Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We are on the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, please note the following. All Burnsville Borough Planning Board meetings will be held in person at the meeting hall on the second floor of the Burnsville Municipal Building at 166 Mindbrook Road. Effective February 12th, 126 planning board meetings will begin at 7 PM. Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube where there's no opportunity for public comment. Members of the public willing wishing to offer comments or ask questions will be required to attend meetings in person. YouTube live stream access for all meetings is at YouTube at Burnsville borough slash students. This link will also be available on the agenda for each meeting, which is posted on the borough website. Bernersville Bernersville dot Gov. And on the borough public bulletin board, at least 48 hours prior to meetings. Notice that these changes has also been emailed to the birds of news and the career news posted on the borough website and filed with the municipal clerk all in January 22nd, 2026. It's the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11 PM at any regular or special meeting of the board. Unless the motion is passed by the members then present to extend to a later specified cut off time and same shall be announced at the opening of each meeting. Hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider reaching a decision. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained all times.

Well, yes, it's the time.

So yes, we do want to make it out and now we're going to have a part of all of us.

And I'm going to go to the record. We were going to buy this. So, you know, you know, a lot of this. I did administer the other boss and before we started the meeting, so it was a duly sworn and fallen off board member. Figured we'd stay a couple minutes, but then he asked that I recite the speech on the record. He's officially a member of the board. President.

Class four, long time. I remember when she asked if I was on the board and I said, yes.

I said, how long is the appointment?

All right, so roll the board. Ms. Gallagher?

Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gillio?

Here. Mr. Graham?

Here. Mr. Malia?

Here.

Mr. Morrison? Here.

Mr. Sato is absent. Mr. Treanor is absent. And they'll be on is also absent. You know, of course.

No meeting minutes it's good you know communications it's good as anyone here or something other than what's on the agenda. In a second shop now okay. New business, we have the bills. Denise, you saw the email I sent you, right?

I did. Yes, I did get it out to you. The bill you were talking about, or bill, is not...

It's okay. Yes, it's not here. Everything's okay.

Yeah, everything on this is... Wanted to be sure.

Yeah.

You can take a motion for the bills.

Motion to approve bills totaling $11,556.25. Second.

Roll call.

Ms. Gabbard? Yes. Mr. Aguilillo?

I believe I have them standing.

Thank you. Mr. Brown?

Yes.

Mr. Malia?

Yes.

Mr. Moran?

Yes.

The motion carries.

No new business.

No resolutions. So we're right up to the main event, the public hearing of Abbas Terrell.

Thank you, Chairman. While they're getting up here, I'll just make a quick statement for the record as far as George goes. The applicant's here to provide an active notice for the proceedings of the hearing. I noticed a sense of commissary property to create a set of their property. One accepting, I'll get through the second. On May 8th, 2016, it was also published in Burnsville News on the 7th, 2016. Both on the 10 days of advancing tax year. So the board almost has full jurisdiction here in this case. I do want to just swear every now and again, real quick. It don't make sense to say it, but sort of. Mr. Trey, I'm assuming you swear we're part of the best. I do. Thank you, sir. As I understand it, you are the owner of Block 44, Lot 22? That's 17. That's correct. Yes. Okay, excellent. And on the 200-foot list that you got for the two subject properties that are subject to the hearing today, that lot did appear, but you didn't send notice to that 17-hour app? Right. You don't know me with that. That's okay. So you're waiting. You're right to receive notice of this year. Okay. I just want to make it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Notice is going to work in procedure.

Okay.

Where would you like us right here?

You want us closer?

There's a spot to stand.

It's about to stand.

I know we have a podium.

Where's the screen? If you move it, I should pick you up.

Alicia Oates, Oh, it'll pick me up locally.

Alicia Oates, yeah. Alicia Oates, All right.

Alicia Oates, I am. Alicia Oates, I am.

Alicia Oates, hi everyone, my name is alicia hopes, I will be serving as the I guess de facto attorney for applicant, who is also my father who, coincidentally, is also my next door neighbor. So I'm hearing lots of fronts, but I'm here primarily as his attorney today just to present this application, which is seeking a lot line adjustment between block 44, lots 23.01 and 23.02, which would in summary result in approximately 7,295 square feet being reallocated from lot one, I'm sorry, from pot two to lot one. So, For the purposes of just keeping it simple, I'm gonna try to refer to 23.02 as lot two, 23.01 as lot one. Lot one is the improved lot. So that contains the house, a waterfall structure, anything that's really built is in 23.01 lot one. 23.02 is just basically woods, a stream, wetlands. Our best guess from looking at the way that the property lines were drawn, who knows how many years ago, is that they probably tried to make 2301 as small square footage-wise as possible under the applicable zoning, probably for tax reasons. That would be my best guess. I wasn't privy to that, but I'm assuming. However, at this point, the applicant is seeking to push that improved lot line forward onto the unimproved block to allow, the primary reason is to allow the existing front entrance deck to be replaced. So as it stands right now, the front entrance is from a second story deck. Your entry is on your second story. And the deck was on, I don't even want to say footings, supports that have completely rotted out. And in order to replace those and put proper footings and pull the permits to do so, you would not be in compliance of front setback, even though the dwelling itself is more than sufficiently setback from the road. But because 2301 is a separate lot, it doesn't currently meet those setback requirements. By pushing the lot line forward a little bit into 23.02, it would meet those setback requirements. I do want to emphasize that applicant is not looking to expand the footprint of the built property, the built home in any way. Basically, it's mostly about replacement of that deck, which we can't do without a variance unless we push that lot line forward a little bit. There was some confusion about lot line adjustment versus consolidation, because at one point in the application, we did mention consolidation. And I would just like to say that when we were first looking at this, we were thinking about consolidating the two lots into one. And just that would basically solve the problem just by doing that. But really our objective here is to preserve that lot, lot two, as some sort of open space conservation area for years to come. Because right now in this neighborhood, that's almost all that we have left of open space, wooded, treed property. And we want to try to conserve that. so we didn't want to combine a lot and then potentially years and years and years down the line make that something that's sort of developable we wanted to keep it the house is on its plot which is within the constraints of the r3 zoning district and the front is just an open space wooded lot that we'd like to keep that way am i missing anything We're happy to take any questions about the plans, which I'll defer to him.

I'm just going to ask a question. When you say you want to conserve that, are you taking active steps to have it?

So we thought about putting a deed restriction in so that it would not be built upon. But then when I looked at the letter from, where is that letter? Where is that report from Mr. Bolio? Mr. Bolia, it did mention that the building envelope on that second lot would be so that you couldn't basically put a structure up on there. Oh, I'm sorry. The question, what would that building envelope be?

Are you taking something that you could build, potentially something now, and then after subdivision, is that so that now you would get them? not have a building envelope, but we still have a residential standard.

Right. I think without being able to speak to the plans themselves, that the envelope on that lot would be reduced to an extent that it would not be buildable without a variance. But we're also open to just putting a deed restriction on it because that is the objective in the long run is to keep it as open.

Yeah, I think if you're open to put a big restriction on i think that may be the way to go just from otherwise put the board in a tough position if you come back for a variance and you technically have a building plot you might know building envelope you know it's you know does that put the board in a difficult position of denying the variance and then and still have a technically a An existing lot is not billable where the board's saying you don't have a lot where there is.

It's a hardship that's created in other words. Right. Right. Which does make sense.

Is this does this application seek any variances? Yes, but which are that just itemize the variances that are being sought. For this flat line.

So for the adjustment itself, we wouldn't be seeking any variances.

Okay, so it's...

The only variances that would ever come into play would be the existing layout of the house the way it was from the beginning.

If you wanted to do something. Misses the setback of the rear yard, but it's already there. But the application itself... No, does not seek any variances.

Triggers any variances?

Didn't you notice? Didn't your notes say something about that? So there's a minimum.

They've identified on their plans what the variances are for the existing and the proposed. And then data 326. And it's up next to the rear yard setback for existing. What's what you're going to do? And it's a lot. There's a very required for the rear yard. And the side yards that are for her was 20, 301 that a.

