Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustment secret oh uh um
councelor please read Move the ro. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner here. Commissioner Lombardi is absent. Commissioner DS here. Commissioner here. Commissioner Ki is absent. Commissioner
Lubach is absent. Commissioner Frame here. Algar is absent. Commissioner here. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 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
schedule of regular meetings were published in both the Jersey Journal and the Star Ledger newspaper. The schedule of regular meetings for calendar year 2025 is filed with the city clerk's office and a copy of the agenda of tonight's meeting was emailed to the star ledger at least 48 hours prior to this meeting and is posted on the
bulletin board in the lobby of the municipal billing and on the city of Bayon website. Um if there are no amend uh no amendments can we have a motion to adopt the minutes from the June you did not send them. Okay we will skip that. Councelor do we
have any communications? Yes we have a Uh we have a communication from uh commissioner commissioner Ki who has uh notified uh the uh board that uh she is going to be resigning her position effective
immediately and that is the sole communication. Okay. Um, for our first application, we have Z-25-00001 Francis Chernowski. Site is 714A
through 716 Avenue E, block 401, lot 1101. The applicant is requesting a variance relief in order to construct a two-car garage that opens in the front for their two family attached home located in the TDD transit develop
transit development district. Mr. Rose. Yes. Uh good evening. Um my as mentioned my client uh intend would like to build a twocar garage. In order to do so, we
uh we may require v various variances and some exceptions to the design requirements. Um I'd like to call my first witness. Yes. Yes. Francis Chernowski. F R A N C I S C
Z E R N I A W S K I. Um um Mr. Jonowski, are you the owner of lot number um 11.01? Yes, I am.
And was it previously lots 11 and 12 and the lot was consolidated? Correct. Yes. Okay. And uh how did you acquire the property? I had got it from my father. And you and your father got it from from my grandfather.
So it's been three in the family for three generations. Correct. Yes. Excuse me. Well, you know, did we admit the exhibits? Not yet to move them. Mr. Rose,
I I'm apologize. Um um I'd like to offer 24 exhibits A1 through A24 exhibits Mr. Chairman. Yes. So they they've been accepted. I thank you. Uh game back. So it's been
in the family for um three generations. Yes. Correct. Okay. And um since your your grandfather purchased the property, has there been much changed to the structure, has the structure remained the same?
Structures remained the same. And it and is it a one or two family house? Two family. And it's attached. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. And who occupies the first floor apartment? First floor is occupied by my father. By your father? You just speak louder.
And the second floor is by me. I I on the second floor. So, it's still a family occupied, correct? Yes. Okay. And um how many bedrooms in each apartment? Three bedrooms of
for each apartment? Yes. Okay. Uh and why why do you want to build a twocar garage? I'm just looking up to clean the property. Talk louder. Um, I'm looking to improve the property. Uh,
I currently there's two sheds. I'm looking to get rid of the sheds, clean it up, make it look better. You know, it's kind of it's the corner lot, so it's the first thing you see going down Avenue E. I just want to, you know, improve it, make it look good. All right. Will any part of the garage
that you propose be used for dwelling purposes? No. Um there's presently uh a curve cut in front of the um correct. Yes. Okay. Can you describe the curb cut?
Um it's just 22 feet. So And is it around the cur? Is it straight on or does it curve? It's straight on to the property. It's straight on. No, but the curb cut itself is it on a curve? Yes. A little bit. Yes.
Okay. And um to the no the curb to the north of the curb cut um c can you describe the condition of it? Yeah there's a utility pole the street light and a yellow painted curb
and the yellow painted curb indicates no parking. Correct. Yes. Okay. was the curb cut that's presently there. Was it there when your grandfather purchased the property? Correct. Uh my grandfather purchased the home in 1964.
I'm sorry. 1964. The the lot was bought separately in 1979. And that curb cut's been there since before my grandfather even bought the home. I see. If the curb cut were shortened,
would the city gain an extra parking spot? No. Why is that? The curb is yellow. There's utility pulls no way that there's no there's no way for there to be any additional parking added. Does a curb cut as it exists, does it
does it have a purpose for you? it it's safer, you know, for me to pull out, you know, if I do back out of the driveway because the people make the right to go over the bridge and everything like that. I could kind of back out on a turn and parallel park in my driveway as I
pull out. So, I don't even impede traffic when I do pull out onto Avenue E. So, so what you're saying when you pull out, you pull out next next to the curb cut, correct? And you don't go into Avenue E. Correct. Yes. And and if the curb cut was were
shorter, what would happen? I wouldn't be able to pull out as easily. You would have to back out into Avenue E and then pull forward. Okay. So, as it exists now, are you saying that you don't you don't stop traffic because you
I see. Um, do you the the the planner suggested that you plant evergreen shrubs that require little uh pruning? Um, yes. Are you willing to do that? Yes. Uh, right now you have a a fence in
front of the the property. Yes. Do you plan to to maintain that fence? I plan on changing the fence. Okay. And then when you change it, would would you comply with the city requirements for for the new new fence?
Yes. Uh how about the the the light uh over the garage? Will you comply with the requirements? Yes. Okay. I have no uh no further questions. Um I have no questions. Any members of
the board? Any questions? Do we have any questions from the audience? Yes. If can you step to the mic, please? And if you have comments about the those
these are questions directed to Mr. Chowski. I had questions about the length and duration of the project and the um uh ordinances for construction. um because it will be noise bearing um the length and scope of the project from start to
finish including on a Mr. Rose do you have a architect or a plan to testify they may be better to answer these questions or no ma'am stay there Michelle Lner L A R N I live on 680
Kennedy uh 26 in Kennedy thank you Mr. Rose other Good. She might be for the next application. Oh, is is that for which application are you? Um, sorry. Is that for town houses or
for a garage? address. No, that's that's fine. Yeah, this this is on Avenue E. This isn't on Kennedy Boulevard. That's why I was confused. All right, I can call my second one. No. Um, one of the commissioners has a question
for your client. Can you just step back to the mic, please, sir? I'm just curious. I pass by your property every day. You're going to change the fence to what? What type of fence are you putting in? I would like to get rid of the chain link. And I was either looking at
putting like I'm not 100% set on it, but I like I don't know how to explain it. the the wooden fences, you know, that that like the diagonal ones like that called the stock even a white PVC something different just something that looks better than chain link.
Thank you. Any other questions? Next w next witness sir. Yes, I do. My name is the Donald Chin. C H I N.
U Mr. Chin, have you qu Have you testified before this board before? Yes, I have. I'm sorry. In what capacity are you testifying in? As architect. Okay. Um we'll accept Mr. Chin as an expert.
Um, one of the possible variances would be for lot coverage. Um, would do you want me to uh do you want to explain or before you explain,
we have um uh this calculate this the witness will testify to these facts, but it's lots of numbers. So, I figured it would be easier if you had a copy of what he's he's going to testify to. one one of the um variances that we may
need would be to light coverage. What is your how is your calculation? Well, my calculations show that we actually are decreasing the amount of lot coverage by a small amount uh 72 square feet.
