September 22, 2011

Chairman Neuer stated that there is no one here to tell the Board that the pergola has to be moved. Ms. McKenzie stated that it’s all about shifting the tennis court and adding it to the other end and that’s what she said she was saying. Ms. McKenzie stated that her second point is regarding the height of the fence. Chairman Neuer said that before you start, Mr. Dimilia the expert witness that testified at the 5/19/11 meeting stated that 8 is acceptable for the fence. Ms. McKenzie stated that they are proposing the fence remain 10’, for the extra protection to keep the balls from going on to other properties. Chairman Neuer asked if the fence is going to be 10’ around the tennis court only and Ms. McKenzie said yes, not around Mr. Carp’s whole property. Chairman Neuer stated that you previously testified that there is 300’ or more of wooded area on the Seton Hall property so how would anyone know if there was a tennis ball there. Ms. McKenzie stated that she is making an argument to say that the fence she is asking for serves the purpose of keeping the tennis balls in; it existed for 22 years and has not been a detriment. Ms. McKenzie went on to say that the impervious surface coverage is a different argument. She pointed to the easement on the plot plan and stated thal Mr. Carp gets no benefit from this driveway; it is for emergency service and for his neighbor only, Chairman Neuer stated that he thought that was the only access to Mr. Farley’s property. Ms. McKenzie said yes and for that reason they cannot rip it up. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. McKenzie to make her argument for the C1 hardship variance. She stated that it’s the only access to the adjoining lot. Ms. McKenzie also stated that 30% is allowed so people can improve their lots to a certain level. She said that if you take this driveway out then you are imposing a hardship on the property. Chairman Neuer stated that the driveway is not causing the variance; the tennis court is. He continued by saying if you reduce the size of the tennis court and rebuild it, then there would be no variance. Chairman Neucr also stated that no member of this Board wants to see Mr. Farley’s access to his house eliminated. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Carp bought his property knowing that the 30% restriction was there and he has difficulty accepting the reason she is offering. Ms. McKenzie stated that mistakes

minated. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Carp bought his property knowing that the 30% restriction was there and he has difficulty accepting the reason she is offering. Ms. McKenzie stated that mistakes were made along the way and Mr. Carp realizes that and the neighbors benefit from the attractiveness of his property, Chairman Neuer stated that does not explain the impervious hardship; he is not concerned with the detriments but with the benefits that she is explaining. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Carp does landscape the property and that’s a fact. He said the issue is the positive and negative criteria. He agreed that no one is going to raise an issue with Mr. Farley’s access or the fence; the issue is impervious coverage and should the tennis court be moved. He continued to say that part of the problem is that the Board has to make sure the land use law is being followed. Ms. Borg stated that Ms, McKenzie was the first witness to say that they can remove the back of the tennis court area plus the encroachment area on the Seton Hall property