So the side yard setback, which is currently, which would be as proposed is 35. And 3 quarters, the requirement is what.

The required rear yard is 50 feet, and they're proposing 35, and the required minimum side yard is 15 feet, and they have four.

Okay.

And so the only one that's changing is that... The rear setback is changing.

And it's better.

And it's better. Right.

But it's still there.

See, by virtue of shifting the lot lines, you're essentially creating new lots. So, you know, there are three existing non-conforming conditions, as of now. You take the interpretation that by creating a new lot, now creating two new lots, you're essentially creating a new lot that has two non-conforming conditions. Right, they're pre-existing, but . And that's one interpretation. I've seen other ones where a project like this wouldn't require any additional variance. It would just be .

Right. They're all pre-existing nonconformities. And basically, without knocking down the existing structure, there's no way to make the structure conform as is with lot lines, because you're on an adjacent property, not owned by the applicant.

Okay, now you have an easement to allow the wood deck. That's right. Spawn heater and these studies. I don't see that easement. I see it written. I don't see the I don't see it on the map. You don't see where I go.

Let's see.

You know, like a Right. It's where I saw it from.

So I went to a farm from where the And then it says that then there's an arrow to it.

There's a note. Oh, here it is. So sort of on your plans, it'll say debt sought and your approach might include an easement reported in.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know it's there, but it's not drawn on the map.

It shows it over the property line.

So you think it's just the easement is just... Literally the square footage of just the wood structure.

Yes, it's just that bit of encroachment. I do have the easement itself. I think it was uploaded. Okay. So the easement itself has been uploaded. It's recorded in the county as well. And it... The easement is intended to... portion of grantor's lot which are currently being approached on by said deck spa and spa feeder i've shown the january 16th survey so it really is just that little chunk that hangs over by about five feet onto the adjacent property that has the easement which is which is on the opposite side of this lot line adjustment i should say no no i i know i'm just like wondering

If it was a larger easement, then in theory, you would have, like if they had given you 10 feet along their property line, you would have 10 more feet.

Right.

That's why I'm asking.

This was another one done long before we were in the picture. That would have made things much easier, I agree.

Hal Hallstein, So is this interpreting is the interpretation or professionals that the rear and side setbacks are the corner, the most constrained corner of the house. Hal Hallstein, That shorter is acting as both the side. Hal Hallstein, setback point and the rear setback points. So. The corner of the house that's closest to the property line, is that acting as the boundary of the side, for the side and for the rear of the house? Just the sides.

The new lot that they're proposing here, that's sort of 35 feet from the top, right?

I see that. Yeah. You're saying, they're saying that's the rear? Is that right?

I was supposed to 52 points down by.

Because they want to replace doesn't have.

I don't agree. So what? No. So there's the house. There's one corner of the house that is both the rear corner and the side corner. And the setbacks. have to comply with both side and I'm not judging on it. I'm just saying that's the point where the setbacks are, the side and the rear setbacks. That one corner is where you measure the rear and the side setbacks from.

Does the ordinance define how you determine what a rear setback is?

Yes, it does define where the setback is.

While I'm looking at it, I did have a question about the driveway distance within the adjacent . But I pointed that out in my table . Because it looks in plants as though it's in protein from the adjacent blood. And so it doesn't appear to be part of that.

Actually, a number of conditions .. Access for your work is the slot sheet .. The slot sheet they did address .. Oh, they provided ?

It's not a shared drive with the driveway off Anderson Hill Road, right? That's what we're talking about. As built, it's encroaching on the property.

Lot 2.

The other lot, right? Is it shared?

No, it's not. So that driveway comes onto Applegance Lot 23.02. Okay. And right now there's not a reported easement allowing that access, but it's just never been an issue because it's always been the same owner. It's never come before or before. But that's another one that I'm happy to just prepare an easement from Mr. Terry to Mr. Terry granting that easement. So that lot 23.01 always has use of that driveway. But there is access as well, technically through Elmer Avenue, because if you follow the driveway line, that does end on Elmer. But I'm also, you know, just for sake of simplicity, it is the same order. It's simple enough to do an easement just from 2302 to 2301 to recognize that driveway.

But I think the point she was making that it's Black 9, Block 33, that it appears the driveway encroaches. Am I correct? Yeah. If you look at that, it looks like you have a pre-existing encroachment. Because if the lot line is straight... That is accurate, right?

What you're saying is that the rightmost property on this map is lot 9, block 43. Correct? Is that accurate?

I'm sorry. Yeah.

Yeah, the test map shows that 2 and 1 is very well in the... on block 43. And it appears to me that the driveway associated with the one business closes on that lot.

So the question mark that we had at closing was the surveyor found a nine-foot right-of-way recorded in the deed book. That stretches down, that covers that portion of the driveway that they could never sort of determine who it belongs to. It doesn't seem to belong to lot 43. They can't necessarily tie it to ours. It's one of those things that have been there forever. And he kind of said to me and Jess, you know, these small towns, these things have sort of been here forever. Nobody's questioned it. And then when we go and question it, figure out who owns what. I don't know who owns this nine-foot strip here, and he did mark that on these plans. So that is a bit of a question mark. Now, it is doable to abandon that portion of the driveway and keep it just within the constraints of 23.02. You have enough room. We have more than enough room. It's just kind of, it's always been there, so it just was, remained there.

It hasn't always been there. It's an asphalt driveway, so... But regardless, the problem is it is asphalt, right? It's not stone. That's correct. It's asphalt.

Isn't it also going to block 43? I think we're talking about block 9, block 43.

That's what we were just talking about.

But it's two different ones.

Well, it's going into the Elmer Avenue lot, basically. But you're saying it goes into another one? John Gerstle, So. John Gerstle, This is the life that's the problem.

John Gerstle, that's. John Gerstle, A separate law. John Gerstle, Now that's what nine but.

John Gerstle, No, this is what's on this house this.

John Gerstle, guy.

So. John Gerstle, So.

John Gerstle, It.

John Gerstle, was too long. This is not a lot. Lot 9, block 43. And then this is a lot, lot, lot, lot. So it is another one. Yeah. 2, 1, 2.

Right.

Right.

So where does it split? There's a wood fence. Along the wood fence? I don't see the lock line. I see the wood fence that I'm assuming splits the lots.

Do we have the tax map there? Do you have it? Can you answer the question about lot eight and nine? I don't know.

Do you think that's a typo?

I don't know. Do you think that's a typo for the inclusion of ? Should it not?

Because it shouldn't. It's likely.

It doesn't look like it would be a big enough bond. It's just, you know, it's just not in shape.

You're missing the hole.

It goes down all the way. both of which this driveway infringes um and somewhere there's a right-of-way document somewhere in deeds that just says you said it's just nine foot right away granted just a definition this this i don't know this i have not

See, it wasn't in the title search. I can't.

How did it come up then if it wasn't in the search? It's a nine-foot wide redway?

Nine-foot wide redway at the very bottom. It's a strip of no man's land in between lot.

Oh, that.

I'm sorry.

Lot A. Oh, that. Yeah.

No. Well, the driveway would be on.

There's two separate things. We have an easement and we have a redway? Yeah. There's one right away. So that gray strip that it drives.

The 20-foot strip.

Yeah. What is it? Is that an easement?

The storm sewer easement given to the borough so that they could put a storm sewer in, you want to say 2012, and it runs underneath, but they have the easement to access and thin out and do repairs as needed. So that's what that 20-foot easement is. The gray stuff? Correct.

20 feet. Your property line. Okay, so this thing is this thing property line and it's. Appears that the driveway encroaches on. 43 lot 9 and 43 by 8. And the right away and Elmira mentioned.

None of this came up when you closed? It did. The right-of-way... That's the right-of-way. Never mind. Okay. Right.

The encroachment basically limits on lot 8, lot 8 in that right-of-way, that 9-foot space. The majority of the driveway, well, half of the driveway, as it is laid today, lies within 23.02.

But I can make this somewhat... I believe this is where there's a station council that we want to abandon a driveway that isn't on 23.01.

