All right. So, Mr. Chairman, um I'm gonna be filling in uh Anna and I for April tonight. So, the good news is uh April was I don't think she knew it until today. Um they had a lunchon today for the Municipal Clerks Association of New
Jersey and April was awarded the uh position the award of municipal clerk of the year for the whole state. So, Awesome. She didn't know it, but her husband had called and they were having, you know, her family there and the mayor was going
to be there and so they had a nice lunch and so they figured uh >> can we um have that reflect um in in the meeting minutes because we haven't yet. >> Uh so yes, we okay so we will. >> Okay. >> So so let me um read the open public
meeting back statement. So adequate notice of this meeting has been published in the Asbury Park Press and the co-star posted on the municipal board at the municipal building and posted on the burough website and the secretary of state website. So this is a legally uh convened meeting of the board.
>> Thank you, Mr. >> And uh you want to do a roll call? Yeah. >> Yeah. Oh um yeah. So again, I'm I'm a poor man's April Clauddio, so we'll do
my best. So Mark Fitzgerald, >> Tony Almeida, >> I am >> uh Jim Dioro >> here, >> Philip Craig >> here, >> uh Barry Luben >> here, >> Mark O'Neal >> here, >> Charles Ross >> here, >> and Claire Hayner >> here,
>> and Mark Spagnolo absent. >> Please rise for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. >> All right, Mr. Kennedy, you were saying something about Miss Claudio. >> Yes, April uh Clauddio is not here today because uh for a very good reason. She uh uh they had a she's our municipal clerk as well as the board secretary and
the municipal clerks association of New Jersey had their annual uh lunchon and slash dinner and uh they give out some awards and April uh Clauddio was awarded the uh municipal clerk of the year award. So, I think that's great and I
think that's great for us. And her husband had called me and said Anna and I were going to fill in uh for her because she didn't know that she wasn't coming and she didn't be able to handle that. Please make sure the record reflects that I speak I speak
to the entire board that we congratulate Modio and it's well deserved. >> Awesome. And thank her for efforts for this municipality. >> No pressure. and I said I can help with like the minutes and the roll calls, but I'm like
I can't be touching that. So, so thank you to Anna. So, then uh next up is the approval of the March uh 26 2026 uh meetings uh uh will or minutes of that meeting. Will someone make a motion to approve?
>> I'll make a motion we approve them. >> All right. That's it. And I'm sorry, who seconded? >> Barry. >> Barry. Okay. Uh, Mr. Fitzgerero, you weren't here. Uh, Tony Alm, >> yes. >> Uh, Jim Dioro, >> yes. >> Phil Greg, >> yes.
>> Uh, Barry Luben, >> yes. >> Mark O'Neal, >> yes. >> Uh, Charles Ross, >> yes. >> Claire Hanner, >> yes. >> Okay. Approve. We now go to the resolution um for the Gretzky application. Now,
this was an application that we heard last month uh and it was a request to effectuate a number of improvements to a lot containing two dwelling units and the conditions of note included u revising the plan so as to confirm no
enclosure of the new open front porch after further approval. Remember it was a closed porch. Now they're going to knock that down and make it an open porch. Uh the rear paver shall be replaced with semi-pervious pavers. They're going to have a minimum of those five compliant off- street parking
spaces. The two existing sheds are going to be removed and replaced with 180 square foot shed. The uh removal of confirmation as to the removal of the walkway and the existing deck to the rear home uh per the plans and testimony. Uh confirmation that the new
siding for that rear structure shall appropriately match and complement the front structure. There's only going to be one driveway at the site. Uh a new curb cut. Um the existing driveway at the site shall uh it's being relocated. So it's going to was there you know
there'll only be one driveway and it'll be the other city then th will be abandoned. Um let's see confirmation that the relocated driveway shall be d shall be gravel and um no lights spill over.
confirmation that the existing PA patio behind the rear structure shall be removed and replaced with semi-pervious pavers and confirmation that the footings for the front structure shall be appropriately reinforced so as to support the load of proposed improvements. Uh the new front porch is
going to contain peers. Uh the pergola Tony is going to be relocated to a zoning compliant location with a minimum 3-foot setback. Uh flood vents uh for the front structure if required per prevailing FEMA regulations. Um and
again the front structure is only going to be used as a single family home. The rear structure only used as a single family home. and we had them uh agree to meet with the burough's flood flood plane officials so as to confirm that the proposal complies with the prevailing flood regulations. Um and
then just I put in here further discussion at the public hearing for the record it is disclosed that board members expressed questions comments concerns about any future subdivision at the site recognizing that the same would result in coverages which greatly exceed that permitted by prevailing burough
regulations. We can't really say, "Hey, we would never approve something in the future." But I think you all wanted just to say that would be something. Um, they're aware of the new flood regulations and we encourage them uh to speak with their legal representatives and engineering representatives so as to
determine what if any impact. And we also have if more than 50% of the structure is demolished or removed, they have to come back repetition the board. And we also have that standard condition about you got approval to you know you can't demolish. And I think that was the
the gist of the conditions. So if that's acceptable uh we can adopt that. Um if that's the pleasure of the board. >> I'll make a motion we accept it. >> All right. So that's Phil Greg with a motion. I'll second
>> and that's with a second. All right. Tony Almida, >> yes. >> Uh Jim Bioro, >> yes. >> Phil Greg, >> yes. >> Barry Luben, >> yes. >> Mark O'Neal, >> yes. >> Charles Ross, >> yes. >> Claire Hayner, >> yes.
