Welcome to the land use board meeting of June 1st, 2026. We will start our meeting by saluting our flag. I pledge algiance 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. Bless you. Pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, adequate and electronic notice of this meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board in the Beach Haven Municipal Building and on the Burough
website's legal notices page, filing a copy with the Burough Clerk, and mailing the same to the Beach Haven Times and the Asbury Park Press. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision
for each individual application. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Mr. Balbo, Mrs. Bow Miller >> here. >> Mr. Jenna >> here.
>> Mayor Lambert. Mrs. Leonard >> here. >> Mr. Lefredo. Mrs. Mason >> here. Mr. Tinquist >> here. >> Mr. Winganger >> here. Miss Parker
>> here, >> Mr. Aello >> here, >> Mr. Lubis >> here, >> and Mr. Ginda >> here. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving right along. We have the approval of the minutes for the May 4th meeting. Can I have a motion to
approve the minutes? >> I make a motion. >> Can I have a second? >> I second it, Andy. >> Thank you. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Minutes passed. Next we have the
approval of the bills. 5,434.73. I have a motion to approve the bills. >> I can approve the bills. Sherry. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor of the approval of the bills? >> I. >> Thank you. Bills approved. Moving along
to the approval of the bond returns. Um, we have 400 North Bay Avenue, the RLD Industries in the amount of $55,16966 and $3,34750. And then we have 215 Marine Street,
Raven and Raven, $33,261. And I have motion to approve the return of the bonds. >> Motion to approve bonds. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
that's returned or approved. >> All right. Going right along to our new business tonight. Our public hearing is the first application is 223 Pelum. This is a special reasons Dvariances and bulk
variances. Two D variances are requested. 1B variance to allow two separate single family homes in the RB2 family residential district when only two family dwellings within a single
building are permitted and 1D variance to allow a floor area ratio of 54.4% when only 50% is permitted. Additional testimony related to the floor area ratio calculations is required. Six bulk
variances are requested. One bulk variance to allow a second residential dwelling on a subdivision lot of record where only one residential building is permitted. A bulk variance to allow a lot area of 5,000 square ft where 10,000
square feet is the minimum required. A bulk variance to allow lot width of 50 feet where 100 ft is the minimum. A bulk variance to allow a lot coverage of 48.2%
where the maximum allowed is 35. A bulk variance to allow imperous coverage of 71% where 60% is the maximum allowed coverage. and a bulk variance to allow only two parking spaces outside of
the vertical plane of the building where four are required when you have two single family units on the lot. I'm exhausted. >> Okay. Good evening. James R behalf of the applicant Timothy and Kathy Neimoth.
So, as Miss Lenhard noted, the property is located at 223 Pelum Avenue, and it's a unique property in that there are two separate structures currently developed on the property. Right now, there's a duplex situated toward the front of the property, and then there's an old
historic cottage that's situated toward the rear of the property. And really what's driving most if not all the variance relief here is the fact that there's this historic cottage in the rear of the property that the applicant would like to maintain and keep that historic dwelling on the property. I
believe it dates back to 1917 and the applicant does in fact want to maintain that structure in its current location. So, what the applicant's proposing is to demolish the two family dwelling in the front of the property and construct a new single family
dwelling. The Neoths have owned the property since 1978, so it's been in the family for a long time. They've rented it a little bit in the past and are now looking to utilize it just within their own family. And the intent would be for
the Tim's family of five to use the new single family dwelling. And his mother Kathy, who's here as well tonight, would utilize the cottage in the back. And the proposed dwelling in the front of the property, the new single family
dwelling, is 1,830 square ft. So, it's not an overly large dwelling, you know, especially to accommodate a family of five. So, that's really what's driving the variance relief. obviously were over on the coverage and the floor area
ratio. Um, but if the cottage were not present in the back, they wouldn't have those they would it'd be definitely conforming and even well under on the floor area ratio. So, the variance relief we're seeking is really driven by the presence of that cottage in the back. So, I'm going to have Mr. Neoth
come up and give a little more history regarding the property and the family history at the site. Then I also have Robert Larson who's the architect on the project who prepared the variance plan. He'll get into the the nuts and bolts of the variance relief that we're seeking and then we'll answer any questions that
the board may have. But first I'll call Tim Neoth. >> Mr. Raven if you don't mind before we begin for the board and members of the public you agree because there's two Dvarianes the class one and class three can't participate right. >> Yes that's correct. >> For those variances you need five
affirmative votes. >> Yep. That's understood. And as the chair announced when she went over the agenda of this application, in addition to the 2D variances being sought, we're uh they're also seeking six bulk variances as read off that is on identifying the
agenda. Correct. >> Yes. Um some of those are pre-existing nonconformities with respect to the lot area and the lot width. To the extent variance relief is required for that, we will request those variances. >> I don't know. The way I read Mr. little
letter a lot area and width variances were needed. The existing conditions are the yard area, the rear yard setback and the combined side setback. >> That's correct. >> Right. and just want to make sure we're all on the same page. And then when we
get to the end, my suggestion will be that we bifurcate the votes that vote such that the devarianes are voted on separately because we need five affirmative votes and then we can take the both grants either one at a time or we can do them collectively. I guess
we'll see how this application holds. I guess we can do that but to a certain extent the if the D variances fail the bulk variances are going to become moot basically at that point. >> All right, we'll get to that. So the what you're suggesting is that the use
variances fail then you're willing to forego a vote on the bulk because the whole project then >> I just don't want us to be in a position where if there's an appeal right >> right yeah >> and there's no vote I don't want anybody arguing well the board didn't vote on the bolts
>> right no I think that's fine we we can start with that >> bifurcation of the D and the and the bulk variances we can go that route that that's acceptable >> and um yeah Tim, why don't you come up? In the meantime, I'm actually going to mark an exhibit as exhibit A1.
A1 is two photographs. The first top photograph is a photo of the front duplex and then the second photo is the rear cottage. So, I'll circulate copies for the board. >> Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony before the board this evening will be the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Uh, good evening, board. Uh, my name is
Tim Neimoth. I'm here um with my uh wife Kathleen and my mom Katherine. It's a little confusing. Um and we all own 223 Palum Avenue. Um I want to first thank you guys in advance for your time and
dedication to Beach Haven. Um I was involved with municipal government for a decade and I know how difficult this job can be. So thank you. um our professionals representing us tonight will provide facts based answers to um their areas of expertise. Um what I hope
to do is appeal to you on a historical and emotional level for why we are so committed to this project and pursuing relief from a variance. Um my mother and father purchased this property in 1978 as uh Jim said. Um my father Lawrence
senior um was familiar with this property because his parents owned 217 Palum Avenue um in 1958. U my father was always fond of this property 223 specifically because of the cottage in the rear of the property affectionately
named Pinky. Um the cottage uh was always charming, but the backstory um may even be better. Um both the structure as well as how it ended up on the property um is rich in beach haven history. Um so back in the 1880s, living
um on cedar house boats uh were popular way to summer along Jersey shore. Um it was inexpensive and people could change locations from summer to summer. Um in the early 1900s uh be beach haven became a popular destination uh because of the
available employment in the old wooden hotels like the Perry House, the Baldwin and the Angleside. Um uh the do the area of Dock Road provided an ideal location because of the proximity of the hotels um as well as protection from Parker Island. Um these
boats would tie up end to end. Um some of them even had docks and um a system that they could get over the mud and the grass uh to come ashore. Um early on the housebo community was looked upon favorably because it was a
symbiotic relationship between um the with the town um mostly because it would fill the the jobs and these hotels because um even if they could afford to live on the island, there wasn't enough houses at at this time. Um the community was generally self-sufficient. They
would eat whatever they found under the boat, clamming, fishing, uh, crabbing, etc. Um, however, in the 1920s, this changed as the population increased in Beach Haven. The housebo communities were viewed upon as freeloaders, um, not paying taxes and polluters. U, people
started to complain about the unpleasant smell coming from Mudhen Creek that was adjacent to Dock Road. Um, with the rudimentary uh, plumbing in these boats, uh, raw sewage was being placed in the shallow motors. people in Beach Haven had had enough. Uh the proliferation of
the floating homes became a municipal flint. On 1920 uh 1920, I'm sorry, June 20, 1926, Beach Haven became the first Jersey Shore municipality to ban houseboats um from its docks and waterways. Um shifting the community to
entirely land-based marinas and yacht clubs. The majority of these old celia house boats were torn down or torched um to avoid liability. Some were used as storage um and houses. The rest were finished off by northeastern storms and
hurricanes. Um around this time um the resident of 219 um was rumored to be one of the daughters um of the owners of the Baldwin Hotel. As the story was told, she loved to entertain but um did not like house guests. So, um, this it was
around this time that one of these houseboats was taken and put in the front of, um, to the right of her property, which is now 223 Pelum Avenue. Um, and it was converted at that time into a cottage. Um, in 1958, 223 would
be subdivided and the Housebo Cottage was relocated to the back of the property. um modern amenities and um were were given and um the local legend of uh Impelum was Pinky. Um and now we
have water and sewage. Um so anyway, over the years uh my family has maintained um and improved Pinky. Uh during one of our renovations, the former chief of police um in Beach Haven and contractor um Ed Eddie Meyers um
found a old bottle containing a letter um from the original builder, Thomas um Sherbornne. Um it was dated uh 1917. Um because of this and the knowledge of how um old it is, Pinky was deemed a historic site um by the United I'm
sorry, the Long Beach Island Preservation Commission uh circa 1910. Um however, the previous owners at 223 Palum Avenue advised that there was um a date of 1880 um printed by the uh ship
builder or the boat builder and um on one of the the the uh pole beams. Um the original bow of the boat is still visible and it's preserved in its original state inside Pinky. Um the facade serves as the entrance to our
galley kitchen. Um my brother Lawrence Beth Jr. was a school teacher and amateur historian. Served as a keeper of Pinky's history until 2015 when he passed away. Larry would showcape showcase Pinky as part of the Jolly Trolley's Historical Homes and Gardens
tours for several years. Um, Pinky was um a tour favorite. When the the trolley would pull up, Pinky would soon be filled with curious onlookers um who were drawn to the story and the charm. Um, Larry was in all of his glory, showing off artifacts and telling the
story of the cottage. Um, as our family grows, it's important we have space to grow in. Replacing the duplex um with a compatible uh single family home is important component. um knocking down the front house seems like the only sensible pathway forward. Almost 70
years of exposure to the island um the island living sought air and storms to the house that was built for as a summer home in 1958 um without insulation and exposed pipes has proved too much to safely repair and maintain. Binky remains nestled in the rear of the
property protected by the raised houses around us. Um this is a gem. This gem is irreplaceable. Um, and it's part of our heritage and uh and the beach haven history. Um, we can't imagine tearing it down just to see um that if we could
build a house um with a maximum square footage that's allowed for our property. Um, we hope you see Pinky as something worth saving as well. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Neas. Uh, if you could just step up here for one moment, please. Um, I know that there's no
proposed changes with respect to the cottage. if you could just explain to the board a little bit how the layout of that cottage. >> Um, so there is I guess the the slain glass doors that goes into like a a Florida room. Um, like I explained
before, there's the the original valve the housebo which opens up into a little um galley kitchen. Um, there's a small bedroom to the right. Um and then um at one point the the other room to the left was um was a u another living room area
and um that's a we kind of converted that into a bedroom um when you know my kids were younger um and there's a bathroom off of that. So um shower >> and the new single family dwelling you're proposing that's designed
basically for your family, >> correct? >> Okay. And that's your wife and three children. Is that right? >> Okay. >> Okay. Any questions for Mr. Neoth before we move on to Mr. Larson to go over the plan?
