Um, good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board of Adjustment. Chairman, can you please call this meeting to order? >> I'd be happy to. This meeting is being held in compliance with the open public
meetings act chapter 231 public law 1975. Adequate notice this 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 filed with the board secretary. Official
action may be taken on the following matters before this board. This meeting is being recorded by APV and I ask everyone with a cell phone to please mute it for the duration of this meeting. Roll call, please. Marie. >> Um, Wendy Glassman is absent this evening. Daniel Harris >> here.
>> Russell Lewis is absent this evening. Jill Potter >> here. >> Natalie Paserini >> here. >> JJ Hall >> here. >> Vice Chair Scully is absent this evening. And Chairman Avalone >> here. >> All right. Just a quick housekeeping issue. If anyone's here for 1130
Drummond, uh, it will not be heard tonight. And I make a motion to carry 1103 Drummond to October 14th without further notice. I'll second motion. Okay. Um, Daniel Harris, >> yes.
>> Jill Potter, >> yes. >> Natalie Pasarini, >> yes. >> JJ Hall, >> abstension. >> Okay. And then, uh, Chairman Avaloni, >> yes. All right. So, we have one application tonight. That is 610 Fth Avenue. Mr.
Yanosi, am I pronouncing that correctly? >> Uh, yeah. Yanosi. >> Yanice. I I apologize. >> So, please come up. >> Thank you. >> Me, too. >> And you are Mr. Wolf. >> I'm Mr. Wolf. Yeah. >> And that's Mr. Wolf. >> Applicants. Uh, architect.
>> Just get my I noticed the monitor is off. Can I just display? >> Do you want to plug in? >> No, not necessary. Go back. >> Mr. Beman, could you could you please uh swear? >> Swear to the man. >> If you can, just raise your right hand. Do you swear on the firm testimony of
youth that gives us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> You say your last name, please. Say your name, spelling your last, please. >> Robert Yiannisy. Y A N O S E Y. >> Then say Mr. Wolf. I swear I affirm the testimony about the gives the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do.
>> And again, Wolf W. >> Do you want me to also swear on board professionals? >> Please. >> Uh, do you swear about the gift of the truth? >> I do. >> Have to do it now. Okay, >> Don Miller, board planner. >> Jerry Fredo, board engineer.
>> Thank you. >> Excuse me. Before we go any further, I just realized I shouldn't have seconded that adjournment. I'm recused from that application. So, if we can redo it. >> Yeah. Yep. >> So, I make a motion to carry 1103
Drummond to October 14th without further notice for a second time. >> Second. >> Daniel Harris. Got it. >> Yes. >> Um, Daniel Harris. >> Yes. Somebody gonna >> seconded. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh Natalie Paserini. >> Yeah.
>> And chairman Christopher Avalone. >> Yes. >> Okay. Sorry, Mr. Wolf. >> Yes. Sorry. My bad. >> No, not at all. Um I have presented for the board before. Um so if my credentials are still acceptable, is that anything we need to go through? >> Can you just go through for the record purposes and then
>> Absolutely. Uh so I'm uh Jonathan Wolf from Jonathan Wolf Architecture and Design uh in West Allen Hurst, New Jersey. Um, I've been licensed for, uh, 10 or 11 years in New Jersey. Um, also licensed in New York and New Hampshire and some other states as well. Um, and
I've testified before numerous boards uh, in Mammoth County up and down the shore. >> Your credentials are accepted. Thank you for >> appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> So, if I may just sort of present what we're uh, proposing this evening. >> Yeah, Rob's here with me this evening. Um,
uh, and and Michelle's here as well, the owners. Um 610 Fth Avenue is a a narrow site uh on Fifth Avenue between Emery and Bond. Uh it's 22 ft wide by 150 ft deep. Um and we are proposing
um an expansion of the second floor um which would expand out over the existing first floor um at the same footprint. We do have uh we are proposing a slight candle lever of that condition which would uh increase the coverage slightly
but the footprint of the the primary uh structure won't change. It's it's the same with uh just the addition of um square footage on the second floor. Um the second part of the application um is the expansion of the existing garage uh