>> Okay. So now, Mr. Chairman, we are up to the Rono and Carol Costello application. This is a continuation. uh you'll recall um and I think last uh so Mr. Fitzgerald
and Mr. Magnolo uh are eligible to participate and ask questions but in terms of a vote um you will not be voting as I okay and I think um uh so as the applicants come forward let's just do a couple of real quick minor things
my notes reflect that um we had asked uh them to come back uh from the uh March 26 6 meeting. Um there were some questions and comments about inconsistencies or
potential inconsistencies and we wanted verification of the F and I think we had said hey can you please have your architect attend or at least testify and so we have a couple of new things that we're going to mark into the record. A6
is a uh communication from the applicant to uh the Burough Galmar dated April 13, 2026. And just the gist of it is, let me just read this. Uh per the board's direction,
Mr. Ronald Schneider architect contacted Ted Bianke and discussed the calculation for the maximum floor area ratio and has revised the zoning requirements table as shown on sheet A1. Please note that Mr. Schneider also reviewed and checked both tables building data and zoning
requirements. Two, based upon the enclosed revised plans, a total of eight variances are being requested for this property. We will meet the burough requirements for the dormer length and location, eliminating two of the eliminating the two dormer variances.
The existing parking spaces for two vehicles which do not meet the burough requirements for parking on the site. Thus, a parking lot variance has been added to the zoning requirement table. Three, the term quote loft has been removed and replaced with quote attic
space. Uh four, the maximum number of stories have been revised to two stories as shown on the design of this table. Five, the relocated air conditioner condenser has been shown on the site plan. So that communication is A6 and then we'll mark as A7 the revised plans
prepared by RMS architects and that is uh two sheets and let me just find the date I guess this is uh November 26 2025 but last revised April 19th 2026
so that's u have a seat Sure. >> And just um state your name again for the record. >> Carol Pastella >> and husband Rono. >> Okay. And >> and our architect.
>> Okay. So why don't we do this? >> Carol and Ron are uh your husband are still uh you were previously sworn, correct? >> So you're still under. So why don't we have your architect just come up for a moment and let's get uh him sworn.
Hi, good evening. You just state your name and business address. >> Okay. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge to help you God? >> Okay. And just for the record, you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed architect. >> Yes. >> And your credentials, license,
qualifications, current, up to date, and in good standing? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um, have a seat if you want. And uh uh Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chair, I've assumed uh let's turn it over to you and
then uh as is always the case, you all can ask questions as >> I'm going to suggest that our vice chair just run the meeting and I'll just sit back because he ran it last month. >> And the minutes will reflect that.
>> All right. So, sorry. diving into you real quick. Um, >> the architects. >> Yeah. So, this morning everybody just want to start if you're going to make comments, you might as well come to the table now. I think that would be advantageous. >> So, Mr. Schneider, why don't you I read your letter, but why don't you just uh
sort of reemphasize uh what changes that you made and your conversation that you had with our zoning officer. >> Well, we made the changes as requested. Uh some of them were just uh verbiage on you know as far as log attent
uh some of the uh requirements that were included in the floor area ratio which didn't change anything. The only discrepancy that came up uh I believe was the
site plan was taken from a PDF um and as best we could and scaled off of it you know shrinking or enlarging it uh and the size of the house there differed I think maybe a couple of square feet
from what the actual measured was. So that is the only discrepancy. It doesn't really change anything. We're still looking at 87% that they are. So it doesn't really help us either way. Uh we also talked about how old measurements
were taken from outside face of walls for all the existing and new construction first and second floors. Um we did not play any games anything or closets, utility rooms, stairwells, things like that. That is the the actual
footprint from out to out. >> And just if I may, what um what did we think it was based upon the prior plans? Do you recall? >> There was some questions of why it was so high, but the what it comes down to is the the lot is undersized to begin
with. It's only something I think 2,275 square ft. >> Okay. >> And the first floor and second floor, I believe, were something uh 993. So, up over 1800 square feet. So the 87% I
mean just >> All right. And so from your chart just so we're on the same page um correct me if I'm wrong maximum allowable F is 78% you were at when the existing 64.62 62 and you're if you get the approval,
you're going up to 87.30. Correct. Thank you. >> And and you're comfortable that what you included and didn't include jives with what Mr. Bianke indicated our ordinance requires? >> Yes.
>> And then to the best of my knowledge, just a brief synopsis of what we're doing here before we dive into your zoning. This is, if I recall, was an additional career. Is that correct? Yes, there's an addition off the rear. Um, we're also uh there was a covered
porch on the front of the house which we're expanding across the entire front of the house. Um, as well as having because of the extension in the back, we have to roof to that.
