[OPENING STATEMENT]
[00:00:05]
GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD. MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2024. THE TIME IS NOW 7:00 PM. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, NOTICE AND TIME OF PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS, MR. GALEN, CAN YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE? BLODGETT HERE. ROSENTHAL HERE. ABU DHABI HERE. LAZOVSKY HERE. WALLMARK HERE. WOOD HERE. URBANSKI HERE. SHAW. HERE MEHTA. DELANCY HERE.
DRILL HERE. CLAVELLI HERE. BARTOLONE DAJI. PRESENT ALL RIGHT. AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEW, BOARD MEMBER, RHONDA LENTI, ACTUALLY, RON, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG? THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE? PUT YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART. PLEDGE, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALRIGHT, THE OPENING SECTION OF, MOST OF OUR MEETINGS IS PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I'LL REMIND ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND WE ASK, MEMBERS TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES IF THERE ARE ANY. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? AND AS NORMAL THERE THERE AREN'T ANY, ALRIGHT. THE FIRST APPLICATION, MR. FARNON, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED OR DO YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DELAY? YEAH, YEAH. THAT'S FINE.
WE CAN WE CAN GO TO THE ANNUAL REPORT FIRST. YEAH, YEAH. SO, SHERRY, DO YOU WANT TO, DISCUSS
[V. 2023 ANNUAL REPORT ]
THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORT? THEN WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE AGENDA AROUND. OKAY, THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT THE BOARD DID IN 2023, THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE WITHDRAWN. ONE WAS THE TREATMENT CENTER ON SUNSET ROAD AND THE OTHER WAS MALVERN SCHOOL. THEY ENDED UP GOING TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THE OTHERS WERE BULK VARIANCES, SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD HAS ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZONING CHANGES BASED ON THESE APPLICATIONS TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, IN THE PAST, THE TREE ORDINANCE WAS ALWAYS RECOMMENDED TO BE UPDATED. AND WE DID THAT THIS YEAR SO THAT THAT WAS TAKEN CARE OF. YEAH. THE TREE ORDINANCE WAS A CULMINATION OF A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUCCESS BY THE TOWNSHIP. SO I THANK THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE FOR TAKING THAT ACTION. AND I THINK IMPROVING OUR TOWN FOR THE TREE ORDINANCE, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD. ARE THERE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BASED ON THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS YEAR, AND INCLUDING LAST YEAR, IT HAS BEEN A PRETTY EVENTFUL YEAR. YOU KNOW. YEAH. MISTER DRILL. ANY KIND OF PRO FORMA REASONS OR ANY, LIKE, ADMINISTRATIVE PORTIONS OF THE. NO, NOTHING. WE'RE GOOD. SO THEN DO WE WANT TO DO A RESOLUTION? MAYBE THURSDAY NIGHT, AND THEN WE CAN GET THAT FORWARDED TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY GOING TO MEET TO, CARRY THE WE'RE GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE ON THURSDAY NIGHT. SO. YEAH. AND SO AS JUST TO WELL, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS LATER. MR. ON YOUR YOUR. SO FOR THURSDAY YOU'RE GOING TO ASK HER TO PUT ON THE AGENDA THE ADOPTION OF THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORT. CORRECT? YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO YEAH. YEAH. WITH NO RECOMMENDATIONS. NO RECOMMENDATIONS AT ALL. YEP. GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE. GREAT[IV.APPLICATION ]
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT ALRIGHT. WELL THEN WE'LL REVERT, I THINK, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AGENDA THEN, SECTION THREE, THIS IS CASE BA TECH ONE ZERO, TECH TWO THREE, THE APPLICANT IS SACHIN PATEL. THIS IS BLOCK 5007, LOT FOUR, OR COMMONLY KNOWN AS 130 KETCHAM ROAD, THIS IS A BULK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR A HOME ADDITION AND DECK THAT WILL EXCEED THE LOT AND BUILDING COVERAGE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT COVERAGE OF 27%, WHERE 25% IS PERMITTED, AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 19. 5%, WHERE ONE 5% IS PERMITTED. THE APPLICATION DATE, EXPIRATION DATE OF THE APPLICATION IS, OCTOBER 22ND, 2024. THE AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND[00:05:06]
PUBLICATION, REQUIRED AND WAS PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. MR. FRIEDMAN? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO USE THESE MICROPHONES AND NOT. THAT IS WHAT I'M. YEAH I CAN HEAR YOU. THEY GENERALLY HAVE WORKED. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO FORGIVE ME FOR NOT STANDING UP, AND IT'S FINE. THANK YOU. MICHAEL, I THINK ONE OF SINGER AND DONNA, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS, YOU STOLE MY THUNDER BY SAYING ALL THE INTRODUCTORY THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. SO WE'RE. YES, WE'RE HERE FOR ACTUALLY APPROVAL FOR. IT'S AN EXPANSION OF THE KITCHEN FACILITY. AND WITH A DECK ON THE BACK, IT'S IN THE R1 ZONE, IT'S A 460 FOOT SQUARE FOOT KITCHEN EXTENSION. AND A 400 SQUARE FOOT DECK. UNFORTUNATELY, IT INVOLVES, THE REQUEST FOR SEVERAL VARIANCES BECAUSE WE'RE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE EXCEEDING MAXIMUM MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE. AND WE'RE IN NEED OF AN FA VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE SLIGHTLY LARGER AREA OF COVERAGE THAT WE HAVE. I HAVE MY CLIENTS HERE. MR. MRS. PATEL, WHO ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO TESTIFY, BUT I'M NOT REALLY CERTAIN OR I DON'T REALLY THINK THEY NEED TO, IF ANY QUESTIONS COME UP, WE CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD. BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'LL COME UP AND SAY, YEAH, THAT'S MY HOUSE. AND WE REALLY WANT TO BUILD THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO GET TO THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF IT. MR. MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, CORRECT? SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS. YES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CHECK WITH THAT. I WILL BE PRESENTING ONE WITNESS, AND MR. NADER, WHO IS THE ENGINEER AND SITE PLAN DEVELOPER OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I'LL FIRST RUN THROUGH HIS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SO THAT WE HAVE THAT BACKGROUND, AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. NADER TO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A TOUR OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND RESPOND TO THE ISSUES REGARDING THE VARIANCE ITSELF.OKAY. SO LET ME GET EVERYONE WHO WE KNOW IS GOING TO TESTIFY, SWORN IN, WHICH WOULD BE MR. NADER AND THE BOARD'S THREE EXPERTS. SO COULD ALL THREE ALL FOUR OF YOU PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS? 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. I DO, I DO, I DO.
AND THEN, FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME AND GIVE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT OR THE BOARD, AS THE CASE MAY BE? YES, SIR.
GEORGE NADER NADER, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. SITE PLANNER FOR THE YEAR. THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEERING EXPERT? YES SIR. JAMES CLERK, PROFESSIONAL PLANNER AND PLANNING EXPERT FOR THE ZONING BOARD. PRAKASH DARJEE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUTION, ZONING BOARD ENGINEER. RICHARD BARTOLOME, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. GREAT. THERE YOU GO. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. JOE, MR. NADER, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO, FAMILIARIZE THE BOARD WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND YOUR EDUCATION AND YOUR BACKGROUND. BEFORE WE GET TO THE PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IS? I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. I GRADUATED WITH AN ENGINEERING DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN IN 1983, AND CAME TO NEW JERSEY IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADUATION, AND I'VE BEEN PRACTICING ENGINEERING IN NEW JERSEY SINCE.
OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A PA LICENSE AND A P P EQUIVALENCY TYPE OF DEGREE? IS THAT ACCURATE? I HAVE, I'M A LICENSED PA IN NEW JERSEY. EARLY ON IN MY CAREER, I ALSO HAD A P P LICENSE WHEN IT USED TO BE A STRAIGHT EQUIVALENCY, AND THEN I SORT OF LET IT LAPSE BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH I WAS NOT PRACTICING IN. OKAY, AS FAR AS YOUR BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONALLY, YOU HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT, THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE WITH NADER HOMES INCORPORATED OVER THE LAS, PERIOD OF TIME AND WITH THAT PERCEPTIONS. IN SHORT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE HAVE YOU, IMPRESS UPON THE BOARD YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SURE. JUST BEFORE HE'S BEFORE YOU ASK HIM TO QUALIFY HIM AS AN EXPERT, HE'S STILL QUALIFIED. YOU'RE STILL QUALIFYING. QUALIFYING? OKAY.
YEAH. AS I SAID, WHEN I GRADUATED COLLEGE, I CAME TO NEW JERSEY. I WORKED FOR SIX YEARS AS A SITE ENGINEER FOR GARMIN ASSOCIATES, BASICALLY DOING SMALL TO LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMEN, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT THE PATELS LIVE IN, DRAINAGE, ETC. WHATEVER COMES WITH SITE ENGINEERING, AFTER THAT BECAME THE FIRST, RECESSION. SO I WAS HIRED BY NEW JERSEY TRANSIT AS A DIRECTOR OF, SITES SLASH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF PROJECT INVOLVING RENOVATING ALL THE STATION, AS FAR AS PARKING LOTS AND SITE
[00:10:04]
DEVELOPMENT, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, ETC, AND THEN I TOOK A TURN INTO SOFTWARE, WHICH IS FOR AUTODESK, WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT CREATES THE AUTOCAD SOFTWARE THAT MOST ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS USED. AFTER THAT, I STARTED MY OWN COMPANY, NADER HOMES INC, WHICH IS A BUILDING OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SMALL DEVELOPMENTS, UNTIL, 2008, WHEN CONSTRUCTION SORT OF TOOK A MAJOR HIT IN, IN OUR STATE, THEN I REVERTED BACK TO STRAIGHT CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, SITE ENGINEERING. AND WE HAVE A SPECIALIZATION IN RESIDENTIAL, STRUCTURAL WORK TO ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO OPEN UP FLOOR PLANS, REMOVE COLUMNS, REMOVE WALLS. SO IT'S A DESIGN BUILD COMPANY, WHICH IS STRUCTURAL MD. OKAY. AND AS PART OF THAT EXPERIENCE, BOTH ON YOUR OWN AND AS A CONSULTANT, YOU'VE PRESENTED SITE PLANS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BEFORE, VARIOUS BOARDS AND BOARDS. I.E. ZONING BOARDS AND, AND PLANNING BOARDS HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. I'VE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF MAYBE 3 OR 4 DOZEN, ZONING BOARD, PLANNING BOARDS, COURTS, ETC. THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND REGARD IN PARTICULAR AS TO SITE PLANS AND THEIR LAYOUTS AND, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. NADER AS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD. DOES ANY OF THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD BEFORE? I HAVE NOT. I'M VERY IMPRESSED BY THE BUILDING. THIS IS PROBABLY THE WORST. THE BEST I'VE EVER BEEN IN. WE'RE HAPPY WITH OUR HOME. YEAH. THANK YOU. SIR. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THE PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK THERE'S NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE HERE. WE SEE PEOPLE OUT THERE, BUT WE ASSUME THAT THEY'RE WITH THE APPLICANT. ARE WE WRONG? IS THERE ANYONE SITTING OUT THERE THAT'S NOT WITH THE APPLICANT? NO, EVERYONE'S WITH THE APPLICANT.
THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE. SO UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WALKS IN THE DOOR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK ABOUT THE QUESTIONS OR PUBLIC COMMENTS OR ANYTHING. UNDERSTOOD. HEARING. THANK YOU, I WILL ACCEPT HIM AS AN EXPERT ENGINEER. GREAT. SO, MR. NADER, AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION OR PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WE'VE MADE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD, YOU PREPARED THE SITE PLANS AND THE RELATED, DOCUMENTATION THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THE VARIANCE PLAN. PLAN. I STAND CORRECTED, YES. THE VARIANCE PLAN IN THAT REGARD. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS WE HAVE IT HERE ON THE COMPUTER, AND IT'S UP THERE ON THE SCREENS. IF YOU WOULD JUST WALK THE BOARD THROUGH WHAT YOU PREPARED AND GIVE THEM, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHAT THE BUILDING IS, WHERE THE ROAD IS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SURE. SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT, IS, YOU'RE ON SHEET ONE. THE TITLE I AM ON SHEET ONE, RIGHT BEHIND. YES, SIR. SO IT'S ON KETCHUM ROAD AND SINGLE FAMILY LOT. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THE LIGHTER COLOR IS THE EXISTING HOME. TYPICAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS HOME IS IN. AND MR. AND MRS. PATEL ARE PROPOSING TO DO A KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE BACK, WHICH IS THE GRAY COLORED AREA, APPROXIMATELY 460FT■!S. AND NEXT TO IT IS A DECK WHICH IS COVERED. SO THE ENTIRETY OF THE ADDITION WOULD HAVE A ROOF. APPROXIMATELY HALF OF IT, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALF WOULD BE ENCLOSED AS LIVING SPACE FOR THE KITCHEN ADDITION. AND THE OTHER HALF, 400FT■!S, WILL BE, WILL BE A COVERED DECK. IF WE MOVE TO THE ELEVATION, THIS WOULD BE A REAR ELEVATION REFERENCING T2, THAT AT THIS POINT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD. NO PROBLEM. SO, SECOND SHEET WILL WILL SHOW THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE.