into an accessory dwelling unit um with the expansion of the second floor functioning as that as the ADU. Um we're up uh against a tricky lot here with its 22 foot width. Um there are sort of some
other challenges as well with the site. share a driveway with our neighbors um uh which presents quite a bit of uh imperous coverage um which are reflected in in uh our site plan analysis. I will
sort of call out that um yeah really our impervious coverage is only increased by by one 1% overall. um we are quite over uh the allowable 65 but but again only an increase of 1% um
with this proposal. So um fairly minor. Similarly, building coverage uh increases by a bit more from 36 to 42 um but you know certainly nothing that isn't sort of appropriate to the site. Um,
so yeah, we're 372 square ft um over the new garage. Um, so again, I think you know in scale and sort of character with that existing garage. I've included um in our application in
our in our submission to the board um some photos of the site. Um and I think sort of perhaps most telling um is this larger photo from the house that show sort of shows the rear condition. Um our existing one-story
garage and then some of uh our neighbors. We do have uh the neighbor with, you know, who shares our driveway is also at one story. You can see, you know, two doors down. We have what is almost significantly large back house
sort of accessory structure in the back. So we're we're you know it's it's >> and the blue one right behind it too. That's also >> Yeah. And the blue right that's not primary structure right it's also accessory right you also point out really yeah just sort of um a big caddy corner behind us this blue accessory
structure is a full two stories. Um so we feel that you know it it wouldn't stand out sort of as inappropriate amongst those other twotory accessory structures. That is sort of what we're what we're asking for. I'd be happy to um to kind
of go through the variances we're we're requesting. Um Miss Miller, may we have your report? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Um there's it's a lot there's a lot there. There's, you know, a number of impacts sort of from what we're proposing. >> Should we go through them briefly just so the board is
>> um please >> I don't want to take your time unnecessarily or anything, but but um >> well, to be honest, Mr. Wolf, I I find it somewhat excessive that how many barances you're asking for. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> It's a lot. >> It It really seems excessive.
>> Right. Right. Well, the scope, I think, is is is, you know, fairly modest in what we're proposing. I think it's sort of the nature of the site itself that's proving it very difficult to sort of uh to to do this without these multiple variances. Um, >> well,
>> but that's the whole catch, right? It's a narrow line with a with a big application. >> Yeah. >> Complicating it. >> Right. Right. So, we've discussed it and I didn't, you know, dissuade them from sort of their initial desire to to develop the site, you know, as they they
wanted to. And we tried to steer it in in a way that would be um appropriate. Um, so this is our, you know, our first presentation to you and, you know, um, >> I know I would appreciate you going through the variances, but I don't want to speak for the board, >> right?
>> Go for >> um, so I think yeah, um, probably the the biggest areas, you know, of that we're requesting relief from have to do with the sideyard conditions. Um it's
actually we're not changing the sideyard condition associated with the primary structure. It's just for the garage itself um which currently sits um closer than than is allowable to to the front uh to the side and rear um property
lines. Um we have exposed uh proposed rather an expansion of the garage uh uh footprint with a with an additional stair. Um, so that's, you know, now further encroaching on that side setback. >> The stairs would be located inside the
dwelling. >> They would be inside, but it would expand the footprint. So we we'd widen the garage in order to accommodate that interior stair. That's that's currently what we're proposing. >> Widen it. Widen it. How >> what's that? >> How would it be widened?
