER'S DEGREE IN PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY. UM I HAVE MY PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS LICENSE MY A IC P, WHICH IS THE NATIONAL LICENSER FOR PLANNERS.

I'VE TESTIFIED BEFORE ABOUT 100 BOARDS ACROSS THE STATE. I BELIEVE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS BOARD. UH, GREAT. BUT WHEN DID YOU GRADUATE? 2018 I THANK YOU, SIR. FAMILIAR. YES.

YES. I AM. TELL THE BOARD. YES SO AS THE BOARD KNOWS, WE ARE LOOKING AT ONE TAX LAW, WHICH IS, UH, BLOCK 24001 LOT 37 . IT'S A SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSIZED LOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ZONING. UM WE HAVE 0.272 ACRES, WHICH COMES OUT TO 11,848 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY, WHEREAS FIVE ACRES IS REQUIRED, UH, PER ZONING. UM THIS APPLICANT IS NOT CREATING A NEW LAW. THIS IS A LAWFULLY EXISTING LAW. UM, WE ARE IN THE R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. HISTORICALLY THERE WAS A DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. THE PROPOSED USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

SO IN ESSENCE, WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. AND ALL OF THE RELIEF THAT'S BEING SOUGHT IS REALLY THE RESULT OF THIS BEING A SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSIZED LOT.

UH, SO SINCE THIS IS A PERMITTED USE, THE QUESTION REALLY BECOMES , IS THE DESIGN APPROPRIATE? AND IS THIS THE BEST DESIGN THAT THE APPLICANT CAN BRING FORWARD? UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY? WHAT WE'LL HEAR FROM AND, UH IN JUST THE IN JUST A MINUTE. IS THAT THE C RELIEF THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SATISFIED. I'LL GO THROUGH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BASICALLY THE R FIVE ZONE ANTICIPATES SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER LOTS FIVE ACRE LOTS. SO ALL THESE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEED RELIEF FROM OUR RELATIVE TO THESE VERY LARGE LOTS. UH, IN IN, UH, IN RELATION TO OUR LOT, SO THESE SETBACKS VIRTUALLY ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MET. UH, SO QUICKLY. I'LL JUST LIST THE RELIEF HERE. UH, THE FIRST FOUR ARE DIMENSIONAL, SO NONE OF THIS IS ACTUALLY NEW. LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT CREATING A NEW LAW, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT AREA WHERE PROPOSING 0.228 ACRES AGAIN. EXISTING FIVE ACRES IS WHAT'S REQUIRED. LOT FRONTAGE. 78.96 IS EXISTING 78.96. FT IS EXISTING, WHEREAS 300 FT IS WHAT'S REQUIRED. LOT WITH AGAIN 78.96 FT IS EXISTING 300. FT IS REQUIRED. AND LOT DEPTH. 143.5 FT IS EXISTING 500 FT IS REQUIRED. SO ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS REALLY SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT THIS R FIVE ZONE

[01:35:02]

UM AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, I'LL JUST MENTION THAT IN TERMS OF THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA HERE, UM WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROPERTY THAT'S THIS SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSIZED JUST TO GIVE THE BOARD AN EXAMPLE IF WE WERE TO COMBINE THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ADDS UP TO 175 FT, SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE I GUESS, UM. WELL YEAH, IT'S THE, UH, THE FRONT SET BACK COMBINED WITH THE REAR SETBACK. THAT WOULD BE 175 FT, WHEREAS WE ONLY HAVE 176.5 FT OF DEPTH. SO OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD LEAVE US ABOUT 1 FT. TO PLAY AROUND WITH FOR A BUILDING AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S MR BAER SAID THERE WAS NO BUILDING ENVELOPE. SO THERE'S A RIDICULOUSLY SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. PRECISELY. YEAH AND JUST JUST ANOTHER QUICK EXA MP IN TERMS OF SIDE SETBACKS AGAIN, 75 FT IS REQUIRED ON EACH SIDE. WE ONLY HAVE 80 FT IN WIDTH. SO AGAIN, THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS ESSENTIALLY NON EXISTENT. WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING A LOT COVERAGE.

VARIANCES UH WELL, WE'RE REQUESTING A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR 26.27% WHEREAS WE NEED WE ARE ALLOWED UP TO 15% AND THEN PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE. UH, 16.3% IS EXIST IS PROPOSED, AND ONLY 8% IS ALLOWED JUST JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE. I MEAN, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION LATER. THAT UM, ACTUALLY, THE BOARD PLANNERS MEMO INCLUDES ALL THESE NUMBER. WITH THE PROPOSED WIDER WAY DEDICATION, SO IT ALL OF THE NUM NUMBERS THAT YOU JUST SAID WERE WERE IN FACT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION I. I DON'T NEED YOU TO GO THROUGH THOSE THE ACTUAL CORRECT NUMBERS , BUT I JUST WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE BOARD THAT THAT ON PAGE UM IT DOESN'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER. UM YEAH, I'M SORRY. PAGE 414. IT HAS ALL THE NUMBERS THAT ARE I LISTED. I DON'T I DON'T MEAN TO CORRECT YOU. I JUST WANNA FOR CLARITY.

ABSOLUTELY YEAH. UM IF THE BOARD WANTS ME TO GO THROUGH ANY OF IT, JUST LET ME KNOW OTHERWISE BETWEEN THE LOT COVERAGE ON THE PLANNERS MEMO AND THE ENGINEER'S MEMO, SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY TRY TO GET THAT RESOLVED. WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED MR BAER ABOUT THAT. IN OTHER WORDS. PLANNER'S MEMO SAYS. THAT PROPOSED. LOT COVERAGE IS 26.27. BUT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, IT'S 31.3. AND MISS DAR'S MEMO. SAYS. THAT THE. LOT COVERAGE IS 29.12% WHICH IS NEITHER. THE 26.27 OR THE 31.3. YOURS DIDN'T DIDN'T INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND WHEN YOU DID THE CALCULATION WE DIDN'T MEASURE ALL THE IT DIDN'T . MR BAER TRY TO RECONCILE. LET ME ASK YOU THIS WHILE MR BAER IS LOOKING AT THAT UNLESS YOU'RE READY YEAH, I CAN KEEP PLOWING THROUGH IF YOU WANT AND CIRCLE BACK. IF HE'S READY, HE'S READY. MR DAR'S MEMO. THE 29.12 IS REPRODUCED FROM OUR PLAN. SO I, UH I WOULD I WOULD GO WITH THAT. I'M NOT SURE HOW, UH, CALCULATED HIS 26.27. I USED, UM BLUE BEAM SOFTWARE AND I USING YOUR SCALE AND I CUT OUT THE AREA BEYOND THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT COULD BE THAT RIGHT. SO IT'S WHEN I MINOR. THAT'S HOW I GOT IT. OK, WE. WE DID OUR CALCULATION IN USING THE AUTOCAD AREA. SO I WAS I WAS JUST SAYING, THAT'S HOW I GOT MY NAME. MR. AND MR BAYER AGREE ON A NUMBER I. I MR DARCY'S NUMBER. IS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE I GOT THE STRAIGHT WITH OR WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION. 29%

