Um, welcome everyone. Today is Tuesday, September 9th, 2025, and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park zoning board of adjustment. Chairman Avalone, 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 of this meeting has been provided to the coaster and park press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal bulen board and municipal website. All notice 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 anybody with a cell phone to please mute it for the duration of this meeting. Roll call. Wendy Glassman >> here. >> Daniel Harris >> here.
>> Russell Lewis >> here. >> Jill Potter >> here. >> Nelly Pastorini >> here. >> JJ Hall >> here. >> Vice Chair John Scully is absent this evening. And Chairman Avalone >> here. All right. Uh just a quick housekeeping issue. Uh the resolution
that's listed, we're going to table for tonight and carry it to our next zoning board meeting. >> And just to clarify, that'll be 9:30 for the next uh for the car. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. First application up is 1206 Dunl Street.
Miss Corey, Mr. Chromemer, and Mr. Passmith. >> Good evening, board members. My name is Carlton Chromemer. I am the attorney for the applicant, the property owner of 1206 Dunl Street. On the property is a
single family home. The homeowner is looking to renovate it. Uh she's hoping to improve the functionality of the home. It's a it's an old home with small rooms and a setup and a flow that really
needs some improvement in functionality that the architect is going to go over. She's also looking to do this renovation to add space for her children when they come to visit and to create a writer
studio for her when she's looking for some seclusion to write. The property is a unique property and that's what's really bringing us here. It has an irregular
shape. It has unique topography in that it slopes down towards Deio Lake and it's landlocked because it's at the end of a road where the city right away
ends uh but it's not paved with a street. So strict application of the zoning standards to this particular property is impossible to comply with because of the
unique characteristics of it. And as a result, we're here asking for variance for the modest project that the applicant is proposing. So without further ado, I'd like to call
up the architect who has put together some plans detailing the proposed renovation. Uh Mr. Passman, would you come up please? >> And Mr. Passman, do you swear affirm the testimony about the gives the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do.
>> State your name for record spelling your last >> J. Passman pass. >> All right. And if I can also just swear on professional as well. You swear affirming your testimony about the gifts of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> For record, please. >> Doner, board planner. >> Jerry Freda, board engineer. >> Thank you. And also, just recordkeeping,
Mr. Chair, I did review the notices on this matter and proper. >> Thank you, Christopher. Thank you, >> Mr. Pasman. Could you just review some of your credentials? I know you've been before the board before. >> I've been board before this board for many years. Um,
graduated with a masters of architecture degree from University of Michigan. I started my own practice in 1988. I have my partnership with Anthony since 1998 and have worked in most of the towns in the shore area of Mammoth County and
some in Ocean County. >> Is your license still in good order? >> Yes, it is. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Could you >> explain to the board the project and walk the board through the
plans that you've prepared? >> Yeah, just in brief, it's a uh twotory house with a integrated or attached, if you will, onecar garage, one story. Uh on the uh south side, there's also a one-story piece that's like a little
foyer entryway. And on the uh north side, there's another little one-story piece. Uh that's part of the existing structure. Uh inside there's only like a couple of bedrooms. The kitchen is kind of small. Again, that little entry foyer is only 5 ft wide. So there's a lot of
limitations. It's not very long. Even the garage has a stairway going from it down to the basement. So it leaves what's left of a concrete slab next to the stairway thin, as in you'd have to have a pretty small car to park it in
there and by any standards. Um, so I I'm talking to uh Jack Cory, my client. >> Was that garage always an attached garage to that house or was it put onto the house at some other point or >> I mean he purchased it like that?
>> Oh, >> I I I understand. I'm just asking. I would from what it the way it's constructed it looks like it's always been there >> and especially with the connection of this basement the stairway access to this basement >> within that frame of you know structural
frame of the garage so it's like a little well that you go down >> Uhhuh. >> So it takes away from three or four >> normally our garages are actually detached from our homes and this is unusual that it's attached. I I would it looks to be like it was always part of it just from the way it was constructed
and the way it connected. Yeah. I mean it's hard to tell and I haven't really done any real research on it but if it were >> I would think that I just wanted something else prior to being >> I would say if anything there was no garage there and then that was added but
I can't imagine there was ever that particular piece was a detached portion of the house. it would always, you know, I mean, this wouldn't you wouldn't have room because of the property line. >> Okay. >> So, anyway, uh I'm I'm asked to uh make the household more modern in terms of
size, uh bedrooms, kitchen, the typical things. Bathrooms are things that you want in a house today uh when you're spending this much money and you're going to be on the lake. And so uh being the second floor was very low uh it didn't have a lot of headroom in most of
the rooms um the two rooms that were adjacent to the center stairway that the idea is to increase the second floor to be a real uh structure 8 foot high walls and to extend it because again it only had a couple bedrooms. Um, and also to
uh take away this little foyer space on the south side and make it more usable with a bathroom and so forth. And I can go through the plans and then add a second floor over this onetory piece again to give you a a better uh give her a better uh footprint. Knew that was
going to happen. Um, so there's there are a lot of things that are that need work in the house structurally, etc. So it was a whole encompassing project and what you're going to get in the end hopefully if we're approved is get something that's
modern house in terms of its uh footprint uh and amenities that people want in today's world. So if you want I can go to the plans what I have actually I assume you have a set of plans also. >> Um I don't know what was submitted.
>> Yeah the plans were submitted. >> Okay. So would you like to mark them? Uh yeah. What do we have as the packet then? Are we just on A1 at this point? >> That's what is pre-marked. So let's start with A1. >> Just in terms of the site plan, you can
see there's a lot of shaded area which represents new construction. So there's the integrated one-story garage. Here's this twotory portion which is remaining. And then there's these additions that wrap around if you will. And that's just the
concept. Now in doing so and adding on to the uh east side that became a sideyard there set it's 25 ft that's supposed to be was in the ordinance going with about 20 ft. The reason is that if we went 5T less
addition three addition wouldn't make sense. Plus in terms of floor plan [Applause] just go back. I'll back up show you exist. I can hold that. [Music]
I'll show you the existing floor plan. So you can see the existing floor plan that there's a little this little foyer on the south side center stairway small kitchen with living.
Second floor has um two small bedroom closets and underneath the rooms are very small and not very much volume to speak in the proposed plan with the addition going out
right here. This is going east side. It's really a real setback in that case because the front is at the garage. So adding on to that a very nice kitchen great room kind of a feel. The living
room remains and the garage becomes this writing studio which is you know low space. It doesn't really have any other value. It's really nice vated ceilings beams and everything. And this is what staff have worked out perfectly for her.
You add more windows so you have more view to the lake. That's the So, adding on to the uh to the side and to the uh south side, sorry, east side, the south side, you have a nicer foyer. We have like a a pantry area and then a bathroom
here. And there's an exit out there with a little roof on it, which is also part of the variance because she likes to go paddle work on the lake. She will walk back up here. she can shower as she comes in or it's winter or something and someone's in the space, that's the
bathroom that they can use for the guests. So, we kind of want for both things. The second floor, we have a much larger master bedroom, plus a guest bedroom and a large master bathroom as well. So all that gives a very modern
even the footprint's even not that large even with the addition but I think it really lends itself to uh you know the best we could do and not trying to expand it too much limitations terms of elevation you can see existing
structure is very low on the second floor this is the garage very single also for you not much. So doing the addition as existing side
I mean who knows appropriate a nice entry this roof on it which one of the standards is coming in line but I think this is an entry piece the other port piece of the variance is
a fireplace fireplace char. Um, but that's a front yard setback. I like this only four feet now and you add that on there. You only have two feet. So that's this portion of the
front. It requires a variance. I know there's a lot of a lot of comments from here, but I just give you the volume of what we're doing and the reason why we're doing it. So, at this point, you're giving up your
garage and making it into another livable space and there's going to be no place for your car to go. >> Well, yes. Uh, but there is a place for the car to go. And that would be adjacent to it on the side of that
garage. There's a off you know on on site parking space now. Um but giving up that that garage. It's not not really giving up because it's really hard to get your car in and get out of the car when you're in because it's such a small
space. So it's kind of there but it doesn't really work. You know, anybody has a garage like that is going to be me cursing every time we open the door and shimmy out of the car. So, I was like, okay, it's not really that great of a space anyway for parking. I love the
ordinance, despite the ordinance, but it was useful as a beautiful space for working with the views and the lake. That's the whole charm of the house is that it's on the lake and to have a garage where the
where the lake is, you know, seems to be counterproductive in terms of site planning, if you will. So, putting the car adjacent to it, you know, it just seems to make more sense. Now, we had one on on street on site parking space,
add one if you count the garage. We're offering one again by using the garage spaces and brand new studio space. So, it's a trade one for one have um among car bearings anyway. So, trying to
maintain that. Thought that was a good justification using that space. >> Can you tell me again where the proposed parking of the car will be? >> Uh it's just to the south of the actual garage structure. So it's shown on the site plan as a paved area.
>> Would it be in front of what the garage door is now? >> No, it's to the side of your big bushes. Go ahead. >> So you'd be parking in front of the actual writing studio. >> What would prohibit you from the studio
and in front of the main part? >> Got it. >> Why not just park where the tire tracks are in this photo where the garage door was? girls. That's not that one. >> It's a right away. >> Okay, got it.
>> And where where is the car currently parked >> in the garage? >> It really is. Is it really in the garage or not? >> The garage door is a slab, you know. Yes, you can put a car in there. >> No, I'm asking. >> Oh, >> do they really park?
>> That is really being used now as >> that is used as a garage. She bought the house. That was a garage space. >> But what does she use it for? >> That's what I'm asking. Is a car is a is a car parked in there or is it used for storage? >> The No, the proposed use of that space
is for a writing studio. >> We got that. I could answer it, I think. And I apologize if I'm interjecting. I didn't mean to be rude. >> It's a factual question. >> It's factual question. Uh, it's not currently being used for parking a garage. >> Thank you. >> For parking a car.
>> Parking on the street. So the next question is where is the car >> parked >> parked now? >> She would park on the street. >> So you're creating off a a garage that you don't use for parking and you're presently parking on the street. Okay.
And you're going to make it into a writing studio so that you can have what you want and you will continue to park on the street. Right. I'd like to slightly change that. Um, the parking space right now in the
garage is undersized and not really functional for parking. >> But we are not intending on parking off street. We are adding or relocating the onsite parking. So, we are proposing a
new location for parking the car on site and that proposed new location is right here and that's on our property. >> Okay. So, you're going one for one. >> One for one. Correct. >> Okay. >> It's just a relocation.