>> And then just for a brief and matter of record, can we just go over your zoning requirements? Sure. Can we know to complicate things instead of going straight down. Can we separate what is a pre pre-existing non-conforming variance requirement? Specifically, I'll just
touch on the number one area. You're going to seek a variance on that requirement is 4,000 square ft. Existing is 2,275. Yes, it's a variance, but it's a pre-existing condition. Is that correct? >> Correct. Would you mind going through
the rest real quick? >> Sure. Um we have also the minimum sideyard setback uh five is required 10 total we have 3.1 and 8 existing we not changing that we're just matching it
with the you know going to what the existing house is. So again that's a existing nonconforming setback. Um, we also have uh with the maximum mock coverage, the building coverage, and the
minimum rear yard setback. They are all existing non-conforming conditions that the addition that we're putting on is going to further increase. Again, with the undersized lot, there's not much they can do. That's why we're here for
variances for these issues because the lot Obviously, the zoning uh was either put into effect or changed after the house was was built and the lot was subdivided.
Uh and just for a matter of record, if there's an existing on this parcel, again, I'm stating this just for an existing and if I recall, your clients have owned it for quite some time. Is that correct? >> Yes. 2011. And when you purchase it,
there was two driveway acres or one driveway anchor on the par. >> There is one large driveway apron >> which can accommodate how many vehicles at this time? >> Two. >> It can accommodate two. And then you're requesting how many
driveway aprons now? >> Uh we'll still have one apron. We're just shifting the driveway to the opposite end of the property. First floor living room, I prefer to
have a grassy area in front of my face and not my car. >> So, I'm just moving it from one side to the other. >> And for matter of record, uh this is a question for your architect. That is a nonconforming parking space as far as requirements. Is that correct? the uh
the required parking spaces are to be 20 foot deep by 18 wide. Um the existing as well as the ones that we're proposing, we're just moving them over to the opposite side or only 14.9 ft deep by 16 wide for the encroach.
So you're f and again just for matter of record this driveway and parking situation was there when we purchased the property. >> Correct. I'd just like to personally thank the architect for coming. I think it's important to have these calculations verified. I commend your clients on uh
trying to do this by themselves. It's not very often that we have people that come to do that. We have everybody on the board. It's advantageous in your professionalism and itself is I'm sure you understand you know for us to look at ratios and all these other things. In
my opinion, you have a very undersized. Well, I wanted to point out one of the things that they told me from day one is this was never a residential initially a residential property. It was a carriage house to another property. So >> it was the rear. >> It was Yeah. So it was never meant as a
a living space, a habitable thing and at some point it got converted which is why it's on such a small lot compared to everything else. >> Fair enough. Would you like to proceed with anything else regarding the presentation or would you like us to dive into questions? >> Questions, please.
>> Sure. There's no pressure. >> I think we have the gist of it from last time. >> I do. Let's go down to you and see if we have any questions. We'll just work our way this way. That's okay.
>> I do not have any questions in favor of >> I just had one question. Um on the AC unit, you only have 4.9 ft on that side, but it looks from the scale that the uh
unit is 5T off the property line. Yeah, it's according to the the survey the property line to the house line is 4.9 and that AC condensing this uh this aesthetic dmer in the front of the house is one of my questions.
Is that correct with the windows or is that >> we are um >> making the dormer >> compant >> with your measurements >> for the architect front elevation a is that what it's going to look like there
maybe windows >> yeah we produced this uh so that it conforms with required width of 10 ft and set back uh 2 ft from the front wall so they went from four decorative windows down here
and then just sidebar question is that figure aesthetic that you were going for your house >> I don't have an option >> are you pleased with it >> yes thank you sir great answer um and then my other question was and this
would be a construction official question and I don't want to put the burden on Mr. Maybe uh is there a variance required for a second floor? >> I do not >> I know in the past we said that but I'm
not sure what specific zones I'm >> so for you should introduce that as My recommendation uh if you guys are okay with that I think as a matter of record include that you're seeking
variance for second floor covered porch >> that's a good catch Mr. Vice Chairman >> it's on Ted's notes >> so that you put that in and ask for that variance request
>> just in case if our constru >> so you don't have representation so So someone at that table has to request that you need an additional variance for second floor. >> Your architect could do it.
>> Ma'am, let's I'm advising you that you ask for the variance for a second. >> You don't have >> what you're we have for matter of record. We're going to note
that potentially a barance might be required. Right. Mr. Kenny, we're good. >> So, Mr. Kenny, could you please make sure um that that um gets a little complicated because um we
should be approving the varian of us here. We have an official answer to the question since he's not um the vote may have to be contingent on Ted's answer, >> right? just have them confirm it if that's okay.
>> Yes. Yes. And and we think it is and we don't think you're going to run into difficulty, but just, you know, want to advise since it wasn't part of the original application, therefore it wasn't part of your public notice that you requesting this additional variance. We need to make
sure that Fed agrees that the variance is makes sense and I think we'll be fine. But So requested it. So it is noted in the notes, but but you folks never included it in your variance requests.