We uh are taking away a little bit of the of the of the rear yard, but since the shed, which is on the rear yard, is being taken away. Uh and also we're adding the uh landscaping on the side of the of the of the garage. So those
outweigh what we're the the amount of yard that we're taking away. So actually we yeah we are decreasing or actually increasing the amount of permeable surface by 72 square feet small amount but so we're not you know we're not
increasing the lot coverage. So what you're saying what's existing now and what's proposed there'll be more uh burnable um material or coverage.
Yes. By 72 square ft which is still over 70% but we're not going above that what was existing. I um wi with regard to the driveway cut uh
is does a help circulation of of the cars in and out by maintaining the existing driveway cut? I believe so. Uh based on what Mr. Trinowski has testified that it's um
it's easier for him to to back out without going into the avenue E. can he can pull out and just essentially parallel park while he comes out of his car and closes the gate and then gets back to his car. I w with regard to the garage opening
onto Avenue E. Is there a reason why you chose Avenue, you didn't have the parking on the side of the lot? What's on the north side of this lot? on the north side there is a lot which is
owned by the city and then um you know the u so the the bridge going over the the railroad tracks. So even if that lot that the city lot wasn't there, it wouldn't have been feasible to try to, you know,
enter onto uh that esc the incline going over the the railroad tracks, you know, to try to pull out. That'd be very dangerous. So topography because the the lot is is higher. Uh yes the see the
is there a guard rail along center street center street there's a there's a guard rail and also it's it's increasing in in grade as they go over the track so it wouldn't have worked to you know first of all there's a city lot and then there's that the guardrail
the guardrail and the the increase in grade so a side entrance to the garage wouldn't have been feasible and and and and what's what's on the east side at the rear of the lot? Railroad tracks.
More railroad tracks. There's a there's a retaining wall and then there's a big drop off. So, it wouldn't there's no street back there to So, the only am I correct? The only feasible way to get out of the garage would be to get go on to Avenue E. Is that correct?
Uh yes. given the uh size of the uh the width of the lot. That's the most the only the only way to do it. Um, you located the the um h how far uh how much of a front yard uh
setback do you have wi with regard to the uh garage? Do you conform to uh the code? Yes, the uh the garage itself meets all the um requirements for accessory structures. As you see on the drawing, you can see that there's a 39 ft
uh dimension from the front lot line to the front of the garage. So that's now is it not true that the that the house um does not have sufficient setback?
Uh yes, the existing house all that whole block um did not they're like closer than the the 20 ft. that's required for new construction. But that's that you'd call that a pre-existing pre-existing use.
Yes. I think you know it's this this road was built I think in 1920 you know well before the zoning ordinance was put into place. I I I have no further questions. Do you have any other witnesses, Mr. Russ?
Where is the last witness? Nick. No, I'm I'm not asking the call. I'm just asking. And is he the planner or what is his finish with the planner? Unless it I thought he was the architect. I thought Mr. Chin was an architect. He meant to say
I'm hard at hearing. Sorry. I believe Mr. Rose said that he's going to finish with his planning. He is the architect. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, yes. I have no questions. Any questions from the board? Oh, M. Mice, are you okay with the
calculations? Yes. And then if you can just update the report to reflect that calculation and also reflect that the variance is required for lock coverage. Okay. We we we amend our approved. She's suggesting that you
amend your uh I'm saying your and you're agreeing to that. Oh, yeah. Okay. Mhm. And then uh for the fence you mentioned, you will replace the chain link fence. Um if the existing chain remains, I just
want to uh remind the board that an a design exception would be needed for that. If it's being replaced, then it needs to comply. Otherwise, you would have to come back. So, if you replace the fence with a six-foot fence, it it's a variant, so you would need to come back. So, just make sure that the fence
that you're proposing to replace is complying with the ordinance. The testimony was that he is going to okay to put in a new fence that complies. Got it. Thank you. Um, no questions from the audience. Um,
Mr. Rose, I think you can call your next witness. Nick, you're on. I do. Yes. My first name is Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V is in Victor. I A N O.
Um, Mr. Graviano, would you tell us your educational and professional? Yes, I hold a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University, a master's degree in city and regional planning from Ruckers University, a law degree from the Temple University School of Law, where I received a distinguished class
performance in state and local government law. I've testified in over 100 municipalities in 18 counties, and I was actually in this room 20 years ago before the governing body regarding the MBI site. So, it's uh things come full circle.
We'll accept Mr. provide as a expert witness. Yes, he'll be suitable. Thank you for having me, board. Appreciate it. You've heard the testimony and is it true you you're familiar with the site? Yes, I went by the site before the hearing tonight. W
would you um testify as to the negative uh criteria? And do we meet it? Yes. The applicants before the board this evening for a specific piece of property known as block 401, lot 11.01 01. That's known as 20 uh 714A to 716
Avenue E. Um there's an existing two family dwelling on the house. The applicant seeks to demolish two existing detached accessory structures to build a new uh garage. Uh the applicant does require relief for this proposal specifically uh for the garage door
facing the street. You heard about the fact that this is a corner lot and the uh center street is the bridge with the guard rail that abuts the site. Additionally, the applicant is requesting uh relief for lot coverage whereas the applicant is exceeding the
current impervious coverage by 2% whereas the existing condition is over the ordinance requirement. Uh the variance for the garage facing the streets certainly could be granted under the C1 criteria due to the exceptional topography and the exceptional situation
affecting this specific piece of property. Strict application of the city zoning ordinance would create undue hardship upon the developer. That variant certainly could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Uh,
additionally, the 2% increase in pvious coverage that could be granted under the C2 criteria whereas hardship need not be demonstrated must be demonstrated as it relates to a specific piece of property and that advances purpose of zoning of the municipal land use law. In this
case, it certainly advances purpose a promotion of the general health, safety, morals and welfare. Uh, the applicant does have an older uh family member living on the first floor. This will give them opportunity to cover their vehicles in inclement weather. Additionally, it helps advance purpose G
to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. And then the applicant's efforts to clean up the site, removing two sheds, building a more durable and more aesthetically
pleasing uh structure as well as the addition of landscaping, new fences and and lighting at the request of the board professionals advances purpose I uh promotion of a desirable visual environment and creative development techniques. Uh there was no substantial
impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance with the granting of that coverage variance. Um, all the applicants uh waiver requests that are still applicable can also be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Um,
any questions from the board? Questions? No questions from the audience? Um, you Thank you, board. Thank you. Um, you heard from the applicant and and the
two professionals. We u the one thing I want to emphasize is that the the existing curb cut is um it's a safety factor and there's no advantage in making it
smaller. you we're not going to get an extra parking spot and it's been there prior to 1964. So we hereby request that all the variances requested and required be
granted and that the design exceptions also be granted. Thank you. Uh we'll now go into closed caucus. Um, I think we're taking an existing pre-existing condition that's non-conforming. We're trying to do the
best we can to conform where we can. You're improving on at least the lot coverage. Um, you're definitely making the cleaning up the area, making it look more aesthetically pleasing. Um, I commend you for all of that. Um, I hope it works out with the coverage and I
would be in favor. Um, vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first I'd like to thank the uh professionals for their testimony. It was very helpful. Um, I also agree that upgrading this property with this uh getting the garage on and
cleaning up everything there is is definitely a positive impact to the area. So, with that said, I would be improved. Um, I would be approved the project. Thank you, Commissioner D. Ross. Um, I have no issues with this application. I will be in favor. Thank
you, Commissioner Ciscalini. I do not have any issues with this application. I think it's going to be an enhancement to the property and to the community at large. Um, I'm going to be vote voting in favor of the application. Thank you. And Commissioner Frame. Yep. Agree with all the uh previous uh
statements. I'll be uh approving this as well. Thank you. And Commissioner Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll also be approving this this uh hearing. Um thank you. Okay, will now come out of closed caucus. Can I get a motion in the
affirmative for Z-250001, Francis Trinoski, site 714 through 716 Avenue E, block 401, lot 1101.
