Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on May 23 2024

Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.

Download transcript Download audio
May 23 2024 · Zoning
0:00
–:––

Meeting Sections
  • 00:00:00 — Meeting Opening and Roll Call
  • 00:00:38 — Pledge of Allegiance
  • 00:00:59 — Agenda Adjustments and Postponements
  • 00:01:46 — 24-ZB-18B—Rena Renoso (Vinyl Fence Variance) 24-ZB-18B
  • 00:03:14 — 24-ZB-12V—Mustafa Chia (Second Story and Garage Addition) 24-ZB-12V
  • 00:07:50 — 23-ZB-38V—NNBADILL LLC (Single-Family Home at 431 Park Avenue) 23-ZB-38V
  • 00:34:33 — Adjournment
Meeting Opening and Roll Call AI  00:00:00 – 00:00:38
Chairman Cahill calls the meeting to order and announces proper notice requirements. Clerk calls roll: Members present—Tillery, Patel, Reggio, Blo, Mitterando, and Chairman Cahill; Member Ali absent.
Speaker 0R Rodney. Thank you, George. Go ahead, chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Building Notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Coer News and the Star ledge. Will the clerk please call the role?
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Regio? Here. Mr. Blo. Mr. Mitterando Here. Mr. Ali is not here. And Chairman Cahill Here,
Pledge of Allegiance AI  00:00:38 – 00:00:59
All present stand for and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.
Speaker 1Will everyone please stand for SLO to the call
Speaker 2Ledge, United States of America and which it stands. One Nation Nation, indivisible with Liberty and Justice.
Agenda Adjustments and Postponements AI  00:00:59 – 00:01:46
Chairman announces two agenda changes: HC Enterprises Management (1081 River Road) postponed to June 13, 2024 with no additional notice required; Face Field, LLP (1300 West Seventh Street) carried to June 27, 2024 with required republication of notice.
Speaker 1Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Yes, there are. HC Enterprises Management 1 0 8 1 River Road will not be heard tonight. It's postponed to June 13th, 2024. Laura, did they notice?
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 1Okay, so there's no further notice required. You're only receiving my announcement here tonight. Face Field, LLP 1300 West seventh Street is being carried to June 27th, 2024. For those property owners that may have received the notice, you're only receiving Maya announcement here tonight, but they do have to republish the notice. Those are all the changes that I have. Thank you, Mr. Kinneally. Let's move on to item number
Speaker 05 5 24
24-ZB-18B—Rena Renoso (Vinyl Fence Variance) 24-ZB-18B AI  00:01:46 – 00:03:14
Applicant Rena Renoso (30 Stanson Avenue) seeks approval for vinyl fence installation in backyard. Board engineer Chadwick requires fence to be moved 10 feet off property line; applicant agrees to comply. No public comments. Application approved unanimously (5-0).
Speaker 1Dash ZB dash 18 B. Rena Renoso. Is Mr. Renoso P present?
Speaker 3I'm here.
Speaker 1Mr. Renoso, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 3Yes, I do, sir.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 3Reno Renoso 30 Stanson Avenue. Paca, could
Speaker 1You, could you explain to the board why you're here?
Speaker 3I'm proposing that I, I have a vinyl fence installed in my backyard.
Speaker 1Have you had an opportunity to see Mr. Chadwick's report in this matter?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 1Can you comply with that request that you move the fence 10 feet off the property line?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Chadwick, I don't know if there were any other issues raised.
Speaker 2No. That was the only issue.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other members of the board of any questions for this applicant? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No. One chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application.
Speaker 0I a second
Speaker 1Please call the roll. Roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Reggio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Renoso, your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document and send that written document to you. Thank you. Good luck. Have a good night, sir. Have a good night, sir. Let's move on to item number 6 24 dash ZB dash 12 v Mustafa Chia. Present?
24-ZB-12V—Mustafa Chia (Second Story and Garage Addition) 24-ZB-12V AI  00:03:14 – 00:07:50
Applicant Mustafa Chia (100 Hansen Avenue) proposes adding a second story and two-car garage. Board engineer recommends reducing to one-car garage due to substantial side yard variance. After negotiation, applicant agrees to 12-foot-wide garage with wall 25 feet from property line. No public comments. Application approved as amended unanimously (5-0).