>> Um, we would add on to it. Add on to that existing, you know, for the width of the stair. >> But like >> if I'm looking at the garage, are you talking left or right side? I'm talking. Yeah. So, it would be um this left side closer to that side property line. Our
side property line is here on the site plan. Um it's it's this back sort of southeast corner. Um we are sort of you know you know a less you know uh forward
proposal might not propose that that expansion of the garage but um we felt that by keeping the stair out of the first floor of the garage it would allow us to you know not occupy >> I think the interior space of the garage is like 10 ft or something so we were thinking by having the stairs outside
we'd be able to keep the 10 ft of the uh like interior space but uh if we had to put the stairs inside obviously that would take away from uh the interior space, but of course, yeah, we run into the side issue. >> We're currently 7.5 from the side, so
it's currently compliant where seven from that side setback would be allowable. Um it's our rear setback of the garage, uh which is currently only 2.8. >> What would that do for the setback in the side? >> Yeah, there it needs to be five. They're only going to have four.
>> Oh, it's five, not seven. Did I Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. >> Um, don't I have that as a >> accessory structure? >> Yeah. >> But I believe right we are
>> the addition will be made to the east side of the garage reducing the setback to 4T. Five is required. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, right. So, we're encroaching by by foot and um and the current existing
rear encroachment wouldn't change, >> correct? >> Yeah. >> Except that you're you're lengthening that line of of where it's already too far. Just like with the house, >> this is, you know, one of those classic um you know, flexible seat variance
situations. The lot's there, the house is there, everything's already where it is. They can't do anything to change. you know where the house >> a lot of this is existing >> right and you know they can't they can't move the garage to make it more
conforming >> and they can't move the house to make it more conforming um >> but it's sort of exasperating the situation >> exasperated for the neighbors for the sighteline for someone >> and we want ADUs but we were kind of
hoping they'd be on the larger lots >> right >> and I get that um you know That's kind of a small house and >> and a small lot >> and a small lot and they want more living area and that's not unreasonable but yeah >> but I also have a problem with the cantal lever.
>> Yeah. >> It also means you know having >> the cantal lever doesn't make it >> designing again flexible C criteria who is it harming and is there a mitigating
uh condition that that can be um created. So, uh, you know, well, we've had these before. We've talked about doing things to reduce the storm water impact. You know, is there um, >> you're talking 90% impervious coverage,
too, which is which is excessive. >> Yeah, it's excessive. >> So, can you currently live there? >> Yes. Yes. >> And can you just describe the floor plan of the main house >> like inside >> the inside? >> Uh, sure. You walk in the front door uh from like a front porch uh and there's
the stairs going up to the second floor right there. And then to the right is what you know we use as the living room and then you're kind of right into uh like the kitchen area uh after that. And then uh past that there's like a little narrow hallway that goes past a uh full or 3/4 bathroom
I guess they call it. Uh and then straight uh at the end of that little narrow hallway is like a 10 by10 office. I forget the exact dimensions, but just like a well, I use as an office. I think it counts as a bedroom. >> Uh, and then on the second floor, uh, when you come up the stairs, uh, door on
the right is one bedroom. Uh, then you go a little bit further, uh, like a entryway to the right with a couple like, uh, closets right there. Goes right into the full bath. And then if you go back into the hallway, uh, at the end of the hallway is the, uh, second
bedroom that's upstairs. So, there's two bedrooms and a full bath upstairs. >> Yes. >> And then closets or whatnot. Is there an attic? >> Uh, like a one you can't stand in or anything, but Yes. >> How big is that second bedroom? I'm just looking at the plan and I I didn't think
there was a second bedroom up there. >> Uh, at the at the rear of the existing second bedroom. >> Yeah, >> it's probably about 12 by 14. The width is is 14. Yeah, a nice size. So, the proposed plan would add an additional bedroom at the rear of the