LOOKING AT IT FROM THE BACKYARD WHERE YOU WILL SEE THE KITCHEN ADDITION. IT'S A IT'S A SHED ROOF RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE HOUSE WITH APPROXIMATELY. AS I SAID BEFORE, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALF ENCLOSED FOR THE KITCHEN ADDITION. AND THE OTHER HALF, 400FT■!S OR SO, WOULD BE E COVERED DECK. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE VIEW, LET'S SEE IF I CAN MOVE THIS SIDEWAYS. THIS WILL BE AGAIN, A SIDE VIEW OF THE HOUSE FROM EITHER ONE OF THE FROM THE KITCHEN SIDE, WHERE THE LIGHT COLORED IS THE EXISTING HOUSE. AND THIS IS THE, THE ADDITION TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WITH A SHED ROOF AND THE SIDING AND THE WINDOWS AND, UNDER THE DECK. AND AGAIN, MOVING ON TO T3 AT THIS POINT, YEAH. WHAT I'M SHOWING THE FLOOR PLAN, THAT'S T3. THAT'S REALLY NOT AS RELEVANT.
[00:15:01]
THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO T1 TO JUST, COMPLETE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING UNDER THE DECK WILL BE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECHARGE PIT, APPROXIMATELY 750FT■!S, IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE 860FT■!S. ROOF THAT TODAY IS PERVIOUS COVERAGE. THAT'S BASICALLY THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. HOW MANY SQUARE FEET OF THAT ROOF? 800.WHAT DID YOU SAY? 860FT■!S. GIVE OR TAKE. I'M SORRY. DID YOU SAY IT WAS UNDER THE DECK, THE SHED, I BELIEVE IT IS UNDER THE DECK. UNLESS. LET ME JUST ZOOM IN. THERE WAS AT ONE POINT IN TIME, IT WAS UNDER THE DECK. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS MOVED. SO. YEAH, IT IS UNDER THE DECK. IT'S RAISED. ELEVATED DECK. I SEE IT. I'M SORRY. I TAKE THAT BACK. IT WAS UNDER THE DECK AND THE TOWN ASKED US TO RELOCATE IT FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES. AND NOW IT'S TO THE LEFT OF THE OF THE.
MY BAD. I WAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN LIKE AS A CIRCLE. IT LOOKS LIKE A YES, RIGHT? YEP. OKAY THANK YOU. AND THAT IN EFFECT, JUST TO JUST TO INTERJECT AT THIS POINT IS TO MANAGE THE, THE WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE ADDITION. IS THAT ACCURATE? CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE TO COLLECT ALL THE LITTLE DRAINS FROM THE ROOF AND ANY, ANY RUNOFF FROM THE ADDITION FROM THE APPROXIMATE 860 SQUARE FOOT OF ROOF OFF ROOF. CORRECT GOOD, THAT BASICALLY IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. IT'S MOSTLY IT'S ALL OF IT IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ANYTHING IN IF YOU'RE JUST DRIVING BY THE HOUSE AND IT IS, IT'S A STRAIGHT UP ADDITION. THERE IS NO THERE IS NO, BASEMENT. THERE IS NOT EVEN A CRAWL SPACE. IT'S ALL BEING DONE ON, ON SPOT FOOTING, FOR THE DECK AS WELL AS THE ADDITION. IT'S A NICE SLAB ON GRADE. IT'S NOT A SLAB ON GRADE. IT'S A IT'S A FRAMED STRUCTURE, BUT THERE IS NO BASEMENT UNDERNEATH. OKAY ALSO, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED IN IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS? I DON'T, IT'S PART OF PIKE RUN. PIKE RUN! IT'S THE FRONT PART. PIKE RUN! RUN! YEAH. OKAY, IT'S MILLER'S GROVE. MILLER'S GROVE. THANK YOU.
MILLER'S GROVE. THANK YOU. COULD YOU PAN DOWN TO THE ELEVATIONS AGAIN? SURE. RIGHT HERE. OKAY A FRAMED STRUCTURE SUPPORTED BY POSTS, YES. AND FOOTINGS. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION Y. I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU. SO THE ADDITION IS, A SLAB AND. NO, THE ADDITION IS A FRAMED STRUCTURE, BUT THE FRAME STRUCTURE IS SUPPORTED BY POST AND CONCRETE FOOTINGS, BUT THERE IS NO BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE ON ANYTHING, BUT THE DECK IS JUST POSTS AND NO CONCRETE FOOTING. YES, THE DECK WILL ALSO HAVE CONCRETE FOOTINGS ACROSS. IT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. I JUST, THAT'S BASICALLY THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION. THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ELEVATION.
THAT'S THE SIDE VIEW. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SHOWS THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH DOESN'T SHOW ANY DETAILS ON IT AS A WHITE OUT. AND THEN THE PROPOSED ADDITION WITH THE DECK. AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE KITCHEN ADDITION SIDE. I READ YOU IF I READ THIS, CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DESIGN, HOW YOU CAME UP WITH THE SIZE AND PROPORTION TO THE HOUSE, AND ALSO JUST THAT PRIOR QUESTION, CAN YOU ACTUALLY CRAWL UNDERNEATH THAT? IS THAT THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED SO YOU CAN GET. NO, NO, IT'S BASICALLY AS YOU CAN SEE FROM HERE, IT'S ABOUT ONE, TWO, THREE RISERS FROM THE GRADE. SO THE DECK IS EIGHT TIMES, EIGHT TIMES MAYBE 24IN OFF THE GRADE. AND SO IS THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THE ADDITION.
OBVIOUSLY TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE EXCAVATION, A LOT MORE
[00:20:01]
INVASIVE TO DO ANY KIND OF A BASEMENT OR A CRAWL SPACE. AND THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNERS WERE NOT NEEDING TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THIS DESIGN AS WELL AS THE CONTRACTOR. I BELIEVE THEY WHEN THE INITIAL DESIGN CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, THERE WAS NO DESIRE TO HAVE ANY BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE. SO PLANNING TO INSULATE THE UNDERSIDE OF THE KITCHEN ADDITION, OF COURSE. AND YOU'RE PROTECTING THAT INSULATION WITH SOME SORT OF A FINISH. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S GOING TO BE ALSO A BARRIER ENCLOSING IT. SO THERE IS NO THERE IS NO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO ANIMALS, THERE'S NO WIND CHILL. THERE'S NOTHING. SO IT'S, IT'S TO THE, TO THE I TO THE NAKED EYE WOULD BE JUST LIKE A CRAWL SPACE. BUT THERE'S NO ACTUAL CRAWL SPACE THERE. AND YOU'LL BE RUNNING PLUMBING FROM THE KITCHEN WITHIN THAT SPACE, WITHIN THAT SPACE OR WITHIN THE FLOOR JOIST. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. OBVIOUSLY, AS PER CODE. OKAY, I HAVE TWO. I HAVE ACTUALLY, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE DEPTH OF YOUR DRYWALL RUNNING OFF OF THE COVERAGE AREA THAT THE NEW ADDITION IS GOING, BEING THAT THE CURRENT SURFACE YOU'RE REQUESTING THE PERMEABILITY, COVERAGE ON THAT, KNOWING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, MORE RUN OFF HAS HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE DEPTH OF THE DRYWALL FOR THE WATER TO BE REABSORBED BACK INTO THE GROUND? YES. SO THERE IS A CALCULATION THAT IS TYPICAL OF THIS TYPE OF ADDITION, BASED ON A THE 25 YEAR STORM BASED ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BASED ON THE RUNOFF.AND IT CAME UP WITH, I BELIEVE, 627, IT'S A CUBIC FEET, REQUIREMENT. AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING A 750 CUBIC FEET. CONCRETE UNDERGROUND TANK. SO THAT AND IT'S GOT THE HOLES IN IT. SO WHEN THE WATER COMES IN, IT SEEPS INTO THE GROUND AT THE SAME RATE AS IF THERE WAS NO IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. IS THE PERMIT REQUIRING YOU TO GET A PERC TEST FOR THE WATER ABSORPTION FOR THE AMOUNT THAT THIS DRYWALL, BECAUSE 760 750, YOU SAID 750FT■!S. I THINK YOU MEANT 750 GALLONS. GALLONS. GALLONS. I'M SORRY. A CUBIC GALLONS. AS I RECALL, MOST SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN THE TOWNSHIP HAVE 1000 GALLON TANKS, WHICH REQUIRE PERC TESTS. SO WHEREAS THE 750 GALLON IS NOT TOO FAR OFF. SO AS FAR AS STORMWATER, IT'S NOT REALLY, IT'S NOT AS CRITICAL. THE PARKING OBVIOUSLY IS NOT AS CRITICAL BECAUSE IT'S JUST STORMWATER AND THE TANK IS, IS ALSO SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC. AND THEN AT LEAST 12IN AROUND THE WHOLE TANK. OKAY.
BOTTOM TOP AND SIDES OF STONE. SO THAT WILL FACILITATE THE RECHARGING OF THE WATER IN BACK TO THE GROUND. AND AS FAR AS STORMWATER, WHETHER A RECHARGE IS. IN 24 HOURS OR 36 HOURS, IT'S PART OF THE CALCULATIONS BECAUSE THE STORM COMES AND GOES. BUT THE SEPTIC REQUIREMENT IS EVERY DAY. SO THERE IS NOT THE PARKING IS NOT TYPICALLY CRITICAL OR USUALLY DONE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I BELIEVE, THERE WAS, SOIL BORINGS THAT WERE TAKEN. I CAN'T, I CAN'T TESTIFY TO THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO THEM. BUT THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT SOIL BORINGS WERE DONE, AND, THERE WAS NO ISSUES WITH THE RECHARGING OF THE. OKAY. CAN I JUST ASK, MR. DARGIE, HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 7TH, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2020? WHICH MEMO IS THAT? THIS WAS THIS IS ABOUT THE APPLICANT SUBMISSION FOR THE STORMWATER IS MR. NADER'S CALCULATIONS. YEAH, I DID REVIEW THAT. YES. AND YOU AGREE WITH ITS CALCULATIONS.
