We are at 7:00 or after 7:00. So, this is the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting for June 23, 2026. And Mr. Chair, if you want to read the public notice. >> This meeting is being held in compliance
with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the Coaster and Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on municipal bulletin board and municipal website. All notices are filed with the board secretary. Official
action may be taken on the following matters before this board. And this meeting is being recorded by APTv and I ask everyone with a cell phone to please mute it for the duration of this meeting. Roll call, please, Mr. Beekman. >> Wendy Glassman. >> Present. >> John Hall.
Absent. Dan Daniel Harris is absent. Natalie Passarini. >> Here. >> Jill Potter is absent. Carrie Din. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Scully. >> Here. >> And Chairman Christopher Avallone. >> Here. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, first up is 1307 Pine Street. Ms. Lebsevic, is that correct? >> So, while the members are coming up for their application, I did review the notice.
The board does have jurisdiction to hear this application assuming that the variances that are identified are the same ones that they're asking this evening. >> Thank you, Jack. Mr. Adjei. >> Yes, good evening. Roland Jure appearing on behalf of the applicants. The property is is in 1307 Pine Street
in Asbury. It's Block 2303, Lot 15. It's located in R1 single family zone. The existing structure is a two-family house. The applicants intend to rectify that and to bring it into conformity as a single family home.
Uh the plans call for three different variances. Uh the unusual aspect of the lot, which is probably not fairly unusual, but it's a conformance uh area, but it is a long
thin lot and because of the unusual size, uh there's a need for variance for the in the side yard and the front setback. Uh there is an exist as indicated an existing structure on the uh on the property and you know, the
applicant applicant intends to expand that. Uh tonight we have our engineer, Joseph Kashuba. He's going to be providing planning, excuse me, engineering testimony and planning testimony. And we have our architect, Adam Aslan,
who's going to be here to tell you what the uh the plan is for the building. We have the applicants here who would like to answer any questions that you may have for them. Uh hopefully we're going to be able to provide you with enough information from the professionals in order to
uh show that we're willing to comply and provide you with a a good plan. So the first uh first witness will be Joseph Kashuba. >> All right. >> Mr. Kashuba, before you sit, if you just want to keep your hand raised, do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And I'll swear in our uh board professionals as well. Um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you may provide that this application this evening will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Mr. Kashuba, could you please give us the honor of your your current credentials? >> Certainly. I have a bachelor's and master's degree from Rowan University in civil and structural engineering. Licensed engineer since 2005, licensed planner since 2007. Have testified
before numerous board God bless you. Numerous boards uh in primarily Monmouth and Ocean County areas including this one, but it's been many years uh since I've been here. >> I can say I've seen Mr. Kishuba at a number of meetings uh throughout Monmouth County. >> I understand. Thank you for your good
intentions. Mr. Kishuba, please proceed. >> Absolutely. Uh so the site in question is 5,475 sq ft. It's situated on the west side of Pine Street uh between 5th and Sunset Avenues. Uh it is a rectangular lot.
It's narrow at 36.5 ft where 50 ft is required uh and it's 150 ft in depth in the R1 zone. Uh east of the property is the Pine Street frontage >> [clears throat] >> uh directly facing single-family detached residential dwellings across
the street. To the north uh is residential lots. Um lot 14 specifically, immediately to our north features a rather large front yard. Uh there's residential rear yards to our west and to the south is lot 16 uh which
is another residential property that faces towards the south. Uh our side yard abuts their rear yard. Uh the neighborhood character is single-family residential uh varying lot sizes. Uh [clears throat] this is developed with an older one-story multi-family dwelling. It's been there
since the '50s. Um it has a rear patio and it's a non-conforming use in that it's a two-family pre-existing two-family use. Uh it's also identified in the tax records as a two-family uh structure. Uh as indicated, the lot is narrow and
non-conforming creating uh some of the non-conforming features here. Specifically, the building uh is non-conforming for side yard setback at 4.3 ft existing where 6 ft is required. Uh in addition, the combined side yard
setback is 12.5 ft uh where 14 ft is required. So, um those are conditions that are functions of the narrow lot being 37 and 1/2 ft wide and the pre-existing uh structure. Um a concrete walkway runs uh
from the house to the sidewalk, as well as a secondary walkway up the side. That So, there's two walkways providing access to the two residential structures. Um there's also uh identification of a shed on the property that encroaches. That's in the back right portion of this
uh of this site. Um there's no parking on the site today. There's no driveway. Uh and because of the narrow nature of the lot, as well as the the home taking up uh the majority of the width, there's no opportunity to create a driveway on the property.
Um what the applicant is proposing to do uh first and foremost, eliminate the non-conforming use. So, eliminate the two-family structure and and uh revert this back to a single-family residential. >> currently being used as a two-family? >> It is. It is. In fact, uh the owners uh
have identified to me and certainly they can provide the testimony that it had two tenants when they bought it. Uh so, we're proposing a second a two and a half-story addition. So, it's a one-story structure now, proposing to construct a two and a half-story, which
will be fully conforming with the building height. Looking to match that existing 4.3-ft side yard setback uh and 12.5-ft uh combined side yard setback. Essentially providing an addition immediately above the existing footprint of the home.
We're also proposing to construct a uh a porch forward uh of that, where currently there's a small stoop. So, certainly more appropriate for the neighborhood, aesthetically pleasing, better architecture uh for the for the area. Uh Lastly, proposing install a
in-ground swimming pool with a paver surround, aluminum pool compliant fence, >> [clears throat] >> and a storage shed with an outdoor shower. The variances here are for the three items, specifically the lot width, which is pre-existing. All the properties that
surround this are developed. There is no vacant land surrounding this to to rectify that situation. The lot side yard setback at 4.3 ft, which is being exacerbated simply by going up over the existing wall, the
existing southern wall of the of the property. And lastly, the combined side yard setback. >> [clears throat] >> As far as the improvements to the site, we are proposing some minor drainage improvements. This does not trigger your
major or minor storm water requirements. It's a very minor the the impervious increase here is very minor, but we are proposing some perforated drainage pipe and drainage improvements here to try and effectuate the some
better drainage on the property. We're also provided as a result of the application a pretty substantial landscape plan, which identified 48 arborvitaes for natural screening in the backyard, some hydrangeas, boxwoods, and a maple tree
in the front yard. So, a landscape plan was provided with the with the application. The applicant The applicant will certainly replace any existing curb and sidewalk that's in poor condition. And they have sought to they have reached
out to the neighbor about relocating their shed back onto their property. They They have not made connection, but they're making that stipulation that they're connecting with that neighbor to make sure their shed's on their property.
As far as the variances here, uh I think the variances can be granted under both the C1 and the C2 criteria. Um the C1 specifically, there is a hardship here given that the lot is narrow and its preexisting condition, not created by this homeowner. In
addition, it has a legally existing nonconforming home uh with a 4.23 ft um setback on the uh on that southerly side or 4.3 ft, I'm sorry. Um therefore, uh I think it's certainly a hardship uh to
uh of the property uh and compliance with the required setback of 6 ft specifically for the second-floor addition would create a peculiar and extraordinary situation. We would have to set the wall in uh from the outside wall of the first
floor, uh which creates structural uh concerns. In [clears throat] addition, uh just from a good planning perspective, it would look out of place. It would look like an addition. The intent here is to provide a harmonious um home that is, you know, commensurate with the neighborhood, and having that
sort of step in uh just looks out of place. It's not architecturally pleasing. Um and we're talking about a difference here about 29 in. Uh in addition, we're not talking about a situation where we have side yard against side yard. We don't have two homes that are immediately next to each
other where that 29-in difference might appear substantial. This particular property, the south property This property and the property to the south, this is their rear yard. It's a double lot to our south. It's a rather large lot, and their home is much further to
the south. Um this is the backs up Our side backs up to their rear and rather large rear yard. So, there's no impact to air, light, and open space by having a second floor that's a little bit closer to the property line, about 29 in. Uh I think it's certainly more open space. >> footprint again.
>> And in the same footprint, exactly. Uh so, no new shadow lines. >> And what's >> the height of the building going to be? >> Uh it's going to comply. Um the height will be uh it'll comply with the 30-ft. The The architect's here, he can give you the exact height. >> Okay. >> Um
>> [clears throat] >> the off-street parking is not We're not providing any additional off-street parking, but the benefit here is it's going from a two-family to a one-family, so our parking demand is reduced. So in essence, we are improving parking because we need less parking with a one
one-family home than we do with a two-family home. >> Where will you be directing the water from the the actual gutters and downspouts? >> That all gets directed to an underground pipe that discharges at the front of the property towards the street. Uh and the most important and paramount
uh concern here, promotion of the general welfare, we're eliminating a non-conforming use. Uh certainly bringing a property more into conformity with the zone is a uh is a purpose of zoning uh and provides certainly the positive criteria here. Uh I do not believe there's a
substantial detriment uh to the public good as a result of this application. Again, that 29-in um setback I do not believe has any substantial detriment on the neighbor given it's their rear yard. Uh I also don't believe it impacts the neighborhood. Uh I think that
what we're proposing is certainly appropriate. We are 27.1% building coverage and 45.4% uh impervious coverage where 30 and 65 are permitted, so we're certainly not over-developing the property. Uh in
addition, I don't believe there's any impairment of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. In fact, I think this is the the appropriate uh application where we're bringing it more into compliance with your master plan and zone plan. Uh so for all those reasons, I think the variance as being requested can be
granted by the board. >> So Mr. Kushner, but the there are going to be some accessory improvements also. >> Correct. >> You you have run through those, but if you could, please, cuz I I didn't hear. >> Uh certainly. So, as as I indicate, we are installing an in-ground swimming pool with a a paver surround, a 4-ft
high aluminum pool compliant fence, uh a one-story storage shed uh with an outdoor shower, and a 6-ft high privacy fence enclosure around the uh equipment, so the AC and the pool equipment. None of that requires any relief, standard amenities for a single-family >> Where are you locating the HVAC
equipment? >> They're in the rear next to the shed and enclosed via fence. >> Now, there was a comment in one of the uh review letters in regard to the availability of uh property to uh purchase on from adjacent homeowners. Um
have you had a chance to review the site and the uh you know, the general layout of the neighborhood? Is that possible? >> It it it is not. So, the the property immediately to the north does look like a vacant property. It's rather unique. The home sits all the way in the It's 150 ft deep, and the home sits about a
foot off of the rear property line. So, it's it's It is a single-family home. It is developed. It's just that house is really far back from the road. >> Can I just ask for clarity? Um you say that the property's occupied,
but page two of the application says that it's currently vacant. >> Uh so, I believe the applicants told me when they purchased it, it had tenants. The tenants are no longer there, but when they purchased it, when when they first purchased it and started this
process, there were tenants. [clears throat] Today, there's no tenants. >> Any further questions for Mr. Kushuba? >> And thank you. No No one ever gets my name right. >> I have a couple. >> [laughter] >> Um can you clarify and I don't know if it's not you, if it's the architect. Um the HVAC equipment in that's proposed in the
in your yard, is that for the shed or for the house? >> I believe that is for the house. >> If it's not you, it's fine. We can wait till the architect >> So, the architect can clarify. >> Okay. You mentioned the neighbor's encroaching
structure. Okay, good. Okay. And I I will just clarify at the beginning of Mr. Kushner's testimony, he mentioned three variances. One is for front yard setback. You actually don't need a front yard setback variance. >> No. No. >> I'm sorry. Lot width, lot width.
>> Um side yard setback and combined side yard setback. >> That was my mistake. I think I mentioned that. >> [clears throat] >> What's the dimensions of the rear deck? >> Uh it is 14 ft deep and 24 ft wide. And we to be clear, the side yard
setback we're requesting is for the entirety of the home and the deck. >> Oh, um sorry. The outdoor shower, uh is it going to have a What's Do you know the design of it? >> I'll defer to the architect for that part.
>> Should we ask about the the the tree itself, does that conform with the environmental shade tree committee, what they're asking for on the property? >> We'll see what they want. >> Okay. >> [clears throat]
>> And I believe it's just one tree. >> It's a maple street tree, it's a maple. >> Yeah. Certainly, if they have a preferred material, we can >> Well, generally, we have a list of trees that are approved for this type of environment. >> Absolutely. >> just because the overhead lines run
along the front and the narrow strip between the curb and sidewalk, they may choose a small tree instead of a normal shade tree. >> There was a suggestion for the type of tree that's on the adjacent lot. It was some type of cherry tree, I think it was. >> Right, they have a cherry tree. >> And that's because that's a little lower than what it would be. So, the applicant
would have no objection to putting in something similar to that. >> We usually defer to the environmental shade tree group, so it's not something we designate. So, that can be discussed at a later point with them. >> Sure.
