--------- Oh, which is >> the last was the last meeting. >> Welcome everyone to the land use board meeting 2025. We will start by saluting our flag.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public
Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board in the entrance hall of the Beach Haven Municipal Building and by mailing the same to the Beach Haven Times and the Asbury Park Press. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be
limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision for each individual application. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Mr. Aello >> here.
>> Mr. Balbo. Mrs. Bow Miller >> here. Mrs. Edles >> here. >> Mr. Jenna >> here. >> Mayor Lambert >> here. >> Mrs. Leonard >> here. >> Mr. Lefredo >> here. >> Mr. Meadow
>> here. >> Mrs. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Stevens, Mr. Tinquist >> here, >> and Mr. Wanganger >> here. >> Thank you. All right, moving on. Tonight, we have the approval of the minutes. First, we
will approve the October 6 minutes for 2025. Can I have a motion? Are all in favor? >> I I. Any opposed? Oh, minutes are passed for October the 6, 2025. Then we have October 6, our executive
session. I hope you got a chance to read all that. Uh, got have a motion. Everybody happy with them? >> Due to my absence, am I allowed I should abstain from? >> Correct. So, please extension for the last.
>> Right. Right. All in favor? I >> opposed. Minutes are passed for the executive session of October 6. Next, we have the approval of the bills $2,53622. All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. We have the approval of the bills, $2,53622. Then we go to the approval of the bond returns. Can I read all these at once? Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Uh 112 West Avenue, Polytock, $210. 112
West Avenue, Polytock, 317.90. 208 North Bay Avenue, Waterfront Restaurants, $496.66. 305 Cove Lane, Raven and Raven LLC, $256.99. All in favor? I I
>> opposed. >> We have approval of the bond returns. All right, let's start this evening. Uh we start with 124 Belour Avenue bulk variance bulk variance to permit a 7.3 foot
front yard setback where the minimum requirements is 15 ft for property located at 134 Belvore Avenue. >> Um Mr. Tenquist, it's my understanding you reside within 200 ft of the property. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Right. You'll need to abstain and recuse
if you wouldn't mind stepping down from the de Good evening. James Raven on behalf of the applicant, Michael and Hillary Carmeloitz. So, this property is located 134 Belvar Avenue. It's currently developed with a single family dwelling and it's located
in the historic district. The applicant previously did obtain, let me just pull this up a little bit. The applicant previously obtained approval from HPAC and there was a resolution from HPAC that was provided to the board with the application. So
currently the house does not have really a front porch on the property. It's really just a landing or a stoop. What the applicant is proposing is to construct a front porch that's uh really runs the the full width of the building and it'll give it a a nice look
aesthetically and they're looking to also construct a new detached garage at the property, a pergola on the rear deck and just overall exterior elevate or renovations to enhance the overall look of the house. The only thing that's triggering
the variance relief is the proposed porch. So because we're a corner lot, there's we need to maintain 15 feet to one street and half of that to the other street or 7 and a half ft. Currently we have 15 15 feet are required to Belvar
Avenue and the existing setback is 5.8 8 ft to the existing stairs and the proposed set back to the new stairs is 7.3 ft but the majority of the porch will be 10 ft from the property line on the Bellevar side
of the property and then the existing setback on the Belvar Avenue I'm sorry on the Beach Avenue side of the property is 10 ft and that will remain the same. So, the only change to the setbacks is on the the Belvar Avenue
and really the that just gets them a a porch with a depth of 5.5 ft on the northerly most side of the porch. So, it's it's not a deep porch in that sense, but it does result again in the front yard
setback variance that we need on that side. And also with right now there's currently zero parking spaces on site and with the proposed application we're the garage is going to
be on the Beach Avenue side of the property. There's an existing fence that's going to be removed which will allow three conforming parking spaces on the Beach Avenue side of the property where currently there's no conforming spaces. So we're going from zero to three. And um that's basically the
overview of the application. Jim Bzowski is going to provide testimony regarding his plan. Will Essie will provide testimony regarding the architectural drawings and the applicant is present as well. First, I'll call James Bowski. >> Good evening. Do you swear our friend
testimony before the board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. For the record, my name is James Rosski, a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at Horn Tyson and Yodor since 1997. >> Mr. Rand, would you like to offer Mr.
Bowski as an expert? >> Yes. Mr. Bzowski, you've testified before this board a number of times, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Does the board accept Mr. Bzowski's qualifications? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Bzowski, we've submitted
with this application a variance plan from your office that's dated April 16, 2025 with a revision date of July 21, 2025. Did you prepare that plan? >> Uh, yes, I did. >> Okay. And if you could just for the board's benefit provide an overview of
how the site's currently developed and what's changing with our application. >> Sure. The uh the uh the property is located to the uh southeast of the intersection of Belvoir Avenue and Beach Avenue. Uh the property has 75 ft of frontage on Belvoir Avenue, 100 foot of frontage on Beach Avenue, um and
contains uh an area of 7,500 square ft. Currently developed with a two-story single family house and an ingground swimming pool. Um the um the existing setback to the the steps
off of Belvar Avenue is 5.8 ft where uh 15t is required. Um the pool setbacks are 5 foot and 5.4 ft. Um where under the current code 10 foot uh is required
uh for each of the the pool setbacks. Um uh so th those are existing non-performing conditions. What the applicant is proposing to do is on the Belvar Avenue side construct a a porch a one-story covered porch uh to the house.
Uh so he's going to remove the existing stairs, construct the the porch uh and uh provide a new uh set of stairs down towards Belvar Avenue. Um at the the result of which is uh the steps will be 7.3 ft off of the rightway Belvar Avenue
where 15 ft is required and the porch itself will be 10 feet off of uh the the the front property line of Belvore Avenue where 15 feet is required. So, we're seeking a variance uh to allow the steps and and the porch uh to encroach
into the front yard setback to Belvoir Avenue. Um the existing the face of the existing house is 14 uh 4T off of Belvoir Avenue. So, the the the existing building itself already
encroaches slightly and we're seeking uh the variance to allow five basically a five foot wide porch encroaching into Belvore Avenue. And Mr. Bzowski, is this a hardship application or something that would be
granted as a C2 variance? >> I would I would suggest it would be a C2 variance where the board could grant the variance if uh we prove that one of the purposes of municipal land use law are advanced and that uh that there's no substantial detriment to the the master
plan or the the zoning plan of the burrow. Um the the uh the purpose of zoning that we're we we are advancing is the uh under eye promote desirable visual environment. We think the porch is going to be an
aesthetic enhancement to the house. Um you know it's a it's an older it's an older house and I I believe it's in the historic district. Um and it's a one-story covered porch. Uh so we believe it's uh going to add an aesthetic value to the house. Um the
10-ft set back to the porch itself and the 7.3 foot set back to the stairs we don't believe is going to be a detriment to the uh the master plan or the zone plan. Um in the burrow beach haven on corner lots. Um the the a 7 and 1/2t yard is
permitted on the the side that's not your front. Um the setback off of be the set back off of Beach Avenue is is 10 foot existing. So the Belvoir Avenue we're saying has to be the front yard.
So that has to be the 15t set setback. So that's why we're seeking the variance from the the 15t. Um there's a slight improvement from the 5.8 ft to this the existing step to the 7.3 feet to the proposed step. So, we're improving a little bit with the step, but the uh the
structure itself, the porch with the roof is uh we're seeking the variance for the five uh 5 foot encroachment into that 15t setback. >> And Mr. Baski, the proposed porch is covered, but open, correct?
>> Yes, it's an it's an open covered porch. No screens, no walls, just a roof. And they would not be able to enclose that porch without returning to the board for another variance. Correct. If they wanted to close that at some point in the future,
>> I I would think so. Yes. >> Yeah. And certainly the applicant would be open to any conditions that the porch may ever be enclosed. Just to be clear, this is only for an open porch. Not looking to gain any additional living space as a result of this. It's just the open porch. And uh the overall height,
Mr. Mr. Bzowski of the existing house is um 28 1/2 ft. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So, if a new house were built here, it would be allowed to go all the way up to 35 ft. Is that right? Okay. >> Yeah. The I mean, with the with the
proposed porch, we're still under lock coverage. We're still under imperous coverage. Um, so it's a, you know, I think it's a nice aesthetic enhancement to uh to this this old house. Yeah. Basically, the applicant's looking to
make improvements to the existing house without building new. And I think if you look at the the renderings that are attached as ex sheet 1A to Mr. Esser's drawings, the the house it's going to be a a big enhancement over what's there
now. Uh, any questions for Mr. Bzowski? >> So, the current setback without the porch that exists today is 14.4 ft, which is supposed to be 15 ft.
>> That's correct. >> And you're adding a 5-ft porch that's going to still now uncover more on that setback. >> Yes. That doesn't sound good. >> Again, I believe that the uh the
aesthetic enhancement uh outweighs the uh the the encroachment into the setback as I mentioned before in Beach Haven. 7 and a half set foot setbacks are permitted on corner lots. Um you know, for the for the second front yard, so
you're required 15 on front one front and seven and a half on another. So that at 10 foot um we're still uh within um the the requirement of the seven and a half foot. If the uh Beach Avenue front
wasn't already at 10, uh this 10-ft front yard uh would be permitted. So it's >> What if is that is an important word? >> It's not. >> No, it's not. >> Okay. >> Right. Mr. was asking what's the
existing setback to the that landing I'll call it a landing area or or a stoop that's there now the house is 14.4 ft but how about to that existing landing area >> it's 5.8 18. Part: 2
Right. >> What about to the landing itself? >> It it it appears to be in the ballpark 9 ft. >> Okay. So, we're looking to essentially go out a similar distance to the landing, but we're just extending that. There's no existing front p porch on the
property. So, really, they're just trying to to get a front porch. and the way it was designed is really I'll let Will speak to the aesthetics of it, but it's it's an open porch again that
doesn't interfere with anybody's sight lines and the I think the having the larger porch like that really to have a smaller porch just wouldn't look right on on a house like this. But again, I have Will speak more
to the aesthetics, but we weren't trying to come out really any further than the existing landing area. It's just wider now for the aesthetic purposes. >> Mr. Are those the actual pictures of the house now or
the rendering? >> This I'm looking at the rendering sheet 1A. >> Everybody can hear you. I do have photos of the existing home if if the board would like to see them. But >> did you want to look at the existing house? >> Well, I don't buy it, but I thought we
had a rendering. >> You you do. The rendering was >> the renderings of the proposed, but I do have two photographs. Why don't we mark this as exhibit A1? >> Yes. >> And A1 consists of two photographs. I'll have Mr. bersi authenticate them. But
the top photograph is a photo of the house from the Belvar Avenue side and then the second photograph is a photo from the Beach Avenue side of the property. >> [clears throat] >> shares. >> Thanks for looking at it.
