Jun 24, 2025 Zoning Board

[00:00:02]

SORRY. WE WERE WORKING OUT A FEW THINGS. BEFORE I ALSO HAD TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THAT APPLICATION.

[I. OPENING STATEMENT]

OR WE COULD START THE MEETING. AND THEN BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, YOU CAN RECUSE YOURSELF.

GREAT, GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR. SORRY FOR THE THE SIDEBAR CONVERSATION.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

THIS IS THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD. SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, REGULAR MEETING POSTED JUNE 24TH, 2025. THE TIME IS NOW 7:05 P.M., AND IT'S THE ZONING BOARD'S INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M..

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.

AND NOTICE AND TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS.

MR. GALEN, CAN YOU CALL A ROLL, PLEASE? I'VE MISPLACED MY PAPER.

I'M SORRY. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

MY APOLOGIES.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. BLODGETT. YES. HERE.

ROSENTHAL. ABU DHABI. HERE. LISOWSKI. BRUNS. WALMART.

HERE. WOOD. HERE. URBANSKI. SHAH. HERE. MEHTA.

DELANCEY. HERE. TORERO. HERE. RODRIGUEZ. HERE.

BARTOLONE. DAJI. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. IF EVERYONE WOULD RISE TO SALUTE THE FLAG, PLEASE.

OKAY. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I 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.

ALL RIGHT. AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MEETING, WE HOLD A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.

SO IF IF THE TOPIC IS ON THE TODAY'S AGENDA, WE'LL WAIT FOR THAT TOPIC TO TO START.

SO WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES FOR Q&A. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. I'M HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR AGENDA, WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING BEFORE UP HERE, WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HEARD, WAS THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR TONIGHT WHICH IS MICHAEL AND ELLIE MARTIN.

[IV. APPLICATIONS]

IS THE ATTORNEY PRESENT OR MR.. STEP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.

NO. ATTORNEY. BUT HOWEVER, IT MAY SEEM TO APPEAR THAT THIS IS IN RELATION TO US ACTUALLY PUSHING BACK UP THE STAIRS BY CREATING FEET, WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY FOR, FOR THE ASKED VARIANCE IF YOU ACTUALLY COULD COME UP, COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

I THINK YOU I THINK YOU EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL.

I COULD HEAR YOU, BUT JUST SO WE CAN FORMALLY TALK ABOUT THIS.

YEAH. THERE'S ANOTHER SEPARATE VARIANTS THAT WE DO CALL OUT IN THE REPORT.

WE'RE REFERRING TO ONE REGARDING THE RIGHT, AND I BELIEVE SO.

I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY THE CONVERSATION FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF SEQUENCE. I'M DOING THAT ON PURPOSE BECAUSE THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPLICATION IS FULLY NOTICED.

BASED ON THE, THE NECESSARY ZONING THE NECESSARY VARIANCES THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD HAVE IF IT IF IT WASN'T NOTICED, WE WILL HAVE TO DEFER THIS APPLICATION FOR A LATER DATE.

RIGHT. AND SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN, THEN I WON'T.

I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE YOU WAIT FOR THAT, SO. YES.

YEAH. YES, WE DID KNOW THIS IN IN MY COMMENTS.

SO I'M PREPARED TO BASICALLY SAY THAT IT APPEARS THAT MAYBE THE DRAWING, THE VERSION OF THE DRAWING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE THAT WERE WORKING WITH IS A PRIOR VERSION.

BUT WE MOVED BACK THE STAIRS BY 20FT, WHICH BASICALLY WOULD THEN ELIMINATE THE, ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT VARIANCE APPLICATION. OKAY. THANK YOU.

WAS THAT THE CONCERN THEN? SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE'S TWO, TWO VARIANCES.

[00:05:02]

AND THAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH MR. CARRILLO. SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT VARIANCE WAS NOTICED FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE THE DECK.

RIGHT. YES. SO WE HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR TO TO BASICALLY ADDRESS THREE POINTS, WHICH IS THE LOT COVERAGE NUMBER ONE. THE SECOND ONE IS BUILDING COVERAGE.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS THE DESIGN ELEMENT RELATED TO THE FOOT A TWO FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THE DECK.

SO SO THE QUESTION THAT WE HAD AND AND I'LL ALSO ASK OUR PLANNER TO CHIME IN THE THE DECK HEIGHT IS A VARIANCE.

SO I THINK WHAT WE ASKED MR. TORIOLA WAS AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THE NOTICE, SO I'LL.

SO DO I. I'LL DEFER TO MR. TO YELLOW WHETHER THE DECK HEIGHT WAS NOTED AS A AS A VARIANCE OR A DESIGN WAIVER.

IF IT WAS NOT NOTED AS A VARIANCE, THEN THEN THE OTHER FALLBACK WOULD BE IF THE IF THE NOTICE CONTAINED THE CATCH ALL CORRECT.

SO I'LL DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. YEAH. AND I WOULD NEED TO SEE IT.

BUT AS IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THERE WAS NOT A NOTICE FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE SETBACK VARIANCE.

SO IN MY OPINION THAT WOULD BE DEFICIENT NOTICE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE NEED TO RE NOTICE BEFORE WE COULD PROCEED.

I WOULD NEED TO SEE THAT NOTICE BEFORE I COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WHETHER THE BOARD HAS PROPER JURISDICTION OR NOT.

SO WE WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A THIRD ITEM WHICH IS TO ADDRESS PARTICULARLY THE TWO FEET HEIGHT.

YEAH, I NEED TO SEE THE NOTICE WITH THAT WITHOUT SEEING THE NOTICE.

WE CANNOT PROCEED WITH THAT. WE SEE IN THE NOSE.

CAN'T DO IT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE THE THE DECK, THE STEP ISSUE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S THAT'S FINE, MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT THAT WAS NOTED IN, I THINK BOTH REVIEWED MEMOS THAT THE DISTANCE FOR THE FOR THE STEP SHOULD BE NOTED BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A VARIANCE DEPENDING ON CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.

AND THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED THEY'VE THEY'VE REPRESENTED THAT THEY'VE SLID THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO SLIDE THOSE STEPS BACK.

SO THAT'S NOT A VARIANCE. THE ITEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE HEIGHT.

OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE DECK TO BE NO MORE THAN TWO FEET ABOVE THE AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE HOUSE.

THE APPLICANT DID NOTE THAT AS RELIEF. BUT THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHETHER IT WAS NOTED AS VARIANCE RELIEF OR WHETHER IT WAS NOTED AS A WAIVER.

YEAH, I, I DO HAVE THE APPLICATION, I DON'T KNOW, DO YOU HAVE THE NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED? YES, I, WE DO HAVE THE NOTICE THAT WAS I, IT'S NOT WITH MY CURRENT FILES RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT. IT'S NOT IN THE COURIER NEWS. IS THAT WHAT'S THAT QUESTION? YES, I DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. YEAH.

SO. SO FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE AFFIDAVIT AND THIS IS THE LEGAL NOTICE.

AND THAT'S FOR THE LEGAL NOTICE.

AND SECTION CONCERN. YEAH. YES. THAT'S IT. YEAH.

YES. WE'RE GOOD. YOU'RE OKAY OKAY. GREAT. WELL AND ALL RIGHT, IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

WE'RE GOING TO RESHAPE THE ORDER AND AND HAVE THE, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION GO FIRST.

SO I GUESS THAT'S GOOD NEWS. I THINK IT'S GOOD NEWS.

YEAH. YEAH. GREAT. SO I'M SORRY FOR THAT, FOR THE, FOR THE FIRST APPLICATION, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF SHE DIDN'T NEED TO GO.

SHE SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO STICK AROUND. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL START THE FIRST APPLICATION, WHICH IS CASE BA TECH ZERO ONE, TECH TWO FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS PROVINCE LINE ROAD, LLC.

THE IT'S BLOCK 224001, LOT 38. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 441 PROVINCE LINE ROAD.

THIS IS A BULK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT.

THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE APPLICATION WAS AUGUST 9TH TO 2025.

THE AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION REQUIRED.

PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. ALL RIGHT. MR. DUNN WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? GREAT. THANK YOU.

[00:10:01]

THIS APPLICATION FIRST OF ALL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, HAD BEEN NOTICED AND THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE LAST MONTH.

BUT IT WAS CARRIED TO TONIGHT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE NOTICES WERE DEEMED TO BE IN ORDER AND SATISFACTORY.

AND THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT MADE AT THAT NIGHT SO THAT IT WOULD BE CARRIED TO THIS TO TO THIS MEETING HERE TONIGHT.

THIS REGARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 1.303 ACRE LOT IN AN R FIVE ZONE.

THAT LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT, AND THE THE APPLICATION WOULD REQUIRE THE GRANTING OF FIVE BULK VARIANCES.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS JUST SORT OF OUTLINE FOR YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT. I'M NOT GOING TO TESTIFY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO OUTLINE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT AND HOW I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD. THERE IS A PRELIMINARY MATTER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD REGARDING CERTAIN PROOFS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED AS FAR AS EXHIBITS ARE CONCERNED.

AND IN THIS REGARDS PROVES TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE BOARD AS FAR AS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OCCUR WHEN YOU HAVE UNDERSIZED LOT THAT YOU'RE MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR. THERE'S A CASE CALLED DA MINOR VERSUS LACY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

MR. TERRILL AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IT. WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

WHAT IT REQUIRES IS IF YOU HAVE AN UNDERSIZED LOT AND YOUR AND YOUR PART OF YOUR APPLICATION IS TO FOR A VARIANCE, BECAUSE THE LOT IS UNDERSIZED, YOU'VE GOT TO ASK THE NEIGHBORS.

AND I'LL PUT THIS IN LAYMAN'S TERMS. YOU'VE GOT TO ASK THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO SELL YOU A PIECE OF THEIR LOT TO MAKE YOUR LOT CONFORMING, OR IF THEY'RE IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INTERESTED IN BUYING YOUR LOT AT TRUE MARKET VALUE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE MOVING FORWARD? AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO THEN BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT YOU'VE NOTIFIED THESE NEIGHBORS.

OF THAT. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE ENGINEER SLASH PLANNER TALK ABOUT THIS IN MORE DETAIL BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY, AS THE ATTORNEY, NOT FIT THE QUALIFIED QUALIFY TO TESTIFY AS TO THAT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD AS FAR AS EXHIBITS WERE CONCERNED.

AND THAT WE DID RECEIVE RESPONSES TO THOSE REQUESTS FOR EITHER.

HEY, ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SELLING US A PIECE OF YOUR LOT OR ARE YOU INTERESTED IN BUYING OUR LOT? AND WE SAID WE SENT THOSE NOTICES OUT. WE HAD ONE NEIGHBOR WHO INDICATED THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING OUR LOT, BUT THEN OFFERED A PRICE THAT WAS IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, AGAIN, RIDICULOUSLY LOW, SO THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE WE TOLD THE GENTLEMAN, YOU KNOW, THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.

THERE WAS ALSO WE ARE NEIGHBORS WITH THE PROVINCE LINE SWIM CLUB, WHICH IS LOT 48, BLOCK 24001.

THAT LOT IS JUST A LITTLE IN EXCESS OF FIVE ACRES.

SO IT'S A CONFORMING LOT. AND WE NOTIFIED THESE FOLKS BACK IN JANUARY AS TO THIS REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS THIS APPLICATION IS CONCERNED, WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FOR A GOOD WHILE, PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY'RE THEIR VOLUNTEER BOARD RUNNING A SMALL SWIM CLUB, AND NOBODY'S OPENING UP THE MAIL FOR THE SWIM CLUB IN THE WINTERTIME.

AND SO I SENT ANOTHER NOTICE AGAIN TO THEM. AND I DID HEAR FROM A WOMAN WHO IS BY THE NAME OF MARIE LAFLAMME, WHO'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THIS SWIM CLUB, SAYING, YEAH, WE'D BE INTERESTED IN SELLING YOU A CHUNK OF OUR OUR PARCEL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. AND I HAD SEVERAL VERY LENGTHY TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH HER REGARDING THAT.

AND THEY INDICATED THAT THEY'D BE WILLING TO SELL US, SAY, FOUR ACRES OR SO OF THEIR PROPERTY TO MAKE OURS MORE CONFORMING BECAUSE FOUR PLUS ONE EQUALS FIVE. HOWEVER, IT PRESENTED A SITUATION THAT I DID DISCUSS WITH MR. DRILL THE BOARD ATTORNEY SEVERAL TIMES BECAUSE SUDDENLY THAT WOULD BE PRESENTING OR PUTTING THEM IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE A NONCONFORMING LOT BECAUSE THERE ARE FIVE ACRE LOT WOULD NOW BECOME A ONE ACRE LOT.

AND SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE ENTERTAINING THIS NOTION WHERE YOU'LL MAKE YOUR LOT LOCK CONFORMING, WHICH WOULD BE JUST GREAT. BUT THEN THEY IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY WERE COMING BEFORE THIS BOARD, WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONLY A ONE ACRE LOT, WE DESERVE A VARIANCE.

AND THERE WAS THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS POSITION, THAT OR THIS SITUATION THAT WOULD HAVE ARISEN AS A RESULT OF THEM SELLING THAT PORTION OF LAND TO US. THERE'S ALSO SOME CONFIGURATION ISSUES REGARDING THAT.

AGAIN, I'LL HAVE OUR WITNESS ADDRESS THE BOARD AS TO THAT.

[00:15:02]

I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR APPLICATION OF A VERY SIMILAR NATURE ONE THAT WAS MADE BEFORE THIS BOARD IN 2009, WHEN A PRIOR OWNER WANTED TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT AND CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND PRESENTED ALL THE PROOFS THAT THEY HAD PRESENTED AS FAR AS DORMER IS CONCERNED, AND THEN ALL THE PROOFS AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE WAS CONCERNED, AND THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD IN 2009.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED IN 2009 THAT YOU FOLKS ARE NECESSARILY CONSTRAINED BY THAT DECISION, BUT I DO I DO WANT TO POINT THAT OUT FOR THE RECORD, THAT THAT HAD OCCURRED WAY BACK WHEN.

OBVIOUSLY, THOSE APPROVALS HAVE EXPIRED AND THAT'S THE END OF THAT.

AS FAR AS THE WITNESSES THAT I'LL BE PRESENTING.

I HAVE CHRIS NEWSOME, WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS BOARD ON MANY OCCASIONS.

HE'S ALSO GOT HIS PROFESSIONAL PLANNING CREDENTIALS, AND HE'LL BE OUR WITNESS AS FAR AS THE THE PROOFS THAT WE NEED TO PRESENT AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE IS CONCERNED. THE THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY PROVINCE LINE 441 PROVINCE LINE LLC.

THE PRINCIPAL OF THAT IS BILAL KARROUBI, A GENTLEMAN WHO IS HERE, AND I BRING HIM HERE TONIGHT IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE SOME PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T INTEND TO BRING HIM AS A WITNESS NECESSARILY, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT HE WOULD ADD TO MAKE THIS MEETING LONGER AND THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT WOULD BE NECESSARY AS FAR AS THE PROOFS FOR VARIANCE ARE CONCERNED.

BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE THAT, GENTLEMEN, HERE IN THE EVENT THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT COULD BE RAISED.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL CALL MR. ISSA TO THE STAND COUNSEL, IF I CAN.

IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU TO BRING BOTH WITNESSES UP, WHETHER OR NOT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT CALL THEM, I'M GOING TO SWEAR IN ALL WITNESSES AND THE BOARD PROFESSIONALS ALL AT ONCE.

OKAY. OKAY. IF EVERYBODY COULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

I DO. STARTING FROM, I GUESS, MY LEFT. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD, AND WE'LL GO RIGHT DOWN THE LINE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS BILAL KARROUBI. FIRST NAME BILAL. LAST NAME KARROUBI.

K H RR UBI. AND I AM THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, CHRISTOPHER NASSER.

AND IS IT NANCY? YOU S S E R THE APPLICANT S ENGINEER AND PLANNER.

RODRIGUEZ OR PLANNER IS A R O D R I G U E Z. RAKESH DAJI, BOARD ENGINEER. WE GOT, WE GOT, WE GOT.

YOUR NAME RICHARD BARTOLONE, BOARD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

THANK YOU ALL. COUNSEL. YOU CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU MR. NASSER, WOULD YOU PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH YOUR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS REGARDING YOUR YOUR EXPERTISE IN BOTH ENGINEERING AND PLANNING? ABSOLUTELY. I GRADUATED FROM RUTGERS UNIVERSITY IN 2006 WITH A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING.

I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING IN LAND DEVELOPMENT EVER SINCE AND QUITE FRANKLY, BEFORE.

I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PLANNER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

BOTH OF THOSE LICENSES ARE IN GOOD STANDING, AND I HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE OVER 80 BOARDS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, INCLUDING THIS ONE. GREAT. THIS ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? ON AT LEAST ONCE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL ACCEPT YOU AS AN EXPERT. THANK YOU.

MR. DAWSON, YOU HAVE BEEN HIRED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 441 PROVINCE WIDE ONE ROAD LLC TO PREPARE A SITE PLAN AND PREPARE TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

THE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROCEED WITH THIS MATTER.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION AFTER QUESTION AFTER QUESTION.

I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE PRESENT THE FORWARD THE SITE PLAN AND YOUR OVERVIEW OF IT, AND THEN DISCUSSING THE VARIOUS VARIANCES THAT ARE PART OF THAT APPLICATION.

ABSOLUTELY. I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND IF I SIT SO I CAN CONTROL THE COMPUTER HERE.

[00:20:02]

SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AGAIN IS A 1.03 ACRE LOT IN THE R5 ZONE.

THAT LOT IS JUST SHY OF 150FT IN WIDTH, AND IT IS 300FT DEEP.

THE LOT IS DEFICIENT IN ITS AREA WHERE FIVE ACRES IS REQUIRED.

IT'S DEFICIENT ON FRONTAGE AND WIDTH, WHERE 300 IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH.

AND AGAIN, THE LOT IS 149.7FT FOR BOTH OF THOSE DIMENSIONS, AND IT'S DEFICIENT IN DEPTH WHERE 500 IS REQUIRED.

AND AGAIN WE ARE AT 300. THESE ARE ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH THE LOT.

THIS LOT WAS CREATED BY SUBDIVISION IN 1978. SO WHERE YOUR ORDINANCE DOES HAVE PROVISIONS FOR LOTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN ONE ACRE BUT LESS THAN THREE ACRES, THEY NEED TO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CREATED PRIOR TO 1974.

SO THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THAT PROVISION. IT WAS ACTUALLY IF WE LOOK HERE AT THE TAX MAP AND THE ZOOMING IS NOT GOING TO WORK TODAY. OH, BOY.

I WON'T DO IT. THE LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED FROM THE TRACT, ACTUALLY, TO THE REAR.

CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE? YES. SORRY.

SO THE LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED FROM THE LOT TO THE REAR, WHICH IS NOW.

THANK YOU. NOW BEEN FURTHER SUBDIVIDED. AND SO THAT WAS ITS ORIGIN.

I FIGURED THAT OUT BY LOOKING AT YOUR 1972 MASTER PLAN, WHICH YOU HAVE ONLINE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT WAS PART OF THAT OVERALL TRACT.

SO TO THE SOUTH OF THE LOT ALONG PROVINCE LINE ROAD, YOU HAVE SIMILARLY SIZED LOTS THAT ARE ALL ABOUT 150FT WIDE AND 300FT DEEP. A WHOLE SERIES OF THEM THAT EXISTED ON THAT 1972 MAP, AND SO HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

THE LOTS TO THE REAR ARE PART OF A MORE A NEWER SUBDIVISION.

THOSE LOTS ARE STILL ALL ABOUT ONE ACRE IN SIZE TO THE NORTH.

HERE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN AND YOU CAN SEE IT HERE ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AS WELL, IS THE SWIM CLUB, WHICH AGAIN IS LOCATED ON ABOUT FIVE ACRES.

WE HAVE PROVINCE LINE ROAD TO THE WEST AND TO THE WEST OF THAT IS HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP.

THE. APPLICATION ABOUT HOW I CAN GO TO ANOTHER.

THERE WE GO. THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE BEDROOM, TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IT'S A 2503 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AND HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT IS PART OF THAT 2503 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT. THERE IS A TOTAL OF 4854FT² OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PROPOSED, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY. THE PATIO IN THE REAR.

AND THE SIDEWALK IN STEPS INTO THE HOUSE. THAT IS 10.81% LOT COVERAGE, WHERE 15% IS PERMITTED AND IS THEREFORE COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THE PROPOSED HOUSE ALSO COMPLIES WITH THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE AS THESE DASHED LINES HERE ON THE PLAN.

AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT NORMALLY WE HAVE A BOX FOR A BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THE LOT.

THAT'S FRONT, REAR IN THE SIDE YARDS. HOWEVER, HERE THE SIDE YARDS ARE 75FT, AND AGAIN, THE LOT IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 150FT IN WIDTH. SO THERE REALLY, THERE IS NO SIDE YARD.

ENVELOPE. YOU WE CANNOT PHYSICALLY BE 75FT FROM BOTH SIDES.

THE BUILDING COVERAGE FOR THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS 5.57%, WHERE 8% IS PERMITTED.

SO AGAIN THE RELIEF IS FOR THE LOT AREA FRONTAGE WITH DEPTH.

AND THEN ALSO FOR THE SIDE YARDS WHERE THE SIDE YARDS ARE PROPOSED AT 44.8FT.

SYMMETRICALLY BOTH SIDES AND THE 75FT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED.

MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH THE PLAN SET. WE HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF

[00:25:09]

THE THE GRADING ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY GOES FRONT TO BACK OR WEST TO EAST HERE ON THE PAGE LEFT TO WRITE TOWARDS AN INLET THAT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION, WHICH PICKS UP THAT RUNOFF AND RUNS IT THROUGH THEIR STORM SYSTEM.

THE DRAINAGE PATTERN WILL GENERALLY REMAIN THE SAME.

THE WATER IS GOING TO THE SAME LOCATION. WE DO HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH CONSISTS OF A A PERVIOUS DRIVEWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE GARAGE.

THAT MITIGATES FOR THE TWO, TEN AND 100 YEAR STORMS, BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE DOWN TO THE 50, 75, AND 80%, RESPECTIVELY REQUIRED. THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT FOR YOUR ORDINANCE.

WE ARE BELOW THE HALF ACRE THRESHOLD. HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE, AS I JUST DID AGAIN, THAT WE ESSENTIALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT A MAJOR PROJECT WOULD BE.

IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT, THERE IS SOME RELIEF. A DESIGN WAIVER THAT WAS NOTED IN MR. DARCY'S LETTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY. THE DRIVEWAY IS REQUIRED TO BE 25FT FROM ANY BUILDING THAT HAS A BASEMENT, BECAUSE ITS INFILTRATION STRUCTURE AND TEN FEET OFF OF A PROPERTY LINE.

OBVIOUSLY THE THE DRIVEWAY GOES RIGHT UP TO THE GARAGE AND IT IS POROUS ALL THE WAY UP TO IT.

THE GARAGE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT HAVE A BASEMENT BELOW IT, AND IT'S SEPARATED ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM THE HOUSE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE SETBACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE IS FROM THE FRONT YARD, NOT FROM A SIDE YARD.

SO WE'RE NOT IMPACTING A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

IT'S TOWARDS THE STREET. AND SO I THINK THE RELIEF HERE, THE DESIGN WAIVER COULD BE EASILY GRANTED BY THE BOARD. BECAUSE OF THIS, THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE THAT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT WE'RE IMPACTING, WE'RE GOING TOWARDS THE STREET. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE DO HAVE SEPARATION FROM THE BASEMENT BY HAVING THE GARAGE IN, IN THAT LOCATION. AND THERE IS I WOULD SAY THERE IS SOME PRECEDENT FOR THAT.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S BROTHER HAS A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION ON, ON A HOUSE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD TWO YEARS AGO. TWO YEARS AGO. MOVING THROUGH, WE HAVE A TREE REMOVAL PLAN HERE WHERE THERE ARE.

ABOUT 50 TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. 35 OF THEM ARE HEALTHY TREES.

THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF DEAD TREES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT.

AND SO THEY'RE NOT COUNTED AS COUNTED TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT.

BUT WE DO HAVE OUR REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE LOCATED HERE, WHERE THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 72 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT TEN TREES ON THE PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.

TO THE BOTTOM. AND WOULD BE PAYING A FEE IN LIEU FOR THE THE REMAINING PORTION OF THOSE TREES TO BE REMOVED.

I WOULD SAY TO THE COMMENTS AND THE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE, AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET TO THEM HERE VERY SHORTLY.

THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'LL MAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TREES, ADDITIONAL TREES ON THE SITE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SOME AREAS ON THE NORTHERN PORTION HERE AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN SOME AREAS ON THE SOUTHERN END WHERE WE COULD PUT IN SOME ADDITIONAL TREES. THERE IS SOME THERE IS A BIT OF CANOPY OUT THERE, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE BOARD'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING WE PLANTED THERE WOULD SURVIVE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO PLANT THEM.

WE WANT TO PLANT THEM ONE TIME AND DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

THAT KIND OF WRAPS WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE PLAN FROM

[00:30:08]

YEAH. GO AHEAD. YEAH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO START WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S LETTER OF MAY 12TH.

THEIR FIRST COMMENT REGARDS. DESIGNING AND BUILDING THE THE HOUSE TO LEAD STANDARDS.

I WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD ENDEAVOR TO INCORPORATE THE LEAD PRINCIPLES IN HIS DEVELOPMENT AS AS APPROPRIATE. BUT IS NOT GOING TO COMMIT TO BUILDING IT TO GET IT LEADS LEED CERTIFIED. SAY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE'S CERTAINLY A LOT OF THINGS WITHIN THE LEAD STANDARDS THAT LEAD TO BETTER EFFICIENCY AND A SAVINGS OF MONEY DOWN THE ROAD. RIGHT. HAVING YOUR HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE INSULATION, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THEY WILL EVALUATE THAT AGAIN, PAY SOME LONG TERM DIVIDENDS, BUT NOT A NOT A COMMITMENT TO BECOME A LEED CERTIFIED HOME. ITEM ONE B IS A SUGGESTION FOR SOLAR PANELS THAT ALL FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES ARE ENERGY AND WATER SAVING MODELS.

I BELIEVE IT IS CURRENT CODE THAT THEY NEED TO BE WATER SAVING AS IT IS, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY ALL BE FOLLOWED.

AS FAR AS THE SOLAR PANELS GO, THIS IS A BIT OF A WE ARE REMOVING QUITE A NUMBER OF TREES, BUT WE'RE STILL SURROUNDED BY QUITE A NUMBER OF TREES FURTHER.

AND SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN EVALUATION DONE ON WHETHER SOLAR COULD BE DONE.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT MIGHT, MIGHT CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE, BUT IS NOT AT THIS TIME.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THESE ITEM BY ITEM. IF YOU WANT TO JUST SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLY TO TO THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED.

YEAH. SO OKAY. I'M SORRY. NO, THAT'S THAT'S FINE.

I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THE THE WE WE HAVE THE LETTER.

OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN ITEM. ITEM C, LIKE I SAID, WE'LL PLANT TREES AS WE CAN.

THIS LOCATION IS PRETTY WELL SHIELDED. WE'RE RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SOUTHLANDS. THERE IS NOT REALLY AN OPEN FIELD WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF WIND, WHERE WE NEED HEAT BREAK. YOU KNOW, THE HVAC SYSTEM WILL BE, AS THE APPLICANT DECIDES IT SHOULD BE THE WIRING FROM THE ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS IN THE GARAGE, I THINK IS AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION, SINCE I HAVE AN ELECTRICIAN COMING TO MY HOUSE TO ADD ONE.

AND KNOW WHAT THE COST IS TO COME IN AFTER AND ADVISE THE APPLICANT THE SAME.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.

THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY'RE.

THEY'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, EXCELLENT. SUGGESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, USING YELLOW OR BULBS, YOU KNOW, NOT THE BRIGHT BLUES AND HAVING THINGS POINTING DOWNWARD.

AND CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO LIGHTING.

AND WILL AGAIN LOOK TO LIMIT THE LIGHTING TIMING AND THE COLOR OF THEM.

AS TO THE LANDSCAPING. THE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL WORK WITH THE THE BOARD'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDSCAPING.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE WILL, LIKE I SAID, DO OUR BEST TO FILL IN TREES WHERE WE CAN ON THE SITE PROVIDED THAT IT WILL WORK CORRECTLY AND THAT THOSE TREES WILL HAVE A CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

THE DRAINAGE WAY. SLASH INTERMITTENT STREAM ON THE NORTHERN EDGE.

THERE IS A THERE'S A DRAINAGE SWALE THAT IS ON THE POOL'S PROPERTY.

THAT JUST CONVEYS THEIR RUNOFF AROUND THEIR PARKING LOT IS REALLY WHAT IT IS.

WE DO HAVE AN LOI ABSENCE DETERMINATION FROM THE DEP.

AND IF IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, WE CERTAINLY WILL. THAT SAYS THERE ARE NO WETLANDS OR TRANSITION AREAS LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO IF IT IS SOME SORT OF FEATURE, IT'S NOT ONE THAT HAS A BUFFER THAT EXTENDS ONTO THIS PROPERTY AND THERE ARE NO ISSUES WITH THAT.

AND AS TO NUMBER FOUR, IT'S COMMENTARY THAT WE LEAVE TO YOU TO WEIGH.

MOVING TO THE. PARKS AND RECREATION LETTER. OF

[00:35:07]

YES. I'M SORRY. I'M JUST LOOKING IN THE MIDDLE HERE.

YES, THE OPEN SPACE DIRECTOR. SO ITEM B IS THAT WE REQUIRE A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR NOT PROVIDING SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE DO NOT.

THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET HERE ON PROVINCE LINE.

FROM PROVINCE LINE, WE COME DOWN TO 518. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ALONG 518 THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY CONNECT TO EITHER.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, IN HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP OF PROVINCE LINE, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS.

AND THEN AGAIN, GOING TO THE NORTH YOU'RE GOING UP PROVINCE LINE AND DOING THAT REALLY FUN.

YOU KNOW, DOUBLE, DOUBLE TURN THERE AS YOU'RE GOING UP INTO THE MOUNTAINS. AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NO SIDEWALK THAT I WOULD ENVISION BEING CONSTRUCTED THERE.

