VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Meeting Minutes
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
Opening:
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Village of Ridgewood was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
Present: Sergio Alegre, Greg Brown, Gary Negrycz, Alyssa Matthews, Ines Bunza and Jonathan Papietro. Also present were Bruce Whitaker, Esq., Board Attorney and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary.
Absent: Diana Ruhl, Isaac Lebow
Non-agenda items:
Board member comments: There were no comments at this time.
Members of the public comments: There were no comments at this time.
Resolution memorialization: The following resolutions were memorialized:
Heuer, 441 Farview Street
Woods/Meinardi, 139 Glenwood Road
Discussion: DCosta/Menezes, 520 Upper Boulevard – Request for extension of variance approval to September 26, 2019. Following Board discussion Ms. Matthews made a motion to approve the extension of variance approval for one year, Mr. Papietro seconded, and all members voted yes.
Public hearings
Chairman Alegre announced that Boroughs Poole, LLC was carried to November 13, 2018, without further notice.
Old Business:
KEVIN & JENNIFER HOGAN – An application to construct a front portico, a rear 2-story addition and a rear covered deck which will result in a side yard setback on the left of 9.2 feet to the first floor and 9.2 feet to the 2nd floor; side yard setback on the right of 6.8 feet to the chimney, 8.3 feet to the addition and 8.7 feet to the deck, where 20 feet is required; combined side yard setback of 15.9 feet, where 16.5 feet is required; coverage by above-grade structures of 22.3%, coverage by above-grade structures within 140 feet of the front lot line of 23.7%, where 20% is permitted for both; coverage by improvements within 140 feet of the front lot line of 46.76%, where 45% is permitted and gross building area of 37.76%/2,643 square feet where 35%/2,450 square feet is permitted at 82 John Street, Block 3501, Lot 6, in the R-1 Zone. (Continued from July 10, 2018 and carried from August 14, 2018 without further notice) Chairman Alegre recused himself from this hearing and left the meeting. Mr. Rutherford, Esq., was present on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Inglima, Esq., was present on behalf of James and Lorraine Reynolds and Robert and Linda Cron. Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Kim O. Furbacher, CRCR, CCR, RMR.:
MR. RUTHERFORD: For the record, my name is David L. Rutherford. I'm appearing tonight on behalf of Kevin and Jennifer Hogan. As you just indicated, the Board has conducted two public hearings on this matter, the first took place on June 12th, when the Board heard the direct testimony of Roger Schlicht, our architect; on July 10th, the Board heard Mr. Schlicht's cross examination by Mr. Inglima. My clients and I listened to what was said at those meetings and we made some revisions to the plans, which I believe the Board has in front of them. So what I will do this evening is, I have some short redirect for Mr. Schlicht, focused on a couple of the issues that arose during his cross examination, and then testimony relating to the revised plans. We also have Lisa Phillips, our professional planner, here this evening and ready to go. What I was going to also ask some indulgence from the Board is, my clients have advised that there are a couple of interested parties in the neighborhood that wish to be heard. Mr. Inglima can speak for himself, but I'm not sure that his planner will be here this evening and I wasn't really certain when the best time to fit them in, so I believe they are able and willing to come down here this evening. They're not part of my case, but what I'm asking, since we do have some time this evening, I was asking if the Board would indulge us. I think what I would suggest is that after Ms. Phillips' testimony is complete; Mr. Inglima's cross examined her, if the Board would entertain that testimony to see if we can get those folks out of the way. I totally understand that you would open it up to the public again, obviously, after all testimony, but I'm just trying to use the time as the best advantage, if that's acceptable.
MR. WHITAKER: No problem with that. Mr. Inglima?
MR. INGLIMA: I certainly have no objection to accommodating members of the public at any point during the proceedings.
MR. RUTHERFORD: That's fine. Then my clients, I think, are prepared then to tell those folks to come down and hopefully we'll have time to get to them this evening, so I thank you for that. Before we start, just in the interest of time, I'm going to mark three exhibits. I think my last exhibit was A-4, so I'm going to mark, with the Board's permission, Mr. Whitaker, as exhibit A-5, Mr. Schlicht's latest drawing, it's site plan sheets V-1 and V-2, revised through August 31st, 2018.
MR. RUTHERFORD: The second is a set of renderings, these are drawings SK-4 through SK-7. These are dated September 1st, 2018. And I will, with your consent, mark those as exhibit A-6.
MR. RUTHERFORD: And the last exhibit is exhibit A-7, this is a schematic diagram, for lack of a better word.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Schlicht will explain it better than that, but I would, with your permission, mark that as A-7. That's a one page sheet, and I believe Mr. Schlicht just handed it out to the Board, and Mr. Inglima has a copy.
MR. RUTHERFORD: So with that out of the way, Mr. Chairman, we'll proceed with Mr. Schlicht's testimony.
MR. INGLIMA: Just for the record, Mr. Rutherford, what's now being marked as A-7, that was not previously submitted to the Board, right?
MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct.
MR. INGLIMA: Okay.
R O G E R D. S C H L I C H T, JR., RA, having been previously sworn, testifies as follows:
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Mr. Schlicht, you testified in this matter on two prior occasions. You were sworn at that time. Do you understand that you're still under oath?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. The first thing I wanted you to address very briefly, two issues arose on your cross examination at the last meeting, one related to the encroachment of the, for lack of a better word, fireplace box on the north side of the home into the side yard setback, and the second had to do with the ordinance permits certain encroachments, such as eaves or architectural features into the required yards; the issue arose as to whether or not those encroachments are still permitted when the wall of the home that's in question itself encroaches into the side yard. Those were the two issues that we had. So, I believe that you have done a little further investigation and have some further information for the Board on those two issues, and then we'll move on to the revised plan.
A. Yes. I met with Mrs. Paola Perez, and we talked about the two components.
In regards to the portico, even though the house is over the front yard setback, she feels, and in the past historically, that that would not require a variance, because it meets the minimum square feet of an encroachment, even though the house is over, so she felt that did not need a variance.
MR. INGLIMA: I'm going to have to object. I didn't want to interrupt him before he finished his statement, but I think if there is any position that's going to be expressed by the zoning official of the Village of Ridgewood, it should be done either from her own testimony or through a report of some type that bears the official seal of the municipality. I don't think that it's appropriate for there to be hearsay testimony in which a witness, even though he's an expert, is nevertheless characterizing the testimony, or, I should say, the position of an official of the municipality. That should only come from the official.
MR. WHITAKER: Mr. Schlicht, Ms. Perez has had the benefit of A-5 that's been submitted this evening, correct?
THE WITNESS: Is this A-5?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, A-5 is the revised site plan.
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, yes, it was submitted. I think she was on vacation for four weeks, but I think so.
MR. WHITAKER: In your discussion with her, was it before or after the submission of this document?
THE WITNESS: Before.
MR. WHITAKER: So now that she has this document, I would say that we do need to have a report from her, because what Mr. Schlicht is offering is basically hearsay, and she's the zoning officer, the one that's done the review of the plans, she needs to issue a written report.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Then we can certainly ask her for a report. I think I can also say, it was not our intent to present hearsay testimony to the board. I will certainly ask her to do that. The other issue that Mr. Schlicht wrote with her about was the fireplace box. So, since I don't think we're going to finish tonight anyway, I will ask her for a report, but it's our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the encroachment of the front covered landing is not a variance, the encroachment of the gas fireplace is a variance, but we'll deal with that, I will request her to provide a written report to the board.
MR. INGLIMA: And, if I may, I didn't want to interrupt, but if I may, since we are in the middle of an administrative proceeding, I would ask that any report that's issued by either Ms. Perez or any other official from the municipality during the pendency of these proceedings be copied to me
MR. WHITAKER: Absolutely.
MR. INGLIMA: on this issue.
MR. WHITAKER: It is always done that way.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, thank you.
THE WITNESS: So, based on that review, I've added the chimney as a variance on this drawing, which was published after the meeting with Ms. Perez.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Okay. So now, just so we're clear, I think to start your testimony, we're going to refer to what I have marked as exhibit A-5. That's sheets V-1 and V-2, revised through August 31st, 2018.
Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. I think the best way to do it, Mr. Chairman, we're not going to go through all the detail again, but I'm going to try to have Mr. Schlicht just highlight for the Board the changes that were made to the plans since we were last here in July. So you can do that, Mr. Schlicht. Thank you.
MR. INGLIMA: May I, before he begins? I only had the benefit of a full sized copy of V-1 and V-2. Can I ask Mr. Rutherford, is there an additional copy of, this would be SK-4 through SK-7, what's been marked as A-6?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
MR. INGLIMA: In a full sized format, in other words, scaled?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. This is what it is. For the record, I think that's 11x17.
MR. INGLIMA: Oh, this is how it was submitted to the Board?
MR. RUTHERFORD: This is how it is, yes.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Mr. Schlicht, I think what we want to do is try to focus your testimony on the changes that were made, however you wish to present that.
A. Okay. I'd like to go floor by floor, and the diagram that we issued represents the previous application, that was drawings dated March 29, 2018, which are shown in the red dashed.
Q. Okay. Just for the record, I'm sorry to interrupt, you are referring to exhibit A-7?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct? That was distributed to the Board this evening.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. And the schematic diagram that's shown in blue represents the areas and shapes of the homes that are matching the 8/31/18 plans that's exhibit A-5. So it's a diagram just to kind of explain it, I think, in a very simplistic way what we did since the last hearing. So, in regards to the first floor, I'll try to just give you a quick summary. We reduced the family room by 2 foot by pulling it in from the rear of the house. And you can see that on the right hand side where it's dimensioned 2 feet with the hatched area. We reduced the covered porch and pulled the covered porch in. We've reduced the covered porch by 6 inches, and then moved it in those 2 feet that was given by reducing the house. We eliminated the proposed outdoor fireplace that was previously shown on the rear covered porch. We reduced the mudroom area we didn't reduce the mudroom area, we moved the mudroom area in and pushed it more into the existing house. That was reduced by 9 inches. Nothing happened with the portico. On the right hand side, you can see how the chimney shifted staying centered on the family room that moved in 2 feet. So then the rear covered entry became smaller to come to the back mudroom, as shown on the upper left of the first floor diagram. The net result of this was the variance was reduced for gross building area from 39 percent to 37.76. We removed 45 square feet of livable area. We reduced the lot coverage by 80 square feet, which is part the house and the other part the porch. So, our request previously was 23.1, and presently these drawings reflect 22.3 percent over the whole lot, and 23.7 percent over the 140 feet. And so we reduced all three of those variances. And by doing what we just said, we increased some of the setbacks that are requested. So that was the first floor.
And the second floor, the diagram to your left, we reduced the width of the addition side to side by 2 feet, and by doing that, we kicked in the north wall that faced the north property line 2 feet to create a break in the roof line and to create a lower roof line to break the two story wall and somewhat in response to some of the neighbors' concerns about being too close to their property. We reduced the gross building area of the second floor, so the variance has been revised from 39 percent to 37.76. I would note that the gross building area over the whole lot has always been compliant, so that is below the allowable 34 percent, we're at 29.20 and we're at 2,643 square feet, while 3,077 is allowed. So we've increased the proposed side yard setback to the second floor by 2 feet by pushing the right side of the house in. In regards to the elevations
Q. One more. There was one other minor change on the second floor, correct, in the upper left on the second floor?
A. That was just a shift. It actually moved over a foot. The blue line moved to the left, because we compressed the bathroom, the closets and the bedroom. We made it smaller in width. We basically tried to make every room smaller, including the porch, and we tried to eliminate the fireplace just to keep on reducing the bulk and the footprint of the house.
Q. Okay. And I think you were going to refer to A-6, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are the renderings?
A. The front elevation is basically the same as previously testified. SK-5, we did have a false gable roof that faced the north. In discussions with the neighbors, they asked us to remove that. Diminish
Q. We don't want to
MR. INGLIMA: Mr. Rutherford.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. We're not here to discuss discussions with anyone.
A. Okay.
Q. We made a change, period.
A. So we removed a gable roof that faced north at the end of the master bedroom. And then on SK-5, we can see how there's a low roof at the first floor ceiling line, second floor line, where we stepped back the master bedroom 2 feet. So it's stepping back and it's a smaller elevation. And you can also see how the fireplace has been removed from the last round of drawings. SK-6 is the left side. We, again, removed the false gabel roof that used to be centered over the bathroom windows, and then the end of the house came in, and the fireplace is gone as well. And then SK-7, it's a similar elevation, although the fireplace has been removed and the roof line still is aligning with the existing house, which is a compliant 30 foot height.
Q. Anything else?
A. No, those are the changes that we made.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. That's all I have for Mr. Schlicht, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
MR. INGLIMA: I didn't know if the Board wanted to go first?
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Bruce, do you have any questions?
MR. WHITAKER: If the Board has questions of Mr. Schlicht, you can reserve to ask questions after Mr. Inglima is done with his cross examination.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Do you have any questions?
MR. PAPIETRO: No.
MR. WHITAKER: Mr. Inglima.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Good evening, Mr. Schlicht. The last time we were here, I had directed some questions to you with respect to the zoning table and well, let me go through them one by one very quickly. The zoning table indicated originally that there was a front yard setback required of 40 feet, and you had indicated on the plan that had been submitted at that time that the application was compliant with that front yard setback requirement. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Well, the required front yard setback is 45 feet, and the compliant element I was speaking of was the portico.
Q. All right. The existing setback to the house is 42.65 feet, correct?
A. Yes, on the left corner.
Q. So the table that you have produced as part of V 1, which has been marked as A-5, still indicates that the minimum requirement is 40 feet. So you're saying now the minimum requirement for front yard setback is 45 feet for the principal structure?
A. Yes. If you look at drawing 2, V-1, the site plan, it has a dashed line that depicts each setback, and it says 45.0 feet front yard setback.
Q. We're talking about the zoning schedule right now which appears in the upper right side of V-1, exhibit A-5. So that's incorrect, it should state that the minimum requirement is 45 feet. Right?
A. Well, the ordinance reads it's 40 feet, and the only time you increase it is when the right of way is not 50 feet, which John Street is 40 feet, so you add five, and we do that on the site plan. Our schedule is basically right out of the Ridgewood ordinance, so we don't change the 40, but we apply the five on the site plan because you can see the John Street right of way is 40 feet. So it's not incorrect in the sense that that's what Ridgewood asks for, if you open up the e-code under R-1 zone.
Q. So, it's your position that you get to pick and choose which sections of the ordinance to put in your zoning schedule. Is that the idea?
A. No, we put it exactly what's in the e-code.
Q. All right. The requirement is 45 feet. Can we agree on that?
A. Yes, that's what's shown on the site plan 2 on V-1.
Q. If you can just answer the questions, this will go faster. A variance is, therefore, required with respect to that for the existing structure that is being modified. Isn't that correct?
MR. RUTHERFORD: That's a legal question, Mr. Chairman, that the Board will deal with at the appropriate time.
MR. INGLIMA: Okay.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. So the existing building does not comply with the 45 foot setback requirement, right?
A. Correct, but we're not modifying anything on the front facade of the building.
Q. But you're putting a new portico on front that will extend even farther into the required setback. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes, and as reviewed twice with the zoning officer.