So you must have overlooked it. >> I don't think we >> it's on Ted's it's on Ted's what's the deny the denial the denial letter specifically states that a variance for that porch is required.
>> Okay. your original and we'll just do it for matter of record. Uh the minor land use application denial form dated December 8, 2025 for your address uh line item number seven for the
construction official as a second floor deck over the porch is not permitted to be covered. Now ma'am, do you have an existing second floor deck that is covered? >> Yes, >> you do. Are you expanding that debt? >> Yes. >> Yes, you are. So you're going to request
a variance for a covered second floor. >> You have to request it. I cannot request it on your behalf. >> Okay. I requesting a variance for my second floor deck
>> covered to be covered from head to >> inclusion with the other variable. >> Inclusion with the other variable. No other questions at this time. >> The note that went to Ted, did he leave
any comments on that? I I don't know that >> there's no just getting larger. >> Any questions? >> I'd like to open up to uh to the general public if they have any questions regarding this application at this time.
Please proceed uh to the microphone. Seeing there's none, I will close the public portion at this time. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add at this time? >> And your intention is to make this a primary residence on behalf of your family when you sell your current home.
>> That's just a matter of record as the land uses and variances associated with property not necessarily. Um, with that being said, uh, just on it. If we don't mind, Mr. Ross, we just work down the way your opinion on the project and whether or not you may or
may not be fine to vote yes or no. >> I was in favor of it last week and still in favor of his comments. I feel the same way in favor of um I think it's imperative that and I'm very glad that you incurred the cost and time to really architect here
from the board and confirm these and I app you like to thank you for coming to do that on behalf of your clients although I'm good at math I'm certainly not an architect but that being said I'm most likely going to vote in favor of your project I'm not a fan of personally
recognizing that it's a pre-existing condition when we bought the parcel is probably going to lead me to Thank you. Um I'm in agreement pretty much everything Tony just said. Uh but it's pre-existing. There's not
the old saying is you making lemonade what you were given. So I'm in favor. >> I'm in favor. >> I'm in favor. Well, that was nice of us. Very nice, Mr. Kennedy.
>> So, if the application, excuse me, gets to be approved, uh, some of our standard conditions would be compliance with all the promises, commitments, and representations the team made throughout the hearing process, compliance with all affordable housing, rules, regulations, and
contributions, and payments if required, a 24-month time frame as to uh between the resolution that adopt adopted and building permits. any outside approvals. Ultimately, we'll need a professional certification from your office confirming that the for the CIS is
confirming that the um improvements were installed in accordance with the approved plans in accordance with the testimony in accordance with the resolution. Uh obviously compliance with building and construction requirements and grading and drainage details to be worked out with the uh reviewed approved
by the burough engineer. Now, Mr. U chairman, some of the things that we talked Let me see what we talked about tonight. Mr. Vice, >> Mr. Vice Chairman, um I guess we're going to for the record, uh make sure that A7, the plans that we approved
tonight, they supersede the previously submitted plans. So that's the one that we're approving. Uh approved. And then we uh uh only going to have one driveway apron. Uh the uh relocated
driveway will be grass and lawn area. And then we talked about we're going to modify the application to uh request that variance for the second floor covered porch. Uh but Ted confirming it looks
like he has um and couple of things just from the last meeting and some of this may have been taken care of. Obviously it's only a single family home. Um I have a note here. Removing the shed. >> Yes. >> Okay. Removing a concrete slab. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Compliance with flood regulations if applicable. Fire code and windows comply with the fire code. And I guess you're conforming with the half story ordinance. Is that what we said? >> Okay. And um let's see. Attic. I have a
note here. It's not habitable. It's just storage. It's not heated. It's not cooled. Is that okay? And um Uh is it pool downstairs for some reason? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh let's see. Now uh make the dormers 10
ft. Eliminate the variance that's been done. >> Okay. Uh no enclosure. The front porch have some further approval of the board. Uh only one driveway. You close up the curve cut. Um and then concrete in some areas to be removed. for the relocated
driveway. Correct. >> Correct. And also on the side of the house that runs from >> and on side of home east side, >> correct?
>> Thank you. Um and then um you'll obviously check out the the load capacity with your architect. Um, we also have a basically for other reasons not up to you that you're getting approval to do
this and you can't do something else. So, you can't also you can't say later on, hey, we noticed that it was uh bad foundation. So, we demolished the house. That would be a whole new application. Um, we have the parking variance.
Give me credit for taking notes. Um, I think this is your anniversary, right? >> It was. Okay. >> Oh, last. Okay. So, related gift. I don't know why I wrote that down. And um >> why' you recommend them to come back?
>> Exactly. I I don't know. That's I think that's the gist of it. So, um are those conditions acceptable uh to your clients? >> Okay. So, then um Mr. Chairman, let me just say we'll need a motion to approve
that application. I'll make that motion. >> All right. So, Claire makes the motion. >> Second. >> And that's Phil Greg. Seconds. All right. Uh Tony Almighty. >> Yes. >> Uh Jim Dorio, >> yes. >> Uh Phil Greg, >> yes.