SO I THINK THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALK WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVAL, ADDITIONAL DISTURBANCE, ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY TO TO NO PRACTICAL BENEFIT BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THAT ARE EXISTING IN, IN THE AREA. AND SO THAT RELIEF WOULD BE REQUESTED. COMMENTS REGARDING TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING.

THERE'S A COMMENT ABOUT STREET TREES. THERE ARE THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FOR THREE STREET TREES.

WE ARE LEAVING. THERE'S THREE TREES THAT ARE BEING LEFT ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

IF YOU KNOW THE SITE WELL. THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF VEGETATION ALONG THAT.

THAT FRONTAGE RIGHT ALONG THE, THE TOP OF THE, THE BERM THERE.

AND SO IN IN MY OPINION THOSE TREES WOULD, WOULD BE SATISFYING THE THE NEED FOR STREET TREES.

IT WOULD BE YOUR TESTIMONY THAT WOULD WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECT AS FAR AS ANY OF THE TREES ON THE PROPERTY.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER THEY COUNT AS A, YOU KNOW, THE TREES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING COUNT AS REPLACEMENT TREES OR THE COUNT OF STREET TREES.

AS IT RELATES TO THE CRITICAL AREAS. AGAIN, THERE IS NO, NO WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE LOI.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE CRITICAL AREA MAP ON THE COVER SHEET HERE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REGULATED AREAS LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE SITE. BUT NONE ACTUALLY EXTEND ON TO IT.

THE THINGS THAT ARE THAT DARK GREEN IS THE WETLAND BUFFER, WHICH AGAIN, WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE STEEP SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY WHICH ARE.

LOCATED RIGHT ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, THIS SMALL AREA HERE.

AND THERE'S A LITTLE POCKET RIGHT HERE. THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR ALL CRITICAL AREAS. THIS WAS ASKING HER, REMEMBER, DOES NOT RECOMMEND A CONSERVATION AREA AS FAR AS THIS IS CONCERNED. YEAH, THAT'S NUMBER FIVE. NO, YOU'RE AHEAD OF ME.

THANK YOU. CORRECT. AND SHE DOES NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE VERY LIMITED NATURE OF IT.

THE LIGHTING WE TALKED ABOUT AND THE SURVEY ISSUE CAN BE CLARIFIED ON THE ADDRESS.

WE'LL GO WITH THE MR. BARTOLONE LETTER OF MAY 16TH.

THERE ARE FOUR COMMENTS. THE FIRST COMMENT IS THAT WE MISCALCULATED THE REPLACEMENT FEE.

I AGREE IT SHOULD BE 31,000 AS IT STANDS. NOTE OH, THAT'S THE SAME COMMENT IS THAT OUR NOTE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT NUMBER.

NOTE NUMBER THREE IS THAT THE THE TREE PLANTING IS APPROPRIATE AND ACCEPTABLE.

AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR THAT THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE APPLICANT AND VERIFIED PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE.

AND CERTAINLY WE CAN STAKE OUT THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

[00:40:03]

I'M GOING TO GO TO THE GENERAL COMMENTS STARTING ON PAGE THREE.

ITEM FOUR WE WILL ADDRESS ITEM FIVE, THE SOIL DISTURBANCE, SOIL HAULING AND TREE REMOVAL.

AS IT STANDS, WE HAVE A NET FILL ON THE PROPERTY.

THOUGH WE DO SHOW THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THIS PLAN HERE, THAT THIS AREA IS A FILL, BUT THE SEPTIC WILL HAVE MATERIAL THAT'S BROUGHT IN TO REPLACE.

SO THERE MAY BE SOME REMOVAL FROM THE PROPERTY IF THERE IS ANY REMOVAL.

THAT IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULD REQUEST ANY RELIEF AS RELATED TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY. SO THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE AN ORDINANCE ABOUT WITH REGARD TO SOIL HAULING, AND I BELIEVE OUR CUSTOM HAS BEEN IN EXCESS OF 20 YARDS.

DOES REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. BASED OFF OF THE THE TABULATION ON THE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE A NET IMPORT OF ABOUT 95 YARDS OR SO. SO I WOULD SUGGEST I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST THE, THE WAIVER AND MAYBE ALLOW FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FLUCTUATION IN CASE THERE IS CHANGE.

SO SINCE THEY'VE VOTED 95, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF ABOUT 150YD³ WOULD PROBABLY MAKE SENSE.

THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT. YEAH. YEAH, IT SOUNDS REASONABLE.

I THINK THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS STAKING THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE IN THE FIELD, WHICH WE ALREADY AGREED TO. ITEM SEVEN IS DEFERRING TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. I FOUND THAT LABEL. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY.

ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE'LL ADJUST THE THOSE THE CONTOURS THERE FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

ITEM NUMBER TEN WILL TAKE CARE OF. ITEM NUMBER 11 WILL TAKE CARE OF.

ITEM NUMBER 12 NOTED THAT WE WILL NEED A PERMIT FOR WORKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

ITEM NUMBER 13. AGAIN, THERE ARE NO WETLANDS.

WE DO HAVE THE THE ABSENCE DETERMINATION. TERMINATION, THE SEPTIC APPROVAL WE HAVE AS WELL.

AND WE'LL PROVIDE A COPY. THE. YEAH, WE'LL DEFER TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH ON THE WELL. THE WELL IS LOCATED APPROPRIATELY FOR ALL THE FEATURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE.

ALL OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS. I THINK THE EASY WAY TO SAY IT IS THAT WE AGREE WITH ALL THOSE COMMENTS, THAT WE WILL ADDRESS THEM AS NECESSARY. AND ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE THE SAME.

OKAY. I, I LIKE WHEN PEOPLE AGREE. GREAT. THANK YOU.

AND THEN I THINK FINALLY WE HAVE THE CLERK, KATE, AND HIS LETTER FROM MISS RODRIGUEZ DATED MAY 20TH, WHICH. THERE'S SOME NOTES IN HERE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL.

AND THERE WERE FULL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.

I DID NOT PREPARE THESE, BUT THEY WERE PART OF IT.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO BRING THEM UP HERE. SO THERE IS A AGAIN, A FULL PLAN SET IN HERE.

THE SECOND FLOOR. AGAIN, IT'S A TOTAL OF FIVE BEDROOMS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE.

WITHIN THE HOUSE THERE'S ONE BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THERE'S A FURTHER FOUR BEDROOMS ON THE SECOND.

AND AS IT RELATES TO THE ELEVATIONS, YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE HOUSE IS A FAIRLY TYPICAL HOUSE FOR THE AREA AND HAS A OVERALL HEIGHT THAT WOULD MEET THE THE 35 FOOT LIMITATION.

DON'T NEED TO GO OVER. YEAH. WE DID NOT HAVE THIS FULL SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, BUT BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. EXCELLENT. OKAY.

[00:45:03]

SO, YEAH. SO I GUESS IF, IF WE'RE GOOD THERE, IF WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SURE. SO. THE TREE REMOVAL. COMMENT 5.1. SO I NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE THE SCHEDULE AND YOU PROVIDE THE REQUIREMENTS. YOU BREAK THAT APART, SAYING WHICH TREES? WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS? AND YOU SAY THAT IT WILL REPLACE TEN TREES, ENTRIES, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY EXACTLY WHICH TREES WILL BE REPLACED.

AND GIVEN THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE DB OF THE TREE AND THERE'S DIFFERENT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, WE JUST WANT A MORE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHICH TREES WILL BE REPLACED AND WHICH TREES.

YOU WILL PROVIDE A REPLACEMENT FEE IN LIEU. OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE.

YES. UNDERSTOOD. SO THE SO FOR EXAMPLE. YEAH.

SO THAT IF WE REMOVE A. 6 TO 18, 18 INCH TREE.

RIGHT. WE NEED TO REPLACE WITH TWO TREES. THERE'S TWO REPLACEMENTS.

EXACTLY. RIGHT. AND THEN IF IT'S 18 TO 30, THERE'S THREE REPLACEMENT TREES.

IF IT'S MORE THAN 30, IT'S FOR REPLACEMENT TREES.

RIGHT. AND SO WE WERE TABULATING THAT THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 72 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED TO BE PUT IN.

AND THEN WE'RE PUTTING TEN OF THOSE REPLACEMENT TREES ON THE SITE.

SO WE WERE CALCULATING TWO NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES AND THEN SUBTRACTING OFF HOW MANY REPLACEMENT TREES WE WERE ACTUALLY PUTTING ON.

I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT OUR CALCULATION THAT SAID 26,000 WAS INCORRECT.

OKAY. RIGHT. BECAUSE WE THERE WAS A THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THAT CALCULATION AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 31,000 BECAUSE WE WERE MISSING FIVE OF THE REPLACEMENT TREES IN THAT CALCULATION NUMBER, WHICH WOULD MAKE UP FOR THE EXTRA.

OKAY. IN TERMS OF JUST CLARIFICATION, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REPLACEMENT FEE FOR A TREE THAT'S A DEVIATION OF 18IN TO LESS THAN 30IN IS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SMALLER ONES.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO REPLACE A TREE WITH A DB OF BETWEEN 18 AND 30IN, JUST SPECIFY THAT THAT YOU'RE THAT OUT OF THAT TOTAL REPLACEMENT FEE IN LIEU.

JUST SPECIFY WHICH TREES ARE BEING REPLACED OR SORRY WHICH TREES ARE.

YOU'RE PROVIDING A FEE IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT AND SPECIFY WHICH TREES ARE ACTUALLY BEING REPLACED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IF YOU'RE REMOVING, JUST TELL US WHICH TREE YOU'RE REMOVING AND WHICH TREE IS BEING REPLACED, AND OUT OF THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED THAT ARE NOT BEING REPLACED? TELL US WHICH ONES YOU'RE PAYING A FEE TOWARDS.

IT'S KIND OF BREAK DOWN THE. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, THE WAY WE WERE LOOKING AT IT WAS IF IT'S ONE TREE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, IT'S $500. IF IT'S TWO TREES THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, THAT EQUATES TO A THOUSAND.

SO IT'S BASICALLY FOR EVERY TREE YOU'RE NOT PUTTING BACK IN.

IT'S $500 OUT OF THE TOTAL. SO I THINK WE'RE WORKING.

WE WERE WORKING AT IT A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SATISFACTORY IN THE SHORT.

OKAY. FOR 6.1 CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM YOU SAID THERE'S NO STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE.

THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S ON THE VERY EDGES OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THEM. AND THEN BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL.

JUST SINCE I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM.

CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THERE'S NO BASEMENT, ATTIC OR CRAWL SPACE? OR. YOU DID SAY THERE'S A BASEMENT. THERE IS A BASEMENT.

OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN YOU PROVIDED THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. SO. YES, THAT WAS ALL OUR QUESTIONS. EXCELLENT.

OKAY. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU NOW SIMPLY TURN FOR JUST A MINUTE TO THE PLANNING ASPECT OF YOUR TESTIMONY, BOTH FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, THE VARIANCES WHICH ARE BEING SOUGHT.

AND I THINK THAT JUST THINKING IN JUST A MINUTE AND THEN, MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO TURN TO THE ISSUE THAT I RAISED IN MY OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING THE SHRIMP CLUB AND THE OFFER TO NEGOTIATE SOME SORT OF PURCHASE OF SOME OF THEIR LAND.

[00:50:06]

SURE. SO THE VARIANCES THEMSELVES ARE ALL REALLY EXCUSE ME, INHERENT IN THE LOT AS IT, AS IT IS IN THE, IN THE SHAPE OF THIS LOT AND THE SIZE OF THIS LOT.

AND I THINK OUR A VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS A HARDSHIP.

RIGHT. THIS THIS LOT IS THE SIZE THAT IT IS. IT'S THE WIDTH THAT IT IS.

IT'S THE DEPTH THAT IT IS. WE HAVE MADE, AS YOU HEARD, ENTREATIES TO THE NEIGHBORS TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL LAND OR TO SELL THEM A LOT.

AND WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. BUT WITHOUT HAVING AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO CORRECT THE ISSUE.

RIGHT. TO GET MORE LAND. THAT THE LOT IS, AS IT STANDS, A 1.03 ACRE LOT THAT IS DEFICIENT AND IT'S WITH FRONTAGE AND DEPTH. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE ENGINEERING TESTIMONY, WITH A 75 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, THEY OVERLAP EACH OTHER AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN BUILD ON THE PROPERTY.

I WILL NOTE THAT IF YOU LOOK TO THE ORDINANCE AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF THE LOT WAS CREATED BEFORE 1974, THAT IT IT SAYS, THEN LOOK TO YOUR R-1 ONE STANDARDS.

AND THAT'S A 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK WHERE WE'RE 44.8.

SO WE WOULD COMPLY WITH THOSE STANDARDS. BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS LOT WAS CREATED FOUR YEARS LATER.

SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ANALOG OF WHAT'S APPROPRIATE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD, GOOD PLACE TO START.

AND IT YOU KNOW, THIS LOT WOULD BE CONFORMING TO THAT THIS APPLICATION, THIS APPLICATION ACTUALLY WOULD CONFORM TO ALL OF THE STANDARDS IN THERE, EXCEPT FOR THE LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE 150FT.

AGAIN, IF THIS LOT WAS CREATED BEFORE 1974 AND WE ARE 149.7.

SO DE MINIMIS DIFFERENCE FROM THAT LOT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE LOTS GOING DOWN PROVINCE LINE ROAD ALONG THE STREET HERE IN THERE IN ITS, IN ITS SIZE AND CONFIGURATION.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL FIT IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT STANDS TO THE ASPECTS OF THE THE OFFER TO SELL FROM THE SWIM CLUB. FOUR ACRES OF LAND FROM THEM.

IF WE LOOK, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO EXIT OUT OF THAT BECAUSE I DON'T.

WANT TO ZOOM IN HERE. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE IMPROVED PORTION OF THE LOT OF THE SWIM CLUB WITH THE.

YES, THE. YES. SO THANK YOU. WHICH IS SITUATED TO THE NORTH.

TO THE NORTH? YES. PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY.

RIGHT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS. YES. NO. I APPRECIATE THAT.

SOMETIMES WHEN I'M ON THE COMPUTER, I DO FORGET TO SPELL IT OUT CLEANLY.

SO THE BOX HERE, THIS BLACK BOX IS THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE SWIM CLUB IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH.

SO FOR THE SWIM CLUB TO SELL FOUR ACRES. IT'S FOUR ACRES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SWIM CLUB FROM THIS LOT.

IT WOULD BE CONNECTED, MAYBE OVER A SMALL DISTANCE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN OPENING UP INTO WHAT IS ALL CONSTRAINED LANDS. THE SWIM CLUB ITSELF AS WELL IS A NON-CONFORMING USE IN THE ZONE. IT HAS EXISTED SINCE THE 60S.

IT HAS RECEIVED APPROVALS FROM THE. IF NOT THIS BOARD, AT LEAST THE THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE PAST.

AND YOU KNOW, IT WAS A LEGALLY EXISTING PRIOR NON-CONFORMING USE.

HOWEVER IF THEY WERE TO GIVE FOUR ACRES AND THERE WERE TO BE A SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD EFFECTUATE IT, THEY WOULD BE COMING IN TO THIS BOARD, NOT TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE INTENSIFYING THE NONCONFORMITY ON THAT LOT BY SHRINKING THE LOT THAT IT IS. SO IT WOULD BE A D2 VARIANCE THAT THEY WOULD BE SEEKING TO DO THAT.

