Page 3 of 4

there are others. Mr. Book asked if there is a standard definition of a terrace from the point of view of zoning or architectural. Mr. Castore stated in the municipality designs there are definitions on their own and in the absence of definitions the dictionary was chosen, of course there could be supplement or additional definitions provided if the Board so desires. Mr. Borden mentioned that other definitions refer to terraces as being decks as well. Mr. Book asked Mr. Borden to speak to what the definition of a terrace is or at least what the proposed definition is to be for consideration, because with looking at the definition provided it has multiple parts, some of which are highlighted. Mr. Borden stated a terrace can be a land form which is what this application is talking about under the Merriam Webster definition under 1-A, it is a relatively paved or unpaved planted area, and other sections mentioned the porch is collimated, and in this case, section C would be applicable, an open platform. Mr. Book mentioned there was still an issue trying to visualize what the exact look of this structure is, and the interpretation it just is little lost, and with looking at what's been highlighted, unroofed entrance, porches, so that's one, and it says or terraces, so it gives the Board two consents, and there is question whether or not the unroofed terraces or porches are, they are the same or are they different. Mr. Borden mentioned they are different, they are similar, but different, a porch is a front yard feature and a terrace is a rear yard feature, that's the interpretation. Mr. Book mentioned if the Board is to forget that one is in the front yard and one is in the rear, do the otherwise look the same. Mr. Borden stated that is correct, they would look the same. Mr. Book asked if one is unroofed, and then the question is with looking at the definition of terraces, its highlighted sections under 1-B in the provided definition, a columinated porch or promenade, and what's being visualized is Corinthian columns, or some type of a column structure on this unroofed deck, it that was being talked about. Mr. Borden advised that is incorrect, and the term columinated is not what is being referenced because columinated infers that there's a roof, which obviously the term "unroofed" is a critical part of this paragraph. Mr. Peters mentioned the term "porch" keeps getting mentioned, and there's a definition of "porch" in the ordinance, and there should be some testimony heard on the ordinance, there seems to be three phrases being used somewhat interchangeably and while it is appreciated, a cerebral conversation about this, it's still not understood what is being sought, and the purpose of the conversation is unsure, but the word "porch" keeps getting used, and it's not in what the applicant was submitted for. Mr. Book asked for the planner's definition. Mr. Peters stated a porch is a roof and/or enclosed area with a percentage of window area to wall area greater than 50 percent; not heated or air conditioned or designed, constructed, used, or intended to be used year round, and which is attached to or is part of and has direct access to or from a building. Mr. Borden stated that is correct, and that porch would not be permitted within the setback encroachment because it's roofed. Mr. Castore added there's a limitation. Mr. Peters stated there is the description of 244:175C that says "unroofed entrance porches", so for a debatable conversation, the definition of porches doesn't say front or back, 244:175 yard areas, Subsection C says "unroofed entrance porches", which again, you can enter from the front or the back. Mr. Borden stated definition of "porch" is part of the issue here because the definition of porch, as Mr. Peters read, is a roofed and/or enclosed area so that is not applicable to the section. Mr. Gertner asked what happened, that determined that an interpretation was need, was something applied for that was denied. Mr. Borden said no. Mr. Castore stated this application is literally trying to figure out what this provision is permitted for, and if a deck is subsumed within those definitions. Mr. Borden stated for years there have been a tremendous number of developments in the R-1 zone, and that's the predominant zone in town which are arced lots and there's simply, no limitations to the setbacks, and a house with a deck and a porch can be built within those setbacks without really any conflicts, however this application, obviously was made under Royal Grove, and Royal Grove as I'm sure the members know development was nearly completed in the Regional Growth Zone of Pinelands, and in the RG-2 zone, it allows smaller lots, so these lots are 12,000 SF, and of the 120 lots in Royal Grove, approximately 80 are now constructed, and the client has mentioned the homes that are on the market are looking for a larger rear deck, and it would help in their sales and marketing if they could provide these