That's fine. Not on 23.02. 23.02 is the undeveloped lot that the driveway runs through to hit Anderson Road. You want to keep it on 23.02. We want to keep it on 23.02. Remove it from 89. Exactly. That's fine. That can be abandoned. That's fine.

So the enlarged lot basically would enter suggesting is the bottom of the House on it. We have its driveway as it's currently it currently reaches on revenue and the driveway would exit to the Elmer Avenue right away.

Well, the church. I proposed to keep the driveway as it is and just cut the curve. a little bit sharper so that you stay within the bounds of lock 23.02. Does it widen them? It absolutely can be wide enough. Absolutely.

So you'd have to widen it?

I don't know that you'd have to widen it. I think as it exists now, it's wide enough that you could just let the right side that seems to be encroaching into that right-of-way, let that go, and you would still have more than enough space as it is without putting any fragment down. to access a lot on top. Because otherwise 2301 is landlocked without access in theory.

Are there any requirements for how wide the driveway has to be?

Yeah, the borough does have... Well, we'll see.

For a single dwelling, it's going to be very liberal in terms of the driveway width. For a private or shared drive, for a shared drive, there will be a code.

Just, you know, I'm sorry. They are saying, you're going to have a hard time.

Right? We don't want to start.

Do you want me to read the that? And then I can look up to the. Whatever you think is most efficient. The definition of a rear yard can mean a space unoccupied except by an accessory use or building as here and after specifically permitted extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the nearest line of any building other than it's an accessory building and including porches but excluding steps, bay windows, and features.

Is this the definition of a rear lot line?

No, it only has a set.

The 1 corner at the top of that that 1 corner determines is basically what determines your. And then it's the side also.

Well, is that. Definitely. Setback line definition shall mean a line parallel to the property line established by applying the minimum yard restriction set forth in this chapter. And when you've got an irregularly shaped lot like that and it fronts on Elmer.

I'm sorry, not going to interrupt you. It does front on Elmer. It fronts on Anderson Hill, your front door. is above on the plants where it says clean out, that's the front door.

Well, I understand where your front door is, but you don't have any lot from the Anderson lot for that lot.

But that is the lot frontage. This would be the Elmer Avenue is the side yard frontage. And where the deck is, that is your rear yard. So if you were to draw a parallel line, you would be going from...

I'm looking at the lot lines and doing the BOL right now. There's no portion of that lot. Because it's more locked by 23.02. I'm saying in New Jersey, you have to have frontage on a road. And your frontage is on Elmer. It's not on Anderson Hill. So that's a bit of a lie.

What does that look like? A flag lot. Flag lots generally don't have access on a road. Yes. But their access is from Anderson Hill. Right.

The boundaries of the lot. You would have to define, I think you're all right, today it is Elmer, to have it be Anderson, you would have to have, the property would have to have a flag. But down to Anderson, you'd have to define that as part of the lot line adjustment, which is not what's on the table.

So...

I think you're correct that the gruntage is Elmer. And that's what I was presuming. I was presuming the front face of the house was Elmer, where the driveway is essentially. The two side yards are, one's got the deck with the, the other one is the thing to be repaired or removed, whatever. And then the rear is everything, you know, up and to the left of the back.

It needs to have a rear yard. It does have a rear yard.

The rear yard, drive in the driveway, presume there's a door there, walk in that door, that's the front of your house. To the right is the side of the house. To the left is the side of the house. If you walk through the house, you get to the back yard. That's the backyard.

Do you measure that in the existing dwelling, but don't upload? Does it what?

It's currently not going to go into that. Yeah, it's not. They need a rear end.

Yeah, absolutely. Rear end side. It's just that it's, unfortunately, it's that one corner determines the current rear setback and the current side setback, both of which they need variance for.

Right.

Okay.

So the way that it's drawn now, just correct me if I'm wrong, The side facing Elmer Avenue is the frontage.

Correct.

So then this driveway has to have access from Elmer Avenue, which it doesn't currently. It could, but as it is right now.

Well, that's where your frontage is, but you've got at least, well, apparently, where you own the property. It's not an easement. So technically, you have no access.

You have no access.

To Anderson Hill. Correct.

But we have no access technically.

What's stopping you from having your system on?

The town when it paved the roads has the road ending. It's Belgian blocked. So there's not access unless you drive over the Belgian block and gravel to the lot. The driveway, the frontage has always been Anderson Hill Road. It just wasn't memorialized by easement or by deeding.

So it's not a finance basically. Yeah, you needed either a flag or you needed an easement that would allow the driveway to exist over the lot closest to Anderson Hill.

So they can do that because they own.

They can do a lot of things. Yeah, because they own the property.

Do you know what we're getting into the type of driveway and drainage easement?

Oh, yes. The drainage easement came after the driveway. It came underneath her. There's a manhole cover on top for access and the idea that you can never build a structure on top of it so that the town can continuously access it and inspect it. That's just a drainage incident. No, for sure. I'm positive with that.

So that would then mean that both of those lots would share that driveway because... El Morav is closed up. That could have hypothetically been the driveway for the upper lot. Anderson Hill could have been the driveway for the lower lot. If we're making a flagpole, then it's a shared driveway.

I think that's what you have to do. You have to make a flag here down to Anderson with whatever the right Dimensions are there's a minimum right for fly with fly with. Okay, she gets to show her skills. That there is a minimum with for the for the flag, because you need a minimum frontage on the road. To be to be a legal front. Okay. I mean, we.

more than enough to work with down there.

Yes. And the reality of flags is it just has to be there. It doesn't have to be used.

You know, like, but, I mean, if you... Have you ever had a point of before where they, I mean, they technically have a point of how much does the family have in excess, but the town just blocked it up with a belt and block.

Well, they technically don't have access to Anderson Hill, technically. They have a driveway that's not compliant.

So they don't technically need to turn this into a flag. What they need is an easement.

I think I know what you're saying. I think it's accurate that they have frontage on a right-of-way for a street. But The reality is they need access. They don't have it. And so in order to have access, they have to have an agreement. It either has to be a shared private drive defined, because you can do that too. You can take the front property and you can say, okay, it's a shared drive between the two and recommend that. Or you can flag it so that it belongs to, because you're doing it. You know, a lot line adjustment, you can flag it so that it belongs to. That is not a shared drive right now. I don't you have front end, so you don't actually and you haven't developed the front lot, you know, so it doesn't actually even need a driveway. I don't think it's just. You so you have a choice you can. If you were planning to develop it, which you're not, but if you were, you would say, well, I'll put in a shared private drive. So then I would have easy access to do that. Other than that, whoever developed it would have to have a cut somewhere in the front of that property to put a house there. I think technically you're not in violation of having frontage because just what Allison said. But if you want to use that legally. You're going to need you're going to need an easement. You don't have you have a choice. You could flag it and use it. You could use an easement and use it. You can make it a shared private drive.

which at this point sort of doesn't make sense only because the driveway has been existing and in use 77 Anderson Hill for at least since 1999, since we've been around. So we'd like to keep that. We don't want to change it. We don't want to dig anything up, change anything, add anything. I do think doing this by easement would make the most sense just because property owner to property owner and just formalize the easement, allowing access down to Anderson Hill, giving it the frontage that's necessary.

Right. Like I said, it's your call. So I think all of them, any of those three would hold up because, as Allison said, you have the frontage. You're not required to have a flag. And an easement can be anything. And There is a, for a lot, there is a, if it were a flag, I'm not saying it is, because you have frontage. There's a minimum frontage in the regulations. And if your flag is serving as your frontage, which you're not because you have Elmer, you have a minimum width on the road. So I'm hoping the Elmer Avenue... Right away is wide enough. To be frontage, so we have to look at it.

It's 50 feet.

I'm pretty sure the flag limit. I'm pretty sure the frontage is 25 feet. So there's a minimum that has to be. On your frontage on a road. So, it's not called flag. It's, it's, it's under the what's the minimum front. I don't think a flag, it's not going to matter because you're not going to do this, right? You're just going to look for an easement, right? You think you're not going to actually create a flag?