Speaker 5Oh yeah. Yeah. That's me. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 5Name is mu. Address is 100 Hansen Avenue Pisca, New Jersey.
Speaker 1Thank you. Explain to the board what you'd like to do here.
Speaker 5We would like to add a story to our existing, existing dwelling and we want two car garage on the Deerfield Avenue entrance to the property.
Speaker 1Mr. Chairman, you may want to talk to Mr. Chadwick about it. Yes. Mr. Chadwick, can you chime in here and help us out?
Speaker 4Yeah, we, I made a field reconnaissance. The side yard variance is substantial. I think the, a addition of a garage as opposed to a two car garage would be more appropriate give given the development of these lots in this area. They all substantially conform with the township's regulations and this would not, so my recommendation is that they reduce the scale of the garage with the second story allowed.
Speaker 1And any other comments there? No. Mustafa, if you could comply with that, I'm pretty sure we could move ahead with approving this application.
Speaker 5Okay. Just to confirm, it's a one car garage with a second story allowed right on top?
Speaker 1That is, yes.
Speaker 4Well, you, you show, you are showing a garage. Garage. It's approximately what, 24 by 24?
Speaker 5Yeah, it's 22, I guess. 22 by 2020.
Speaker 4I think you need to reduce that to increase the side yard by at least 10 feet.
Speaker 5Okay. So we can have a 15, the
Speaker 4Second wall would be fine.
Speaker 5Okay. And can we have a 15 feet, like one and a half garage? We have from the, at the property we have around 15 feet. If we, yeah, if we, if we make a 15 feet garage, so that would be like a,
Speaker 4Let's not put, have the garage wall, the wall 25 feet from your sideline.
Speaker 5Oh,
Speaker 4That's your 10 feet you asked for plus your 15.
Speaker 5Oh, okay. So that's the 10 feet. Okay, good.
Speaker 1Is that okay with you?
Speaker 4It'll be set. Have a revised plan showing 25 foot side yard setback and that would conform with my recommendation.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions? First of all, Mr. cwa, you're okay with that? What he's
Speaker 5Proposed, one car garage would be in total 10 feet, right? The garage should be 10 feet wide from the property.
Speaker 4You told me it was 22 feet wide now, so
Speaker 5Yeah. Yeah. So we'll reduce it
Speaker 412 feet wide.
Speaker 512 feet. Oh, alright. Thank you. Let's, I agree.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this? Hearing none. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone on the public have any comments or questions for this applicant or this application?
Speaker 0No. One chairman.
Speaker 1Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application with the amendments second suggested, please call roll.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 1Yes. Mr. Awa, your application as amended has been approved. We will memorialize it in a written document and send that document to you.
Speaker 5Thank you. Good
Speaker 1Luck. Have a good night, sir. Good night.
Speaker 5Good
Speaker 1Night. Let's move on to item number 8 23 dash zb dash 38 v and N-N-B-A-D-I-L-L-C.
23-ZB-38V—NNBADILL LLC (Single-Family Home at 431 Park Avenue) 23-ZB-38V AI  00:07:50 – 00:34:32
NNBADILL LLC (represented by attorney Elizabeth Durkin) seeks to construct a two-story single-family home (~2,663 sq ft) on a merged, undersized lot (8,000 sq ft vs. 10,000 required for R10 zone). Expert testimony from engineer Giovanni Manlio and architect Paolo Dantes addresses variances for lot area, lot width, and building coverage (21.5% requested vs. 20% allowed). Board attorney challenges legal basis for building coverage variance. Applicant agrees to reduce building coverage to 20% and meet all conditions including AC unit screening, tree replacement, curb cut, sidewalk, and utility conduit. Public hearing yields no comments. Roll call vote unanimous (5-0) approval as amended. (A procedural break occurred at 00:32:06–00:33:17 for other resolutions/minutes adoption.)
Speaker 6Good evening, Elizabeth Durkin on behalf of the applicant.
Speaker 5Good evening,
Speaker 6How are you?
Speaker 5Very well.