>> Uh Barry Luben, >> yes. >> Mark O'Neal, >> yes. >> Charles Ross, >> yes. >> Claire Hayner, >> yes. >> Okay, application is approved. >> Congratulations. >> Good luck with your project. >> Thanks. You're very welcome.
>> Stay married. >> And thank you board for your time. >> We tried to steer you in the right direction there. You have a very uh very small pre-existing condition and restful
party. It's my opinion not that of the board. This was this would be an existing structure there. I think it's >> good luck with the project. All right. The next application is John
and Sheila Okconor. >> Okay. And Mr. Chairman, we just have a a sort of a special procedural issue here. >> Yeah. Familiar. And if you let me speak to that, I think I have a I think I have Okay. And I'll inform the board too in case they're not aware. Maybe the
applicant's not even aware either. Apparently, uh, your notice stated that this meeting was going to take place at 7 p.m. >> Yes. And when we normally have three cases, we just would have bumped you to the end and we wouldn't have a problem. Um, and I think I speak on the board
once again that I don't think any of us want to wait until 7 for this to begin. Um, but our request is and and and contingent on moving forward is um somebody would need to stay here if we adjourn before 7 p.m. and stay here until 7:15 p.m. in case anyone does show
up for your notice for the purpose of this hearing. And if that's the case, we could have a problem because of the defect. And I do want to inform you, you probably know, you're the attorney. >> Yes. >> You're probably aware that many other towns would just send you home right now. Um because your your notice was
inaccurate. We don't want to do that. We don't operate that way. >> I apologize. >> So, we're going to hear So, we're going to hear the case. Um but if if some we need to somebody needs to stay here from 7 to 7:15 in case someone is showing up
to hear hear this case because that's what you noticed. I suspect that's not going to happen and I suspect it's not going to be a problem. But just for for us to be able to proceed, the other choice would be we everyone waits until seven and I don't think anybody wants to do that.
efficient. They have fish. There was one in our history. >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. I was like 15. I mean if we want we can start and then at 7
time again I apologize for that and I'm attorney Davis our office represents the applicants owners Mr. and Mrs. Okconor of the property located at 47 South Lake Drive in Delmar designated as block 83
lot 9 had an opportunity to speak with my client we would like to proceed with the hearing now um assuming we will um >> yeah and you know what if I could just jump in we were just sort of saying Mr.
also pointing out that um we typically don't finish applications within 20 minutes. So we'll start and then if someone comes in, we'll just have to restart again. >> Yes. >> And I think that that's agreed upon. >> And I think that makes this official that that neither you or we are
violating any any um regulations. >> All right. So Mr. Mr. Chairman, what we'll do uh just to the extent uh is there anyone here right now who had any questions, comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the notice? So, we don't see any um other than what
we just talked about. And so, what we'll do is we'll mark into the record what we as a board have before us. So, we're going to mark the development application uh dated February 12th, 2026 as A1. And then A2 will be a rider to
the application. A3 is the Burough Belmar checklist. A4 are the architectural plans and elevations prepared by uh Arc uh design studios. And let's see the date of that is
January 5th, 2026. And A5 will be the land use zoning permit. And that's dated um Jan January 12th, 2026, January 13,
2026. And I guess that I guess we'll mark as A6 is a minor land use application denial form and that's
dated January 24th, 2026. All right. So, good evening and why don't we uh swear in your witnesses if that's okay. You all can just stand up and state your names and address and we'll start with you. >> Hi, I'm Conor 47, New Jersey.
>> Okay, >> okay. Joseph D Ambrose um design professional of arch design >> but for clarification purposes not testifying as a professional architect. However, our architect was unavailable at SNE this evening but we thought it
would be beneficial to have someone from his office to be here just to fill in some gaps if there are any questions. >> Okay. So if all three of you could just raise your right hands. Do you all swear the information and testimony about will be the truth to best your knowledge to help you guide it? All right. So, let
have a seat. Let the record look like all and Mr. Cosby, can I just ask just your clients just three quick questions to get the ball rolling? >> Uh, so Mr. Mrs. Okconor, are you all the owners of the property? >> Yes. >> And how long have you owned the property?
