Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I've already changed you. You're live.

Oh, you did? Okay.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your patience. I'd like to call this June 23rd meeting of the Hillsdale Borough Planning and Land Use Board to order. We'll begin with the open public meeting statement read by Deputy Secretary Tanya, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

This meeting is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. The notice of this meeting was published in two newspapers according to law, and time and place of this meeting have been posted in a prominent location in Borough Hall. Please stand for the 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.

And when you're ready, Tony, I'll take a roll call.

Chairwoman Cates?

Here.

Vice Chair Reardon? Here. Secretary Raymond? Here. Mr. Alter?

Here.

Mr. Friedman? Mr. Griech?

Here.

Dr. Weinberg? Here. Mr. Hipp?

Here.

Council Liaison Coletti?

Here.

Mayor Sheinfield?

Here.

Also present is Board Attorney Ms. Parlavecchio, Board Engineer Mr. Sotil, and Board Planner Mr. Behrens.

Thank you, Tonya. At this time, I'll open to the meeting to the public, and this is for any items or issues other than those that are listed on the agenda or that may come before the board on another evening. Is there anyone that would like to address the board? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public. We'll move on to invoices. Krista Teals first for $2,535. Do I have a motion? Motion approved. Mr. Raymond? Second. Dr. Weinberg?

Chairwoman Cates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter?

Yes.

Mr. Grebe? Yes. Dr. Weinberg? Yes. Mr. Hipp?

Yes.

Council liaison Poletti? Yes. Mayor Sheinfeld?

Yes. Motion's passed.

Thank you. Moving on to Burgess Associates. We have four invoices totaling $3,042.50. Do I have a motion?

Motion approved. Mr. Raymond?

Second. Dr. Weinberg? Second.

Chairwoman Cates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter? Yes. Mr. Grief?

Yes.

Dr. Weinberg?

Yes.

Mr. Hitt?

Yes.

Council Liaison Paletti? Yes. Mayor Sheinfield? Yes. Motion's passed.

Thank you. And finally, we have CSG Law for invoices for a total of $1,643.50. Do I have a motion? Lastly, to approve, yes. Yes, second. Okay, same.

Chairwoman Cates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter?

Yes.

Mr. Grieb?

Yes.

Dr. Weinberg?

Yes.

Mr. Hipp?

Yes.

And Council Liaison Coletti? Yes.

Mayor Sheinfield?

Yes. Motion's passed.

Thank you. And we'll move on to our meeting minutes from June 11th. I just pointed out something on the bottom of page two. This is for the subdivision. One of the streets was written as Davis Place. It's actually David Place. That's at the bottom. So Tanya noted that. And I actually had a suggestion about one phrase.

Meredith, I'm sorry, what page?

That's just the bottom of page two. It's just the last letter of the name of the street. Instead of Davis, it's David. Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh-huh. And then I had a suggestion for in the middle of page three, under where it has all the lot required footage. It says a similar application was submitted to the board in 1996. The law does not permit an application to submit the same application twice. This application is slightly different. I mean, I heard it as it will be determined if this application is different. I think that's something the board was going to have to decide rather than make a statement that it's different at this time. Does that make sense? makes a lot of sense yeah are you okay it will be determined if this application is slightly different yes i don't think that determination was made at the here do you want to say something i guess there was an identified change circumstance potentially the master plan that addressed a certain issue which is they're trying to not our master plan said nothing uh we try to steer away from through lots i think that was yeah and that is in there where it explains it

That's what they're going on.

Well, there are differences. I don't think, though, that the board had a, we weren't at a point to have a conversation about if it was a legally different application.

So are we deliberating on the minutes or deliberating on the term of? The language. The language, right. That's my question.

Are you okay, Tom, with the change to it will be determined if this is a different application rather than this application is slightly different? I think that's, from what I heard, one of the determining factors the board would have to decide if this is a res judicata or not.

Right, I don't know if we did cross that bridge.

Right, we did not cross that bridge, which is why I suggest... Right, which is why I'm saying. Okay.

Are we approving or not approving then based on that subject?

Approving with that. As amended. As amended, those two minors. Okay. Okay. Any other comments on the minutes? Okay. Are you ready? Then I'll take a motion.

Motion. Second.

Mr. Reardon and Mr. Green.

Chairwoman Case? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter? Yes. Mr. Grebe? Yes. Dr. Weinberg? Yes. Mr. Hipp?

Yes.

Motion's passed.

Thank you. And we have a resolution, PZ 1525, block 1104, lot 5. This is the 416 to 432 end, 424 Hillsdale Avenue, residential apartments on second level. Please review the resolution. If you're ready, we'll take comments or motions.

Is this the pack? We just got this today, right? I just want to make sure that this was not in our package.

This has been updated, and it was emailed. There was a couple changes.

Are there any changes that we should be made aware of?

There was. It was what it was emailed. I'm sorry. What Chris asked to be added onto it.

Chris, do you remember exactly in the resolution what you asked to be added? Scott's asking.

I don't want to make a motion to approve without having the clarification of changes that you suggested.

Well, we just are proving this as written. We don't have to prove it with changes. This is the latest version.

Okay, what are the changes?

Did you read the original? Yeah, it was the email that Mark, I forwarded to everybody.

Here's the package. I just want to make sure that I'm approving something.

I'll read his email. No, I just was wondering if you read the original and you're comparing it to it.

All inspections shall be done by the board engineer who shall be compensated through OSCRA.

That was the only change. That was the only change?

Mm-hmm.

Thanks, Tanya. Any other questions?