>> All right. So, she gets a studio. She keep and she keeps a place to park on site. >> Correct. >> But that entails moving the driveway. Is that correct? Well, there really isn't a driveway. There's a curve. >> There really isn't a driveway. >> There's not a driveway down. There's a
curve cut at the end of the movie and uh there's gravel and sort of compacted soil, if you will, that would take you into the garage. There's nothing formalized as a driveway. In our plan now, we have more of a formalized gravel
driveway that more maintained to the uh area for >> Jerry, could you could you kind of explain that? It's a unfinished driveway is the best way I can explain it. It's not paved. >> Uh it's not concrete. >> Okay. >> There's no curb.
>> Um it's just hardened over time for vehicles riding up over it. >> And that is that city property. It's right of way. Who owns it? City property. >> City property to make that turn to get onto the property into the garage because the garage comes almost right up
to the property. But there there are several questions regarding >> Sorry. Is I'm just Is the garage in front of the curb or behind I guess the curb cut? >> Yeah. >> No. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> There's a curve >> and the proposed parking space property >> is parallel to the garage. >> You see where the property but there are several questions regarding the right of way as a >> Yeah. because it's very difficult to
envision. Uh the rightway goes straight across the property to the lake. Okay. So, the frontage as was explained by Mr. Pastor is where the garage faces. That's the front yard. It doesn't look like it from the street, but that is truly the
front yard for zoning purposes. And the existing garage, which I also believe was added later to >> I think so. Yes. uh that existing garage, it can't function properly. My guess is
they haven't used it for a car in years because it's just not big enough. >> Yeah. Mr. Pasman, can you It shows on the plan. Can you tell us the actual interior dimension? [Applause] >> It It had to have been added at some other point. It's not 8 foot.
>> It's hard to see wide >> where this retaining wall is, if you will, that takes you down to the basement. So, it's 8 foot >> 8t, you know, basement, >> which is narrower than a normal parking space. Instead, you got walls on either
side of you. >> Yeah. was I'm not sure about the garage or you know you don't have the vertical space either but garage section garage door in fact you know
it's not very direct >> and while we're on this topic I just point out that the only access to this property is through the rightway so hopefully >> the unapproved portion of of of the rightway, >> excuse me, >> the Dunl rightway, but it's the
unimproved part of it. Like part of Dunl is improved. It kind of skirts the frontage, right? The radius, but the rest of it is unimproved. So like where the apron is, there's that inlet, the curving. That's the approved part, but the rest is just
uh and just to I clarified there was a double talking, but I did just check the historic aerial and um you can see in the 1953 aerial it's very clear. It looks like the house is just
recently built and the garage is there. And then the next series of aerials before that is 1947 and the house isn't there. >> Interesting. >> Is that the only access to the basement is through the garage currently? >> No, there's an interior stair.
>> Okay. >> And currently there's an interior stair and we're not changing that. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. What was that? >> The the current interior stair to the basement is going to remain. >> Uhhuh. Any other questions for Mr. Pas?
board professionals. >> I I I have a question or two. Um, so in the plan, you're going to rip the roof off the house. >> Yes. >> The entire build a new roof. >> Walls and roof. >> So that's what'll allow you to make that addition off the back work because
you're going to put a whole new roof on a house. There's a new roof. Right. Correct. And there's also balconies we have that face the on the second floor that face the lake. So that on the second floor you want to sit out enjoy
the lake you can. Um is there any engineering testimony or no? >> No engineering testimony. >> Okay. Maybe I should question. Um, so, um, is there a way I know you're right next to the lake and groundwater is
probably high. Is there a way to handle the runoff from the house so it's not going straight into the lake? >> Um, from what I see, you know, there's the question you had was sort of pre and postdevelopment runoff. And what I see
is not I mean, there's a little more footprint that we're adding. We're adding about 800 square feet of imperous coverage, but some of the uh some of the area is going toward the south, not necessarily all to the north.
>> I would say half almost half is going back to the the south side, which will eventually run that way, but that's a long distance before it gets to the lake. Anything that's coming even off the back part of the house, the north side, it's going to take a long time to get to the lake. It's got a lot of slope
and um you know in terms of coverage we're way below the coverage that's allowable on that property although we have some wetlands and whatnot but we're only at uh 30% or 22%. So in the back where right now it actually gullies into
the house. I think as they build this addition on the south side, bring grade up a little bit so it can go uh east west and eventually around. Of course, the one going to the west is going to go more towards Dunloo and I think that's okay. That seems to cover things. Um the
ones going the other direction, there's a retaining wall behind so it can get created up just a little bit at another foot maybe so it can run around the house. >> All right. So all that will help. Yeah. >> Um you're going to have gutters on the new house down. gutters and down spouts. >> Uh the down spouts, any way to tie them
into a trench with a pipe directed out to the road where we can put some stone perforated pipe toert charge some of the water into the >> I mean there's not a lot of space over there on that side. >> No. >> Um if it runs to grade if it runs to
grade it's going to run slowly I think off either side >> on the north side. You wouldn't want to do that, right? want to pipe it. So, it's got a lot of land to sheet through on the grass. I'd say I mean this side there it can be. I guess we could run a
pipe >> and there's not a lot of daylight if we can pop up a pop-up emitter on one side and the other if you want. >> Yeah. Actually, I think I'd rather have it >> go this way. >> Yeah. So, the road >> So, there's um there's one, two, three
uh downspouts that are coming on the south side. Mhm. >> from the south. Everything from that thing. And actually another one which is from the porch. Those four collect a lot of water. They because the other one's just catching from the porch. Those
could go on some kind of uh bird pipe. I don't know how to size something like that. >> Well, if if we could and if it's if there's an approval, maybe a condition could be that you could work with us to >> build something in the south side for that half of the building. >> We are good with that.
>> All right. cuz every little bit will help. >> We I think what you're suggesting is running a pipe that's perforated. >> That's right. >> And uh running it towards here. >> That's exactly that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So there there's several questions
though about the driveway and where it's going and the >> the encroachment into the right away. I really needed to talk to an engineer in regards to this, not the architect. I'm sorry, Mr. Passman, but these are questions not for you. >> Yes. So,
thank you, chairman. Um, I'm not sure an engineer would have the answer to that question either. It's a pre-existing use that we have over this right away. It's the only access that we have to the property. We are continuing.
>> So, if that's the case though, don't they need some type of approval from the city in any regards to this, Donna, or no? >> Just the street. It's the same thing. It's just >> it's unimproved, >> right? >> So, it's muddy and it's they're at risk
of, >> you know, being muddy to get to their property. >> You don't get a basement or something. >> There's there's no requirement from the city to give them some type of design or not design exception, but an agreement for them to
encroach on the the city right away. >> They're encroaching on right away. They're everything they're doing is outside of the rideway except for this little piece of driveway. which just like everybody else's house, their driveway, you know, where it crosses over the sidewalk
>> until it gets to the street >> is in the right of way, but it's not in the street. >> Right. >> So, that's a typically permitted encroachment. Yeah. >> Um I'm a little confused about something. I'm not sure if anybody else
is. Um on the closed elevations at the top of the page, you have um an accessory structure and you have >> Oh, yes. >> All the
separate from the the addition that's going to be the writing studio. >> That's correct. >> Accessory shed structure. >> Uh and where is that? >> Where is it? >> Yes. >> Um It's in the uh souththeast corner.
So, it's a rectangle right here in the upper corner. It's got the proper setbacks. It's only square feet. So, conforms >> and that's just for storage equipment and whatnot. Maybe a common board or two
>> and it's technically in the backyard. Okay. >> And compliant. >> Sorry. It's written so small I couldn't see it. [Applause] >> Have you I'm sorry. Have you approached the city to see if you can acquire that
piece of land? >> We haven't. Uh excuse me. We have uh we were told that the city wants to maintain access directly to the lake. Um, but as I think the professionals had mentioned, this is the city right away that we're permitted to use like anyone
else in the public. >> And in addition to that, if they were to attempt that, typically rightaways are split in half and they're given to the property owners on each side. >> So, if the one on the other side isn't interested, >> well, the city's probably not interested
in have to write away. So, they probably wouldn't want to approve that anyway. >> Well, I don't know about that. Um because if they want to maintain a public access to the waterfront, >> they could do it halfway. >> They could keep the other half. >> So they may have the potential to take half the right away.
>> Was it formal? Did you formally approach the city or casual question? >> It was a casual question. >> Um does anybody uh have uh information about the status of the wetland verification and the transition area? We
spoke to a environmental consultant about handling those issues if they come up and we plan on hiring him if those issues come up. He had mentioned that it's possibly covered under a general
permit. Um it's not in the wetlands, it's just in the buffer. Uh so we were anticipating hiring him if that issue came up. Is the wetland verification still valid?
>> I don't know. >> But again, that would be an issue as to whether it comes out. >> Sure. It's a outside agency. >> There's still a question of where this fence is located in the right of way. And >> well, it's not a question. It is in the right way.
>> So, I mean, who addresses that? Not you, Mr. Passman. So, >> okay. Does the applicant agree to relocate the fence out of the right eye? >> They acquired a piece of the property and
>> but again that they would have to appear before the council and >> right also >> to the extent that the fence encroaches on the right away. Yes, we will remove it. So I need to understand again where exactly will the car be parked? Is that
going to be parked in front of the house? Now there >> it's hard to describe what the front of the house is but on the street side right in the inside corner between the garage and the front of the actual So, it's technically the front yard, right?
>> Which is one of some reliefs they need. Um, and so you it'll be a small pad right near the front steps, their new front steps to their new porch. >> And on one side will be the side of the garage and on the other side will be
this new walkway that goes to their new front steps. But yeah, it'll technically be in the front yard space between the >> But it doesn't sound like we have much choice though, Donna. It doesn't sound like there's much choice of putting it anywhere. >> That's really the only place they've got
left. Yeah. >> I mean, the body of the twotory portion of the house is just at the the 25 set. So, we're part of the front yard setback, which is not not according to the ordinance. So, that's that's about
the only place left. And will the pathway to the new parking spot remain dirt and gravel or you're not allowed to pave that? >> We wouldn't modify it because it's not uh our property. It's the city's right
away. So the the the passage the driveway to the parking spot would then obviously curve much tighter from Dunlie to the right to get to that parking spot. >> Correct. >> That's right. And you don't you don't
have a a drawing of that at this point. Right. Well, on the site plan, I mentioned uh that there's proposed gravel driveway proposed that gets you to that parking spot and the existing gravel driveway is going to be removed and there's some shading that shows the
removal portion of that. So, it's kind of trading it from here to there. >> Right. Okay. >> With gravel in the rightway. Okay. >> So, if I understand, there's going to be a new concrete pad in front of in front the front of the house. >> No.
