Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustments. Secretary Lombardi, please call the roll call. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Commissioner D. Ross >> here. >> Commissioner Cisk Galvin >> here.
>> Commissioner Fra >> here. Commissioner Elgari is out. Commissioner Garvey >> here. >> I'm here. And Chairman Panero >> here. Have no quarum. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stand indivisibley and justice for all. regard public meeting at the active sunshine.
This regular meeting of the city of Thank you. This regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustments has complied with the open public meetings act sunshine law. Annual notices of the scheduled regular meetings were published in the both
jersey journal and the star ledger newspaper. The schedule of regular meetings for the calendar year 2026 is filed with the city clerk's office. A copy of the agenda of tonight's meeting is posted on the bulletin board in the lobby of the adminable building and on the cities of
bounds website adoption. There any amendments? >> The minutes >> the minutes I'm sorry >> at this time >> we we will carry the adoption of the minutes till the next meeting then Mr. Cameron. >> Okay.
Council, do we have any communications? >> Uh, we have a communication, but I don't think that uh it's relevant at this point because it was a letter from Mr. Weekes to carry SRL from the February uh the January meeting to the February meeting. Uh but that meeting wasn't held
because of uh inclement weather. So, Mr. Weeks, I believe, renoticed for this meeting and it's on the agenda for tonight. While we're on that matter, Mr. Weeks, do you want to make an application with regard to uh Z25- Z006
uh SRL Realy Mike Nappa 78 West 16th Street, block 245, lot 33. >> I do I'd like Excuse me. We discussed this matter prior to the meeting and uh I'd like to uh adjourn uh this matter uh with the uh consideration that we may be
converting the application to a use variance as opposed to moving forward with a certificate of nonconformity based on the report that we received. We think that's the wise uh choice. >> Okay. So you want to carry that to the
April meeting which is >> Mr. Would the matter be carried if it would be a submission of their information and go through completeness review? >> It wouldn't be, but I believe Mr. Weeks is contemplating whether or not he's got permission from his client to do so. So,
I think he just wants to carry it and he's going to make a decision in the future as to which way he's going to go. Is that correct? >> That's correct. I think that's the uh >> the prudent uh uh move at this point. Thank you. >> So, Mr. weeks is it making a request to
carry this matter to April 20th, 2026 without further notice on the part of the applicant. Can I get a motion and a second? >> I'll make a motion to move the application to April 20th's meeting. >> I'll second.
>> And for a vote, we're going to go with Commissioner D. Ross. I >> Commissioner Sis Galvin. Hi. >> Commissioner Fra I. Commissioner Garvey. I >> I vote I. Chairman Panella. Yes. Uh we have uh an adoption of the
zoning board of adjustments annual report for the calendar year 2024 pursuant to the appropriate statute. What we do with that is we forward it to the planning board so that they know uh what the board has been doing and what the areas that uh we've been dealing
with. so that they can uh keep that as part of the record in the event that the the master plan is ever needed to be changed or zoning ordinances needed to be changed. So, can I get a motion and a second to approve the annual report of the zoning board?
>> I make a motion to move the annual report. >> I'll second it. And for a vote, Commissioner D. Ross, >> hi. >> Commissioner Sisgalvin, hi. >> Commissioner Frame, >> hi. Commissioner Garvey >> I. >> I vote I. Chairman Panero
>> I. >> Mr. Labari. Um I think we move on to the next public hearing on the agenda. >> That's correct. This is for public hearing Z26001. Alicia and David Lascanzi. >> Leseanzi. >> Lanji.
>> Leseanzi. >> Excuse me. Site 115 Avenue C. Block 355, lot 25. M at this point, Miss Lashanzi is going to uh step down from the board as the uh
secretary and Mr. Weeks is going to make the application. >> Thank you, members of the board. Paul Weeks on behalf of Alicia and David Leanzi. Uh, as you can see from the application, this is a use variance requesting uh,
permission to convert a two family home to a three. I intend to call uh, one witness, although if the board has questions for the homeowner, Miss Leonzi is present. Uh, but hopefully uh, our expert will be all the testimony
that you need. Uh, I would move uh exhibit list A1 through A23 uh into evidence and call my first witness uh Al Sambade from DAL Design Group. >> Good evening. >> I do
uh Al Sambade SA M B- A D E. >> I would ask that Mr. Sambade be recognized as a qualified expert. >> Thanks sir. >> Thank you. Good evening Mr. Sambade. >> Evening Mr. Weeks. >> Uh Mr. Sambade, for the uh benefit of
the board, I'd ask that you uh discuss the nature of the application uh based on the uh title and information sheet, the proposed interior alterations and changes in use that were submitted. Uh
and I would ask that you address the issues uh of concern from Brian Slow from Clark Ken and Hints and their report dated February 19th, 2026. >> Sure. U so commissioners, this is an
application. The property is at 115 Avenue C. It is located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and West 4th Street. Uh it is a corner lot with 52 feet of frontage on Avenue C and 105 ft plus on West 4th Street. The lot is 5,500 square
ft uh in size. The existing condition of uh the property and you can see that on the drawing. Uh there are several photographs that depict the property. So it is a three-story plus basement, two family residence. Uh it has three full
residential levels. Apartment one is the first floor uh offgrade. Apartment two uh comprises the second and third floor. Apartment one has one bedroom. Uh apartment two has four bedrooms and two kitchens.