Can we talk about the sighteline again? >> I have I was looking at this. So the house adjacent to it, it looks like that has a a wraparound porch as well. >> No, it doesn't go all the way around. It's just on the front. >> Okay. So it doesn't go around. So how
how how would the wraparound porch affect the sighteline from that adjacent view? If I come out, am I not able to see down to Belv to beach or is it like blocked by the the porch? That's like I'm always
concerned with keeping the sight lines so you don't have like the one house with the porch kind of jutting out and then it just doesn't kind of mix with the rest of the houses. So, can you go into detail? >> The porch is open. So, I know that >> you're not going to have walls to to >> the stairs are open too, but when you have stairs and then there's the sight
line. So, that's what I'm concerned about. But the the the porch on the adjacent house is set back 14.9 ft from the property and it appears to be about a five five or six foot wide porch. Uh so you know the the porch that we're
proposing is going to stick out five feet beyond that. Um but again you're you're you've got a roof and you've got some columns and that's the only thing that would obstruct any views. >> Um the both homes appear to be about the
same elevation. in the first floor. So, if you're standing on that deck, you're going to be able to see through the the neighbor's porch down the road. trying to make earlier with the height too is it's 28 and a half ft and I know
that doesn't necessarily have exactly to do with the front yard setback but if you build a new house at 35 ft at the required 15 ft foot setback I think it's going to have a much larger impact on the street than than this I think this will feel a lot less even though we're
encroaching into the setback again it's an open porch but it's it's such a modestly sized house Now that as Jim said, I think the overall aesthetic improvement outweighs any detriment. >> Mr. Raven, can we see the renderings,
please? >> Sure. >> Can I see that corner? >> Which one? >> That one. Sorry. >> It doesn't show like jutting out. >> That's what I was thinking. Makes sense. Look on Google Maps. The house across
the street. >> Yeah. [clears throat] back down. [clears throat] [clears throat] >> Does anybody have any further questions for Mr. Bzowski >> I mean everybody's >> by any chance would you have a plan
showing the whole block that you can get the relationship of the location of all the other setbacks of the houses? >> No I don't have I don't have that today. Yeah, I I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but I think we looked at some aerials
and it it seemed like most of the homes were were at about the 15 foot mark, at least on our side of the street, going uh heading east. Is there any consideration to moving the house back? >> Uh,
that's probably a question for the architect, but I I don't know that answer off the top of my head, but I don't know what type of foundation it is, but I know that would be pretty substantial undertaking, I think. Yeah, I'll let the architect answer
that. Where does that uh heat pump go to? That's in the right hand corner. >> Oh, yeah. >> I'm sorry. Where, Tom? >> Uh, the heat pump that's on Beach Avenue there. The AC.
>> Oh, [clears throat] >> okay. Yeah, the architect will speak to that. >> And this is not going to need any kind of railings on the porch. >> No, I asked the same question to the architect and he he'll give you that explanation as well. But apparently apparently not. [laughter]
>> Let's talk to the architect. >> Everybody. >> Okay. No more questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bowski. Next, I'll call Willie. Actually, good evening. 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. >> Thank you. >> I'm Will Essie. I'm the principal of Handline Architect at 128 Bartlett Avenue in West Creek. I've been a practicing licensed architect since 2018 and spoken before you guys. If you
remember the woohoo debacle, >> here we are. [laughter] [clears throat] What did you say? >> The woohoo debacle, which turned out nice. I would say yes, >> but okay. So, uh, >> go ahead, >> Mr. Raven. >> Yes, the board accept Mr. Estri's
qualifications. Thank you. >> Um, Mr. Estri, I'll turn it over to you. You can give just an overall description of the proposed renovations and then you can answer some of the board's questions that you've heard. So, I was engaged by the Carmelovich
family to help them with a facelift of the property, which is in the historic district. Um, so normally when we address things like that, the first thing I want to do is find out what fits into the historic idea of the house. And
generally with renovations, I like to try and renovate projects to the point where they stay familiar with the architecture that they were before I get there. So, our initial assessment found that it had a porch that was over the setbacks on the
Belvoir side. Um, we still unfortunately had a 10-ft sideyard on the other road. Um, but given the opportunity for the wraparound porch that the owners wanted, we found that we could decrease that setback, albeit to the stairs, but we
were decreasing. We do have an opportunity to pull that back just a little bit and create that that front porch wraparound feel. If we were trying to attach a porch to the front of this house without going around the front, it starts to really take apart the view,
the the look of the building and what it represents. The house was built in the 40s. It was an old Ferman H. Kramer kit home. Um, Floyd Kramer took care of it for a number of years after that and is known affectionately to most of the neighborhood as the duck house. So, I
was given, you know, a pretty good idea that nobody wanted to see that thing get taken apart and dismantled into something new. So, we decided to try our best to add this porch around the front of the house and make it look as if we were really never there and this is part
of what it's always been. And that's the way we approached it. Um, the heat pump was in our way without a doubt. Um, so we've strategically found a spot to relocate the heat pump around to the other side of the building. So it sits
in this corner here today around to the other side here, which is on the beach side. There is we're proposing a small enclosure. So we're not looking at it. I do know that there is an ordinance that talks about new construction. We can't put um HVAC units, exterior units in the
front yard. We have two existing in what seems to be both front yards. So, we're going to remove that heat pump and get it out of the way. And we're creating a viable sitting porch on that beach side as well as the ocean side, the the the
east side. But in order to connect them, we needed to have that wraparound porch. Um five feet works great. It's a nice opportunity to have a porch where two people can sit or three or four at the point we're talking about now, the railings. You asked if there were the
railings are required. We're going to be less than 30 in off of grade. Now, there's a point in the code which allows me to not have railings if we're 30 in or less above grade. In this case, we are, but we're going to have 18 inch
rail that are going to be a solid rail that will wrap around the entire porch. 18 in is a nice seat height, right? 18 to 20 in gives you a comfortable spot where you can go and sit down and converse with somebody across from you. 5T makes that tight. And so, we provide
the sitting area on the side. But let's face it, if we're sitting on a front porch, we generally like to sit on the front porch and be part of the community. So, we want to keep that opportunity available for the family and and have that, you know, fit into the
nature. So, we did the design based on our assessment that we said that we're lessening the setback. We're relocating the HVAC unit. We're staying out of the sight triangles. Um, and in doing all of this and creating that front yard, we opened up
the opportunity to provide the parking on the back side on on beach and give the family an opportunity to have a nice clean front yard view to sit down and be part of the community. I approached the HPAC uh group with this and was met with
open arms. Um, as you guys probably all know, they love the ideas of wraparound porches and especially this is this falls into their purview with being the duck house and having some history native to Beach Haven. They want to keep it as is versus tearing it apart. So,
they really liked it and gave us the seal of approval to move forward. Um, at that point, we drew up our plans. I engaged both Mr. Prosowski and Mr. Raven and here we are today. I have a question, sir.
>> Yes. >> As you're looking in this picture at the house to the left, when the wraparound porch comes around that side of the house, >> how much distance will then there be between the porch and the neighbor's
property? Uh >> actually, so the existing house sits about 6 and 1/2 ft off the property line there >> and we're going to be back another three something.
>> Yeah, we're not even going as far as the house is today. We're going to have an 8 foot. >> Yeah, according to Mr. Bzowski's plan, the distance from the existing house to the property line on the east side is 5.4. 4 ft and it would be 8.4 ft to the
proposed porch. So, as Mr. Esie stated, it' be set back 3 ft from the edge of the existing house. >> So, there's another extender part of the house back further that I can't see. >> That's correct. Yeah, that was that was my fault. The the angle I just took from
the corner, but you can kind of see the top part of it in in that photograph projecting out a little bit. >> I may have another photograph. >> I have my thing. You want to shower? Open up Google. It's very >> All right. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? >> No, I just want to say that I I think it's beautiful. I think you did an amazing job with the duck house. >> Thank you. >> I agree. I think you've done an outstanding job and it's a great improvement >> for the home and for the street. >> Awesome.
>> Just to clarify, it's it's the net difference in the front would be about one and a half ft. Correct. When all was said and done, >> um from which port? So the the existing stairs are five and a 5.8 8 ft I believe
>> right >> and the proposed stairs are 7.3 feet and to that uh existing landing area that's out there the the we'll call it the small porch that's out
there now uh the setback from that according to Mr. Mr. Bzowski's plan that's 9 ft from the front property line and the proposed porch will be 10 ft. >> But we are creating it's it'll be better by 1.5 ft >> to the stairs. Yeah, the stairs distance
is improving. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Anybody on Zoom? Frank, nothing. >> No, no questions. >> I just I just have a question and kind of a clarification. So, one of the the
first things that was said was that this was approved by the historic committee. Okay. So when the historic committee is looking at this, they're looking at things like the design of the porch and whether there's it's raised properly,
there's no garage underneath, it has nice gutters and all that kind of stuff, >> building materials, everything. >> But it's really before this board uh for zoning purposes in terms of setbacks and
uh size of the the building and such. So that's that's correct statement. What I'm saying >> that's correct. The HP pack does not grant variances. This board grants variances. >> They go to HAC so they don't waste their time at an architect doing something
that's not going to make it in the historic district. So that's why they have to go to them first. But we make the decision on HP. Just for clarification, Mr. Raven, um I
assume that your clients will agree to the recommendations and comments contained in Mr. Letter, Mr. Little's review letter dated October 24, 2025. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Mr. Bzowski, you have no issues or concerns with his letter? >> No, I do not.
>> And as a condition of approval, you said it earlier, Mr. agreement. I just want to confirm that the ports will not be enclosed such that this will not be a habitable area. Correct. >> That's that's correct. >> Okay. >> And just to be clear, did you say that instead of railings, you're going to
have an 18inch seat all the way around? >> It's it's a solid rail at seat height. So, it gives you the opportunity to >> Well, how wide is the rail? Can you sit on a rail? >> The cap will probably be about 5 and a half inches. Oh, and Mr. Estster, there was a
question about whether it was considered to to move the house back. What would that entail? >> Um, it would be financially catastrophic to the project. It's you're looking at a serious amount of money to move this house. Um, it's a it's an old block and
brick and pebble crete foundation, most of which will come apart. Um, and you're looking at structural members that were put in place in the early 40s. um maybe not with the best of supervision when it was put together. [laughter] So
yeah, it would be financially not being I mean let's face it, we could do it. Right. But it would be more than the house is valued at. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Mike or Hillary, what do you want cooperation?
[snorts] Go ahead. I'll swear you in. >> Sure. [clears throat] >> Good evening. Do you swear affirm the testimony given before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mike, you and your wife Hillary are the owners of the subject property. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. Yes. >> And how long have you owned the property? >> Uh just over a year and a half. >> Okay. Okay. And you worked with Will on the design of this of the house as we're presenting it here this evening? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And if this was just basically to
obtain some front porch space while at the same time improving the overall aesthetic look of the house. >> Yes. And we spent almost a year working with Will trying to get make sure that was basically keeping to all the things the historic society in the town talked about. So, my wife spent a bunch of time and a lot of effort to kind of make sure
this really was aesthetically pleasing to everybody and that's where we are. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of of the applicant? >> No, I think you did a good job. >> Trying. [laughter] No, I just I just wanted to say thank you because, you know, with everyone
just wanting to tear down and build your lot's pretty large, so you could tear down and build a very large home which would not be kind of fit in with with the character of the town. So, I thank you for that because that's really, you know, what we we like to save these old homes and it keeps to our cultural
heritage. So, I thank you for that. and we've been coming down to uh I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and live live in New York and we've been coming down here for 20 plus years um with my family, my kids. I have four older kids. So, but look, [clears throat] we're excited. We we we love LBI. So, thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Those are all of our witnesses. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Yeah. Now, can I have a motion to open it to the public? Motion in the public. >> Second, Penny.
>> Anybody in the public like to speak to this application? Come up to the mic. >> Aim. Well, one at a time, please. [laughter] >> Denise Tenquist. Um, 125 Chadzsworth Avenue. >> Miss Tinquist, do you just one at a
time? Do you swear affirm the testimony I give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Go ahead. >> Um, I just like to speak to the microphone, please. >> Um, I would just to say today that I am a member of Hback as well as your neighbors. >> They live right behind me. Um, and we
had seen this design several months ago and we're so thrilled that they wanted to save the house everyone knows as the duck house to put the side porches on that we're looking for all around it. But I have to say as a neighbor there, I am particularly impressed with what's going to happen on Beach. Um because
right now Beach is kind of um not the most attractive side of their home. There's mechanicals out there. Um there's a fence, there's an older garage, so not only will the front of the house be certainly enhanced, but the side on beach will also uh have great improvement.
>> Good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Name and address for the record, please. Judy McCandrew, 323 Norwood Avenue. >> Speak into that mic. Will you please just pull it down? >> So we can get there. >> Sure. So take it out.