That's easy. Thank you.

Okay, do we have a motion?

Based on what I just heard, I make a motion to approve.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Alter? Chairwoman Cates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter? Yes. Dr. Weinberg? Yes. Mr. Hitt?

Yes.

Motion's passed.

Thank you. So we'll move on to our application for this evening, PZ 0126, Block 1504, Lot 4, 46 Florence Street. This is a single-family home addition. Welcome back. And I'm just going to remind the board and our professionals, please speak into the mic because we are having on and off issues with our audio. Thank you. And we thank you. Yes. And our mayor and council liaison. Thank you for being here. They're going to recuse themselves because of the variance.

Okay.

And I'd like to announce that our council member, Star Kip, has watched the video, and he is eligible to vote tonight if we come to a vote on this application. From April 9th. From the April 9th video. Thank you, Tom.

Thank you.

and Kevin and Katie Press. requesting a C1 variance relief of 31.09% impervious coverage, where 30% is permitted, and requesting D4 variance relief of 38% floor area ratio, where 35% is permitted. Since then, we have revised the application significantly. The front and left side of the rear building walls were pulled in about six inches each in an effort to minimize the requested building coverage and the impervious coverage and far variance relief. We removed the existing stepping stones and paper walkway in the right side yard from the plans. And as a result, the building coverage was reduced from 22.09% to 21.40%. Impervious coverage was reduced from 31.09% to 29.60%, where 30% is maximum, so the C variance is no longer required. FAR was also reduced from 38% to 36.76%, which is now, we're asking for 132 square feet, which is what we're asking for related to the coordinates point. We have our architect and engineer, and as the board requested, our planner, here tonight to take the board through the proposed changes. Before I do turn it over to them, I just want to briefly emphasize this is a This is not a spec house where the applicant is simply trying to maximize profit. My clients, this is the fourth generation that's lived in town. They've lived there 18 years now. Their girls are 15 and 12. They simply need some additional space. They're in the school district. They want to accommodate their family's needs and still stay here. They love this town, and they don't want to move. And they are trying. as is constructively possible as you will see is demonstrated by our professionals and that's why we significantly cut down great Thank You mr. guts ready to proceed FROM THE SUSAN BERMAN ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN TO TAKE THE BOARD THROUGH THE NEW PLAN AND THE CHANGES. I BELIEVE HE WAS ACCEPTED AS AN EXPERT AT THE LAST MEETING.

CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN? YES. AND THAT YOU'RE SO UNDER OPTION.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS

Was this submitted 10 days in advance?

Yes. Okay, so if the board received it. Everything was submitted 10 days in advance.

As long as it's not changed from what was previously submitted, I'm not sure we have to mark it.

Okay, wonderful. Makes things easier. If you want to label it as a plan, it's 6-10.

Okay, thank you.

So yes, Mr. Burby, I see you have the event and admission plans dated 6-10-26 up. Can you take us through the project? Sure.

On the second floor. We pulled through the entire rear wall, including the wall over the garage in the back. The left wall here, six inches in, and then the front wall of the master bedroom, six inches in, which gives another 47 square feet of reduction. So we reduced it by 94 square feet total, which put the FAR down to 36.76.

Okay. Chris, any comments on the changes? Not for this professional, yeah. Tom, anything at this point?

One of our comments pertains to the identification.

So board on the architectural changes.

Seth, any comments or questions? No. Okay. Scott?

If I could just ask for the differences from the variances you were requesting. Sorry. You're requesting the differences from the variance that you're requesting when you first approached the board and the changes that you've made. Can you describe those changes?

Yes. So we reduced the floor area by 94 square feet. The original ask was 2851 square feet, which was 38% FAR. and now we're asking for 27.57 square feet, which is 36.76% FAR.

So you reduced FAR? Roughly in half. Okay.

Yeah, and then we eliminated the impervious coverage variance completely.

So there's no variance you need for impervious? Correct. And that's the only two variances you're requesting? Well, actually, you're right. One variance. Okay. And there's nothing else I see. Well, there's nothing else I see here. Is there anything else that you want to bring?

No, that was pretty simple.

We did talk about the trees on the side of the property. That was addressed as well.

It is, and Mr. Sprebel will discuss that.

The next professional will talk about it. Very good.

Thank you. No other questions. Thank you.

Good. Yeah, this is just architecture. Ed? Okay, Steven.

I'm seeing you got 14 inch overhangs on your roof, your soffits. Are they all within the setback boundaries?

Yes, they are.

Including the left side?

Yeah, I know there's a question about that last one.

I'm seeing 13 foot to foundation and 12 and a half foot side yard required. One foot two would go past that.

Okay.

It's 13 foot setback and 12 feet is required. 12 and a half feet required. Is it 12 and a half feet?

That's what it's saying on Mr. Scrabble's plan.

I think, Steve, if you take the 11, just do it side by side. You take the right side, it's at 11.2. You reduce that by the 1 foot 2, which is approximately 10. Oh, is that what I'm seeing? But then there's the combined, right? So you take the...

If you want to wait until Mr. Chagre will get that, but still. Yeah.

Yeah, no, I mean, just as a question for... Did you check the ordinance? I mean, it seemed that the setbacks were measured to the walls.

I'll go to Mr. Stuccio for that one. i don't see anything the outermost part of the building i know what you're getting at most boroughs say with with exceptions of cornices blah blah blah

Okay. Okay. Great. I accept that.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. No questions. Okay. Thank you. We'll hear. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Oh, thank you. I'll open the meeting to the public. Is there anyone from the public that has questions for the architect? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public and we'll bring up your next professional.