Properties in the R2 zoning district. And uh we're proposing u that the uh property be allowed to be used as a three family. That's why we're before this board. Uh the application uh has minimal uh interior work absolutely
no site work uh uh involved or proposed. Uh there is one uh additional item uh that discussed with uh the property owner uh the applicant uh after the submitt of the plans and it it is this.
Uh the applicant is an uh avid gardener and would be interested in installing uh a gardening shed in the rear yard area in full compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements uh including offsetting any impervious coverage increase um and otherwise no exterior uh
work would be contemplated. If the board acts favorably in this, then we would reflect this change in resolution approval uh resolution compliance drawings which would be reviewed by uh the board's experts, the city engineer and the zoning officer. So that's the
only additional uh item if the board uh would be willing to to consider it. So the building uh shown on on the floor plans uh as I said there's very minimal work there. There's a basement area. to existing to remain. No work at all proposed. The first floor which is
existing unit one, no work uh at all. Uh consists of uh two bedrooms, a kitchen, living and dining room. The second floor, which is existing uh unit number two, uh there will be partitions constructed that separate that floor
from the third floor. Um and that is the extent of work on that floor. partitions that will create a hallway leading to the third floor to the stair that goes to the third floor. Uh the third floor, no work is proposed. Um there are two
bedrooms, a kitchen, and a living room. So there's really only work on the second floor to create a passage, a connection to the third floor, uh a separate uh code compliant connection. Um, just by way of of background on on the property and and uh in your
application packets, you have a couple of uh old Sanborn maps from 1888, 1898 rather, in 1912. Uh, these these are, as the board knows, a fire insurance maps, and they clearly depict the structure as it is today, matching exactly what our
current property survey shows uh on the property. It calls it out as a three-story building. So it has been there for well over a hundred years. Uh and it hasn't changed much. The area around it has changed. If you note on some of these maps, uh there are very
few uh properties that were developed and had homes on. Uh obviously that's changed. and and some of these um areas uh in this immediate vicinity um on uh Newman Brriski Avenue C and so on they
were large trackcts of land that over these 100 plus years had been subdivided into what we know uh today. So the the property clearly predates the establishment of zoning in Bayon. Zoning did not exist in Bayon in 1912. Um, personally I grew up in the area.
Uh, so I have a personal recollection of this property and made a lot of runs to Steve Shopright for my mother. So I've been there been there quite often. Uh, the surrounding area generally consists of one and two family homes uh, interspersed with uh, some lowintensity
multif family uses, higher intensity multif family uses about a block to the north and uh, on Avenue C. commercial uses and uh and as well as some municipal uses of firehouse. Um the immediate area is dominated by the BCB
Community Bank uh Henry Harris School and the Fourth Street Firehouse. The residential lot sizes vary significantly uh again probably due to the evolution over time uh of subdividing properties and developing properties. Uh we've uh
received a report from Clark Kaitton Hints prepared by Brian Slow and Donna Miller and uh the board uh clearly and comprehensively reviews the scope of the project identifies variances and discusses for the board's benefit the
consideration of the criteria uh for the variances which which I'll address in testimony. Uh we have no issues with any of the other comments uh in in the report. Uh so really this this is uh a planning application since we're not really proposing any any significant
work. So as part of that we we have a number of bulk variances. All of these are pre-existing nonconformities. Front yard setback permitted is 20 ft. Existing is 17 uh plus. The number of stories permitted is 35 ft. 2 and a half
stories. The existing is 37 1/2 ft and three stories. But again, that's been there for for well over a hundred years. So these pre-existing nonconformities again predate the establishment of zoning by at least 75 years. There's nothing that's proposed in this application that would increase any
impact that's related to these uh um these standards. If this house was being taken down and built up again, different story. uh but these variances cannot be eliminated, cannot be mitigated, cannot be addressed in any way without demolishing the existing house. Uh and
obviously that would bring an undue hardship upon upon the owner to to reach some compli compliance. So these variances are justified under the C1 criteria in the um municipal land use law. Um there's also a parking variance.