THAT LOT LINE WOULD BE ABOUT 20FT OFF OF THEIR FENCE LINE ON BOTH SIDES, REALLY CONSTRAINING IN TO THEM AND ULTIMATELY DOESN'T CAN IT DOESN'T CURE THE LOT WIDTH ISSUES.

OR REALLY THE DEPTH ISSUES. AND NOR WOULD IT FIX THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL WIDTH HERE.

[00:55:07]

SO ULTIMATELY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR LOT MORE CONFORMING, BUT IT WOULD MAKE THEIRS FAR LESS CONFORMING, BECAUSE NOT ONLY WOULD THERE BE BULK VARIANCES INVOLVED, THERE WOULD BE USE ISSUES AS WELL.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTENDED WITH. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REQUEST GOES FORWARD.

AS FAR AS WE'VE DESCRIBED NOW, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT TESTIMONY ABOUT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SUMMARIZE IT JUST FOR CLARITY SAKE, IF THERE WERE TO BE AN ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL LAND THAT WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE SWIM CLUB TO THIS LOT, IT WOULD BE LAND THAT WOULD NOT BE REALLY THERE WOULD BE NO UTILITY AS FAR AS THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST OFF TO THE SIDE HERE ON THE CONSTRAINTS MAP, THAT AREA WHICH IS LOCATED AGAIN WHERE THIS NUMBER 38 HERE, THIS LOT.

THIS IS THE SWIM CLUB'S LOT. THAT IS A VERY CONSTRAINED AREA BETWEEN WETLANDS, SLOPES, STREAM STREAM BUFFERS AND IS NOT REALLY DEVELOPABLE LAND.

SO AGAIN, WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING IS YOU WOULD BE TAKING LAND AND TAKING THAT PARTICULAR SWIM CLUB BY LESS CONFORMING OR NON CONFORMING.

YOU MAY BE MAKING THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT LINE CONFORMING, BUT IT WOULDN'T SUGGEST IT WOULD ADD ANY UTILITY OR USEFULNESS TO THE OUR SUBJECT LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. IT WOULD HAVE NO MEANINGFUL CONNECTION TO THE LOT FIRST OF ALL PHYSICALLY AND THEN HAS NO DEVELOPABLE POTENTIAL EITHER. THAT WOULD ADD TO THE LOT TO BE ABLE TO PUT ANY FEATURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON IT.

SO YOU'D BE YOU'D BE ADDRESSING THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT, BUT TO NO GOOD TO EITHER THE EXISTING SUBJECT PLOT OR TO THE SWIMMING PLOT IN PLAIN WORDS. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. AND, YOU KNOW, MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT HAVING A NON-CONFORMING USE ON A BIGGER LOT AND THEN CONSTRAINING IT. ALL TO MAKE A RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT CONFORMS TO ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ALONG THE STREET. ISN'T REALLY GOOD PLANNING. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

YOU KNOW, FORGIVE ME IF IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF MY WITNESS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT HE'S TRYING, WHAT HE'S ARTICULATING IS CLEAR AS FAR AS THE BOARD IS CONCERNED.

SO ULTIMATELY, THE AGAIN, THE RELIEF IS A CLEAR AND CLASSIC HARDSHIP BASED ON THE LOT ON THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THIS LOT. THERE'S NO IMPACTS OR DETRIMENT TO THE ZONE PLAN OR MASTER PLAN FROM THE GRANT OF ANY VARIANCE. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER HOMES ALONG THE STREET.

IT WILL FIT IN IN THAT, IN THAT MANNER. AND I THINK RELIEF CAN AND SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THAT BASIS, ALONG WITH THE TWO DESIGN WAIVERS THAT WE DISCUSSED.

SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY. DIRECT TESTIMONY IS REQUIRED IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS. I CERTAINLY WOULD ENTERTAIN US AT THIS JUNCTURE.

OKAY. WELL, GREAT. THE PROFESSIONALS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS HERE? MR. CHAIRMAN. MR.. BARTOLONE. YEAH. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION WAS GIVEN ABOUT.

THEY MAY BE PLANTING ADDITIONAL TREES TO THE TEN THAT ARE ILLUSTRATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND THAT THOSE TREES WOULD BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE 72 REQUIREMENT.

YES. BIFURCATION. YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WILL WORK WITH ME. YES. AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION OR PRIOR, WILL THERE BE A NEW PLAN OR DISCUSSION AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION? I THINK WE'LL WE'LL TRY AND ADDRESS IT PRIOR TO THIS AS WE DO COMPLIANCE.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER ITEMS TO ADDRESS IN HERE, BUT CERTAINLY WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU.

OF COURSE. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE THAT. THANK YOU.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

OKAY. GREAT. I GUESS WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

YES. COME ON. PLEASE. WELL, FIRST PUBLIC QUESTIONS.

YEAH, YEAH. SO, YEAH, I GUESS I'M SORRY, I SHOULD CLARIFY.

THIS IS QUESTIONS FOR THE ENGINEER. YEAH. YEAH.

SO, HI. MY NAME IS MARISSA MCLOUGHLIN. I'M A RESIDENT IN TOWN, AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE PROVINCE LINE SWIM CLUB.

[01:00:03]

THE FIRST PART IS SWICK S W I C H HYPHEN. LAFLAMME L L BEAUTIFUL NAME. IF YOU LIKE THE SPELLING BEE.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE. FIRST, YOU SHOULD ONLY BE ASKING A QUESTION OF THIS GENTLEMAN'S TESTIMONY, NOT COMMENT. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMMENT, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

BUT I HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE TIME FOR THIS. SO IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE TESTIMONY, YOU CAN ASK THIS GENTLEMAN A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T.

WHEN WE WHEN WE ARE CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, THEN THE CHAIRMAN CAN OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEN I'LL SWEAR YOU IN.

GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. YEAH. IT'S OKAY, IT'S OKAY.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND. SO IT WAS CURIOUS.

SO I THINK YOU WERE SHOWING SOME OF THE MAPPED WETLANDS FROM NEW JERSEY DEP.

HAVE ANY OF THOSE BEEN FIELD VERIFIED? I'M SURPRISED AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY CROSSING ON THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS. SO WHAT WAS APPLIED FOR WAS WHAT'S KNOWN AS A PRESENCE ABSENCE ALLOY, WHICH REALLY YOU DON'T APPLY FOR A PRESENCE, YOU'RE APPLYING FOR AN ABSENCE.

AND SO THE STATE COMES AND THEY LOOK AND THEY'LL SAY WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE WETLANDS WITHIN WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY.

AND SO THEIR DETERMINATION WAS THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY WETLANDS OR BUFFERS ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THE MAPPING THAT IS ON HERE IS THE TOWNSHIP'S CRITICAL AREA MAP.

YEP. AND IT IS BASED UPON THE STATE'S WETLAND MAPPING.

YES. BUT THEY DID COME OUT THOUGH. THEY ALWAYS DO.

SO, I MEAN, I WASN'T THERE AND I DID NOT WATCH THEM.

BUT THEY DO COME OUT AND DOES THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN NOT CROSS A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACK CORNER TOO, FROM THE STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH THE BACK. THE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT IS REGULATED.

SO THE THE REGULATED FLOODPLAIN, THE ONE ON 100 YEAR WHICH I WHICH I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN.

I THOUGHT THAT CROSSED BACK THERE BASED ON THE.

NO THERE NO THERE'S OKAY. THE FLOODPLAIN DOES NOT CROSS INTO THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR QUESTIONS AND I WILL WAIT FOR COMMENT.

GREAT, GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION? GREAT. THEN WE'LL THEN WE'LL GO. THEN WE'LL GO TO A COMMENT.

I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO THERE ANYWAY. YEAH.

THANK YOU. SORRY. NO, NO. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU.

YEAH. IS THERE A IS THERE A COMMENT? SO JUST TO REMIND THE AUDIENCE IS THE COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS APPLICATION.

YEAH, IT PERTAINS TO ZONING. SO IT'S RELEVANT.

MAYBE BEFORE I HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN, I NEED YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND YOU'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, JUST SO YOU KNOW, UNDER UNDER THE RULES. OKAY.

BUT THIS IS RELATED TO ZONING, RIGHT? IT'S THIS THIS IS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION ONE.

CAN I ASK MY QUESTIONS ABOUT ZONING? WE WE PROVIDED A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING, THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER COMMENT SESSION FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING.

LET ME MAKE A COMMENT HERE. NO, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THE THE APPLICANT IS PAYING FOR THESE THE TIME FOR THESE THINGS.

SO WHAT ABOUT AFTER THE AGENDA? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO LET ME MAKE A COMMENT? NO, THERE WON'T BE ANY TIME ON THE AGENDA. NEXT MEETING.

NEXT MEETING? NEXT MEETING. BUT YESTERDAY I TRIED SPEAKING TO AND HE ACTUALLY CUT ME OFF EARLY.

AND YOU SAID NEXT MEETING AS WELL. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHY EVERY TIME I MET WITH IF YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY ZONING QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY ZONING QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CONTACT ME.

THAT'D BE GREAT. I HAVE A QUESTION IF YOU HAVE ANY ZONING QUESTIONS.

ZONING RIGHT AFTER WORK. IF YOU HAVE ANY ZONING QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CONTACT ME DURING THE WEEK.

IF IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE APPLICATION, THEN YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS.

SO WE'RE IN THE WE'RE LITERALLY SIR, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING. IT IT IT CUT ME OFF YESTERDAY.

IT'S AT YOU SIR. YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING.

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. YOU CONTACT THE ENGINEER.

I APOLOGIZE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. WE'LL MAINTAIN DECORUM FOR THIS MEETING.

THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL MEETING, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[01:05:03]

BUT IN TERMS OF THE DESIGNS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PUT FORTH AS WAS KIND OF MENTIONED EARLIER, THE LACK OF SIDEWALKS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE DRAINAGE SWALES ALONG ALL OF OUR ROADS BECAUSE THE PERMEABILITY IS SO CRAPPY AROUND HERE.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF THE DRIVEWAY COMING THROUGH THE ROAD THAT HOLD THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS STILL GOING TO BE MAINTAINED.

THAT FLOWS ALONG THE WHOLE ROADWAY THERE AND EXITS THE SOUTHLAND WATERSHED AND EVERYTHING.

YEAH, THERE WILL BE A THERE WILL BE A PIPE THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S DRIVEWAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WATER CONTINUES TO CONVEY AND THAT IT DOESN'T BLOCK UP AND SAY, COME BACK TOWARDS YOUR DRIVEWAY. YEAH, EXACTLY.

WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS. WE DON'T NEED TO CREATE A WETLAND THAT DOESN'T EXIST EITHER.

SO YES, THERE WILL BE A PIPE UNDERNEATH THE DRIVEWAY TO CONVEY THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING DOWN THE STREET.

OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT DRAINAGE AND AND CLEARING IN THE WORK THAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE AND POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO OUR PROPERTY. SO AND I WILL SAY THAT I APPRECIATE IT'S A SPECIAL AREA.

IT'S CONSERVED FOR A REASON. AND APPRECIATING THE YOUR YOUR CONCERNS.

IF YOU LOOK HERE ON THE THE MAP. YES. LET ME LET ME ZOOM IN HERE A LITTLE BIT.

THANK YOU. IT WAS HARD TO SEE. YEAH, THEY'RE BIG SCREENS, BUT DON'T QUITE DO IT JUSTICE.

SO THE THE WATER IS COMING REALLY TO THE MIDDLE IN THE BACK HERE TOWARDS THIS INLET.

AND IT DOESN'T RUN TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR FACILITY.

AND THEN YOU HAVE A SWALE THAT RUNS ALONG THE EDGE HERE THAT'S CUTTING ANY OF THIS WATER OFF.

THAT DOES COME THIS WAY. BUT REALLY EVERYTHING ON THE PROPERTY IS COMING TO THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN OUT TO THE REAR.

SO IT'S THE WATER DOESN'T RUN TOWARDS TOWARDS YOUR POOL DOESN'T RUN TOWARDS THE PARKING LOT.

IT'S ALL DIRECTED AROUND. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS SOME WATER THAT RAN THERE, AGAIN YOU HAVE A DRAINAGE SWALE THAT'S RUNNING THAT TO THE REAR.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE ARE COLLECTING AND MANAGING THE STORMWATER ON THIS PROPERTY TO MEET THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. OKAY. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. GREAT. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT NOW? YES. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU COMMENT? CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES.

OKAY. YES. SO ON BEHALF OF THE CLUB AND IS KIND OF ALLUDED TO EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE CAME UP PRETTY QUICKLY FOR US.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ACTIVE ON THE PARCEL ALL YEAR.

IT I THINK MAYBE SOME NOTICES HAD GONE OUT. I'M NOT SURE.

NOBODY KIND OF KNEW ABOUT IT UNTIL VERY RECENTLY.

SO I'VE HAD TWO CONVERSATIONS, I THINK, HERE WITH MICHAEL ABOUT IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST IT WAS THE SOLICITATION OF KIND OF INTEREST IN WHICH WE EXPRESSED.

YES, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND SO SINCE THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, I DO FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN SLIGHTLY BULLIED INTO THIS POSITION ONLY BECAUSE WE WE HAD SUCH SHORT NOTICE.

YOU KNOW, WE EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN THE SECOND AND LAST CONVERSATION I HAD WAS BASICALLY BEING TOLD THE THE PLAN WAS TO COME IN AND PITCH TO YOU THAT IF YOU DON'T GRANT THEM A VARIANCE, NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE GRANTING US A VARIANCE DOWN THE LINE FOR SOMETHING.

AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW ANY OF THAT WOULD WORK OUT OR HOW EVEN A SUBDIVISION, IF WE WERE TO PARCEL OFF PART OF OUR PROPERTY TO HELP THEM TO BE CONFORMING, WOULD REALLY WORK. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD YET, OR HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF ANY TYPE OF COMPENSATION, IF WE WERE TO GO THAT WAY OR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPERTY BEHIND US IS VERY IT'S WETLANDS AND IT'S UNBELIEVABLE, WHICH DOES AFFECT ITS VALUE. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S MEANINGLESS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN EXPLORING SOME OTHER OPTIONS TO THIS.

I MEAN, THE CLUB HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 60 YEARS.

IT'S FAIRLY PRISTINE, AND IT HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.

WE'VE TRIED TO BE VERY GOOD STEWARDS OF THAT PROPERTY AND MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF IT AND ITS ECOLOGICAL VALUE.

THERE'S MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE PART OF THE CLUB THAT ARE PART OF THE WATERSHED AROUND HERE AND HAVE REALLY STRONG TIES TO THE GROUND, AND A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN MEMBERS FOR TEN, 20 YEARS, SOME OF US EVEN MORE THAN THAT.

SO WE CERTAINLY ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACTS.

I MEAN, BESIDES ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD DO WITH OUR PROPERTY, WE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE IMPACTS TO OUR PROPERTY.

IT SERVES AS A SANCTUARY FOR A NUMBER OF US, AND IT HAS FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

[01:10:04]

IT'S IT'S A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION. OUR PROPERTY, THERE AREN'T VERY MANY OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAT GO ON ANYMORE.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS VERY COMMONPLACE 50 YEARS AGO, 40 YEARS AGO, AND IT'S BEEN DWINDLING STEADILY IN FAVOR OF HUGE CLUBS WITH MASSIVE FEES AND ALL TYPES OF AMENITIES. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE.