>> Is that about it? >> Is that not good? >> So do you swear in front of the testimony give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. So, thanks for the opportunity and I'm standing here on behalf of every member of the historic
preservation um and it's an honor to serve um regarding this application. We are 100% um in support of this contributing house. Um and if you are you are familiar with the guidelines within the
guidelines it's stated about porches um not only are they encouraged but they're considered the very significant component of shore homes as welcoming exterior rooms. So HPAC has always encouraged homeowners to open up
previously, you know, uh, porches that were, you know, changed in the past years or encouraging new new construction, renovations to add the porch. So that's where we've always stood. Um, this most the most historic
homes feature the wraparound porch and they're considered the treasure of the historic district and anybody who drives through or walks through this area certainly can see why. It's just relevant. The front porches are they're just original to the design of old
homes. So, uh, in in the opinion of the HPAC commission, it's that front porch in this design just brings together the balance of the house and
with your approval, it will certainly uh enhance the streetscape of Bellevor and really is reminiscent of old beach h. So, we are in full support and we hope you will be too. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anybody else? >> Anyone on Zoom? >> I don't see anyone on Zoom. >> I have a motion to close it to the public. >> So move, Penny. >> Second, Colleen. >> All right. Can I have a motion to
approve or deny this application? I'll make a motion to approve the application. >> I'll second, Tom. >> Mrs. Bound Miller, >> yes. >> Mrs. Ed, >> yes. >> Mr. Jenna, >> yes. >> Mayor Lambert, >> yes.
>> Mrs. Leonard, >> yes. >> Mr. Meadow, >> yes. >> Mr. Lafredo, >> go. [laughter] I don't know where you >> um Mr. Wanger. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes. >> Um >> is does anyone know was Richard Lefredoto here for this application? >> Yeah, I think >> he's on a call. >> Mr. [sighs]
>> Just give me a minute. >> Make a comment. It happens [clears throat] in this seat. Yeah, >> it's never good when two words chas >> be in the restroom. I didn't check
there, but >> might be in one of the places [laughter] you should >> Mr. Raven. Um, as you know, we're a joint land use board. We only count to nine. Mr. Lefredo was here, but he appears to have stepped out and we can't locate him. Mr. Aello, who's our other alternate, is here's been here
throughout the entire application. So, unless you have an issue or an objection, I'd ask that you let Mr. Aello vote as a ninth member in Mr. Lefredo. >> That's fine. I have no objection. >> Mr. Aello? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Congratulations.
>> Thank you. >> Welcome. [snorts] >> All right. Yeah, I have a feeling. >> All right, moving right along. We have 400 North
Bay Avenue both variance to permit impervious coverage of 96.2% 2% where only 6% is permitted and a loading zone with dimensions of 13 ft by 30 ft where the minimum dimensions of 15 ft by 30 ft are
permitted on the property located at 400 North Bay Avenue. Is that you Jim? >> Yes. Okay, James Raven on behalf of the applicant, RLD Industries LLC. So RLD Industries is the owner applicant of the
property and there was a prior approval on this property back in 2024 which was attached to the application. And the applicant at that time was Queen City Properties LLC. And that approved the commercial use on the ground floor, which is the Jersey Shore, Jersey Girl
Grill and Market. And the two apartments were approved previously. And really the whole purpose tonight is to really just change the entrance stairway to those two apartments. Um, so there's now sort
of a a landing and and almost a porch that goes across the length of the rear of the building and then the stairs project out toward station plaza. So that that's the real change that we're here for. And then there were some minor modifications that were made really just
to the [snorts] restaurant for uh really functionality. And those are they want to construct a new unfinished storage area off the rear of the building just to obtain a little additional space there. Relocate the
refrigeration box approximately 2.3 ft closer to the street. And the purpose of that is to really turn it around um so that the the doors and everything open up toward the building rather than having to walk around, which is how they wanted to put it originally, but after
it was approved, they didn't realize that they didn't have any room to move it. So, they're just trying to shift that a couple of feet and then also um convert existing storage area to a storage and sprinkler room area because now they're going to need sprinklers in
the building. Um and that area would serve as the the sprinkler room as well. So with these changes, the existing imperous coverage is 94.9% and with the changes it would increase to 96.2%.
Which is um I know we're well over the permitted of maximum permitted of 60% but it's a a very minimal increase over what's there now. And then the loading zone in the rear of the property is required to be 15 by 30 feet. And by
moving that cooler out, those couple of feet that then shrinks the size of the loading area to three 13.2 ft by 30 ft. So we're just we don't quite meet the width of that loading area, but there's no parking on the street back there. So
in reality, the loading zone will be able to be utilized in the same way that it has been used. So, those are the variances that we're seeking. Jim Bzowski is going to prov provide testimony regarding the the site plan, the changes to the site, and then I also
have Kevin Schwarzoff from CWB architecture who's going to talk about the change in the stair design. And uh the applicant is present as well if there's questions there. So, first I'll call Mr. Powowski. [clears throat] >> Mr. Mr. Rosi, you to swear affirm the testimony I give before this board will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> For the record, my name is James Bowski. I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at Horn Tyson and Yoder since 1997. >> Uh, Mr. Bzowski, um, you've testified
before this board a number of times previously. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And the board accepts Mr. Bzowski's qualifications as a licensed professional engineer and planner. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, and before I start too, I just want to mention, I'm not sure if I
brought it up before, the prior approval was um, in accordance with a redevelopment plan with the burrow. Um, so the approval had that redevelopment plan associated with it. Just want to that for the record. U, Mr. Bzowski, if
you could just explain how the site's currently laid out and how we're changing this from the original approval. >> Certainly. Th this property is located uh to the north of Fourth Street on the west side of Bay Avenue and bound on the
uh bound on the west side by uh Station Plaza. So it's surrounded by on three sides by streets. Um it's currently developed with a one-story um commercial building that's utilized as uh the the
Jersey girl um restaurant and market. uh uh previously appro uh two apartments were previously approved on the uh second floor. Um and and basically the uh the the everything that we're proposing to do is located on the west
side on the station avenue side of of the property tonight. Um the the first thing what we're uh the applicants looking to do is is relocate the the existing walk-in box about two foot closer to station plaza. That's going to
leave about a 4 foot separation between the building and the box, which will allow the doors to the box to uh open on the east side of the walk-in, which is adjacent to the building. So, uh it just makes the access to the the walk-in box
a lot easier for the uh the the commercial use. And and the relocation, what that does is reduces the size of the loading zone from 15 foot uh foot of width to 13.2 foot of width. Um to the west of the loading zone is another five
feet of uh of land between the the curb line of station plaza and the property line. Uh the all of station plaza is a depressed curb. So the this uh reduction in the loading zone um although technically deficient of the 15 foot in
reality uh it's still adequate width in if you include the area out to the curb line. Um, so we don't see that as a uh a detriment to the property. The loading zone we're seeking is 13.2 by 30 foot uh where 15 by 30 foot is is required. Uh
that's just going to help the uh um how the uh the business operates. It's going to really assist them. Uh the other thing we're proposing is the relocation of the steps to the apartment. Uh we're proposing steps off of the uh the northwest corner of the building that
are going to project down towards uh Station Plaza. Um each of these apartments, I believe they're one-bedroom apartments um on the on the second floor. Each apartment requires one parking space. The two parking spaces for these apartments are in the uh northwest
corner of the property. So these stairs are going to come down immediately adjacent to the two parking uh so that the uh the the residents of the apartments don't have to fight the uh uh the workers and and the patrons of the property to get to their apartment. They
just park the car. The the steps are right there. They go up the steps. They can get into the I'm sorry, [clears throat] they can get into the apartments. So, the steps uh lead up to a 5.3 foot wide uh deck area that extends uh then to the
south along the the west face of the second floor to provide access to the two apartments. Um, and between the steps and the walk-in box, we're proposing a 7 by 11.3 foot uh storage area for dry storage uh of goods for the
for the restaurant. Uh all these uh additions, the steps and the deck and the the storage occupy an additional 122 square foot of imperous surface which increases our uh existing 94.9%
impervious up to 96.2% uh impervious. The um the the patio area to the north of the building is all done with permeable pavers. Um the the the loading zone, the the residential parking and
the parking spa uh area to the south of the building are all on uh existing gravel surfaces. So um although the number the 96.2 is a high number, there's a lot of uh uh
uh uh allowance for infiltration with the permeable papers and the uh the uh gravel parking areas. So it's not, you know, 100% hard surface. They're um somewhat a little bit less than hard surface. In fact, uh we've got of the
96.2% impervious, uh we've got 20% of those are permeable surfaces, permeable papers. I believe that's the the gist of what
we're we're trying to get accomplished here. for seeking a variance for the the loading zone and seeking a variance for the 122 square foot of additional impervious surface. >> And as you touched on a little bit, Mr. Bzowski, so you feel that the loading
zone, even as modified, will allow it to serve its purpose without hindering the use of it in any way? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Because as you mentioned, there's additional area into the right of way that will be able to be utilized by delivery drivers.
>> Yeah. or anybody parking there. >> Obviously, for to make a delivery to the property, if the delivery driver is to utilize the the loading zone, they're going to be utilizing that that area between the rightway and curve line anyway to even if just to pull in. Um
so, uh using that space I don't see as a detriment. >> Wait, you like you want the delivery guy to go like over the like the stairs are coming this way. So, you want the delivery guy to really go into that delivery?
>> Well, that it's a 15 by 30 foot >> without hitting the stairs. >> Isn't that kind of like dangerous? >> I don't I don't know how that is dangerous. >> Well, because you have multiple deliveries multiple times a week and
then you have these stairs coming out right where the delivery zone is. >> Um, >> we could we could put ballards in front of the stairs if required. Right. Whether it's a stair or a building, there's always going to be something that delivery guys have to be on the lookout for. Yeah. And certainly we
could we could add some protection with ballards if if you safety is is >> right. Well, is there like an actual purpose of this of the stairs in the balcony? Like is there like a do the apartments have to have multiple ingress egress? Is that the whole purpose of it? >> No, this is the only
>> or is it just for aesthetic purposes only? >> This is the as far I believe is the only access to the apartments. There's not inside to get into the >> I don't believe so. >> I thought I saw a vest of guilt or something. >> I saw that. Yeah.
[snorts] >> We'll have we'll have Kevin address that further. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Mr. Raven, to the extent that the proposed stairs are still being sought, your plan would raise a condition of approval to install Bowers for safety reasons.
>> Yes, on the on the south side of the proposed stairs. Yes, >> Mr. Raven, question. Um, you mentioned that the two um apartment units were previously approved, >> right? >> So, when they were approved, what was the approval for the stairs at that
time? did uh the stairway I believe when it was in the same location on that side of the building. Um >> go ahead. >> It basically occupied the width of the 5.2 uh foot wide deck. So it went from uh
from the north side you would go up as you go south uh onto a landing. So it that same 5 foot 5.2 two foot width that we're showing the the landing now would would have been occupied by the steps
plus landing. Um the the issue that the applicant has with with that was it precludes the uh location of the the storage. It kind of took up the uh the um
maneuverability around the the restaurant area between the the uh cooler and the the wall itself uh because of the the steps. Uh so that it it [clears throat] was gets
more better flow with the steps coming off of the the deck as shown. I I was just curious to, you know, this wasn't considered when it was first approved. I It's only been two years, right? Not even, >> right? I think it was once the
once the downstairs began to operate is when they sort of realized, they didn't realize it in advance till it was in operation that it would need to be amended or it would be preferred to be amended. Is the storage unit opening the same way
to the east as the refrigeration unit? >> I believe so. Yes. >> So, what is under that deck, that porch, that walkway? >> Is that all part of it? >> Is it go? >> No, no. It's it's open. >> It's like an open hall underneath that.