So, if there's no further questions for Mr. Kushner, >> I hold on, I have to ask Peter. >> Mr. Chairman, almost. Just a few items that Joe testified to. Primarily, storm drainage. As you all know, our ordinance says that um for a development that's not considered
major or minor, that the applicant's engineer shall demonstrate that the post-development runoff rates do not increase. And what's being proposed here, I think he said it, but you really should hear that surrounding the pool, surrounding the property, surrounding
the house, is on underdrain, which collects runoff from the pool, from the shed, rear yard, from the house, runs into the underdrain, which has a perforated pipe in a trench. So, all of the water that's being collected from those areas will discharge into the
ground. If it has a problem in terms of quantity coming through that pipe, it doesn't just drain onto Pine Street. And Joe knows this because we work with him. He has what we call a pop-up emitter in the front yard. So, if it has a problem with too much flow coming through, it'll pop
up and drain across the grass of the front yard before it has a negative impact to our public, which is very positive. So, I think the drainage system is much better than what's there now, and will will provide a positive impact on the property. Um parking was
testified to. It's going to be beneficial simply by the fact that it's going from three spaces to required. Uh but there is no off-street parking provided. And then with the landscaping, I'll just note one thing. The engineer site plan and Joe's
testimony was that 48 uh I believe our will bring our abiding will propose the architect's plan and the application show 43. So, that should just be clarified between them. No big >> It's all right. [clears throat]
>> And landscaping is proposed in the area of that shed that Joe testified to, the neighbor's shed that's encroaching on the property. So, I would encourage you and maybe the board wants if you consider approval of the application a stipulation or condition that the shed is removed for the
or relocated for the landscaping to be able to be installed on this site. >> Well, and also the fence. >> And the fence. >> Correct. Thank you. >> That's all. >> Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Kasuba? All right. I'll open it up to the
public. Uh if anyone has any questions relating to his testimony only, um please come to the mic and you can ask Mr. Kasuba your questions. All right. Seeing none,
Mr. Adams, you can call your next witness. >> Thank you very much. >> It would be our architect, Adam Anzalone. >> [clears throat] >> Mr. Anzalone, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but but the truth? >> I do. >> And if you could just state your name
and spell your last name for the record, please. >> Sure. First name is Adam and last name is Anzalone, A N Z Z O L I N >> Can we have the benefit of your credentials, Mr. Anzalone? >> Sure. I have a Bachelor of Science in Architecture and a Master's of Architecture from the Catholic
University in Washington, D.C. From 2000 was my Master's. I've been practicing architecture for about 25 years and I'm licensed in New Jersey since 2009 and my license is currently active. >> I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Anzalone, you're familiar with the project? >> I am. >> And so can you please tell us what the applicant is planning by way of renovations to 1307 Pine Street? >> Sure, thanks. So it's an existing two one-story two-family dwelling and the
applicant is planning to expand the current footprint of the home into a two-and-a-half-story home with four bedrooms and two and a half bath. >> And could you just go through the layout of the rooms in the addition for us? >> Sure. This information could all be
found in the the the first the zoning submission that was provided. So the first floor of the home you come in off the front porch, you walk into a living room on the south side of the home followed by the stairs then into the family room.
>> What's the depth of the porch? >> The depth of the porch varies. On the south side of the home it's about 5 ft 9 and on the right side of the home it's in the range of about 9 ft or so. It's a little bit indented into the existing footprint of the home.
As you go to the back of the home again on the far south corner of the the building or the home is the dining room. Opposite that is the kitchen and then the rest of the north side of the home is kind of the utility section, the powder room,
the pantry, the mud room, sort of some of the primary functions that you don't really want to see all the time when you walk into the home. The second floor of the home I take the stairs up to the second floor. Uh, it includes four bedrooms. Uh, the back portion of the home includes a master bedroom uh, with a a
fairly nice size closet for the master room uh, as well as a master uh, bathroom that's on the uh, north side of the home. Uh, the laundry is also located on that floor, which is fairly common uh, in new homes. Um, and then the front of the home has two bedrooms uh, that uh, face the street and then
the other bedroom is on the south side of the home. Um, and then the hallway bathroom is on the north side of the home. Uh, the next story of the home is or not story, I should say the the half story is the uh, the attic. So, the attic is an open space um,
for for >> [clears throat] >> family to use. Uh, it will be uh, the square footage of that area will meet code. So, if it uh, if we need to reduce it slightly to meet the building code, it will meet all codes. >> What's the height of the building? >> Uh, the total height of the building to
the midpoint of the the the eaves uh, is 30 ft. The total height to the ridge is in the range of 36 ft. Uh, the home will be constructed on the original foundation. There will be some minor improvements to probably the center of the home to accommodate for
some structural issues uh, some carrying down some additional loads from the new floors. Um, but generally the foundation is in good shape and intact and will remain uh, in place. >> I I understand the attic space is habitable. >> It is currently, yeah. Or it will be, yes. It's being proposed to. >> we would want assurances that it would
not be used as an extra bedroom. >> Correct. It will not be used as a bedroom. There is no bathroom. It will just be an open uh, space. >> I don't know why there's an objection to this being used as a [clears throat] bedroom. >> It's habitable. It meets the criteria for a half story. >> Okay.
>> Cuz we didn't change that ordinance. >> Yeah. >> But you would have to come back to the zoning board, though, for that. Would you not? >> No. >> No? >> There's no difference. >> Yeah, they don't going to for it. The The parking requirements are The size complies, the height complies. >> Okay.
All right. Um the only There were a couple questions on the shed. Uh maybe not questions, but the shed in the back uh is about 90 square feet uh located to the back of the property. There are two uh sides of that shed that are enclosed by the fence.
Um the fence on one side will enclose the pool equipment as well as it's planned to also enclose the HVAC equipment. Um and I think if that area is not big enough, we'll probably have to position it on the back side of the building plus or minus where the deck is. So, that may need to get looked at a little bit on our end.
>> Um clarify Say that again. >> So, the current plan is to try to get the HVAC units for the home located in the sh- in the fenced area on the north side of the shed. >> Okay. >> Um in conjunction with the pool equipment. >> Okay. >> Um the other side of the shed is the
shower. Um it is currently planned to be an open shower to above. There is no roof planned. Um I don't know if there's an ordinance here that in terms of the if a roof is required some towns. >> it's for the >> [clears throat] >> the floor. >> Okay. >> to have a >> The floor will have a drain.
>> Will it have hot water? >> It will have hot water, yes. >> So, you're going to have to tie that into the sewer system. >> It will be tied into the sewer system. That's the plan, yes. >> And I think if you have a hot water, I think you're required to have a roof. I think the code requires that. You'll have to look into that. I don't know.
>> if it's required by code, we'll we'll provide >> to affect our our board decision, but I think the code requires that. >> And if it's required by code, we'll absolutely provide that. >> What will it look like? What's going to look like the HVAC equipment if it
remains in the rear? >> Uh so, the HVAC equipment for the the principal building is like I said before is planned to be within the same fenced area as the pool equipment. Um again, the pool equipment uh based on the space that we have, it's a almost 6 ft by 9 ft that area, so it
should fit. If it doesn't >> Is that correct? >> I'm sorry? >> It's back by the shed. >> Back by the shed in inside one of those fenced areas on the north side of the shed, correct. >> And that's reading from the site plan. Reading from the site plan, that's 9 and
1/2 ft to the side property line. And then there's no dimension on the rear, but it's looks like a No, it's 5 ft to the rear, so right now it complies with the setbacks. If you want to put it behind the shed, you can't. >> Correct, yes. Agreed.
>> [clears throat] >> Are you planning to enclose the equipment as well? Is that right? >> With just a fence around it, correct. Just to shield it from so it can't be seen. >> Okay. The shed roof will have the same pitch as the house. >> The shed roof is planned to have the same pitch as the house, correct.
>> And the same type of siding, I'm assuming. >> Correct. It's So, I do have an exhibit. I don't know if I can kind of give a little bit more uh Can I approach the board to provide the exhibit? Just some printouts.
>> You want to do that? >> Yeah. Um why don't we mark that as A1 if while Mr. Eninger's handing that out, if you want to just describe it. >> Sure, it's in a The exhibit that has been prepared is a front elevation of the home that it includes the existing
elevation on the bottom as well as the new elevation and then a proposed three-dimensional image of what the home will look like. Colors are not finalized, but it's gives you a little bit better visual of the home. >> It's quite a change. >> [laughter]
>> Much different. So, just So, what seeing here, this is the exhibit. Again, on the left side is bottom left corner you're seeing the existing home, the one story with roof. Two two dwelling unit above that is the proposed front elevation of the home.
The colors have been shown here to kind of distinguish what we're sort of proposing here. So the blue area is sort of the existing area of the home. The orange area on the top in that elevation is the area that we're requesting relief from for the variance. That's the new area that's falling within falling
inside that existing setback area. And then the image on the right is the proposed sort of look of the home, horizontal sort of lap siding for the first two stories, a little bit of cedar siding in the upper eve area. Again, white trim
and asphalt shingle roofs. Front porch I know that there's some there were some concerns originally about the the railing. So the railing will meet the local ordinance. We'll have the lathe balusters around the front porch as well as the the lattice
below the porch to make it look nice. >> There was a question I'm sorry. Go. >> From this image there's a better image. It's hard to see the setback on >> [clears throat] >> the one side of the porch. >> Yeah, the the image is it's hard to see
the setback in the image, yes. >> But it's set back on the side with the two >> It is set back on the the the the door and the first window on the right side of the home are set back about an additional I think I can tell you the actual dimension they're set >> I'm looking So it's the right side when
we're looking at it. >> Yeah, the right side. They're set back about I'd say 3 ft in 4 almost 4 ft probably to the wall where they're inset there. >> Thank you. >> What are we looking at with the roof line? >> With the roof line?
>> The to the left of the house. >> Sure. So, the So, the the the little shed roof here on the right is to allow for a proper head clearances in the stair to get to the half story. So, that's just a little bump out for the
the stair area. The remainder of the roof line is the gable roof. >> Yeah, I'm not sure where it was. That's in here. >> Any further questions for Mr. Anselmo? >> Um can you uh Let's talk about the window in the in
the half story. Is that going to be operable? >> We'd like it to be operable. >> I believe the the the applicant would prefer to have the option to have it operable, yes. >> And to match the windows below. >> Yes, I I think it's a little bit to be
determined, but yes, I think the operability of that window is preferred. >> You're talking about the half story. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Uh and then uh Did you set the elevation for the deck or was that the engineer? Have I missed my opportunity there?
>> Sure, I believe the the drawings that were submitted here, I believe the deck was lower. The intent with the deck, it was it would be pretty much flush with the first floor, so we would have better constructability with the deck framing. So, yes, I would agree that the deck would almost be flush with the first
floor of the home, and there would be really no step down from the back door. >> you're keep you said you're keeping the foundation. Are you also keeping that finished floor elevation? You're >> The finished floor elevation is to remain, correct. >> Yeah, okay. >> The framing of the first floor is intact, so it's in good condition.
>> Um and then uh did you have any opinion about >> [clears throat] >> our suggestion about putting the ground floor plan? >> I did not review that uh question with the applicant at this point, but uh we're open to
you know >> I mean it's just seems like it'd be a better quality of life for them. >> What did you ask Donna? >> So in our report we mentioned that because the side yard on the south side of the building is so small and it's right next to the neighbor's fence and it's kind of low.
But that's where they have all the sort of living area on the ground floor. There's the dining room, there's living room, the family room, windows. And then all the utility stuff and the cabinets on the wall kitchen are on the side where you have that great big, you
know, open front yard on your neighbor's lot. It just seems like, you know, >> A better view >> the floor plan you'd get more utility, you know, uh but it you know, it's that's totally not uh >> But that that's up to them though Donna. It's not really
>> no it was just interesting uh observation. >> they may prefer the way it's designed that way, so I understand your your suggestion. >> Yep. Um okay, so then the other thing is let's see uh architecture protection.
Right right, okay. You said you're going to do the porch railings. Yes, okay. Window, okay. The deck, okay. Oh, the other thing about the deck um you have uh some plantings.
Are are those on the deck? In the deck? How how Can you explain those uh what is it? Mexican uh grass? >> Um I'm I'm sure those were on my plan, so I'm not >> that that's plan? >> It may be on Joe's plan. I'm not sure. >> All right.
Um, but your your objective your intent is that it's just a uniform rectangle rear deck. Um, no no perforations or weird cutouts or >> No. No, it would just be an open deck
for, you know, a table with an umbrella. Maybe put a grill back there or something like that. >> Okay. >> I had a question in regard to the arborvitae. So, you you had mentioned that before. The number of arborvitae.
>> Oh, Peter mentioned there's a discrepancy in the quantities. >> So, we have on the site plan 43 emerald green arborvitae. And on the engineering plan it was 48. >> Joe's estimate was 48. >> Just won't matter, but just so we
>> We can clarify the number of arborvitaes. So, it's going to be not less than 43 and no more than 48. Some number in between possibly. >> You know, it it should be the appropriate spacing [laughter] for the size of the plants. Let's let's let them have that quantity.
>> Any further questions from the board for Mr. Angeline? Board professionals? All right, I'll open it up to the public. Uh, any questions from the public for Mr. Angeline's testimony only? Seeing none, Mr. Edinger, back in your ball court.
>> I have [clears throat] nothing further to add. I think people will know what they're talking about. I've already spoken. So, we think it's a good plan for the neighborhood. We think it's a positive design and can't really see any drawbacks. It's definitely going to be an improvement as far as taking out that
uh anomalous two-family use, make it a single-family uh home. And again, I think it's just a real positive change. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um based on that, we will now have
uh open it up for public comment. Do I have a motion for public comment? >> Motion. >> And a second? All in favor? >> Aye. >> If anyone in the public [clears throat] would like to comment on this application, either for or against, you
have 4 minutes. Seeing none, we will close public comment. All right. And it's back to the board for deliberation. >> [clears throat] >> Does anybody want to be first? >> Sure, I will. So, I I think uh
I think it's good that you're getting rid of the non-conforming use from the two-family to the single-family. Um I think the other requests that you've made for variances seem reasonable. And um
yeah, I think the design is is well thought out. And you're not increasing the the footprint that's there. Uh so, I appreciate that as well. >> [clears throat] >> Anybody else on the board? >> I too will echo what Mr. Scully had to say.
Uh I appreciate the fact that you're going from a non-conforming use to a single-family home. Um I think it's a nice design that fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. Certainly arts and crafty enough for me. Um and it does look like a positive
effect on the neighborhood. So, anybody else, or do we want to go for a motion? All right, I'll make a motion to approve What is it? 1307 Pine Street's application. >> Second.
>> Um before you do that, do you want to just go through a few of the items that were sug- suggested? So, the variances are 30 36.5 ft wide lot where 50 ft is required, side yard setback of 4.3 ft at
the south side where 6 ft is required, and a combined side yard setback of 12.5 ft where 14 ft is required, as well as a design waiver where there is no zero parking spaces proposed and two are required according to the ordinance for a single-family home. One of the
conditions is that they convert the property to a single-family home from a two-family home. Um the um storage shed of the neighbor they'll discuss with the neighbor as far as trying to relocate that. Uh the fence shall be a pool-compliant fence where
necessary, um no less than 4 ft, uh and as designed, um anywhere where there is a 6-ft fence it shall be not be greater than 6 ft. Um the applicant will discuss with the Shade Tree Commission the type of tree
for the street tree uh in lieu of the maple tree. Um the height shall comply. The outdoor shower shall comply with the um construction code. And if a if a roof over the shower is required for hot water, it shall uh have a roof. Uh and
that will be factored into the overall calculations. Um I think Donna, in your report, I think you mentioned that uh some of the calculations, such as the pool, don't count, so just redo the calculations to make sure they're consistent with the ordinance.