>> Mr. Raven, in light of some developments that happened in the meeting had nothing to do with you. If there's I'm going to take it witness by witness. >> Sure. >> So if the board doesn't have any questions of Mr. Neoth. That's not If there's anyone from the public that has questions for Mr. Neoth.
This isn't public comment. We'll get to that later. But if anyone has questions, anyone in the public has questions for this witness, either here in person or on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, raise your hand. Now is the time to ask questions of this witness.
>> I don't see anyone on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. And actually, one more quick question, Mr. Neoth, I marked as exhibit A1 two photographs of the property. Do these each of these photographs accurately depict the current condition of the site? >> It does.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Next, I'll call Robert Larson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Neoth. >> Mr. Larson, could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear the testimony before the board this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.
Mr. Larson, if you could give a little bit of your professional background, please for the board. >> Sure. Um, I'm a licensed architect and licensed land planner. Um, a professional planner here in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed as an architect since 2005. Licensed as a planner since 2011. I presented um not
in front of this board yet, but um to boards throughout the entire state of New Jersey as well as the Superior Court of State New Jersey. uh in both capacities. I hold the degree from NGIT in uh bachelor of architecture and that's me. >> Your licenses are still in good standing. >> They are.
>> Does the board accept Mr. Larson's qualifications? >> Accept. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Larson, I I'll turn it over to you. You're familiar with the the site. You visited the site before? >> I have. Yes. >> And you prepared the architectural drawings and variance plan that we submitted with the application.
>> Yes. And if you would just give an overview for the board of how the site's currently developed and what we're proposing. >> Yeah. And forgive me, I may be a little redundant uh to what council and um my client already mentioned, but just to be clear for the record, we are proposing
um a new single family home on a lot uh to replace an existing two family home. Um and there is a second structure on the lot that we just heard a whole lot about, a small cottage to the rear. Um the new proposed single family home is a four bedroomedroom, three bath um single
family home. So again, we're replacing a two family. It's a living over living. Each one of those dwellings, you know, when you hear two family, you think big. These are actually very small. One is just under 6 700, one is just over 700 square ft. Um so the the uh two units in
the duplex are uh currently rather small. Um and again, so we're actually proposing to reduce uh uh one dwelling unit from the site. Um the existing dwelling as I'm sure you guys have throughout uh Beach Haven um many
structures. This existing dwell the two family exists below F uh the BFE. Um and the proposed structure will be approximately 6 ft. The first level of living will be approximately 6 ft above BF. Um as often happens again you guys know that better than I. Um, if I may,
I'm going to just go over to the uh >> Is this mobile? >> That's okay. >> I'm going to stay here. Little difficulties. Um as part of the uh proposal we are proposing um that there would be what we
show as four parking spaces but I do understand according to ordinance we are counted for two. So the ordinance requires u that there would be two cars for each of the two single family dwellings again one being the cottage. Um but if you were to look at the
diagram that was submitted uh there are two cars in front of the dwelling two in the garage as well as two next to the home. Um, that is our proposal that that's what we would like to uh to see happen. Um, and if I may, I'm going to
just change Well, before I go there, I'm not going to put up the floor plans, but if you were to look at the floor plans as submitted in the packet, um, as is very popular in in beach towns, we have what I would call reverse living. So, um, you come up above, you know, to that
first level of living, and it's actually the four bedrooms. Um, and then that allows the living to get up in the air, which puts the LDK. We're proposing a small den. Um, as well as then above that, it gives direct connection to a rooftop terrace. So, it just makes more
sense uh for usability um for a a home in this location. So, again, um we're we're proposing sort of that reverse living. We are proposing on the ground floor beyond what is enough for a two-car garage a space that we called storage which is good for obviously your beach
chairs your your surfboards and things like that as well. So there is storage an area beyond the garage that is uh good for putting you know outdoor things. >> Mark this. Yeah, we'll mark we'll mark this as exhibit A2.
And if you could just describe the exhibit for the record, please. Sure. What I just put up as exhibit A2 um is a color rendered um artistic version of the proposed single family home. Um, this is you, you know, as you can see,
certainly a home that's in line with the architecture that I see happening in the island with a variety of materials, a variety of colors. Um, a stone base, a stone veneer base using board and batten, cedar shake. You can see the railings. And again, to me, it's character that's very much in line with
the neighborhood. uh hopefully you see it as I see it which is as visually appealing and it's certainly more resilient and it will build be built to modern code standards rather than uh what is there today. Um the materials to be used obviously are going to be much
more lowmaintenance and more able to handle um the environment down here in the saltwater environment. Um, so again, I just wanted to put this up to give the board an understanding. Um, you know, part of the support, um, and again, I I do hope the board sees this. An,800
square foot and 1830t single family house is not a particularly large single family house, especially for the shore. Um, and as already has been said, much of what I'm about to describe to you as a planner, uh, the variances are due to the fact that we're we're maintaining this existing cottage. Um, so the relief
that we're seeking, um, if this were if the cottage did not exist, you know, you guys know better than I that this 5,000 square foot undersized lot for a two family is larger than you need for a single family. So, which is, I believe, 4,000 ft² in this zone. Um, so barring
the cottage, we could build a home that's actually a little bit bigger, um, about 2500 square ft. Um, but again, we are asking for that relief to maintain that structure. I didn't used to have to put glasses on. Now I do. Um, so again, if if I may
change hats. Um, and just for the record, I'd like to be thorough with the variances that we are seeking. Um, so I'll put my planner hat on and I'll let you know that we are seeking two devariances as already been mentioned. Um, one is for uh two dwellings that
exist in two separate structures rather than a two family structure that's connected and the other is for an F of 54.4% where 50% is permitted and 45.5% exists. Um there are a number of C
variances both existing um well and proposed but um let me I just want to read them for the record. uh the a second dwelling where a second dwelling is prohibited and one currently exists. A lot area of 5,000 square feet where
10,000 for a two family situation is required which again is a existing non-conformance that ultimately currently has three families on it. A lot width of 50 feet where 100 foot is required when two families exist which again is an existing non-conformance.
Um a maximum building coverage of 48.2% 2% where 35% maximum is permitted and 45.8% exists. A maximum impervious coverage of 71% where 60% is permitted and 73.5% exists.
So there is a small reduction in total uh impervious as part of the proposed uh the relief for the calculation of the parking. Um I believe and I I will definitely defer to your professionals that we are uh gaining credit for two
where four would be required for the two uh single family structures on site. Um there were some that have specifically to do with the existing condition of the cottage. Existing pvious yard of 0 feet exists where 1.5 is required. Uh that's
an existing non-conformance directly associated with the cottage. existing rear yard of 3.1 ft where 8 foot is required to the cottage and an existing sideyard combined of 16 feet where 12.1 exists again that none of these are for
the proposed main structure they are strictly to do with the cottage um and just because I saw your professional letter in my own um packet here I just want to verify that the F as we calculated and was was brought up in
your um professionals review letter. The F does include all condition space as calculated for the the numbers that are I'm reading out loud. Um Okay. I'm not sure if you want to if it's okay to go into my plan of testimony or Sure. I just want to
clarify a couple things first with respect to the the variance we're requesting the Dvarian specifically. I just want to clarify two family uses are permitted in this zone. Correct. We simply don't meet the conditions of the lot area and lot width for a two family
two family use. >> That that's correct. And and two families in one structure. >> Right. And that's that's the other piece of that is we we do have two separate structures as exists today. But we're we're reducing the density from three units to two units. >> Correct.
>> Okay. And with respect to the parking variance, the what what's triggering that is simply the fact that two of the the two parking spaces we're showing in front of the structure slightly encroach into the vertical plane of the building,
but they will fully fit onto the front of the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it's just because they go underneath that uh the first floor of the dwelling. >> That's correct. And and just for the board's information, I believe the surveyed current location of the front
um porch is actually within the setback at 7.1 ft. Um and we're proposing to comply with the the front setback at 15 ft. So you could have actually moved the house back to give more room for the parking, but the reason for that was you didn't want to get too close to the cottage behind it.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. uh you can continue with your planning testimony. >> Okay, this is the fun part. Um so um it's my job when we have a devariance to
not just prove a balance but to prove um the special reasons for positive criteria as well as negative criteria. So specifically to the positive criteria um we have to ask is this site particularly suited for the proposal
that we have here? Um, part of the benefit I've had as a planner is is listening to my client. And I do understand that very much in line with what he just uh expressed, this is a specific uniquely existing uh lot and
uni uniquely existing situation. Um, so again, much of the relief, if not all the relief that we're seeking is due to the existence of this historic cottage. So, I do believe that in terms of positive criteria, is this a site that is particularly suited to have the condition that we're proposing? And I
think the answer is yes. Um the once again, the um F of the cottage is about 888 square ft. If we were to remove that from the calculation, which ultimately is a density variance, um we would be 17.8% less than the 54.4%
proposed, which would bring us obviously into compliance. Um, on that note, I just want to uh express that the 4.4% um that we're over sounds like a small number, but 270 square ft um or I'm
sorry, 220 ft uh for a fourbedroom house is actually a lot of square footage. So, while I do understand it sounds like we're only 4.4% off, it is with purpose that we're just trying to create a modest fourbedroom home um that we think is is the right answer.
So um again for that uh first piece of the positive criteria I do believe that we have a particularly suited site and a very uh unique and specific uh situation in its existence here in Beach Haven. And second we have to look at does this proposal uh further any of the purposes
of the municipal land use law as they are denoted. Um I'm going to offer four for the record. Uh first would be um purpose B. Purpose B speaks to securing safe from fire, flood, panic, other natural or man-made disasters. One of the benefits of this proposal is it
gives our client the opportunity to uh bring this proposed structure out out of the flood um and out of the danger of um the flood events. Purpose E also, which is to promote the establishment of appropriate densities that will contribute to the well-being of the neighborhood. We're actually reducing
the density here by one and bringing a single family house that I think is appropriate. If you look at the block, if you look at the scale of the the lot, I do understand the cottage exists, but the street facing side I think is is very much going to um be a positive um
to the neighborhood. Um, purpose I, um, when I'm up here as an architect and then as a planner, I laugh because purpose eye is to promote a desirable visual environment. And I think this is a, uh, a home that is attractive, uh, is in context with the neighborhood and and
with the entire neighborhood and area. Um, and purpose J, purpose J, um, is not one that I often get to use, but it it speaks of, uh, to promote the conf conservation of historic sites. Um we do have that situation here where by uh the
relief that we're requesting if the board were to um act affirmatively or or vote affirmatively we would be able to uh really uh continue this you know uh keeping this existing historic structure. We then have to look at uh the other side of it which is the
negative criteria. Um the first is uh does this substantially impair the zone plan? So, I've spent some time in in your master plan, which is, you know, or the zone plan, and I found that there's a lot of language that speaks directly
to the preservation of not only your historic district, but of historic structures within Beach Haven overall. Um, specifically, one of the is actually the first objective in your land use objectives is to create policies and strategies that implement the burough's vision for historic preservation and
revitalization that meets the demands of and of current and future population. Um, further we read to encourage awareness and protection of Beach Haven's cultural and historic heritage. Um, and within the residential districts in the master plan, it says encourage
attractive exterior elevations for dwellings raised to meet FEMA's flood regulations. So, when I asked that first question of does it impair the zone plan, in fact, I do think it's actually directly in line um with the intent of your master plan.
Second, we have to ask, does it substantially impair the zoning ordinance? Um, again, while we are seeking um a variance, I do believe that this is a single family zone and a two family zone, we're actually uh bringing two homes on a lot where um
you know, again, a two family is envisioned, but because we're under size, I actually think that um the single family home proposed is actually in line with the intent of the zone for a lot of this size. Uh we are asking relief. I I um you know we admit that but I don't think it impairs the intent
of the zone plan um because it is a single family house on a street and on a lot with that is in line with that. Um the last question that I have to ask on the negative side is does it substantially impair the public good? Once again um no. I actually think we're
bringing a new and more attractive safer structure. We're reducing the total impervious. We're keeping a structure that has a rich heritage. Um, and we are providing parking on site. Um, and I do believe there is no substantial detriment to the public good. This is a
very unique situation proposed by, as we heard, a long-term resident, uh, attempting to improve his property in a positive way for his family, the neighborhood. Uh, and there for this board, there's not another situation to my knowledge that's exactly like what you're hearing tonight. Uh hopefully the
board can see that the uh the positives that we're proposing substantially outweigh any negative detriment um which I believe they do and um that's my planning testimony and I would also offer um council did mention that these are Dvariances
um for the C variances um there is some discussion as to whether C variances when a Dvariance is sought or subsumed. I would offer that the um the purposes of the municipal land use law and those negative detriments that were just considered would apply to each and every one of those C variances, many of which
are existing nonconformities associated with the existing historic structure. >> Thank you, Mr. Larson. I don't have any further questions. >> Questions? >> One, I just want to point out that our
ordinance requires curb and sidewalk. So, if we're going to have uh the parking arrangement as shown, you're permitted a 24 foot driveway curb cut for a twocar garage, but you have an additional curb cut. So, I was just checking the ordinance. In my letter, I
mentioned that um a waiver would be required for that. So, I just wanted to put that on the record that I think getting the parking in there is important, but there is a waiver associated with the additional driveway curb cut. >> And you're asking for that waiver, Mr. Raven? >> Uh yes, we would. And Mr. Larson, is
there any curbon sidewalk in the vicinity of this property? >> No, not not in its current situation, but we would agree, you know, I have spoken to my client that, you know, the the curbon sidewalk, if required, would be provided. We would, however, as you just mentioned, like to be able to have the parking accessible, right, for the
entire length. >> All right. Just wanted to put that on the record. >> And on that point, Mr. Raven, if the board were so inclined to grant this application, either your client or Mr. Larson will confirm that the applicant will agree to comply with the comments and conditions contained in the board of engineers
review letter. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah. And I think we cut Mr. Larson covered most of what was listed in Mr. Little's letter. There was one point, Mr. Larson, regarding the location of air conditioning units for the single family
dwelling. Will that comply with the zoning ordinance? >> It will comply. Okay. You know, just one quick thing. I was just looking at the ordinance. I guess the that is actually a variance. It's under section 21222
E, which talks about a 12T cut for a single card and a 24 for two card. And and there's nothing with respect to single family versus two family. >> No, it's either twocar garage or if you don't have a twocar, you get a 12oot
curb cut. So you're you're looking for a 24 and a 12 to make the parking work on the site. That is a variance, not a waiver. >> So I would amend the state that we would request that variance as opposed to that waiver. >> I have one question. on the new single
family house. Did you look at reducing it to be the equivalent area that the existing two family had? Does that make sense? As opposed to going over it? >> Um, we did and and actually that's part of the reason why I expressed um that the existing structure.
>> We hear two family, right? we think pretty large. The existing um main dwelling is actually a total of 1,400 square feet >> um which again is rather small uh comparatively and I know we're going from a two but I didn't realize until I
really dug into it that um the second floor is 664 and the first floor is 742 ft. So it's they're actually very small. >> So basically reduce it too much for a four bedroom >> in in in my opinion as a designer. Yes. >> Yeah. because there seems to be a lot of
decks which don't really count on the old existing. >> Yeah, >> I have a question on the cottage. So, >> would you guys mind before you ask questions just stating your name that way it helps with my recording. Thank
you. And leaning forward towards the micro. >> This is Jerry. I have a question on the cottage. Cottage is you know a good size at 880 square feet. Are those um do you have other pictures
of the cottage? Are there two separate I'm just looking at this photograph here and are there two separate buildings or is like is there a main building for the cottage and then another smaller structure that is adjacent to it? And one more
question. >> Well, I see that but then there looks like there's another roof. Yeah, I I think it's just a function of the hedge in front of there is blocking the right hand portion. If if you look at the the the front page of Mr. Larson's plan does
show a full footprint of the cottage. It is just one building, but I understand in the photograph, it's difficult to see because >> that one bush or tree in front almost makes it look like there's two dwellings back there. But yeah, Mr. Neoth, if you just want to describe the I know you touched on a little bit, but the layout
of that structure, >> right? Uh so yeah, it it kind of has an L-shape. Um when you you come onto the there's a a deck behind that row of um of of vegetation. Um there's a two sliding glass doors. That first room
with the two squared or rectangular windows is the Florida room. Um the round room is the uh full bath. That's the only full bath. Um, and then as you uh walk through there's, like I said, the kitchen is straight ahead and then
um bedroom on the right and then the the old living room is to the left that has a little laundry room in there. But it's all one It's all one building. >> Gotcha. The um the history was of certainly of interest, I think, relevant
to your testimony. Um was the the history that you had now stated did that pertain to that entire structure or were there additions uh at some time during the I'm going to say you know the 20s to
the 2000 era to that structure. So the the >> wait I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. >> She's not been sworn I think. That's okay. If you understand you said you're in government. Yeah. >> So there's a process. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but No. No. You can
speak. >> I can speak. Okay. Mr. Call if you so >> desire. If you can answer that Tim go ahead. If not. >> Yeah. >> So yes. So when they when it was first brought onto the into the front yard um there was uh they had built it into like
a little um cottage. Um and then in 1958 uh when it was um you know when it was subdivided from the the property next door um at that point it was brought to the back of the of the the um property and um you know there it was some
updating um but for the most part uh mostly like closing in. There was a screen porch was now the Florida room. Um, you know, glassed in and and that was originally like a a screened room. Um, but really the footprint is is was
all there. There was that bedroom actually went down a little hallway and that was the bedroom and that was all completely turned into a bedroom. So, yeah, I would say the footprint was roughly the same as it's always been. So, >> but the the structure
um has been changed over the years. >> Correct. Yep. >> But I'm looking at it from a historical standpoint, which I greatly appreciate that testimony, but it seems like if there was there
were modifications made to that structure in the last 20, 30, 40 years, um I I think it loses some essence of the historical aspect to it. >> Mr. Mr. Neoth, were any of those changes
made during your family's ownership of the property or was it prior to? >> Um, we did some some, you know, some construction to it. Okay. >> But the main um the battle of the boat is still preserved as you walk in. It's is is, you know, the original um cedar
shakes and and you know, you can kind of get a feel for what the original house would look. So any other I mean further question on that or >> what what were the specific that you had done? >> State your name if you don't mind.
>> I'm sorry Rick just following up on what he was saying. What were the specifics that you did through the structure since it was there? really mostly the the screen porches >> were where where the Florida room were that were closed in um you know was the
the we turned it from the original shake um siding was was done into cedar shake sidings. Um but everything you know nothing was changed as far as the footprint you know um if anything
updated new windows that kind of stuff. This is Sher Mason. I'd like some clarification on the parking one more time. You're you're is you are going to install curbon sidewalk and you're asking for a variance on the cuts or are
you asking for a waiver to not install them at all? >> Originally, we were asking for a waiver as to not install them at all, but Mr. Larson clarified if the board is inclined to require curb and sidewalk, the applicant has no issue with that. And if that's the case, it would just be for the curb cuts. So, the applicant's
willing to install the curb and sidewalk. So, actually, we'll just withdraw that waiver. The applicant will agree to install curbon sidewalk, but with respect to the curb cut, we'd require the we'd request the 24 foot and 12t. >> Would you be the first on the street to
install >> uh curbon? >> I don't know what there was a new house that was just built on our same side. Um, but I don't know what the difference was. I think they had um >> we appreciate that. We appreciate that.
>> So you're installing so withdrawing the waiver for curb and sidewalk will be installed but you need the variance for the second curve cut. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> The board doesn't have any other questions for Mr. Larson. I want to open it for questions for Mr. Mr. Larson for
the public. >> Board have any more questions for Mr. Larson? I don't have a question, but can I just make a comment? >> You can. You're a board member. You can make a comment. We're getting there, but go ahead. >> Okay. Having a hard time with accepting the
existing house being 1,400 square feet. And I understand why you want to build a bigger house. I mean, everybody wants a bigger house, but I'm having a hard time accepting um
the FAR on on this property because of some changes that were made to the the cottage and uh and the existing structure that exists there in the two family form. >> Mr. Jenna, that that's a fair point and
that may impact the way you vote when a motion's made to either approve or deny the variances. Um, I understand. I'm sure Mr. Raven understands. I'm sure Mr. Larson understands. So, it's a very good point. Um, I just want to get through the testimony
of Mr. Larson and then if there's discussion or more questions from the board before we vote, that's certainly appropriate. Is there anyone from the public who has any questions for Mr. Larson? Again, this is not public comment, but questions for the the applicants
professional, the architect and planner, Mr. Larson, whether in the room or if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. >> Nobody. >> Mr. Raven, do you have any further testimony? >> Uh, no, I don't. That concludes our
testimony. Thank you. And but we would welcome any feedback from the board as well. >> Mr. Little, do you have anything further? >> No, at this point we're opening it to the public. Correct. >> Well, I'm waiting to see if there's any discussion. Anybody want to Nobody
discussion? Okay, I'll make a motion to open it to the public. Can I have a motion? I made one. I have a second. >> Second, shar. >> Is there anybody in the public that would like to come up and speak to this application?
>> I see no one in the room. Is there anyone on Zoom who'd like to speak? If so, please raise your hand. >> There's one person. >> Theo Lambert. >> Hi, this is Jim Lambert using Theo's computer.
>> Good evening, Mr. Lambert. How are you? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. >> Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear affirm testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, just a few concerns I'd like to share with the board. Uh, the first one
has to do with the maximum permitted lot coverage. I mean, the the ordinance calls for 35%, the existing condition is 45.8% and um and now they want more. I mean, I think if they shrank the building, they could get back and live with that 45.8%.
Which, uh, segus to my next point. Uh, the F. Um, I I have to disagree with the, uh, the architect. I mean, I don't see how a Dvarian for F can possibly be consistent with the Burough master plan. Um, I
don't see a special reason that warrants more than 2500 ft of F on this property. Uh, and furthermore, my concern is setting a dangerous precedent for Beach Haven because if if you allow it, everybody who builds a new house in town
is going to want it. Um, and my last point had to do with the parking. I mean, under the deck, I mean, again, if you shrink the building a little bit, you you you everything will comply. So, those are the points I wanted to share. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. L. >> Anyone else from the public has any comments on this application? No. Anybody in the board? Seeing none. Motion to close the public. >> Can I have a motion to close to the public, please?
>> Motion to close the public. Cherry. >> Second. >> A second. Andy. >> If we may, Madam Chair, before the board starts to deliberate or makes a motion, I want everybody to understand something. It's be I I'm hearing more
and more at our hearings uh people comment about setting precedent. Please understand each application stands unto itself. So because you may grant a variance in one application does not mean that you have to grant the same
requested variance for the next application. There's no precedent that is set simply because we make a decision on one application versus the next. There's different circumstances. They involve different properties. They involve different evidence and testimony. So, I'm not saying that Mr.
Lambert didn't have good points. He made his stated his position. But just because if this board were inclined to grant this variance, doesn't mean that the next applicant that would come before us with a similar request would automatically have to be granted because
we granted this application. I just want the board to understand. >> It's closed to the public. there's any discussion or a motion >> in case he wanted he didn't want to counter that. Um all right, >> Rick again just going back to the point
I originally said and I know Jim mentioned the same thing and I think you said you did look at it but going back to building the single family house to not exceed the current square footage of the two family house. Is that feasible to consider doing that or it's completely out of the question? Meaning,
could the bedrooms be a little bit smaller or possibly threebedroom? I don't know. >> Wait, wait, could you come to the mic piece if you're going to testify in response to Mr. Alfredo's question? >> Um, we did work on on trying to make it,
you know, in a way that we could we could work with keeping it within that that size. Um, if you look at the size of the room there, nothing's very big. Um, we even I know at one point we made more of a a deck and and less inside the
the residence too just to to kind of um lessen it. Um, we we only have that one room um that would serve as like an office den. Um my wife still works remotely and as you know that being able to to work in a
dedicated workspace is is um is helpful. Um >> what is the size of the bedrooms again just typical? >> So you can answer that. >> So the typical seconds are 10 by 10 and the primary is uh I think
>> 12 and a half by 118. So they're not huge. >> They're not huge. I know. So >> So So just the answer to the question would be you wouldn't consider reducing anymore or >> Well, we're not sure yet. We we'd like
to hear some additional feedback too. >> Yeah, we got that's what I was trying to get to. So >> Sure. Yeah, we're open to comments and >> that's kind of stuck in my head. >> I may want to have an opportunity to speak with my client before a motion is made if the board could just keep that in mind, but we would appreciate any any feedback the board may have.
>> When I went into this, I definitely had this like, you know, oh, I would like to have this and this and this. And I think I worked um, you know, the architectural firm was great in just saying, hey, like this is what we have to try to work within. And I mean, I think we we took a lot of time to try to make it so that it
would be something that would be presentable under the circumstances. >> Your family is I'm sorry, it's Sherry. Your family has owned this property since when? >> Uh, so 1978. Uh, my my mother and father.
>> Thank you. Just a comment. This is Jerry. I I would um ask you to look at reducing the size of the the new house, single family house. >> Thank you. >> Other comments?
>> All right. If I Yeah, if I could maybe just if there are no further comments, if I could just if the board is open to giving five minutes just to huddle up with my clients and professionals and just discuss the board's comments, is that acceptable? >> About three minutes. >> Three minutes is great. Thank you.
>> Thank you for giving us Thank you for giving us the time to speak about the board's comments. What the applicant would like to do if the board's amendable is to carry this application to the August 3rd meeting of the board. And that would give the applicant time to work with the
architect, see if there's any way to reduce that front structure a little bit to bring it more into compliance while still suiting the family's needs. So, if the board is open to that, we'd like to carry it to the to the August 3rd meeting.
>> Board happy with that. I'm >> sure. >> Yes. We'd ask that no further notice be required and we would wave the time limits within which the board's required to act. >> I appreciate that, Mr. Raven. So, since the board is amendable, I think that's a good idea for the benefit of the public and everyone knows this application is
not being voted on this evening. It's being carried to our August 3rd meeting. This is the notice. There will be no further notice necessary in the paper to be published or mailed to people live within 200 ft of the property. Again, this application is going to be carried
and picked up again at our August 3 meeting. Mr. A, you'll see to the appropriate amended plans or whether >> Yes, we'll get those a minimum of 10 days before the meeting. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, let's do that. We'll
do a motion to carry. >> Carry. Yeah. >> Can I have a motion to carry? Motion to carry. Cherry. Second. Right. >> All in favor? I >> All right. We're gonna have a small break. Couple minutes
>> and we'll get to the other one. >> All right. Come back to order. >> Uh we're moving on to the second application tonight. Um 2356 street unit A of both variants is requested to allow imperous coverage
of 67.6% where 60 is the maximum unit. >> Good evening James Raven on behalf of the applicant Carmine and Lisa Timminary. So this subject property is located 2356
street. It's currently developed with a duplex that's been converted to a condominium. So now there's two separate condominium units on the property. And the this application's a little unique in as far as the the process of how we got here. So as you can see in the
application documents, they're proposing an addition which that in fact has already been constructed. I don't even know if you could tell because it matches the the existing building. So on Mr. Bzowsk's plan, you can show it shows the proposed addition. So the applicant had applied for a permit when they
purchased this property and when they property was when the building was originally constructed, this was when the maximum impervious coverage was 75%. They're currently at 68.8%.
So in order to construct that addition without coming before the board for a variance, they would have had to bring the impervious coverage all the way down to 60%. And what the applicant is proposing is to reduce the impervious coverage uh down to 67.6%.
So they're just in an unfortunate circumstance where that the ordinance changed since they took ownership to the property. They're trying to improve the impervious coverage while at the same time not having to bring it all the way into compliance. And we feel that the
way the property is laid out, they do have a fair amount of landscaping. I'm going to introduce some photographs. They're just seeking for that relief. So, let's put it in perspective. Had they not built this addition, the impervious coverage would be greater
than we're proposing here today. So, it's actually an improvement to the site, although it's minor. You know, basically, they're trying to improve the overall coverage while at the same time gaining a little bit of living space within their unit. They've previously rented it out, but their plan is to make
this their primary residence. So, with the addition, they wanted some additional space while also keeping some of the outdoor amenities. There is an existing pergola and swim spot. The property, we'll give you a little more history on that. The the pergola does
need some sideyard setback relief. It was not previously approved by this board, but due to its current location in relation to the other properties, we feel that the the location is appropriate for that pergola and the swim spa we're proposing to leave that
in its current condition where that's currently located was permitted and then those setbacks changed from the time it was installed to today. So that's what's triggering the relief with respect to the swim spot. Um so that's just a little bit of the road map as to how we
got here. Mr. Bzowski will provide testimony regarding the variances and then also we'll hear from the owners Lisa and Carmine Tim and uh first I'll call Mr. Bzowski. >> Do you mind if I ask a question? >> Hold on Mr. Bowski. The board secretary has a question.
>> Sure. >> Um Mr. Raven, when when you originally put in the application, there were three variances on there. And when when we got the letter from Mr. Little, there was just the impervious coverage variance. So you're are you
seeking just that for impervious coverage or for you just mentioned those other two for the pool and the gazebo? >> Yeah, to to the extent variance relief is required, we would request that. I thought um >> I thought those were done previously
under prior approval. Yeah, they they may have been um >> that was my understanding, but >> yeah, so it would just be then I guess for the impervious coverage. Um yeah, typically I I list the
pre-existing non-conforming conditions and to the extent the board feels variance relief is required, we would request those as well. But yeah, if if if it's just the impervious that's triggered here, that's all we would be seeking. Are there permits for the pergola or the pool?
>> Um, I don't I don't I don't know if there are with >> that would have the date on it because you would have to have a permit regardless of the ordinance changed, >> right? Yeah. I'll have the applicant address that. >> But Mr. Little, it's your understanding that the the setbacks for the program,
they were already previously approved. >> That was what I understood. If it's different, then we're going to hear from someone >> 2017 application 2017. >> That's what I thought. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Just so we're clear on the relief, why
don't I have the Tim and Aries testify first? We'll >> clean that up and then we'll have Mr. Bowski testify. >> Everything testify. >> Uh why don't we swear them both in in case they do? >> Okay. And then folks, just put one at a time. Okay. I know your husband might
want to help each other, but to keep the record straight, just one at a time. If you both please raise your right hand, do you swear affirm the testimony before this board this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I did. >> Thank you. >> Uh, so Carmine, you and your wife Lisa
are the owners of the subject unit. >> Yes. >> And how long have you owned it? >> Since 2018. >> Okay. And, uh, you can go ahead. I know you had some thoughts that you wanted to provide. Yeah, you can go ahead with that and then we can get into discussion about the the pergola and the swim spot.
>> Okay, sounds good. If you'll indulge me, I'll just give you some back history and then we'll get into the substance of our our variance relief request. Um, my name is Carmen Tinary. This is my wife, Lisa. We're the owners of unit A at 2356 Street. And we're grateful and thankful for the chance to speak with the board
this evening. Lisa and I have been together since 1992, married since 1999, and visiting LBI since 1998. We have raised three children together. They're now 24, 23, and 18. Owning property in in Long Beach
Island has been a lifelong dream for both of us. In the spring of 2018, we scraped together what we could and bought this home. It was without exaggeration the biggest leap of faith we've ever taken. The years since have been everything we had hoped for and
more. Our three kids grew up coming here. We've welcomed scores of our children's friends through that door. And we believe those young people will look back at these summers as finally as our own children will. Friends and family have made countless memories with
us at this house. Meals in the courtyard, mornings at the beach. The kind of ordinary days that you realize were the best days years later. Out of necessity, we have rented the this house each summer to help cover the
cost of owning it. Renting it has been a blessing in its own way. The guests who have stayed with us over the years have become part of the story. If you ever look at the reviews they've left behind, the common thread is how much care and love has gone into this home. Our
family, excuse me, one family who has been renting on LBI for 30 years called this the best appointed house they've ever stayed in. Another wrote that they've made lifetime memories here. We hear that and we feel proud, but we also feel something else. The home that these
guests describe is largely the work of my wife, Lisa. Her hand is in every corner of the place. The way it shows, the way it feels when you walk in, that is her and the guests feel it and see it. Now that our children are grown, our one last our last one leaving for
college in the fall, making us empty nesters, we've decided to make this property our full-time residence. And that's what drove the addition and what brings us before the board tonight. We're looking forward to enjoying Beach Haven year round and becoming true regulars at our favorite local spots.
And in choosing to live here full-time, we're taking one summer rental off the market. And Beach Haven gets a family that intends to stay, invest in their community, and call this place home. When we purchased the property, we did so under one set of rules. We understand
and respect that the burrow has since updated its ordinances, and we have tried to honor the spirit of those updates wherever we could. As part of this application, we are vol voluntarily reducing the impervious coverage on the site by removing the existing hot tub
and a section of pavers. The property today sits at 68.8% impervious coverage, which complied with code in 2020, and we're bringing that down to 67.6%. We know that does not meet the current 60% standard, but it moves the property
in the right direction and we wanted the board to know that improvement was a deliberate choice on our part. The addition itself is a small twostory extension on the north side of the home. It is not an attempt to expand the footprint for rental use or to add
bedrooms. That was never the point. It gave us additional closet space and two additional bed bathrooms. The kind of everyday living space that makes a vacation house workable as a primary residence for two adults moving into the next chapter of their lives. It was
built on the part of the property least likely to affect anyone. The land to our north is a commercial establishment, not a residence. The space between the addition and the property line is mature trees and landscaping that we added and preserve.
No views are obstructed, no residential neighbor is impacted, and we're on excellent terms with the adjoining adjoining owners on all sides. We have tried throughout this process to be thoughtful and respectful of the rules of our neighbors and of the
character of Beach Haven. We are grateful for the board's time and consideration this evening, and we hope you'll see this application for what it is, a family making Beach Haven their their place in the world. are professionals and we are happy to
answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. >> And why don't I introduce these photographs as well? I think that'll help the board as well. I'll mark this as exhibit A1. And it consists of three sheets. The
first sheet has one photograph. Sheets two and three each have two photographs for a total of five photographs. and I'll have the applicant identify the areas of the property. First, I'll circulate copies to the board. Thanks.
Wow, that >> Mr. Timerary. So, just if we can identify the areas of the property here. So, the the first photograph that we see on page one, if you could describe what that photograph depicts, please. >> Sure. That is our courtyard. It's a
private alode surrounded by mature arborites. uh to the rear closest to our neighbor I guess on 7th Street um you'll see the swim spot that is running along the
rear. Um in the front there's the pergola there and underneath that is um you know seating area and then to the left is the hot tub and that's the space that we are uh looking to give up and
reduce the impervious coverage related to that. >> Okay. So this photograph faces basically in a northeasterly direction. >> Yes. >> Okay. And if you could flip to page two.
So the first photograph there is looking up your driveway to to the north. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And the bottom photograph on the second page there, the portion of the building that's all the way to the right hand side, is that the new addition?
>> That is the new addition. Right. >> Okay. So it's the the small portion there without any windows, >> right? Okay. And if we flip to page three, this is basically another view of what you described as the courtyard area, but
showing that now in relation to the adjoiner that's immediately next door to the east on Sixth Street. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, there's quite a bit of space in between that area and the adjoining property to the east.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And then the bottom photograph on the third page that shows the area leading up to your pergola on the adjoining neighbor's property. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> So that portion of the property it's all stones. How is that utilized by your
neighbor? Typically >> our neighbor also rents their property in the summer and typically if that space ever gets used it's for parking. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So you might see some cars on that on in that area but otherwise it's
vacant. >> Okay. Thank you. And these photographs accurately depict the current condition of the site. >> Yes. >> Okay. There was a question previously from Miss Ball Miller regarding the pergola and the swim spot. If you could
elaborate on that a little bit, please. >> Sure. Uh could you repeat the question related to the swim spot and the pergola? >> Right. In your original application, you asked for uh two specific variances because of the setbacks for the pool and the pergola because of the new ordinances that were in place. And I
just asked if there are pre-existing structures with permits, then you wouldn't need an ordinance for that, >> right? >> So that's why I was asking if you had permits for these structures, they would have been dated, so you wouldn't have to have >> and the answer to the question is we
don't have permits for uh for those structures. When we put the swim spa in place back in 2020, uh we did walk to walk over to this building and ask about whether we needed a permit at the time.
Uh what we were told is the swim swim I guess was a a relatively new, you know, thing and we were told by by the township that it was being treated as a hot tub. >> Yeah. and that the the same setbacks
that would apply for as uh to a hot tub would apply to us as well. And that's how we proceeded. Um and if you notice the setbacks in place conform to what a hot tub setback >> some of the things that the water keeps going and you swim for exercise. That's
what I was just going to say to describe what it is because I didn't know >> but not hot. >> Correct. Yeah. I mean, you can adjust the temperature and stuff, but basically, you know, you could use it for exercise purposes. You know, enough to accommodate more people than a regular hot tub would, but you know, it
all the machinery is located is uh self-inccluded. So, there's not a separate space for the equipment uh to exist to operate it. It's all self-contained. They don't have um your your neighbor on Seventh Street doesn't complain about noise or anything from
that from >> there's no noise associated with with >> I just picture like 20 kids in there at one time renting it. >> That's a rental property too right behind us. So behind us that you can see in one of the pictures that home has been rented and then to the left
house on seventh is the cha. Yeah. of property. >> And if I may add, I'm sorry. If if you notice with the swim spot being nestled into the part of the al cove that is right around, you know, where where the arborite is surrounded, it provides both
us and our neighbor with, you know, the privacy that I guess a larger amount of setback would be intended to provide. Um, so I just wanted to say that >> and the additions already built. >> Yes, we were we uh we a permit was
approved and we went ahead and uh and started construction in in the late fall. >> Yeah. Basically, as a condition of closing out the permit, they would have to reduce the coverage the impervious coverage to 60% if they did not get relief from the board. So that's how
they did apply through the proper permit channels, but it would be a condition of that permit that the coverage be reduced to 60% in order to close out the permit, but we're here asking for the relief so that they don't have to do that. >> What why did you come before
>> you were hoping to move in by >> I know usually what happens is you come to the board before you do the addition. It's kind of like you built it and now are asking for >> permit forgiveness. We're not it's not asking for forgiveness in this. The permit is still an open permit. It's not
closed out and >> it's built. >> It is built but it's pursuant but it's it was permissible. They they applied through the proper permit channels and we were trying to get before the board sooner just so we're aware too. >> Let me ask a different question. Was
there a plan submitted to the building department that showed 60% of coverage? >> I believe there was. Yes, there was. Right. So, but you're here. >> So, so obviously you did have a plan that showed you were going to remove more another 700 square feet of Right. >> impervious coverage, but decided to come
here to see if you got relief. >> Exactly. Correct. Yep. >> So, yeah. And we did submit this application back in >> Yeah. J end of January or early February. And then >> we had all these other >> Yeah. The simminaries too had presented
their ideas to Mr. and I before that. So, this is not a delay that's their fault by any means. >> This is this is Gary. Um, do you have the original permit? When was that filed? And what was that permit that showed the 60%. >> What did that look like?
>> What did that look like? Do we have that? And what date was that filed? >> Jim's going to come up. >> Yeah, >> he hasn't been sworn yet. So now that I could be missing >> Yes. I disagree.
This is 60% right. So can you speak to that? Not >> yet. Yeah. Why don't we swear Mr. Bzowski in? Mr. Rosowski, do you swear affirm the testimony give before this board this evening be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you.
>> Uh, for the record, my name is James Bzoski. I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at Horn Tyson and Yodor since 1997. >> Mr. Raen, you like the board to accept Mr. Bowski as an expert? >> Yes.
Madam Chair. >> Yes, of course. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And Mr. Bzowski has just presented to me a copy of a building permit plot plan. It's unsigned, but it's dated August 7, 2025 with a most
recent revision date of October 29, 2025. So, I can mark this as exhibit A2. do have a signed original >> the same permit. >> It's the same It's the same date. Yes. >> I can I can buy the signed copy of
>> we're marking the 2025 permit that shows 60% impervious coverage as A2. Correct. >> Yes. And basically what that shows is from the edge of the building before the addition was constructed, all of the pavers northward word of there would
have to be removed. So they would essentially lose that whole basketball court area. It would limit their ability to park in that area too if they wanted. So the idea again was to try to maintain the existing impervious coverage, but
it's but they are reducing it slightly. And again, it was all done with the intention of actually coming before the board much sooner than this. And here we are now. I don't know when exactly when the permit application was filed. Do you know? >> Uh
>> well, we were we were approved in October to to to perform to move forward with the work and we did so accordingly. >> So can we just get some clarity though? Okay. So we understand the impervious coverage variance requested. Can we get some clarity on whether or not variances
that are needed? I think they would be Mr. Well, since they don't have permits for the the pool, which were the the swim spa pool for the per I got the impression from the testimony that that was in here prior to any requirements
for the hot tub to receive a permit to meet other setbacks. >> How about the pergola? >> I don't know when the pergola was built or if did you come to the building department for that? The pergola was installed the same year uh as this as a the swings spa was installed. At the
time we viewed it as as an accessory structure. >> The nonconforming side is the part that uh we share with the the uh would be um against the >> the fence. Yeah. The fence, right? >> Which is the southward side. Right.
>> Right. And that abutts the parking area of the neighbors. >> Yeah. That that setback for an accessory structure should have been five feet. >> Correct. Right. It's not >> right. No, it's not. >> Okay. >> So, you're right. So, now based on that, we need a variance for the existing perola because it was constructed
without a permit and not at the appropriate accessory setback. >> So, so, so we're all on the same page. We need >> two variances. Now, we need two coverage >> and the setback for the per side setback for the pergola. Correct. To permit 1.9 ft where five
>> 5T would be required. Correct. and and for whatever reason when the timber uh when the permit was applied for for this uh property uh Beach Haven didn't issue the permit unless the swim spa was
repositioned on the property. Uh and you'll see that on that plan to have a 10-ft set back to the east side and uh a minimum nine or actually eight probably to the north and south. And that's where it sits right here.
>> No, that's if it were the He's referring now to what we marked as exhibit A2. That shows the swim spot. So what now it would run north east west as opposed to north south. What was approved was the removal of the you know reduction of the
impervious, the removal of the pergola and the repositioning of the swim spot. >> Oh, so the removal of the pergola was part of the permit. >> Yes, that's on that plan. I mean, >> all right. So, I'm just trying to iron out the confusion
>> because that wasn't the way the application came in. So, >> you know, I thought everything was there prior that was approved and the only variance we needed was impervious coverage, but obviously we need the variance for the pergola if you're going to leave it and the variance for the
impervious coverage. So, we have two at this point, >> right? >> I did and I did request. >> Well, the swim spot is being moved, correct? >> No. >> No. We would prefer that it it stay in its current location. >> That's why I But isn't isn't that >> a 5ft setback?
>> Is it now considered an ingground pool or above ground pool? What I forget my what we were told is that >> Well, you need to go 10 foot. Yes. >> So, they're looking at as a pool now, not necessarily a swim spot. >> And at the time, >> which previously wasn't regulated, >> correct? Correct. Yep. Exactly.
>> Yes or no? We need a Well, if they're not going to move it, we need a variance because it's supposed to be what? 10 feet set back. >> I thought it was eight >> or eight. I'm sorry. >> It's It's going to be 10 to the rear because this is a it's a pool on a corner lot. >> So, we've got to have a 10 foot to the
rear, which the I guess the zoning department decided the east was the rear. >> Okay. So, this one >> and then we need eight to the north and the south. >> They got to move it forward five more feet. They would have to they have to actually rotate it 90 degrees.
>> They would in order to comply with what Beach Haven's zoning office says would comply, they would have to rotate 90 degrees, slide over five feet, and kind of be centered in that area >> to to provide a minimum of 8 foot to the north and
south where it's positioned on that the plan that was ultimately approved is nine and nine. >> If you rotate it, >> yes. Is it going to be underneath the pergola? >> Well, the pergola pergola on the permit plan was to be removed. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, that's going no what what we would like
>> but we want to leave everything the way it is. Now, >> we we want to leave everything as shown in this first photograph, which is um both the pergola and the swim spa being nonconforming as to current zoning regulations. And we're requesting that
they remain in their current location. So you need a >> we feel yes we feel but we feel that it works better the way it is currently than if we >> Can I can I just ask a question? This is Sher. >> Sure. >> They gave you the permit with the condition that the that the impervious be brought
to code. Right. >> Correct. >> And now you don't want to meet the condition. Right. >> Right. We were the plan was to simultaneously submit for variance relief but it took a few months for Mr. Bzowski. >> So it was an eitheror You either meet
the condition or you apply for variance relief. >> Correct. In the event the board were to deny the application, we would need they would need to reduce impervious coverage to get down to the 60% but they want to apply for relief to reduce it to 67.6%
where we're at 68.8% now. And again, the idea was just to do them concurrently, but by the time we got plans, everything was submitted the end of January and then due to other applications, it took until June for us to be scheduled. >> That's a lot of pavers.
It's a lot of pavers. >> Well, it's it's actually when you look at the the property in its entirety, uh this is a twounit duplex if you look at Mr. Bzowsk's plan. And the Timaries have the northerly unit and
then there's another unit to the south. >> And their particular unit is the one that basically has the more impervious area. As you can see in the photograph that you just referred to with the basketball hoop, they have all that big nice landscaped area there. And with those
papers, it accommodates additional parking for the Timinaries and also has that little basketball court area. So that's that's why they're proposing for it to remain. As I said, had they not built the addition, you know, basically
there the impervious coverage would have been allowed to continue to remain. We're proposing to reduce it. Um, but they would like to keep it the way it's been closer to what it's been without having to go all the way down to the 60%. Eric, this is Jerry. I have a question
for Eric just from a legal standpoint and it's a condominium duplex. It's a question. Yes, >> that's my understanding. >> Okay. Should we be looking at this property
for both units from an impervious coverage standpoint? is it individual that we it's all one 60% of 9,000 the total area. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But you're looking at the whole thing. >> Okay. >> It's coming off their end, but you're
looking at the whole property. >> Okay. >> But that's a that's an excellent point because the timaries only control a portion of the property. So when you look at the when I take the unit ID plan and and what belongs to
unit A, what belongs to unit B and what's common uh unit the timar's unit occupies 70.1% and her is 70.1% of their area and the other unit uh their impervious is 83.2%.
So, in order for the Timaries to reduce the coverage for the whole lot down to 60%, they're taking 820 square feet out of their portion of the property. Uh, so when they're done, they're going to be well under 60%.
And the other unit will still be at 83.2%. Um, and then there's also the the common area which consists of the landscaped area to the uh west of the building and the uh the driveway and the common area
is about 50% impervious coverage. >> And Mr. Timaryi, isn't the the portion of the pavers near the pergola and swim spa, aren't those pvious pavers? >> Yes. >> Yes, those are pvious. Um, and at the time we put the hot tub in place in
order to um, you know, be able to add papavers. Uh, we were told that they couldn't be impervious >> and we were permitted to put pvious papers down. Right. >> But under the current ordinance, they count as impervious. Right. Okay.
>> Rick question. Isn't for a condo though, isn't everything technically common ground >> property? Well, there's limited common elements. Uh there can be and with this particular property, a portion of the property is considered limited common elements for unit I forget is A and B or
one A and P. Uh so a portion of the property is basically limited common elements solely to be used by unit A and another portion solely to be used by unit B. And the dividing line is basically uh in that little uh U-shaped
area between the two units about halfway up the property where it shows an existing hot tub. That's where the dividing line is between units A and B. >> So everything above that is the Timar's unit. >> Yeah. >> And the master deed is consistent with
what Mr. Raven just said. And I did Yeah, I did submit a copy. All set. >> Is there anyone on Zoom that has any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Timminary? If so, please raise your hand.
>> No, >> no, no. Mr. >> No one in the audience. Yes. Scott, you want to say something? Oh, you have a question? Not yet. It's not public comment. Do you have a question for Mr. or Mrs. Timminary regarding their testimony? We'll get the public. We'll
open it to the public shortly. >> We will. >> I don't have any further questions for the Tim and Eric. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We have someone right here. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Mr. Tim, come back.
>> Okay, >> Mr. Gross. >> Yes. Hello, >> Mr. Gross. Do you have a question for Mr. and Mrs. Timminary? >> I just I I don't have an actual question, but I we're not comment.
That's why I was very specific. This is a question for the witness only. We will open this application to the public after Mr. Raven's professional, Mr. Rosowski, is done testifying, and that will be the time at which you can be heard during public comment. Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, now you can sit down. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, this property is a uh it's it's basically 135 by 63 foot property
located the northeast of the intersection of Bay Avenue and Sixth Street uh in the RB uh one and two family residential districts. Um there's also a uh a little portion uh that was added to the property, a uh 25 by 32
foot uh portion of the property in the northeast corner. Um that the Timinaries added after after the original subdivision. Um and >> can I ask a question? How did that happen after the original? >> Well, they came back and had subdivided
again. >> Really? >> There was a second subdivision. Go ahead. >> Uh when the Timaries first was asking the Timaries had a comment on that >> for the sake of offering some enlightenment on that question. When we
purchased the property from Patrick Mohler, Kal Mohler, he is the developer on the property. We made an we agreed to purchase that additional section as part of our uh unit and then it was the whole >> he owned the lot.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. He developed he developed the Yeah. He developed the sidebyside townhouse along with the property uh that is fenced with where all that parking space is. It was one big development pro uh project. So he simply
moved uh a portion of it to our he sold it to to us. >> Yeah. >> And so when we closed on it, we closed on the whole thing. >> Yeah. Our unit plus that additional space. >> Thank you. >> I hope that helps. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> So last year the Timaries wanted to add an addition to the to the building to their portion of the property. Uh it's a 109.25 square foot addition on the north side of the building. uh that addition there is in this place of an existing outdoor shower. There's some pavers there. So
with the construction of that addition, it would have increased the impervious coverage by 21 12 square ft. Um we had originally just tried to uh create a plan that would kind of balance
the impervious coverage. So, we were removing uh some, you know, I think it was about 50 square foot of pavers to to balance it out to keep it uh actually reduced it to 68.4% where it currently is at 68.8%.
Um the the burrow zone office said, "No, you can't do that. You got to bring it all the way down to 60." Um so, they they didn't want to do that, but they wanted to go ahead and construct their addition. So, uh we formulated the plan. we'll show the zoning office that we can
reduce it. Um, but we'll also simultaneously start applying for this variance. Uh, so that's how we got the permit uh to to construct this addition. Um, but we were also planning the whole time of coming to this board to to try
to allow us to to keep the impervious coverage and through some iterations the the the uh perla came up and the swim spot came up. So, uh we've got an existing property that's at 68.8%
imperous coverage. Um we're with the addition and we're uh planning on removing 115 square foot of pavers um to to bring the the uh imperous coverage down to uh 67.6%.
So just about a 1% decrease in imperous coverage. Uh within the 25 by 32 foot uh portion of the property to the northeast uh there is an existing swim spa and pergola. the the swim spa is five feet
off the east property line, 5.3 feet off the north property line, and 5.4 feet off the south property line. Uh whereas previously described, we the requirement is 10 ft off the east and eight off of the north and the south. Um the the
Timaries are are requesting to keep that swim spot where it is. So variances are sought to allow the swim spa to remain. Uh the pergola is a it's a 11 by almost 13 square foot pergola. That's a foot
1.9 ft off the south property line of this uh this little area. Um where minimum 5 foot is required and we're we're requesting to allow the pergola to remain. This is a pergola that's built on footing 6x sixes with footings in the
ground. It's not something you can easily pick up and move. You know, anything can happen. we can move it, but um we'd request that it remain where it is. This this little area is is um buffered on the the north and the east
by mature arborite and to the south there's a solid 4ft solid PVC fence that borders this property from the property to the south and the area to the south is utilized as a driveway. It's a stone wash stone driveway. Uh so the location
of the swim spa and the uh pergola uh has no negative effect on the adjacent properties. Um and the reduction in impervious coverage is is positive. It doesn't get us down to 60%. Uh but it does reduce the impervious from the 68.8
to the 67.6%. Um, and as I mentioned, it would it would take 820 square foot of reduction to get us to 60%. Um, which would basically reduce the end the north end of the
driveway back down to um uh to where the existing garage is. And the problem with that is when you pull a car out of the driveway and it wants to head nose first towards the street, it's going to have to back up and and curve to the north.
So, it's going to run off the driveway if we remove those pavers uh as it as it heads back to the south. So um you know I I think that the the variance can be granted without any substantial
detriment as u this is kind of a unique property with the little uh 25 by 32 foot uh area on the u the northeast corner. Uh we are reducing the impervious coverage Mr. Mr. Rosowski because the pergola and
the swim spa are there are there by the applicants I'm doing you'll agree with me this is a self-created situation correct >> yes >> okay so no C1 hardship because it's self-created so you're asking the board to grant a flexible C2 variance yes
>> for all three for impervious for the setback for the burglar and for the setback for the smoke spot yes >> yes Okay. >> Yeah. And with respect to the swim spa, again, as the applicant stated, they did discuss the location where it currently is, prior to installing it, we're
basically given the green light from the zoning department, but then at that point, since then, the ordinance has changed as far as how that's treated. Um, >> wait, wait, wait, say that again. >> The the swim spa when they originally >> swim. >> Yes, the swim spa. Correct.
>> Yeah, not the pergola. um that with respect to the pergola um actually could you just come up one more >> I thought you meant the addition itself because that's kind of shady like you go and you get a permit you say you're going to do something and then you come back and now you're like I need a variance but >> again this would be >> you built something that's what I was
>> I don't I know I don't want this to come across to the board as any them being shady by any means because this was all intended to be done concurrently it just took a long time to to get before the board um >> I've been on this board. Not as long as
Bonnie, but um >> that's a first for me, the concurrence. So that's why it's it's it's interesting to me. >> But it was all done with full knowledge of the zoning department. Correct, Mr. Tim. We proceeded with you know we we >> right because they thought you were going to go to 60%.
>> No, no, he he advised them too that they were applying you were applying for variance. Correct. >> Correct. Absolutely. And again, the over the overarching theme to what we did is to turn this residence into from a vacation place, you know, with with
limited bathrooms, limited closet space, and turn it into a place that we can live full-time. >> I live here full-time. My house is 1,800 square ft. I've got two bathrooms. >> Got it. >> And children. So, I understand, but so that's not necessarily a strong argument for me. and and and all all the existing
pavers at the property are are legally existing. You know, they predated the ordinance change and we're requesting to reduce that slightly, but based upon the way the property was originally conveyed or configured, as Mr. Bzowski noted, it really would limit the use of that
driveway to the north if we were to remove all those pavers. And um Mr. Mr. Timary, prior to putting that pergola there, I believe you had told me that you had >> other non-permanent structures that you used for shade in that area that did not hold
up well. Yeah. With the weather, >> we've attempted to put, you know, use just umbrellas there. uh we had a canopy there and you know when in during inclement weather those objects became uh projectiles and we felt uh lucky that
uh there was no you know loss of limb loss of life um as a as a result of that. So after enduring uh a couple summers of uh of having those in place uh you know we decided you know a more permanent you know structure that would
allow us shade and that would be an open structure louvered you know open top um would be the best of both worlds. it would give us the the the shade that we were seeking in that space and also limit um you know the liability uh
associated with uh achieving that. >> Thank you Jerry question Jim. He made a statement that the impervious coverage
changed and maybe I misunderstood or misheard you. Did were those pavers installed prior to the change of the imperous impervious coverage ratio?
>> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that one more time? >> I know. Um, were the pavers installed prior to the change in the requirements for imperous coverage? >> Yes. >> So, the pavers were installed first,
>> right? All Yeah. All the existing pavers are legally existing. They were installed before the ordinance changed to 60%. >> So, should we be looking at this? It complied at the time, >> but they put an addition on. >> Now, they're putting an addition on. So
that's the problem that's increasing the impervious coverage. >> So you have to >> but that impervious coverage difference is only 21 square feet. >> No six by 18 by 18. >> That was a number that was given to us. >> That's >> yeah underneath the addition were some
pavers and a outdoor shower. >> Okay. So >> so the actual increase of impervious caused by the addition was 21 and a half square feet. And and to counter that, even before we went into zoning, we had reduced we had cut back some papers
somewhere to to balance it out. I think we reduced about 50 square foot and got it down to >> the you know the variance has been applied for. It's for the seven something percent over the 60. >> Right. And just for the record too, I'm just checking my file here. The
Timminaries retained me in September of 2025 and it was their hope to be on the board to before this board as soon thereafter as possible. So I just wanted to make it clear again. This was not a delay tactic where they were going to wait and build this thing. That was never the intent. I just want to make
that clear. Okay. >> I I would just think about it differently from a calculation standpoint before the impervious coverage ratios. I understand that's up to you as a board member to look at a different. >> So this is Andy. I have a question then
based on what you just stated. So what were they willing to do then if they didn't get the variance for this? >> Uh so yeah actually I can present this to you. It's it's going to be marked I did mark it as exhibit A2. As you can see on what I just handed you
that I marked as exhibit A2, there's an area on the north side of the driveway that shows a large portion of pavers that would have to be removed in order to get it down to 60%. >> Maybe this Rick Rick with a question. James,
looking at the picture, it's hard to tell, but if they were to pull straight out of the garage, there's not enough room to then turn left with that stairway. It's very hard to compromise. It it would be very difficult if they were pull straight out >> to make it. It's hard to tell >> in one swing. I mean, you might
>> Yeah. How much room you have, but it seems like >> J follow up. So, would they comply with the impervious coverage based upon the previous requirements
even adding the 21 square feet? >> Yes. the uh yeah remember this the ordinance was changed a couple of times at one point you could put in porest papavers so at one point they did put in porest papavers apparently in the testimony where the swim spa was it
still conformed then the ordinance got changed later to say that even poorest pavers were impervious considered impervious >> right no and I mean I understand why we're here because of the addition right where that changed things but but it seems like nothing is being grandfathered
father, >> right? >> And I want you >> I don't what I was >> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. >> When the building was constructed, impervious coverage was permitted at 75%. Right.
>> We're at 68.8. So, we had room to spare and even uh evidently the Timaries went and added to it. So, to get it up to 68.8 by adding the uh porest papers. I think there was something if you're over 60. Yeah,
>> you got it. Anything over 60% had to be poorest. >> Any anything over 60 up to either 75% could be poorest papers, >> right? >> And then the ordinance changed later to everything has even poorest papers don't count as poorest papers.
>> This is Sherry. I have a question. >> Yeah, >> there's a condo association, right? >> Correct. Has the condo association discussed how to help one of their owners get through this process and if there could be uh a bigger change to the
whole complex to make this easier >> that I don't know Carmine >> the condo association ex uh consists of me my wife and our neighbors >> right >> and and so we never looked at it from the standpoint of the condo association
pursuing any anything as a whole. Um, our neighbors did give written consent. Um, and we um provided that as part of our permit process. Um, and our neighbors, one of our neighbor is actually on the Zoom call. I don't know if he's still on
the Zoom call. Um, >> consent to what? >> He gave consent to what? consent to us pu uh you know pursuing our project and and recognizing that it what the implications were were going to be
>> you mentioned earlier that they were impervious heavy on their side >> your neighbors >> I did yes >> is there anything they could do to help you on their side >> I I don't see that how that's possible >> by removing some of the papers >> you're taking the burden of
>> most most Yeah right but most of their most of their pro property where the impervious papers are. It's it's driveway and common in common space. The only thing they have is this little space to the left of their dwelling, you know, that's like their own little courtyard. I mean, >> yeah,
>> that would be >> asking you mentioned that it was heavy on their side. So, >> yeah. And as as Jim mentioned, I mean, we are bearing the brunt of making sure that the entirety of the condominium complex is staying, you know, at at
that, you know, the reducing, you know, numbers. Um, so I mean, we must be in the 50s, right? You know, if if if we if we were to, you know, >> if you if well, if you had to knock down 820 square feet, right? Yeah. You you'd
be around 50%. about 2,000 over 3,700. >> Yeah. So, since our neighbors are at 81%, I mean, the burden is is on us to, you know, to more. >> Mr. Bzowski, the building coverage here is still well under the maximum
permitted. Correct. >> Yeah. With the addition, we're at 30% and I think the zoning schedule may have included the removal of the pergola or something. There's something screwy. We're not The zoning schedule shows that the building coverage is being reduced and that's not possible. So,
>> well, we submitted revised plans to correct that. So, it's going from 28.8 to 29.4. >> There you go. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But I have a question. Wouldn't that have to be reduced anyway to have room for the the driveway? Like, you couldn't build any more on that lap because then you wouldn't be able to get to the to
unit A unit. You wouldn't be able to get to unit A if you don't have that driveway there. So, don't make it seem like the building is smaller. The building had to be that size in order to sustain a driveway to the other prop to the >> to keep to get to property A. >> Well, it was never maxed out at 75% when
it was originally built. So, I'm just trying to say that it's the building itself >> couldn't really be that much bigger. >> I understand, but I'm just saying scale-wise, we're not maxed out as far as the building. I just wanted to point that out. >> Any further questions for Mr. Bzowski?
What is the criteria for a C2 flexible variance? Is there something like besides >> I can read >> suitable site and >> site suitability >> site suitability >> that's for a D variance the the criteria for >> C2
>> a C2 variance is the purposes of the MLU will be advanced the variance will be granted without substantial detriment to the public good the benefits of the variance will outweigh any detriment and that the variance will not substantially in tear the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance
No CT grant should be granted but merely the purposes of will be advanced. You've heard so far the testimony from Mr. Bzowski to the positive and negative in his opinion he believes it can be whether or
not the board agrees is another story. We haven't heard from the public yet. >> It's gone. All right. Is that >> any other questions for Mr. Bowski from the board? Does anybody from the public
have any questions for Mr. Bzowski? Not comments yet. Questions for Mr. Bzowski, the applicants planner on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Mr. Raven, any further testimony?
>> Um, no. I just don't recall if I asked this, Mr. Bowski. Do you feel that the if the board were to grant this variance that the benefit of granting the application would outweigh any detriment? >> Yeah, I I I may have mentioned that I don't see any detriment for this
variance. The uh the swim spa and the pergola are located in the perfect location in that uh northeast corner where they're shielded buffered from the adjacent properties by Arborite. Um and the only property that's not shielded by arriving they're adjacent to a parking
area. So um I don't see any detriment uh to permitting this uh any of these variances. The the overall reduction in pvious is going down by 1% with this application. >> And by approving the pavers to remain it would allow the existing configuration
to remain with respect to the driveway and allow cars to safely traverse in and out of the driveway and also to accommodate more off streetet parking. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Rzaski. >> Rick, I have a quick question on too. Wouldn't it be considered a detriment of the I guess the additional
what you going to call loading on this storm system because the intent of the 60% right is to allow water into the ground. But wouldn't that be considered a detriment that you're not allowing the water to get into the ground because of the extra pers? It it would like that
certainly would be and it it um um you know Beach Haven wants 60%. But right now we're at 68.8%. So this what what we're doing what the applicant's doing is reducing that 68.8 to 67.6. We're going in the right direction. >> Agreed.
>> Yeah. Um but the original design and layout of the site you know required those you know certain amount of pavers for access to the garage areas. Um you know and and like the garage you mentioned the cars a car pulls out right
you need a little more from the back end. I would agree. But suppose you just left whatever, let's say from the basketball pole or somewhere in the back enough for a car to go that way and then took the rest out to go all the way toward where the barbecue is and all that. You're going to gain back and then
maybe what about the existing hot tub that I think might be common ground. Not the one that you removing that the other one that's showing in between the units kind of >> that's our neighbors that Yes. >> Some of that could that's all papers now. Could you >> That's all papers now. Yeah. Maybe a little bit of planters mixed in with
area. >> There are planters around the perimeter there already. >> And yeah, we we granted our neighbors the ability to put that hot tub there even though it's uncommon space. >> Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just question hot tub neighbors have to stay in the hot tub, right?
>> The seems a big area compared with the hot tub. Maybe some of that can be removed to make some plan. That's all. >> Right. Any other questions? >> That concludes our testimony. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Now, can I have a
motion to open it to the public, please? >> Motion, Sherry. >> Second. >> Second, Sherry. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody in the public >> that would like to come up and speak to this application? >> If anyone on from the public wants to
comment, please raise your hand. >> Mr. Gross. >> His hands up. >> Yes. Hello. Oh, >> Mr. Mr. Gross, can you state your name and address for the record, please?
>> Jason Gross, 235B Sixth Street in Be Haven, New Jersey. >> Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Gross. I just wanted to say that I've been a neighbor of Carmine and Lisa for I guess about eight years. Um they're they're good neighbors. We get along well. We have a condo association. We haven't had
any problems and I don't have any issue with their request for the variance or variances that I've heard about this uh evening. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you for that.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it, Mr. Gross. Anyone else from the public? one on Zoom want to be heard, please raise your hand. >> Nothing. >> Nice.
Can I have a motion to close it to the public, please? >> Motion to close, Jerry. >> Second, Rick. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can I have a motion to approve or deny this application?
We're voting on all three. Correct. >> Al, I make a motion to approve. >> I have a second. >> Second chair. Mrs. Bowm Miller, >> no. >> Mr. Jenna, >> yes. >> Mrs. Leonard,
>> yes. >> Mr. Lefredo, >> no. >> Mrs. Mason, >> no. >> Mr. Tenquist, >> yes. >> Mr. Winganger, >> no.
>> Mrs. Miss Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Jello >> no >> motion five nos to four yeses. >> Thank you right. >> Yep. We got a resolution to pass.
All right. The next object is resolution 20262 real estate services. That was the house on center street. Did everybody that voted on that get a chance to read it? You okay with it? >> Can I have a motion to approve the
resolution 20262? >> Rick. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Jerry Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Jenna, >> yes. >> Miss Leonard, Mrs. Leonard, yes. Mr. Leo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tinquist, >> yes. >> Mr. Wanganger, >> yes.
>> Miss Parker, >> yes. >> And Mr. Jello, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh, can I have a motion to open it to the public for any further public comment that anybody would have looked? >> Motion. Cherry
>> secondbody there. Oh, you got somebody. >> Theo Lambert. >> Theo Lambert. >> Hi everybody. It's Jim Lambert, not Theo. Sorry. >> I do have one question though. It relates to the real New Jersey
regulations. Um I heard through the vine that the regulations were something happened last week and and the enforcements delayed for a year. Is there any truth to that? >> Yes. >> Yes. They've given an an extended
enrollment, you know, enforcement period to June of 27, something like that. That's correct. >> So, if I'm I mean, I'm working on new house plans right now and and what what do I need to do for the flood
hazard verification? >> I can't answer that. you need to go to the D and get a verification still. The only thing that this is going to do, it's going to delay the use of the new elevations. You if you need a flood hazard area permit, you still need to get one. You need a capper permit, you
still need it. And if you're in an area where you can get a uh uh permit by certification, you can still do that, but you need a verification regardless from FHA as to what flood zone you're in. But up until next year, as long as you have an application in and it's
deemed complete, prior to June, you're going to be under the legacy provision, which allows you to use the older, lower numbers. >> Interesting. Now, I saw it said six months from the adoption, which was January, right? So, does that July or June?
>> Well, that would have been July for this round, but they extended it another year to I think they said it might be June or July of 27. >> Yes. >> Got You got another year to stay with the old numbers, but you still have to go through flood hazard and caffer and everybody anyway.
>> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anybody else? >> I don't see anyone else. >> There'll be a bill in the mail. >> Okay. Got a motion to adjourn >> to close first. >> So move.
>> Let me go check the second the motion to >> second. Andy. >> Okay. >> All in favor? I I >> now a motion to address. >> Now a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in
>> favor. >> And we got to we got to move the chairs right real quick. >> Stack the edges. Not too