##VIDEO ID:Ii3L6In9D3Y## okay um welcome everyone today is Tuesday January 28th 2025 and this is the annual reorganization meeting of the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board of adjustment chairman avalone can you please call this meeting to order first I'd like to say welcome to another exciting New Year in the zoning board here in Asbury Park this meeting is being held 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 the municipal bulletin board and Municipal website all notices are on filed with the board secretary official official action may be taken on the following matters before this board I ask everyone with a cell phone to please mute it for the duration of this meeting and this meeting is being recorded by APV roll call please Marie Wendy glasman here Daniel Harris here John Hall here Russell Lewis Here Natalie pasarin here Jill Potter is absent this evening Tim slick here Vice chair Scully here chairman avalone here all right we have some housekeeping issues uh I'm assuming all the appointments and reappointments were all signed off on Mr Ser yes the reappointments for the the resolution from city council okay yeah what about no he's asking if it was F it was okay yes yes okay so now I need a I'll back to secretary I take word glad to hear and so now I need a motion for temporary chairperson I'm move for okay for Mr avalone second any discussion call please thank you Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes all right I'll make a motion a temporary board attorne attorney Jack Sero pardon me for for the interruption do the board secretary next you should really have a chair secretary first okay I'll make a motion for the temporary board secretary as Marie rodri yes I'll second any discussion roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Jill Tim slick yes and vice chair John Scully yes and chairman Abalone yes and I make a motion for the temporary board attorney Jack serico second discussion hearing none roll call Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes and chairman avalone yes okay all right so now we move on to the nominations and appointments for 2025 offices I need a nomination for chairperson I nominate uh Chris havalon for chairperson I'll second any discussion roll call please who seconded sorry I did gotcha okay um Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair John Scully yes okay and I'll make a motion for John Scully as Vice chairperson I'll second discussion I'd like to make another motion yeah oh well you want to do it that way do a whole round uh well we could we well we want to have a why don't you make a motion as well I would like to propose Dan Harris as Vice chair do we have a second I'll second myself no no no no don't second yourself I'll second Okay so we've got uh two candidates any discussion for E well which one are we going to vote for first I is the first person let's have a vote you got two candidates running for the position uh when you vote say who you voted for and that'll tell me who wins Russ you're looking at me like I'm no I'm on the other side of the rainbow almost I turned 75 Christmas day but I'm not well there was a wicked movie okay so yeah that when you vote please say who you're voting for there are two nominees and the uh majority uh of the votes will be the vice chair doesn't Jack doesn't doesn't there need to be a second for both motions no let's do that again Dan Harris but you said not not the vote is no I didn't see okay cool I'm sorry John Hall the new member sorry I apologize he seconded the motion was quiet okay and if there's no further discussion we'll have the vote and when you when you're called upon please say who you're voting for okay okay so when called upon let us know if you're voting for Dan Harris or John Scully correct Wendy Glassman Dan Harris Daniel har Dan Harris Dan Harris yeah all right I guess in this case John Hall Dan Harris Russell Lewis John Scully Natalie pasini John Scully Tim slick John Scully chairman avalone John Scully four to three John Scully did we ask John was he you can vote because Dan to vote vot allow vot I will vote for myself you vote for yourself okay so we got five in favor of John three in favor of Dan John is the vice chair Vice chair got it all right I make a motion for board secretary Marie Rodriguez a second any discussion being none please call the role Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes I make a motion for Jack Sero as board attorney second discussion hearing n r callot please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes thank you I make a motion for conflict attorney the beakman law firm I'll second any discussion hearing none roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes I make a motion for board planner CL Clark Kon and hints CC second second by John sculling any discussion none roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice CH Scully yes chairman avalone yes thank you you're welcome I make a motion for conflict bard board planner tnm Associates second discussion Hear n roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalani yes I make a motion for board engineer avakian second discussion hearing none roll call please Wendy glasman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall Russell Lewis Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes thank you all you're welcome jary and I make a motion for conflict board engineer tnm Associates second discussion hearing none vo call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes and I make a motion for the board Rec recording Services as APV second discussion hearing none roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Natalie pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair scolly yes chairman avalone yes now we move on to making a motion for the 2025 zoning board official newspapers I make a motion for the coaster and the Asbury Park second discussion hearing none roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis Natalie pasini yes Tim