Um You'll make the uh plans consistent as far as the arborvitae is concerned. Um the deck will be substantially flush with the first floor. And I think that's it. >> Jeff, do we need to put in there that if if the AC unit can't fit back by the
shed? >> The AC unit So So they're not asking for a variance for those [clears throat] conditions. So it just has to comply or they're going to have to come back to the board. >> Okay. Great. >> So if they if they change it in the design phase, really has no problem with us unless
it's a it's moved to a situation where they're within a setback. >> Okay. Thank >> Understood. >> Okay. So back to the motion based on those conditions. I make a motion to [clears throat] All right. >> I think Carrie seconded. >> Yeah. Carrie seconded.
>> Carrie seconded. Okay. >> All right. Uh roll call. Wendy Glassman. >> Yes. [music] >> Natalie Passarini. >> Yes. >> Carrie Din. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Scully. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Avolin. >> Yes.
>> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Good luck with the construction. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. I'll make a motion to take a 5-minute recess. >> Second. >> And as the next applicant will come up. Ready, Mr. Beegle? >> We're ready.
>> Oh, let me Let me do roll call. I forgot. I Yes. I forgot my secretary job. Uh >> [laughter] >> Wendy Glassman. >> Here. >> Natalie Passarini. >> Here. >> Carrie Din. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Scully. >> Here. >> And Chairman Avolin Avoloni.
>> Here. >> All right. Next application, 700 First Avenue LLC. Mr. Semer? Is that >> Seemer. Seemer. >> Yes. Okay. Please proceed. >> Hi. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of
700 First Avenue LLC. Their application for block 2602 lot six. 700 First Avenue LLC is proposing to add an 11 space parking lot to the existing residential site at 700 First Avenue at the southwest corner of Bond Street and
First Avenue. There's also a proposal to add three balconies and decks as indicated [clears throat] on the site plan and the plans. Also a proposal for fencing and landscaping. Um
The applicant is seeking D2 variances and and C2 variances. We have two professionals tonight, Patrick Ludisi from an engineer and John Takimi, planner. And we'll start with Patrick.
>> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And just for clarification, our professionals are have also been sworn in for the evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Beekman. And if you could just state your name and spell it for the record, please.
>> Patrick Ludisi. L A U D I S I. >> Thank you. Could we have the benefit of your credentials, Mr. Ludisi? >> I'm a graduate of New Jersey Institute of Technology with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. I've been
practicing engineering for over 10 years. I'm a licensed engineer since 2019 and my license is in good standing. I have presented in front of a handful of boards in mainly Ocean and Monmouth County, but not in front of Asbury Park as of yet until right now. >> Thank you. As long as your credentials
are still like good license, yes? >> They are, yes. >> Okay. >> All set? >> Yep. >> All right. This application is seeking site plan approval for an asphalt parking lot and three total proposed balconies on the
subject lot, lot 2602, lot six, also known as 700 First Avenue. The subject lot is an 11,500 square foot lot located within the R1 residential zone and currently contains two existing multi-family dwellings and a grassed yard. There are 11 existing units in total.
Eight units are located in the back building and three units are in the side building. There are multiple existing non-conformities associated with the site not to be modified with this application in any way and we are requesting one new variance for impervious coverage where 47.84%
exists and 83.17% is proposed against the 65% maximum allowable in the R1 zone. Uh 11 new off-street parking spaces are proposed within the approximately 3,900 square feet of new asphalt.
Of the existing 11 units on site, eight units are one bedroom and three units are three bedroom. This brings the total off-street parking requirement to 14 spaces pursuant to Asbury ordinance section 30-59.5. Uh currently no off-street parking is available, so the construction of any
off-street parking would be a significant improvement to that condition. 11 spaces have been provided as that was the maximum that could feasibly fit within the space available and therefore we are requesting a waiver for the parking space requirement. Uh the access to the parking lot will
effectively eliminate approximately 24 linear feet of curb parking along uh First Avenue. Uh but there are no formal painted uh parking spaces. It's just a painted line that's parallel with the curb to denote the width of it, but the actual individual lines para perpendicular to
the curb are not there. So effectively we're losing one parking space because the painted section begins offset from the corner Bond and first. So, we're effectively losing one space but we're gaining 11 [clears throat] off-street parking spaces.
Um the stormwater is managed by routing all runoff to two curb inlets found near the driveway entrance. These are then connected to a subsurface storm chamber system under the parking lot consisting of eight SC-34
chambers surrounded on all sides by 12-in stone. 12-in thick of drainage stone. Total storage when full, including the 40% voids in the stone, is 1,238 cubic feet and is sufficient to store the entire 2-year storm event without any infiltration.
For the 10-year storm, the infiltration rate was considered. The proposed system results in a 100% reduction of flows off-site compared to the pre-construction condition, which improves the hydrologic conditions on the surrounding streets. The system was designed as a subsurface system due to area constraints that make
the other options in table five of ordinance section 30-58.7 not feasible. The provided stormwater report provides the hydrographs for the 2- and the 10-year storm. The site lighting for the parking lot is provided through four building-mounted
wall pack lights and one 14-ft tall light pole near the northeast corner of the parking lot. Um the fixture on the pole is going to be revised to be shielded to minimize the light spillage onto Bond Street. I don't think the fixture that was selected is shielded because it results in a lot of spillage
onto Bond. So, we will revise that as well as revise the illumination levels to better align with the requirements of ordinance section 30-56.4-B3. Uh we will add the required notes to the plans as specified in the engineer's review letter.
And the proposed landscaping includes a variety of street trees, beach grasses, and evergreen shrubs. We take no exception to the comments provided in the engineer's letter. Uh the street trees are provided within the township right-of-way, which will require or city, excuse me, will require city
approval. Uh a part of the reason why they were set in some of the locations at least is uh area constraints regarding how much space we had to use for the parking area, but also the uh edge of pavement. The edge of pavement is approximately 26
ft inset from our property line on First Avenue. So, the street trees would effectively be completely off uh ab- almost out of view while uh traveling down the road. Um although we are not necessarily uh against trying to squeeze them in, but
that would involve revising a lot of the other plantings. I know that I I understand there may be some issue with the beach grasses. Uh we don't necessarily have an issue with working with uh changing those as well. But, we do provide boxwoods, basically uh
evergreen shrubs to shield some of the lighting uh from the headlights that would bleed out onto the street, and that pretty much ends everything I have prepared. >> This This site was occupied or is currently [clears throat] occupied. >> Currently occupied, yes, with COs.
>> Um and currently those people that live there are all parking >> street. >> on the street. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> How close is the the the curb cut going to be to the intersection? Is it the 22.9? >> [clears throat]
>> I think it's on um sheet three. >> Yeah. >> Let me grab my scale real quick. >> [clears throat] >> It is about 20 ft 21 ft from the start of the curb radius at the corner. >> Okay.
>> So then from that point forward about another 7 or 8 ft give or take. >> Okay. >> So if you're if you're taking that measurement from the curb on Bond Street it's about 30. >> And what was the thought behind putting the curb cut on First as opposed to
further back on the Bond? Where it'd be further out of the intersection. >> Uh First Avenue was selected cuz it made better sense with how the parking lot would be oriented. Because if we have the entrance off of Bond Street you'd have to have bull noses [clears throat] which would take up more spaces on the sides. So when the
curb comes in you'd have to have a landscaped area that would eat up extra space for the parking. We'd lose extra parking spaces that way. >> Okay. Would it be out of the intersection though? Would it be >> be further out of the intersection if the entrance was put onto Bond Street, yes. >> Okay.
And what's the distance >> [clears throat] >> I'm on sheet three still. Uh the diff the distance between I guess it would be the the south of the driveway to the proposed decks. >> You mean from the
from the edge of pavement to the deck? >> Right, yeah. Is there going to be anything there like a like a curb stop or something to stop a car? It I It looks like it's pretty close but I can't tell. >> Uh you're talking about on the the side building. Yes? >> Yes, yeah. Where it says where the proposed deck is. Yes.
>> [clears throat] >> Okay. Do you know what the distance is between the the end of the the parking lot and the deck? Where the parking lot bumps out there? >> That 3 ft? >> 3 ft. >> So, you show the accessible space
abutting that deck. How does the How does that work? >> The You know, >> I actually don't know the lengths. >> We'll address that later. >> So, I I'm uh I think I'm on sheet five now.
So, you have the walk the the paver walk, which would be on, I guess, the west side. >> Mhm. >> And And this may be Donna's question. It looks like it goes right into the deck. So, people park their cars, they get
onto the paver walkway. How do they get to the back building? >> Is that deck on the second story or the first? >> All on the first floor. >> It's all on the first floor. >> Um a photo might be helpful. This photo might be helpful to see the walkway on the back side there.
It's all on the ground level. >> Okay. >> Okay. Where is this This hasn't been submitted? >> Uh it has been submitted, but >> Um we'll mark it A1. >> It'd be A1. We don't have a submitted
>> this is kind of interest this is what >> Thank you. >> I'll pass this to everyone. This [clears throat] is what we're seeing location [snorts] where we're asking for parking today. This one is the Montauk Hotel. >> I I have that bigger too if you want.
>> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Thank Jeff, do you want to mark these exhibits? >> Yeah, I'm >> [clears throat] >> I'm marking the one that was just passed out by Mr. Taikina as A1. Um we could revise the location of the ADA space. Potentially move it to a different
location so that it's more easily accessible to the rest of the property. >> Well, get rid of it. >> Can't get rid of it. >> Wait, so this doesn't help me answer my question though. Is that Is that again with reference to sheet five of nine?
So you have the paver walk to the south sorry, west side of the parking lot. >> Yes. >> And I see where that gets the entrance into the the building on first. And then it goes right into your proposed deck.
Where's the walkway for the residents to get from the parking lot to the back or I guess would be the south building? >> Um they would just walk through the parking area. And through the landscaping between the
the parking area and the south the south >> Either along there or within the drive aisle. As shown. >> [clears throat] >> No, but I I think what Mr. Skelly's saying is that if you walk through the parking lot toward that building, um
you would have to walk through the landscaping to get out to Bond Street in order to get to the front of that building where the doors are. >> Correct. Thank you, Donna. That was a much more articulate way of saying a walkway. A walkway can be added. Can you add a walkway? [clears throat] >> And and where would that be added? Would
that be added in the back or cuz it doesn't seem like you can extend the paver walk cuz that goes right into a proposed deck. >> Um >> The planner will address it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It's in my plan. That's statutory. >> Donna, while we're on the parking lot,
was there In your report, did you mention something about a requirement for EV charging? Did I see that somewhere? >> Did I I don't think I did. >> That was yours, Peter? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, is there a requirement to have
>> It's in our zoning regulations, and it would have to be a designed waiver to do it. No. >> Well, it's a statutory requirement. I think [clears throat] it applies, so >> Okay. >> give it to you. >> And one for this size parking lot, it would be one charging station? >> Yes.
>> This is a minor site plan, though. This is a minor site plan. No, it's major. Okay. Why did I know? >> I believe the criteria is that you are exempt if you have less than 25 spaces, but we're brought back in because it's multi-family.
>> Yeah, I I think there's a loophole here with why you're don't have to provide, but >> Okay. >> In either in either event, if you you you can't not provide if you are required to provide. It's a statutory
requirement. >> If we go back to the the curb cut again, so you said that the the First Avenue was chosen because on Bond Street you would have to have >> [snorts] >> uh the curb stops, is that what you said? And that would take up space.
>> Be a bull nose. >> So, because the right of way of Bond Street is much narrower, so the property line and the street line are very close >> Right. >> on Bond. But on First you have that really wide right of way, so there's more room to make the turn into the parking lot >> Okay.
>> and get to the spaces. If you reorient, you lose that sort of cushion and uh you so you can't get the same number of spaces with the right radius and and the turning movement. >> Yeah, when you pull in when you pull in off Bond, the radius for the curve is
going to cut into the the space for the parking, and then on top of that you'd have to then make a left or a right to go into the drive aisle to park in the spaces. And then that requires a separate bull nose. >> Okay. >> Like the like the little 5-ft wide rounded edges that are usually concrete or grass or sometimes we'll plant some
like little shrubs or flowers. >> Yes. >> You'd have to have those. And then both of those, 5 ft each side, eats up one space on its own. >> Okay. >> And even though your spaces are bigger than what's required, >> we could we could size if I don't is the I don't know why the the plans were
spaced at 10 by 19. Is there an ordinance requirement in the town or city, excuse me? >> It's 9 by 18. >> 9 by 18 like NJC? We could size them down and provide more room for both landscaping, for a walkway, and for uh
>> You're just providing one handicap spot? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> If you sized them down, would that allow for the bull nose and allow for the curb cut to be out of the intersection? >> We could explore that opportunity, but I have a feeling we will end up less than 11 total spaces
even with the reduced space. >> There's going to be a a fence around the parking lot as well? >> We don't have one plan but we are not opposed to providing one. >> Okay. >> If requested. >> No, I was just asking. >> Uh >> But there's a lot of landscaping you're proposing, correct? >> Yes.
>> There There is fencing shown on the site plan. Actually, wait. Which sheet am I on? >> Yeah, on five there's >> Yeah. >> There's fencing >> Site plan shows uh a fence >> [clears throat] >> on the Bond Street side.
>> But it stops at the building. >> and then along the [clears throat] uh interior side. >> I thought they were requesting asking for one that's basically going along the face of the parking. [cough and clears throat] Like down the end all the way to towards First Avenue
and around. >> [snorts] >> Which we're not. >> So, the plan shows privacy fence. >> Where are you seeing that on? >> On basically, you know, three sides. There's a So, on that uh >> On five? >> site plan sheet is as far
>> [clears throat] >> uh two of nine. >> Oh, no. You're right. Proposed 4-ft high dune fence Bond Street and proposed open picket 4-ft high >> [cough] >> in [clears throat] between the curb access at First Avenue.
>> Right. And then privacy fence on the west side of the parking lot. Which I don't know what that is. Is that a detail? >> I don't know what the intent for the privacy fence was. Presumably for headlights, yes. >> That's with lighting associated
with the detail. Um so, can you uh >> [cough] [clears throat] >> and maybe this is Mr. Takian's area um describe the the types of fences? You? Okay. It's going to be Mr. Takian.