YEAH. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS IN OUR REVIEW MEMO. OUR ORDINANCE IS VERY SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT HASN'T SUBMITTED THE CALCULATIONS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT COMMENT NUMBER ONE ONE SECOND 11 B, IN OUR IN OUR AUGUST 14TH MEMO, WAS THERE A SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF? YOU SAID SEPTEMBER 7TH. NO, THIS WAS SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2023 OH 2023. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY SORRY, YEAH, I DID REVIEW THAT AND WE HAVE OUR AUGUST MEMO. 11 B BASICALLY STATES FOR AN APPLICANT APPLICATION OF THIS TYPE. IT'S CONSIDERED A MINOR DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS TO ADDRESS
[00:25:04]
STORMWATER QUANTITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT, WHICH BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT, THE EXISTING RATES ARE EITHER MAINTAINED FOR THE ENTIRE 24 HOUR HYDROGRAPH OR HAVE A REDUCTION IN IN THE EXISTING RATES BY THE 50%, 25%, 20% FOR THE DISTURBANCE AREA, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A SIZING CALCULATION, WHICH, DEALT IN GALLONS PER MINUTE AND ALL THAT. AND TYPICALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS, TO DO IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TR 55 METHOD FROM NRCS, WE HAVE ACCEPTED MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD FOR SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS AS WELL. BUT THE APPLICANT JUST SUBMITTED A SORT OF A SUMMARY, THAT IT WAS KIND OF DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW, SO I THINK, I THINK THAT WE DO NEED SOME ACTUAL STORMWATER CALCULATIONS, SIZING THE ACTUAL, DRY. WELL. AND AS FAR AS THE DRY WALL SIZING GOES, MR. MR. DELANTY, WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE DRY. WELL, WE DO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT AS WELL. I KNOW WE'RE NOT ON MY LETTER YET, BUT I MIGHT AS WELL GO SINCE I'M ON A ROLL, YEAH.ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE DRY. WELL, THE DEPTH, THE DETAIL THAT'S ON THE PLAN SAYS THE DEPTH IS THREE FEET FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DRY WELL, AND THE DRY WELL INVERT IS NOTED AT 104.75, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE TOP OF THE DRY WELL IS GOING TO BE ROUGHLY 108, WITH THE EXISTING GRADE IN THAT AREA IS 106 75. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, A DISPARITY THERE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED, WITH REGARD TO THE DEPTH OF THAT DRYWALL. AND WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE A DETERMINATION OF THE SEASONAL HIGH DEPTH, THE DEPTH OF SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE, BECAUSE THE DRY WALL IS REQUIRED TO BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE. SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DESIGN INFORMATION FOR THE DRY WALL THAT THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. SO, MR. CHAIR, WE WERE HAPPY TO COMPLY, OBVIOUSLY, AND WE WOULD MAKE ANY CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THERE WOULD BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ENGINEER AS FAR AS THAT INFORMATION IS CONCERNED. AND OF COURSE, I SEE THE ENGINEER IS ALSO CALLING FOR IN HIS MEMO A, YOU KNOW, THE POST-CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION TESTING, WHICH WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD COMPLY WITH. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE THIS A CONDITION TO AVOID THE NEED TO HAVE TO COME BACK. SO FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE. MR. THANK YOU, MR. FERNANDO. FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, MR. TAJI, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH AT A LATER TIME, OR DO YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION? I IT SEEMED IT SEEMED TO ME THAT YOU NEEDED MORE INFORMATION. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION OFTEN. RIGHT. LIKE LIKE WHAT AWESOME POWER YOU GUYS INVEST IN ME TO, TO REVIEW THINGS AFTER THE FACT, IT'S REALLY JUST A MATTER OF SIZING THE DRYWALL. IT'S GOING TO EITHER BE IF IT'S IF IT CAN'T BE TOO DEEP, THEN IT'S GOT TO BE WIDER, RIGHT? SO THAT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. AND THEY'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE CALCULATIONS. BUT YEAH, THOSE CALCULATIONS TYPICALLY ARE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE BOARD ACTING AND TYPICALLY THEY WOULD BE. YES, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE ARE HERE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE COME OUT TO WHICH WE YOU KNOW, PRESUMING THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THE APPLICATION, THAT THOSE CALCULATIONS WOULD BE DONE AND SATISFIED? ABSOLUTELY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER. AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY THAT WOULD I WOULD LOVE THAT. WE COULD MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL JUST TO SIMPLY AVOID. AND FROM AN FROM YOUR ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS JUST SO, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE EXPERT HERE, THAT THERE'S NO CONSTRAINTS ON THE DEPTH OR THE AREA THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH SOME THEORETICAL MAXIMUM THAT YOU WOULD CALCULATE. IS THAT CORRECT? SURE. I, I DON'T, I DON'T I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANY PHYSICAL LIMITATION THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM SATISFYING THE TOWN ENGINEER. IF IT'S A WATER TABLE ISSUE, THEN INSTEAD OF GOING THREE FEET DEEP, WE GO TWO FEET DEEP AND WE PUT TWO TANKS. I DON'T EXPECT UNDER ANY CALCULATIONS THAT THE VOLUME IS GOING TO BE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WE CAME UP WITH, BUT THIS IS A TYPICAL SORT OF TANK SIZING CALCULATIONS. IF THE TOWN HAS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. AND IT'S THERE IS NO OUTCOME WHERE IT WOULD BE WHERE, OOPS, THERE'S NO PLACE WE CAN PUT THE TANK. IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO COME DOWN TO THAT. IT'S IT'S DECIDING HOW DEEP WE CAN PUT IT. AND WHETHER IT'S ONE TANK OR TWO TANKS AND WHAT WOULD BE THE SIZE OF IT.
BUT ALL OF THESE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US BASED ON THE PHYSICAL ON THE SITE LOCATION.
YEAH, I WOULD AGREE THAT IT WOULD IT IS JUST A MATTER OF SIZING THE DRYWALLS PERHAPS HAVING A SECOND DRYWALL. AND WE WOULD, IT MIGHT TAKE A FEW ITERATIONS OF CALCULATIONS BACK
[00:30:01]
AND FORTH TO, TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. BUT I DON'T DOUBT THAT THERE WOULD BE A PATH TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE, WHICH WOULD BE THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD SATISFY THE ENGINEER SUBSEQUENTLY PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO US. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE, RATHER THAN ACTUALLY.YEAH. SO, MR. SELBY, YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK THEY'LL BE COVERED BY THE PLANNER. GREAT. YEAH GREAT. OKAY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST HAVE MR. NADER VISIT THE ISSUES REGARDING THE VARIANCES THEY WERE RAISED IN BOTH IN ALMOST ALL THE MEMOS, OBVIOUSLY, BUT. RIGHT. WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN SHORTCUT THAT A LITTLE BIT BY HAVING HIM VISIT THOSE THE THREE VARIANCES THAT ARE AT ISSUE AND TALK ABOUT, HOW HE, YOU KNOW, GIVE HIS RESPONSE TO THOSE WHEN STARTING WITH, WITH THE TWO BULK VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. MR. NADER. SO WE HAVE A BUILDING COVERAGE MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE BUILDING COVERAGE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE REQUIREMENT IS 15% THAT THAT MEANS 15% OF THE LOT AREA CAN BE A BUILDING. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE 13.94. WHEN YOU ADD THE ADDITION AND THE AND THE DECK, YOU'RE AT 19.5. SO WHEN THIS PROJECT IS DONE, 19.5% OF THE LOT AREA WOULD WOULD BE THE BUILDING. THE OTHER REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT WOULD BE BUILDING PLUS DRIVEWAYS PLUS SIDEWALK PLUS WHATEVER, WHATEVER IS IMPERVIOUS TO WATER TO PENETRATE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TOWN FOR THIS ZONE IS 25%. THE CURRENT CONDITIONS ARE 21%. WHEN WE'RE DONE, WE'RE ADDING 6.6%. SO IT WOULD BE 27%, WHICH WOULD BE 2% OVER THE REQUIREMENT. THAT'S THE BUILDING COVERAGE AND THE LOT COVERAGE. AND THE THIRD ONE IS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. ALSO START WITH THE TWO THE TWO VARIANCES. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE FOUR AREAS. SO THE BUILDING COVERAGE BASED ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE WE'RE COVERING 13.9%. WHEN WE ADD THE 860FT■!S, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING, WE GO TO 19.5%. IF THE IF THERE IS NO IF THERE IS NO QUESTIONS, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS, I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS. I THINK WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ASK YOU IS TO GIVE THE REASONS THAT YOU WANT THE BOARD TO RELY ON TO GRANT THE RELIEF.
SO BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT, IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE AN ADDITION TO THIS HOUSE WITHOUT A RELIEF BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 1% COVERAGE. SO IT WOULD BE A CLOSET. IT WOULD BE IT WOULD NOT BE AN ADDITION. AND THE PATELS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A BIGGER KITCHEN. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO THERE'S NO GOING UP. THERE'S NO GOING DOWN. THE ONLY WAY THIS COULD WORK IS BY GOING BACKWARD WITH AN ADDITION AND THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION IS WHAT IT IS TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR A, FOR A LARGER KITCHEN. AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WOULD BE YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE PROPOSED STORMWATER FACILITIES THAT WERE THAT ARE PART OF THIS APPLICATION PREVENT ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS AS FAR AS THIS THIS INTRUSION INTO THE OR EXCESS OF BUILDING AND LOT COVERAGE IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THIS RECHARGE THAT'S THE STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN THAT WE HAVE THERE. THERE IS THERE. SO THAT AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, UNDER ANY STORM CONDITION, THE RUNOFF RATE OF THIS HOUSE WILL BE THE SAME AS TODAY BECAUSE THE RECHARGE AREA WILL SLOW IT DOWN ACCORDINGLY, AS IF THE ADDITION IS NOT THERE, SO TO SPEAK. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH WOULD BE MINIMAL IN THE FIRST PLACE WOULD BE CERTAINLY ADDRESSED BY THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT? APPARATUSES THAT ARE THAT WOULD BE PUT INTO PLACE. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT AS FAR AS THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE ZONE PLAN IS THAT ACCURATE? YES, SIR. OKAY, I AGREE AND ALSO, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND AND SAY THE OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA, DID YOU FIND DID YOU HAVE ANY FINDINGS WHEN LOOKING AT THE OTHER LOTS AS FAR AS OTHER USES ON OTHER LOTS, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO MATCH ALL THE OTHER USES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE ARE THESE ARE 0.3 ACRE SIZED LOTS, WHICH IS PART OF A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS WHERE THE WHERE THE OPEN SPACE IS. SO WHEN SOMEONE PURCHASES A HOME IN A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS, THEY'RE STARTING WITH THE SMALLER LOT. CORRECT.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THERE ARE OTHER LOTS IN THE KETCHUM AREA IN THE MILLER'S GROVE AREA THAT
[00:35:04]
HAVE THE SWIMMING POOLS AND THE DECKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WOULD THAT BE YOUR TESTIMONY? CORRECT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD POINT TO SORT OF DISCUSS WITH THIS SIZE LOT, TO OFFSET THE OPEN SPACES. THERE IS NOT A LOT THAT YOU CAN DO WITHOUT NEEDING SOME SORT OF VARIANCE. THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS A LOT MORE COVERAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL VIEW, THEY HAVE A PATIO, THEY HAVE A POOL, WHICH IS SO THE NATURE OF THIS ADDITION IS NOTHING UNUSUAL OR SPECIAL OR EXTRAORDINARY. WAS THAT LOT NEXT DOOR? WAS THAT GRANTED A VARIANCE BY THE BOARD? I I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE AERIAL IN THE IF YOU LOOK AT I THINK WHAT'S WHAT WHAT YOU REFERRED TO THIS REPORT IS THAT THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION, DO WE KNOW THE HISTORY ON THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, YEAH. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING COVERAGE IS AND WHAT THE LOT COVERAGE IS? I, I DON'T REALLY I DON'T KNOW, I JUST I'M VISUALLY LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW. THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENCES. I THINK THE TOWN HAS, EXCEPTIONS FOR POOLS. RIGHT. THAT YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE. YOU'D BE GRANTED A 4%. CAN'T HEAR YOU.YEAH. YOU WOULD BE GRANTED A 4%, ADDITIONAL. YEAH SO COOL. 4% BONUS IF YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL. YES. YOU CAN EXCEED BY 4% IF IT'S FOR SWIMMING. SO DON'T COUNT THE POOL. SO WHAT ELSE IS THAT LOT NEXT DOOR HAVE, A VERY LARGE PATIO AROUND THE POOL. IS IT? DOES THE PATIO GET INCLUDED WITH THE POOL? BONUS? IT'S JUST 4%. IF YOU PUT IN A POOL, YOU GET 4%. YEAH. SO IF YOU TOOK OUT THE POOL IN THE PATIO, WHAT IS THAT LOT NEXT DOOR, HAVE I. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY BECAUSE I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE AREA. SO BUT IT DOES HAVE MORE COVERAGE THAN THIS LOT THAT'S TAKING OUT THE POOL AND PATIO. IT HAS MORE COVERAGE. WELL IT'S. YES. BUT I, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DO SPECIFICS. IT'S A MUCH LARGER HOME AND IT'S GOT A BIG PATIO OTHER THAN THE POOL.
PATIO. OKAY. MR. MAYOR, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET HOW WE'RE GOING TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HAD HAS RAISED IN HIS MEMO. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING AS FAR AS TREES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT IT WOULD BE YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THAT THE SIZE OF THIS, ADDITION, WHICH IS NOT THAT, NOT THAT LARGE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT COULD ALSO BE AMELIORATED BY THE PLANTING OF TREES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS ADDRESSED BY MR. BY MR. BARTOLONI. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY I ALSO WANT TO TURN FOR JUST A MINUTE TO THE F.A.R, VARIANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TO THAT WE HAVE TO MEET. BUT IF YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THAT, THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT TO THE BOARD, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT, SURE. SO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO WOULD BE THE, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SPACE, LIVABLE SPACE. SO IF IT'S A TWO STORY, THEN IT'S TWO. THE DOUBLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, ALL THE LIVABLE SPACE THAT'S, DIVIDED BY THE AREA OF THE LOT. AND IN YOUR TOWN FOR THIS ZONE, IT'S 0.25, THE EXISTING ON THIS HOUSE IS 0.19.
