{
    "document_id": 12451,
    "page": 3,
    "width_pt": 612,
    "height_pt": 792,
    "rotation": 0,
    "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
    "engine": "paddleocr_vl",
    "source_run_id": 12562,
    "item_count": 1,
    "counts_by_type": {
        "text": 1
    },
    "build_ms": 2,
    "items": [
        {
            "id": "p3.1",
            "order": 1,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 67.92,
                "t": 720,
                "r": 541.68,
                "b": 80.4
            },
            "text": "not typically comply without the consolidation. On lot 2 6.8 exists and 7.7% is proposed. By combining the lots they meet the coverage, but there is a concern with such a large lot coverage at the top of the lot. Mr. Back testified that it will affect neighbors but they will have to provide any grading and any drainage, drywells for the houses. Mr. Rohmeyer wants to make sure the grading and drainage is handled properly, so it does not affect neighbors. Mr. Rohmeyer said for impervious coverage 50% is allowed and combined or separate they would comply. Mr. Back said they are able to provide ample grading and drainage for storm water management. They will comply with RSIS for off street parking spaces. Mr. Peters confirmed it is a lot consolidation, not a minor subdivision as was originally stated in Ms. Jennings statement. Ms. Jennings confirmed it is just a lot consolidation not minor subdivision. Dr. Hofstein asked about the names on the deeds, there are two different names. Ms. Cipriani confirmed if the applicant has site control on both lots, since they are in two different names. Ms. Jennings said after this Board makes a determination they will consolidate the deeds. Mr. Peters asked if there are any bulk variances, the engineer confirmed there are not. Mr. Heiman said how are they determining front or rear, they both have frontage on a street. Mr. Back testified they both will have front yard setbacks and both will be in compliance. Mr. Heiman said won't Pitney become a rear yard, Ms. Jennings said no because there is frontage on Pitney. No further questions. John Taikina, licensed planner for State of New Jersey, has been testifying for 33 years, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. The Board accepts his credentials. Mr. Taikina advised that the Board is being asked to interpret the ordinance and stated it is his opinion that the guest house be an accessory. They would require a bulk variance for the guest house because it will be in a front yard. This would be a C2 variance, as the burden on the applicant would be that they have two front yards. This relief would be specifically for 3 Bear Trail and would not be related to any other property. Mr. Taikina said it will continue to present as a single family dwelling on the street. From a planning perspective an accessory structure might be smaller or unsightly. It will provide a more desirable environment keeping the existing home on Pitney. As far as advancing purposes of zoning they are providing for sufficient space in appropriate locations. Mr. Taikina said they are kind of creating their own problem and this is why he believes it would be C2 variance. There is no negative criteria, there is no substantial impairment to public good or zone plan and master plan. There will be a new house on Bear Trail with a pool and then the guest house on Pitney which is remaining and will keep with the look of the neighborhood. It is his opinion no negative impacts or detriment to public good. The house on Pitney will continue to look the way it looks. Master Plan provides for integrity and continuity throughout the community and they are by continuing it as a single family home. He feels they should grant the C2 variance, an accessory use at Pitney Lane. Ms. Jennings asked Mr. Taikina to go over the definition to come to this conclusion. Mr. Taikina relied on what is principal building, as stated in ordinance 244-6 a structure accessory which is customarily associated with and it is subordinate and incidental to the principal single family use. 244-147 is the ordinance definition for accessory building and the only thing they do not conform with is that it is in a front yard. If the Board does not agree with this they would need D1 use variance for two principal buildings on one lot. (244-162) For the Board to grant D1 variance they need to find: that the property is particularly suited for the use, reconcile why the governing body did not zone it that way and they would have to talk about what purposes of zoning they would advance. They also would need to meet negative criteria. It is particularly suited for this as it has been two homes on two lots and that is not changing, they are just combining to 1 lot. The newly constructed home would be compliant with coverage. The site will be attractive and they will keep guest house as it exists on Pitney Lane. The lot was not zoned like this because it was not anticipated that individuals would want to assemble this type of property. Mr. Taikina said it is a distinction without"
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}