Well, now you've got alarm bells going off in my head. Because then our setbacks get all wonky. And to replace the death, is that now my side yard? And am I going to hit side yard setbacks?

You're going to need a variance for side yard no matter what. So we can identify which side you're not close enough, but you'll need a variance for side yard no matter what. Like that?

Right. I don't see how that would change. Well, what was the... So the front deck

with the lot line adjustment, if Anderson Hill is your front, which was always what we were operating under, you would hit your front yard setback without an issue. If this becomes your side yard setback, that is the front of the house. That's where your front door is, your front steps. So the lot is set facing, you're sitting, walk out to front door, you're on Anderson Hill Road and your driveway goes to Anderson Hill Road. It's tricky. It's very tricky because of the way the lot lines are and looking at the way the house is actually planted there 60-something years ago. You know, I really wish I could just straighten it out.

It doesn't really matter what the features are on the building in terms of determining whether it's front, side, or rear. And quarter lots are interesting, too.

um yeah this is a funky you know if you could drive in and say I walk around to the other side of the house and that's my front door that's my problem well no it's not see I've always interpreted whatever your advantage is it's a problem I mean so like for that like I don't do at least if I have to say the south easterly base of the house to be the front that's the space you know I could be wrong that's something so I so there's no property or chair in percentage

So this is really how much variance do they need?

Because they're not going to get out of, they're going to need variances no matter what. It's a question of making sure they have whatever variance they need and granting whatever variance they need to do what they want to do. There's no configuration where you're not going to need a variance.

And it's already non-conforming. So is our question now, can we discuss this and vote on this with an understanding that the calculation of exactly how much of a variance they're going to need can be done later? Or do we have to know that now so that when we vote on it, or can it be in the resolution?

I think I think we can discuss it and say, look, that top corner. Basically, in my opinion, that's your rear and your side setback constraint. And we should discuss that and the point is, it's existing all as you're saying. They're not changing it. Whatever existed on the other corner, though. the left corner, they're making better. They're improving it. So if a variance is required for that, they're making it better. And we can discuss that. So they're kind of two pieces of compliance. Then there's a question of what actually your point, like what actually has to be a variance. Like, oh, well, they really were okay compliant with the third variance. So I think that we can, we can cover that. Was that, you said the variances is, it's just the sign.

There's a whole list of professionals, of course, you probably run through that. Yeah. So starting with 23.01, there was one fire access. I think that's okay. Because you have 53 feet in front of you. Right. So we can cross that. Driveway difference from adjacent lot. I guess in either circumstance here. The plan is to maintain that. Provide some kind of formalized driveway. He's going to cross 223.01. So I think that's sort of variance to zero. Right. Right. Okay. You guys demonstrated the circle more. So we can cross that. Combined floor area on 23.01. You're committed to be 107.4 square feet at a maximum. Was that on the water?

Which number is that? I'm sorry. On the letter.

Which letter are you referring to?

So we both bring it up in different memos. But it's referring to the that you have for your max floor area. This is the mass floor area. 8,000 square feet.

So is there any relief from that? From that? Or is that a plot? It looks like a major plot, so in fact, that would be a person's turn.

I think it's

I know the floor area of the house is 1,301. The floor of the house.

Existing impervious coverage of the house is 2,119. All right. We'll come back to impervious coverage.

Hold on. Yes.

Okay, so you've got 46.

Here, to be correct, is the impervious right at there. Thanks.

We don't need one before. Okay, so we can check that out. Okay. Okay. Principal front or setback length. It's got to be equal to the length of the longest side of the long facing the front wall of the aquarium.

But the setback is no longer, but they're requesting is there's their setback request is actually from the side and just determine not from the front. That's right.

Well, did they comply with what's the front setback required?

This is from the print analysis. At a minimum, the front setback line itself needs to be as long as the length of the longest side of the drawing, basically the front lava. Okay, so that we can plot.

Yeah, that's for the front, which is your side, which is my side. Okay.

Invertebrates coverage ratio posed by driveway parking area shall exceed 17% of your Invertebrates coverage share. We could plot that.

I believe so. Because it reduces once front grill one gets increased.

Yes.

Okay, we're good there? Yep. Okay. And that lot frontage would be 753 on Elmhurst? On Elmhurst. There, we don't need that. Okay. So that's it for 23-0.

What is the gravel area that's there, surrounded by trees? What is that? It's already there, the gravel area.

Eventually that's where he wants to put a shed up, like a garden shed.

Okay, so you included that in your impervious?

Yes, it's included. We made sure of that.

So the question is, do they need a variance on the side set that year?

No, no, no. Wait. Did you determine impervious was fine? That was versus the...

Yes, that was definitely included.

And it was okay? There's no...

Okay.

Okay, so then...

Those variances. So we have three so far. That's for the two setbacks. And then the driveway distance from the adjacent line would be 0.823.2. You guys are here waiting to figure out a driveway. So just to make sure you say it.

They're not going to take it. They're going to do it. They're going to do it in East Smith. Off of 2302. And they're not.

You said you're going to take it all or not. They're not, right?

We can just abandon it. We can just abandon it.

Let's not use it. And use what's on 23.02 with the easement.

Yeah, that's not going to, well, how wide is it now?

You know the width of the cretin?

It looks like it's 22.

You know that right-of-way gives you access?

So the right-of-way is to the side of the curb path. So as it is right now, there's no access to it, except if you look at the plants, do you see how it bellies out and it bellies into the right-of-way? So at the bottom, we're fully within the log constraints of 23.02. But as it goes up, it bellies to the right and to the right of Y. If we didn't belly, and we sort of followed the line after the storm sewer easement, you'd be within a lot less.

So the physical gravity. Wonderful. It's not going to change. It's going to remain exactly where it should be.

Yes, exactly.

So with that, I guess one variance for multiple different angles. You have 0 feet. I'm just talking about 23.1. There's 0 feet from 23.1 to Elmer. That's right. That's on that line. Then there's 0 feet, well, negative feet, to Elmer.

To Elmer. OK. Plus. So what you're saying is the driveway is currently over the sewer easement. Yes, the bellies into the sewer easement and the sewer easement is on. They not your property. It's on the other 2 lots.

No, the sewer easements on our property is a dark gray area.

The dark gray is a sewer easement.

The sewer easement came in.

And about 2012, I think the point is, you're driving currently is on why 8 and 9. And what are you doing about that? That's all. And you're saying, well, we would just, like, abandon that. We would not use the part of the driveway that's on lot 8 and lot 9. Is that what I heard you say?

We can absolutely do that. Otherwise, we are taking away access from lot 8 and lot 9, technically. That's been there forever. 8 and 9 uses driveway also? Yeah. No, not with a car. But I mean, technically, it's on their property.

Well, but they have access off of Anderson Hill. Correct.

No, no, no. We would not be taking... I'm sorry. I misspoke. We would not be taking access from them in any way, shape, or form. But we'd be going onto their property and removing something. If we were to remove that portion of the driveway, I don't want to remove that portion of the driveway. I'd rather just leave it there and abandon it and use what's fully within 23.2. But I'm saying...

It wasn't in 2302. Would there be enough space now to go there? Yes.

The total width is 12 feet, but that includes the area in this nine-foot wide road. So all I'm seeing from what I'm looking at is what this nine-foot wide road would be anticipated after driving where we would have access to the road. We just don't have any documentation substantially.

I think we interrupted you when you were explaining the right-of-way clause. We were trying to explain it.

I wish I knew. The origin of the right-of-way, to be honest with you, because if you look at the very bottom, there's this nine-foot section, and it comes into play to the right of the curb cut. So it's actually off of the driveway where the right-of-way starts, and then it runs up along the property lines to the point where the driveway bellies off onto this right of way. And then the driveway bellies right back in to 23.01.

So what I meant to say, because I originally got that this all came up when you closed, but nobody dealt with this? Nobody went to the town? Who would determine?

It's surprising, and it's not title search, and it's surprising everyone steps back. And we don't know who the right-of-way was granted to.