>> No. >> The garage. >> The writing studio. >> Well, which is going to be part of the house. >> Yes. >> Not a garage anymore. >> Okay. >> Dunl ends with a curb almost like a small culde-sac. That's where it ends there. At the end of that, there's a
concrete apron, typical of an apron of a driveway that's there and then it ends and then it turns into gravel. >> That apron, our plan is to leave it >> about to cut a new curb cut into it. Okay, >> leave that >> and then swerve around, >> right?
>> Make a hard turn and it back out. You know, it's but it's gravel. It's compacted. It's still drainable material, >> right? I mean, not easy. This was a a >> I understand it's an unusual shape.
>> I never saw it. >> Okay, I have an idea. >> Uh me, Jerry. >> So, would you consider adding a little more stone in the rightway
so that you can kind of >> have a spot to back up to. >> Yes. >> And drive out instead of backing out of there. >> Yes. >> Kind of like that. >> Kind of like that. >> No. Like more like a >> like a traditional >> What you drew is Yes.
>> Like this. >> Yeah. There you go. Right. Right. As tight as you can to make it work. >> Yeah. >> So we're not disturbing the least amount of property. In other words, then they could come like they're backing out of a garage or parking space. They back straight out and they they back this way
and then they pull straight out. >> So they're not backing out of your driveway of a cage. >> Right. >> Correct. >> The safest thing. So if that is something that you guys could consider, I think that should be a condition >> like more like this
>> of approval also. >> Yes. >> That makes a little more sense. It would make things safer also. >> We agree it makes sense and we agree to do it. >> Great. [Music] >> Any other questions for Mr. Passman or
or Mr. Chromemer? >> Well, how do we finalize the concern in Donna's report about the wetlands and anything? >> Just a outside agency condition. they would have to >> and they follow up with you or like >> construction. >> How do we find out that it's okay?
>> Yeah. >> I mean, condition, >> we'll come out and look if we're called. >> It would be part of the standard conditions that say any outside approvals that we need for construction. But if it's not required, then we just keep moving along.
>> But we need that proof. Wouldn't somebody need that proof that before they issue a permit? >> Yep. >> Okay. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page about >> with the zoning department either or the construction department. >> Zoning. >> You have to get a zoning permit before you get a construction permit. >> Right. I would think that would just get
it subject to the permits. Okay. Fine. >> If it's if it still if it makes sense to make a formal request to acquire a piece of that property. Well, that's not really our purview
though. >> It resolves some of the issues if it applicants property. >> Mr. Beman, what is what are you saying in regards to >> There was a question about whether it could possibly be a condition of
variance, but now you wouldn't be able to build condition of the variance. So, you know, you're you're strictly looking at what their application is here, right? Make a decision based on that. Um even even if approval was given for the project the way it is now
>> the way they propose it, >> they could still go to the city, the mayor council, and request half of the rightway. Maybe it's granted, maybe it's not,
but that would clean up all these little issues that we're all talking about about improvements in the rightway. >> It's not going to change the parking and the drainage. >> But is that something that we can make as a condition? Um, >> you can't make it a condition, but if
they were to approach the city about >> doing the vacation, then um they would have more room. Doesn't it alleviate does it alleviate >> at least one of the variance requests? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah, >> it would definitely alleviate that.
>> But, but what we've said is that you can't, you know, you can't use that as a reason to either approve or deny the variance request. You have to take the conditions that exist and if they meet
the criteria under the C1, right? >> Correct. Yep. >> Then they meet the criteria soon. Then you balance whether there's negative criteria impact. If they mitigate that, which it seems like they have with the way they're going to configure the driveway and they've created a new parking space to offset the parking
space they're technically losing in the garage. um >> I mean >> you know all the other things you know if that if that um if that satisfies in your minds the positive and negative criteria for all those deficiencies
you know it doesn't matter if they approach the city about getting a street vacation >> it certainly might benefit them in the future to make that approach I mean it would add more >> land to an area which could certainly use it on property >> essentially though we're not requiring
it So >> yeah, >> it would also make their fence legal, >> right? >> Just a thought. >> I I can't go down that path only because it it doesn't make sense to. So
um any further questions for Mr. Passman or Mr. Chromemer board professionals. >> No. >> I'll open it up to the public for questions regarding Mr. Chromemer's testimony. Anybody in the public that
would ask that would like to ask Mr. Passman questions rather? No. Okay. >> I don't have much of a great closing statement. I think the planner had mentioned well that we had addressed
whatever negative consequences there are from this application and that due to the unique restrictions associated peculiarly with this property uh we fit within the C1 variant. So we ask that the
>> Well, before you finish your final statement, Mr. Crower, I have to actually see if anybody has any comments for this application first. >> Oh, I thought that's what you said. I'm sorry. First it was questions, now it's comments. >> Um, anybody in the public have any
comments either in favor or against this application. >> Seeing none, I will close public session. Now you can make your final statement, Mr. Crow. >> Oh, thank you. This was the moment I was waiting for. >> Did somebody raise their hand?
>> Yellow shirt. >> Okay. I have no issue with this. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Cromer. >> I don't have anything to add. I think that we've presented an application that fits within the requirements and we ask that the board approve it. Thank you.
>> All right. I appreciate that. All right. So, deliberation from the board. Anybody have any comments to make? >> I think this was a tough situation to make any sort of improvements. I appreciate what the how you've gone
about making them and the care that's gone into doing it to make this space liveable. Um so I just appreciate the effort that went into this. Thank you. >> Yeah, I would agree. I think you guys um did a really really great job at at figuring out how to how to really make
this property shine. And um I'm I'm I'm all for I mean it's so tucked away in a little pocket that no one sees. If you were asking for these things for for a house on, you know, Grand Avenue, you probably wouldn't be getting them. But in this unique situation, I think it's
an incredible improvement. >> I agree with that. >> Anybody else for comment on the board? [Applause] >> Okay. So, do we have a vote either in favor or against?
I would vote in I'd make a motion to vote in favor of this application. >> I would second it with these conditions if we can review them and put them on the record. >> Sure. So the conditions that you had um would be to work with the board engineer
to build uh something on the south side to help with drainage. Is that accurate? Y >> and then um also the footprint of the driveway should uh follow the shape of a regular K term so that it assists with ingress and egress and then also any type of outside agency
approval which is you know normal for us but that'll also be part of the condition >> that covers the D >> correct >> and the fence has I'm sorry and the fence does also have >> there's four conditions correct >> four conditions roll call Marie Wendy Glassman,
>> yes. >> Daniel Harris, >> yes. >> Russell Lewis, >> yes. >> Jill Powder, >> yes. >> Natalie Pasarini, >> yes. >> JJ Hall, >> yes. >> Chairman Avalone, >> yes. And good luck with your renovations.
>> Can't wait to see the finished product. >> Do you Chris, do you want to do a 5minut? >> Yes. I'm going to make a 10-minute recess for changing of the guard as I'm refused from 8th out here. All right. I think um if everyone's in
the room, we'll start this do a couple roll please. >> Okay. >> And uh I will now do roll call. Wendy Glassman >> here. Daniel Harris >> here, >> Russell Lewis >> here, >> Jill Potter >> here,
>> Natalie Paserini >> here, >> and JJ Hall >> here. >> Um, I will be acting as chairman this evening because Mr. Scoly is um away. Um, is there any housekeeping that we Oh,
application of uh 301 8th Avenue continuation. Is there any housekeeping we need to address before we start? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. just uh there were some additional exhibits that were circulated to everyone. I just want to have those marked um if you don't mind for a few minutes just to get those
together. I know that uh Mr. Paris has submitted a brief. I believe we're on A8 as it relates to applicants um marking. So that can be marked as A8. Um there was also additional items that were submitted from the zoning file. Um we'll
just mark those in order. Um as it relates to that information just marked as B1. The deed recording the deed that were recorded provided B2. The Oprah ops tax data dated 9225
is B3. Um 2000 zoning permit 1916 replace door with window marked as B4. Um the 20 2003 deed um from Tate to 7th Street is uh B5.
Um we have 2004D 7th Street Associates is B6. Um 2005D Associates is B7. Uh we're moving the zoning permit 7488 replace uh roof and replace siding is
B8. Got another zoning permit on one 164. Roof is B9. Um zoning permit 20120 162 porch roof B10.