SO BY THE ADDITION OF 860FT■!S,F WHICH 460 IS THE KITCHEN AND 400 IS THE DECK, THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO IS NOW 0.33, THE REASON THERE WAS A CHANGE ON THAT BECAUSE IN SOME TOWNS, DECKS ARE NOT ADDED TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THIS TOWN THEY ARE WHEN THEY'RE COVERED. I BELIEVE YOUR PLANNER WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. SO THE DECK WITH THE COVER ON IT IS NOW INCLUDED IN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, WHICH PUTS US AT 0.33. WHICH IS 0.8 HIGHER THAN THE 0.25 THAT'S ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. OKAY. WHAT WOULD THE OH, I'M SORRY, WHAT WOULD BE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO BE IF THE DECK PART WAS NOT COVERED, IT WOULD THEN THAT WAS INITIALLY, I BELIEVE, ONE OF THE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TOWN, WE DEEMED IT, ON OUR, OUR SIDE. WE DEEMED IT NOT INCLUDED THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE WE DIDN'T. SHE WANTS TO KNOW IF IT WASN'T, IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT. IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE 0.25. WHAT WOULD IT BE? SHE WANTS TO KNOW. WE DON'T HAVE THE. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER HERE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE RIGHT ON 0.25, AND THAT'S, THAT'S BECAUSE WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE 400FT■!S. ADDITION F THE DECK. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN WE WERE ADVISED BY YOUR
[00:40:01]
PROFESSIONALS THAT A COVERED DECK IS PART OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, WE ADDED IT. AND THAT'S WHY IT KICKED IN THE THIRD VARIANCE REQUIREMENT. OKAY. IF I AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I JUST WANT TO LEAVE THE TESTIMONY A LITTLE BIT TO GET TO THE SALIENT POINTS. THE FLOOR AREA RATIO TYPES OF CALCULATIONS ARE LARGELY IN PLACE IN MOST TOWNS.TO PREVENT, YOU KNOW, MCMANSIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE WHERE YOU HAVE SO MUCH BULK ON A PROPERTY, NOT JUST AREA COVERAGE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT YOU KNOW HOW MUCH BULK THAT BUILDING IS ALL TOLD. AND SO, TYPICALLY BOARDS ARE, THEY LOOK CAREFULLY AT ANY OF DEVIANCE FROM THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO, TYPE OF PRESIDENT OF IDEA BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT YOU WANT TO PREVENT BIG BULK BUILDINGS IS WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO WITH WITH A CONTROL ON FLOOR AREA RATIO. HOW WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ENTIRETY OF THIS ADDITION IS IN THE BACK, SO IT REALLY DOESN'T ADD ANY BULK OR PERCEPTION OF BULK OR SIZE TO THE HOUSE FROM ANY ANGLE, UNLESS YOU'RE INVITED TO THE PATELS FOR BARBECUE. THAT'S WHEN YOU KNOW THAT THE ADDITION IS THERE. IT DOES NOT, SO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS NOT A CONCERN. BUT IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION AND THE DECK TRIGGERED ALL THREE LIMITATIONS AT THE SAME TIME. SO BACK TO THE SAME ISSUE. THERE'S NOTHING PARTICULARLY UNUSUAL OR BULKY OR OVERDONE ABOUT THIS ADDITION, BUT IT DID CAUSE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO TO GO BEYOND THE EXISTING BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND AGAIN, IT WOULD BE YOUR COMMENT IF YOU IF YOU WOULD WHEN WE GET TO THE INTERACTION WITH MR. BARTOLONI THAT IF THERE WERE ANY PERCEPTION FROM SIDE YARD FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE COULD BE PROTECTED BY ANY LANDSCAPING OR, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERGREEN TREES OR SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT. ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU WANT TO HIDE THE ADDITION, YOU CAN OR IF YOU WANT TO CREATE SOME KIND OF A, WHATEVER BARRIER THE NEIGHBORS NEED OR THE TOWN, LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT, IT'S NOT HARD TO DO WITH WITH EVERGREENS OR ANY KIND OF. WELL. GO AHEAD.
YEAH. MARILYN CAN YOU GIVE US THE LEGAL TEST FOR THE D4 VARIANT? SO WE COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE? WELL, IT'S A IT'S A TWO FOLD. TEST. YOU HAVE TO SATISFY THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA, WITHOUT RESULTING IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND IT CAN'T RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE ZONE PLAN. UNDERSTAND? BUT WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT REGARDING, DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC? GOOD WELL, A IT'S A TWO FOLD ARGUMENT, MA'AM. A IT'S NOT THAT BIG. IT'S JUST SLIGHTLY OVER. IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE BUILDING A MCMANSION LIKE YOU SEE IN SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS BEFORE THIS THING BECAME A NEW TOOL FOR PLANNERS. WHEN THESE MCMANSIONS BEGAN TO TAKE OVER, IT'S JUST A LITTLE PIECE THAT THAT COMES OUT AND HAPPENS TO GO OVER THE FAR LIMITATION. IT WOULD BE A BIG PROBLEM IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 60% OR SOMETHING TO THIS NATURE. IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER. SO IT'S NOT THAT BIG. IT'S MORE DE MINIMIS IN THAT REGARD. IT AS AS MR. NADER POINTED OUT, YOU WOULDN'T SEE IT FROM THE ROAD.
YOU WOULDN'T SEE IT ONLY THE ONLY TIME YOU WOULD REALLY SEE IT IS IF YOU WERE IN THE BACKYARD. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE BIGGER ASPECT OF IT. SO IT'S NOT A BULKY APPEARANCE FROM THE ROAD. THERE'S ALSO CERTAINLY THE POSSIBILITY OF OVER LANDSCAPING, IF YOU WILL, WITH TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S HOW YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS, NOTION THAT THERE COULD EVEN POSSIBLY OR POTENTIALLY BE ANY, POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO THE ZONE PLAN IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF NOTION OF BULKINESS WHATSOEVER. TREES ALONG THE SIDE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT WOULD CERTAINLY DO IT. AND AS, WHEN WE WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING TO MR. BORDELON, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT HE SUGGESTS THAT WE WANT TO DO, WE WOULD HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO IN THAT REGARD, WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO IT. SO YOUR PLANNER, IN HIS AUGUST 19, 2024 MEMO, IN MY OPINION, HE CORRECTLY LAYS OUT THE TEST FOR THE D4 FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE STARTING ON PAGE EIGHT AND GOING TO PAGE NINE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ YOU WHAT HE WROTE. I AGREE WITH IT. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH MY CRIB SHEETS WHICH ARE MORE DETAILED. I INCLUDE ALL THE CASES. THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS.
FIRST, HE SAYS, AND YOU CAN ASK HIM ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE'S HERE. FA IS A TOOL TO LIMIT THE INTENSITY OF USE BY CONTROLLING MASS AND SCALE OF BUILDINGS. WHEN CONSIDERING A VARIANCE FOR
[00:45:01]
EXCESSIVE FAR, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY A LOWER THRESHOLD OF SPECIAL REASONS THAN FOR A USE VARIANCE. RIGHT USE VARIANCE. YOU NEED PARTICULAR SUITABILITY. I'M NOW ADDING A LITTLE EDITORIAL COMMENT. YOU DON'T NEED PARTICULAR SUITABILITY FOR A D4 VARIANCE, BUT HE SAYS CORRECTLY THAT WHILE THE THRESHOLD IS LOWER, THE APPLICANT STILL MUST ENGAGE THAT THE DEGREE OF THE PROPOSED DEVIATION WILL STILL SATISFY THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE CRITERION. SO MR. VIDONI HAS ADDRESSED A NEGATIVE CRITERION. BUT YOU FIRST THE BOARD FIRST HAS TO CONSIDER THE POSITIVE CRITERION. AND AGAIN, WHAT YOUR PLANNER CORRECTLY STATES IS UNDER THE COVENTRY STANDARD. AND COVENTRY IS A REFERENCE TO COVENTRY SQUARE VERSUS WESTWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS A 1994 NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT CASE UNDER THAT STANDARD, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE SITE IS PARTICULARLY SUITED FOR MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THE SITE WILL ACCOMMODATE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH A LARGER FLOOR AREA THAN PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY HAVE TO PROVE. POSITIVE CRITERIA, ASSUMING THAT THEY SATISFY THE BOARD ON THE POSITIVE CRITERIA THAT THE SITE WILL ACCOMMODATE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH A LARGER FLOOR AREA, THEN THE BOARD CAN'T GRANT THE FOR VARIANCE UNTIL IT'S SATISFIED THAT THE NEGATIVE CRITERION HAS BEEN SATISFIED, AND THAT'S WHAT MR. VIDONI HAS STATED THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. THAT'S GENERALLY CONSIDERED NO SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING LOTS AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE MASTER PLAN. SO HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING LOTS, THEY HAVE TO PUT SOME PROOFS IN ON THAT. THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME. YES. I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN. I'M GOING TO ILLUSTRATE IT RATHER THAN MR. JONES GOT QUOTING FROM THE COVENTRY IN THE MEMO. I GET IT WHEN YOU'RE A BOARD MEMBER, YOU'RE SORT OF LIKE, WAIT A SECOND, HOW DOES THIS WORK? JUST LIKE YOU'RE ASKING ME. BUT HOW HOW DOES IT WORK IN THIS PARTICULAR OKAY TEST? I UNDERSTAND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEGATIVE CRITERIA, BUT HOW HOW HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THIS APPLICATION? OKAY. STEP BACK. AND MAYBE I MAYBE I STARTED TO SAY THIS BEFORE THE PURPOSE OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPONENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS WAS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THINGS LIKE, MCMANSIONS, WHERE YOU HAD POSTED A LOT. OKAY. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS THAT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD, BUT GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, YOU SHOULD ASK. I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THE PLANNER. WHY DID MONTGOMERY ADD AN FA? DO YOU KNOW WHY? MONTGOMERY ADDED AN FA REQUIREMENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE? GENERALLY, A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE FA FOR COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. A LOT OF THEM DON'T HAVE FOR RESIDENTIAL. MONTGOMERY HAS FOR RESIDENTIAL. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE INTENT BEHIND THAT IS FOR MONTGOMERY SPECIFICALLY AND FOR THIS ZONE? NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT. I JUST THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT I HAVE GENERALLY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT HAS TO DO. I DON'T THINK IT'S RELATED DIRECTLY TO MCMANSIONS. I MEAN, IT'S PART OF THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW, WHICH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR SEVERAL DECADES. RIGHT. AND SO THIS IS 1975, BEFORE MCMANSIONS. OKAY.BUT. RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING THE INTENTION TO F.A.R. OKAY, BUT GO AHEAD. BUT SO JUST TO SAY THAT THE WAY THAT I WOULD LOOK AT THIS IS TO SAY, NUMBER ONE, ARE THERE ANY NEGATIVES OR ANY PROBLEMS THAT COME FROM THIS. RIGHT. AND SO WHAT IMMEDIATELY STANDS OUT TO ME WHEN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND COVERAGE IS IT'S A STORMWATER ISSUE FIRST. AND FOREMOST. RIGHT. THAT'S THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. SO THEY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT ENGINEERING. ENHANCEMENTS OR INFRASTRUCTURE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL STORMWATER AND ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
AND THEN THE SECOND, TYPICALLY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS IS VISUAL IMPACT, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DO ONE PART OF THIS THAT I AGREE WITH IS FROM THE STREET. YOU WON'T NOTICE, YOU WON'T SEE IT. BUT THE THING THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS THERE ARE PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE IN THE REAR YARD. THIS IS FURTHER BACK THAN OTHER. SO THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL. MONTGOMERY SUBDIVISION. IT'S A IT'S A LOOP ROAD, THERE'S A NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE ALL JUST ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AND MASS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT AN AERIAL VIEW, YOU CAN SEE, YES, THERE ARE SWIMMING POOLS, THERE ARE REAR PATIOS, THINGS LIKE THAT TO THINK, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. DOES THIS ADDITION IN PARTICULAR CREATE A, AN ISSUE OF VISUAL IMPAIRMENT? SO THERE'S A FEW WAYS TO THINK ABOUT THAT. ONE IS JUST TO LOOK AT IT. THE SECOND IS, IS IT GOING TO BOTHER NEIGHBORS. THERE IS A NOTICE THAT'S SENT OUT ON IN THIS CASE, SO ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, HAS THERE BEEN NOTICE OR. YES, LET'S CONFIRM WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY THAT THE NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT. CORRECT CORRECT. YEAH. I WILL SAY IF THERE WERE
[00:50:01]