Q. All right. We're not going to get into what the zoning officer thinks, we need to see a report. Isn't it true that the portico is only 38 feet from the front line?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So it's 7 feet into the required front yard setback for the property. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes, but I think well
Q. That's all I'm asking, is it correct, and you said yes. Now, if the property requires a 45 foot front yard setback and the portico is 7 feet into that setback, can you tell me whether Section 190-119A(4)(g), I think some of those dashes may actually be parentheticals, but accepting the way that you have reflected that ordinance provision on your table, can you tell me where in that table it says that you can go 7 feet into the required front yard setback with any structure, portico or otherwise.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to that question. We spent an awful lot of time on the issue of permitted encroachments in Section 119 at the July 12th meeting. We talked about it earlier again this evening. The zoning Board has asked me to get a letter from the zoning officer. She will address the issue, and I don't know that we need to spend further time with Mr. Schlicht on that issue right now.
MR. WHITAKER: My suggestion would be to wait for the letter from the zoning officer. Everybody can reserve further testimony or objection or information, et cetera, after they have the time to review that letter.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: No sense in having Mr. Schlicht opine on it when we want to see what the foundation is from the zoning officer.
MR. INGLIMA: I'm fine with that procedure. Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: Please proceed.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. If we can go to the section of the table where you indicate the requirement for side yard setback as to both side yards; you indicate in the table that the requirement for both side yards or the total side yards, as it's sometimes referred to, is one third of the lot width. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have calculated that based on the 50 foot width of the lot as being 16.5 foot aggregate for a total side yard distance. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've indicated in the table that there's 16.9 feet of total side yards today. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to make sure that those are numbers that you stand by. Those are calculated based on this new plan A-5?
A. Well, the 16.9 was the existing, and when the chimney that we removed was an allowable encroachment, we don't use the cumulative to the chimney, we go to the wall.
Q. I'm just asking whether the information in your table is still accurate.
A. Yes.
Q. And in the proposed column for total side yards, you indicated that the new plan, A-5, creates 15.99 feet of total side yards. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's less than what exists today?
A. Due to the fact that the fireplace box is now considered a variance, so we've added or we've taken that dimension to the fireplace box, since Ms. Perez did not consider it a chimney, and that's why the distance got reduced from last meeting.
Q. And in the table you indicate that a variance is required from that requirement of the ordinance?
A. Yes.
Q. In the prior section of your table, you indicate that a minimum side yard of 20 feet is required. So isn't the total side yard requirement 40 feet and not 16.9?
If you have a 20 foot side yard requirement on the north side and a 20 foot side yard requirement on the south side, I didn't major in math in college, but that seems that it's 40 feet. So what is the basis for saying that the other provision of the ordinance relaxes that standard from 40 feet to only 16.9 feet?
A. Again, we just put in exactly how the ordinance reads. So one could be applicable, the other one could just be a section that could never be applicable because the other one supersedes it. We don't edit the e-code ordinance, we put it in exactly how it is in e-code. So I'm not going to revise the municipal law under the required, it's exactly verbatim out of the e-code.
Q. All right. Assuming for the moment that the requirement for total side yards is the aggregate of the two individually required side yards, then your 15.99 foot distance is a variance from the 40 feet of, what, 25.01 feet, right?
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm going to object to that, because Mr. Inglima's question misstates the ordinance. The ordinance, I'm looking at it, it says: Minimum required side yards; it says 33 percent of the lot width measured at the minimum front yard setback line. It doesn't say it's the total of the two required side yards. We acknowledge we need a side yard setback variance. There's no question about it. We encroach on the 20 on both sides, no question about it.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. All right. So I will accept Mr. Schlicht's position as expressed by Mr. Rutherford that this is a legal issue, and I would ask that we stipulate that the table can be disregarded as to this, pending the outcome of any legal issues to be resolved?
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm not stipulating that anything is disregarded on the plan.
If Mr. Inglima wants to raise it as an issue later on, I acknowledge that he's raised it now and he can make further argument as he deems appropriate.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Let's go down to the part of the table where you refer to gross building area. It's about the third major section from the bottom of the schedule. It says: Gross building area, and then it sets forth requirements that are based on the total lot. Correct? I'm not trying to trick you up, it says principal building total. It's just based on the total lot, right?
A. Yes, we do it on the total lot, we do it over 140 feet.
Q. And then the second says: 140 feet, that's referring to the first 140 feet measured back from the front lot line, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, what was the basis for saying it's 34 percent for the total lot and 35 percent for the 140 feet?
A. I'd have to look at the chart.
Q. Perhaps I can speed you to it. Did you interpret that section of the ordinance to state that when calculating or referring to the ordinance for percentages that are applied, that you only use the area within 140 feet of the lot as the lot area?
A. Yes.
Q. So, therefore, because it's a smaller lot, you get to bump up the percentage?
A. Yeah, whatever the area of your particular lot is, the 2,450, you go to page 55, and you look for that square footage, and that's what it says.
Q. The thing I'm asking is: There's some provision in that ordinance that talks about gross building area, where it says that the percentages are derived from only the area within 140 feet of the frontline or is it subject to interpretation?
A. It's not subject to interpretation. We put in
Q. No, I'm asking whether there's something in the ordinance that says that you would only consider that area within 140 feet from the front line in order to develop the percentage?
A. For the second calculation, it's based on the 140 feet. That's why it says 140. The total is based on the 9,051.
Q. Uh huh.
A. The 140 is based on the 7,000. So if you go to the chart, 0 to 8,399 is 35 percent. If you go to the chart, and you go to 9,051, there it's 8,400 to 10,499, it's 34 percent. Again, whatever they say here, we put here. We don't edit or interpret this. We just take it and put it into our schedule. The square footages are 35 percent of 9,051; 3,077 and 2,450 is 35 percent of 7,000. You can ask Mrs. Perez if that's correct, but that's how we've been doing it for 25 years.
Q. So, if a lot has a narrower width, as this lot does, then there would be less lot area within 140 feet from the property line. So, therefore, it would be entitled to a higher percentage of coverage, is that what you're saying basically?
A. That's how the chart is structured, if you were to look at it. The smaller the lot size, the higher the percentage goes up. That's the ordinance, that's not me.
Q. Well, I would like in the break or at some appropriate time, you may be coming back next time we have a hearing, but certainly any opportunity you have, I'd like you to pull out the section of the ordinance and find the language in it that says that it should be interpreted as you have interpreted it.
A. I would ask for Ms. Perez to.
Q. Okay. Maybe we will add that to the list of things for her to opine on.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm also compelled to comment. I've been appearing before this Board for many years, and the way Mr. Schlicht has done it is the way the Board has uniformly done it for as long as I can remember. It's basically you do the calculation for two lots, two lots, one is the first 140, and it is what it is for that, and one is over the entire lot. I'm not going to testify, all I can tell you is that's how it's been, and I will ask Ms. Perez to address that issue in her letter.
MR. INGLIMA: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Perhaps we can go to the, well, we'll stay with V-1. How did you measure what structure did you extend a dimension from in a horizontal direction in order to derive what you've indicated above the arrows to the right on the plan or to the north as the north arrow points from the proposed covered porch?
A. To the , well, it's not parallel, it's perpendicular to the property line.
Q. No, I understand, but what structural element of the porch did you use as the closest part of that structure in order to develop the you've got three different calculations there for the side yard distance. What did you use?
A. We used the floor of the porch, because the roof overhang is less than 2 feet. So, based on the ordinance, if the overhang is less than 2 feet, your setback is not from the roof overhang but from the structure.
Q. All right. Well, I'm not going to cross examine you on that interpretation, I'm just trying to figure out what it is you used to develop, for example, the 8.72 feet that's indicated at what I would refer to as the northwest corner of the proposed porch, and you're saying it's from the deck itself
A. Yes.
Q. whatever the surface is that you stand on when you're on the porch?
A. Yes, and the reason the numbers change is because the house is slightly skewed to the property line.
Q. And how far beyond that point does the roof that you've indicated above the covered porch extend in a northerly direction?
A. If you go to SK-7, I put dimensions on every roof overhang based on the questions of last hearing. It's a 9 inch overhang, if you look at SK-7 for the roof, 9 inch overhang.
Q. So, in order to figure out how close that structure is going to be on the property line, we would add 9 inches to each of the three dimensions you've indicated, 8.72, 8.34, and 8.68. Is that correct?
A. No, you would subtract 9 inches, you wouldn't add 9 inches.
Q. Well, you said that the overhang of the roof is 9 more inches?
A. Yes, so you wouldn't add 9 inches to 8.7, you would subtract it.
Q. I'm sorry, you're correct, that's right. So you would reduce those dimensions by 9 inches?
A. Correct.
Q. Or .75?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. What dimensions or what distances did you use for your zone table, your zoning schedule?
A. Well, you can see that on the left. You want me to go through each one, the 9.21?
Q. No, I can read. I see 8.34 to covered porch, right, 8.34 feet to covered porch. So, if we were to consider the roof over the porch to be an element of the porch and extending into the side yard requirement, side yard setback, we would have to deduct .75 from that number, right?
A. Yes. In the schedule we put the smallest dimension, so if it's skewed and it's getting larger, we wouldn't put the 8.72, we would put the smaller number, which is 8.34.
Q. So we're below 8 feet, we're somewhere between 7 and 8 feet, right?
A. To the roof overhang, yes.
Q. You've indicated on your architectural drawings let me find the sheet here you've indicated a low roof on SK-5 that is above the first floor section that you've indicated at a distance of 8.59 feet from the property line. Correct?
A. SK-5?
Q. Yes, I'm looking at SK-5, which is one of the sheets from today. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It's dated September 1st, 2018.
A. That's an extension of the porch roof. That's the same roof, since the second floor steps in 2 feet.
Q. Yes, but there's first floor area below it, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, how far beyond the edge, the vertical extension of the line that you indicate on the plan as being the outermost point of the first floor in that area, how far beyond that does the eave above the first floor extend the low roof?
A. It's the same roof, it's 9 inches.
Q. So 9 inches beyond what you've indicated as 8.59 feet, and you didn't indicate what the distance is where the chimney is, but you would deduct the width of the chimney, right?
A. Well, we did dimension the setback, well, it's not the chimney, it's a firebox. It's considered a fireplace enclosure.
Q. Well, I don't want to quibble with you over what it's called, but you indicate on the plan proposed fireplace enclosure. So you would reduce that dimension that would get you the first floor just west of that location, correct?
A. I don't understand your question.
Q. And then you've got a 9 inch overhang beyond that level, right?
A. We have a 6 inch overhang on the fireplace that's shown on SK-7.
Q. So, 6.96 and 6.83, which are the two dimensions you've indicated for the proposed fireplace enclosure, those would be reduced by 9 inches or 6 inches?
A. No, .5, as shown on SK-5 and SK-7.
Q. So 6.83 is reduced by?
A. .5.
Q. .5 to 6.33, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, let me take you to the other side of the house, the side that faces to the south. If you could take a look at SK-7, please. I'm sorry. Forgive me. SK-6. You've indicated a low roof that appears to be outside the floor of what is indicated as the master bathroom. Am I interpreting the plan correctly?
A. Yes. If you look at the second floor plan, the new master bathroom floor is kicked in 3 inches from the existing left side of the house, as well as the first floor, it's dimensioned on the first floor 3 inches on V-2.
Q. And you're indicating a low roof. The low roof is for a 3 inch setback. Is that what you're saying?
A. Well, it's exaggerated, it runs up the face of the wall, so it has a roof face, so it's steeper than the other one, because the other one spans over 2 feet of first floor, this only spans over 3 feet, so the pitch of the roof is steeper. But, yes, there's a low roof to transition from that step in and the upper floor. And that's shown on drawing SK-7 as a 9 inch overhang as well.
Q. So that's the same 3 inch setback that you have on the first floor?
A. Yes.
Q. Right? Well, I'm having trouble figuring out where the 3 inches comes from. If I look at going back to V-1, you're showing a side yard setback adjacent to the existing first floor of the building of 9.16.
A. Yes, but you got to go to V-2.
Q. And then you have it
A. Because
Q. increasing to 9.21 where the addition is.
A. Well, the addition on the first floor, the existing house on the first floor extends farther back into the rear yard. So, our addition on the first floor is 8 foot 4 and a half, our addition on the second floor is 15 foot 7 and a half, because the existing second floor does not go back as far as the first floor. So, although the first floor is kicked in 3 inches, it's not for the whole run of the second floor addition, because the second floor addition kind of I guess it's almost half on the old house and half on the new powder room downstairs, but the whole second floor addition kicks in 3 inches. You could see a little dashed line on V 2 on the second floor, which represents the existing first floor below.
Q. The existing one story portion of the building is 9.16 feet from the common boundary with my clients Cron. Isn't that correct?
A. I don't understand your question. The existing house?
Q. Yes. You submitted a survey, right?
A. Yes, I'm looking at the survey.
Q. Why don't you pull up the survey.
A. Yes, it's 9.16 to the back left corner, 9.95. So the fourth dimension back, the 9.16, is actually that corner of the existing house that reflects what the surveyor reflects in his survey.
Q. Uh huh. And now it will be 9.21. Isn't that correct?
A. Well, that corner stays, so then it steps in 3 inches, and it's 9.21.
Q. So you're saying that .05 of a foot is 3 inches?
A. Well, the problem is the house is skewed to the property line, so the farther you go back on this particular side, the closer they become. So it's not a parallel mathematical equation. It's not as if the south property line is parallel to the house. So you can't just subtract the 3 inches on a plan all the way across the addition, because the property is skewed or the house is skewed from the property. So that's why the math doesn't work out the way you think it should, because of the skewed position of the house.
Q. Now, the 9.21 feet, is that the same dimension that would be created from the second floor area of the building to the side yard?
A. Yes. It's listed on the zoning schedule, 9.2 on the first floor and 9.2 on the second floor.
Q. So, notwithstanding the depiction of the low roof, those levels are more or less one on top of the other. Correct?
A. Yes, they're stacked.
Q. All right. I had asked you at the last hearing whether you had performed an inspection of the basement or other areas of the building before you created your plans, and I thought you said that you had not. And I asked whether you could do that between then and now. Have you done that inspection?
A. I have been in the basement. It's just been a long time. I actually took the photographs, and I did revisit the basement.
Q. Is there a laundry area in the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a finished area of the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it heated?
A. I didn't really there was a lot of stuff down there, a lot of kids' stuff. I didn't notice I didn't take attention of the heater there.
Q. Did you inspect the attic of the building?
A. Did I inspect the we looked at it for structure, but there's nothing up there. It's not a habitable space.
Q. It's not heated, it doesn't have finished walls?
A. To my knowledge, no.
Q. Okay.
A. I'd have to look at the pictures again.
Q. I'd like to direct your attention to an exhibit that you had introduced at the last hearing that had a series of floor plans, SK-1 and SK-2, and a proposed site plan, SK-3, and then two pages of photographs. On the last page of the photographs, you have two photos that are labeled 6 and 7 respectively that indicate what appear to be windows in the attic.
A. Yes.
Q. You see those photos? When I look at your architectural renderings, your elevation drawings, most particularly SK-5 and SK-6, I don't see any windows depicted for the attic. What's the plan for the attic?
A. I don't think we have any there's no discussions of the finishing the attic. There's no access. There's no stair to the attic. We are going to re-side the house, so those windows either will be replaced or closed in, but, I mean, you can ask the Hogans, but, to my knowledge, we have not discussed adding a stair to the attic or finishing the attic, it's, I can tell you the height, it's not very high. Just at the center, it's about 7 foot 6, but then it comes down very quickly. There are no dormers up there or anything.