All right. Uh grading and drainage. All right. So, you described you described the um storm water system uh as as being um an infiltration system. Is that right? >> Yes. It's subsurface. >> Subsurface.
And it's totally within the footprint of the parking lot. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's just capturing what's in the parking lot. >> Correct. It's all that it all of the impervious surface from the parking area. >> Okay. >> It's just >> Not on the building stuff.
>> No. The roof is handled with gutter leaders. This they just discharge to uh the ground, which we're not proposing to change. >> Okay. All right. >> For the handicap space, how is that resident getting to the the paver walkway? Are they going all the
way out through the parking lot to First Avenue? Cuz in front of to the west of that is the proposed deck and a grass area. >> I think they It's a It's said that they're considering relocating that space so that they could figure out a
way to get it access. >> Okay. >> To the walkways. And and they can. The way the parking lot's designed, they could move that space. >> move it further. >> Up and down north. North. But as you had mentioned, it's a very
tight squeeze between the edge of the parking and the deck on the smaller building. And then uh as it's dimensioned, it's 8 and 1/2 ft from the you know, the little bump out in the
parking lot toward the larger building. And the decks are closer than that. >> [snorts] >> Cuz they're five, so it's only about 3 and 1/2 ft from the parking lot to the decks. >> Yeah. >> On that building. >> What about refuse? Where where is that
being picked [clears throat] up and >> That might be better for somebody else. >> There's a There's a trash enclosure at the back of the rear building. And there's a trash and uh cycling area uh on the west side of the side building, also.
It's labeled on sheet three. But that's an existing condition that's being handled now today with no parking. >> So you're not you're not planning on changing that location? >> No. And the lighting will be faced >> [cough] [clears throat] >> uh downward >> downward into the parking lot so that it
doesn't >> Downward and inward, yes. We're going to minimize as much spillage as possible outside of Bond Street and onto First Ave. >> And and how many lightings uh structures are you putting up? >> There's one proposed light pole on uh towards the corner of Bond and First and then there's four wall packs that are mounted to the buildings.
>> On the buildings? >> Yes. And those can be catered to being motion sensed or anything like that too turn off when they're not being in use. >> And this parking lot's not going to have any gate in front of it. It's just going to be an open space. >> Yes.
>> Off the drive off the First Ave. >> Yes. >> So with the with the proposed decks how are you how are you over coming overcoming the argument that this is an expansion of a non-conforming by adding 15 by 8-ft decks? >> Okay, that's that's a good question.
Yeah. >> I got I got I'll save my I'm not going to ask any more questions. I'll just wait for you. >> [laughter] >> All right. >> Any further questions for Mr. Laudisi? >> Or professionals, do you have any questions for Mr. Lagesh? >> Anything else? >> I don't think I have anything.
>> I could just go through the drainage improvements just so the board and public understands. Uh They are proposing They are proposing what's called a storm chamber system underground in the parking lot.
Only taking drainage from the parking lot, not taking drainage [clears throat] from the building. They are indicating that the existing drainage configuration will continue from the existing structures. Goes into the grass. Uh >> Correct. >> Yes. Uh
It's an infiltration system. It will capture the entire what we call the 2-year storm event uh to uh better the pre-development drainage conditions. Will will not infiltrate Will not use
infiltration for the 2-year storm event. It meets those calculations. The 10-year storm event is also met uh utilizing the infiltration of the soil. We have one issue that's required by our ordinance,
and I made a note so I can read it without my engineering terminology so we all understand it. Sometimes I have to do that myself. It's called a mounding analysis. It's required by the the regulations It's required by our ordinance. The mounding
analysis is a uh a hydraulic assessment, basically. It calculates temporary rise in the water table beneath any proposed basin. So, this basin will infiltrate water into the ground. It also should tell us whether
that causes a rise in groundwater. That could then affect either this structure or adjacent structures. If there's a basement putting an infiltration system in, could effectively create uh underground water situation that migrates into the
basement area, causes a negative situation. If if the drain system was along the perimeter of the property, I would be more concerned because it could potentially aggravate adjacent property owners, which we don't want to have happen. It's here in the middle of the
property, would probably just uh affect these these buildings. The ordinance requires a simple calculation though just to prove that the infiltration rate of this underground system does not cause that negative impact. >> [clears throat]
>> So, I I would recommend that as a condition of any consideration by >> We have no issue providing a groundwater uh groundwater mounding analysis. >> Thank you, Peter. >> Thank you. Uh parking was testified to, consider revising the location of the
handicap space. Uh And I do agree that the one space on First Avenue would be lost. One parking space available on First Avenue would be lost by the configuration of the uh
entry drive into the property. But, there are four parking spaces. Considering the fact that 19 are required by our ordinance for this size structure, but testimony was given in justification for that. Turning to regard to exterior lighting,
we note that the lights on Bond Street does provide a considerable amount of light spillage into the road, and I think a consideration should be made for rear shield shielding or maybe decreasing the the light fixture size. >> Yeah, either we don't want to have
Change the amount of lumens, change the Change a bunch of things. >> Uh which would resolve that in its entirety. Um The ordinance does require a a of lighting issues for compliance, like the finish of the light pole and things like
that, which the applicant has agreed to meet. Other than that, I'll just be here to answer any board questions if you have any. >> What was the type of fencing that would be utilized? Now that we we we discussed privacy fencing, do do you understand what the >> [clears throat] >> privacy fencing is?
>> the plan calls for privacy fence along the side building on the west side. It calls for 4-ft high dune fence along Bond Street, and then 4-ft high open picket fence
along the property line along First Avenue. Uh we are not necessarily bound to those. We are open to changing them as the board desires, to whichever option is best suited for this project. Um I can see why they chose what they
chose to kind of go with the feel of like the beachy theme, considering we're in Asbury Park. But, we are not beholden to what is reflected. We're not opposed to any changes that are required. >> The The ordinance requires what, 4-ft high maximum, Donna?
>> On the street-facing side, yeah. >> Yeah. >> You have to be careful for the sight triangles, too. >> That doesn't really sound privacy to me. Um >> Privacy means it's solid. >> Right. >> on >> The solid fence is on the inboard side. >> But, as far as, you know, shielding headlights, >> Right.
>> going to >> Right. >> And the type of landscaping maybe would help that situation though, right? If it was arborvitae >> Evergreen shrubs, arborvitaes, can help shield it, yes. And also, it's consideration that if we do reduce the size of the spaces we have
a little bit more room to provide additional landscaping too. >> [snorts] >> The spaces could be 1 ft >> narrower and shorter. >> and shorter. >> They're shown at 10 by 19, minimum is 9 by 18. So I Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, no, go ahead.
>> So I know I keep going back to the curb cut on first. And and you're not a traffic engineering and but my my concern is is that >> [clears throat] >> First Avenue is very busy street, especially in the summer. Bond Street is also a very busy street,
but it's a one-way. So cars are only coming out one way. Where where the curb cut is on First, you may have cars coming out trying to go east or west. >> Correct. Um
we can we can certainly explore other options, but we would inevitably have to most likely lose one of the extra spaces if we go with 10 instead of 11. >> And and I say that was
I'll add to that is that I appreciate you trying to get off-street parking. It's certainly something that is lacking in Asbury Park. So I I appreciate that. But um just from my experience of trying to pull out of parking lots in the city and
cross streets onto the avenues, it's very difficult. >> I agree. But it is also a low use. It's not generating a lot of traffic. It's not like it's a commercial building or a like a restaurant or anything like that. It's just 11 units.
>> True. >> So you might get a little bit of a spike during, you know, rush hour when they're leaving at 8:00 or 9:00 to go to work and when they're coming back at 4:00 or 5:00, but coming back in is a little bit easier cuz you can just pull in. >> True. >> But it's not it's not going to create like a like a log jam
under normal circumstances. Uh you know, if we have like a festival or something going on in Asbury Park, then yes, but the entire city's going to be kind of a mess regards to traffic. >> Are the apartments going to be designated with a specific space or
>> Uh I did have some conversation with the owner and he had mentioned that he wanted to uh assign spaces just so that there's some semblance of uh he said uh no chaos essentially. So that every each unit has its own space.
We have 11 units, 11 spaces, makes sense. >> So that was my question. Are is each unit going to to get a space? >> Uh ideally, yes, although there might be some uh issue with that with the ADA space. So if there is a tenant that is
uh disabled and needs to use that space, then obviously we can just assign that to them. But if there isn't, you can't have a non-ADA vehicle parking in an ADA space, which would be the 11th. >> What if none of the residents are disabled? Does that space have to stay
open? >> Yes. >> So you only have a >> [clears throat] >> We have to wait for you. Yeah. >> You have an answer for We have an answer for that. >> Any further questions for Mr. Laodice? For professionals, any further questions? No?
All right, I'll open it up to the public for Mr. Laodice. Please ask questions relating only to his testimony. >> Yes, uh Dan Schechter, mail 615 Asbury Avenue. Uh, isn't it true that there is a hydrant on
Bond Street close to the corner of First Avenue which would preclude you from having a curb cut on Bond Street? >> We can locate the curb cut in a way that would not impact that hydrant. >> Okay. Is the curb cut is there a curb cut
there was historically people parking on the grass there and using a curb cut on First Avenue. Was it an official curb cut or is that just a There is none there officially. >> Okay. Okay. >> You have to provide it. >> Is it possible to do the lighting in the
parking lot by lit bollards instead of uh 14-ft high lights that may shine onto the street? >> We can explore that avenue but we have to make sure that we meet the requirements. It has to be a certain amount of foot candles throughout the
entire parking area and bollard lights don't really project too much light. So, it's might be difficult to get the required foot candles in the dead center of the drive aisle but we can certainly take it into consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Cuz we might be able to accommodate that with the wall packs cuz cuz those don't project horizontally out as far but if
they're coming off the building that can potentially catch the rest of the the parking area maybe get what we want without a a full pole. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Another question. >> Your Your name and address?
>> Okay, Charles Richard. >> You said Richard? >> 1119 4th Ave. >> 1119 >> 4th Ave. >> 4th Ave. >> Asbury Park. >> I'm sorry, you said your last name is Richard? >> R I C H A R D. >> Yeah, okay.
Thank you. >> Okay, I would like to know the lighting from your uh your parking lot that you're proposing proposing. How far over will it uh east wall that go because my property is right on the corner
with a wrap around porch. And I'm concerned about lighting and noise. How far are those lights going to shine, you know, across Bond Street east on that corner?
>> So, if we're going to be revising the lighting plan, I can't give you an answer right now, but I can say that there are ordinance requirements for the amount of light spillage and spill off of the main property line regarding a development like this and we intend on meeting all of those requirements with
the revision to the lighting plan. >> In reference to your I don't know what this privacy fence is that you you have on the west side, I think. >> It's on the opposite side. It's on the building side of the property. >> Okay, but
>> the parking line and the buildings. That's where the privacy fence was at. >> Okay. So, what does that privacy fence do exactly? >> Uh it would be for headlights into the tenants' units. >> So, what about the headlights?
You know, your your entranceway will be on First Ave, correct? >> Correct. >> And your parking spots will be east-west or north-south? >> The parking spaces would face Bond.
I have a question. >> Okay, so the parking spaces are going to face Bond. >> Correct. >> Okay, which means that when they park and their lights are on we get lights, you know, across the street where my property is on the corner. So,
what are you doing to ensure that that's not going to be something that's going to impact you know, properties on the other side? >> We have landscaping proposed along that property boundary that include evergreen boxwoods so they're you know, small
shrubs that remain green throughout the entire year and then dune grasses and the dune fence. The dune fence is not [clears throat] really going to do a whole lot for you in regards to the headlights but the rest will do a pretty sufficient job at diffusing that headlights so it's not just glaring in your windows.
>> So what will also stop the I guess people don't necessarily want to look at you know, a parking lot. You understand what I'm saying? So how are you going to hide your parking lot?
You know, with big shrubs or something you know, that of a green shrub all year round. Because if you're sitting on your porch why do I want to look at a parking lot? You understand what I'm saying?
>> We're proposing 10 trees. We're proposing 10 trees. >> Sir, I know what's there now. I don't need you to say that. You're you're out of order to me as far as I'm concerned. Gentlemen. >> We're proposing three linden trees, seven maple although I heard there was a
potential conflict with that selection. We have no objection to changing those either. The trees will provide some shielding from that. But uh you're you're you're always going to see some of the parking lot especially if
you're on an upper floor in your in your in your house. You will see some of the parking area but compared to what it is now where you have you have potentially 11 units that are all street parking. They're occupying spaces. >> Well, it's been like that since 19
80 or 1979. The parking What I'm saying that that area has been accommodating parking since 1980. 1979. >> We are also providing all this extra
landscaping and all these beach the dune grasses, the beach grasses, the shrubs, the trees in an effort to beautify the whole area as much as possible while providing off-street parking that's desperately needed in Asbury Park. You have a lot of issues with parking on the street. The
best The more we can get off-street, the better. And uh we're doing everything we can to, you know, hide away what we're trying to do here. Um but I mean compared >> That's the operative word right there. Hideaway. Hide it.
>> Yeah. I mean, right now it's just weeds. Doesn't look much better compared to a landscaped building. >> Mr. Bond Mr. Bond, do you have a preference where the parking lot entrance is, whether it's on Bond or First? >> Well, if if I had to say, you know,
where would be the best uh the better uh entrance, it would be First. Because at least, you know, personally, you know, I wouldn't have cars, you know, going in and out because they're in and out in and out off of Bond
Street. That The only thing that, you know, to me, you know, what what you want to do here that would make it fit in is if you had very high uh
evergreen shrub like a fence to hide your parking lot. You know, other than that, you know, someone was sitting on that porch,
they could >> Mr. Richard, you need to ask questions. >> Okay, I'm sorry. Okay. >> commenting. >> [clears throat] >> You're right. >> I appreciate you being here. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> So, please ask a question to regarding
>> I guess that's it. I don't have any >> Can I just answer that one? I know it was a comment, but >> Go right ahead, Mr. Richard. >> What do you say? >> Um >> We can, like I said, entertain revising the landscaping to provide a little bit better shielding, but we do have to be
mindful of the sight triangle on that corner. Sight triangle is essentially when you're pulling up to the the intersection, you have to be able to see down the road to check for traffic. We have to make sure that that's not going to be a concern. >> Yeah, it is a one-way road, so we have that working for us,
but it is something to be mindful of. Because, you know, we still have pedestrians walking up and down the street, so we still need to be able to see. We can't just bring those evergreens all the way up to First Avenue. We'll have to be mindful of those. >> And and Mr. Richard, I just want you to know that as far as this process goes,
this is a question portion. You will have the right to make your own comments when it's open up to the public as well. >> I got it. >> Okay. All right. Anyone else in the public for Mr. LaGace? Thank you.
