Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Um, and also thank you to those who couldn't be here. Oh, Dr. Sper is here as well. And those who couldn't be here as well, uh, Mr. Bot. Um, your tireless leadership turned this dream into this stunning facility in front of us. This could not have been done without the hard work of our architectural groups, Vasel Greyhawk, as well as Eminem Construction. Thank you to them for building this excellent facility. And importantly to the people of Matuchin. Thank you. This belongs to you. As Dr. Caputo said, this is about a community space that we have created and this very bitter winter has taught us that we definitely need more indoor space. Uh so we are grateful to you for speaking up at our public forums at the farmers market, coming to talk to us at our various forums across the schools and ensuring that you championed this referendum that made all of this possible for our students. So, now let's get to cutting this ribbon and celebrating this massive win for our Bulldogs. Go Bulldogs. Thank you. Great. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Okay.

Always always we'll call the meeting to order.

Hello Nickerson. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meeting act pursuant to public law 1975 chapter 231. Said notice was published in the home news tribune and on my centralj jersey.com on January 22nd of this year as well as sent to the star ledger forformational purposes. said legal notice is also posted on the Bureau of Matashen bulletin board and burough website under legal notices. All requirements of the open public meeting act were satisfied. Would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance?

Adam, would you lead us all please? I aliance 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. Okay. Thank you. Joanne, can we have roll call, please? Yes, of course. Miss Clarkson here. Miss Conn here. Mr. Dia here. Mr. Ericson here. Ms. Gelber. Mr. Gman. Miss Koskosski here. Mr. Lifton here.

Mr. Love, Mr. Wester, Mr. Coglin, Miss Zachariah. Thank you. Okay. Declare Quorum President. Thank you for coming out this evening. Going right on to our new business, which is 25-1437E 14 Ohio Avenue. Captain would like to come forward and present their

multiple people will ask you to speak directly into that so people who are videotaping our presentation can hear you adequately. Okay, got it. I'm loud so hopefully it'll it'll be okay.

Uh good evening members of the planning board. My name is Justine Delveio and I am an attorney with Greenbound Row Smith and Davis. Uh tonight I am representing Prozac Properties LLC with regards to an application for minor subdivision approval with bulk variances at the property located at 14 Ohio Avenue in Matuchen and known as block 176 lots 11 and 12.02 on the burough's tax maps. The project consists of the subdivision of the property to reestablish the two tax lots known as lots 11 and 12.02 2 and subsequent construction of a single family residential dwelling on each lot. The merged property is currently improved with a single family residential home. The lot the lots merged by operation of law since they were owned by the same owner and this application will reestablish the two separate lots. After reviewing the initial comment letters from the board's professionals, the applicant worked with its team of professionals to make updates to the plans to incorporate those comments to the extent possible. The applicant believes that the plans in front of you represent the best plans possible for the project. This project will take the existing property and create a beautiful new single family home on each reestablished lot while maintaining a strong sense of neighborhood character. Each home will be crafted with modern design, quality construction, and comfortable living in mind, making them ideal for families seeking both style and functionality. The homes will be built by a high-quality builder with a proven track record in this industry. This project not only enhances the value of the property, but also contributes to the growth and appeal of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant seeks four minor variances on each lot, including lot depth, front yard setback, facade requirements, porch depth, and shade and flowering tree requirements. These variances are minor and do not negatively affect the neighborhood. Granting these variances would allow for appropriately sized houses to be constructed in keeping with

the character of the neighborhood. The applicant is also requesting a waiver from submission of a landscape plans and you will hear testimony that the applicant will comply with all zoning requirements including but not limited to the foundation plantings required and diversity of plantings required. Today you will hear first from the architect Nikquille Cord regarding the architectural plans he prepared. We will then hear from the engineer and planner Chris Nuser regarding the site plans he prepared and the justification for the variances requested. Very good. Okay.

Hello. Let's swear in. All right. Please repeat after me. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Okay. Please state your name and spell your last. Uh, my name is Nicholas Gord. My last name is K O R D E. Okay. Tell us a little bit about yourself professionally, Mr. Gun. Can you repeat that? Sorry. Elaborate on your licenses. Qualification.

Okay. I I hold a bachelor's degree in architecture from Academy of Architecture Mumbai. I'm licensed in as an architect in United States in the in New Jersey since 2023. Uh my current license is in good standing and I hold a master's degree in product design and business administration. Okay. I have experience in presenting and testifying before local boards in New Jersey, including Greenbrook Township and Milbour Historic Board. Very good. Thank you. That answers my question. Uh the board members have no other questions. I say that we're going to accept you as an expert witness. Thank you. Uh you were retained to draft the architectural planning this project, correct? Yes.

Uh can you walk us through the plans you prepared and what is being proposed? Sure. As you can see, this is an existing double lot in R2 zone. And could could you just speak into the microphone more directly so that we can pick up what you're saying? Thank you. Actually, actually, uh both parties, if you're going to be asking questions, we have a second microphone. Yes, the second microphone. You're welcome to take that out. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I think we literally need to just bring that out at every meeting. You're right. Sign. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Yeah, as you can see that um this is this is Let me start again. Sorry. Um what we're looking at is u we we've created two single family homes in this lot and it is a challenging lot in the sense that the Oakland app is at an extreme angle and try we've tried to work within the footprint to deliver the best possible homes that modern families actually need u in terms of utilities how they are how they are set up. Could could I please are you going to put those plans on the screen? Sure. I'll start with the Oakland elevation plan.

Yeah. So, what we've tried to um do is that the prevailing setback rule was intended to keep the houses in a straight line. However, due to the sharp angle of Oakland A, the average calculation got skewed and the proposed setbacks are balancing is a balancing act between trying to have enough front yard space and backyard space. Mr. Can can I ask do you have a plan showing the building on the lot? Yes, ma'am. I mean that that is what you're testifying about, is it not? Yes, Mr. Perfect. Thank you.

The the engineer is going to provide further testimony. This is actually uh the exhibit I will bring up during his uh testimony because the architecture is just testifying to the uh the plans he prepared for for the houses themselves for the design and the house. Yes, that's right. Thank you. Yeah, I that's what I wanted to say that the physical orientation of this street creates a unique hardship for this specific block and the engineers and the planners will testify to that.

Got it. So what what we're looking at is that we've had um sorry the approach that you're looking at is across the entire house that is more than 40 ft. But what we are trying to do is we are trying to articulate the elevation through colors and different types of siding. This so that it doesn't look like a looming wall. The offset actually creates the porch creates an offset for the garage that creates so that the house doesn't look like a snout. Um and we don't have a looming ball up front.

And uh the image that the board is looking at right now, this is pages four and five of the Oakland Avenue plans. Correct. Correct. It's just has the elevation lines removed so it's a little bit easier for you to see. The porch depth is specifically designed to allow the garage to be set back 8 ft from the main facade, which is the common zoning goal in this case, and prevent the snout house. The porch creates a pedestrian-friendly environment, and it it feels nice when you're on the porch. Uh, and I would move that this is marked as applicants exhibit A1 because it doesn't have the uh elevation lines that you see on the plans in front of you. Okay. Okay. So, we don't we don't you're saying we don't have this? You you do have it. It just it's okay

the elevation lines have been removed. So I would move that it's in exhibit A1. A1. What we're trying to do is we're trying to articulate the facade with different types of um sidings and colors and actually trying to make up for the fact that we don't look at a 40ft long wall that is tall. Um I think we are the applicants prepared some renders to have a look at it. Uh these are some initial renders that we are working towards trying to make the house look good. And is this the house that you're proposing?

So it it may not be this exact coloring, but as the architect just testified, it's going to have that two-tone. You can see the green uh on the two sides and in the center it's like a lighter uh cream color and it matches the garage as well. So it would follow that scheme, but not necessarily these specific colors. one that has a dual color scheme. Correct. Correct. This is the house that's on Ohio or Oakland. I'm sorry. I got uh this one specifically is on Oakland. Okay. Sorry. No, this one's on Ohio. The garage's on the right. And uh I'm sorry. I didn't hear what the question and answer. I asked if this was the house that's on Ohio or the house that's on Oakland. And the answer is Yeah. Sorry.

Thank you. I have too much. The papers are too big. Is this the house on Ohio or on Oakland? This one's on Ohio. Okay, this is on Ohio. Yep. That's on the left. Right. Oakland has it on the left. And as you can see on exhibit A1, the garage on the left, that is for Oakland. Does that make sense? Is that a onecar garage or That's a twocar garage. Twocar garage. That's right. And the elevation that you're showing underneath the front is the side. And is that a door?

Um, sorry. Yep. It It seems very dark because of the shadows. I Yeah, there's a door in front under the arched roof. That's the front door. No, I believe she's asking about the image on the bottom of the page. Oh, that's the side elevation. And is that a door is what her question is? That rectangle. Oh, that's the fireplace. There you go. Okay. Question. The prior slide you had shown that the green and cream color of the house on that is proposed on which Ohio on Ohio. Sorry, I'm getting confused.

You're showing the elevation. The next slide you were showing us from the house. that's proposed on Oakland. They look very similar except with the garage on the other side. Is it is is the design that they're basically identical houses? No, they're not identical houses because Do you have a slide like this showing what the house would look like on Oakland or you don't have No, we don't have a rendering of the house on Oakland because uh in response to the the letters we received from the board's professionals, you know, we reconfigured how the Oakland house would look and we're not able to generate a rendering. Okay. Okay. But the elevation at least the the the drawing appears to be the same basically the same house. Is it not? I will

at least from the outside. I mean just looking at the front facade it appears to be identical but flipped. No. Well, I can't tell because it's a valid question. Certainly looks that way. Yeah. So what? Yes sir. This rendering actually determines the intent of design. This is not identical. This is actually a mirror image of the Oakland one. It and the one on Ohio is slightly different in elevations. If you want to go back to the sheets again like Yeah, that's the one on Ohio. So, the one that you said was Ohio is actually the one on Oakland.

Yeah. Apparently, that was a mirror image. the the rendering was a mirror image of Oakland. So that's going to be the Oakland one. It's just a mirror image and the fireplace extends. It's not flush with the side wall. That's correct. Is it a different material? Uh, so it would see we we're working through the material mood board for that one and we'll most likely be working that through and letting you know.

We don't have the material selected at this time. These are just the the designs of the properties, but it it's the fireplace is not flush with the It is not flush. That's correct. And it may or may not be a different material than the correct the house. Yeah. Is there a reason why it it bumped out? U that's typical of a fireplace when we design it is generally bumped out. We don't want to encroach inside the house. We generally bump it out. This is a direct vent gas fireplace

because it's on an exterior wall. Is that Yeah, it's it's on the wall that's on the sideyard. So okay, continue, please. Sorry. Keep going. Don't stop. Thank you. All right. Do you have a question? Uh yeah. Are are these architectural plans in keeping with the design of the neighborhood? They are in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. Yeah. Well, are is there going to be testimony about what you consider the neighborhood?

Yes, there will be. Uh the engineer and planner will be testifying next on that. We just wanted to provide the board with images to look at so you can kind of, you know, imagine yourselves. Thank you. And is that true for the house that's proposed on Oakland as well as the house that's true? That's true for both the houses.

Okay. Thank you. So in summary, the plan promotes a desirable visual environment and provides adequate light and air and open space by balancing the front and the rear yard on an irregular lot. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to public good. The harm is purely technical if we call it while the benefit of two highquality homes that replace the aging structure that's currently there. Uh, I would move that this image you see here, the Ohio Avenue House, that this be marked as applicants exhibit A2. It is the same as what you see in front of you for sheets four and five. Just doesn't have the elevation lines to make it a little bit easier to see. Okay. You said this is A2, right?

Mhm. Okay. And then I would move that the rendering that we showed you uh would be applicants exhibit A3. Right. A3 is the render. Green and cream. Very good. Okay. Okay. Um Chris, you want to save all your stuff for the end?