Q. Your current plan shows a hip roof, if I may, intersecting more or less the midpoint of the existing gable roof on the, I'll call it the existing structure and extending in generally a westerly direction or parallel to the sidelines towards the rear of the building. Is that correct?
A. No, it's a gabled roof; it's not a hip roof.
Q. Oh, gable roof. Okay.
A. But, yes, it aligns with the existing roof and it's conforming height and it's a gable roof that mimics or matches the existing gable roof of the house.
Q. So then that area, the new attic area that is enclosed by the new gable roof, would also have a similar height to the one that you just described?
A. No, because the existing second floor of the home has low plate height, you know, it's less than 8 feet, so in the new area we want to go to an 8 foot plate height, you can see how the gutter jumps up a little bit on SK-5 and SK-6, so they'll actually be less space in the attic of the addition than the existing house so we can achieve 8 foot ceilings in the master, the addition.
Q. So you're saying that in the addition, the ceiling height inside the building on the second floor would be higher?
A. Will be 8 feet, yes.
Q. I had asked you at the last hearing whether you had contemplated the addition of any skylights or any other types of openings in the roof that would allow light to pass into the new bedroom or new bathroom areas. Is that included in this plan?
A. No, we don't entertain that. At this point, we're not entertaining putting in skylights.
Q. Would it be possible to install skylights based on the design that you've now submitted to the Board?
A. Yeah. I think it would have to have a curve, because the pitch of the roof isn't steep enough, but, yeah, you can put a skylight in.
Q. Can you tell me what the height, and I'm assuming that the height where you indicate the new gable roof extending back from the centerline of the existing gable roof, that's going to be at the same 30 feet height above grade?
A. Yes, the property drops off from the front to the back, so that's why the existing height of the house was 28. Since the height of the house was extended back, the height is now 30 feet from the average grade.
Q. Okay. There is a low gable roof indicated above the master bedroom suite, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What would be the height to the peak of that roof?
A. Off of what?
Q. From adjoining grade.
A. Again, this is a sketch, it's well below the maximum 30 feet, but it's based on the rendering, it's around 24 and a half feet.
Q. Okay. The reason I'm asking is, you did not indicate any heights on the plan, so that's why. The roof that is indicated above the covered porch, what is the height of the peak of that roof?
MR. RUTHERFORD: All you can do, Mr. Schlicht, is do the best you can. Off the record.
THE WITNESS: Fifteen feet. I'm taking it from the back grade. The grade changes, just so you know.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. I understand. And it's hard to tell from this, but is that a peak roof that more or less extends in an east to west direction?
A. Well, that is a hip roof, so it slopes up from the north, up from the south, and up from the west. If you look at all three sketch elevations, two sides in the rear, this is a hip roof. It mimics like an old Ridgewood porch.
Q. Okay.
A. If it were a gable, it would actually have more of a profile.
Q. Based on the new plan design, you indicated that you had made changes to the second floor areas?
A. Yes.
Q. By how much did you reduce the master bedroom suite, do you know, in terms of square feet?
A. The width of the master bedroom was 16 foot 3, it is now 15 foot 3 outside to outside, and that's the north/south dimension. The east/west dimension, the 25 and a quarter as shown on V-2, is the same as it was on the previous drawings. So, we shifted the structure 2 feet and we took a foot out of the width of the master bedroom and the laundry room. And then we took another foot, if you go beyond that, it says 14 foot 9, that used to be 15 foot 9, so that's the other foot that creates the 2 foot inset on the northern side of the home.
Q. So, if you were to develop an estimate of how many square feet were taken off of the master bedroom suite, this is the bathroom, the closets, and the master bedroom, what would you come up with?
A. Well, it's shown on this diagram. The GBA before was 1,383, and the proposed GBA for the second floor is 1,340, so we took 43 square feet out of the second floor.
Q. And some of the 43 square feet came off the laundry room and some of it came off the master bedroom?
A. And the walk in closets.
Q. On the first floor, you reduced it by 45 square feet?
A. Correct.
Q. What areas were reduced in size to come up with that reduction?
A. The family room, it was brought in 2 feet, and then the mudroom and the powder room didn't get smaller, it just got indented into the house to reduce square footage and lot coverage. So, basically, the whole back of the house got pulled in different degrees, and then the porch, again, got smaller as well. So the house got smaller from the back in, the sides stayed as they were before on the first floor.
Q. Did you make any reductions in the size of the enclosed porch?
A. Enclosed porch?
Q. Covered porch?
A. Covered, yes. The 15 foot dimension previously was 15 foot 6, the 18 foot dimension previously was 18 foot 4, and we removed the exterior fireplace that was beyond these dimensions, it was around 18 square feet that was partially protruding from the back of the porch. Then the covered entry into the mudroom, the 6 foot 4 and five eighths was 10 foot 2 before, and the 10 foot 4 and a half going front to back used to be 13 foot 7 and a half. So it got reduced in width and in depth.
Q. So it went from, on the old plan it was indicated as the covered porch was 350 square feet, and it went down to 315 square feet, so 35 square feet?
A. If you look at the diagram, it's 36 square feet, actually.
The diagram, item A-7, the original porch was 351, this porch is 315, with a reduction of 36 square feet.
Q. Okay. I was referring, when I said 350, to your March 29, 2018 version of V-1. So it's 34 or 35, right, or 35 or 36 square feet?
A. Yes.
Q. You indicate on the plan, the new plan, V-1, you indicate two air conditioning pads a total of 18 square feet between the porch and the south property line. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm looking at zoning area diagrams on the left side of V-1.
A. Yes.
Q. And it says AC equals 18 square feet?
A. Yes. They're usually 3x3.
Q. So you've added a condenser or compressor in that location. Correct?
A. Yes, I was just predicting they might need another one.
Q. Now, on the site plan you indicate only one box there, and it says relocated AC unit. So I assume that it's two units and not one that you're proposing, correct?
A. Correct. You can see the dashed line where the AC unit was, it's under the addition. So we moved that one back, and then I just added it in, because you never know if you're going to buy a two zone or a one zone system, so I wanted the numbers to be conservative, so I added the 9 square feet. And I did it in my zoning, when I checked my zoning, I did not go back and put it in the site plan, but the zoning calculations are based on two AC units, just being conservative.
Q. In your calculations of impervious coverage, have you included the walkways that you've shown on the new plan?
A. Yes. If you look at the zoning diagram, there are two walkways, the front and the back, and each one has a square footage of 4,163.
Q. On the prior plan, I don't see any depiction of walkways from the back of the house. That's why I'm asking.
A. Yeah, that's why. Even though the house got smaller, you could see the improved lot coverage did not go down a lot, because I added that AC unit, and I showed a walk from the mudroom the mudroom shifted over, that whole porch shifted over in order to get farther away from the left property line, so it wasn't as close to the driveway as it was in the previous scheme. So, by the virtue of moving it over, I just drew a walk that took me to the driveway, so inclement weather you're not walking in mud.
Q. In the course of prior testimony and cross examination, I asked you whether you had proposed any particular collection devices to collect runoff from the paved areas of the site, and you indicated, I believe, at that time that you had not. Have you revisited that issue, have you proposed anything to collect runoff from the proposed driveway?
A. That's part of the building permit process and the engineering permit process, and they require a gallon for every new square foot of impervious. They don't tell you that you don't have to pick up water runoff on existing surfaces, they do want you to pick up the new square footage, so you would take typically off the gutters of the addition, but, again, I didn't calculate it now, it's done during the building permit, engineering permit process, that's a requirement of the town. So they would make us put a pit in, if we exceeded 200 additional square foot impervious.
Q. I had asked you at the prior hearing whether you had included gutters on any of the roof structures that are shown on the plans, particularly on the elevation drawings. You indicated at that time that there would be gutters that would extend farther from the eave lines that are depicted on the elevation drawings. Is that still the case?
A. Yes, all the house would be guttered as it is today.
Q. So that would be an additional how many inches added onto all of the those extensions?
A. Different roof areas would require like a smaller roof would require a 4 inch gutter, a bigger roof area would be a 5 inch gutter.
Q. Are you going to have gutters on the proposed porch, the covered porch?
A. Yes, again, to control water runoff.
Q. I had asked you at the prior hearing what the system was going to be, how it would be constructed, where the proposed fireplace enclosure is indicated on the plan. You said that there would be some type of a mushroom style fan. Is that still the case?
A. It's based on what unit the owners select. That has not been selected since last meeting.
Q. There would have to be a ventilation device of some type on the side facing the north property line. Is that correct?
A. Depends on what unit you buy. Some allow you to vent out the top, some allow you to vent out the back, some allow you to vent out the side, but we haven't gotten to that point where we've selected a particular manufacturer, so I couldn't say where it is going to be vented today.
Q. You previously testified that the fireplace enclosure was not going to be used for any types of combustible materials. Is that correct?
A. Correct. There is no chimney.
Q. So it's basically a gas fired faux fireplace?
A. Yes, it's a gas fireplace, yes.
Q. Bear with me for just one second, I just need to check my notes. I had asked you at the last hearing whether or not there would be basement areas below the additional square footage that's proposed at grade. This would be for the first floor areas where they touch the ground. Has a determination been made with respect to basement areas?
A. I believe at this point it's going to be a crawl space, because it's
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
A. A crawl space, because the addition is only 3 foot 8, so once you build a wall, it would be 2 feet wide, the basement, and the existing first floor of the home that extends out farther than the second floor is presently a crawl space, so you couldn't really get to that new basement. So, based on those two issues or existing conditions, it would be a crawl space.
Q. You said it that it would only extend 3 foot 8, did I hear you correctly?
A. Three foot 9 on the right hand side, and 8 foot 4 and a half on the left, but it's going to be a crawl space.
Q. Where will the structural load of the second floor that extends above the covered porch be picked up; in other words, where will it be transferred vertically to the ground or just some other support structure at grade?
A. It would be transferred over to the beams of the covered porch, which would then go to the columns of the covered porch and the corners of the addition, so it would use a transfer beam.
Q. What would be the foundation elements below the vertical columns?
A. We haven't even gotten to that point, with all due respect. I mean, that's
Q. Well, what I'm asking is, I'm trying to find out from you where you're going to be making excavations within the side yard distances affecting the site?
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'll object as to relevancy as to that question. That's really a construction issue. I don't think it's a zoning question for this Board to determine.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Is it a fair statement that you would have to excavate to some degree even to create a crawl space where the building elements are shown on the plan?
A. Yeah, but it's usually a 3 foot wide dig, so it could be a foot closer to the property line. Believe me, they don't like to over dig because they don't there's no need to dig 3 or 4 feet closer to the property line. With a crawl space, you just need to pour a 2 foot footing, 1 foot to the left and 1 foot to the right, so maybe 18 inches.
Q. Do you foresee any larger heavy equipment being used during construction that would have to have access to the rear of the property?
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm going to absolutely object to that. This Board doesn't have any jurisdiction on construction methods or anything of that nature. I don't think it's relevant to the Board.
MR. WHITAKER: The Board's jurisdiction is limited to the variances being requested.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. I'll ask a different question then. It may be that you'll object to it, but maybe not. Would it be necessary for any construction equipment that is being used to construct and install the proposed improvements to cross onto any other properties than the applicants' during construction?
A. No.
Q. You have not indicated any features involving trees or shrubbery on your plans. Have you done an inspection of the site to determine whether any trees or shrubs would have to be removed in connection with the construction activities?
A. No I'd have to look at pictures, but our addition basically goes out as far as the existing deck.
Q. Were you finished? I'm sorry.
A. Yeah, there is one tree, where the AC unit is today, based on the picture, it looks like it's about half dead, and it overlaps the first floor. I can share this picture with you, if you want.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Has that picture been previously marked, Mr. Schlicht? I'm sorry to interrupt.
THE WITNESS: Which one did we, it might be in this group. Yeah, if you look at photograph two, in the first page, it's a photograph taken by myself of the rear of the house, and you can see Mr. Hogan, Mr. Rutherford standing to the right. To the left, that tree would need to be removed. It looks like that's the only tree in the area of the construction.
MR. RUTHERFORD: For the record, Mr. Schlicht is referring to the two pages of photos that were part of the exhibit A-5 marked on June 12th.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. So this is a tree located near the southwest corner of the existing structure?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you done any examination, subsurface examination, to determine whether any tree roots or tree structures would be removed in the course of construction, whether the trees exist on the property adjacent to the applicant's site or elsewhere?
A. No, actually I'm not an arborist, so I wouldn't be able to testify to that.
Q. But you haven't obtained and you're unaware of anybody providing either test pits or other types of research into the location of trees or tree roots?
A. Not to my knowledge, none has been done.
Q. Okay. If I could just have one minute, just to double check something. Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. WHITAKER: Any redirect?
MR. RUTHERFORD: No, Mr. Chairman, no thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Does any member of the Board have any questions at this time?
MR. PAPIETRO: No.
MS. BUNZA: No.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Great.
MR. WHITAKER: Any questions by members of the public not represented by counsel?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Seeing none, any comments?
MR. WHITAKER: No comments yet.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: No comments yet.
MR. WHITAKER: Go on to the next witness.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Mr. Rutherford.
MR. RUTHERFORD: We'll call our next witness, if the Board pleases, Lisa Phillips.
MR. WHITAKER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing put the truth?
MS. PHILLIPS: Yes, I do.
L I S A P H I L L I P S, P.P., having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. WHITAKER: For the record, please state your full name and give us your address.
MS. PHILLIPS: Lisa Phillips, P H I L L I P S, 1200 Avalon Way, Bloomingdale, New Jersey.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you. Counsel?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.
DIRECT VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Ms. Phillips, perhaps you could give the Board a brief summary of your education, your licensing, and your experience as a professional planner.
A. Sure. I have a bachelor of science degree in city planning from Pennsylvania State University. I've been licensed in the State of New Jersey, as well as nationally, since 1992. I began my career with Bergen County. After passing the licensing exam, I worked for Burgis Associates for 10 years. In that time, I was a municipal planner. I was accepted at numerous towns, as well as Superior Court, in both Bergen and Hunterdon counties at that time. And since 2002, I've been on my own. I was the municipal planner for the Borough of Cliffside Park for 20 years, up until 2015. I was the zoning officer in the Borough of Ho Ho Kus from 2012 to 2015. And presently I'm just representing private developers throughout northern New Jersey.
Q. You've appeared before zoning and planning Boards on a regular basis offering expert testimony in the field of professional planning. Is that correct?
A. Yes, and I've testified before this Board 3 or 4 times in the last few years.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I'd offer Ms. Phillips as an expert in the field of professional planning.
MR. WHITAKER: Any questions by Board members?
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: No.
MR. WHITAKER: Any questions, Mr. Inglima?
MR. INGLIMA: I just have a quick question. I'm pretty sure I heard you correctly.
CROSS VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Did you say you no longer represent any municipal land use agencies or municipalities?
A. I'm the substitute planner for the City of Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment, as well as the Caldwell Zoning Board of Adjustment, that one is on an as needed basis, but I have nothing full time consulting.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you. I have no objections.