>> Oh, okay. So you there's >> the storage unit starts at the outside part of of the walkway >> more or less. Yes. >> Doesn't go under it. >> No, >> I think it goes under it slightly. The >> Doesn't it the walk-in slightly under
the stairs? >> The walk-in does. >> Oh, not the storage. I'm sorry. >> I'll stay quiet. [laughter] >> Right now, to get to the upstairs, there's an internal staircase. Correct. That's That's how you get to the upstairs.
There's got to be something. >> Well, that's how it was when it was Boston. I mean, that's how you get to upstairs. There's an internal staircase, >> right? >> Right. So, that's >> Well, where the heck did it come? >> Right.
>> Yeah. I don't know. I'm looking at the plan, the architectural plan. I think we need the architect to explain the uh interior workings of this cuz I see a set of stairs on the second page of the architectural that appear to go up to
another floor, not down. What if I if I may, why don't we do this? Why don't we see if the board has any further questions for Mr. Bzowski? And if not, then we can bring up the architect. And these are all very good questions that apparently the architect can address for us. >> So Mr. Gazowski, you're saying this is
aesthetically pleasing. Is that your argument here? >> Um, it it basically >> I'm just asking so I can I just know. >> I'm saying it it it it it makes the uh the site more workable as far as the
commercial plus the residential. So, it's a um kind of a the the uh the better planning the better planning of the site to allow the the commercial to work hand in hand with the residential use of the property. and and
the benefit of allowing the property to be more easily accessible on the rear there outweighs the det any detriment from slightly reducing the size of that loading zone. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the slight increase in the impervious coverage.
>> Yes. This keeps the the the residential uh occupants kind of out of the way of the commercial. So better better separates the two uses. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Are they planning on getting rid of the inside stairway?
>> That I don't know. >> We'll have Mr. Schwarz address that. >> So sounds like the reason they wanted the outside stairs is to keep the people the residents out of the restaurant coming in and out of the restaurant to
get to the second floor. >> Yeah. There there would certainly be a conflict if if that were to happen. the if the >> occupants of the the apartment had to go through the restaurant to get into the their apartments.
>> Okay. >> Is there a full [clears throat] set of elevations on the uh I'm not finding them on the burough website. That's why I'm trying to >> um we we submitted not with the original plans, but we did supplement with a
north, south, and west elevation. Um I don't know if they're on the burough website, but we did submit those. That's page three on the burrow website. I was curious if we had so we can look at it from aside from the bits and pieces that are there.
>> Which which side were you asking about? >> I'm trying to I'm trying to get a whole plot plan to see a whole plot plan on there because it's not listed on the burrow website. >> So you should have a and it has built like like straight down. >> Yes, that [snorts]
>> I couldn't find it on the burrow page. That's why I'm trying to I know I saw it somewhere where >> they reverse north on the old and the new plan. [clears throat] >> I'll ask any other questions for Mr. Rosowski
after the >> I can use a window for a second for the rest. >> Mr. Raven, you want to call your next witness? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bzowski. Next, we'll call Kevin Schwarzoff from CWB Architecture.
>> Thanks. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony I give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, um, um, Mr. Schwarzoff, if you could give a little background of your qualifications
for the board, please. >> I've been a registered architect in the state of New Jersey and I've been working with CW Architecture since 2020. >> Okay. And the plans that we submitted, the architectural drawings were signed by Sarah Jennings. And you've been involved in this project as well?
>> I have. >> Okay. So, you're familiar with the site and the plans? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mr. Raven, if don't I don't mean to interrupt. Just for the record, you're offering Mr. Schwarzoff as an expert in architecture. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Schwarzoff,
why don't you first just give a general overview of the stair revision and then you've heard some of the questions from the board if you wouldn't mind just answering some of those questions. >> Yes. So, um, in regard to the stair change from I mean previously proposed last year the stair was exterior. We
decided to put the egress balcony going to the side. As uh Jimmy stated, it's kind of a matter of just separating your usages. So putting the stair in the loading zone kind of a conflict of what the use is going to be kind of invites the kind of residents of the apartments
to kind of go into a area of a little bit more chaos. We want to try to push it out of the way and try to get the basically the entrance to where they're going into the residential use stairs over by where the parking is going to be. We're trying to really separate the usages so that they're basically not going to be getting in the way of each
other and have their own space. Um, in regard to the interior stair, yes, we are proposing to get rid of the interior stair. When it comes to residential and and assembly use, separations are needed. We have to eat up a lot of the space of the existing restaurant. It would just take up basically too much
space to really keep the uh restaurant operating the way that it is. >> So, the plans don't show that, correct? The interior. >> Uh, no, they do not have the demo runs before getting to the interior. the existing interior stairs were where you see the new storage right in the middle.
That's where that's where the interior stair was and it was accessed through the kitchen which once again we'd have to reverse the stairs. You couldn't we obviously could not have the residence and access to the kitchen [snorts] >> and other than the stairs there's no changes to the proposed layout of the
residential space. Correct. Uh there were uh basically it was still separated the two sides but other than that um the layouts of interior changed a little bit but the actual separation in the middle stay the same. >> Okay. >> So quick question if I and I can ask
where did the stairs in the inside of the apartment go to where it says employees only. Is there a third floor of this building or storage or >> Yeah. >> Uh there's some attic storage just uh like kind of attic storage as it's going
to have a sub barn roof. It's uh basically an area should it need be needed it can be used for the commercial use >> just does it have to be sprinklered as far as the code for if you're storing things above a residential apartment. It
would have to follow the standard rules of basically PI13. Yes. >> Right. So there wouldn't be a CO issued for the attic space for the restaurant unless it fully meets the building code. Correct. >> It has to be the building code. >> All right. I just want to make sure
that's on the record because I noticed those stairs going up. It says employees only. They start storing paper products and things like that in the attic. It's going to be a concern. >> Okay. And the stairs going to the attic are not being removed. They're staying.
>> Uh those are those are new stairs to the attic. The existing ones were happening. Uh there was actually a pull down for it. >> So those are actually new stairs to the attic. >> Pull down stairs to the attic. Is that what you said? >> That that that was what was existing. This is actually going to be a new stair going up into the attic.
>> Staircase. >> How do you get to them if you're going to go through the resident's apartment? >> No, there's a best deal separating the two. Jamie, >> it's on the second floor. It's on the second floor plan. Vestibule. >> Yeah. Okay. So So that goes right up to
the attic, but doesn't go because there's two door. It looks like you you can go to there's internal stairs. You can go to the left or right. Apartment one, apartment two, but they're not. They're just going up to the attic. >> So I think if >> if I read it correctly, so you enter the
stairs from the outside. >> Yeah. >> There's an entrance to either apartment on your right and left. And if you go straight, you take the stairs up to the third floor. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Does that make sense? >> So why not just have two landings to the apartments? You could do that. You could have you could still have the internal
stairs and then >> that would require having to alter around the roof a little bit more than is needed and also still having a separation at the attic. >> [snorts] >> Mr. Raven, in light of Mr. Little's testimony, I assume as a condition of
approval, your client will agree that the the attic storage space will meet the building code before any in order for any CO to be issued. Yes. >> Yes, we would stipulate that. Yes. Any questions? Anyone?
>> Okay, >> thank you. Um, I do have the owner of the property here and also Sean Matt from Jersey Girl if there's any questions. I don't have any direct questions, but they're happy to answer any questions the board may have. That's all we have. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. [snorts] >> All right. Can I have a motion to open it to the public, please? >> So move, Penny. >> Second. >> Second. >> There's a second, Mr. Jenna. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Is there anybody in the public? again. >> Hello, my name is >> Hi guys. [laughter] >> You guys, >> Mr. Mua, just your name and address for the record, please. >> Uh, my name is Ken Muha. My wife and I
live at 310 Station Plaza, Beach Haven, County Corner from Jersey Girls. >> Raise your right hand, please. >> Oh, sorry. 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. >> Thank you, Mr. Go ahead. >> I implore
this board to make sure all your eyes are dotted, your tees are crossed with this group behind me. It is I don't know. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors. Um, just for example, now
please follow this timeline. These guys started working at some point earlier in 2024, maybe even the beginning of 23. On July 3rd of 24, Sean McCarter, the
construction official, issued uh a TCO, a temporary certificate of occupancy. They operated on this TCO, getting extensions every 30 days here, 30 days here. Um, it extended
until on March 3rd of 2025. The town had to say, "You've been non-compliant since July 23rd." They shut them down. I know their door said closed due to construction, but that's not accurate.
The town shut them down. They had to pay their fines, and that's why they were shut down. It took them almost a year. They sat in front of you guys said, "I'm going to do this. We're going to do that." And they didn't do it. And they
had over 30 citations. And they ended up paying over $4,000 in fines of stuff they had agreed to do back in the spring. And sitting here, you guys are mentioning, "Hey, I don't see this on this drawing or that drawing." You're
never going to see it. or at least are going to hope you forget about it. Now, um I went through this the garbage corral that was agreed to on the site plan that was approved. They never had a
garbage corral. It was open. I can attest to the fact that my grandkids cleaned up the street 12 at least times, not counting my neighbors. It was open. The gulls would get to it. It was spread everywhere. So then they came up with a
open design. Now this is after months. Um I'm not sure exactly when it is. I'm going to say sometime at the uh toward the end of the summer. Now this is a year by the way. This isn't 24. This is this year. And then
that was shown by the town that that was not acceptable. So then they put a closed section on which by the way never worked. it would just blow and stuff went all over the place. So, in their genius, they decided
last week they took what's essentially a 2x4 and nailed it to this structure, which by the way, they hadn't had their garbage emptied in two weeks. So, the town went there today, called the health department, and took pictures of 12 to
15 garbages piled up in the back. That's their response to what they said they were going to do a year ago. Now, I also have, now Jamie pointed out, I remember when we were doing the uh the project on
the boulevard, permeable pavers, right? Sounds great. Everybody loves it. When you do a permeable pa permeable pa, it is required that you clean it. They suggest twice a year. Do you know what the number one problem with a permeable
PA is? If you have a flood with the silt, that flood we had three weeks ago, they didn't clean it. You're supposed to vacuum it, you're supposed to power wash it, and then you got to inspect the top 20%. That wasn't done. Do you think they're going to do anything? I know
what the answer to that is. Um, let's see. The UCCC codes obviously they're going to have to be adhered to with any building structure. They have a vent stack that's less than 10 ft from a window. That window either has to go
away or the vent stack has has to be changed. The UCCC requires that you cannot have a vent stack within 10t of a window. I'm guessing that's four feet maybe. So again, be aware of that. look at that and make sure that happens
before you start sending people up there and they're blowing exhaust into their windows. Uh, I did the impervious coverage, the parking, that's always been an issue, so I'm not going to even address that. Um, it doesn't really change. I just ask that you look at
this. Um the when you get a trash pickup, if you don't have wheels, you need 46 ft of maneuverability. Our streets are 42 feet. They had straight cans with no wheels. So Metobrook
actually knocked over the corner stop, I mean the corner sign at fourth and station. And you know, there was no problem. We fixed it. But the problem was that doesn't fit the requirements
for a a trash pickup. It took them forever. They only recently got the wheels so that they can rotate it like everybody else does that they could rotate it and pick up the garbage. And my other concern is whether you look at the owner of the property or the owner
of the business. They're two different people. And when the owner of the property was told about the gar the garbage problem, instead of having the business owners finally corrected after a year, he decided to drive around town,
took pictures of what he considered other non-compliant businesses. That's how we solved the problem. I'm just saying, be careful with this. Watch it. Um, and I wish you guys well. You do a great job. Good [clears throat] luck.