slick Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes so a quick discussion we had to have one change for our meeting schedule this year due to a primary election in June we had to move from June 10th to June 17th does anyone have a major issue with that hearing none I will make a motion to adopt the 2025 zoning board meeting schedule with the uh Amendment the with the amendment for June move that from the 10th to the 17th exactly okay second discussion none roll call please Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes John Hall yes Russell Lewis yes Al pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes all right we finally get to an application Mr Paris 301 8th Avenue Unit three I will announce that I'm recusing myself from this application and turn it over to Mr Skelly Mr chairman I um review the notices uh in good form we have JIS thank you ja good night everybody good night inject this is an application for an interpretation correct yes yes before we get started if I may um has everyone read the report of CCH yes it lays it out chapter and verse quite nicely I couldn't do a better job myself Don's not an attorney did a good job um understand that this is not an appeal it's purely an interpretation and what you're going to be asked to do the appeal uh there's no appeal from the zoning officers de in this casee if there is a zoning officer's decision which I believe there is stands the [Music] uh what you have to do is take what is proposed connect those facts strictly in accordance with the reading of the ordinance and decide based on the criteria that's in Donna's report which I can also read from CS if necessary whether or not uh the facts fit within uh the ordinance if they do there's no variances required design exceptions Etc possibly okay and if they don't then you decide what the variances are that are going to be required and so on there is no application on for variances this evening correct it's it's bated so you're not hearing is a variance application it's just a Judicial you're you're sitting in aide judicial capacity of deciding the facts to the law whether or not it is or it is not an extension of non-conforming use whether it's use D2 use or buls Andor design exceptions it's pretty straightforward rather concise and we try not to get you lost in the Leeds sounds good thanks Jack okay Mr Caris Mr Caris thank you if I may Andrew Carris behalf of Karen May and Sh neon as indicated the property that we're talking about is 3018 Avenue Unit 3 here in Hasbury Park block 4301 lot 6.03 located within the R2 Zone the history as to this property is obviously relevant um to a determination of whether or not what is being proposed to add a railing and new decking to a roof deck is a an expansion of a non-conforming use when we look at the history of what happened with this property back in 2002 a certificate of zoning compliance was issued and this wased uh pursuant to an oppr request um from the city it's within the city's files reflecting that the seven family uh house where it's actually two separate houses there's a front house and then a cottage in the back seven family multi-unit uh structure is a valid non-conforming un that was issued in July of 2022 sorry July I found my resolution from way back just before I got you want a copy of it you can have it it's that's exactly exactly goes along with that you can add it in if you there all right so what I'm going to do it's not signed because I don't get signed resolutions all right I'm going to Mark then the zoning resolution um at declaring the nonon performing status of this property we're going to mark that as A1 we going to Mark as A2 the certificate of non-compliance from July of 2002 this where it gets to the important part subsequent to that again documents that were received in response to an OP request the zoning permit application had been made to the city was proposed construction was the alteration indicated build deck and deck and railing that's dated May 23rd 2005 relative to this property going to mark that as a three for identification these are with the documents that I had provided and submitted with the application significantly following the submission of that zoning permit application June 20th 2005 zoning officer issued a zoning permit where this property reflects the application date of May 23rd 2005 which conforms with the DAT of zoning application that we marked as 8th grade and following construction is proposed build deck and rails at the rooftop it was approved consequently back in 2005 it was determined by the zoning Department that the rooftop deck was a rooftop deck it approved it what is significant is that in 2004 a year before a master deed had been filed granted that's not something that the municipality would never had but it is a public document when we look at the master deed there two portions that are relevant to the master D filed at the county of mm it ref flects this particular apartment apartment number three it has on there is indicated in the master de that there is the Outdoor rooftop deck measuring 550 Square ft and a door going to that deck so filed with the county is a master deed reflecting this deck and a door leading to that de it also reflects in the master deed that units three and seven have roof rights so significantly it reflects the usage of that that outdoor deck in addition to these documents that were submitted what I'm going to do is I'm going to Mark as a for identification the zoning permit A5 is Master deed Mr Caris why while you that sure so can you explain the the the relevance to to the zoning laws that the master deed what the relevance is there I'm sorry what's the relevance I I understand the master deed and and it's giving roof rights to to this unit unit 7 what I what I I'd like to hear from you is is how is that relevant to the zoning the door the fact that there is a door leading to the deck all right shows that it was a deck and it was it was a deck back then it has not been abandoned because what I was going to get to next is at