Uh 2021 deed parada uh farmman B11 denial of the application 2024 is B12. Uh CCH planning report was that ever premarked report >> usually they are. Yeah. So, we'll skip
that. >> Yeah, it's important. >> And then the 2023 sub code permit uh C23002 is B13. Um those are all the other additional exhibits that were the um documents that were circulated for everybody to review
and um that's all I have to clean up. I just heard from Mr. Car. Yeah, just to respond to that. Um, I've taken a look at these exhibits by the Andrew Carris on behalf of Karen May and Neil, the applicants in this matter as it pertains
to these. Um, I would argue that there's with regard to the deeds, I don't I dispute as uh in terms of the relevance and without testimony explaining the relevance also with a number of these documents. Um, by way of example, there's a permit
that I have as exhibit 11 makes reference to 1703 web street as do a number of the applications and permits within this exhibit set. Those are the back and that's the carriage house. That's not the portion of the property
that we are talking about relevant to this particular application. Um, in turn, I would argue that that too is irrelevant absent any testimony or evidence to reflect the whole purpose of bringing that into the record. Um, but
so anything having to do with 1703 within this entire list, I would object to as with that being said, um, I submit to this. >> Yeah. >> Um, Jill and I are just wanting some clarification. This is the third time
we're hearing this application, correct? There been two previous. >> Third time. Everyone here is up to Everyone here is up to speed on >> Everyone here is everyone that has been here. >> Everyone here is everyone that's up. Okay. >> I just wanted to make sure that
something. >> Um >> so for order if you want to uh Mr. cars can speak to um the brief that he submitted and any type of um additional testimony he wants to give or any type of arguments as it relates to what was left at the last meeting. Um I believe
one of the primary things was the brief submission that the board had requested and that um that council had requested at that time. Um we also have Miss Alonzo here this evening as she can answer any questions as it comes from the zoning aspect what was um submitted and if there's anything that needs to be further evaluated on that from that
perspective. So we start off with Mr. Carris and let them go. >> Okay. Has everything been cleared up with escrow? >> Um I'm sorry to comment on that. I know that um Caris was given the detailed invoice this evening. I know last week it was a couple. >> We're given a rundown
>> run down. >> Um but there are certain invoices that we do need to review that I do not believe we have. So we'll get that and we'll take care of the escript. um that I'm not worried about because depending upon what happens tonight if you agree
with me we're obviously done. Um if we don't we come back because it is bifurcated on the D2. So either way they take care of >> so Mr. Chair I did speak to um also Tim Salons. It is more of a unique situation. You know typically you probably want to carry a matter because
um with the denial they would not be back but it's the 5K application um where they would be back seeking for possibility to defro the variance. Um I don't see an issue in proceeding tonight. So >> sounds good. Mr. Carris, floor is yours. >> Thank you. Um as requested by the board
at the last hearing, um we had submitted a brief back in August August 4, 2025 um to the court attorney Jack Serpa um copy to the board secretary. Prior to that, all the evidence and testimony that we intended to submit have been
submitted. We have no further testimony tonight. We have no further documentary evidence that we will be presenting. My arguments are pretty much laid out within that brief. I really don't have much to add. Um I'll just briefly go through, you know, we're here for an
interpretation. We're talking about a adding basically decking and railing on what we submit is an existing roof deck um based upon the evidential record going back to 2002. um photos, documentary evidence to
reflect that. Um the other point that we make of as it pertains to the statute, when you look at your statute here in Asbury Park, the land use statute, as we set forth in our brief, um it has in there that no building premises on
non-conformed use. This is a non-conforming use. As indicated, we are within the R2 uh zone. However, this is a multifamily um property. It's a condo. It has seven units within the property ina indicates cannot be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, substitute, structurally altered. Um respectfully based upon what has been proposed adding decking and railing. We are not looking to do that. It also provides in section P B of the ordinance that you can strengthen, you can restore, you can
make in a safe or lawful condition. Adding decking is restoring, protecting, um adding railing is for a lawful purpose and a safe purpose. The other thing I would like to bring out is I had mentioned at the prior hearing that
there is a land use ordinance 30-73.12 that pertains to open space that requires 30% of the area. Importantly, it says the open space requirement may be met with the means of common interior recreation areas, balconies, roof decks or terraces. It pertains to all
multifamily residences. It doesn't limit it to those in which it is a permitted use. or multifamily within the entire area of Aasbury party required to have 30%. It does not say of impervious coverage
limit and when you look at the definition of open space it talked about dedicated to the use of the residence evidence was presented that they are way under this particular property of the open space requirement. By adding this
roof deck it would increase. you're still not needing it, but you're certainly increasing the amount of open space available to the tenants in this multifamily residence. So, by doing this, you're actually trying to get into compliance statuto requirements here in
Nbury Park. You're not violating those requirements. All that is set forth in the brief I've submitted. Again, all my other arguments are contained within that briefing that I do submit. Okay. >> Any questions the board wants to ask of Mr. Carson?
>> Yeah. you're taking the position that open space um is satisfied whatever that an area can be included in open space whether or not it is available
to all residents of >> that is the property. >> That is correct because when it talks about open space here it talks about balcony. Certainly, if you have a balcony on a unit, it's usually off of one particular, you know, veteran. It's
not going to be available to everybody. It does not limit it to everybody being able to use that balcony, but just the residents within the unit have open space. >> I don't know. I I don't know. Do you have something to support that?
>> Just looking at the plain language, uh, how how it's set forth in here in the ordinance. A balcony be a balcony could be a balcony that goes completely around a building. We talk about you you refer to a roof deck that is something
generally accessible to the occupants of I'm just trying to understand that it could be but it doesn't limit it to that. That's a question. >> I don't know. Okay. Um >> Mike, >> I think maybe trying, you know, trying to shape the question for what the board
is looking for as a place of the ordinance. Um you know, basically you're looking at can the board rely on ordinance section 30-73.12 open space on space without consideration of other provisions of the city of Aspberry Park land regulations municipal code chapter 30 to grant
relief the applicant without a roof deck on the dwelling. So that's really where your analysis is going to come in. The facts were presented, the brief was presented, the legal article was presented. Now you're looking to make that determination. Um >> I just I feel like I
read your brief, seen all the information we have. I've seen that the timeline. Uh, I just think that your brief is really um conclusionary in saying that this is
not an expansion of a nonconforming use. I just feel that you haven't given us enough meat. So if you want to say something about that now I just say with all the words and all the pictures I just don't know how you get around that.
>> Well when you the evidence reflects um that we have presented that this is a roof deck that had been in existence since at least 2002. Was it used all the time? No. But when you look at how you define abandonment
within the uh the whole body of cases, um there has to be an intent of abandon. >> But I think the >> I'm sorry. >> The applicant when she testified told us she went on
it once. So it doesn't even seem to have been something that has been used as a roof deck. It was a roof without railings, without any protection. And
even though a permit was obtained in 2004, 2005, in 20 years, since and before, nothing was ever done. So, I
don't a I don't know how it's not abandoned. Um, but b I don't understand how you can give us facts or state that there are facts to show that this was a roof deck in use.
It's the covered um or the open part of the covered roof below. I just I don't ever see it as roof that it's been used as roof deck. It >> it actually when you look at the cave slot, you don't have to use it at all.
in order for it not to be abandoned. There's a case going back years ago having to do with horses and um it hadn't and it's a paddock area um which hadn't been used I think for that period
was like 14 years at all for state um but the court found division found division of the supreme court but they had found in that case there was no abandonment because there had to be an intent near nonuse court concluded
not excuse me equivalent to abandon >> but I don't see that it was ever used as such. So how >> it doesn't >> you don't even get to that point. >> It doesn't have to under that case. Miracle use is not indicative of
abandonment. There has to be affirmative steps to um and here there were no affirmative door remains whether they went on once or they went on twice whether they went on five times. It's not in indicia of
abandonment. There has to be actual physical abandonment in order to find abandonment under that case law. And there's a whole body of cases that follow. So the fact that it's excuse me. So the fact that it's there does not
tell the person who owns the house that they have to use it. >> Correct. They don't. It's >> almost like telling somebody you got a backyard, but I'm not telling you to go out in >> Okay. And one of the questions that you're you know you're faced with with regard to this interpretation you know
did the property have group when it originally was given the script form 2002. So you know that's part of the equation as the and then the other portion relates to the um ordinance section 30-73 uh followup
>> and that that's actually the key when the certificate of nonconformity. Our position is if you're issuing a certificate of nonconformity for the site includes everything. You don't just limit well this is nonconforming this isn't. Our position is you look at the
entire site and whatever is there is non-conforming. The master deed that we had submitted at evidence actually identifies this particular roof deck as a roof deck. It calls it out. It has a
diagram of it and it says it's a roof deck. >> But that's not a document that anyone else approved other than the developer who converted the the building. And I still do not
think that it specifically it it may refer to the entire number of units as nonconforming in that area, but it is not focused on that
alleged roof deck. and >> respect. >> I just feel like you haven't you you keep saying the words, but you haven't shown us anything to convince us that it should be as you
say it. >> The deed from 2004 explicitly states that it >> but that's a deed by the developer. >> No, no, no. It's a recorded deed with the county. It's not just of the development, >> but they don't review it for its content, >> but it's evidential as to the existence.
>> No, >> that it was a roof deck back in 2004, right around the time that the certificate was given. >> No, no, I don't know how you just you just can't leapfrog there.
analysis as to how you know your opinion of your >> I'm just I'm asking I'm asking for something more than assertions >> and I am that's all and I and I'm just trying to keep saying that I don't hear that I'm getting any
part of the evidential record and my pardon is based upon what is in that evidential. So, was there ever did anybody know when the door was put in to this roof deck or roof space? >> The We have a photograph that we had submitted from the listing back then that shows that door
>> back when I believe it's 2002. >> Okay. So, the door has been there. Has there ever been a permit pulled to close the door and make it a window? >> It there was an application, but it was never done. So there was an application or there was a permit to
abandon the use or or no >> application to change it as part of the documents that went in but they decided not to which evidence that they decide not to abandon >> just to confirm your clients or prior
>> prior okay the prior owner. So there's a door on the second floor. We either say, "Okay, or in this interpretation, right, like not even going into the specific roof deck, right? So you can't really do that. That's not what they're here for. They're just going to interpret whether or not this is an expansion of the
non-conforming use based on the ordinance that was presented. So regardless of whether we agree on whether they should be able to use it or not, I think that's kind of moot. I think we need to get to the the meat of can they utilize it underneath this ordinance?" I don't really see how they
couldn't if there's a door there. I mean, there's no railing, but there's a door. Why wouldn't there just be a window? I just I It's not adding up either. >> And it looked like at some point there was an application to um change all the windows, right? It this was going to be
included as as a change windows at some point. There's some there's some application in here for that. >> Excuse me, Mr. Cavs. I think your client wants your attention. No, no. I'll just make sure I can hear. >> Okay. I didn't know if you want us give
him some information. >> I'm one of those weird people who >> No, no. I just didn't know if you needed to communicate with him. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Usually people just to go one step further, Wendy, too, just to to your
point, right? Like you know, she said she only went out there once. I mean, Donna had already said that if there is no railing >> or whichever it may be, right? If there's no railing, we don't really want them out there anyway for safety, but they're trying to be within the guidelines whether we interpret it for
or against them. They want to move forward with it. So, I think again, it's kind of moot with there being a door and there's no it's a door, you know, there's a door to an outer area with no safety and you just walk off. So, I mean, for me, I I I'm looking at it and
it's interpreted as such. I mean, I don't really see it in the way. >> I mean, I kind of look at like, okay, it's in the deed nice selling point for somebody, but nobody ever investigated if we all keep talking about how it's unsafe and nobody would go out there
without railings and uh you a better flooring of some sort or another, whether it's fiberglass or something else, right? Um, somebody just decided to slap a label on it for sales purposes and say, "Oh, it's a it's a deck."