Thank you, Mr. Mua. Let let me remind the board that while Mr. Muha's concerns uh are are are well taken, we are not a board of enforcement. I've said that before and I'm sure Mr. Muha is aware of that. But for the benefit of the applicant, members of the
public, this board is not a board of enforcement. When there are violations, they're reported. In fact, Mr. Muha just testified that the the bro is addressing various violations. We are a board that considers applications for, in this case, an amended site plan approval and
a request for the two variances. Um, I just ask that the board keep that in mind in voting however it sees fit. Again, I am not minimizing uh or in any way trivializing Mr. Muha's concerns. They're are all well taken, but let's just please keep in mind what this board
is asked to do. Is >> there anybody else in the public? Anybody on Zoom? No one on Zoom. Can I have a motion to close it to the public? >> Motion top. >> Second, Penny. >> Mr. Raven.
>> Yes. And actually, if I could just have um the owner of the property testify briefly just to address some of the concerns of Mr. Muha. >> Your name and address for the record, sir. >> Sure. Uh, Robert Duffy, the owner of 400 North Bay, also have a house in Long Beach Township.
>> You raise your right hand, please. >> Yes, sir. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Go ahead, Mr. Ruben. So, Mr. Duffy, the subject property is owned by RLD Industries LLC. And you're a member of that LLC? >> Yeah, I'm sold.
>> Okay. And you, so you have authority to speak on behalf of the LLC. So, uh, yeah, I know you wanted to address some of the comments that Mr. Mr. Muha just raised. So go ahead. >> Yeah, just to keep it briefly. So I appreciate all the support thus far. I bought the property in February of 24 um
from Pagnata's group who, you know, obviously proposed to knock it down. You know, to Jamie's point earlier with the previous case, we appreciated the fact that we didn't knock the building down. All that said and done, I can't speak to I just want for the record to know that, you know, the resident is the number one
competitor of my tenant. So we'll leave that and take that to be desired. Doesn't mean much. So I'm not here to debate anything. I'd look for your support. What I'm doing here is this has nothing to do with Jersey girl. I own the building and now I want to start the construction on the apartments which was
all approved previously. Um and uh you know if you look at some of the support we received from Frank Little his letter he supports the recommendation. Um you know some of the comments that were made a little bit out of bounds. I I can't understand any of it but it's none of my worries. I just appreciate your support on the two variances. It has nothing to
do with the trash or such, but you know, I think we've done the best we could. Hopefully, you like the looks of the property. We've done a lot in the last year and a half. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I have a question. What are these two apartments going to be rental units or these to house workers?
>> Uh, probably a mixture of both. There'll be some rental uh you know, if we got somebody, you know, some of the yoga instructors may take it year round. So, >> cuz this the the plan is really interesting to me is that they're only one-bedroom units, but then you have like a rand like they each have like a
random office. And what I've seen in the past is that these random offices often turn into the second bedroom. So, it's just the the way that that is arranged. You don't really see offices in a rental property. So, that's why I thought maybe it was for more of like working people
that work there, a manager or something renting. So that's why that's why I'm asking because it's very rare that you see offices. They usually are just like hiding the second bedroom that will be put into play. >> Sure. So again, I haven't gone through it all. I want to get them done. We want to start the project. But again, it
could be where right now it's an office up there. We I could use one of them as a bedroom and an office. >> I haven't finalized that yet. I was here for the two variances, >> right? Because you originally when this was approved in the previous resolution, it was approved for two one-bedroom
apartments and usually and your lot size is 8,900 square feet and the way that our ordinance are is one bedroom per 5,000 ft². So you are getting a whole another unit in that previous resolution. So
I feel that um that's that was pretty generous by by the previous board. So I just wanted to, you know, see where these units were going. >> Mr. Raven, Miss Balo raises a good point. It's understood that the applicant is bound by the prior approvals and two one-bedroom apartments
are approved. So it's not as though with this application, the applicant has the ability to turn one of them into an office. If that's what street being requested, >> have to come back to the board. >> Yes. And the the two offices are are 7 feet 1 in by 7' one inch. other very
small I think smaller than a standard bedroom and >> yeah it legally can't be a bedroom but it's it's big enough for like you know a set of bunk beds >> but m Mr. Mr. Duffy, for the record, you understand those they cannot they're one-bedroom apartments, so you cannot have more than one bedroom
>> under the existing approvals. >> 100%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have a question too. Would it be unreasonable to ask like if you could give us a set of drawings that is showing everything that's actually occurring? Like, you know, when I hear things like, well, the yo-yo there is going to be removed, but it's not
showing. It's not very complicated set of plans. Yeah. >> You know, we I think it would be fair to ask to see exactly what is being done so we understand it. >> Yeah. When a question came up about the stairs. Yeah. Well, give any drawings you have. It This has nothing to do with the restaurant downstairs was the
apartments, but if there's a question about those stairs are being taken out, I thought we put everything. But whatever question again, when Frank approved it, Jim approved it, I we submitted what it was. >> Yeah, I believe everything's on the plans. The architect just noted there was a question about where the stairs
are currently on the ground floor and they're they've been removed but that wasn't shown on the plan. So >> shown >> yeah outside of that I believe Mr. Schwarzoff is that correct? Everything else is shown on the plan >> and it'll be shown in the as >> Yes.
>> What about the vent stack? >> I'm sorry it's the vent stack. It's not shown on the plans where it is. Is that going to be above the windows so it has proper ventilation? So it's not >> Yeah, none of that's changed. That's all on the site plan. >> Yeah, I'm not seeing it in the picture.
That's why I'm trying to figure where where where it is. [snorts] >> So is that going to remain in the same location? >> Same where it's at. Nothing's changed. >> Going to go higher to to to be away from the window. >> Everything was approved. That's per the gentleman who came out. We changed that
a couple times to his approvals. Again, in the permitting areas, >> are the apartments people in the apartments using the trash that the restaurant would use? There's no separate trash area for the the apartment users. >> No, but I'll in on a regular basis, I'll
take that out myself if I have to. >> Any other questions? >> What is What are we doing with the the the trash enclosure? Is that going to be a full enclosure? So to I mean with proper >> right now it's it's full enclosure now >> proper dumpsters with the lids being closed
>> uh fixed now and again has nothing to do with the apartments. >> I've sat on land use board for the last eight years nine years now and every time we have anything that comes up I'm surprised it didn't come up in the prior resolution is we always ask what about the trash. >> Okay
>> because it is such a big problem here and being the fact that Mr. Mr. Muhoff brought it up. I just want to >> We will be I speak to Jim the code guy. We're going to be in full. We continue to upgrade. We I've owned this for a year and a half. So, we continue to make improvements. We will meet all the
permit in the rules. >> Just curious, I spoke with the building department earlier and they mentioned something about the original walk-in refrigerator that was permitted was enlarged. Is that true? >> In other words, it's taking up more area
than was originally proposed. Is that accurate? >> Well, by a few feet, but again, everything is now fit the code. Some of this is update the site plan with Viv and such, but that is all within the requirements. >> That does come into play with what's
being Yes. requested. Yep. Any [clears throat] other questions? >> Well, this vent stack can't be within 10 ft of a window. Are you going to take the window out and move the vent stack?
>> I have to defer to Jim while we're here. >> More Kevin's department. >> Come on. Come on up, please. >> Sure. Sure. >> Um, in regard to the vent stack, we will look into so under the rehab sub code, we'll look into whether or not it can
remain and if it can't, then we will propose having to either relocate the window and close that, but we will make sure that it does conform to the rehab sub code. >> Again, that's a that's a building code issue, but that's something that obviously need to be addressed. Right.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> Mr. Raven, if you don't mind. There appears to be someone on Zoom from the public that would like to be heard. So, we're going to reopen to the public. Please >> make a motion. >> Have a motion to open it to the public. >> So, move Penny
>> second. >> The Jean Jean M. >> Ma'am, good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, I can hear you. I just was not able to unmute initially, so >> Okay, that that's okay. Um, can you
state your name and address for the record, please? >> Sure. My name is Jean Mantoano, 3005th Street in Beach Haven. And >> can you raise your right hand, please? >> Yes. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Go ahead. So, first I just want to thank you all for the opportunity to um speak this evening and and address um the proposed changes to the 400 Bay Avenue, specifically with um those at the rear
of the property on Station Plaza. Um our home side of our home faces um Station Plaza and the front faces Fifth Street. So, um most concerned about the uh construction of a new unfinished storage space, the relocation of the
refrigeration and changes to the unfinished um storage. I had taken a look at the updated architectural plans um and just made notes of notes of a few things. Um I'm curious um actually to what the lighting is proposed for the stairs and the walkway in the back of
the building. Um and the reason I ask is because there's already nuisance lighting from the building. Um, frankly, the spotlights on the side of the building are like headlights that shine into every room of our home um until well after the 900 p.m. close time of
the business. I did talk with um the owner of the business um when the lights were initially on for 24 hours a day. They turn off now again well after the 900 p.m. closing time and they do continue to be a a nuisance. We basically have to keep our blinds closed
or hang blankets um to block the light um that shines should we are or our guests want to go to bed a little early. Um we really shouldn't have to deal with this in our home. Um and it's not how we really want to live to have our windows closed and and blinds pulled and
blankets or sheets on on covering windows. Um, we also have to contend with many many delivery trucks from very early in the morning throughout the day blocking the street and some idling for 20 to 30 minutes at a time. Um, I now
I've I uh initially had noted an industrial kitchen fan which I've learned is called a stack vent. Um, size almost of an unsightly jet engine that runs and hums almost 24/7. um initially it did and it it may be um run less
frequently now. Um and it's another reason that we need to close our windows despite having wonderful breezes that go through our entire home um because of the noise and the vibration from the fan um that's pretty constant. We have, you
know, the regular smell of cooking and grease during open hours, which run, you know, from 7:00 a.m. to to 9:00 p.m. And then I guess one of the other things that was brought up also was um the dumpster area that has been in a pretty dilapidated state um with the surrounding gate and fence in pretty
poor condition on a regular basis. um leaks from the dumpster smell um and the leaks and whatever the liquid is coming out of the dumpster running down the street on um a number of occasion occasions. And I have to say that frankly the back of the property really is an eyesore and not something that's
representative of Beach Haven nor something that should really be in plain sight for neighbors or visitors. Um I don't find that this is the case for the other businesses that are on the 400 block of Bay Avenue. the um the Ly's Bed and Biscuit um that you know the dog
shop there are other food based businesses. I don't see any of this happening in the backs of those buildings. Um and I really think that this you know new construction of a storage space, the changing of the refrigeration. I just can't imagine what
all of that is going to look like. Um especially when taking aesthetics into consideration where which were addressed a little bit earlier on um through this discussion. So, like I said, I I mention all of this because there's more changes at the property and this gives this really just gives a flavor the examples
that I've shared um of what impacts the neighbors in the community. So, I do respect respectfully ask you all to consider the things that are being proposed and also as you consider more and more building um you know across across the the burrow which we love. We
purchased our home about 10 years ago after always vacationing there. Um, but it seems, you know, the the commercial commercial commercial businesses, commercial properties that are now being sort of pushed into residential zoned areas, it really impacts us. I mean, it
sounds great when new businesses are coming in, I think it's fantastic. Um, and honestly, had the business been there when we purchased our home, we would not have purchased our home there. So, um, you know, I'm all for progress and change, but I also respectfully ask
for you to consider the impact on the surrounding community and consider consider that moving forward for this project and for others. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Anybody else on Zoom?