NEIGHBORS HERE OBJECTING, I ALWAYS SAY YOU CAN'T JUST COUNT HANDS OF OBJECTORS AND SAY, OH, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. YOU LISTEN TO WHAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF NO NEIGHBORS ARE HERE, RIGHT. I THINK YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THAT NO NEIGHBORS SHOWED UP TO OBJECT. THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD. BUT I AGREE. WHEREAS IF A BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS SHOW UP, YOU CAN'T COUNT HANDS. YOU LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY. BUT IF NO NEIGHBORS SHOW UP, I THINK YOU CAN MAKE AN OBSERVATION AND MAKE AN INFERENCE THAT IF THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T HERE OBJECTING, THEN MAYBE THEY DON'T FIND THE THING OFFENSIVE. SO I LOOKING AT THIS ONE PICTURE THAT YOU HAD IN THE PLANNING DOCUMENT, WHAT PAGE, THIS MIGHT BE THE AUGUST 19TH ONE. OKAY. SO HE HAS A PICTURE ON 33. IT'S THIS ONE. OKAY. SO THAT PICTURE IS ON PAGE FIVE. PAGE FIVE OF THE PLANNING STUDY. PAGE FIVE OF, THE PLANNING MEMO DATED AUGUST 19, 2024. GOT IT. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, THE YELLOW OR WHATEVER COLOR YOU YELLOW, YOUR PRINTER NEEDS A NEW CARTRIDGE. YOU'VE USED THIS ONE, THE YELLOW PART. THEN WHEN YOU LINE THAT UP WITH THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, IT WHEN YOU LINE IT UP WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT IN THE PICTURE. YES. OKAY. IT IT ALMOST COMES OUT AS FAR AS THE BEGINNING PART OF THEIR POOL. CORRECT. AND ASK THEM TO CORRECT. CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN ROUGHLY CORRECT. YES. OKAY. A LITTLE BIT LESS. BUT YES. SO SO THAT'S IT LOOKS LIKE IT REALLY STICKS WAY OUT IN TERMS OF, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS GOING TO CREATE IN TERMS OF USE FOR, THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR. YEAH SO THAT THAT COULD BE AN IMPACT IN TERMS OF THEIR VISIBILITY. IS THERE NOT I MEAN, YEAH, THE NEIGHBOR'S NOT HERE.SO THEY, THEY, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. THEY DON'T MIND. BUT I THINK ONE OTHER AND I DON'T MEAN TO DERAIL YOUR CHAIN OF THOUGHT. IF YOU HAVE MORE, YOU CAN CONTINUE. WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT OTHER THINGS. OH, I WAS GOING TO SAY IN REFERENCE TO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WHAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IS RICH BARTOLO'S MEMO SUGGESTING PLANTING, TREES. AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A PERTINENT POINT. FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE POSITIVE CRITERIA HERE, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS CREATING A, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A BETTER LANDSCAPE, PRESUMABLY WE WOULD GRANT THIS. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR ACCEPTABILITY OF MR. BARTOLO'S PROPOSAL FOR TREES? HAVE YOU SEEN HIS MEMO, I HAVE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PATEL'S ARE OPEN TO ANY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE TOWN, OBVIOUSLY, ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE. PLEASE YES, MA'AM. SO THIS KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A ONE STORY ADDITION. SO BULKINESS IS NOT REALLY IT'S NOT THERE BECAUSE IT'S A ONE STORY ADDITION. IT'S THE HOUSE IS A TWO STORY HOUSE. ALSO THE REAR SETBACK IS WELL IT'S WITHIN WITHIN THE REAR SETBACK. WELL WITHIN THE SETBACK. SO THE ISSUE OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ACTUALLY SERVING ITS PURPOSE HERE BY MAKING THIS A NON-VIOLATION OR MORE LIKE IN THE SPIRIT. SO IT'S IN THE WHAT, WHAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENT IS TRYING TO PREVENT IS PREVENTED HERE, EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY IT VIOLATES IT. IT IS ACTUALLY SERVING. THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT IF THE IF ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IS NOT TO HAVE SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO USE MR. FRIEDEN'S WORD MCMANSION, BUT THEN I'M GOING TO USE THE WORDS FROM JAMES MEMO, WHICH SOMETHING THAT LOOKS BULKY IF YOU'RE LOOKING FROM THE STREET, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE ADDITION BECAUSE IT'S ONE STORY, NOT TWO STORIES. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IT'S WITHIN THE CONFINEMENT OF THE HOUSE. IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACKS. AND DOES IT GO ANY FURTHER TO THE SIDE YARDS THAN THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES? NOT. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO SAY? YES, SIR. YOU WEREN'T THAT GOOD AT SAYING IT, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY. OKAY. IF I WAS GOOD, I'D BE A LAWYER. ARE THERE ANY PLANS FOR ANY PATIO AROUND THE ADDITION? NO ARE THERE ANY PLANS IN THE FUTURE FOR PATIOS AROUND THE ADDITION? WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR A VARIANCE. SO THE ANSWER IS NO. WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE A RESTRICTION IN THE DEED THAT NO PATIOS WOULD BE AROUND THERE BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFINITELY AFFECT THE COVERAGE OF THE PROPERTY AND
[00:55:04]
IMPACT ON STORMWATER, ETC. HOW ABOUT A RESTRICTION IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OPPOSED TO THE DEED, SIMPLY BECAUSE TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THERE COULD BE CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN'T ENVISION OR 30 YEARS FROM NOW, CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN'T. WE'VE WHEN THE BOARD IMPOSES A CONDITION TO BE A RESTRICTION. ALSO, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO ASK THAT IT BE RELIEVED. SO IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER THAN HAVING TO FILE AN ACTION IN COURT IF WE JUST HAD ONE, LIKE WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS. AND THE ONLY WAY THE NEW OWNER REALLY FINDS OUT ABOUT SOMETHING IS IF IT'S IN THE DEED, BECAUSE NO ONE CHECKS THERE, I'LL JUST ASK THE REMAINING MEMBERS, THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IF WE WANT TO PUT A DEED RESTRICTION IN HERE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE HAVE LAND USE RULES, WE HAVE MUNICIPAL STANDARDS IN PLACE. IF THEY IF THEY DO ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD. I THINK THE YEAH, I KNOW I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. NO. SO YOU'RE NOT ASKING WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A DEED RESTRICTION. YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THERE, SHOULD IT BE A RESTRICTIVE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE? WELL, IT IS A RESTRICTIVE CONDITION AND WE'RE NO ADDITIONAL PATIOS IS WHAT SHE'S SUGGESTING. WELL, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS NO, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A CONDITION LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IF THEY WANTED SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL PATIOS, BECAUSE IF ANY ADDITION IS AN INTENSIFICATION OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. SO WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THE FLOOR. IF WE WOULD APPROVE IT, WE WOULD GRANT IT AT THE SPECIFIED LEVEL. IF THERE'S AN UNCOVERED PATIO, IT'S NOT FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUT IT IS BUT IT IS COVERED. IT WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS. IT WOULD BE NOT COVERED. RIGHT. BUT IT IS COVERED. SO THERE'D STILL BE BACK HERE. THEY'D STILL BE BACK HERE. CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. RIGHT. SO WE ARE KIND OF AT THE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE THRESHOLD. IF THEY IF THEY ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK. I THINK IT'S BELT AND SUSPENDERS TO PUT IT IN A DEED. AND IT'S ACTUALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ZONING PROCESS. NOT TO QUIBBLE TO PUTTING IT IN THE DEED OR NOT THE DEED TO ME IS NOT THE ISSUE.TO HAVE A CONDITION SAYING THAT IS THE ISSUE. YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT ANY CONDITION, RIGHT? I YEAH, I AGREE, YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT YOU WANT THAT AS A CONDITION IN IN AN APPROVAL BUT NOT IN A DEED RESTRICTION. YOU DON'T WANT THAT CONDITION. I WOULD, I WOULD ASK OUR, OUR PLANNER. RIGHT. OR ACTUALLY THE EVEN THE BOARD SECRETARY OR THE ZONING OFFICER. ACTUALLY, THIS IS A THIS IS A MATTER OF THE BOARD SECRETARY IF WE OR I'M SORRY, THE ZONING OFFICER, IF WE WOULD APPROVE THIS AS IT STANDS AND A THE RESIDENT OR ANOTHER RESIDENT IN THE FUTURE COMES BACK BEFORE THE ZONING OFFICER AND ASKS FOR AN ADDITIONAL PATI, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE HERE AGAIN.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE. SO IT ALREADY IS A CONDITION. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY A CONDITION THAT ALREADY IS A CONDITION. COULD COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE, THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED IN THE BILL? THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR ON HOW THAT APPROVAL WENT REGARDING THE PATIOS. AND IT APPEARS IN ADDITION AS WELL. I CAN FIND OUT I WASN'T HERE DURING THAT TIME, BUT WHEN I HAVE THE ANSWER, I COULD GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO DO THE RESEARCH.
OKAY. WHAT WHAT? MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT, THINGS HAVE A WAY OF GROWING, AND, THAT'S HIS PROBLE.
THANK YOU. WELL, IT'S EVENTUALLY THE PROBLEM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LAND THAT IT'S ON. SO IT IT DOES EXTEND BEYOND HUMAN ERROR. OKAY, MA'AM, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE'RE PUTTING ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THIS PARTICULAR LANDOWNER THAT NOBODY ELSE IN MONTGOMERY HAS PUT IT THIS WAY. FORGET. LET'S TAKE THE DEED RESTRICTION OUT OF THE EQUATION FOR A MINUTE. THANK YO.
WHAT ABOUT A CONDITION THAT SAYS NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY UNLESS YOU COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROPRIATE VARIANCES? THAT'S I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THE MOU SAYS. OKAY. THAT'S FINE IF IT SATISFIES IT OKAY. ANOTHER ANOTHER QUESTION, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN NOT HAVING A ROOF ON THE SECOND ON THE ON THE OPEN AREA, ON THE, THE PATIO OR THE, THE DECK THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE ADDITION FOR THE KITCHEN? I THINK THAT THE ROOF IS INTEGRAL, AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY ENVISION IS WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO. IS IT IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL WITHOUT THE ROOF AS WELL. YOU CAN PUT A ONE OF THOSE RETRACTABLE, SHADES RIGHT. OKAY. I, I, I'M LOATHE TO AGREE WITH YOU, MA'AM, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE HERE BEFORE A ZONING BOARD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING TYPES OF ISSUES. WHEN WE START BECOMING ARCHITECTS, WE'RE GETTING OUT OF. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT WOULD REDUCE THE, THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUE, RIGHT?
[01:00:07]
NO, IT WOULD INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, FLOOR AREA RATIO. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE UNDER AND THAT WOULD BE ONE LESS VARIANCE. IT WOULD NOT BE UNDER. IT WOULD NOT. NO. IT WOULD ONLY REDUCE IT BY A 2.5%. SO IT WOULD GET TO ABOUT 29.5. THAT STILL REQUIRED OKAY. SO IT WOULD NOT THAT THAT DOES CONTRADICT THE TESTIMONY THAT HE HE HE GAVE. BUT OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT OKAY. SO BUT SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HAD A ROOF OR NOT, IT WOULD IT WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE A D4 VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO WOULD BE LESS INTENSE, BUT IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE OKAY. ALL RIGHT OKAY. GOT TO KEEP UP. ALL RIGHT. AND SO. ALL RIGHT IF WE'VE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS I HOPE WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY. CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT CUTTING OFF THE QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. WE STILL HAVE TO STEP THROUGH THE MEMOS, AND WE'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY YOUR EXPERTS IN THE MEMOS, YEAH. WELL, JUST FOR A MATTER OF JUST EXPEDIENCY, I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. FERNAND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD IS COMPLETE WITH THEIR QUESTIONS FOR THE EXPERT WITNESS. BECAUSE YOU'RE MOVING AWAY FROM THE EXPERT. IS THAT CORRECT? HE'S MOVING TO THE. I'M JUST CLARIFYING. YEAH, YEAH, BUT HE'S GOING TO BE HE'S GOING TO BE RESPONDING TO THE ISSUES. I UNDERSTAND, BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS, INTERRUPT ME, PLEASE. I HAVE NO I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. GUYS. THERE'S, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS, THERE'S AN HOA FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. IS THERE A HOA APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR ANY OF THIS, AND IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE ENCUMBRANCES? IF YOU PLANNING ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S COOL OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD DEAL WITH THE APPLICATION.YES. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT? I DIDN'T SEE THAT. THANK YOU. SO THAT'S IT? THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THERE. AND THEY GOT A CONDITION THAT A CONDITION I WAS GOING TO MAKE IT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IF THERE WAS AN APPROVAL. BUT IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, THAT'S APPROVAL. I'M JUST LOOKING IN MY FILE HERE. I MAY HAVE IT ELECTRONICALLY. IN ANY EVENT, I WILL CERTAINLY SUPPLY IT TO YOU. WAS IT ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION? MAYBE. NO, IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION. WHY DON'T WE KEEP ON GOING? AND I'M GOING TO HAVE ASSUMING THAT THERE'S AN APPROVAL HERE I HAVE IT LISTED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WOULD BE FINE. I DO HAVE HERE IT IS. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THAT MICROPHONE. YEP. I DO HAVE THE I'M SORRY. IT'S A LETTER DATED JANUARY 24TH, 2024 FROM THE MILLERS GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE MANAGING AGENT, AND ESSENTIALLY, THE CONDITIONS WERE OF THAT APPROVAL IS THAT WE GET APPROVALS FROM ANYBODY ELSE.