So the existing there are two spaces existing uh and four state four spaces are required per the uh language uh in the zoning ordinance. So this building obviously has functioned for many years with two parking spaces uh although the
zoning ordinance requires the existing development um the two-bedroom plus four bedroom to have three parking spaces we have two. So that's a pre-existing non-conformity. If we apply it to the proposed condition, it would be four
parking spaces um because of the number of units, but the zoning ordinance doesn't has a parking requirement up to three bedrooms. We have a four-bedroom unit here. There's no standard for that. We would imagine it's more than a three-bedroom. U so in reality, the the
change in the parking requirement is is is fairly level. There's really no significant change. um there's no impactful increase in in the population of of this house since there are six bedrooms in the existing and proposed conditions. So you would
argue that the number of people living in in the house if we go by bedrooms would remain essentially the same. Uh so this is really a dimminimous exception uh on parking and it's mitigated by the proximity of uh mass transit in the
immediate area. Uh New Jersey Transit uh is is a oneb block walking distance. New New Jersey Transit bus. The Hudsonburg and light rail is a fourb block walking distance. Um so really it it comes down to the D variances and these other variances are carried along on the
coattails of the D1 variance. Uh which obviously is is to use the properties of three family home where two family homes are permitted. So in in analyzing this uh we took a look at the immediate surrounding area and and studied it. Uh uh it generally
consists of uh one and two family homes, some multif family, commercial and municipal uses. So I'm focusing only on residential uses uh not uh so I've taken out of this uh analysis uh uh municipal uses obviously commercial uses BCB
schools and so on. So only with regard uh to residential properties uh within the neighborhood. So we want to determine whether this would be consistent uh with uh the development on in uh uh in the area and based on a
couple of things. Visual analysis obviously either whether you're familiar with the property or not just the visual eye test is important. Uh review of tax maps and tax records. uh other documentation uh and all this for the purpose of
assessing the impact of this proposal uh as relates to the immediate neighborhood and any uh potential uh impact on intensity uh which is really what zoning is a measure of. Um, so we focused on the immediately adjacent areas, both
sides of Avenue C, north and south of the property, and West Fourth Street on the south side uh to uh Zabriski and on the north side to Newman. Uh we've tried to keep this as conservative analysis as possible. That's why uh properties along
the parallel streets, Zabriski or Newman, we didn't consider those cuz those are much smaller lots uh that have two family homes on it. So that would skew the numbers in our favor. So we wanted to keep this as conservative as possible. So the first analysis is
density. So, lot sizes, residential lot sizes in the surrounding area, they vary from uh approximately 1,280 square ft to 5,880 square ft. Uh this property uh is one of
the largest residential tracks in this area that that we studied. Under current zoning, a two family dwelling, a new two family dwelling on a 3,000 foot lot uh has a density of 29 units per acre. uh conforming two family on a corner lot,
4,000 square foot corner lot has a density of 21.8 units per acre. Analyzing this this entire area which is 50 residential properties in the immediate uh vicinity of uh the subject property has an average density of 22
and a half dwelling units per acre, less than what zoning would permit otherwise. uh and uh and and well below the the 29 ac 29 units per acre standard. Uh individual densities of of lots vary
from eight dwelling units per acre for one family on a on a two family on a small lot or one family on a on a large lot to 68 dwelling units per acre on a two family on a small lot for example some of the homes on uh Zriski.
So in comparison to these uh underlying existing conditions, the subject property currently has a density as a two family of just under 16 dwelling units per acre well below either the zoning standard uh well below the surrounding development pattern. If the
board approves this application, the three family density would increase to a little over 23 dwelling units per acre, approximately what the underlying density is. So we feel that uh and again this is taking a conservative approach.