Mr. Seemer. >> All right. >> Please proceed. Call your next witness, please. >> uh John Takinos, a planner. Mr. Takinos, would you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. You got me right the first time. >> Hi. How are you? Could you give us the
benefit of your credentials? >> Certainly. Uh I'm going to do my name first. Um my name is John Taikina, T as in Thomas, A I, K as in Kelly, I N as in Nicholas, A. Uh I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I have been since I completed my studies at Rutgers University in 1992.
I've spent the last 33 years of my career doing this, testifying before planning and zoning boards around the state and across the country on behalf of applicants just like this. Um I've appeared before more than 210 uh boards uh throughout the state. I was last here in 2022, and it's nice to be
back. >> Welcome back. Thank you for your credentials. >> Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Certainly. Um so, we were very unfair to Mr. LaGace, frankly. Um you may have noticed the plans were prepared by Landmark Engineering. Um and [clears throat] Mr. Giglio, and Mr.
Giglio retired at the end of the year. So, Patrick had to pick this up kind of cold. Um so, he's quote-unquote defending plans that aren't his own. Uh which wasn't uh quite fair to him, but he did a great job. Uh I'm here to talk about the application from a from a planning standpoint. I also kind of
manage the uh the application process, bringing it in, so uh I can answer a little bit more of the questions um that are there. I can talk about uh >> But you're not an architect, is that right? >> not an architect. I am a planner. >> want you answering any architectural questions, Mr. Takinos.
>> I will not be answering any architectural questions. I promise. >> Then, please proceed. >> Thank you. Um so, we are here uh for um three different types of relief, technically. Um
the first is uh is called a D2 variance for an expansion of a nonconforming use. I think Ms. Miller did a great job in her letter of uh explaining some of the trigger points for an expansion of a nonconforming use. So, uh I actually think the first thing
the board can decide is um is the change so negligible as far as the nonconforming use that it does not rise uh to warrant uh any uh approval of that specific aspect of it.
Um so, for example, uh a deck in your ordinance uh is exempt from impervious coverage. It does also does not contribute to building coverage. So, it's almost like it isn't there. Um it does not create any additional
living space, etc. It doesn't change the fact that there are 11 units on the site. Doesn't change bedrooms or occupancy or anything of those natures. Uh it only provides uh three additional uh areas of open space, which I think would be uh
fully within the board's purview uh as site plan review. Um so, if you wanted to make that decision and say, "You know what? You're right. This isn't an expansion of a nonconforming use." And this board has already decided that adding parking to a use is not an expansion of a
nonconforming use. So, um the parking is the literally here just for the site plan or for the variance that that's required for impervious coverage. So, uh that's the the the distinction that you could make um if you wished. Uh the second thing uh
we're seeking is a um I guess we're seeking two C variances. One is for impervious coverage uh Uh, where 65% is allowed and we're proposing up to 83%. Um, 47 and 1/2% exists today. And the
last one is for uh, open space. Uh, multi-family units are required to have 30% of the lot area to be open space. Uh, which would be 3,465 sq ft. And we're proposing about 1,650
sq ft. Uh, which is about 14% and the new decks uh, account are about 15% of that increase. So, it's 1,650 sq ft total that's proposed. We're proposing 225 sq ft
of uh, decking. Uh, so [clears throat] that that shows the the increase there from about 1,400 sq ft up to 1,650 sq ft. Um, so they're the two C variances that we're seeking and then the rest of them are design waivers. Um, from your design waiver ordinance, I
think a lot of those um, we can uh, start to comply with in terms of lighting, making sure the pole was the right height, making sure we don't spill off the property, getting our minimums and maximums balanced out. [clears throat] I think uh, we can we can accomplish all of that. Uh, very very well.
Um, So, uh, I'm going to proceed. So, again, I I don't know if the >> Mr. Speaker right now, do you you don't want to ask the board if they want to make that determination if the D2 is required or not? >> Or if you'd like me to put the case in and they'll make the decision at the end. Um, I'm I'm pretty either way.
>> It's your application. >> Okay, then I'm just going to I'm just going to go then. Um, so the most important thing about uh, the concept of an expansion of a non-conforming use that does not rise to the level of a use variance. Um, it is a D2 variance for an expansion of a non-conforming use. The the premise
uh, that was set forth in Raspberry Kingwood, was set forth in Burbridge Remind Hill, uh, is that uh, a zone plan was drawn understanding that there's not good conforming uses in it. And uh therefore they're kind of expected and accounted for.
And so when we're expanding that use, we only have to to accommodate the expansion. That is the standard. How are we accommodating the expansion of a non- that non-conforming use? So in this instance, the expansion of our non-conforming use is 225 sq ft worth of
decking, three first-level decks uh on the uh on the existing premises. Um they do not add building coverage. They do not add impervious coverage. Um they do add open space, which we are deficient on now, and we are improving
that condition through this expansion. Um so again, I think we accommodate these decks uh extraordinarily well. Uh I think that they don't they don't exacerbate any existing non-conformities. They are in conforming locations in terms of their setback and their height and all those things.
Uh so again, I think that all of them are accommodated uh very, very well. Um >> Isn't your parking lot eliminating open space? >> [clears throat] >> Uh it is eliminating a green space. That is for That is for >> But it is open space.
>> It is open space, yes. >> So you're you're actually eliminating open space, not adding open space. >> Well, we're doing both, actually. We're adding it >> Are you? >> Yes, we're adding it in terms of the decks themselves. And we are eliminating
>> the size difference, you're really eliminating open space. >> By on overall square footage, yes. Without question. >> Yes, that's what I was getting at. So you're eliminating open space, not not adding. >> Correct. >> But you said you were adding.
>> We are. We're adding open space by by the decks. It's a net It's a net decrease. >> It's a net elimination. You use elimination, I'll use decrease. >> Okay. Go on. >> Understood.
Um and again, if if that and that's where when we come down to the you know, where well, I'll jump to the to the C2 variants, that's where we come down to the choice on the parking. Cuz that's exactly what it is. Is we're saying that we think this
represents a better plan if it has 11 or 12 parking spaces on it than it is if it has an empty grass lawn there. Uh we think >> by having less spaces for parking. >> I think we could
uh I think we would have the ability to look at um how do we balance parking and open space as uh we said and and again, this is one of those things that was unfair to Mr. La Deucey. Um
we kind of we kind of realized >> there. We're not being unfair to Mr. La Deucey. >> No, no. You were not We were unfair to Mr. La Deucey, not you. Um is uh we kind of realized at the 11th hour our spaces were oversized. Um and they're oversized I think I know
where they're oversized, but they're oversized. So, they can shrink and every time we shrink them uh we can that's adding open space back to the plan. Um and I you know, so I think that by shrinking the spaces
either down to the 9 by 18 uh with a uh 24-ft aisle uh which would meet RSIS or shrinking them down to the sizes that are permitted in your ordinance which are a little smaller than that uh potentially going uh to a a 9 by 16 with
a 2-ft overhang again to in to decrease that impervious coverage even more. I think that would give us the ability to uh increase open space uh adjacent uh increase the um landscape area adjacent to Bond
Street and increase the landscape area that is next to the Bond Street building. Um, while also giving us the opportunity to add a um a walkway from
the parking area to the Bond Street sidewalk. That would then allow us to access the access points to the Bond Street building. The Bond Street building >> [clears throat] >> Referring to page three of the site
plan, the Bond Street building is accessed from the south side of the building off of the the Bond Street sidewalk. >> [clears throat] >> So, what I'm saying is if we shrunk this parking lot down we it would literally shrink in in four dimensions.
Uh, we could add that walkway out of the parking lot to get us to the sidewalk, utilize the sidewalk to then get us up onto uh, the access for Bond for our Bond Street building. >> And how does the handicap parking >> So,
>> [clears throat] >> we did not propose a handicap parking space initially. Uh, the residential the existing building as is permitted by code and the existing building has 11 COs, it went through full building code review. Um,
the existing building is not accessible. It's not accessible in any way. Uh, accordingly under RSIS, if the um for project containing units required by the uniform construction codes barrier free sub code, you have to provide
accessible parking. If the building is not accessible under the New Jersey barrier free sub code, you are not required to provide ADA accessible parking. Um so, we thought it was a better plan
to just provide 12 parking spaces and not provide the ADA space because the buildings and the site itself is not accessible. Um it's almost you're almost advertising a false premise by having an accessible space
there that you can park here cuz this is an accessible site and accessible location. >> So, so neither building is really handicap accessible? >> Not at all. >> Well, let's put a pin in that. Accessible doesn't just mean wheelchairs, correct?
>> Right. >> I I I agree, but all of the elements of the barrier free sub code that we would be we would be addressing coming out of it accessible parking space are to provide for wheelchair.
>> Again, I disagree. >> In terms of the slopes and and everything else. So, again, I don't I can >> [laughter] >> I can feel my father smacking me up the back of the head. My father was a My father was a an amputee.
All right, he spent the last 9 years of his life with one leg. Um and there was no more defeated person than when he couldn't do something by himself because the site wasn't accessible or something wasn't there for an accessible person. Um so, the last thing I would the last
thing I would propose is is not being accessible, but I think it's disingenuous to have a site and buildings that are not accessible in any way or are not going to be accessible in any way. Um, to
you know, be advertised as such. That said, we can locate if we flip the if we flip the ADA space from the west side of the parking lot to the east side of the parking lot against against Bond Street, we can have a walkway that's there, have a walkway
out to the sidewalk, and you get to the accessible Bond Street sidewalk from our parking lot. Um, you wouldn't Now, you could also do that going down the parking lot and getting to First Avenue. Um, but the shortest route would be by this new
walkway that we we would propose from uh the southeast corner of the lot. We'd flip the ADA space from the southwest corner to southeast corner, have a accessible pathway here out to Bond Street, and then
that provide that complies with code. So, that takes you all the way around. I think because because the boards are not the the buildings are not accessible, we have the ability not to provide it. But, if the board says no, I'd like an accessible space, and
we'd say, "Fine." And then we'll say, "Fine, well, that accessible space will be accessible back out to the Bond Street sidewalk." But, the buildings are not being modified to become accessible. >> Honestly, I don't know why we're going down this path. I mean, we don't I
If somebody can't live in the building, then why why are we insisting on a parking space that's now going to be an empty space because once you designate it, Again, it doesn't have to be a wheelchair user. They could have a
mobility impairment where they could still go upstairs. They could have a heart condition. There's >> There's more than just wheel wheelchair disability. >> It's The point is, it's reserved for someone with a disability. >> That's That's fine. We We
>> And maybe somebody will live in the building or have a guest that needs that closer, more accessible space. >> As I said, I can feel my father smacking me at the back of the head. So, I'm not I'm not having this argument. >> [laughter] >> We'll We'll have an accessible space.
We'll flip it from the southwest to the southeast. And we'll have the accessible path out to Bond Street, and that will comply. >> So, you You talked about the decks, and you talked about how it's going to increase open space for the residents. >> Yes. >> But, it's really just going to be those
three residents. >> Correct. How it's defined in the ordinance. >> So, you're not increasing open space for for all of the Is it 11? >> Correct. >> 11 residents.
I'm assuming that these decks are going to be used for out outside activities. Um How are you going to Are you putting plantings around them to contain that noise, to contain the that site? >> No, the plantings will be around the
site. Again, it's an 11,500 sq ft site. We're not to have individual, you know, there's just isn't the space for that to occur. Um You know, I You know, people have a you know, a a cafe table with two chairs, and
you know, they'll sit out there whenever they want to sit out there. >> The decks are They are increasing the square footage. So, So, how do you get around that that's not an expansion? >> Again, I don't believe I don't believe that it's an expansion of the use. If the board wants to say it is, that's
fine. And I don't get around it. The standard is, how do we accommodate it? And it is accommodated in terms of building coverage and pervious coverage, uh and in terms of uh you know, the site itself, circulation,
and uh stormwater, everything. So, the the that 225 square feet of decking is well accommodated on the site. It is internal to the site. It's not out against our neighbors. It's in against our parking lot. Um it again, it's a fully internalized
improvement um that is not going to have an impact on our neighbors. Uh you know, so that again, that and that's the standard is how is that expansion accommodated on the site? >> Right. But so, how are you accommodating that when your your overall coverage is
what did you say going to be 84% and the requirement is 60? >> It That coverage >> how was how was that an accommodation? >> The coverage is generated by the parking lot. It's not generated by the decks. Decks are not building or impervious coverage in New Orleans.
>> I I'm still a little hung up on the concept that you're providing open space. I while I appreciate the fact that you're providing off-street parking, which the site currently doesn't have. I
get that. But you're eliminating so much open space um to put a parking lot there in the front yard, which kind of makes me not thrilled because it's in the front yard of this property. Um
and your neighbors are going to be looking at a parking lot. And I I'm I'm having a hard time with this application, honestly. Because you're really eliminating open space and it's green space and it's space that all
of the apartments and the Victorian can use currently. And you're going to put there a parking lot where nobody's going to want to sit in the parking lot. And you're going to allow three apartments have balconies and the rest, well, they no longer get open space.
So, I'm really having a hard time with this. And your argument is really not well enough for me to change my opinion yet. >> Okay. I'll I'll wait to see how I do on your opinion when I finish, but
uh understood. And I knew you'd have a I knew you would have difficulty with this application. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Uh No, and that's and that's fine. Uh again, it's a choice it's it is I'd say it's a black and white choice. This is more of a black and green choice, I guess, in this case.
