John Welsch: The only thing I can say is that I have lived there close to 40 years now and I have seen that stream bed – it can get running very high with water and it right where the house would be.

Mr. Smith: He does have it off to one side of there. Part of the variance they are asking for has to do with soils and with today’s new technology that would allow them and it has to work. Did you see the map (yes). Anything else? (no).

Mrs. Thompson: (looked at the list).

Mark Stern: We received the list from the Town and sent to everyone on the list.

Mr. James Owen: Maybe he is more than 300 feet.

Patricia Horn, Brown Road (just at the end of Yereance Drive): I have been there 27 years. I can guarantee you that property has been under water for most of the 26 years I have lived there except during the drought we had. My concern is not only septic but the run off of the water once that has been filled in and build not to mention what it might do as far as the well and affect the water in the area. I only have 42 foot well and every time something goes up I get nervous. My house is over 100 years old and really concerned about building on wetlands and can call it what you want soil this or that but it has swamp grass is there and step in it you step in swamp water. Again the TOW seems to ignore the wetlands – you build next to it, on it and no one seems to be stopping it. I am here to say, please stop it. Thank you.

Nick Salamone, 68 Brown Road: I have lived there for 28 years on Brown Road. The stream that flows from the back goes past my house and have a well – we all have wells. 10 years from now the septic system fails and the well is polluted who do I see? I don’t know why they have zoning laws and ac rage sizes if you are allowed to build anywhere you want. Its to size or it isn’t. If it was perfect land and great perk I say okay.

Barry Schnipper, 16 Yereance Lane: This is 2 houses down from where Paul (Halpern) wants to build his home. With all due respect to your comment that it’s a nice area – the Town in all its wisdom seem to make the minimum requirement for land 2. acres from 1.4 I believe. When he bought the land, I believe, at 1.2 he knew at the time that it was not be eligible to have a house built on it and he came to me at that time he bought and said he wanted land lock it so no one else could come up that area there. Which was wonderful. Now he is asking to have the variance almost variance from 1.2 acres to 2 acres which is practically double to put a home there which should not be there due to board’s wisdom of making it 2.0. I don’t have 2.0 acres on mine but area set up nicely but a house that close together would ruin character of the neighborhood. Regardless of the septic requirements.

Mr. James Owen: Which house is yours (looked at map)

Mr. Schnipper: Where is the lot in question – I would be here (on map) we would be directly down stream from anything that is happening there. Its quite a variance almost an acre in addition to what is there.

Mr. James Owen: Do you know the zoning prior to this year was 1 acre?

Mr. Schnipper: It has been changed because the board in its wisdom felt that it was too small so I think we should keep it to 2.0 acres which was acceptable and keep that.

Mr. Conrad: I did not get no notification on this meeting.

Mrs. Thompson: The other gentleman was not either. Do you own your own property and is it in your name.

Mr. Conrad: Its under Nobel.

Mr. Smith: (looked at the mailings)

Mr. Oster: On a legal point – the legal notice is in the paper for people to read, the mailing is for those within 300 feet so all immediate get notification. By you showing up you have been notified which is a good thing. I am sorry it has fallen through the cracks on the mailing list – its not 100 per cent perfect. The whole idea is legal notice is in the paper and then we put it on the property owner to mail these out to the most immediate neighbors so they get notified. Not many times, but every once in a while, the way you get notified is by one of the neighbors which is great and we are glad you are here and will be more than happy to hear your comments and hopefully we don’t have a whole lot of other neighbors on it.

Mr. Conrad: When this comes you have to sign for it.

Mr. Oster: You would have to sign for it.

Mr. Conrad: Sometimes there is nobody home to get it.

Mr. Oster: So your’s might be …you got some back that were not received?

Mr. Smith: What is your name?

Mr. Conrad: Conrad.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Conrad – do you want to make some comments tonight?

Mr. Conrad: I don’t see why anyone wants to build on that swampy piece of land.

Mr. Smith: Please speak clearly.

Mr. Conrad: Have you made a decision on this?