[01:40:03]

THAT LOT'S BEEN TAKEN. IT CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING, RIGHT? AND SO I COULD TAKE LAW. I WAS GONNA TAKE IT DOWN BOTH. OK? IF YOU'RE GONNA GO START WITH C TWO START WITH THE POSITIVE AND GO WITH THE NEGATIVE, BUT GO AHEAD. I GET. I CAN START WITH C ONE IF THAT MAKES IT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE. SURE. SURE SO. AS I SAID, THIS ALL THESE OWN REQUIREMENTS ANTICIPATE A MUCH LARGER LOT. THEY'RE REALLY NOT APPLICABLE TO A LOT OF THIS SIZE . LIKE I SAID, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MET. WE'D BE LEFT WITH NO BUILDING ENVELOPE. I GAVE THE BOARD SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW IF WE LOOKED AT THOSE SETBACKS, WE'D BE LEFT WITH NO SPACE LEFT FOR A BUILDING. UH SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE OF THE LOT SIZE THAT'S ANTICIPATED HERE. SO BASICALLY ALL OF THAT GOES TOWARDS THE C ONE HARDSHIP TEST. I THINK IT'S PRETTY SELF EXPECT. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IN AC. ONE CASE ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DAL? MERE VERSUS LACEY? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE? OK, SO THAT CASE SAYS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE IT SUMMARIZED THE LAW. APPLICABLE TO AN UNDERSIZED LOT CASE. AND THIS IS JUDGE SERPENT ELLI AND WHAT HE SAID WAS THE APPLICANTS GOT TO DO. FIVE THINGS IN THE BOARD HAS TO DO FOUR THINGS IN AN UNDERSIZED LOCK. CASE NUMBER ONE. APPLICANTS REQUIRED TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF, LIKE ANY OTHER CASE. AS TO THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CRITERIA. NO BRAINER. NUMBER TWO.

DEMONSTRATE THAT EFFORTS WERE MADE TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY OR OFFERING TO SELL NOW, MR UM SCHATZMAN. SOMEWHERE IN THE FILE. I SAW THAT THEY THERE'S NO PROPERTY THEY CAN ACQUIRE BECAUSE THERE'S LOTS ON EITHER SIDE ARE ALSO UNDER SIZED BUT WAS WERE EFFORTS MADE TO SELL. A LOT AND ACCORDING TO THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT. J VERSUS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN 2005 CASE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE AN OFFER TO SELL THE LOT AT FAIR MARKET VALUE, ASSUMING A HOUSE IS BUILT ON IT TO THE TWO NEIGHBORS WAS WAS AN EFFORT MADE TO DO THAT. OUR HOUSE. I. PROPERTY. TO CORRECT I THAT'S.

RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I SAID, AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT A CERTIFIED LETTER OUT TO THE TWO NEIGHBORS OFFERING TO SELL AND YOU GET A YOU PROJECT A FAIR MARKET VALUE WITH A HOUSE ON I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT YOU? IT'S NOT. I'M LOOKING AT MY BOOK PAGE 457. THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE DOLLMEYER CASE, AND THAT'S WHERE JUDGE MM. YEAH, BUT. AGAIN I'M NOT BEING A STICKLER, BUT I AM.

BUT THERE'S A CASE THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO. IF

[01:45:03]

OKAY DIRECTLY. EITHER WAY, I WOULD SAY THAT PROXIMITY HAS REALLY IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING, WHICH IS THAT WE JUST NEEDED SOME METRIC TO SAY WHAT'S PROPORTIONAL. AND WHAT IS THE TOWN RECOGNIZED AS BEING PROPORTIONAL IN TERMS OF SETBACKS BUILDING SIZE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF THIS SIZE? UM SO SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED IN THAT ZONE IS 10 FT.

WE HAVE 11 FRONT SETBACK IN THAT ZONE. WE ONLY NEED 10 FT. WE HAVE 40.8. REAR SETBACK. WE WOULD ONLY NEED 20 HERE WE HAVE 80.5 FT AND PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE. YOU'RE ALLOWED 20% AND WE'RE ON THE 16.3% AGAIN. THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP IS JUST BECAUSE WE DID WANT SOME METRIC TO COMPARE IT TO UM, ON A LOT OF THIS SIZE, AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A GOOD WAY TO KIND OF GAUGE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN WHAT THE TOWN HAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN ZONES WHERE THIS SIZE LOT EXISTS AND IS CONTEMPLATING. THE QUESTION IS, HOW DOES HOW DO YOUR

[01:50:06]