WE NEED TO GET APPROVALS FROM WE CLEAN UP ANY DAMAGE THAT'S DONE BY THE CONSTRUCTION WORK, AND WE CLEAN UP ANY DEBRIS TO MAINTAIN A NEAT APPEARANCE. CAN WE SUBMIT THAT AS AN EXHIBIT HERE? IS THAT YOUR ONLY COPY? WELL, IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. FOR ME. YES. OKAY. GREAT. GREAT THANK YOU. AND, MR. SELBY, CAN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION NOW? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE, THE ROOF ON THE ADDITION, LOOKING AT THE SECOND ELEVATION SHEET, S2, AND IT SHOWS THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND THERE DON'T APPEAR TO BE ANY WINDOWS DRAWN IN, BUT THERE ARE WINDOWS IF YOU LOOK IN THE GOOGLE MAP ON THE SECOND FLOOR, OBVIOUSLY, THIS QUESTION IS WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF AT THE HOUSE. THERE IS NO DIMENSION, ONLY A SLOPE. WE NEED TO HAVE A DIMENSION IN THE RECORD FOR THE TOP EDGE OF THAT ROOF LINE. HE WANTS TO KNOW, SO HOW HIGH IS THE TOP EDGE OF THE SHED ROOF FROM GROUND ELEVATION? SO THESE PLANS OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT CONSTRUCTION PLANS. THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS WILL INCLUDE IF THEY'RE SCALED THOUGH IT SAYS ONE. SURE. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS ROOF IS YOU JUST PUT A SCALE. YOU HAVE A SCALE WITH YOU JUST PUT A SCALE ON IT AND YOU CAN ANSWER HIS QUESTION. RIGHT MR. I DIDN'T THINK THAT THE QUESTION, THE FULL SIZE. OKAY. CAN YOU PLEASE ASK ME THE QUESTION AGAIN? HE WANTS TO KNOW THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF. IF YOU LOOK AT S OVER THREE, OVER S TWO, THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE SHED ROOF? ABOVE GROUND ELEVATION. THREE S2. GOT IT. QUARTER INCH. THANKS FROM THE GRADE IS APPROXIMATELY
[01:05:17]
14FT ON THE HOUSE SIDE. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S A FLAT ROOF. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE TYPEKIT CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE IS APPROXIMATELY 11FT, SO THE TOTAL SLOPE IS THREE FEET. SO IT'S 14FT HIGH ON THE HOUSE SIDE. THE HOUSE, AND IT'S SEVEN FEET HIGH ON THE LET'S SAY WHICH. NO, NO, NOT SEVEN, 11FT HIGH ON THE 11FT HIGH, 11FT HIGH, WHICH IS BASICALLY I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'M SORRY, 11FT HIGH ON THE BACKYARD END. OKAY. 14 AGAINST THE HOUSE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING, PLUS THE THREE FEET OF THE GRADE, GIVE OR TAKE THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YES IT DOES. OKAY. CAN I HAVE MY PLAN BACK? NO, I'M KEEPING IT.MR. ROBERTS, WERE YOU ASKING THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE WINDOWS ALONG THE BACK SIDE THAT NEED TO IT? YEAH. IT DOES. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WINDOWS. I CARE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF. RIGHT.
AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING APPROVAL. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THAT'S IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE MEMOS. YES. GO AHEAD. GREAT. THANK YOU, THE TWO RELATIVELY SMALL AMENDMENTS WILL ADDRESS FIRST, AND THAT IS THE JULY 19TH, 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMO, THE I'LL HAVE THE ENGINEER, ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED HERE. THE FIRST REGARDS LOT COVERAGE.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DOES NOT RECOMMEND LOT COVERAGE, VARIANCES. OKAY OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMO IS DATED JULY 19TH, 2024. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. OKAY, AND THEY ALSO ASK ABOUT HOA APPROVAL, AND THAT THEY, THEY, THEY TALK ABOUT MITIGATION AS FAR AS DRYWALL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THE SECOND, ITEM ON THAT PARTICULAR MEMO REGARDS THE TREES, OUR GENERAL RESPONSE, AS FAR AS ANY TREES ARE CONCERNED IS WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO WHATEVER YOUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WOULD LIKE US TO DO IN THAT REGARD. I'VE WORKED WITH MR. BARTOLOME FOR 30 YEARS, AND WHEN YOU HAVE THESE SITE VISITS, HE'S HE HE HE, MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT THEY'RE NOT OUTLANDISH. THEY'RE JUST. AND THEY'RE ALWAYS COMMON SENSE. AND WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING. I'VE CONVINCED MY CLIENTS THAT HAVE MR. BARTOLOME COME OVER AND WE'LL AGREE WITH WHAT HE SUGGESTS. AS FAR AS THE PLANTINGS ARE CONCERNED, I'M NOT GIVING YOU CARTE BLANCHE, MR. BARBATO. I'M JUST SAYING THAT YOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE GENERALLY ON THE MONEY, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO OBSERVATIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMO ABOUT, LEED STANDARDS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD DO WHATEVER IS POSSIBLE IN THAT SENSE, BUT WE CERTAINLY, DON'T WANT TO FIND OURSELVES BOUND BY THAT PER SE, ESPECIALLY WITH, WITH WITH AN ADDITION OF THIS RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE, TURNING TO MISS BOLESLAVSKY'S, ZONING BOARD, THE OPEN SPACE BRETHREN STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR MEMO OF AUGUST 7TH, 2024, THERE ARE SOME SOME OF THE SAME TYPES OF CONVERSATIONS OR WHAT DATE DID YOU PUT ON THAT? I'M SORRY.
DATE? AUGUST 7TH, 2024. IS THAT ACCURATE? I HAVE A JULY 11TH, 2024. THIS IS PROBABLY A NEW RULE. THERE IS A LATER ONE. IS THERE A LATER ONE? YES. OH OKAY. I WASN'T ABLE TO GO WITH THAT ONE. I'LL GET A COPY OF IT. WHAT'S THE DATE ON IT? I HAVE, AUGUST 7TH, 2024. OKAY. ZONING BOARD FROM, LAUREN WESLOWSKI THE OPEN SPACE AND STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR. IT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. THERE'S A DESCRIPTION IN THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW. THERE'S A REQUEST THAT WE COMPLY WITH ANY SIDEWALK, REQUIREMENTS. OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO THERE'S AN EXISTING SIDEWALK THERE. WE DON'T INDICATE ON THE PLANS. THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. AND SHE SAYS THAT SHE RECOMMENDS THAT THE DRIVEWAY BE USED. AND WE CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A NOTE IN THE PLANS TO THAT EFFECT. WE ARE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO THAT. TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING. AND WE COME BACK TO MR. BARTOLONE, WE'RE, WE WOULD DEFER TO THE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND, OBSERVATIONS THAT HE WOULD MAKE. SHE MAKES OBSERVATIONAL COVERAGES, OBSERVATIONAL, RATHER, NOTES AS FAR AS THE LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. ISSUES. AND SHE RAISES
[01:10:03]
SOME ISSUES REGARDING THE LIGHTING, WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MINIMUM LIGHTING AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED. AND DOWNSPOUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEED FOR BIG, HUGE SPOTLIGHTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. ARE ANY LIGHTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT? NOT THAT I KNOW OF. NONE ARE PROPOSED AS FAR AS EXTERIOR LIGHTING. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T KNOW. THERE'S NO EXTERIOR LIGHTING AS A CONDITION BECAUSE YOU DON'T SHOW ANY. CORRECT. I'D LIKE TO REVISIT THAT. I JUST I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, IT'D BE SAFE TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A LIGHT OR TWO FROM IT. I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT SOME LIGHTING, WITH MOTION SENSORS OR TIMERS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. WE'RE WILLING CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THAT. SO TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY WHO? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW TO SATISFY WHAT RIGHT THEIR THEIR COMMENT IS. ANY EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHOULD BE MINIMIZED. IF IT'S PROPOSED, IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND SHIELDED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE SPILLOVER MOTION SENSORS, TIMERS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YEAH, YOU'D LIKE THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO THE STUFF THAT SHE'S SUGGESTING. SO REVIEW IT AND APPROVED BY WHO? THE ZONING OFFICER. THE ZONING OFFICER REVIEW AND APPROVE OR THE BOARD ENGINEER OR THE BOARD PLANNER FOR LIGHTING. YEAH. WHO REVIEWS LIGHTING NORMALLY PLANNING BOARD. I'M HAPPY TO DO THE LIGHTING. SO IF THERE'S EXTERIOR LIGHT, IF EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS GOING TO BE ADDED, IT SHALL BE REVIEWED. AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD PLANNING EXPERT. OKAY OKAY. AND THIS IS AGAIN A SPOTLIGHT OR TWO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. IF YOU SAY A SPOTLIGHT OR TWO, THEN I WRITE DOWN A SPOTLIGHT OR TWO. YOU'RE BETTER OFF NOT JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD IT, NEVER, EVER, NEVER KNOWN YOU TO BE IMPRECISE. MR. DRISCOLL AND THE REST OF THE MEMO ADDRESSES FREESTANDING LIGHTING, WHICH WE'RE NOT PROPOSING. OKAY, I GOT IT. OKAY, I'M TURNING NOW TO THE MEMO OF MR. DARCY. DOES THE ONE THAT I HAVE IS, DATED AUGUST 14TH, 2024. BECAUSE I THINK THERE WERE TWO. THERE WAS AN EARLIER ONE AND THEN THE REVISED MEMO. YEP MOST OF THE, IN THE FIRST COUPLE PAGES ARE GENERAL INFORMATION AND COMMENTING ABOUT IT. PUT IT THIS WAY ON THIS ONE, HIS GENERAL COMMENTS START ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE. THAT'S CORRECT.AND THEY GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH PAGE 4 OR 5. THEN HE HAS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS ON PAGE FOUR. AND ON PAGE FIVE, IF YOU UNLESS THE BOARD FEELS DIFFERENTLY, IF YOU DON'T MENTION A NUMBER, IT WOULD BECOME A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BECOME A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AS HE HAS STATED IN HIS MEMO, THEN YOU GOT TO SAY SOMETHING. HOW IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ANY OF THEM, RIGHT? OKAY SO. THANK YOU. THANKS AND ONLY IN 13 A WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
HOLD ON. I WAS JUST GOING TO SA. THAT WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 16 AS AS IS REFERENCED, ORDINANCE 16 DASH FIVE POINT. YEAH THAT'S AN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. YES. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY SO THERE'S NO ARGUMENT WITH THAT EITHER. WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH YOUR APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN TURNING TO THE, PLANNING MEMO FROM, CLARK AND HENCE, THIS IS ONE I'M LOOKING AT. IT'S DATED AUGUST 19TH, 2024. THERE IS THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS. THERE ARE COMMENTS, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE FOUR OF 11, THE GENERAL COMMENTS, 3.0. RIGHT. ARE WE THERE YET NOW AT 3.0. THE NEXT ONE THAT SAYS 2.7. I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT IS. YEAH IT'S A IT'S A TYPO. IT SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT WHAT NUMBER SHOULD THAT BE. 3.1. THAT SHOULD BE 3.1. YEAH. THAT ONE IS A CONDITION WHICH I ASSUME YOU AGREE TO HAVE MADE A CONDITION. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MODIFY THAT AS WELL, THE BUILDING DATA TABLE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE COVER SHEET SHOULD ALSO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE APPROPRIATE FLOOR AREA FOR EACH PART OF THE ADDITION, THE ZONING TABLE ON SHEET ONE AND WHAT THE IT'S CALLED THE BUILDING DATA TABLE.
AND THE BUILDING DATA TABLE UPDATED INCLUDE BOTH HALVES. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING UPDATED TO. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW IT DOES NOT CORRECTLY COUNT ALL OF THE PARTS ADDED TO THE FLOOR AREA THAT TOTAL UP TO THE FLOOR AREA. SO THERE SHOULD BE A FEW EXTRA ROWS ADDED TO IT. AND SO IT
[01:15:03]
SHOULD INCLUDE EACH ONE OF THOSE DETAILS. AND SO THAT THE NUMBER SHOULD MATCH WHAT'S ON THE ZONING TABLE. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I IMAGINE IT WAS JUST WHEN YOU WHEN THEY UPDATED IT, THEY UPDATED ONE. WHAT'S THE DISCREPANCY THOUGH? I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'M GOING TO ASK, MR. GALLEN, HE HAD TAKEN A NOTE ON IT. HE WAS ALSO KIND ENOUGH TO OFFER ME HIS NOTES, WHICH I DID NOT TAKE. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT IF YOU COULD JUST READ OUT THE EXACT NUMBER, THAT WOULD. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SURE. WHAT'S MISSING IS, COVERED DECK AT 403FT■!S AND COVERED PORCH AT 55FT■!S. IN THE CALCULATIONS. SO, THEY HAVE THE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL AT 2637, SECOND FLOOR LEVEL AT 1633, AND THE GARAGE AT 455. SO THAT JUST LEAVES COVERED DECK AND COVERED PORCH MISSING FROM THE CALCULATIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. JOHN. AND, OTHERWISE IT'S OBSERVATIONAL, INCLUDING JUST CONVERSATION OR, OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOUT THE FOURTH FLOOR RATIO, VARIANCE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THERE IS A QUESTION REGARDING SOIL HAULING. OH. HOLD ON. I'M SORRY. THERE'S SOMETHING IN BETWEEN THAT, SO ON ITEM. I'M SORRY ABOUT THE NUMBERING. MY APOLOGIES TO THE BOARD. IT SOMETHING I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS, BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION, WE ASK IF A NOTE CAN BE ADDED TO THE PLAN THAT SAYS THE SIDING WILL MATCH. RIGHT. SO IT'S UNDER 3.2.DESCRIPTION OF ADDITION. IT'S THE SECOND FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE SEVEN. YES CORRECT. YES. IT SAYS IN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EXTERIOR SIDING AND INDICATE IF IT WILL MATCH THE EXISTING SIDING. SO PUT ON SOME TESTIMONY RIGHT NOW ABOUT THAT. THEN WE CAN MAKE A CONDITION OUT OF IT. YEAH OKAY.