Raise your hand if you can't unmute. >> No one else. >> Yes, >> I have one quick two minutes. >> You have to come up. >> Clack up. Mr. Moa, >> I have moa. I have one quick comment
with Mr. Duffy. Um, I appreciate Jersey Girl. Frankly, we had the busiest year in 42 years and part of it was because of them. They bring people in, they eat at their place two or three times and maybe I get an extra one. So, we had the best year ever. So, my comments have
zero to do with economics and business. And lastly, um Bruce from Trinity, who the town hires for fire, has not seen any drawings, so there are no permits that he's approved. He's seen nothing
for the apartments. And he's the guy that says, "Hey, this vent stack can't be within 10 ft of the window." So, he's seen nothing from the applicant. >> Thank you. Any more? Okay. Can I have a motion to close it to
the public, please? So move. Penny >> second. >> Mr. Mr. Ra, final words. >> Sure. The only thing I'll clarify with with respect to Jean's comment. I discussed with the applicant. There's no additional lighting proposed with the stairs. It would be lit in the same
manner, but certainly if there's issues with the lighting, you can continue to communicate with Mr. Duffy. he'd be happy to work with you to try to if the lighting is a problem with your property to work with you on that, but there's no additional lighting proposed at this point. That's all I wanted to clarify. I
>> I appreciate your clarification, but if you have two rental units and you have a deck, there's going to be lighting. >> There's lighting that's already there is my understanding. I I I don't know the >> roof. There could be lighting in the roof, you know. >> Yeah. I mean, if if additional lighting needs to be seen to go in, but nothing
else projecting. I would assume that there would have to be, >> right? Obvious obviously to see where you are outside, but >> I don't know exactly where the existing lighting is on on the outside now, but >> they can light towards the building instead of away from. >> Yeah, we'll try to, you know, we're not
trying to project light out onto the neighbors. So, just Yeah, if there are issues, >> some kind of covers on them that go down so they don't shine across, >> I believe. So, yes. [clears throat] >> Will your client work with Mr. Little's office with regard to the existing lighting condition.
>> Yes, absolutely. >> They do make light shields. >> Yeah, >> I was just going to make a comment that we're going to definitely need to shield the existing lights. >> So, we'll have to get a detail on that uh so it doesn't impact a neighbor. >> Okay,
>> that's agreed to as a condition of approval. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Raymond. >> Thank you, Eric. >> I have I have a question. I just need some kind of clarification. I know every application is, you know, heard on its own merit and whatnot, but
what about like the current state of a property? Does that affect the current current application? So, if the property is less than desirable currently, would that have any type of effect on
the application and whether or not a decision is made? If I understand your question, Miss Bow Miller, um the the the current state of the property being less than desirable is due to what Mr. Muha testified as to our enforcement issues. We we granted an
application. The resolution from 2024 speaks for itself. There have been various issues and the burrow is dealing with that, >> right? Well, I like to walk around and take like, you know, just site visits not off the property of of all the applications. So, when I'm looking at
a a property and the application would mean to make it more aesthetically pleasing, but the current property is the way that it's being maintained is not currently aesthetically pleasing. >> Okay. And I think what the board is tked
to do this evening is to make its decision regarding the two requested variances based on the testimony that was presented on behalf of the applicant. Okay. and whether or not based on that testimony the board finds that the positive outweighs the negative
criteria. In other words, the benefits outweigh the detriments if any resulting from these two these proposed new changes. >> Okay? >> Two of which require variances. >> Certain certainly there are ongoing issues there. There seems to be no doubt about that. That's being dealt with by
the burough appropriately. And I heard I think Mr. Duffy say they're going to continue to work with the burough to try to fix those. >> Can we clarify the benefits then? Because like it was kind of like a little off with the benefits. I asked if you was aesthetically pleasing. You said
you're kind of yes, no, but it was more to this. What are the benefits here? Does this separate the commercial from the residential? Even though there is a way to have the residential enter a totally different way. This isn't the only way that it has to be. So, I need
to know what the benefits are. >> Mr. Bowski, come on back up, please. >> Just so we're clear. >> I understand. Good question. >> I'm not sure what the benefits are. >> Good question. So the dealing with the municipal land use law uh one of the purposes of the municipal
land use law is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey
citizens. >> That's purpose what Mr. Ross? >> What's that? >> Purpose what? I >> uh G >> G. And so I believe that uh the the application as proposed is going to um enhance [clears throat] that uh the
purpose of zoning by allowing the the the the residential and the commercial on this property um to to to better function. >> Okay. Oh, I think I'm I'm going to disagree with you there to provide suspicion space because like I said
previously, the stairs encroaching on the delivery zone is not >> the stairs act the stairs don't encroach on the delivery zone. The stairs >> the stairs being close in proximity to the >> but they're not they're not in the the loading zone at all. It's the the
loading zone is reduced by the the refrigeration unit uh being slid west. The stairs have no uh there's no issue between the stairs and the loading zone. >> So, we're adding more stuff back there which isn't really promoting a desirable
visual environment through creative development and arrangement. >> That's my disagreement. >> And one of the purposes, >> one of the purposes too is with respect to that walk-in. So the the way it currently sits, the doors to
the walk-in project to the west. So you have to go around from the restaurant and the way the uh I don't know what they're called on top to the cooling vents or system. They're turning that around and that's one of the reasons for it getting closer to station plaza and
that allows the walk-in to now be accessed from the east side. So much less activity will now be seen from the station plaza sign where now people have to walk around the walk-in and access the doors on the west side. That's now alleviated by turning it around. So it
affects the functionality and also improves the disturb any disturbances to the residents because there will be less activity to the with the employees on that rear side with the walk-in being turned around. >> Actually there would be less there would be less on the left side the south
elevation. There was there's only parking there. I mean, that would be where there's less actual movement. I mean, in the back, you have so many things going on. This exterior refrigeration, the trash, and now you're going to put these exterior stairs. We
were supposed to have a loading zone, and it's just >> the stairs again do not project into the loading zone. >> No, it's just another additional thing behind there, behind the building. >> But there were going to be stairs there anyway. It's just changing the configuration of the stairs. The stairs
were always going to go up along the rear side. They weren't projecting towards station plaza, but the stairs were going to be in the rear of the building. >> Since when? The original approval is my understanding. >> No, >> there was no >> I don't think there was any drawings. >> There was no drawings.
>> The original resolution just said that no change to the existing footprint would happen. It did not mention any stairs. It allowed two one-bedroom apartments. and you're on you're in the resolution saying that the existing footprint would not be changed. There was nothing about a landing a stairs or
anything like that. So this is where I'm I'm kind of you know concerned where we just keep adding on and adding on and it just it's sometimes it's too much. >> And you were referring to the the west elevation. So, did you understand what I was saying about the the walk-in cooler
that so that is currently accessed on the west side, but now so you won't see from the the residents to the west will no longer see the employees having to access that where currently I'm sure there's a lot of activity going in and out of there.
And that's the reason for reducing the size of the loading zone between the building. >> The loading zone is just being reduced in width that the stairs don't impact the loading zone. And the stairs themselves do not trigger any variances, right, Mr. Bowski?
>> No, >> I don't believe there's a a setback requirement, right, Mr. Little? >> That's correct. There's no setback requirement in the commercial zone. >> Right. So, so, so the board's aware and Miss
Balor's points are well taken. The original approval did not require any waiverss or variances because the application fully complied with the redevelopment plan. Now, the applicant is in front of us seeking amended site plan approval and two variances which
the applicant is entitled to do. Whether the board is satisfied that the proofs have been presented to grant those two variances in the amended approval is up to the board based on the evidence and testimony presented here tonight. >> Mr. Bzowski, by having the stairs that
were apparently not shown on the prior application on the west side, is that a does that improve the overall safety of the building to allow people to exit from the residences to the west and down those stairs? >> I'm sorry. the the new stairs that we're proposing,
would that provide a way for the residents to get out to the outside of the building that wasn't there previously? >> Yes. >> And wouldn't that be a safety improvement for the residences? >> Yes. >> Wouldn't it be safer to enter and exit through the actual building versus stairs that are going right into the
street on Station Plaza? >> Not if the build not if the restaurant's on fire. I got the only way to get out is to go through. >> So, you're saying it's ingress egress. That's I asked that in the very beginning and that was no that's not the reason >> you were you I I thought my
understanding of your question was is this a second >> yeah I because this way >> my understanding of the drawings where this was the only access to those apartments and it this remains the only access to those apartments is this set
of stairs. kind of goes back to my original question though too is like it's not even two years and you got your apartments approved. Nobody thought about this before and now all of a sudden we have all these issues
over the stairs and all of a sudden after they were approved everybody was happy. Now the stairs are no good inside. We've got to go outside. I don't know. It just seems like there's too much change up. There's too much confusion about what got and and I was on council when that was approved.
The whole site plan and everything and it was basically because Fifth Street was getting more consideration and this you didn't have the option of knocking it down without a lot jumping through a lot of hoops because this was all part of the condition that this it stayed as was as it was proposed on the footprint.
>> Exactly. >> Yeah. Mr. Duffy, why don't you address the reason for the changing of the stairs, please? Again, it's it's again comes down to two variances. But again, when Pagnata came here, he he didn't know what was going to go downstairs. It was place wasn't used for seven years. So
now with the coolers, we want to get the stairs just moved away from people coming in and out. If you're a resident, that's been said. And I have to say, if the architect is willing to testify, this is much more going to be aesthetically pleasing. Jim hasn't said
it, but we have another professional to attest to it. We'll have it all cleaned up. I I think we're here for two small variances, but the reason is really to make it we're learning more as we go, to be honest. That's why the change two small variances, 1.4 in coverage.
So that that's why we're learning as we go. So that when it came here, we didn't know there would be that much activity in that that area with the stairs. Any other questions?
>> I guess maybe this is for you, but um if drawings are not accurate, but the parts that are not accurate don't um affect the variance part of it. Do we have a right to ask for complete accurate drawings just so it shows the whole
picture? Everything is shown on the the drawings with as I said with the exception of just showing that the interior stairs where the interior stairs were removed from the ground floor but everything else is on the plan >> which is significant but
>> we're happy to provide that updated drawing if that would [snorts] >> be helpful to the board but I guess the question becomes too if the board we need to provide access to the residential units And outside of
providing some exterior staircase, I don't know what the board would want the applicant to do if there would be access from the inside of the building. That seems to make less sense to me than having to go into the business to access the the apartments. >> I mean, it just seemed like, well, that
vent question is a lot of Well, we'll check. We'll make sure of this. We'll make sure that >> right the vent. You're right. >> Warren showing, you know, and again, we you know, I'm an engineer. I didn't take the drawings and go survey the place. But sometimes when you take a deeper dive and closer look and maybe there's
more things missing and maybe a light bulb will go off and survive. You know, maybe we're better off doing it a different way. So that's that's the only reason I bring it up. >> You mind if I make a comment? Um just one thing. I mean obviously we have a variance for increased coverage. If you
eliminated the new storage area and reconfigured the steps in the back and brought them away from the road, you could certainly create landings and have the steps switched back, but you couldn't have the storage unit to accommodate that, but it would certainly
move the steps away from the road um and eliminate the coverage variance. And I think that's doable. like to speak here. >> I need to reintroduce myself. Sorry. >> So, uh just kind of more going into the
aesthetics of it. Just trying to you you were asking about the benefits what we're trying to do. Like they said, they were trying to they saw the operate and saw how busy it was going to be in the back. We're really trying to separate the use of where the residential is going in. It creates a safety hazard trying to cross paths. The reason the
exterior share getting demoed is not showed in the interior, but doing an interior staircase would be a major renovation having to do. We'd have to have a rated corridor going through with its own exit which would take up a lot of the existing usable space for that
commercial having it be the restaurant. That's why we want the exterior stair. Then we saw we wanted to push away where that access is coming for the residential. We don't want it happening in the commercial space. It's going to be adjacent to the loading zone, but now they're not going to have to go through
the loading zone. >> Mr. Raven, do you want to talk to your client about Mr. a little suggestion about eliminating the new storage and reconfiguring the stairs which would in turn eliminate the need for the impervious coverage variance. Where do you want to stand on this application?