I move Z-25-00001 in the affirmative and a second, please. Second. Thank you. And a vote on the vote. Chairperson Dillo. Hi. Uh, Vice Chair Pinñero. Hi. Commissioner D. Ross. Hi. Commissioner Cis Galvin. Hi. Commissioner Fra. I.
Commissioner Garvey. I. The application has been approved. Thank you. Do we short break? Yeah. We'll adjourn for five minutes. All set. You want to call roll?
Do I want to? Should I? Should Well, you should. Can you? I I can do it. Uh, chairperson DLo here. Vice Chair Pinera here. Commissioner D. Ross here. Commissioner Cis Galvin here. Commissioner Fra here.
Commissioner Garvey here. Um, for our second application, we have Z25-00002, 696 through 698 Real Estate LLC. The site is 696 through 698 JFK Boulevard,
block 177, lot 47. The applicant is seeking prime preliminary and final major site plan approval a D1 variance bulk variance relief and design waiverss to construct a threeunit townhouse. Mr. Pada. Good evening everyone. My name is
Matthew Padum from the law firm Sils Cummus and Gross and I represent the applicant in connection with this application before you here tonight where we are seeking preliminary and final site plan approval in order to develop three town homes and one improvement. Those town homes each will
have two bedrooms in it. The layout will be the first floor for parking and an entryway with that parking will also include an EV space. The second floor will be an open concept plan with a kitchen, a living room, and a full bathroom. And then the third floor will be where the bedrooms are located along
with a full bathroom. And then the rooftop will actually be roof accessibility for amenity space as well to those tenants themselves. By way of background, I thought it would be um beneficial to this board to understand the history of the proposed site. Uh we actually started this journey about three years ago.
Originally, when we were starting this journey, we had the u idea that we could potentially develop 12 units here of studios and we were looking to go through the redevelopment process. Uh after having a couple conversations with this municipality, it was recommended that given the size of the site that we
should consider a smaller density. So we had then gone over two different other proposed applications as far as it goes from the conceptual standpoint. One for six units and then the second one for five units. And at that point the city had recommended it as to whether or not we had thought about potentially putting
town homes and especially because town homes seem to also be available. Now I shouldn't say available. There is not there is a need for town homes in the city for whether they are rental or for purchase. So, we went back to the board and we decided to now propose what you have here tonight, which are the three
town homes, each for just two bedroom units themselves on that corner lot. Uh, for tonight, I will have three witnesses for this proposed project. The first will be my engineer. My second will be my traffic engineer and my third will be my planner, Mr. Nick Raviano. Uh, Nick
Raviano, he is not only the planner, but it's also his firm that did the architecturals as well. so he could testify and give it and answer any questions you guys have regarding architecturals. So if I may, I'd like to call my first witness, my engineer, Mr. Wall
Hi, good afternoon everyone. Yes, I do. Name is Sam Wallally. S A M H W A L I. Hi, Mr. Wallally. Can you please provide your educational credentials and whether or not your license is still in good standing?
Absolutely. I graduated from NGIT with a Bachelor of Science and Civil Engineering. Uh I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. License is in good standing. Um I have testified before various boards before including Summit, Union, Homeell, Lynden, Livingston, um Mount
Olive, etc. And I'm a project manager at Dynamic Engineering with over seven years of design experience. And again, your license in good standing? Yes, sir. Fantastic. This is we'll accept Mr. Wallally as an expert. Excellent. Uh I'd like to start out with presenting um the aerial map.
which was included as part of the plan set that was submitted before the board. The aerial map is dated uh September 27th, 2024, revised August 8th, 2024. This was, as I noted previously, already submitted before the board. Um, for
reference, a scale of one inch equals 80 feet, north pointing to the top of the sheet. So, I wanted to just quickly run through the existing site conditions um through the aerial map um that's mounted up on this easel right here. So, this aerial map is an aerial image
of the surrounding area with the property outlined in red. Uh the property is located at 696-698 John F. Kennedy Boulevard. Uh the site is identified as block 177, lot 47. The property is located in the OR2 zone. Uh
for reference, the entire property is approximately 2,672 square feet or 0.06 acres and is generally very flat uh topography throughout. Surrounding uses uh to the south are residential dwellings and west
26th Street beyond. To the west is John F. Kennedy Boulevard and residential dwellings beyond. To the north we have West 27th Street and additional residential beyond. and to the east are more residential dwellings with uh commercial uses and avenue s Avenue C beyond. Uh the property is entirely
developed with a one-story commercial office building which is an existing non-conforming use and all the associated pavement for it. Assuming no further questions on the existing conditions, I could bring up
the site plan rendering. The site plan rendering uh is dated July 21st, 2025. Uh this was not previously submitted before the board. Um so we would like to mark this as an exhibit. Um scale of 1 in equals 10 feet with north pointing to the top of the sheet. Paul's right there. Uh this was actually
submitted earlier today. This is A29. Excellent. It's not up on the website. So additional exhibits will be a 27 map 29 site plan rendering and A30.
Thank you. Okay. So as noted previously, the applicant is proposing to construct three two-story townhouse uh town houses with ground level garages. Uh did want to note that the town houses are a non-permitted use within the R2 zone. Uh the building footprint is approximately
1,680 square feet. Uh building height of 31 ft is proposed for the proposed town homes. Um due to the existing lot small size, there are a number of existing non-conformities as well as variances uh as part of this application. I did want to note that additional testimony
regarding the variance relief will be provided by the professional planner. just running through the uh general bulk requirements um that we have either existing non-conformities and or variances on. Um first was the minimum
lot area. Uh lot area of 4,000 ft is required. Um under existing and proposed conditions, 2,672 square feet um is existing and proposed. Uh as for lot frontage, 40 feet is
required within R2 zone. Uh under existing conditions the site uh provides 33.4 uh linear feet which again is ex and an existing non-conformity um which is proposed to remain. As for the principal
building setbacks uh front yard along John County Boulevard uh 20 ft required whereas 1.1 ft is existing again an existing non-conformity whereas uh 13 ft is proposed.