larger decks for their customers. Mr. Peters raised concern, because if the Board redefined what's in the code through an interpretation, something should be brought into the zoning officer, let him review, approve, deny, then the applicant can appeal the zoning officer's decision, there is uncertainty if the Board can take Merriam Webster's definition in determining whether something is approvable or not and have them come back to us and say well, this was done in the RG-2 zone property so let's do it over there, it's bad enough that this isn't being sought for one lot, but the applicant is asking for it on entire project, which is pretty much built. Mr. Book asked Mr. Gertner if this Board is providing an interpretation of an ordinance section, and is that binding across the board going forward on all applications. Mr. Gertner stated the Board is to interpret the ordinance. Mr. Peters noted this is talking about an entire subdivision in a particular zone, and there are concerns that someone is going to say well we set that standard here, and this is not the place. Mr. Borden stated the applicant would love for the ordinance to give all the direction necessary, but the simple fact is the ordinance doesn't, and if the ordinance didn't have defined terrace or defined deck, then it would be clear, but it doesn't, it simply says that an unroofed terrace is forbidden and it's not a stretch to say that an unroofed deck is analogous to a terrace, and this application is not to draw new boundaries in town, it's a simple interpretation of a single word that doesn't give direction otherwise in the ordinance and the published literature gives us that direction. Mr. Castore mentioned it's also not a fair characterization of this application. Mr. Peters stated under this interpretation, there are concerns because it's in the Pinelands area, and whether or not the Board decides something if Pinelands needs to look at it, all ordinances that are in town that have been adopted Pinelands, have to go to Pinelands so now the Board is going to interpret an ordinance in Pinelands, and the argument would then be does someone pay the fee, or make an application and get a hearing. Mr. Borden agreed that any interpretation, it might be favorable, and would not take effect until an affirmative answer was received from the Pinelands, it may not be necessary, but it can be provided. Mr. Gertner stated that's a reasonable tradition under the circumstances, but for the attorney for Mr. Borden, are there decks being constructed, decks as you defined it, being constructed there now. Mr. Borden said that was correct. Mr. Gertner asked if the client has determined that the market wants larger decks. Mr. Borden stated that is the case for some homes, because in some cases a shape of a limits the size of the deck to less than what might be on adjoining houses. Mr. Gertner asked what the largest deck size is that's been constructed. Mr. Borden advised he was UN sure. Mr. Castore noted that it's not necessarily germane to our general application. Mr. Costanzo mentioned that the planner raised a question, how can someone differentiate between this interpretations, this application is asking the Board to interpret for a general project, approximately 80 homes. Mr. Borden stated this is not specified for anything, there's no block and lot notice, there's no street address notice, and the Knight Drive is simply a typographical error. Mr. Peters stated a block and lot was provided with looking at the application package. Mr. Costanzo asked again if the Board is interpreting a development, or a single lot. Mr. Gertner mentioned it is believed that the application is asking Board to find that for purposes, at least of 244-175(c), a terrace is a deck. Mr. Borden stated that is correct. Mr. Gertner mentioned that at least, even if this applied as to only one lot, that interpretation would apply universally. Mr. Purpuro advised that is correct. Mr. Castore stated this is a quasi-judicial Board, so the determinations of the Board are binding, so it's unknown if the distinction matters as much, and from a legal standpoint that there is no definition of terrace, so in the absence of a definition, someone would look to the dictionary which is what is attempting to do here. Mr. Book asked Mr. Peters if there is a source that would give the Board better definitions or maybe even help understand some of the history that gave rise to this particular section and what may have been intended by terrace, terraces. Mr. Peters mentioned there are several other sources. Mr. Gertner agreed with the attorney for the applicant, that there's a provision to interpret and if language is looked at, for reasons unknown, this wasn't authored by this Board, and unroofed entrance porches or terraces, etc., provided that the total area of all such porches, then they subsume the idea of a terrace as part of a porch, so with that a suggestion is going to be made. Two things: One, obviously the