age6 a photograph showing the existing door Still Remains going out to that rooftop deck so the use consistent with the permit that had been issued back in 2005 has not changed so the permit that was issued in 2005 shows the approval of this Dex as a non-conforming use the fact that that door remains today reflects that that has not been abandoned that that use relative to the utilization of that deck remains today consistent with what was done back in 2005 so there's been no abandonment so there is a determination back in 2005 that this was a rooftop deck what is being proposed is simply to add new decking and a railing on that rooftop deck consistent with what had previously been the history of this rooftop that has not changed could you I'm sorry working that's okay can you read to me where in what permits are approvals it says rooftop deck specifically because I don't see when I look at the master Deed on page four it refers to rights to the area of the roof adjacent to the units but it doesn't refer to a roof deck it a unit three on there and we look at A4 it says proposed what are you looking I'm sorry let me finish says on A4 it says build deck and ruling and and rail at rooftop so the zoning permit that was issued in 2005 reflect that keep it in mind that when you sayate the roof right it says in the master deed page four units 3 and seven this is unit three shall have roof rights to the area of the roof adjacent to their units what you're looking at in this photograph is exactly that that's the only none of those but that's let me just make sure we get a clear record so the only deck we have adjacent to this unit is what's outlined in that photo the roof deck which is consistent with what was issued and reflected in the zoning permit from June of 2005 no I don't understand how you reached that okay what try may I sure you're not under please raise your right hand Sil swear affirm testimony confused truth all truth I do record board Donna Miller board planner you are but um I am familiar with the administration of the zoning office having worked in it myself full time as a city employee once and multiple times as a consultant when City with short staff you've shown us a zoning Perman application that says build deck and rail but no other supporting documentation of the plans that show the location of this deck and rail do you have that no I have the permit that shows it doesn't tell me where this de we got we can't interrupt what it does show the zoning permit from June 20th of 2005 build a deck can I can I please finish no what we have from June 20th of 2005 is a zoning permit it reflects the application date which is consistent with A3 the application that was fought and it has on there for this property all right build deck and rail at rooftop there's only one rooftop adjacent to unit three there is no other rooftop so that's why I have H6 the photograph to show the property and what you're looking at is a flat rooftop which is on top of the front porch and you have a door leading to it so what you're looking at build deck and rail at the rooftop the only place for that where you could have it on this property is what is outlined in age6 above the porch there is no other place and when you look at the history of the property this person is in the owner the former owner of this particular unit and I can have testimony to that sure there's nothing in that application that says It's associated with unitri there are no plans that indicate the location if it's associated with the other building on the lot there is roof that a deck could go on where's that on the 1703 building that's got a flat roof that's right that's 1703 and when you look at the history of the property as let me finish as set forth from the Oprah request they distinguished between the back cottage which is 1703 wet and this front portion which is 3018 so they distinguish between the two you have documents that show the difference between the the addresses from the city if you there's plenty of documentation within the file the O file that I received that distinguish be between the two the one that's on the back Cottage is reflected in those documents at 1703 and the one in the front is a 3018 Avenue they have two different addresses okay so and the city uses the two different addresses associated with those those buildings just want to make sure we're all clear on that okay um so then uh again um do you have anything that shows the door existed in 2005 yes that's why I gave the master D give us what that may be an a master D but that's not probative of whether or not are physically interested correct well I can have my clients testify I and there is a photograph within the file I apologize I can pull it up on my computer there was a photograph in the Oprah file that reflects it I can pull that up for okay that not withstanding um when you get a zoning permit from the city to do work when the work is done you get a certificate of zoning compliance that shows it was done in accordance with the permit nothing now the permit application is for the deck and the rails I don't see any rails ever being constructed was there a certificate of compliance I for the completion of the work I we have no knowledge if the work was done or not though that we don't know what we do know is that a permit was issued making a determination on it that it was allowed to done 2005 well they made it deter that they had it so they approved it as part of a non-conforming use let me see can I see that document which one the zoning permit that you that you Mr Harris where in the master deed is the door referred to I see a roof there's a but I don't see in a balcony but I don't see a door when we look at the picture I don't see the words that it doesn't have you look at symbols and the symbol for a door which we I think all recognize what a symbol for a door is and you can see that also in the interior when you read plans that arcing area is a door one page of the master you it's the diagram for apartment 3 second floor plan of main