As for the rear yard, uh 20 feet is required whereas 18.8T is um existing again an existing non-conformity. Um and as for proposed conditions, we're proposing 7 feet which again is a variance. As for sideyard, uh
3T is required within the R2 zone. Zero feet is uh existing which once again existing non-conformity and uh zero feet is also proposed which is a variance. Uh combined sideyard 6t is required 8.4
existing and 5t proposed. Maximum lot coverage 70 ft 70% is permitted. Uh under existing conditions we have 100% which is non-conforming and 64.3% is proposed which does comply. Uh
as for the uh floor area ratio for reference um 0.56 is existing whereas 1.89 is proposed. Um and lastly for building height 35 ft is permitted. Um and 31 ft
is being proposed. Moving on to the lot access um and parking. There are two proposed driving curb cuts that are proposed to serve the townhouse ground level garages. Um I did want to note that no driving curb cut shall exceed 10 feet in width and there
shall be no more than one curb cut uh per lot. There are currently two curb cuts being shown on the plan. One of which um is 16 ft uh whereas the second is 30 feet. Uh I did want to note as well that we did
receive comments from the board engineer uh who recommended uh 10 feet and 20 feet respectively for those curb cuts which uh we will comply with. In addition uh garages consist of one parking space uh for each unit and will
be EV ready. The uh city of Von's parking requirements require four parking spaces whereas three parking spaces are proposed. Um therefore a variance is being sought. In addition, a design waiver is also being requested as the parking garages um open up on West
27th Street uh rather than interior to the lot, which is a design waiver being requested as well due to the small nature of the lot. The garage the garage the garage curb cut is proposed approximately 25 ft from the corner um of the radius whereas 100t
separation is required again due to the small nature of the lot. Um that's another design waiver uh that's being sought after. As for proposed grading, the site will be subject to minor adjustments to accommodate the specific design. Um and the site will also be graded for EDA
compliance, but generally speaking, the uh proposed grading will follow um very similarly to the existing uh grading patterns. In addition uh as for landscape and lighting the project is proposing uh currently on the
plans uh and currently depicted on the rendering one street tree and one on-site shade tree um with a to with a total of 13 ornamental grasses and shrubs for foundation plantings around the building. uh per discussion with the county and uh as a condition of our approval uh we
actually required to provide um few street trees along the curb line uh for um John F. Kennedy Boulevard which our applicant has agreed to provide. Uh in addition uh our applicant also does agree to uh comply with the recommendations from the board planner
to revise the tree caliper and shrub sizes. Uh I did also want to note there is another design waiver uh being sought after for landscaping as well specifically for the uh required two street trees along West 27th Street whereas none are being proposed.
Uh reason for that being is uh the proposed curb cuts uh do provide very limited space along the frontage in addition to overhead wires um which would infringe upon the uh growth of the uh street trees being requested.
Uh for lighting, there are three building mounted light fixtures mounted at a height of 7 and 1/2 ft. Uh which would be LED. Uh essentially, we're going to provide one light fixture above each garage door. In addition, the garage lights um are proposed to illuminate the walkway and
driveway for safety and security along West 27th Street. The lighting plan requires a design waiver as a maximum of one foot candle is permitted at the front property line whereas 17.3 foot candles is currently proposed which um
does not conform with the city code. However, I did want to note that the light levels along the neighboring property lines actually does end up conforming with the city lighting requirements. Lastly, as for storm water management and utilities, the project is not
considered as a major development as defined per NJAC78 and is exempt from storm water management and green infrastructure requirements. The project proposes a net decrease in impervious coverage by 954 square feet
and proposes less than one acre of total disturbance. Um and overall the project does maintain existing drainage patterns while improving ground groundwater recharge, storm water quality and storm water quantity. Um therefore providing uh as a
benefit in terms of um storm water management under proposed conditions. And lastly, as for utilities, the uh proposed gas, electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are proposed to be made directly into the existing services within West 27th Street.
Uh that concludes my direct testimony. If there's any specific questions, I just have a few questions for you. Absolutely. Uh first, I just want to reiterate it's your testimony that currently at the site today is an existing nonconformity. Yes, correct. Thank you. Uh also we are going to be
agreeing to the city engineers recommendation uh shortening the lengths of both those curb cuts at 20 and 10. Yep. Great. Um I also just wanted to confirm with you that since this is JFK Boulevard and
that is a county road that did the applicant receive approval from the Hudson County Planning Board? Yes, we did. We received conditional approval uh on February 18th, 2025. Great. And also, did this applicant also receive exemption from soil conservation district? Yes, we did.
Terrific. And one last question. Is your testimony here tonight that we are actually reducing the impervious coverage by a little over 900 square f feet and also improving the storm water management at the subject site? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you. Um, I have a couple
questions. Um, as far as the trees go on 27th Street, I believe there's a tree fund that you can donate to. Is that correct? So instead of a design waiver, you could probably do that. Yes, we would agree. Okay. To contribute to the tree fund. Um any variances other than the curb cut
that are existing pre pre-existing conditions being exacerbated. Aside from the curbcut, the rear yard setback uh is being reduced from existing 18.8 ft down to 7 ft.
And as for combined sideyard, um that's being reduced from 8.4 ft down to 5t. and our planner, he'll come up later to talk about the intensification for those bulk standards. Okay. Well, who would testify to any
mitigating uh factors for making those like are you going to put any kind of shrubbery back there? Because like the rear yard setback, the reason for that is privacy for your neighbor. Y So, are you putting anything in place to help set off the fact that you're going
to be closer to the neighbor? Uh, I can let my civil engineer testify to that, but I can say on the record that our applicant, if this board refine in the affirmative, would absolutely provide landscaping screening. Uh, Mr. Wall, you want to go into depth of what could be done there?
Uh, sure. Just pulling up the plan. Sorry about everything for one second. I'm just verifying. Okay. I mean, yeah, absolutely. to mitigate any um additional buffering or screening uh the board is looking for us
to provide to neighboring properties. Um we are a corner lot along John F. Kennedy Boulevard as well as uh 27th Street. Um and if preferred, we can certainly look to shift the uh
shift the building uh westward uh closer to John F. Kennedy Boulevard to provide that additional buffering if that's what the board prefers. Well, that going to come in with the second qu or my next question. Um, and this is to do with the curb cuts. So,
part of this is probably better answered by the architect, the distance between the two curb cuts after the proposed changes. Um, but is it feasible to cut down the 20 foot even further and have it a shared um
curb cut? I mean, we have plenty of properties that are double wide driveways that only have 10-ft curb cuts. I don't know, you know, with your setbacks, is it feasible to back both cars out of a centered
smaller curb cut? So, it does get a little bit tricky just because there is an existing utility pole um along the frontage along 27th Street and Well, how would that make it I'm asking you to make it smaller. I'm assuming that you have one you're proposing 120
foot that spans the two two garages. Correct. Yeah. Correct. So if you made that 18 ft 16 ft, would it you still be able to swing the cars in and out? I don't think a telephone pole has anything to do with that by making it smaller if you made it bigger.