Speaker 6Okay. That's good evening, ma'am. Good evening. So just as wa of introductory the property is, is my client purchased a piece of property that was 440 by a hundred vacant piece of property that's contiguous to a piece of property that's owned by the municipality through an ordinance. The municipality had agreed to sell us an additional 40 by a hundred strip, which is merged into our property. So our lot is now 80 by a hundred. It's, it's about the same size as the lot that's to the, to the rear of us. My client is seeking to construct a single family home on the lot. I have three witnesses with me this evening. Our engineer, John Manlio, our architect, Paulo Dantes, and our planner, John McDonough. John McDonough. I'm gonna put on third because he does have a conflict to this evening, but he will be available. He's on the stand. So we have received all of the board's reports and, and, and, and if, if it pleases the board, I'd like to have my first witness sworn in so we can describe the property.
Speaker 1And who's the first witness?
Speaker 6Our engineer John Manillo.
Speaker 1Mr. Menlo, could you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 7I do.
Speaker 1Can you address please?
Speaker 7Sure. So my name is legal name is Giovanni, G-I-O-V-A-N-N-I. Last name Manlio, M-A-N-I-L-I-O. So I have a Bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from Syracuse University. I've been practicing in licensed in the state of jersey for the past 15 years. Currently in good standing. Testified in front of numerous board throughout the state. I don't believe I've testified in front of this board before. Thank you.
Speaker 1Your qualifications are are perfect. Don't worry about it. Please proceed.
Speaker 6Okay. Was gonna say thank you. I expect the qualifications. So Mr. Meow, are you the engineer who prepared the plans that are subject to this application?
Speaker 7Yes, I am.
Speaker 6Okay. And if you could put onto the screen your first exhibit that shows the site plan that you prepared.
Speaker 7Sure. So I'm actually gonna use an exhibit that we just prepared for this meeting. It's an AAL exhibit with today's date entitled 4 31 Park Avenue Piscataway. So
Speaker 1It's just as,
Speaker 6Can we mark this in as A1
Speaker 1Copy.
Speaker 6Okay. We'll mark this in as a one, Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 1Yes, that's fine. Mr. Ka.
Speaker 7So it's just an aerial of the general vicinity with the property highlighted in yellow. And so the, the property is 4 3 1 Park Avenue. It's now known as as block 11 3 7 0 7 lot 6.01. So originally this was two lots, it was lot six. And through the process of sending out buy sell letters, we were able to obtain the portion of the property next door, which was lot 7.021 and combined and merged. And now we have a, a larger lot than what we previously started with. The properties is pretty much in the center between Witherspoon and Lolow Street, for the most part, surrounded by detached single family dwellings. Lot six, which was PR previous prior to the merger was 4,000 square feet, which was 40 by a hundred feet located in the R 10 zone, which was undersized. So in the R 10 zone lots need to be 10,000 square feet and a hundred feet in width.
Speaker 7Both of those were not in compliance by getting another 40 by a hundred foot lot to the east of our property, we did expand the size of the lot to 8,000 square feet with the width of 80 feet. I do wanna note, as you could see as I zoom in, that the property is actually bisected by two zones, the R 7.5 and the R 10 zone, both residential zones, which permit single family dwellings. The R 10 zone is a little more restrictive with the requirements as far as lot size, lot width and setbacks. So that's what we used for our analysis when we did the zoning tables. And we'll get to that. And again, we are still undersized for the R 10 zone by 2000 square feet in the lot area and by 20 feet in the lot width. Next one that I'm going to go to is another exhibit that was prepared just for this meeting and it's the colored rendition of the site plan that was provided to the board. It's entitled 4 31 Park Avenue Piscataway site exhibit with today's date. And I guess we'll make this a two
Speaker 1A two please. Thank you.
Speaker 6Okay. A two? Yep.
Speaker 7Okay. So I'll go over generally what is being proposed. So I'm zooming in a little bit. So the dark brown is the proposed single family dwelling that is proposed for the site. It is a two story dwelling with a, an attached two car garage shown right here. And then there's also a driveway and some ancillary porches, steps and pads around the front and back of the, the dwelling. So the total building coverage is 1,723 square feet, which equates to 21.5% of the lot area we are asking for relief on, on that tonight where 20% is permitted. Again, this is an undersized lot. If this house was on a fully conforming 10,000 square foot lot, the coverage would only be 17.2%. And I believe the architect could go in a little more detail as far as what's being proposed in the house. But again, it's a moderately sized house. It, it's roughly 2,600 square feet of livable area over two, two stories.