>> Well, I don't think that the door means it's a deck. I mean, I don't think that there'd be a door to a roof without there being the intent of there being a deck. >> So, JJ, that's your position because I it was hard to hear you from behind that your interpretation is that >> it's it's it's appearing like because
the door correct whether or not there's use the intent is for it to be a deck. I I agree. I that's my stance as well. My interpretation is that the purpose for it is to be utilized as a deck with the door, the permit, the history that gets
laid out. That that was the intent of that. >> So what is the door leading to? The door the door has to lead to something. Okay, that that's I hate to make stuff complicated. I'm the simple person up here. The door is leading to something.
What is it leading to? And what has been said that it was leading to is was leading to a debt. Forget that it ain't no railing on it. Okay? There's no railing there. But she will make that improvement that there will be a railing. And I'm not telling you what to say, but I would say if I were doing it,
I would say I'm making an improvement to my deck. The door has been there. Okay? And just because I don't walk out that door, doesn't mean that that door doesn't have the purpose. I have a back porch. I never go down the steps to the backyard. Why? cuz they're too steep for
me as I get 74. So I said I'm not using that. I'm using the other door. Okay. So I can't dictate to you how you use your property as long as it's there. And I think it's dangerous when we step to the point where we start dictating people to how to use something that has existed.
Okay? It has existed. It had a purpose. She has said she wants to make the improvement on that purpose. So let's stop picking at her for the fact that there's no rail in there. She says she'll put one in, >> but they could not >> it looked >> they could not have used it as a deck if
it didn't have an adequate floor and proper railings because it never would have gotten code approval. So why can we say that it this is the continuation of a non-conforming use when
it would not have gotten a CO? But how did they get a CO with a door? There wasn't >> otherwise you would have said that they have to remediate that. >> I don't know. There are a lot of things I have questions about, but I don't know if this is the time to bring this up um
to go to one step. This is being submitted as an interpretation and I hope that everybody on this board understands the impact and maybe um
Michelle >> you look at every application on its own each application separate >> and to that point Wendy like I see that this one's a little different than others that have come before us with balconies that have already been done and now they're coming before because
there's issue I see this one very differently from those situations just to share your viewpoint like >> no I'm not sure that I'm not sure that maybe I'm not explaining myself >> so maybe just to also assist with regards to the board I will first off are we asking questions of council still
or are we doing deliberations where we regards to >> well I'm going to ask the question um is >> and you can also let me just remind everybody too you can also ask Miss Alonzo anything as it relates to the zoning aspect of this as well she's here this evening >> which We will. I mean, I would like to, but >> um
>> you had a choice when you were bringing this to bring it as an interpretation or as a a application for a variance. >> I did both. >> And specifically, why did you choose the interpretation >> because that's a decision that I made with my client. We did both. We
bifurcated. It's it there is an application also for a DTIP. It's bifurcated pending a determination on the interpretation. >> Yes. But this is what you wanted to pursue first. And would you share with us >> because there's no reason to get a D2
variance if there's an interpretation. We don't need it. >> I don't need a D2 variance if the board decides that it's unnecessary. I don't have to go through the proofs. Different set of proofs.
Russell, do you have any? >> Um, I'm I'm I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Um, I I I I understand what Wendy is saying and I I don't think there's a a lot of clarity with the interpretation. I would have preferred to see this come as um a devariance and
and ask for an expansion of a non-conforming. I think that would have been easier and cleaner. Um, so, um, uh, um, I I'm not fully convinced on the interpretation. I'm not necessarily
opposed to them ultimately, um, developing this and using it as a deck, but I I'm not sure that I'm fully convinced on the interpretation part. >> Could Michelle speak to us that that is that time now or >> maybe have some questions for Mr. Lazi?
Certainly. >> Do we need to swear her in? >> Yes, please. If you can also get your license. >> Am I correct? She's testifying. She sto >> swear from the testimony about the give the truth of the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> State your name of the recorder, please.
>> Michelle Alonso, director of planning and redevelopment for the city of Asbury Park and a licensed professional planner and the chief zoning official for the city. >> Thank you, Mr. Alonso. >> Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, do you have any uh light that you'd
like to share on the situation? >> Well, I I do want to make some corrections. Yes, there is a door there that is a historic door. That door Well, it was predates before this was a multif family. So, it was a multif family first and then
became a condominium as the document. You have a lot of documents. You know this came for to this not this group this board but to the zoning board for a certificate of compliance as a non-conforming use and it it received
that shortly after it became a condominium association which is not never comes to a zoning office. Um but the there is a difference between the zoning permits and the actual construction permits and they don't
match up per se. There was a zoning permit approval in 2002 to do a railing, but there was never a construction permit pulled for that. >> Correct. >> Correct. And since then, there's been re-roofing
done. At some point, there's evidence in my opinion that there was a pitched roof on this porch. >> I would object unless there is documentary evidence or there's personal knowledge as to that, that should be strict. Okay, strike it. I'm going to
say that the siding on the front of the house does not go all the way down to the roof. But then also one of the more recent permits was to re- roof. There's actually a few re-roofings to re-roof
that roof. Well, it was made flat. It was roofed with material that is listed in the construction permit that is not for um walking. So >> unless you have evidence in unless you
qualify yourself as to an expert in construction as to what you can walk on, what you can't walk on. Again, I'm going to move to stripe. >> Let's clarify. What's the uh what's the material that's used? Uh, it's in here.
I I don't have the full print out of 195 pages, but is the one the last construction permits >> and it's what I did was I Googled the material >> that's on the original >> from because it's a brand name. >> Is it the EPDM? >> Yes.
>> All right. So, I think the last hearing what I did here is that there was it was conceded that that is Ruth. Correct, Mr. Garrison. That was you came from you, right? >> On But I need to know which permit and which part of the group because if
you're looking at one of the last exhibits as she indicates the one I have that's the last exhibit is exhibit >> 13 that has on there a porch roof but that
refers to 1703 wet again that's the fact >> property I need to see the documents to which you're referring >> it's the it's the opra that you received of the list of construction permits. And it is the very last list in the list of construction permits. I'll let you take
a minute to pull that up. >> No, it's in one of the first pages. >> It's it's of the exhibits actually permit information. It's item number one. Just waiting for my computer to boot up. And that's from
2012. As I indicate the what I have for is the zoning permit application for TS12 unless you can show me a different one indicates at 1703 web. >> No, this is from the construction department. >> Okay.
>> This is this was this was also sent as an Oprah. Again, I have the date on here has install APDM route. It has 65 uh 2012. I'm looking at the zoning
application that says 6520 and that says 1703 web. So, that's a different building. >> No, this did not come from my office. >> Then, can you show me the permit that's referring? >> This is not a zoning permit. This is a
construction permit. Okay. So, this one we're looking at a zoning permit from 519 2012 that says install first installation IPM from roof. Um, but I would need clarification because again
the zoning permit two applications. Okay. So, which one is this? >> That's the application. Page one is the actual permit. Scroll up. There's the permit. >> Okay. And those are both the three.
>> Okay. >> So, it's EPM that's on this. So it's on both but we would need documentary evidence or somebody to testify that you can't walk on that type of >> nonetheless. There is also not an
application for the railing to go with it. >> I was going to take it. But um my statement of that it goes more about that the the zoning permitting because even though there was a zoning permit issued in two thou in the early
2000s there were subsequent you know um permits from subsequent zoning officers that denied the roof deck because of the expansion of the non-conforming use >> and the change in the ordinance >> and the change in the ordinance. I also if you would also want to refer
to the open space requirement. The open space requirement is a recent requirement that was in the last round of zoning changes. It was not there at the creation of the multif family. It does typically so it would not pertain to this nonconforming structure
because it's grandfathered. There is no requirement of my office to impose the open space requirement. But I also want to state that the open space requirement does not trump other legalities that need to of
of the condition that we have here. The porch is in the front yard setback and that we would never say you must put create the open space on this non-conforming element of the structure.
So I thought front porches were not part of the front yard setback in Asbury Park. >> Front porches as defined as a porch can encroach in the front yard setback if they're defined on a porch. But a porch must be a onestory structure >> open
>> open one-story structure. And I actually have the I printed out separately the definition of the porch. That's the thing. It says one story in height
which projects beyond the main building. So the increase of the railing on the roof deck increases the height and then it's no longer a porch and cannot be encroaching in the front yard. Is that >> no? As far as height, you don't measure to the top of rail. That's not height.
You measure to the roof. You never measure height to the top of a rail. Even when you're looking at multifamily buildings, you don't even include the par. You go up to the roof line and then you have the par. So that's not true. >> No, that's an interpretation on it.
>> Interpretation. That's within your ordinances. >> Regardless, the part of the front of the building that is enclosed is not a porch and that is non-conforming for the front yard setback. >> Right. Wait, say that.
>> You have a portion cuz I have a photo of the front porch that are actually no longer porch. That's >> Yeah, it's not porch. >> So, this is a nonconformity into the front yard setback. >> Well, you got a certificate of nonformity.
>> Yeah, you can't extend it, >> right? Once position notice then that's >> right. It's an interpretation and that goes to the base. >> We're asking for an interpretation. That's not an expansion. It's a system,
>> but the railing and the use of that space. So, this received the certificate of nonconformity as a multif family without the roof deck. >> You don't know that. It doesn't say it. Where does it say in a certificate of
non-conformity? It excludes the roof deck. >> So, yeah, let's let's also refocus real quick, Mr. CR, if you can wait for cross. Miss Lonzo, finish. What do you want to say then? We'll allow this to close if they have any more questions. >> No, no, because um No, you because you
articulated very well for me, Donna, about uh about Yes, there's a portion that so that's non-conforming. The non-conforming certificate is for the structure as it as it was. When you have a non-conforming use and structure, after you receive that certificate,
you're not just permitted in the future to expand it. like if the same as if you if you're not allowed to build an addition here without coming back to the board. And again, the interpretation of my office and my
my last zoning officer was that this is an expansion because it's the increase of space, usable space. So that is my office's interpretation. That's the expansion of the non-conform use and that is why you
made the you made an application for an interpretation. >> May I question? >> Yes. >> If you had if you had a rear deck and it had no rail, >> would it be considered an expansion of and
>> had no safety railing? >> It had no safety railing. >> All right. An existing deck. It had no safety rail. Would you be allowed to put a railing on there for safety purposes? >> It would need a railing for safety purposes. Shouldn't be built without one. If
>> you buy a house and it has a deck, it has no railing. Would you be allowed to put railing on for safety purposes? >> Not necessarily. >> But a deck is a wrong example because we don't >> I'm talking about a rear deck of a house. If you buy a house that has an
existing rear deck, would you be allowed to put on a ground? >> Why do you think it's a deck? But that's what you have to please do not feed her answers. >> But you're just you're using a >> Please don't let me cross that. >> Nobody's established in fact that it's a
deck. >> If you have a wooden structure on the back of the house with planks on it, structurally it's sand and it protrudes from the back of the house does not have a roof. Would you allow would you allow to put railings on? Maybe not necessarily
because it depends on the condition of the property. Is it in the setback area? Isn't And it >> if it's in the setback area, it's an existing wooden deck without a railing. Would you be allowed to put railings on it? There's a door leading out to it on
the back of the property, no railings when you buy. Would you be allowed to put railings on it? >> On the zoning in or the construction act? >> Would you be permitted under the zoning? >> Under not necessarily. Under what circumstances would you not necessarily be allowed to do that?