house so page of your it's not numbered but if you go to the diagrams it has on their apartment three can you show it to me because I sure Mr car oh sorry I'm sorry were showing yeah I'm going to pull up some the file that I got the you open so you can see address zoning the original the original zoning permit or zoning no from back in 2000 when chair s signed it has two addresses 3018 and 1703 web so we the city it is acknowledged that there are two buildings with two that is correct yes right there yeah that was done and it's I think it's in my resolution that we know and the application for the Deb was made at 301 okay and that was on May 2305 and they issued the permit to build deck and rails at rooftop so did they actually build it we can't say if they did or they didn't there anything there now does it exist now no that's why we're here because so it's not there hang did they exist when they bought the unit no okay that's what they're looking to do is do what it's consistent okay so again the city administration of the city the thing we do we issue permits and take applications if you don't build the thing in a year your permits inv valed no no no that's not true that's only for barrance that's actually incorrect if it's a variant year you get a variance you don't build within a year then you don't have the right to build that anymore but here it it was a deter if they issued a zoning okay stop talking let's not no it's pretty Jack to I'm asking is there an ordinance that determines the the L the life of of the property yes okay that's what's that's what's relevant of zoning permit not a construction permit yeah that's what's going to be relevant Mr Harris while Donna is looking that up sure so your argument is that it was not abandoned because the door was there that's correct although they never built it that zoning permit that was issued acknowledging that it's a permitted it was permitted then um and it was not considered then a violation of the ordinances was permitted that it remains permitted today but doesn't it undercut your argument that the decking and the railing weren't built I I understand you Shing about the door but you could also make the argument that it was abandoned because no theck wait let me finish the decking and the railing and it hasn't been used there's Cas for that purpose now when you look at Cas in terms of what is deemed in abandonment and the main case we look at goes back years ago having to do with a horse a horse that's that's an existing structure binsky that's correct yeah that's an existing to but it had to do with whether or not a non-conforming right but in this Cas this is a separate issue you asked the question of whether or not the use was never built so yeah but what I get what you're saying you're saying that the fact that they issu a permit you still have the right to do it you have a flat roof you have a door that goes out there what they're looking simply to do is improve it by putting railings and make it safe and put new decking on there it's a flat roof it has a door so the structure is there they're looking to do improvements on to make it safe we have to see the validity of that zoning permit at this point in time if if it's still valid so there are photographs from the Oprah request that show this as to the date of the photographs that I don't know but probably the earliest last time anything was done on here it looks like from 2012 Maybe but also if something had been completed wouldn't you have a SE would you they would have closed out [Applause] the okay inspection seems like they put the didn't do anything [Music] so Mr Caris while you're looking for that and and if my if I distract you please just I'll wait until your done I get distracted so so I understand what you're saying about the abandonment issue but the roof the flat roof has not been used as a deck in let's just say for argument say since 2005 not necessarily I mean it has a door have people gone out there I can have my clients testify whether or not they go out there prior to the their utilization of the deck I can't say we can't say if anybody actually utilized that door and went out there it's a functioning door it operates right nothing prevents people from utilizing it it's not blocked but how do you but how do you just how do you how do you argue against that you're not intensifying the the use by now putting up railings and decking with the sole purpose of people being out there because if it is a per if it's permitted it was deemed as a deck previously all right then obviously they didn't deem it back then as an expansion of a non-conforming use because they approved decking and railing back in 2005 by the issuance of the zoning permit I'm not aware of that expiring now the fact that the door remains and the flat roof Remains the fact they didn't build it does not mean it was abandoned it was never there to begin with it wasn't there to begin with but in terms of utilization of that flat roof and door as a deck and access to a deck you have to look at intent um you look the case on that but on what basis McDow versus Board of adjustment of wall 334 New Jersey super 201225 Health division case in 2000 there must be an intention to abandon the use it's a flat deck it's adorable I don't know I I go ahead finish it I don't agree with you go ahead I think I think we're talking app doesn't so to talk about case law but doesn't what is it a Belleville and I forget what the what's on the other side of the V but doesn't Belleville say something the effect of that if you're if you're intensifying the use or you're enhancing enhancing the use or enhancing the returns if right now there's no railing there's no decking so I understand that somebody can go out there but it can't be used because it's unsafe without a rally by putting up railing and d and decking you're you're enhancing the use and enhancing the return for the applicant which is not is not part of I I don't think by making something safe you intensification or intensify the use you make it safe