Would you like to do it now? But I do have a couple questions to clarify which is Ohio, which is Oakland. Go ahead. Okay. Uh, could you go back to A1 with the I think you referred to it as the This is the Oakland. That's correct. Chris, could you speak into the mic? Sure. So, this is the Oakland Avenue elevation. That's correct. So, go to A2. This is the Ohio Avenue elevation. So, the garage is on the right side for Ohio. Garage is on the left for Oakland. So, you can go back to the rendering. Yeah. And uh I think I know what your question might be. You can see that the roof lines, we've changed them from this initial rendering to make the houses uh even more distinct.

Right. So, this is the double peaked double facing gable with the curved entryway over the porch. Correct. So, this is the Oakland. Yes. This is the mirror of the Oakland. It's the mirror. So, that this rendering is mirrored. Cool. So, it's inverted. We'll be seeing something that's opposite of this. The garage will just be on the other side. Yes. That's really the only that's the only thing I want to clarify for. Okay. For Adam's sake in the resolution. Yeah. Thank you. Board members questions for this. Uh I do have a question. You can ask questions.

My notes. This is correct. Correct. But the Ohio will be the mirror image. No, the Ohio elevation's distinctly different. They have it has a different house. But it's incorrect cuz the rods is incorrect. Right. Okay. I understand. Okay. And this one on the screen there's the Ohio Avenue. I understand now. Okay. It's the wrong image, but it's correct. The garage was moved to the other side. Okay. Right. Is this one right? Yes. This is Ohio. Yeah. These are the architectural drawings. Yes, they are correct.

This is what you see on sheets four and five of the Ohio Avenue plans. And this is what you see on sheets four and five of the Oakland Avenue plans that were submitted. Very good. Board members, other questions for this? I just have a question. I'm I'm going to have some questions about the driveway on the Oakland. Apologize. Thank you very much. Um I'm going to have some questions about the driveway on the new proposed house on Oakland. Is this the correct professional to ask about that? Yeah, it would be our engineer. That'll be engineer. Okay, I'll hold my question. Anything else? Doesn't look like we have any other questions.

I think I might have more questions after we hear from the planner since I think their testimony is related. Obviously, don't go anywhere until the meeting's over, right? You're going to hang around in the crowd. Very good. Okay. So, thank you for your testimony and we'll hear from you next. Thank you. You want to do individual questions for each each? We typically wait until all all the professional testimony has come. Um, so I'll just say that if you're in the public and you have a question, we're going to let their professionals testify, after which you'll be able to ask questions of all of them. Uh, at that time, if you would, we'll swear you in.

All right. You swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Okay. Please state your name. Spell your last. It's Christopher Nuser and is in Nancy. Uss eer. I am with French and Pillo Associates. Could you please speak into the mic? Bring it up a little bit better. Sorry. Is it coming through or No, not really. I know it's You can just take it off. You could take it off and hold it. I prefer I prefer you're doing karaoke. I can't be handsy if I uh if I you know can't wherever your comfort zone is.

So uh so again Christopher Nuser with French and Pearl Associates. I am a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. Those licenses are both in good standing. I have been practicing in land use for over 20 years at this point. I graduated from Ruckers University with a bachelor's of science and civil engineering in 2006 and have appeared before over 80 boards in the state of New Jersey in those capacities. Thank you, Mr. Nesser. We'll welcome you as an expert witness. Thank you. Uh so you were retained to draft the site plans. That's correct.

Uh can you elaborate uh on the existing site conditions and can you walk us through the plans that you prepared? Sure. And so we have uh briefly up here on the screen which I guess we're going to call A4 uh which is the site plans the the minor site plan uh with an aerial photograph underneath it and some color enhancements of the proposed features that we're looking at. Uh the existing lots lots 11 and 12.02 2. They form a through lot from Ohio Avenue um up to Oakland Avenue where on Oakland Avenue, as the architect had mentioned, the the streets at a bit of an angle was the fairest way to call that uh to all the other property lines. So you have a a somewhat irregular shape to the lot as it relates to the frontage along Oakland Avenue and otherwise it's a um you have basically right angles with 100 ft of frontage on Ohio Avenue and slightly more than that um 12 problem when it's on a screen I'm not next to it don't have it all committed to memory I apologize. guys. Um slightly more than 120 ft on Oakland Avenue uh of frontage. The lots in total are about 22,000 square ft. Uh so well oversized for the zone which uh permits lots of 7,500 square ft. the existing home fronts on Ohio Avenue. Um it's set back about 24 feet from uh from the property line,

from the right ofway line. The uh driveways in a very similar location and there's some existing patios, sheds, normal features you would have in your yard uh to the rear. And there's already an access onto Oakland Avenue there. So, there's a a short section of driveway that, you know, it's the second driveway basically for the property on Oakland Avenue. Uh the proposal is to remove all of those existing features on the lot and construct the two homes that uh you just heard about as shown here on the plan. um with again establishing reestablishing the lot line that had previously existed. There is a slight change to it. It's not proposed back in the exact same location. And the reason for that is because the lot 11, which is the the lot on Ohio on the the south side, that lot is deficient in depth. uh in the current condition it's it has 92 1/2 ft of depth and the lot 12.02 the lot on Oakland had 102.17 ft. So there's a little bit more on lot 12.02. So what we did was basically just we're adjusting the lot line a little bit to make lot 12.02 2 still conform but get to basically just conformance at 100.37 ft and improving the depth on lot 11 to 94.61 ft. So there is relief associated with the depth again on lot 11 uh where it's at 94.61

and 100's required. Um, otherwise what's proposed conforms to the bulk standards with the exception of the front yards. And as I'm sure you're well aware, your front yard ordinance is 25 ft or the prevailing. And we have a very unique situation here uh when it comes to prevailing as it relates to Ohio Avenue. We said the house existing is at 24.6 ft. The house to our left which is number eight which is on lot 14 is at 24.75. basically even with each other. The house to the east on lots 35 through 38, that house is 36.53 ft back. So that house is set a little bit further back. And so instead of being able to put the house back in the same location and have it conform, we end up with a 30.6 six foot front yard setback once we look at the average of the two of them. We'll get into it a little bit more uh with the planning testimony, but if you you can really even see it here on the aerial and the homes in in view here, they're all about at 25 ft. So really this house to the east on Ohio is is a bit of the aberration but it's you know it's it's the one that's different than anything else and it's and it's set further back

and it's setting a standard where the house our house as proposed should be set further back as well. We are proposing the house at 29.51 ft. So, it's about 1.1 feet deficient to the standard. Um, again, we'll get into the details of the planning when we get when we get there. I don't want to get too out of order. Um, even more unique is the Oakland AB side because we have the road at such an angle that the home that is on lots 56 through 53 through 56. So that would be on the east side. Uh, this large ranch is at 30.84 ft. And the standard says we have to average that with the house on the other side. Well, the house on the other side is on a through lot, that same lot 14, and they're at 62.21 ft to the rear of their house, but it's the front because we're facing Oakland. So now we're averaging from the two homes on either side. And the result is we have a 46 1/2 ft front yard setback. Um, obviously a very unique situation and condition that affects this property, the location of the neighbor's house and the fact that we have a through lot next door. Again, without trying to get too deep into planning before we get to planning, that's where I will leave that. Um that home as proposed is proposed at 25.29

ft setback. So the corner of the house being there where again the standard based on the average of the neighbors is 46 and 1/2 ft. say a picture's worth a thousand words and uh so this is the best outline you can possibly give yourself. Um so the the properties are going to be connected to all public utilities. um reconnecting to the overhead power and telecommunications lines on the street. Uh water and sewer service gas for the lots. The sanitary service for the Oakland Avenue lot will actually be in a an easement running out into Ohio because there is no sewer on Oakland Avenue. It's the same situation for the house to the east. He has an easement that runs through lot 35 uh for his sewer line uh to come out to Ohio to connect as well because there is again no line out there. Um we are proposing um stormwater management measures on the Oakland Avenue lot on lot 12.01 L1 as was suggested um and recommended by your engineer. Um so so that is in there. There was a comment in the report about soil information and it also led to another comment about basement. These have basements and it was a question of does this um do we have depth to groundwater issues or do we

not? Uh the applicant had a um investigation done by Johnson Soils which we will submit to the board u that found that the depth to water was 21 ft down. So we don't have an issue with groundwater as it relates to the basement as it relates to the um the drywall systems. So there's no depth to water issues. Um, understanding that the request in the engineers letter also said permeability for that to be confirmed. Um, and we certainly would would do that. They did not do that as part of the report. It was more of a geotechnical investigation for supporting the building than it was uh for the drywall system. So, we will we will provide that information, but it was um it was a fairly sandy soil based upon um their investigation and so I expect the drywall will function as designed and intended.

Can you just provide a little bit of testimony regarding uh the porch on lot 12.02 and uh then the facade that we heard about earlier on both of the lots?

Sure. So, both homes after the initial submission, and I think that's where some of this confusion comes from with the the mirrored house. So, apologies on that. Originally, the houses were um were identical. And so, when the rendering was done, the rendering was done of the the plan that was at that time, which is what you're seeing. Um, we added I guess it was amended because we added the porch and so we added the porch to back to the rendering to the to the front of the house. And so the what the porch does is it extends the you know the front of the house out four feet and it creates an 8 foot separation from the face of the porch to the face of the garage which gives what your ordinance requires is that 8ft step. problem is there's still 42 feet of house from the edge of the garage. So on this looking on the you know edge of the garage to the left side of the house we have 42 feet. So, we still have uh relief there because 40T is your standard and we are just a shade under 40. Um 42 feet. Uh those porches both That's not what I meant to do. It works.

Yeah. All right. So, the porch on the Ohio Avenue house, again, it comes four feet forwards. That puts it about a little around 5T into the front setback. It's allowed to be eight. Uh, per the ordinance. The front porch on the Oakland house also comes out four feet, but the house is already beyond that 8 foot point. So the porch itself extends more than 8 ft into the front yard, which is another piece of relief that is being requested. So the because the porch because the house is already more than eight feet, any bit of porch that's there ends up being more than 8 ft as well beyond into the front yard of that 46 and 1/2 ft. Um, we are proposing as well as you can it's it's harder to see on that screen actually looks better than this one. Um, the greens are a little washed. Uh, we are proposing landscaping as well uh on the properties. Some in part as replacement trees for trees that are proposed to be removed with the application. um some to satisfy the requirements for street trees, one every 50 ft or fraction thereof. So we have two on Ohio and then we have three along Oakland. Um and then the requirement for uh shade and flowering trees on the property as well, which is again

we we're showing one shade tree, one flowering tree in the front yard on each lot. And the ordinance would require that we'd have one more of each on each property. Um I looking at the plan we can accommodate on the uh Oakland side certainly at least one more flowering tree. Um it's difficult on the Ohio side once you have a driveway, you have the sidewalk coming out from the house and you have utilities run out. My concern is that we have two street trees that are going to grow very large. Then we're going to fit two shade trees and two flowering trees and they're they're going to fight with each other for space and I have a concern for the viability of it. Um if if if the board, you know, if you say that's great for my concern, for the viability, but you want to see those trees, we will put the trees in. Um I said I we can fit them on the Oakland side, we can do that. On the Ohio side, I would ask for the relief um in for the reason that I think it's more beneficial to have um the trees not competing with each other and have a better chance of survivability and it to look better in the long run than to have these trees um grown up onto each other. But again if you feel that uh we should be complying with the standard then we will equally do that. So not to it is our application

um so I ask for the relief but at the same time you know I I look to the board and and say you know provide us direction and and we'll follow it. I mean yeah Mr. Sir, would you want to put up a plan on the screen that shows the trees located and the porches? Because maybe it's on this drawing, but this is really distant. There we go. From us. And is that better? You know, it's kind of you you're indicating where the trees are but have no idea.

Yeah, it's a little bit Is that circle on? We'll bring up the plan plans because where it's black and white and it will show a whole lot easier. And then I guess I should I'll also note should have probably noted earlier we did when we revised the plans we did include again that sidewalk from the front door down to the street as required by the ordinance. And we're proposing sidewalk in front of uh both frontages. Yes. And that's you know a plan that shows.