I'd like to ask Mr. Scrabble to come up, our engineer.

Are you able to testify at the prior meeting? Yes. And you acknowledge that you're still under oath? I do. And I'm assuming your license is still current and in good standing?

Yes. Thank you. I see you have the amended site plan dated 6-10-26 up.

This was submitted?

This was also submitted, yes, prior, 10 days prior, at least 10 days prior. Same site plan we're looking for. Yes, yes. And you're also familiar with the appeals letter of January 29th, 2046, with regard to this project, correct?

Yes, and there was another letter. I don't know what the date was, but we received it earlier today. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Can you take us...

We also removed the sidewalkway that was shown on the prior drawing, and we're showing the existing stepping stones to be removed. So between the combination of the building getting a little smaller and those items being removed, we no longer require the impervious coverage variance. We're now requesting 29.6% for a 30-week allowance. I'll go through a couple of this. And then I'll try to answer that side yard one because that's a little bit more complicated, I guess. So as far as the equipment, the generator pad, AC pads are shown back left on the house, near the back left corner. We will put a boxwood hedge around those, three foot tall. One of the questions was how would they screen. We're also showing the existing Arborvitae along the southernly property line to basically be removed and then replaced. The reason we showed it that way is because it's height. We only have 11 foot 2 side yard there. There is work being done, obviously two stories up. There is some grading shown there. So my feeling was that it would be safer to show them as being removed and replaced attempt to transplant them if we can't we'll have to replace them the property owner who happens to be in the business he's a landscape contractor their plan is to completely screen the rear yard he also measured the existing pines that are there and even though they're all shown as six inch on the survey there's actually only four that meet the six inch criteria so if in fact those are lost for any of What we're stipulating, too, is that we will meet the ordinance and we will provide replacements for those. Again, the plan is to screen the entire yard, so there's gonna be significantly more trees replaced than, even if we lost all of those six inch trees, we lost all four, we would need eight, is my understanding, and we'll be planting significantly more of that. Bottom line, we will meet the ordinance. That's a question. One of the other more important comments in Mr. Patil's letter with regard to stormwater management, because this is a substantial redevelopment, I think those were his words.

Yeah, significant.

I'm sorry?

Significant, same thing.

as well. So we'll add a linear drain along the back of the patio. We'll provide either an inlet or probably a trench drain in the driveway, pipe them to the seepage pit, and enlarge the seepage pit accordingly based upon the two inch drain.

You said that you're going to add stormwater management for the patio and what was being second? The driveway. And the driveway.

And then the last thing I would like to testify to is the The way I understand your ordinance is one side yard is a minimum of 10 feet, and then the combined is a percentage of lot width. So in this case we need 30% of 75, which is 22.5 feet. So when the drawing was originally set up, That's how I showed the building envelope. I showed 10 foot minimum on the right side. That's what that dashed line represents. And 12 and a half on the other side. But what we're actually providing is 11.2 on the southerly side. So if you subtract that from the 42.5, we only actually need 11.3 on the other side, not the 12.5. So that's why there's no marriage being requested. Even the roof overhangs will be within the setback. based upon the code, not knowing exactly what those numbers were going to be initially. But we do meet the pressure.

So your bulk table, I'm guessing, is still accurate. It's just the way you're showing it on your drawing is the way you've shown this at that point.

I should have shown it as 11.2, and then whatever the remaining percentage would be on that time, I think I just said 12.5. Would have been clearer for sure. Sorry about that.

Do we need to revise that, or is that a condition?

We're going to have to revise the drawing anyway through the stormwater management at least. If there's other notes that this board wants as far as the screening of the equipment and how we're going to handle the tree replacement if it's necessary, I'm assuming there's going to be another set of plans. Nothing that changes the patterns of being requested, the size of the building you're seeing, nothing that changes the layout at all.

Yeah, I think if we're already going to revise the plans related to stormwater, so if it's going to be a condition to revise the plans, I'll likely just add something that you'll revise the plans to reflect the accurate setback lines. Sure.

And the generator is going to be screened?

Screened. Yeah, that would be the three-point box we were talking about. Okay. Which we can show on a reminder.

Yeah, I would like that on too.

Do we ask questions?

Well, I'm going to open it to the board when he's finished.

Thank you.

Anything else, Mr. Scott? Okay, thank you for your testimony. Chris, would you want to address the changes or the proposed changes?

One question I have, Tom, is the sanitary sewer on the architectural plan just shows a little thing going out the back of the house. Do you know where that goes? Is it going to make it to the sewer in the front of the house? I don't know. This may be an opportunity.

the architect to change it on the plumbing plans to come out the front wall versus the back wall right it's a long way can you just i'm sorry can you speak into the mic just because we have tapering issues as far as i know the plan is not to change any of it i saw your comment about um adding a new clean out right away yeah um which again if if the conditions that you reference in your letter are We're stipulating to anything that's in your report.

And when you say stipulating, just I guess for clarification, that you have no issues with the comments in Mr. Satele's letter?

Correct.

And so you'll comply with the comments related to stormwater and other items that are listed in the letter? Yes. And if you can't, I guess you'll work with Mr. Satele.

Absolutely.

just to scope the pipe and make sure you got to work that out to make sure it makes out this otherwise you're pumping it I don't care I don't know the depth of the sewer in the streets on the plans and you're going out the back and it's a long way to Calcutta to get back so that's the only thing I thought your opportunity is if you're making a significant Now would be a good time to change the sewer and send it out the front of the house, if you can. You're the architect? Yeah, I know.

