LAND USE BOARD MINUTES March 6, 2019

The Tewksbury Township Land Use Board met in a regularly scheduled meeting on the above date in the Municipal Meeting Hall, 60 Water Street, Mountainville, New Jersey. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Blake Johnstone, Mary Elizabeth Baird arrived at 7:31 p.m., Dana Desiderio arrived at 7:34 p.m., William Voyce, Bruce Mackie, Ed D’Armiento, Andrea Maranca, Nancy Held, Alt. #1, Greg Lattanzio, Alt. #2 and Michael Wade, Alt. #4.

Also present: Robert Simon, Land Use Board Attorney, William Burr, Land Use Board Engineer and Shana L. Goodchild, Land Use Administrator.

Absent: Michael Moriarty, David Larsen and Jean Frankel, Alt. #3

There were six (6) people in the audience.

OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT STATEMENT Mr. Johnstone opened the meeting by announcing that adequate notice of the meeting had been provided by posting a copy thereof on the Police/Administration Building bulletin board, faxing a copy to the Hunterdon Review and the Hunterdon County Democrat, and filing with the Municipal Clerk, all on January 3, 2019.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present stood and pledged allegiance to the American flag.

CLAIMS Mr. Johnstone asked the Board if there were any questions or comments regarding the following claim to which the response was negative. Mr. Lattanzio made a motion to approve the claims listed below and Ms. Held seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

1. Maser Consulting – Land Use Board Escrow – Marquardt (B39, L18), invoice #0000496130 ($36.25) 2. Maser Consulting – Land Use Board Escrow – Marrazza Realty, LLC (B44, L2, 3, 4 & 5) invoice #0000496134 ($145.00) 3. Maser Consulting – Land Use Board Escrow – Tallin Farm/Bech-Hansen (B6.04, L12), invoice #0000496094 ($145.00) 4. Finelli Consulting Engineers, Inc. – Land Use Board Escrow – Cellco/Verizon (B44, L8) invoice #30650 ($422.50)

Roll Call Vote: Those in Favor: Dr. Voyce, Mr. Mackie, Mrs. Maranca, Mr. D’Armiento, Ms. Held, Mr. Lattanzio, Mr. Wade and Mr. Johnstone

1

Those Opposed: None

Abstention: Mrs. Baird

CORRESPONDENCE A motion was made by Mr. Lattanzio and seconded by Ms. Held acknowledging receipt of the following items of correspondence. All were in favor

1. A memo dated February 5, 2019 from Chief Timothy Barlow re: Appl. No. 18-16, Block 14, Lot 7. 2. A letter dated February 14, 2019 from William Burr, Maser Consulting Engineers re: Appl. No. 18-16, Block 14, Lot 7. 3. An e-mail from Raritan Headwaters re: Watershed tools for local leaders, 2019 flyer. 4. A memo dated February 26, 2019 from Chief Timothy Barlow re: Appl. No. 18- 15, Block 11, Lot 9.12. 5. Information from Raritan Headwaters regarding Watershed tools for local leaders, Spring 2019 Seminars. 6. A letter dated March 4, 2019 from William Burr re: Appl. No. 18-15, Block 11, Lot 9.12.

ORDINANCE REPORT Mr. Mackie reported on two (2) ordinances from Readington Township regarding Multi- Family and Village Residential affordable housing districts. Mr. Mackie passed it on to the Land Use Administrator for review.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mr. Johnstone asked the public if there were any questions or comments regarding anything not on the agenda. There being none, Mr. Johnstone closed the public participation portion of the meeting.

MINUTES  December 19, 2018

Ms. Goodchild noted that on page six (6), last sentence the word “time” should read “type”. With the aforementioned correction, the minutes of December 19, 2018 were approved by motion of Mrs. Baird and seconded by Ms. Held. All were in favor.

RESOLUTION

 Res. No. 19-05 – Marquardt, Appl. No. 18-08, B 39, L 18– agenda date 3/6/19 Those Eligible: Mrs. Baird, Mr. Mackie, Mr. Moriarty, Mrs. Maranca, Ms. Held, Mr. Lattanzio, Mr. Wade and Mr. Johnstone

The above referenced resolution was tabled at the request of the applicant.

PUBLIC HEARING

2

 Milian Appl. No. 18-15 Block 11, Lot 9.12 Impervious Coverage Variance Action Deadline – 5/14/19

William Burr was sworn in by Mr. Simon to provide testimony regarding any application in 2019 as the Land Use Board Engineer.

Paul Mitchell from the firm Bisogno, Loeffler & Zelley was present representing Hector and Brandi Milian, applicant/owner. The property consists of 5 acres with a single family home and several sheds. He explained that the application is to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. in-ground pool together with a shed and pool house. A variance is required for lot coverage; , 5% is permitted, almost 9% exists and 10.15% is proposed.