>> So, that'll be a third bedroom. >> I'm sorry. >> That'll be a third bedroom. >> Uh, >> third bedroom upstairs. >> Well, he's saying the downstairs is office. >> Yes, >> it will be
plus the office would be four. Yeah, I understand the accessory dwelling unit is now a permitted um prospect, but I'm having trouble with putting it on this site. I I really am >> because it's it's going to be difficult
to have all those cars. you're requiring a site plan to have three cars parked there, which is excessive. Um, for somebody who's sharing a driveway,
I I I have a hard time with this seems a little bit too much to me. I have to agree with the chairman that the addition of the ADU as well as the addition just makes this whole project very big on a small area
and it does seem excessive and the the shared driveway is very concerning since the ADU requires off- streetet parking >> and now you have all this maneuvering going on. So, I don't want to speak for the board, but you know, I I would
suggest maybe is there a reconfiguration of the application >> that maybe can put this round peg in a square hole? >> The the uh driveway. Uh we have had three cars on our side, but you know if we have like a guest or something like
that and everything fits and everybody >> So you're saying there could be more though because you're going to have an accessory dwelling unit which means there going to be more guests and potentially a a tenant >> a tenant. >> So that just seems like a lot, Mr. Yanessi. It just really seems like a
lot. >> Do you know if this like are you planning on doing like an income restriction that would wave the parking at all or not? >> Uh I I'm not sure I understand what that is. No, you can't talk about income. That's not allowed. JJ, >> well, I do want to ask in the context of
the ADU. >> No, he can ask. That's that's relevant. Is the ADU going to be an incomerestricted ADU? >> Oh, like uh >> affordable one. >> Oh. Uh we hadn't planned on anything like that. I don't I don't know. >> So then it wouldn't be.
>> Thank you. Um is it specifically the ADU aspect of it like rather than the uh the building itself? Like if we just had that bill, >> you can't take a partial vote on that, >> right? Like that would be revealing. Like I don't want to speak out of turn, but
>> you would have to make those decisions yourselves, right? >> Um we're just telling you that it seems excessive. Your application seems excessive for your site. >> Okay. >> Can we just in sort of the interest of sort of homing in on what we may come
back with, it seems that the garage and edu is sort of the most contentious part of it. Maybe that's the wrong word. Can we sort of pursue the house? >> Again, Mr. Wolf, we we we don't want to steer the applicant in any particular
direction. We're just saying that >> it's it's a little bit excessive. >> Okay. >> Actually, a lot excessive. >> A little more testimony. Um so the addition on the house >> Yes. Um, can you give us some information about
what's on the um on that side of of the building? >> Sure. Um, so would that be sort of on the east side? Um, >> I think if if it helps, I don't know if the scale comes across in the pictures, but the house is only 1300 ft. It's not like a big house that we're trying to
make like enormous or anything like that. We're just >> The can lever actually adds to that space, right? And just because it's a candle lever doesn't mean that it changes the calculations >> for area >> for for the total surface. >> Sure. Yeah.
>> So you understand that the candle lever made no difference. >> No. All it did was allow us to take advantage of the structure itself and which would support you know a canal lever for the second floor. really um it actually with the paving below it, it
didn't impact the coverage because we would be trading paved impervious surface for building uh coverage. >> Yeah, the lot has been pretty much entirely paved since before we bought it. Like it we bought it that way. It's just that's the 90% coverage. >> 90 is a big number,
>> right? I I meant as far as what is on that side of the house? So there's a how how much of a sideyard is there on that side? Um, so really there's the driveway side on the west side. The east side is it's a walkway at best. Yeah. Um, >> is that one of the photos in in your
display? >> You know what? I I do have one pointed in the direction. We do have This is the adjacent sideyard. Um, >> so is the house next door extend as far back as this house or does it stop?