Speaker 7And the house footprint itself is only 1,675 square feet. There is a covered portion in the front that adds to that building coverage. And that's approximately about 0.6% of the, the bearings that we're asking for the house complies with all other requirements. As far as bulk standards, we meet the front yard requirement, the side yard requirements, the rear yard requirements. It was noted in, I believe both the board engineer and board planners reports that the AC pad is not properly screened with any fencing or landscaping. And that's another variance we're not choosing to go for that variance. And we would be amenable to, to providing either the fencing or the landscaping and we will work with your professionals on, on providing e either or.
Speaker 7And so there's some other minor improvements that we're proposing. Obviously we're proposing a new curb cut along Park Avenue sidewalk along for the most part the entire front edge it looks like there's a piece that is in, in good condition and we're okay with replacing any curbs or, or sidewalks that are damaged or that need to be repaired, not shown on this plan. But we are also proposing a dry, well it's located in the southwest corner to attenuate and mitigate any increase in runoff generated from the site. Another comment that was brought up is tree removal and tree replacement. So per our calculation, I believe we're removing 18 trees from the site that are three inches or greater, but we are maintaining seven of them of them. So with the seven credit, I believe we need to replace 11 trees. The applicant is okay with either planting the trees or providing a contribution in lieu of, and I believe that wraps up our testimony. If there's any questions or comments or if you want me to go through the professionals letters, we could do that. That's,
Speaker 6Yes. You've had an opportunity to review the board engineers review letter. That's a revised date is May 4th, 2024.
Speaker 7Yes, I have.
Speaker 6Okay. And there are eight comments. Oh really? You know, that are set forth there and that I believe your testimony covered all eight of the points
Speaker 7Besides number eight. We're, we're okay with providing the conduit as well and we'll work with the engineering department on that.
Speaker 6So, so it's fair enough to say that the applicant would agree to all the conditions that are set forth in the engineer's report. Is that correct?
Speaker 7That is correct, yes.
Speaker 6Okay. And then also additionally, you had an opportunity to review the board planner's report, revised date May 13th regarding the variances that required, it picked up the additional variance with respect to the screening on the air conditioning unit, correct?
Speaker 7That is correct, yes. Yes.
Speaker 6And you testified that the applicant would, would be willing to screen or we're gonna amend the application to seek that variance as well this evening, and also you'll revise the plans to put the appropriate screening or plantings or fencings for, and you'll work with the municipal professionals regarding what screening they require for the AC units. Is that correct?
Speaker 7That is correct, yes. Okay,
Speaker 6Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness at this time.
Speaker 1Does any other members of the board have any questions or comments?
Speaker 4Mr. Chair? I have one question. The sidewalk along appears not to connect to existing.
Speaker 7Yes, I could talk to that. So there is, it's, we, we, we forgot to shade this. So there is an existing sidewalk that goes along the frontage. Right? The reason we're replacing all, all of this and the this that's shaded is, is new sidewalk. Right. Is because all the utilities are going through here and then this is the new cut. I believe the sidewalk was in good condition, but if the board feels strongly, we could extend the extra 10 feet and replace the whole frontage. It's not an issue. But there is existing sidewalk there.
Speaker 4I know that. I just didn't understand why it was missing off the plan. Okay.
Speaker 7Yeah, we're not proposing any disturbance on that side. So we thought we could maintain it, but obviously if it gets disturbed or, or damaged, we would definitely replace it. Okay.
Speaker 1Any other members of the board of any questions or comments? No. Mr. Durkin, you can proceed.
Speaker 6Okay. Thank you. Then we'll proceed with our second witness, the architect.
Speaker 8Paolo.
Speaker 6Paolo?
Speaker 8Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?
Speaker 8Yes.
Speaker 1Your name and address please?