>> If the deck was not built legally? >> If it was built legally, would you be allowed to do it? >> Is it a replacement of a railing because of rot or is there no railing? Because if there's no railing, it's not legal. >> If there's no railing and it had been existing there for a hundred years,
would you be allowed to put a railing on? >> Maybe, maybe not. Again, it is not the same circumstance. >> If you if you if the height requirement, they change the legal requirements that at a certain height you have to put
railings where it did not exist before, but now it requires it. Would you have would you be allowed to put railings on >> if it was a legal conforming deck? Yes. Well, if it's an existing deck on a house that was legally built, had no railings, code requires there be
railings, and you put those rail. >> I'm going to repeat it depends because decks fall because decks fall under a different provision as an accessory structure and it really depends on the circumstance. If we find the accessory
structure was not built legally, >> I'm I'm giving you the example. It was built legally. It has no railings on it. Can you put railings on it >> for safety? >> Correct. >> If it's legal. Yes.
>> Thank you. Can you replace If the decking has rotted, can you replace the decking? >> If it's legal. >> If it's legal. >> If it's a legal deck. Yes. >> Thank you. No further questions. >> Just uh everybody please be reminded to
let's keep the record clear. I'm not trying to talk over one another. questions will be asked and answered and you know we'll get to questions that need to be addressed. Uh but let's just keep focusing. Okay. >> One further question.
Doesn't the zoning code permit as it refers to non-conforming uses that you are allowed to restore or strengthen unsafe conditions? >> You need a permit. It needs to be again legal.
>> But it allows you to restore or strengthen unsafe conditions >> but not demolish. >> Not asking about no because >> existing legal use and there's a condition within that use that needs to be strengthened or needs to be made
safe. Are you allowed to do that >> if it's not a full replacement? Okay. >> Thank you. Any other questions from Salasa? Um, >> can you expand? You said the you made a
comment earlier about the sighting not going down to the deck. Can you explain what you mean by that? >> Well, I did a site visit and again, it's not scientific. It's just me taking a look. When I took a look at the front facade,
the horizontal sighting did not go all the way down to the roof. >> Well, how far does it go? >> Goes to about Right below the window. >> And did you go up on the roof to measure anything? >> No, because I'm I didn't ask permission to go on the property. >> What type of sighting was on there
before? >> Before? >> You mean the type of sighting on the building now? >> You said it doesn't go all the way down to the roof. The siding? >> No. >> Do you know whether or not it ever went all the way down to the roof? >> No. Do >> you know whether or not that is a
condition that's existed for over 50 years? >> No, I don't. I didn't do that research. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Alonzo from the board? >> Does um we open this to the public for questions? Is there anyone in the public
that would like to ask Miss Alonzo questions about her testimony only? >> No. Okay. Closing public comment. Um >> so again right now the board is going to be making interpretations relates to what's been present. Um you know some
things to consider in your analysis is going to be you know did the property well first off there's two arguments as it relates to what the applicant is seeking questions relate to the existence and status of the roof. So, did the property have a roof deck in
2002 at the time in this non issued? If you feel yes, explain why. If you feel no, explain why. Um, do the references in the master deed conclusively determine that the property had a roof deck in 2004 when the master deed was reported through the present date?
Again, same thing. If yes or no, you're you're analyzing as to whether you feel that was relevant as it relates to what you're doing for this interpretation. Did the property receive a valid zoning permit 2005 for the roofing deck, the roof deck and the railings? Um, the
property received a valid zoning permit 2005 for a roof deck and railings. Did the applicant have an obligation to act on that zoning permit at that time? Yeah, the property received a valid zoning permit in 2005. Does the zoning permit remain valid today? These are,
you know, you've been discussing these periodically, but these are the focus now as it relates to what we're going to be doing for this interpretation. How can we determine that person >> with regards to whether um >> so >> yeah I respectfully the the last two
questions whether or not it's remains active or whether or not has relevance in terms of the interpretation well I would argue it's relevant in terms of just historic the historical record but I would agree with what they said they
expire after one year so the last two questions I assert our property. >> Okay, so we could strike those. Um, does the existence of a working door that provides ingress and egress to unit 3 from the location in question have any bearing on whether the property has a roof deck?
Does the absence of a railing on the second story have any bearing on whether the property has a roof deck between the time frame in question 2002 and through 2025? >> Could you say that again, please? >> Sure. Does the absence of a railing on the
second story have any bearing on whether the property has a roof deck between the time frame in question 2002 to 2025? >> Does the surface material on the roof have any impact in your decision as to whether this property has a roof? >> That I'd object to without any evidence
as to the nature of the surface material and how it would impact the roof. >> I think though again there was testimony that the material was EDPM. Correct. Yeah, but there's no further testimony as to, you know, whether the use of that EPDM, whether or not you
can walk on it, whether or not it changes the fabric of the roof, there's no evidence of >> Was there Did you also agree that it is roofing material, I think that at the last meeting, what I heard from >> that there it it was at some point there's roof material, but that whether
or not that has, you know, prevents people from utilizing, there's no evidence based upon material. Let me just ask them for clarification purposes. Um, typically you come across EDPM when you do um applications, is it used in any way as a walkway or for
decking material? >> I don't just >> Oh, I'm an attorney. I have we're we have limited knowledge as to those things. >> Um, do any of the zoning permits or construction permits issued after 2005 have any impact in your decision as to whether this property has a roof depth?
Does the testimony from the applicant the applicant's witness about their observations on how this location of the dwelling has been used have any bearing decision whether this property has a roof deck? Those are basically the summary of what you're looking for as it relates to again questions related to the existence
and status of the roof deck from 2002 to the present. Um you can discuss those once you have a decision or you have any further questions related to those. We can move on to the secondary portion of Mr. regards his argument related to the
development ordinance section 30-73.12. >> Just for clarification, depending upon the way they answer these questions, yes or no, it doesn't mean if they answer all yes, they have all have to be yes to go one way or all no the other way. It's just considerations. >> Considerations. It's all this is right
now. Considerations as to what they should be looking for with this analysis so we can narrow the topics down and just, you know, make an informed decision. also getting it on the record as to what your decision is going to be so that you have support as to which way you may vote at the end.
>> Thank you. So, time for us to discuss. Um should we go through each question and then can we can we do that again? >> Yes. Do you want me to start with Tom? >> Well, yeah, we're going to need some help cuz you you >> there's there's quite >> itemized quite a few.
>> Yeah, I can summarize it, but you went into great detail. So, So, sure, we can start at the top. Um, did the property have a roof deck in 2002 at the time this not was issued? >> I believe there was intention for a roof deck, but I don't believe there was a roof deck.
>> I don't believe that there was a roof deck either. I don't think any evidence has been submitted, any factual information has been submitted to us to um form a basis that there was a roof deck. That basically is your opinion. Okay.
And the fact that there was a door there, I would say it was a deck. >> I agree that that was the intention. >> I also agree that it was a deck. >> Okay. Um, do the references of the master D conclusively determine the
property roof deck in 2004 where the master D was recruited? >> I don't think it's conclusive, but I think it's a good indication. >> Say that again. I'm sorry. I don't think it's conclusive. I think it's a good indication. >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part of what you said. >> Good indication.
>> That it is a good indication. You said >> she she doesn't feel it's conclusive, but it does feel it's a good indication. >> I do agree to that extent. I mean, typically master deeds are prepared by title and they do thorough research as to what's there. So, I would find it
hard that they would put something that is not there. So, I do think that it it is enumerated. >> I agree. That was the intention with the deed like JJ was saying and Natalie >> I yeah I believe that there was intention and I believe that there was
roof access but was there an actual deck? >> Well for the question I believe it was just in regard to the master >> I believe that the intention was there. Yes. My reading of the language of the deed was that it was a concept
uh but it was not realized and so maybe there was this conception that there could be but I think it still goes to the fact that it was not there
at the time of question. It may have been a conception, but it was not a reality. >> Does the existence of a working door that provides ingress and egress to unit 3 from the location in question of any bearing on whether the property has a roof deck? >> Yes,
>> absent a Julia balcony. Yeah, I would believe that does have a bearing. There's a door to an open roof deck, >> right? Again, the intention is for the use of that with the door that something is going to be out there. So, I'd say yes to that. >> I don't think we'd be having this
conversation if there wasn't a door there. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Again, I think that the door was there as a possibility, but it does not ever indicate to me doesn't lead to automatic
conclusion that there was or was to be a debt there. >> Doesn't that go to what the owner wants to do? Doesn't that go to what the owner wants to do? Sorry, >> that question you asked, right? Um, Miss
Glassman, all due respect, okay, you're saying you're trying to say that's how you feel, but what is more important to me is what did the owner feel, the applicant? What was what was their vision? Not what is our vision, what is
their vision. You're saying that don't interrupt me when I'm talking. That door proceeded to me while I'm talking. >> That door preceded the owner. In fact, >> you don't listen. That's why we have >> Let's get under control, please. >> Okay.
>> We cannot impose, okay, our preferences on an applicant. We can tell them what's legal, what is illegal. He has presented evidence. Um, Mr. Carris has presented evidence. Miss Alonzo has presented evidence. Okay. They have gone back and
forth. Okay. We have listened to it. Okay. But still when you say there was a door, what did that door lead to? Well, this is what I think. This is what they think. But the most important thing is that we listen to the applicant. What
did the applicant want to do? >> Now, I disagree with you. I just disagree with you. That's all. >> Well, we have hints. >> All right. >> Has have we satisfied that question? So, >> okay, great. Um, does the absence of a railing on the second floor have any bearing on whe the property has a roof deck between the time frame and
question? >> Can you say that again? I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Does the um absence of a railing >> absence >> on the second story have any bearing as to whether the properties are kept between the period question? >> No. >> Say no.