Um but it's you know, would you rather have 11 parking spaces or would you have an rather have an empty lawn? And that's that's the choice. Now >> You said that you would consider compromise though. So, that's not the choice based on what you said
>> the that's the application that we submitted. Um I don't get I have a I have a somewhat attitude with my client. I don't have full attitude with my client. So, any compromise that we come up with has to be good with him,
too. Um you know, again, I think by shrinking the parking lot dimensions uh we're going to pick up um a pretty good amount of space, you know, a couple of hundred square feet.
Um Did you do the math? >> It well, in the length, it's 6 ft. It's 1 ft per parking space. You have six parking spaces, so that's 6 ft. >> Right. So, 6 ft * 62 ft wide is >> No, but in one dimension, you only get 6 ft. It's only
>> the open space differential from 30% required by ordinance 14% required with this plan to approximately 20% 19 to 20% provided by this plan. So,
there will still be about a 10% differential in the open space requirement. >> Right. >> Just by the dimensional changes. If there were other changes proposed, we can hear that. >> Correct. So, it's not insignificant.
You know, it's it's a several hundred square feet that we could add to open space by getting the dimensions right. And I think it I think we should do that. I think we should shrink the spaces as much as we can to uh to increase our our landscape on Island
on Bond Street and get us more open space adjacent to the building on Bond Street. I think both of those two things are good. Um we have an exceptionally wide right-of-way on First. Uh so, it it's a little less important going that direction.
Um I Anything we gain, I'd put up against the buildings on Bond cuz that's where it'd be a little more usable for our residents. Um but again, we can I think that's something we can certainly uh talk about, work with.
Um so, in ter- again, in terms of the uh the C2 variances, uh we have our open space variance that again were um seeking to uh provide 1,650 square feet where 3,465 square feet is required,
about 14% and as uh Mr. Vaught just said, we think we can get that up closer to uh 19 or 20% uh with these dimensional changes. Uh Impervious coverage would kind of shrink uh similarly. Um
again, about uh that same 4 or 5% uh to get it probably get it get it under the 80%. Um but uh not not down to the 65%. Again, we think that uh adding off-street parking and I understand Mr. Richard's comment that the neighborhood's been
accommodating this since 1979. I I understand that. Um but the neighborhood shouldn't necessarily have to accommodate it if they don't have to. Uh I think being able to provide some on-site parking and I think one per unit is great. Um is a you know, is an is a
good thing. It's a good thing for the for the applicant and it's a good thing for the neighborhood. Uh kind of one of your classic win-wins. Um the design and location of the existing buildings does not lend itself to the additional open space beyond the decks uh provided in the proposed. Again, we're kind of hard up against our
western and southern boundaries. Um again, but I think when we talk about how we modify the parking, we're going to add some. We think parking is more necessary and desirable for the neighborhood than added private space uh for our own residents, but again, that's something that the
uh that the board is going to uh uh is going to consider. Um the impervious coverage variance likewise goes uh directly to the benefit of having the parking. Uh fortunately, we've managed it through the stormwater impact of the parking and have our soil erosion permit and county approval is
evidence of compliance. Uh also, we will comply with uh the mounting analysis as required by ordinance. Um we think we can right as we said, we think we can right-size the parking to reduce the coverage slightly uh working with Mr. Ravkin's office. Um
in terms of um in terms of the uh design exceptions for uh illumination, uh we're going to eliminate the over spill onto Bond Avenue. So, we'll eliminate that boundary that uh waiver request. Uh our maximum height fixture maximum height will be at uh maximum of
14 ft. And if uh if Mr. LaDeucey can can get it to work at 12 ft and and light the parking lots efficiently, uh we will do that. Uh our minimum level is a half foot candle, the average is a foot candle, and uh we're
not allowed to have a ratio of more than four to one. Uh again, we'll work with that uh with Mr. Ravkin's office and the uh five lights that are proposed, um, to to see how we how we work that balance. Again, the challenge is Mr. Lodigiani said is
getting to the middle of that of that parking lot. That's the challenge. So, again, by not having any spillage on the bond, maybe we can throw it towards our building a little bit more and get us the coverage in the middle of the lot that we that we need there. Um, off-street parking facility is
located should be located behind the front yard area. The size of a operable parking space and aisle really sets the dimensions. Um, you know, really the 9 by 18 and the 24-ft aisle is kind of standard. Your ordinance permits us to go a little smaller than that. We're happy to do
that if if it again helps our coverage. The challenge is really when you start reducing the dimensions, particularly the aisle width at 24 ft, we're all used to driving and and used to those dimensions. So, when they start to shrink, we start
to back into each other. Um, so we try not to do that as much as we can. Again, these are this is someplace where we can get down as small as we can because it is our parking lot. These are going to be 11 residents. They're going to park there every day and they're going to learn who parks
behind what and who has the big car and who has the little car and and and how it's all going to work. So, those dimensions are less important on a residential project, a small particularly a small residential project, than they are on a shopping center where you have all sorts of people coming in and out. So,
>> won't be assigned parking spaces. >> They will No, they will be assigned. >> They will be assigned. >> They will be assigned, yes. Um, so yeah, you'll will know we'll know where everybody's parking every night. That, you know, and again, the first the
first question is is going to be is somebody going to have a is somebody going to, you know, need need the ADA space. Second question will be regarding electric vehicle vehicle space, which goes hand in hand with the ADA space.
>> Could you just quickly tell me that is that required to have the ADA? Is that an absolute requirement? >> As I understand the the barrier free code, but I don't I don't know all of the exemptions to that. I mean Mr. Takina testified that there's a
provision that says if it's serving a building that's not accessible, you don't have to provide a space, but but I'm not familiar with that. >> Yeah, and I would say when the plans get reviewed by the construction office, they're going to determine whether it's required or not as well. So, you know,
we can depending on whether this is going to go to a vote tonight or if it's going to be carried or or or whatever. >> Mhm. >> We either have time to review that or we can adjust any resolution if there's an approval, we can adjust it so that it indicates that they shall comply with
what's required. >> Understood. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> And we can we can get that um we can get that it is the construction official actually is the ultimate arbiter. So, we'll get we'll get you that answer. We're happy to do that.
Um Uh >> [clears throat] >> again, uh we were seeking a waiver to be too big. Uh we're no longer going to seek the waiver to be too big. We'll be the right size in accordance with the ordinance. Um we do need the waiver for the driveway located uh closer than 20 ft
uh to the intersecting street. We're at about uh I guess 30 ft from the intersecting street. Um again, to meet the dimensions of the parking uh needing 18 ft on each side and 24 ft in the middle, that you kind of end up where
you end up. Uh again, we're only dealing with about uh about 65 or 70 ft total, so uh we're kind of limited uh in in terms of how we in terms of how we get there. Uh we do believe um that First Avenue was a better location for the entrance,
recognizing that it is a busier street. Um we think it's better to for us to be on the busier street than to impact the people on Bond. That's a little quieter street. Um also because First Avenue is so wide,
uh we are much much further away from our neighbor across First Avenue than we would be from our neighbor across Bond Street. So, again, we think it's better to have that activity on the busier street um and have that impact fall to
us as opposed to our neighbors on Bond. Again, [clears throat] they're just a little closer given the narrowness of Bond. Um we are going to increase uh the area of that parking of that planting bed. I don't think we're going to get all the way to 5 ft uh all the way around. We're
at about 2 and 1/2 ft and then we do reduce down to about a foot next to the uh next to our western building. Um and uh again, we think that um it's most important for us to have the
landscaping on the Bond Street frontage uh on the First Avenue frontage much more than it is to have it against our own building. Um I think that Mr. Scully's suggestion of having the walkway adjacent to our Bond Street building getting south of that is a is a great suggestion. Uh um
I'm a little miffed I didn't get that one myself. Um so, we're going to follow that one. Uh and then in terms of the design of the planting areas, um we thought the dune grass and and the dune fence was was a thematic thing uh that that Mr. Giglio had on there
with his with his landscape team. Um I we have no objection to Ms. Miller's uh suggestions for uh holly or inkberry or Texas, something that is evergreen that we can maintain at 4 and 1/2 ft. Um if the board says, "Hey, we'd like it
maintained at 5 feet or 6 feet." That's fine, too. We think, you know, four and a half the fence at four, a compliant fence at four, and then the landscaping a little bit taller than that is the right look. Uh, it's going to quote unquote hide the
car hide the You want to get above the hood level of the cars. Um, hide the headlights. Uh, we think that's the right accommodation on the corner. We really don't want to wall our wall it in with a, you know, a 15-ft arborvitae, you know, hedge.
Um, I think my client would do that to get the parking lot, but um, it's not the great look for It's not the greatest look for a corner for a corner property. Um, we think it's better to have a well-landscaped parking lot than it is to have a wall of hedge there, but we'll we'll
defer that to the board. Um, the shade trees are provided at the right rate. Um, we just uh, again, because of space considerations, we uh, we put them in the right-of-way on First Avenue. Again, the right-of-way on First Avenue is so wide
that it makes more sense to put it in the middle of that bed where it's going to grow than to slam it up against our parking lot. Um, likewise, against Bond, we can do the same thing. I think we can uh, pull it at least to straddle the property line. And um,
if we have to put a diamond or something in there to make sure we get make it fit we we we're happy to do that. Um, again, trying not to disrupt the hedge. I think it's really what we're looking for there. And there are already shade trees along the street frontages in the parkway between the curb and the
sidewalk. These are additional shade trees that are located on our side of the sidewalk, if you will. Uh, we're happy to make them fit in. Uh, the total landscape area of the parking lot has to be 10%. We're only at about 7%. I think by right-sizing the parking lot,
getting our walkway in and everything, we'll find that 115 sq ft. So, we're not going to seek that waiver either. Um and again, I think all the waivers that we're seeking are reason that the standard for a waiver is that it is within the board site plan purview, which all of these are.
That the request is reasonable and that compliance is somewhat of a hardship due to the physical conditions. So, by kind of splitting the difference on these shade trees, etc., that is a physical condition that is a hardship uh
in terms of where they fit. Um now again, we think having 11 spaces is the right size parking lot. If the board's going to tell us something else, then all the landscape issues kind of go away because uh you take away a parking space and all of
a sudden all the dimensions work. Um so, we're again, we're happy to to work with you on that as well. Um so, in terms of the variance relief that one of the things we need to talk about in terms of all of our variance relief are the the special reasons
or how do you advance the purposes of this zoning? I submit to you there are three uh G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses in accordance with their environmental requirements to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. This is the right location uh to provide the
needed decks on these open on these multi-family units and to provide parking to serve these multi-family units. Um we are doing it by meeting all the environmental requirements. We already have our soil erosion permit. We already have our county approval. We do not require cafra approval. Uh you are
literally the last stop uh in this train um to get us uh to implementation. Um I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design arrangement. The parking index are well designed and they'll be attractive. They will uh finish the site off, if you
will, on this prominent corner. We think additional landscaping at the right size and scale is certainly going to uh enhance that effect as well. Um again, the site with that open lot uh it it it looks like something's missing. Um
and the first answer is the Montauk is missing, but uh the next thing that's missing from that site is some parking. So, uh we think by providing it we're going to kind of present a better finished uh product to that corner, and uh it's it'll be a better project overall. And then finally uh M to encourage the
coordination of the various public and private procedures affecting land development with a view towards lessening the cost of that development and to the more efficient use of the land. Uh there's a myriad of requirements to get to this point uh to provide the improvements to the site. Uh fortunately or unfortunately in terms of
how you deal with completeness, etc., we got them all done ahead of time. So, we have our soil erosion permit, we have our county approval, uh CAFRA exemption, all those things. So, um it you know, there's a myriad of things. Uh what they do do by doing that is it provides the city some protection. That
yes, the storm water was was looked at. Uh we're not going to have any soil impacts, etc. Uh so, all that was handled ahead of time, and then you have Peter Raki, and so I don't have to worry about how you deal with storm water. There's nobody better in uh in Monmouth County. Um and we think that uh improving this uh
the site on this unfinished corner is the most efficient way to do it. Uh in terms of our C variances, again uh we think it's a C2 variance where the uh benefits of granting uh the relief outweighs any detriments. We think the benefits providing for 11
additional parking spaces here uh outweighs any detriment to the impervious coverage because we can accommodate the storm water management on site. Uh we think providing for the three decks and increasing our open space using those decks is a is a uh is
a good plan. Uh we think by shrinking the parking lot a little bit and providing a little more open space uh as the board has suggested, we think that only makes it a better plan. Um the existing development of the lot clearly size a lot of drives a lot of the variance. Um, the case of Land B Caldwell comes
into comes into play. Land B Caldwell was a case in up in North Caldwell, Caldwell Board of Adjustment, excuse me. Um, where the court found that an applicant is entitled to improvements that are of normal size and shape for their for their
for their utility. So, for example, we're entitled to a parking lot you can park a car in. Um, you know, that that type of thing. So, you wouldn't want to have a you know, seriously deficient drive aisles or parking space size, etc. Again, I think that your ordinance
actually gives us more flexibility even than RSI does. So, we will follow your ordinance and get it as small as we can to to comply as best we can. And then finally, with everything, we need um we need to provide for our negative
criteria. Again, are we having a substantial negative impact on the public good? Are we having a substantial impairment to the zone plan of the master plan? Again, this is not a noxious use. It is a small multi-family residence that was part of a larger complex. Adding the
parking will greatly reduce parking stress on the surrounding streets. We think adding those three those three balconies will increase the open space and enjoyment for our residents. In terms of we think by having appropriate landscaping, having lighting that does
not spill off the property, does not too bright, that we're going to manage any potential negative impacts. We certainly can devise a landscape plan that is going to make it look look the right way on that prominent corner. Um, in terms of Land Use Policy, Policy, the city's 2017 Master Plan
Reexamination Report re-states and expands upon the goals of its 2006 Master Plan. Um, the following provide policies aimed at maintaining or enhancing the character of the city's neighborhoods, um planning goals to protect and enhance the quality enjoyment of the city's
residential neighborhoods through policies and regulations that promotes quality of life and minimizes negative impacts from the city's tourism, other economic development activities, uh maintaining enhancing the character single-family neighborhoods with regulations that support and reinforce these uses,
and housing objectives that protect and preserve established residential character through zoning enforcement enforcement design guidelines, inspection of multi-family dwellings and rehabilitation where necessary. Uh in each instance, uh this was a uh a property that was uh that existed for
some time. It was in some level of disrepair. It has now been brought up to be a modern attractive apartment building. Uh by doing that, um everything has been stabilized. It looks much more attractive than it did. We think by providing additional parking on
that site with appropriate landscaping and buffering, appropriate lighting, we're going to have an improvement that's going to lessen the impact of that site on the overall neighborhood uh as as compared to what's there today. Uh again, we think by providing the parking as right-sized as the board may find it,
uh we think that's the best plan uh for finishing off that site. Um we think that uh but again, by providing the appropriate landscaping and not uh having an empty lot there, we think that is uh the best improvement uh for the
for that uh spot in this neighborhood. Um uh so, uh the best two words to hear from a planner in closing, uh we believe the three decks are any substantial improvement, uh and if you find that they're not, um that they are certainly well well
accommodated in any regard. Uh they don't uh they don't increase any variances in terms of uh coverage or any of those things, uh height, etc. Um they do help us uh increase the compliance with open space.