ON SMALL TRACKS WITH SIMILAR FRONTAGE IS YOU'RE SAYING WHAT YOU DID WAS YOU TOOK THE VN ZONE. TO ANNOUNCE AND. TO ANALOGIZED BY. I'M ASKING IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK, MR BEAR MIGHT HAVE IT. EVEN ON A 200 FT LIST. BUT CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE ON SMALL TRACKS WERE SIMILAR FRONTAGE IS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE IF IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT DOWN MIRED. JUST TELLING YOU GUYS TO DO AND I FORGOT TO MENTION DOWN MYERS TELLING THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. ONE IS, THEY SAID, REMEMBER TO BE CONSCIENTIOUS IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE FACTS SINCE AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL. MAY AMOUNT TO A TAKING. OKAY SO I AM TELLING YOU THAT SOME VARIANCES HAVE TO BE GRANTED HERE. AND AGAIN. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT SIZE IS THE HOUSE? AND THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER EVEN IF YOU THINK THIS WILL BE AN AWFUL THING YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER IN LIEU OF DENYING THE APPLICATION. CAN YOU APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD MODIFY THE PROPOSAL AND OBVIATE OR MINIMIZE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT. SO IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND YOU THINK THAT THIS IS TOO BIG, YOU CAN TELL THEM TO MAKE IT A LITTLE SMALLER. IF YOU THINK YOU'RE FINE WITH IT, THEN YOU CAN DEFINE WITH IT, BUT I WILL RARELY EVER SAY ANY OF MY BOARD CLIENTS THAT IN MY OPINION, YOU HAVE TO GRANT THESE VARIANCES AND I'M SAYING IT HERE. YOU HAVE TO GRANT VARIANCES. IT'S JUST YOU'RE NOT NAILED INTO WHAT SETBACKS TO REQUIRE THAT THERE'S WHERE YOUR DISCRETION IS. UM, I'M MAKING MYSELF CLEAR. ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY. SOUTH. SHOW. WHAT? BECAUSE. I THINK YOU ARE.

I'M SAYING. IS PLANNING. SO GLAD. RIGHT. YOU CAN. FOR LOTS, CONTROLLER. I'M SAYING IS THIS RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND AND I UNDERSTAND WHY HE ANALOGIZED TO THE END. ZONE.

AND I LOST SAYS THAT WHEN THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION IN ONE APPLICATION, IT'S NOT SETTING PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER APPLICATION. HAVING SAID THAT IF YOU GO TO JAMES'S REPORT ON PAGE 10 THERE'S A BUNCH OF VACANT LOTS ACROSS THE STREET. THAT ARE ALL ALMOST THE SAME NARROWNESS AND CRACKS. JUST MY POINT IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NEGATIVE CRITERION OF THIS AGAIN , THE POSITIVE THAT SHE ONES IT'S A SLAM DUNK, ER, THE NEGATIVE CRITERION. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE IMPACT. AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THE ZONE PLAN. YOU HAVE TO THINK THAT WHATEVER YOU GRANT HERE IN TERMS OF, HOWEVER, YOU'RE GOING TO VIEW THOSE SETBACKS. THESE OTHER ANY OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE COME IN, AND YOU TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. AGAIN. WHATEVER YOU DO HERE IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL. BUT IF YOU TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY, THERE'S A POTENTIAL CLAIM OF

[01:55:04]

JUST A QUESTION. WHAT IN WHICH WHICH ONE OF THE VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED. WHAT REQUIRES THE C TWO VARIANTS. I'M SORRY IT WASN'T FOLLOWING THAT, BECAUSE I WASN'T ANTICIPATING THAT C TWO WOULD APPLY HERE. HE'S SAYING THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE GRANTED. UNDERSTOOD WHAT WOULD THE ARGUMENT PROCEED TO? YES. SO I HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN THERE YET. BASICALLY THE C TWO IS THE BALANCING TEST. SO BENEFITS PERSON THAT DETRIMENTS WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? UM, GRANTING ALL THESE BARRIERS. SORRY. I'M JUST I'M UNCLEAR. ARE YOU ASKING FOR A C TWO VARIANTS? OR I'M SAYING THAT BOTH OF THE C TWO AND THE C ONE TEST APPLIED TO ALL OF THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.

I AM AND JUST TO JUST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BEFORE BEFORE WE TOTALLY LOSE IT. POSITIVE CRITERIA. PURPOSES OF ZONING WOULD BE ADVANCED BY GRANTING THESE IF YOU WANTED TO GO SEE TWO AND NOT SEE ONE. WELL I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO BOTH. I THINK BOTH APPLIED PURPOSES. THE POSITIVE CRITERIA OF THE C TWO IS SOME PURPOSES OF ZONING HAS TO BE ADVANCED BY GRANTING THESE VARIANCES. RIGHT? SO AGAIN, WE HAVE A PERMITTED USE, SO WE'RE PROVIDING A SINGLE FAMILY USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A VACANT PROPERTY, SO REVITALIZING AND UNDERUTILIZED SITE, BRINGING A PERMITTED USE, WHICH I THINK IS EFFICIENT USE OF LAND NEW HOUSING STOCK TO MEET MODERN LIVING, MODERN LIVING MEETING TODAY'S BUILDING CODES AND AGAIN WE HAVE PROPORTIONALITY. I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT ZONES WHERE THIS LOT SIZES CONTEMPLATED. THERE ARE SETBACKS AND WE SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEED SOME OF THESE SETBACKS. SO I THINK THAT THE DESIGN IS AESTHETIC. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID, IN MY OPINION, IT GOES TO SATISFYING THE NEGATIVE CRITERION DEPENDING ON THIS HOUSE, THE HOUSE SIZE BUT HOW HOW IS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PUT A THE HOUSE ON A VACANT LIGHT. ADVANCED THOSE PERMITTED USE, AND I THINK THAT IT'S PERMITTED USE. SO WE HAVE ADVANCED THE PERMITTED USE BY APPROVING THIS ON AN UNDERSIZED LAUGH. WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE IN A WE'RE IN OUR WE'RE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE AND WE'RE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY USE. HIS WORK. PART. WHAT PARTS OF TO WHAT PARTS OF 55 TO RIGHT? SURE, SO IN YOUR OPINION. 4055. THE PURPOSE OF ITS OWN. SUPPORT. SO 40% SURE. HURRY. FANS SURE.