Speaker 8Sure. My name is Paulo Dantes. First name is Paulo, P-A-U-L-O. Last name is Dantes, D-A-N-T-A-S. I am the owner and partner of Dantes. Correct. Located at 4 27 Chestnut Street Union, New Jersey
Speaker 6All. And Mr. Dantes, are you the architect or prepared the plans that are submitted as part of this application?
Speaker 8Yes, I am.
Speaker 6Okay. Would you be so kind just to pull your app, one of your applications, your plans on the shared screen, you with the board?
Speaker 8Sure. I
Speaker 1I I may have missed it, but Mr. Dantes, are you a licensed?
Speaker 6Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. New Jersey.
Speaker 8Yes. So I've been licensed in, in the state of New Jersey since 2007 and my license is current.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 6Okay. I respectfully request that the board accept Mr. Don's qualifications as a license to protect, to testify before the board this evening. Sure,
Speaker 1Please proceed.
Speaker 8Thank you. So all property is located at 4 31 Park, park Avenue, Piscataway. The project scope will consist of a new two story single family dwelling with the two car attached. It's gonna be approximately 2,663 square feet, a livable area or basement, excuse me, sheet 100, a proposed basement floor plan. A basement will be proposed to be finished and is entirely and will provide a open space primary recreational room. A mechanical room is located at the front where a furnace and water heater will be located to provide the heating and cooling and all the water necessary. The finished basement that we're proposing is 1,207 square feet. Majority of the foundation will be main street. We'll have also concrete slab in the basement and slab on grade at the garage.
Speaker 8Architectural sheet eight 200, the proposed first floor. And also we all have an area planned. The livable area in the first floor is gonna be 1,210 square feet. We have a garage of 465 square feet. We're proposing a main entrance with a covered porch, which provides not only an entrance, but also protection from the weather elements. This this area is approximately 92 square feet. Once you enter, you're gonna have a two story four area with an interior steer to access the second floor also to access the basement. In addition to access. Also the garage open plan concept has been designed. We have our dining room adjacent to the foyer and at the rear of the home we'll have the living room and also the kitchen. We have provided sliding doors that goes out to a synthetic wood deck to have access to the backyard. This living room will have a prefabricated fireplace along will have also a bed study, an office, a full bathroom, full bathroom has been proposed. And also the se the finished ceiling height in this first floor will be nine feet sheet, eight 300. The proposed second floor plan, we're gonna have a livable area of 1,453 square feet, excluding the circulations of the area open to below.
Speaker 8We are proposing four bedrooms, which includes a master. The master bedroom consists of a walk-in closet, a master bathroom with double sinks, toilet shower, and standing tub. Bedroom number two, excuse me. Bedroom number two will have its own private bathroom, which will consist of a sink toilet. And we'll have also bedroom number three and number four with a jack and gel bathroom. Number three, a laundry closet that has been provided. And lastly, we'll provide a dropdown ladder to access the furnace in the app architectural sheet. A 400, I think I'm just gonna bring my exhibit, the front, the total height. Sorry,
Speaker 6We're gonna mark this in as a three.
Speaker 8That's fine, yes, please.
Speaker 6A three. And that's the, the, that's the, the same rendering that you had submitted. Just color Mr.
Speaker 8Nun? No, no rendering. This is the first rendering color. Okay.
Speaker 8The total height as we are proposing is 32 feet and approximately four inches to the ridge of the main f the main roof. The architectural characteristics and material selections are in our opinion is based on the aesthetics of the neighborhood and also the owner's design requests. Some materials that we're proposing is azac party board, paneling, party board, clapboard siding, culture stone at the base of the base of the home, facing the street, vinyl siding at the sides and rear of the elevation. Also, we're proposing aluminum roofing system at the first floor, porch, canopy, and garage area. Excuse me. And at the main roof we're proposing shingle roofing. The proposed design provides not only a vertical and horizontal movement with various facade depths to eliminate the monolithic and the continuous structure. The building design has been broken down horizontally by the front entrance porch and garage canopy to break up the two story facade. This provides not only a scale, but a proportion of a more aesthetic pleasing facade. And that concludes my testimony.
Speaker 6Okay. I have no further questions of this witness. Thank
Speaker 1You. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none put on your next witness, please.