So the the uh the porch is this on

it really shows much better on that screen. The color on this one is a bit wild. Um so this lighter. I don't know that that particular gray, let's say. Here, this is the front porch on both of the homes. And as you can see here on Oakland, we have three street trees. On Ohio, we have two. Here, I'm indicating this one that looks more like a pin wheel. That's the flowering tree. Another shade tree here. There is another shade tree that is we're proposing to remain. Um so that would count towards

says are those existing or you are proposing No, we're proposing this one here is existing and we are saying for it to remain. So that should actually count towards the requirement um as the one as one of the shade trees. So then we just be deficient to one uh flowering tree on Ohio. So, is the plan to actually clear both lots of anything that's on it currently there? I mean, ultimately there's two trees that remain. There's one located here just to the west of the house on Oakland and then there's the one um located

and are those trees of substantial size or There's no trees all the trees on the property that are on the property are around 6 8 in. So they meet the requirements for tree removal and the ordinance, but they're not really large trees. There are two large trees and those are the street trees on Ohio right now which we are proposing to remove um and replace. What's that? And replace.

So they technically in my opinion are hazard trees. the the one tree by the existing driveway. When you look at that tree, the root structure of that tree is over the curb. And there's actually a root that has gone over the curb, crossed the face of it, and then into the road. So, the tree is impacting the curb and the road and its viability. and per the ordinance would qualify as a hazard tree. The tree that's on the west side of property, there's a there's a second tree which is located near uh this one here to remain which is also out towards the street. That tree is completely covered in vines and that I've choked this tree. So, it's a it's a it would be an ice tree, but it's it's been completely taken over by these vines.

So, my question really is, have you submitted a plan that shows what trees you're proposing and what trees you're removing? Yes. Right. Did you submit a plan or is it on your site plan or subdivision plan that shows the trees that you're testifying about? Yes. So, sheet four, the plan set, which would you like me to bring it up?

I think so. So sheet four is our demolition plan and that shows the trees to be removed. You can see the trees with X's on them are the trees to be removed. So there are 10 total trees to be removed outside of the two we just discussed. Uh and those trees are all less than 12 in. They're between 6 and 12 in. Um like I said, predominantly they're between 6 and 8 in. Um sorry. Um, and then the plan we were just looking at had the trees that we were proposing, the street trees, the front yard trees, as well as replacement trees in the backyard as well.

Question. Okay. Can I Chris, did you review a tree plan or landscaping plan? Uh yes, my comment was that uh we needed evidence that the trees are hazard trees uh to meet the definition for hazard tree. So I think we heard testimony, but I don't think we've seen anything. So that will either need to be shown on the screen or it can be dealt with at permitting or resolution compliance through the zoning office to determine whether they are in fact hazard trees.

Yeah, we'll certainly provide the evidence for it. Um, and if it's determined that they don't qualify, then there's an ordinance to follow and we'll follow the ordinance on any replacements. Sorry, can I just say that when I reviewed it, all the trees that are being removed only require one tree replacement and they are proposing 10 trees on the properties that are not including the street trees. So, they are meeting the zoning ordinance of tree replacement for the amount of that they're removing. Okay. Right. But we don't have any evidence about the two street trees. That's all I'm saying. I think

right. We we need to provide evidence. I just testified that the two trees out on Ohio, this tree here and this tree here are hazard trees for the reasons I just said. Um, and it's my testimony and what's being asked for is just documentation, right? and we're happy to follow up with the documentation and um provide that to whoever satisfaction we need to provide that to. And if we don't, then we have a replacement requirement that we will need to meet. Yep. Ask and answer. There you go.

Um on the landscaping here. Oh, we're not on the landscaping. Bring back before you continue. Um can we just clarify for the record how many existing trees are on the property including street trees today? It seems like there's 14. Yes. Okay. So, there's 14 existing trees. I just want to keep that in mind when we talk about proposed trees and the tree replacement requirements. Certainly, by all means.

Yeah. 14. Yes. 14 existing. 12 are proposed to be removed. And then if we're including street trees, then we have a total of 15 going back, including the five. So 10 on the properties and then five street trees.

Okay. Um there was a comment as well about the foundation plantings and the standard for the foundation plantings. Um we understand the requirement. Um we ask for no relief from the requirement. we'll we'll meet it to your planner satisfaction or whoever's satisfaction it is that that we need to meet and we'll make sure we provide the correct diversity and number of plantings to satisfy the ordinance. Um no intention to seek the relief. We'll we'll plant the foundation and make it look nice and we would ask that be part of resolution compliance. Chris,

so you are agreeing to comply with the foundation planting requirements.

Yes, sir. But you're still seeking relief or variance in this case specifically for the front yard shade and front yard flowering tree for both properties. I think for what I said was for uh the Oakland side that we would meet on the Oakland side we can find there's there's space in there to find for um you know two additional trees on the Ohio side as mentioned there is that existing tree to remain um in the southwest corner that is on the property that would be a shade tree uh so we're really deficient one flowering tree on there and so there is that's what we're asking for relief from is from that one flowering tree on the Ohio frontage. So if that existing tree, if you're considering that as a front yard shade tree, how many street trees do you have proposed? Still the two that are required that we didn't count that that tree was not that trees on the property. It's not a street tree. Uh we are proposing two new street trees and then that is an additional tree that's just going to remain on the property.

Right. So really the variance relief is you're also going to seeking a variance from the street trees. Three required, but you're proposing two. There's two required. It's 100 feet of frontage, one for 50.

That's front yard requirements. Street trees are one for every 30 to 35 ft, which means an argument could be made that Oakland probably needs four street trees instead of three. But I think I'd be comfortable with three. I didn't note that as a variance in the report. I also didn't note that I was basing it off of the 35 and 35 for the one side 100. It's only two. I know it's like that. 8, but it's every 35.

Well, it's 30 to 35. So, if you go in between, it's 32 and a half. That's three plus. It's 100 by 3 is 33. So, and I don't think we've ever gone less than three on a 100 foot wide lot. Okay. Then I guess the relief would be it's um I don't know which one the preference would be to call it. I mean the tree is on the property is kind of on the property line the one in the southwest corner. So whether it satisfies the street tree um requirement or it satisfies one of the shade trees in the front yard, there's a relief requested for planting another shade tree

in there. Yeah, it's all semantics. So either way, you're short one tree. My recommendation would be to work with my office and the shade tree commission to see if they could fit. I'm sure we can get them to fit. There's 14 trees now. I'm sure we can get 14 trees back in. Well, we're planting 15 back in. Plus, we said we would plant two more on the Oakland side, so we'll be up to 17. But certainly, there is a spot for another tree. And I'm happy to work with with the planner and with the shade tree commission to find another spot that's suitable to put another tree in. Okay. So, sounds like you're

Well, here's another thing. I don't I would not recommend the board grant any variances. If if anything, if the shade tree commission makes a finding that um to your point that street that trees, whatever tree it is, doesn't fit in the front yard along Ohio Avenue, then let's do a payment in L instead of a a variance with these.

Okay. Yeah. However it works, I think, you know, our our goal here is to have a two beautiful new houses in this development, have it look nice. We don't want to overdo it. Um, so as long as we're working together on that, if it's a payment in L, it's a payment in Lou. Again, I think either way, we can we can make it work. Okay? Right? That's not um we're not going to argue about trees. Certainly the the applicant is fine with the payment in loo if if it comes to that. Very good.

Okay. So we we don't have a variance though as far as that's as far as that's concerned. We have instead a condition that they're going to work with you the shade tree commission payment in loo andor provide necessary trees. Yeah. Correct. Got it.

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I don't want to like go back and forth. I know you're suggesting that. I just want to put out the typical zoning permit process and tree removal process. I know in our ordinance we have 30 to 35, but the typical measurement that we do is the 35 ft. So, I just want to be consistent with our proposals um and approvals that it to me if this would have came as not with a minor subdivision, we would have looked at it. I would have looked at it and said you're conforming with your front street trees. Um, so I just wanted to put that suggestion out there as well, but as the board, you have the right to approve.

Duly noted, but I think we everyone's kind of said what they're willing to do and not willing to do. So, I think we're ready to move on to the next. I'm not going to take it back. So, thank you. Okay. Does that conclude your testimony? Uh, from an engineering standpoint, it does. Good. Uh board members questions for this witness. I do have planning testimony for you too to go through. I don't Well, I just want to give my opportunity while it's still fresh on their mind in case they want to ask a question. Um I I have a couple of questions. You had discussed the testing as far as far far as groundwater and the depth of of the hit water. You said that a report would be submitted or has been submitted? Would be submitted. It has not been submitted yet.

Okay. Uh I I would ask that that be part of resolution compliance that we just provide the report that shows the 21 foot depth. Okay. So the existing site has some sort of pond. Um is that that's an artificial pond? Yes. Okay. So that can be easily removed. It has nothing to do with groundwater. That's an artificial. No, no, no. Yeah, it's lined. It's a lined pond. Okay. So it's Yeah, it's not a Okay. It's not a natural feature in any any way.

Okay. Um, so there's going to be a a proposed a new driveway exiting onto Oakland. Um, as I think we all know, there's a very large park across the street on Oakland there and the street is at a severe angle as you noted in your testimony. Mhm. Um, is there any design considerations about the safety of a driveway in that position with that severe an angle falling away from the driveway considering there's park and children there? Is is there any design considerations that you took into account or you think should be taken into account by designing a driveway in that position?

So, number one, the driveway actually already exists in that location. Granted, there's no house there, but the curb cuts there. There's a section of driveway. You can actually kind of see a little bit on this. You don't have to You can see they have a trailer parked on on that portion of the driveway um existing. There's a a gate on it, granted, but they they do use it. Um it as is it is at an angle as we did discuss but it's not so severe where we have sight distance sight distance limitations coming in and out. It's a you know it's a 25 mph street. It's actually a very wide road. It's wider than all of the other roads in the neighborhood. It's actually wider than Grove in its overall width. Um, I would assume it was done that way because it supports parking on both sides of the road very easily and makes using the park um, simpler. Um, but specifically as it would impact the park itself, I don't see any impacts. I went through there today and there's people playing in the park, but they're further away where the active portions of the park are. They're they're a little more up the road and closer to the rail line and not down in this corner. So from a functional standpoint, just in general, I don't see any safety concerns. It's very similar almost identical to the the neighbor to the east. And as it relates to the park, I I don't think the park has, you know, it puts any bearing to the design of the driveway, given the geometry of it. Um,

okay. Would you say that that driveway I I hear that it's existing, that the curb cut isn't existing? Is it used now? Is there some use of it?

Yeah, I mean, as I said, there's there's a trailer on it. It's it would appear to me to be an infrequent use, but it's it has use. Certainly not the level of use that putting a single family house is going to have, right? You're not talking about multiple trips a day. Um, but there is use of the driveway that that occurs. And quite frankly, it looks like they're backing a trailer into it, which angle's probably helpful for because it makes it a little bit, you know, you don't have to go the full 90 um to make that work. But, you know, I think there's not I I don't have a concern.

Okay. Well, that was my question. And um there's been testimony that this was at one that it's currently one lot is going to be resubdivided. Correct. That at one time it was subdivided. Do you know when the lots were put together? So long history but short history. Short's always better.