Yeah. I was saying leave I don't think you can get rid of all three. Right. Keep the one at 10, the one that's 20. Can you make that a little bit smaller and still swing the cars in and out safely? That's going to be challenging. Um, just because again the
there is if I may, board chairman, could we take a fiveminute recess just to have a conversation with our architect as well? Um, you can just testify to it when he comes up if that's easier. Okay. Um
I don't have any other question any questions from the board. You you had mentioned about the the lot size is going to be smaller as far as coverage. Your storm water coverage is
are you still in parameters where you you make the coverage for that or it's been reduced? The lot the lot size itself is not changing. Um it's existing and proposed to be I believe it's 2,672 square feet.
Uh and from that 2672 square feet um it's currently entirely impervious and we're proposing a reduction in pvious coverage by 954 square ft. So there is a reduction. There's a reduction by a little over 950 ft. Yes.
Okay. And one other question. Seeing your rendition over there um your rendering. Yeah. You have a tree. Looks like there's two trees, right? One looks like it's in the middle of the sidewalk. Yeah, that that was resolved with the county as well um as one of their
conditions of approval. So, in addition to providing an additional tree, um the trees are going to be pulled forward to the uh the curb line. Yeah. And just for clarification, uh Mr. Wally, when we discussed the reduction
impervious coverage, since it's a little over 900 square ft that's going to be removed, is it safe to say that approximately a third of the site will be reduced from impervious coverage? More or less. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other board questions
from the board? Do we have any questions from the audience for she? Oh. Oh, there you are. Um, now the at this time the questions are directly to
the testimony given. You can come up. I'm just saying. So if your question, could you move over to where Mr. Patada is so you can answer her questions? No, not you, ma'am. Sorry, it's my first time. The engineer address your questions to
this gentleman. He he's the one that would be answering. Um, if I'm not mistaken, there is a very important bus stop there. I'd like to understand if it's going to be an issue for pedestrian traffic to catch the bus stop and then to also understand the start and finish approximately of the
project because it will be noise fairing. Um and then also the rooftop deck although glamorous and lovely uh I envision it to be a burden to people in the area. Uh that could be a conduct issue. um in terms of access, how many
parties you can throw, how many people you could have things that one question at a time so we can actually answer you. I'm sorry. Sorry. No, stay here. Stay here. Stay here. So, first question I think was in regards to um the bus stop specifically, right? I just I catch that bus to go to work.
So, I just want to know how you how are we going to physically get there? If is it were we going around the project? Are we going you know, things things like that? Um, do you mean during dis during construction, ma'am? Yes. Okay. Yes. But just in general, I envision
like area being blocked off and and trucks and things of that nature. I'm going to to not forget it that people need to take the bus. No, absolutely. Uh, I'm going to defer that. We actually do have a traffic engineer uh here tonight and I'm going to defer that to him.
Thank you. And just in general, the the rooftop uh deck, it sounds lovely and beautiful. Um, but it also could be taken a little too far in terms of being, uh, noise bearing, uh, boisterous, that type of thing. Um, what does the person, um, that's in charge of
the building going to do for like time limits, like is it 24-hour access? I mean, you know, sometimes we could take things a little too far. Yeah, I believe we're going to have an architect to testify as well as planner to the um the rooftop. And then in terms
of the project like from start to finish, I know we have ordinances from when the when you can start in the morning to the evening. Uh I believe it's six days a week. Does this include holidays? I I know that things take a long time. It could take longer than expected. Um it's a lot. It's just a lot
on us. Uh I will say that um the applicant will comply with whatever the um specific requirements from the ordinance are in terms of um working hours that are permitted. Thank you. Yeah. Did you want to redirect Mr. Wallally or uh call your next witness, Mr. Bada?
I'd like to call my next witness. Thank you. Thank you. My next witness will be Mr. Corey Chase, who is my traffic engineer and can also answer some of those questions. I do. Certainly. It's Corey. C O R E Y. Last
name is Chase. C H A S E. Uh, Mr. Chase, can you please provide your educational background as well as whether or not your license is still in good standing? Certainly. Uh, good evening everyone. Again, Corey Chase with Dynamic Traffic, a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. licenses currently
a good standing bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Massachusetts and I have testified before over 120 municipalities throughout the state including the city's planning board on a prior occasion. We'll accept Mr. Chase as an expert. Thank you. Uh my role in the application was to
assess the overall traffic and and parking impacts associated with the redevelopment of the subject property as well as working with Mr. Wall-E on the the site access and impacts on the adjacent roadway network. Um from a pure traffic generation standpoint, we looked at data published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, which is the national and state recognized standard for developing traffic projections. Uh given that we are only proposing a three-unit town home development, it's projected to generate a very neg negligible impact on traffic conditions, a maximum of two additional trips during
the peak hours. So that's certainly not a significant level of additional traffic activity. The site was previously developed with a commercial office oriented use. So there was a traffic generation associated with that use as well. Uh so changing it to a residential use. Obviously your trips
for residential uses are typically limited to exiting in the morning and returning home in the evening. So overall from a daily traffic generation perspective we would certainly expect a reduction in traffic to and from the area as a result of the redevelopment. As Mr. Wallally mentioned, we are
proposing three individual garages associated with each of the units. Uh we do require a variance from the parking requirement of four spaces per city standards. I would note that I did look at uh there are as was mentioned by the uh neighbor there are two bus stops within close proximity to the
development. So certainly that aids in close proximity to mass transit and certainly um most families these days typically in an location like this don't have two vehicles. I looked at the census data published for the city and actually 69% of the population has one
vehicle or less within the city. So we feel that providing three off- streetet parking spaces would certainly be a benefit to the residents here and would be in keeping with those tenants that we would expect to occupy the facility. Um I believe as was discussed with the architect and as was raised by the
chairman relative to the curb cuts along the subject property furnage uh we are reducing the one to 10 ft. the the second curb cut was proposed to be 20 feet encompassing the two other garages. We could reduce that to to provide three compliant 10- foot curb cuts. Um there
is approximately a three and a half gap between the garage doors. And just given the width of the sidewalk, I don't think that we can reduce the the 20 foot curb cut to 15 or 16 feet and have those vehicles angled out. But but we could split it up into three individual curb cuts um 10 ft in width which would be
compliant with city standards. Um just to address your concern relative to pedestrian activity during construction, uh we certainly recognize that there are those two prominent bus stops along JFK Boulevard. So we would work with the city police department to ensure that there was if if needed
during specific times during construction, there would be a pedestrian detour, but all pedestrian connectivity would be maintained. And in through limited times, there may be a detour just based on the construction activities that day, but wouldn't be in a situation where there'd be no um pedestrian accommodations to get to
those bus stops. Uh, Mr. Brasada, that's all I had for direct. Be happy to answer any questions that you think I may have missed or any questions that the board may have. I have no further questions. Thank you. I I appreciate what you're saying with the 3 10 foot. I think that actually makes it worse because you're
actually expanding the unusable parking because now you like you said, if there's three foot in between, instead of a 20 foot space, now it's a 23ft space or whatever that works out to be. Um, so I wouldn't go there. I was just hoping we could shrink it down. Again, I think it would be the