RIGHT? SO. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA, BUT I THINK THE PROPORTIONALITY OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING GOES TOWARDS PURPOSE PURPOSE, I WHICH IS DESIRABLE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT AND AESTHETICS. SO. IT'S GOING TO ADVANCE THE PURPOSE OF AESTHETICS TO HAVE A HOUSE ON A VACANT LOT. RATHER THAN JUST HAVE THE VACANT LOT. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YES. OKAY? I'M SAYING THAT A HOUSE CAN GO HERE. IT'S A PERMITTED USE. SO WE'RE TALKING, UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S I WHAT OTHER WHAT OTHER PURPOSES ARE ADVANCED? SO I WOULD SAY PURPOSE. A PURPOSE G FRIDAY GENERAL APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. GENERAL WELFARE FIRST. THAT'S A HOW IS THE GENERAL WELFARE ADVANCED? BY GRANTING AND UNDERSIZED LOT, MARY. SO SOME TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS CAN HAPPEN HERE BY RIGHT THIS IS A YOU KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY EXISTING LAW. NO DEVELOPMENT CAN HAPPEN. AS OF RIGHT. YOU NEED THEM TO GRANT THE VARIANCE THERE. BUT AS YOU SAID, IT WOULD BE A TAKING. IF SOME VARIANTS RELIEF WASN'T GROUNDED, CORRECT, SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT COMES WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT GOES TOWARDS PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE BY GETTING SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE.

OKAY THAT'S PURPOSE. G VARIETY OF USES INAPPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. PURPOSE M G VARIETY OF USES INAPPROPRIATE LOCATION. HOW IS THAT ADVANCED BY THE BOARD GRANTING THE UNDERSIZED LIBERIANS SO VARIETY OF USES APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WHERE IN THE CORRECT ZONE? WE'RE PROVIDING SINGLE FAMILY IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. BUT WITH BUT WITH VIOLATING EVERY.

IT'S OF POPULATION. A VACANT LOT.

STOUTS. TO PROVIDE A POPULATION. PROPER PROPER. APPLIED TO DO SO. DO YOU AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE

[02:00:19]

THAT'S RIGHT, BUT WE CAN'T DENY A C ONE. SO I WOULD ASK YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR APPLICANT IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE C TWO VARIANTS OR ACHIEVE EVERYTHING YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE C ONE. I WOULD ASK YOUR APPLICANT ACH. BECAUSE THE TAKINGS THING IS ON A C ONE. IF YOU GO FOR A C TWO, AND THEY DON'T THINK YOU MET YOUR PROOFS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A TAKEN BUT YOU TOLD? WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS AND TALK TO THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF HE REALLY WANTS YOU TO GO WITH THE C ONE. NSC TWO OR JUST STICK? OKAY? WELL, I THINK I'M I THINK I'M PRETTY MUCH DONE UNLESS I'M LOOK SOMETHING OR IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

AND JUST TO CIRCLE BACK ON WHAT THE BOARD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT DOING. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND APPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HOUSES. THEY'RE ALL VACANT LOTS AND YOUR WAY OF DOING IT BETTER, WHICH, QUITE FRANKLY, I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH YOU IS COMPARING IT TO THE D'ANGELO. THAT'S FINE, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY? WHAT? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. RECOMMENDED IN MY REPORT TO LIMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SAID THAT THEY WERE ONLY APPROVING THE SUBJECT TANK FOR TWO BEDROOMS AND MY RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MAKE RESTRICTION. NO MORE THAN TWO BEDROOM NO MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS RIGHT AND ALSO TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED OFFICE WITHIN THE BUILDING TO CHANGE THE DOOR SIZE. GET RID OF THE WINDOWS, TOO. TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF IT

[02:05:02]

OKAY, GREAT. UM. DO WE HAVE THE SUPPORT? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS? UH, PLANNER? YOU DO? UM.

IN THE PROPOSAL. IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A LIVING ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR RIGHT HERE. IT WAS ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. YES SHEET A THREE. THERE'S A LIVING ROOM. LOOK RIGHT OVER HERE. AND SO WHAT? THERE'S A OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A LIVING ROOM ON A SECOND FLOOR? COULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A BEDROOM? THAT'S WHY THEY'RE AGREEING TO 3.5 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MR COVELLI SAID. IT'S VERY EASY FOR SOMEONE TO USE THAT AS A BEDROOM. IT'S THE SAME SIZE AS A BEDROOM WAS REFERRING TO THE DOORS IN THE OFFICE, RIGHT. IT'S I'M SORRY.

THE SECOND HALF OF THAT PARAGRAPH SPEAKS TO THE LIVING ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR, WHICH INDICATES THEY SHOULD AGREE TO NOT CONVERT THAT INTO A BEDROOM. HOWEVER THE ENTRANCE IS ALREADY OF A CERTAIN WIDTH THAT YOU COULDN'T PUT ADDITIONAL DOOR THERE ANYWAY. SO TYPICALLY WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THIS UM . YOU WANT TO MAKE THE DOOR WIDER THAN THAN IS REQUIRED. YOU WANT TO TELL THEM OR THE ENTRYWAY WIDER THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT A DOOR THERE AND SOMETIMES TO REMOVE WINDOWS TO THOSE ARE ALL COMPONENTS OF THE BEDROOM. SO UM, WHAT? I INDICATED THAT THE LIVING ROOM ALREADY HAS A VERY, VERY WIDE ENTRANCE WAY AND NO DOOR, SO THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. NO, I DIDN'T. STATE ALL THAT I APOLOGIZE. AND IN THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE BASEMENT AND THE AH, THE LAND. IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE A BASEMENT? IN ON THIS PROPERTY. AND DID THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THAT WAS THERE HAVE A BASEMENT. IF THEY WANTED BASEMENT FOR STORAGE. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT IN TERMS OF DISTURBANCE OF THE GROUND. I'M LOOKING AT IT IN TERMS OF DISTURBANCE AND, UH, STORM WATER ISSUES. NO, THE BASEMENT WILL NOT IMPACT THE STORMWATER ISSUE. IN THE SAME THE SAME BUT WHEN DISTURBANCES GOING TO EXIST, WHETHER IT'S LAB. ANDRE FOR A BASEMENT IS THE SAME, THE SAME DIMENSION. IN MY OPINION, NOTED THE BASEMENT WILL NOT IMPACT. AND IS THERE A CHANCE TO MAKE THE HOUSE SMALLER? AH TO HAVE LESS, UM, LOT COVERAGE. CLUB. THE AREA. THE WINE CAKE. VERY LARGE HOUSE.