No, that's the issue. They don't know who the right-of-way was granted to. So it hasn't sort of followed with the deed history for anyone. So now we're calling it no man's land because it hasn't followed any of these deed histories. Lot 8 down here has sold subsequently. It's not in... their deed. It's not part of their survey. Above has sold.

I understand, but are you saying it's not even, it's recorded somewhere, right? The right-of-way? It's in the county deeds?

I believe so, according to this.

So someone had to register it.

Deed book 1652, it just never ran with a property as it was conveyed.

That I understand. It doesn't run with the property, but someone recorded it. Someone was a person that did it, and then they're either

And it doesn't have a date on it?

No, of course it's got a date.

Not on this.

It's in the deed book. It's got a date.

Right.

It's just not on this.

It's just not what?

It's not on these plans for me to refer to.

Oh, okay.

No. Did you have a search of Somerset County?

Not for this. Not for this.

I'm trying. I don't know. You're going to do a lot line separation here. You're going to record new deeds. And you've got to know about the right way. You need to associate it with the new deeds that you're going to apply. So you need to learn a lot more about it. I think you're right that what you're saying is you just would like to Abandon the belly out that's in the other property rather than going in and doing demolition of it. It's technically theirs. I think what you said it recently, they knew it was there when they bought the property. So it's not like, oh, well, we didn't know that the driveway was there.

Right. What's the vocation for that? The book 1652. 1652. Page 806. 1652. Yep. So the first party. Presumably the grantor was ZRNO Barbara May, is that right? And the second party was Fred M. Crescent.

Yes. Well, when was this? It was reported in September 25, 1987. 87. 1987.

It may be.

For what you're saying, it is relevant to this property, correct?

But that's on the next part. So it is 2302 because the lot line is here. This is 2302 here. When was the lot subdivided?

when was the lot subdivided uh I did know this at some point I would say early 1970s maybe late 1960s so it would have been part of the original lot 23. before it became 2301 and 2302. but they didn't record the easement until 87.

The subdivision. Subdivision definitely in person.

And then, yeah, they should have recorded it again.

Is there another. Whatever the name was. I'm sorry. Preston would have been.

I don't know if they did the subdivision or if it was the owners before the precedence. Oh, I would suspect if they're doing the easement years later that they weren't the ones who did the subdivision. Right. Right away. I do agree.

Yes. You're going to need the easement. There were three choices. The one that seems easiest is the easement. You've got the right-of-ways precedent for some kind of an easement, and you're going to have to write it all into the deeds when you do this adjusted subdivision. It sounds like you should... not lawyer, but to do a new easement and have it superseded right away. Basically, you know, draw it in and say this supersedes it. Booking page almost.

Yeah. Nine foot right of way after deed book 1652, page 806. Oh, let me see. Let me see.

So we will get to John's. I don't know. I'm pregnant. I'm sorry.

Nobody's touched. Nobody's questioning the use of this driveway.

It's always this off the newsman's aren't filed properly.

They're filed and then you can't look them up. They don't show up in the record. It's the way those records were. Sure. They're like ancillary documents and they don't always get . Yeah, but they'll step away. The title insurance will say if it's not showing up in the search for the county records, we're not liable. It's an exemption. For whatever's found. Yeah. Yeah. And so, therefore, you're not insured.

Yeah.

It just happened to my brother, that's why, no? Yep. That's an exemption. It's like, oh, no, we didn't insure you for that. Stuff we can't, if they can't learn it, then they just say, look, there's no way for us to learn this. Right.

And you take type of subjects to that extent. Yeah. Well, maybe they can get their own. Right. That's the work we do together.

It's,

So the good news is you're in control of the properties. You can get your own easements. You can set it all right. You got to do the deeds anyway. So it's not like it's a lot of effort to get the easement into the deed. Did we get through the list of potential variances?

Are you guys, would you be simulating to getting easements from 8 and 9 where a lot of traffic continues?

Would you be also getting easements from the two families? Should they meet? They don't meet.

It's not within their lot lines. That's my understanding.

No, no, no. He's saying to continue to use the driveway as is without constructing a wider driveway and abandoning the non-conforming section of this driveway, would instead they be willing to seek an easement from Lot 8 and Lot 9 that says, can I continue to use my driveway?

But they're saying it's a no man's land that nobody owns this lot of feet. Isn't that true?

Most of it. There's a tiny section that seems to be on Lot 9. No, Lot 9.

No, they don't know the right-of-way. They can't associate the right-of-way path with the right-of-way.

The ECIT was granted to this gentleman right across the street. And that's our seller. Correct. So, it may very well be that the They stopped drawing on the plan, really? Or when it was reported, it wasn't like the lease accounts description?

That's what I'm wondering.

Yeah.

If it's just...

I haven't pulled up on it.

So are you saying that the easement itself was granted by Lot 8 and Lot 9 to the owners of Lot 2302? I'm trying to do the text on the social media. There would need to be two easements.

You need a laptop.

You're going to need an easement at least on 2302 to allow 2301 to use the space on 2302.

You're going to need to further research the right away to make complete sense out of it as opposed to add hot. It's got to be accurate. Sure. And the suggestion that was made is. Instead of messing with the driveway. Try to eat the right away may cover it, but try to get a formal and easement from lot 8 and 9 to let you use the driveway as opposed to. Paving years.

I can testify that it's been there since before 1999, because I moved it next door in 1999, and that driveway has always been there.

What's the time when a ladder is possession? We're there.

We're past it. We're past it. It's definitely open and notoriously used for over 25 years. So there's no argument.

It may very well be yours already. 5%. Yeah. No, you are absolutely right.

I wouldn't want to throw it out there, but that is true. It's been completely... In fact, when we were first getting surveys done, because of course I live here, this is my across the street neighbor for 20 years, he said, Is this your property line to our across the street neighbor? And he was like, I have no idea what you're talking about. No, like that's the driveway. That's not ours. We've never. We don't know what this is, who this belongs to.

Obviously you pulled the date for lot nine, right?

Right. Lot nine just sold. No, not there. Sorry. Lot eight just sold recently.

And they didn't have any, they, Didn't have a problem with it.

So it's not showing up. Not to say money. But both of them are.

Lot 9 hasn't sold since, I would estimate, when did they move in?

2003? 2002? No, that's still recent.

That makes me feel good.

Keep saying that. That is recent. It's recent to all of us.

It's recent. I think it's straightforward. If you want to keep using the library, the driveway, you're going to want to ensure that you have the rights to do it. I think you have the right, if someone were to enforce it and say, no, you can't, you're on my property. you get into the issues of, I think, you know, how long it's been in use. So you do have a way to remediate it. It's not like there's a cliff there that you couldn't pave to get around it.

No, we just don't want, you know, if I have to do, we can do it, but we don't want to expand any more impervious that is there.

Well, it's not on your lot. Oh, you just measured the impervious on your lot. You didn't measure the impervious on their lot.

No, but into our lot if we don't have to. If we have to, we have to. We're just trying to keep as much green as we can.

At the end of the day, this is something. I mean, it's certainly relevant to what we're talking about, whether or not the driver's in the property or not. It's kind of like outside of the planning board. We're here to determine if you can have a group association and variances. So I guess with that, I think there's more to settle. Kind of proceeding on your own rest, Mr. I understand. As far as we're concerned, with those truck with the driver, we will relieve for the essentially zero setback of the driver to those other two ones.

Which one of your plans here? At the very least, yes.

Correct. So lot eight and lot nine, you've got, you don't have the driveway setback.

That's right.

Were those the last two variants?

Yeah. Yeah. To go all the way back there. Sorry. Okay. So we're going to do 23-01. We do the variants. Access corridor, need at least 50 feet. We got, that's not a problem. I don't know why that was even blank. So I guess some variants for that. The distance of the driveway to 23-01, because the driveway is going to be some RAs. Yeah. Then also the 89 is zero, even all.

Right.

And all the measurements there. And the block shape, which you demonstrated you can play with. So I'm pretty sure that's it.

No, we still have how much of a variance do we need on the side yard and the backyard? Not for 01.

Yeah, let's talk about it for 01. Yeah, well, it's, it's just a matter of the variance is needed and we need to know whether it's a 4 foot or a 15 foot or a 30 foot.