Hector Milian, 15 Glennon Farm Lane was sworn in by Mr. Simon. When asked who the owners of the property are Mr. Milian listed himself, his wife Brandi Milian and his mother Carmen Alvarez. When asked how long he has owned the property, Mr. Milian responded two (2) years. When asked who resides in the home, Mr. Milian listed himself, his wife, three (3) children and his mother. When asked the age of the children, Mr. Milian listed the ages as 5, 13 and 15. When asked when the home was built, Mr. Milian responded 1990. When asked why he wants an in-ground pool, Mr. Milian explained that he would like to enjoy summers at home with his children. He explained that the pool house exterior will match the existing home with wood siding and the same colors. When asked the height of the pool house, Mr. Milian responded one (1) story. When asked if there will be bedrooms, living area or cooking appliances, Mr. Milian responded in the negative. When asked if there will be a bathroom, Mr. Milian responded in the positive. When asked the purpose of the shed proposed, Mr. Milian explained that one of the existing sheds will be used to house the pool filter and heater and another shed is needed to store pool equipment. When asked if he spoke to the neighbors about the project, Mr. Milian responded in the positive and there were no objections to the proposed project.

When asked by Mr. Burr if the pool house will contain a fireplace and heat, Mr. Milian explained that the fireplace is intended for cool summer nights and there will be heat to prevent the bathroom pipes from freezing; the space will not be cooled. When asked if there have been any other improvements since they purchased the property, Mr. Milian noted that they re-paved the driveway. When asked if the driveway was just resurfaced, Mr. Milian responded in the positive.

Mr. Simon opined that the “gathering room” in the pool house was very large and asked how the size of the pool house was determined. Mr. Milian explained that they want enough room to have a sitting area in front of the fireplace. When asked if the fireplace will be wood burning, Mr. Milian responded in the positive. When asked if there was any other reason for the size proposed, Mr. Milian responded in the negative. When

3 asked what type of equipment will be stored in the proposed pool shed, Mr. Milian explained that there are currently two (2) sheds on the property and one (1) of the existing sheds will be used for the pool pump and heater. The proposed shed will be for pool furniture, etc. When asked by Mr. Johnstone the size of the existing sheds, Mr. Milian responded 6 x 8 and they are used to store tools and firewood. Ms. Desiderio noted that the attorney referred to the pool house as living space. Mr. Mitchell corrected his statement and noted that it is gathering space and clarified that no one will live in the pool house. When asked by Mr. Simon to explain what will be stored in the sheds, Mr. Milian explained that the existing shed closest to the proposed pool house will house the pool equipment (pump, heater, etc.), the other existing shed will be for storage of firewood. Mr. Milian noted that the sheds he is retaining are constructed of stone walls measuring a foot and a ½ deep. Mr. Milian noted that he was before the Board last year to retain one of the sheds that was constructed when the house was built but violated the setback line. He noted that he wants to retain the existing sheds for the aesthetic value to the neighborhood and his home. When asked by Mr. Simon if he is aware of the declaration of restrictions that was submitted with his application and if Sandstone Construction has signed off on the proposed project, Mr. Milian indicated that he is aware of the declaration of restrictions.

When asked by Mr. Johnstone if he has considered removing anything from the property to reduce the impervious coverage, Mr. Milian responded in the negative.

When asked by Ms. Desiderio if the pool house will be used as living space for anyone, Mr. Milian responded in the negative. When asked if it is fully enclosed, Mr. Milian responded in the positive and explained that they want it enclosed to keep bugs out. When asked if there is a shower, Mr. Milian responded in the negative.

When asked by Ms. Held what the storage area attached to the pool house will be used for, Mr. Milian explained that it will be used for towels and other things for the pool. When asked the distance the pool house is from the house, Mr. Milian opined 40 feet. When asked the square footage of the house, Mr. Milian noted that the footprint is 3,722 sq. ft. When asked if there is gathering space in the main house that would be appropriate to use instead of the pool house, Mr. Milian explained that it is too far from the pool.

When asked by Mr. Lattanzio if there are cooking facilities in the proposed pool house, Mr. Milian responded in the negative. When asked if the design of the proposed shed will be similar to the existing sheds, Mr. Milian responded in the positive.

There being no additional questions by the Board, Mr. Johnstone opened the meeting up to the public for questions. There being no questions, Mr. Johnstone closed the questioning.

Christopher Nusser, Engineering and Land Planning Associates, 140 West Main Street, High Bridge, NJ was present and sworn in by Mr. Simon. Mr. Nusser provided his qualifications. When asked by Mr. Mackie why he was presenting plans signed by Mr.

4

Ingram Mr. Nusser explained that Mr. Ingram was unavailable. When asked how long he has had his license, Mr. Nusser responded 6 or 8 years. When asked if he was an engineer in training with Mr. Ingram, Mr. Nusser noted that they were college classmates but not a direct mentor. When asked by Mr. Simon if Mr. Nusser was testifying as a Professional Engineer and Professional Planner, Mr. Mitchell responded in the positive. Mr. Nusser was accepted by the Board as a Professional Engineer and Professional Planner.