>> Since February 2020. >> February of 2020. And my notes reflect that there is a single family home at the site? >> Yes. >> And do you live there? >> Okay. All yours. >> Thank you, Mr. K. Mr. Chairman board, as I indicated, our office represents the
applicants who are who are before you this evening seeking a variance with respect to the R75 zones or ER rear setback requirement permits construction of 180 foot addition on the rear of the house with an 8 foot an 8 foot rear
setback. >> I'm sorry, what was the size of the addition? >> 180 ft. >> Thank you. That would be 36 ft on the ground floor and 144 square ft on the second floor. Now, initially the requested relief may seem like a significant departure from
the regulation. However, when you consider multiple factors which we will provide some testimony tonight, including the irregular shape of the lot, the underside shape of the lot, and the current location of the structure on that lot. We believe there's not only
sign uh substantial justification for the requested relief to be granted, but also when looking at all those factors, the relief is actually dimminimous in nature. As you will hear testimony tonight, the current rear guard setback of the property is 8.13 ft. The variance
we are requesting is to move that setback to 8 ft. So it truly is dimminimous in nature. Unless there's any initial questions, move right to test. >> Yeah. just um refer to the denial
letter. I forget what >> I think it was. >> There there were three points that that Ted pointed out in this. He said he needed a zoning chart on the plan with all the setbacks, lot building coverage and calculations. Has that been
provided? I believe that's >> the second point was the application indicates in addition to the rear of the structure the existing setback is 8.13 required is 40 and you just stated that you're going to go from 8.13 to 8 correct and then the third item the roof
pitch for half story is 7 over 12 and a half which is not indicated on that correctly. condition. >> Right. Well, I' I'd like to clarify condition yet, but we would if the application is
approved. Okay. If we Yeah, it will. If approved, it will be approval. Records, the official records that the approvals go on become the drawings that the construction department works off
of. And if Ted's already flagged it as inadequate, um you know, until that is corrected, um you know, permit should not be issued. Okay. All right. Um so, so with all that said, the only variance
that I that was referring to was just approval of this um a which is a pre-existing nonform okay that's all I have does anyone else have any questions we're not board questions right now we can pause and say
we have any questions right now myself any question >> is is the rooftop deck in or not >> is that partic >> that was on the initial submission to the zoning officer. Um, in our plans that we submitted to this report, it added
>> you said you're adding 140 square ft 144 ft on the second floor and 36 ft on the ground floor for a total of 108 ft. So why didn't the floor area ratio change? Currently right now the 6x6 area
on the ground floor which is 36 square feet which will be used as ingress and egress to backyard currently have has impervious coverage already. So the inclusion of that 6x6 area does not increase the impervious coverage
>> and the 140 square feet on second floor. >> It's on the second floor. So we talked first question. Our first witness will be John Oconor. Mr. Okconor, you testified earlier that
you and your wife own the property located at 47 South Lake Drive. >> Correct. And can you describe for the board the property currently exists including the lot and also the house that's located on it currently?
>> Sure. It's a single family residence twotory residence constructed on the property. The first floor of the house living area consisting of living room and kitchen, one bathroom and laundry room with a final deck. The second floor has four bedrooms and three bathrooms.
And could you explain to the board why this property is unique with respect to its shape and its irregular size? Um yeah, the property is in a regular shape lot on the section of D Street and
South Drive on the width of the property approximately 30 ft on the western side adjacent to D Street to approximately 95 street on the eastern side of the lot. this unique shape and the shallowness of the lot is
the reason that we're actually there. >> So the the length of the lot from the western portion along D Street goes from 30 ft all the way to 95 ft on the eastern edge. >> Correct. So in your opinion that makes
compliance with the rear yard setback, if not impossible, very difficult to have a a house constructed on there. Can you describe the proposed addition and its purpose?
>> Yeah, we want to construct 180 addition on the rear of the home. Um addition include 32 ft on the ground floor and 144 on the second floor. The first floor the primary purpose of the addition is to provide support for the second floor is
going to kind of overlap a little bit. the existing first floor going to go on top of that which there's enough support on the existing foundation go on top of the second floor and it's going to can lever over a few feet which is why we do that 36 ft
almost like a post that we're going to enclose and it's an existing >> so just by that there'll be 180 square feet over the first floor that currently exists Yes, correct. And then the the
remaining 36 ft will be on that new improvement area. Can you explain the board why you're proposing or looking to make this addition to the property? Um, we're doing this primarily because our daughter got into all of our kids
are living with us the ages of 25 to 18 and our daughter's graduated college and she got accepted to see nursing program and basically she went back closet. Sounds crazy, but that's that's the ultimate reason why we appreciate three brothers for sharing a bathroom and
that's why we're proposing to give her an extra closet and a bathroom. bedroom. >> So, let's just explain that a little further. The area right now where the proposed addition would go is currently a bathroom
>> where the proposed >> where the addition on the second floor is going to go. Is it currently a bathroom? >> It's currently a bedroom. >> Okay. And the purpose is is to give your daughter an in suite >> closet and closet and bathroom. >> Um, and you're aware of that. The reason
we're here tonight is because the proposed addition requires a bolt variance from this board. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And that bolt that request is to seek an 8ft set back to this addition. Correct. >> Right. And you're aware that the current setback is 8.13 ft.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And in your opinion, do you consider that a dimminimous change? >> Yes, you do. >> And you had indicated that you purchased the property in February 2020. Are you generally familiar with the properties located in the R75 zone?