Speaker 6Okay. Well, we have a conflict with Mr. McDonough, but I believe Mr. Ello is going to step in and just give a little bit of testimony regarding the justifications for the, the C, but C one and C two variance is here.
Speaker 1And who, who is gonna give this testimony?
Speaker 6The, the engineer.
Speaker 7Engineer
Speaker 6The engineer.
Speaker 1Mr. Manlio, you, are you still here?
Speaker 6Yes, he is. I'm
Speaker 7Still here. Yes.
Speaker 1You, you remain under arrest. Thank
Speaker 7You. Okay.
Speaker 1Are, are you a professional planner?
Speaker 7I am not.
Speaker 6He to can testify only at, from an engineering perspective. Yeah, I,
Speaker 1I understand. I just want that on the record.
Speaker 6Yes.
Speaker 7Yep. No, no problem. So yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 6Refer back to, I can separate with, with whatever legal arguments I need because we, Mr. Ello, you wouldn't disagree that the variance that we're seeking here are C one and a C two variance. They, the criterions could be C one or a C two, correct?
Speaker 7Yeah, I believe both could be applied to this one.
Speaker 6Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Speaker 7I'm not sure can No, that's fine. Can everybody see my screen? So I'm referring back to exhibit A one, the aerial exhibit.
Speaker 1You see that it's up.
Speaker 7Okay. Yeah. So as Ms. Durkin had stated that this would classify under a C one and C two C one is the hardship, and C two is a balancing provision of the, of the law. So the ju justifications under the C one, the relief relates to the land and the structure of loss of the existing. So it's an existing lot that's undersized, which creates practical difficulties for an ordinary sized dwelling to exist on the lot. There's no additional land that's available. We did provide buy sell letters. We were offered a portion of, of the property to the east of us, which was obtained, but no further land was available. As you can see in A one, the lot is 80 by a hundred highlighted in yellow. And there's similar size lots in the general vicinity. And both in the R 10 zone directly to the south, there's two lots.
Speaker 7And then on the other side of Fisher Avenue, there's another lot that's eight 80 by a hundred on the other side of Park Avenue, again, there's another two lots that are in the R 10 zone and roughly the same size, 80 by a hundred and justifications for the C two balancing. So obviously the benefits outweigh the, the detriments in this one positive criteria are satisfied for the purposes of the MLUL purpose. A, the project promotes the general welfare because it delivers new housing stock, it's compatible with the development pattern in the area. Purpose m the project promotes sufficient use of land because it delivers a permitted use on an established building lot. Purpose G the project provides a variety of uses in appropriate locations because it delivers new housing that is in scale and compatible with the character in the area. And purpose. I, the project proposes a desirable visual environment because it delivers an attractive building that will compliment other homes in the area.
Speaker 7And I think the negative, negative criteria, satisfied 'cause of relief can be granted without causing judgment to the area or the zone plan. And you know, the variance that we're asking for on the building coverage is 1.5%, which I don't think would be discernible from in the general public traveling in the road as a scale of, of the building, like I said. So given the size of the lot, 1600 square feet would be permitted for building coverage. The house itself is 1675, so it's 75 square feet over the house itself. And what's also contributed to it is the covered porch in the front, which we, we feel like provides a visual element to the, to the house and to the neighborhood.
Speaker 6Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. Allen, does the board have any questions?
Speaker 1Well, Mr. Canelli, I believe the township has a concern about the lot coverage, a concern that was addressed when the applicant actually purchased the property. Yeah, I, I don't disagree with Mr. Manlio. I believe they have established a hardship that deserves variance relief for the lot area, the lot width and the lot frontage. I believe that there are in firm legal ground for that. However, there is no legal proof that I'm aware of in the record that supports a variance for lot coverage.
Speaker 6Okay.
Speaker 7I'm not sure. Are we, I believe we're asking for, for relief funds lot coverage.
Speaker 1I'm sorry? I said lot coverage. I meant building coverage.
Speaker 6Building coverage. The relief that's being requested is 1.5% correct? Mr. Manillo?
Speaker 7That is correct, yes.
Speaker 6And does that include the covered porch in the front? Yes. And the calculations of that? So one of those is for the covered porch and the overall, it's a square footage, but 120 square feet, is that what the's being sought?