WE ARE BASICALLY A SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN REGULAR BACKYARD POOL WITH JUST A POOL HOUSE WITH TWO BATHROOMS AND A FILTER ROOM.

THAT'S IT. THE PROPERTY WILL NEVER BE USED RESIDENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE FOR AS FAR AS WE CAN FORESEEABLY SEE.

AGAIN. IT'S BEEN A POOL CLUB FOR 60 YEARS. WE'RE JUST ALL WORKING TO MAINTAIN IT AND PASS IT FORWARD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION.

THE BOARD, THAT WE DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO LOOK AT THIS AND THE IMPACTS TO US, AND EVEN CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS THAT MAY COME UP FOR US AS BEING OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY FOR SUCH A LONG TIME AND JUST TRYING TO MAINTAIN IT IN ITS PURITY. SO THAT WAS ALL. I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO IN THE IN THE 60 YEARS OF OWNERSHIP, IS THERE ANY RECORDS OF YOU TRYING TO BUY THIS PROPERTY? NO, NO, THE SUBJECT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? NO.

WE'VE JUST BEEN OUR OWN ENTITY AND HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING OUR SANCTUARY.

AND NOW WE'RE BEING FULLY ENCROACHED UPON WITH SMALL SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH I'M NOT SURE ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS, OUR LANDS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE.

I WOULD ALSO SAY TO YOU THAT IT WAS ONLY ACTUALLY BROUGHT.

I'VE BEEN PRESIDENT FOR ABOUT NINE YEARS NOW.

IT WAS ONLY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION RECENTLY THAT THAT PARCEL HAD BEEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR A VARIANCE BEFORE THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY.

AND I THINK, MICHAEL, YOU SAID IT WAS GRANTED PREVIOUSLY.

I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT HADN'T BEEN GRANTED, WHICH WAS SOMETHING I WANTED TO EXPLORE TODAY IS WHY WOULD IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT TONIGHT THAN IT WAS BEFORE? BUT I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, SINCE I'VE ONLY BEEN GIVEN ANECDOTAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN THERE EVEN LONGER THAN I HAVE. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO NOTE, THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPOND, HAVE YOU? IT'S YOUR CHOICE. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. THERE'S NO WAY.

JUST FOR THE RECORD THERE WAS A PRIOR APPROVAL IN 2009.

THE SWIM CLUB WAS ACTIVE AND INVOLVED IN THAT APPROVAL.

BY MY READING OF THE RESOLUTION. I DID THOSE APPROVALS AND HAD MANY INTERACTIONS WITH WHOEVER WAS ON THE SWIM CLUB AT THE TIME.

WE SENT OUT THE NOTICES THAT I SPOKE OF AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, NOT THE 200 FOOT NOTICES, BUT THE NOTICES AS FAR AS ARE INTERESTED IN BUYING OR SELLING.

THE INITIAL ONES WENT OUT IN DECEMBER FROM MY OFFICE BY REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL.

NOW I GET IT. THERE ARE VOLUNTEER SWIM CLUB. NOBODY'S GOING TO BE READING THE MAIL ABOUT THE SWIM CLUB IN THE WINTER TIME, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE. I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THEM.

I SENT ANOTHER LETTER TO THEM SAYING, HEY, BY THE WAY, CAN I HEAR FROM YOU? AND THEN I DID HEAR FROM MISS LAPHAM, MISS LAPHAM, SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND HAD SEVERAL LONG CONVERSATIONS WITH HER WHERE I TRIED TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING TO HER AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, LET ME KNOW OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

I PRESENTED DURING MY DISCUSSIONS WITH HER THE FEELING THAT WE HAD AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF THE NONCONFORMITY, RENDERING THEIR LOT NONCONFORMING AS FAR AS THE ZONING WAS CONCERNED, TO MAKE OURS CONFORMING AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE.

AND I REPRESENTED TO HER THAT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ISSUES TO PLEASE, GIVE ME ANOTHER CALL.

YOU KNOW, I WAS ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE TO HER. I'M A LITTLE I GET IT, BUT I'M A LITTLE AFFRONTED OR A LITTLE DISMAYED BY THE FEELING THAT THEY'RE BULLIED INTO THIS BECAUSE I THINK I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I POSSIBLY COULD TO REACH OUT TO THEM.

THANKS. OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? SHOULD WE GO TO BOARD DISCUSSION? I DO WANT TO ASK, JUST CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE GRADING? YOU MENTIONED THE NORTH. HOW? THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE NORTH.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BREEDING PLAN HERE.

THE THE SITE DRAINS. THERE'S AN INLET HERE IN THE REAR, AND IT ALL DRAINS IN FROM BOTH SIDES TO

[01:15:09]

AND THEN ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, THERE'S A SWALE HERE THAT'S CONVEYING THE WATER AROUND THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE SEPTIC FIELD, AND THEN BACK TOWARDS THE INLET WHERE IT GOES TODAY.

SO THE WATER IS RUNNING IN ON THE LOT AND THEN AND THROUGH IT.

AND YES, IT'S GOING TO DIVERT AROUND THE FEATURES THAT ARE PROPOSED, BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY GETTING TO THE SAME LOCATION THAT IT GOES TO TODAY.

IF YOU LOOK. HERE. IT MAY BE KIND OF HARD TO SEE.

THIS HERE IS A 181 CONTOUR. AND YOU CAN SEE IT COMES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEN IT CURLS BACK IN. RIGHT. AND THEN YOU HAVE 180.

AND IT COMES INTO THE PROPERTY HERE AND CURLS BACK.

AND THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENS WITH THE 179 WHERE THIS IS IT.

AND THEN IT'S COMING BACK. HERE. THAT'S A IT'S A BERM.

THERE'S A BERM THERE. SO THE WATER DOESN'T GO OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE.

SO THE THE WATER CAN'T FLOW. WE'RE NOT GOING.

WE'RE. IF THIS IS 44.8FT, YOU KNOW, THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE AT ITS CLOSEST POINT TO THE SWIM CLUB IS 35FT RIGHT ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANT AREA HERE TO THE NORTH THAT ISN'T EVEN TOUCHED. YOU KNOW, THESE TREES REMAIN IN THIS AREA, AND I LIKE I SAID, THIS IS AN AREA HERE THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO AUGMENT WITH ADDITIONAL TREES IF IT'S SUPPORTED. SO FROM A DRAINAGE PERSPECTIVE, THE WATER IS GOING TO CONTINUE, LIKE I SAID, WHERE IT GOES AND IT WON'T BE ON TO A NEIGHBORING OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OR SOUTH.

OBVIOUSLY, IT GOES ON TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE EAST. IT'S WHERE IT GOES TODAY AND HOW IT'S DESIGNED.

BUT THAT IS WITHIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND INTO AN INLET WHERE IT'S CONVEYED.

MY I HAVE A QUESTION, ACTUALLY. YEAH. MY ONLY COMMENT IS, WELL, NOT COMMENT, BUT WHAT IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS? THE GRADING SLOPE IS THREE FEET FROM THE HOUSE GOING, IS THAT RIGHT.

LIKE THE 183 TO 180. SO IS THAT A THREE FEET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE 180 TO THE 183 FROM HERE DOWN TO HERE YOU'RE SAYING YEAH.

YEAH THERE'S A THREE FOOT DROP THERE. SO THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S THIS.

SO IF, IF, IF WHAT I MEAN I HEAR YOU THAT THERE'S ENOUGH OF A BUFFER.

SO I GET IT. BUT THAT SWELL OVER THERE COULD KIND OF PULL JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE CREATING A SLOPE RIGHT? A THREE FEET SLOPE. IT'S NO WAY TO GET YOU. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? IS THAT POSSIBLE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT'S THE CONCERN? THE QUESTION. YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M WHAT? I'M WHAT I'M WONDERING IS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SWELL TO THE NORTH.

AND IF THERE'S A SLOPE THAT'S BEING CREATED, THAT'S THREE FEET FROM THE HOUSE TO THERE.

I DON'T I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE WATER THEN GOES.

THE WATER'S GOING TO WORK ITS WAY AROUND. IT WORKS ITS WAY AROUND THE HOUSE AND THEN ALONG THE SIDE HERE ALONG THE EDGE OF THIS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S COMING THROUGH HERE.

SO IT'S JUST GOING TO RIDE ALONG THE EDGE OF THAT LIMITED DISTURBANCE AND THEN LIMITED DISTURBANCE.

YOU'RE SAYING OKAY. COME BACK. YEAH. AND YOU'RE YOU'RE.

YEAH. I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE THE ACTUAL GREETING GOES, THE.

THE THE EXTENT OF GRADING ALONG THAT PERIMETER IS ABOUT THE MINIMUM THAT YOU WOULD NEED BECAUSE YOU'RE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DIGGING AND YOU'RE EXCAVATING A BASEMENT, AND EFFORTS BUILD, YOU'RE BACKFILLING, AND YOU HAVE TO PITCH IT AWAY FROM, FROM, FROM THE FOUNDATION SO THAT THAT DISTANCE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE BE ABOUT MAYBE 15FT FROM THE HOUSE, IS ABOUT THE MINIMUM THAT YOU WOULD YOU WOULD WANT TO GRADE TO MAKE SURE YOU GET POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE APPLICANT'S CREATING ANY ADDITIONAL CLEARING TO CREATE A SWALE. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, WHAT I WAS THINKING. YEAH, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE PLACEMENT OF THAT FILL.

YEAH. YOU HAVE EXISTING GRADE GOING DOWN AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE FILL IS CREATING A SWALE ALONG THAT EDGE.

BUT THAT'S JUST THE NATURAL SWALE THAT'S GOING TO BE CREATED BY BY PLACING THAT FILL IN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE TO FILL.

GOT IT. AND COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE TREE? ABSOLUTELY.

I JUST WANT TO SEE. THE. OH, YEAH. A LITTLE BIT HERE. THE REMOVAL OR THE. YEAH, THE TREE REMOVAL.

[01:20:03]

YEAH. NO, IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE TREES ARE BEING KEPT. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. MAKES SENSE.

THEY SAID TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING MORE, TO RUN AROUND.

IT'S MORE REMOVAL. IT'S MORE DISTURBANCE TRYING TO AVOID.

AND MOST OF THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED ARE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, AWAY FROM THAT BARRIER. OKAY.

SO. YEAH. THERE'S A NUMBER OF SMALLER ONES AS YOU COME IN THROUGH THE ENTRANCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT IS. YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST TREE IS, IS PROBABLY THIS 24 INCH TREE, BUT IT'S DEAD. WELL, THE POINT IS, YOU'RE KEEPING ALL THE TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BARRIER.

I MEAN, ALL THOSE TREES. YEAH, RIGHT. YES. ALL THESE TREES UP HERE? YEAH. THAT'S ALL STAYING. I GOT IT. OKAY. GREAT.

QUESTION FOR THE SWIM CLUB. IF I CAN DO THAT.

HAS THE SWIM CLUB CONSIDERED BUYING THE PROPERTY OR.

THE QUESTION NUMBER TWO IS IF THE SWIM CLUB HAD MORE TIME, WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. BECAUSE WE ARE A SWIM CLUB, I HAVE TO GET ALL MEMBERS TOGETHER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS AND DECISIONS. AND THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A BIT OF A CHALLENGE.

WE ALSO DO WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON A QUORUM IF WE CAN GET ENOUGH PEOPLE TOGETHER.

SO YES, I THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME WOULD BE HELPFUL.

GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION. NO, WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED PURCHASING THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO US BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY SUIT US.

IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO US. WE'RE PERFECTLY FINE ON THE ACREAGE THAT WE HAVE.

THE INTERESTING THING TO US IS THE FACT THAT WE ONLY NEED ABOUT AN ACRE OF OUR PROPERTY TO OPERATE AS THE SWIM CLUB, WHICH, YES, IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT WE DON'T USE THE PARCEL RESIDENTIALLY.

WE WILL NEVER BE USED RESIDENTIALLY IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE WE ONLY NEED AN ACRE TO HAVE OUR FRONTAGE FROM THE ROAD, OUR POOL, ACCESS TO OUR DRAINAGE LINE AND JUST THE BUFFER SURROUNDING IT.

I MEAN, WE THERE'S JUST A LOT OF AREA THAT WE DON'T USE AND WE COULD BE ABLE TO PART WITH.

WHICH IS WHY WE WERE KIND OF ENTERTAINING THIS TO BEGIN WITH, AND THEN REALIZING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT UP TO OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

SO YES, I DO THINK THAT SOME MORE TIME WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO TALK MORE AS A GROUP AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US.

BUT I CAN'T MAKE ANY DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CLUB BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A FULL VOTE AT THIS TIME.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.

IT MAKES IT WORSE. OKAY. IF THERE'S ANY NO QUESTIONS, CAN WE REVIEW THE THE THE VARIANCES REQUIRED? AND JUST TO HAVE THEM IN THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MIND TO DELIBERATE.

YEP. YEAH. IT'S IT'S JUST I'M CONFIRMING MY NOTES FOR.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THE LOT AREA, LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, LOT DEPTH, SIDE YARD SETBACKS, DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE SIDEWALK.

AND I THOUGHT I HEARD AN ADDITIONAL DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION.

IS THAT FOR THE DRIVEWAY. THE POOREST PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY BEING POROUS PAVEMENT AND ITS LOCATION RELATED TO THE HOUSE AND THE.

OKAY. YEAH. SO DRIVEWAY LOCATION FROM I GUESS IT DID.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TEN FEET OFF THE BASEMENT.

IS THAT IS THAT WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS? TEN FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE IN 25? FROM A BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT. OKAY. GOT IT.

SO YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S THE SECOND DESIGN EXCEPTION.

SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE APPLICATION JUST TO MAKE SURE LOT SIZE, LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH LIKE THAT INSIDE. YES. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. YEP.

THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN THE TWO WAIVERS ARE CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. AND THEN I HAD FOR AGREED UPON CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD WORK WITH THE BOARD REGARDING TREES AND OTHER LANDSCAPE DESIGNS AND SUGGESTIONS, AND THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INCORPORATE HIS SUGGESTIONS INTO YOUR PLAN ALSO.

ENGINEER. BOARD. ENGINEER. ITEMS FIVE, SIX, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, AND 14 WERE ALL AGREED UPON CONDITIONS? YES. AND THEN A GENERAL COMMENT THAT ALL STORMWATER COMMENTS WERE AND ADMINISTRATIVE WERE ALSO AGREED UPON.

THAT'S CORRECT. THEY AGREED TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION, ANY SITE DISTURBANCE.

[01:25:06]

THAT'S ITEM SIX IN MR. GEORGE'S LETTER. OKAY.

SO IT'S OKAY AS LONG AS IT'S ALL RIGHT. AND THE SOIL HAULING THE 150 YARDS WE MENTIONED? YES. I DON'T HAVE THAT. SO. SO THANK YOU. SO.

WHAT WHAT IS THAT GOING TO? WHAT WHAT IS THE VERBIAGE ON THAT GOING TO BE? THAT WOULD BE THE RELIEF TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HALL 150YD³ OF SOIL I THINK IS A NET IMPORT. RIGHT. WAS IT? WE'RE SHOWING A NET.