>> Uh, yeah. I think they go a little bit further than we do. the house, not the porch though. >> Uh I think so. Uh I don't know if you have the overhead pictures or something, but um the two houses on either side of us are large multif family houses that are much bigger than our house. So they
pretty much in every dimension uh go further than our house. I don't if we have a photo. >> We have some photos that do show that, you know, the three bottom photos here do show that adjacent apartment house. >> It could be the porch that goes further from the house. I'm not sure. Yeah,
>> I think they have one. >> Oh, yeah. You can see the overhead on this page, whatever that is. Yeah. I'm not sure how much that is their building versus uh like a rear stairwell that they have on this
like you can see that they go. So, so what I'm getting at here is in order for the board to understand, you know, they've given you some general information about it being too much. So, I'm trying to help you out here with what's too much. And
generally, when we're talking about a sideyard setback issue, >> sometimes what's too much is is your encroachment into the sideyard setback obstructing light, air, and open space for your neighbor. So, where is your neighbor's building in relationship to
where you're now extending your sideyard setback? Um, sometimes um you know that's that's one of the considerations. Uh other times it's um you know it could be a shading effect. Um,
you know, the parting concern might be something that you need to demonstrate as, you know, with the turning movement diagram, you know, does is there adequate room for the three cars to actually pull and pull out >> and and as you mentioned, you could have
be have guests showing up with their cars as well. So, it becomes >> right. But he's only obligated to toodate. >> I understand. Yes. Yeah. >> Um and then uh you know the same thing with with the
buildings in the back it you know you're putting on an addition on that on that garage to accommodate the ADU and there are other buildings on your neighbor's properties. Are they is that addition um you know again affecting the light air and open space of those other people's
buildings. Are those are they just garages or are they occupied? um >> the the side that we're uh kind of growing toward for with the stairs. Uh I think that's just a garage that's right there if that helps. So, so again this is the type of more
detailed information that >> you know help that maybe again is part of that um understanding if it's a negative impact
as opposed to um you know just having a benefit to yourself by creating this um space and uh and additional income for your for your family. Um I'm just looking I mean so I'm looking
at the aerial photograph and the the two buildings on on either side of of his house are really huge. They really are. >> Right. Your your house is actually kind of dwarfed by >> Yeah, >> it really is. >> You know, it goes to the light arrow in
space argument. I mean and fight back. >> Yeah. Um I don't know if it helps, but like the extension onto the uh back of the house is just continuing the second floor we already have a little further. Like it's not like we're going to go higher than the sec. It's like kind of
like two floors in the front and then it drops to only one floor in the back. So we would just be building over the back part. That's one floor plus the I guess however many feet can deliver that John. But to the to the board's you know concerns um it is a lot on one you know
they still have to think within the the bounds of the property and it is a lot on one property. This is this is one of the the other things in R2 zone. Um this is actually a conforming size lot for a single family house. Um the minimum is
2500 square feet not 5,000. And this is a 30 3300 >> 3 square foot lot. It actually is more lot area than than the minimum. So, um you know, it's just one of those um
unique situations. >> I don't believe the city allows for pavers as an as a pvious uh condition. >> We they don't Yeah, I know in some municipalities we've been able to substitute asphalt for pavers and and gain quite a bit of coverage back. I
just thought I'd because we do have all this this driveway to consider as fall. >> The side that's not driveway is also concrete. Uh if somehow changing that to like dirt or grass or something like that helps address some of the >> we could remove some of the coverage that way.
>> Now I was going to bring that up. I guess this is the appropriate time. >> Sure. Go right ahead. >> There is excess impur coverage that could maybe be cut back. That's costly because you have to saw cut concrete.