We, you know, we need to know the specifics just to memorialize your problem.

Well, we consider the 4 foot mentioned. Consider that property on the house for you to see. Sidebar or fire 15, right?

And the numbers they originally have for what they call the front lot would be our numbers for the variance on the side. That would be our side. Now, if we're considering it like this. Because the application considers what they see as the front of the house is actually based on this.

If that's where the board determination is that the front yard is...

No, no, no. What I'm saying is their application is requesting a variance on what they call the front yard. But in fact, now it's the side yard. That was a whole. That's right. That's right. So they just need to amend what the request is because they're when they, when they submitted their application. Where their front door is, is what they are, they identified as this front yard. But we've all agreed that their front yard is where the driveway comes in facing Elmer. They didn't ask for a front yard, really.

Because we were considering front yard Anderson Hill Road. We're determining tonight that front yard is actually the Elmer Avenue facing side. So now they want side yard. So now that we need to make sure there's no side yard relief. I don't think we need side yard relief because the side yard's only 15 and we're well beyond that now.

Yes. Okay. Well, no, no. One side yard they don't need. They need a side yard and a backyard, but the other side yard, they don't need a very small backyard. I just want to make sure that we, because we switched the names, the boundary is the issue. The front and the side end, side and then rear. Okay. So that's the result.

It's 4B to the northernmost property line, considering the center boundary, 1 and 2 center. And 35.77 is what it's going to be if you rear your gun under the terms of the law.

No, no, no, no, no.

That's not there. What?

Exactly. Okay. So the forefoot.

That corner is on the side and the rear wall. That's the rear and side. That is correct. Okay. All right. That's rear and side.

Because we're drawing a parallel line from that corner, right?

Yes, yeah, it's from that corner closest. I think when you look at our new rear of the house, that corner is the closest to the property. Yep. So therefore, that is the that's more setback.

Oh, so then the 3577, the other problem. That problem line is, well, is that side around? That's a side side. So then there are five. They are.

That was her point on that. She was so fine with that. He's wonderful. We've mentioned. Precise. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Don't you wish we could just.

This is an existing condition.

That's the, yes, it's all existing. Nothing's getting pushed in that way. Place at all.

They're. Proposing to check and it is a lot. Now, what was the what's the side or just just one the side yard is currently no, no, not for it. Forget that. What's the 15? Yeah. Okay. So they were 14. They were 15 feet. Not only before, but now they're making it even better. They're making it better. They're relieving that. More so.

And that new deck you're going to do, is that a replacement deck or is it going to be the same boundaries? Replace that. I'm sorry? Replace that. Same boundaries, making sure you have six feet of energy. And then for the previous, six feet behind.

That makes you 12.

So if I'm six feet off the part of the house now, and then you're going to be 12 feet off the part of the house. Okay. This is our front. Side. Side.

Let's just make sure.

Well, today it's 469 square feet, so it sounds like it's...

So it would be 29.77 from that average? Is that correct? Yes. 735? We have 37. 35. Okay. I see. I know there's... Don't be quiet.

You can still be compliant. Okay. I know that's important because right now you can't get in the house but for the back door or side door. This is going to be a running joke. You'll have to look at the house again. I will never look at it in his name again. That is absolutely right.

Okay. So do you mind if I ask to summarize the relief and we'll keep going? the public and whatever other questions.

Sure.

Just so we're all safe here. Why are side by side for the lot line adjustment? The side and rear yard setback pre-existing condition that's going to be technically interference again. Four feet with 15 feet required. If it's side and 15 required. I don't know. It's a rear that needs. Oh, yeah. 50 required. Okay. Driveway distance on 23.01. 0P to Elmer, 0P to 23.02. That's right. That road slot 23.02, zero, the driveway setback is zero. Wait, wait, let's go back.

It's 0P to Elmer, it's 0P to lot 9, and 0P to lot 8. You've got both lots, right?

That was just 23.01.

Oh, it was 23.01, never mind.

Sorry. Yeah, so 23.01, 0P to Elmer, 0P to 23.02. 23.02, yes. Sure, it's not 0P to any other.

And we're not too close to... Actually, the lot north of Elmer Avenue, that's fine, right? How close can it be?

No, that's past it.

Is it within 10 feet? Is it within 10 feet of the corner of that lot? See where Elmer Avenue and the property are?

Is it within 10 feet of the driveway?

A lot of ones. It looks like it's within 10 feet.

Where did it drive? Because of all the light?

Here?

With a lot of the driver. Is that what it's empty? My mom.

Yeah.

So, yes. So that would be the variance from 20, 301 to 22.

And it would be in the same category.

Okay.

You're not at zero. But you're not at 10. It's just because it gets that post. It's very much. Is that your one?

Yeah. Okay.

It gets to the.

it's just a problem from something else in the middle of the case it looks like it's it's it's not so much the penalty a lot of nine from one career or the drugs on 23 or one right right so that's four different areas okay so we started minor cycling for a little while i adjusted rear and side yard setback at four feet for a 15 to 15 year fire for that northern most property driveway distance from the adjacent lot line, there's 0 feet in 2302, 0 feet in lot 22, 0 feet to the Elmer right-of-way, 0 feet to lot 8.

Yes, that's correct.

With respect to 2304.

That's correct. Because that doesn't touch lot 9.

Sorry, we're not counting? It's not a lot? Right. Okay, so then screw the Elmer. So it's 2302, 2302, and lot 8 with respect to 2304. No, that makes sense. Okay. And then as far as 2301, right, that you're talking about. Correct. As far as 2302 is concerned. Okay. It's the driveway set back to 23.01. Yes, that's correct. There you go. Okay, so that's the relief. Are you sure you don't want to do anything else before we pull the back cover over here?

No. We've got one of those. We don't need to.

Okay.

I think that's it.

Okay. And as far as conditions go, you guys will comply with everything in the professional review reports that will be in application? Of course. Okay. Do you offer a deep restriction for 2301? That was a question, Mark.

I think that's something we can explore in the future.

So we'll start that.

Sure.

Driveway access, he's been, I mean, also that's something you figure out. Sure. I'll support those different things and I'll oppose that. David, that's the extent of it. Otherwise, you're going to come back here over the zoning board. Okay, there's some other thoughts about the change. No, thank you. Okay.

Am I missing any other conditions? Can you guys? No, wait a minute. I mean, you dismissed the date restriction, which I understand, but we're granting the variances. So why aren't we seeking a restriction on 2301? I'm just wondering.

Well, they're offering it. The board feels they're, you know, well, we are going to have to.

I'd certainly like to see a restriction. It's part of it. It's basically you're aggregating one property, and then when someone comes in to develop the next piece of property, it's like, oh, now you're dealing with steep slopes everywhere and variances, and it's like, There's not much that's going to be built there. It's like, no, there's a way to beat it. Okay.

So our understanding is that the stream, as it comes through the property makes all of that wetlands and it's undevelopable, developable as right. So once the lot line is moved, you're not going to be able to fit an envelope on there. no matter which way we look at it, because of the wetlands. Even if they went for variances on a steep slope, there's no way they're getting... You can substitute wetlands.

You can say, I'm going to take some wetlands and put some wetlands somewhere else. Did you know that?

Was it an active stream? Yeah, actually, I owned a property where my sellers... You take five feet here and you give 20 feet here. But it can be done. But my question is, is there remuneration that they lose if they go and shop it? Do we have the right to ask them that? To do what? Well, you can sometimes get compensation for using it for conservation.

They can certainly look to make it green acres, you know, something to give it over, you know, farmland.

But if we require them to put it in the deed now, does that take away their ability to do that? That was sort of my concern. No. If it's already restricted, there's no reason for them to.

You know, which stream it is and whether the organization wants to take rights to it and then preserve it. I mean, the problem... Look at what we're saying. It's like, oh, well, they restrict it and it limits their value. Well, a value to who? To someone who wants it. The same thing with green organization. It limits it. They'll say, well, we don't really spend our budget on it because it's tax-free. It's already restricted.