Mr. Oster: We have not decided on that totally. We may make a decision to vote on it tonight.

Mr. Conrad: I’ll wait for another meeting.

Mr. Oster: There may not be another meeting.

Mr. Conrad: Okay.

Mr. Smith: Tonight is your night to speak. Thank you Mr. Conrad.

Mr. Conrad: The only thing I can see is I can’t understand why any body wants to build in that swamp land. How ever get a footing in there deep enough to build the building. Once you get a building up its tons and tons.

Mr. James Owen: That’s up to the engineers.

Mr. Conrad: I thought there was a rule against building something that is not right to begin with.

Mr. Smith: We don’t address that. If its wetland and the army corps of engineers…

Mr. James Owen: …all we can do is give a variance for what is in front of us. As far as anything else, if it can accept a septic system or if soils or drainage is correct, its up to engineers it up to them to prove it can be done. Only thing before us is for the lot size.

Mr. Conrad: About 20 years ago they started to build there and had the footing in and gave it up and like that for 2 years and finally someone took the planks out. Every ime it rains that cellar got about ½ full of water and that’s on the other side of the brook. How is water going to run off the brook when the brook is higher than what the cellar floor is? I can’t understand. I thought they were against anything building like that.

Mr. James Owen: You are absolutely right.

Mr. Conrad: The footings have to be so big and strong to hold the building and the most important part of the building and if footing gets cracks the walls and doors are not going to work right and what happened I think when the other building was tried to be put up they found out that they had to go how many feet deeper in the ground to get solid ground and had a heck of a time.

John Murphy, 21 Yeareance Lane: I share same concerns my neighbors do of this location. We are looking for an exception – Mr. Halpern is looking for an exception in terms of both depth and width and size and soil conditions. And he promises to correct some of the soil conditions with what appears to be a high tech and probably expensive septic system for what is essentially a very small parcel. I only own 1.5 acre and can’t pass judgement but my house was built before zoning so I conformed and everyone else did when the house was build. This is after the fact – you people raised the requirement and when I moved in was 1.4 or 1.5 in 1982.

Mrs. Thompson: It was 1.65 with soils formula.

John Murphy: Only deals with septic.

Mr. Smith: The soils deal when you don’t have perk you had alternative way to compute the acrage minimum so you could put house on it. Today a lot of alternatives to that and used all the time and work now.

John Murphy: Long-term?

Mr. Smith: From what we understand, yes. And have to be certified by an engineer.

Mr. James Owen: And they require maintenance.

Mrs. Thompson: How long have you been there?

John Murphy: I have only been there 21 years and expect to be there another 10 or 15 and I’ll leave.

Mrs. Thompson: I don’t if you know if any of these septic systems have failed after certain number of years.

John Murphy: I don’t know anything about these septic systems and that is where we are expecting you to protect us and our long-term interest in terms of real estate values.

Mr. Smith: We don’t address that directly – the septic. But I do want to hear if they have something.

John Murphy: If you are granting a variance there is reality – for what. Its too small and terrible soil. All of us walked down and up that road and seen the swamp grass growing. This is not prime real estate. I know you may want to get rid of it but not prime real estate and would affect the character of the area. And I thank you for your time.

Mr. Smith: Any further comments from the Public? (no)

Mr. Smith: Would you like to make any other comments?

Mrs. Thompson: That one gentlemen talked about the foundation would not really be stable in this soil – they will crack and not stand up – I happen to agree with him.

John Murphy: There was a foundation poured there about 25 or 30 years ago and was abandoned because of that; it is still there and available for inspection.