SO IS THE YES ON THE ADDITION TO MATCH THE REST OF THE HOUSE. YES, SIR. RIGHT. AND CONDITION.
RIGHT. YES. OKAY. AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT I WOULD SAY IT HASN'T COME UP. WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A VISUAL AID. WE'RE ALREADY AT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. NOT RELEVANT.
CORRECT. OKAY OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S THE OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE, THE TREES. YES.
TECHNICALLY, A DESIGN EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO WHATEVER MR. BARTOLONE, SUGGESTS. HOW MANY TREES ARE YOU RECOMMENDING? DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF TREES, WHETHER THEY'RE SHADE TREES OR EVERGREENS. I JUST CERTAINLY COME UP TO CODE. YEAH, AGAIN, THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL TREES IN THE BACKYARD THAT WERE APPROVED WITH IT 25 YEARS AGO, THEY'RE THEY'VE DISAPPEARED. SO ASK FOR AT LEAST THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WITH SOME, SOME BUFFERING. SO PUT IT THIS WAY. THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD HAS DONE IN PRIOR CASES. THEY'VE SAID LIMITED DISTURBANCE. YEAH. SO TECHNICALLY THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS YOU TAKE THE WHOLE LOT AREA, WHICH NORMALLY IS A LOT BIGGER THAN THIS LOT, AND YOU HAVE TO DO 14 TREES PER ACRE. NOW IF I'M JUST JUST FOR TO SET A BASELINE, IF YOU TOOK 14 TREES PER ACRE AND MULTIPLIED IT BY THE ACREAGE OF THIS LOT, HOW MANY TREES WOULD YOU BE REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE? I DON'T HAVE FIVE TREES. ONE THIRD. YEAH OKAY. SO THERE'S TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT THIS. IF YOU SAY, YEAH, WE'LL GIVE YOU FIVE TREES. YOU COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE. YOU DON'T NEED THE EXCEPTION. IF YOU WANT AN EXCEPTION, WHAT THE BOARD HAS DONE IN OTHER CASES IS THEY'VE SAID, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE AREA YOU'RE GOING TO DISTURB AND CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF TREES BASED ON THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE. WHAT IS YOUR AREA OF DISTURBANCE? NOT MUCH BIGGER THAN THE AREA OF 1000 SQUARE FOOT AT THE MOST. SO WHAT'S THE FOOTPRINT? LET'S LET'S JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, ARE WE ARE WE WILLING TO ACCEPT FIVE TREES? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE. YEAH. SO THEN THAT MAKES IT EASY. IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT FIVE TREES, YOU DON'T NEED THAT EXCEPTION. YEAH GREAT. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE HERE I MEAN I AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE I THINK TREES ARE WONDERFUL. THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE SITE REMAINS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSAL. DESPITE THE DEVIATION OF F.A.R, BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ONE OF THE FEW APPLICATIONS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE TREE PLANTING ORDINANCE. YOU JUST TOOK MY DELIBERATION ARGUMENT. I'M ALWAYS AFRAID TO BRING UP ONE. I BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS THINKING I'M GOING TO TAKE PART OF THAT AWAY BECAUSE I LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST THAT. BUT NOW WE'RE UP TO SOIL HAULING, WHICH YOU SEEM TO HAVE WANTED TO REALLY GET TO. SO. WELL, I JUST I MENTIONED THAT WE MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS NOT GOING TO BE MORE THAN 20YD■T OF SOIL REMOVED. RIGHT. DOES HE UNDERSTAND? IF PEOPLE SAY IT'S NOT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE AND THEN IT ENDS UP BEING MORE, THE CLIENT'S GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. SO I WOULD, I WOULD IF I WERE YOU, I'D ASK THE BOARD ENGINEERING EXPERT JUST TO NOT A GUESSTIMATE, BUT A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK IT'S GIVEN. AND I THINK THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER WOULD AGREE, GIVEN THE, THE, THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO PRODUCE 20 YARDS OF, OF EXPORT
[01:20:05]
OR IMPORT. SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THESE RARE CASES WHERE I'VE NEVER HEARD YOU SAY THAT. I KNOW I WELL, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S NO SLAB. IT'S JUST THE POST. RIGHT SO ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING FROM THIS. MAYBE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE FROM YOUR DELIBERATION. NO THAT'S WHY WE PAY YOU. WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID. OKAY OKAY. I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST ABOUT. DOES IT.UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER ISSUES. JUST WHAT I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT AGREED TO SATISFY ALL THE CONCERNS IN MY LETTER. THOSE. THOSE ARE THE MAGIC WORDS. I APPRECIATE THAT, ONE BIT OF TESTIMONY, WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION ACCESS, WE DID ASK FOR TESTIMONY ON HOW THE CONSTRUCTION WILL AND THE REAR WILL BE PERFORMED AS FAR AS WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE ACCESSED, AND ALSO TO DELINEATE THAT ON THE PLAN. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.
YEAH. WE'LL BE ON THE PLAN. IT WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY THAT WE'LL BE USING. BUT BUT THE DRIVEWAY GOES INTO A GARAGE, WHICH IS IT CERTAINLY WOULD NEED AN ACCESS AROUND THE SIDE. SO DO YOU NEED THAT SPECIFIED. YEAH WE NEED YEAH. WE JUST NEED TO SPECIFY WITH SOME NOTATION. A LOT OF TIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS THE DRIVEWAY ISN'T USED BECAUSE IT'S USED FOR WHAT ITS PURPOSE. WHAT ITS PURPOSE IS. SO A LOT OF TIMES THE CONTRACTORS, THE CONSTRUCTION FOLKS WILL JUST, YOU KNOW, HOP THE CURB OR THEY'LL SET UP SOME BOARDS AND COME OFF THE STREET, WHICH ISN'T THE BEST THING. BUT WE WANT SOME NOTATIONS AND SOME, SOME THINGS ON THE PLAN SAYING THAT ANY DAMAGE DONE WOULD BE REPAIRED TO THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER SATISFACTION AND ALL THAT. DO YOU NEED TO INCLUDE THAT US? I DON'T THINK JOHN'S LISTENING TO ME. IS THAT YOU? YOU NEED TO. I MEAN, IT CAN'T HURT TO HAVE THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY THE NOTATION ON THE PLAN. OR IS THAT IS THAT ONE ITEM IN YOUR REPORT THAT IS ITEM NUMBER TEN? I HAVE A TYPO. TEN SHOULD BE TEN A AND B, BUT IT'S A C AND D OKAY. WE ALREADY HAVE IT. SO PERFECT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT WAS KNOWN. YEP. YES. GREAT. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY NEED TO SUM UP. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. OKAY, PROFESSIONALS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY, IN THE PUBLIC IS NOT HERE. AND AS WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED. WELL, NO, NO, NO, WE'RE THE BOARD IS, IS NEXT. YEAH. SO THE PUBLIC'S NOT HERE, AND THEN. YES. SO BOARD DELIBERATION OR QUESTIONS OR FURTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH OKAY. SO, ALL THOSE. SORRY. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. SORRY. YOU HAD A QUESTION I THINK. YEAH CAN WE, CAN YOU PULL UP THE SIDE VIEW OF THE ADDITION AS IT LOOKS ONTO THE DECK? SO WHEN YOU'RE STANDING ON THE DECK FACING THE ADDITION, THAT'S THAT'S IT RIGHT HERE. OKAY SO WHAT IS THAT, SO THIS IS THE DECK. THAT'S THE SHED ROOF OVER THE DECK. AND IF I'M STANDING ON THE DECK, I'M LOOKING AT THE FRENCH DOORS AND THE TWO WINDOWS, FRENCH DOORS AND TWO WINDOWS. OKAY, GOING FORWARD, WOULD THERE BE ANY PLANS TO CONVERT THAT DECK INTO A REGULAR ROOM AND HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE CALCULATIONS, FOR THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE APPROVING. SO IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE ANYTHING RELATING TO COVERAGE OR FAR JUST BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A ROOF, SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHAT APPROVAL? BESIDES ZONING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WOULD THEY NEED TO ENCLOSE THE DECK IF THEY GOT A ROOF ON IT? YEAH.
ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD. NO, BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY COUNTED THE AREA IN THERE AS FLOOR AREA, AND THEY'VE ALREADY COUNTED IT AS IMPERVIOUS. RIGHT. THE DECK IS IMPERVIOUS. THEY'VE COUNTED. YES, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY CORRECT. YES. OKAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DO WE WANT TO GO TO DELIBERATION NOW? I JUST WANTED TO GO OVER, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE AGREED UPON. YEAH, YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT. I MEAN, WE CAN SUMMARIZE THEM. YEAH SURE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. GOOD JOB. IF THE BOARD IS IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE APPLICATION, THE CONDITIONS THAT I HAVE ARE PLANT TREES, PER BERGERON'S MEMO. BUT NOW WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE FIVE TREES. NEXT. NO ADDITIONAL
[01:25:03]
STRUCTURE SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING FROM THE BOARD A SEA IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE AND OR SEA BUILDING COVERAGE VARIANCE AND OR D4 F.A.R VARIANCE AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF REQUIRED, RIGHT IF REQUIRED, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND IF REQUIRED. YES, IF THERE WAS SOME LIBERALIZATION OF OUR OUR REQUIREMENTS THEN YEAH. GOT IT, DRIVEWAY TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND THAT IS FROM AND HAVE TO HOOK THAT UP TO. I KNOW IT COMES FROM EITHER LAUREN'S MEMO OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON THIS. I FIGURED THAT OUT LATER. IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT IF EXTERIOR. SO IT MUST BE FROM IF EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS ADDED, IT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD PLANNING EXPERT. IN RAKESH DARCY'S MEMO, DATED AUGUST 14TH, PLAN REVISION CONDITIONS HIS ITEMS FIVE THROUGH 15 ON PAGES 3 TO 4. HIS GENERAL CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS 16, 17, 18 AND 19.THAT'S PAGES FOUR AND FIVE. AND THEN I'VE ADDED A NUMBER 20 AND THAT IS COPY A PORTION OF CONDITION 13 A FROM ABOVE THE PART ABOUT HAVING TO DO THE DEED RESTRICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE SECTION 16, DASH 5.2. YOU THE CCH MEMO. DATED AUGUST 19TH, 2024. THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS FROM THAT. THE FIRST CONDITION IS 3.1, WHICH WAS INCORRECTLY LABELED AS 2.7 ON PAGE FOUR. THAT'S PLANNED CORRECTIONS THE TABLE AND THE BUILDING DATA TABLE SHALL BE CORRECTED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ANYWHERE THE EXPERT REPORTS SAY. SHOULD I MAKE THEM? SHALL AND THEN ITEM 3.2. BUT ON PAGE SEVEN, THE EXTERIOR SIDING SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING SIDING.
PERIOD. KNOCKED OUT THE REMAINDER OF THAT PARAGRAPH. THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS. GOT IT. PLUS THE BOARD'S STANDARD CONDITIONS FROM THE FROM THE BOARD'S RULES, WHICH IS GENERALLY YOU HAVE ONE YEAR TO PULL A ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND THEN A ONE YEAR TO DO CONSTRUCTION. NOW IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN THAT, THEN ASK NOW SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN EXTENSION. MR. DRILL, DID YOU GET THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF? THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF IS. HE SCALED IT ON THE PLAN. OKAY. IT'S ONE OF THE STANDARD CONDITIONS IS THEY HAVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE WHAT THE APPROVED PLAN WAS. OKAY ONE QUESTION. DO WE DO WE NEED A CONDITION FOR MEETING THE FLOOD WATER REQUIREMENTS? WELL, I REMEMBER I HAD THAT CONDITION AT THE END, SUBJECT TO ALL STATE COUNTY LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ALL THAT. THAT WOULD PICK THAT UP. AND I HAVE A SEPARATE CONDITION SAYING WHICH OUTSIDE AGENCY APPROVALS, THEY HAVE TO GET, SO WHATEVER THOSE STANDARD CONDITIONS ARE FOR MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, THEY'LL WIND UP IN THAT CONDITION. YEAH. AND AS FAR AS THE ONE YEAR, IF WE COULD ASK FOR TWO YEARS NOW WHILE WE'RE HERE, I'D PREFER THE TWO YEARS TO PULL THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND TWO YEARS TO DO CONSTRUCTION. SO YOU WANT TWO PLUS TWO INSTEAD OF ONE PLUS ONE? THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD DO THAT. IT'S UNLIKELY. IT'S BEEN LONG ENOUGH. AS IT STANDS, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE USE IT. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. DID YOU GET THE DRYWALL CONDITION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING? WELL THAT'S PART OF THE THAT'S ALL IN HIS REPORT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.