So, it's consistent with the density in the area. As I mentioned earlier, uh it's although it's not a zoning standard uh in Bayon or in many places, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the number of bedrooms in a proposed development as an indicator of the
potential density of population, the people that you would bring into the area and and that there might be an impact resulting from that. In this case, again, six bedrooms are there now. Six bedrooms will be there uh after if the board if the board approves. So, my conclusion opinion is that the proposal
is consistent with the existing density in the immediate area of the property, results in no injury to zoning, and is consistent with the surrounding development pattern when viewed again from a from a conservative uh approach. Uh since there are no uh um exterior
improvements proposed, the building will appear the same as it has for more than 100 years. Uh and obviously from the building appearance, the impact, the visual impact, uh my conclusion is that there is none at all. The only possibility is that should the building
department for example require an improvement such as a fire escape uh then that would not detrimentally impact uh the appearance of the property or any or provide any impact uh in the neighborhood. Uh, I've reviewed the the 2017 master
plan re-examination and I feel that the application is consistent with the the uh uh with the 2017 master plan. That that master plan reviews the 2000 master plan and it it calls for detach attach
residential district which is this district to maintain the existing density for detach attach residential within inter interior blocks to 15 to 35 units per acre. We meet that standard uh on the housing side to preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood wherever possible. We meet that standard to provide a broad range of housing needs uh to meet the needs of all residents. Uh we meet that standard to encourage development of housing that is affordable to younger couples and families seeking to remain
in or move to the city. We feel that this application is consistent with uh this original recommendation. In the 2017 plan, there were specific u recommendations and it as to land use uh
was that for exist I'm quoting for existing residential neighborhoods. The recommendation is to protect and preserve the size, scale and character of of existing residential neighborhoods by eliminating the encroachment of commercial and multif family uses in the area. recommendation is to maintain
lower density development regulations in existing residential neighborhoods that do not abote against commercial properties. Again, this application is consistent. We're not taking a 5,000 foot lot, although I'd be happy to, and coming before uh a board and asking to
do a larger multif family building. We're asking to keep the same building that's been there forever and and utilize it as a three family. And therefore, I think it's consistent with the recommendation. Um the 2000 uh master plan foresaw in
its vision of the future I know it's going back a number of years but they foresaw an increase in population driven largely by Hudsonburg and light rail transit system and the need to house this increasing population. So this application again supports that u that
objective of the master plan. The application promotes the basic purposes of zoning uh outlined in the municipal land use law and that it promotes municipal action action by this board uh to guide the appropriate use or development in a
matter that will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare to provide adequate light, air, and open space. We're not changing anything. So, and and this is is a uh small lot with oversized setbacks for the most part on a large lot.
um to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities that will promote the well-being of persons, communities, and regions. Again, this application is consistent with the character of the neighborhood in terms of use, quality, uh without uh increasing the impact, density, and
population. So, uh, my opinion therefore obviously is is leaning toward that this is consistent with all of these, uh, items and we just really need to address negative criteria. So, in my opinion, the
application meets the negative criteria demonstration that these variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or general welfare. To be honest, I can find none. I don't think there's a balance there. I think there is absolutely no detriment uh to it. Normally we would ask you to balance
the positives and the negatives on that. Uh the proposal is consistent with the development in the area. It doesn't impact adjoining properties since the building again remains the same. It has been for many years. The granting of the variances will not substantial uh result in substantial detriment to the intent
and purpose of uh the zone plan and the zoning ordinance and it harms it in no way. and that there's a balance from the benefits of the project as outlined in in my testimony to any uh detriment and again I I find it difficult to find any
uh the public interest is served to some extent in in by supporting the master plan vision to provide housing for an increasing population. Uh in this instance again we're not proposing demolishing the structure and building a multi-story multif family on a significantly larger footprint just a
three family home. Uh and again I feel any detrimental impacts have been addressed and justified but I again I find it difficult to to find any. Uh Mr. Chairman that that concludes my my direct testimony. I'll I'll take any questions the board may have.
>> Thank you Mr. Sambate. Any commissioners have a question for Mr. Sam? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. First of all, thank you for addressing the fire escape possible issue. I appreciate that. Sure. It >> was a question I was going to ask and just touch base on one thing. Uh you
mentioned the gardening shed. Is that going to be like a permanent structure? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's going to be constructed. >> It it's it's going to be constructed or or a kit that's that that's that that's put together. It it's not it's not something on a foundation. It's not >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. No, it's it it's a
garden shed. >> Any other? Yes. >> That's uh Are there separate gas and electric meters for that unit? >> There will be. So you're >> you're planning on installing that? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Y
>> any other questions here, Mr. Sam? >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Professionals there. >> So, our only comment is just um making sure that the zoning table gets updated. Um it currently says that it's two and a
half stories whereas the existing dwelling is three stories. >> Correct. And I did notice you mentioned the existing height is 37.6 feet. >> So just updating that in the proposed column as well. >> Got it. >> So those are my our only two comments. >> Got it. And we'll address that in the
resolution compliance. >> Thank you. >> Good. Thank you, Mr. Sam. >> Thank you. Oh, >> I'm sorry. >> Hold on one second. We haven't opened it up if anybody in the audience wants to
ask Mr. Zambate any questions. No one >> seeing none. >> Thank you. >> Thank you members of the board. I think Mr. Sambade covered everything uh quite nicely. I would ask that the board approve the application for the use
variance. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. At this time, the board is going to a close caucus and we'll come up with a with a vote. Okay. Um, Mr. Dombardi, you want to start off here?