Certainly, if there's a problem with the sewer, we will work it out with him. But yeah, now is your chance to do that.

Would you like to share?

I just want to clarify something with the side yard setbacks in the loophole there. So everyone here is in agreement that the roof overhangs are not allowed to approach into the side yard setbacks? Correct. At all? Excluding the gutters. The gutters are allowed to approach. Okay. I noticed on Mr. Scrabble's plan, is he showing a 10-foot side yard setback on the right side? and then a 12.5 side yard on the left side. What we'd like to do, I think, is to center that, to push the whole setback envelope over, keeping the combined side yards and the minimum side yard intact, but centering the house so that we can have an 11-inch overhang on each side. You can wiggle that around. That's going to affect the board.

As long as you don't trigger variants, the board's not going to do that.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we'll now take questions.

That's what I was trying to say. No, I heard you. It's a little longer for me to say.

You're good. Thank you. Mr. Hepp?

I do not have any questions.

No engineering questions? Okay, Dr. Weinberg?

Just a clarification, what is the six inch pine, not a six foot pine?

No, the six inch is the diameter. If you look at the lighter color along the southernly property line, that's what's on the underlying survey. It shows all of those as six inch pines. When you physically measure them, only four of them are actually six inches or greater. They range from four to up to six. And my only point was Yes. And we will.

On property?

On property.

OK. Is that helpful?

That's it.

OK. Stuart?

I'm just going to put the third opinion on this side yard thing because I've crunched the numbers. Unfortunately, you made me do number work right now. to go back to the architect he's saying he's going to cut it back to an 11 11 inch overhang about shifting the envelope that doesn't matter i'm just showing that you got 75 foot lot width a house that's 50 foot eight so that brings it down to 24.33 the overhang is shown as 2.33 that's 22 feet half foot still less but you're saying you're going to reduce it no matter what just to make sure it is whatever we're just gonna put on any condition that yes okay I just wanted to make sure we're just saying yes I'm not gonna make anyone do any math any revisions just we're not grinding a variance for it so no no I just make sure they don't need the the C variance that's yeah we're just looking at the just making sure they're gonna do anything and all their power to eliminate that from showing up and then the asphalt survey will your math is appreciated and also Scott

Yep, real quick. The patio in the backyard, you're going to be pumping this, or Chris said, or I'm paraphrasing, how are you going to get that water back so it's not penetrating the backyard neighbors? Are you going to bring that into the front parapet? Yes.

We'll put a linear drain at the edge of the driveway, which is at elevation 102.

pipe it around the um it seems to be showing an elevation about one or two and a half exactly we'll just have to bury the secrets a little bit further okay that's what my question was is it going to be deeper because of the not significantly angle so that's going to be part of the condition i'm assuming uh that you're going to be burying the secrets pit further further in the front yard in order to accommodate the back your drainage yes okay

I think actually the driveway will be the most critical.

the the drain that will be on the driveway will also be piped to the secret pit and that will set the other i was at the site a while ago back in april and i see that backyard drainage area elevation um very concerning where are you going to drain the water from the backyard to the front yard but if you're saying that you're going to take contingencies to make that happen i'm happy with that as long as we put that in a condition absolutely and we're putting it right now that just drains out right it drains out to the sides and also at the back i didn't see that part okay uh the other thing uh dr wyne uh white i'm sorry weinberg said the trees that was a good point the six inch versus six uh it's a six inch pine it usually goes by height of tree not caliber of tree when you're dealing with this kind of evergreen So I want to make sure that we're dealing with not a six inch caliber tree, we're dealing with the height of the tree, and if that's the case, what is the height of the tree that you'd like to put in along the perimeter of the property?

is covered by the ordinance?

Deciduous trade. This is not a deciduous trade. This is an evergreen.

Evergreen trade? Yeah. I would have to review that then, honestly.

OK. I'd like you to do that. OK. Because you don't want to put in a small trade to replace something which, like I said, when I was on site, a pretty significant size. And I don't want the neighbor to come back to us and say, you know, you approved this application. and you're putting in smaller trees i want to make sure the height of the tree is significant enough to cover uh what's there now okay and again just real quick the you mentioned about the backyard where the where trees going to be installed or i'm going to say everything is in this case tree is going to be installed in the backyard as well or only the side yard where you're taking down the existing pines so my my discussion with the client was that they want to screen in the entire yard

um discussion or does that agree upon or is that a condition i'm not comfortable stipulating that at this moment if you want to bring them just one second i guess i'll say on the tree question so mr sateel's letter notes that a condition and the applicants already agreed to comply with the letter is that an approved tree restitution slash landscape plan is going to be a requirement of any variance approval so they've agreed to do that already um and so And in terms of, I don't know that we need to call the applicant up. I mean, can they agree to screen the rear of the property?

Should the board look favorably on the application, yes, we would agree to that.

So the trees will be signed upon based on environmental commission recommendations?

Well, you mean in terms of species? Yes. Yeah, are you okay with the condition of approval being we usually do this like a conversation, a consultation with the EC about species of trees to be recommended for the site?

I mean I'm sure anything within reason is that it'll be something I can say it's going to be Scott Raymond who's sitting here right now just want to make sure the profit trees put in the size the height and the type of tree is going to be replaced that's that's my concern so I just don't want a tree a tree a tree I'd rather have the environmental commission or the planning well we we don't do that but with the environmental commission. We're happy to work with that. Perfect.