Speaker 7Yeah, the, the overage is 120 square feet of that approximately 50 square feet. Feet is the, is the covered porch.
Speaker 6Okay. And you actually, or the architect initially had put plans in for a, a larger home, correct?
Speaker 7Right. The, the first submission that was submitted for this, this lot that was eight 8,000 square feet was a 25% building coverage. So after some feedback from the, from the professionals, it was reduced in size
Speaker 6To to to to to, to balance out for the, to allow for the covered front porch, correct?
Speaker 7Correct, correct, correct. Yeah. And if this was, again, on a permitted lot of 10,000 square feet, this was only be about 17, a little over 17% in building coverage.
Speaker 6Right. So it it's di minimus in in the overall Correct.
Speaker 7Correct.
Speaker 6Okay. And have you had an opportunity to review the other homes in the neighborhood?
Speaker 7Yeah, I've reviewed the other homes. I mean, there they vary in size. There's some that are smaller, there's some that appear to be larger. I don't think this house would, would be out of character in general for that neighborhood.
Speaker 6Okay. And you don't feel that, that the house would be the largest home in the neighborhood? Correct. Proportionate on, on the lot and then you feel that the lot itself can, can accommodate th this home?
Speaker 7Yes. Like I said, we're, we're, we're within the building, building envelope and we comply with the bulk standards.
Speaker 6Okay. So I don't know if it's the board attorney that, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1Yeah, I, I, Mr. Chairman, I stand by my, my position that they've established all the proofs necessary for the lot area lot width and lot frontage variances. But I just don't see any proofs that support a building coverage variance except for the testimony that that really won't stand out. And that's not really the legal standard that we use. The applicant has to provide proofs that support the granting of the variance. They have not done that for a building coverage variance, in my opinion. So they need to stay at the 20%. Yes. Okay. Mr. Duren, I can pretty much read the room and we can move forward with this if we go back to the 20% versus the 21.5.
Speaker 6Well, I, I need to speak to my client, you know, 'cause that's, that's, please
Speaker 1Do take your time.
Speaker 6Yeah, because I need to, that's the, they're good and the bad of Zoom. Right.
Speaker 1Take, take your time Mr. Chairman. We do have one resolution we could do. Yeah, let's move to that.
Speaker 6Okay.
Speaker 1Okay. The only resolution we have tonight is David Stoic. This was a, an application that was approved. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Chairman Cahill? Yes. Those are all, that are the eligible members that are present tonight. That's fine. We'll give Ms. Durkin an opportunity to speak to her client.
Speaker 0You wanna do the minutes from May 9th? Should,
Speaker 1Let's do it. Alright. Number 11. Adoption of minutes on the regular meeting of May 9th, 2024. All in favor say aye.
Speaker 0Aye. Okay. That was quick, but we tried. That
Speaker 1Was
Speaker 6All right. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I've had an opportunity to consult with my client again since it's just di minimis that they're, they will need to reduce the, the building coverage should be compliant at the 20%. Correct. Okay. So we'll submit. I mean, assuming that we can get a resolution this evening that would be conditioned upon that.
Speaker 1Sure. Any other members of the board have any questions for this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Any anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments about this application?
Speaker 0No. One chairman. Okay.
Speaker 1We'll close the public portion and I would make a motion to approve this application with the amendments.
Speaker 0Second
Speaker 1Call the roll please.
Speaker 0Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?
Speaker 1Yes. Well, thank you. Verification's been approved as amended. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Good luck.
Speaker 6I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your time this evening everybody. Enjoy your memorial day weekend. You too.
Adjournment AI  00:34:33 – 00:34:51
Chairman motions to adjourn meeting. All members vote in favor. Meeting adjourned with wishes for a safe Memorial Day weekend.
Speaker 0You too. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you so much. Have a great weekend as well. I guess that's it. We already did it right. I'll motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Everybody have a safe holiday. Enjoy barbecues or whatever you're gonna do. Take care. Happy
Speaker 0Tomorrow. Have a great weekend
Speaker 1Everyone. Always a pleasure guys. Thanks. Take care all.
Speaker 0Thank you. Take care.