Mr. Nusser described the property as 15 Glennon Farm Road, Block 11, Lot 9.12 consisting of a 5.21 acre lot in the Highlands District. He explained that the property has approximately 140 feet of frontage along Glennon Farm Road. He noted that the lot is somewhat irregular where it extends off of the cul-de-sac. The dwelling is located about 400 feet from the end of the driveway, which is significantly longer than the 100 foot setback that is required in the zone; the distance is consistence with all of the other dwellings in the neighborhood. Mr. Nusser noted that the declaration of restrictions required a minimum size home as they were envisioned as estate size homes. The lot contains a sizeable house due to the restriction and a long driveway which contributes to the coverage. He noted that the driveway ranges from 10 to 12 feet in width for the majority of its length and it loops in front of the dwelling and extends to the garages on the southern side of the house. The driveway in the front of the house is wider to accommodate a parked car while allowing another car to pass. When asked by Mr. Mitchell if there is an advantage to having a circular driveway, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive noting that because the house is recessed on the lot there will be deliveries or emergency services at the property; backing up 400 feet down the driveway would be difficult. He noted that the driveway consists of 13,388 sq. ft.; 11,345 sq. ft. is the allowable coverage so the driveway alone exceeds the total coverage permitted for the lot. He went on to explain that the property also has walkways and decks that contribute to the coverage. The property drains East to West and towards the front of the property it starts to run South to North. He noted that there are no wetlands and the rear portion of the property is wooded and will remain wooded; no trees are proposed to be removed.

The applicant is proposing a 1,000 sq. ft. pool and a 484 sq. ft. pool house to the south of the proposed pool. He explained that the applicant is proposing a five (5) foot wide sidewalk around the pool; the pool house is proposed in lieu of a large patio/sitting area. He noted that a walkway is proposed to extend to the southern deck and to the driveway near the garages. There is also a proposed 12 x 12 shed to the Northeast of the house. To meet the requirements of the Grading and Surface Water Management Plan ordinance the applicant is proposing a drywell to be located to the North of the house which will offset the increase in stormwater runoff created by the increase in impervious coverage.

Mr. Mitchell introduced an aerial photo, marked as Exhibit A-1, to demonstrate the length of the driveway. When asked by Mr. Mitchell why the home is cited 400 feet from the road, Mr. Nusser explained that it was part of the overall development scheme. When asked if there are other homes in the neighborhood with pools, Mr. Nusser noted that six (6) other houses on Glennon Farm Road have pools. When asked the distance of the proposed pool to the closest house, Mr. Nusser responded approximately 250 feet to

5 the house to the West and testified that there is a wooded buffer that would be maintained. When asked the purpose of lot coverage in an ordinance, Mr. Nusser explained that it is to control stormwater runoff and erosion issues from impacting neighboring properties. He opined that the proposed stormwater management plan proposed by the applicant mitigates any potential negative impact. He noted that there are no current issues with erosion. From a Planning perspective, Mr. Mitchell asked if the location of the existing home creates practical difficulties to which Mr. Nusser responded in the positive noting that the driveway puts the lot over the allowable coverage by 2,000 sq. ft. When asked the benefits of the pool construction, Mr. Nusser noted that it is a common accessory feature within the neighborhood and township and a benefit to the property owner to further enjoy the property. When asked if the benefits outweigh the detriments, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive noting that the pool house is designed to match and complement the existing house. When asked if the project is a Major Stormwater Development, Mr. Nusser responded in the negative. When asked if there will be new lighting or landscaping, Mr. Nusser noted that there will be no new outdoor lighting but landscaping will likely be installed. When asked if there is any detriment to the public good or zoning ordinance, Mr. Nusser responded in the negative and noted that he has been before the Board with similar applications. Mr. Nusser pointed out that the impervious coverage in the ordinance allows 12% for lots less than 3 acres but only 5% for any lot over 5 acres; if the lot was 4.99 acres the property owner would be allowed an extra 6,000 sq. ft. of coverage. He opined that the proposals is a reasonable request for this size home and is in keeping with the neighborhood. When asked if he reviewed the letter from the Board Engineer dated March 4, 2019, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive and addressed Mr. Burr’s question regarding removal of existing coverage. He explained that the driveway was just repaved and the size and length of the driveway serves a purpose for circulation and is consistent with other lots on the street. He noted that the main walkway is large but in keeping with the scale of the house. The existing sheds were built out of stone when the house was built and are very permanent features; he opined that it would be a detriment to remove the sheds because they lend to the aesthetic. Addressing number 4 of Mr. Burr’s report, Mr. Nusser opined that reaching an effective coverage of 5% was not practicable. He explained that the driveway itself is more than 5% and there is no reasonable method for capturing the water. He noted that the septic system is in the center of the driveway loop and impedes placing any stormwater structures in that area. He noted that the stormwater measures proposed bring the property down to 8.87% which is the existing condition. Mr. Nusser offered to capture the house and the pool house into drywells; a total of 4,000 sq. ft. of stormwater control. When asked by Mr. Johnstone if the applicant would be willing to work with the Board Engineer to reduce the number as low as possible, Mr. Mitchell agreed. When asked by Mr. Burr if the house and pool house were piped into the drywells what the number would be reduced to, Mr. Nusser responded that it would be an effective runoff of 8.3% vs. 8.87% (less than what exists currently). When asked by Mr. Lattanzio if the pool will have a light, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive. When asked by Ms. Goodchild if the pool house will have lighting, Mr. Nusser indicated that there would be lighting as required by Code. Mr. Nusser reviewed the remainder of Mr. Burr’s report and agreed to comply with the items raised.