YOU HAD A NET IMPORT OF 95 YARDS. YES. RIGHT.

SO WE WE BASICALLY SAID A NET IMPORT OF 150YD³.

UNDERSTOOD. AND THEN JUST ON THE PLANNING SIDE, WE'RE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES, NOT THE TYPE OF TREES WOULD DEFER THAT TO THE BOARD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

BUT JUST UPDATING THAT SCHEDULE TO SHOW PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES VERSUS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT FEES IN LIEU OF PLANTING.

GOT IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION THAT'S REQUIRED HERE? I MEAN, WE SHOULD SAY SOME COMMENTS ABOUT OKAY.

GOOD. GOOD. FEEL. YEAH, YEAH. LET'S GO. I DID BRING UP THE TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR THE THE POOL, POOL CLUB. BUT THE NOTICE WAS SENT IN JANUARY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT YEAH.

WELL DO THAT. WELL, THE THE PURPOSE OF MY QUESTION PREVIOUSLY OF WHETHER THAT EVER JUST, JUST DECIDED TO MAKE AN ACQUISITION TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR THE MAJORITY OF TIME, THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN THERE.

AND THEY SAID, NO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.

THE ONLY INTEREST THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IS IS SELLING THE COMPONENT OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE THE NATURE OF THIS APPLICATION IN MY MIND IT TRANSFERS ONE COMPONENT TO THE OTHER ONE, AND, AND IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THE TOWNSHIP RESIDENT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S PARTICULARLY PERTINENT HERE.

I MEAN, IF THEY DID WANT TO DO THAT. THEY COULD, BUT THAT WOULD BE THERE.

THEY COULD DO THAT AT ANY TIME AT A LATER POINT.

AND IT'S NOT PERTINENT TO THE ZONING APPLICATION IN MY MIND.

NO, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IN FACT, THE PROPOSAL OF SELLING THE LAND ACTUALLY BECOMES MORE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT TAKES A LOT THAT ALREADY HAS A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THEN MAKES IT A NON-CONFORMING SIZE AND DOES NOTHING TO THE CURRENT APPLICATION.

WITH SIX OUT OF THE SEVEN RELIEFS THAT THEY'RE SEEKING.

SO IT DOESN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE AT ALL. IT JUST MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE.

YEAH. SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT BASED ON THE THE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT, THE THE INABILITY TO TO BUILD A HOUSE OF A STANDARD SIZE AND THE STANDARD NEIGHBORHOOD ON THIS BASED ON PARTICULARLY THE LOT WIDTH BUT ALSO ALL THE OTHER DIMENSIONS ON THE LOT.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS THIS IS A RIPE FOR A HARDSHIP THAT THE THAT A LOT.

IMPOSES ON ON THE ON THE OWNER. AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THAT IS PRECISELY CORRECT.

SO YEAH, IT SEEMS WE WE ARE TYPICALLY WE DO REQUIRE THE SIDEWALKS, BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY DID PRESENT A PRETTY COMPELLING ARGUMENT AS TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.

THAT WOULD PRECISELY I THINK IT WOULD. I THINK THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT THE SIDEWALKS WOULD EXACERBATE THE LOSS OF TREES AND OTHER LANDSCAPES.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A NECESSARY POSITION AT THIS TIME.

YEAH, I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. COULD I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. YEAH, I SECOND, SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. MR. AND MRS. SHAW HAS A MOTION. AND SECOND.

COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? MR.. OPPOSED? YES. BLODGET.

YES. WALMART. YES. WOOD. YES. URBANSKI. SHAH.

YES. MEHTA. YES. DELANTE. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. MR..

YES. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT APPLICATION. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE WE HAVE TO PERFORM SOMETHING ADMINISTRATIVE BEFORE THE NEXT APPLICATION.

BECAUSE I MYSELF ACTUALLY HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE NEXT APPLICATION BASED ON MY POSITION WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP.

[01:30:08]

MRS. ROSENTHAL IS OUR. AS OUR VICE CHAIR. SHE'S NOT HERE.

MRS.. AS OUR PRO TEMP AS APPOINTED. SHE'S ALSO NOT HERE BECAUSE OF AN EXCUSED EMERGENCY MEDICAL ABSENCE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NOMINATE A CHAIR. A PRO TEMP CHAIR.

IS THAT OKAY FOR YOU? IT'LL JUST BE ME THAT'S RECUSING MYSELF, SO.

YEAH. YEAH. GREAT. GREAT. SO. YEAH. ONE POINT OF ORDER.

ARE WE THEN THEN DOWN TO ONLY SIX VOTING MEMBERS? WELL, THIS IS NOT A YEAH, IT'S NOT A D. IT'S NOT A D VARIANT.

YOU GOT. YOU HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH. YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH. YEAH. I NOMINATE JOHN MARK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE HAVE AN EXTRA MEMBER. SO THAT'S GOOD TOO.

SO MR. GALEN. CAN YOU LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT MRS. BRUNS IS NOW PRESENT AT THE MEETING? YES. THANK.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, EILEEN. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE CALLING FOR A NOMINATION OF A PRO TEM.

EILEEN. SO BECAUSE I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THE NEXT APPLICATION.

SO, YES. DO I HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS? WE HAVE ONE FROM MISTER WALMART.

YEAH, I SECOND THAT. SO I'M SORRY. MR. HARVEY HAS NOMINATED MR. WALMART AND. YEAH, MR. WOODS HAS AS SECONDED.

SO ROLL CALL, PLEASE. YEP. YES. BRUNS.

YES. WOOD. YES. SHAH. YES. MEHTA. YES. DELANTE.

YES. OKAY. OKAY. THEN THE GAVEL IS YOURS. ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS IS CASE. BA DASH ZERO TWO. DASH TWO FOUR.

APPLICANT MICHELLE AND ELLIE MARTIN. BLOCK 31007, LOT ONE FIVE INTERLOCKING COURT BULK VARIANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WOOD DECK AND WALKWAYS.

AFFIDAVIT OF I'M SORRY. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION REQUIRED.

MAY WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION? HELLO? WOULD IT BE OVER HERE, PLEASE? YES. IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YES. MY NAME IS SALLY MARTIN AND I LIVE ON FIVE INTERLOCHEN COURT IN SKILLMAN.

08558. I AM ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. PLEASE. PLEASE PROCEED. ACTUALLY, BEFORE YOU PROCEED.

CAN I SWEAR YOU IN? AND ARE YOU GOING TO BE CALLING ANY WITNESSES THIS EVENING? WE'RE ABSOLUTELY. SO. CAN ANY EVERYBODY WHO IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN YOUR PRESENTATION IF YOU CAN COME FORWARD SO I CAN SWEAR YOU IN.

AND I'M ALSO GOING TO SWEAR THE BOARD'S PROFESSIONALS IN AGAIN AS WELL.

SINCE THIS IS A SEPARATE APPLICATION. SO IF EVERYBODY COULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN? THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. STARTING FROM MY LEFT DOWN THE LINE, IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MICHAEL FORD, 4D WITH VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING.

BOGDAN SHASHUA. I'M WITH B STUDIO ARCHITECTS.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, PLEASE? LAST NAME IS ASILO S Z A C I L L.

OH. FIRST NAME BOGDAN. BOGDAN. L E MARTIN L I MA T I N APPLICANT. CO-OWNER. THANK YOU. ISABEL RODRIGUEZ, BOARD PLANNER.

RAKESH DAJI, BOARD ENGINEER RICHARD BARTOLONE, BOARD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY, GREAT. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD COMMITTEE, MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATES.

AND NOW PRESENT HERE AT THE MONTGOMERY MUNICIPAL HALL.

MY NAME IS ALI MARTIN. AS I JUST STATED, IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING AND PRESENT THE CASE FOR OUR APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, FOR BUILDING A DECK ON OUR PROPERTY IN SKILLMAN.

[01:35:02]

AS YOU MAY HAVE BUT FIRST ALLOW ME TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AND THE REASONS WHY WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A VARIANCE TO BUILD A DECK. MY HUSBAND, MIKE MARTIN, AND I, TOGETHER ARE THE OWNERS OF A SINGLE HOUSE LOCATED ON FIVE INTERLOCHEN IN SKILLMAN AND OUR FAMILY, CONSISTING OF MY HUSBAND, MYSELF, AND OUR 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. AND SHE ASKED ME TO INCLUDE.

THE TWO CATS HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP FOR NOW, ABOUT TEN YEARS, AND WE MOVED TO OUR CURRENT HOUSE THREE YEARS AGO IN JULY OF 2022.

THIS APPLICATION RESPECTFULLY ASKS FOR APPROVAL TO BUILD A NEW DECK AND WALKWAYS THAT CREATE SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR HEALTHY LIVING. OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS HOUSE, OURSELVES AND ALSO OUR GUESTS.

THE APPLICATION SEEKS BULK VARIANCES FOR THREE MAIN POINTS.

THE LOT COVERAGE, THE BUILDING COVERAGE, AND THE VARIANCE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF TWO FOOT HEIGHT FOR THE DECK. I WANT I WANT TO KNOW THAT THE LATEST DRAWING THAT WAS DATED ON MAY 30TH OF THIS YEAR INCLUDES THE MOVING OF DECK STEPS OVER 20FT BACK, WHICH THEN ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.

AND SO PLEASE ALLOW ME TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO OUR LIVING SITUATION AND THE REASONS WHY WE'RE SEEKING BOTH VARIOUS APPLICATIONS.

MY HUSBAND, MIKE MARTIN, SUFFERS FROM MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY.

LUCKILY, IT'S IT'S NOT IN THE MOST SEVERE VERSION OF MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY, AND HE'S ABLE TO WALK WITH DIFFICULTY AND HAVE A VERY PRODUCTIVE LIFE.

WE'RE VERY PROUD OF HIM, BUT HIS CONDITION CREATES EXCEPTIONAL DIFFICULTIES AND UNDUE HARDSHIP, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMBING STAIRS AND WALKING ON UNEVEN AND SLIPPERY SURFACES. THESE INCREASING CHALLENGES OVER THE YEARS WITH MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND STAIRS WERE ACTUALLY THE MAIN REASON WHY WE WERE SEEKING TO PURCHASE A HOUSE WITH A MASTER BEDROOM LOCATED ON THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH IN ITSELF ACTUALLY PRESENTS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK.

MOST MASTER BEDROOMS ARE ON THE SECOND STAIR BECAUSE OF THIS.

WHEN WE FINALLY FOUND SUCH A HOUSE, THE INSPECTION REVEALED THAT THE EXISTING WOODEN DECK WAS ROTTEN AND REQUIRED MAJOR REPAIRS. BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY MOVED INTO THE HOUSE AND FOUND OUT THAT REALLY, IT WAS A VERY UNSAFE STRUCTURE YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BEAR ANY WEIGHT.

THE WOODEN DECK HAD MULTIPLE HOLES AND OPENINGS.

WE COULD ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, SMELL SOME ODOR OF, YOU KNOW, ANIMALS THAT WE, WE THINK WERE LIVING UNDERNEATH BECAUSE THIS WAS CREATING A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD FOR OUR TEN YEAR OUR DAUGHTER AT THE TIMES WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO NOW AND VISITING KIDS. WE IMMEDIATELY DECIDED TO DEMOLISH THE DECK SHORTLY AFTER WE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE.

AND REALLY, THIS WAS OUR FIRST STEP TO TOWARDS OUR INTENT TO TO REALLY IN UPGRADE THE DECK AND WALKWAYS THROUGHOUT THE, THE PROPERTY USING THE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES.

AFTER SEVERAL QUESTIONS AND SHARING OF THE PLANS.

IN 2022 AND 2023 AND IN VERY CLOSE CONFERENCE ALSO WITH THE CHERRY VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WHICH ADVISED US AND INSTRUCTED US THAT A TOWNSHIP APPROVAL

[01:40:07]

WE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES.

MATT. ARE WE ABLE TO SHOW THEM? AND ALSO, I HAD PREPARED A PRINTOUT COPY OF THESE PICTURES.

IT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT AT THE COMPUTER, YOU CAN ALSO OPEN THE FOLDER.

AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST SHOW THEM IN ANY ORDER.

I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PICTURES REVEALING THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LOT WHICH ARE ALSO PRESENTED TO YOU AND PRINTED OUT IN PRINTED COPIES.

SO THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT REVEALS THE FRONT ENTRANCE.

TO THE HOUSE. YOU CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.

TOWARDS THE CUL DE SAC WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT STEPS NEEDING UPGRADE.

THERE AREN'T ANY RAILINGS INSTALLED, AND AND IT'S A VERY NARROW, UNEVEN PATH TO THE DRIVEWAY.

I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, YOU YOU'VE YOU'RE INTRODUCING 11 PHOTOGRAPHS, CORRECT? SO IT'S A1 THROUGH A11. THAT'S RIGHT.

OKAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

THIS IS CORRECT. 11 RECORDS. SO THAT THAT FRONT WHICH IS ON THE NORTH REALLY THERE ARE NO RAILINGS INSTALLED AND A VERY NARROW, UNEVEN PATH TO THE DRIVEWAY, VERY SMALL OF OFTEN VERY SLIPPERY STONES, DIFFICULT TO WALK ON AND INACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY.

THE BACK OF THE HOUSE SHOWS EVEN UNEVEN WALKWAYS DUE TO THE BULGING ROOTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS TRIPPING HAZARD. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE PICTURES THAT SHOWS THAT FOR THREE YEARS NOW.

PERHAPS EVEN MORE. BUT AGAIN, WE BECAME OWNERS THREE YEARS AGO IN JUNE OF 2022.

THE BACK SHOWS ACCESS TO THE FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM.

WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT? YES. THE. THIS IS THIS IS THE PICTURE HERE.

THE BACK OF THE HOUSE SHOWS ACCESS TO THE FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM THROUGH UNEVEN STAIRS AND EMPTY DECK SPACE.

YOU CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT ONES AND A BACKYARD THAT REALLY HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED SINCE WE'VE BEEN LIVING IN THIS HOUSE DUE TO AN ACCESSIBILITY AND AGAIN TRIPPING HAZARD.

AND FINALLY I WANT TO I WANT TO ADDRESS THE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WAS, WHICH WAS AND STILL IS VERY NARROW, BARELY ALLOWING FOR VEHICLE SPACE AND NO ROOM FOR SAFE WALKING FROM THE STREET WHERE OUR GUESTS USUALLY PARK. SO WITH THE PROPOSED PLAN, WE ARE HEREBY ASKING CORDIALLY TO EXCEED BUILDING COVERAGE OF 15% AND ALLOW FOR 17.2% SECOND TO EXCEED THE 25 LOT COVERAGE AND ALLOW FOR 29.4%. AND THIRDLY, A DECK HEIGHT OF EIGHT OF TWO FEET AND EIGHT INCHES INSTEAD OF THE ALLOWABLE TWO FEET.

FOR MY HUSBAND WITH MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY, A DECK THAT THERE IS ON ONE LEVEL AND ACCESSIBLE FROM BOTH THE LIVING ROOMS AND THE FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM, WHICH REQUIRES THE THE TWO FEET AND EIGHT INCHES INSTEAD OF THE TWO FEET REQUIREMENT IS WOULD WOULD BE EXTREMELY ESSENTIAL AND IT WILL PREVENT INJURY TO LEGS AND POTENTIAL FALLS THAT IS CREATED WITH THE STAIRS.

