{
    "document_id": 12451,
    "page": 4,
    "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": "p4.1",
            "order": 1,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.16,
                "t": 719.52,
                "r": 540.96,
                "b": 80.64
            },
            "text": "a difference and by combining the lots and agreed the Board has a right to impose conditions on this approval. They continue to promote a desirable visual environment. The site has sufficient space and compliant building coverage and lot coverage. The negative criteria is the same, no negative impacts or detriment to the public good. Mr. M. artins questioned what they will use it for and if they have that many guests that they need another whole house for guests. Ms. Jennings said yes that it is what the client needs. Ms. Cipriani said they are looking for, and would like for the Board to call the Pitney lane an accessory structure and there would be some relief sought for it but if the Board does not grant that than they are looking for D1 variance to have two principal structures, which is not permitted in a residential zone. Mr. Peters asked if the Board needs to act on the interpretation first. Ms. Cipriani said yes. Mr. Peters, from a planning perspective, does not believe they have proved their case for that interpretation, he does believe they proved case for D1 variance. Mr. Peters asked if a zoning permit was applied for. Ms. Jennings said they did file zoning application in her July 3, 2025 letter, item 5. Mr. Peters said this is not appeal of zoning officer's interpretation. The interpretation would run counter to the zoning officer's interpretation. What is the current use of the house on Pitney. Mr. Peters said he was unable to find a guest house in Jackson Township Ordinance. Ms. Jennings testified it is being used currently for guests no one lives there full time. It will not be occupied full time. Mr. Peters said if the Board approves this something that runs with the property and if at some point they want to use it full time not a guest house what would happen. Mr. Taikina said if Board made the determination it is a guest house than it would not be able to be occupied full time, if they deny that and approve the D1 variance then they are saying it is two single family homes to be occupied full time. Mr. Peters wants the record clear for what happens if they sell the property and what happens with the homes, should there be a real estate transfer. Differentiation between the existing house on Pitney going from a principal to accessory use is the removal of the lot line. Mr. Taikina said yes and it is use, it will not be used full time. Ms. Jennings said to look at it as if it were a vacant lot and they were just going to build a guest house similar to the home that is there. Mr. Peters said he does not agree but it is a fair argument. Ms. Cipriani confirmed the house on Pitney is 15-20 years old and it is vacant but prior it was single family residence. Ms. Cipriani asked the distance of the guest house from the pool. Ms. Cipriani said in terms of use as guest house, if the Board accepts it as a guest house, how the Board would ensure it would not be occupied full time. Ms. Jennings brought up the applicant to testify. Rafael Farhi, applicant, duly sworn by Board Attorney. He testified he has 9 sibling and his wife has 7 siblings and none live in the area. It is not uncommon for there to be a lot of guests. Mr. Farhi said it would be impractical for him to have anyone other than guest's staying in that house and it would be odd to have anyone else occupy that house as it will be located in close proximity to the pool. He testified his elderly parents are staying there now and his Mother is recovering from a surgery. Ms. Cipriani asked how big the Pitney home is. He said it is a 4 bedroom and 4 bathroom house 2900 sq ft. Ms. Cipriani said in terms of the use the guest house will be occupied a lot of the time, the way it sounds. The applicant said holidays, summertime and vacation. Ms. Cipriani said if board gives approval can he think of any limitations that would allow him to use the property in the way he is proposing, and keep it from being occupied full time. Ms. Cipriani said the zoning ordinance does not typically allow two single family homes on one lot and the policy is to always try to push toward conformity. Ms. Tumolo said it is a little different than knocking down the house and building a pool house, she said the issue would be allowing people to stay there, they are not considered habitable. Ms. Jennings argued there is a general accessory rule as long as its incidental to the primary structure, it is impossible for a town to come up with every type of accessory and were not specifically listed. Dr. Hofstein asked if it is an accessory house how can the town control"
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}