architect's testimony to let us know what the actual space is between the two curb cuts with the 10 and the 20 to see if that's usable space. Um, because that would matter because you're taking away parking that existing on street parking to put these curb cuts in and you are putting two curb cuts in where we only
normally allow one. So, I do want to hear what what is going down going on there. Um, understood, sir. and I can testify the the usable space between the two curb cuts, it's approximately 3 ft. So, if we were to shrink it down, you would gain a 5ft separation between the two curb
cuts. So, we wouldn't be in a scenario where we could actually park a vehicle between those two curb cuts even if we were to go to 310s. Um, that's not notably changing the impacts on that frontage. So, there's only with the 20 and 10,
there's only five feet or so between the two. There's approximately three feet between the two now. So if we were to reduce it, you'd gain you could be up to five feet potentially, but it wouldn't be at a situation where we were at, you know, say 18 feet and we reduced it, we could get a 20 foot separation between the two and you could actually park a car in
between. Um, and I'm assuming that the usage of these garages would be for each building. Like if you're in unit one, you get a garage, unit two, you get a garage, and Exactly. They would be assigned and they would be associated with that respective unit. Um,
any other questions from the board? question regarding the bus stop. Just I I just want to be certain that I understand where it's located. It's not lo is it located in front of the property or is it just north of that on Kennedy Boulevard? That's correct. It's located just to the
north on Kennedy Boulevard, but I believe the resident's concern was uh coming up 27th Street getting to the bus stop. If there was construction going on, would the sidewalk be closed and then therefore how would they get there? Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Certainly. Thank you. Um, any other questions from
the audience? No. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to call my last witness, Mr. Nick Raviano. Uh, he is my planner and also he's going to provide testimony regarding architectural uh, design specifically because his firm designed
it and we'll accept him as an expert since we just went through this. I don't want to wait another 20 years from him. Thank you. You know, these this is the planning. This is 8:30. This was 8 marked 8:30.
The planning exhibit. How many copies do you have? It's one sheet. Oh, I have copies for How many do you have? Thanks. I do. Yes. Nicholas with an H. Graviano. G R A
V is invner and planner with the firm that did the plans and the um I'll be providing the planning testimony. I worked in conjunction with the licensed architect who prepared these plans, Mr. Gillis, who's in the audience this evening.
Terrific. Mr. Graviano, can you please walk us through first the design and then second the variances that are being requested here tonight? Certainly. Firstly, I'll go over the design of the building. Uh clarify some things for the board. Um as Mr. Pada indicated in his introduction, this is a
three dwelling project. Uh the building will uh measure 28 by 60 feet uh in size. That's 1680 square ft. Um that's a 166 square ft increase from the office building which sits there today. So it's
a pretty modest 6.2% increase in footprint. Um as you heard in the engineering testimony, we did substantially uh decrease the impervious coverage on site uh roughly 35.7%. So there will now be grass in the place
of where former formerly asphalt and gravel uh stood. Uh the building is roughly 497 12 square ft per floor. Uh that equates to 995 square ft of living space. These
are two bedroomedroom two full bathroom uh dwelling units. As on the plans that were submitted with the application, you'll see on the ground floor contains a onecar parking spot. The garage is 27
ft long. Your typical vehicle is 16 ft long. So it allows for not only the accommodation of the vehicle, but for additional storage space. Uh there is a comment in the planning and engineering. Excuse me, sir. You can bring the microphone over with you. Who comes out
with you? I feel like Bob Barker. There we go. Nothing like being off from school and watching some prices, right? Uh the the ground level will also contain a laundry/utility room which would contain
a washer and dryer as well as the mechanical equipment to service uh the dwelling. The dwelling is modest in size, so it will only require one HVAC unit. There is an al cove to provide additional storage space, shelving, uh
room for trash and recycling bins. Trash and recycling will be held in the garage and brought out by the uh the occupant of the dwelling on trash day. Then there's a foyer which is accessed not only from 27th but also from the
garage that leads to the first uh living floor. The first living floor is an open floor plan kitchen, living, dining area as well as a full bathroom. The second living floor will contain two bedrooms as well as a full bathroom as
long as well as a staircase that goes uh to the rooftop deck. In terms of materials, the plans originally pres prop proposed potentially brick or stone on that base course. I've been out to the site on five separate occasions after being in
the neighborhood on a more frequent basis. I feel like the bricks more appropriate. It ties into the history of the other historic uh buildings in the area which consist of brick. The upper level will be contained of fiber cement siding. You'll know that as the industry
name of Hardy Plank. um that will be white siding with black windows. Additionally, we also considered a potential solid power ped at the roof. When we were doing the modeling, we felt that the open railings may made the massing look a little less uh imposing.
So, that's why we went with the open rail on on the rendering. In terms of the uh neighbors question regarding use of the roof deck, it's no different than any the use of anybody's backyard. you know, noise nuisance uh parameters
exist and uh the the occupants will be subject to the requirements of everybody else in the municipality in terms of noise and the like. So, it's no different than someone uh utilizing their their rear yard. And that that's the that is the building
testimony. going to now get into the planning testimony. The main reason the applicant is here this evening is to request a D1 use variance as the townhouse dwelling is not a permitted use in the R2 residential district as well as the uh C
variances that were indicated in the engineering testimony. This property is known as block 177 lot 47. Uh it's currently developed with a 1514 square ft uh office building. I would like to note that the office
building requires four off- streetet parking spaces where one only presently exists. So there's a deficiency in three off- streetet parking spaces in the condition that exists today. The applicant's proposal uh proposes one parking space
per each dwelling unit. However, the applicant is uh short by 75 or one off- streetet parking uh spaces per unit. You did hear the testimony by Mr. Chase that se roughly 70% of all the dwelling units in the municipality have one car
or less. So the offshoot parking certainly enough to accommodate uh the proposed uh residential units. In terms of those C variances, I'm not going to go through them point by point. Um, you heard the the quantity in the
engineering testimony, but the variances indicated uh for lot area, lot width, lot frontage, and lot depths. They're all existing conditions not augmented by this application. Strict application of the city zoning ordinance would create an undue hardship upon the applicant
this evening. Those variances exist today. They certainly could be granted without substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Looking at the D1 variants, I don't have to tell you all all the time you spend away from your family and friends doing
fun things. Uh the D1 variants could be granted in particular cases and for special reasons. That's the positive criteria of the D1 variance. New Jersey courts have held that the promotion of the general welfare is the zoning purpose that most clearly amplifies that
term special reasons. So the benefit to the general welfare in a non-inherently beneficial use, which is what the applicants proposing this night, derives not from the use itself, but the development of a site in the community that's particularly suited for
the very enterprise that's proposed. Now the applicant does not need to demonstrate to you that there are other viable locations for this proposed townhouse building just that this site has characteristics that makes the townhouse building appropriate in this
particular setting. Additionally, the negative criteria the variance can't be granted without a showing that uh there will be no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance or a substantial detriment to the public good.