We will meet the ordinance. We're going to exceed the ordinance because we're playing things significantly more than we have to.

Perfect. No other questions. Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you, Seth. No questions. Thank you, Tom.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scrabble.

Oh, I'm going to open it to the public. Is there anyone that has questions for Mr. Scrabble? Seeing none, I'm closing it to the public and we'll move on. Mr. Goetz, you're bringing a planner up now? Yes.

Mr. Haight, before you start doing that, can you raise your right hand? Yes. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? I do. Can you just state your first and last name and your business address for the record?

Charles Height. I don't hate anybody. Apologies, Kate. Sorry. Or effectively a building height, Mama Charles. So last name is spelled H-E-Y-D-T. I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I am also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a master's in city and regional planning from Rutgers circa 2012. I've been practicing in the state on applications that range from single family homes all the way through multifamily development, commercial development, industrial development throughout the state. I appeared before North Caldwell last week and many other municipalities over the prior weeks.

I think it's your first time here, right?

I've been before this board, but for this board, I think it's the first time before you individuals. So it's been a while.

OK. Thank you. Welcome. We'll accept this witness.

Thank you. Mr. Craig. I would refer you to your memorandum dated 6-12-26, which was submitted 10 days prior, and also Mr. Behrens' letter of 6-19. Can you take us through the project and how you address the issues relevant to Mr. Behrens' letter?

Yes. Can you all hear me? Do I have to hold the mic?

I think we can hear you. But yeah, you may want to stand there. I guess I'll slide over then. It's more comfortable.