>> Sure, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, Mr. Sambeay touched all the um bullet points that I needed to hear, so I appreciate that. And I definitely don't see any negative criteras in this. Um, so I will be in favor of this application. >> Commissioner Rosa,
>> I have no issues with this application. I'll be in favor. >> Thank you. Commission assist Galvin. >> I have no issues with the application. On the planners report, it is noted that the Joseph Coglin, the fire subcode official, has indicated that any
approval should be subject to installing the railings on the stairs and registering to the state housing and fire prevention. So, that would be a condition of approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, commissioner. >> Um, no comments. I would be uh supportive of this application.
Yes, Commissioner. >> I'll definitely be in approval of this. >> Thank you. After reviewing the uh the documentation and listening to the experts uh comments and also descriptions of uh of the improvements
on the home, um I don't see anything other than being a positive impact for the community. And with that, I would be in favor of the application. >> Okay. The application has been approved. >> Yes. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
>> Come out of close caucus and we'll have a vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> really has been >> for an approval on Z26001 site 115 Avenue C block 355 lot 25 in the affirmative. Commissioner De Ross.
>> I need I'm sorry. Can >> I move Z-2 >> second >> and for an approval? Uh, Commissioner De Ros >> I. >> Commissioner Sis Galvin >> I.
>> Commissioner Frame >> I. >> Commissioner Garvey >> I. >> I vote I. Chairman Panero >> I. For the record, the uh correct block number is 353. >> Was a little slight typo on that one.
Block 353, lot 25 for the record. >> Correct. >> All right, let's move on to number eight. Li, you want me to? >> Okay. So, I got it. So, for the public hearing of Z25003,
Advent 31 LLC, site 34-36, East 31st Street, block 159, lots 26 and 27. >> Good evening, members of the board. Paul Weekes on behalf of Advent 31 LLC
application Z250003. Uh again, this is a use variance. Uh and I have one witness, uh Steve Kowalik of Koala and Koalik Architects, and that is my only planned witness. Uh I don't have
my exhibit list if uh let me see. And I would move uh exhibits A1 through A24 uh into evidence and call my first witness, Steve Kowallik. I do.
>> Steven Kowalik, K A W A L E K. >> Thank you very much. Uh, good evening, Mr. Kowalik. Um, for the benefit of the board, I'd ask you to address uh the nature of the application, your uh drawings
uh dated March 28th, 2025 uh as well as the uh planning report dated February 16th, 2026 and the uh issues raised in that report. Thank you. >> Happy to do so. Good evening everyone.
Uh, the subject property is an oversized lot 50 feet by 180 ft in size located at 34 to 36 East 31st Street in the R2 zone. It's currently occupied by an existing non-conforming four family
dwelling situated toward the front of the lot and a large freestanding garage structure at the rear. In between is an expansive asphalt which results in in a lot almost completely covered by structures and paving. The applicant seeks to demolish those structures and paving in order to construct a new
multiple dwelling containing eight apartments with parking for 10 cars along with an excess of new open space and landscaping. The applicant seeks use variance relief along with bulk variance relief for height and stories, lot coverage, and curb cut width. The
proposal complies with relevant bulk standards for maximum height and feet, minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum sideyard, and minimum parking. It also provides bicycle parking, EV connectivity, and open space, none of
which are required in the arts zone. The proposed structure would include a ground floor containing a small lobby and a garage for 10 cars, including one accessible parking stall, three EV make ready stalls, trash storage, and meter rooms. It's important to note that while
the ground floor is served by a grade level garage door in the front due to the slope of the site, by the time we reach the rear of the building, the garage floor is more than 5 ft below grade. The garage would be mechanically ventilated at the rear of the building
and at the rear of the site uh is proposed an oversized landscaped rear yard accessible either through the garage or from the sideyards. Above the garage, the proposal depicts two floors of four apartments each and above those a small half story at the front of the building which includes a
small amenity room and feeds onto a roof deck containing eight private terraces. The terraces are set back roughly 4 and 1/2 ft from the building's edge in order to ensure privacy for both residents and neighbors. All the apartments contain two bedrooms and one bath, have separate
laundry facilities and other customary appointments, and require a total parking allotment of 10 cars, which is provided. All mechanical condensers are located on the roof within each unit's private terrace area. The building is designed to present a residential
appearance to the street with a gable roof, residential finish materials, uh, such as composite siding, uh, aluminum detailing, railed balconies, and an overall height that is in keeping with the other structures on the block.