Got it. Uh the original subdivision for this included This will get into the planning testimony a little bit. So, it'll be a little setting it up this block 176 along with the next two blocks down and three blocks to the east. So, it's 180 through 176. There's a 17601. So, if you're checking my math on why um doesn't math up, that's why. Um, and the reason there's a 17601 is they had resubdivided block 176, what is 176 and 17601 after that created Ohio, which didn't exist on the original plat. And the lots that constitute 11, 12.01, 14, and 13 were all kind of one piece owned by one person. And that person was a relative. I don't know the it's a a child or a child-in-law now owns lots 11 and 1201. And so they built the house on lot 11 and bought that property in my memory is not perfect around the late 50s. Um and then subsequently bought lot 12.01. 01 a few years later in the early 60s and then the other two lots were divvied up there 14 and 13. Um so it's been in ownership common ownership in the family from really the original subdivision. Uh but the current owner owning both of them since the early 60s. Was there ever another house on lot this

lot? The this on lot 12.01. No, there was never a house on this. No. Thank you. Other members of the board questions for this witness? Yes, I have one. Um, you spoke about the lot line. This is actually the perfect image to have up here. So, the re the new rear lot line, which I guess there was a lot line at one point and now we're adding it back in. Um you did mention that it is slightly different from the original one. However, um really my question is more towards what our planner actually put in the planning report which is about the alignment of the line and why are we continuing with this sort of a skew line as opposed to trying to square it off for lot 11.

So a little bit of planning testimony maybe um on the thoughts on that. I mean, when we're when we're looking at this, we have Yeah, that line is a little a skew. Why it was originally created that way, I don't know. Um, I would assume, it's the best I can do, but it has to do with the way Oakland is situated, right? Because that that's at such an angle that you're trying to like kind of mesh between the two of them. Like this is at this angle, this one's more square, and we're just kind of we're going to pick a a middle distance between the two and run the line that way. Um, again, why it was set that way originally, not entirely sure. So, the answer would be yes. The question would be, yeah, fairly. Why why continue if you didn't even know what that is? I think part of the reason is because we have this situation on um on 1202 with the setback for the front yard that we're getting kind of pushed back with that that it it kind of it leaves a little bit more space on that lot for um you know for some rear yard space with within it. I mean, it's yes, it's at a little bit of an odd angle. Either way, it's going to there's going to be a nonconformity here on lot depth, whether it's on lot 12.02 or on lot 11. And I mean, ultimately, when you look at the lot lines between 13 and 14, you're just starting to look at it and somebody was somebody was drawn how they wanted to.

Um we were just trying to respect what had previously existed or what you know what those two lots um you know are by deed and just get lot 11 as conforming as possible. Anything to add Chris? Go ahead Chris. Yeah. So is there any scenario where you could have both lots have conforming lot depth? No. All right. So, we're in a pretty much a situation where you got to pick and choose, right? Correct.

So, I think to Councilman Dillia's comment and referencing my report, I don't see why you couldn't just straighten it out. You have a 100 square 100 square lot, 10,000 square feet because it looks like um their lot 12.01 has additional lot area, 12,000 plus. They both have additional lot area, right? But that is the larger of the two lots,

right? So if you made the lot square, you'll be making the already much larger lot, slightly less large, but still bigger than the um 10,000 foot lot. And could you go to sheet five? So we were talking about uh flexibility, I assume, relative to the rear yard setback. Maybe it's sheets sheet five more. Is your sheet five different than our sheet? No, no, no. That's sheet four. We're going. Okay.

So, I'm looking at the rear yard for the setback line, a dash line that's parallel with the uh old proposed subdivision line. We're talking about needing extra space for a rear yard. But I think with that angled line or skew is actually creating a condition where the rear yard for the Ohio Avenue house has it's really cramped on space. But you can tell with the house fronting on Oakland have more space. even if you were to push the house about four or five feet as I suggested in the report. So, it'll be my recommendation that we square off the lot. I'm just trying to envision a scenario where one of the homeowners wants to put in a fence and they're going to go, "Where did this come from?"

Yeah. I mean, for me, if we're picking and choosing, I'd rather the one that's already a skew lot makes more sense for the one for the one to be not meeting and conforming versus we can make 11 conforming. We should try to do that. And I mean, and I'm just I'm just looking at the plans. I'm sure they're to scale. I mean, I think there's plenty of rear yard space in 12 if you straighten it out. Personally,

right? I think the issue is the way lot depth is measured in the touchins ordinance is that it's from the center line of the it's a center at the rear lot line to a point that's perpendicular to the front lot line. So, that where that point is actually off the property. But if you were to average it vertically that's parallel or perpendicular to the rear lot line it would be well over 100 ft just semantics in terms of math. So u again my recommendation is just to square it off and give all of 500 ft to lot 11.

So the applicant is fine with squaring it off like that. It would then switch the lot depth variance from 11 to 12.02. And I would ask that as part of resolution compliance we'll get that exact number for you. Okay. and resubmit plan showing that correct.

Okay. Backing my head. Other questions? A couple questions about the front yard setback. Uh you explained your testimony was that the lot to the east might have been aberration. Is that relative to the zoning standards or the neighborhood context? The neighborhood context. Okay. And what is I know we're getting sort of into what um Miss Clarkson was about to get into about what's the neighborhood, but um I know the ordinance is limited to one lot on the left, one lot on the right. So, I assume you looked at other lots to justify the front yard setback. Do you want me to move into my planning testimony? cuz it's

um let me see if there's anything else related to engineering. Uh so landscaping trees. Where where is the solid waste and recycling going to be located? I would assume they'll keep it either in the garage or they'll keep it right outside the garage. Typically there's a paper pad on next to the garage and it connects to the driveway. Um AC units are any proposed? They'll be located on the west side on both houses. So comply with the ordinance. They will be within well I guess technically they're yeah they'll be within the side they will not be within the sideyard. They'll meet the sideyard setback on both. Yes.

That's all I have relative to sight specific engineering comments. Any other engineering related questions? Okay. I just have some comments Mr. Chairman if I may please. Um with regards to the sewer and no sewer existing on Oakland Avenue. I just want to make sure. How was that confirmed? We had lifted the manholes and there was no pipe running between. If you're telling me there is a a sewer line running there that

I'm not 100% sure. I wanted because you testified there was none. We yeah we looked at the the you know specifically the intersections there at the demand holes and there wasn't anything running that way and then that with the information that the guy to our east has his own easement to run his sewer line through. Okay. I mean be happy if if there was a line there ran straight but um No, that makes sense. Um I don't believe there is but I wanted to see see how you confirmed that. Um, in terms of the easement, I didn't note this in my letter, but you should have the meets and bounds description provided to us for that.

Um, and then regarding the testing for the soils, I know we'll get the Johnson soils report at some point. Um, but in terms of the two lots and how you're subdividing them, each one will have its own grading and and drainage permit application when it comes time to build the homes. At that time, each home is supposed to have its own testing done for the basement according to the ordinance. So, you have a minimum of two test pits that are required. Yeah, they did within the footprint. So, they did two for each,

right? They did two obviously in the footprint of 12.02 but can't do it on 11 because the house is currently there. It's still there. Okay. No, I just wanted to go on record to say that because that is the information we typically require on the grading and and drainage permit plan. Um and then with regards to the testing of the uh permeability when you submit again that should be on the plan as well or submitted as a report separately. We don't do that. Um, we don't issue the permit until you know some people issue the permit and then you do the testing. We do that before. Okay. So, and that's perfectly fine. I agree and understand and perfect.

There's no problem with that. Like I said, it's if that's the point in which we're going to have to provide the information. I said from a I'd be more concerned about the basement if it wasn't at 21 ft, but at 21 ft it's so far below and the soil is fairly free draining material. It's not, you know, like trap rock that it's just going to fly through. But, um, you do have, you know, sier material through the strata there. So, it's not ever getting stopped in there where we're going to have a pocket underneath the house or something and it'll be an issue. Understood. Thank you. That's it, Mr. Sure. Thank you.

Put your questions. Okay. So, if there are no other questions related to the engineering, we're going to move on to the planning testimony. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Let's do

So, moving on then, you know, the old hat flip here. Um, first thing I always like to do, even though I know we went through and we we put them on the record, but we're starting this portion of it is to just again reiterate what the relief is that we're seeking because it has changed a little bit. Make sure we're all on the same page. So, um, looking at the March 16 report, uh, from your planner, um, the first item is the minimum lot depth for lot 11. And as we just discussed, that will be lot depth for lot 12.01. Um, with that number, we'll we can certainly make sure that it would show up in any resolution of approval should one be issued. Um, the minimum front yard setback for lot 11 where we're at 2951 proposed and 30.64 required. the minimum front yard setback for 40 for lot 12.02 where were 25.29 proposed and 46.53 required. Uh relief for lot 12.02 for the porch extending more than 8 ft into the front yard setback. Uh relief for both lots 11 and 12.02 02 for the facade being just about 42 ft without the required minimum offset where 40 is the ordinance limit. Um the next two items in there uh we indicated we will comply and are not seeking relief and we were were we saying that we didn't need relief from the shade trees because we're either going to find a spot on the property or

pay in loo or was there still relief and that was or mitigation basically for that just the semantics of If you do a payment in LO, you'll still comply with the ordinance though. No mitigation is necessary or rather no relief is required.

Okay. So then we're we will comply with that section of the ordinance. And then uh in the paragraph below the discussion about again the basement uh no relief is requested related to the basement. We are confident based upon the information we have that we will not have any depth to water issues with the basement. So it wasn't called out as relief but was noted that if we didn't know it would be a problem later potentially. Okay. So, um, what I'd like to do first is talk a little bit about the neighborhood compatibility analysis that, um, we've talked about a couple times in here. And so, trying to follow, um, along here with kind of process as it's outlaid, first time going through it with you guys, so feel free to to stop me. But the first question is what's the neighborhood? How did we define it? And so or how did I define it? And I define the neighborhood by um as I said earlier looking back to the original subdivision that created um really it didn't create the original subdivision as I said didn't create Ohio but the subdivisions that created Ohio, Upland, New York, you know, Delaware. So again, it's um blocks 176, which is where we are, 17601 and 177, which are the two blocks to the south going down to Woodbridge A. Uh and then 178, which is uh just up Oakland. Uh so kind of the Upland, Oakland, Delaware intersection because it's kind of three come together

there. So that triangular block 178 um 179 which is to the south of it and immediately west east sorry of um the block we are in and then 180 which is the one south of that. So that's what we looked at. And in your planner's memo, Mr. Nesser, I just have one question. Are you defining the neighborhood by the lot and blocks? Yes. Is that your definition of the

I'm saying it's it's this this is the area and it's basically from Grove um over to Spear and from Oakland to Woodbridge. It's that portion there is what I'm looking at. Do you have a map or exhibit that shows that? And that's your definition based on the fact that that area was subdivided at that time in the 60s uh when I mean when the house in Ohio was built.

It's when the subdivision was done when that house was created. Um I mean granted I looked at quite a number of things. um kind of expanded out a little bit, looked at everything that's in the R2 district in the burrow. Um and as I looked at it, this this kind of seemed to define, you know, an area. I mean, Grove is a bigger street, right? It's a a bit of a thoroughfare, so is Woodbridge. um you have, you know, to the north, we're not going to extend any further because we have the park and then the railroad and it kind of breaks off that portion. Uh could we continue going east a little bit and then we're suddenly in Edison, right? So maybe we could have gone a little bit further east with it. Um you know, we picked up, you know, when we're looking at that, we're looking at about 98 properties um in total. So I think you know it was a

So that's your definition of the neighborhood. Is that what you're showing up on the screen? The blue circle because this is No, it's a it's a larger area than this. So it's if we look at

Yeah, if you could because I'm going to mess it up. If we're looking on here, it's over here's spear, right? So, we're going basically these blocks here within that space. If you look at the the zoning map here, these are all fairly consistent in their size. Um, again, you could say that, yeah, maybe these ones to the east are a little more, you know, they're fairly equal in that, except for this this portion right here. Um, a little bit newer of a culde-sac coming in off a wood bridge, but feel like it's an accurate representation of the neighborhood and of the the general area.

Okay, that's the answer to my question. Thank you.