MR. WHITAKER: Any questions by members of the public not represented by counsel? Seeing none, Ms. Phillips will be qualified as an expert witness in the field of planning, a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey. The Board recognizes she has been previously qualified in that capacity before this Board as an expert witness.
(No response.)
MR. WHITAKER: Being an expert witness, you will have the ability to render opinion in that field. Please proceed.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. RUTHERFORD: And Ms. Phillips, while she is doing this, we are going to mark three more exhibits. We're going to mark A-8, which is a three page photo exhibit, four photos per page, for a total of 12 photos, it's entitled, "Page 1 Photo Exhibit 82 John Street, Ridgewood," that's A-8, if you please.
MR. RUTHERFORD: A-9 is a document entitled "Neighborhood Lot Size and Lot Width Analysis, 82 John Street, R 1 Zone," we'll mark as A-9.
MR. RUTHERFORD: And the last exhibit, A-10, is an aerial, it's entitled "Aerial View of the Subject Site and Surrounding Properties on John Street and Wyndemere Avenue," we'll mark that as exhibit A-10.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. We'll refer to those in a minute, Ms. Phillips. The first thing I want you to tell the Board briefly, what you did in order to prepare for your attendance here this evening.
A. Sure. Well, I went to the site a few months ago, I guess it was the spring, based on the photographs, maybe the beginning of the summer; took the photographs. I reviewed the master plan documents of the village, as well as the zoning ordinance. Then I reviewed the architect plans and the revisions that have been done by Mr. Schlicht all along the way.
Q. You've also attended both of the prior hearings in this matter. Is that correct?
A. I thought I attended one.
Q. At least you were certainly here for the July 12th?
A. Yes, I was here for the one Mr. Schlicht had testified.
Q. That's correct. Sorry, I misspoke. You were here on July 12th as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And with respect to the property, we all know where it's located, so we're not going to do that, but what is it about the area of the property that you believe from a planning perspective is relevant, the area of the property?
A. Well, I think particularly the undersized nature. So, this zone, the R 1 zone requires 14,000 square feet with a minimum property frontage of or lot width of 100 linear feet. We have 9,051, so we're 65 percent of the lot size requirement in this area, again, in the 14,000 square foot R 1 zone. So we have
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. And what is the required lot width in the R 1 zone?
A. Oh, 100 feet.
Q. Is there any ability on the part of the applicants to obtain additional property in order to more better comply with the ordinance requirements, specifically the lot width?
A. No, this is a developed area and some of the other properties probably would become noncompliant, if they were to do a subdivision, so there's no ability to obtain any additional property to make this compliant.
Q. Are there any nonconforming conditions associated with the property that exist at the present time, and, if so, what are they?
A. Yes, we have four nonconforming conditions. So, we have the lot area, as I spoke, 14,000 square feet is required, 9,051 square feet exists. We have a lot width deficit, 100 feet required, 50 feet existing. We have side yard variance, 20 feet is required, we have 7.7 and 9.1 feet which exists. And we have lot coverage within 140 feet, 20 percent is permitted, we're at 20.5, so just over.
Q. Okay. And the exhibits that you handed out a moment ago
A. Yes.
Q. consisted of a photo exhibit, as I indicated earlier, three pages, four photos per page. And just to lay a foundation for those, those are photos of the property and nearby properties in general terms. Is that correct?
A. They are.
Q. Were they taken by you?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were taken; I think you said, earlier this year, perhaps in spring or early summer?
A. Yes, the kids were still in school, because I believe when I went, Mr. Hogan had to leave to get one of the children, so it must have been May or June, that time of year.
Q. And these photos accurately depict what they purport to portray. Is that correct?
A. Yes, they haven't been photoshopped or modified in any way.
Q. Just again for purposes of foundation, referring to A-9, which is the neighborhood lot sizes, lot width analysis, that contains some information which you'll comment on in a moment.
A. Sure.
Q. What was the source of that information?
A. NewJerseyTaxMaps.com, both the mapping information as well as the property tax records that they provide on that site.
Q. Is that a recognized source for information customarily used by professional planners when they offer testimony?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And the last is the A-10, that is the aerial. What is the source of that aerial exhibit?
A. That's Google Maps, and I believe the imagery was taken in '18.
Q. Okay. So I think you wanted to address exhibit A-9 initially. Is that correct? A-9 that has an analysis of lot size and lot widths for properties in Blocks 3501, 3502, and 3408. Is that correct?
A. Right, that's the immediate area.
Q. Okay.
A. So, I always like to look at, when you have an undersized lot situation, whether it's with an application like this on a single family home or whether it's part of a subdivision, I like to do an analysis of what context this site sits in, whether it's by zone or just the lot area in general, even if it's in a multitude of zones. In this case, these properties are within the R 1 zone. We are very close, though, I believe we're within 240 feet, 230 feet of an R 2 zone, which does have a lesser requirement for lot size and things like that, but we are in the R 1 zone. So, the point of this was just to show that we are the only property that is this small. So, if you can see where I highlighted on the chart 3501 Lot 6 is actually the property in question, and, again, I identified both the lot width and the undersized nature of the lot size. And it also shows that this really isn't a pristine or consistent lot size area. Although we are in the R 1, with the 14,000 square foot requirement, you can see that the lot sizes vary. And, interestingly enough, there's only three properties within all of these 16 that I had analyzed that are compliant with both the lot size and the lot width requirement. Seven of the properties comply with the lot size, which is 14,000 square feet, however, only four of the properties comply with the required 50 foot lot width. So, this is the smallest property in an area of many other nonconforming properties.
Q. So, in terms of your analysis here, this is the smallest lot, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. With respect to area?
A. Yes.
Q. And with respect to lot width, are there other lots that are only 50 feet wide?
A. There are two other lots that are only 50 feet wide, but they no, I'm sorry, they're also undersized. Yes, there's two, Block 3502 Lot 30 and Lot 31.
Q. Okay. With respect to the aerial view, we can go to that next, if that's okay.
A. Sure.
Q. Again, the purpose of the aerial review is what, please?
A. Just to show the size of the house and the scale of the house relative to the surrounding properties. I do want to identify something that on these maps, sometimes the lot lines are kind of askew. So if you see the red line on the north of the property, it's not right on the house. As you know, there is a 7 foot setback on that northerly side, so that's a little off. But just to see the mass and scale of the other surrounding properties and other houses within the area. And you can see where this house sits in terms of the setback, how it relates in size and scale to the other surrounding homes. So it's a smaller house on a smaller lot.
Q. And then you've also shown a photo exhibit. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I did a somewhat more extensive of a photo exhibit than I normally do, usually I try to keep it at 6 or 8 photographs, but I thought it was important.
The first two pages of the exhibit are strictly of the property, and the last photograph is some of the surrounding properties. But I thought it was important to show all aspects of the site. So, the first page, the top two photographs are the front of the dwelling looking, I'm on the, I guess it would be the east side of John Street, looking west towards the existing structure. The upper right photograph shows the context of the adjacent property with their fence and their garage that is attached to the dwelling, and see how it relates to this dwelling. The bottom two photographs are the rear yard; the lower left is looking directly east towards the back of the house, and that's where the addition will occur. So I thought that was important. And that's the tree that I think Mr. Schlicht had discussed, and you can see that there's some dead branches, so there is some, you know, it's not a tree that's in good shape, let's just put it that way. I'm not an arborist either, but you can see how the other trees are very green. The lower right photograph shows the property line between the property to the south, and I'm standing on the deck of the dwelling, so that would be part of the addition at that point. This will be the porch area, I believe, or actually that might be part of the house at that point, because I am close to the home there. But you can see how it relates with the existing greenery, as well as board on board fence. So there's a lot of privacy on that side. The second page, again, is, I'm on the deck looking south towards the adjacent property to the south. The upper right photograph, I'm standing on the deck looking north. So you can see the white fence that separates the property lines between the property, the adjacent property to the north and the subject site. Again, the lower left, I'm looking north and a little bit west. So that home, I think, fronts on the street around the corner, Wyndemere. So you can see there's a dwelling there, and then the fence is the property that faces John Street that's adjacent to the site. And, again, similarly, I'm looking, I believe, north at this point, towards the subject site on Wyndemere.
Q. Is that the lower right hand corner?
A. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm standing on Wyndemere at this point, I believe. Let me just check this, I took it so long ago, because I'm seeing a detached breezeway and a garage of the adjacent dwelling. Oh, I'm looking, I'm sorry, that lower photograph; I'm standing on the sidewalk of Wyndemere looking towards the Hogan’s' house. So the Hogan’s house is the window that you would see in the distance. And then on the left side, that's the breezeway and the garage of the adjacent property
Q. To the north?
A. Yes, so that's actually from Wyndemere. The last photograph are pictures of the surrounding properties. The upper left is the dwelling that would be north, that's at the corner of John and Wyndemere. So you can see the home, the attached breezeway, and the garage structure, and that's immediately north of the subject site. The upper right is the dwelling immediately south of the subject site, and that's located at 74 John Street. So you can see the two driveways adjacent to one another and separated by a landscaped buffer there. And then the lower left is the dwelling across the street at Wyndemere and John, I believe it faces Wyndemere. And then the last photograph is, I'm looking kind of at an angle, which would be southeast towards the dwelling that's across the street on John, a little bit to the south.
Q. How would you compare the scale of the Hogan home as it exists and as we propose to expand it with the scale of the home, for example, to the north or directly across the street on Wyndemere or to the south on the same side or across the street on that street, is that larger or smaller?
MR. INGLIMA: If I could state an objection. I'm not sure I understand what Mr. Rutherford is asking, but if it's what I believe he's asking, I'm not sure that there's a foundation in the record for this witness to make the comparison he's asking for. When he talks about comparing the scale, I think something more has to be on the record than the fact that the witness viewed other homes from the street or took pictures of them.
MR. RUTHERFORD: I think that Ms. Phillips as a planner testifies on a regular basis as to the impact an addition to a home may have and how that impact can compare to other homes in the existing area. This isn't intended to discuss square footages, heights, setbacks or anything else. It's intended from a planning perspective from a streetscape perspective what this home looks like and how it compares to the other homes that are close by.
MR. WHITAKER: Can you state, Ms. Phillips, what the foundations are basically on visible inspections that you've made of the surrounding properties?
THE WITNESS: Yes, on the Google Maps image where I can see the scale.
MR. INGLIMA: Same objection.
MR. WHITAKER: You're not going into each property to measure the buildings themselves, but it's based on the physical observations you made when you were out there taking pictures at the site as well as Google Maps. Correct?
THE WITNESS: That's right.
MR. WHITAKER: So with that, Mr. Rutherford, you can proceed.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. So we've done the photos, we've done the aerial, and the lot analysis. So then if we could turn to the proposed renovation and expansion of the home.
A. Don't you want me to answer the question, though?
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead and answer it.
A. No, it's definitely smaller in scale than the surrounding development pattern along John and along Wyndemere, so, the immediate area.
Q. Thank you. We have spent a lot of time, so we're not going to go through necessarily details of the renovation and expansion of the existing family home. To your knowledge, this is being done by Mr. and Mrs. Hogan for their own personal use. Is that correct?
A. Yes, and I think that's important for the Board, not from a statutory point of view but just from the Board's edification that these people have lived in this home for over 10 years. They have three children in the schools here. This isn't a speculative flip where someone is coming along buying
MR. INGLIMA: I have to object. I wanted to let her get into it to find out where we're going but
MR. WHITAKER: I don't know where we're going with that, because it's not really planning testimony. You hit it right on the head. Ms. Phillips, it's not the statutory criteria, so why don't we move ahead toward statutory criteria.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Then we'll move on.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Ms. Phillips, you've examined and you heard Mr. Schlicht's testimony, you've examined the architectural plans. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you, as a planner then, in terms of the impact that this is going to have on the home from the street
A. Right.
Q. can you indicate
A. Sorry.
Q. Can you indicate the impact that this addition will have as one travels up and down John Street?
A. Well, as Mr. Schlicht had indicated, from the front, they'll be no impact. You will not see any modification when you look directly at the front of the home. The roof line will stay the same. I think the only change will be like the portico, the cover, but that would be it. So there wouldn't be any type of large, you know, edifice or something like that, any kind of change. So the streetscape is basically going to stay the same, with the exception of the portico. And it actually improves the aesthetic, because they're going to be either re siding, painting, or doing some kind of facade improvements.
Q. Is that relevant, in your opinion from a planning perspective, when an applicant seeks variances and can show that at least from the street the house is going to look very much the same, in fact, the appearance of the home will be improved, is that relevant from a planning perspective?
A. Sure. I think it goes to the negative criteria, and, in particular, when you have to show that what they're proposing, although changing, and sometimes people don't like change, but the statutory criteria is, there is substantial detriment. That's what the negative criteria says, there is "substantial" detriment to the public good, and, in this case, no, in terms of the aesthetic view right from the street and you're on John Street.
Q. And, again, in your position as a planner, not as an architect or a designer, do you find that the features of the home as it is to be expanded and renovated to be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood?
A. Yes. I think the architectural design has some gables and some indentations and things that are pretty common in the architectural style that you find in this neighborhood and throughout other parts of Ridgewood as well.
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Schlicht has identified in his plan a number of variances. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you could review those, and we've been over them, just in the interest of completeness and accuracy, if you could review very quickly those variances, please?
A. Sure. So, we're seeking six variances: Max total coverage for above ground, above grade structures. Maximum 20 percent of that of coverage is permitted. The proposal is for 22.3. That was a reduction that Mr. Schlicht went over, I believe it was 23 something, so there is a reduction. The maximum coverage for above grade structures within 140 feet of the front lot line, again, maximum 20 percent is permitted. We're at 23.7. The maximum lot coverage by improvements within 140 feet, a maximum of 45 percent or 3,150 square feet is permitted. The proposal is for 46.7 and 3,273 square feet.
Q. What is the excess, meaning you've testified as to what the percentage difference is, what is the difference or the excess in terms of square footage?
A. I believe it's 123 square feet.
Q. And what is the area of this property within the first 140 feet of the front lot line?
A. 7,000.
Q. And one percent of 7,000 is?
A. 700 I'm sorry.
Q. One percent of 7,000 is?
A. 70.
Q. This isn't a test.
A. 70.
Q. 70 square feet. So my point is, a one percent increase or a one percent overage is only, if you will, 70 square feet. Is that correct?
A. Right, and we're at 123.
Q. And gross building area within 140 feet?
A. 35 percent maximum permitted and/or 2,450. We're at 37.7 and 2,643 square feet.
Q. So the difference there again is?
A. 193.
Q. And, again, it's a couple of points
A. Right.
Q. but it's 70 feet per point?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. The minimum required side yard, Mr. Schlicht discussed that.
A. Yes. There's two ways. The one requirement is for 20 feet for one side yard, and then the combined, it would be 16.5 required, and we're at, let's see, 8.6 for the first floor of the dwelling to the actual dwelling, 6.8 to the gas insert, which I'm viewing as a separate variance. I think Mr. Schlicht had talked about that being the same, but I believe it would be two separate variances, one to the home and then one to the vent. And then the other side is 9.2 to the first floor that would be the southerly side of the property. And then we have the vent projection. So we have an 18 inch projection, we have 8.4 square feet in size of the structure. And just to correlate that to your fireplace ordinance, you're permitted to have an 18 inch projection and you're allowed up to 12 square feet. So we're not calling it a fireplace or a chimney, this is definitely a vent, so that is a variance.