Mark Stern: A few points I wish to clarify. This was not self-created hardship. This was not 1.4 zoning requirement it was 1.0 acre when he acquired the property. There was soil requirements that would increase the size of the lot but it was 1.0 as you indicated. This is not self created knowing it was a sub-standard lot. The requirements have changed over the years and leaves him to make variance request. No change to the character of the neighborhood and from the tax map they all have lots built less than current requirement of 2 acres. Its amazing that all of theirs are fine but one piece seems to be the ‘dog’ of the entire neighborhood according to them; that makes no sense. If any thing this property will be improved if engineered if there are run off issues they will be taken into account as its engineered if property as one person said is not prime, it would become more prime if a house on it. You will solve – if they consider this difficult piece it will be more attractive with house on it. They put houses on their lots and now saying you should not build on your lot. Although no reason why not – not change character of neighborhood, whatever needs to be addressed from soil issue will be addressed by Lanc & Tully as part of engineering. Thank you.

Mr. Smith: Any further comments from the Board?

Mr. Oster: again, a lot of us have felt that even though they have gone to 2 acre minimum, when you have enclosed lots that owned for some time, a lot of us are looking at those and that’s why we are here as zoning board of appeals to look at individual pieces of property. Some of us feel the 2 acres was put in so when they start massive sub divisions again. I see no problem with this particular piece; land locked on either side and doubt he could buy from anyone to make it bigger.

Mrs. Thompson: I repeat what I said before. The soil requirements have been the same in 1986 when he bought it, 1973 when we got zoning in. I am no crazy about this especially on such a small area. If it doesn’t work the neighbors are going to pay.

Mark Stern: I assume the soil samples were the same when they put up their houses also?

Mrs. Thompson: I don’t know. Why lower standards. I can’t answer that question.

Mark Stern: I have not heard of any there before 1973.

Mrs. Thompson: It use to be farm land so I don’t know what the soils are in the surrounding area.

Mark Stern: I meant the owners who have been there 26 years.

Mr. James Owen: My statement is that it was a one (1) acre zoning when the person bought it and as far as septic and drainage that’s up to the engineers to figure out if it can be built on or not. That is not before us.

Mrs. Thompson: We are here to protect the public not but them into a trap.

Mr. Mattatall: I tend to agree with that except its not in our venue to make engineering decisions; our venue is on balance on the 5 things we have to consider: character of the neighborhood, etc. we don’t make quantative mathematical decisions other than area. We don’t do soil characteristics or engineering studies ourselves. There is difference between land that is wet and wetlands. If it were wetlands we would not be here and could not build on it. I understand what you have said and we don’t deal with it there. Most of the argument goes beyond what our power to effect is. If a house can be build there – does it change character of the neighborhood, fit in with what is there. I don’t make decision if a properly constructed is there – we have engineers in the building department that does that. If it can’t be built on – they will stop it. We have to say yes the technology exists yes or no.

Mr. Halpern: We want opportunity to move forward to that stage.

Mr. James Owen: Exactly.

Barry Schnipper, 16 Yearance Lane: With all due respects to Mr. Stern, yes my land is 1.08 acres but I did not require variance at time house was built – kept within the nature of the law at that time and is all we are asking for here and the town make it 2.0 for a reason and want reason to continue.

Mr. James Owen: Yes, they made it for a reason but you can’t put a hardship on a person that is why we are here. If you owned 5 one acre lots all over time and now its 2 acre zoning and we say you can’t build on them now – they are useless land and you bought them for nothing. That is why we are here.

Barry Schnipper: Mr. Halpern bought that land I believe it was 1.2 acres now and 1.5 to build when he bought it so he knew going into it…

Mr. James Owen: …it was one acre.

Mrs. Thompson: That takes me back to the soil requirements.

Jerry Salamone (Public): My house was built in 1949 and little over an acre. Your argument doesn’t make sense that this land was probably purchased for nothing.

Mr. James Owen: That has nothing to do with it.

Barry Schnipper: The reason it was purchased for nothing is because everyone knew it could not be built on. Now all the sudden you see the right people and it can be built on, right?