Please continue. So, as noted in your planner's memo, um there are, you know, the master plan kind of puts a dividing line with neighborhood types as neighborhoods that are very consistent in house size, what the h, you know, house type and it looks very even. and ones where they're not and where you have um neighborhoods that have a mix of housing types. You have a mix of lot sizes and characteristics. And this area is the latter. There's a a pretty big mix. Um, we have lots that are 5,000 square feet and unders sized, quite a number of them. Um, they have homes ranging from,50 square ft to, you know, 1920 ft. Uh on these smaller lots, you have lots that are, you know, 8,000 9,000 square ft. Um some that are right at 7,500 square ft in the very immediate area here, blocks 176 and 17601. They are they're broken up a little bit unevenly except for maybe these homes here on Upland where they are all, you know, 55 by 100 lots. So they're 5,500 square f feet and unders

sized. Um, so really when you're looking at the lot sizes, you know, the in this area, the average lot size is basically 8,000 square ft. Um, which your zoning is for 7,500 ft, so that that lands pretty well. Um the the lots go from again from 5,000 square feet up to this lot at 22,000 square feet. The next largest lot is which originally was two lots.

Correct. Uh, next largest lot is 15,000 square feet and that lot is at the corner that's at the that's on Woodbridge. It's fronting on Woodbridge. Um, and so that again that lot's about 15,000 square feet. But generally the lots are from that 5,000 square foot size which we don't want to mimic because it's substandard for the zone up to uh, you know, a kind of a 12,000 square foot lot is where they predominantly fall. And so our current lot as this through lot at 22,000 square ft is overly large. So ultimately the subdivision is a benefit because we create a 9,000 foot well 10,000 foot lot now, right? 100 by 100 and a slightly less than 12,000 foot lot for lot 12.02. and they it brings the lots into conformance with the size of the lots that exist in this area. Um the we had some discussion before about the front yard setbacks and perfect. Thank you. Um, when I looked at the homes that are developed in this area and even looking AC across Grove, they're predominantly front yard setbacks are 22 to 25 ft is where those houses are

sitting. All of these houses on Upland on both sides. You have this house here on the corner uh kind of county corner across the street. He's actually about 10 with uh with the front of this. Oh, there we go. This is why I'm not allowed to touch the computer. There we go. Um, that one's only about 10 ft off. But really, when you look at the houses, they're all between that 22 and 25 ft kind of range. And so when I say that the house next door to the east is the aberration and it's it's the outlier in here sitting back at 36 ft, it's because the neighborhood the houses are up at that near that 25 ft where the standard is. Um and they aren't further back. That's really the only one that's further back. And that's in part because it's a that is one of the larger lots in the development. Uh that lot's 15,000 square ft. So, you know, that's part of the reason I assume why they would have set the house a little bit further back. They had a little bit more room and they put it back. Uh so having the house closer keeps it more consistent with the overall neighborhood. And again at at the end of it here, the relief that we're looking for is 1.1 ft. Um moving the lot line back to the, you know, to squaring that off the lot line to just make it 100t on both sides. I'm sure your planner is going to say, "Well, now can't you just move the house back without creating any rear yard issues uh that 1.1 ft and make it comply?" And the answer is yes, we could. Um, I still think from a planning perspective, it's better to have the house consistent with the neighborhood

and pull it forwards. When we look at lot 1202 in the rear, there's a suggestion about moving the house back, you know, five, I think it was four or five feet, somewhere in that that nature, in that range. And as I, you know, I look at this, the thing I think when I look at it is the house really should go forwards. Um, and the reason that in my opinion the house should go forwards is because if you look at the front line of this house and then you look at the rear line of this house, the front of that house is behind the rear of the neighbor. So if they're in their backyard, you come home in your car, Amazon guy comes for a delivery, what what have you, the view is from the front yard into their backyard. And so you're not because of the angle of the road, because of

No, he could finish that. I have a question. Yeah. No, finish. Oh, okay.

I didn't you didn't. So becau because of that if anything you know the way the angle of the road is driving the development on there you know one of the things we thought about when we were doing this was well why don't we just turn the house right make the house parallel to the road but the house next door isn't and again trying to be consistent if you look um on Grove which you can't see it's just off page here you can see the just the portion of this home right here those homes were all squared up to everybody else and not to Grove. They were, you know, they're all sitting there and they're kind of staggering their way back as they go down Grove. You go down another block, uh, and you'll find that the houses have been turned to be parallel to Grove Street. And so, the intent here was to mimic what the neighbor had next door. But I mean again ultimately my opinion I'd rather have the house further forwards. Uh the standard for prevailing setback is to set a consistency right so you don't have somebody who's way far back or way far forwards with the the neighboring homes that you have. So you don't have some inconsistency on the street. The house we're proposed on lot 11 there's not an inconsistency in there. It's consistent. It's actually further back than the current house is. Um, and then on lot 1202 when you you sit there and you look at it, what are we being consistent with? The back of the house on lot 14, right? That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about the standard being from this covered portion, this this roofed portion of the house here, this corner here, out to uh out to Oakland

across the neighbor's yard, quite frankly, um you know, the rear of their house. And so when you're trying to set a street line that looks consistent and looks even using the back of the neighbor's house, yes, technically that's what it should be, but it's not a I don't think it's a reasonable standard to look at. Um and and to that end, as I insinuated a little bit before, there is a little bit of hardship on this lot. Um, if we're, you know, looking at this from a planning aspect and and saying what is this variance, there's a hardship aspect to this that this lot is constrained by the neighboring properties and how those neighboring properties were developed because that's where our standards are set from. And the fact that we have a road at such an angle and we have a through lot next door where we're being judged off of somebody's rear yard basically, right? the back of their house. It It creates a hardship condition where you have a lot at, you know, with a 42 42 and 1/2 46 and 1/2 foot setback. 46 and a2. Thank you. 46 and 1/2t set back where the lot depth is 100 ft, right? So, you're you're pushing it way back. So, I I think it's appropriate where it's placed. does meet that 25 ft base standard, but it ultimately, I mean, my opinion would be the house should go up. It affords more privacy for that neighbor uh to the east of lot 12.02. Um, a little off topic. Was doing the neighborhood thing, wasn't I? Um,

my questions relative to the setback. Sure. I'm I'm not sure. It might be for Chris or or I'm also Chris, so you can just say it's for Chris and you're right. Well, whatever Chris can best answer. When we define the setbacks, is that because I heard before I think we're adding sidewalks? So, are the setbacks from the street to the house or now from the new sidewalk to the house? It it's from the right ofway line. So, the right ofway line is middle of the street. not well shown on a colorized exhibit or on a pin without No, you know what? Could you please? Yeah, I got I believe it's the middle of the street.

So, middle of the street. Okay.

So, the just so the the right ofway line is just indicate it for me. Thank you. So, it's the the edge of where the it's the edge of the property. Beyond that point, the burrow owns it. It's part of the burrow's road. It's not the physical road, right? As so you can see on here or here behind you have this darker black line which is the rightway line and then you have this line in front of it here. That's the curb, right? So that's the physical curb of the road, but the burrow owns beyond it, right? So they have usually about 10 feet beyond the edge of the curb where sidewalks go in, utilities get run, and that's typical everywhere. So the the setback's always measured from that rightway line, not the actual street, not the actual curb line on the street or a sidewalk or any improvement because there's already the invisible delineation of that rightway line. Okay. Okay. I I guess I'm just trying to So, the reason that we have that requirement is or what like I guess I'm trying to understand if creating a sidewalk um comes into play with any decision that we would want to consider or not. Not not aside from because where people will be walking now relative to the front of the house. Is that anything we need to think about or not really?

I guess we'll start with the first question was where is it front yard setback measured to? Mhm. Yeah. So the applicants engineer is correct. It's always to the rightway line and it's typically as he said about 10 ft from the curb. Um as to your So the sidewalk falls within that. I understand what he was saying. So I guess I was just I was just asking because there the setback is smaller in this case than what are for the one house one it's very like a foot right but the other house it's more right 29 versus 40 I think it was more sizable for the second house the the variance needed correct the differential

so yeah the the variance the setback variance for the front yard for lot 12.02 2 is is a bigger differential, right? It's not 1.1 ft. It's it's far more, right? But that's because again, I think the standard the way to think about the standard isn't really in relation to any particular feature on there. It's about the consistency of the front of the houses, which is what you're looking for,

right? You don't want to look down the street and the houses are just going all over the place. The point of it is to get them uniform. And I I think the point of my testimony is one we're looking at the back of a house on one side and on you know the other we have the one single house on the street and so there isn't really a consistency to look at down the street to begin with. No, I totally get that part. Okay. Okay. I understand that. I was wanting just to un I have my answers. Very good. Thank you.

I will I will continue on. So, um, again, when it comes to the neighborhood, talked about setbacks and and lot sizes. Uh, the houses themselves, uh, I talked about a little bit. Um, you know, the houses were generally built in the 40s and, uh, into the mid50s generally is the predominance of when these houses were built, fairly consistent with when things were built out throughout the burrow as a preponderance of when things were built. Um, and then as time has gone on, there have been additional developments, redevelopments of properties and uh things like that. From an architectural style standpoint, there's not really a theme. If you drive around, there are a lot of two family houses. There are a lot of capes and you have um ranch houses. kind of you run the gamut and there are houses that look like they look the same at some point and people have put additions on or have changed them or somebody on I think it's Spear has a blue metal seam roof on their house. Um you know so you have a fairly eclectic mix of architectural styles on here. uh the newer houses that have been built or the ones that have been kind of resided and refaced are of a very similar motif to what is proposed as part of the architecture here. So it's consistent at least with what is new. Um so I guess to say that there's consistency in the inconsistency um sizes of the dwellings again from a gross square footage perspective you're 1150 ft up to you know the largest in the area which is one of the newer

houses on New York at 3614 square ft gross floor area. Um the houses we're proposing are 3576 ft. Again that's gross floor area. So, both floors together. Um, you look at the homes adjacent to us. The house on lot 14, so to the west towards Grove, that house is 2092 square ft. And these numbers are from the tax records. So, um, somebody in the audience says, "My house is bigger than that." I'm sorry. Um, I can only go off with so much information. Uh the house to the east on Ohio, that house is a ranch is 1854 square ft. So when you add the garage into that because that is not included within that number, the footprint of that house is basically the same as the footprint of what we're proposing, which I think this exhibit I think it looks fairly clear from this exhibit. You can see the house and this house next door. They're fairly consistent in size. And then the lot uh that we keep speaking to on Oakland, that house is 2434 square ft. Um and that's without the garage as well. So in footprint it's almost 3,000 ft² where the footprint of these houses is 2200 ft². Again, that is a ranch as well. So it's a little more sprawling on a little bit larger of a lot. So, um, from a neighborhood perspective, um, it's maybe maybe I'm trying to say it's hard to be inconsistent with a neighborhood that's not consistent with itself. Um, to an extent, and I am, uh, to an extent. There are there are a number of houses that are similar in size, scale, scope, um, and

massing to this house when it comes to being two stories. and bless you. Um, you know, two stories and um, you know, developed in this manner and so, you know, my opinion, the development would be consistent overall with the neighborhood and it wouldn't suddenly stick out as like, holy cow, what is this thing that somebody put up, Mr. That's all the information that you've been referring to um that you've been quoting. Is that um are you doing that off the cuff or did you prepare a report that shows an inventory of the homes and the setbacks and are you just kind of looking at that and referring to it orally? I testimony.

I didn't prepare a report per se. Um something that that I had intended to submit. Granted, I took the tax map and I marked it up with uh the information for um for my testimony and I have uh tax records printed out kind of for those those blocks and lots with some summary information for myself that I could refer to in my testimony, but I don't have and I think I know the answer to the question, but would you characterize your neighborhood as one of sameness or one of uh discordance? Uh the latter. Okay. Yes. Very good. Thank you.