>> Um, >> we don't know how thick it is. >> But almost that whole east side of your property. >> Yeah. >> From the corner of the house could be cut back >> even all the way back to the garage. Um, >> and that way
that's grass. That'll just help it out a little bit. It's not going to be enough to make a big difference. You're still going to need the variance, but that is something that could help. can't do anything on the other side, the west side, because they share the driveway with the neighbor. Uh, that's really all
that can be done on that end. But from what we see, where the cars are >> and where the neighbor parks, I tried to go there a few different times to kind of see what was going on. Um, you know, who goes who backs up. You must have to shuffle cards from time to time. Um, but
there is enough room for the cars um in in the depth like for the three cars to park alongside each other. The difficult issue, not difficult, but the the issue I'd be concerned with is backing out. Are they going to be able to get out when they want to? That's
something that if they're approved, they're going to have to work out with their neighbor on how they do that. I don't know how the neighbor parks as well, but I would think one of these three spots is going to go to whoever's gonna >> Yeah. >> Great community. >> I I don't know if um this helps at all,
but you know, they have a similar dimension uh parking area over here and they have three apartments in their building. So, like they managed to get all their cars in over there the same way, you know, we would have three over here. >> Yeah, I think it could work. I'm not I
just want the board to understand. Yeah, there's that concept right now. So, >> and what also helps the application in this case is there's no there aren't residences across the street, >> right? >> There's the legs there, >> right? >> They also pick up the parking on a curb
across the street, which helps their application. >> That's just a bonus for them. Um, and while I'm at it, if I could, if approved, uh, both the sidewalk and the walks and the curb are in very poor
condition, >> and I think it would be necessary to have those approved if the application gets approved. And I would just say um I know uh you know we're doing various streets at
different times that maybe they just you know make a contribution for their share and as the city goes through the process of doing the different uh sections that'll be into that fun doing themselves
whichever is >> I just want to clarify something. When you were talking about removing the concrete, >> would the cars then park on grass, turning it into a mud pit? >> This would be up against the other side of the property by the fence. >> Okay. So, we're not removing that.
>> When the cars turned, if you're looking at the site plan of the proposed, it's on the first sheet. It's the middle one. >> You see how they show the three cars in the back? >> Yeah. So at the head of the car, if they
just take off the concrete, that's concrete all the way to the fence. So if they saw cut that out, they can take all that concrete. >> So you're talking a long strip, not >> a long strip, but it's a helpful. It's actually helpful because the downspouts come down. They're directed away from
the house. Obviously, there's nowhere for them to go. Uh the ones on the west side are fine because they go to the driveway and the driveway. Well, we haven't even gotten to storm water yet. We're we're we're way >> we're still in way too far from that. >> I'm on a roll here.
>> Take your time, Jerry, but we have not even come close to talking storm water yet. >> But the concrete reduction of the concrete helps the storm water. >> I understand that. I understand that and that that is appreciated that that it's something to think about. But I I'm at a
point where I I I don't know where to go with this application. Um, I I just find it excessive still and I think it needs to be rethought. I really do. >> I have to second that. And I'm not sure that just cutting some concrete would be enough.
>> Is it worth uh We haven't talked about the We proposed a Juliet balcony on the second floor in the front. Is it worth even discussing that or like you said, you can't improve like part of the plan anyway? So, it's not >> it wouldn't be able to approve part of it. So, if you want to hear any more testimony, you can, but it sounds like
reconfiguration is probably the best way to go at this stage >> with regard to the submission. >> And then we'll just sort of have to walk the tight rope of interpreting, you know, what to come back with. Um, I'd hate for it to be as sort of contentious as or not contentious, but controversial. >> No, this is not contentious.
>> I used it wrong. Yeah. But I wouldn't want to come back with something similarly uh uh troubling. Um, I'd want to come back, you know, with something that, you know, might be a bit of a compromise, but that would be, you know, more acceptable and that we'll have to sort of figure out, I think, where
>> I would love to be able to say do this, but that's not my point. >> I understand. Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll based on sort of the feedback we've heard, um, you know, without sort of letting all our plans go perhaps, uh, you know, try to make some accommodations and and address some of the concerns. You understand where we're
at though with the why we're we're saying what we're saying it. Yeah. >> We we need to find some other other ways to reduce the amount of variances and perhaps >> cut back on some of the setback intrusions. >> Yeah.