WELL, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR? I ACTUALLY ACTUALLY I THINK THE MAIN MAYBE, AND I DON'T. YOU CAN ASK ANY QUESTION YOU WANT, BUT I THINK MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE PLANNERS TESTIMONY, I THINK THE BETTER QUESTION IS, WHAT IS HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO HOUSES IN THE VN SO WHAT'S THE DISTRICT FOOTAGE OF THIS HOUSE? AND WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MAJORITY OF HOUSES IN THE V? N? THAT'S THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION. AND SO I DON'T. I DIDN'T DO AN ANALYSIS OF OTHER HOMES, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OTHER HOMES BECAUSE, FRANKLY, I THINK THE TEST IS WHETHER THIS SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE AND WHETHER IT'S PROPORTIONAL AND WHETHER IT'S GOING TO STAND OUT AS BEING TOO CLOSE TO ANY PROPERTY LINES OR ANYTHING LIKE ANALOGIZE IT TO THE VN RIGHT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING THAT WE LOOKED AT THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION IS VERY

[02:10:05]

BUT SHE'D LIKE TO KNOW.

[02:15:26]

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNER? WHILE WHILE THE ENGINEER CALCULATES THE GO AHEAD. RIGHT SO I SEE IN MR CLUB VALIS REPORT. IT'S PROBABLY IN ALL THE OTHER ONES AS WELL. THE SENSE TO OTHER BUILDING IS THAT THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ER SET, UM THOSE VARIANCES RELATE TO THE WHAT I CALL AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SO THAT SEPTIC BID LET'S CROSS THOSE OUT. OKAY, GREAT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. SO MY ACTUALLY MY QUESTION IS THEN SO I KNOW THAT WE'RE KIND OF SAYING THE DISTANCES SKYLIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY BUILD A HOUSE IF WE HAD TO FOLLOW THIS SIDELINE, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT ABOUT THE DISTANCE TO THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE. I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE. IS THERE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTION TO GIVE. I MEAN, I SAW THE OTHER BUILDING AND THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, SO THAT THE RESTRICTION IS YOUR SIDE YARD SETBACK, RIGHT? THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GOVERN HOW FAR YOUR BUILDING IS FROM FROM THAT SIDE LOT LINE, BUT BECAUSE, AS MR FLYNN TESTIFIED TO THE STANDARD HE'S USING IS GOING BACK TO THE V N ZONE AS A PROPORTIONALITY ARGUMENT, SO AND THAT SENSE IN THE VN ZONE. I BELIEVE THAT THESE WOULD BE CONFORMING SAID HERE AT SETBACKS, BUT HE TESTIFIED THAT THE VN ZONE BOTH REGULATIONS WILL BE SATISFIED IN ALL RESPECTS BY THE PROPOSED DWELLING. THANK YOU. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE SETBACK OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR? I IT UP. IT LOOKS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE PROPOSED HOUSE. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT QUESTION. YES I SCALED THAT THAT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. AT THE SIDE YARD. SETBACK IS 10 FT. 10 FT IN YOUR PROPOSED PROPOSED 1111 FT, SO, YEAH, IT'S 10 FT SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THEIR FRONT YARD. SETBACK IS 24 FT, THEIR FRONT YARD SAT BACK AND YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PROPOSED FOUR. 16.3 BEFORE THE YES, HE'S RIGHT THERE. FRONT SETBACK PROPOSED 40.8 WITH THE RIGHT AWAY EDUCATION 16.31 IS THAT FIGURE, RIGHT? FIGURE CANNOT BE RIGHT. OF HUMAN WAY TOO LOW. JUST LYING TO BE FUNNY. THE FRAMEWORK TO PACKAGE THERE WAS 27 FT ON THE PLANET. FIRSTLY, DEDICATION IS SOMETHING LIKE 33 FT WIDE. HMM. YOU AGAIN.

REPEAT. THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE AND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF YOUR PROPOSED HOUSE. NEIGHBORING. FROM THE. FROM THE FROM THE FROM THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION TO MAKE IT APPLES TO APPLES. IT'S LIKE IT'S LIKE 3 FT. IT WAS 5 FT. FROM THE THESE GUYS ARE RANDY AND HOW MANY FEET ARE DEDICATION WILL BE 16 POINT. FIVE. 16.31.

AND TO GET BACK TO THE QUESTION OF LIVING SPACE, FIRST FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR. OF OUR HOUSE.

CHRIST 20. 2406. SQUARE FEET 2406 THAT INCLUDE THE GARAGE WITHOUT THE GARAGE. THE GARAGE? NO, SIR, WITH THEIR GARAGE. WHAT'S THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS WHOLE THIS? YOU'RE

[02:20:01]

DIDN'T ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CAN PLAN YES, QUESTIONS ABOUT TREES. DRINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE NOW. LOOKING AT THE MEMORANDUMS FROM WARREN WASIELEWSKI DATED FEBRUARY, 14.

SO, UH, ON TOP OF PAGE THREE THAT MEMO IT STATES. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD PROVIDE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF TREES THAT WERE REMOVED AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLEARING. THAT'S THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION THAT TWO MORNINGS CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY. THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF TREES THAT WERE REMOVED AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLEARING. MICROPHONE. WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT IS TORN MHM WHAT HE'S WEARING. THAT MEANS HE'S BEEN SWORN LIKE I WAS SAYING I WAS LIKE, THREE YEARS AGO WHEN I BOUGHT THE LAND. I CUT IT. I DID IT PERSONALLY. IT WASN'T THAT MANY TREES. UM I DIDN'T KNOW WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO CUT IT SO ON PAGE FOUR OF THE SAME MEMO. SHAKING WAIVER FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO CALCULATE BASED ON THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE RATHER THAN GROSS TRACKED AREA.

LET'S SAY SINCE THE LAND WAS CLEARED PROBABLY SHOULD BE CALCULATED, GROSS TRACKED AREA AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED. CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT. LIKE YOU SAID.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THE LAST THING ON THE SAME MEMO NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE. APPLICANTS SHOULD CONSIDER ADDITIONAL TREAT PLANTING TO MITIGATE FOR THE LOCK COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUESTED. MITIGATE THE LOSS OF THE MATURE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED. IT PROVIDES STATES.