so yeah just in preparation for this application uh obviously we've been hired to review the application on the planning zoning aspects i did review the plans and review the zoning ordinance that the borough has in place and also an active planning documents thank you for having them available online much appreciated I DID ALSO DO SEVERAL SITE VISITS. I'M LOCAL TO THE AREA, SO I FIGURED IT'S JUST NICE TO KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ULTIMATELY HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROJECT TEAM. I WAS ON THE PROJECT FALL WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING PROVISIONS, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS HELPFUL. I ALSO HAD THE BENEFIT OF LISTENING TO THE REPORTING OF THE NEUTRAL MEETING. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT ACCESSIBLE. I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE MANY COUNTS JUMPED. SO Kudos TO YOU FOR TRANSPARENCY. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, AND I THINK THE BOARD PLANNER AT THE LAST MEETING ELECTRICALLY SAID, OR APPROPRIATELY SAID, IS THAT A D4 FAR VARIANCE. SO FOR A RATIO, THE TOTAL SQUARE QUARTERS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE OVER THE LOCKED SIDES. It's different for each property because each property might have a different lot size. So that's very actually characteristic of this neighborhood. We should have a difference of lot sizes. I think what's most important is we can do a number of different rationales and justifications for this type of application, but it's very specific to an FAR variance. It's referenced as site accommodations. So can the site still accommodate the proposed FAR, notwithstanding that it's above what's permitted? So what do you mean, can it accommodate? It's a single family house proposed. That makes no sense. When you're applying to single family homes, I think what you're looking at is Does it fit within other zoning parameters? Does it create or exacerbate a non-conforming condition? Does it severely disadvantage one of the adjacent properties? And if you don't, then you would presume that you have a site that can accommodate the additional floor area. So I just want to benefit the board in terms of the positive and negative criteria with respect to that analysis. It's different from many of the others. It's different from the D1, D2, and it's different from both standards. With respect to some of the justification that I found in reviewing the plans, as a reminder, we are only requesting what is a reduced FAR request to 132 square feet for the proposed project. So it's essentially one room, it's two half rooms, making bedrooms a little larger to accommodate closets and adding to that from what's contemplated in the zone so that 130 square feet does put us at 36.76 percent far which is over the 35 percent permitted This plot is 7,500 square feet, 75 feet width, 100 feet depth. When looking at the other properties in this neighborhood, and when I say this neighborhood, I generally say the one or two blocks on both sides planking the subject property, you have a range of properties that range from five thousand square feet seventy five hundred ten thousand and there's a couple outliers greater than ten thousand so there's actually a great dispersion of properties there's no one singular kind of average for for the neighborhood um So in terms of existing conditions on the property, and I know the board's kind of went into some of the construction aspects of the proposed application, but one of the important things I think the board should recognize is that the retention of the garage location is important. It's an existing aspect of the property. It keeps the proposed driveway in the same location. reduces any increase in changing locations of the driveway there's not an expansion of the driveway and it keeps the presence of the existing garage that's in front of the house where it currently is from the existing to the proposed the benefit does allow for some of the expansion in the rear to have a little bit of a rear access to the garage from inside the home which i think most modern homes do have that's internal access with respect to the other aspects of the existing position that garage side of the property does allow for is greater in setback so it's the 11 feet um two inches in setback on that side and i think we were hitting on some of the uniqueness of that earlier with complying with the single side yard and full side yard so we are retaining that 11 foot is greater than the minimum . So I think that's an existing condition that actually benefits not only creating greater width on that side yard, but will retain that. The other aspects of this segue into some of the justifications, I think when you look at the requirements from the zoning ordinance that would normally regulate single family homes or setbacks in your coverage, we either are at or exist for greater than what's required. So I think the other board professionals referenced the front yard setback required to be 30 feet, was proposed for 31.8 feet, again, in excess of 1.8 feet. We went through, just moments ago, the side yard, both singular side yard and the boat. Again, we're in excess of those requirements, and I know we talked about balancing the side yard setback, so I do think that's appropriate, because what is proposed on one is 11.2, and when you're talking about the total provided side yard, you're allowed to count that 11.2, not a minimum requirement, so you count the 11.2 in that. will yield your second side yard. And lastly, the rear yard setback is 25 feet required. What's being proposed is 30.8. Again, there's an almost 5 feet with the rear yard. one of the other components that typically regulates the single-family home development building coverage. As was mentioned, we actually did propose a variance, so I'm just recapping this, but we were able to work with the project engineer and architect quickly make modifications to one reduce the size of the foot into the building and square footage but also make changes to the proposed improvement which now brings the building coverage from 25 or the building coverage is 25 permitted the proposed coverage is 21.4 so again below that maximum building coverage THE LAST COMPONENT, I THINK, IN TERMS OF SET ACCOMMODATION IS A LITTLE BIT RELATED TO AESTHETICS AND OVERALL MASSING. I DID DO SEVERAL SITE VISITS, AND I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE PREDOMINANT PATTERN OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND THERE REALLY ISN'T A PREDOMINANT PATTERN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE AT THE MID-CENTURY. in the fort you have split levels and some older structures that were probably in the 1960s 70s and 80s there are a few newer homes post 2000s if you will that have a little bit more of a presence newer materials a little bit more of a of a larger mass if you will so i do think there is no predominant pattern and therefore there's a mix of housing so what's being proposed It doesn't detract from a very homogenous mix of homes. I think that's probably what makes sense for me as a planner is that it just adds to a little bit of diversity of housing stock. And that, I think, creates a little bit of balance in this neighborhood. Notwithstanding that the property is a legacy home owned by this family, but I think just what's being proposed in terms of the aesthetic materials will be an addition from an aesthetic standpoint. So I think it's consistent in that sense that it adds to that mix of . this application does have to still represent special reasons special reasons come from the municipal land use law and they're really the purposes of planning so i'd like to go through this with the board because these would be lofty goals and reasons why this board meets and how you look at things and it's consistent throughout the state i would offer that we actually advance four of the special reasons or the purposes of planning there's been a lot of detailed and calculated modifications for this application. The board of professionals obviously have weighed in on this single-family home application and think to the betterment of the overall project. And that really is the essence of Purpose A, to be retired, appropriate use and development of property in the state of New Jersey. So that action and that process, I think it's that purpose. With respect to The next special reason I would say, purpose C to provide adequate light, air and open space. Again, we're providing in excess of all the setback requirements for meeting the building height requirement. The mass fits within the zoning envelope. So in terms of impacts to adjacent property, I offer that there are none beyond what's anticipated in the zoning ordinance. So by virtue of that, we're providing the necessary setbacks, the light and air to adjacent properties, and making an improvement to the overall property. Lastly, I would Just skip to purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment. We created developing techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Again, this is more of an aesthetic aspect to the purpose of the planning, but I do think the facades and the site improvements and the detail that will go into the landscaping plan, all of that combined will have a very nice improvement to this property. I think it will be an addition to the mirror, as I said earlier. I'm gonna change gears a little bit and switch into some of the negative criteria. Thank you for staying with me. I don't see any substantial impairment to the land use plan that underlies the zoning ordinance. I do note that based on the master plan review that I conducted, there are two goals that I think are attributable or relatable to this project. I'll actually start with goal two, to encourage the adoption of employer ratio ordinance to limit the bulk of new homes. And that comes from the master plan. The planning board recommended to city council to create the FAR requirement that we're dealing with tonight. So I actually don't find that this application is in impairment of that. because it's a very specific type of application. I think the most important thing this board can take away is that it's a tailored application, and what's being presented are very unique reasons why this board can evaluate this application, and it's not a blanket approval or precedent for any other future application. So I do think this is unique, and I do still think we're honoring the intent of that goal. The next few goals of the master plan that I cite, because I don't think we're impairing them, but I think we're actually advancing them, are to achieve a balance between developed community and redevelopment. So this is an improvement, a renovation. Obviously we're retaining some portions of the first floor and the foundation. But I do think that we are creating that balance in this neighborhood with a new or improved property. The 2002 master plan specifically references an intent to discourage the construction of this mansion. And that's when the term McMansion in a professional setting was in the early 2000s when there was a home increase before the housing crash. There was a lot of speculative building. And what they did was they took your zoning requirements and additional setbacks and coverage and they just built the biggest home they could and tried to sell it to whoever would offer the most price. That is again, not this application. So this application for a very tailored home means there are very specific home ownership needs and I think it's distinct and different. I would not like to be here before you often requesting this variance, can't predict the future, but I do think based on my review, this is very setting for the request. The last two I just would like to also reference. I think these came out of the board planner's review. Maintaining the landing patterns and characteristics of the established single family neighborhood as a priority. Again, this is an improvement to the property. This home family would like to stay in the town and continue that established single family neighborhood for themselves. Lastly, to maintain the density scales and characteristics of existing family homes, family zones. That's exactly what this application is doing, obviously making improvements with the site and the overall home. With that, I'd just like to conclude by saying I believe that this application does meet the specific rationale that this board can lean on to approve. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I do think this is a very appropriate variance request. I do think it's been produced to the minimum necessary, which is important to note. And I believe that this board can hopefully figure a way on an application. Available for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hart. That was very thorough. So we'll hear the board first, and then we'll turn to you, Tom. So yeah. Dark, anything?

I have no questions.

OK. Dr. Weinberg?

No questions, but I would like to make comments before we vote.

OK. You're allowed to do that. I mean, is it a comment about your vote or a comment?

No, no. Just comments about the project before we vote.