>> That's all I can say. >> Agreed. >> And it's tricky. We have, you know, these existing nonconformities, but you know, we'll address them. >> I know. But everyone wants what they want, right? That's why we're here. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I came with every intention of of proving to you
guys why this would be, you know, an asset to the neighborhood, a benefit, and not really a detriment to anyone. Um, I I feel I still, you know, feel that that it's not even sort of with the expansion of the garage. It's very tight back there. Um, but I think we can, you know, reorganize um and come back. And
it's, you know, we'll have to decide. Do we pursue the ADU, continue to pursue it? It seems like, um, >> are you actually using the garage as a garage or is it >> right now? No. Uh I mean I have like gym equipment and storage stuff in there. I don't we don't park in there. No. It's like right now we just park out front,
>> right? Because you can't >> too much maneuvering to get a car in and out obviously. >> Uh yeah. I mean we never really tried that much cuz we in the previous house we lived in like we had the detached garage also and had like gyms. So I just immediately put all my stuff like in the same kind of setting. >> It'd be interesting to see like show of
hands who has cars in their garages. I mean with all the beach stuff that we all have. I mean it's uh you know they're so full. Yeah, nice. I can't seem to find a spot anywhere in any, you know, but um yeah, it's we tend to fill up our garages with stuff, you know. >> Um
>> so yeah, I guess nothing to vote on this evening. Do we pursue sort of and address the rest of the issues? I mean, does it I mean Mr. Beman, you mentioned, you know, I mean, does it does it behoove us to sort of p, you know, go through? >> I'd probably say we carry to a date certain at this point in time and um try
to address it more as a complete application rather than peace meal it. So, I think that' be more beneficial to the boards and what the board is at this point as well. I'll defer to you, but I think that'd be the best route. >> Um, personally, I think it would be behoove you to give it some more thought
and come back with another plan. >> Okay. I would love if we could give them just some specific direction because they're going to come back with a full plan and then we're going to go through it piece by piece. We're here. They have a plan. If there's something
that's completely egregious that we want to comment on that could just help them move forward. >> Would be appreciated just to guide us a bit. Well, and that's why I asked about the garage because he could eliminate a variance right off the bat by putting
the stairs inside the garage and not putting on the side edition or cutting the side edition back by by one foot. >> We're not doing the ADU. >> Well, the city really wants ADUs, so I'm not entirely, you know, against
encouraging that. And that variance is a very minor one compared to the others. Yeah, we have to put the stairs inside like >> try to work around it. >> Um the other the other variances are all
related to the expansion of the house. >> So that's more a question of um you know how much how much excess house can Mr. you know, see without and
let the board. >> But that's for them to decide, Donna. >> Yeah, we're not here to design. >> That That's why I said how much can you decide to live without? >> Yeah. I I guess I understand your everybody's position, but I guess what you know we were hoping
for is um we don't want to waste anybody's time by coming back with like you know another wrong uh plan. So like if something like the cantal lever is a major problem you know specifically like you know we can try to do away with that design around it but so I don't know if there's any other way to
>> is there the possibility of an informal review of some sort sometimes we do that >> is variances are very strictly >> sure >> yeah no negotiating >> so no consult with zoning or anything would that wouldn't do us any good if we consulted with the zoning officer or anything like that
>> I mean you can talk to Michelle she's the director of planning and zoning She does not, you know, >> yeah, >> she can't speak for the board. >> I just Right. I I hate to come back with something sort of, you know, um >> just and just to elaborate, not to cut you off too. And then the whole thing
what the board's position is, as you're probably indicating here, they just, you know, they can't create your application for you. That's really what it boils down to tell you where to go with regard to that part direction. So, >> um you know, there's been some comments tonight that have definitely given some type of light as to where you should go
with reconfiguration. and it may take a little bit of time to get to where both sides are at agreeable point. Um, but yeah, with regards to actually telling you where to go and what's going to be acceptable, we we're limited as are we allowed to bring like multiple options
to a meeting and you know, okay, so we can't be like here's A, B, and C, which one works best. >> Okay. >> We're going to work to sort of right >> we're going to try and eliminate as many branchs as we can. Um, it's a >> that's the best approach or or or reduce
the excessiveness of that. >> Okay. Yeah. It's a challenging site as we can all see. You know, I'll we'll do our best >> and I understand that. And it's not our intention to cause >> your applicant any issues with with what he wants. We we just
>> are up here to try to give >> uh the neighborhood and your neighbors um the due costs uh that they should have. >> Yeah. Yeah. And we appreciate that. We do. Um, would it help uh the neighbor where where most of the uh encroachment
is and everything? Uh, like I said, it's a multif family. Uh, would it help if I, you know, I've spoken with the owner of the property a few times. Would it help if I brought him in or anything like that to just >> or is that just not something you comment on or >> um,
they can come as support for your application, >> but they don't necessarily tell us how to >> Oh, sure. Of course. Yeah, they won't be voting on anything, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, would that affect the parking issue? They told you explain the parking issue
coming from somebody else. >> The I'm not sure what you're saying, Dave. >> They they share the driveway, >> right? They have a shared driveway. >> Okay. So, I mean, what I'm then no problem with you sharing the driveway, >> correct?