>> Absence of a door. Yeah, that's railing. You know, I think with, you know, the railing not being there, I think there's a lot of things that this board has asked to clean up about code or ordinances from days past, which the board does a great job. I I again think
that this railing being there or not, has no bearing on there still being a door to a roof deck. In my opinion, >> I think it does have a bearing. I I just think if the door wasn't there and somebody says, you know, waves a magic
wand and said, I wanted to be this. It doesn't make it so. Um, but the fact that there never was a railing, it is inconceivable in my mind that anyone
could have legitimately called that piece of what I consider a roof to be a deck without a railing because there's probably no point in time where a railing on a second floor
would not have been required for a space that was being used as a deck. >> Devil's advocate, why did we allow a door then? >> Sorry, >> devil's advocate. Why did we allow a door then? >> There's nothing that says the city did allow, >> right? It could have been
>> I don't think we can provide more evidence at this point. >> But when it was sold, it was called a deck. >> Okay. And when when the applicant purchased it, she purchased it, I think,
and this is what I think. I could be wrong, that she said it has a deck. Okay. So, once again, we're trying to interpret what the lady said as, but I can only accept what she says, not what you said. Okay? I mean, I might say it's
blue. You might may say it's black. Okay. So, what? >> Let's let's let's get back and focus on the questions. Um, I do believe the absence of a railing uh is impactful. If there were existing railings there that um the applicant wanted to have uh replaced, again, we wouldn't be having
this conversation. So, the absence of railings uh is it's important to me. It was never fully realized. Whatever the intention, it was never fully realized. >> I agree with that. >> Okay. >> Does the surface material roof have any
impact in your decision as to whether the property has a roof deck? um as we spoke about earlier, not looking at so much the uses of certain materials, just the material that's presently there. >> Yes, I would say yes.
>> I Yes, >> I'm going to say it's inconclusive. We haven't delved into what that fabric is for duration or foot traffic that it could it could just be an underllayment and you build the deck on top of it. So,
I don't know that I have enough information to conclusively answer that question. >> I agree. >> I also I agree with that also. >> You know, I mean, I see people I just watched a guy build a put a roof on a house across the street from me the other day. Guess what? They walked on
the material. >> Do any of the zoning permits or construction permits issued after 2005 have any impact in your decision as to whether the property has a roof deck? Can you say that again, please? >> Do any of the zoning permits or construction permits that were issued
after 2005 have any impact as to whether you consider it a roof deck? >> Can I just ask for clarification? The ones that were issued were permitting the roof deck to be constructed. Is that correct? Just to refresh the record, >> 2005 was when one was issued for
permitting the roof deck. >> Um then there was the 2012 um that was indicated there was replacement. um for the replacement of a roof with materials, >> but we don't know what that roof was. >> Not at the time. >> Right.
>> And then we have the denial in 2024. >> Yes. >> So, can you ask the question again? >> Do any of the zoning or construction permits that were issued since 2005 have any impact on your decisions to whether
the property has a roof deck? Unfortunately, because of the person who um approved the permit in 2005, I have to say uh it does not uh affect my uh feelings about whether
there was a deck there or not. >> I don't believe there was. No, >> I would I I think that the 2024 denial should be taken into >> Well, that's that's the reason we're here because that
>> Okay. Well, I just said it's important to my consideration. Um but not the one from 2005. So when you ask subsequent to 2005, yes, the 2024 denial does have an impact on this on our on my
deliberation. I think that the denial is the reason that we're here and that's why we're here to interpret it. Okay? So the denial is just a tool, a means towards the end. Okay? If they had said yes, we
wouldn't be here. They said no. She has pursued it and we're trying to come to a conclusion now. >> Okay. >> Any other comments? >> I'm still uncertain because there the permits are all over the place. There's
an approval, there's an approval, there's a new roof without any indication of what kind of roof, and then there's a denial. So the the history in the record is not clear as to what
was or wasn't there. So I'm just going to abstain from answering that. >> Did you guys answer that down down there? Did you have an opinion? >> I I think the inconsistency isn't helpful. >> Yeah. I think that the initial approval
and then subsequent about face again gives us the reason why we're here for the interpretation. I think that's self-evident. Does the testimony from the applicant applicants witnesses about their observation on how this location of the drawing has been used of any bearing decision of whether there was
>> no >> no >> and based on everything you just heard as it relates to the answer of those questions um do you feel that the property has a reduct that >> I do not
>> that's the interpretation. >> Okay. >> I do albeit unsafe and maybe not up to code but I think that's again part of the nonconformity to begin with. So yes >> I feel like there's an unrealized
unfinished deck that was intended to be there. just look upon it as they asked for it, then they asked for something else, and now they're asking for it again. Okay, but I go back to how the property was
sold. The property was sold having a deck. So that's it. So days. Well, I think that goes back to a question that you did not put to the group, which was if
and if people thought the language in the master deed was conclusive. I don't think that that got passed around separately. >> I think that that was the second >> you mentioned it, but I'm not sure that we discussed it separately. >> We answered it. I answered it. >> And that question leads into, you know,
the final question with it. Uh, may the applicant proceed to construct a railing and new deck surfacing on the area in question without meeting variance relief for an expansion of a non-conforming use which would be the D2 or any other variance relief under subsection CJSA 4A column 55D there.
I feel very strongly that a request for variance is the proper way to approach this. Um so that positive negative criteria can be addressed. all of the various setback issues because this is
just a conception and not something that is um currently existing. >> I would like to see an application on this with the design and the materials and >> I don't want to leap frog over all
those. first got to answer the question whether or not it's required based upon whether or not there's an interpretation of an existing deck. Um, in terms of materials and all that, that would be I I'd have no problem coming back for that
to be honest with you. >> I I think it's required. My I thought my answer was our position is that we don't have to get a D2, but I'd have no issue coming back for materials at all. >> And that's the basic design. >> That's why we're here this evening. Y >> can you read the question one more time?
I'm sorry. I'm a pain. I'm sorry. >> I'm happy you're asking. >> Very detailed analysis. That's why I kind of came prepared a little bit on it. Obviously, but may the applicant proceed to construct a railing and new decking surface on the area in question without
needing variance relief for expansion of a non-conforming use the B2 variance or any variance relief under subsection CJSA 40A column 55D. >> So, the question is asking can they do this? >> Correct. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Speaker, could that be a condition for approval? I'm sorry. >> Could there be a condition for approval? >> No, this is this is >> only interpretation. >> Interpretation. >> Well, we would we would agree. We would submit we'd come back with the design of railings and cut. I haven't commissioned.
>> I I think that the arguments that have been presented over the past three hearings have been inadequate and insufficient to justify granting the interpretation. And I think that we need
to receive an application for variances. >> I would agree with that. >> Now before we also finalize anything with regards to motion, there's also two parts to his argument. Remember, so the second part of the argument was questions related to development
ordinance section 30-73.12 as it relates to the um open space. But before we get to that where whether or not there's an existing debt where >> you want to finalize this first before >> let's do that for yeah because we don't get to the second question. >> That's certainly fine to know we want to
do it all at once. But >> I defer from my fellow board members. I think they should be able to construct the deck. I think the the documents laid out, the deed lays out, the per the first initial permit lays it out that that was intended to be a deck and I
feel like they should be able to build that >> based on how the applicant purchased it. I agree it's the deal. >> I agree there's an existing structure. I think the due diligence that goes into
again preparing a master deed. Um I I just I don't see how they could write that in, a title company could write that in and make it to a closing. Regardless of that, I still think it has been there. I think that they bought it as that. I think that it has
maybe not transpired the way prior owners have hoped or these owners have hoped, but I I doesn't negate the fact that it's there. I'm just going to ask again. I if something is a conception in somebody's mind but has not been realized, how can
we say that this is a nonconforming use that should be approved as is? It's not a use if it doesn't exist. So that's where I feel like that that the discussion gets completely
inconsistent. >> Council, am I correct? It's a vote of 42 on the interpretation. Actually, >> anybody make a motion on it yet? >> No, it's just been answering the questions. >> Before we do that, >> there's no further testimony. >> No, it's not testimony. It's it's a
technical question, but go for Yeah, just to assuage because I think with Wendy and Russell and even Jill, I think we're all on the same page that it doesn't change anything for people that still want to expand non-conforming uses. That doesn't change like they still need to come here to do that. What
this just says is that for this particular homeowner that has an existing roof deck or stated roof deck or what have you that they can continue to go about that. The approval was there, the approval was denied. Ultimately the interpretation again just
in my opinion it's it's there. It's enumerated in a few different places too but it doesn't negate the fact too that again people still need to come here for variances for other ones that would fall under that. It doesn't change that piece. They still have to come here for
variances. Not them in particular but other >> No. But now you're changing. >> But by this action it would change the ground rules. No, we have to look at every application independently. >> It would not because their interpretation is that it was there. They never abanded the use. If someone
had come here and they never had a roof deck, they still have to come to us if it's not informing us or areas. That doesn't change. This is strictly based on them and that they've already had a roof deck. even though there's no railings or whatnot, you may say it's not a roof deck, but I just want to
clarify that and maybe the attorney can clarify that this doesn't expand it to everybody specific to the property. Right. >> Right. >> So, I think that was part of your concern that it does shape the rules, but it really doesn't. >> Well, it it does. There's because
fundamentally I don't believe that there was a roof deck there at any time. So >> I mean >> everything else flows from that which is why you have to come in front of a board and request variances because you want
to do something that is not currently there. >> Yeah. Struggling with that's certainly what I just don't know what there is to hang one's hat on a door. >> Yeah.