YEAH, HE WAS JUST THERE. THEY WERE BOTH EXPLAINING THE ISSUE WAS DOES HE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE THAT THING DESIGNED IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO GRANT APPROVAL? AND THE CHAIR ASKED MR. DARCY, LISTEN, WILL THIS WORK IF HE HAD SAID, I CAN'T TELL YOU IF IT WILL WORK UNLESS THE DESIGN THEN MOST LIKELY THE CHAIR WOULD HAVE LED A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, YOU GOT TO COME BACK BEFORE WE VOTE TO APPROVE. AND MR. DARCY SAID, YEAH, IT WILL WORK. YOU KNOW, IN THE WORST CASE, IF THERE'S HIGH WATER, YOU'LL HAVE TWO OF THEM. THEY'LL BE SHALLOWER, BUT THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR IT. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ANY UNLAWFUL DELEGATION. I THINK ONCE HE SAID IT WILL WORK, YOU'RE FINE. OKAY THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION ABOUT HAVING A, WAS IT CALLED RAIN BARREL? IN ADDITION TO THE DRY, DRY? WELL I DON'T RECALL. THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH REPORT DID THAT COME UP IN, THAT CAME UNDER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REPORT. RAIN BARRELS
[01:30:06]
VERSUS SO. OKAY I'M LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REPORT. SO ITEM ONE WAS THE LOT COVERAGE THEY SAID SHOULD THIS ONE. IS THAT THE SAME. YEAH. WE RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT INSTALL RAIN BARRELS ON THE NEW ADDITION TO REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF AND PREVENT FLOODING. BUT THIS OKAY WE HAVE TO GO UP. THEY. I THOUGHT I SAW. AGAIN IT'S UP IN THE LOT COVERAGE NUMBER ONE THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE SECOND. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH WHICH IS ONE SENTENCE SAYS SHOULD THE BOARD DECIDE TO GRANT THE LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, WE RECOMMEND THAT MITIGATION BE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED TO PROVIDE A DRY WELL DESIGNED TO HANDLE THE INCREASED RUNOFF. NOW THEY THEN DON'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THAT DRY WELL. THEY THEN GET DOWN INTO THE UNDER THE TREES. NO HOLD ON THE WHICH MEMO ARE YOU IN MR. I'M LOOKING AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMO JULY 19, 2024 UNDER TREES. THE LAST PARAGRAPH. THEY RECOMMEND RAIN BARRELS TO REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF AND PREVENT FLOODING. SO I INTERPRETED THIS. I COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG THAT ONCE MR. DARCY SAID DRY WELL THAT THAT NO LONGER APPLIED. NOW, IF THAT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME, SO COULD WE JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION THERE FROM FROM JUST THE ASPECT OF REDUCING STORMWATER RUNOFF, THE DRY WELL WILL SUFFICE TO, TO ADDRESS THE STORMWATER RUNOFF ISSUE. THE RAIN BARRELS ARE SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF TIMES FOLKS WILL PUT IN IF THEY HAVE A HARD TIME MEETING THAT TO ADDRESS THAT ALTERNATIVE. BUT GENERALLY RAIN BARREL IS AN ALTERNATIVE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD RIGHT. IT'S INFILTRATION. IT'S ONE OF THE IT'S ONE OF THE OTHER LIKE EITHER OR OR IN ADDITION TO AND A LOT OF TIMES IT'S IN ADDITION TO IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE UNABLE TO MEET IT. SO IT'S RAIN BARRELS ARE, ARE USED AND ALSO JUST IN GENERAL RAIN BARRELS PROBABLY BE A DIFFICULT HERE BECAUSE THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAS THEIR BENEFICIAL.IF THE APPLICANT USES THEM. RIGHT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO ANY OUTDOOR GARDENING AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO USE THE RAIN BARREL WATER, I THINK THE, THE DRY WELL WILL CERTAINLY ADDRESS THE STORMWATER ISSUE THOUGH. OKAY. OTHERWISE IT'S JUST HOMES FOR MOSQUITOES, RIGHT? YES, YES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID YOU CALL THE MOSQUITO HOMES? YEAH. SO THOSE ARE ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT I. THAT I LISTED. MR. YOU THINK I MISSED ANY. I DON'T THINK YOU MISSED ANY. I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF YOU DID. AS WE ALL WOULD BE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DELIBERATIVE POINTS HERE? I JUST SORRY, I JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. THE HOA APPROVAL WE HAVE THAT IN THE HOA. THE HOA APPROVAL WAS, ACTUALLY SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. AND YEAH. OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE HOA APPROVAL IS DATED JANUARY 24TH, 2024. IT'S WRITTEN TO MR. PATEL, AND IT SAYS THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE TO CONFIRM THE APPROVAL OF THE MILLER'S GROVE HOA FOR THE HOME ADDITION AND DECK INSTALLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN YOU SUBMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. AND THERE ARE THREE CONDITIONS. CONDITION ONE. THE INSTALLATION WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ANY LOCAL CODES, AND YOU WILL SECURE ANY APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL PERMITS. I INTERPRET THAT AS SAYING INCLUDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL NUMBER TWO, ANY DAMAGE TO ROADWAYS, PUBLIC WALKS, CURBING OR ASSOCIATION PROPERTY SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT YOUR SOLE EXPENSE.
NUMBER THREE, THE CONTRACTOR WILL REMOVE DEBRIS FROM THE SITE FOR DISPOSAL AS NEEDED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO MAINTAIN A NEAT APPEARANCE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY ANY ANY POINTS? I YEAH, I WILL POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THIS IN THIS CASE, IT DOES SEEM SIMPLE, BUT I THINK A PLANNER WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE HERE. NOT AND I THINK THAT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO KIND OF KEEP THE STANDARD OF PLANNING TESTIMONY. I THINK YOU DID A FINE JOB TRYING TO FILL IN, TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS, BUT, IN GENERAL, THAT, THAT IT'S MY EXPECTATION DELIBERATIONS ARE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DELIBERATION. YEAH, I THINK WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DELIBERATIONS. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, DO WE DO WANT TO, APPROVE BULK VARIANCES AS SPECIFIED? AND THEN
[01:35:02]
THE D FOR VARIANCE, WHICH DOES NEED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED, THE POSITIVE CRITERIA AND THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA. AND BY THE WAY, THE VARIANCES, ARE THEY C1 HARDSHIP OR ARE THEY C2 BENEFITS VERSUS DETRIMENTS. THE CASE THEY PRESENTED IS A HARDSHIP, BUT YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO THAT. IF YOU'D RATHER DO BENEFITS VERSUS DETRIMENTS, YOU. I THINK HARDSHIPS IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOT. SO I THINK THAT A C VARIANCE UNDER HARDSHIP CONSTRAINTS IS APPROPRIATE. I, I AGREE, I MEAN MY VIEW IS THE STORMWATER, THE SYSTEM, THE DRYWALL SYSTEM TAKES CARE OF THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA. NEIGHBORS AREN'T HERE. YEAH CRYING ABOUT IT. SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE OR ANY NEGATIVE CRITERIA TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE TREES WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT A IMPROVEMENT.IMPROVEMENT TO THE TOWN, IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH.
YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT, I ALSO THINK ALTHOUGH MAYBE I DISAGREE WITH THE MCMANSION CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REASONS FOR AN FA, I DO THINK THIS DOES NOT INTENSIFY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT IT DOES, I CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE FRONT. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE FRONT. SO OKAY. YEP, YEP, YEP, I JUST HAVE ONE, CONCERN. DOES THIS SET ANY PRECEDENTS IN TERMS OF AND WHAT WOULD BE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, IF EVERY ONE OF THOSE 60 HOUSES WOULD DECIDE TO DO WHAT THE HOUSE NEXT TO THE PATELS OR THE PATELS DID, AND SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT GOING FORWARD AS PART OF OUR ZONING DELIBERATIONS? I WOULD SAY, WELL, FOR ONE, IT'S YOUR FIRST QUESTION. WE NEVER SET PRECEDENT. WE'RE NOT A PRECEDENT SETTING BODY. SO EVERY EVERY SINGLE CASE HAS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED. BUT THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP TO SECONDLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS HAS NO NET EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE GRACIOUS OF INSTALLATION OF THE DRYWALL UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ENGINEER. IN ADDITION, WE'RE IMPROVING, FOR FIVE TREES. SO IF EVERYBODY IN THE HOUSE DID EXACTLY THIS, I THINK THAT THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE BETTER OFF, AND I DON'T THINK THAT AS YOU DRIVE BY AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T INTENSIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, POTENTIALLY THE SIDE, YOU KNOW, IS, YOU KNOW, THE TWO NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY'RE NOT HERE. SO I THINK ALL IN ALL, WE'RE DOING A GOOD THING HERE, IF WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, CAN I JUST ADD WE KEEP SAYING THE FRONT FOR THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, WE KEEP SAYING THE FRONT AND THE SIDE. IS THAT A WALKING PATH BEHIND, OR IS IT SOME SORT OF DRAINAGE BEHIND THE HOUSE AND BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE DIRECTLY BEHIND IT? IS IT A WALKING PATH? IS IT NETWORK OF WALKING PATHS? IT'S A WALKING PATH. SO YOU YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THIS FROM THE OTHER SIDE. BUT I'M ACTUALLY SATISFIED THAT IF THAT'S WHERE THE TREES ARE GOING TO GO, I'M NOT WORRIED THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM AT ALL. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, YEAH.
OKAY CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS. SECOND, THANKS, MR. WALMART AND MR. WOOD, MR. GALEN, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? SELBY? YES LAZOVSKY. YES ROSENTHAL. YES WALMART. YES. WOULD YES. BLODGETT. YES URBANSKI. YES. OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT. CONGRATULATIONS THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THE, EVERYBODY WAS ISSUED MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 25TH MEETING, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. I'LL SECOND. GREAT, MR. BRZOZOWSKI AND MR. WALMART, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ABU DHAB? LAZOVSKY? YES ROSENTHAL. YES WALMART. YES WOOD. YES. BLODGETT YES. URBANSKI. YES AND THEN THE MEETINGS FOR, AUGUST 22ND REGULAR MEETING. MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. I'LL MOV.
I'LL SECOND MRS. ROSENTHAL MISS, MR. WALMART, THANK YOU. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. ROSENTHAL YES.
WALMART. YES WOOD. YES. BLODGETT YES. URBANSKI YES. ALL RIGHT. A FUTURE MEETINGS, WE ARE GOING TO
[01:40:07]
HAVE THE MEETING ON, ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26TH. YEAH, IT'S ONLY ENOUGH. BOARD MEMBERS TO CARRY THAT APPLICATION. I DON'T HAVE TO BE HERE, DO I? YOU DON'T NEED TO BE HERE, WELL, WE ARE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT AGENDA? RESOLUTION TO THE. I'LL GET HER. THE. I'LL GET HER.IT'S FINE. IT'S FINE. YEAH. OKAY WE'RE JUST CARRYING THE RESOLUTION. SO THE CONTEXT HERE IS THAT THE RENARD MANAGEMENT HAS AGAIN, DELAYED THEIR APPLICATION. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THINGS. THEY'RE WORKING ON THINGS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON, WELL, THEN, THEN, YEAH. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE COMING BACK BEFORE THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2024 MEETING, WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING, A SECOND MEETING THAT THAT WEEK. SO AGAIN, THEY'RE OCCUPYING ANOTHER MEETING, ANOTHER FULL MEETING. IT'S KIND OF DISAPPOINTING. WE'LL SAY IF THERE ARE OTHER APPLICANTS OUT THERE. SORRY THE NOVEMBER 26TH, 20, 24 IS STILL SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 26TH, 2024 IS ALSO SCHEDULED. YEAH. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT? WE CAN PROBABLY CANCEL THAT ONE. YEAH DECEMBER 1ST. PROBABLY THE DECEMBER 1ST. YEAH. AND THANKSGIVING IS, THANKSGIVING IS THE 28TH. I MEAN, WOULD YOU LET THAT RUN UNTIL OCTOBER, SEE WHAT. YEAH. WELL YEAH. WELL WE'LL WE'LL HAVE IT ON, ON THE MEETING, BUT YEAH, THE, THE 26TH I THINK WE SHOULD, SHOULD CANCEL THE DECEMBER 1ST.
THAT WILL BE CANCELED. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID. I'M SORRY. TWO DAYS BEFORE THANKSGIVING. YEAH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH. DEFINITELY CANCELING DECEMBER 26TH. OKAY.
HOLDING OFF ON NOVEMBER 26TH UNTIL OCTOBER. YEAH. SINCE THE OCTOBER MEETING IS NOW OCCUPIED.
OKAY. SO ARE YOU GOING TO CANCEL DECEMBER 26TH? YES YES, YES I SEE. YES CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES TO ADJOURN. ALL RIGHT, MR. WALMART. THANK YOU. AND SECOND. OKAY, MR. BAZOVSKY, AND THE TIME IS
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.