And I hope our rendering and and the contextual height diagram serve to make this clear. The need for a height variance is born solely of a peculiarity in the city's ordinance, which does not count the garage level as a story for one or two family dwellings,
but does count it for other types of structures. So, if this were a one or two family house, it would be considered two and a half stories exactly as presented, but because it's not, it's considered three and a half stories. This is a technical distinction, but not one that has any physical impact in the
sense that we would normally look at height limitations as relating to access to natural light, ventilation, or other physical impacts on neighboring properties. If this were a two family house, it could be exactly the same height and massing as what's proposed, and we would not be here tonight.
That would be a comically large two family house. Uh to get a little more specific in the R2 zone, we measure the height of sloped roofs to the average roof height uh roughly the center of the slope. In the proposed design at the front of the building, the average roof height hits
the 35 ft maximum exactly at the rear. That same point is only 29 1/2 ft above above the rear grade while the parapit is less than 28 ft above the rear grade. That that's at the rear of the building. that that higher portion where the half
story is only extends back for a short distance on top in the uh above the the roof. Um so these measurements are either at or or below the allowable height while the top of the roof reaches a height of
40t 6 in as our diagram shows neighboring houses top out at 37 39 and 42 feet. So, we've tried to ensure that the proposed structure will blend in well, not stand out visually in terms of its size and massing.
The lot coverage variance is dimminimous in nature with a shortage of only 23 square ft. We could potentially eliminate this with some minor modifications to the building's foundation and increase our um pvious area slightly. The variance for curb cut width with 14
ft requested instead of 10 will facilitate access to the garage entrance and due to its positioning along with the elimination of the existing curb cut will not result in the loss of any on street parking. I do believe that due to the oversized nature of the lot, the site is
particularly suited to the proposed use and that it does satisfy the positive and negative criteria. At 9,000 square ft, it is fully triple the minimum lot size for the district of 3,000 square ft. It's far too large for a single house, yet not wide enough to be divided
into two lots that would meet the minimum standard for lot width. While the site already contains a multif family dwelling, the fact that it can accommodate additional units along with their required parking, open space, and other features without exceeding a bulk massing that would otherwise be
acceptable speaks well to the suitability of the site for this use. Further to the positive criteria, I believe the proposal advances some of the purposes of zoning, including encouraging municipal action, providing adequate light, air, and open space, and providing a desirable visual
environment. Likewise, I believe the proposal satisfies the negative criteria in so far as does not represent a substantial detriment of public good, nor does it impair the intent purpose of the zone plan. The R2 district has no requirements for density or floor area
ratio. But if we were to compare it to districts that do have such requirements, we would find that what is proposed does not fall outside otherwise acceptable ranges with the calculated F of 1.95 and a density of 40 units per acre. In
zones that do regulate those characteristics, we would see floor area ratios of more than double what is proposed and densities that are as much as quadruple what is proposed. So, while this is indeed not a two family house, it's nowhere near as intensive or impactful as developments in other areas
of the city. That there is a multif family dwelling only a block away, almost in almost the exact same position on the block on East 32nd Street, which is larger, but exhibits similar bulk and density characteristics. Other than that one building, I found no
multiple dwellings of similar size and scale for at least five blocks in either direction. So I believe the proposal does satisfy a need for low-rise smallcale multif family housing which is distinct from larger multif family buildings or mixeduse buildings in other
districts which are not desirable for many occupants. So in approving the relief being sought tonight I do see an outcome that is beneficial to the larger community. While the planner's report correctly points out that the master plan does not recommend does recommend eliminating
multif family uses from residential neighborhoods, the master plan also promotes the creation of medium density residential in areas around major north south streets with density levels of 35 to 44 units per acre with proximity to
commercial and access to mass transit. So with the subject property situated around 200 feet from Avenue E, about 400 feet from commercial uses on Broadway, three blocks from the 34th Street light rail, and with a proposed density firmly within the stated limits, the proposal
satisfies all of those criteria, aligning it with another stated objective of the master plan. For this and the other reasons I've already stated, I believe the benefits to an approval tonight clearly outweigh the detriments. The applicant would also like to convey their willingness to comply with any and
all plan comments and conditions of approval suggested in the planning and engineering reports. These include adding balcony and entrance door lighting and details, providing color and finish and proposed lighting fixtures. Uh working with planning engineering staff with regard to
landscaping recommendations. Updating the existing site plan to include landscaping to be removed. Updating the proposed site plan to include mulch bed lines. Adding additional utility information to the site plans, including additional connection details and specifying utility connections with
respect to proposed street trees. Providing additional information with respect to existing and proposed storm water management. Adding details for the proposed exterior stairwell between the garage and rear yard and related retaining wall, including required drainage and guardrails. Providing additional grading information along the
sideyards, ensuring ADA compliant cross slopes at the public right ofway. provisions to curb pavement striping and tree staking details, working with engineering staff on EV make ready parking arrangement and any required lot consolidation. Any other plan comments
or suggested conditions of approval containing either report that I may have omitted are also acceptable to the applicant. And with that, I hope the board will look favorably on the application. On your uh drawings,
you list uh two bathrooms and most of the apartments. One shows a bathroom with a sink, water closet, and a a tub. The second bathroom just says bath. Is that a half bath, a full bath?