Um and the parking is a desirable improvement to the site and to the neighborhood and with the landscaping we'll finish that corner off very well. It is a better plan with decks and parking spaces than one without. The waivers that we're requesting are reasonable and within the board's site
plan review power and compliance is somewhat impractical given the small nature of the site and the necessary side of size of the parking. Um so accordingly I think the board has the ability to make the right right where where is it findings? Uh I'm available for your questions and most importantly I'm available to hear
your concerns. Because uh we want to make sure that we are addressing your concerns. Um I always you know I always I always have bring up this case it's called Pizzo Mantine. Um it's a case from uh
from Somerset County that went back and forth to the courts about five times. Um and what what the judge ultimately came down to is he said that the applicant is required to listen to the board. Cuz the board it knows best.
But the board is also required to tell the applicant what it wants and and to express those concerns cuz the applicant doesn't have to guess. Um and I like this board because you tell me what you think. And you and you've given me you've given us some some great suggestions.
Uh and and we'd like to make sure that we follow those suggestions and we we provide we make sure that we're providing an improvement uh that truly is an improvement to the property as well as an improvement to the neighborhood. Um and I know the board struggles you struggle with
uh you struggle with improvement particularly in single family neighborhoods um and it's a challenge. Um but again I think this is one where on par and on balance I think we're better off with right sized right designed parking
uh with the decks than we would be without. And I'm anxious to hear your comments and questions and, uh, come up with solutions, uh, to those questions. Thank you. >> Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Takena?
Board professionals. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> No. No questions. >> No? >> Only with regards to how the board feels they'd like to proceed. It's a difficult situation without seeing a plan drawing
with improvements that have even been recommended or discussed. >> I appreciate that, but we're not at that point, Mr. Avakian, so let us move to that area first, uh, and open it up to the public for Mr. Takena. Does anybody in the public have any
questions for Mr. Takena's testimony? Strictly questions for his testimony. >> My question is how is, uh, your plan going to benefit
the surrounding residents? >> Predominantly by providing additional onsite parking that is going to reduce the >> [clears throat and cough] >> on street parking that is currently occurring surrounding our site, freeing up that parking for our neighbors,
uh, residents and guests. Uh, additionally, I think having a finished site there, uh, with appropriate landscaping and lighting on that prominent corner um is a much better uh plan for that corner
uh than uh an empty grass field. >> Does a parking lot and at that particular spot fit in with what this neighborhood is supposed to
be? >> Um yes and no. Uh yes, it does in terms of uh the practical operations of um in terms of the practical operations of
a neighborhood. That neighborhood will function better with a parking lot there than it will with an empty lot. From a uh neighborhood standpoint, what wants to be there is another house. Um but that's
you know, we're not going to have 12 units on the site, so you know, but that's what that's what the site wants. The site wants a building there, but we're not going to get a building there, so the next best thing is a parking lot. >> How are they parking now? Where are your
residents parking now? >> Off-site. >> Off-site? Okay. Exactly where? >> I don't know. >> And what's the problem with that? >> It That's a good It's a good point. You know, again, I'm I'm thinking that you
know, there are I mean, well, first of all, our residents are telling us we'd like parking, and we get that, you know, we get that question every month with the with the rent check, you know, it's when's the parking lot coming? Um so we know our residents want the parking, so they're certainly somewhere.
Um but again, I think from a neighborhood from a from a neighborhood standpoint, uh particularly in a neighborhood that is more single, two, three, four family than multi-family, uh it's better you're better off having on-site parking.
Um it's not a while it's close to Main Street, we're close to Cookman, uh it's certainly a walkable neighborhood, um residents still have cars, and those cars are accommodated. We think they're best accommodated on-site. Um
and and that's, you know, >> Why should the residents be subjected to having to look at your parking lot because it accommodates
it accommodates you. Why should they have to give up aesthetics to look at asphalt? I don't find asphalt aesthetically
pleasing. >> Um uh >> Why should they have to do that? >> Um so >> they have to do that {question mark}? That's the question. First grade. >> Please let let he has the microphone. >> You have a you [clears throat] have a chance to get up and speak after him.
>> This is your second time. >> Is he done? >> That's your question. >> Yeah, what's your question? I'm very cognizant of not speaking over him. >> I appreciate that. >> Um so again, every you know, I don't think anyone finds asphalt attractive.
Um I do think that people find, you know, attractively landscape sites attractive. Um so I think we can strike a balance with a compliant fence with the 4 and 1/2 or 5-ft hedge,
uh, evergreen hedge, uh, the appropriate shade trees, and minimize, you know, any perceived, uh, visual impact of a parking lot. Um, again, I think it's about I I think it's a balance, and
um, hearing and reading about, quote unquote, the parking problems of Asbury Park on a weekly, monthly basis, um, you know, I can't imagine that it's not a better plan having the
parking on site. Uh, now again, if if we want to right-size that and balance it with the open space, we're happy to do that. Um, but again, that's part of you suggesting at what you think and us
listening and being able to respond. Um, but I think the aesthetics of it, we can manage. We can put a pretty hedge around it, have the right fence, have the right shade trees, have the right lighting, and it'll there there will be nothing untoward
about it. >> So, how one more question. How long have you been in control of this property? When did you finish, uh, the construction? >> 24.
>> In 24? >> Well, late 24, early 25. >> And your tenants have been parking there, and your units have been rented out without that parking lot.
So, what What have you taken into consideration as far as the neighbors are concerned? Have you had any input [clears throat] from them other than myself? >> No.
We have designed the site as sensitively as we could. We thought locating the driveway on First had the least impact on our neighbors. And again, we're pretty sure there's 8 9 10 11 people parking around the neighborhood
now that I'm sure the people who have those 8 9 or 10 people that are parking in front of their house right now would be very happy to have them not parking in front of their house right now. Um But again, that's that's our perspective.
>> Thank you, Mr. Richard. Anyone else in the public for Mr. Takena? >> Thank you. >> Can we just do a follow-up? >> Sure. Please. >> Um so, you just alluded to 8 9 10. Do you happen to know how many of the
current residents actually have cars? >> No. >> I suspect all >> No, I'm the owner, but I'm not allowed to talk about that because I have to be sworn in. >> You would to talk. >> Yeah, you would. >> Yeah, but he's talking to his attorney right now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, so we we believe all of them. We
believe all. >> But we don't know. >> We don't know for certain. We can find that out as well, but we believe all of them. We Let's put it this way. We believe all 11 or 12 spaces would be fully subscribed. >> Will you charge extra rent for the parking spots?
>> Yes. Parking is not free. So, [clears throat] I guess uh >> Do you want to have the owner >> I I I >> ask him some questions or >> Sure. I think that might be helpful for us right now. >> [clears throat and cough] >> So,
>> Would you like to come up here? >> Please. Yeah. >> Do you swear or affirm? >> You do. You swear or affirm that you the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And if you can state your name and spell your name for the record, please. >> Ron Rudolph. R O N R U D O L P H.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for being here tonight, everyone. >> It's a late night. >> So, I I I understand, Mr. Rudolph, you've owned this property for about a year. >> No. I've owned the property for about 6 years now. >> 6 years.
>> I took it over when it was initially an 11-apartment building. It was in a very run-down condition. >> Mhm. >> Um in in a really problematic area of the neighborhood. And I thought it would be
a great opportunity to revitalize this portion of the neighborhood and restore the building and the apartments. And that's what we've done. Um As far as the you know, as far as landscape versus parking, I >> Was was the Victorian always part of
this other building that's on this site? >> so I don't >> How did that come to be? >> I handed out, but initially on the corner was the Montauk Hotel, which was a very large massing of building. Um I wish it was there. I would have restored it. >> Uh-huh.
>> Um the house next door was traditionally, I believe, the owner of the hotel and the back building was overflow uh for the hotel. So, this these buildings surrounded what was the hotel facing on the Montauk Hotel uh on Bond and First
>> Which was demolished at some point. >> It was demolished, I think, about 20 or so years ago, but maybe year 2000-ish uh by the owner that I purchased the property from. >> Okay. >> Uh so, that's the building a little bit of the history. So, there was a lot >> a rental property ever since. Is that correct?
>> a rental property and I took it over as a rental property. Um but, it was in really um a state of disrepair. And I think that we've really changed the um aesthetic and and improved the area of the neighborhood. Um
as far as the open space, I'm personally quite conflicted with the open space because I like open space. Um we're getting regular um requests from the tenants that they can't find parking and that they're parking very far away
and um quite agitated about that as most people get to be in Asbury Park because there is a parking issue. Um I'm not necessarily proponent of parking lots um but, in this particular instance, there is a 11-unit apartment building
and there's frequently nowhere for the people to park. They're parking blocks and blocks away and this would really relieve or in front of the neighbors and this would relieve that condition and that's really why [snorts] we're here today. Additionally, the um three
[clears throat] decks that are on ground level um would add a little bit of uh I guess a give back to some of the tenants to have a little bit of open space. Uh there is another unit that does have uh
uh an open space for them but that and then there is a side space on Bond Street that the other tenants have access to like a little grassy open space area that we've had have a little fence around and have landscaped and put irrigation system in.
So I think that's been a really benefit and I've seen people out there and they use it. So there is a open space green space on Bond Street side that will continue to be that way. So I'll be available to answer any questions that you have.
>> So just to clarify when you took it over that those two buildings existed and there were already living apartments. >> Everything exactly the number of apartments everything existed exactly the way it was. We just restored the building property. >> When you say you're going to give back
the deck open space to your tenants >> Now the tenants you know the apartments are small. >> Sorry if I could complete my question that would be great. It's okay. You said you're going to give back to the tenants that space does that mean that you're not going to increase the rent on those particular units with the new decks? >> No I didn't intend to no. It was really
that I thought it would be a really nice thing for them to have a little bit of open space and accommodation for them. Right now there's sliding doors with like a uh well you can see from the photo like a railing across. >> [clears throat]
>> But you understand that's not for all your tenants correct? It it's >> No it's it's their free of it's free >> And the other tenants will be looking at the parking lot. Right? >> Yeah and tenants have been like reaching out to the property management
company on a regular about when is the parking going to happen but when is this going to take place? We can't find parking this is a big problem. >> Were they told there's going to be parking? >> We have we've said that they have they've asked yeah. We've said that
we're going to try to put a parking lot in here to >> [cough and clears throat] >> accommodate for tenants. I mean, that would be the thing and my understanding is that there is a pretty large parking problem in Asbury Park. So, this I thought would be a bit of an
accommodation to get 11, let's say ostensibly 11 cars off the streets. >> How would you feel about a compromise? >> In In what sense? >> of number of lot of spots versus open space. >> Um what is, you know, what is in your
thoughts? >> I'm just wondering if we If you don't do a spot for every tenant, >> Yeah. >> does that cause you a bigger headache than having a spot for every tenant? >> I mean, if you lived in a an apartment building and how do you How do you do that? Like, you know, that's why we came
up with that number. It's also as much as we could probably fit on on the space. >> I don't know if you have a >> is to provide one for each unit. I mean, you know, how do you tell like one apartment you're not getting parking or >> If you have a handicap space and then a
handicap person might end up in that situation anyways. >> Yeah, I I kind of realized that this evening as well. That's going to be something we'll have to deal with. But it's better to I mean, but you you guys will ultimately decide, but it's better to get 10 spaces off of
the street and on the on street parking as as opposed to on the streets. That's my thought about it. And we're going to try to make it as um beneficial and also, you know, nice with landscaping and trees and bushes.
>> One of the things you may not realize, Mr. Rudolph, is our properties here in Asbury, we generally put the parking in the back of of somebody's home. And we work painstakingly so that the
garages are set back further according to our ordinances and and we don't want the cars to appear in the front of people's homes. And this is contradictory to that whole concept for
us. >> Chris, I have to disagree with you on that. If you look at a lot of the apartment >> [clears throat] >> the the the um the parking areas are visible. They're on the sides. They're
not They're rarely in the back of of the spaces. And we just don't have any more space. You know, the houses the old houses that exist that had room to have garages in the back is one thing, but it's just not It's just not generally
available. We just heard an application that had a driveway at all. And there is most houses on that block on Pine lack space for driveways. So, I think that some of the a lot of the older, larger
properties may have that characteristic, but uh I don't I really disagree that it's not a fact. It's just not a fact. >> Um I I'm going to disagree with you. >> Thank you, Donna. >> No, but I cuz we were looking We've been
looking at the aerial tonight and between like Asbury and Fourth between Grand and Main Street >> Oops, sorry. >> Um the only parking lots that occur in front yards are with the churches.
And the multi-families um are generally in the back. Some have some parking on the side of the drive aisle going along the side of the building, but there aren't that many in in this >> I wasn't talking about that specific area, but I could talk about on Grand.
There's the as my Grand, there's the um the um the building >> But the Grand Avenue is a different type of neighborhood. That's what we're That's what we're saying. >> We're talking We're talking a single family neighborhood. >> Okay, but what we But what we were talking about in this neighborhood is an
extremely dense neighborhood where the parking is scarce. >> If I may, there's an exact replica of what we're trying to accomplish just down the street on Bond
Street. I think it's 507 Bond. Is that the address? That's exactly the same. It's on the corner >> Which also required an expenditure of non-conforming use variance to get 507 Bond. Do you remember that one? >> Yes, I mean it's like I think a block or two away.