In terms of the particular suitability, we must look at why is the location of the site particularly suited for this enterprise. Additionally, what characteristics of the site make it appropriate for the proposed use? Now, looking at the planning exhibit, that's A30, Mr. Pada.
Yes. Uh, looking at the planning exhibit, I took these photographs on July 18th, 2025. It's pretty hot that day. Um, you all been by the site numerous times. You know, it's it's a site and a part of of
JFK Boulevard where the corner uses and the corner locations have a greater massing and a greater density than when you push into the number streets. So, if you look at this corner, the specific corner of of 27th
and JFK, um across the street you have a mixeduse building with multifamily dwelling units. Um, additionally, you have a commercial use that's part uh auto part salesauto repair. Uh, right
across the street from the subject property is a three-story multifamily apartment building. And when you look at both 26th and 28th, you have similar conditions where you have bigger, denser, larger buildings on the corner. And this is a scenario where the
applicant's trying to uh respect the asbuilt conditions of the neighborhood. Uh provide a use on the corner which actually exists today. This is a commercial use. It is a residential zone. Um so this mimics the established
development patterns for uses along JFK. You heard Mr. uh Chase indicate that it is located along transit routes. There are two bus routes that traverse this uh area to provide uh the uh dwelling units with uh access to public transportation.
And then lastly, when you look at this, this is a zone that permits two family dwellings. The applicant's proposing only one extra dwelling. Um it eliminates a non-conforming use, which is the office use, and and creates a use that's better in keeping with the zone
plan or zoning ordinance. Now, when you look at the application that was before you tonight, there was a two family dwelling uh on the property. There were six bedrooms. This application, while it's three units, proposes six bedrooms. These units are three two-bedroom units. So in
terms of occupants and and population derived from the applicant's proposal, you pretty much what you would pretty much what you would have in a conforming development scenario. In terms of the purposes of zoning and municipal land use law, this certainly
advances purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Purpose A is is advanced by the 35% reduction in imperous coverage on the
site. It's advanced by producing a building which is built to uh modern building standards and development techniques. Additionally, it advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey
citizens. And then lastly, uh the care to the site promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. This one extra unit certainly does not cause a substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. There's
no foreseeable substantial detriment to the public good. And as I stated previously, the present use requires four off- streetet parking spaces where only one exists. Uh it's a three spot deficiency compared to the one spot deficiency that's proposed by the
applicant this evening. Furthermore, this zone by conditional use permits a wide range of higher intensity uses such as religious institutions, educational institutions, community residences for the developmentally disabled, hospital
facilities, accessory parking on lots of budding commercial zone districts as well as fraternal organizations, lodges, community center centers, and other quasi public uses.
had a chance to look at both the 2000 master plan as well as the August 2017 master plan re-examination. Both on page 82 and page 95, the plan seeks to encourage high quality adaptive
use and re and development of single family duplexes and town houses in existing residential neighborhoods. Uh this is certainly an existing residential neighborhood that has the ability to accommodate a high quality uh townhouse use.
Mr. Patad in his intro said that this is a use that is not common in the city of Bayon and he's correct. Um, as per 2023 uh census figures, the single family detached dwelling type, which is what
the applicant is proposing before you this evening. Town houses are considered single family attached dwelling units, only exist in 6.2% of the city's housing stock. There's only one housing top type which is lower in percentage than that,
and that is mobile homes. So, this is a very uh unique product to the city of Bayon and certainly at that corner location which historically and currently provides a higher density use is certainly appropriate uh in the
location. Additionally, uh 2023 uh statistics indicate that 79.4% of the city's housing stock is is over 50 plus years old. Certainly no substantial impairment to
the zone plan or zoning ordinance with the request for the D1 use variance. Uh looking at the variances that are created by the application, the chairman's question from earlier, what's being augmented by this application? Yes, there are variances being augmented
by this application, but you have to put them in context. the minimum sideyard individual where the applicant requires a variance. That's on the 27th frontage. So, the building is on the sidewalk. That's not an unusual scenario. Uh many of the buildings in
that neighborhood have the building on the sidewalk. So, that's the variance request at that location. In terms of the sideyard setback, the combined variance, the applicant's only off by one foot, six foot is required. The applicant is proposing five feet.
That five feet was designed to provide a greater setback to the neighboring residential dwelling on JFK. So your code allows this building to be set back three feet from that building. This building is set back five feet from that building. And we also wanted that five
feet to provide additional fenestration in the back of that building to provide a desirable building facade to that neighbor. The rear yard variance uh 20 feet is required. Uh seven feet is proposed.
That's to the neighbor on JF. That's to the neighbor on 27th. That is the side of the neighbor's dwelling. In a conforming development scenario, you could have a house three feet from that neighbor's dwelling. We're proposing the seven feet. chairman, if you want additional
landscaping in that area, we certainly could provide uh evergreen landscaping along the property line to provide a a shield uh for the building. The benefit of pushing the building back from JFK is that 1.1 ft setback exists
today on JFK. The applicant is now providing 13 feet. The 13 fee that the applicant's providing is the exact same front yard setback of the neighboring dwelling on on JFK. Additionally, it was the request of the county to provide
additional uh front yard space at that location. So, that's why we have the building pushed back and providing a greater uh front yard setback than exists today. Although the variance is still required,
uh the applicant uh is requesting the parking variance. Uh one space uh dev one space uh variance is required. You heard Mr. Chase's testimony uh justifying the current parking uh scenario. The created variances
certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria advancing purposes of zoning A, G, and I that were provided in the use variance testimony analysis. Those variances can also be granted with substantial impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Uh the
applicant is requesting exceptions to the design standards. We've discussed the driveway exceptions. Uh the act the applicant uh has addressed the trash and recycling. Uh the applicant uh will
address the lighting at the property line exception as well as the street uh street tree caliber exceptions. I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you. Um, just for clarity sake
because it is very confusing with this because that's the front of the house on 27 what you're showing there in that picture. That's the front of the house but that's the sideyard setback. This is what this is really. Okay. So that's that's what I Okay. And
then the picture to the east is the rear yard or the Yes. So that's the that's the rear yard which that's the neighbor side. Okay. Are there windows there on this
house or on the neighboring house? There are windows on both houses. Okay. And then the other sideyard is to the south. Correct. That's where you're putting a five foot. That's the five foot set. And then the front yard setback is
actually what fronts Kennedy Boulevard. Front yard sets 13 ft is proposed which is the exact same. Okay. Thank you. I I know that's the house is sideways but the Yes.