>> Uh oh. So that that that's Yeah, this is a full bath, master bath. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's there. Um what type of heating or air conditioning is there? >> So the building's proposed to be all electric. Um so they would be there would be heat pump systems, duct
ductless mini split systems that would provide both heating and cooling their their air source heat pumps. by looking at your drawings. Uh basically the parking area I saw you have water in a sprinkler area. So you have a fire suppression system, but you
didn't have anything for the heating or air condition. No area dedicated to that. >> Right. So we we just need a um so we have a directly adjacent to water and sprinkler a space that's labeled electrical. That be where our electrical service comes in and that's really all
we need. And you have uh recycle bins and regular bins. So you're having a catering company come in and remove these items. >> Correct. They would they would most likely be served by a by a company that would that would empty the dumpsters on
a scheduled basis. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, just to reiterate about the uh street trees, if you're not going to be able to plant them because of the overhead uh cables, you will make a donation to the I'm sorry, a
contribution to the city uh tree fund. >> That's acceptable. Um and there there will be enough space in the garage to address the parking requirements that uh are commented on in the engineering >> I believe so >> part okay thank you
>> I have a question >> I just have one more question >> I just have a few questions >> so just for our general plan comments just confirming will the mechanical equipment be located on the roof? >> Yes. >> And
the location of the utility meters uh that will be mounted of the exterior of the building. >> Right now they're proposed to be in inside the garage area. And regarding the garage ventilation, so we noticed that the second sheet of the
site plan says provide through wall active ventilation in this area. We're just wondering if there's enough space between the grade to the top of the roof and if you'll have enough room, if that's enough adequate area for the fresh air intake and if it's enough
separation from the exhaust or whether additional venting may be required on the roof. >> There's about 3 ft separation from the grade and the and the the ceiling of the garage. that that should be sufficient to, you know, if we have to split it into more than one fan,
>> um we'll have plenty of room to to work with there. >> And regarding landscaping, you are willing to work with our recommendations. Uh we just have we know that some of the plant materials were not suited and we have some recommendations if >> that's fine.
>> Okay. That's everything. Thank you. >> I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. The uh parking is designated per apartment. Um it it it could be. I mean, there's so there's eight apartments and 10 spaces.
So, they could be they could have eight deed spaces and two spaces that remain open. Um I I would imagine that would be the most likely scenario. I have a question here on a he mentions about a roof deck. >> Could you touch a little bit on that
please? >> So you know as I mentioned the building from the front presents itself with a with a gabled roof um which contains just a a a small room uh that sort of like a multi-purpose room and then a stair access and elevator access and
behind that it becomes a flat roof. Um, so from that multi multi-purpose room, you've got a door out to basically a fenced um walkway. There's there's a rendering of it on the on the first sheet. Um, and then that just separates
into eight uh dedicated terrace areas for each. So, one one for each unit. And they're just separated by low fence. Not like a uh really a privacy fence. They're just kind of separated by low open railings
um just just to separate the areas and and the slope of the roof that we see at the front actually continues the length of the building and the edges of the of the uh terraces are set in about 4 and 1/2 ft. So if you're standing at the
edge of the terrace you there's there's still another 4 and 1/2 ft before uh the the wall of the building. So that's just to that's just to make them a little more set back and and removed visually from either the neighbor either
the neighbor seeing up or or occupants of the roof seeing down. I think there's one uh one participant. >> Yes, my name is Andre Norris. >> N O R R I S.
>> Yes. So, I'm not too clear on how many floors are there going to be. I see. And um the letter says three and a half floors. So is that and you mentioned two and a half. So is it three and a half or is it two and a half? >> So well again it's there there's a
there's a technicality in the way our our ordinance is is written. So >> before you continue >> if I may I know sometimes they say a picture is worth a thousand words. If I might I'd like to show Mr. >> Absolutely. Yes.