MR BIRD ALONE. WHAT TREES WOULD SATISFY YOU? JUST THAT MAYBE YOU'RE UNDERSTAND. IN MY OPINION , YOU COULD REQUIRE MORE TREES THAN THE ORDINANCE REQUIRE. AND IN AN UNDERSIZED LOT CASE LIKE THIS WHEN THEY'RE SEEKING SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS FROM SETBACKS. MY MEMO. I'VE ASKED FOR THE TWO STREET TREES AND FOR SHADE TREES. MR WALMART. DOES THAT SATISFY YOU? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION TO. BUT I THINK THAT'S ALL ABOARD QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS. YEAH DO ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS OR ANY WITNESS? UM HERE, PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT TESTIFY TONIGHT? THAT YOUR FATHER? AH I THOUGHT

[02:25:09]

ANYONE ELSE COMING IN AND UNDERSIZED LOT CASE THAT HE WANTS TO BE RELIEVED AND AGAIN.

YOU'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU MADE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT. IF YOU DON'T MAKE THEM DO IT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT RIGHT? BECAUSE THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT SAYS. EVERY CASE IS JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU GRANT AN APPLICATION FOR AN UNDERSIZED LOT ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO GRANT IT FOR THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OR THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET. WITH THAT BEING SAID. THERE'S OTHER CASE LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T TREAT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY. UNDERSTOOD AND SO IF YOU HAD A LOT OF APPROXIMATELY SAME SIZE AND APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AREA, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE IN ORDER FOR ANOTHER APPLICANT OF YOU THIS AND BUT IF YOU WERE, BUT IF YOU RELIEVED THIS REQUIREMENT FOR AN UNDERSIZED LOT. WHERE AN APPLICANT ATTORNEY ON ANOTHER UNDERSIZED LOT OR IF I WAS MR SCHATZ MAN WHO CAME IN WITH THE CLIENT AND ANOTHER UNDERSIZED LIVE, I WOULD SAY GIVEN WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO TREAT ME DIFFERENTLY TREATED THIS APPLICANT. YOU RELIEVED THEM OF THE OBLIGATION TO DO THAT, BUT IT'S I'M NOT. THIS IS NOT MY DECISION DECISION IN EUROPE. SORRY, JUST GOING TO SAY IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THEM? BUT WHAT? WHO IS JUST COME BACK. SO IF YOU PUT THIS OFF TILL NEXT MONTH, YOU ADJOURN IT. NO NEED FOR FURTHER NOTICE YOU SAY SEND OUT AN OFFER. LOOK QUITE FRANKLY. ONCE THEY SEE THE PRICE, THE TWO NEIGHBORS OF WHAT THIS LOTS

[02:30:04]

DON'T THINK DON'T TAKE ACTION UNTIL THEY DO WHAT THE DOWN, MEYER CASE SAYS, BUT YOU COULD DELIBERATE. IT SOUNDS TO ME JUST FROM HEARING THE QUESTIONS. UNLESS SOMEONE'S IN FOR A CURVE BALL THAT I MIGHT THROW A CURVEBALL. I MEAN, I SO. YEAH I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICATION OF THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT THAT NO NONE OF US NONE OF THEM KNEW THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT, MR SHOTS MAN MADE MAN THEY HAD NO, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. UM YOU KNOW, I THINK, IF THE IF THE NEIGHBORS OBJECTED TO THIS PROPERTY THEN THEY WILL BE PRESENT. SO I THERE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT HERE. UM I GUESS MAYBE WE COULD ASK, SERVED, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THEY WERE WITHIN 200 FT, RIGHT? RIGHT SO THEY HAVE THE FAIR. MR KATZMAN HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A NOTICE ISSUE ON TWO OR THREE OF THE LOTS. HE ABSOLUTELY CLEARED UP. THE NOTICE ISSUE ON I THINK TWO OF THE LOTS ON THE ONE LOT. THEY'RE PROCEEDING AT THEIR OWN RISK TONIGHT MANY EVENTS SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT EVERYONE HAS BEEN NOTED TOUCHED? IS IT AS SAYING THAT IF THERE'S A PROBLEM NOTICE IT'S HIS PROBLEM. IT'S I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING BASICALLY MY ARGUMENT ON THE CONDITION THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS IS GOING ON. RIGHT. EVERYONE HASN'T BEEN NOTICED. YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING YOU CAN I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. WHAT. DO YOU IF YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOTICE YOU CAN. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. ALL I'M SAYING IS, IF THERE'S A NOTICE PROBLEM, IT'S THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE BOARD'S PROBLEM. OF THE WOMAN. ONE WOMAN SAID. THE POSTERS. GREAT. I SPOKE TO LION O PROBLEM. THE OTHER ONE HAS A GREEN CARD THAT CABLE CHIEF SIGNED. FOR AND THE OTHER WOMAN. SHE TOLD ME. YOU KNOW? I HAVE TO GO TO.

AM I NOT. EVERY EVERY PERSON THAT'S WITHIN THE 200 WITHIN THE BORDERS WAS RECEIVED A NOTICE AND THREE WERE QUITE HIM. 15. OTHERWISE. AND MY PULSE CREATES. I GOT TO KNOW. SHE SAID. I GOT IT. SAID. I GOT IT. MY MY. MY ARGUMENT WAS GOING TO BE THE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NO. THE PROPER NOTICES, WHICH IS THE REASON WE DO THESE THINGS. IT WAS FOLLOWED, AND I NOW I'M HEARING THAT THAT THERE'S NO NOTICE. NO, NO, IT'S NOT. THERE'S NO, NO, NO, NO, THAT THAT THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT POTENTIAL NOTICE ISSUE, BUT HE FEELS COMFORTABLE AS LONG AS IT'S AT HIS RISK ON COMFORTABLE. IF IT WAS AT MY RISK, I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE. I MEAN, YEAH. GO AHEAD. YEAH. SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SATISFIED THAT NOTICES WERE AND THAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE BOARD. SO. THE EXTRACT. I THINK I CAN ASK YOU THIS OPENLY. BUT IF THEY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DON'T ASK ME OPEN. I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN. THERE'S NO QUESTION

[02:35:04]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM AND THEY'LL SAY YOU, YOU KNOW YOU DIDN'T MAKE ME DO IT HERE, SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ME DO IT THERE? PROPERTY NEXT. FRANK RICCI. THE PURPOSE OF YOU OFFERING. THE LOT TO THEM IS SO THEY DON'T HAVE A HOUSE NEXT TO THEM. THAT'S WHAT THE COURT CASE HELLO, AND THAT'S WHY THE. CORRECT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT CASE SAYS. CAN I ASK IF NOTICE IT IF A SELLING NOTICE WAS PROVIDED, AS AN OFFER TO SELL IS PROVIDED, AND HE GOT NO ANSWER.