Uh and so again, looking Do you have significantly more testimony? Just um Okay. I will I will just you know, I'll just save my comments for

Okay. Yeah. I I'll go through and then we can just have a discussion off of it and uh go from there. Um so again as the as it relates to relief I think we do have from a technical standpoint we have um a C you know we meet the criteria for a a C1 for a hardship variance for the the lot depth is it's a an existing nonconformity that had existed on the lots and overall on the through lot um there isn't sufficient depth for both on the front yards as well as we talked about the conditions of being um of being tied to the neighbors and how the neighbors were developed and how Oakland Avenue has that angle to it and the porch projecting into the front yard. The same thing because the front yard's already forwards. the porch is kind of tied to it and really the reasoning for the two stands together. I think it also meets the criteria for a C2 variance where the benefits outweigh the detriments. Um because for the front yards, we have um you know again meeting that front yard setback for uh law 12.02, 2, we end up with a house that's much further back than the neighboring property as it results from again this backyard. Uh you have a house that's behind the neighboring property, uh which creates really a privacy issue for that home, right? You don't want to look out your back deck and be sitting there having your morning coffee looking at your neighbor's, you know, front door. Um, so I think it promotes a desirable

visual environment to have the houses closer to the street, to have them more consistent with the neighborhood and to have them, you know, meet what everything else in the area looks like. Um, when it comes to the lot depth, uh, the same thing. I think your planner had even mentioned a little bit that when you're looking at the way that lot depth is measured, it's measured from the midpoint of the rear perpendicular out to Oakland, which because of the angle of the road, you're measuring it kind of short. And if you go from the midpoint and you go straight forwards to Oakland as opposed to on the perpendicular, what you're going to find is you're going to have that depth, right? So the purpose of that control is to make sure you have a developable lot to have a lot that you can build a house on and it isn't squished and I think you can see on here that we are able to accommodate that uh and so the you know the what deviation there is really is technical there's no real negative from it and so the benefit of developing the lot um and I think again in total on all of these the benefit to subdividing these lots and making them two lots that are consistent in size with the neighborhood as opposed to one 22,000 ft lot that at 30% building coverage could build a 7,000 ft footprint house um on the property. I think it's the the public's interest is advanced by subdividing it and by kind of not allowing um you know such a large structure and to to have it more consistent and have it and not more consistent have it consistent with the neighborhood. So I think again on balance

um the the benefits of all the relief outweighs the detriments uh because in my opinion the detriments are fairly minor. Um, sorry I'm I'm rushing because I'm trying to get done here. Um, so we're not belaboring it. But I just want to hit one more thing in there on the width of the house without the separation. You're trying to avoid massing of the house. You heard from the architect before uh the the extra tone of the inset, right? You have the 4ft inset on the on the house. And so you're breaking up the massing of the house in that way with the architectural features, with changing colors, with changing finishes so that you don't have a monolithic um front yard. I would say the house directly across the street is yes, a one-story ranch is a one-story brick ranch and it is well more than 40 ft and it is just one big thing of brick. And I understand what you're trying to avoid. And it's something like that on on a new house, on a bigger house, right? This is, you know, got an extra story on it. I think what you can see from the rendering is that you don't have that. You have some differentiation on there. And so again, you're for a twoft on that length, um, what we get is a very attractive looking house.

Okay. who wants to go first. Uh, from a practical point of view, I I have some issues with the house you're proposing on Ohio and your definition of that neighborhood. less so with the proposed house on Oakland because Oakland across the street from Oakland which is a very wide street as you indicated are the tennis courts and recreation areas and not housing. So in my view if I and Matuchin's a walking town and I walk all these areas I would say uh Oakland where you're proposing um the new house would probably define the end of that neighborhood. I wouldn't include houses across the street on Grove in this neighborhood either,

which I didn't. Also is well traveled and um I in my view would be a dividing line um for what I would consider a neighborhood in Matuchin. But Ohio is really a little street. It's one block basically.

And um in terms of the way I view a neighborhood, I I really don't think about lot size. You know, what you see are the facades of houses. Some people have really deep backyards and so they have huge lots. We're none the wiser. We're just walking along the sidewalk and what we see is the front of the house. So Ohio basically has the house that's on the lot you're proposing to redevelop. Its next door neighbor is that the brick ranch. And again, even though the facades are different and one is brick and the house you're taking down has, you know, stonework, I'm sure in its time it was built to be a very nice house. It has uh architectural features, the the glass, the the fireplace. Um, and across the street again are two ranches and you're proposing a really tall house compared to the ranches and a house of substantial size. Um, obviously the lot is huge the way it is compared to the other lots in the neighborhood. Um, so you know,

the house you're proposing facing Ohio again, I I think it just might really dwarf its neighbor and the two houses across the street and maybe just overwhelm Ohio Avenue. So, yeah, I I'm sorry.

And the drawing you showed of the house, yes, it has the by colors and uh the roof is, you know, has interest, but uh it has that twocar garage. I mean, it's it's pretty big. So layman's term

understand the concern on that. I think if you look at the house to the to the west on lot 14 that's two stories. You look the house kind of across the street from the house on lot 14 that's two stories as well. That house is again that house is pretty close to the road and it's it's got quite the imposing um facade on to to Ohio as well. Yes, you do have the the ranch houses on there. Um, and so, you know, I understand that you're looking at neighborhood in the the sense of Ohio. Um, I always view neighborhood as being a little bit more broad, but I think one thing to think about here is that the relief think of the relief that's being requested here. Ultimately, if we move this house 1.1 ft back, it's in a compliant location and it does not need relief for its location. And if the house was 2 ft narrower, it would not need relief for the 40t and it complies in its entirety. that house that house would be a compliant house 2 foot narrower 1.1 ft back and that fully conforms to the zoning and if you look at rendering that extra 2 ft on the house isn't substantial on that overall width. So from a scale, from amassing, from how it fits in the neighborhood and from really what's permitted, this is a minor deviation from what the request is to what's proposed. And I think your concern is you're looking at this is

you're saying or at least what I'm hearing is is that this is this is too big, but this is only fractionally larger in the one dimension than what's otherwise permitted and slightly closer to the street. And so I think from a scale perspective on the house, it's it's in line with the ordinance. I mean, again, you're allowed to have 30% coverage for a house in the zone on a 10,000 ft lot. That's 3,000 square ft. And this house's footprint is 2200 square ft, right? So it's significantly less than what's permitted in the zone. So, I understand the concern. I do. And I tried my best to address it through the testimony. Um, and I'm not trying to say that your concern isn't valid or something like that, but I think what we're trying to evaluate is the deviation and the variance. And the deviation as it relates to the house is fairly minor compared to what the standard is, what it would be allowed to be. Yeah, I mean I'm talking about a visual impact. Uh I I understand your answer. Again, I just raise it as a concern.

Very good. Thank you. Understood. Yeah. Other questions for this witness uh relating to planning before Chris gets into his memo? Okay. We have no takers. Chris, jump right in. So, I guess I'll start with the U neighborhood analysis or the definition of the neighborhood. Uh, I think I would agree with the planner that it's probably an area that stretches from it's bounded by Grove from at the west to about I would say Hollywood Avenue to the east. That neighborhood was plotted out probably in the 40s and developed in the 40s starting at the intersection of Spear and New York and branched outward.

Yes. um parts of Hollywood, Hazlewood, uh Hazlewood, Hollywood and Beachwood were developed several years later. That's why in that neighborhood you see sidewalks on that street, those streets, whereas the older part of neighborhood developed in the 40s and 50s did not have sidewalks. And those houses are small. I mean on Hollywood and those are small houses.

Yeah. uh in the in the older part of the neighborhood from again Grove to about Hazlewoodish uh the lots were generally 50 55 ft wide and once the zoning was put in place I think in 1952 that's I had to research that through exact date but generally in the mid-50s when zoning is put in place for R2 that put in the requirement for wider lots which is why you see 60 2 and 1/2t wide lots on as of wood beachwood and so on so forth um so I think there's a pattern of consistency from Grove to Hazelwood as that was the original Platted neighborhood. Um I think what's there's a subset in that neighborhood which is these lots which is the lots that are sort of sandwiched between Grove and Upland which are the two streets on the screen here which stretches from Oakland down to um maybe not Woodbridge but at least up to New York Avenue. And these were oversized lots and they were subdivided at a later time. Um, so I think there's consistency in the overall neighborhood, but there's definitely a discordance uh in the middle of these lots between Grove and Upland and a pattern is clearly larger lots in the middle and I think the subdivision of creating a 10,000 11 and change or 12,000T lot makes sense. I think the lot size, the subdivision itself is compatible to the neighborhood. Um, especially if the lot line is made square, then it's definitely more compatible with the neighborhood because all the lots are square except for perhaps the oldest home and then this whole area which is at the corner Grove in Oakland. That house was looks like it's on the historic aerial since the 30s.

Other than maybe homes on Woodbridge, that was the only home in that area. I see. I think the original home, not to interrupt, but the original home that um this was referred to as a Spear subdivision, so I think they named the street after themselves, which I would definitely do. Um was if you go down uh just below New York, uh when you look at 1701, 2, 3, and four down there, those four lots, they were subdivided and built in the early '9s. And I think that was the original that was, if you look at the map, that was where the original house was. And they carved their piece out around it, everything around. And I think they re it looks like they've resubdivided it later when in like I said early '90s.

You're confirming that in this area between Upland and Grove there's these sort of leftover large lots that over time have been subdivided but they're still large. Yes, they're all much they are larger lots than everything going east of it certainly.

Yeah. So I would agree that the the subdivision makes sense and the question is the housing characteristics. Uh, I I think I'm less concerned with the overall massing because the lots are almost double the size of a typical lot in this neighborhood. Uh, that doesn't mean we shouldn't not have a discussion as to whether they fit in on a streetscape. I was hoping to see a streetscape elevation, what these houses, what the proposed homes look like with the neighboring homes. Um, but when we look at this exhibit relative to Ohio Avenue, uh, I think you can tell there's a pattern of homes are about 25 ft from the, um, front lot lines. So, I think I could buy into the notion that the proposed setback probably is appropriate for this micro neighborhood and the overall neighborhood with the lot to the east perhaps being an aberration. That doesn't mean the house is not beautiful. It's just a different setback. Uh I might say I would still recommend pushing it back a few inches or a foot only because the proposed home is a bigger two-story home and the home that step back further is only one story. Uh but I think we're close. We're only talking about inches at this point. Uh for Oakland Avenue, I think it's safe to make the argument that the pattern again. I do appreciate um when he gave testimony about the orientation of the footprint of the home relative to the street. It's clear that it's not square to the street. It's aligned with the sidelot lines and that pattern actually exists south until you get south of New York Avenue when the homes actually rotate

which are the ones that were part of that 90 subdivision when they

I would say that 90 subdivision probably created an inconsistency but what you're proposing here is more consistent because it keeps that orientation that's apparently not parallel or perpendicular to Grove. That being said, I think the pattern that you probably want to respect is the home next door despite the fact that you're in their backyard. That's no different than uh I think it's 25 Oakland. They're looking into two backyards. So, I don't think that's a problem. Just put some landscaping up. Um but when you look at the setback, the front yard set back to Oakland, I think it's clear we should be disregarding uh a Ohio, which has the pool facing the street and a 6ft fence as they should for a pool. Um, my recommendation is push the house back four or 5 ft to be more in line with the house next door at 25 Oakland. Especially since the proposed home is two stories and a neighboring home is one story. I think that will make a difference to partially address Clarkson Point. Um, again, it's only a few feet. Um, so generally speaking, I I'm would concur with a lot of testimony that was given, but I I would still recommend at the very least the Oakland Avenue proposed home be shifted back a couple feet.

Okay. And I would agree that the architectural design was attempting to tone down the massing. The colors are nice. Um, I'm not going to suggest restricting the colors, but I I think they do a good job on the masking and kind of reduce it the traditional elements. Uh, I think the garage the space over the garage is a little wonky uh because AC across the street there's only there's no living space above the garages which makes it really much smaller. Um, but in terms of overall design, it's it's pretty close.