Jean Halpern, 49 Dogwood Drive: I just like to emphasize that my well is very very close to there all of our wells to almost go dry in that area; we are very concerned about the well and burden it will place. I am concerned about the road and the road is not in good shape and it always has to be stoned and oiled and we are putting undue people again on that road really not meant to unless they pave it or something else with the Town. Other problem is that land when we purchased it together because my husband does not live there he is an ex-husband who lives on 20 Kennedy Terrace and for 10 years he has not built on that. Okay and when we were together we bought the land because he said ‘oh my goodness, someone will build there and I don’t want look over there and see anyone over there’. He bought the land with intention no one would build there. I can’t understand all of the sudden why there is a rush to build on this property. This property is not prime land, not something that will be wonderfully added to cost of my house if I sell it or what ever, not improve, the land is nice and wooded the way it is and like I said its not our judgement to see if something can be put there – yes it is the engineer’s but we are asking the board to take into consideration what we will have to pay and that’s the price of a lot of things down the road. Thank you.

Mr. Smith: Any further comments from the Public? (no)

Mr. Smith: Any further comments from the Board? (no)

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:00 pm; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the following variance for Stram Development/ Paul Halpern for variance: area from 2.0 acres to 1.212 acres; depth from 300ft to 205.66 ft;

Mr. James Owen: I suggest that we take another month to review this property more closely.

Mr. Morgan: I think in that time you can look into the system you are proposing and provide information to the Board.

Mark Stern: I have 2 with me tonight.

Mr. James Owen: Due to public concerns.

Mr. Mattatall: Under the circumstances and you know you are going to need that type of system, if you can get someone from the building department to state they will accept those systems, that would be very helpful. You are admitting there is already a wetness problem out there now.

Mr. Halpren: I know your building department has had experience with these before.

Mr. Smith: I Move to table the vote on this application to August 11, 2003; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: The Public Hearing is continued to August 11, 2003.

MICHAEL MIELE, LANDTECH CONSULTING / JOE BROWN: Request for a variance of 249-19-D (lot width from 200 ft to 145.79 ft; area from 2.0 acres to 50,864 sq/ft) for a single family dwelling; Property located on Top Notch Road (SEC 32 BL 2 LOT 42); Designated RA.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Hearing Notice was read at 9:04 pm.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 9:05 pm; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Rubin Strab, Atlantic Consulting: It’s a variance for the lot width and size. It indicates this falls under that law referencing it.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Board?

Mrs. Thompson: When did Mr. Brown purchase this property?

Mr. Strab: I have no idea.

Mrs. Thompson: How did you get involved with it?

Mr. Strab: We are consulting engineers.

Mrs. Thompson: Is Mr. Brown available to ask this question?

Applicant representative: Not today.

Mr. Oster: Is he the same Brown that lives across the street?

Applicant representative: I think so, yes he is.

Mr. Oster: Then he has probably owned this property for some time cause he has a house at the top of Top Notch Road.

Applicant representative: Now I remember what he told me before, sure. No dates, I’m sorry.

Mr. Smith: So he has owned it for some time.

Mr. Oster: He has had the house at the top for some time; for the vacant property I don’t know.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Board? (no)

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Public on Miele or Joe Brown, Top Notch Road? (no)

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board?

Mrs. Thompson: the lots too small once again based on the soils.

Mr. Smith: You are dealing with that?

Applicant representative: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Smith: This is not a new sub division. It seems the land has been a vacant lot for some time separate and I think it’s the usual hardship. I don’t otherwise see a problem with it.

Mr. James Owen: What are you planning to do with it as far as the soils?

Applicant representative: actually soil type 41-C is 1.65 acres. Mike Miele can answer that better, I think he is doing what he is advised to do correctly.

Mr. Mattatall: That is the same issues we just dealt with.

Applicant representative: Unfortunately Mike could not be here this week.

Mr. Oster: Again in terms of the soil types it was a buildable lot until a few months ago and owned for some time I am thinking. And looking at the land again a house can be situated on it.

Mr. Smith: Any further comments or questions? (no)

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:11 pm; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the following area variances: 2.0 acres to 50,864 sq/ft; width from 200 feet to 145.79 ft; Seconded.

DISCUSSION: None

VOTE:

In favor (aye): 5

Opposed (nay): 1

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: The variance has been granted, please see the building department.