NO PROBLEM WITH THAT SATISFY ALL THE C ONE CRITERIA, CORRECT THAT THE BOARD WOULD THEN HAVE TO ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER WHAT YOU KNOW THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS ARGUED IN TERMS OF THE VN ZONE, INTER AND CORRECT APPLICANT DEMONSTRATE MY . MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT THIS HOUSE DOES CONFORM WITH THE END ZONE ALL TROUBLE RIGHT NOW IN THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, I THINK THERE'S TWO CRITERIA RIGHT. THERE'S THE END AND THEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND WE NEED SOME KIND OF DISCIPLINE. I WOULD THINK THAT YOU KNOW TO ME. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE DISCIPLINE WE COULD HAVE. BUT THOSE TWO SO SEEMS TO SATISFY. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK ITS LARGE I THINK IT'S UH NOT TRADITIONAL, UM, HAVING A LIVING ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR WITH SPACE THAT COULD BE CONVERTED TO ANYTHING. UM SO I'M I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. OKAY? OKAY, I'M YEAH. OKAY FEELING CRITERIA? I DON'T WANT TO JUST GUESS AT A POSSIBLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU KNOW, I'D WANT TO USE SOME KIND OF METRICS. SO THAT WAS MY TIME. THE HOUSE SEEMS LARGE, TOO, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT METRIC TO USE, NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIVING ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. I'D BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BASEMENT IF I WERE THE ORDER. I WOULDN'T BUY THAT HOUSE WITH A BASEMENT. THE HOUSE DOES SEEM A BIT LARGE FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. QUICKLY WOULD HAVE TAKEN AN AVERAGE SIZE OF THE NEAREST HOUSES AND GIVES THAT AS A CRITERION THAT MAYBE WE COULD DO THAT. I MEAN, THOSE HOUSES ARE BUILT ON A FIVE ACRE LOTS SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THOSE HOUSES ARE LARGER. RICHIE LISTEN, RICHIE, THEY'RE DELIBERATING. LET THEM DELIBERATE. PLEASE JUST LET HIM DELIBERATE. DON'T INTERRUPT THEM. NO NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THIS HOUSE IS NOT THE FIVE ACRE LOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT NO THERE, BUT THOSE THOSE HOUSES ARE NEXT DOOR. THANK YOU. LOOK AT THAT HOUSE AND ALSO LOOK AT THE HOUSES AND THE VNT THE ANSWER SOME IDEA OF THE FLORIDA ARE SAYING THEY WANT SOMETHING. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THAT BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR ZONING IS HELP. HIS ARE FIVE WHICH IS. FIVE ACRES. SO IF WE ARE GOING TO ABIDE BY ZONING. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDER. RIGHT? BY SORT OF OUR ORDER. MIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER AN OPINION? NOTHING FURTHER. OKAY? JAMIE OR OR OF AN ASH. YEAH, UM.

I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF A SMALL LOT. IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT OF WHERE WE ARE. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BOTH VISUALLY AND FROM A USER PERSPECTIVE, IT IS BETTER UTILIZATION. UM WHEN I LOOK AT PHYSICALLY WHERE THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK IT IS MUCH BETTER AND MUCH SAFER THAN THE ONE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NEXT TO IT. ALL THINGS CONSIDERED TO GIVE, YOU KNOW FOR A FAMILY TO LIVE IN A DECENT HOUSE. THEY NEED DECENT SIZE.

THEY HAPPEN TO BE SADDLED WITH SMALL LOT THAT SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THEM. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE FEES OF THE NEXT LOT, AND I THINK THE WHILE THAT THE COMPARISON WAS USEFUL FOR THE SETBACKS, I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK WHAT IT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE. VN HEALTH SIZES. KENNY I'M ALSO I MEAN, I KNOW THAT I ASKED

[02:40:04]

THOSE SIZES, HOUSES. I MEAN THINKING OF I MEAN, I KNOW FRANK DERBIES HOUSE AND I'LL PAY YOU BACK HOUSE RIGHT THERE IN THE VIENNA ZONE THAT THEY'RE RELATIVELY LARGE RIGHT ON THE STREET THERE AT 518. SO, UM I MEAN, I. I THINK I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE SATISFIED IN THAT DIRECTION. THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IT WAS. IT WAS PRETTY SMART TO USE THAT BEING ZONE. UM TO, UM, TO COMPARE THIS TO BUT NONETHELESS SO I'M JUST TAKING THE STRAW POLL. IT DOES SEEM THAT WE'RE STILL NOT COMPLETELY SATISFIED. IT'S ALMOST SPLIT ALMOST HALF AND HALF EXACTLY LIKE YEAH, METRICS FROM HOUSE SIZES IN THE VN ZONE. THEN BOARD MEMBERS ARE EITHER GOING TO SAY, OH, IT'S FINE WHERE OR NO, IT'S NOT. BUT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE HEARING THEM SAY HE THINK IT MIGHT BE TOO LARGE. BUT THEY DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE METRO. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WAS SAYING THE OTHER HALF ARE SAYING IT'S FINE, AS IS RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY WORKS OUT FOR THE APPLICANT IN SOME WAY BECAUSE IT'S THERE IS UNCERTAINTY OF WHETHER THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE WILL BE APPROVED, AS IS SO MAYBE IT WOULD TEMPER WHOEVER WOULD WANT TO BUY THIS PROPERTY. AND IT'S SOMEWHERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE MARCH MEETING FOR THEM TO GET THAT METRIC. THEN IT'S A NO BRAINER THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO MAKE THE OFFER TO SELL. BUT YOU SHOULD USE IN MY OPINION. YOU SHOULD USE THE SIZE OF THIS HOUSE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AND THE VARIANCE PLAN THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. TO MAKE JUST STEP UP TO MAKE THE OFFER TO SELL AND JUST GET A REALTOR TO PLACE A VALUE ON QUESTION. ALSO, DID I HEAR RIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS PUTTING IN A UTILITY OR THAT'S WHAT HE. TO BRING IN WATER, WHICH THANK YOU, YOU KNOW, JUST TO THE APPLICATION FROM THE POOR. I DON'T THINK THAT INTENTION IS TO MAKE THIS SO HARD ON YOU. BUT I THINK BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE THAT THAT WORKS PARTICULARLY FOLLOWED. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER THE CASE TO ONE MONTH. UM SO I WOULD EXPECT, UM, YOU KNOW TO SATISFY. I THINK THE BOARD WAS TO BE MAKING OFFER TO SELL IT TO THE NEIGHBORS AT THE MARKET RATE. UM AND PLUS BRING BACK A METRIC OF HOUSE SIZES IN THE VIENNA AVERAGE HOUSE SIZES SMALLER YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? PLEASE, PLEASE. YES OF THE HOUSE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? SO, WITH FULL APPROVALS GOING TO MAKE A FULL APPROVALS ARE NOT FULL APPROVALS. I'M SORRY. WHAT THE HOUSE FROM BECAUSE MY HALF OF MY FAMILY'S REAL ESTATE AGENTS, RIGHT? SO YOU PUT THE HOUSE FOR SALE, RIGHT GOING TO PUT IT WITH LIKE SAYING OH, IT'S FULLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OR NOT, WELL ACTUALLY, BATSMAN KNOWS WHAT THE