Okay. So on the substance of how the neighborhood was defined and what is in that neighborhood and on the design for the most part you find yourself I'm not going to say but I'm agreeable except for the uh setback from Oakland. Okay. Um I see some conversations going on behind the scenes here. Maybe some just there's suggestions being made. So, we're just speaking with the applicant to make sure that if the the board wants those suggestions, what what we can say and keep things moving along for you. So, okay. Uh Chris, just so I'm clear, your recommendation would be to push the Oakland facing house back by how much roughly?

No. Um not not Oakland, right? Oakland two different places. Well, he said the Ohio House the recommendation was the 1.1 ft to bring it to what the required is. Um, which I will just say for the purposes of u expediency maybe that the applicant would agree if the board wanted to do that. Uh, that would eliminate that variance. Uh, the discussion was the house on Oakland moving that back about I think it was four or five feet was the suggestion.

Uh, yeah. Yeah, I mean for Ohio I I I would be okay with a pattern showing that keeping that 29ish should be probably appropriate. Um given that the other house across the street is shallow as well. Uh this this is regarding the corner lots where the the house fronts on Grove. But in Oakland, I'd be more I would like to see that pushed back a couple feet at least. Well, Chris, let me ask you. Since the applicant seems to be willing to agree to go back to one foot and and remove that variance, are you saying that you don't feel that that's necessary now or that you would rather see since they've indicated they're willing?

I don't think the pushing the house back on Ohio is necessary, but like push back on Oakland. By how much? So, I How many feet back on Oakland are you? Uh, let's five feet. Five? Yes. And the applicant is okay with this? just for a second.

So, are you suggesting anything with regard to uh Ohio? I think that the testimony given out of you did the analysis looking more broadly, not just the house to the east. No, I think I agree at 25 step back is fine and what they propose is sufficient.

Okay, Chris, was there anything else in your memo that uh we didn't cover? Uh I just had nitpicky comments on the architecture. And so I think I since I'm standing the applicant is willing to move the Oakland house back if that is something the board would like. Great. Thank you. I think that solves that problem. Um you were saying Chris was there anything else of uh treatment substance? Anything else you want to get into?

Again I think the the architect did a great job on uh using some traditional elements and trying to create a modern home. Uh I would recommend the porch be extended two more feet so you have a more usable porch. to instead of four foot the minimum is six feet instead. Um,

I guess I'll wait. Just bear with us for one second. I mean, yeah, that's that's fine. If we want to go to six feet, that's fine. With the house, the question was just, are we moving the house back to with it all? But I think the answer would be no. There'd be a little bit more relief on Oakland, right? because we're well the house is going to go back so there'll be a little less relief but then there'll be a little bit more for the porches it moves back forward 2 ft I think we find is a it's a smaller element and it's like a gifted street with the porches um so it would just be adjusting the distances for that variance then

right either way it's not as intense as initially proposed uh additional columns just to have a more vertical proportion I would move the column so it's aligned with the gable ends and then Maybe put one in the center. But you're saying put the columns? Yeah. Shift the column so that uh see how on the on the front facing gable on the left side you have a column. This column. Move this column to here. Yes. You're saying and then I would like to work with architects if it makes sense. Put one in the center. Okay. I think our concern with one in the center was there's a window right there and we're putting it in front of the window. Right. That's I'm less concerned with that. But I think having it aligned with the gable end structure on the second floor consistent.

Yeah, I agree with you. Um the second floor window I think on the rendering doesn't look bad. Uh but in the submitted plans it was this odd looking picture window. Are you talking about Are you talking about this one? Yes. I would recommend using a traditional window open. Yeah. Are you talking about the lights in the windows? Mostly that but also the trim work is not consistent with the rest of the the house. Trim work being header and still window. Got it. We'll work on it.

Yeah. It's just don't want it to be an operable window. No, it's fine. Um, what else you got, Chris? I'd like to see if there's a way to simplify the massing over the garage, especially with a shed dormer. It may not be feasible, but it's nothing we can I'm not going to push it too hard, but I'd like to explore it with you. We look at it. The problem with the shed dormers is you have to structurally wouldn't work on it. Yeah. You have to lower the roof line which well and it have to shift the part of the house that back a little bit and then structural issues below it and support it.

Yeah. That's why the recommendation was explore it. I wasn't pushing it too hard because it Yeah, we can have a conversation on it certainly as long as it's not binding. Yeah. And and the last two is just add some trim below the at the bottom of the siding which typically the apron board and then elaborate the roof eve so they have a freeze board underneath the set. A little bit more traditional detailing but again really minor things. I think again if we're just discussing taking it as you know it's a recommendation and we work if we want to meet with it the best we can. I think that's yeah this whole section 3.9 they're all recommendations. We're happy to have a further discussion about that. Okay, Chris, is that uh

that's it. Important. So, before we open up to public uh which I know they've been very patient for, board members, other questions for this witness regarding the planning testimony or other things that you might have on your mind? Oh, for certain. I know that your attorney has been working very hard. Okay. I might need one, too. He might need one as well. Um, but again, any questions before we open up public? Okay, so uh my thanks to the public for their enormous patience. Didn't know that I'd be asking you to wait quite this long, but let's open it up. Come on down. Just tell us your name, where you live, and uh give that gentleman that microphone if you'd be so kind. Council, there we go. Thank you.

We're going to swear you in. Okay. You swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. And are you going to make a statement or ask questions? Um, actually a couple statements and just they turn out to be questions. I think the interaction will be fine. And I'm glad you left the map up. If you could just state your name for the record. Uh, Tom Otica. M O T Y K A. Got it. Thank you. And I am the owner of 20 Ohio, which is the property on the right of um what we're talking about, what we've been spending time on. Okay. So, um, Ohio. That one. That one. Yes. Right. Neighbor. Okay.

Uh, 30-year Matuchen resident. Um, just a couple points, and I certainly can't argue with anything that was said. I I would like to add my perspective as a longtime Matuchen resident. Um, Ohio is that one short street. It's got four ranches and two small colonials. I fully agree that uh adding a a 3,000 ft home closer to the street is going to dwarf the the ranches that are there, especially the ones across the street. Mine is a little bigger, but it's not going to be nearly the size of of this house. And I think um one of the one of the reasons we all love Matuchin is because of the charm and the character that this will definitely take away from uh for Ohio Avenue. There's no doubt in my mind. Um, that's subjective. I wanted to to put it on record anyway, but I do want to additionally talk about the impact on Oakland Avenue. Um, the the property behind my property, which is the only house facing Oakland A in Matuchen that I'm aware of. You can go from Grove to Hazel which which is the start of Edison past the park. All the houses on Oakland do not front Oakland Avenue on that side. Um Oakland does not have utilities. I know that because I have an easement on my property. I know that because the easement on my property has been a headache for for us and the previous owner. We have uh lawsuits and all regarding who repairs the lines. I know we all get those water um uh notices from Middle Sex County if we want to buy insurance for the water lines. If you have an easement, you have two water lines under your property. How do you deal with Middle Sex County when that's the case? So all that say the easement is messy and the builders once they do

put the properties up assuming they get the the approvals they will hopefully let the owner of whatever house comes on Ohio AB and tell them you have an easement under your and you got to work with the property in the back to figure out who's responsible for um any breakages in those lines or if um for example the shut off valve to the to your water line is under a tree which happened on my easement. Also, all those problems with an easement and um direct point to ownership on who owns what based on the utilities that you're you're pulling off a different um a different street.

So, just to clarify for you really quickly or just to to clarify some of those things, the easement um I don't know when your easement was written, probably a long time ago. A the attorneys will tell you they've learned a lot since then and and the responsibilities for who's responsible for what and paying for what and restoring what on the property after work's done. That that all gets handled in those easements. I would also say because times have changed a bit and from an engineering perspective, materials are much better that um you know, you're not using like an older clay pipe or something like that that's more prone to fail. you know, the newer PVC material is gonna really last.

Sure. Okay. All factors for the board to consider. Um, finally, uh, one last comment regarding Oakland AB specifically. As Ellen pointed out, this is directly across from the tennis courts. Um, the high school practices there. There's a lot of kids that and and pub public in general that plays the tennis courts and parks on Oakland there. So, I think um having an additional resident fronting that is going to um take away from the the public spa, the quasi public space that's in in that uh in that parking area. Um that's really all I have to add, but I I wanted to get on record and make sure that you understand that this is a big impact to the neighborhood. the the previous owner was well loved and um her her property was a was a was a garden in terms of everybody going there for for um for the flowers and advice on how to how to grow tomatoes and matuchins. So um we're sad to see her go and um and hope we can keep the neighborhood as close to to to as charm charming as it is. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing that. Thank you. Okay, other members of the public who would like to come on down and ask a question or make a statement. I'm going to say seeing none beyond this gentleman, we're going to close the public portion. Okay. Well, that's a lot of information to process. Hopefully, you've been doing that over the last several hours. One can only hope. Um probably best I would say perhaps maybe just to do an accounting on what we've agreed to agree on. Sure. So thus far.

Okay. Um so there's going to be a submission of a new grading drainage utility plan. Uh we need a definition of the meets and bounds, right? Um for the easement. Um the applicant agreed to meet the foundation planting requirements uh to work with the board planner and the sha tree commission determination of uh what any tree plantings or payments in loo would be required. Um applicant agreed to adjust the lot line to make it parallel with um Ohio Avenue. Um I don't think we were more specific than that. Right. I think just to say that it would be meet the depth at 100 ft.

Okay. as well. That that okay with you, Chris. Yes, it'll be 100 by 100. Got it. Um Oh, did were we agreeing was there agreement on conditions as far as the uh AC condensers and and waste and recycling containers? Anything with regard to that? I don't think we need conditions. Said they'll comply with the zoning ordinance. So, let's deal with Monet's office. Just okay. Um, sound like the applicant was in agreement to push the pro the improvement on Oakland Avenue back by about 5T. If the board wants to require that, that's correct. Correct. If the board would like to require that, we're happy to do it.

Okay. Um, I mean there's general agreement. Was there any exception taken with the the board engineer, board planners memo? I mean there's general agreement to comply, right? Uh yeah, we we agreed to have you know non-binding discussions related to the design aspects of it with regards to windows. Yes. Yeah. So we're we're you know willing to explore options with the board planner and and see ultimately what is possible to the extent that we can uh do it. Okay. And we are also uh agreeable to extend the porch. Right. I was going to say that was the last one I have here. Okay. Well okay. I think what the only other one is that we will submit the soil part report as part of resolution compliance. Got it.

Board members, what did we miss? Again, that's a lot of time and a lot of information. I'm sure we missed at least one thing. Mr. Chair, I think the one thing we have to decide um since the applicant was willing to accept so many of the discussions from the planner was um are we going to require the that h the house on Oakland to be moved back to 5T? They say they're willing to comply if the board would require that. Are we requiring we're requiring? Yes, John, that's an excellent point. So, the planners recommendation is that we do that and they've agreed to it. And to your point now, board, how do you feel about that? John's bringing it up to the table and saying, "Hey,

I I would say that if the applicant is willing to that, am I right in saying that if they agree to move that back the 5T that they will not need the relief on that point? Will that be the need for relief? will lessen the relief that we need but we still require not they will still need the relief the other property if we had gone back to one foot that would have removed that but Chris is now saying he doesn't think that that's the one foot would would have meant they didn't need relief on the on the uh maybe we could summarize the relief that we're being asked well that's kind of why we're going through this whole process again

so again why don't we just take it sequentially how does the board feel about the applicant's willingness to agree to move the property or the home back 5t as per Chris's is a recommendation. Does anyone uh take issue with that? I don't necessarily take issue with it. I just don't think I'm clear on why we would want to move it back. Okay. So, Chris is our professional. Chris, let's hear your explanation. Yeah. So even if we disregard the front yard setback with um of 8 Ohio Avenue which is the pool on the west uh and let's consider the averaging prevailing setback pattern would just be the home at 25 Oakland which is the house to the east. Their setback is uh what was it 30 it's just about it's around 30t

it's about 30 ft and what's proposed by the proposed home is about five or six feet less than that. So I'm s suggesting to make it more in line with that home to the east. particularly since the proposed home is two stories in height which might loom over uh Oakland Avenue whereas the house on 25 Oakland is only one story in height. So it's a balance of kind of control the massing looming over the street as well as creating consistent pattern

along basically just the two homes that front on Oakland. I guess the way I feel about it is because there's not it's offset anyway. You're just and you move the house back kind of makes the yard smaller. Yes, that's the the consequence of that, right? And I'm not sure that you gain all that much on the front like for the front step back. I I would say if you're driving down it on a car because there's that because we have the through lot next door on lot 14 that does have I'm sorry. Please just

Sorry. Thank you for the reminder. Um you have the through lot on lot 14 next door. You can you can see the shade of it of the their fence. They have a solid right that's not a open fence. It's a solid vinyl fence that's in there. And in the car, you can't see into the lot. So, you're not going to be able to tell the difference whether it's at the 25 or, you know, it shifted back a little bit. Um, you know, maybe a little bit more coming west, southwest on on Oakland, but even still, it's set pretty far back. The the bulk of the house, right? You're just talking about that one corner. Right.