by adding decking um if you have a patio on the back of a house um the house say it's a two family house and a one family Zone and you want you have a deck on the back all right you have an existing deck but you want to put a railing on it you want to put new flooring asack as opposed to whatever that's something that's there they've already got a seal for that right they've already got you're you're replacing the the the deck say but say you don't have a railing on that deck you have a back ptio you want to put a railing on does that constitute an intensification by making it safe and putting a railing or if the uh deck that's on there is rotted replacing it I don't think that's an intensification by making something safe this case because the use in of itself Still Remains the use of a deck remains enhancing safety I don't think changes that it has to and can't use a rooftop deck without a railing right and without without complying with the construction code exactly and that's where and that's where we were trying to and that's and they were given a permit to allow for it I would take the position that permit still stand it was is find out there permit shall expire after a period of 3 months unless a construction permit authorizing the same work has also been issued within the same 3mon period you have a construction permit I would have to look at what was enacted back then in 2005 to see if that applied back then that may apply now it would have applied in 2005 allow you to be above 3 ft off the ground without a railing that's been a universal let's site the ORD yeah what's your that's the construction code okay I don't have a citation for the construction code let's see what is it but the permit was for a around well where are you reading from oh I'm sorry this is 3045 uh2 C the municipal code uh Land Development regulations 30- 45.2 Zone inurance C 30 call 45- and that was enacted in 2000 so prior two years well the code was enacted in 2000 section of the code right I would have to take a look at that that's before 2002 but I would still take the position that the fact that it was determined back then was non an expansion but non-conforming use um based upon the issuance of that that it remains non an expansion a nonconform use but I would have to take a look at that se we don't even know what it looked like but but this ordinance says that that permit expired I would have to I got to take a look at that ordinance see what it says then Vari right because my understanding is ordinarily that's related to when variance relief is issued Vari the thing about a variance though is yes if it's a variance it's a year right 309 30-9 I think but it never went be the permit there was no resolution from the board not for that not for that correct just for the non conforming five to two correct okay I'm sorry would you repeat that question so the the the resolution that Jack was talking about was just a resolution saying that the property is not conforming it was not a resolution giving them a variance to build a it's just saying that it's it has been it has been non-conforming it still is non-conforming and will continue to be non-conforming Mr Caris do you happen to have the zoning officer or whoever in the zoning office that gave the zoning permit for this in 2005 is there a name attached to that yeah Mr Willis not surprised I mean again 2005 we had different rules I don't doubt that he do you know I me I also don't know what was presented to him to review because that's not right yeah don't have it that's on the permit in so Mr Caris do you want you want to take five minutes to review the the the construction yeah that's what I'm doing now I'm taking section all right why don't we take five minutes while you're doing that we'll come back um I make a motion motion second all in favor okay five minute break um Wendy Glassman here Daniel Harris here John Hall here Russell Lewis Here Natalie pasini here Tim slick here vice vice chair John Scully was recused and chairman uh I'm sorry Vice chair John Scully here and chairman avalone was recused so Mr Carris um you had an opportunity review but I think you may want to some additional documents yeah what I have I believe is a zoning file I don't know if there's a separate construction file um I would tend to think there is um and there were probably permits in that file I don't know if a permit was issued for this but I obviously based upon where conversation scale I think it's relevant to the determination okay so uh do you want to wish to carry this to carry this so we can get that information okay um what's our next available and we'll I I'll get an opener out probably tomorrow so maybe four weeks and do you think you'll need to adjust anything right because well if the per Z permit and the construction permit are power material you got to see the life of both of those documents and see if one expires what it does to another got we got to expl we got do a little research um would April be a good enough time for you March 25th um April 8th March 11th that's I can do April 8th I can do April 8 April 8th all right so we'll move this to April 8th without further notice without further notice so if anyone is in the audience not that you would be allowed to testify because this is not a zoning variance appliation this is strictly a legal interpretation of the facts so unless wouldn't wouldn't necessarily be a public comment if you were going to testify you have to testify we sign uh that being said it's going to be on April 8 at 700 p.m. here we will receive no further notice in mail so did anybody second and Andy you'll uh extend any time yes to make the decision under the ml okay okay I'll uh do a quick John you yeah I'm good you're good yeah okay everyone okay so uh Wendy glasman yes Daniel Harris carce not a problem yes yes okay uh John Hall Russell Lewis yes NY pasini yes Tim slick yes Vice chair scl yes I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting adjourn second second by Daniel um all in favor none opposed thank you for