>> Yes, we are. >> Okay. Um, and would you consider your property unique in the sense that most other properties within that zone are not irregularly shaped like yours? In fact, most are rectangular, probably 150
ft high. the there was three new lots put in behind us. The old Delmore ambulance court behind us and the developer put in 350 by 150 lot of which by nature of our property which is 90 ft width it hits up against those three
properties. So we're short and we're wide and that's the issue and that shape like we indicated already makes it difficult to comply with a 40 foot setback requirement.
like and you had talked earlier that the purpose of this is to put the in suite bathroom on your daughter's bedroom. Is there any other location on the lot that you think you could do this addition and still serve the goal or purpose that it intends to?
>> No. There's a driveway on one side and based on completely tearing ripping up the second floor the only over the existing um footprint of the first floor without $500,000.
>> Now, in your opinion, do you think if this board were to grant the variance request that there would be any detriment to the public good? >> No. >> And in your opinion, do you think it could by granting the zoning request um
in any way impair the intent of the bur zoning code just came in. Are you here to are you here for this this evening's application for the Okconor residenc? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Um and your neighbor your your neighbors or
>> Yes. Okay. Um, we began um the notice originally starts at 6 pm. So, um, we'd like to, if you're here for the purpose of meeting, we'd like to recap. You've only been in session maybe five or 10 minutes. So,
you didn't miss much. But, um, since that's the reason why you're here, um, we agreed when we began the meeting that that if someone were to arrive that we would bring them up to what's been discussed so far. >> So, um, if >> Sure. One minute. Just give
>> I I I believe the attorney should be doing the >> Sure. And can I just ask the recommendation? >> Can we just pause and take a five minute break in case anybody else wants at this point a Yes. >> I'd make a motion to
temporarily till 7:00. >> I I would second that motion. I have no problem just in case. I have no problem. You guys okay? >> Okay, Mr. Chairman. >> Sure. Uh, so
>> uh so for Mark Fitzgerald >> here, >> Tony Al. >> Jim Dioro >> here, >> Philip Gray >> here, >> Barry Luben still here, Mark O'Neal >> here, >> Charles Ross And we should uh Mr. is
still absent, but we should say Claire uh not here at this point. >> Okay, great. So, um just to update the public and the board, I do think most of us um you know have been made aware that
there was a prior variance application that was approved in apparently March of 2021. So, please don't quote me on that, Mr. Kennedy, unless I'm it's in around those those times and the
um the concern that was raised is that the approval of that of that variance um the numbers that were approved are not in concert with the numbers that are appearing on this application. So I
understand Mr. Kenn had a conversation with the >> yes the applicants attorneys and where are they? So, Mr. Chairman, for our discussion, uh, uh, Mr. Ksky and I went outside and I just relayed the the concerns to him
and, uh, he was going to speak with his client. So, Mike, what do you think? Um, so having had a chance to quickly look over the resolution, um, is the primary concern of the resolution states that it's a rear property yard setback 17.1
or is there >> Well, actually, let let me just and and I'd like the board to to jump in if I if I don't get everything uh straight here, but um on the building coverage calculation, it's stating that 30% allowed whereas 32.35 is proposed
proposed um and and your application indicates 30 is proposed. So even previously you had and it was the 32.35 was was most approved but your application doesn't
have the correct numbers here. >> Um then on the rear yard setback you would like an explanation. Um so it seems like you bought that one. I understand it may be being measured from a different part but we have to have that conversation. lot coverage 55%
allowed where 6410 was approved. Um you know this seems like coverage. So so that would be 55 but meanwhile it's 64.10 was previously proposed when the porch
was approved. Um and then um in the conversation earlier that was testified to um one of the board members was asking about floor area ratio and the addition of 140 square ft but your floor area ratio on here does not change even
though you're including you're you're increasing I I understand about 36 feet but you're increasing by at least 100 square feet. So that floor area ratio number has to change >> because it's habitable area. >> But I believe the question was about
impervious. >> No, it was not. I said I heard it also. So So there was there was a disconnect and that disconnect was also just questioned. So those are the things that are are inaccurate
and it makes it makes the notice inaccurate unfortunately. And if we have objectors, u you know, they they've got a reason to have an objection. Um I I don't know whether we have objectors or not, but um but we
like to try to get our numbers right, including the public notice going. So at this point, we would carry this matter to come back and bring our architect
Okay. I I don't know that I don't think I was going to say I don't think anyone's asking for for new plans to be submitted, but the numbers that are being put into the record >> that that's correct. >> Okay. Okay. We're not asking you to redraw plans or anything of that nature,
but but the numbers that are going into the record and numbers that are on your your um application need to reflect current state, >> right? >> Including lot coverage. So, so if you know papa were added or were there other things adding to the emergence of
coverage in the lot that that were done after this application was approved that needs to go into here too. It's not simply picking up the numbers that existed when when the porch was completed. It's it's it's reflective of
current condition that we were to believe that these numbers did reflect that. I'm not suggest maybe they do maybe it was under >> right exactly right and you know maybe
when we get the office tomorrow that you know we'll unfortunate >> and can you anything on that do you think that was there anything on your previous and I'm sorry I'm just you know