[02:45:02]

PROPERTY PROBLEMS. YOU DON'T MEAN HOUSE BECAUSE I THINK THAT CONFUSION NO. BUILD IT. IT'S JUST NO NO, BUT THE BUT THE OFFER IS WITH A HOUSE ON IT. YEAH YOU'RE NOT LISTENING IT YOU'RE DOING A PRIVATE OFFER TO BOTH OF THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR'S AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS FOR THE HARDSHIP THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING I HAVE TO DO THIS, LIKE, SAY, I'M SELLING THE HOUSE RIGHT? LIKE LEGALLY TO MAKE THE CASE LAW ONLY ONLY TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT WASN'T THERE AN OAR? IT WAS IT WAS. IT WAS AN END. IT WAS, IT WAS DEMONSTRATE. EFFORTS WERE MADE TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND BY OFFERING TO SELL THE NONCONFORMING PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS. AND RICHIE KNOWS THE CASE. THE SUPREME COURT CASE ON HOW YOU CALCULATE VALUE. PHIL. HE'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU GOTTA DO. THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO TELL YOU. IN THE APPENDIX.

SURE. I TOLD YOU YEAH. YEAH. UH, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. AND WE DO HAVE TO WRAP THIS UP BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS AND WE HAVE TO FINISH IT. SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THEM TO SAY NO. WHICH IS HIGHLY LIKELY OTHER. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. YES, YES, I WANT. I WANT THEM TO JUST BETWEEN YOU AND ME. I WANT THEM TO SAY NO. I WANT TO SAY NO.

YEAH. RETURNED. YEAH. YEAH, LISTEN. YEAH, BUT YOU'RE GONNA. DO IT. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN RESPOND TO YOU. YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU MADE THE OFFER. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THEY SAID NO. YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE MADE THE OFFER.

THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT DECLINE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER RIGHT NOW. WE GOTTA GO. ACH. YEAH YEAH. ALRIGHT LOOKING UP IN THE BOOK. GREAT THANK YOU. SO WE GOT WE HAVE TO GET TO THE CLOSE CLOSE SESSION HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED WITHOUT NEED FOR FURTHER NOTICE, TOO. MARCH. SHERRY MARCH 26TH MARCH, 2626. ALL RIGHT, UH, YES.

[VI. CLOSED SESSION ]

MARGUERITE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSE SESSION, WHEREAS IN JS A 10 COOLING FOR 12, THOUGH IN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT AUTHORIZES THIS BOARD TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FROM THE PORTION OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE BOARD DISCUSSES CERTAIN MATTERS, WHEREAS THE BOARD IS ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER SPECIFICALLY LITIGATION AGAINST THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAPTION MONTGOMERY 206 REALITY WITH MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHERE THE BOARD ATTORNEY WILL BE GIVING LEGAL ADVICE FOLLOWING WINDY AND THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY AND IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD.

CARNAGE EXERCISES ETHICAL DUTIES AS AN ATTORNEY, WHEREAS THE BOARD BELIEVES THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS DISCUSSION NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THIS 27TH THERE FEBRUARY 2024. THAT THE BOARD NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION IN THE PUBLIC BE EXCLUDED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF JUDGMENT THAT IS ANTICIPATED THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION WILL BE DISCLOSED AND INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF THE BOARD MEETING, BUT IT'S SPECIAL, BUT SPECIFICS OF THE DISCUSSION WILL WILL INVOLVE LEGAL ADVICE, SO WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT LEGAL ADVICE FALLS WITHIN. ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE ABOVE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED. THE DEBATE MOVE THAT RESOLUTION. OH, ISAAC. NAY. I DON'T HEAR ANY OF THE ABOVE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED ON THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 BUT THE FOLLOWING BOAT BOARD, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SOLUTION TO MAKE A MOTION TO

[02:50:11]

I THINK WE JUST LEARNED A LOT IN THERE ABOUT YEAH, AND I. I, YOU KNOW, I'VE I'VE BEEN ON THE ZONING BOARD FOR SEVEN YEARS NOW , SIX YEARS AND I'M STILL LEARNING. UM A LOT. AND I THINK THAT EVERY TIME I COME, YOU KNOW, I LEARN YOU LEARN MORE MOST BY TALKING ABOUT IT. SO I.

I REALLY DO WANT TO HAVE THAT TRAINING SESSION. IT'S GOING TO BE ALL YOU KNOW, ON AN OFF DAY, BUT WE ARE GONNA I DO WANT TO CONVENE AS A BOY. WE CAN'T BE TOGETHER WITHOUT CONVENING AS A BOARD FORMALLY, SO WE HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE AND EVERYTHING SO UH, APRIL, PLEASE HOLD A APRIL 29TH FOR EXPIRATION FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, PLEASE. THAT WAS THE TRAINING SESSION. THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FEW WEEKS AGO. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. OK, GREAT. AH, CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MOVED TO A TIME IS, UH, 1040. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.