October 18, 2012

Mr. Petry stated that the tiered walls are separate structures and explained why the 4” fence on top of the wall was needed. He said that aesthetically, it does not affect the neighbors because only the applicant can see the wall. Mr. Petry said that the rear of the property cannot be utilized without the walls there because the slopes are severe. He said that he based his testimony on the steep slopes criteria. Mr. Petry stated that the impervious coverage they are proposing is 59.4 percent and 40 percent is allowed. He said this also requires a variance. Mr. Petry said that it is a hardship to limit the applicant to 4,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage on a 25,000 sq. ft. piece of property. Mr. Petry said that there does not appear to be any signs of drainage issues on the property; he said it can handle the run-off and there is no substantial detriment. Ms. Zaolino stated that the property is barely compliant; pre or post pool installation, Mr. Petry stated that he was talking about the overall lot area; he said that because of the slopes it is reduced to barely compliant. Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Petry if the applicant viewed any of the construction plans for the work done five years ago; Mr. Petry said that the applicant only viewed the finished product. Ms. Gabry stated that the wall encroaches on the neighbor’s property to the north. Mr. Vena stated that that the applicant has an agreement from that neighbor to get an easement if approved. Chairman Neuer stated that he saw two encroachments of walls on the survey; one on the northerly side and one on the southerly side. Mr. Vena stated that the wall on the southerly side has since been removed according to the applicant. Chairman Neuer asked if there is anyone here to testify that it has been removed. Mr. Petry said that he did not see it but the applicant can testify to that. Ms. Weiss stated that she visited the site and, although she was upset that the applicant did not get the proper permits, the property was very impressive. She said that the slope of the land is amazing and that the photos do not do it justice. Chairman Neuer asked why the address for the client on the map is in Livingston. Mr. Bell said that is where he used to work; he said he lived in Warren at one time and worked in Livingston. Chairman Neuer said that to comply with the steep slope ordinance, the area would have

n. Mr. Bell said that is where he used to work; he said he lived in Warren at one time and worked in Livingston. Chairman Neuer said that to comply with the steep slope ordinance, the area would have been designed different. Mr. Petry said that they would have had to design the wall different or come before the Board asking for a variance. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry what the purpose of raising the wall was; Mr. Petry said it was done for aesthetics. He said if you tiered the wall, as the ordinance allows, you would have three (3) 6’ walls instead of one 12’ wall. Chairman Neuer asked if three walls would have been more expensive; Mr. Petry said not necessarily but said that it is a little less expensive to build one wall. [10]