>> Uh I take five minutes if the board's okay with that and I'll discuss with my clients. >> Okay. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Mr. Raven. >> Yes. >> Thank you for providing us with a few
minutes. Um, the applicant would like to to leave the configuration of the the stairs and storage area the way it's proposed, but they're willing to remove pavers on the north side of the property to bring the coverage down to where it is now. So, we would eliminate the
impervious coverage variance. And I'm also going to have Shawn Ma testify uh from Jersey Girl just to provide a little more color to the board about the reason for these changes to the rear because I think he can bring some new perspective on this. So Sean, why don't you come on, >> Mr. Raven? Just so I'm clear for the
record. So Mark here, your client wants to leave the current configuration of the stairs and the storage in place, remove the pavers on the north side of the property, whereby completely eliminating the need for the impervious coverage variance.
>> Yes, that's correct. >> Do we know what the new calculation is? Is it going to be what's existing or a different number? Mr. Bzowski shaking his head. Yes. >> What? >> What's existing? It will be what's existing >> right which is 94.9%. >> Okay where right now as we're proposing
it it's going up to 96.2 but we will have it so it conforms to the existing number >> which is 94.9. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Removing what pavers on the north side >> made it go >> where the outdoor dining is.
>> Yeah. Three >> outdoor dining. >> Hold on. You're not been sworn yet. Just a second. Go ahead. That's okay. Mr. Vzowski, can you explain to the board which pavers are being removed? >> Yes. >> Along the north property line, 3 foot.
So from the from the north uh down to the south, just three foot of pavers makes up the 122 square feet. [snorts] >> What would go in their place? >> Cables. >> Oh, grass, sand, stone. That's what I'm
saying would be >> permeable a permeable surface. >> Okay. >> That's the applicant's that's the applicant's choice. It's the applicant's application. So, there was no longer be they're going to not agree
to Mr. Little's suggestion about the storage and the reconfiguration of the stairs. However, they're going to remove 3 ft of the papers on the north side as just testified to such that the need for the impervious coverage variance is no
longer necessary. So, it's only the variance for the loading. >> That's correct. And again, Mr. Matt's going to speak to the the flow of and why we have the rear configurated the way that we're proposing. >> So, Mr. May, why don't you come on up? State your state your name.
Yeah. Do you swear, please raise your right hand. 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. >> Thank you, Mr. Mike. Go ahead, Mr. Re. Um, Mr. May, what's your affiliation with the business downstairs? >> I'm [clears throat] the owner of the Jersey Grill Grill and Market that's
here. >> Okay. Um, so you've been listening to the testimony so far this evening. If you could give a little more background on why it is that you're proposing to make these modifications to the rear of the building, >> the the back. Well, first off, just so you guys I didn't speak last time we
were here. Pegnata handled most of the to your guys point just to address some questions. This property is my baby from the start. I wanted to save fosters. My wife didn't want it. No one did. I beg Pegnatada not to tear it down. She has to save that building. I love it. I hate stuff in LBI getting ripped down. My
building in Long Beach Township is old. It'll till I die, they'll both be standing there. So, that's the first point. Second point is we only have two small variances that I feel like are rational. But if I to Jamie's point, the back right now 3/4. I did all I could to try to get the thing to look awesome and original. If you saw the shingles, if
you guys saw it from Fosters, it was a garbage pit. I tried to clean it up. There's been small issues that we've been working through just cuz I took on a lot and tried to make it as good as I could quick. The back PS I believe I sent Jim was already like this originally. The
coolers, what we're asking for was already like that last season. We switched them to get a CO late before this in 2025. The aesthetic is way nicer. The back right now three the first the other sides of the front look really nice. The back's not done. The the garage corral
new doors are coming. Quick example, we built that. I was ambitious with a cedar wood door. The doors are massive. The cedar did not hold up. So, I had to scrap that. And I have new lighter doors on order. When I put them in, I was rushing it and I didn't actually take time to order and make the right kind of
door. Now, that's going to be corrected as [clears throat] well as the coolers will be flipped and the back would be it's straight across with the storage. You can't even It's super nice with the stairs. The back will be super clean. Right now, if you guys can envision the demonstration, when you're at your
house, you're watching me go in and you're watching me. I walk to you. I open my door and I'm all stuffs out front here where they were before. It's crisp. You never see anything. is a flat nice looking wall and you walk you from the store behind it, you'll never see anything. So the neighbors are super
crisp. The excuse me if I'm talking too fast I get a little juiced up over the whole thing. Um the small change we're making it seems unrational to pull the pavers out. We're making very small just make the back look crisp. And to the real quick point on the flow, the stairs inside have a conveyor and they're
original from Fosters Farm Market. They're right in the kitchen. So, like even from a legal standpoint, you couldn't go to the apartment, walk through the cooks, buy the food, and go up. See, I'm saying it wouldn't be feasible in the store because you I don't think it's even health department legal to walk into the kitchen then go to your apartment. The new stairs will
look super nice. The lighting I'm jumping around here. I'm appreciative of her. We had issues. Timers. These giant lights that were on fosters that faced out. I retrofitted them with a They point straight down and they're on timers. I can adjust the timer a
little earlier. We after we fixed it, I didn't talk to her again about that. I originally put the new lights in and timed them for her on purpose. We want to fit in. I want to be super chill with everyone in the neighborhoods. We're trying to make everything so everything's good. In fact, even for Ken when she's saying, "You got to bump in business." We didn't sell bagels here on
purpose because we didn't want to infringe on Beach Haven. The other store sells bagels out of control. So, I'm just saying I'm trying to I love the building. I just want the property to be perfect. Actually, doing everything I can to make it original, but just super nice to be haven. So, I understand people complaining about the certain
minor things that are wrong, and it's my fault. I took on a little more than I could chew to get the whole thing knocked out, but we are trying to be an asset to Beach Haven and be just a a beautiful looking older historical building. That was the whole point. So, I just want you to hear me say that
because I did I was involved in all this process. The stairs, certain things are out of whack. Like the stairs, Jamie, they were on that original plan. Peg, not something's missing. They were on he drew the new apartments and he put the stairs down the middle that's missing from somewhere that was on there originally. Um but otherwise I guess he
has pictures here. That's the original ones. >> Okay. >> If you could This is a This picture will be an original picture of how they were and the pad that's for the storage next to it. >> Okay. I'm going to mark this as exhibit A1 and this is a series of four photographs that Mr. Maya took. When did
you take these photographs? So they're from I guess right before it actually when that's actually the rulers are gym measuring to see the loading up. >> So this was before you this is last year. >> This is March >> March of this year. >> So these are only showing example of how
it looked before. And the loading zone the trucks is I guess everyone has the same problem even next door they get deliveries. The trucks do pull up. They don't go into the rocks. They pull up along the curb. >> Yeah. And then there's a sidewalk there and they unload right into the course. Although before they went behind now they are all it looks crappy there in
the front. So it will be less to the neighbors when they get to deliver down the pre-done sidewalk into the back hidden not right in the housing public part. >> I don't like it now at all. It looks doesn't look good as you can see the look. So it's a
straight It's just crisper looking. If you could see it now, the doors face, you'd see the doors. >> So, >> so what is that big gray thing? [laughter] Is that the refrigerator? >> That is the walk-in. >> The walkins. Okay. >> Yeah. So, ultimately what happened, Mr.
M because of the location of that, you had to to flip it around to comply with the prior approval. push it back to if you see that you guys can probably see the tape measures there in the line. Your property line for Beach Haven is where that horizontal one is. So even though my rocks are rocked all the way
to the curb, I lose there's bigger than 15 ft still, but part of that's Beach Haven's property line or my property line is back 2 feet into my rocks. So it looks it measures short, but it's really
more than 15 ft into the street. Um, but you're saying you're looking at a picture, it doesn't look like that now. That cooler spun and pushed back two feet on the concrete slab. It doesn't look nearly as nice. I feel it looks plain and clean there. Although the siding, if you see the siding, that's redone behind it there. We fixed
that siding. So, there's been improvements to the building since then. >> But if you see how I hate to show you guys, if you see where this walkway is behind it, the storage would be on this existing slab and you'd go into the door through the hallway. there be no door on the other sides facing the tent, facing
the neighbors. So you'd never see stuff go even go into the storage. >> So again, much more aesthetically pleasing than it currently looks today. >> And so on the bottom right is that a picture of the fan that was in discussion and the and the windows.