6

When asked by Mr. Burr how many other properties on Glennon Farm have “loop” driveways, Mr. Nusser opined there are multiple properties. When asked if the coverage proposed is similar to the neighboring properties, Mr. Nusser noted that they did not do a detailed analysis of the other lots but a review of the aerial photos demonstrates that it is consistent with the other lots in the area. When asked by Ms. Maranca if the other properties have four (4) outbuildings, Mr. Nusser was not aware. When asked by Mr. Burr if the pool and pool house would be visible from other properties, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive but noted that the pool house will match the style of the house. When asked if the large area of driveway near the garage could be captured, Mr. Nusser opined that a surface feature could be proposed to mitigate some of the runoff.

When asked by Mr. Simon if he did any analysis as to whether there are pool houses associated with the pools referenced in the testimony, Mr. Nusser responded in the negative. Based on the previous testimony, Mr. Simon questioned why the seating for the pool house is oriented towards the fireplace and not the pool. Mr. Nusser was not familiar with the reason for the layout. When asked the distance between the existing shed and the proposed pool house, Mr. Nusser responded approximately 4 or 5 feet.

Ms. Goodchild questioned the location of the pool equipment next to the pool as shown on the plan vs. the testimony that the equipment would be inside the existing shed. Mr. Nusser explained that it was an error on the plan and the pool equipment will be in the existing shed. When asked if the 8 x 12 waterfall area was included in the impervious coverage, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive. Ms. Goodchild noted that a recent applicant returned to the Board for a second impervious coverage variance because the width of the pool sidewalk was insufficient. When asked if the width of the sidewalk is going to be sufficient for the applicant in the future, Mr. Milian responded in the positive.

When asked by Mr. Mackie if the brick walkway is dry laid, Mr. Nusser was unsure. When asked if there are roofs over the porches or decks, Mr. Milian noted that the porch and overhang in the front of the house have roofs. When asked if the water could be captured from the roof of the porch and overhang, Mr. Milian noted that they do not have gutters. When asked the material of the deck, Mr. Milian responded Trex material with gaps between the slats(neither deck has roofs). When asked if he could collect water from the Eastern side of the circular portion of the driveway, Mr. Nusser explained that the septic system has a buffer associated with it that would prevent any stormwater management facility within 100 feet. When asked by Mr. Burr if a surface feature could be installed at the area of the driveway that has the fountain, Mr. Nusser explained that the grading falls off steeply. Mr. Milian also noted that the utility line also runs in that area.

When asked by Mr. Johnstone which shed will be used for storing firewood, Mr. Milian noted that it is the shed closest to the pool and measures 5.5’ x 6 or 7’. When asked why the shed couldn’t be used for storing pool equipment, Mr. Nusser clarified that ultimately that shed will be used for the pool filter and heater and the wood will be removed. Mr. Johnstone expressed concern with the number of storage sheds. Mr. Milian noted that

7 they have multiple cars so there is no room to store anything in the garage. Mr. Johnstone asked the applicant to consider reducing the number of storage structures.

When asked by Mrs. Baird the elevation of the property, Mr. Nusser noted that the highest elevation is at 894 and the low elevation 854. When asked if there are any steep slopes on the property, Mr. Nusser noted that there is a pocket of steep slopes off of the edge of the driveway in the Southeast corner that are manmade. When asked if there will be any disturbance of steep slopes, Mr. Nusser opined there would be some disturbance behind the house on the Southeast corner (between the pool and the existing house). Ms. Goodchild noted that a variance is triggered by the disturbance of critical slopes.

When asked by Ms. Desiderio the number of lots that have pools that are five (5) acres or under, Mr. Nusser noted that the lots are generally 5 to 9 acres. When asked if the lots with pools required variances, Mr. Nusser was unsure. When asked if the other pools are approximately the same size as the subject pool, Mr. Nusser responded in the positive. When asked the square footage of the pool house, Mr. Nusser responded 484 sq. ft. When asked why the tools have to be stored in a shed and not in the garage, Mr. Milian explained that he has a few wheelbarrows that won’t fit in the garage.

When asked by Mr. D’Armiento where the overflow from the pool will go, Mr. Mitchell offered Robert Fernandez as a witness.

Robert Fernandez, 25 Mt. View Blvd, Basking Ridge, NJ was present and sworn in by Mr. Simon. He explained that he was contracted to help with the variance application and the design work on the pool house and pool layout. Mr. Fernandez explained that they have tied the pool expel line into the drywell system. When asked if it is included in the calculation, Mr. Fernandez responded it the negative. When asked if the new shed will be a stone shed, Mr. Milian explained that it will match the existing structures.

Addressing Mr. D’Armiento’s question, Mr. Burr explained that the pool will be filled with water and is an impervious surface because the water does not get into the ground but, alternatively, water does not run off of the surface. Mr. Burr did not believe the Board should give the applicant credit for the surface area of the pool.