OK. Steven?

No, I have no questions. Nice testimony, John. I appreciate it.

Ed?

No questions.

Scott?

I think you did a great job. uh i appreciate i've been to the site and i appreciate the the sense of the application and you're not over expanding in my opinion you're not building many matches it's just questions now questions questions i'm sorry that's okay so i'm just comment complimenting on you your presentation um questions um the only question i do have or comment I don't know if it's a question or comment. The right-hand side, you have pavers or you have... Well, is this for the planner, though?

Because we'll bring back up the architect. This is the planner, so it's a planning question.

Okay, so who am I asking the question to about the... Ask the question and we'll find out. Okay, very good. I don't think it's for you. I appreciate that. Thank you. The pavers or the pathway on the right-hand side, you eliminated because of the, I guess, the pervious coverage.

That was one of the decisions...

Right, so that will be eliminated? Yes. And that's another condition?

Yeah, and I think the plans right now reflect that those stones are being removed.

Is that accurate?

They did testify to that previously.

Thank you. No other questions or comments?

Okay, you can give comments later if you want. Anything else? Okay, Seth?

Yeah, I thought that was a very nice presentation going through all the criteria, breaking it down that way. I appreciate that. I just want to renew a question I think I had at the initial hearing. There was a question as to what the existing FAR was. I thought I saw approximately 24%. I footnoted it.

So roughly you're going to go from 24 to 36.76. Roughly an increase by a third? That's a comparison you can make. That's all I have.

Thank you. Tom? No questions at this point. I'll echo the board's comments. I thought that was thorough and checked the boxes as far as the statutory test. And I guess just to wrap this up from the planning standpoint and the test before the board is that, again, we're down to one variance, the FAR variance of 36.76 with 35% committed. This is for a use that's permitted to not a d1 use variance, but d4 if they are various which has a lower Standard to address as far as the statutory criteria. I believe mr. I was correct as far as One identifying positive criteria for the board to think about which is again. Can the site accommodate the additional? How do you think about that? you know, what does it mean to accommodate does the site function well and Does it trigger the need for other guarantees? Is there sufficient parking, et cetera? Does it pose any impact to the surrounding neighborhood? I think those are things that the board can consider. And Mr. Haidt also addressed the negative criteria from his perspective. So I have nothing further to add.

Thank you. Chris? No questions. Okay. I'll open it to the public. Is there anyone from the public that has questions for Mr. Haidt? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public. Do you want to sum up anything, Mr. Gatz? Thank you, Mr. Haidt. Yeah, thank you. Good point. I'll open it to the public to see if there's anyone that has comments. Anyone in terms of comments about the application that's here tonight? And I know notice was fine, right? There are no issues with notice. Neighbors were noticed. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Guts. Thank you. I'll just briefly sum up. If you please the board, I just want to quickly reiterate that For all the reasons already stated by our professionals, we believe this application promotes the utilization of land for which it is most appropriate, promotes neighborhood consistency, advances the purposes of the zoning code, serves the public welfare, and clearly here there's no substantial detriment to the public good, and this application won't substantially impair the intent and purpose of the municipal zoning ordinance and master plan. So I thank the board for their consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Goetz. Thank you. Ms. ,, do you want to go through any conditions if they're supposed to be approved for the board to hear?

I think I have some of them. So I think, at least from tonight, the applicants agreed to comply with the requirements in Mr. letter. And a number of those relate to the landscape plan that will be approved and submitted. The applicants agreed to do some additional stormwater. take the water from the back patio to the front, and then do stormwater management for the driveway. I believe the seepage pit, it sounds like, is going to be reduced, well, sunken into the ground slightly more than it currently is. applicants agreed to comply with the ordinance with respect to the caliper trees should any of those trees be removed and need to be replaced the applicants agreed to do so i think those are the conditions from this evening but of course if any other conditions were agreed to you know you would vote subject to the conditions that the applicant has agreed to

Yeah, and I would say also consult with EC on species.

Yeah, that was the other one. Consult with the Environmental Commission and maybe Mr. Satele's office related to suitable tree species and planting. I think caliber and height, if we can just add caliber. Caliber and height as well, yeah.

Thank you. Chris, are those, it sounds good, those conditions? That's fine. Okay.

oh and i think the plans as well a number of revisions are going to have to be made to those plans so we'll include those in the resolution but one of them was to show on the plans the screening around the air conditioner units to kind of re-show the side yard setback line so that it's a little bit more clear on the plans obviously some of the stormwater management i'd imagine is going to be shown potentially on the plans as well so we will include those in the resolution as well and screening the generator too I think, yeah, it was the box hedgerow, I think, around the AC and the generator, so that'll have to be shown on the plans.

Okay, thank you. Ward, any last questions or thoughts? You're looking for packs, Steven.

Um, I know as build surveys are common for anything. How do we confirm if they are? I don't even know how. It's not like you asked for an architectural as well, but that's what they're going for. Going over on square footage.

We usually check it ourselves.

You go in the house to measure.

Well, yes, we do check. We do check. We also get out. We get as well. Survey. First of all, I know. So no, its width is going to be probably correct.

I know that, but there is a double-height space in this living room, and if they didn't make a second floor there, boom, exacerbates what they just got approved for. I'm just putting it out there. Mr. Scrabble, I don't know how you handle it in other boroughs. I've never heard of anyone doing a check on an FAR ever in my life. You just vote on the goodwill of the people.