>> They're allowed. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Either they so they share the driveway so that's not an issue. Okay. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> So that's a good thing. >> Okay. My suggestion is look at all the bad things and work with them >> to decrease the amount of bad things. I
mean >> because what um chairman Avalon is saying that the magnitude of the application makes it difficult for us to say anything positive right now. Okay. So if we can decrease the magnitude of
the what you're doing, it helps you and it helps us because we have less to look at. >> Okay. >> Okay. That that's that's the biggest thing. I'm looking here going whoa. >> Yeah. >> You know, and I I understand the size of a lot >> and you're trying to say how much can I do with this lock? But you can't do as
much as you want to do. >> Yeah. >> Understand that. That's the one that's the biggest thing you understand then I think we can move forward. Okay. Okay. At least we can look some better. >> Okay. And I apologize if if we're looking too big or whatever. You know, this is my first time uh going through all this and you know, John's destroying
what we're talking about. So, like if if we went too large with anything. I didn't mean to. >> I apologize. >> All right. >> Yeah. There's, you know, it's not a wrong thing that you came here wanting all of this. It's it's our job to >> kind of guide you without designing it for you, right?
>> And gear you towards something that we hopefully can improve ultimately. We're not here to just have you come here, spend money, and appear and appear and appear and have new forms and new forms. We want to approve something, but >> when it's this big, it makes it hard
like Danny's saying and like Chris is saying. >> Yeah. >> So, there's no need for an apology at all. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think we have a goal and that is to sort of Yeah. reduce, you know, these uh what we're requesting sort of the the
variances we're looking for. Yeah. >> Um you know, hopefully without too much impact on the design. Um but yeah, >> so we carry >> um that seems like the best approach, Mr. Wolf. >> Okay. Do you have any available dates?
>> Um we are looking at November 18th at this point. November 18th is open and December 9th is open. If it works for John, I'd like to take the student. >> So, November 18th, we would need everything in our office by October 21st.
>> Okay. >> And uh does that require any of like the notification stuff or anything? We're just we're sending it. >> You're um you're waving another notice. And um just briefly to backtracking um we accepted jurisdiction over the matter. I don't think that was noted in the beginning uh to hear the matter,
right? Was that noted? >> I'm hearing >> jurisdiction. Did we um I >> did you review the notices? >> Yeah, everything was fine. So, I just want to make sure that we noted that correct though. >> Right. So, we had jurisdiction. Um the only thing we asked for um M Mr. Yi is
for you to wave the time uh for the application >> to be completed completely heard. >> We'll we'll make sure that's done. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because we're going to be beyond the the initial sort of allowable. >> There's a certain amount of days that we have to hear your application. Okay. We will coordinate with your office. Yeah.
To get that done. Okay. All right. So, I'll make a motion to carry uh 6105th Avenue to November 18th, 2025 >> without further notice. >> I'll sec I'll second.
>> That's what I'm allowed to do. >> Daniel Harris, >> yes. >> Jill Potter, >> yes. >> Natalie Paserini, >> yes. >> John Hall, >> yes. >> Chairman Avalon, >> yes. >> And I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Amen. >> Thank you.