I don't think he's seen the right. >> Take a look. Okay. The first time I've seen this. Okay. So, it's actually one, two, three. >> Right. So, you have you have your garage level and then you have two levels of apartments and then the the the >> the area under the peaked roof that's
considered the half story and that really only extends back. >> It's nice actually. >> 25 ft or so. Okay. All right. Thanks a lot. You're very welcome. Okay. All right. That answer my question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, okay. >> Mr. Chairman, no more questions of Mr. Kowalik. >> No more questions. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, uh, members of the board. You know, there were two things that struck me when uh this
application uh came to my office and the the first thing was what Mr. Norris said, which is when I saw the the uh rendering of the building compared to what exists there now, I thought to myself, wow, that's a really nice improvement to the neighborhood. I hope that the board uh has had a chance to
really look at that rendering and see with the the pavers and the small balconies. I think it's a a really nice improvement compared to the existing building. Although the existing building seems to be well-maintained, it's a very dated design and I think that this would be a real improvement to the
neighborhood. The other thing um that struck me was the size of the lot. It goes back 180 ft. It's almost twice the the depth of a normal lot. And um so I think that that uh uh hopefully the board will consider that in uh in understanding that it's not something that's going to overburden the
neighborhood. Uh with that, I think Mr. Koala covered all of the relevant criteria and I would ask that this uh application be approved uh as an improvement to the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. At this time, the board is going to go into close caucus and at
will come up with a vote. Thank you, >> Mr. Lombari. So, yes, I agree this building does look very nice. Um, I feel that knowing that this street, you know, it's a one-way street with heavy pedestrian
and heavy pedestrian and vehicular presence and I do feel going to an 8 unit building is going to create a negative impact and I do not feel that I am in favor of this application. >> Yes.
Uh, I I like the design. It's a very good design and the way it's uh depicted, it is a small block and you had a four family there. Now it's going to eight units and throughout Bayon parking is
number one and you are providing 10 spots plus bicycle parking. Uh I do feel that I would be in favor of this application. >> Yes. >> Hi. Um, I appreciate um the explanation
about the roof, the rooftop uh deck or just the rooftop in general because I was concerned for privacy. It seems as if you've built that into how this is being built. So, that's great for, you know, the neighborhood that we have that privacy built in. I think um the fact
that you took into consideration increasing to eight units, you took that into consideration and built that into the parking aspect, which I believe is a big issue in that area. I think that I will be voting I know I'll be voting in favor of the application. I think it's a
beautiful design. I think it's going to be um a beautiful improvement to the block as well. >> Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. >> Um I have to agree with those comments. Um I really think the development appears very thoughtful. Um you know, and in particular, especially it's only,
you know, three blocks to the light rail. I I take that path uh here sometimes when I get off at 34th. Um so it's really not that far of a walk. Um, and I think providing adequate parking, um, this seems like an improvements in the neighborhood, so I'll be supporting this application.
>> Thank you. Yes, commission. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also be in favor of this. >> Thank you. After reviewing the, uh, application and listening to the testimony, uh, I like the design of the building. I think it's, uh, it's a big
improvement for the area. Um, even though there was a four family there, this is going to be into an eight family. Um, I like the concept of it though. I know parking is always an issue, but this is providing the necessary parking for the for this project. Uh, with that said, I would be
in favor of this application. >> And let's move into the affirmative. Z260001, no, I'm sorry. Z25003 Advent 31 LLC site 34-36 East 31st Street block 159 lots 26 and 27 in the
affirmative commissioner de Ross >> I second and I >> all right I >> did some and now for the motion okay >> uh commissioner D ros >> I >> commissioner sis Galvin I
>> Commissioner Frame >> I. >> Commissioner Garvey. >> I >> I vote no. And Chairman Panero, >> I vote yes. >> Thank you. >> All righty. >> Application has been approved.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Let's move on to uh adoption of resolution since item number nine has already been uh adjourned and that is Z25-00005 the Boulevard 1224 LLC 1224 JF Kennedy
Boulevard in block 25 lot 7 and 8. Uh that is a uh an application that was denied several months ago. Can I get a motion and a second to approve the resolution? >> Make a motion for the adoption of the resolution of Z25005,
the Boulevard 1224 LLC. >> I'll second. >> And for a vote, Commissioner D. Ross, >> I. >> Commissioner Sisgalvin, >> I. >> Commissioner Frame, >> I. >> Commissioner Garvey, >> I. >> I vote I. Chairman Panero. >> You can move to adjourn if you'd like.
>> All in favor? >> Wait. >> Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. >> Oh, that's right. We got those. >> We did that at the beginning under communications. >> We adopted the report. Do we now need to adopt the res?
>> Can I get a motion and a second to adopt the report that we're forwarding to the planning board in this matter? >> Move the motion. >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. for a vote. Commissioner D. Ross, >> I. >> Commissioner Sisgalvin, >> I. >> Commissioner Frame, >> I. >> Commissioner Garvey,
>> I. >> I vote I. Chairman Panero, >> I >> excuse me for being premature. Now you can adjourn. All >> in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you. Thank you all.