When asked by Ms. Held to explain the storage area that is part of the pool house, Mr. Fernandez explained that he has utilized this design before and the room in question works out very well for pool stuff for kids. He explained that families with kids generally have many floats and rafts and the room lends itself to quick storage of those items along with towels, etc. while still keeping the pools space free of debris. Ms. Held expressed concern that the storage area is far away from the pool and she was concerned that the applicant would return with a request for additional impervious walkway to get to the storage area. Mr. Fernandez noted that the other projects that utilized the design have not had complaints about access to the storage area. He noted that his experience is that the equipment comes in and out of the storage area once a day and so there shouldn’t be an issue with the traffic pattern. Mr. Fernandez asked that the Board respect the fact that

8 the Milian family is willing to reduce the lot coverage to below what exists through the use of drywells.

When asked by Mr. Lattanzio the type of fence proposed, Mr. Fernandez explained that they are going to utilize an 8 foot high deer fence/pool fence combination which is nearly invisible from 50 feet away. Mr. Lattanzio noted that the plans show a six (6) foot fence which Mr. Nusser agreed to amend to read eight (8) feet.

When asked by Mr. Simon about the other pool houses he designed in Tewksbury and whether they needed variances, Mr. Fernandez responded that the Tiger Drive location required a variance. When asked the size of the lots, Mr. Nusser explained that the lot on Tiger Drive was a similar size and had a total impervious coverage of 20,206 sq. ft. Mr. Fernandez noted that the other lot was approximately 23 acres but did not require a variance. When asked if the house on Tiger Drive had the same number of sheds, Mr. Nusser didn’t recall.

There being no additional questions from the Board, Mr. Johnstone opened the meeting up to the public. There being no questions from the public, Mr. Johnstone closed the public portion of the meeting.

There being no other witnesses, Mr. Johnstone asked the Board to comment on the application.

Mr. Mackie noted that he was pleased that the applicant was willing to work with the Board Engineer to manage the runoff but hoped that there could be a goal. Mr. Burr noted that the applicant offered to capture the runoff from the roof of the existing house and the roof of the proposed pool house which brings it down to 8.3%. The other area Mr. Burr opined was feasible was the driveway adjacent to the three (3) car garage (1,500 sq. ft.) and possibly capturing the sidewalk around the pool (1,300 sq. ft.) which has potential to bring it to approximately 7%. Mr. Fernandez opined that the pool sidewalk would be difficult to capture without adding more impervious surface. After a brief discussion, Mr. Burr and Mr. Fernandez agreed that the easier solution was the area of the driveway near the garage which would bring the effective coverage to approximately 7/7.5%. Mr. Nusser noted that if the subject lot was slightly smaller the applicant would be permitted to have 17,389 sq. ft. of impervious coverage and he asked if the Board would be satisfied if the applicant could reduce its effective coverage to that number (8% of a 4.99 acre lot). Mr. Burr felt it was a reasonable approach and the Board agreed.

Mr. Lattanzio made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions as outlined below.

Mr. Simon noted that even though there was some testimony as to qualifying under both C1 and C2, Mr. Simon recommended that the Board restrict its decision to a C1 analysis. Mr. Simon listed the following as conditions of the approval:

9

1. The applicant to file for GSWMP approval and record a deed restriction in a form approved by the Board Attorney and Board Engineer. 2. The proposal is to reduce the effective runoff from 8.87% existing down to 7.66% 3. Any exterior lighting would be limited to what is required by Code. 4. The applicant would have to comply with all Municipal, County and State requirements. 5. Compliance with Bill Burr’s report dated March 1, 2019. 6. The pool house will not be used for living space and would not have a kitchen, cooking or shower facilities. 7. The variance must be utilized within one (1) year. 8. An as-built will be required prior to the C of O due to the proximity of the pool house to the setback, etc. 9. The plans will be amended to show the pool equipment located inside the shed, the fence height to eight (8) feet and correct the name to Glennon Farm Lane (not Road). 10. All normal conditions related to escrow, etc.

Dr. Voyce seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Roll Call Vote: Those in Favor: Mrs. Baird, Ms. Desiderio, Dr. Voyce, Mr. Mackie, Mrs. Maranca, Mr. D’Armiento, Ms. Held, Mr. Lattanzio and Mr. Wade

Those Opposed: Mr. Johnstone

Discussion ensued regarding the impervious coverage breakdown and as a result, the Land Use Board authorized Ms. Goodchild to contact the Township Planner and ask her to take a look at the issue and report to the Land Use Board with her findings and recommendations.

 Jacob Appl. No. 18-16 Block 14, Lot 7 Frontyard Setback and Impervious Coverage Variance Action Deadline – 5/27/19

Brenda Jacob, 67 Big Spring Road, owner/applicant was sworn in by Mr. Simon.

Cindy Boerner-Lay, 6 Squire Hill Road, Architect for the applicant was sworn in by Mr. Simon.