Q. So to restate that is that if this were a chimney, it would comply?
A. Yes.
Q. Since it's being deemed not to be a chimney, because it doesn't have a not a chimney in the sense that it doesn't go all the way up and burn combustible materials, it is a variance?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, you indicated earlier that in preparing for this, you had looked at the master plan. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what master plan did you review?
A. I reviewed several. I went back to the 1983 comprehensive. Reviewed briefly the '90, the '97, the 2006, and finally the February 2, 2016 document.
Q. Okay. And what points or what items in those documents did you find that you considered to be relevant to this application?
A. Well, one of the things is that this site is in a single family detached land use category, so we are consistent with the master plan in that we do have a single family home at this point. 2016 re ex listed some objectives that were also identified in the 2006 re ex report that I think our application somewhat affirms. I'm going to quote from the master plan: "A primary objective is the preservation of the Village's residential neighborhoods, developed predominantly with single family detached dwellings. The issues currently affecting the single family neighborhoods at this time are infill subdivision, and the demolition and replacement of existing homes with larger new homes and the construction of additions. It is important that these developments maintain the character of the neighborhoods and avoid negative impacts to nearby properties and streets." They also
Q. Go ahead.
A. They also in the 2006 reexamination report, the planning Board also recommended changes to the residential zoning. And, again, this is a quote: "Study, and, if necessary, amend the land use plan to address infill subdivisions and the demolition and replacement of existing homes that are incompatible with and/or detriment to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Evaluate, and, if appropriate, revise the current provision that regulates coverage and floor area ratio within a specified distance of the front lot line, as suggested by the Zoning Board." And the third one, I think, is very key to this application. It states: "Review the coverage and floor area provisions for undersized, e.g., nonconforming lots, in order to determine if a more practical and reasonable standard is warranted, as suggested by the Board of Adjustment."
Q. So a couple of things here. This application certainly involves a single family detached dwelling. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It is not an application for an infill subdivision?
A. No.
Q. It does not involve the demolition or replacement of an existing home with a larger new room?
A. That's right.
Q. But it does involve the construction of an addition. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. In your estimation and in your opinion as a planner, do you feel that the improvements proposed here maintain the character of the neighborhood and avoid negative impact to nearby properties or streets?
A. Yes.
Q. And, if so, then why?
A. Well, I think when you look at the development pattern, most of these homes are larger in scale than the existing dwelling. What they're trying to do is upgrade a home that right now is 1,900 square feet. And they have a family, there's three children, there's five people living in 1,900 square feet. They're trying to do this addition so that it blends architecturally into the area, but they need to modernize. They need to have the amenities that come with living in today's world, and this home was built, I believe, in the '20s or '30s. So I think what they're proposing is definitely typical of what you would see in some of the older homes in Ridgewood, where young families buy it, they want to stay in town, but the amenities provided and the square footage provided isn't necessarily enough to raise a family. So I think when you look at the overall scale of the development relative to the lot size, yes, there's variances, but, as you can see, the applicants went back to the drawing board, they modified what they could to still make it workable, and there's really no detriment to the surrounding area in terms of the negative aesthetics or impact to the neighbors.
Q. Is one of the required elements of proof on the applicants' part a need to show that there will be no substantial detriment to the purpose and intent of the master plan? That's part of the statutory criteria, is it not?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And this master plan, indeed, specifically contemplates at least a consideration of, as a relevant issue, a more practical and reasonable standard for coverage and floor area provisions for undersized lots.
Does that describe this particular application?
A. Absolutely.
Q. All right. Now, with respect to the positive criteria, I know the Board is familiar with this, but I think we should identify those provisions of Section 70c of the Municipal Land Use Law that you believe apply to this and afford a proper basis for the Board to grant relief.
A. Sure. So, we know there's the c(1) aspect, which relates to the site itself. So whether the site has exceptional topographic conditions or physical features that uniquely affect this piece of property, and that any strict application of the regulation would result in a hardship. And I think this site is a classic c(1) hardship, being so undersized. We're only 65 percent of the lot size, and I'm going to get into the side yards later, but I'm going to look at it in proportion to what they're proposing, is it in proportion to the lot size? So I think that's important. But because we're so undersized, that it's creating many of these variances.
Q. In your estimation as a planner, in addition to the undersized width, the undersized area also can be a proper basis for relief under Section c(1)(a), right?
A. Yes.
Q. c(1)(a), which talks about area size or shape of a property. Is that correct?
A. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. Do you also believe that Section c(2) applies here, and, if so, how?
A. I would say the better planning alternative, which is what the c(2) really discusses, if you look at the Pellen case, the Pellen case was a c(2), and within that, the court found that you could look at the overall development, not just each and every variance, but when you look at the overall plan itself, is it a better planning alternative than what would be required without any variances? And I think in this case, a c(2) argument could be made, but definitely a c(1) in terms of the hardship for the lot area. Again, if you look at the overall development that's occurring here, it's an attractive home, it's not overbuilt for the property, it's in scale with the other sites in the area, in fact it's smaller, but it's definitely in keeping with the architectural style and I think the Board could find c(1) and c(2) rationale.
Q. So just to go back to what you said a moment ago. Is it accurate to say that well, let me ask you this. What's the proper analysis, is it the nature and the extent of the variances that are required or simply the sheer number of variances? I guess that's my question.
A. Well, it's really the nature. You know, I don't like when Boards I've had applications before Boards and I've reviewed Boards for towns and people always say, oh, they need 12 variances. Sometimes one variance, which would be a use variance, would be much more detriment to an area, even if they met the area in bulk, than if you've given somebody 5, 6, 7 variances for an undersized lot, when you look at the proportion of the development to the lot. Isn't that better? It's really not about the number, it's about, as Mr. Rutherford said, the nature and the extent of which we can provide rationale for those variances.
Q. In this case, you had testified earlier that the required side yard is 20 feet.
Is that correct?
A. There's two and this is where I think Mr. Inglima had brought up, there's two regulations, and the undersized nature of the lot kind of creates this issue, because if it's 15 for each side, it's based on your building height, I believe, the first side yard. Let me just look. So, one side yard requirement in the R 1 is 15 feet or two thirds of the height. So, in this case, two thirds of the height is 20 feet. Okay. That's one side yard. The other, the combined is 33 percent. So if you have 100 foot lot width, which is what's required, you would have two side yards that combined would be 33 feet. So, in this case, we don't meet the 20 feet, but we do meet the combined in terms of proportionality. So I'm just going to get into a little math. Because we have a 50 foot lot, we do 33 percent of that, and that's 16.5 feet on each side. So we have 9.2 and 8.3 for a total of 16.5. That represents 35 percent of the 50 foot width. So, proportionally, a 100 foot wide lot with a 33 percent, would have a 33 foot setback combined, okay. Forget about the 20 at this point, because there's two different ordinances. So, in this case, we have 9.2 and 8.3, added together that's 35 percent of the lot width. So, proportionally we're actually more than what's required by the ordinance.
Q. So, it's your testimony that notwithstanding the fact that we do not comply with the ordinance, the proportion of the side yards that's provided to the building are consistent with what is otherwise a conforming condition in this zone.
Is that correct?
A. For the combined side yards, yes.
Q. And if we were to consider that there's a 20 foot required side yard on each side, right, let's disregard the combined for the moment.
A. Right.
Q. And a 50 foot wide lot, that means a building envelope of 10 feet.
Is that correct?
A. Ten feet, yes.
Q. Is that indeed shown in Mr. Schlicht's plan of that August 31, 2018, on sheet V-1? Is that right?
A. Yes, I believe he laid out all of the setbacks and what a buildable area's envelope is called would be on that property, and you wouldn't be able to develop.
Q. Okay. Now, you looked at also we're in the R 1 zone for sure.
A. Yes.
Q. But is there a zone in Ridgewood that has a lot area size, if you will, that's more compatible with the 9,051 square feet that we are proposing?
A. Yes, in the R 3. The R 3 zone has a requirement of 8,400 square feet, with a required lot depth of 120, but the width is 60 feet. So it even has a wider lot width.
Q. So we don't even meet the lot width requirement of the R-3 zone?
A. No, even though we would meet the lot area, yes.
Q. That's fine. All right.
A. Did you want to talk about the fireplace vent, when we talk about the side yard, just to keep on the side yard?
Q. Sure.
A. Okay. So, the side yard is 6.8 at the fireplace vent. That fireplace vent is 5 feet 6 in width, which represents only about 14 percent when you look at linear along the northerly building wall of the actual facade of the house. If you add in the porch itself, that goes to only 10 percent of the length. So, as you look at the northerly facade of the house, that vent to the gas fireplace only is 14 percent of the dwelling and only 10 percent of the entire facade. So it's a small area, it's set back, the requirement for a fireplace chimney. It also only goes one story, and I believe Mr. Schlicht did make it more of like an architectural feature in that he put a little, I'm not sure if it's a gable roof, I don't really know the terminology for that, but there is like a little roof line there, so he made it more aesthetically pleasing and it only goes to the first floor. Typically when you have a full chimney, it would extend all the way to the roof line for the vent. So the impact is more negligible with a vent the way it's designed, than if you had the permitted chimney, because the setback is the same, we're only at 8.4 square feet, where 12 square feet is permitted, and we only go one story. And Mr. Schlicht made it a little bit of an architectural element.
Q. So do all those factors in your estimation go to the negative criteria as to whether that particular variance is substantially detrimental? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you've also heard Mr. Schlicht testify that for all intents and purposes, the existing side yard setbacks are being maintained? I mean, they're changing slightly. Obviously they're going up and they're getting deeper.
A. Yes.
Q. And putting aside the fact that the house isn't totally square with the lot lines.
A. Right, the skewing.
Q. Essentially, the same side lines are being maintained.
Is that correct?
MR. INGLIMA: Can I please ask? We've had a lot of testimony from this witness where we've had questions framed in an extremely precise and leading fashion by Mr. Rutherford. In all due respect to Mr. Rutherford, I think the witness should be doing the testifying rather than him asking her to affirm a statement that he puts forth. So, I would ask that her testimony stand on its own and not have these leading questions on this.
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'll try to do better.
MR. WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford, you want to try to rephrase that.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I'll try to do better. I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: So we're still talking about the side yards, right?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Maybe you can just discuss what it is about this plan that you think makes the side yard setbacks we're seeking not substantially detrimental.
A. Well, as the photographs indicate, we have a substantial landscape buffer and fence between the site and the adjacent property to the south.
MR. INGLIMA: I'm going to object. There is no foundation in the record for her last statement. If she is going to say that that exists, I think she has to produce proof. I've let a lot in as far as her conclusions about conditions, but she's talking about a buffer that doesn't exist on the applicant's site, so, you know, let's have a foundation for this one.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I can ask her.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. When you're talking about, putting aside the word "buffer"
A. Okay.
Q. let's just talk about vegetation or landscaping on the south side of the property. You took some photos of that area, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And which photos are they?
A. I'm referring to page one of the photo exhibit on the lower right and also on the second page upper left.
Q. Okay. So when I'm referring to vegetation, I'm referring to what is depicted in those pictures. All right? We won't use the term "buffer" or anything else.
A. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q. What do you think the impact of the existence of that vegetation has on the side yard and other variances we seek?
MR. INGLIMA: Same objection. There is
MR. RUTHERFORD: I think that's a perfectly proper question.
MR. INGLIMA: No, let me finish my objection. There is no foundation for saying that those shrubs are on the applicant's site.
MR. RUTHERFORD: I didn't say that.
MR. INGLIMA: Well, then you can't refer to it. No one is required under the law to maintain a buffer on their property from a development that you're proposing on your clients' property. So, for you to ask a question of a witness who's an expert on planning as if these are conditions of the applicants' property is an attempt to deceive the Board.
MR. RUTHERFORD: No, no, no, no. You know what, I take exception to that. I take exception to that. The word deceiving the Board, I take exception to.
MR. INGLIMA: I withdraw the word deceiving. I have great respect for Mr. Rutherford. The fact of the matter is the shrubs, if they exist and they're material to the applicants' case, they have to be on the applicants' own site. And I would like it to be abundantly clear in the record, before this goes off in this direction, that the shrubs to which Mr. Rutherford referred in his question are on my clients' property, to be quite blunt, so let's have it clear.
MR. WHITAKER: Why don't we ask the question this way. Ms. Phillips, you observed the property in question as well as the surrounding properties. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: You made observations as it pertains to the landscaping elements on this property as well as the other properties around it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: And to the best of your knowledge and recollection, what did you see as far as where the landscaping was located on the outside perimeter of this property?
THE WITNESS: Yes, there's a fence, a detached or a board on board fence that separates the properties and the vegetation is predominantly on the southerly side of the fence.
MR. WHITAKER: So it would be correct to say that the vegetation you're referring to is off the property of the applicant?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
MR. RUTHERFORD: That's fine. Thank you.
MR. INGLIMA: On that basis, I would object to her testifying to it at all. Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, she can certainly testify as to what observations she made. The Board going to look at it and determine if it is relevant to the variance relief that's being sought.
MR. INGLIMA: I think that what happened with this question was it got off on the wrong foot when the word "buffer" was inserted. So, as long as this Board is completely aware that those shrubs exist on my clients' property and not on the applicants' property.
MR. WHITAKER: That point's been made.
MR. INGLIMA: Then this should not be a relevant point of inquiry or testimony.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, that's the subject of your summation.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Just one more question then on that point, most respectfully, and if it's objected to, I'll move on.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Does that vegetation on the adjoining property serve to provide a level of screening from the home on the property to the south to the Hogan’s' home and the property that we're concerned with?
MR. INGLIMA: Same objection, and, in addition, there's no foundation for saying that she observed from the other side of the landscaping that it screened anything.
MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. I can move on. At the appropriate time, certainly, we'll ask the Board to draw whatever conclusions it wishes to draw from that.
MR. WHITAKER: I think the Board recognizes that if there's landscaping off site, meaning off of the property in question, that it's not landscaping that the Board would ever require remain. So, at that point, I think Ms. Phillips would agree, there's no ability to take that landscaping, although it exists there now, it doesn't mean that it would be required to be there in the future.
MR. RUTHERFORD: We understand.
MR. WHITAKER: We all recognize that and deal with it day in and day out.
MR. RUTHERFORD: We understand and acknowledge that.
BY MR. RUTHERFORD:
Q. Ms. Phillips, is there any room on the south side of the Hogan property for them to install landscaping between the home and the property line?
A. No, that's the driveway area.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe, please, the nature of any improvements on the property to the north that are adjacent, if you will, to the home, the existing home and the home as it's going to be expanded, what's located on the property to the north at that point?
A. So that property to the north, it actually faces the home actually faces Wyndemere, this is the corner lot, so this would be the corner lot at John and Wyndemere. So we have the white fence. So I would refer to page two. So there's the white fence that separates the two properties, there's an attached garage, and a one level living space or some type of breezeway that connects the home with the garage that somewhat blocks the view from the house at Wyndemere. Additionally, that area of the site between the garage and the home, there's a pool in that area and there's a deck, I believe, in that area. So those are the improvements on the northerly property line. And I think in this area, Mr. Rutherford, if I recall, we had talked about installing landscaping on the subject site and the Hogan site along that area past the addition.
Q. And you testified as to the nature of the improvements on the property, the north, just a moment ago?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is the nature of those improvements relevant to this matter; in other words, is what's there relevant in terms of any either the positive or the negative criteria?