>> What about Bond and Bond and Summerfield? Um there's a parking lots in the front >> There are so there are so many examples. We're We're also supposed to look at this property by itself and not look at other applications. So if we can if we
can stick to this that's fine. >> Then let's not talk about where parking is in the back of >> Part of this application is to look at the neighborhood. >> No, I was talking about the ordinance zoning. That's a difference. >> Um so I'm not sure where to go at this point though. Um you know, there's the board is a little
bit conflicted. If I may >> May I ask is there going to be time for public comment? I came here for this hearing. >> There will be. Yes, of course there will be time for public comment. Well, I don't know if we'll get that to tonight though. >> Well, that's what I came here for tonight. So you want to back me up
Can we have a little time for public comment at least for what we have heard? >> It may not be done tonight. >> If I may ask if it's I don't know if appropriate, um, what are your thoughts on on the decks for the for the building? >> So, I think the decks and and
your planner is a subject matter expert, I I'm not, but I I think the decks there's a case I think it's it's it's Leanne Atlantic Highlands or or Highlands that said that any expansion in the square footage is an enlargement and an intensification
of a non-conforming use. Which this would be. So, I don't know I don't know how you get around that. As far as the parking lot goes there's been a lot of discussion here tonight
about reducing it um, changing adding the part the uh, I think the walkway. Me personally, I'm not speaking for the board, I would like to see that. I think it would be helpful for me to make a decision on this. And without that, I'm just relying on
the conversation that we've had in the discussion. >> I think Guy would agree with what my colleague said. It would help be helpful somewhat, but what you know, we're not certain of where we where you're going to take this yet, so.
>> Okay. Um, could you clarify meaning the your position on the decks versus the parking? >> So, maybe I'm trying to >> They're kind of two topics. >> So, my my position on the decks is that it would it it based on that case and again your your planner is more the subject matter expert. Uh,
I believe the holding in that case was that the applicant was increasing the square footage of a non-conforming use. And the the the court said that was an enlargement and an intensification. And therefore not proper. And the board struck it down, I believe. Correct me if I'm
wrong, Jeff. >> So so I I I think what the answer is that the application does require a D2 variance. >> Isn't that what you're asking for? >> That is what you're asking for. Yeah, yeah. So what what Mr. Taquina indicated was perhaps you can look at this as a de
minimus expansion that doesn't rise to the level of a D2 variance. What Mr. Scully is saying is in his opinion it does rise to the the level of D2 variance. And the distinguishing thing there is you would need five affirmative yes votes in order
to uh get an approval for that. If the board decided that it was not a D2 variance, then we're only dealing with C variances and you would need a simple majority [clears throat] of whoever's sitting on the board at the time of the deliberation. So that's the real difference. I think that's what Mr.
Scully that's what you're saying is that in your opinion it's a D2 variance, not just simply a C. >> You said it more articulately. >> Okay. >> Thank [laughter] you for saying. >> Sure. >> But are you looking to gauge the board the board's feeling about whether they prefer the decks? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, okay. >> Yeah, that's a different question. So >> [laughter] >> That's maybe Yeah. So we land something to rest [clears throat] you don't want parking off you know, off street parking. I'm not here with you know, uh
I'm trying to do what's best for the community and what I think what I ostensibly maybe misunderstood or thought that there was a real parking problem in Asbury Park and that I thought I was going to come here and be applauded by trying to create off street
parking. Um not to be humorous or funny about it, but I thought that that's kind of how it was going to go down where it'd be like wow, this is a really great opportunity to do so. You're not increasing the density, you're actually pulling streets off cars off the street. Thank you.
>> Well, I think he this is kind of a different uh you know outcome. So >> We understand you're thinking of your particular property, Mr. Rudolph. We're thinking of the entire neighborhood. >> Same. Yeah, I I think that all the neighbors have probably been impacted by the fact
that you have 11 apartments and there's they're parking on the street where there's a lot of homes that don't have driveways and they don't have garages and they don't they're parking on the street as well. And the tenants from the notes and letters that we have gotten
have really been complaining about not being able to find parking and it being an issue in the neighborhood. >> So so I think what I'm hearing from the board is that there's a start here. There's a start in the discussion that that you've had this
evening and and and there's probably more that you have to look at of what you can do to mitigate some of the impacts on the neighbors with the discussion as well as accommodate what you're proposing to do on your property.
The board really can't tell you what that is. Is it 12 spaces? Is it eight spaces? We really can't tell you that. But I think you have to look at uh the plan, the overall plan, and take a look at what's going to mitigate some of the concerns that's brought out up by the
neighbors, uh some some of the concerns brought up by the board, as well as some of the concerns that is associated specifically with your property. Um but I don't think the board is at a at a position right now with the plan that's in front of them and this discussion to just say, "Okay,
we're going to accept this. You're going to do X, Y, and Z." We really the board really needs to see what that X, Y, and Z is as far as modifying the site. >> Yeah, it would be helpful to give some insight or some comments to as to what would be >> Well, it it's
I think what the board is saying some of the board members at least are saying is they need to see some more green space on the property. How much? We really It's hard for us to say. >> testified that he felt that much of the relief that's required for the parking
lot could be eliminated >> Right. A number of waivers could be eliminated. >> So, I don't know if that's really the case. You may still need one or two. Or, you know, maybe not as extensive. Um we can't We don't know that until we
see it. So, at least that's direction. >> Yeah. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> And certainly by reducing the size of the spaces, you're going to make some more green space. >> Yeah. >> To the extent of what you're going to be able to do to assist with the neighbors
and and the landscaping to protect them from headlights and noise and things like that, that's We can't give you that. We can give you the advice to move in that direction. How far, we can't really give you. >> Well, we'll go as far as necessary because I think that's really important. >> Mhm. >> Being part of the community and part of
the neighborhood and understanding the neighbors' concerns is important. So, whatever greenery, whatever trees we can put in to mitigate that, no issue with that. And I think that the decks really add a lot to the tenants' ability to enjoy
their space as well. Having a little bit of outside space uh that's raised off the ground, I so appreciate your time. >> So, with that >> Mr. Schirmer, is is it the plan to carry this application? >> The plan is to carry this application. >> So, here's my problem with that.
>> [laughter] >> I >> Can we get to ask him questions? >> Me? >> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. >> So, I'll open it up for Mr. Rudolph's testimony. >> Uh
Dan Schimmel, 615 Asbury Avenue. It's the guy I'm not in this project. I live on the northeast corner of Asbury and Bond Street. I'm also a member of the planning board. Isn't it true, sir, that you took a dilapidated property that was drug infested and you
did a wonderful job of improving it and improving the corner of First Avenue and Bond Street? I appreciate that. Also, I've never met him before. But yes, it was I mean When I said that it was it was pretty
much a derelict building. And isn't it also true I'll probably go home tonight and not be able to park on that block? That parking is incredibly bad on Bond Street between First and and and Asbury that we have the fire
department parking there. That we have people coming from Monroe Towers >> Mr. Shanahan. You're not asking a question. >> I am asking it because we used to talk about parking. Isn't parking extremely limited and that block is filled up every night. In fact, isn't it true that
there will be at least three to six work vans parked there at night overnight on Bond Street between that >> It's a very congested area. >> And isn't it true that providing parking for your tenants will alleviate
a very crowded parking on that street. >> I think that's a very true point and quite frankly, financially this is not a great decision for me. >> Isn't it also true >> Just be really frank about it. Like I would probably have to take 15 years if we charged anything for rent for parking
to recoup how much it's going to cost for the actual parking and what we're >> We appreciate the costs that are involved with that, Mr. Rudolph, but that's not what we consider here. >> No, I I understand that. >> And and isn't it also >> This is not like I'm going to This is not a financial >> Can I finish my question, sir? a
financial decision. Isn't it also true that it's impossible because of the site configuration that basically the two buildings that exist on the site now are L-shaped? >> Yes. >> And so the corner, which fronts on Bond,
which is the corner of Bond and First, that's the empty lot. You cannot put parking in back of your buildings. Isn't that true? Isn't that a configuration of the site that you have to consider? >> correct. >> That is the only place that you could put parking on the site. >> place.
>> Thank you. Please. >> I have one question to ask you. >> Yes. >> Well, first I want to preface it by saying yes, your buildings are nice. >> Thank you. >> Yes, they do add to the neighborhood.
Cuz I've been there, like I said, and maybe I was 29 or something like that. I don't know. When I bought that property. However, the issue here is that a parking lot
on that corner, you know, is a eyesore, unless you work miracles. It's a eyesore. And I and I know the person across the street, you know, with their bushes are so high. So,
they may not even know what's But anyway, um it direct it it has a impact on me directly. You know, because I'm right there on the corner. >> It's not a question. >> You're commenting.
>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> Please ask a question. >> Yeah, so what Yeah, the question [laughter] the question the question that I have is would you be happy with someone putting a parking lot
in front or in the side of your house, wherever however it's located? Would you be happy with that? >> Um You know, there's pluses and minuses to that and you ask a really hard question and you're quite frankly I'm torn with
that type of question, but the reality is is that there is nowhere for the people to park and Asbury Park in general in that particular area is very congested and the tenants >> My question to you >> Yeah.
>> is would you be happy with something like that going on? >> it's I think it's a plus and minus. Yeah. >> That's what I expected you to say. >> No, I don't think I don't think that's what you know, I live in an area >> Wherever you live, you would be happy.
Thank you. >> Anyone else for Mr. Rudolph? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rudolph. >> Thank you. >> Um I think we were at the point of deciding to carry, correct? >> That's the question of Mr. Seaman and his client.
>> Okay. >> Yes, we would like to >> Um >> [clears throat] >> so, the next meeting date is >> July 14th. >> July 14th. >> Bastille Day. >> Um do you know what you have on the calendar that night? >> Nothing. >> Nothing right now.
>> Okay. >> In fact, there's nothing the rest of the year. >> And how long do you both need to review any updated plans? >> Um well, so that's up to the board. >> That's I think three weeks, isn't it? I I I
If there's changes in plans, it was >> If you want us to write a report identifying the changes >> there's going to be something that's going to change, right? So, I would expect new reports. >> Okay. So, with planning board, that's 5 weeks.
We I don't think we established anything for zoning board in that instance. >> I I I think we're at three, aren't we, Donna? Or is that incorrect? >> That's for standard new applications commission. >> Okay. >> So, if we want to do three,
>> we're looking at the end of July. >> 7/28 >> Does that work in your schedules? That's uh the fourth Tuesday, and you would need plans by the 7th. Right? 21 days? Does that give you enough time, Mr.
Seemer? >> So, we have to have the reports in by the 20th. So, the 7th, yeah. 7 days at the latest. >> I would have it in. Plans by the 21st. Wednesday. 21st No, you I'm sorry. >> The 28th is the fourth Tuesday
Tuesday. >> But you said the plans have to be in by the 7th. >> The 7th. We can look to August if you want to give yourselves more time. >> I'd rather do it this year. >> We can August is is not that far. >> I'm sorry.
>> Time flies when you're having fun. >> August 11th, which would mean then >> August 11th? >> August 11th, July. That's not here. >> [clears throat] >> August 11th
When's the has the date >> 21st >> Can we not do this on July 28th? I mean, can we August 20th? Okay, what's the issue with that? I think the question is >> We only have one meeting in August. It's on the 11th.
>> Did you mean July 28th? >> Yeah. >> Does that not give us 2 weeks 2 weeks to get hands on the data? >> Yes. >> We're going to file the plans in August. >> Uh no. Okay.
I don't know if I can make it. >> In August? >> Yeah. I I think I'm already booked somewhere else in >> Um >> 2 weeks is not enough time for that in your opinion? >> I I think very tight. That would be safe.
>> Okay. Okay, whatever. I want to see how this is getting done this year. >> [snorts] >> So, I don't mean to be funny, but even if we had approved it tonight >> Yeah. >> you still have to go through resolution compliance.
>> That's why I'm saying it's, you know, like >> There would you're not making it by the end of the year anyway. The process of conforming the plans to the resolution and then developing construction plans for a permit you would really be hard to achieve
a completion and getting a permit by December. Welcome. Welcome to the process. Sorry. >> Okay. Um can we try Can we try to do it in 2 weeks? Is that >> [cough and clears throat] >> Uh, we can put you on the calendar for
July 28th. If you can't make the dates, then >> If you can't make the dates, we can carry you so there's no further notice. You know, we could we can certainly do that. >> Yeah, let's see if we can get it done and figure that out. If not, maybe we scrap the parking and we put three decks on the building and
make it landscaped. >> And yeah, that's your product. That's your product amends. >> Yeah. Okay. So, the next meeting is going to be right now, July 28th. There will be no further notice. The meeting will be here
and it starts at 7:00 p.m. Okay? >> I mean, I just want to say that I'm very interested in seeing a revised parking plan that speaks to what your planner testified to tonight. >> Sure. >> I'm kind of discouraged by parking.
>> So am I. No, I I agree. I agree. >> Well, I would applaud you for considering parking for the neighborhood. >> If that helps. There's such a huge parking problem instead of like saying, "Hey, this is a great idea." This has been met with a lot of resistance. >> So, some of us would really like to see just, you know, a revised parking plan.
Really, I think that everything that we've discussed tonight with the planner makes it attractive. Um, so I think it's worth a presentation. I do. >> Okay.
I appreciate that. Because like this is going to go back and be quite financially unfavorable to do this. If we're going to be just, you know, if you're just not wanting it, just say to I don't want it. But if you know, you're open to it, then that's
great. I'm willing to do it. Like I said, this is not a positive financial outcome from >> [clears throat and cough] >> my standpoint. >> I'm doing this because the tenants are saying we can't find parking. >> I can only speak for myself, not for the board, but I'm very interested in seeing a revised parking plan. That would be my
priority of interest versus a deck. >> Well, I can I can say that the decks are really important to the tenants for having outside space, and I want that to me, I think that's a priority. >> Well, I told you what mine was. >> Okay. >> Uh so, I'll make a motion to carry 700
1st Avenue to July 28th, 2026 without further notice. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Thank you. >> And I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Second. >> Nice to see everyone.