Yeah. So that's why I question... Um, you know, um. Jimmy hold off the resolution and give them a week to see if there's anyone who's going to have that quickly, but. I'm just, I just don't know that we have.

Whether both properties are under right under our jurisdiction right now.

Yeah.

Is there anything out there that offers formal significant issue as far as protecting or putting some kind of restriction on 23.02?

So to be as clear as possible, the objective for all of us is to restrict 23.02 from being developed. I hesitated in going forward with saying let's do a conservation deed restriction. because I want to fully explore what that would mean for, frankly, no offense, I'm not trying to kill you off, but if this were to be deeded as sort of like a testamentary gift to the borough at some point as open space, I don't know that I want a deed restriction on there because that might get funky. It was a question mark for me, but that is the objective. I'm testifying to that. I'm sure he'd be happy to testify to that.

I don't mind with you taking more time to research it. We're going to need some time anyway to reformulate it anyway. You probably did it, but was there a demonstration that the lot circle fit, but a building envelope won't in theory, right?

In conversation with the surveyor, it was once this lot line is moved, a building envelope won't fit by virtue of the wetlands.

Because of the lot line next to the house or also because of the lot line adjustment that you're making by the gravel area and the waterfall.

Not just there, the whole thing is

I don't see how it was all steep slopes anyway.

It's wetlands, wetlands, a stream, heavy vegetation. There's wetlands at this end. And what's the setbacks now for wetlands?

There's one setback for development. Another one, it's the stream type.

I believe with the lot lines there, as they are drawn today, you can fit with a variance for steep slopes. The structure on the upper portion of that lot because you would be outside of the wetlands right away after the proposed lot line revision, should it be granted. That would not that would not work, because then, if you see what a lot line butts out you're past that point almost so you wouldn't be able to fit it so you're saying where where the gravel area is right now, and you could potentially structure. And lots of variances, I think.

Well, I wasn't yet.

A little to the left of that, yes.

To the left of that.

I think that's right.

But if you were to adjust the lock line as you propose, that would not work.

That would not work. That's right. So that is really the reason why we didn't say, OK, you know what? Deed restriction, full vote. I felt like we were sort of accomplishing that just by adjusting the lock line. But we're open to it.

Why don't you consider to pile on this line of thinking? Why don't you consider a much wider easement? Give 2301 a very large easement down to Anderson Hill. Restricting 2302 further. Mm-hmm. Just creative thoughts. That's a great point. Then it stays under your control. You have the right. The problem is that with an easement is it's here in control of the lot. So you can dissolve the easement. So maybe that's not such a great answer.

You've got to make sure the driveway becomes vulnerable to different operators so you have more of an area to do it. Right.

Right. Then it's then if they're redoing everything, do they do they draw the lot line to include? Oh, no, then you lose the access. Never mind. Yeah. No, I do.

It's insider though. So, I mean, if you had a, you know, you decided, no, I, I really do. You know, I'll shrink the easement back, you know, like if you had a 50 foot easement and then you said, well, okay, I didn't cut this back to 15 because this developer just offered me a whole bunch of money to build.

He changed the lot.

But even if you kept the driveway access here for 2302, and you changed the lot line to include the driveway, the rest of the driveway, you haven't given up access to 2303, but you transferred that part of the land. I don't know if it's all necessary.

Well, you could do it that way. You could put all of the driveway as a flag, essentially, into 2301, and then you give 2302 the easement to be on your driveway. Right. You could probably do it without it because you'd have to look if it would become a private drive, but an easement might be enough. I would say that's another way to look at it. We prefer to go to the easement route and I just convert. It's just a matter of which lot has what owns the property that's there. So that's a nice idea.

How long? It's been years since I've looked into it to discuss with someone your options for conservation. If we're going to give them some time to do that while you're redoing everything else. That means, you know, I'm going to uncharted territory here.

This is something I've never done before. So. You know what?

Rob Wilson may know. who to talk to. He chairs the Environmental Commission. And, you know, if there's, you know, anything green, the town, the borough will be pleased about. But he might be a good person to speak with.

Okay. And I have...

You can probably find his contact information on the federal website, but I have it also. Right. Okay. That's awesome. Because I'm on the environmental commission.

That's awesome. So, Chris, how would we proceed with this thing? Well, you can talk about it.

It would be sort of in the process as far as the conservation goes.

Well, one of the things she wants to talk about, you know, the basic question is, do you want to be

Would you like that?

You can also, if I believe it, as a board of professionals to determine whether or not they go for conservation, it's sufficient. I don't think that's, is that the answer? Yeah. We're open to that. We're open to expanding the easement. Another thing I was thinking of, and now that I'm loving it, having a condition in the resolution fires in the future, it all has to come back to. That way they can't just know what it is. That's about it. There's something on there with that. But there's

I understand what you're saying. Even though it's likely they would have to come before one of the two. If someone got so creative that they didn't trip, you know, didn't need any variants, then they could just go ahead and get the permanent. You haven't had any kind of variants, but besides changes, changes the regs. That's a good point. And probably no matter what, I think that should be. I guess we could straw poll or talk amongst ourselves a little bit here, but in terms of what's the opinion on the list of variances that survived?

what most of their answers are not unreasonable or pre-existing it improves things they they need to be able to get into the house it's arch if they can so i have no issue with the variances um i like the idea that they want to conserve this and i think there's value in having that in writing but but having been Having had my own experiences, I think we need to give them the opportunity to explore how they preserve that. But it would be nice to have something in writing, but I think we need to let them figure out what's best for them all around and how they can serve that.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I mean, variances are reasonable. Yeah, you have to get a good plan of land and decide what's best for the property.

Yeah, I mean, I think like we wouldn't be having the conversation about avenues and service or green space or whatever if we weren't having a conversation on the lot line. I mean, that would be their decision whether or not to take that approach regardless of adjusting these lot lines. So, I mean, I'm in the camp of letting them pursue that if they choose, but I don't know if it's going to make my decision.

I have no issue with the variances for the pre-existing conditions, and I'm aligned as well with, I think, the rest of the board. I would like to just see it memorialized that there is attention to conserving Uh, what is it?

Is there a, so, in general, it's all positive is, is there also an option to say that 2302 cannot be further subdivided. Does that is there any precedent for something?

Mr. Chairman. The thing is, anybody could come back to the board of the bus and we can back that initiative. So. I don't know if you can answer one way or another.

No, I'm just throwing ideas out to us.

I mean, maybe you could sub it by a committee. It all would potentially work.

Well, let's say the road committee says we're going to build on seat slopes. That's where new houses ought to go. You know, modular trailer infrastructure to tiny homes. There's a whole ridge there. It could be full of tiny homes. I'm just... Yes.

Could I propose that maybe in a resolution we set a time period for us to explore avenues for conservation with the end result being that the lot is restricted from development?

We're fine with putting that. It's just the avenue by which we accomplish it. That's the question mark. But the conclusion, no matter what, for us, is we don't want this built on. We want this to stay. We want to protect it. We have very little left.

Okay. I think I'm okay with that. That would mean we'd actually vote.

And they could use their house in a graph.

You'd have a magical draft resolution that you've got right there.

Is that something the board would want to come to the board or is that something you'd like to do?

Well, I think we should, it sounds to me like we should pass resolution and it should include the positional clause that We're exploring the details of how something might be optimally conserved, let's say. They could contact our professionals for ideas, you know, of course. And then it would be handled with the memorialization of the resolution, I think, because you can almost adjust what you originally passed. You can refine the wording, especially if there's a placeholder for it.

Yeah, I guess the question is, do you want them to come back to the board and explain what they're going to do with the conservation?

It's going to be a resolution. I would want them to come back when we memorialize the resolution. Yes. Now, there would be interactions, of course, between them and you to adjust the wording. Okay. Now, maybe the wording will be so clear they don't have to, you know, be figured out a way. Some generous donor is doing something. They should be prepared that they may have to come back, especially if it's like we just can't figure anything out. You know, we tried and so forth, but we just can't figure anything out. So you just have to. Okay. So I'd say a placeholder in the resolution.