A. Well, the main dwelling is set farthest away from the subject site. So you have the detached garage, you have the breezeway, and then the dwelling, so there's quite a distance between the actual home itself and the orientation of it towards this property.
Q. Okay. All right. Now, you've also done an analysis, have you not, of how this property would stack up were we to have a conforming lot. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So if you want to talk about the lot coverage by improvements within 140 feet?
A. Sure. 46.75 is permitted, we have I'm sorry. 46.75 is proposed, and the ordinance limit is 45. So this is a de minimis condition, really, that exceeds the requirement by only 123 square feet. If this lot was the conforming 14,000 square feet, we'd actually be at 23 percent. So we'd actually be a little more than one half of what is permitted, if it was a conforming lot. We also have the maximum lot coverage by above grade structures within 140 feet. 20 percent is permitted within 140 feet, we have 23.7. So we've be over, but, again, if we were a conforming lot size, we'd only be 15 percent lot coverage as opposed to the 20. The maximum lot coverage by above grade structures, again, it's limited to 20 percent of the entire parcel, we're proposing 22.3, and the lot coverage for all structures on the property would be 14.4, if it was a 14,000 square foot lot. So, as you can see, there's a consistent pattern with the undersized nature of the site. And, lastly, we have the maximum gross building area of the principal building within 140 feet. We're limited to 35 percent, and the proposed addition creates a variance of 37.7 percent. We're at about 193 in excess of the ordinance, and, again, the coverage here would be at 18.8. So we'd go from 35 percent to 18.8. And I think it's important for the Board to look at, when we talk about intensification or overutilization of anything, when we're seeking a variance from the bulk requirements, it's important to show that we are in compliance or exceed the rear yard by quite a bit, and that's a factor of having an exceedingly long property depth as opposed to a width. We're exceedingly long, but we're narrow.
So, we're in compliance with the rear yard. We're in compliance with the front yard setback. The zoning officer will determine that about the portico, but generally we are consistent with that. We're consistent with the lot coverage for the entire lot, the building height, as well as the building area for the principal structure. So a lot of the other aspects that the town looks at in terms of the area and bulk requirements and limiting intensification and development on the property we do comply with. The things that we've spoken about tonight are the things we don't comply with. And, again, as I related about the undersized nature, a lot of these things are proportionate to the lot size.
Q. Okay. Anything else that you want to add that you have not already mentioned?
A. No, I believe that we've actually addressed the negative criteria in terms of the master plan when we spoke about the goals and objectives and the issue that this Board has actually sent recommendations to the Planning Board to look at, you know, the zoning on undersized lots. And also the master plan goals, in terms of any impacts to the streetscape. Again, when you're walking along John Street, there's really going to be no impact. The only thing that you might be able to see from the side is the fireplace on the southerly side is going to be removed and you're going to see a vent on the northerly side. But, other than that and the portico, there's not going to be any change to the streetscape.
MR. RUTHERFORD: I think that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Rutherford. Do any Board members have any questions for Ms. Phillips?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: I'm just going to say, Mr. Inglima, before you start, I assume it's going to be more than a couple minutes, so do you mind if we take five minute break?
MR. WHITAKER: The stenographer needs a break.
MR. INGLIMA: I wouldn't mind if you took a longer break.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: We will take a ten minute break. So we'll see everybody back here in 10 minutes.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
(A short recess is held.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Let's go back on the record.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: It's my understanding, between Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Inglima that you've decided that you're going to let the public speak first before Mr. Inglima is going to do his cross of Ms. Phillips. Is that correct?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. We certainly are subject to the Board, certainly, but, yes, I think I have three interested persons that wanted to be heard and we how these things, they get late and we never know when they're going to be heard and they're here now. So, Mr. Inglima has graciously indicated that he would permit them to speak, and I understand there's another member of the public who would like to speak as well. These are not my witnesses per se, these are folks that we ordinarily hear at the end of the proceeding. And as Mr. Inglima indicated earlier, we fully understand that the Board would then open up it again to the public at the end of the hearing, if there's anyone else that wishes to speak. So we would appreciate that, because these folks have made an effort to come down and I don't think they're going to be that lengthy, and if that's okay with the Board and Mr. Inglima, I'm happy to do that, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Yes. That's fine with the Board, and these members will make comments?
MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: No questions, just comments?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
MR. INGLIMA: I have no objection. I'm always happy to accommodate any members of the public who are in attendance. And I think Mr. Rutherford initiated this request in recognition of the fact that my cross examination could go on for a while.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Great. So if any members of the public would like to come forward and make a comment.
MR. WHITAKER: Come up, and, by law, you need to be sworn in and give your name and address, and then you can make your comment. So if you would raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. PASH: I do. MR. WHITAKER: Thank you. Please give your name and address.
MR. PASH: Patrick Pash, 645 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey. I'm just here, I'm a friend of the Hogans. I live in the neighborhood. They've lived here for 10 years. Kevin is a standard in the community. He volunteers his time. They've got three kids. The youngest is a second grader at Somerville. They moved to Ridgewood as a family community. I think we pride ourselves on that. As neighbors, I believe we're supposed to look out for each other. They're looking to increase the value of their home, their neighbors' homes, and just, flat out, make the neighborhood look nicer. I mean, we go around town, we see some homes, people don't necessarily take care of their homes, and here's a family that's willing to do that and make the neighborhood look nicer. I don't know I'm someone looking to do an addition, so this is a learning experience. And I hope any neighbors don't step up, because this looks like it's a hard thing to do here. They've lived here forever, like I said. They want to continue to live here. Their kids will walk to every school they go to. And I would hate to lose them, and this community would be disappointed if they lost the Hogans, if they had to move out of town because they weren't able to do a little bit of an addition to improve the value of their home and the homes around them. That's all I have to say.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. INGLIMA: Could I just ask the gentleman what was his address again?
MR. PASH: 645 Wyndemere Avenue.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. PATTON: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
MR. PATTON: My name is Todd, T O D D, Patton, P A T T O N, like the general. I live at 559 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey. Anything else, generally? We're good? First, I'd like to thank you for the time and this opportunity to speak. Second, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak early and not wait until the end. I'm very, very hungry. I'll be brief and to the point. I've lived in Ridgewood for 19 years and have known the Hogans for at least 10 years. Based on the Hogans' plans for expansion, I believe what they are requesting is not unreasonable in size and scale, and, as I see it, the expanded home will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. There are a number of larger homes in the neighborhood, and this home will still be sized relative to the rest of the neighborhood homes in the vicinity, it will still be smaller relative to a lot of the homes in the vicinity. The Hogans are a great family. They have deep roots in the community. Jennie and both Kevin are very involved in the school. They coach teams both on the girls' side, boys' side, both very involved with the Somerville School. Kevin has been a member of Dads Night for many years and is very involved. You know, the way I see it, is all they're really looking to do is expand their house to really fit a growing family that has grown over the years. It would be a great loss to the community to have the Hogans leave Ridgewood, and, you know, anything that could be done to keep them would be awesome. I thank you for your time and thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
MR. WHITAKER: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. LoSAURO: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
MR. LoSAURO: My name is Anthony LoSauro, last name is L O S A U R O. I live at 528 Wyndemere Avenue in Ridgewood. So, yeah, the Hogans are a great friend, neighbors to my family. Both are very involved in the town and neighborhood. Kevin serves on the broad of the Ridgewood Junior Football Association and has been a major fundraiser for the Somerville School through the charity. Jennie heads up the Mount Carmel Church Mothers Group, and both are involved in the local community
COURT REPORTER: I am sorry. Could you speak a little bit away from the microphone? It is hard to understand you.
MR. LoSAURO: Both are very involved in the town and neighborhood. Kevin serves on the Board for the Ridgewood Junior Football Association, and has been a major fundraiser for the Somerville School through Dads Night. Jennie heads up the Mount Carmel Church Mothers Group, and is a local tutor for the neighboring children. Regarding our neighborhood, the Hogans have organized a street block party multiple times. I think they chip in out of their own money to pay for a band at that block party. They also invite all the neighbors over, they have an outdoor movie screen, to enjoy the football games, which is very nice, throughout the fall. I bring this up because I very much value them in our neighborhood, and I truly don't want to see them go. The Hogans have lived in the same house in Ridgewood for over 10 years. In that time, they've raised their three growing children and they have not added to their house at all since that time. They're reaching a point where they need to improve and just gain more space. The children will be entering high school in a couple of years, and Jennie has brothers that are 6 foot 5, so I know her one son is on the way to being as tall. I can see the Hogans' home from my yard, through my backyard. I've seen their plans, and I would welcome them updating and beautifying their home the way they have chosen. The few homes that separate my home on Wyndemere to their home on John are all a lot larger than the Hogans' home. In addition, including my own home, all of these homes have had substantial additions over the years, every single home from my home to the Hogans home have all expanded. In my opinion, I feel their addition is very modest and incredibly tasteful. I would love to see them get the approval and stay in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
MR. INGLIMA: I'm sorry, I am not sure I heard your address correctly.
MR. LOSAURO: It's 528 Wyndemere.
MR. INGLIMA: 528. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
MS. RINGEL: Marcia Ringel, 250 Ferris Place.
MR. WHITAKER: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. RINGEL: Yes.
MS. RINGEL: As of today, I have lived in my home for precisely 47 years and 1 month, so I have seen Ridgewood change quite a bit in that time. Sometimes in good ways and sometimes in ways that I found unfortunate. One of the unfortunate ways is to watch houses get bigger and bigger and closer and closer to the edges. Beautiful homes knocked down, and replaced with more modern ones, which may be lovely, but I don't think are really Ridgewood, and I don't want this place to start looking like Franklin Lakes, frankly. I really don't see how, if the point is not that somebody is like running for office, whether they're nice people or involved in their community or really like their schools or their friends like them, is relevant to whether you decide that this is an appropriate enlargement of their home. To me it's a pretty cut and dry thing, does it fit in with the ordinances? Are you willing to grant the variances or not? It doesn't matter who lives there. If it's a hardship to live in a home that's too small, then you move to a bigger one. I think the idea that they are going to have great incursions on their neighbors that they're going to block the sun, they might have to have different kinds of plants, they can't swim in their pool, whatever, I'm certainly no planner, but from what I have seen, it's too much. And probably something smaller and more modest would serve similar needs without breaking a whole lot of ordinances. We have heard about, you know, the great independence of Americans and our home is our castle, but we are starting to recognize that some of the things we do affect other people, and that's at least as important. When you hear about smoker rights, and we don't anymore because it was discovered that it was unfair for other people in the neighborhoods of those people to get past the smoke. Well, having a big house next to your house isn't going to give you cancer, but it could give you a lot of agita, it could be a 24/7 kind of anxiety, it could also reduce your property value, make it harder to sell, things like that, that I think are relevant to the Board. So that's my observation. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
MS. HONE: Good evening. Jacqueline Hone, 30 Carriage Lane.
MR. WHITAKER: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. HONE: Yes.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
MS. HONE: I think the existing zoning is there for a very good reason, and I also think it's proportionate with everything that's existing. The plan, to me, sounds like it's a bit excessive. It's excessive development in the sense that it's going to encroach on the existing lots, surrounding lots, maybe not in so much space, but space, air, light and quality of life. I think when we move into these homes, before the excessive building, we have an expectation of space. We have an expectation of the air. We have an expectation of the light. And we have an expectation of the feel and the quality of life that we're going to have in these homes. And I think this excessive development strips the surrounding neighbors and parcels of that. I agree with the previous speaker that if it just doesn't work, it's neighborly to just move to a bigger one. I don't think it's right to seek to change the neighborhood, to seek to be developed from one edge to the other edge. It's truly striping the neighbors around the area of their space, of their air, of the light, of the quality of the life that they're used to. I'm against more excessive development in Ridgewood. I am for reasonable development, but this does not seem reasonable, it seems excessive. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
MS. LOVING: Good evening. Anne Loving, 342 South Irving Street.
MR. WHITAKER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. LOVING: I do.
MR. WHITAKER: Thank you.
MS. LOVING: I just would like to say that I have lived in Ridgewood a long time also, some 40 years. I live on a narrow lot. My lot is, I think, 52 feet wide. It was that wide when I bought the lot, and I don't consider it a hardship, I consider it just a fact, that's the lot that I bought, that's the house that I live in. I think that the ordinances that we have, the zoning laws, are designed to protect our village, to keep it looking beautiful. And I really find it unfortunate when somebody tries to shoehorn a cruise ship into a very small lot. And, you know, I never did that at my house. If I had wanted a bigger house, I would have moved to a bigger property. And so I don't like to hear that word "hardship" when it comes to a narrow lot. The lot is the size that it is when you buy the house, and unless the town has come and taken away some of your property, it's really not a hardship, it's what you bought. I imagine I don't imagine, I know that if you have an undersized lot, your taxes are proportionately less. So it's not actually a hardship, it's a benefit to have a narrower lot, because you have a smaller house, it's assessed less. So, I hope that you will follow the ordinances and the zoning laws. I'm sure that these people could probably do some sort of addition without having to have so many variances. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
Any other members of the public that would like to make a comment?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. There being none, so, Mr. Inglima, would you like to start. MR. INGLIMA: Yes, I'll start my cross. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Good evening, Ms. Phillips. Let's start with your lot size and lot width analysis, which was marked as exhibit A-9. How did you determine the lots that were going to be included in your analysis; did you draw a radius from the site of any particular distance; did you consider lots located within a particular block that is designated on the tax map; did you consider lots based on their identification on the zoning map? What were the criteria that you employed, among those or others, that led you to create this?
A. I just looked at the zoning maps and just took properties within what I thought would be the immediate area, and narrowed it down to I didn't want to do, you know, 30, so I figured let's do from the R 2 zone north and then along Wyndemere, because those properties would be to the rear.
Q. So, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. So, just between the northern aspect of the R 2 zone and Wyndemere Avenue, is that what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the R 2 zone line is not a straight line, it's not
A. Right.
Q. a straight east/west line based on generalized identification of compass points, right?
A. Right, there's a jog.
Q. Yeah. So when you say the R-2 line, you're talking about a line that encompasses a portion of Block 3501, a portion of Block 3502, and Block 3506, only those areas, right? That's the R-2 zone to which you referred?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you include areas of the R-1 zone that extend to the south to Ridgewood Avenue?
A. I'm not really sure where you're speaking of.
Q. Well, when I say the R-1 zone, I'm referring to the contiguous areas of the R 1 zone to the lots that are the subject of this application as well as my clients' properties, and the continuation of that zone, if you will, as a single entity down to Ridgewood Avenue. Did you include anything south of that R 2 line that you're referring to?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was just looking at the immediate area.
Q. Uh huh.
A. The impact of what we're trying to do is really related to the immediate area.
Q. Well, you were talking in your testimony about your consideration of the relationship between this lot in terms of its physical characteristics of lot width or lot area or both and other lots in the area, and it sounds to me from what you're saying and correct me if I'm wrong, you defined the area that you looked at pretty narrowly, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look at any lots that are north of Wyndemere Avenue?