Mrs. Jacob read the following statement into the record:

I wanted to take a few minutes to explain what brought us here tonight. In short, we are at a point in our lives where we desire a small retirement home. My husband, Brian and I, have lived in Tewksbury for 23 years and we have come to love our lifestyle of what

10 might be termed “small town living”. This is especially true as we were brought up and went to school in Newark and Irvington respectively. Our son went to OTS and Voorhees and on to RVCC and now lives close by in Long Valley. For retirement and to make the most out of every dollar saved we seriously pondered moving out of expensive NJ but for many like us, as one gets older, being close to friends, family and trusted medical care becomes very important. So the retirement home search began when Brian and I saw 32 Farmersville about 2 years ago but it was such a distressed property, built in the 1850’s we felt it was far too much for us to tackle. Truth be told, we looked at so many homes we lost count. Wanting to stay in Tewksbury close to the small shops of Califon for easy living and retirement we took the plunge and purchased what has to be a strong contender for the ugly duckling award winner of Farmersville Road. As we began to clear years of unattended brush and dead trees from the property the neighbors would stop by. Folks like Ken Short, former Mayor of Long Valley, who lives next door seemed very happy someone was going to fix up the property and not just rent it out. Likewise, Aaron and Debra who live behind us wished us well. Other neighbors from up the street stopped and were equally happy that improvements would be made. It was gratifying that those we’ve met to date all share the same feelings about Tewksbury.

At this point I want to ensure I thank two (2) people for their extreme patience during the variance application process. My Architect Cindy and Shana Goodchild have taught my husband and I all about setbacks, right of ways and coverage – thank you Cindy and Shana and thank you for being such informed professionals who guided us and got us to this point we’re here tonight. Board members, in terms of our retirement home wishes we are seeking a safe, two (2) bedroom home, a washer/dryer on the first floor and a two (2) car attached garage due to the tough winters in Tewksbury and modest amount of comfortable living space. Because the home sits extremely close to the road on a very small lot we need your review and thoughts on our application. Our hope is to turn the ugly duckling into a very nice looking farmhouse style home that significantly improves the current look of the property yet blends well with the surrounding homes and area. Admittedly, when we were purchasing the home we knew most likely anything we proposed would require a variance. Frankly, this too almost deterred us from venturing forward but we felt to move ahead the right approach was to keep our request modest and reasonable. We do require both a front yard setback and a lot coverage variance due to an extremely undersized lot and a home currently placed very close to the road. We hope you find our variance request reasonable given the non-conforming scenarios that exist. With that, unless there are any other questions or comments, I would turn the meeting over to Cindy who can address the more technical terms and scope of our variance request. Thank you

When asked by Mr. Simon if the existing farm garage would be removed if the application is approved, Mrs. Jacob responded in the positive.

When asked by Mr. Mackie if the existing gravel driveway will be removed if the application is approved, Mrs. Jacob responded in the positive.

11

There being no additional questions, Mr. Johnstone asked Ms. Boerner-Lay for her credentials. Ms. Boerner-Lay provided her credentials and license information and she was accepted by the Board.

Ms. Boerner-Lay provided the following information: the first floor has a proposed 8’-10 ½” addition on the rear of the house to create a modest first floor Master Bedroom Suite. Adding 5’-8 ½” to the rear of the house for an eat in-kitchen addition, and a 10’-8” x 14’- 5 ¾” addition to the side of the house for a mudroom which will house the laundry area, connection to the garage and coat/shoe storage as well as a front and rear covered entry portico for safe ingress and egress in and out of the home. A two (2) car garage is proposed and the current garage/carport/workshop structure will be removed. The new garage will be solely for housing the owners 2 cars and storage. There will be a pull down staircase to access the attic space over the garage given that the basement is small and low.

On the second floor the applicant plans to change the roofline to maintain a bedroom at that level (with better headroom as the current bedroom ceiling is only 6’-5” tall at its highest). It will also have a proper staircase (versus the current Jersey Winder) and a full bathroom.

The basement is only 518 square feet of floor space and only about 6’ high; it will be purely unfinished utility space.

The existing home is 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1 car garage/workshop and the new home will be 2 bedroom, 2.5 bath with a 2 car garage. The existing and proposed homes are both two stories; the proposed home is slightly taller (due to the new second floor roofline to allow for proper headroom at the second floor bedroom). The existing structure is 20.8’ high whereas 23.9’ is proposed (35’ is permitted).

The home will be re-roofed (asphalt and standing seam metal roofing) and also resided with all new Hardie plank board and batten siding. The hodgepodge of original and replacement windows will be removed and replaced with new Andersen 400 series simulated divided light windows. New carriage style garage doors and a cupola will add to the aesthetic. The new home will keep and enhance the farmhouse style and character of the home, and the neighborhood as a whole.

Ms. Boerner-Lay described the following variances required: a front yard setback variance is required - existing is 12.0’ to the R.O.W. and the new addition is 19.5’ to the R.O.W. whereas 75.0’ is required. The applicant is dealing with the hardship of an extremely undersized lot and an existing nonconforming situation. She noted that even if the house was demolished and re-built there is nowhere on the lot to build a conforming house; 75’ front yard and a 40’ rear yard setback requirement (totaling 115’) and the lot is only 98.4’ deep (300’ is required). The existing home has been there since approximately 1850, probably before Farmersville Road was a ‘real road’. She explained that the removal of the existing non-conforming accessory structure garage removes 3 variances - accessory rear, accessory front and accessory side yard setback and the building of a new

12 garage improves the police chiefs only concern of proximity to Sutton Road intersection; the new garage and driveway will be further away (approximately 36.5’ further) from the intersection than the current condition. The proposed garage will also allow for better and additional parking as currently only 1 car can fit in the carport and 1 car in the driveway. The new proposal will allow for 2 cars in the garage and 2 cars in the driveway.