I would say the worst case scenario is we could move say, we're just going to do a deed restriction, that it cannot be built upon without compensation, without, and just restrict it at the property moving forward.

So here's my concern. The board's vote is fair to say. So if we vote tonight, I mean, there's some things you can leave out that it's a distraction from the board of professionals who attach a deficiency to that. But if we don't even know what the commission is going to be ultimately, how we can both make a decision. This is an open-ended petition that we're going to determine at a later date, but we can't do it.

Well, no, what she's saying, it's really open-ended because she has generously offered that they will have a certain period of time to investigate what their options are for remuneration or other things. And if at a certain point they don't have that, they will agree to a deed restriction. So it's not that, it's open-ended in time. Okay, all right.

So it's a condition the applicant shall have six months to find some avenue of restricting development on the property, ultimately subject to the board professional's approval. And if all else fails, essentially, we'll award it in a much nicer way. Yeah. They'll put a deed restriction on the property depending on the development. If they don't have the due restriction within six months, let's give them an extra month to actually formalize that. I have another idea. The house is above this, right? The slopes are down to the stream, right? There is such a thing as a view scape.

And you can get a view scape deed restriction that says you can't develop in my view. Now, the point is, it's you on both sides of the equation here. So I'm just throwing it out as a thought that if you wanted to put some kind of deed restriction in, you could put a view scape. restriction and it may be irrelevant it's just like another idea and that may trigger some other idea that you may have but they would not you could structure it obviously if you did the view scape you could structure it in a way where it couldn't be developed unless the view scape were relieved but it's you so you decided you woke up one day and decided oh yeah develop that just another type of restriction that's definitely something to look into as well

The be all, end all is no matter what, if we can't find some glorious avenue to have somebody come in and have there be some remuneration, we're just going to be restricted no matter what, that we're on the record. There's no problem with that.

I'll also just consider the finance that there may be a situation. Now you've got two lots, right? They're both going to be taxable in some way, right? So any time a lot is less developable or whatever restricted, there's relief from property taxes that you would get some benefit. Just keep that in mind. Sure.

Understood.

All right, so you pretty much itemize the variances. Was there any, there's any other things you wanted to say? I think we're bringing the shadow, correct? Yes. We got to do the public first. Any questions or comments from the public? I guess that's it. All right, great. That was, that was questions and comments. So anything from our professionals, like, you know, just out there, okay. They're expanding the deck.

Yeah. And then you also have to confirm whether you need any permits. You need anything from NJDEP. You should be repairing some of our envelopers. So you need them. So any NJDEP permits as may be required. Oh, for the debt? For the debt. Expanding the debt.

Shouldn't be an issue because that's EON 2301, and it's very far away from any of the levels.

That's on the last of the lines. It's an exceptional resource. It's a 150-foot buffer. If this is a C1 stream, it'd be a 300-foot current buffer.

I'm saying just check.

Just double-check. If you check it and it's outside, it's outside. Just make sure. Yeah. My side, sorry. The board engineer says.

Sure. That makes sense. Not a problem.

Okay. So proceed with just put it quick.

I'll be the best person. Mindset approval. And reader, I sat back for the fourth dimension where 15 or 50 is required. That's the 23-01. The other variant, the 23-01, is the driveway distance from adjacent bottom lines of lots 23-02, lots 23-01. The triple check at 9 is where there's . So that's 23-01. And then for 23.02, just the driveway distance, zero feet from lots 89 and 23.01% would be required. If I can also throw this out there, just to be safe, given the interpretation of the board that that one yard is front yard, just think about the improvement of the floor to include the resolution should the, some of the effect that should that yard be considered a rear yard, the 35.77 foot.

Or can we just say that we determined that the front yard is facing Elmer?

That might be the reason. Just as a backup, so to speak. The board's stating a resolution should that, for whatever reason, higher authority determine that that yard's not the front yard, but rather rear or side yard, that they would still have air in it. Does that make sense? We just kind of covered all the basics that way.

Yeah, or you could just describe that corner and say your variance at that corner.

All right.

And they're okay interpreting the front as what we have, the setback of 73 feet from Kerr lot to the front, our new car front. That's okay, right? What's the front yard setback?

So in the event that backyard is considered front side water mirror, they have to believe.

You know what I mean? I understand. You'll have to do the combinations.

Yeah.

We hope we're in such a fine weather, which what each boundary was for us to interpret, you know,

Just protecting it against someone. Yeah. So we've thought about it. A lot of it, I would just also, as it's been said, include preexisting conditions, you know, they're not. You know, aggravating any condition, they're just making making them better. So, because I think that's what we're going on. So, regardless of what you call it, whatever. It is pre-existing. So when you're covering it all. I think that's probably fair. Thank you. OK. And then the conditions as a mental report, have to be multiplied with the review reports of our board of planners and engineers.

Second, all of those are superseded by our conditions that weren't in the new memos and weren't already in the reports. The other conditions are hearing that we will revise the plans to show that same thing. We have mentioned about six months to explore ways to prevent the deal and about 23% soon, ultimately subject to the approval of board professionals or if the applicant's unable to determine a solution for that, they'll ask for a de-restriction, we're foreseeing some kind of close office within seven months and that de-restriction will be subject to review and approval of war terms for the finance part of the recommendation.

Makes sense. I have one other thing that I just noticed because you've mentioned it. So the gravel area where you want to put a shed or something. How are they in compliance with the dimensions from the corners of that gravel? I see 25 feet there, of course, interpreting front, vertical, side, and rear, but... And I know it's, it's an ancillary building, right? So, if they were to build it, right? If that was a garage right now, would they be in compliance with setbacks? Accessory. Well, they will, you know, let's just check.

It would be good.

If it's if these lines, I mean, with like a minor adjustment, then you've got those steps also going down there, you know, like, you see the steps next to you see how some of it goes over to the other line. Just.

They're saying it's a lot.

Yeah, they could. It's true for them to. Well, not trivial, but, you know, a lot easier than coming back. to allow it to rise, but shifting the travel pad or whatever they'd have to do. Sure.

That's very generous of you. Thank you. Say some more to him later. I do appreciate that. He's brother.

Anyway, we're giving him a real workout over there in the code book. Changes.

Changes. Changes. Changes. Changes. Changes.

Well, actually, I think that's pretty lenient for an insular, but I. Denise. He's made it faster than anyone else.

You were sitting here with this voting officer. I think.

I just asked, I'd say, no, that's. This is the kind of information for Ralph Wilson. Thank you so much.

Yeah, we're just heading into the next four wars. So any guidance is very much appreciated.

okay our career no accessory building shall we look at here here at any side of the rear line following this this is the driving assistance slow down i'm citing the section you said the restructure is very limited in our front yard ld-12-23 supplementary regulations and current revisions subsection oh you got that oh that's 23.1 b No accessory building wall shall be located here. Any side or rear lot line that follows the citizen that goes to the entrance.

And this is a side yard.

No accessory building shall be erected in the front.

Right.

So this would be the front yard.

Now it's your front yard.

No, side yard.

Side yard.

If we follow the parallel line of the half the structure, that's the side yard.

Now we're going to get into that. I'm listening. What is the definition of the front yard?

As of my understanding from today, this line here is our front wall. That's facing the ground, which means this is our side.

Yes.

So we draw a line parallel to the front of the house.

It's forward to that. Yeah. Even if it's an Elmer's front yard, if that's in front of our other one.

Yeah, now you're right. It's between, if you've carried the line from your front facade, right? That's not your front facade.

Oh, the old front yard and the new front yard would both have the same problem, as you said. It would be the front yard, regardless of the interpretation of the Yeah, we're original opinion and our revised opinion. We're both going to create a compliance issue. What?

Yeah, so accessory building.

Yeah, no accessory building shall be recommended on a residential one. Not having accessory structures limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, and garages are permitted, provided they are located at least one and a half times the minimum progress setback on street problems. So whatever your front yard boundary is, you got to go at least one and a half times further.

No, that's not going to be a problem, right? Yes. And the front yard setback was, what did you say? 50. 50. Yeah, for a rental building. So it would have to be 75 feet. And so it would have to be 75?