A. On the north side of Wyndemere.
Q. You did?
A. Yes. I believe if you look at Block 3408, the bottom of the chart.
Q. Yes.
A. Those are on Wyndemere, on the north side of Wyndemere.
Q. Let me ask you a question. Did you look at Lot 5 in Block 3408?
A. No.
Q. It's not on your list?
A. No.
Q. Did you look at Lot 2 in Block 3408?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now I'm looking at Block 3406. Did you look at anything in 3406? That's on the north side of Wyndemere Avenue, directly across the street from my clients' property, the Reynolds property. Did you look at that area?
A. I don't believe I included that in the chart.
Q. Why not? Why wouldn't you include that? That's a stone's throw. It's within 200 feet, isn't it?
A. I don't know that it's within 200 feet.
Q. Well, it appears that the side line of Lot 4, which extends perpendicular to the applicants' property, is 148.38 feet, and then there's a 50 foot right of way, so within 2 feet, you touch those other two lots. They appear, according to the tax map, to be within 200 feet of the site. Do you know how big those lots are?
A. No, I have the dimensions of the tax map.
Q. Would it surprise you to hear that Lot 2 and Lot 5 in Block 3408, and Lot 15 and Lot 16 in Block 3406 are all 50 foot frontage?
A. No, I can see that on the tax map.
Q. Okay. You included some lots in Block 3502. You've got four lots in Block 3502, right? Why didn't you include Lots 3 and 4 in Block 3502? They're just outside 200 feet, but they're pretty close to the site, why didn't you include them?
A. Because I just wanted to keep a tight area.
Q. Well, aren't those 50 foot wide lots?
A. No, 2 is 100 foot.
Q. No, I said Lots 3 and 4, didn't I?
A. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said 2 and 3.
Q. Three and four are 50 foot lots, aren't they?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Why didn't you include Lot 29 in Block 3502? That's just one lot farther away and still in the R-1 zone from other lots you did identify, why didn't you include that lot?
A. I don't know. I just didn't include it.
Q. Would it be fair to say that there was a degree of selectivity that was employed by you in determining which lots to include in your list?
A. Yes, I have to be selective. I wasn't skipping properties adjacent to us and things like that, I was picking an area. I didn't skip any properties that were contiguous to the site.
Q. Well, you don't say in your table "contiguous" to the site, you say "Neighborhood lot size and lot width analysis."
A. Right.
Q. And to be fair, wouldn't the word "analysis" normally imply that there was a review of data and a determination of relevancy in performing that work?
A. And there was.
Q. Okay. But you excluded the ones I talked about, right, which are all 50 foot lots. Is that correct?
A. Yes, all the ones that you pointed out are 50 foot lots.
Q. Now, are you aware of any other 50 foot lots that are located within the R-1 zone north of East Ridgewood Avenue and west of the R-2 zone that extends along Walthery Avenue?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Would you be surprised to hear that Lot 19 in Block 3507 and Lots 12 and 13 in Block 3502 once again, those three lots are also 50 foot lots, would that surprise you? I'm reading the tax map, I'm not intending to mislead you in anyway, but that wouldn't surprise you
MR. NEGRYCZ: I wish you would share it with the Board so we could look at it also.
MR. INGLIMA: If you would like a copy of a tax map
MR. NEGRYCZ: I would.
MR. INGLIMA: I would be happy to provide it.
MR. NEGRYCZ: It would be nice to be able to follow along, seeing as you were using an exhibit that we do not have.
MR. INGLIMA: Well, I understand, Mr. Negrycz, and obviously Mr. Whitaker can help you with that issue. I normally try to refrain from introducing exhibits that would require direct testimony as to their preparation during cross examination. I happen to be looking at it because it helps me, and certainly during my own planner's testimony, she will provide a very extensive exhibit that shows the characteristics that I'm talking at in my questions of Ms. Phillips. So, it's no intention on my part not to give this to you, and certainly I would be happy to have you have copies of tax maps that are just tax maps and don't require any further testimony as to the preparation, but I don't think I have enough copies for everybody. I think I have
MR. WHITAKER: Many times when an analysis is done by a witness, it doesn't include the tax maps as part of the submission. So, not by Mr. Inglima but by the applicant, but we can certainly look at the tax map.
MR. NEGRYCZ: The applicant did not bring that up.
MR. WHITAKER: The applicant, with all due respect, gave us an analysis with a listing of lots. Many times you get a map at the same time. So we'll get that map, if not tonight, we'll get it at the next meeting. Mr. Inglima advises that his expert witness will be providing testimony they provide. But let's move ahead at this point.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. If I can move to what has been marked as A 10, this is the aerial view of the subject site and surrounding properties. You indicated that this was an exhibit that was created using Google Maps.
A. The image's from Google. I used the tax map, New Jersey Tax Maps.
Q. All right.
A. The image is Google.
Q. I'm sorry. Was someone speaking? I'm reading a logo or I guess it's a copyright notification at the bottom, "Imagery copyright 2018, Digital Globe, New York GIS." And then it goes on to say terms of use, which is obstructed. Is that a company to which you subscribe to obtain materials or materials for use in your testimony?
A. I use a subscription to New Jersey Tax Maps, that's a subscription service, and within that you get a GIS viewer, you get tax maps, as well as GIS maps.
Q. I notice there are no dimensions, although there are indications of lot numbers on this exhibit. Does this service or whatever company that creates these tax maps, do they provide any dimensional information about the lots?
A. New Jersey Tax Maps does, but this does not, and that's why I had mentioned the red line that I had done around the property, it looks as if the building is right on the property line. So it's a little skewed in terms of the lot lines themselves. I had mentioned that during my direct testimony. So I didn't use any kind of square footage figures from this, it's really just to show the layout of the buildings and the surrounding area and the size of the dwellings based on the area.
Q. Now, if I can direct your attention to the depiction of Lot 30.06, that's owned by my client Mr. and Mrs. Cron, and then you've got 30.07 to the south, and then you have 30.08 beyond that, which you really can't see much, you can't see the frontage, but you can see part of the lot. It appears from the depiction of the street line that it is consistent in terms of its width and setback from the curb and the rear of those lots as the lot line along the front of Lot 6, the applicants' property at 82 John Street. Isn't that correct?
A. Could you repeat that again? I'm not sure which lot you were talking about.
Q. I'll hold it up, it will be a little easier for everyone, I think. I'm referring on your exhibit to the lots that lie to the south of the applicants' property?
A. Yes.
Q. Which are labeled just with lot numbers, 30.06, 30.07, and then, as I said, 30.08, you really don't see the frontage.
A. Right. Okay.
Q. And if you look at what is depicted on this exhibit as a, what I assume is a street line or a lot line, it appears to be a straight line extending along John Street down from the Reynolds' property, which is at the corner of Wyndemere and Lot 5, at the corner of Wyndemere and John. It's a straight line, isn't it?
A. Yeah, it looks relatively straight.
Q. But we know that that's not the case, isn't that correct? It's not a straight line. The street width at Lots 30.06 and 30.07 is actually 5 feet wider, isn't it?
A. I don't know. I had said that these lines don't really depict what's accurate. You can see by the side yard that the one, the line that's separating is in. These aren't perfect lines. I didn't use the lines for any kind of calculation.
Q. Would it be fair to say
A. They just
Q. I'm sorry. Continue.
A. No.
Q. Would it be fair to say that the aerial photography is not taken from a perspective that is directly above the subject lot, but slightly at an angle?
A. I don't know how they're taken.
Q. Well, I can see the chimney side of the existing Hogan house, but I can't see the north side, it appears to be not visible because of the angle of the photography. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not an aerial photographer, I don't know.
Q. Well, I'm sure you can
MR. RUTHERFORD: Asked and answered. That's the third time that question has been asked.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. What did you rely on this for, anyway, that's what I want to know? I mean with the flaws in it, what does it tell you as a planner?
A. It shows the neighborhood, the general layout of the neighborhood and the houses surrounding it, the subject site.
Q. Could you have produced a photograph from this same service that shows a larger area?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, why didn't you? Why did you pick only these
A. Because when
Q. 12 lots and portions of three others?
A. Because when you do it larger, it's going to be at a smaller scale, so you wouldn't be able to see it at well. So I narrowed it down to the immediate area that I felt would be impacted with the immediate area of the neighborhood is, and I picked that and I just said this is a good scale, you can see the roof lines and things. When you pull it out to extend or enlarge the area, it becomes more difficult to see.
Q. So you feel that this is an appropriate depiction of a condition that supports your position in support of the applicants' request for variances when it only shows lots that are, in some cases, significantly larger but they're all larger than the applicants' property. Correct?
A. Yes, they are all larger, we are the smallest lot in the area.
Q. So you did not include any of the other lots in this photography that I identified a few minutes ago as being substandard 50 foot wide lots, to say nothing of the other substandard lots that exist in the area, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Once again this is a fairly selective exhibit, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified as to the exhibit that you had marked as A 8 and you described several photographs. There were a couple of photographs that I could not understand your description. If we could just go over them very quickly. First of all, you don't have any exhibit that shows the locations where you were standing when you were taking these photographs, do you?
A. No.
Q. So you don't have a map that shows photo one, photo two, photo three, that type of thing?
A. No.
Q. When you say well, let me back up.
Are the photographs taken with any type of a wide angle lens or other lens that is designed in order to capture a larger wider view of a subject?
A. No, it's just a simple digital lens.
Q. Is this a cellphone or is it some other type of camera?
A. No, it's an Olympus.
Q. And this is a single lens reflex camera, is it digital?
A. It is digital.
Q. Did you crop these images in order to produce the views that are set forth in these individual panels?
A. I didn't crop them, but when I inserted them into the box, I had to make adjustments, that would be the only change.
Q. So when you were viewing any of these particular subjects that are shown in the photographs, could there have been other things that were captured in the viewfinder and the photograph, the digital photography, that are not represented on this paper?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Well, when you went through the process of putting the images into this exhibit, putting them into these individual panels or boxes and placing them on paper, printing them out, isn't it possible that there are portions of those images that were, for lack of a better word, excised from the original image in order to make it fit?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I'm looking at the two photographs at the top of the first page of the photo exhibit. They show the front wall of the applicants' house.
Do you have an opinion as to whether the front wall of the applicants' house is unattractive?
A. Do I have an opinion as to whether it's attractive?
Q. Yes. You talked about aesthetic criteria, didn't you, in your testimony. You spoke in terms of enhancing the aesthetics of the site.
Is the existing home unattractive?
A. No.
Q. Is the existing home poorly maintained?
A. No.
Q. What is it about the change to the house that is proposed and shown on the applicants' plans that you feel will make it look better from the street view, I'm saying? This is only as to those two first upper panels on sheet one. What is the applicant going to do as part of this application that will make this house look better, in your opinion?
A. Well, we're going to be adding on the portico.
Q. There's a portico right now, isn't there?
A. Yes. It will be modified, but my intent
Q. It's a bigger portico that's proposed, isn't it?
A. I don't know the exact scale. I didn't really look at that that closely, since we weren't seeking a variance for it.
Q. Okay. Please continue.
A. So my intent, when discussing that, was more about the impact to the streetscape, that the addition was not going to be visible from the side and that the front would be maintained but that any improvement, whether it was going to be siding, whether it was going to be painting or anything, it would be an improvement or enhancement so that the streetscape wouldn't be impacted. It wasn't saying that the house is not desirable now to look at or aesthetically pleasing to look at, the point is what we are doing is not going to be a negative towards the streetscape.
Q. Well, let's go with something that you just said. You said that the addition I'm going to characterize all of the new building areas that are proposed on the applicants' plan as the addition, whether they constitute a redesign of the existing areas or whether they are entirely new structures, is that okay? I just want to make it easier to ask. Did you make a determination that the addition would not be visible from the north side of the proposed structure?
A. No, I'm talking about the streetscape when you're walking along John opposite the subject site.
Q. Okay. I'm walking along John in a southerly direction on a sidewalk that abuts the applicants' site. And I'm passing the Reynolds' property, and once I get past the structures on their property, I look to my right, and that's within my view shed, is it not.
A. Yes.
Q. Are you telling me that you determined that I won't be able to see from granted, I'm a little short but the fact is that I'm not going to be able to see the back of the house that's being added on?
A. No, you'll be able to see it.
Q. Oh, okay.
A. From that angle.
Q. So it would have visibility, if you will, from the streetscape area, from the frontage?
A. In certain areas, yes.
Q. Okay. You didn't take any pictures of the view towards the house from either a location in front of well, there's a car shown in the photograph in the second panel on that first sheet, you didn't take a photo from over there on the street or on the sidewalk, rather, towards the house, right?
A. No.
Q. And same question as to taking a photograph of the existing house from, let's say, a location close to the driveway serving the Cron residence, you didn't have any photos viewing the house from there, the applicant's site?
A. Well, the photograph on the third page, upper right, you can see the side of the existing dwelling.
Q. Okay. This is a photo from across the street?
A. Standing across the street, yes.
Q. And you can see the house, so I assume then that you would be able to see the addition to the house from that location?
A. Yes.
Q. Where are the shrubs to which you were referring earlier? I mean, we can see the house. Where are those shrubs?
A. I see shrubs between the two dwellings.
Q. But we can still see the house, can't we, the applicants' home?
A. Yes, I never said that it would totally obscure the entire house.
Q. Did you ever stand on the Cron property, at any location on their property, and look in the direction of the applicants' property?
A. I never go onto private property unless it's my client's, that's just
Q. So you
A. I don't.
Q. Would it be fair to say, since you weren't there or never took any photographs, looking from the Cron property in the direction generally to the north and to the northwest towards the applicants' site?
A. No, I never was on the adjoining properties to take photos.
Q. You could use a drone, I guess, but I assume that you wouldn't do something like that. With respect to the photograph shown on the bottom of page one, these are photographs taken in the rear of the applicants' property.
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The photograph that is in the right side of the bottom of page one, would that be fair to say that's a photo taken generally in the direction of the garage on the Cron property?
A. I didn't even know they had a garage on the property. I was looking kind of at a southwest direction.
Q. Since I see a railing that I assume is for the existing deck on the Hogan property, I assume you were standing on the deck at the time you took that picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how high above grade you were when you took that picture?
A. I don't.
Q. When I say "you were," I should say the lens of the camera was?
A. No, I wouldn't know.
Q. You have other photographs, and I'm not sure I can understand what a couple of them are, the angle that they're taken, so please bear with me. The photo that is shown in the lower left corner of page two of the photo exhibit, it's entitled "View of Dwelling Located at 540 Wyndemere Avenue northwest of the subject site, where did you take that photo from?
A. The rear yard of the Hogan property looking north.
Q. So you weren't on the deck anymore, you were somewhere to the west of the deck?
A. Yes, I believe I was grade level at that point.
Q. Do you know where the shrubbery that is shown in the foreground of that photograph is located, is it on the Hogan property or on the adjacent property?
A. I don't know.
Q. There is a photograph that's in the lower right corner are of page two, it says: "View towards Subject Site from Wyndemere Avenue, Note Breezeway and Garage of Adjacent Dwelling."
A. Yes.
Q. Is the white fence, it's sort in the mid area, midrange of the view, is that a fair statement, sort of halfway along? Is that a fence that's on the Reynolds property or is that a fence that's on the common boundary of the Reynolds property with the Hogan property?