THE NEW THE NEW WALKWAYS WILL ENSURE SAFE ACCESS AND PREVENT FALLS.

AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT MY HUSBAND IS A VERY VIVID ADVOCATE.

FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. HE IS HE IS A MEMBER OF THE SOMERSET COUNTY ADVISORY COUNCIL ON DISABILITY ISSUES, AS WELL AS HE IS AN AMBASSADOR WITH THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION.

[01:45:01]

ANYONE WITH OR WITHOUT DISABILITIES, BUT PARTICULARLY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A SAFE EXPERIENCE.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE MEMORANDUMS SENT TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE BY THE THE BODIES OF OPEN SPACE AND STEWARDSHIP COMMISSION, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO COMPLYING TO ALL THE GUIDANCE THAT IS SET FORTH IN THOSE LETTERS. HOWEVER, IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS, MAYBE JUST A CLARIFICATION, IF THAT'S OKAY. ON THOSE LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO POINTS MADE ARE MADE, PARTICULARLY IN THE OPEN SPACE LETTER OF JUNE 13TH. SECTION D, ITEM ONE.

WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A MATTER OF MISCOMMUNICATION OR PERHAPS OVERSIGHT.

WE NOTICE THAT IT SAYS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SLOT COVERAGE OF 29.4, WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 15 IS PERMITTED.

EARLIER IN THIS LETTER, IN SECTION A CORRECTLY STATES THAT 25 IS THE WORD COVERAGE LIMIT.

SO WE TAKE THAT SECTION D COMMENT ABOUT 15% ALLOWABLE LOAD COVERAGE TO BE AN OVERSIGHT BECAUSE THE WORDING WOULD APPEAR THAT WE WOULD EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE BY 14%, WHICH IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE ARE INTENDING. IT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION COMMENT.

AND THEN FURTHER WE REALIZED ON THE SAME LETTER THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONCERN IN SECTION D, ITEM TWO WAY WHEN THE OPEN SPACE LETTER STATES THE PROPOSED PAVER WALKWAY ALONGSIDE THE DRIVEWAY SEEMS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY, AS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY COULD BE USED AS A WALKWAY.

WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. AND WE WERE THINKING THAT AS THE DRIVEWAY IS PRETTY NARROW AS IT IS TODAY, IF THERE WERE IF THERE WERE CARS PARKED ON THAT DRIVEWAY, THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE YOU KNOW, ENOUGH SPACE FOR, FOR FOR A WHEELCHAIR TO BE POTENTIALLY A REAL THING.

SO THIS IS THIS IS WHERE WE WERE COMING FROM WHEN WHEN REQUESTING THAT AND JUST TO CONCLUDE AND OF COURSE, I AM AVAILABLE HERE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AROUND THE LETTERS.

JUST WANT TO WANT TO SAY WE DO NOT INTEND TO REMOVE ANY TREES OR OR LANDSCAPING AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

WE ARE COMMITTED AGAIN TO ACQUIRE PERMITS OR ANY APPROVALS REQUIRED.

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANY DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC.

PUBLIC GOOD HERE IN, YOU KNOW, IN CONTRARY, WE WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT.

WE ARE ENHANCING THE PROPERTY. WE ARE PRESERVING THE CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH THESE ENHANCEMENTS, WE ARE SUPPORTING YOU KNOW A WAY TO PROMOTE HEALTHY AND SAFE LIVING. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW YOU KNOW, MIKE FORD, CIVIL ENGINEER AND CECILIO TO ADDRESS AND PRESENT THE CASE AS WELL. PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARCHITECT. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND QUALIFICATIONS? SHOULD I SPEAK HERE? PLEASE? SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

YES. SO MY NAME IS BOGDAN. CECILIO. I'M AN ARCHITECT.

I'M THE LICENSED ARCHITECT SINCE 2006, AND I'M A MEMBER OF AIA.

[01:50:07]

AND I GRADUATED WITH A MASTER'S DEGREE FROM UNIVERSITY IN POLAND, BIALYSTOK IN BIALYSTOK, AND ALSO WITH MY MASTER'S DEGREE IN CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION FROM NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IN NEWARK.

I HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING IN MANY JURISDICTIONS MADISON, EDISON, FAIRLAWN, CALDWELL, AND A FEW OTHERS IN THE PAST.

YEAH. GREAT. OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD.

SO SO I WILL I WILL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT A LITTLE BIT.

THIS IS MY DRAWINGS. THE PROPERTY IS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE TYPE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER.

THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF REMOVAL OF EXISTING WOOD DECK AND REPLACING WITH A NEW AND LARGE WOOD DECK.

REPLACING ALSO REPLACING REAL WORK AND AND REPLACING AND ENLARGING REAR PATIO. ALSO REPLACING FRONT WALK AND ADDING A PAVED WALK ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.

PROPOSED WOOD DECK WILL BE ABOUT 660FT² AND WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE INCREASING THE BUILDING COVERAGE AND EXCEEDING BY PRESENT. THIS WILL BE ABOUT 15% ALLOWABLE COVERAGE BUILDING COVERAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THEY CAN AND PROPOSE THEY CAN PROPOSE WORK WILL INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE BY 4.4% AND AND WILL BE ABOVE ALLOWABLE 25% OF COVERAGE.

THERE WILL BE NO SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUIREMENT AS THE SIDE DECK STAIR WAS MOVED AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO CLEAR.

REQUIRED 20FT 20FT SIDE YARD. PROPOSED DECK WILL BE BY AVERAGE 2.2FT EIGHT INCHES MORE THAN ALLOWABLE. AND THE REASON IS WE WANT TO ALIGN THE DECK WITH THE FINISHED FLOOR IN THE INSIDE THE HOUSE TO ALLOW FOR THIS STEP.

STEP THREE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE HOUSE.

A DECK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BY INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE VIA LEDGER PLATE TO RESIST LATERAL MOVEMENT AND WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE SERIES OF ROUND CONCRETE FOOTINGS. THERE WILL BE NO SUBSTANTIAL LAND DISTURBANCE. IT WILL BE JUST LOCALIZED TO THE TO THE DIGGING OF THE FOOTINGS.

AND WE ARE NOT PLANNING ON THE SOLE REMOVAL FROM THE SIDE.

ANY EXTRA SOIL FROM THE SMALL FOOTING WILL BE DISPERSED BELOW THE DECK TO PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.

ALL LUMBER FOR THE DECK WILL BE PRESSURE TREATED, THAT, AND EDGES WILL BE PROTECTED WITH THE WOOD GUARDRAIL AS REQUIRED BY CODE.

THERE WILL BE NO TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THERE IS A FEW SMALL SHRUBS NEXT TO THE BEDROOM DOOR THAT WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE NEW SHRUBS PLANTED IN THE PLANTER ON THE TOP OF THE DECK. THERE WILL BE.

THERE IS EXISTING WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES NEXT TO EACH DOOR THAT WILL REMAIN.

I KNOW THE OWNER IS PLANNING ALSO HAVING ADDITIONAL LOW VOLTAGE LANDSCAPE LIGHTING ALONG THE EDGES OF THE WALK FOR SAFETY.

SO IN CONCLUSION IN MY ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE RESIDENTS AND HAS NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC GOOD, OR NEIGHBORS IN VISUAL AND VISUAL AND FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS.

AND WILL NOT AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR ZONING ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PROFESSIONALS?

[01:55:06]

ON THE WEST SIDE WE MEASURED. I MEASURED ABOUT 19FT, AND I HAD SPOKEN WITH THE ZONING OFFICER. HE MEASURED EXACTLY 20FT. WE JUST WANT IF YOU CAN ADD THE DIMENSIONS FROM THE FROM THE STEPS TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

AND WE ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT AFTER CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE AS BUILT PLANS ARE PROVIDED IF YOU BUILD TO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK. SOMETIMES AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE ZONING OFFICER REVIEWS THE BUILT PLANS, IT MIGHT SHOW US 19 AND 19.5 RATHER THAN 20FT, AND THEY CANNOT APPROVE THAT.

SO WE JUST WANT TO RAISE THAT CONCERN AND MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE BUILDING TO THAT UP TO THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, THAT YOU WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT.

YEAH, WE CAN WE CAN MAKE SURE YOU WILL YOU WILL COMPLY AND THE DISTANCE WILL BE LARGER THAN 20FT.

OKAY. WE JUST HAD A COUPLE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS.

4.2, THERE'S AN EXISTING WALL ALSO LOCATED ALONG THE WEST.

WE WERE JUST WONDERING WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR WALLS TO BE UP TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, IF YOU CAN JUST. SO THIS IS EXISTING RETAINING WALL.

WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THAT WALL AND IS AWAY FROM THE AREA WHERE WE ARE WORKING ON.

AND THIS WALL IS IS THE TOP OF THE WALL IS PRETTY MUCH LEVEL WITH THE, WITH THE FINISHED GRADE ON THE ONE SIDE AND I WOULD SAY THREE FEET, ABOUT THREE FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE IT IS RETAINING THE, THE, THE, THE THE, THE FINISHED GRADE ON THE ONE SIDE.

SO IT'S NOT THE TALL, IT'S NOT THE HIGH WALL.

OKAY. AND I THOUGHT WE HAVE A PICTURE, BUT WITH A PICTURE, IT IS IN THE EXHIBIT.

IS IT IN HERE? YEAH.

THESE PICTURES.

YEAH. SO THIS IS THAT. THIS IS THAT WALL. SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET ON ONE SIDE.

BUT HE'S HE'S LEVEL. THE TOP OF THE WALL IS LEVEL WITH THIS FINISH.

SO ON THE OTHER SIDE YOU SAID IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET.

JUST YOU KNOW IN THE WORST IN THE HIGHEST POINT I WOULD SAY.

OKAY OKAY. YEAH. TWO AND A HALF THREE YARDS. OKAY.

THAT'S FACING OUR NEIGHBORS OKAY. YEAH. WE JUST WANT A CONFIRMATION OF THAT A LITTLE LESS THAN THREE FEET BASED OFF THE NUMBER OF FALLS.

AND THEN THE LAST THING JUST CONFIRMING THERE WILL BE NO TREE REMOVAL.

WE DIDN'T SEE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, BUT IN TERMS OF DURING CONSTRUCTION, WILL YOU PROVIDE ANY TREE PROTECTION OR WILL YOU NOT NEED IT? THAT'S GOING TO BE MY, MIKE ADDRESSING THAT CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM.

THERE IS NO TREE REMOVAL. OKAY. YEAH, BUT PROTECTION.

PROTECTION? YEAH. OKAY. THAT WAS MY LAST QUESTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR APPLICATIONS. YES. MICHAEL FORD, F R D LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PLANNER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY WITH VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. JUST UP THE ROAD IN HILLSBOROUGH.

AND I'VE APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD NUMEROUS TIMES.

THANKS. PLEASE GO AHEAD. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE MUCH LEFT.

THEY DID IT ALL. WITH REGARDS TO ENGINEERING, I'LL JUMP RIGHT TO PROBABLY THE MOST OBVIOUS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

WE ARE PROPOSING AS PART OF THE PROJECT A DRYWALL SYSTEM.

WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM YOUR BOARD ENGINEER AND WE AGREE, AS A CONDITION OF ANY APPROVAL THIS BOARD MAY GRANT TO ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE COMMENTS, NOT JUST THE DRAINAGE, BUT THE OTHER COMMENTS IN THAT REPORT TO THEIR SATISFACTION.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS REALLY WILL ESSENTIALLY REMAIN UNCHANGED.

[02:00:02]

WITH REGARDS TO PROTECTION FROM THE TREES, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU KNOW, A SMALL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LIKE THIS WOULD NECESSARILY WARRANT SAY SOMETHING AT THE DRIP LINE, BECAUSE THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING PATHWAYS TO BE REMOVED AND THEN THE PROPOSED PATHWAYS TO REPLACE THEM. AND THEN THE EXISTING PATIO IN THE BACK, A PORTION OF IT'S REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE DECK.

BUT I THINK WHAT WOULD PERHAPS ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO PROVIDE A PLAN THAT DOES SHOW THE LIMIT, THE INTENDED LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE SUCH THAT THE BOARD PROFESSIONALS UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE PROJECT IS SO SMALL AND SCALE DOESN'T WARRANT A SOMERSET UNION SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE 5000FT², WILL BE PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF THAT, YOU KNOW, UNDER 2000FT².

THE IF YOU ADDED UP THE FOOTPRINT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ABOUT 1700 SQUARE FEET, AND THERE'S NOT PROPOSED TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN GRADE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, THAT WOULD WARRANT DISTURBANCE SIGNIFICANTLY BEYOND THOSE AREAS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

REGARDING OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCY APPROVALS, I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS REFERENCED IN ANY OF THE REVIEW MEMORANDUMS WAS THE SOMERSET UNION SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

AND I'VE JUST REFERENCED THAT BY VIRTUE OF PROVIDING THAT LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE PLAN, I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS AND AND JUSTIFY THAT, THAT WE'D BE EXEMPT FROM THEIR JURISDICTION. BUT OF COURSE, AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND AN APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEN A REVIEW BY YOUR INTERNAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WE WOULD ADDRESS ANY SOIL EROSION AND SEMI CONTROL MEASURES THEY WOULD WANT, EVEN FOR A MINOR PROJECT LIKE THIS. IS THERE ANY I DON'T WANT TO GO LONGER THAN I NEED TO. AS FAR AS THE. SORRY. GO AHEAD.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY AS FAR AS THE THE IMPACTS TO THE THE ZONING PLAN OR THE MASTER PLAN OR THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CRITERIA FOR THIS PROJECT, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD AS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S INTRODUCTION, IS THE REAL DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS IS TO FIRST MITIGATE FOR AN UNSAFE CONDITION, YOU KNOW, A CONDITION THAT WAS SO UNSAFE THAT THEY HAD TO DO DEMOLITION EVEN BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION AND DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE AS PART OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THOSE UNSAFE STRUCTURES TO IMPLEMENT A SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.

AND IT SEEMS ADMIRABLE THAT SUCH DETAIL IS BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY BOGDAN AND THE APPLICANT WITH REGARDS TO THAT DESIGN DETAIL, NOT ONLY THE ACCESS TO THE DECK FROM THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE DWELLING, BUT THE ACCESS TO THE PORTION OF THE EXISTING PATIO THAT WILL REMAIN.

BY VIRTUE OF IMPROVING THOSE WALKWAYS LEADING TO IT.

AND THEN EVEN THE ADDITION OF THE WALKWAY ALONG THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO TO AID FOR ACCESSIBILITY OF EVEN VISITORS. AND THEN AGAIN, THE LAST ELEMENT OF THAT IS THE REPLACEMENT OF THAT FRONT WALKWAY TO THE FRONT DRIVE, THE FRONT DOOR AND THE I DON'T SEE ANY DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD OR THE NEIGHBORS.

THE ONE CONCERN MIGHT BE WITH REGARDS TO DRAINAGE, AND I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT.

AND WITH REGARDS TO EVEN THE VIEW, THIS WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT.

IT WILL BE IN SCALE AND PROPORTION AND SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THEN THE I THINK ONE POSITIVE ELEMENT, YOU KNOW, WITH A HOUSE THAT'S OF THIS AGE IS THAT THE LANDSCAPING IS SUBSTANTIAL AND GROWN. SO IT ALREADY PROVIDES FOR THAT SCREEN, BOTH, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORS.