Ms. Boerner-Lay provided a handout marked as Exhibit A-1 which was a Google map with the subject property highlighted in red. When asked by Mr. Simon if she hand drew the lot lines, Ms. Boerner-Lay responded in the negative but noted that they display as white on the print out so she traced over them in red. On page two (2) the subject house is circled. She also provided Google mapping of each individual property identified in the 200 foot list which was marked as Exhibit A-2; the address of each individual property is listed at the top of each page. In comparison to surrounding properties on Farmersville Road, Ms. Boerner-Lay felt there was no comparison. Out of the other lots within 200’ the next smallest lot is 2.635 acres or 6.76 times larger than the subject lot at .39 Acres. It is the most comparable however because the home is also from approximately 1790 is situated close to the road. The largest lot within 200’ is 17.87 acres, 45.82 times larger than the subject lot. All of the other homes within 200’and beyond are much larger lots and the homes are newer construction.

The Google map with the subject lot highlighted in red shows that it is basically a pimple on the nose of the much larger surrounding lots; there isn’t really one that is remotely comparable. Using Exhibit A-2 Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that the surrounding homes within 200’ are much larger, newer construction ‘estate type’ homes. The one exception being #34 Farmersville which is the closest in proximity, age and size.

Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that while it is a large variance, it is due to an existing nonconforming condition. With the new additions being setback 8.2’ further than the existing. She noted that all of the proposed additions are conforming to the 40’ rear yard setback requirement, even with the extremely undersized, shallow lot.

Ms. Boerner-Lay went on to explain variance needed for lot coverage: existing is 1814.73 sq.ft. or 10.76% and proposed is 2530.12 sq.ft. or 15.0% whereas 2023.82 sq. ft. or 12.0% is allowed; a 506.3sq. ft. or 3.0% variance. The applicant could have reduced coverage by putting all of the bedrooms on the second floor however, it is a retirement/forever home for the applicants and they need the convenience of single floor living. Also, they need a proper attached garage so they don’t need to dig out their cars in the harsh NJ winters.

Ms. Boerner-Lay provided another handout marked as Exhibit A-3 which was product literature on the proposed driveway material. She explained that the lot coverage calculations counted the driveway at 100% impervious, it should be noted that it is actually 60% impervious with a 40% void ratio. In reality the impact of the driveway is 238.09 sq. ft. versus the 396.82 sq. ft. used in the lot coverage calculations. This reduces

13 the “effective” lot coverage by 158.73 sq. ft. or almost 1% making it a 2.1% variance versus a 3.0% variance.

Ms. Boerner-Lay went on to say that the applicant has the hardship of a property that is extremely undersized. The home being proposed is very modest even after the proposed additions and improvements the total living space is 1735 sq. ft. (2222 sq. ft. with the proposed garage). She noted that while the applicant is still adding lot coverage she opined that they are doing it in a minimal impact way through the following efforts: 1) the driveway will be Turfstone to reduce actual impact, 2) the front path is stepping stones versus a solid pathway, and 3) the additions are all minimal in dimensions to make the rooms work functionally - no room being excessive or grand, but allowing for a comfortable useable space. She outlined the size of each proposed room as follows:

Master Bedroom is 11’-8” x 12’ Kitchen (largest room in the house) 15’-8” x 17’ Living room 13’-5” x 14’ Dining 12’-8” x 14’-9” Mudroom Office 5’-7” x 11’ Garage 20’-3” x 21’-3” with a small bump out to allow for garbage can storage, without having to make the entire garage wider. There is a pulldown stair (versus a walk up stair) to save space while still providing access to the attic space over the garage for storage.

Ms. Boerner-Lay provided the following lot coverage breakdown:

Building 1982.71 sq.ft. or 11.75% (almost all of the allowable coverage) Front and rear steps 21.34 sq. ft. Stepping stone path 54 sq. ft. Driveway actual 396.82 sq. ft. or 2.35% (effective 238.09 sq. ft.) Bilco 36 sq. ft. Front stoop/ steps 23.0 sq. ft. Generator/AC 16.25 sq. ft. TOTAL 2530.12 sq. ft. or 15.0%

Ms. Boerner-Lay addressed Mr. Burr’s comments as follows: 1) no trees to be removed, 2) the septic system has already been reconstructed and approved for 3 bedrooms, 3) no seepage pits/drywells are proposed and they are not aware of any on the property, 4) the added lot coverage is 715.39 sq. ft., under the 1000 sq. ft. required for a drywell, 5) exterior lighting will not be directed towards any neighboring properties (the property is well screened with both deciduous and evergreens), 6) a lighting plan will be submitted as part of the construction drawings for permits.