>> A door. But you've never seen you've never seen a door. Can we get back to We're getting in the weeds a little bit. We get back to the >> So the entitle to the deliberation. If we want to sit here talking about it, please don't >> shut me up. >> No, I agree. >> I just answered your question of where
to hang out. >> And I think the absence of a railing I mean whether it's on the perimeter of the roof deck or what is allowed I believe Donna could clarify the Juliet balconies with a door on the second floor. On the second floor, there's still no railing on the door or on the
edge, but there's still a door. Period. There's a door. But to Mr. Harris's point, where does that door lead to? A roof or a deck or a roof deck, but there's still a door to an egress on a second floor with no railing. So either we allow it to continue it just being a door and we interpret it as, hey, come
to us for a variance to make it safe and make it compliant or it's always been a door. It's always been a root deck in my opinion and they should just be able to make it safe period. >> DJ, >> so then it doesn't need a rail. Well, I I never said it argument. They
could keep going with what they have. >> Well, technically they can they are submitting for a permit is to put a rail and put a deck to make it. >> But I think how we get there is the issue because I mean clearly there's disagreement on whether or not there was a roof deck. But I don't think that you
can get to a roof deck without a door. And I think that it all hinges on that pun intendedly. >> I think >> there are plenty of buildings that have doors that lead to nowhere. >> Okay. But they normally have a railing. But they normally have a railing or something. And maybe talk about, you
know, how do they get a CO or not a CO? I mean, there was a CO. There was a door. There was no, >> to my knowledge, additional conditions on that door being on there for conditions of occupancy. So, I think we're kind of circling that. >> Anyone want to um put forth a vote?
>> I have a question because of what Mr. Carris put on the table about coming back with a design. So, this is for Chris. How would that work with an interpretation? >> Well, I mean that would be submitted to you at that stage with regards to
>> but it doesn't come back to the board. I listen ordinarily it doesn't but I certainly understand the concerns with you know aesthetically how it's going to look the materials and all if the board I mean I'm I'm thinking we can probably
find something within the code to allow for it because I'd have no issue aesthetically to making sure that the board is comfortable with what is going up there how it's going to appear and the materials that are being used. I have absolutely and neither does my client any issue with that.
>> But part of the paperwork filing process with that then >> because it's not tied to >> it would be tied to this >> to this. There's no variance >> there. There's no variance but it's an interpretation but I'd agree if we had a
vote in favor of our interpretation that we will come in with a design for it. how >> but there there's no application and on top of that they would still have to follow community design standards. Correct. So that would that wouldn't really make a difference anyway. It's
still within their purview to do it as they please as long as it conforms. Correct. >> If the interpretation is in >> if it Okay. >> Yeah. >> This is what I we can certainly we'd have to submit the aesthetic design to your office. Well,
as you know, you'd have to the aesthetic design and the whole building permit package. >> Yeah. And I'd have no problem with holding off on that until >> the board wanted to comment on it. >> But how how are we doing that legally? >> I would try to figure out what authority
to do. Does anyone have to say no? If if >> it would be an advisor, an interpretation. >> Listen, I'm trying to work with the board because I certainly understand aesthetically how we can do it. >> There's really no way to do it. >> There's no way to compel. So basically that's what it comes down to. There's no
way to compel. So right now we're still going to go back to what we're here to this evening which is the interpretation and we'll get to does anyone want to make a motion one way or the other? >> I'll make a motion to agree to the interpretation as Mr. Harris had put forward in his brief and argument.
>> Second. >> So we need to clarify that though because obviously >> his application. So the the the argument though that was in the brief was more related to the ordinance section 30-73.12 the application that I believe the board
make the motion to approve relates to the question the existence of a staff of the roof deck >> oh and that >> I thought we were doing interpretation apologies >> it's it's interpreting it as that it existed at the time it's it's you're
considering it um a of the deck that does not need to come before you for a D2 variant, any type of D2 variance relief in order to instruct a railing and new decking service in the >> my brief does indicate there the interpretation under the initial part of
the legal analysis. It does address the interpretation. I just want to make sure that we're not we're not going to the open space portion of it though. >> That's correct. We're limiting to that one. >> I just want to make sure that's Yeah. But what if the roof deck when filed does not meet the design standards?
>> Well, that would fall to the regular design standards. >> To the community design standards because what was just stated they could do any deck rail, >> right? Basically, it's us we we'll be told to take a hike if >> Well, yeah, >> I want to clarify I guess can if I can
get clarity on that. If we say it's interpreted as there is a roof deck, there's no railing. Anybody that wants to put a railing, they would still need to submit the proper permits and and compliance documents which would include, correct me if I'm wrong, what kind of material
go if they interpret it in favor um the vote is you know in favor of then you would make a determination whether or not the community design standards were met and if they aren't I would have to come in here then correct that clarified. That would be the procedure.
If they didn't conform to those standards, then I would have to come to the board. >> Yeah. I don't think that this interpretation vacates any other standard. It just >> the setback variance is already being is already being violated. So, >> we're agreeing with his assessment.
>> So, just to clarify the motion in favor of the interpretation that this is a roof deck and does not require a variance. >> But no, you said that but conditioned upon design standards. >> Well, it's already conditioned. We have to do that. It doesn't change. >> No, your statement.
No, your statement. >> Really quick, can I get clarity from the board attorney on that? >> So, just make it conditional on the design standards >> on compliance with the community design standards. >> Yes. >> As per the ordinance, >> correct? Just make sure you're not overriding that aspect that we have
interpretation. >> That's fine. >> The other window, >> but wouldn't that be everything would have to comply anyway? How would we override that based on interpretations? >> I don't. >> It doesn't hurt to say >> exactly. It makes it >> but I want but don't I'm sorry one at a
time. One at a time. >> But so this is why I want to make sure I want to make sure that's clear to my office what is approved because it is the the railing will be in the setback area.
>> Yes. So what do you need to be clarifying? >> So >> so she's saying they wouldn't be able to issue that permit because it need a variance. >> No, >> no, because this interpretation >> says that there's no variance need
>> require an expansion use. >> Correct. >> Not that it >> the variance is that it doesn't need any variance. It's non expansion permit. If I were to submit any permit or anybody were to submit any permit, it still has
to oblige by that unless it's like in redevelopment, which is a whole of the ballgate, but that's enumerated somewhere is my point. Correct. >> But but that's why the resolution has to be clear. It has to be clear of what you are approving as part of this interpretation.
>> Okay. Because >> I would submit it. does require any variance relief but we would have to comply with the design standards as per the you know as you always have to comply um and if you don't comply get a deviation from the design standards but
it doesn't require marriage of any kind >> but be clear because that's the thing in your now I don't want to speak for you about what the interpretation is but it seems to be wrapping in that you've determined there's No variance needed
for the railing. >> Is that the force decision? >> I think that's the whole purpose of the interpretation. Unless I missed something in the last three meetings. >> Exactly. >> No, the interpretation was the D2. >> This is this is would be this would be a
bulk. If you go back to my report, clarify between the types of variances and relief that doing the roof deck would require not just the expansion and non-conforming use
of the community design regulations. But we take the position that no relief is required. But in terms of the design of the railings, the type of material on the decking and all. Um any design standards that comply with the materials, the height of the railing
itself got to be by um that has to certainly comply, but in terms of variance, we're not obligated to get any variance. That's the interpretation we're looking for. >> JJ, can you rephrase your motion? >> Yeah, would would be rephrasing it to community design standards. Excuse me.
Community design standards. I am tired everybody. Um would that be all-encompassing or do we need to go further on more broad language? Is there anything else that we would do? >> Sorry. What were you saying? >> You're saying just going to community design standards, but you're still not um addressing what would be the bulk
variance aspect of it is concerned with regards to when the application comes in whether they're just going to >> but the application isn't coming in. But that's the >> no the permit the zoning permit with the construction packet. >> Sorry. Sorry.
>> Is that really our perview to get that specific or are we supposed to just >> decide the interpretation it might get denied based on it being a violation of the setback at that point and then you're we're hearing the matter here on an appeal. So if JJ made the
motion that said that bear with me we're agreeing with he's making a motion to agree with the interpretation that it's a roof deck and because it was there
>> it's not considered to be an expansion. It's not an expansion of >> that requires a D2 variance but then also the other aspect of whether >> um the ball variance is still going to be something that needs to be taken consideration or >> right that because we're agreeing with
the interpretation that that is a deck that a variance isn't needed and it's not considered an expansion of non-conforming use >> and certain consequences flow from that. So if you want any if you expect to have
any input per say on what is done and what it looks like you're not going to get that by approving the interpretation. >> But then the part two of the motion not
to speak for you. zero around the right >> that the design of the deck has to meet the community design standards with materials neighborhood character this the the house
>> give me a word people >> I don't know >> the architecture the style of the house >> right all of that should be the motion >> go say it motion >> no wonder you want to put words a GT barrier or any type of variance
relief, but we do have to comply with certainly the design standards as it retain as the ordinance uh indicates pertaining materials, railings, >> architectural st uh style, neighborhood context. >> Correct.
>> Community allowed sidewalk. >> No one can hear you. We risk I thought you were asking me. >> No, no, I thought you were asking a question about the vault. >> All right. So,
>> try those. >> All right. So, >> so the application was applicants seek an interpretation whether renovating a roof deck with fiberglass decking and railing constitutes an expansion of non-conforming use. The board finds
that it does not constitute expansion of non-component use, but further that adding the railings do not um >> do not trigger any further
>> uh uh constitute uh further encroachment into this expansion >> which would trigger the >> but the design of the railings are subject to the community standards of the ordinance. >> Just the railings or the deck too.
>> That's the motion. >> The decking is not you know a visual element. >> I'm just I'm just clarifying doing I'm more hung up on the >> Well, I think the all all the architectural aspects. >> Okay. Just >> so that's where my question initially sent from. Is it just the community
design standards or do we have to make sure that it is everything barring what we're interpreting of course and that's where my confusion was. So, try this again. Um, >> you just said what she said. >> Motion to uh what Donna said. Yeah, there we go.
>> Motion to I'm kidding. Motion to approve to agree that this is um a roof deck and that there is no need for a variance in this case. However, the railing is still subject to any type of community design standards as well as any other
construction or code requirement. and in line with >> what do so we can fill a gap on that stuff but again it's to it's relief as it relates to any type of D2 parents at this point in time >> um and then you know any of adding the
railing change does not create any type of issue as it relates to any type of bulk um setbacks situation there as well >> that cover everything >> I'm sorry that was his motion Okay. >> We can clarify it with the resolution
because just and again because >> it will be specific >> that it's it's Yes. >> And I'll second call. >> Wendy Glassman. >> No. >> Daniel Harris.
>> Yes. >> Russell Lewis. >> No. >> Jill Potter. >> Yes. Natalie Paserini. >> Yes. >> JJ Hall, >> yes. >> Thank you. Um, you guys put a lot of time into this. Um, so did everybody,
the uh, city's professionals. I want to thank everybody for the amount of time, the consideration that went into this, and certainly the deep analysis that everybody did. >> All right. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Motion to Motion to
>> Motion to Second. Second. >> All in favor?