One way or another, we have to reach consensus of whether we want the five feet or we don't. Right. So, you've heard different opinions about why it's a good idea and why other people might think not. So, um I don't know if we want to go through the ranks individually on this one and and let people, you know, take a headcount, whether we want to include it. It's an important point and the arguments are valid in both cases, I think, perhaps compelling. So, I'm not here to uh tell you which way to go, but I do think that we need to be in agreement either way. And expediting is my job. So, come on, guys. You got to help me out here. So, you're for it or against it.

I mean, I I think I would just leave it the way it is. Okay. So, there's a no. You're not voting. What do you say? Um, I don't know because they're adding the porch. So, you want I mean someone if you have a porch, you want to use a front porch as well. So, um, I can go either way. I really am. You're not helping me out here. Okay. I'm going to say you say leave it, you're not. Okay. I'm a yes. You're not voting. Councilman, what's the e? I I kind of buy the argument that uh was provided in the testimony about the backyard of the

it's valid of the neighbor um and moving it back too far. All of a sudden I'm looking at someone's front door. Um I kind of buy that. I don't have a strong opinion and I trust Chris.

That's a partial no. So I'm going to say it's a partial no. John, where are you at? Well, I I heard testimony from the neighbor who is concerned about the loss of of public use in essence from the tennis courts to the street or the parking. I don't know if it's that significant, but since it's a close call, I would vote to move it back to pull the house away from the public a little bit more and perhaps give some of that relief that the that the that the person who testified was concerned about about the the use of of um Oakland and the tennis courts and the people parking. The house being farther back to me would seem would would be to give more at least feeling of space for for those people using the street in in that way. So that's good. And so you will put you down as yes, Lauren.

Yes. You're a yes. Well, there you go. We have one, two, three nos and one, two, three yeses. Two and a half. Oh, no. I'm going to just say Yeah. Yes. Uh, I'm going to, uh, heir on the side of dressing our professionals and put my subjectivity aside and I'm going to switch it on over and say I can't make that decision because it's not not in my heart to do it. I I have to say yes. I would need somebody else to change. I understand the arguments, but I believe what Chris is doing, so I really can't move myself.

Split the difference and go two and a half. I think that's fair. Yeah, normally I would do executive fiat, but I can't do it to Chris. Where did you mark me down? Well, you you were down there as a as a no. Would you like to become a yes? I'll go I back what Chris wants. Okay. So, now yeses have it. We are affirmative. The 5T is successful. Okay. Uh through this parlay uh operation we're doing here. Okay. I hate to belabor it. Um, but should we have the same analysis in Ohio since the resident raised the question?

Yeah, I have a question to I want to clarify something to that point on Ohio because I think I heard the testimony just to make sure I'm clear. The reality is while the house today sits as a ranch as we see it, if we didn't if we didn't even vote to subdivide it and someone came in and bought that house, I think you were saying the reality is with just a few minor changes, they could be conforming and essentially ends up with a two-story house that

dwarf maybe less dwarf the houses around it. So that could happen. this house. Yes, you could do if you went two feet narrow, you went that 1 point one back. Yes. But if we didn't do the subdivision at all, what I also had said was this lot would support a 7,000 footprint house. It could be a giant house. Giant house. So, the likelihood, I mean, we don't know what the plans are for the house either way, but the likelihood is it could end up dwarfing the neighborhood regardless of what what what we say. I just because anyone could do whatever they want if it conforms type. Okay.

No, but your point's well taken. You know, the board's clearly does not want a McMansion anywhere in the burough, right? And that's something we're obviously fighting against. So, better to have a non-conforming home where there are some uh give and take issues than something that's not under the board's purview and could be an aberration. Um, but as far as the one foot, although I'm willing to entertain it, Chris asked for it, then said he felt afterwards that you kind of changed your mind and you didn't feel it was necessary. So, does anybody feel differently?

Because it's okay if you do. I mean, I I raised the the issue of this proposed house dwarfing the others, and I think we heard from the next door neighbor that that's the feeling as well. Okay. I do the same. I really would like to

let's do the same let's go through the same process again. So, we've answered the five feet. Now your question is going to be do you want to move the the property on Ohio back one foot to remove that non-conformity. Chris was originally saying yes. The Alan agreed but then Chris said based on his analysis of the neighborhood he no longer feels it's necessary. So what you'll be answering is do you want to move that home back one foot or do you want to keep it as is? I'm sorry. If you move them both, does that create another problem? Ridiculous we had in both. I was actually just cuz we were looking at each in a vacuum. But now if you move one back, one and a half and one back four and a half or wherever the heck we landed, then what what does that look like in the back? Does that create a second issue, Chris,

from the claim perspective? Off the lot 100 by 100 and you move the house back a foot, they'll be compliant. It'll still be compliant. Yeah, I was actually just about to point that out. Um because now we're moving the other house back. It'll shrink both backyards and kind of bring the houses and almost smush them. So you'll have very little backyard there. Just wanted to point out still comply with 25 foot step back. So it's up to you board members. I'm not here. I want to push it back. Okay. Who else wants to push it back? I mean I think if you're going to push that one back, then you shouldn't push the Oakland one back. Okay. So to me like I understand.

Yeah. One way

it has Can I just say I do believe the visual impact on Ohio is is much more significant than on Oakland. And I and we talk about preserving a neighborhood. each of those other ranches can come in tomorrow and say, "Hey, I want to put up a twotory that you understand." Yes, that's what I was saying. uh you know and the distinction with this lot is that it's so much larger and yes it's but it's kind of um uh I I still feel we have to preserve what's there

understood uh and so that's why I feel strongly about pushing the house back Okay. Well, I would change what if we would change our mind then on the on the No, no, we that's the issue has been decided. You've all agreed, right? So, unless

Yeah, but I think I think you make a good point, Laura, because we're looking at these things, you know, we we're looking at them individually, but then when you say, "Okay, well, we're going to push this one back four feet. We'll push this one back a foot and a half or whatever it is, and that's really making the back yard smaller." I agree with with Ellen that the way it fronts on Ohio makes more of a difference because Oakland is such a wide street and across the street there is nothing but the park. So if that one's a little closer to the street if it's where it is and you don't move it back four feet, it's less impact on Oakland than the impact on Ohio.

Like my vote for Oakland was in my mind Ohio was staying. So I right it maybe wasn't I get you this is not the way to do a plan in any galaxy at any time. This is sloppy and imperfect and I got to tell you I hate it. Um having said that I'm still here in service to the community and to the applicant and to our town. So uh whatever we have to do to get to consensus one way or another. I'm not telling you what it is. That's what I want to do tonight. So if you want to step back from what we agreed on and say hey I want to look at them both together in context. please let's do that you know but we need to move forward so much

so I I would take the other view which is that um the house on um what are we talking about it's getting late in the night on Ohio the house on Ohio is with within a foot of compliance so we're arguing about a foot right now while the house on Oakland is we're going to move 5T and it's still not in compliance so we are so if you if you want to measure it by getting more things closer to compliance. It's more important for the Oakland House to move back since it's so much farther from compliance. I'm so sorry. That's okay.

While the while the Oak I mean the the um the Ohio House is so close to compliance now that if the board just voted to that we wanted the Oakland House moved back to 5T. Does the one foot on on Ohio make any difference to anybody for any reason? Or are we just making a symbolic gesture about massing and about twotory houses on on streets that happen to have some some ranches on it? I I think it's arguing about, you know, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What What are we talking about? Understood, John. But you heard what the resident said. You heard what Ellen said. I think that, you know,

they're not talking about a foot, though. I mean, the foot isn't going to address what the resident had to say, and the foot isn't going to really address what Ellen's talking about, either. No. Well, it is. I want to reaffirm my vote that the house on Oakland stay where it is and the one foot move back on. So, you trade 5 foot for one foot. I I think it makes a difference in Ohio. Okay. Ohio has like four houses on it really. And I understand, but there's also colon twotory colonials on Ohio also.

Yeah. on the corner. You know, I I just I'm sorry. I didn't I missed the beginning. I was just saying anyone could technically change those houses, those ranches on Ohio without needing us at any minute. So, it's hard to know, but you know, every decision we make sets a precedent.

Well, not not a legal precedent. Just you're saying like a stylistic guide, but yeah. Okay. I mean, the applications fall and rise on their own. Just for clarification, I'm taking account of aesthetics, not just lot size. clarify and dimensions which our ordinance does cover. I'm talking about, you know, a visual impact on a neighborhood which isn't under ordinance requirements, bulk requirements.

Okay. Well, again, it's not my job to hurt everybody. um you've said what you've said and at the end of the day it seems like more people uh feel one way than the other. So whoever finally makes a motion in any direction we'll have to consider that as part of the motion. I'm not going to tell you what to do.

Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve the application with the Oakland Avenue property situated where it is on the current plan and the property on Ohio moved back of hood.

Okay. Mhm. Actually, Chris is I'm sorry. It's 1.1 ft, right? Just to be hyper specific. Yes. Okay. Yes. Right. Yes. Do we have to list those other things like the the soil and or we just understood them as you summarized? All incorporated. only that was up for debate at that point was I think the other conditions were accepted as they were

can we also just confirm the variances that are now being sought because it sounds like we're changing a little bit well the motion changes what we said before about the the I was going to say Hollywood because now I'm confused but the Oakland it's just this one now because we all we left it as move back Oakland But the motion is to not move with that. I think that's why she's

the motion is is that we would apply front yard setback on proposed lot 11 on Ohio. Um and that relief would not be required and that the relief that sought as shown on the plan on law 12.02 remains as is. Right. Okay. Right. Okay. Okay. Right. Chris, let me just verify Chris that

Sorry. Um, so we need a minimum lot depth on lot 12.02 instead of 11 as initially proposed. That's different. We're eliminating the front yard setback variance for lot 11. Still need a variance for lot 12.02 under supplementary regulations. Still need a variance for 110 110 for porch projection for lot 12.02. O2 we need variances from 110 112.7B for both lots for the facade width extending beyond 40 ft and all other variances related to landscaping has been eliminated. Applicant will comply. Okay.

I'm sorry but I have one more question. just say what Ellen proposed. If it voted no, does that mean the whole subdivision's gone or then do we re It means that's unsuccessful and there needs to be another motion. Another motion. Okay. So, okay. So, we're voting on so we view Oakland as is Ohio a foot and change back 1.1 ft. Yes, correct. and the other variants we just discussed. Miss Conn, yes. Mr. Dia, yes. Miss Koskowski, yes. Mr. Lifton, yes.

Mr. Ericson, yes. Leave anyone out? Nobody. Congratulations. Heart. Thank you for your time tonight. Um, okay, board, we're almost done. Can I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 5th, please? Motion to approve. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor, please say I. I. Those say nay. We don't need to reopen the photo portion as we've done so twice. Right. Council. Okay. So then, can I have a motion to adjurnn, please? Motion to adjurnn.

Okay. I'll second it. All in favor? Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all. I was trying to make Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.