>> I can speak to the fan with the fire department and Bruce. We actually modified it. You have to come I have to measure it again. It used to go straight up behind the window, probably five or six feet from the window. It currently has a new add-on piece for Bruce that curves it out in the way to get to 10
ft. So, the fan, it goes up and out. It used to just sit right there. It goes up and out for Bruce for firewood. It's not I don't think you see it on here. >> So, your other fan is on the other side. >> The fan's past the It's on the other whole side of the building. >> It's on the south side, isn't it? >> It's on the one facing Fourth Street, I
guess it is. Yeah, for it's on it's on fourth street [clears throat] >> on the low roof. >> But that was worked out with Bruce. We didn't even get approved though. We worked that out. We had to make a changes to make that work because the apartment
window that was a whole the apartment was already approved at that point. Bruce knew that. So Bruce worked with me to try to make it work. These were all ongoing situations that we thought would be shaven. Again, there's been some hurdles which we just work through and try to we're not trying to fight anything. We want to conform
and make it look nice and everyone be happy, which we're we're working towards. I think we're working definitely working towards it. This makes it much nicer though. It just doesn't look good now at all. >> This is 100% improvement over what was
there for the last seven years and for the years that Fosters ran it. >> I appreciate that. Again, I tried to make it I want it to be awesome to be honest with They want to be a great part of this town. [snorts] I just want to make sure you guys are clear on that. You know, I'm with I'm a local. I want LBI to stay a little more original and that's why my two places are again older
buildings that I think makes it look just much nicer. Newer LBI buildings just don't stand fit in right for me. I like the >> you know different than my hometown. I want to come down to LBI be the same as everywhere. I want to be a little different. >> I think what it is is uh looking at the
elevations that you have on page three. Um, the stairs aesthetically, even though they're not aesthetic, we've established that that they're they're a form of ingress and egress, they're necessity. Um, but they look like they just stick
out in the middle of nowhere. And I mean, because you've extended the deck past the building line, >> sure, >> it makes it look like it's it's something we forgot about. Oh crap, we need a set of stairs. And I think that's what what uh Mr. Little was saying. If you get rid of some of that storage
space that that's what you're using it for underneath and so you can so you have a little area so that you can get out from the kitchen to serve the people that way I'm assuming. >> No, there's no space. The storage goes right to the it doesn't go you can't go through to the patio the steps. >> Oh, you can't. Okay. So, it's >> it's more for because the upstairs is
storage and the upstairs is gone. So, it goes to there. >> It just it just that's what I think he was trying to say that by by omitting that or pushing it towards it. It it sticks out past the building. It doesn't look like it belongs. like which one of these not like the other? >> I don't know if you saw I guess I'm looking at it different. If I see if I
put it closer, it wouldn't look right because the loading zone we do use this section in front of the coolers and which what's the proposed storage and the steps go next to it. So it kind of I guess the picture I looked at I thought it looked nice on purpose we did that the
the whole thing if you brought the steps closer it's going to stick actually closer to where I'm loading. If you brought them into where the storage is and made it tighter, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. It would still be right in the back where the loading zone is. This one's to the side of it near
the parking spot. So, it's kind of out of the way of anything we do. So, I don't know how we configure it to make it if it's closer to the it used to come down the pictures we don't have. It came down closer to the door in the back which vendors and all
that going in and out. It got tricky. You'd be running into people non-stop. Employees, vendors, everyone's always out back. So, there's a full traffic flow on the sidewalk that's next to these cores where we go in and out. >> And then there'll be no flow except for apartment people on the side towards where the storage unit's going. Only the
parking spaces, the steps coming down. Nothing goes over there. And there's no flow through there. Just there's nothing over there. It all comes from the fourth street side. And you go into the corridor and the doors there. This this flat walls on this outside. There's no pass through from behind the coolers. It
ends at the storage. It goes right to the wall. If on there's no, you can't cruise through the back of the coolers and come out to the patio. It's totally cut off. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> It does make >> We did it from an aesthetic point. I wanted to look right. So, we actually did everything trying to make the back
look pleasing to everyone. I believe it will. The neighbors, I think, would much more appreciate the way this looks. Um, the lighting, of course, which I don't think you see on here. You might the old light I have to I will do anything I can on that side to try to make it I guess
it reflects off the roof. Maybe it points straight down. So I timed them and I guess I could time it a little earlier. The um maybe there's something reflector I could put on to make it so it doesn't shoot to her house. It seems like the side towards fourth is no problem. But this side she's saying the
two down lights that go into that >> roof must be still getting over there a little which >> those are giant flood lights. >> They're well they're not. They're on there now. They're giant flood. The new ones are straight down. There is no out. >> Maybe you can put them down a little bit lower on the
>> Yeah, we can we can work um >> I want everyone we're not trying to uh impact everybody. >> There's already been testimony to that effect that the applicants going to work with Mr. Little's office with respect to the lighting issue and its impact on the neighbors. >> Yeah, we'll try to fix it 100%. [clears throat]
[snorts] >> Any other questions for anybody? Thank [snorts] you. >> Well, thank you board. I appreciate you hearing one more. >> Yeah. [clears throat] [laughter]
[clears throat] Just have an additional question for Mr. Schwarzoff because I was trying to figure out I know Mr. Little had said uh if we remove the storage that we could modify the stairs. I just don't know Mr. Schwarz cup, is there sufficient room if we remove the storage
to make the stairs work without encroaching into the loading zone? >> No. As it is with that stair and the width that we need, we'd have to move the cooler actually further over because right now the cooler is actually somewhat underneath that stair. But the width I need that stair to be, that
would require the cooler actually have to move further into that loading zone. Have you looked for other locations so the we would have to get a variance for the loading zone by moving the stairs toward the like wrapping around toward the north into the patio area or that's
not an option because then your loading zone would be then there would be no variances. >> It's a separation of the occupancies with how we have it down the middle. It would take up a lot of space almost make that second apartment not as usable because once again we we need to keep them separate. They need to be separated
occupancies between the tenant spaces. [snorts] >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Schwarz. >> [snorts] >> But yeah, just for clarity that we are still willing to remove those pavers uh the three feet to make the impervious
>> not willing to is that is the application being amended to the application >> to remove the pavers whereby alleviating the need for the impervious coverage variance. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So, it's the amended approval still being sought to construct the external deck and walkway with the
stairs at the rear to provide access to existing apartments. the new unfinished storage area, excuse me, on the rear of the building and relocate the existing refrigeration box by shifting shifting it closer to station plaza. The existing storage area in the southwest corner will be converted to
the sprinkler room and storage area. The three feet of pavers on the north side are being removed such that the only variance that's needed in conjunction with this application for amended site plan approval is the variance for the loading zone to permit
a loading zone of 13.2 feet by 30 feet where 15 ft by 30 ft is required. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> I have one more question. I think I'm a little confused here. Um, from what Mr. Schwarzoff just said about keeping the
units separate and having that Well, as I'm looking at this, both units come out onto the walkway, correct? At that center location. >> Yes, they do. >> So, why couldn't you, as Jamie had suggested, bring it down on what would
be the north side or dogle it? >> Okay. I was I thought you were talking about coming into the building. Sorry. >> No. So it could come still into that but then we'd have to have the access to the parking because then you're going through because right now as that is that is the assembly area for the
commercial space. So then you're still entering into a commercial space as that is the patio for that and having to go around it. We're still trying to keep it separate. It's a residential use. We don't want it being a part of the assembly. We don't want it being a part of a restaurant. Well, it wouldn't be, would it, if you brought it down the
outside and then down to the on the north end >> over where the existing papers are, right? >> Yes. >> That's that's currently seating, >> right? But >> seating, >> but would it really affect that much seating to that way? You would could be completely compliant. >> You're still going into part of the
commercial space even though it's exterior, still part of it. We're trying to keep it >> part of, >> right? You're trying to avoid having people walk onto the seating area to get in and out of the apartment. >> Yeah.
>> I mean, if you turned it toward Station Plaza, you could avoid that, couldn't you? >> That's how we have it now. >> Right. But I'm saying instead of going straight down, go to the north. And >> so, you want to have to wrap around, come through, and then wrap around and
go back down. Well, might have to do a couple wraps, but I mean it would be would make you compliant and you'd be out of your loading zone, too, wouldn't you? >> Jim could help me out with that. But if we did that, that would take up even more impervious coverage, wouldn't it?
>> Anytime you're going to add a a mid-level landing, you're going to add more structure, which is going to increase impervious coverage because even decks are impervious. >> I got a quick question. Quick question.
Can you Can you see this? >> Yes. >> So, I'm talking about a you come up with the steps and then you do a landing and then turn and come up another set of steps, but you have to eliminate the storage unit. Then the steps at the bottom won't go past the outside
refrigeration. I think you see what I'm showing. Yes, but we'd also have to find the area for the area of refuge that we have up there. >> And Mr. Raven, that's what was discussed with your client during the break, but is not something your client wants to consider, which they don't have to do, but it was
>> and you know, doesn't mean you get the approval, but I'm just >> I'm just trying to in my head figure out how what Mr. Little showed translates to Mr. Bzowsk's plan. these these revisions that we're talking about relocating the steps and everything, they they don't I
don't see how they're helping to alleviate the one variance that we're still seeking, which is the the width of the loading zone. We we've already agreed to reduce the impervious coverage, uh which the the stairs and the storage area kind of contribute to
that additional 122 square feet. uh by removing some of the pavers on the north side where we we're bringing that imperous coverage back down, leaving the only variance left is the 13.2 foot width, which is being driven by the uh the the the refrigeration unit, which
still has to be in the spot that it's none of these ideas are changing that location of the refrigeration unit. >> Understood. >> Okay. All right. >> Any other questions?
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Raven, is that it? >> Yes, that that's all we have. >> Yeah. So, the as you just stated, that's the amendment that we were proposing to to remove the pavers and as Mr. Bzowski
noted by reconfiguring the stairs, we're still going to need the variance for the for the loading zone. So, um >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I I still think this is the best way to keep the residential use as
Mr. Broski noted that you exit the stairs the way we're proposing them now and then they're right adjacent to the two parking spaces for for the residential units and those spaces are then almost shielded a little bit too by the stairs. So
yeah, I I just think this makes sense from the functional aspect of the restaurant more than anything else. And more importantly, we need the stairs to to get into the the two apartments. and that that's that's the main reason. And then while we were here, we were just trying to get the functionality of the
restaurant to improve a little bit. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Jim. >> All right, guys. I have a motion to approve or deny this application. I make [snorts] a motion that we approve
as is that Eric when he just finished reading the whole thing before. [laughter] >> I have a second Jerry. >> Mrs. found Miller >> based off the comments from the public this ordinate this uh variance
would impact the neighbors and overall detriment to the public good. So I'm voting no. >> Mrs. Ed, >> yes. >> Mr. Jenna, >> yes. >> Mayor Lambert,
>> I have to say no. I'm sorry. Just there's too much going on back there. >> Mrs. Leonard, >> yes. >> Mr. Medal, >> yes. [clears throat] >> Mr. Tinquist, >> yes.
>> Mr. Wanganger, >> no. >> And Mrs. Parker. I'm going to say yes. That's one, two, three, four, five. Yeses. >> Six. >> Six. One, two, three.
>> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. Good luck. >> Thank you everybody. All right, moving right along. We have resolution 2025-05. [clears throat] That was the one on
Fifth Street. >> Can I have a motion to approve? >> I move Penny. Thank you. >> A second. Oh, red. Sorry. >> Mrs. Ads. Yes. Mr. Jenna,
>> yes. >> Mayor Lambert, >> yes. >> Mrs. Leonard, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevens is not here. Mr. Lo, >> he's also gone. Mr. Wanger, >> yes. >> Oh,
>> next resolution. >> Hello. >> That's okay. [laughter] >> Resolution twice. Think it's something else. 2025 06 Hansen Realy. That was the one with the pool was a jar. >> Correct. >> Pool was a jar. >> Do I have a motion to approve?
>> Twisted. [laughter] >> Motion to approve. >> Can I have a second? >> Second, Penny. >> Is that Mr. Miner? >> Excuse me. Can I get a police escort out? He's yelling. That's me. He's I'm a piece of >> Can we have to Mr. Miller? We have to finish our business. You can if you want
to call Stay Stay here. You can call the police, sir. Feel free. >> Stay in the mil. Stay in the room. Stay here. >> Just stay in the room for >> a minute. >> Mrs. Edles. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jenna. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Leonard. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Wanganger. >> Yes. Moving on to resolution 2025-07 1116 East Street. Mayor, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I have a question. Um, the
concern that I had came up during that meeting that should Mr. Parker, you know, push the issue of adverse possession, it really affects the size that lot. And he said, well, probably going to be an agreement, whatever.
Do we know? Is there any agreement? I mean, >> well, all I know is they measured from post to post. >> They were there in the ground and they said it was 100 ft. So, the fact that Mr. Barry has used that driveway all
those years, I don't understand why he feels he's entitled to it just because he's used it. But, and like they said, it takes a lot to do that. So, I don't have any issue with it because they measured post to post and it was
100 ft. But no, I understand. >> Mayor, I understand your concern. Let's remember we've already approved this. This is this is the vote on the memorializing resolution, >> right? I just more and no less. >> But I mean, the comment was made that well, you know, they can have an agreement and they were sure Mr. Pagnata would. It just seems to me that we
should have that agree agreement in place before, you know, I understand what we're we listened to half an hour to all the experts testimony and we agreed it was 50 by 100, but then the thing came up with adverse possession and having personally been involved with that on Second Street and 67 years of
using that. He might have a good case. I would just like to see something before we go forward. But I mean, I understand go ahead and vote on it, but that's my concern with this one. Okay. Just a question. I guess wouldn't that be a whole separate just legal matter
that would just >> negate it anyway? No. If it were to go >> it it might be um we're getting for a field. We've already approved this. This is the vote on memorializing resolution. There may be and again it was addressed
by Mr. Tbecki and he was right. There could be a suit between the applicant and um what's the neighbor's name? Mr. Parker for adverse possession. We don't have jurisdiction over that. If they want to, you know, take legal action one against the other, that's entirely up to him. I
understand the mayor's concern. The tying no we the board could have voted no. The board voted the only negative the only no vote at the time of the application was Mr. Below. So, all this resolution does is memorialize the action taken by the board at last
month's meeting. If board members don't want to approve the resolution or vote in favor, they don't have to. But the resolution is just a written memorialization of the testimony and the action that was taken by the board at last month's meeting. That's all.
>> Okay. We've got a first insect. We did. >> No second. >> No, I don't think we do because I think the mayor had a concern first. So, we need a motion in a second about the resolution. >> Motion to approve resolution 20257.
>> I so move any >> second. >> Second jury. >> Mrs. Bell Miller. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Edles. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jenna? >> Yes. >> Mayor Lambert? >> No.
Mrs. Leonard. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Wanganger. >> Yes. >> Okay. I No public comment. Anybody have anything? Can I have a motion to adjourn this meeting? >> I want to stay. [laughter]
>> Me too. Me too. Jane. I'm leaving. Good night. >> So move. >> Second. >> Thanks, Frank. >> All right. Good night. Good night, Frank. Good night. >> We [clears throat] miss you.