I mean, look, like Mr. Steele said, they're getting plans. The plans that are presented are those that are going to be approved. And that's not to say that someone wouldn't try to add something to those plans, but I think the plans are going to be as you approve them this evening. So yeah, it's hard.

Yeah.

Sometimes the plans change. Also, I know that one proves here. They will always check.

They'll get a zoning permit as part of the construction process. So the zoning officer at least will have the last look and the resolution saying if they always What they do after construction of the CL.

It was an open discussion. It wasn't meant to hold up our vote or anything like that.

But it would mean they're out of legal compliance. Correct. It would become a zoning violation at that point.

Right.

This is a legally binding number, which I think the applicant's aware of.

don't think they're nefarious people no no i know i know i mean if he's a builder it's possible that's all oh no it's appreciated okay so are we ready to take a motion at this point or

I think someone said they might have had some discussion. I don't know if you want to have formal discussion or you just want to comment.

I just want to make a comment.

Concern. Was it related to how you're voting, though? Because usually you would give that, if it is related to your voting, when you vote.

I don't know what his comment was. I just want to make a comment. I have a couple concerns. Again, my major concern would be, again, what I heard about draining the water from the back to the front. I'm very concerned. then it's going to be lower and you know this is your field and again back about the trees I just I know we talked about there's going to be a minimum height I just like it's stipulated that the height would be what it is at least what it is now because we said there's going to be a height no that's according to our tree ordinance they have they have to

And and and I think the applicant already indicated that they're going to comply with the ordinance. And I, I haven't read the ordinance this evening, but it sounds like the ordinance regulates caliber of the just certain names. I want to make sure I get what you're saying. Yeah.

Okay. And finally, I've heard that we've notified all the neighbors have have is what's going to be done.

The neighbors were noticed.

I know that they were noticed, but did they have a good relationship with their neighbors? Yes?

Well, he cannot just testify.

Hold on one second. You can't ask him a direct question like that.

I can't ask his lawyer whether they did that.

Yeah, I mean, we're not going to have people speak from the audience. I mean, notice sounds like it was provided in advance of this meeting. No one's here, so that's... I don't know if they spoke to them. Unless the attorney is aware of any conversations, that's all I can... That's all I want.

I can briefly say that, yes, they have spoken to a couple of their neighbors. They were friendly with them. I believe one of them was here tonight to testify on their behalf, but didn't know what to say. Oh, is she gone? She was nervous. Okay, well, we're very scary. Yes, they have had conversations with the neighbors. They get along with the neighbors. We worry about the neighbors. I worry about the neighbors.

And I think, Chris, if Chris generally is okay with the stormwater plan, Chris is pretty particular. So just to address the doctor's concern, are you okay with what's proposed now?

Keep in mind, as the engineer pointed out, Mr. Scrabble, that now the whole roof's being collected before.

everything just ran off the house in the background now he's collecting the roof in the driveway as well as the patio so it shouldn't actually improve well it's being collected now and put into one drain to come around so maybe too much

Are you saying can the system hold the capacity?

Yeah, he'll figure that out. Don't worry about that.

It's Mr. Scrabble's license on the line as a professional to do it right. And if he doesn't do it right, everyone in the county is going to know he did something wrong.

And I think they testified to that as well. So it's a matter of whether you feel the toughness. very well i think it's a matter of whether you felt the testimony was convincing because they did testify to all the points that you brought up so but thank you okay anything else board very feisty tonight

Is anyone prepared to make a motion I'll make a motion to approve this is sounds like a very solid plan. Professionals did a great job planet did a great job. Great job. Seems like a solid family and plans from what I looked at and visited the site sounds very solid and convincing to me that it's going to fit in this neighborhood quite well. So my motion is to approve. Second, Mr.

Vice Chair Reardon?

Yes, I believe the variance requested and the site that it sits can accept the small ask, so I approve.

Secretary Raymond?

Yes.

Mr. Alter?

Yes, I appreciate the revisions. I also appreciate families that are willing to invest in Hillsdale rather than move within reason, and I certainly think this is within reason, so yes.

Mr. Green?

Couldn't have said it any better, yes.

Dr. Weinberg?

Yes, I wish them good luck and welcome neighbors.

Mr. Hitt?

Yes.

Chairwoman Kates?

Yeah, I'd say this is a significant improvement over what we first heard, so thank you for revising, and that the property is within the scale and character and consistent with the neighborhood and the lack of neighborhood objections, so I vote yes.

Motion's passed.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Love it.

So I don't have any discussion items for tonight. I just want to note that We're not adjourning yet, but we do not have anything scheduled on July 9th, so we will not have a meeting until the 28th, but we do have two hearings. That was the night that we had to make sure everybody could attend.

You said the 29th?

The 28th. I'm correct, right?

Yes, July 28th, Tuesday.

We know you can't come, but we're just double-checking that everybody who said they could be there on the 28th can still attend because we're continuing two hearings.

On the 28th, I have Mr. Hipp and Dr. Weinberg.

That's why we wanted to make sure everyone else could be there.

June 14?

No, we were supposed to meet on the 9th. We're not meeting. And our next meeting is the 28th, but we have two members who can't make it, so we just have to ensure everyone else can make it. No, those are only meetings in July, and there are no meetings in August. We worked very hard this year, and we can afford the month off, particularly Tanya. So at this time, I'll open the meeting to the public. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the board on any items this evening?

Is this one creepy guy that sits in the back row?

Well, there's actually two creepy guys here tonight. All right. Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public. We want to thank Ms. Parlavecchio for handling us so well this evening.

Well done.

Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion. Okay. Second. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night.

There's no meetings in August?