A. No, I don't believe it's between the Hogan property, it might have something to do with the pool. I believe it's north of the Hogan property. I really can't tell the perspective. I was standing on a sidewalk on Wyndemere and there were gardens in front of me, I remember that. There was flowers and things in front of me. I was standing on the sidewalk, and I just took the view from Wyndemere towards the Hogans' home. So the window that you see in the far distance is the Hogans' home. That fence, I think, may surround the pool. So, this might be the second part of the fence on the north side, and then there's yard, and then another fence, I believe, to the Hogan property. So this is the enclosure, I believe, to the pool. That's the only way I can explain it. But I got my description, in was standing on Wyndemere looking towards the Hogan property, and I was noting that you can see the garage and the breezeway from the home on the corner to the left, that was my point.
Q. Okay. And you said the structure, that it appears to have some of awning at the far right end of it. That's the one story portion of the Hogan house, the existing Hogan house?
A. Yes, that's off of the deck, that awning.
Q. So the deck would be sort of underneath and slightly to the right of that little awning
A. Uh huh.
Q. structure, right?
A. It would be underneath, I believe, yes.
Q. Do you know whether the trees that are indicated above the fence that's visible in the foreground, do you know if those trees are on the Hogan property, the Reynolds property or someone else's property?
A. I believe no, you know what, I really don't know. I think at least two, the smaller shrub to the right in the foreground is a shrub that's on the Reynolds property, that's the corner property, and then the large tree that you see on the left, the deciduous tree, I believe is on the corner property as well.
Q. Okay.
A. The Hogan tree in the back is shown in the far distance.
Q. I see a white structure that is above and slightly to the left of the awning structure, to the left of that tree you just identified as being on the Hogan property.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Cron residence
A. I believe so.
Q. do you know?
A. I believe so. They're the adjacent house to the south.
Q. So from the vantage point you had when you took this photograph, you could see all the way to the Cron house, right?
A. Yes, I believe that's what it is, yes.
Q. And there is an open space under the tree, so obviously if there's an addition, if there's a two story building constructed above the one story structure on the Hogan property that you can see in this photograph, and an extension of the master bedroom and the covered porch, we'd be seeing that in that open space above the white fence. Isn't that true?
A. Probably.
Q. We'd see it all the way from Wyndemere Avenue?
A. Yes, as you can see other houses in the photographs.
Q. Just two quick questions. You have photographs on the lower portion, the lower half of page three, that indicate they're dwellings across from the subject site and a dwelling on the east side of John Street respectively. Where did you take these pictures from? Where were you standing at the time?
A. I was on the sidewalk at John. I see a curb cut. I honestly don't remember. I know I was at a sidewalk, whether I was on the Hogan property I'm looking at two curb cuts, so I believe I was on the Hogans' macadam driveway, if not on the sidewalk, because I see the second curb cut to the south with the little patch of grass, and I believe that would be the adjacent property to the south, their driveway. So I believe I was looking I was standing in the driveway or the apron sidewalk area of the Hogan residence.
Q. Do you have any photographs that you took from any of the interior areas of the Hogan house viewing out from the property?
A. Can you repeat that
Q. Yes.
A. please.
Q. Did you take any photographs in which you were standing inside the Hogan house, the existing structure on their property, and taking a picture of areas beyond the house, in other words, through a window or an opening in a wall, whatever it may be, looking away from the house, in other words, viewing the environs of the site from one or both floors of the existing home?
A. I didn't take any photographs on the interior, no.
Q. Did you make an inspection of the interior of the house?
A. Yes, I was on the first floor.
Q. You didn't go up to the second floor?
A. No.
Q. You didn't go in the basement or the attic?
A. No.
Q. You talked about aesthetic considerations involving the streetscape, so I assume that you have compared what has been rendered by the architect, Mr. Schlicht, as SK-4, as a proposed design of the expanded house, renovated house, and photographs that I mean, there's closer photographs contained in the exhibit that was marked by Mr. Schlicht during his earlier testimony as SK-1, 2, and 3, and the two sheets of photographs. There's a photograph number one that shows the front of the house. So, if you had to choose, you feel that the house that's depicted on SK-4 of the September 1st, 2018 plan set would be more attractive?
A. Yes, it's got more detailing, yes, of the windows and the pediment over the door.
Q. So the addition of windows, you feel, makes the house look better. Is that a fair statement?
A. I'm not an architect, from a layperson's perspective, yes, I think it's a nice profile or elevation of the front facade.
Q. Do you know of any reason why the changes that are depicted on SK-4 could not be made to the house without building the expansion?
A. No, I don't know that that's true.
Q. You gave testimony regarding the impact visually or aesthetically, as I think you put it sometimes, of the proposed addition, the changes to the existing home. You never talked about the aesthetic impact on a neighboring property. Is it reasonable to infer from that fact that you didn't look at what the aesthetic impact of this building would be on, let's say, the Reynolds property?
A. I looked at all of the elevations of the four sides. There's a lot of architectural detailing and things like gables and there's an inset on the second floor, there's a lot of details that I think are architecturally significant and are attractive. It's not a block wall.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: One second, Ms. Phillips, could you just talk into the mic.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Thank you.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. Well, I'm just trying to find out exactly what you mean by aesthetics and the absence of detriment. You think that because the house is going to look nice from the standpoint of your own personal opinion or even expert opinion about what looks nice that that is somehow justification for granting variance relief?
A. That's not what I gave testimony to in terms of variances. It wasn't just aesthetics.
Q. You testified about nonconforming conditions of the existing structure, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. So, right now, the existing north wall of the existing Hogan dwelling is 7.74 feet at the northeast or front right corner to the Reynolds property line, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the rear of that structure forgive me, I don't have the survey in front of me right now, but let me see if I can dig it out here it is. I'm sorry. The survey that was previously filed with this Board, indicates that in the rear corner there is a side yard setback along the north property line of 8.9 feet. If you don't have a copy of the survey, I'll be able to furnish it.
MR. RUTHERFORD: No, I believe I have one, I'll provide it to Ms. Phillips.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it. I just can't find it right now.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Here.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. So, right now, the one story portion of the home is 8.59 feet from the Reynolds property. And I'm looking at this plan, V 1, just give me a moment. V-1 dated 8/31/ 18, and this indicates that the proposed covered porch will be 8.34 feet from the Reynolds property, and that's not including the 9 inch overhang that Mr. Schlicht testified to?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, we have been over this ground repeatedly.
MR. INGLIMA: I'm asking the planner for the very first time about the side yard variance along the north boundary line, can't I ask a question?
MR. WHITAKER: Please proceed.
MR. INGLIMA: Thank you.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. So you have an existing side yard setback of 8.59, and you're going to make it less than 8.34, which is itself less than the existing side yard setback, right?
A. That's what the numbers indicate, yes.
Q. So, in other words, you're reducing the side yard setback along the Reynolds property from what it is today by virtue of this application, right?
A. I believe the 8.34 is the floor of the porch.
Q. And I believe you were here for Mr. Schlicht's testimony tonight on cross, he said there was an overhang of the roof area beyond that.
A. Yes, which is permitted.
Q. So, without quibbling about how much it is, it's going to be less than 8.34 feet from the structure that constitutes the covered porch to the Reynolds property, which is less than what is there right now. Isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, even without considering the proposed fireplace enclosure, which projects even farther into the side yard, what's being proposed is going to make matters worse?
MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm compelled to comment, Mr. Chairman, by 3 inches, 3 inches. The difference between 8.59 and 8.34 is .25 feet, which is 3 inches. At 10:45 at night, I don't know how much time we need to spend on 3 inches, Mr. Chairman, respectfully.
MR. INGLIMA: All right.
BY MR. INGLIMA:
Q. So, Ms. Phillips, you are aware that there's an existing nonconforming condition that is being exacerbated by the application, right?
A. That's what we're here for, for the variance, yes.
Q. Now, isn't it generally a policy of sound land use planning that when you have nonconforming conditions affecting a property, that wherever possible, you should move the property in the direction of conformity?
A. Yes, in a perfect world, right, yes.
Q. Now, this is for a covered porch, this isn't even for living space, correct?
A. Well, that's what makes it less impactful, because the second floor in that section is actually setback an additional foot on that side. So the second floor, the new use on that side is not exacerbating, because it's actually setback even farther.
Q. You talked earlier about the need by this applicant for certain amenities and a certain style of dwelling or features in the dwelling that you felt was consistent with what is expected or developed today in Ridgewood. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I thought I heard you say.
A. Yes, just modern living, yes.
Q. And I assume then that you feel that covered porches of this nature within a required setback is something that's consistent with modern living?
A. Covered porches, yes, are, you know, typical ancillary accessory use.
Q. You've identified a number of properties in the area of the applicant's site, and you talked about what was built on them and whether this was of the same scale or design. Can you please identify for the Board a single property where a covered porch of this nature was constructed on a lot along John Street or Wyndemere Avenue?
A. That's not a proof that I have to show to the Board, that has nothing to do with this application. Each application, as you know, is determined and decided on its own merits, and we've put forth, you know, rationale to support the statutory criteria for the Board to approve this. I mean, I didn't analyze every single property. I have been involved in other variances in this town. I represented somebody on Spring Street, I believe we had an accessory porch with I think a fireplace on that one. That's a typical standard use or structure as part of these renovations.
Q. So you feel that there is justification for building a covered porch within a required setback?
A. I gave the justification for the setbacks, whether it's an open porch or whether it's part of the structure. Actually an open porch is actually less impactful, because you don't have a solid wall, you can actually see into it.
Q. Wait a minute, when I say "open porch," how is a porch that is covered by a roof that goes up 15 feet above grade an open space?
A. Because the sides are open.
Q. You could build an amphitheater, but you wouldn't propose that on this site, would you? That could have sides that are open. I've been in the Garden States Art Center, beautiful facility, it has open sides. Does it mean a structure like that should be built in a single family residential zone?
A. I'm not going to answer that.
Q. I know it was mostly rhetorical, I'll concede. The existing survey shows that the existing home is 9.95 feet in the front left corner, that would be the southeast corner of the existing home, and 9.16 feet in the rear corner of the one story section of the existing home, correct?
A. That's what I see, yes.
Q. And what is being proposed will be 9.21 feet from the property line?
A. I thought it was 9.21.
Q. Didn't I say 9.21? That's what I was trying to say.
A. I thought you said 9.12. I'm sorry.
Q. 9.21 feet, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So the applicants' plan proposes to increase the setback distance along the side that faces to the south, towards the Cron property, by .05 of a foot, which is three fifths of an inch. Isn't that correct?
A. I'll accept your word for that, yes.
Q. I'll defer to anyone else with a calculator, but my understanding is it's three fifths of an inch. Isn't that really the same setback as what's there today?
A. I'm using Mr. Schlicht's plan, so I will go by what he says and what the survey says.
Q. It's really a distinction without a difference, isn't it? So we're still dealing with just slightly more than 9 feet to the Cron property line. Is it your position that the existence of a home at 9.16 or 9.21 feet from that property line in and of itself justifies an extension or an expansion of that structure farther to the rear at the same setback?
A. Yes, I gave my justification for it during the testimony that
Q. And, once again I’m sorry; I don't want to cut you off. Once again you're not moving the property in the direction of conformity in regarding to the side yard setback along the south, right? Is that a fair statement?
A. We're not moving it into nonconformity, what we're doing is we're going to the second story. So the first story stays the way it is or actually increases a tag, let's say, but the second story is what is encroachment portion. We're just following the building line; we're not exacerbating the first floor variance, no.
Q. But you're expanding I want to make sure you understand what the plans show. The plans show a new two story addition and then a new one story addition all built behind the existing home at that same 9.169.21, for sake of three fifths of an inch, setback from the Cron property line, right?
A. Yes, that's
Q. Those are all new structures. I don't want to get this wrong. I mean, that's what I read on the plan.
A. Yes.
Q. All new structures extending back from the existing building?
A. I'm sorry. I was looking at it as if this was the second story. Yes, to the rear yard, right, yes, that is a one story addition, yes.
Q. And you have a two story addition over a large portion of that, all, once again, on the side that faces the Cron property? You got a second story that's being added to the existing first story, and then you've got a two story addition behind it, so it's all two stories going back along the Cron property line. There's no inset, in other words, there's no further setback like you noted on the north side by Reynolds, right?
A. I don't see that, yes, you're right.
Q. The wall remains straight, and more or less goes back in a straight line somewhere around 9.2 feet away from the Cron property. So how is that making anything better from a zoning standpoint?
A. My point was, I did not testify that we were making it better, I was testifying
Q. Wait a minute, no
A. I was testifying
Q. You did. You said that this was a better zoning alternative.
Now, what did you mean by that?
A. Well, if you would have let me finish my statement. What I was saying was I provided rationale that when you combine these two side yard setbacks that proportionately on a 50 foot wide lot, we're at 35 percent, the ordinance contemplates a 33 percent under the one combined side yard, which would be 33 feet, so we're one half of that, we'd be looking at providing 16.5 feet. We're actually over that, so we actually provide 35 percent. So, what I said in terms of the side yard variance, that we are proportionate to what the village has contemplated when they drafted the ordinance for the R-1 district.
Q. I'm looking at the zoning schedule. I don't think I could follow you. Mr. Schlicht says that it's 15.99 feet total side yards. You said you're over it.
A. Because Mr. Schlicht and I had discussed that he included the vent into that side yard calculation. I took it out as a separate variance because, as a planner, I typically would view that as a separate section in the ordinance. So what I had done was used the side yard to the first floor of the porch area, and then on the north side it was the first floor on the south side, combine those. The vent is a separate issue. That's a different side yard variance, and I testified to that separately.
Q. So you
A. So that's why our numbers do not jive, but what I'm telling you is that I did the calculation, the combined side yards represent 35 percent of the lot width in terms of what is open space. Your ordinance contemplates 33 percent under your combined side yard. So I was just trying to provide the Board with the rationale of how this would not be impactful, when your own ordinance for a full sized 100 foot wide lot is 33 percent. I was just trying to show that we're undersized and yet we are proportionate to what was contemplated.
Q. I'm going to read to you a portion of the zoning ordinance.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Mr. Inglima, it's now 10:57. We do have a strict curfew at 11. I assume you're not able to finish up in two minutes.
MR. INGLIMA: I am not going to finish up in three minutes, no.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: All right. Great. So, at this point in time, we're going to have to look for a new date.
MS. WONDERGEM: October 23rd.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: So it looks like October 23rd. Mr. Rutherford, how does that work?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Is the 9th available, Mr. Chairman?
MR. INGLIMA: Yes, my planner is available on the 9th. I can't speak to the 23rd tonight, but I know she'll be available.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Our planner, Ms. Phillips, is also available on the 9th, I'm pretty sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Jane, how do we look for the 9th?
MS. WONDERGEM: October? I already have several residential applications on that day.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. So it's not going to be the 9th.
MS. WONDERGEM: So October 23rd is not good?
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: It would be October 23rd.
MR. RUTHERFORD: We're checking, we'll let you know right now.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Ms. Phillips is okay for the 23rd.
MR. INGLIMA: I just sent a message to my planner to find out. I hope I can get a response right away.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. All right. So we can continue with the cross examination.
MR. INGLIMA: She's available. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Great. So it's October 23rd, we will continue, no additional notice required.
MR. WHITAKER: October 23rd at 7:30 p.m.
MR. INGLIMA: I assume there's an extension of time to get us to October 23rd?
MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, yes, yes, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. That will be fine.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Minutes submitted by: Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary
Date Approved: January 8, 2019