Ms. Boerner-Lay also offered the following details: 1) there will be some exterior lighting at the garage roof canopy (down lighting/recessed) over the garage doors). Mr. Johnstone encouraged the applicant to keep all lighting downward facing. 2) there will

14 be recessed or ceiling fixtures and perhaps a wall sconce at the both the front and rear mudroom entries. 3) there will be a wall sconce at the front door. 4) most likely some motion/ spots for security for the driveway and yards (not directed towards the road or neighboring properties). 5) the proposed generator shown on the plan requires a front yard setback variance due to the site constraints (33.25’ from the ROW). The size is yet to be determined by the electrical subcontractor, and will be indicated on the permit submission. 6) the proposed A/C condensers shown on the plan require a front yard setback variance due to site constraints (44.25’ from the ROW).

Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that three (3) bedrooms exist and two (2) are proposed and the septic is sized for three (3) bedrooms.

When asked by Mr. Burr is she would make sure that her plan and the plan prepared by Steve Parker correspond, Ms. Boerner-Lay responded in the positive.

In conclusion, Ms. Boerner-Lay believed that the applicant is taking the current home, in much need of renovation and repair and updating it to meet the needs of the owners while taking the site constraints into consideration. The new home will be extremely modest and blend in and enhance the streetscape of Farmersville Road - a much needed improvement of the existing dilapidated conditions. She hoped that the Board members had a chance to drive by the existing home and see what an improvement the proposal will be. In addition, materials, proportions, rooflines etc. will be in keeping with the farmhouse aesthetic of the area. She opined that the applicant has taken the necessary steps to minimize the impact with both the modest sized additions and clever use of alternate, but in keeping materials. Finally, she asked that the Board act favorably on the application.

Mr. Burr asked Ms. Boerner-Lay to go back to her testimony about the proposed driveway Turfstone and what impact they will have on lowering the effective runoff. She noted that it will be used for the driveway only. She explained that the Turfstone driveway has a 40% void so therefore 60% is impervious which means the impact of the driveway is 238.09 sq. ft. vs. 396.82 sq. ft. When calculating the coverage, they used the full 396.82 sq. ft. By using the Turfstone the effective lot coverage is reduced by 158.73 sq. ft. or almost 1%. When asked if there are any existing drainage facilities, Ms. Boerner-Lay responded in the negative. When asked how difficult it would be to add a drywell, Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that she discussed it with Mr. Jacob and they are more than happy to provide a drywell to help with some water issues they have in the basement. They would try to tie the rear roof leaders into the drywell. She noted that the entire left side of the property is used for the septic field so they discussed a potential area to the right. When asked if the tree between the house and the garage has already been removed, Mrs. Jacobs responded in the positive.

When asked by Mr. Simon if they did any investigation into how the lot became one of the smallest in the area, Ms. Boerner-Lay opined that at some point it was part of a larger lot and was subdivided but she didn’t know for certain. When asked the history of the

15 occupancy of the property, Mrs. Jacob explained that the gentleman they purchased the property from lived there for approximately 6 years.

Ms. Goodchild noted that the Board should consider that the Turfstone could potentially be paved in the future and so a condition should be included in the resolution.

When asked by Mr. Mackie about the disturbance that has occurred on the property, Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that it was from the construction of the septic system. When asked if they agreed to install a drywell, Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that if the Board required it the applicant would agree.

When asked by Mr. D’Armiento if the Turfstone will be appropriate in the winter, Ms. Boerner-Lay explained that she is aware of a townhouse development that used it and they get snow, heavy deliveries and it has been fine since the installation in 2008. Mr. D’Armiento opined that if the applicant is willing to install a drywell they should not have a condition or deed restriction prohibiting the paving of the driveway. Mr. Burr agreed.

When asked by Ms. Held if the house is currently habitable, Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that it depends on the definition of habitable. When asked by Ms. Held if there is anything to address the concern raised by the Police Chief, Ms. Boerner-Lay explained that the proposed garage and driveway is actually 36.5 feet further away than the current driveway so the sight distance will be improved.

Mr. Wade complimented the applicant on the proposal and asked why they were removing the Jersey Winder. Ms. Boerner-Lay noted that by current code they would not be able to access a bedroom with the staircase and Mrs. Jacob noted that it is dangerous.

There being no additional questions, Ms. Held made a motion to approve the application as proposed. Mr. Johnstone agreed and opined that the Turfstone for the driveway was an excellent idea along with the drywell offered. Dr. Voyce seconded the motion.

Mr. Simon listed the following conditions of approval:

1. Mr. Burr’s report dated February 4, 2019. 2. Turfstone and a drywell will be installed. They can pave the driveway in the future if they desire (no restriction against paving in the future). Drainage/runoff on the property should be addressed to get to an effective coverage of 12% or below to the approval of the Land Use Board Engineer. 3. All lighting shall be downward lighting. 4. The variance is valid for one (1) year. 5. Payments of escrows and fees.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote:

16

Those in favor: Mrs. Baird, Ms. Desiderio, Dr. Voyce, Mr. Mackie, Mrs. Maranca, Mr. D’Armiento, Ms. Held, Mr. Lattanzio, Mr. Wade and Mr. Johnstone

Those Opposed: None

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. by motion of Ms. Held and seconded by Ms. Desiderio. All were in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Shana L. Goodchild Land Use Administrator

17