Um Okay. Thank you. Where's the existing off- streetet parking? The off- streetet parking is next to the neighbor on 27th. There's parking for one car there. Okay. There's a gate that leads to a onecar parking spot. Um and the rooftop,
is there separation between the three units? Yes. And what's that? Is it Is it a It's going to be the railing. Is it a 4ft railing, six foot, 8 foot? Well, railing and the stair tower. Okay. Um, and then within each one, do they have
full access? Is the whole rooftop open to them? Is there no stacks or chimney there? The whole rooftop will be open. Anything needed for mechanical, the AC unit will be on the roof that obviously be screened and and protected for safety.
The roof's not that big. It's less than 500 square f feet. So um you know it does provide the residents with some outdoor space which could function as a rear yard space. Okay. And then the rear yard it's what
what is it like 8 foot 7T 7 foot. Um what access would be there to and who's going to maintain any landscaping that would be there? The landscaping will be maintained by the management company of the building. Okay. So there will be a management company.
Yes. Is it all open or is it fenced in? It could be whatever the board prefers. I have no problem just asking what the plans are. It was designed to be fenced. Okay. And then I would assume that you would have to have a gate there then on 27th Street.
Yes. Um, we could either provide a gate, two gates on 27th and as well JFK because the the open space is an L. Oh, because it goes around to the fifth street. Well, that would just be an L. Is that
what's in that alleyway? Is that going to be um impervious coverage or is that going to be symmetric? No, that's going to be grass. Okay. Um, we really tried to reduce the impervious coverage on this site. So, the back of that building is grass. Plus, we don't
want people walking back there. There's no doors or access to the garages from that location. Um, okay. That's the questions I have. Any other questions from the board? Good. Yes. The um
to me where there's doors leading into the building, that's the front. So the entrance to that building is right on the sidewalk. Yes. Okay. And the illustration you talked about all the large buildings on the
corner of the boulevard. Yes. All of them have entrance on the boulevard. The this application the entrance is on the side street. So to me that has nothing to do with it. I respectfully disagree only because
it is a corner building on on on the boulevard. So the reason we have the accesses on 27th is to provide a distance to the garage off the corner and we didn't want a curb cut on JFK. We wanted to provide off- streetet parking.
Um this was a a rational design scenario. Uh we we paid attention to make that facade on JFK attractive with nice fenestration at nice intervals uh with a symmetrical look. Um so you know
we respected the JFK frontage. Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the PL? Um any questions from the audience? If that's your uh that's my last witness. Do you want to?
Yes, please. Hold on, Mr. Pada. Uh we take comments from the audience before the attorney sums up. So, if anybody would like to comment on this application, now's the time. Mr. Pada.
Uh this is a subject site that has been plagued for a number of years with commercial tenency. Uh we believe returning this site to a residential use which is permitted in the zone. Not the type of asset but the residential from commercial residential is originally anticipated for this subject light uh
subject site would advance the municipal land use law as well as the master plan for this municipality. and also as discussed before that this housing stock will address a need within the municipality. And for those reasons, we think that the board should find the affirmative. But more importantly, we thank the board and the board's
professionals for working with us for the past couple years. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go into closed caucus. Um, yeah, I'm conflicted on this. I like the project very much so. I think it it's looks
great. I think it'll be a great addition. I do have concerns about opening up to curb cuts on the street and setting precedent for that. Um, but my other fear is if we turn this down, the
alternative will probably be a more dense building and not any more parking. So, it may only have one curb cut, but you're going to have more density with more parking demand, but no more than three spots being given anyway. Um,
which kind of counter counters the whole reason why I don't want two curb cuts. Um, I appreciate what you're trying to do with all the, you know, not exacerbating any of the conditions and and trying to
give back with, you know, the spirit of the ordinance is with the the setbacks more so than the letter of the ordinance. Weighing the co the pros and cons, I think I will be in favor of this. Vice Chairman Panera.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree much more with your with your concerns. Um but however, I do agree with the um with the concept of the building and uh with that said, I would be in favor of it.
Thank you, Commissioner D. Ross. Um I have some issues with this one. is the uh being that there's no yard where the entrance is. Uh I see an issue with people parking blocking
the sidewalk because it's a very populated area and people would park across the driveway which is permitted by the the city but I still see cars blocking the driveway. And as um as far
as attached homes, uh there are attached homes on that block further down and they don't fit the area. Uh I was happy to see a color rendition and that was one of my issues that I didn't see one. I I saw which is very
nice, but I don't think uh attached homes blend into that area. And as far as storm water, uh I heard less coverage, more coverage. So I was a little confused on that. We once had an application where a person wanted to
remove the planter from their driveway and because they didn't have the storm water coverage, we had to refuse the application. So along with this and uh I won't be in favor of this application. Thank you, Commissioner Ciselvin.
I think that this is a beautiful project that's going to enhance the area that it's located in. I agree with the the other comments that have been made as well. I would be in favor of this application with the condition that we add the evergreen along the backyard for
the privacy. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Frank, thank you. Um you know, I also tend to struggle a bit. I think my biggest concern is is the the sidewalk um and the garages
opening right there. But as I try to think to myself, how could this be better if there was even, you know, a totally different project? I think the the problem exists just by the nature um of the lot. So I I do think it's a good project. I think it'll um I think it
fits within the city. I think it provides good housing. Um, so ultimately I'm gonna go ahead and support it with the condition as well for the um for the plantings in the rear. Thank you. And Commissioner Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You guys have
all brought up really good points and I've had a lot of questions, but you guys have cleared all that up for me. So, I'll be in favor of this project. Thank you. We will come out of closed caucus. Um, can I have a motion in the affirmative with the I guess the only
real condition was the planting the trees in the rear yard. The trees in the rear yard. Um, can I have a motion in the affirmative with the conditions outlined for Z-2500296
through98 Real Estate LLC site 696698 JFK Boulevard. I move Z-25- Z002 in the affirmative with the opposed conditions and a second.
A second and a vote please. Chairperson Dilo I. Vice Chair Pierro I. Commissioner D. Ross. No. Commissioner Cis Galvin I. Commissioner uh Fra I. Commissioner Garvey
I. The application has been approved. Thank you. Thank Good luck. Thank you. Um, you guys have worked so hard tonight. You're done. Do we have any resolutions to approve? You're done.
Oh, one resolution. J&J Builders LLC Z-24-00622 East 11th Street, Block 273, lot 23. This was an application heard at our last board meeting. Can I get a motion and a second?
I'll make the motion. Second. And on the vote, Commissioner uh Chairperson Dilo, hi. Vice Chair Pierro, hi. Uh, Commissioner D. Ross, hi. Commissioner Cis Galvin, I. Commissioner Fra, I. Commissioner Garvey, I.
Uh, the motion has been approved. We'll take a motion to adjurnn. I'll make the motion. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi.