WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=pObuDr_ump4

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: pObuDr_ump4):
- 00:00:09: Meeting Opening, Flag Salute, & Open Public Notice
- 00:01:16: New Land Use Board Member, Matthew Gindelle, Oath
- 00:02:24: Roll Call Attendance and Approval of Prior Minutes
- 00:04:00: Approving Bills and Clarification of Question Protocol
- 00:05:30: Application: 431 Center Street - Introduction by Chair
- 00:07:18: Applicant's Attorney Explains Discrepancies and Variances
- 00:16:37: Public Comment 1 - Jerry Jenna, Question on Square Footage
- 00:17:27: Board Reconstitution and Vote Eligibility Explained
- 00:18:29: Applicant, Patel, Provides Statement on Contractor Missteps
- 00:20:22: Public Comment 2 - V, Clarification on Prior Application
- 00:26:48: Public Comment 3 - Gary Lefrey, Question About Signature
- 00:28:10: Public Comment 4 - V, Further Clarification on Signatures
- 00:28:26: Chair Inquires About Height Measurements Being Overlooked
- 00:30:07: Public Comment 5 - Jerry, Inquires About As-Built Square Footage
- 00:30:40: Public Comment 6 - V, States Errors On Form Made By Zoning
- 00:31:31: Clarifying Lot Size Calculations, Compliance and Misunderstandings
- 00:33:28: Chair Inquires How Project Progressed Despite Debacle
- 00:35:00: Public Comment 7 - V, Clarifies About Piling Permit Info
- 00:35:16: Public Comment 8 - V, Reiterates Height Compliance and Codes
- 00:35:28: Public Comment 9 - Jerry, Patel Asked About Purchase Timeline
- 00:38:59: Public Comment 10 - Rick, Could A Small Access Be Enough?
- 00:45:18: Public Comment 11 - V, Height of Structure Code Clarification
- 00:45:35: Public Comment 12 - Rick, Rephrases and Proposes Modification
- 00:45:51: Public Comment 13 - Lubis, Rephrases Solution For Stairs
- 00:46:40: Browski Sworn In, Address Stair and Height Concerns
- 00:47:27: Applicant Consideration of Removing Rooftop Deck Altogether
- 00:49:49: Board Member Expresses Dismay Regarding the Project Flaws
- 00:58:01: Public Comment 14 - V, Re-Emphasizes Importance of Code
- 00:58:37: Possible Resolution For Approval With Added Conditions
- 00:59:59: Voting Clarification, Dividing BulkVotes and Process
- 01:02:37: Public Comment 15 - V, Building Setback Clarification
- 01:03:20: Zoning Approval with Potential Code Violations
- 01:04:35: Original Plans Conflict With Previously Approved Sheets
- 01:07:32: Applicant's Oath Regarding Habitable Area and Enforcement
- 01:09:15: Applicant States Intention To Stay, Garage Level Door Option
- 01:09:49: New Contractor Favreau States Flooding Is Garage Door Concern
- 01:11:27: Foundation Complete, Garage Door Options For Entrance Limited
- 01:14:11: Previous Roofing Cut Done to Make it Code Compliant
- 01:21:11: Door Needs Room, Rooftop Access Impeding Height Compliance
- 01:22:30: 5 Bedroom House Has 3 Parking Spaces Available
- 01:24:23: Zoom Questions: Pamela, Jim Shoemaker Asked For Testimony
- 01:25:12: Shoemaker's Inquiry: Foundation Location Height, Compliance
- 01:26:33: Deck Stair Issue, Exterior Door Downstairs Flood Concerns
- 01:28:30: Building Code, Habitable Space Below BFE, Plan Compliance
- 01:30:15: Outside Stairway Block Windows and View, A Stairway Problem
- 01:32:02: Asking About Potential For Public Comments, Open Mic
- 01:32:19: House Without Piling; First Set Applied, Permit Granted
- 01:33:44: The General Question From Any Audience Participation
- 01:33:44: Ask Verification To See, Move Into Residence
- 01:36:02: Total Rebuild, Pylons In Permit, 3rd Floor Usage
- 01:38:35: Analyzing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Variance Requirements
- 01:42:07: Exploring Building Coverage Variances and Design Justification
- 01:47:02: Eliminating Variances and Calculating Roof Height Percentage
- 01:50:47: Eliminating Sideyard Setbacks and Rooftop Deck Use
- 01:54:52: Motion to Open Public Comment Period for Application
- 01:55:25: Public Comment: Pamela Lamort, Impact and Violation Concerns
- 01:59:29: Applicant Response: Setbacks, Approvals, Enforcement Issues
- 02:01:05: Public Comment: Anthony Cerillo, Statutory Criteria Concerns
- 02:09:31: Public Comment: Jim Lambert, Multiple Variance Concerns
- 02:10:59: Public Comment: Theodora Lambert, Height Non-Negotiable Reminder
- 02:12:43: Reviewing Variances: Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Coverage
- 02:19:54: Voting on Variances: Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Coverage
- 02:28:43: Second Application: Subdivision and Site Plan Approval
- 02:31:36: Housekeeping Matters: Board Rules and Parking Interpretation
- 02:36:59: Testimony: Bob Stout, Fire Access and Landscape Buffer
- 02:41:55: Discussing Parking Requirements and Transient Boat Slips
- 02:46:20: Public Questions: Miss Beach Haven and Boat Storage
- 02:48:13: Public Questions: Boat Storage and NFPA 303 Compliance
- 02:57:28: Deputy Chief Krip: Fire Code Enforcement and Access
- 03:02:39: Testimony: Angela Marcus, Marina Operations and Events
- 03:08:22: Discussion of Marina Garage, Storage, and Operations
- 03:10:29: Public Questions: Wedding Events and Social Media
- 03:14:45: Public Questions: Website Content and Other Businesses
- 03:17:22: Public Questions: Boat Fuel Storage and Liquid Levels
- 03:18:46: Further Discussion of Parking and Commercial Vessels
- 03:20:44: Continuing the Application Hearing to July
- 03:24:51: Motion to Open Public Comment Period and Adjourn


Part: 1

1
00:00:09.679 --> 00:00:30.560
Good evening everyone and welcome to the land use board of standing and saluting our flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,

2
00:00:30.560 --> 00:00:45.680
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> 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 and the Beach Haven Municipal Building and on

3
00:00:45.680 --> 00:01:02.160
the Bureau's website's legal notices and land use board pages, 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

4
00:01:02.160 --> 00:01:16.960
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. Um the first order of business, we have

5
00:01:16.960 --> 00:01:33.280
an oath of office for a new vendor. >> Matthew Gindelle going to be sworn in. >> Will you stand in front of the microphone? Thanks. >> Raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name. >> I, Matthew,

6
00:01:33.280 --> 00:01:48.799
>> do solemnly swear or affirm >> do solemnly affirm >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. that I will bear true faith >> that I will bear true faith >> and allegiance to the same

7
00:01:48.799 --> 00:02:04.880
>> and allegiance to the same >> and to the governments established >> and to the governments established >> in the United States >> the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully >> impartially >> impartially >> and justly perform >> and justly perform

8
00:02:04.880 --> 00:02:24.879
>> all the duties >> all the duties >> as a member of >> as a member of >> the beach haven land use >> beach haven landing school >> congratulations >> thank you welcome He did. Yes. >> I'm going to take roll call now.

9
00:02:24.879 --> 00:02:41.840
>> Mr. Bow. >> Mrs. Bow Miller >> here. >> Mr. Jenna >> here. >> Mayor Lambert >> here. >> Mrs. Leonard >> here. >> Mr. Lefredo >> here. >> Mrs. Mason.

10
00:02:41.840 --> 00:02:56.879
>> Mr. Tinquist >> here. Mr. Winganger >> here. >> Miss Parker >> here. >> Mr. Aello >> here. >> Mr. Lubis >> here. >> And Mr. Gandelle >> here.

11
00:02:56.879 --> 00:03:11.599
>> Thank you. >> All right, moving right along. We have approval of the minutes. Did everybody get a chance to read them? There was some questions about who asked what questions. Did everybody notice that? So, from now on, make sure you identify before you

12
00:03:11.599 --> 00:03:27.599
make a comment. during >> so we have to just so everyone knows that's a good that's a good point madam chair so we have a clear record sometimes it's difficult for the board secretary to know who's talking and again for the benefit of everybody one person speak at a time please but if a

13
00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:44.159
board member and especially on zoom etc could just maybe just say this is you know Mr. Jenna, I have a question. That way, it's easier for our secretary to keep track of who's speaking, who's asking the question, etc. So, just make a cleaner record for >> Give me a high sign and I'll call on

14
00:03:44.159 --> 00:04:00.560
Makes it easier, too. >> All right. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion. I'll second. All in favor? >> Minutes approved. Uh moving to the approval of the minutes. Uh, I mean the

15
00:04:00.560 --> 00:04:22.720
bills $6,48945. And I have a motion to approve the bills. >> Motion to approve. Thank you. >> Second, >> Rick. Second. >> All in favor? Hi.

16
00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:42.560
>> Hi. >> Um, no, I I'll struggle with this. The printing is very small here, so you'll have to forgive me. Uh before we forget uh I start tonight I want to let everybody know that when uh the

17
00:04:42.560 --> 00:04:58.080
applicant brings up a witness and if there's anybody in the audience that would like to ask them a question only no opinion a question you can raise your hand and I will call on you that is all you can do

18
00:04:58.080 --> 00:05:15.120
is question you cannot comment or give an opinion okay just make that clear >> there will be a public >> there'll be public session later at when all the testimony is done. But >> so there's no confusion. And again, for clarity purposes, if someone, whether

19
00:05:15.120 --> 00:05:30.400
it's a lawyer or person from the public, has a question for one of the applicant's witnesses, when the applicant's witness is done testifying, please raise your hand so we know that you would like to question that witness. >> Okay.

20
00:05:30.400 --> 00:05:46.400
>> All right. Moving right along. Our first application is 431 Center Street. It's a special reason Dvariance and bulk variance approval. The property is developed with a single family residence that is still under construction. The applicant is seeking a variance to

21
00:05:46.400 --> 00:06:02.479
construct exterior stairs within the front and side yards to provide access to a second floor entrance door. Dvarian is sought to allow an increase in the floor area ratio to 61.27% 27% where

22
00:06:02.479 --> 00:06:17.840
only 50% is permitted. Bulk variances are sought to allow a decrease in the lot area to 2,840 square ft where 4,000 square ft is the minimum allowed. A decrease in the front

23
00:06:17.840 --> 00:06:35.680
yard setbacks to 8.33 ft where 15 ft is required. A decrease in the sideyard set back to 12.5 where 16 ft is required. A decrease in the rear yard setback to five 7.5 where eight feet is required

24
00:06:35.680 --> 00:06:57.280
and an increase in building height to 36.5 where 35 is the maximum per minute. >> Oh, and before I add everybody, uh, if you have any questions, we have V from our zoning department about this

25
00:06:57.280 --> 00:07:18.080
application. So that's who she's online. >> Is that better? We're sharing one. That's what's >> difficult. So Vashburn from our zoning department is online. So if there are any questions for anybody about this

26
00:07:18.080 --> 00:07:34.960
application, she is here to ask answer them for us. Okay. >> Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Nick Tvaki on behalf of the applicant Pearl um uh Pearl Real Estate. With me is Shiv Pearl who's a principal

27
00:07:34.960 --> 00:07:51.599
and the applicant also our planner and engineer Jim Brazowski. So this is um somewhat unusual case. The house is built. Um I'm going to try to explain what happened to to the best I understand it, but I also think we can

28
00:07:51.599 --> 00:08:07.120
justify the variances on normal variance grounds. First of all, this is not the case where the applicant built something bigger than the plans were approved for. They built exactly what was approved. What we

29
00:08:07.120 --> 00:08:22.639
think happened is the architect built it was a builder architect who's now been terminated um did not fill out the zoning form correctly. When he filled it out, he excluded the decks from calculation of the of the area. That led

30
00:08:22.639 --> 00:08:39.839
to a cascading effect. more coverage, larger F and there's also um he apparently and Mr. Bzowski will talk about this a little further. He apparently did the height calculation wrong. Now these numbers were all shown

31
00:08:39.839 --> 00:08:56.800
on the plans, but he filled out the form wrong and that that's that's a problem. It said that it was going to be meet those standards, but again, the actual plans did not meet the standards. They were too big. But the house was built per the plans. So that that's where we

32
00:08:56.800 --> 00:09:13.120
we landed when I got this case a couple of months ago. Um usually it's a case where they built the house bigger than the plans allow for. That's not what happened here. Um complicating the matter was that um this house was not built on pilings. I didn't

33
00:09:13.120 --> 00:09:28.399
realize the significance of that until Mr. Brozowski explained. This house was approved to be built just on a conventional foundation with spread footings. So when the asbuilt foundation survey was done, it did not reflect any

34
00:09:28.399 --> 00:09:45.839
um uh pilings or or or uh for the um where the deck would be. So all they had was actually the footprint of the house without the deck that complied. That was under the coverage. Again, it's the deck. So, when you looked at the ads

35
00:09:45.839 --> 00:10:03.120
built when that was submitted, if you're used to seeing a plant that shows pilings including for the deck and you didn't have it this time because there there was no pil the um the apparently the deck was built with a a foot a concrete footing after the fact. So,

36
00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:17.680
that threw off presumably the analysis, but I don't know. I wasn't there. I do know this. my client and he's going to testify uh hired somebody he thought was competent licensed engine licensed architect

37
00:10:17.680 --> 00:10:33.839
um a builder and met my client with the um builder met at the zoning office when the permit was issued everything seemed to be good to go and the house proceeded the house is essentially done I do want to point out a couple of things because

38
00:10:33.839 --> 00:10:49.680
while there are variances uh in the rear there's a variance but it's only for the steps 6 in. The steps were called out to be 2 and 1/2 ft. They were built three feet. So that's 6 in. It's not the house itself. It's just the steps in the rear which go parallel to

39
00:10:49.680 --> 00:11:06.000
the rail property line. That's not a significant deviation. I don't want you to think that the whole house was built. Two, the house in the front was actually built 3 feet more than uh permitted. You're allowed to have an 18t setback to the front of the house. That's 21 ft.

40
00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:23.279
three. Um there's a rooftop deck which occupies a significant part of the um front from the street. That's what you see. The roof is in the background. So the height is too high by a foot and a half, but only for 20 to 25% of the

41
00:11:23.279 --> 00:11:39.600
footprint of the roof protrudes beyond the permitted height. The rooftop deck has an interesting planning uh benefit because the rooftop deck is 8 feet below the permitted height. From the street, it does not

42
00:11:39.600 --> 00:11:56.079
look overbearing. You cannot discern a foot and a half because that's in the background. Not justifying it, but I'm saying from a planning perspective, the fact that the house is set back an extra three feet and the effect of the rooftop deck, which is a fairly significant part

43
00:11:56.079 --> 00:12:12.720
of the front of the house, it's very hard to discern the height. There's a house built right next to it. If you looked at them, you could not discern that this house was too tall by a foot and a half. And again, not the entire roof is too high, just a portion of it, which we'll illustrate later. Jim

44
00:12:12.720 --> 00:12:28.160
calculated it to be maybe 25% is higher by a foot and a half. 75% or more is below is at or below the permitted height. Another factor is the lot is required to be 40 ft and it is it's but it's only 71

45
00:12:28.160 --> 00:12:44.320
ft in depth. The zone requires 100 ft in depth. So the zone requires 4,000 foot lot. This lot is 2840 ft. So it's grandfathered. You have a F requirement of 0.5, meaning if the lot is 4,000 square feet, you can

46
00:12:44.320 --> 00:13:00.720
have living space of 2,000 square feet. This house has I don't know what the final number is, but around 1,600 square f feet, which is too much. It should have had for a 2,840t lot, it should have living space of,420 ft. It's about 200 square feet above

47
00:13:00.720 --> 00:13:16.639
that. However, and this I think is important, the zone contemplates houses that have up to 2,000 square ft. And frankly, if the the lot is bigger, could go even higher. So, we're the house was built with a smaller interior space than

48
00:13:16.639 --> 00:13:33.200
the zone calls for. And again, it's the lot depth, but from the street, from the the neighborhood, you can't discern that the house is bigger than it should be for the lot. It doesn't look it because the front yard the width of the house or the width of the lot is permitt permitted meets the requirement and the

49
00:13:33.200 --> 00:13:50.240
house has that bigger set back in the front by 3 ft and you have the roof. So from a visual impact an impact of his own big and I'm going to sue you when you tell me I can't >> um the um

50
00:13:50.240 --> 00:14:13.600
>> hold on a second sorry go ahead so from from a planning perspective um there there was an argument that when you look at the roof and you average it out, it actually on average is less than the height.

51
00:14:13.600 --> 00:14:30.160
The lot the setbacks on the side are conforming. Now, there is a variance for side door setback, but that's only for the proposed front stairs. There are no stairs there today. That was not built. The builder without the knowledge of the client removed the front steps because when he went through zoning that was

52
00:14:30.160 --> 00:14:46.560
flagged as not meeting the setback. So the builder without knowledge of the client removed them from the plans got approved without steps. We think from an aesthetic standpoint um the house is better to have front steps and a front entry or else the entries through the garage or the back

53
00:14:46.560 --> 00:15:03.120
door. We don't think that's desirable. But in order to provide access to the garage, the steps had to be shoved over to the right in the sideyard. So the house is not in violation of the sideyard. It's only the proposed steps. We think that's an important point and

54
00:15:03.120 --> 00:15:17.839
that of course it's only the steps that um invade the front yard setback one set of steps. It is not the house itself. The house itself as I mentioned a few times is actually set back three feet more than it needs to be. Um, in

55
00:15:17.839 --> 00:15:32.639
terms of the F, the floor area ratio requirement, the plans showed that the third floor was actually going to be um attic habitable space, whatever that means. But it was shown, we are not

56
00:15:32.639 --> 00:15:50.399
going to use that as living space. Um, uh, there was a point at one time where the applicant thought he could use it because the architect said he could, but we're not. But even by eliminating that, it's still over. We looked at the house. Could we make it comply with the F? If

57
00:15:50.399 --> 00:16:06.000
you look at the floor plans, and I'm I'm going to submit something here. There's no practical way to do that. You just can't. You'd have to really like shrink every room. It just you just can't do it. It's not possible. But again, at 1,600, what was the square foot, Jim, of

58
00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:21.519
the living space? >> 1740. >> 1740. I apologize. It's still less than what the zone would permit if the lot were just deeper. So, it's not as if we're we're building a house here that is too large for what the the zone plan intended. It's actually some somewhat

59
00:16:21.519 --> 00:16:37.360
smaller. So, I think I covered the height. I talked about just it's just the steps in your rear yard. And um unless there's any questions, I'll bring Yeah. Oh, yes. >> So, I have a question. Yeah. Just the numbers. >> Jerry. Jerry.

60
00:16:37.360 --> 00:16:53.519
>> Jerry. Jenna. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. We'll get used to it. So on the numbers that you're >> Jerry, would you please move forward so that you're near the microphone? Thank you. >> Having a bad night. Um, >> so on the numbers that you're talking

61
00:16:53.519 --> 00:17:10.400
about with you said that the the asbuilt square footage is 1,600 square feet. >> That's what I thought. Jim corrected me. >> 1740 >> 40. Does that 1740 include the third floor of that building? It does not. >> No, we took that out.

62
00:17:10.400 --> 00:17:27.360
Well, let's let's they're very good questions. Mr. Jenna, let's get Mr. Bazowski sworn. >> Yeah. >> And he can testify. We can ask questions. Mr. Talcia, just a point of order before we begin. And so the board knows what's happening here. You and I can agree because of the floor area

63
00:17:27.360 --> 00:17:42.480
ratio variance is what's known as a Dvariance. The class one member meaning the mayor and the class three member meaning council president Miss Beller cannot participate and we have to reconstitute as a seven member zoning board. Yes. Correct. Okay. So for

64
00:17:42.480 --> 00:17:58.799
members of the board that means for voting purposes tonight and because Miss Mason is not here Mr. Jenna, Mr. Lefredo, Mr. Winganger, Chair Leonard, Mr. Tingquist, Tinquist, excuse me, Miss Parker and Mr. Aello, you are the seven

65
00:17:58.799 --> 00:18:13.840
members that will vote on this application. Mr. Lubis and Mr. Gandelle, you may be involved. You may ask questions, but because we're a seven member board tonight, we don't count past seven. Does everyone understand? >> Okay. You're in agreement, Mr. Tbec?

66
00:18:13.840 --> 00:18:29.360
>> Yes. And we need five votes for the Fative votes for the F. Correct. And then the bulk variances would need just the majority of the seven, meaning four out of the seven. >> Correct. Thank you. I I actually wanted to have uh m Mr. Patel just give a brief

67
00:18:29.360 --> 00:18:46.320
statement. >> Okay, I'll swear I'm in. That's fine. >> Mr. Patel, can you raise your right hand, please? >> Sure. >> Do you swear in front of the testimony before this board this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Uh just wanted to let the board know

68
00:18:46.320 --> 00:19:02.960
kind of how we came to this. Um, we retained a contractor who served in dual capacity as the architect and the general contractor. Prior to the engagement, we verified that he had both architect's license as well as a home improvement license as well. Uh, the plans he prepared were submitted and

69
00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:19.600
approved by the zoning department. We proceeded with construction and reliance on those approved plans and confirmed that the structure was built in accordance to those plans approved. Both the architect/contractor and I were present at the zoning department when we had those plans approved. So we picked them up. At no time during that process

70
00:19:19.600 --> 00:19:34.720
were any concerns, deficiencies or zoning issues raised by the municipal um officials. The variances currently for the board were not identified until the final asbuilt survey was completed and submitted. It was only at that stage that discrepancies between the approved plans and the zoning requirements became

71
00:19:34.720 --> 00:19:51.760
apparent. Once decision to terminate our decision to terminate the architects as contractor occurred following the framing inspection and was based solely on construction delays and concerns regarding workmanship. At that time we had no knowledge of any zoning or variance related issues. Subsequently the far painting was retained to

72
00:19:51.760 --> 00:20:07.120
complete the remaining work. The variance at issue do not relate to or arise from any work completed by that contractor. Throughout the project we relied on the professional expertise of our licensed architect contractor and on the approvals issued by the zoning department. At all times we acted in good faith and reliance on those

73
00:20:07.120 --> 00:20:22.799
approvals. So we did not know any any of these issues until the final as bill was submitted. Essentially >> thank you. Any questions from >> so what stage of the construction >> that was >> hold on slow down go ahead >> we have a question from be has a

74
00:20:22.799 --> 00:20:38.000
question be >> to swear me in or >> yes do you swear from the testimony you give before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> yes I do >> thank you

75
00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:54.159
>> I just wanted to clarify that the first zoning application that was submitted was not approved D was denied on 92524. I don't know that the owner was even aware of that. I have no knowledge of that. And that the revised plans and

76
00:20:54.159 --> 00:21:10.799
approval was submitted on uh and approved on 10224. So it was not the original design was not approved. >> Yeah, Miss Rashburn, I believe I think I said this um the architect builder without knowledge removed the front

77
00:21:10.799 --> 00:21:30.559
steps. We believe they were denied because they showed front steps that didn't meet the setback. So, um yes, I that's accurate. >> Did you have another question? >> Um the notes I have from the No, I have another comment from the the zoning

78
00:21:30.559 --> 00:21:47.280
review that that was not what it was denied for. That was not what what was it denied for? >> Um I show that it um needed lot coverage calculations, impervious co calculations

79
00:21:47.280 --> 00:22:05.760
and floor area ratio calculations. >> Okay. Thank you V. >> In any event, just so the record's clear, Miss Washburn, as of October 2, 2024, the revised plans that were submitted by the applicants architect and general contractor were approved

80
00:22:05.760 --> 00:22:21.120
though. Is that correct? >> Correct. To at at the correct setbacks allowing for the reduced lot size. Even though the lot size is reduced from 4,000 square feet which is permitted in Beach Haven, they still have to meet all the setbacks. And the plans that were

81
00:22:21.120 --> 00:22:38.000
submitted then met the setbacks. >> Okay. And it was the as that got submitted that triggered all of this. Correct. finalize though we actually were going to put in a variance request for the stairs cuz he removed the stairs and when we had a new contractor come in we were going to put originally just the

82
00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:53.120
stairs and then when the final as bill was submitted that's when we figured out found out about the other variances that needed to be >> yeah the application >> yeah and and again I I mentioned that there's a form that's filled out which I have a copy of and it did show compliance

83
00:22:53.120 --> 00:23:10.080
but the plans actually if you did the measurement on the plans that were approved it would not have complied and there was no zoning chart on the plans. So, the house was built per the plans. It's just that the information and we understand that the architect thought that lot coverage doesn't

84
00:23:10.080 --> 00:23:25.840
include the decks, >> right? >> And there's a deck that's shown on the plan that was a part of part of it. Um had the architect realized that the deck had been included calculation the coverage would have met met and because

85
00:23:25.840 --> 00:23:41.600
it had to make the house smaller and the F would have gone down. So we think it all stems from at least putting the height issue aside stems from the F and the coverage from the decks not being calculated into the zoning analysis. And

86
00:23:41.600 --> 00:24:13.880
there is a form. I might as well just pass this out now. So we're all looking at the same thing. >> Mr. Tom, while you're handing this out, I'm going to mark this as A1 for identification. >> Yes. >> Okay. So

87
00:24:15.679 --> 00:24:37.520
if you take it apart yeah take it apart the first sheet is a photocopy of the approved plan. Uh you can see on the right it's construction department if approved. Um after that is the actual plan. And I

88
00:24:37.520 --> 00:24:52.720
just wanted to show that the plan that I'm giving you here, which doesn't have the date, was the approved plan. And um it showed like total proposed living area 210 square ft. Well, that's not

89
00:24:52.720 --> 00:25:10.720
permissible. You can only approve 1420. But the plan that was approved showed that. So now apparently while it was shown on the plants that were approved, if you then look at the next um I do

90
00:25:10.720 --> 00:25:26.960
have the foundation as built to measure the dimensions of the of the foundation. It's exactly what was shown in the approved plans that that dimension of 39 ft in depth. If you look at those plans, it matches that and Jim testified to that. You go to the final

91
00:25:26.960 --> 00:25:46.240
as built. Again, the house was built for the plans. It just turned out the zoning data, but this is probably the most important one. This yellow sheet here, it's our understanding that I'm not sure who filled out the

92
00:25:46.240 --> 00:26:00.720
requirements. It might have been the architect. And then you'll see in the proposed it does show compliance, >> right? Everything complies. And then the asbuilt the third line which we believe was filled out by the zoning office but we're not exactly sure don't have

93
00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:16.400
contact with the architect but the handwriting looks a little different than the second column. So while the plan showed for example living space of 2010 square ft this sheet showed the living space as

94
00:26:16.400 --> 00:26:33.360
1410 which would have been compliant. So plan showed one thing. This shows something else. Don't know when this was filled out. And again, I assume it was by the um the architect. Mr. Patel has no recollection of filling this out. Is that correct?

95
00:26:33.360 --> 00:26:48.960
>> Say that. Say no. >> Yeah. No, we don't we have no knowledge filled that out and we haven't filled that out at all. >> So, >> can I can I ask a question or Mr. you want to finish your thought or >> I just I just want to say is that the uh

96
00:26:48.960 --> 00:27:04.400
a couple of things here is the house and again that 2010 square foot would have included the um third floor. So the plans did show that living space that living space could not be approved but with a size of this lot. Now if the lot

97
00:27:04.400 --> 00:27:21.440
were 4,000 square feet you could get a 2,000 square foot approved. Um, but as I said, this shows 2010 square feet. So I I I don't know. That's that's the approved plans wasn't there. Mr. Patel wasn't there.

98
00:27:21.440 --> 00:27:37.679
Uh, we tried to piece this together to see how this came about. Um, but that's that finishes my thought for now. >> And and this architect for the record again has since been fired and has no in further involvement at all with this project. >> Not at all. Has been uncooperative.

99
00:27:37.679 --> 00:27:53.679
Okay. Mr. Lefrey, you had a question? >> Yeah, this is Gary. Um, who's who signed as the applicant signature? Whose signature is that? >> We're not sure. Um, Ka, is that looks like Ka? >> His first name is Constantinos. His last

100
00:27:53.679 --> 00:28:10.720
name started with an A, so I'm assuming that was the previous builder. >> If I comment on that. >> Uh, wait. Second date. All right, Gary, are you finished? >> Yes. >> Okay, D, go ahead. When a permit is picked up from our office, the person

101
00:28:10.720 --> 00:28:26.720
picking up the permit signs as they they receive a whole packet of information that they have to take and that's who signs for it and that's who signed for it was the the builder Constantine when he picked up the packet. >> Yeah. The builder was also the

102
00:28:26.720 --> 00:28:43.679
architect. They were the same person. >> I I have a question. My my question is how did they miss the height in the very beginning? How did they miss that it was over 35 ft in the drawings?

103
00:28:43.679 --> 00:29:01.039
>> The proposed fit the proposed height was 35 ft. Actually, it was 34 34t 10 in the column. You'll see >> and it ended up 36 whatever. >> Yes. 36 and a2. Yeah, we're we're going

104
00:29:01.039 --> 00:29:15.760
to have Mr. Bzowski talk about that because there's a way to measure height in terms of the um base flood elevation and the the street. He does show a calculation on the plan sheet A2.0 that you have of

105
00:29:15.760 --> 00:29:32.080
how he calculated the height. Um Mr. Bzowski can explain it better, but it's something that was off on in the field conditions in terms of the slab height, which we think led to the increased height. So yes, the plans that show compliance, but I we think that the

106
00:29:32.080 --> 00:29:48.240
architect may have uh did the calculation incorrectly about where to start the measurement from andor the field slab was off. But Jim will talk about that a little later because he explained it to me. It was not clear to me at all what happened, but

107
00:29:48.240 --> 00:30:07.440
it was a technical error in the height calculation. Again, the building was built per the plans, but it started at the wrong spot, space, and time. This is Jerry. Did Did we identify who filled out this sheet and the asbuilt?

108
00:30:07.440 --> 00:30:23.919
Was that the builder prior to Mr. Patel's? >> We you know I I looked at that and to me the handwriting does not look the same between proposed and as built >> because I mean we go from 2840 square foot for the lot size to 3796.

109
00:30:23.919 --> 00:30:40.640
Where did that come from? Well, I think they they went backwards to get to that 1410 number right below because that would be the maximum >> um floor area ratio for a house on this lot would be 1410. >> So, excuse me. I be can answer that

110
00:30:40.640 --> 00:30:57.279
question. >> Go ahead. >> Other than the signature from the builder, the entire form is filled out by Mr. Reid, the um zoning officer. He made a mistake in the calculation based on if the lot was full size and did not

111
00:30:57.279 --> 00:31:14.480
go back and alter it once it had been released. >> So it was a miscalculation of the um lot coverage of the lot size >> by the town >> by the zoning office. >> Zoning office

112
00:31:14.480 --> 00:31:31.760
>> by the zoning officer. The the lot is 28.40. >> Right. >> Right. So the number 3796 >> is incorrect. >> Get you get you to the 1410 which was the but the lot is not that big. So correct. >> It should have been 1410. So

113
00:31:31.760 --> 00:31:47.840
>> all right. And how so how did we get 1410 to 1740 then? >> Well again the plan showed internal space of 210 square ft. >> But that you just testified that didn't >> you're going to be interrupting. I need to hear names.

114
00:31:47.840 --> 00:32:04.480
>> Look Gary. This is Gary. You you previously said the 1740 did not include that space plan. Now you're including it. >> Let me explain. The plans showed the 2010. When we found out that we're over the F, we agreed in my discussions with Mr. Little, we said, "Well, we're going to obviously not ask, we're not asking

115
00:32:04.480 --> 00:32:20.240
the board to approve that 2010 ft. We're asking the board to approve everything except for the third floor." So again, the plan showed 2010 suite as 10 2010 ft as being approved for living space. For

116
00:32:20.240 --> 00:32:35.440
purposes of this case, we don't want to make the F variance even bigger and ask for 2010. We're asking for 1740, which is the first and second floor above the garage level. So I hope that >> So for the record, had your client

117
00:32:35.440 --> 00:32:52.240
verify that that in fact is the case, please. >> What is the >> exactly what you just said? Okay, Mr. Patel, can you confirm that the third floor attic will not be used for as habitable space? >> Yes. So, the third floor will be inhabitable >> and and and what the steps to get to the

118
00:32:52.240 --> 00:33:09.600
roof deck have to go through that attic, right? >> Yeah, that's the only entrance to the roof deck over there. >> So, the floor ratio variance then is being sought is, and I'm looking at Mr. Little's review letter is to permit,

119
00:33:09.600 --> 00:33:27.960
1740 square feet where only 14 20 square ft is the maximum permitted. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay, Mr. Little, we're on the same page. >> Yes. >> Great. >> Okay. Any any other questions for Mr. Batone?

120
00:33:28.080 --> 00:33:42.320
>> Okay. >> I have one question. How did this project get so far along before you found out it was a huge debacle? >> Yeah, so we got rid of him >> in the building. >> We got rid of him because of delays in

121
00:33:42.320 --> 00:33:57.519
construction um quality. You could kind of say we had no clue about the zoning issues at all. Um when our new contractor locally painting took over, he he noticed that the stairs were not part of the plans. Originally, we had told the architect we want the stairs.

122
00:33:57.519 --> 00:34:13.919
He removed Yeah. Yep. he removed them without, you know, telling us about it. So that's why we went ahead and we put the variance in for the just the stairs and which I think would have impacted the side setback or the front setbacks. When the final as built was approved near the end of the project, that's when

123
00:34:13.919 --> 00:34:28.720
everything else was triggered by the zoning department. Um, like I said, it was all pretty much at the end of the project that we knew about these variances being triggered. There was nothing in our acknowledgement that there would be any of these zoning issues throughout the whole project. It

124
00:34:28.720 --> 00:34:44.639
was not until the very end. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And and and just I made the point earlier, but Mr. Broski pointed out to me that um most of the homes are built with pilings and those pilings would have been shown on the as foundation as built and included the deck area because

125
00:34:44.639 --> 00:35:00.560
they were um not this house was not built on pilings. It just was built on concrete footers. there was nothing to indicate where the deck would be. So when you look at the asbuilt foundation, it's missing the whole deck. So that could that could lead to a conclusion if you if you did the measurements. Yeah,

126
00:35:00.560 --> 00:35:16.400
that complies, but it really didn't comply because the plans and did not in include the that calculation. >> Ve, go ahead. If you look at the yellow sheet, the zoning permit, you'll see up

127
00:35:16.400 --> 00:35:35.040
at the top right hand corner, you'll see P2404. That is a permit for pilings. >> H >> yeah. Um understood. I believe the actual plans that were approved do not show pilings. This house was not built

128
00:35:35.040 --> 00:35:58.720
on pilings. So any further questions for Mr. Patel if not Mr. Bzowski? >> I do. Sure. >> Ricker, >> this is Jerry. Question to Mr. Patel. So when the time of the purchase I start to ask this question

129
00:35:58.720 --> 00:36:15.520
before what phase of the construction project was completed? Was the framing was the roof on? Were the windows in? Are you talking about when we got >> when you purchased the property? >> It was when we purchased the property, it was non construction at all. It was

130
00:36:15.520 --> 00:36:31.680
>> It was no construction. No. >> Okay. Um, so I have been by the residents and it's very strange to me. I'll be really candid with you on this though. So the roof line uh looks like

131
00:36:31.680 --> 00:36:48.880
it was done where there would be a normal peak and in your case the roof is cut off at some point and so to me it looks obvious that somebody tried to reduce the height of the structure and but you're saying where it is cut

132
00:36:48.880 --> 00:37:06.000
off now that is still the 35 or 36.5 ft. So, I believe that the old architect had mentioned that the height was too high and he told us that we're going to have to cut off some of the roof. So, he said, "Okay, to make a complaint with the height, >> but but the roof was already built at

133
00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:22.480
the time." He he thought there was a problem. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then and then in fact, the new contractors here, he can tell you that in fact there was an effort to reduce the height, but the house was substantially complete at that time. Right. >> Yeah. Pass framing inspection. Yeah.

134
00:37:22.480 --> 00:37:38.079
Yeah, the windows and all that were in already. >> I mean, if the initial construction was where it was a normal peak, >> right, >> to do what was done that is there today is pretty substantial change. >> Yeah. >> And be on again candid with you. So they

135
00:37:38.079 --> 00:37:53.680
started to do the right thing, but they didn't do it enough. >> Yeah. Apparently, >> especially and it looks like it was done so that there would be adequate space in the attic for a thirdf flooror living area. I I think I think and Jim can talk about this. The height the roof was

136
00:37:53.680 --> 00:38:10.000
maintained so that you could have a door leading to the deck. They couldn't bring the roof down any further or else you wouldn't be able to have an adequate height of the door. That was the issue there. I mean, we talked about it. Could you take the height down? He said that it wouldn't be possible to get to the roof deck anymore.

137
00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:26.480
>> But they there was an attempt to reduce it though. >> Yeah. At some point, as Mr. Patel said the old architect thought something was a miss on the height and made an effort to correct it. I don't know how he came to that conclusion but he did do it. >> But the other issues were not identified

138
00:38:26.480 --> 00:38:42.320
until when >> it was the application for the front steps for the stairs. >> When he submitted the application to do the front stairs then there and the asbuilt was done these other issues in terms of building coverage were identified. F was identified. The rear

139
00:38:42.320 --> 00:38:58.280
setback was identified. Again, the sideyard and the front yard setbacks are only a function of adding the stairs. Those stairs are not there today. If the board doesn't approve those stairs, the sideyard variance goes away and the front yard variance goes away.

140
00:38:59.359 --> 00:39:16.320
>> Rick Winger, sorry, excuse me. I also had a couple of questions. The um going back to Gary's point, the um with the height of the roof, could just the portion needed to access the roof deck be made above it like similar like you see elevator bulkheads type thing as

141
00:39:16.320 --> 00:39:31.839
opposed to the whole roof have a small section or would that architecturally not be feasible? >> Rick, could you speak up so the audience could hear you better? >> Oh, I'm sorry. So, I was saying >> that's better. >> Much better. with these uh access to the

142
00:39:31.839 --> 00:39:51.040
roof deck that you needed the extra height for. >> Could that extra height only be in the area that's needed for access to the roof deck? Meaning whatever small corridor and doorway is there. >> Who's who's answering this?

143
00:39:51.040 --> 00:40:06.800
>> That would be for the architect. >> Yeah. Um >> have an architect. >> I I think I asked Mr. Brozowski to draw a plan that would show what portion of the roof is above it. And I

144
00:40:06.800 --> 00:40:23.359
think to do and we talked about doing what you're suggesting architecturally. I don't think you would see it because it's it's the back part of the roof, the ridge this way and the ridge going left. It's about 20 or 25% of the hole. It

145
00:40:23.359 --> 00:40:38.079
would look bad architecturally, but for the most part, you're not going to be able to see from street level. It's just too far back. you just can't discern it. So, I don't know that there's any benefit to do that at this point in time. Um, I can't find that plan right

146
00:40:38.079 --> 00:40:55.119
now. I'll find it. But um it is something we talked about, but access to the the roof uh obviously is important, but again to just try to basically have the roof come up just to

147
00:40:55.119 --> 00:41:11.599
enter the deck and have the rest of it go down, it just I don't we don't think it would look good. We think that would be worse from a zoning, planning, design perspective. >> Yeah. And I'm picturing like what you see on certain houses when they only have like the elevator bulkhead sticking

148
00:41:11.599 --> 00:41:36.079
up. Very limited area. >> What do you think, Jim? >> What do you think? I need >> that's so we have this plan that we can show is

149
00:41:36.079 --> 00:42:09.119
that did we res we submit this or no >> I don't think so >> okay we we do a lot of these we can submit so yeah the center house the white house will be subject An extra one. Nick, you can take this

150
00:42:09.119 --> 00:42:32.960
one if you want. >> Over there behind you. You want this one? >> Yeah. You want one, Mr. Indel? Because I can share the White House. So >> So Mr. Tvaki, for the record, you submitted a color photograph. Would mark

151
00:42:32.960 --> 00:42:50.880
that as A2 for identification and the White House in the middle of the photograph is the subject home we're talking about. >> Yes. So, you can you can see the deck, the rooftop deck. Um, and you can see that the roof was truncated. There's no

152
00:42:50.880 --> 00:43:08.079
question about that. And there's the door that leads you out. You can't really reduce the the door anymore at that point. To the left, you can see a part of the roof, but that's part of the staircase to get up to that point. So if if they're to maintain access

153
00:43:08.079 --> 00:43:24.800
to the rooftop deck, um it it'd be very difficult to do that. Um I don't know how it could be done architecturally and and make it look good. But I also this illustrates how the setback of the house along with the rooftop deck being eight

154
00:43:24.800 --> 00:43:40.240
feet below the the height that part of the roof compared to the house to the right. The house to the right in gray actually looks taller to me than our house. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean the old house on the left is is

155
00:43:40.240 --> 00:43:54.319
older. The house to the right is relatively new. Looks like it was raised. I mean the Patel house does not appear to be unusually tall. It just can't be discerned from street level that height

156
00:43:54.319 --> 00:44:14.160
and that the setback of the roof. >> So al alternatively, could the door be on the bottom of the stairs and then the stairs themselves from the doors up to the roof deck be part of the exterior? I've seen that done where they in other words your door your stairs going up are fiberglass just like the deck.

157
00:44:14.160 --> 00:44:30.240
>> You mean from from the second floor deck to the third floor? >> Correct. So that would keep >> actually I think that would be more intrusive visually to to add new structure to the front than it is to have it where it is today. words today is kind of tucked in the back with very

158
00:44:30.240 --> 00:44:46.880
little visibility to add and I know you're talking I've seen where you can add steps but I I think that would actually that I think would just create a new u structure closer to the street. >> No, no. What I'm saying is the existing

159
00:44:46.880 --> 00:45:03.040
right now you have steps going up to a door that's at the roof deck level. Correct. >> Right now there are no steps in the front to cut that off. Right. >> But then you'd have to weather the stair tower and and put in scupper holes because now

160
00:45:03.040 --> 00:45:18.319
the rain comes it's going to go in the hole. >> But you know, >> so like architecturally Jim will have to discuss Mr. Rosowski can explain. >> Excuse me. V has something she wants to

161
00:45:18.319 --> 00:45:35.119
say about this. Go ahead. I just wanted to say from a zoning standpoint in the burrow of Beach Haven, the height of a structure is the highest point. The only thing that is excluded is chimneys. So, and you'll there are some examples of that in town, but it doesn't matter

162
00:45:35.119 --> 00:45:51.040
whether it's a railing on a deck, the peak of a roof, the height is the height. >> Thank you. >> Understood. Uh Mr. Mr. Bzowski, do you want to address this is made the question about

163
00:45:51.040 --> 00:46:07.359
>> Excuse me, Mr. Lub. >> Let's try and keep this early. Mr. Lish, you have a question for the applicant for Mr. Patel. >> Uh, yes. I I think what Rick was suggesting and I don't wasn't sure you were clear on it is and I have seen this

164
00:46:07.359 --> 00:46:23.760
on a number of homes that in the second floor there's an exterior door leading to a set of steps which these steps are waterproof to completely exterior which would eliminate the need to have a door on the roof precipitating the height that you have that I think that's what

165
00:46:23.760 --> 00:46:40.960
he was suggesting and I have seen that on homes >> in the area. >> Okay. >> Yes. Correct. Thank you. >> We uh Mr. Brosowski has thoughts on that. So if you could be sworn Jim at this time, >> Mr. Bowski, good to see you again. Do you swear affirm the testimony I give

166
00:46:40.960 --> 00:46:57.359
before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> For the record, James, you are a New Jersey licensed planner and New Jersey licensed engineer. >> Yeah, my name is uh James Rosski. 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.

167
00:46:57.359 --> 00:47:11.680
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. you um and you've been qualified by this board as an expert in those fields. >> Yes. >> I offer him as an expert. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Jim, can you um discuss that issue that was raised about changing the stairs?

168
00:47:11.680 --> 00:47:27.599
>> Yeah. My my my comment about uh like reducing the roof and and creating a a a door maybe at the mid-level landing is we'd have to weatherproof the entire um stair tower because right now it's not

169
00:47:27.599 --> 00:47:42.079
designed like water's going to go in that hole when when you cut it off. You're going to have a a hole where the stairs are coming up. Water's going to go down the stairs. You're going to have to create scuppers on the the mid-level landing. you have to uh weatherproof the

170
00:47:42.079 --> 00:47:58.240
stairs. It I'm not an architect. I'm sure anything can be done, but it just seems like that would be uh quite an effort to accomplish that. >> It is pretty common. That's all I could say, but I'm not an architect either. So,

171
00:47:58.240 --> 00:48:13.520
>> and and I agree. If the if it was part of the initial plan, like we wanted to get a rooftop deck and we couldn't put a stair tower up there, an architect could design that. I've seen them on lots of homes. So, I agree it can be done, but

172
00:48:13.520 --> 00:48:35.680
to to retro an existing stair tower into that I think would be difficult. >> What about giving up the rooftop deck >> altogether? >> Um, >> it's just a suggestion, Mr. It doesn't

173
00:48:35.680 --> 00:48:53.040
have to be agreed to by the applicant. I'm just saying there's so many issues with this that uh that's something they could think about. >> Well, I think the you know as opposed to giving up the rooftop deck

174
00:48:53.040 --> 00:49:20.319
an applicant like the rooftop deck is Hold on a second. I have a Right. So, the height to the rooftop deck of the house is 28.6 feet, not including the railings. So, including the railings were about 31 32 feet uh to the rooftop

175
00:49:20.319 --> 00:49:37.119
deck. I think I if we were to cut off anything above that rooftop deck, uh the applicant would probably still look for access to the deck, uh maybe a stair tower on the front. It's I just don't think it would look as attractive as the building that's out there right now. The

176
00:49:37.119 --> 00:49:52.079
building that's out there right now, >> this house has so many issues already. I mean, all those ins to me that's insignificant about looking attractive. I mean, I think that the house has so many issues. I I just don't understand how something gets this far along with

177
00:49:52.079 --> 00:50:06.960
this many mistakes before somebody catches it when it's completely finished except for a way to get in the building. >> Uh I was brought in about 10 days before

178
00:50:06.960 --> 00:50:24.640
the previous hearing. So I just I I was brought in after this was built. the variances were were applied for. Um, so how it got to this level, all I can say to that is we've got a building that has a rear yard setback

179
00:50:24.640 --> 00:50:42.319
issue of half a foot, a height issue, um, and two coverages issues, a floor area ratio and a building coverage. Um, the foundation location survey, which is a checkpoint along the way. So, you get a building permit, you knock a house down, you start building a new house,

180
00:50:42.319 --> 00:50:58.160
you get a foundation location survey. This foundation location survey is there to verify that we're meeting the set, that the building is set in the right location. The first floor elevation should be established. Um, but when the foundation location survey was

181
00:50:58.160 --> 00:51:13.920
completed, the front and rear decks, the the the front deck and the rear stairs weren't part of they they weren't even started yet from the from what I can see. So, there was no way to show them on a foundation location survey. So,

182
00:51:13.920 --> 00:51:30.400
what we've got is just the footprint of the house, the the heated footprint. Um the first floor was right where it should be at 14.5 or wherever it is. Uh that was what was designed at the setbacks complied. The front setback to

183
00:51:30.400 --> 00:51:46.480
where the the building should have been was at 21 ft and you were going to have a sixoot deck in front of it. So we were going to hit 15t. So everything on the foundation location matched what was on the plot plan. So nothing

184
00:51:46.480 --> 00:52:02.880
was an error at the foundation location. >> So when did it go? >> At the asbuilt once we got once the asbuilt survey came along um it was noticed that you know we well the obvious notes were the height and the

185
00:52:02.880 --> 00:52:19.839
the rear setback. Um and and basically there were when when I was hired to to help these the the uh Mr. Patel out. I took a look at the the architectural plans, the surveys, the the foundation

186
00:52:19.839 --> 00:52:36.079
locations. Um, I noticed that there was two things different about what was built than what was proposed to be built. The first thing was the the steps in the rear were supposed to be three foot wide and they're three and a half foot wide.

187
00:52:36.079 --> 00:52:54.000
The garage lab was proposed at six foot at elevation six and it's at elevation five I think 4.9 on the asbill. Those are the two deviations. Uh the the garage lab didn't affect the height. The first floor was right where it should be right where it was proposed to be at. Um

188
00:52:54.000 --> 00:53:10.160
my assumption is that the garage lab would lowered for more the there would have been a seven foot ceiling in the garage if it was built at six. So at five. So all of this still I mean why didn't somebody along the way when they

189
00:53:10.160 --> 00:53:24.720
realized that this had gone a miss just stop just stop don't continue building don't finish it just stop >> but at that point it was finished >> they didn't realize anything till then >> that's I mean you'd have to ask the

190
00:53:24.720 --> 00:53:43.040
applicant again I was brought in 10 days prior to the previous you know last month's meeting >> and and as as was um testified by the zoning officer the um this was filled out by the zoning officer show compliance. Jim did the actual building

191
00:53:43.040 --> 00:53:59.760
that was proposed on the plans was that what was built in terms of its dimensions >> as I as I mentioned the only deviation was the the steps in the rear were half a foot wider >> and that's just the steps. >> That's just the steps. >> So the building was built per approved plans.

192
00:53:59.760 --> 00:54:17.839
>> Yes. the going back to your height question, >> you know, h how did they when you look at the architectural plans that show the height it you can see and that's that's on one of the

193
00:54:17.839 --> 00:54:47.200
sheets that I um gave you to look at that's sheet calculation is shown on page TS. 2.0 TS 2.0 >> A 2.0. >> This is the same sheet, correct? This is the same same sheet. So, it's

194
00:54:47.200 --> 00:55:03.839
part of exhibit A. >> Um the lower left hand corner of that sheet. We've got the bottom of the building, the slab elevation equals six. And we've got a line. We've got numbers

195
00:55:03.839 --> 00:55:21.359
that add up to the the top of ridge elevation that pretty much start from the slab elevation of six. At some point in time, somebody must have told the architect, we're not measuring the height from the slab. We measure from the crown of the road. So you can see that the the architect kind

196
00:55:21.359 --> 00:55:36.240
of put a crown of the road equal to the same elevation as the slab and shows that we're going to be 34 foot 10 in above the top of crown of road. But he doesn't put a number on the crown of the road. The crown of road is at 4.5.

197
00:55:36.240 --> 00:55:52.240
So it's a foot and a half below the slab >> which on this diagram it doesn't look like it's a foot and a half. It looks like it's equal to the slab. Um, so it appears that this building was designed to be built about 34 feet above the

198
00:55:52.240 --> 00:56:09.119
slab. The slab being at six, which is exactly where it is at 36 1/2 ft. It's 35 ft above elevation six, >> but it should have been calculated at 4 and a half based on the >> Yeah, it should have been

199
00:56:09.119 --> 00:56:24.240
>> peak elevation minus 4 and a half equals height. Um, uh, And I and I know that throughout the state there's different ways to measure heights in different towns. Some towns measure the uh the median between

200
00:56:24.240 --> 00:56:40.240
the peak and the eve and you measure that number from either grade or whatever the reference level is which may have been the architect's first calculation which is why he had to cut the the peak down. He may have I'm just

201
00:56:40.240 --> 00:56:56.640
presuming here. I have no idea what the architect was thinking. Clearly, he didn't read Beach Haven's rules because he didn't include the the Dax's building coverage, >> but but the uh it was all shown on the plans, correct?

202
00:56:56.640 --> 00:57:13.040
>> It's all it's all shown on the plans >> and this was um prepared by the the zoning officer. Correct. I I think I that's what uh >> so as proposed it showed compliance and uh there was some error with the lot

203
00:57:13.040 --> 00:57:29.280
size but when the so to answer your question don't know how this got to this point but it got to this point um but I I think there are and by the way on the issue about modifying the stairs

204
00:57:29.280 --> 00:57:44.079
to the top there are and we have the the current contractor here there's a lot of HVAC equipment up there that would be impacted by a redesign of that area. And we could have testimony on that, but but again, um

205
00:57:44.079 --> 00:58:01.760
that to me just visually has the least impact on the design because it's so far back. Like granted is higher than it's supposed to be, but it's a relatively small amount of space. Um >> Okay. Excuse me. B, did you have something you wanted to say?

206
00:58:01.760 --> 00:58:17.760
>> No. Yes, the the code I have the code for how our calculation our road calculation in the Beach Haven code is 212-3B height height limits and

207
00:58:17.760 --> 00:58:37.520
it's all everything's there in our code. >> I agree with her. Everything's right there in the code if someone took the time to read it. So we're basically saying this whole problem is the arct build. Let me let me see if I can help

208
00:58:37.520 --> 00:58:54.400
streamline this a little. Mr. Tvakia, >> aside from the testimony we've heard about the floor air ratio and the condition of approval that there will be no habitable living space. The board's had several suggestions. My understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong though, is notwithstanding the

209
00:58:54.400 --> 00:59:11.280
suggestions and comments from the board, the variances that have been sought for as far as height, etc. They're still being requested. These these suggested revisions are are not something >> that the applicants >> we didn't really explore. We we wanted

210
00:59:11.280 --> 00:59:26.720
to see what the whole analysis was. Um, >> so right now though, as of this moment, >> you still would like the board to approve >> we think there's practical difficulties in terms of the current design of the house with the HVAC system and I can

211
00:59:26.720 --> 00:59:42.559
have the contractor talk about that. Um, I mean there was one suggestion was to change the stairs and the second suggestion was not to have a third floor deck >> to use it. >> Those are the suggestions I heard as well. Yes. Okay. I haven't heard. I just

212
00:59:42.559 --> 00:59:59.119
want to see so we can keep this moving and the applicant does not have to agree to those suggestions. >> If he if the applicant doesn't, let's keep going. If yes, maybe we can eliminate one or two of these variance requests. >> Eric, I have a question. Can I ask a question? It's mostly for Eric.

213
00:59:59.119 --> 01:00:15.040
>> Are we voting for this as a package? We have to vote yes or no for every variance that they're asking for. >> Well, I I will discuss with Mr. Talcia. In my opinion, we should bifurcate the vote because the flora ratio variance

214
01:00:15.040 --> 01:00:30.559
requires five affirmative votes. The other bulk variances only require four typically that would be voted on that way. Mr. thoughts on when we come to a vote we agree that at least with respect to the Dvariance.

215
01:00:30.559 --> 01:00:45.280
>> Yeah, I mean one vote >> the D should be one vote. I agree with that. >> What about the bulk variances one by one or as a package? >> I I think one by one I'll tell you why. For example, the front steps are not there, but the testimony that Jim is going to give is that from an aesthetic

216
01:00:45.280 --> 01:01:01.520
standpoint, you can justify it, right? Relatively small impact and it looks better than not having a front door, the front entrance. The rear, we we can shave six inches off the rear steps that they run parallel to the property line. We can eliminate that variance. And again, if we don't do the front steps and the board doesn't approve it, it

217
01:01:01.520 --> 01:01:16.240
eliminates the sideyard variance and the front yard variance. So, what we're left with then is the height variance. And I just talked to the client. the board said that that um um deck is not to be used. He would agree to that. But we still need access into

218
01:01:16.240 --> 01:01:31.200
that area upstairs to get to the heating and air conditioning system. So, um and I can have the contractor talk about that, but that's where the the mechanicals are up in that area where the stairs are. Uh, so it's not so easy

219
01:01:31.200 --> 01:01:46.480
to redesign that. But if if the not using the deck and we've already said we're not going to use the third floor, even though again it was approved for 2,000 ft of living space, 2010 ft. We we agreed before we walked in here to give

220
01:01:46.480 --> 01:02:02.160
up that third floor, not ask for it as a variance. Um, we can fix the the steps in the back. We think the variance relief for the front steps makes sense. We think it looks much better to have a front entrance. And again, the house is set back an extra three feet that kind

221
01:02:02.160 --> 01:02:17.839
of pushes the impact of the development off. Um, so I mean, the client is definitely willing to work with the municipality. The client, you know, is in a difficult position here and from his perspective, he didn't do anything wrong. He just

222
01:02:17.839 --> 01:02:37.400
relied on his professional. Um, and to answer your question, Madam Chair, I don't know how it got to the end of the when it was almost done that these issues became where had the foundation permit >> uh V has a question again. Go ahead, V.

223
01:02:37.760 --> 01:02:53.520
>> Wait, sorry, my dog barked before. Um, on the plans, the setback is not to the foundation on an asbelt survey. The setback is to the edge of the building and that is the deck in the front. So it

224
01:02:53.520 --> 01:03:09.680
is a 15 foot setback, not a 21. The garage doors aren't where it's measured to. >> 21 >> 21 is to is not to the existing the existing deck is 15. It overhangs to

225
01:03:09.680 --> 01:03:30.799
allow for the parking space underneath the required parking. So the setback is really compliant then >> the set the front yard setback is compliant at 15. >> Well for the for the deck for the deck >> including the front deck because

226
01:03:30.799 --> 01:03:47.280
>> that is the building. >> I I agree. Well there's two actual calculations. One is for the main building is 18 ft. The deck is 15. The main building here is 21. So it's the main the deck is bigger six feet instead of three. But all I'm trying to say is

227
01:03:47.280 --> 01:04:03.280
the House is is pushed back. >> I I have a question. So there was a comment made and I just need this to be clarified about that this house was approved for a 2,000 foot

228
01:04:03.280 --> 01:04:17.920
house. Yes. At some point >> you have that in the plans. If you look at sheet TS01 building data, it shows proposed living area 2010 ft. That's the approved plan. >> So that would have required a variance,

229
01:04:17.920 --> 01:04:35.119
I assume. >> And was there a variance applied for and it was just approved, you're saying, by >> they got the zoning permit. >> The zoning permit. >> Yeah. >> All right. Go ahead. >> That's not what That's not what the zoning was approved for. The zoning

230
01:04:35.119 --> 01:04:52.240
sheet was approved for. And I don't have the original plans with me because I'm not in the office and they can't leave the building. But the original plans that we received according to the zoning was for 1,410 square feet of living space. That's line

231
01:04:52.240 --> 01:05:09.599
two. Lot size living s living space. That's what was calculated on the application for floor area ratio living space was 1410 not >> I I don't have a plan that shows that the plan that we have and again it's the

232
01:05:09.599 --> 01:05:24.400
plans stamped by the construction part department for construction um it shows 210 square feet >> can I just make a summary of where I am >> would that be okay please >> sure so I look at this all the data

233
01:05:24.400 --> 01:05:43.119
that's presented so far. And um the house um should be 1440 square ft based upon the 2800 square foot lot and the 50% of that. So and it's that and it shouldn't be 1740.

234
01:05:43.119 --> 01:05:58.960
Okay. >> That's why they're asking for a variance. >> Okay. So that's number one. Number two, we said we're okay on the setback. Um the the third item I guess you know this in terms of the 6 in step in the back. I'm not even that that's not important

235
01:05:58.960 --> 01:06:15.200
to me. Okay. Um one of the harder things I'm having a time with though is the drawing here that you you handed out to us that says habitable. And the word habitable has been used a number of times on this

236
01:06:15.200 --> 01:06:31.599
drawing. and we're saying that we're not going to use it, but it's clear in the drawing that it's habitable space, which is going to add to the square footage there. So, I'm just where I'm coming from right now. I think there needs to be a major

237
01:06:31.599 --> 01:06:47.200
modification to the roof to meet the height requirement and to eliminate that habitable space. >> But you can have an attic, and we're not going to make it habitable space. We're not going to put closets, bathrooms, or anything like that. You're allowed to have h have is allowed to have an attic.

238
01:06:47.200 --> 01:07:03.200
An attic you could store things in it. That's permissible. It's not living space. >> And isn't it a sliding glass door and windows and such from this habitable space? >> No. Well, >> it' be very easy to make it habitable. That's what he's saying. >> I had the opportunity to go through the

239
01:07:03.200 --> 01:07:18.960
house prior to the previous meeting. Uh when you go up the stair tower to the attic area, there's an exterior door at the top of the stair tower to access the uh attic area. Uh the attic area has a sliding door on the south face that

240
01:07:18.960 --> 01:07:34.160
allows access to the to the roof deck and there's a window one attic window on the north face. So there's a wind one on each side, the sliding door being one window. Um, so, uh,

241
01:07:34.160 --> 01:07:51.200
>> it's low ceiling. >> So, so let's remember this too. The applicant has already testified under oath that the attic will not be habitable. If the board were to approve this application, that's a condition of approval. Okay. If it turns out that the

242
01:07:51.200 --> 01:08:06.880
applicant misled the board and it's being used for living space, the applicant can be cited by the zoning officer for violating the condition of approval. That's an enforcement issue. Again, we don't we're not a board of

243
01:08:06.880 --> 01:08:23.920
enforcement. The zoning officer would cite the applicant for that violation. It could be taken to municipal court. There are other ways to enforce that violation, but your point's well taken for sure. But the applicant again has testified under oath here tonight that

244
01:08:23.920 --> 01:08:39.120
the attic will not be used as habitable living space. So that's why the flu area ratio variance that's being sought is to permit, 1740 ft as opposed to 2,840 square ft.

245
01:08:39.120 --> 01:08:57.600
two 2000 um two not lot area is 28 >> I'm talking about flu ratio right that's all >> if it was habitable the I'm sorry lot area you're right I just hope instead of 210 square ft the flu ratio variance we saw is to permit 1740 square ft where

246
01:08:57.600 --> 01:09:15.279
only 1420 ft is required >> that's correct >> okay I have a question Gary do you does the applicant intend to live in this house or is selling it. >> We stay in it. >> Okay. >> We intend to stay in it.

247
01:09:15.279 --> 01:09:30.239
>> And then I I had another question on an option for the front. I've seen many houses where the front door is on the garage level and that aesthetically is fine. >> So why why isn't that an option instead of the whole front yard set back and

248
01:09:30.239 --> 01:09:47.560
stairs going? >> There's there's brand new houses that are multi-million dollar houses that are like that. Yeah, I'd like to have the the current contractor give his thoughts because we talked about whether that was feasible to do a front entry

249
01:09:49.520 --> 01:10:06.719
>> your name and and affiliation for the record and I'll swear you in please. >> Um Robert Favor will favor Painting Incorporated Long Beach Island. >> Spell your last name, please. >> L E F E V R E. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony I give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth, and

250
01:10:06.719 --> 01:10:23.760
nothing but the truth? Thank you, Mr. >> Yeah. Can you can you address the issue? Could we put a front door at the garage level? >> We did uh we did look into that at the beginning to try and eliminate the variance for the front steps and flooding is an issue because it's going

251
01:10:23.760 --> 01:10:40.000
to be a finished space, a heated space. There'd be heat air, you know, some kind of flooring. Obviously we could put um you know octuff on the lower four feet but flooding is is definitely you know the issue with that conditioned space to

252
01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:53.920
enter the home. Um the stairs also the way they come down into the garage um it would be hard to enter the home that way. You'd be entering into an open staircase

253
01:10:53.920 --> 01:11:10.800
um that goes up into the first floor. Wasn't that >> I'm sorry. >> Did Joe ever do drawings for us on that or we just squashed that right off the bat? >> Yeah, it was mostly for the flooding putting that conditioned space on that

254
01:11:10.800 --> 01:11:27.600
level. >> So, quick question. >> Mention that the concrete block foundation and everything had been completed already. So, we would have been busting walls out. All the concrete, the block, the parch coat, all of that would have had to been renovated or destroyed.

255
01:11:27.600 --> 01:11:43.280
So there is there an interior stair from the garage to the first floor? >> Uh there is an open stair. Yes. >> Well then you can't just put a door at the side to enter the garage and go up the steps on the interior. >> No. What would happen is you would have

256
01:11:43.280 --> 01:11:59.760
to but basically now you're knocking on the garage door, >> right? >> To get into the into the home. >> Is there room to put a door to the left or right side of the garage door? That's what that's a concrete block covered in large coating bar everything else.

257
01:11:59.760 --> 01:12:16.640
That's a that's a major operation and that's the foundation of the home. >> Yeah, that was my question. So, you could put a door in the side wall and enter the garage from a regular door and then use the stairs to go up inside the house. Correct.

258
01:12:16.640 --> 01:12:33.040
>> Well, he's saying it's cinder block. >> It's cinder block. You're not going to you're not going to that it's only about 4T what's left from the garage to the corner. It's about 4T. Um I don't think structurally I'd want to do that in my professional opinion. >> Yeah. So I'm not talking about the

259
01:12:33.040 --> 01:12:46.239
front. I'm talking about putting the door on the side to go into the house. >> Yeah. No, the side of the house. I mean, we have a whole wall down the side and they, you know, >> well, down the uh ocean side, which would be the east side, um is all of the

260
01:12:46.239 --> 01:13:05.360
waste uh all waste and water. >> West side um we have all of our electric, our panels, our gas lines. Uh everything is located on that side. Just, you know, we did talk about doing

261
01:13:05.360 --> 01:13:21.600
that front entry. Just the garage opening is there. It's a very large garage door opening. Also, >> could you change the garage door? >> We could >> and make it a onecar garage and then make an opening. >> You could. >> Once again, it's not a traditional foyer

262
01:13:21.600 --> 01:13:38.000
at that point though. Way we're talking. It's going to be something. >> The house isn't traditional. So, >> yeah, >> we're trying to find a way to make it work and it's not easy. >> No, it's not. I'd like to say something about that third floor space as well, but but >> Sure. So that third, by the way, I took

263
01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:53.840
over this project. Um, after all the framing inspections were done, which all the mechanicals were installed, passed, um, you know, we rough electric, fire, plumbing, all that was already done. Um,

264
01:13:53.840 --> 01:14:11.040
and we came in and I verified that the foundation location was approved. So there was no reason to think that there were any problems. I did notice that that roof had been cut off and that was that was alarming and I asked what happened and they said and I knew they

265
01:14:11.040 --> 01:14:26.640
took a gable and they flattened it. Um but we were told that that was remedied. >> So that height problem was already taken care of and that's why the roof was flattened. >> Who told you then? >> Uh the hotels because that's what they were told. >> That's what they were told.

266
01:14:26.640 --> 01:14:42.480
>> That's by the by the previous builder. Um, and where it was flattened to was exactly to the top of that door that goes into that attic space. It was flattened right to the top of a just a standard 68 door. Um, and then obviously

267
01:14:42.480 --> 01:14:59.520
that slider right there, it's right to the top of that slider. You've got a you've got some framing, some headers, and you've got door. Um, that attic space is not habitable. It's not insulated. There's no electric. There's no heat or air in there. Um it's it's uh

268
01:14:59.520 --> 01:15:17.280
in fact you can see the baffles from the sopet because there's no insulation. There's just >> Yeah. But all that can be added. I mean >> we have our we have our our second zone is up there. Our an air air handler and all the duck work that feeds that second floor below it is housed up there. Um so

269
01:15:17.280 --> 01:15:32.159
really there's no other place to put that uh that HAC. To tear that roof system off, you're exposing a finished home. completely finished home. I mean, we're ready for final building. We've passed all our inspections. Um, you'd have to tear the whole lid off of that

270
01:15:32.159 --> 01:15:47.280
house and expose it. There'd be no way to get to that attic. You can't put a front a set of stairs on the front deck because the deck is too small. There's two sliders and then there's just a middle. There's no place to actually put a set of stairs. Um, you know, you block

271
01:15:47.280 --> 01:16:02.960
a you'd be blocking a slider, you'd be blocking a window. Aesthetically, that wouldn't look good. Also, those decks are not engineered to handle a set of stairs. We'd have to re-engineer and redesign the decks below it to just handle the set of stairs. Um, also it's

272
01:16:02.960 --> 01:16:20.320
a a finished set of oak stairs going from that second floor to that third floor attic. Um, and finished walls. Um, the door is sealed. I put a fire door in. It's a sealed door. It's a gasketed door. Um, not necessary, but I did it anyway. Um,

273
01:16:20.320 --> 01:16:37.120
and really it's just too small to be a habitable space. It really really wasn't meant to. That habitable space on there was written by the architect builder. Uh, the Patel didn't want that. They didn't ask for it. It was just what the builder put on there. And that was one thing I noticed right off the bat. I

274
01:16:37.120 --> 01:16:53.199
said, "That's not habitable. You you can't have that." Um, so that really was never intended to be habitable. Um, that's I mean that's about all and really the only reason anything all the the problems that we found out it only

275
01:16:53.199 --> 01:17:09.040
happened after the asbuilt and you can't get an asbuilt until you're like 80 to 90% into the build of a home. >> Well, when you took it over, didn't you wonder where the front steps or how you were going to get in the house? >> I I did. I said, "Guys, we're knocking on your garage door to get in the house." >> Right.

276
01:17:09.040 --> 01:17:24.239
>> Yeah. uh the steps. And the problem was is they were they're not builders. They don't know this. And they basically the the old builder, the architect said, "Oh, yeah. Yeah. You're going to go this is your front door." And if you look at the home at the at the elevation, you'll see there's a double French door on the

277
01:17:24.239 --> 01:17:40.400
second Well, it's the first level technically. You'll see it on the uh southeast corner. That's a front door, >> right? >> Um and they said, "Oh, yes, you're going to have deck. You're going to have a deck." I got there and I said, "Their steps aren't on the plans. you're not approved for stairs. So, they knew that

278
01:17:40.400 --> 01:17:57.520
they weren't going to get stairs at that point. The builder had lied to them. The architect, same person, lied to them. Um, >> so the builder came in through the garage going up to build the house the whole time. >> The entire time on temporary electric

279
01:17:57.520 --> 01:18:13.440
uh from a generator the entire time. Um, there's a lot of things I could go I mean, I had and Viv knows this you know as well. I had everything reinspected. I had all the rough framing reinspected, all the mechanicals reinspected. Everything had

280
01:18:13.440 --> 01:18:29.199
to be reinspected because of the previous builder. Um, I've been in business for 34 years on Long Beach Island. Most know me. I want, you know, I run a very good business. Um, uh, I'm a licensed builder, uh, New Jersey home builder as well. You know, have my HAC

281
01:18:29.199 --> 01:18:45.840
license, bonded, insured, all that. But, uh, we really didn't know we had these issues until the ASB bill came out. There's just no way of telling that. I'm not a land surveyor. The foundation location was good. Um I saw I was told that that roof was cut off and I said,

282
01:18:45.840 --> 01:19:02.719
"Okay, so we're okay there." Um the back steps were already installed. They were framed by the previous builder, so no one questioned that. Um the Patels have been through a lot from that builder. That builder really took advantage of them. uh they had no idea they were

283
01:19:02.719 --> 01:19:18.400
being t and they were sh is a friend of my sons who works with my company and said hey this builder's taking advantage of you need us to step in and stop all this. So really we got to see what was going on there and

284
01:19:18.400 --> 01:19:34.480
unfortunately it was just this it was absolutely terrible what this gentleman was doing. Uh he basically got escorted off the island by by and and V knows when I walked in the file was on the counter and it's it was like everybody in town knew that this building was a

285
01:19:34.480 --> 01:19:50.320
nightmare and taking it over was a nightmare. >> Um but we did our best to make it look as good. We cleaned up the yard and you know did our best to make sure that everything looked you know beach haven worthy. >> That was the goal. Um >> thank you. >> The Patels had no no idea though. They

286
01:19:50.320 --> 01:20:06.719
really didn't know what was going on. And as far as height, there's no way to tell that until you get a land surveyor involved to do what to do the aspill. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> One other question for you. >> Sure. >> If I may, Gary, um what what mechanical

287
01:20:06.719 --> 01:20:23.120
equipment is up in that attic now? >> We have our air handler. >> Okay. >> Um >> is that on the floor or is that >> It is. It's on a floor on a pan. Styrofoam blocks. Um the primary trunk line travels north to south uh going primarily the air handler is in the

288
01:20:23.120 --> 01:20:39.520
northeast corner and it travels all the way to the um southeast corner. Okay. And all the trunk lines drop into the the second floor living area. Um like I said, but there's no heater air up there. Um there's no duct work for that. Um there's no electric outlets or

289
01:20:39.520 --> 01:20:56.400
anything like that. Uh and it is not insulated or sheetrock. >> The just the air handlers up there. just the air handler. >> And how how high is that off the floor? >> The air handler, it's uh it's up against the rafters and it's probably about 12 10 to 12 inches. >> But the height of it, how does it go

290
01:20:56.400 --> 01:21:11.440
from the floor? >> From the floor, it's probably 3 and a half four feet. >> Okay. >> So my my question is the limitation in moving the seal the height of the roof down is not the air

291
01:21:11.440 --> 01:21:28.159
handler. You can move that down. The limitation is you can't move it down and have a door to go up onto the rooftop deck. >> Correct. >> So you could keep your attic mechanical equipment air handler and still maintain the height. It's just you'll lose access to the rooftop deck

292
01:21:28.159 --> 01:21:44.400
>> which Yes. Which is within height within the proper height. >> You can't get up there. >> It's got rails on it. It's fiberglass. >> Got it. Okay. >> Rick Rick, I have a question also. Do you agree with the feasibility of moving

293
01:21:44.400 --> 01:21:59.440
that door down and getting rid of the sliding door? And then your steps would be exterior from the roof deck down to the floor below. The way he had described it person stepping forward. I'm sorry. So I can get your answer.

294
01:21:59.440 --> 01:22:13.840
>> I'm sorry. There's no way to actually put on exterior stair system to access that roof deck or that attic space. It has to be an internal set of steps to get to that attic. to get to the attic. What about to get

295
01:22:13.840 --> 01:22:30.080
up to the roof deck itself? >> There's no place you could put a set of stairs to get to that roof deck. The front deck, the only the only place would be the front second story deck. Um, but that's that deck's not very wide. Um, unfortunately, I don't

296
01:22:30.080 --> 01:22:45.920
remember the depth of that deck, but um, that deck isn't engineered to hold those stairs. There's no place to put the stairs. You'd have to come out of it. You'd have to walk through a bedroom to access that deck to get onto a set of stairs to get you to the roof deck.

297
01:22:45.920 --> 01:23:00.960
If that answers the question. >> So, so basically have a set of stairs going up to the attic and then there's a door from the attic to the roof deck. >> Correct. It's a slider. >> So, you couldn't get the stairs directly to the roof deck is what you're saying.

298
01:23:00.960 --> 01:23:25.360
>> No, no, no. It's it's the stairwell travels from the garage all the way to the attic. It's just one continuous stairwell. Frank, I have a quick question. First of all, this is a five bedroomedroom house, right? >> Good question. Is it I

299
01:23:25.360 --> 01:23:42.400
>> It's five. I counted on that. There's one on the M first floor and then there's four on the second floor. That's five, >> right? >> So, what's the parking? >> Three. >> Three. >> Yep. >> I don't say three. No, good question. But yeah, you need three

300
01:23:42.400 --> 01:23:57.840
parking spaces on site, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, we can't do the stairs >> and it's not a 50 by 100, >> right? >> You could probably get the extra space on the right hand side of the house once you pull into the driveway. >> So, I'm sure you can get

301
01:23:57.840 --> 01:24:23.199
>> if the stairs are going there. >> Well, that's true. So, I mean, at this point, even without the stairs going in, we're over lot coverage. We're over building coverage. So, something's got to give. >> All right. Uh, if nobody else has a

302
01:24:23.199 --> 01:24:39.760
question, can I take the questions from Zoom? >> As long as as long as everybody understands, these are questions to one of the applicants witness. Yes. >> Okay. >> I have Pamela. Pamela on Zoom. If you have a question for one of the witnesses.

303
01:24:39.760 --> 01:24:55.520
>> I actually don't have a question. Can I just read something that I wrote? >> No. >> No, not yet. >> No, not yet. >> It'll be open to the public and at that time, ma'am, you can definitely read your your comments. >> Um Jim Shoemaker, do you have a question

304
01:24:55.520 --> 01:25:12.560
for one of the applicants? >> Witnesses? >> Yes. witnesses. Sorry. >> Yes. I have a a couple for the builder um who just spoke. Um first of all, a foundation lo >> Can you hear me?

305
01:25:12.560 --> 01:25:29.120
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. A foundation location survey has to be done before rough framing is inspected. that roof had >> and it was and the roof had to be framed at above height and the foundation

306
01:25:29.120 --> 01:25:45.600
location survey also includes height and setbacks. >> So it should have been caught then that so he's I'm wondering why he's saying that it he got rough framing done.

307
01:25:45.600 --> 01:26:01.840
That's first question. >> I didn't get rough framing done. The previous builder did. Okay. The engineer that did the foundation location survey on the foundation location survey should state whether or not it's height compliant and

308
01:26:01.840 --> 01:26:17.520
setback compliant. >> It didn't. >> Okay. So now two comments that the builder made was he said the stairs to the rooftop are not structurally compliant to the rooftop. How can that

309
01:26:17.520 --> 01:26:33.360
be if they're not structurally? >> I'm sorry that I think that was the proposed we were talking about putting a set of stairs on the front of the home. That's not the internal stairs. The internal stairs are fine. >> Okay. So then going to the external

310
01:26:33.360 --> 01:26:51.600
stairs, you said the the deck cannot support a staircase. I don't know about any I built houses and built a lot of decks. I don't know if Frank Little can com uh can comment how you can build the deck that is not

311
01:26:51.600 --> 01:27:06.560
com structurally sufficient to carry a set of steps >> because where the last where the last set of step where the last step would land on that deck would be in the middle of the deck. This deck has uh posts on

312
01:27:06.560 --> 01:27:24.239
the uh outermost corners left and right. Um where the stairs would have to start and where that weight of those stairs would be would be the middle of the deck. >> So all you have to do is >> double up joist and shorten the joist band. >> You can make anything structural. It's

313
01:27:24.239 --> 01:27:40.719
just a question of you're saying that it's not structural. It's an that's an easy enough fix. And then I have one more question for you >> and that is you said the downstairs floods and you don't want to put a door in. But you also said it's conditioned

314
01:27:40.719 --> 01:27:57.280
space meaning that it's heat and air. If it's conditioned space then that's what I heard. Am I wrong? >> No. I said if we did a foyer down there it would be a conditioned space. If I had to build a foyer, a proper foyer, if we put a front door in the front of the

315
01:27:57.280 --> 01:28:13.040
house, you have to have a foyer. That foyer would have to be a conditioned space. I didn't say it is. Right now, it's a garage. >> Okay. If if you do build a foyer and it's becomes conditioned space, then at that point that adds square footage to the house. >> And then >> correct.

316
01:28:13.040 --> 01:28:30.080
>> That's true. Correct. >> Correct. Back back to the deck though, I just want to make a point if I can just I just want to step in on that. Uh Beach Haven Code says you can't have habitable space below the uh base floor elevation. So no matter what you do,

317
01:28:30.080 --> 01:28:52.560
>> it won't be habitable space. >> Regardless, even if you put steps on the front, you're not going to have a foyer. Correct. I mean, per the plans, if you put steps up to the front deck, you'd be entering into the sitting area or living area. Correct. >> Uh, yes, it's the living area. >> So, as of now, you're not going to have a formal foyer for the front for the

318
01:28:52.560 --> 01:29:07.760
front steps going up, right? >> Correct. And then as far as the ground floor of the plans, it shows that the ground floor in the front area side west side is garage space. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. So your testimony is on neither either the east wall nor the west wall in that garage area there's

319
01:29:07.760 --> 01:29:23.440
enough open floor space to put a door. Is that correct? >> Uh no. >> Okay. >> Left or right of the existing garage. >> So if you went to the the east wall or west wall at some point in that garage area, there's enough to install a door on either of those walls. Correct. Um,

320
01:29:23.440 --> 01:29:39.679
not in the front because west is east or west. Either east side or >> Well, this is I'm saying front, east or west. So, if you walk around the east or the west, you're kind of in the front of the home. Probably the first half of the home, you're going to run into gas pipes, waste pipes, water. Um, our our

321
01:29:39.679 --> 01:29:58.639
panel is on the west side as well. Question is, anywhere on the east wall in that garage area, is there room to put a door? I I'd just like to make a point about the stairs again up top. In order to support those stairs, yes, you can add a post. That post would end up in the

322
01:29:58.639 --> 01:30:15.920
middle and transfer it down. You've got second floor deck, first floor deck. It's going to end up in the middle of the garage door. So, we can't really support those decks anymore. Put another set of stairs to get to that roof deck. Plus, those stairs would intrude on the v the view. Sliders, windows. You'd have

323
01:30:15.920 --> 01:30:30.560
a set of stairs right in front of a slider. >> Okay, >> this one one thing to clarify. This is Rick again. I'm not talking about adding another set of stairs. >> Your stairs exactly like you show them on the plans now. Right. You get to a flat part. Your sliding door is right

324
01:30:30.560 --> 01:30:47.760
there. Correct. To get to the roof deck. What I'm talking about is those existing stairs would now become exterior stairs and you'd have a small area. Getting to access to the roof deck would be part of the roof deck. It goes down the stairs down below. You'd need scuppers and

325
01:30:47.760 --> 01:31:03.520
everything and an exterior door, but leaving the stairs exactly where we are. >> Once again, we're ripping the lid off of a finished home. It's an extensive renovation. >> Extensive. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. >> Yes.

326
01:31:03.520 --> 01:31:19.280
>> Plus, we have find some place to put our air handler. Well, >> if we went to that to that that route, >> but if you lowered your roof to the height of the roof deck rail and your air handlers are a foot high, it seems like you got plenty of room in what's

327
01:31:19.280 --> 01:31:34.639
left of your attic for your air handling equipment. Now, >> but the way you're saying it, it sounds like I have to have an exterior stairs to get to my attic for where my air handler is. >> Yes, you'd have to walk up a small portion of exterior stair, then you'd have a door to get into the attic,

328
01:31:34.639 --> 01:32:02.560
>> and it would be a trap door, I assume. A small correct an access door. Correct. >> Okay. Um Pamela on Zoom if you have a question for one of the witnesses. >> I do not. I actually just want to have I

329
01:32:02.560 --> 01:32:19.440
just have some comments I'd like to make. No, that's for open public comment. We haven't had that. >> She didn't take her hand down. That's That's >> I'm gonna lower your hand, Pamela, so that you can re raise it when it's time for public comment. Okay. Jim Lambert, if do you have a question

330
01:32:19.440 --> 01:32:39.040
for one of the witnesses? >> Yes, I do. Just one question. How did this house get designed and constructed without pilings? Mr. Tvak, you have a witness who can answer that question.

331
01:32:39.040 --> 01:32:54.480
>> No, he's not here. >> How did the house get >> Now, I heard the question. The witness is not here. The architect builder who got fired is not here. Um, but it got approved without without pilings. I mean, it was inspected. The foundation I

332
01:32:54.480 --> 01:33:14.000
don't know. >> Don't know. There was some testimony, this is Jerry, before that u the permit that was applied for was a piling permit, >> right? That's what it says on this. >> Yeah.

333
01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:28.639
>> Yeah. >> FP24-024 is a piling permit. >> Does V have something to say? >> That was all I was going to say was that P24040 is a piling permit. So at the time that

334
01:33:28.639 --> 01:33:44.719
this application was taken out and the original plans that were submitted that were denied for the first round a apparently had a a piling plan was paid for or pilings were paid for.

335
01:33:44.719 --> 01:34:07.679
>> The plan that we have that shown as approved for construction does not show pilings. Yeah, you don't have >> again I'm the zoning department. I can't speak about construction plans. >> No, understood. I'm just saying that that that's what I submitted. The first

336
01:34:07.679 --> 01:34:24.639
page is stamped and it matches the um >> um >> I don't know that that's necessarily the first set of plans because the first application was denied. >> Yeah, I'm looking at the construction plans that are are uh approved.

337
01:34:24.639 --> 01:34:40.639
Um, I'm asking anybody in the audience, would you like to come up and ask a question? Please come forward. Say your name. >> Christophal. >> Could you say that again, sir, and spell it for us? >> Christopher. P A U L I L L O. >> Thank you.

338
01:34:40.639 --> 01:34:57.120
>> The question is, I just want to verify. You said you do intend to uh move the house. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can you please speak into the microphone? You have to record this. >> Okay. you you said you are you do intend to live you know reside in

339
01:34:57.120 --> 01:35:12.880
>> um residence the question I have is uh I live across the street and um I was under my understanding that it was listed it was listed with a realtor in fact I have a listing right here I don't know this could be an AI hallucination

340
01:35:12.880 --> 01:35:31.040
but it's it shows all the the property uh as well as the you know the the attic And um I it doesn't I have the name of it uh the name of um the website but someone sent it to me and another person had said that you had it uh that you

341
01:35:31.040 --> 01:35:46.080
were listing it. >> No, we never listed. >> Okay. So, all right. I'll let you see this just because if this is if this is inaccurate about listing, but we never list it. >> Okay. >> Listing it for what?

342
01:35:46.080 --> 01:36:02.159
Sale or rent? >> For sale. Okay. So, this is >> and it has never happened. >> Thank you. >> Is anyone else

343
01:36:02.159 --> 01:36:28.000
please come forward? Only a question. >> My name is Betsy Schultry. >> Okay. Can you please spell your last name for my reference? >> S H A L T R Y. >> Thank you. >> Having been through this process myself,

344
01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:43.600
my first simple question is, was this a renovation or was this a total rebuild and knockdown? >> The brand new house. >> Okay. Therefore, it was subject to COA fees and sidewalks and everything else like beach hay. Correct. >> Uh certainly sidewalks. Yes.

345
01:36:43.600 --> 01:36:59.679
>> Okay. Number two, if the pylons were in the permit to be required, I'm assuming then that the foundation sounds like it was used the way it was and the pylons were never put in and therefore houses built without

346
01:36:59.679 --> 01:37:15.520
pylons that are supposed to have pylons for new construction. Correct. >> My understanding. And for the third floor space, you guys are not the monitoring body that monitors what it's used for, but let's face it, we all know people that have

347
01:37:15.520 --> 01:37:32.800
changed what they have to accommodate what else they want after the fact who monitors that on a yearly basis, one time >> the zone the zoning officer and code enforcement does. As I explained earlier, it's been testified to by the applicant. That would be a condition of

348
01:37:32.800 --> 01:37:48.000
approval. If the board were to approve it and it turned out to be otherwise, the applicant will be cited by the zoning officer or code enforcement official of the burrow. That's the way it works. Folks, please remember that's really not a question either. I get it. Okay, you're not a lawyer. The purpose

349
01:37:48.000 --> 01:38:03.440
of the question of the applicant's witnesses is, for lack of a better word, to cross-examine. If you have a question of if you want to come up and comment about the application, th this will be open to the public at that time. question. >> Okay. But this is not a board of

350
01:38:03.440 --> 01:38:19.600
enforcement. This is the land use board. We're tasked with hearing the evidence and testimony, neither granting the variance is being sought or denying them. We don't enforce after the resolution is adopted, assuming it's a resolution of approval.

351
01:38:19.600 --> 01:38:35.440
That's done by other departments in the bureau. Any more questions? Anybody else want to come up? ask a question of the applicant. >> Mr. Tbec, you have further testimony that get into the varian testimony.

352
01:38:35.440 --> 01:39:00.400
>> I know the >> All right. Um, >> you ready to go into the that testimony or back? >> I am. >> All righty. Jim, you're a licensed planner. So F, floor area ratio, that's a type of a D

353
01:39:00.400 --> 01:39:15.760
variance, correct? >> Yes, it is. >> The legal the legal standard for an F variance is whether the lot is still suitable for the use notwithstanding the deviation from the F. Is that correct? >> That's that's correct.

354
01:39:15.760 --> 01:39:31.760
>> All right. So in your opinion, notwithstanding the deviation from the F, is the property still suitable for that square footage? does can it accommodate that square footage? >> Yes, the the property can accommodate that that square footage. Um the the the

355
01:39:31.760 --> 01:39:47.440
structure meets the setbacks uh but for the half a foot to the rear to the stairs. Um there's adequate room for parking uh for a single family house on the property. Um and the the property is zoned for a single family house. So, um,

356
01:39:47.440 --> 01:40:02.639
>> so, so there's nothing about the extra square footage, internal square footage that would make that property, um, or this building unsuitable from a zoning perspective. Is that your testimony? >> Yeah. Yes, it is. Um, and furthermore, the the structure immediately to the

357
01:40:02.639 --> 01:40:17.520
east of our property, it appears to have been recently uh raised and renovated. Um, and it appears to be similar in size uh to our building. So I don't think that this building is looks out of character for the neighborhood uh

358
01:40:17.520 --> 01:40:33.679
especially when compared to the building immediately to the east. >> So just focusing on the F variance if the board were to grant that variance would there be a substantial detriment to the zone plant? >> Uh no there wouldn't.

359
01:40:33.679 --> 01:40:49.360
>> Why is that? >> Um because the >> is it because the parking remains adequate? >> Because parking remains adequate. the uh I believe the idea the floor area ratio um was also to make sure that we have some architectural features in the

360
01:40:49.360 --> 01:41:04.480
exterior of the house not just build a a big box. Uh this building has some nice architectural uh features in that uh the first six feet of the building is twotory deck uh and then the next um 13t

361
01:41:04.480 --> 01:41:21.840
of building is twotory with a uh a a roof deck on top of it. And then by the time we get then to uh um about 19 20 feet back from the the front of the deck is where the the uh building uh projects up to the peak.

362
01:41:21.840 --> 01:41:37.760
>> Does the design of the house with the rooftop deck being lower than permitted the height does that reduce the impact of the extra square footage in terms of visual mass? >> Yes. Do you think um so that so for th those reasons you believe that the zone plan

363
01:41:37.760 --> 01:41:52.800
is not hurt if the board were to grant that F variance? >> Correct. >> And in terms of the whether or not the granted a variance would have a substantial detriment to the public good. Do you see any detriment to the public good if that variance were granted? >> No. >> Why? >> Again, we we're providing adequate

364
01:41:52.800 --> 01:42:07.040
parking. Uh it's a single family house in a single in a single family neighborhood. Um it it fits in with the the neighborhood scheme. Uh so I I don't see any any detriment to the neighborhood >> from that variance. >> From that variance.

365
01:42:07.040 --> 01:42:24.080
>> Okay. Now let's talk about the um the variances for coverage. Um it's outside the coverage but um the house is built per the plans, right? Do you think Right. So is this a

366
01:42:24.080 --> 01:42:40.880
C1 variance, a C2 variance? How how do you view it? Um well the the uh I see it as a C1 variance in that the the property is uh under size it uh 4,000 square foot is the minimum uh requirement in the zone. This

367
01:42:40.880 --> 01:42:57.600
property is 2840 ft. Um if we had the the the width of the property uh is 40 foot which is matches what's required in the zone. However, the depth is 71 feet. If we had a 100 foot of depth and we had that 4,000 square feet, uh, this

368
01:42:57.600 --> 01:43:12.800
property would comply with the lot coverage and the floor area. >> Could even be bigger. >> It could even be bigger. Uh, we're providing the adequate front yard setback. The width of the property um is is adequate. So, from the street, we

369
01:43:12.800 --> 01:43:29.119
can't you can't tell that we don't have the 100 foot of depth. Um, so from the street, uh, this house does not look um overly large. Is the purpose of a coverage ratio is that what is that the purpose of the coverage ratio

370
01:43:29.119 --> 01:43:45.280
to >> uh light air open space? >> So do you think that because we meet the side door stepbacks putting aside the proposed front de uh front steps um and we have a lower uh height in the front with the rooftop deck. Do you think that the those objectives are accomplished

371
01:43:45.280 --> 01:44:00.239
notwithstanding the deviation from the um coverage? >> Yes. So could you argue then that from a design standpoint this is a a better design than what could be permitted and does that help justify the coverage

372
01:44:00.239 --> 01:44:15.280
variance in terms of massing? >> Uh certainly uh the this design again the the the step back design I think is adds some aesthetic quality to the to the structure. Um,

373
01:44:15.280 --> 01:44:33.199
>> so, so the coverage uh variance is not does it appear to someone in the neighborhood on the street that this house is too big for the lot? >> I don't believe I mean I can't speak to everybody but um I don't believe it looks too big for the lot.

374
01:44:33.199 --> 01:44:50.400
>> Is that because of the specific design and fact it meets the front yard and sideyard setbacks? >> Well, this house is set back properly 15 ft. Most of the properties on uh Central Avenue in the neighborhood are not set back uh from the street. Um most of them

375
01:44:50.400 --> 01:45:06.960
are are within five feet of the front property line. Uh the the property immediately east is a lot closer to the street than our property and the property to the immediately to the west is a lot further back than our property. But other than that one to immediately

376
01:45:06.960 --> 01:45:23.520
west, all the other properties are are basically right on the the front property line. Uh because our property is pushed back a little bit, it just doesn't look as big because it's further off the road than the other uh properties along Central Avenue in that area. >> So from a design perspective, do you

377
01:45:23.520 --> 01:45:42.159
think the design of the house um lessens any um or or justifies the coverage variance in terms of massing? >> Yes. And does the size of the house create any problems that coverage with like excess runoff for example?

378
01:45:42.159 --> 01:45:58.159
>> No, because the uh we're under the impervious coverage maximum, >> right? So it's just the building coverage, right? >> Yeah. Impervious is permitted 60%, we're at 52.2%. >> So we're actually below impervious coverage. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That includes the parking spaces.

379
01:45:58.159 --> 01:46:14.159
>> All right. So you think under the C1 hardship variance because the the permit was issued for this size house which was not the fault of the applicant um and that the um design lends itself to reduce any impact of the massing that C2

380
01:46:14.159 --> 01:46:29.440
variance and C1 variance relief can be granted. >> Yes. >> And considering the negative I'm sorry to interrupt. Would you mind leaning forward a little bit some of our board? >> Yeah. And in terms of the negative criteria, um, do you see would there be

381
01:46:29.440 --> 01:46:46.480
a substantial detriment to the zone plan if the board were to grant the coverage variance? >> Uh, no. I I don't believe so. Uh, it's a single family house and a single family neighborhood compliant with uh the the setbacks uh but for the half a foot to

382
01:46:46.480 --> 01:47:02.480
the rear steps. >> Okay. And you think there would be any substantial detriment to the public good if the board were to grant the coverage variance? >> No, I don't. >> Okay. So, um, did we agree to reduce the size of the SLS by six inches in the

383
01:47:02.480 --> 01:47:18.159
back to eliminate that variance? >> I believe I heard you mention that earlier. Yes. >> Okay. So, we eliminate that variance. we can eliminate the front steps and and we can eliminate the front steps which would eliminate the front variance and the sideyard variance if that's the

384
01:47:18.159 --> 01:47:33.280
board's pleasure. Um and then let's just talk about height. We've talked about it before. So the height is um you you you calculated the percentage of the roof that is above the 35 ft, did you not? >> Yes. >> And what was that coverage calculation?

385
01:47:33.280 --> 01:47:49.440
>> It's it's uh 25%. So only 25% exceeds 35 ft and then that's by a foot and a half. >> Yeah. 25% of the entire building >> footprint of the building. >> The footprint of the building exceeds the uh the maximum permitted height. And

386
01:47:49.440 --> 01:48:05.280
given that the design of this house has a low rooftop deck, 8 ft below the height, does that help um uh change the perception of the height of the house in terms of for if if the house were built

387
01:48:05.280 --> 01:48:20.639
at 36 1/2 ft right at the setback line versus what more than 20 feet or 30 feet beyond the setback line? >> Yeah. The the the height the portion of the house that exceeds the height limit is to the rear of the property. Uh again, uh the the front of the structure

388
01:48:20.639 --> 01:48:37.840
is a six-foot two-story deck where the second deck is at the same level as the second floor. Uh the six foot from the face of the building is where the you got two floors of living with a roof deck on top. Uh so the the actual um

389
01:48:37.840 --> 01:48:55.520
portion of the building that exceeds the height is is uh set back about 34 feet from the front of the property. And to the naked eye, somebody standing on the street, is the increase in height for that 25% discernable? No.

390
01:48:55.520 --> 01:49:11.440
>> No. >> You can't tell. >> You can't tell. >> And um does the design of the h house uh compensate for the height increase in terms of reducing the massing of the house? You know, the front deck? >> Yes. >> The roof top deck?

391
01:49:11.440 --> 01:49:27.199
>> Yes. Um so you think from a design perspective that the design of the house um helps justify the height variance? >> Yes. >> In ter turning again to the negative criteria, do you see any detriment to the zoning plan that the board were to grant the height variance?

392
01:49:27.199 --> 01:49:44.080
>> Uh not for this house. No. >> Um and is that because it's just not discernible? >> Yes. Uh again, when compared to the existing house that was just recently raised to the to the east, which is closer to the street, our

393
01:49:44.080 --> 01:49:59.600
house is set back further from the street. Um you can't it's it's hard to tell that one house is taller than the other. Um the the way that it's it's stepped back three steps before we get to the to the height. Um it's not discernible. I don't see it as being a

394
01:49:59.600 --> 01:50:15.199
detriment. >> All right. So in terms of turning it now from the C2 criteria um in terms of superior design from the negative criteria is any detriment to the zone plan if the board would grant the height variance? >> No.

395
01:50:15.199 --> 01:50:32.159
>> And what about any substantial detriment to the public? Again, I don't I don't see any substantial detriment to the public if this the height were approved. Um for the for the same reasons I have

396
01:50:32.159 --> 01:50:47.440
stated. >> We're going to if it makes it easier remove the front steps from the application. That would eliminate the front setback and the sideyard setback. >> I'm sorry. Would you guys would you speak? >> No, I'm sorry. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, as I said, um if it makes it

397
01:50:47.440 --> 01:51:02.960
easier, we will remove from the application the uh variance requested for the proposed front steps which have not been built, which also uh would eliminate the sideyard variance. >> Great. Uh Gary has a question. >> Thank you, Gary. >> Um you testified that this meets the

398
01:51:02.960 --> 01:51:18.800
parking requirements, but I think Bonnie raised it and Frank confirmed we need three spaces. >> Yeah. If we if we eliminate the steps, we'll have three spots. >> You'll put the third space on the right side as Frank suggested. So, Mr. Pali, let's make sure we're clear. You're eliminating the sidey

399
01:51:18.800 --> 01:51:33.760
guard set back. >> Yes. >> Right. Because you know, no stairs. >> The front yard >> for the stairs. Correct. >> For the stairs, that's out. And the rear, >> we're going to cut back the stairs from 3 and 1/2 ft in width to three feet, which was shown on the plans. For some reason, they were built six inches too

400
01:51:33.760 --> 01:51:49.360
wide. >> And they're all agreed to as conditions of approval. >> We can go over them. I'm not sure. >> You think me? >> Yes. What what are those conditions? >> I mean that that's that's going to be all being >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Of course. >> You right. I just want to make sure so the board's clear. So now we're left

401
01:51:49.360 --> 01:52:07.440
with the floor area ratio variance. >> Well, we talked about that and and how we think the >> No, I understand the proofs, but that what's on the table is the floor area ratio variance, >> the building coverage that you discussed, >> the height. >> The height. What about the lot area?

402
01:52:07.440 --> 01:52:24.400
>> Well, that was a pre-existing condition. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Do you agree with that on the lot area? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And and also I have another question. >> Hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's I just want to make sure that we're on the same page as to what now relief is being

403
01:52:24.400 --> 01:52:38.719
sought. It's the floor air ratio, the building coverage, and the height. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And we offered if if the board uh deems it uh advisable to not use the the

404
01:52:38.719 --> 01:52:55.520
rooftop deck to eliminate that use. That was asked that was a suggestion. We agree to that. And of course we agreed that the third floor which really I guess is the fourth floor would would just be attic space,

405
01:52:55.520 --> 01:53:18.000
not occupiable, not habitable. Can I call? >> Yes. >> All right, babe. Just wanted to point out to mention that when the third parking space is marked on the

406
01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:34.080
um final asbuilt survey that will be included in the impervious coverage calculation. just nine, you know, one more 9 by8 parking space must be included in that calculation. >> Still be under.

407
01:53:34.080 --> 01:54:14.800
>> So we're under right now in impervious. So Jim, you're going to calculate, but that does Jim's going quick calculation here. >> It's not going to be 8%, but I'll I'll tell you what the number is. and a half. >> So, so 58 and a half% the impervious

408
01:54:14.800 --> 01:54:33.679
coverage goes up by adding the the parking space. So, we're still complying. 60% is permitted. That >> actually come in a little less than that. We're going to lose a little bit on the rear stair. >> Still regard either way, you're still

409
01:54:33.679 --> 01:54:52.639
under the 60% from 50 58.5. Yeah, close enough. >> Anything further, Mr. To? >> I think we're done. We're anxious to listen to comments and any uh suggestions by the board. Okay. >> We're open to um making this work.

410
01:54:52.639 --> 01:55:09.760
>> Okay. Uh, can I have a motion to open it to the public, please, for comment? >> Jerry, motion to open it to public. >> I'll second. All right. If there's anybody that would like to come up and comment on this application, please come up. Give your name, address,

411
01:55:09.760 --> 01:55:25.280
and your comments. >> Anyone in the in the room audience like to come up and make a comment. >> I just said that. >> Well, I mean, I've got people here. I want to give them a chance. >> Oh, that's why I said that. So, no one in person. So, now we'll go to Zoom.

412
01:55:25.280 --> 01:55:40.320
>> All right, Pamela, now you can make your comment >> right now. Hold on. Did you Can you hear me, ma'am? >> Can you hear me? >> I can. If you would state your name and address for the record, and then I will swear you in, please.

413
01:55:40.320 --> 01:55:56.960
>> Okay. Pamela Lamort, 437 Center Street in Beach Haven. >> Would you please spell your last name? >> L A Capital M O R T E. >> Thank you. Mr. Moore, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony give before this board will be

414
01:55:56.960 --> 01:56:12.639
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, initially, I just want to make my original comments and then I have a couple bullet points. I've lived next door to this property for the past 30 years. This house is the new one that's

415
01:56:12.639 --> 01:56:28.800
there, extremely large, blocks the whole side of our house. It appears obviously there were multiple violations when the plans um and the plans were initially submitted which brought us to this two-year later situation. Um my questions I guess revolved originally

416
01:56:28.800 --> 01:56:46.000
after listening how we got to this point and were there no approvals going on as the construction took place. So I do I don't understand how we got to this point after two years. Um when we called about information for our own house, we were advised that unless there was a

417
01:56:46.000 --> 01:57:01.520
severe hardship, which was very rare, variances couldn't be uh given for overbuilding and it wouldn't be granted. Um I don't necessarily understand how the builder and the owner rather did not realize that there were problems going

418
01:57:01.520 --> 01:57:18.639
along and that this was not addressed sooner than later. Um, some of the questions that I have, the attic has no heat, no electric, no whatever, but there's still space there, which means that in the summer if they rent, which he has done in the past, then they could

419
01:57:18.639 --> 01:57:35.520
use that for beds or whatever, uh, whatever is up there. Is he going to sell or live? Because I've heard the same story about the house already being listed for $3 million. If they don't have enough parking, but you're going to grant them a parking space now on the right, that's more coverage of the

420
01:57:35.520 --> 01:57:50.960
property. Um, when you say about who enforces violations, we'd have to then what? pay at our own expense if we know that there are people using the upstairs attace. Um so um the and also if the

421
01:57:50.960 --> 01:58:07.599
house gets sold now the next buyer what happens? Does he know he can't use upstairs? Does he know the rooftop deck is whatever? Maybe if it's illegal that downstairs where that uh where you enter that he could make that into something because it's not on pilings but it's

422
01:58:07.599 --> 01:58:22.400
rather a full lower level basement or whatever. Um the um the other thing with the lower four feet it's it's heated um it and it's got flooring so that could

423
01:58:22.400 --> 01:58:39.679
be used also. Um, I just feel I that um all of this took place. Somebody had to know about it. It didn't just happen out of the clear blue now. Two years later, all these these uh uh you know uh violations.

424
01:58:39.679 --> 01:58:56.080
We live next door. We're the people that will suffer as a result of this house being too close to ours, too high, too close to the street, too everything. We're the people that will suffer. the people that are uh next door to them. Um

425
01:58:56.080 --> 01:59:13.119
we had an issue all along with the stones that are in the front all over our property. There were supposed to be pavers in the front. I don't see pavers there now. I don't think they're putting pavers. The stones are back. I think just in general, I feel like this is not a hardship case. There should be some

426
01:59:13.119 --> 01:59:29.679
penalty. uh you know for people that um I don't want to say this but it sounds crazy but lack of knowledge about what's going on does not dismiss your responsibilities um that's all I have to say

427
01:59:29.679 --> 01:59:45.679
>> thank you >> can I address that comments >> yes >> so the house meets the setbacks it's not going to be closer to you meets the sideyard setback meets the front yard setback um the house was built per the approval plans. We didn't make it bigger

428
01:59:45.679 --> 01:59:59.679
during construction. It was built exactly what the the burrow approved. Um, should this have been caught sooner? Yeah. But I mean, it was built per plants. It was inspected. There was a foundation survey that showed the

429
01:59:59.679 --> 02:00:16.560
setbacks and the height. Um, I don't know what happened, but I I I don't know that it's fair to blame my client for that. And and by the way, the assumption and there's case law on this as your attorney has mentioned issues about enforcement or people who cheat on their

430
02:00:16.560 --> 02:00:33.119
approvals is not relevant for the board. You cannot consider that. There's a WAWWA case that um goes back many years where neighbors were objecting to a proposed WAWA to say, "Oh, kids are going to hang out there. There's going to be crime. There's going to be this." And of course, not not your job. That's a job for police for enforcement.

431
02:00:33.119 --> 02:00:49.040
Enforcement is not your job. And I would I would suggest and argue as a legal matter, you can't consider the fact that somebody might cheat. Also, whether they sell it, keep it, rent it, does not matter in a land use matter. And I would ask you to disregard all discussion about that in your deliberations as a

432
02:00:49.040 --> 02:01:05.280
legal matter. >> Thank you. >> Anthony Cerillo, I'm going to ask you to un um put on your camera, please. >> Um I don't have a a an external camera. >> All right.

433
02:01:05.280 --> 02:01:21.599
Mr. Cerillo, there's no way I can swear you in for the record and let you testify unless you put a camera on. >> Um, >> you do have a camera. >> Well, I said no external. I have to go to a third screen and a laptop. So, do

434
02:01:21.599 --> 02:01:38.480
you see me? >> Okay, now I do. Yes. Good. >> State your name and address for the record and then I'll swear you in. >> My name is Anthony Cerillo. Um 411 Dock Road. >> Do you can you raise your right hand

435
02:01:38.480 --> 02:01:55.280
again, 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. >> All right. Go ahead, Mr. Sella. >> Yes. Um I I wish to express express numerous concerns um regarding what

436
02:01:55.280 --> 02:02:11.520
appears to be or started out from an application perspective variance for ground coverage, setback, floor area, building height and a total of roughly six variance requests that appear to

437
02:02:11.520 --> 02:02:27.920
sort of use a a shotgun approach to the basis for such requests. And those bases are founded in New Jersey statutes and um section 40 subsection 55D. There are three particular statutes that were

438
02:02:27.920 --> 02:02:44.719
checked off um under this application, but there was no affiliation with those three versus the six uh variance requests. So there were all three boxes were checked, but they were not aligned with the six variance requests. So, I'll

439
02:02:44.719 --> 02:03:00.480
just touch on each of the three sections as they apply to this application. First is subsection 70C um part one and and here this is the hardship request and the hardship in

440
02:03:00.480 --> 02:03:17.520
this case must be rooted under this section in the physical nature of the land. And there is nothing exceptional or unique about this land shape, its location, its topography, its geology, or anything else. Fundamentally, the

441
02:03:17.520 --> 02:03:33.280
applicant is overbuilt on this lot. And I heard, I guess, um, professional testimony by the Horn Tyson Yodor that basically if the lot were bigger, you wouldn't have a lot of the exceedence issues. Well, I mean, that that stands

442
02:03:33.280 --> 02:03:50.639
to reason like, no kidding. I mean, who can argue with that? Yeah, but the lot isn't bigger and you do have the exceedences. So, all of the hardship, okay, in this case, is not rooted in the physical nature of the land. It's a self-created personal hardship. It's not

443
02:03:50.639 --> 02:04:07.840
landbased. So, you know, granting any kind of variance under subsection 70C1 is is inappropriate. Furthermore, a substantial detriment to the public good would be caused given the crowding, block views, block sunlight, and some of

444
02:04:07.840 --> 02:04:24.719
those were expressed by apparently uh another neighbor who was sort of sort of lived through the construction. Under 70C2, the board must find that the purpose of zoning would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinances and that the

445
02:04:24.719 --> 02:04:43.040
benefits of this deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. Well, the applicant's basins for variance hinge on basically two broad characterized errors. One architectural, one construction. So these are owner

446
02:04:43.040 --> 02:05:00.159
issues. They are not board issues and there's nothing that would be advanced with the land use board by saying hey your fix for failure to you know hire a competent architect or constructor andor

447
02:05:00.159 --> 02:05:15.840
in this case you say they're one and the same. You have legal recourse to sue them and get them to fix these problems. But changing, you know, the rules for things like setback, floor area, building height, ground coverage ratios to satisfy what amounts to an

448
02:05:15.840 --> 02:05:31.440
incompetently hired and incompetently executed project is not really a matter for the land use board. And you know, we we've gone through a whole series of testimonies that pretty much characterize what I've just said. and

449
02:05:31.440 --> 02:05:46.639
and in particular the over overbuilding is is particularly concerning because not only do you construct in violation of the code but whether you have a flaw design as to setbacks building height or building coverage or whether it was

450
02:05:46.639 --> 02:06:02.239
willful whether it was intentional whether it was negligent seeking a variance for these these are private matter errors these are contractual errors between the owner and their engineer constructor it's not a public benefit in any way, shape or form. And

451
02:06:02.239 --> 02:06:17.440
further, these these items represent code infractions by their very nature result in a larger home. Fundamentally, a larger home which advance the sole interest of the applicant. Okay. the sole interest of the app. There's no benefit here to the land use board or

452
02:06:17.440 --> 02:06:33.280
the community and and further granting these variances is a detriment to the neighboring properties and and granting them is essential essentially a a substantial detriment to the burrow in that it would set a very very bad and

453
02:06:33.280 --> 02:06:49.119
dangerous precedent enabling countless others to nefariously skirt the building code, hope to avoid detection. Okay. and if caught seek safe harbor after construction through the variance approval process on a prior case ruling

454
02:06:49.119 --> 02:07:04.880
such as this. So approving this would open up a Pandora's box for everybody and anybody who wanted to follow this model and said in instead of seeking variance approval at the outset, they're seeking permission for variance after

455
02:07:04.880 --> 02:07:20.960
the fact and then getting to you know section 70D which is a a fundamental use variance. As I understand it here, the board must find that the applicant has met two specific legal thresholds. One is a positive criteria such as special

456
02:07:20.960 --> 02:07:37.040
conditions and the second is a negative criteria meaning no substantial detriments. Okay, as opposed to special reasons. There's no particular lack of suitability to make this to approve this. This isn't an area that say for

457
02:07:37.040 --> 02:07:52.239
instance needs an urgent medical care facility and you need to change the zoning for it. This is a residential area. It's a house that was built out of spec to code and it's oversized. You can't use any economic inability

458
02:07:52.239 --> 02:08:08.560
hardship. Okay? Like, oh, I can't I can't rent it if I have a house that's too small or I can't get enough money for it if I build a house that's too small. So, it fails economic inutility hardship. And as far as failure to

459
02:08:08.560 --> 02:08:24.960
advance zoning purposes, I I fail to see how any granting of this would advance any zoning purpose whatsoever. In fact, it would open up a Pandora's box for everybody and anybody who wants to follow the same exact model and use as

460
02:08:24.960 --> 02:08:42.560
precedent for violating the building code. So, as far as I could see, under the applicant's three-sided statute references for seeking variance to this code, they have failed to provide any bonafideed merit basis nor benefit to the community and to the contrary, any

461
02:08:42.560 --> 02:09:00.320
purported help, you know, that the that you, the land use board, has attempted to give them trying to give them solutions for them to quote get this through. I'd say half of them seem to have been rebuffed and and that's disturbing in it of of itself. You know,

462
02:09:00.320 --> 02:09:16.880
the applicant's wos are pretty much a simple matter of negligence by their architect and/or constructor and they are self-created hardships and private contractual matter errors. They are not a public benefit. So the applicant's remedy lies with their architect and

463
02:09:16.880 --> 02:09:31.840
constructor and the variances sought not only degrade the integrity of our zoning laws but also if granted invite their future flagrant skirting and abuse and accordingly I urge the board to reject this application.

464
02:09:31.840 --> 02:09:52.239
>> Thank you Mr. Jim Lambert. >> Hello. >> Hello Jim. Uh, I'd like you to keep your comments to three minutes, please. We're running out of time and we have another application. Thank you, >> Mr. Lambert. I know you're familiar with the board and I've seen you before, but

465
02:09:52.239 --> 02:10:08.400
just for the record, please. And we know your name. State your address. >> 516 North Atlantic Avenue, Beach Haven. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Go ahead, Mr. Lambert. Uh, I I just want

466
02:10:08.400 --> 02:10:25.280
to say that the original plans for this house that were submitted for building permit had zero variance requests. And it sounds to me like somebody screwed this up so bad that now they need multiple variances, including a Dvariance for F. And there is no

467
02:10:25.280 --> 02:10:39.760
hardship on planet Earth that would support this request. There's plenty of good homebuilders in the Beach Haven area who know how to build according to plans, and I urge you to deny this monumental mistake and make

468
02:10:39.760 --> 02:10:59.280
them demolish whatever is necessary to adhere to the original plans. Approving this will set a terrible precedent for Beach Haven. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Theodora Lambert.

469
02:10:59.280 --> 02:11:17.760
Hi, >> Miss Lambert. Your uh name and address for the record, please. >> Theodora Paracus Lambert, 516 North Atlantic Avenue, Beach Haven. >> You swear affirm that testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

470
02:11:17.760 --> 02:11:34.880
>> I do. >> Go ahead, Miss Lambert. >> Yeah. Hi, everyone. I'd just like to remind you all um it was at least five years ago, maybe a little more, but some of you were on the board then. an elderly gentleman came before you. His wife was um elderly and um handicapped

471
02:11:34.880 --> 02:11:50.400
and he wanted to build an elevator up to his roof deck so that she could go out and watch the sunset in her elderly years. And he even agreed not to have lights up there, which might have been dangerous, but he did, you know, he

472
02:11:50.400 --> 02:12:06.000
wanted to be a good neighbor. The bleeding heart in me agreed he should have this. let his wife get to the roof to watch our beautiful sunrises and sunsets. But you as a board said, "No, height is non-negotiable. We are following the master plan. Nobody's

473
02:12:06.000 --> 02:12:26.159
going above our height ordinance. You did the right thing then and I'm sure you're going to do the right thing tonight and deny these variances." Thank you. >> Thank you. that it does. Anybody else on Zoom like to raise

474
02:12:26.159 --> 02:12:43.840
your hand and make a comment? Please do so now. >> I don't see any. All right, I'm going to close it to public comment. Can I have a motion to close? >> Motion to close. Jerry >> second. >> Second. Yeah.

475
02:12:43.840 --> 02:13:01.760
>> Thanks, >> Mr. Little. Do you have any comments on the application further than what we've already been over? Uh, I guess the only thing to uh the applicant can do at this point is cut the roof down, create attic space, eliminate the railings on the

476
02:13:01.760 --> 02:13:15.360
rooftop deck, so it's not a rooftop deck, but a fiberglass roof, and probably if you're going to not approve the floor ratio, which currently is within the footprint of the setbacks, you'd really have to open up some walls

477
02:13:15.360 --> 02:13:33.760
and create some additional open porches to the tune of 34 40 square ft, which is going to pretty much, for instance, the master bedroom on the second floor could be opened up as a full outside deck

478
02:13:33.760 --> 02:13:49.199
um to cut the interior space down so you don't have the floor ratio variance. It's going to be quite an undertaking rip this building apart. Or alternatively, if the variances aren't granted, alternatively, it may be that >> right,

479
02:13:49.199 --> 02:14:12.159
>> the whole structure has to be taken down >> possibly. >> But Mr. Any closing remarks? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. questions.

480
02:14:12.159 --> 02:14:36.360
>> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. We're going to take a short break. Five minutes. >> Still need >> We still need Frank. >> He's coming. >> Yeah. >> We have to wait for our engineer.

481
02:14:44.560 --> 02:15:23.320
came in. >> The air condition. >> Yeah, it was nice in here and all of a sudden came on. Nice view. I wonder if he got caught out in the >> That's not right.

482
02:15:25.440 --> 02:15:56.040
Poor realize that she loves the goes off the embarrassment of >> then picking Frank. >> Jimmy, can you check for him please? >> Very short.

483
02:16:03.199 --> 02:16:43.519
put everybody out of work. Yeah, >> that's doubt about it. It's like the jury duty office. >> We got to contribute. >> You say I don't know. Mr. I understand you like to make a

484
02:16:43.519 --> 02:16:59.120
short closing statement. >> Yes. >> So notwithstanding what one of the gentlemen said about us not meeting the statutory criteria for variance relief. I disagree. He um misqued the statute. He talked about inherently beneficial use. That's

485
02:16:59.120 --> 02:17:16.639
not what this is about. This an F variance on a D. F the standard is different than it is for a use variance. The F standard is whether the site still remains suitable for the use notwithstanding the um the variance request. Mr.

486
02:17:16.639 --> 02:17:32.479
Rosowski testified that the site still has adequate parking, still works, still meets the setbacks. Um so we believe the legal matter, the F variance can be granted. It will have no real impact. Uh

487
02:17:32.479 --> 02:17:47.840
the setbacks that as we said um are all compliant. We're going to make the one in the back which is off six inches on the steps comply. The coverage is over but again the coverage is designed to serve a purpose of preventing overdevelopment. Um this site does not look to be

488
02:17:47.840 --> 02:18:03.599
overdeveloped. Moreover, the impervious coverage is still slightly under at 58.8% 60s permitted. We don't think the site is overdeveloped at all. So we believe that the design of the house lends itself to the variance requests we had. It's a unique design with the

489
02:18:03.599 --> 02:18:18.319
stepbacks uh with the decks and then the roof I mean the the rooftop deck. So we think as a legal matter the board has a discretion to grant the variance relief in this case and we you have testimony

490
02:18:18.319 --> 02:18:34.319
that there's no substantial key is not um damage to the zone plan but substantial damage to the zone plan or substantial damage to the public good. We don't see either let alone substantial. So, I do uh believe that the board, notwithstanding how we got to

491
02:18:34.319 --> 02:18:49.840
this spot, and I agree, we all agree this house never should have got to this spot, but I don't think there's any blame on my client. He hired a licensed builder. Um, and the zoning officer made some mistakes in the calculations on the zoning form. But putting all that aside

492
02:18:49.840 --> 02:19:05.439
is notwithstanding that there are sufficient proofs for this board to grant the variance relief. I heard one gentleman say we we rejected half the suggestions. We agreed to limit the um the rooftop deck to eliminate

493
02:19:05.439 --> 02:19:22.719
that as a usable space. Uh the attic is not suitable for habitation. We're going to add the third parking space in the front. Um the only thing we had a problem with was kind of re-engineering those stairs, but if we're not going to use the deck and frankly that roof area,

494
02:19:22.719 --> 02:19:38.559
um you're not going to see a difference. The board though as a part of its deliberation could impose a condition about the stairs if it wanted to if it thought that would uh lessen the impact of advance relief. The board can do that as a condition. So having said all that

495
02:19:38.559 --> 02:19:54.880
I'll stop at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So given the length of this application and the nature of the six branches that were being sought and we're down to three and Mr. Talvia please stay with me and tell me if if make sure we're on the

496
02:19:54.880 --> 02:20:11.920
same page. Yes, sir. >> There are now three variances being sought. I'm going to identify them one at a time and we're going to vote on each one one at a time. First is the floor area ratio variance to permit

497
02:20:11.920 --> 02:20:29.600
a floor area ratio of 1740 square ft where 1420 ft is the maximum permitted. The standard is as follows. A successful applicant for a floor area ratio variance still has to demonstrate the

498
02:20:29.600 --> 02:20:45.920
positive and negative criteria that were referred to by Mr. Vzowski and now Mr. Tvakia and by the one member of the public. It's different though than a use variance. The standard for the flora area ratio variance is that the variance would not

499
02:20:45.920 --> 02:21:02.000
cause this is on the negative criteria substantial detriment to the public good and would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. With respect to the positive criteria however the applicant need only show that the site will accommodate the problems associated with

500
02:21:02.000 --> 02:21:18.080
the with the use which in this case again is a permitted use with larger floor area than permitted by the ordinance. Your decision should be based on the testimony and evidence you heard from the witnesses who testified.

501
02:21:18.080 --> 02:21:34.160
So the motion would be to grant or deny the floor area ratio variance first. >> The D variant. >> This is the D variance. So it's a motion to approve or deny. Five affirmative votes are needed

502
02:21:34.160 --> 02:21:51.200
to approve. So even if it were four to three, it would be what's called a statutory denial. So, somebody needs to make a motion. I'll say it now. I'll probably say it again. If it's a motion to deny and it's a second, please understand, if you vote yes in favor of a motion to deny, that means you're

503
02:21:51.200 --> 02:22:10.479
voting in favor of the denial, not an approval. I've had board members get that backwards. They vote yes and they said, "No, I wanted to approve it." But it's a motion to deny if it's a motion to deny. So, that's the first one. Have you made a motion or you want me to

504
02:22:10.479 --> 02:22:27.200
ask for >> Somebody needs to make a motion. I can't make it. I can only >> Can I have a motion concerning the devariance for the floor error ratio to approve or disapprove? >> Yes. >> A mo No. We need a motion to approve or

505
02:22:27.200 --> 02:22:42.560
deny. >> A motion to deny. >> Okay. So, hold on. Let's do this real quick. This is Mr. Jello to deny. Do >> I have a second? >> Second, Jerry. All right. So, we're going to uh vote

506
02:22:42.560 --> 02:22:59.680
for the denial. Mr. Jenna, >> again, a yes is means you're voting to deny in favor of the motion to deny. >> Yes. Motion to deny. >> Mrs. Leonard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lefredo. >> Yes.

507
02:22:59.680 --> 02:23:15.840
>> Mr. Tinquist. >> Yes. >> Mr. Winganger. >> Yes. Miss Parker, >> yes. >> And Mr. Aello, >> yes. >> Okay. So, we have a unanimous 7 to zero

508
02:23:15.840 --> 02:23:33.520
vote in favor of the motion to deny the D4 floor area ratio variance. Next is the height variance. Now, that's not a D variance. That's what's known as a C variance. We've heard testimony this evening with respect to a what's called

509
02:23:33.520 --> 02:23:50.560
a hardship variance and then also the flexible C2 variance. The standards are different but either one can be used to grant and the variance for the building height would be to permit 36.5 ft where 35 ft

510
02:23:50.560 --> 02:24:06.160
is the maximum permitted. The standard to grant a hardship variance is whether by reason of exceptional narrowness or shallowness of the shape of a specific piece of property, a reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical

511
02:24:06.160 --> 02:24:21.439
features uniquely affecting the property or by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or structure lawfully existing or on. Strict application of the zoning regulation would result in

512
02:24:21.439 --> 02:24:37.120
a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of the property. Undue hardship refers solely to the physical condition of the property, not personal hardship to its

513
02:24:37.120 --> 02:24:52.960
owner, financial or otherwise. The C1 variance depends upon a showing of hardship resulting from the circumstances of the specific piece of property itself. A C1 variance is not available to provide relief from a self-created hardship.

514
02:24:52.960 --> 02:25:09.280
A C2 variance which can also the other way to grant a bulk variance in this case for height can be granted where the applicant demonstrates that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced. The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the

515
02:25:09.280 --> 02:25:26.399
public good. The benefits of the variance outweigh the detriment and the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and ordinance. No C2 variance should be granted to benefit solely the property owner.

516
02:25:26.399 --> 02:25:42.960
Again, has to be benefit for purpose of or advanced. No substantial detriment. No substantial detriment. Mr. TC is right to the public good or his own plan. So that's the height variance. Again, it's

517
02:25:42.960 --> 02:26:00.040
a motion to approve or to deny, please. >> Gary, I'll make a motion to deny the height variance. >> Second, Rick Rick >> Winger. All right. Now, >> hold on. That's okay.

518
02:26:00.399 --> 02:26:15.040
>> And this is also a mot. This again, this is a motion to deny. So a vote in favor of the motion is to deny the height variance. America >> Mr. Jenna >> motion to deny. >> Yes or no? >> Yes.

519
02:26:15.040 --> 02:26:31.520
>> Mrs. Leonard. Yes. Mr. Lefredo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tingquist. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wanger. >> Yes. >> Miss Parker. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Aello? >> Yes. >> Okay. Again, that's a unanimous 7 to

520
02:26:31.520 --> 02:26:51.200
zero vote in favor of the motion to deny the height variance. Lastly is the building coverage variance. I can repeat it if you want me to. Again, this is the C1 hardship standard that applies or the C2. Either one can

521
02:26:51.200 --> 02:27:11.439
be used to grant the application for the building coverage variance, which is to permit 1,237 square ft where 994 square ft is the maximum permitted.

522
02:27:11.439 --> 02:27:35.920
So again, we like like the height, we would need a motion to approve or to deny the building coverage variance. I make a motion to deny. How >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Again, a motion, a yes vote is in

523
02:27:35.920 --> 02:27:52.640
favor of the motion to deny the building coverage variance. >> Mr. Jenna, >> yes. >> Mrs. Leonard, >> yes. Mr. Lefredo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tinquist, >> yes. >> Mr. Wanganger, >> yes. >> Miss Parker,

524
02:27:52.640 --> 02:28:40.280
>> yes. and Mr. Aello. >> Yes. >> Again, that's a seven and0 vote in favor of the motion to deny. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Take your time. >> Yeah. Now she got to bring us back into

525
02:28:43.600 --> 02:30:09.200
>> No. Well, I had people come from >> Mr. Mr. Give somebody a break. Okay. All right, Jamie, everybody here? >> 9:30.

526
02:30:09.200 --> 02:30:23.920
>> Um, moving along to our second application tonight. >> I'd like to notice that Mr. Jamie Balo has entered the meeting. >> Okay, that's fine. >> And we have Colleen and

527
02:30:23.920 --> 02:30:41.560
>> our second application is 2011 Street uh preliminary and final major subdivision approval and amended site plan approval. subdivision of a 27 thou 27,000q ft portion of the 353,775T

528
02:30:42.880 --> 02:30:59.600
property to create five lots to be developed. The single family detached residential buildings for the proposed lots will measure 50 by 100 and one will measure 70 by 100. Reduction in the total parking spaces

529
02:30:59.600 --> 02:31:18.080
from 160 to 138 exceeding the 86 spaces required for the restaurant boat slips and the ship stores and the replacement of the existing bath house with a mobile bath house facility.

530
02:31:18.080 --> 02:31:35.560
Plans will also show a total of 87 spaces available year round with upland boat storage in the remaining parking spaces and drive aisles. Okay,

531
02:31:36.560 --> 02:31:53.200
Mr. Coleman or Mr. I Mr. Patrono, you're both okay. Um before we begin, a couple of um housekeeping matters. Number one, this board, unlike a lot of boards, we start at 6, as everyone knows, not seven. Most boards start at 7. Don't

532
02:31:53.200 --> 02:32:08.640
take any testimony past 10. We started at 6:00. We will go to 9:30. We will not take testimony past 9:30. If we are in the middle of a witness's testimony, and it looks like we're going to finish up, we can finish up. But as everyone knows, we're there are all volunteers on this

533
02:32:08.640 --> 02:32:24.399
board. We've been going at it strong since six o'clock. If we finish, wonderful. If we don't finish, we'll have to come back. That's number one. Number two, um this is unlike a prior application, an application for subdivision and site plan approval. So,

534
02:32:24.399 --> 02:32:41.760
we will hear that as a planning board. With Miss Mason not being here tonight, the members that can vote will be Mayor Lambert, Miss Bow Miller, Mr. Jenna, Mr. Lefredo, Mr. Wanganger, Chair Leonard, Mr.

535
02:32:41.760 --> 02:32:57.040
Chinquis, Mr. Balo, and Miss Parker, Mr. Aello, and Mr. Lubis, you may participate, but you can't vote. We stopped counting at nine. Mr. Gandelle, my understanding is you have a conflict and therefore abstaining. Correct. >> Correct.

536
02:32:57.040 --> 02:33:14.560
>> Um, Mr. Coleman, in light of the revised plans that were submitted, your subsequent letter to Mr. little my response about parking. Um it seems to me that putting aside any any testimony because you and I both know as lawyers

537
02:33:14.560 --> 02:33:31.920
we don't present testimony. Um that you interpret the ordinance as far as parking goes one way perhaps Mr. Little another. The ordinance speaks for itself. Mhm. >> If you you need to make a decision, you can ask for an interpretation with

538
02:33:31.920 --> 02:33:48.960
respect to whether or not the parking requirements are seasonal. If you want to do that, that's well within your right. However, you would need to make that application, pay the appropriate fees, notice for it, and this board would have to reconstitute as a seven member zoning board because only zoning

539
02:33:48.960 --> 02:34:05.120
boards uh make decisions on applications for an interpretation. As you well know, you get a favorable interpretation which may may help your client with respect to the site plan and subdivision approval. We

540
02:34:05.120 --> 02:34:23.680
would proceed accordingly. In the event you don't do that though, this board, this planning board does not have the ability to make interpretations. And therefore, it is entirely possible um

541
02:34:23.680 --> 02:34:39.840
I I'll say it this way. This board is not going to be asked or tasked to interpret whether or not the ordinance from a parking standpoint has a seasonal requirement. The ordinance contains no such limitation and my instructions to this board are as

542
02:34:39.840 --> 02:34:56.160
such. I understand the position you put in your letter to Mr. Little. You received my response. The board has been provided copies of both those letters. So, I'm going to put it to you first whether or not you want to make the request for an interpretation from the

543
02:34:56.160 --> 02:35:11.439
zoning board with respect to the parking requirement. >> I I do not. >> Okay. That being said, just so we're all clear and so the board is clear, the parking requirement per the ordinance contains no limitation with respect to

544
02:35:11.439 --> 02:35:26.960
seasonality. In other words, the parking requirement is the parking requirement 12 months a year whether this board likes it or not because again this board doesn't adopt ordinances. The ordinance is written a certain way. There's no limiting language in the parking

545
02:35:26.960 --> 02:35:41.600
ordinance requirement. Mr. Coleman understands that he could ask the zoning board for an interpretation. Um that would not be unreasonable. Uh his position is understood for sure, but um the ordinance reads the way it does.

546
02:35:41.600 --> 02:35:59.200
Having foregone that right to ask for the interpretation, then I'm instructing the board that the parking requirements under our ordinance are 12 months a year. The only other housekeeping matter is,

547
02:35:59.200 --> 02:36:16.560
as we did with the first application, when each witness is done testifying, if there's a member from the public that wants to question, I'll use the word or cross-examine that witness, not make general comments, but has questions for the witness, please let us know. If

548
02:36:16.560 --> 02:36:32.160
you're in person, raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, raise your hand on Zoom. But that's for questions of the witness only, not general comments. There will be a a public comment period at the end of all the testimony.

549
02:36:32.160 --> 02:36:59.439
>> With those introductory remarks, Mr. Coleman, I will turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Russo. Um, as you know, um, this is a continuation of last month's hearing. At that time, um, the applicant provided

550
02:36:59.439 --> 02:37:15.760
testimony from, uh, its engineer, its traffic engineer, and Steve. >> Sorry, Mr. Coleman. I hate to ask, would you mind pulling the microphone closer to you guys? >> Closer. >> Yeah, perfect. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> That's better. Thank you. >> Um, and it's professional planner. Um,

551
02:37:15.760 --> 02:37:32.880
you also heard uh testimony from the deputy fire chief uh and interested members of the public including legal representative from the Morland and Tuna Club. In the interim, as you've all now received, um we submitted revised plans

552
02:37:32.880 --> 02:37:49.920
that Mr. Riso mentioned the revised plans. Um and you'll hear testimony this evening from our engineer, Mr. uh Stout. uh now includes access to the north end of the marina via Pennsylvania Avenue as well

553
02:37:49.920 --> 02:38:06.000
as a pressure tested hydrant uh to address the repeated concerns of the deputy fire chief. I also note um that there uh also note there there's been a note added with respect to the limited use of

554
02:38:06.000 --> 02:38:22.080
the boat storage facility. Also, a landscape buffer has been added between the rear of the homes and the marina so that the required buffer on each side and the rear of the residential lots is addressed. Um, you will hear and receive

555
02:38:22.080 --> 02:38:38.880
comments uh from Mr. Stout with respect to uh Mr. Little's fourth review letter dated April 23rd. Um, with that um, and in the interest of time, I'd like to get as much on as possible. Um, I'd like to

556
02:38:38.880 --> 02:38:57.359
call Bob Stout. Um, Bob, Bob, you may remember that you were sworn in at the last meeting and qualified. Um, Bob, if you could talk about the revised plans, >> Mr. Cohen, he was definitely qualified, but because I went through this one time

557
02:38:57.359 --> 02:39:13.120
before, let me just swear each witness in again so there can never be any argument from anybody that at the second hearing, somebody who testified wasn't sworn. >> I I I don't >> I agree with you, >> but I don't need to through his qualification accepted as an expert. It's the same one. >> Gotcha. >> Mr. Stout, good evening. Do you swear or

558
02:39:13.120 --> 02:39:28.560
affirm the testimony give the board this evening be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you, Mr. Coleman. >> Uh Bob Bob, um c can you identify for the board and I believe you have a new exhibit which was submitted uh to the board. I think this is a colored version

559
02:39:28.560 --> 02:39:45.840
which will be marked as A5. >> I believe that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. Uh Bob, could you identify the changes that were made to the plans from our April 6th testimony, your testimony? >> Sure. So, obviously the fire official had some concerns on access to the site

560
02:39:45.840 --> 02:40:00.880
from Third Street off of Pennsylvania. So, what we have done is reallocated the uh boat storage areas, offseason boat storage areas to allow a 20- foot drive aisle, which is a requirement for the fire official uh from Third Street

561
02:40:00.880 --> 02:40:17.520
directly in there with a curb cut moving towards the actual water area towards the bay. Actually has full access to both north and south and 20 foot along all the way around the entire area. Uh we've also installed one of the comments

562
02:40:17.520 --> 02:40:34.479
was we need fire suppression system on the north end so they don't have to drag the fire hoses. So as per the fire officials request we are going to install a fire hydrant at the very north corner of the marina before the turn so they have full access and this will be

563
02:40:34.479 --> 02:40:51.439
hard piped directly into the water system. So this will be a fully pressurized line. So that is what was added to that section. Other items are we've also noted that the area of the 20 foot that we're showing on the plan is to be deed not deed but restricted from

564
02:40:51.439 --> 02:41:06.640
any kind of parking in there so there's full access at all times as Mr. Coleman noted we also if you can see on the exhibit there is a green row along the back of the residential that is your buffer requirement that is required for

565
02:41:06.640 --> 02:41:22.240
between the uses. So we have at the north side by the Marlin and Tuna by the south side closer to Second Street and along the back. So we've added those buffers along the back section as well. So that's that's what the changes would have been done.

566
02:41:22.240 --> 02:41:39.920
>> Thanks Bob. Um parking now seems to be that the hangup. Um how many seasonal parking spots are shown on the revised plans? So we have uh 87 parking spaces off peak 138 is still the number that we've had from day one on peak season.

567
02:41:39.920 --> 02:41:55.120
So that's what we have corrected throughout the site. >> Okay. How many Bob, how many offseason parking spaces are shown on the revised plan? >> 87. >> 87. Um Bob, you had an opportunity to review Mr. Little's April 23rd letter

568
02:41:55.120 --> 02:42:11.680
which strictly uh said that 100 spaces were required year round um for the marina. Do you agree with Mr. Little's calculations? >> Mr. Coleman, I just went over that. >> I'm I'm providing testimony as to why

569
02:42:11.680 --> 02:42:27.840
the variance is needed. >> Mr. Little, is a variance going to be needed? Let's just be clear on whether or not a variance is going to be needed. Assume not with the parking being required year round. >> Well, let me make a couple comments

570
02:42:27.840 --> 02:42:44.399
about the parking year round. Um, I don't believe we've heard testimony about the transient boat slips. I would concur that transient boat slips don't require parking. If the 137 slips include 10 transient boat slips, then

571
02:42:44.399 --> 02:43:02.479
that number goes from 45.7 down to 42.3. I would also agree that the marina boat storage building doesn't require additional parking because that's part of the marina operation and goes along with the boat slips. If I deduct that 4.1

572
02:43:02.479 --> 02:43:19.200
now with a reduction in the transient slips, which I don't believe we've heard testimony or seen marked on a plan, we would be down to round it up 93 required year round uh parking spaces. I did note

573
02:43:19.200 --> 02:43:33.680
in my letter that there are two vessels operating out of the marina that I Googled and found on the uh on websites that one is the Queen City cycle boat 24 passengers and the Starfish family

574
02:43:33.680 --> 02:43:52.319
fishing boat which has 19 which is in my calculation which gets me now to the 93 required yearround spaces. So the question is can you provide the additional six spaces on site somewhere year round

575
02:43:52.319 --> 02:44:08.880
to comply with that if you can that a variance is not required. So let me address both of those. So yes, I concur with your understanding of that as well. My only testimony again is the we understand the need for the parking

576
02:44:08.880 --> 02:44:25.120
off peak even though boats aren't in the water. We still have the spots that's okay. The two operations that uh Mr. little talks about are not in operation. So I mean there really should be no parking requirement for that. Understanding that that's the requirement. So to answer your question,

577
02:44:25.120 --> 02:44:42.479
I believe we could allocate six spaces within the site with what we have today to get to 93. We could at which point no variance is required for parking. >> So as a condition of approval, you will submit plans for Mr. Little's review that will provide for six additional

578
02:44:42.479 --> 02:44:59.040
parking spaces that aren't currently showed on the revised plans. Correct. >> That is correct. >> But I also, Mr. uh Riso, I also want the record to be clear. Mr. Little raised an issue about transient boat slips. I I I want Bob to discuss the transient boat

579
02:44:59.040 --> 02:45:16.080
slips and how they impact parking. my understanding and again testimony the applicant as well but there are 10 transient boat slips that are part of that and that's the number that Mr. little references which that comes off of the top of that which is a 3.3.

580
02:45:16.080 --> 02:45:33.840
>> So uh that will be the number for that. So 10 are dedicated for transient boats on >> and they'll be labeled on the plan. Correct. I don't believe they're on there now. >> They are not labeled correct but they will be >> Bob. How about public access? >> Public access remains the same. It's one

581
02:45:33.840 --> 02:45:49.680
of the requirements for the Cathra permit and we have dedicated parking spaces for those as well. Uh Bob, do you have any further testimony that you'd like to provide with respect to the revised plans that were submitted? >> No, I believe we're in good shape and I think if we can meet Mr. Little's

582
02:45:49.680 --> 02:46:05.840
comment. >> Okay. Thank you, Bob. Uh I may need you in a little bit. >> Um uh can can we is Jeff Chap is Angela available? >> Yes, she's on. >> Okay, Mr. Krip is there. Hello Angela

583
02:46:05.840 --> 02:46:20.720
questions. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. All right. Are there before we get to your next witness, Mr. Coleman, are is there anybody from the public who has any questions or cross-examination questions for Mr. Stout based on the testimony you just gave?

584
02:46:20.720 --> 02:46:37.920
>> I may get Let's see if we can get anybody either Mr. Went or anybody from the public questions for Mr. Stout based on the testimony you just gave. >> Yes, Rick. >> Hold on, Rick. Now, Mr. W. Thank you.

585
02:46:37.920 --> 02:46:55.120
Anyone else? >> Okay. Well, Mayor Lambert, ladies first. Mr. >> Wer, just curious. >> Miss Beach Haven, I think, was seen at the dock there. >> Is that going to be a regular Miss Mitch

586
02:46:55.120 --> 02:47:10.800
Miss Beach Haven has secured a spot down off of Liberty? >> Okay. So, that will not >> has nothing to do with this facility. >> Okay. And and I just want to clear up something from the last time. I don't know much about marinas. >> Would you mind leaning forward until >> Thank you.

587
02:47:10.800 --> 02:47:26.479
>> Yeah, I don't really know much about marinas, but I do remember hearing one time that when a boat is stored for the winter, it needs to be filled up pretty much so there isn't vapor and things like that. And I I if I recall correctly, if I reread the minutes correctly, you said that the boats are completely drained.

588
02:47:26.479 --> 02:47:42.399
>> I I would actually defer this to the operational. They the ones that are doing marina. We're doing the layout on this. So, I would defer that to them. >> Okay. Because I know I think last time you were the one who mentioned it. That's why I was curious and I thought and I then I did ask some people and they said no, the boats would be filled

589
02:47:42.399 --> 02:47:58.399
up for >> all kinds of good reasons. Okay. >> Okay. I'm just curious because it it just seemed like an inconsistency and a big fire hazard. >> Mayor, question. Our our next witness, Miss Marcus, would most likely be able from an operational standpoint to be

590
02:47:58.399 --> 02:48:13.200
able to address that question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, hold that thought. Mr. Mr. Wagner, you have a question for Mr. Stout? >> Uh, yes. Um, this going back to a couple of points had raised last time, but um the one are you in agreement that the um

591
02:48:13.200 --> 02:48:30.080
the offse boat storage has to comply with NFPA 303 and the IFC. >> I'm not aware of that requirement. So, not aware of the storage requirement for that. >> Okay. the only reason and again >> yeah this is from AI where I just

592
02:48:30.080 --> 02:48:46.000
searched what governs codes in beach New Jersey. >> So um >> so a couple of points I want to make the one is the 20 foot width with the road I agree with. The only thing is it does mention 26 feet where the hydrants are located. Is that the case with the new

593
02:48:46.000 --> 02:49:02.080
hydrants you put on the north side? You get 26 feet in that area? >> The actual requirement is 20 ft for all the fire equipment. Every fire department we've ever dealt with has 20 ft. The location of the proposed hydrant is actually at the turn. So that would

594
02:49:02.080 --> 02:49:18.399
have clear access all the way down to the west. So that would have >> So that would give you like 26 feet probably. That's that's the only thing I think that wasn't an issue. the one the one that jumped out to me last time and I what you did now you added the road adjacent to Third Street, but it still

595
02:49:18.399 --> 02:49:35.600
seems we end up with 150 ft um exceeding 150 ft dead end allowance um which again is the NFPA 303 section um which I believe we got to comply but again I'll leave that with you. So the question do you I mean are you in

596
02:49:35.600 --> 02:49:50.960
agreement with that that we can have more than 150 dead end without a turnaround? >> What I what I can say is the fire official has reviewed this and gave us these three comments. He said as long as we meet these comments he was good with this. I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm just saying that his comments

597
02:49:50.960 --> 02:50:07.120
uh and we have met all three of those comments. >> So Mr. Go ahead Mr. Winger. >> Go ahead. >> Oh no. I was just going to say if and again maybe this is a question for everybody. If if the code exceeds what the local fire marshall's requesting,

598
02:50:07.120 --> 02:50:24.319
would it would you divert to the code? Obviously, we have to meet his request. No question. But if we can the code requires more, would would we go that route? >> Let me address that. So, Mr. Reo, I'm going to object to this questioning by Mr. Wanganger on a for for a couple

599
02:50:24.319 --> 02:50:39.359
different reasons. We have adequately addressed the local fire code officials concerns. Um, in fact, we got a letter to that uh effect dated uh April 30th. Um, Miso, as you

600
02:50:39.359 --> 02:50:55.840
know, as a seasoned land use attorney, I think we're at a little bit of a disadvantage. I have a board member who is using an AI AI platform that I have no idea. I have was not put into the loop. I have no idea what he put into

601
02:50:55.840 --> 02:51:14.000
the search bar that that and how the output uh may impact his statements this evening. Um I'm going to direct Mr. Stout not to address that. Um we've addressed the local fire code officials comments. This can't be a moving or will

602
02:51:14.000 --> 02:51:30.160
will we adhere to the the code? I have no idea what code he's talking about. I'm I'm I'm at a disadvantage. >> Mr. Coleman, your your objections noted. I understand it. Um, you're instructing Mr. Stouts to answer based on those objections. I understand that. So, we're

603
02:51:30.160 --> 02:51:45.439
clear. If this application were be to be approved, just like all outside agency approvals will be condition of approval, all codes beyond the zoning code, site plan, subdivision will be complied with,

604
02:51:45.439 --> 02:52:01.439
right? The fire code, the building code, uniform construction code, you name it. That's always a condition of approval. We agree. >> That's what I would expect to see in your resolution. >> So, and therefore, if the fire code, if the fire official determines that,

605
02:52:01.439 --> 02:52:17.840
again, assuming this is approved, there's a violation of the fire code, you would agree with me that the fire official could cite your client for violating whatever provision it is of the fire code. >> Um, if if they had the adequate credentials to do that, Mr. Re,

606
02:52:17.840 --> 02:52:32.720
>> that's why I said fire official. The federal fire official. I'm sure you and I can agree with having adequate >> prediction. Yes. No, no, the burrow fire official. Yes. >> Yeah. The burrow fire official. >> Yes, Mr. Risa. >> Let me just clear something up for the record as well. I have the and you do as

607
02:52:32.720 --> 02:52:48.319
well, the April 30th um letter from chief manager in response to the revised plans. And you're right, it had three points. The boat storage yard, the additional

608
02:52:48.319 --> 02:53:04.720
point of entry. He said that the revised plans he was sat satisfied with. Same for the access drive with um because it exceeds 20 ft. The notation private storage within the areas noted shall be maintained as a binding condition. No further revision required and your

609
02:53:04.720 --> 02:53:21.760
client agrees to that as a condition of approval. Correct. >> Correct. Ma >> I want to make sure we're clear because the third point water supply the fire suppression system. The letter says installation of a dry stand pipe as proposed not acceptable and more than adequate adequate excuse me pressurized water supply dry stand

610
02:53:21.760 --> 02:53:38.960
pipe requires he he says why you're agreeing to comply with condition three now and MO as I mentioned at the outset of my comments um a pressuret treated hydrant >> yes we've agreed to do that and we will

611
02:53:38.960 --> 02:53:55.359
do it to meet the code >> you'll do it to meet the code you'll work with the fire the fire chief to make sure that what's being installed satisfies his requirements. Yes. As far as the pressurized fire hydrant. Yes. >> Yes, we are in agreement. >> Okay. And that'll be done at the applicant's cost and expense. Correct.

612
02:53:55.359 --> 02:54:12.720
Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I mean my answer to that just on the AI part would be the answers in NFPA 303. It's forget about AI. just you guys have access to codes and like um Eric said you'll comply with them and

613
02:54:12.720 --> 02:54:28.640
all that. So that's the main concern that I had. Um the only other point I'd like to make is the way the boats are drawn up right now. The same NFPA 303 does talk about having hose access between rows of boats and all of that

614
02:54:28.640 --> 02:54:43.760
type of thing. and they seem to be like crunched in as as tight as you can fit them on, you know, and like every bit of lot that's left. Um, and I do realize, I know Eric, you said it a lot of times in the last meeting, we're not approving the boat storage, were approving the

615
02:54:43.760 --> 02:55:00.240
lots. The reason I keep bringing this up is I feel that the adding the lots prevents you to be able to meet NFPA 303. That's the only point I wanted to make of this whole thing. >> Your point's well taken, Mr. Wer. We just discussed if the boat storage

616
02:55:00.240 --> 02:55:16.640
results in the conclusion by the fire chief that that's a violation of any section of the fire code, the applicant will be will be notified and cited accordingly. >> Understood. >> The condition of approval will be that the applicant has to comply with all

617
02:55:16.640 --> 02:55:35.920
applicable codes including the fire codes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any any any additional questions? >> I have one question. >> Yes. Um, >> you put the you put the additional entry

618
02:55:35.920 --> 02:55:51.600
on the at the bottom of the lots so you still have to come in and drive up, right? What why was your thinking? Why did you put it on the top of the lot so you just drive over? >> The top mean next to the Marlin.

619
02:55:51.600 --> 02:56:07.760
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is direct access through third street. And what we did is made sure that there was enough turning radius. So fire official gave us the sizes of the fire fire equipment. So when we did that, we ran what we call an auto turn to make sure that there is full movement up and down. So the fire

620
02:56:07.760 --> 02:56:23.840
official has full movement for that. It keeps all of the uh boat storage and all the the it's called the commercial end at the southern end and then the residential closer to the other residential. >> Okay. My my question was why didn't she put the 20 foot axis on top by the

621
02:56:23.840 --> 02:56:38.479
Marlin >> and the the fire official also has to go up make a 90 degree turn as we're coming in on third. He goes straight in and we've got wider rad. >> Okay. So he go straight in and then he has to make a 90 degree turn up. >> Correct. But in that case it's not a

622
02:56:38.479 --> 02:56:54.240
90°ree right off the road. We've got the boats pulled back. So, we took the fire access turning templates to make sure that we have >> So, the post are going to pull back beyond the 20 foot street. >> They are. Yes, they are. Okay. >> Right at the corner. They are pulled back beyond the 20.

623
02:56:54.240 --> 02:57:11.399
>> Okay. >> And and that would solve the 150 by the way, what he suggested, moving the road to the north side because I believe the road solves the turnaround equation part.

624
02:57:13.040 --> 02:57:28.720
Yeah. So, I guess it just we we don't know if the law that you're talking about applies. >> Correct. Yeah. That's again for them to >> Well, one more. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. >> He's citing a law. >> Yeah. >> We don't know if it applies. You have no idea what the law is. So, we're just at a disadvantage here.

625
02:57:28.720 --> 02:57:43.680
>> Well, >> and you're you're saying if there's a law out there, he's got to all >> I understand that, but as a board, we'd like to know if there is a law out there. Well, you have the deputy chief, I think, is here. Maybe the deputy chief can speak to this issue.

626
02:57:43.680 --> 02:58:03.200
>> Okay, that'd be great. I didn't see him. >> You want me to uh jump in? >> Hold on, Mr. Coleman. Since we're addressing this issue now, or you want to wait for the deputy fire? >> No. I I'd like to hear Mr. Kuster. Deputy Chief K. >> Deputy Chief Krip, do me a favor. Raise

627
02:58:03.200 --> 02:58:20.800
your right hand again. Do you swear for the testimony give before the Lord be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> Okay. You've heard the discussion that we've been having about the boat storage and fire code, etc. Can you please comment? >> Yep. So, um, as as it pertains to the

628
02:58:20.800 --> 02:58:36.960
enforcement of particular fire codes, the authority having jurisdiction for that is going to be the Ocean County Fire Marshals. So, I just want to be very clear on that. Um the the fire company does not provide code

629
02:58:36.960 --> 02:58:55.760
enforcement. >> That's clearly stated in the chief's letter. No doubt. >> Yep. Yep. I just want to be I want to be very clear about that so there's no confusion on that point. Um the the points that were addressed in the letter

630
02:58:55.760 --> 02:59:11.600
um from uh Mr. out. Um we addressed he he did address the the first two points um related to the access and the solutions proposed by him are acceptable. Um so we

631
02:59:11.600 --> 02:59:26.960
will be able to pull in straight in off of Third Street, make the turn. Um the one concern we did raise and it sounds like it has been addressed subsequent to that letter is um having that what was originally going to be a dry hydrant

632
02:59:26.960 --> 02:59:43.760
having that connected to be an actual municipal hydrant connected to the municipal water supply. um as long as that stays in that same um location which is the basically the corner of the property of uh at the edge of the

633
02:59:43.760 --> 02:59:59.120
property of the Marlin Tuna Club. Uh, I think that will definitely help address us having adequate water supply. And that's and and to be clear, our purpose for addressing that is not so much for

634
02:59:59.120 --> 03:00:16.479
the houses, but in the event that there is an issue with the north side of the marina, either in the slips or um in the boat storage. So that in the event, you know, that the water supply is needed there, we have adequate water supply

635
03:00:16.479 --> 03:00:32.640
readily accessible and not having to do an extended run to to make those supplies. >> Deputy Chief, do you have any testimony or comment with respect to the questions raised by Mr. Winger?

636
03:00:32.640 --> 03:00:57.200
>> Uh, I do not. as you know, not being a fire code enforcement official, um it would be out of my purview to have comments on that. >> Mr. Coleman, >> I no questions. Deputy Chief,

637
03:00:57.200 --> 03:01:12.479
>> I have one for the deputy chief if it's okay. Just on the idea of the road on the very north side of the site, you know, where as opposed to directly across from Third Street, would that present a problem getting the fire

638
03:01:12.479 --> 03:01:30.000
trucks into the site or is it better for you guys where it is? >> It's it's it's honestly hard to say, right? Because at some point the truck's got to make a 90° turn. No. >> So, if as long as the boat storage does

639
03:01:30.000 --> 03:01:46.240
not crowd the ability to make that 90° turn in the boatyard, that's not an issue. Um, if if that could be a possibility, then having it on the north side, obviously the road should be generally clear,

640
03:01:46.240 --> 03:02:01.200
right? Unless somebody is, you know, parked incorrectly. Um, so I I don't foresee um I don't foresee that as a big issue either way. Um, you know, it was

641
03:02:01.200 --> 03:02:19.399
addressed and uh, Chief Matherther and myself did discuss this at length and having the access on Third Street the way it's proposed is acceptable to us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

642
03:02:20.960 --> 03:02:39.120
Anything further before I move on. Can Can we have uh Miss Marcus? There. There she is. Mr. Riso, could you um if we could recognize Miss Marcus and then have her sworn in again, please? Miss Marcus, good evening. Raise your right hand,

643
03:02:39.120 --> 03:02:54.319
please. Do you swear affirm the testimony give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman. Uh, Miss Marcus, are are you one of the members and owners of M MIH Coastal Holdings?

644
03:02:54.319 --> 03:03:09.600
>> Yes. >> Um, so does MIH own and operate the Queen City Marina? >> Yes, it does. >> How how long has MIH owned the marina? >> Approximately 5 years since September of

645
03:03:09.600 --> 03:03:24.960
2021. >> Okay. How how about the the boat repair um and storage facility uh owned and operated? Um it that's owned by MIH as well. Correct. >> Yes, it's part of the marina's

646
03:03:24.960 --> 03:03:41.840
operations and used for marina related repairs and offseason storage. >> Is that facility is that building used or operated by any third party? >> No. >> Okay. Um there there's been some

647
03:03:41.840 --> 03:03:57.760
discussion regarding occasional events within that building. Can you address that issue now please? >> Yes. So from time to time uh the building was used for occasional events. Uh the applicant operated in good faith.

648
03:03:57.760 --> 03:04:13.920
We relied upon our mercantile license issued by the bureau that identified events as being a permitted activity. uh we never received a zoning enforcement action or notice of violation or municipal directive indicating that any of that occasional

649
03:04:13.920 --> 03:04:30.399
use was prohibited. Uh we understand that there have been questions raised regarding a separate approval that might be required. Uh you know it's not part of this application before the board. Uh, nevertheless, we operate in good

650
03:04:30.399 --> 03:04:45.760
faith and learning about the burough's concern, we agreed to limit events until any required approvals are obtained. Um, aside from a handful of previously previously contracted events, uh, including, uh, we were donating space to

651
03:04:45.760 --> 03:05:00.800
the Beach Haven fire uh, I'm sorry, the Beach Haven First Aid Squad this summer for a fundraiser and also to the LBI film festival, which we've done for the last three years. Uh I mean but to be clear the building is operated on a

652
03:05:00.800 --> 03:05:18.560
regular basis 5 days a week uh sometimes six and seven as a boat repair facility. Uh there's been no change to that and boat storage. We also do boat storage in there. It also has a parts room and it's not operated as a formal event venue and

653
03:05:18.560 --> 03:05:33.920
as I mentioned before any such use was limited and occasional. Thank you, Angela. Um, can can you describe the marina season? >> Yes. So, our boats that are in the water

654
03:05:33.920 --> 03:05:51.359
uh are from April through October. >> Cop out the offseason activity. >> In the offse, we provide boat storage uh in accordance with D requirements and all boats are out of the water. We rarely have any customers parking at the

655
03:05:51.359 --> 03:06:08.960
marina at that time. Um, Angel, this this question wasn't on your script, but but I'm going to go off script with you for a second. Um, we've had an opportunity to review the the Burough's code. Are there any particular code provisions related to boat storage

656
03:06:08.960 --> 03:06:26.800
in the Buroughs codes? >> There are no provisions regarding boat storage. Um, Beach Haven does not require us to provide a certain number of upland boat storage spaces either offseason or inseason. Uh, we the

657
03:06:26.800 --> 03:06:41.920
storage that we provide on our site is based on demand. Um and separately we have uh requirements from the D that uh we are required to have available space

658
03:06:41.920 --> 03:06:58.880
and that available space can be on site at the marina in the water or offsite as well. >> How many transient boat slips does do you have and make available? Angela, >> so I' I've heard we've been talking

659
03:06:58.880 --> 03:07:15.680
about the number of 10. 10 is the minimum that we have. Uh last year we had 14. Um that too depends on demand but we have a minimum of 10. >> Okay. Um and I I think while I have you I also want to talk about the the two

660
03:07:15.680 --> 03:07:33.120
passenger boats boats that were identified in Mr. Little's uh April 23rd letter. Um can you talk about the seasonal operation of those boats? >> Yes. So, both of those boats operate in season in the April to October time

661
03:07:33.120 --> 03:07:50.560
frame. Uh, from October through April, um, give or take a couple days. Uh, the the cycle boat, the Queen City cycle boat, uh, we haul out of the water and store on site. Uh, the starfish, uh, he

662
03:07:50.560 --> 03:08:05.439
takes his boat offsite for storage offsite. So, >> So, you don't store that boat on site? >> We don't. Okay, Angela, any further uh testimony you'd like to provide this evening?

663
03:08:05.439 --> 03:08:22.240
>> No, that's it. Unless there's questions. >> Okay. I have a question, Mr. Coleman, because well, I appreciate your question um to the applicant's representative. She's not an attorney. She's not an engineer. So, Mr. Little, >> yes. Can you comment on whether or not

664
03:08:22.240 --> 03:08:38.319
there's any code provision in the burrow code related to boat storage as testified to >> by Miss Marcus? >> Miss Marcus actually is an attorney. >> Oh, she is. Well, you didn't say that. Nor did you offer her as an attorney, Mr. Coleman. >> So, come on. Help me. Help.

665
03:08:38.319 --> 03:08:54.960
>> Sorry, Mr. Fair and transparent. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Little. I don't believe there's anything that mandates it >> in the ordinance. >> No, I have a question for you. based off >> based off Miss Marcus testimony. Um, if the garage is not solely used for

666
03:08:54.960 --> 03:09:10.960
storage and is used for maintenance and there's a parts room, then it's it's part of the business and should be calculated into parking requirements. If you have a car garage and you're doing maintenance, that's part of parking

667
03:09:10.960 --> 03:09:25.760
requirements and they would have to provide parking spot. Listen, parking is wanted in Beach Haven. Like now you've always had enough parking, but now since you want to subdivide the parking, we have to like nitpick every single parking spot because we just don't have

668
03:09:25.760 --> 03:09:43.840
it in town. We don't. So if it's a maintenance garage, it's part of the business and it should be a parking calculations. I I my opinion was that because it's part of the marina operation, the parking per slip

669
03:09:43.840 --> 03:10:01.040
incorporates that in the overall marina operation and that additional parking would be required for that particular building. >> Okay. It doesn't say that in the MC zone or the off parking off streetet parking zone. >> Well, that'll be up to the board to determine, but that's my opinion. >> Okay. and and and respectfully, Miss Bal

670
03:10:01.040 --> 03:10:18.600
Miller, I I think you as the council president would recognize that that would be more of an enforcement issue and would be addressed by perhaps a change to the zoning code to address that in in the burough code.

671
03:10:29.439 --> 03:10:50.680
And there any questions from anyone from Miss Marcus? We'll go we'll go one at a time. Mr. W. >> Nothing for me. >> Thanks, Mr. Ray went with the Went Law Firm.

672
03:10:50.720 --> 03:11:05.680
>> Uh, I represent the Marlin Tuna Club was here last month. Miss Marcus, I just had a couple of questions. Is it your testimony that you are not going to proceed with any future wedding events? >> We are not going to proceed with

673
03:11:05.680 --> 03:11:21.279
scheduling any new events in the boat. What I testified was that >> I'm sorry. Sorry. What I testified to was that we have a few contracted events including uh a handful of fundraisers that we committed to do and we'd like to

674
03:11:21.279 --> 03:11:38.640
be able to do them, but we are not scheduling any new events in the BART. >> When did you stop soliciting for wedding events? >> After there was a concern raised by the board for the very first time at the last meeting.

675
03:11:38.640 --> 03:11:54.160
If I told you that we have proof that you've been soliciting since the meeting, is that going to change your testimony? >> No, because I have not been soliciting since the the last meeting and we've told our events coordinator and

676
03:11:54.160 --> 03:12:11.040
community outreach director to stop doing that and in fact she was laid off from her position this week. >> Is that Sydney Wade? >> Yes. Yes. The email I have from her in midappril after the meeting soliciting weddings was not authorized by you. >> No, it was not.

677
03:12:11.040 --> 03:12:27.040
>> Did you have social media presence regarding the weddings and the wedding events? >> We did. >> Do you currently? >> Uh we took all of it down or at least tried to take all of it down when the board con expressed a concern um for the

678
03:12:27.040 --> 03:12:43.200
first time as I mentioned at the last meeting. Uh if there's any lingering social media out there, then you know that's that's not completely under our control. >> Why would you scrub all of your prior weddings?

679
03:12:43.200 --> 03:13:00.000
>> I don't think we believe we scrubbed our prior weddings, but having prior weddings visible on social media gives an impression that we are still scheduling them, which we're not doing. >> Why not just make a large announcement saying you're not soliciting weddings anymore?

680
03:13:00.000 --> 03:13:16.399
instead of scrubbing all of your social media. >> I I I would think that not accepting any future weddings in the boat shop would be sufficient rather than a public announcement. >> How many weddings do you have booked?

681
03:13:16.399 --> 03:13:32.960
>> I'm not sure of the number in the boat shop. I think I know we have a handful. Um some of it might be just a a cocktail hour. Uh but I don't know the number exactly. Do you know the number the number of each uh of the attendees for each of those events?

682
03:13:32.960 --> 03:13:48.960
>> I do not, but I know it's not any greater than the capacity that we have for our 17,000 foot restaurant. That's not built, >> but in the past you've solicited up to three up to 300 people per event. >> Uh we did and we didn't have any push

683
03:13:48.960 --> 03:14:06.200
back. As I mentioned, we have events on our mercantile license. Um we had it on our social media for the last few years. Um, we've never received any enforcement action. Uh, and we just believe that it was something that was approved at our site.

684
03:14:09.120 --> 03:14:26.359
>> How do you intend to proceed with the weddings if they're not approved on site and you know that now? >> Well, I don't know that that was the decision of the board, so I'm not prepared to respond to that. >> Nothing further at this time. Okay. Thank you.

685
03:14:26.399 --> 03:14:45.920
Anyone else have any questions for this witness? Meaning questions and for this witness only. Come forward, please. >> The name and address, please. >> Amanda Pollinger, 16 Southwest Avenue, Beach Haven.

686
03:14:45.920 --> 03:15:02.399
>> Say it again. Did you get >> Amanda Pollinger, 16 Southwest Avenue, Beach Haven? >> You have a question from Miss Marcus? I have a qu have a question. So, you just said that you have nothing on social media. I'm right on your website and it says, "What interests you? Marina

687
03:15:02.399 --> 03:15:19.279
events, weddings, and private events, boating and service offers." I I actually didn't testify that there wasn't anything on our social media. I mentioned that we took down as much of the events solicitation as we could after the last meeting when we heard

688
03:15:19.279 --> 03:15:36.399
there was a concern about weddings in or events in our boat shop and if there are >> it's on your website. What what do you not have control over if it's on your website? >> On our website currently >> I have it right here. I I mean I noticed

689
03:15:36.399 --> 03:15:52.600
you've taken down all the wedding stuff, but everyone can look at the website before they take it down. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions from anyone for this witness, please? >> Yes. >> Okay.

690
03:15:53.600 --> 03:16:09.439
>> Address. >> Yes. Karen Andis, 107 Roosevelt Avenue in Holgate. I would like to ask Miss Marcus if there are any other businesses that run out of the marina similar to the mean city cycle or starfish.

691
03:16:09.439 --> 03:16:25.439
There is the Queen City Cycle Boat Starfish and there is a tiki boat that has uh six-packs license so it has six passengers. >> Is there not a freedom boat club that also runs out of there? >> Oh yes, there's a freedom boat club. They they're

692
03:16:25.439 --> 03:16:40.880
>> so >> so so incidental I forget that they're there. >> Okay. Well, now there's two other businesses. Should the that parking be accounted for as well? >> Thank you. >> If I can respond to that. So, the the

693
03:16:40.880 --> 03:16:56.720
business that they operate is they rent boat slips from us. Um they rent they don't have it's not a commercial boat where there's passengers more than uh four or five passengers. So those boat slips are counted and our boat slip

694
03:16:56.720 --> 03:17:22.160
count that uh is part of our parking calculation. >> Any further question mayor? >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. They said, "Miss Marcus, you would be able to about when you store the boats for the winter, are they stored without any fuel

695
03:17:22.160 --> 03:17:39.760
or liquids or are they basically filled up?" Because that came up last time and it's kind of a contradictory situation. >> I I'm not sure what our requirement is. What I can tell you is that we don't do things any differently than we did in the past

696
03:17:39.760 --> 03:17:58.000
10 years with respect to storing boats. as far as aware. >> So, you make them drain the boats or no? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. >> But I I I just don't know the answer to that question.

697
03:17:58.000 --> 03:18:25.760
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm just stated differently. I'm just one online. >> Nick Siri. Thanks Siri. Annie, do you have a question for Miss Marcus? >> He's gone. >> Yeah, he's not.

698
03:18:25.760 --> 03:18:46.960
>> He's not answering. >> One more time. There's a Nick Seriani on Zoom with his hand up. Do you have any questions for Miss Marcus? Okay. Is anybody gonna talk about the big elephant? I no

699
03:18:46.960 --> 03:19:02.560
it's a little bit eagle. >> That's the subject of my client. >> 5 minutes to 9:30. >> Okay. Mr. Coleman, it's almost 9. Okay. So, no more questions for Miss Marcus, correct? Okay. Mr. Coleman, it's 9:25. >> 9:27.

700
03:19:02.560 --> 03:19:20.640
>> 9:27. You were you were very clear at the start, Mr. Russo. >> So, you have more testimony that you want to present. >> I I have um Mr. Lucy uh who's who's here with us this evening, but um my concern with Mr. Lucy is and his testimony is

701
03:19:20.640 --> 03:19:37.840
very short, but there may be some follow-up questions with with respect to that. Um, and and I do before my three minutes expire, um, I I do want to bring to I appreciate Miss Anis's comments about the additional uh uses, but I also

702
03:19:37.840 --> 03:19:54.080
want to draw the board's attention to section 212-14 that talks about the uh parking required for commercial vessels. It says the total number of parking spaces required equals the maximum license capacity for

703
03:19:54.080 --> 03:20:11.840
passengers and crew less six divided by three. Any resulting fraction shall require a full parking space. As as you heard from Miss Marcus, the maximum capacity is five. There there is no additional parking required. the slip is

704
03:20:11.840 --> 03:20:29.439
the the the the parking related to the 137 slips is sufficient. So there's no additional parking required as per your own code. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I'm looking at it. That's the way the code reads. >> I would agree with that that if there's a boat that has less than six passengers

705
03:20:29.439 --> 03:20:44.720
six and that results in zero. >> Y >> um I would love to go on Mr. So, but I appreciate the board. >> Plus, there'll be there'll be comment and we have been going at this for quite a while. So, Madam Chair, >> totally get it.

706
03:20:44.720 --> 03:21:02.000
>> Um, so we're going to continue this application. I know we already have >> two on the agenda. How many more witnesses, Mr. Coleman do you have? >> I I have um Mr. Lucy. Um I suspect that Mr. Went's going to bring a witness

707
03:21:02.000 --> 03:21:18.399
forward this evening. Three witnesses. Wow. >> Okay. Um, and we'll have to have some time to cross-examine them. >> Agreed. >> Um, and then I have maybe four or five pages of my own remarks that I feel I have to put on the record.

708
03:21:18.399 --> 03:21:33.680
>> It's your it's your application. The reason I'm asking is I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Um, so so in terms of of scheduling where um, Mr. Rea, will we be? >> That's exactly why I asked you. And Mr. W, you you're going to have at least three witnesses. >> Yes.

709
03:21:33.680 --> 03:21:48.479
>> Okay. and we're going to have public comment. We already have two applications scheduled for our June meeting that we put off from this meeting because the first hearing on this application went almost the duration in April.

710
03:21:48.479 --> 03:22:05.359
>> We heard this one. So, um my suggestion based on what you just told me, those two applications got pushed already. So, you would be the third. With what I'm hearing from you and Mr. Went and with public comment, I would think we're looking at July.

711
03:22:05.359 --> 03:22:22.160
And right now, Miss Bunch, we have Do we have anything on the agenda for July? >> Nothing for July. >> Okay. So, we would make this application the hearing the 30 minutes application the first one on the agenda for the July meeting. You run the risk of depending on how

712
03:22:22.160 --> 03:22:44.479
long the first two go next month of not finishing again, which I don't think you're going to do if I know the way this matters proceeded and based on the last term we had. Are they use >> variances? It's not a floor coverage.

713
03:22:44.479 --> 03:23:00.560
>> I if you if you want me to announce I'll do it now. If you want >> I respectfully I mean we filed in December. I think we should be first on the list. >> I can't I'm not doing that. We we pushed your request is understood, but I'm not pushing the two applications that got

714
03:23:00.560 --> 03:23:16.160
pushed from this month. They're going to be heard first. >> So, you have a choice. I can announce now if you want, but there's just no way. Or you can come. You can come next month, but we not may not finish again. So, I put it in your hands.

715
03:23:16.160 --> 03:23:31.840
>> Your announcement. >> Pardon me. >> Go ahead. >> For July. >> Okay. So, so for members of the public and those on Zoom, this application is going to be continued. The next hearing will be our July meeting. It's the first

716
03:23:31.840 --> 03:23:48.560
Monday in July. I don't know the date. Anybody know off the top of their head? >> July 6th. >> July 6th. >> Right after the 4th. >> This is the notice for the continued hearing on this application. There will be no further notice, not in the newspaper, nor to anybody that lives

717
03:23:48.560 --> 03:24:04.000
within 200 feet. It's not required. It's the continuation of this application. By announcing it, the applicant is relieved of its duty to publish and serve everybody within 200 feet. So again, so everybody's clear, this application will

718
03:24:04.000 --> 03:24:30.319
be continued and picked up on again at our July 6th meeting. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Coleman. No, thank you, Mr. Russo. >> Thank you, Mr. W. keep saying that

719
03:24:30.319 --> 03:24:51.439
>> there is now public comment. >> If everyone excuse me if everyone can kind of leave so the board can finish it business for the night and try to keep it down. We'd appreciate it. I have a motion to open it to public comment.

720
03:24:51.439 --> 03:25:07.760
>> Jerry, motion to open. >> Second, >> Gary. Second. >> Is there anybody in the public that would like to come up and voice their opinion about anything tonight? >> Not about just in general, about land use anything.

721
03:25:07.760 --> 03:25:22.720
>> Nothing on Zoom. >> I don't see anybody on Zoom. >> Motion to close. >> Motion to close. Second. >> Second. >> All right. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Yay. >> Who's making a motion?

722
03:25:22.720 --> 03:25:42.640
>> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I see everyone next month. >> I need that. The