BUT EVEN THE PROPERTY'S BEYOND. AND I SHOULD MENTION TOO, THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE SURROUNDING CONDITIONS, IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING AS YOU FACE THE HOUSE, TO THE RIGHT IS A SINGLE RESIDENCE ON INTERLOCHEN COURT.

BUT BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY, IS A PORTION OF A REC AREA OR DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE THAT'S PART OF THIS COMMUNITY,

[02:05:09]

SO I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE IN GRANTING THE RELIEF THAT THAT THE POSITIVES SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGH ANY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND I'LL TRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN MY FILIBUSTER BOARD OVER HERE.

I TRIED. THE OUR MEMO HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THE APPLICANT HAS ADDRESSED THROUGH TESTIMONY.

I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY SPEAK TO MR. FORD BEFORE THE MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR COMMENTS.

AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE RELATED TO SOME OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS CAN BE ADDRESSED TO OUR SATISFACTION.

FROM AS FAR AS AND I'LL DEFER TO OUR BOARD PLANNER WITH REGARD TO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCES.

BUT USUALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THE ENGINEERING RELATED ISSUE IS USUALLY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

AND I THINK WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE, THE THE DRYWALL SYSTEM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IT IT WILL THEY'VE THEY'VE PROVIDED THE CALCULATIONS AND THE PRIVATE THEY WILL PROVIDE CLARIFICATION THAT WILL MITIGATE THE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT FROM THAT.

ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

THE ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE, MIKE, REAL QUICK, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IT THE DRY WELL, THE WAY IT'S PLACED THE THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OVERFLOW, I IMAGINE. ARE YOU ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT THAT THE OVERFLOW WILL BASICALLY FIND ITS WAY TO ITS ULTIMATE DISCHARGE POINT AT THE AT THE STREET WITHOUT IMPACTING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER? YES. OKAY.

AND THERE WILL BE AN AS BUILT THAT'S DONE AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL VERIFY THAT AS WELL.

YES. THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE REVIEW AND WE AGREED TO THAT.

SO I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD BE NEXT, BUT I SEE NO ONE.

OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. JUST. YEAH. JUST CONFIRMING IN TERMS OF YOU SAID YOU WILL ADD THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE.

YES. AND THEN WILL ANY TREES BE PROTECTED OR NEED TO BE PROTECTED? AS IT'S NORMALLY FOR TREE PROTECTION, IT WOULD BE LIKE A FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE.

AND BECAUSE THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT IS SO SMALL IN SCALE, YOU KNOW, THE INSTALLATION OF THE PROTECTION MIGHT NOT PROVIDE AS MUCH POSITIVE AS IT COULD POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE. SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IN THAT CASE IS PERHAPS WE COULD DEFER TO THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OR THE TOWNSHIP'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO MAKE A SITE VISIT JUST PRIOR TO, YOU KNOW, US CAN, YOU KNOW, CAN MENTIONED CONSTRUCTION AND THEY COULD TELL US IF THERE'S AN ISOLATED TREE THAT THEY REALLY THESE ARE SMALL RESIDENTIAL TREES, LANDSCAPE TREES THAT THAT WOULD STAY. OKAY. SO.

OKAY. I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO NOW WOULD BE THE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT I SEE NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

YEAH. MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE. OKAY. AND WE'LL HAVE A BOARD DISCUSSION.

CAN WE ASK SOME QUESTIONS FIRST? YES. YEAH. OKAY.

OKAY. I GUESS I'LL START. SURE. GO AHEAD. OF FOR MISS MARTIN.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT OR OR THE ARCHITECT, PERHAPS ALSO THE PAVERS.

YOU'RE REPLACING PAVERS WITH PAVERS. AND THAT SURPRISES ME IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SMOOTH SURFACE.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE PAVERS? ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM THE PAPERS THAT ARE BEING USED NOW? WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT OH PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE HERE.

WE DIDN'T DO FINAL SELECTION FOR THE MATERIAL, BUT WHEN WE DO, IT WILL BE IT WILL BE THE MATERIAL THAT PROVIDES SMOOTH SERVICE. SERVICE? IT COULD BE.

WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE OWNER. IT COULD BE JUST POURED CONCRETE OR PAVERS, BUT FOR THE FOR THE BUT FOR.

GO AHEAD. YEAH, BUT FOR THE COVERAGE, IT WILL BE THE SAME.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. RIGHT? THE COVERAGE. JUST ESTHETIC AND USABILITY.

OKAY. I GUESS MY MY QUESTION. I ALSO FELT THAT PERHAPS THE WALKWAY AND THE DRIVEWAY ARE REDUNDANT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED A LITTLE TO DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT.

[02:10:05]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT A THE NORMAL CAR WIDTH IS, BUT WHAT WHAT AREA IS LEFT FOR A WHEELCHAIR OR A PERSON TO WALK UP THE DRIVEWAY IF A CAR IS THERE.

HOW MUCH? HOW WIDE IS IT? I DON'T SEE DIMENSIONS HERE.

YEAH. THE DRIVEWAY IS NOT UNIFORM AND IS NARROWER IN THE MIDDLE AND IS AND IS BIGGER FOR THE TURN RADIUS ON THE WHEN YOU ENTER THE GARAGE. BUT THE THE OTHER THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND I'M SORRY WE DON'T HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT IS THAT THE THE EDGES ARE NOT UNIFORM AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO WALK OR DRIVE THE, THE WHEELCHAIR ON THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THE EDGE IS KIND OF GOING DOWN TO THE LAWN. AND THERE'S A PROBLEM. YOU CAN YOU CAN REALLY FALL, FALL DOWN.

JUST, JUST JUST TO WALK AROUND ALONG THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS CONDITION.

MAYBE IF I COULD ADD ON THE DRIVEWAY. SO AS BOGDAN SAID, IT'S VERY IT STARTS VERY NARROW THEN, YOU KNOW AND PROBABLY OUR DRAWING HAS, YOU KNOW, SOME DIMENSIONS THERE AS WELL ON ON THE DRIVER BUT STARTS VERY NARROW, THEN EXPANDS AS IT, YOU KNOW, APPROACHES THE GARAGE AND IT CURVES.

AND ON TOP OF IT IT'S ALSO ON AN INCLINE. AND SO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING WHERE WE'RE SEEING A DEFICIENCY IS REALLY THAT NARROW BEGINNING OF DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT HILL.

OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IF WE WOULD ADD A WALKWAY WITH A DIFFERENT, POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT PAVEMENT SURFACE THAT ALLOWS FOR A BETTER GRIP, THAT THAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO, FOR FOR RESIDENTS TO, TO TO WALK UP SAFELY. OKAY. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS DRIVEWAY AND I THINK OF DRIVING IN AND BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF IT.

YES, YOU'VE GOT AN AREA FOR A TURN. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME TO HAVE THAT WALKWAY ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, RATHER THAN THE OUTSIDE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT WOULD SHORTEN THE AMOUNT OF PAVING PAVERS THAT YOU WOULD NEED.

AND WOULD WOULD CONTRIBUTE A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, MINIMIZING THE COVERAGE.

IT, IT JUST IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A SHORTER WAY TO HAVE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

IF YOU IF YOU INSIST ON HAVING THAT. RIGHT. AND I WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, REALLY THE, THE, THE THE BIGGEST THE MOST IMPORTANT TO PORTIONS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENHANCE IS, IS REALLY THIS FRONT AND THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. AND IF THIS FOR SOME REASON BECOMES A VERY BIG CONTENTION, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE BOARD. YOU KNOW, WE REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS, LIKE, LIKE WHAT YOU SAID WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT WALKWAY COULD COULD BEGIN FURTHER UP, BECAUSE TRULY THE CAR WOULD BE DRIVING IN AND DRIVING AROUND, SO THAT WOULD BE THE MORE DANGEROUS SIDE, I WOULD THINK THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

SO WHY NOT PUT THAT WALKWAY ON THE LEFT? JUST A THOUGHT.

THE WE WE'RE, AS I SAID ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT WAYS OF SEEING IT.

OUR POINT OF VIEW IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR, YOU KNOW, GUESTS AND OTHERS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PARKING THE CAR ON THE CUL DE SAC. AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN EASY AND SAFE ACCESS TO THAT, YOU KNOW, PASS. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

OKAY. YEAH. THIS ONE, I THINK WHEN I HAD THIS, THERE WAS A THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE HOUSE.

AND I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS VERY FORMAL AND NOT USE EVERY DAY.

BY THE OWNER. SO THE THE THE THE THE ACCESS PROVIDED, THE NEW ACCESS PROVIDED WILL BE THROUGH THE GARAGE, REALLY INTO THE BACKYARD. THAT'S WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT? FOR THE OWNER. RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE YOU HAVE THE FRONT WALKWAY THAT ATTACHES TO THE TO THE DRIVEWAY.

RIGHT. AND THEN PRESUMABLY YOU COULD WALK RIGHT ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY THERE AND YOU'RE USING HALF AS MUCH PAVERS AND, AND AND COVERAGE ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY. BY DOING THAT.

THAT'S TRUE. IT'S JUST THERE WAS THIS IS THE ATTEMPT TO TO HAVE NO, NO FREE, FREE WALKWAY OF THE ANY STEPS AND CURBS. SO GOING THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY WILL CREATE JUST GOING DOWN AND UP TO THE CURB.

[02:15:06]

THAT SEEMS QUITE LARGE. AND IS THERE A SPECIAL IS THERE A REASON FOR YOU'VE EXPANDED THE DECK SIZE, AND NOW THERE'S THIS GOING TO BE THIS LARGE PATIO AS WELL.

WE'RE WE'RE EXPANDING THE THE THE THE DECK SIZE.

THE MAIN DRIVER FOR THAT IS FOR THE DECK TO BE ABLE TO BE ACCESSED THROUGH BOTH THE LIVING ROOM AND THE AND THE BEDROOM. RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PATIO.

OH. ON THE I'M SORRY, YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT THE PATIO OR THE DECK SIZE THE PATIO OFF THE DECK.

SO THE DECK NOW HAS BEEN ENLARGED. AND NOW THERE'S THIS, THIS PATIO WHICH SEEMS QUITE, QUITE LARGE.

AND I'M JUST ALSO THINKING ABOUT COVERAGE ON THE LOT.

AND TO STAY WITHIN THOSE LOOKING FOR PLACES WHERE YOU COULD BE WHITTLING.

I CAN COMMENT ON IT, MEET THOSE COVERAGE. YEAH, MY COMMENT WILL BE THE PATIO.

THE EXISTING THERE IS EXISTING PATIO RELIEF. AND IF YOU LOOK ON ANOTHER MAYBE MY DRAWING YOU LOOK IT MAY BE MORE VISIBLE BUT THERE IS EXISTING PATIO.

WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS PATIO IS GIVING THE MORE UNIFORM SHAPE.

AND AND DECREASING, INCREASING THE SIZE, BUT BUT SLIGHTLY JUST A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK IF ANYTHING, IT WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE ON THE, ON THE SIDE, SIDE, SIDE PLAN.

YEAH. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A DASHED LINE. IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT PATIO, YOU SEE THE DASHED LINE.

SO THAT'S THE SHAPE OF THE EXISTING PATIO. AND WE'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT BIGGER JUST MAKING UNIFORM SHAPE AND ALIGNING WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE NEW NEW DECK AND STAIRS.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE PLATFORM FOR THE STAIRS.

OKAY, I JUST WANT TO MENTION ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO MEET TO MEET THOSE COVERAGE.

I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE COVERAGE AS IT IS, IS OVER.

SO WE'RE INCREASING THE COVERAGE A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT THAT MUCH.

OKAY. YEAH. I THINK THERE'S A TABLE DOWN BELOW, AND I THINK I'M SHOWING THE THE EXISTING LIGHT COVERAGE THAT IS.

YEAH. RIGHT THERE. 2028 SO EXISTING IS OH 26 SIX.

AND WE INCREASING TO 29 FOR. YEAH. AGAIN JUST LOOKING FOR PLACES WHERE IT CAN BE WHITTLED DOWN.

I ALSO HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE DECK. IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE VINYL BALUSTERS ON THAT.

SO AGAIN, THE FINAL MATERIAL WAS NOT SELECTED.

BUT BUT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE WOOD AND THE FINISHES WILL BE PROBABLY VINYL.

YEAH. TO, TO BE TO HAVE LESS MAINTENANCE. YEAH.

OKAY. WE'RE PRETTY CERTAIN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ALL WOOD.

YOU'RE PRETTY CERTAIN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENTIRELY WOOD.

OKAY. PROBABLY GOING TO BE TREX, WHICH IS COMPOSITE.

OKAY. AND AND AND THE RAILING PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE ALSO COMPOSITE.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE NEED A MOTION. I MOTION TO APPROVE. I SECOND THAT MOTION TO APPROVE. WHO DO WE NEED TO JUST RUN THROUGH THE.

I THINK WE NEED VARIANCES. THE THE EXCEPTIONS THERE.

YEAH. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE YOUR REPORT IN FRONT OF ME.

SO HE WASN'T ON THE WEBSITE, SO I DON'T I DON'T, AND I DON'T HAVE IT, SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO CALL OUT IF THE BOARD PROFESSIONALS CAN CALL OUT ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I CAN WRITE THEM DOWN AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE INCORPORATED IN ANY RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCES THEY'RE SEEKING MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE. IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE PLANNING STANDPOINT, WE JUST ASKED THAT THE DIMENSIONS BE PROVIDED FROM THE WEST SIDE FROM THE STAIRS ON THE WEST SIDE TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S 20FT.

[02:20:02]

AND THERE WAS THE DECK HEIGHT AS WELL. THE DECK HEIGHT. OH, SORRY.

AND THE VARIANCE FOR THE DECK HEIGHT AS WELL.

WE'RE TWO INCHES. TWO FEET. IS IT MINIMUM OR TWO FEET? TWO FEET MAXIMUM. AND THEY'RE EXCEEDING THAT BY PROVIDING TWO FEET, EIGHT INCHES.

AND I THINK IN IN GENERAL, THE APPLICANT AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THE REVIEW MEMOS FROM THE BOARD PLANNER AND BOARD ENGINEER.

SO. OKAY. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEND THAT TO ME.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. SO THEN IT'LL BE ALL OF YOUR CONDITIONS THAT WILL JUST.

I'LL PUT THEM IN THE. EXACTLY. YEP. MATT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO EMAIL OUR MEMOS TO MR. TORIOLA? YEP. OKAY. I CAN DO THAT. WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

I MOTION TO APPROVE. THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS WE JUST HEARD.

I SECOND HIS MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A ROLL CALL.

ABU SABI. YES. BRUNS. NO. NO. WALMART. YES. WOOD.

YES. SHAH. YES. MEDA. YES. DELANTE. YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT.

THANK YOU. MINUTES. MINUTES. SO WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 22ND, 2025. REGULAR MEETING.

[V. MINUTES]

YOU OKAY? YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL. BRONZE. YES. WALMART.

YES. WOOD. YES. URBANSKI. YEP. DELANCEY. YES.

MOTION IS APPROVED. FUTURE MEETINGS ARE JUNE 26TH, 2025.

OH, THAT. THAT ONE IS CANCELED. JULY 22ND, 2025 JULY 24TH, 2025.

AUGUST 26TH, 2025. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I MOTION TO ADJOURN. I SECOND. THANK YOU. WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.