I wasn't part of that we'll try that application. I'm just curious. Let's just pick one. Building coverage 30. The previous approval was for 32.35. Does your client recall if something was not added? >> No. >> No. So there's a there's just a little
bit of a number difference there. If something was not added, then 30% would be correct. Ideal. And then um >> yeah, I think we need to sit down. But but at that point the assumption would be the existing would be 32.5 32.5
>> not 30 but >> I think what we have now is accurate because that's when the survey and architect came out the general measurements of everything versus when we got the approval for the other addition that we did back in 2022. Um
that was during co so I have a sense so if this is the correct these are the correct numbers how we I move forward. >> We'll need the architect to come in and provide testimony. Prove that to the board. >> You just have to revalidate it because there's enough of a question here based on the previously improved variances as
well as this flurry ratio question that there's a lot of >> I not looking for apologies. I just trying to explain so everyone knows we we do not like the red tape either. You know, we wish we could go forward tonight with the application or even obligation to
ensure that the numbers we're proving are being done with professional guidance, opinion, and testimony. And we know for sure that there's at least three or four numbers that are certainly in question um based on the previously approved application. >> And Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would just also
add again in in the in the spirit of good faith, let's just say you got an approval and if the numbers are wrong, it's going to cause a problem and headache for you later on in the construction office. So, we're not doing anybody any favors to approve something that that's inaccurate
because it's just going to be headache and aggravation and expense later on. So um >> um but before we if we're getting heading towards the German um we do have a question about the 17 ft stated versus the 8 ft you're talking about tonight. So again I I
30 seconds look the resolution I think >> on your phone >> on my phone I think maybe >> it was it wasn't memorialized correctly because the purpose of that application my understanding is that it was to at
least in part include a front yard porch. So, you know, given the construction of this house where that porch is, the rear property line is parallel to South Lake Drive. And
we're very confident that the current setback to that property line, which we believe is a rear property line, given the fact that a front yard porch was approved, that that setback currently is 8.13
and that's the side of the property in which the addition is proposed for east side. >> So south Yes.
>> So, I have a question. I remember on these these corner lots, the applicant usually has the opportunity to pick which side is the backyard and which side is the front yard. And I'm wondering if maybe that's the disconnect is during that application, the rear
yard was considered the east side of the property and now you're saying you kind of switched it for this application. And now your rear yard is the the side bordering the three homes that were newly built, which is now 8.13. So I'm
I'm thinking that it needs to probably stay consistent with however it was >> applied for the last time. So the number, you know what I'm saying? >> In April, we'll have >> the old of deciding where which was the rear
yard because it was a corner. >> It's always an issue. I remember everybody's like declare where your front yard is back. To that point, Jen, we likely don't need a relief for this addition. >> If the sideyard set back is 5T and we're
assuming that's the sideyard property line, >> then we're doing you a big favor. >> Yes. >> Well, you still got to look at that. >> Ted's Ted's going to have to make that make that judgement. Okay. And I would love it if that becomes what what it turns out. That'd be wonderful because
we certainly are are not happy about having to ask you to go, but it's really just a question of the number >> and it might be back. >> Yes, potentially. >> Yeah, but I think that might be >> I agree with you because my recollection
is pick >> and do that. Can I ask a question? Hang on before we change topics. On floor ratio on the previous application, it says F was 65% allowed and 65% was proposed and that's what's here. Okay.
Yet you're adding at least 100 ft of ratio. So that's that's that's got to be a different number. Even if it's minimal, it's got to be different. >> All right. So we will see you probably for if not for both at least. that
>> um we have someone from the public. Um we'll give you a moment to speak once we sort this out. I promise. >> I'm sorry. >> So, you're asking to adjourn? >> Yes. But I was going to say before we adjourn, um Mr. McGrath came in during the application. Um and I had asked them
to wait around for a minute just to um address the board. >> That'd be great. We'd love to hear from you. >> So, can I ask one question before we do that? I like this on the record. Was an asbuilt drawing submitted to the municipality upon completion of your previous application?
>> Yes. Um yes. >> So the numbers there's a high likelihood that the numbers on those plans could be correct minus your area ratio. >> Okay. Um we have something from >> Sure. Why don't you
just state your name and address please? Uh, good evening. My wife Debbie McGrath. We're in one of the houses. What's your address? 4149. >> All right. I'm just going to square you in to make this all procedal. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent
you provided will be the truth of your knowledge to help you? >> Thank you. >> U, we we came in only asking questions because we hadn't been able to review the proposal in the office. Um, our
questions have been adequately answered. We have no objection and won't be coming back. >> And I appreciate that and I hope you can appreciate that it is an irregular shaped lot and it appears that the way that those houses are positioned that it
is not going to be encroaching on any of those three new homes in any significant way. Um, that was my observation. um you know it's not like um you know some other parts of town where when that happens you're you're you know like right outside someone's bedroom window
or something like that. I mean it seems to be plenty of clearance um given the area better shape lot to to the to the rear of your lot. So it doesn't seem like that should be any problem for any of the neighbors I would imagine. >> I agree. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So with that we're gonna we're
gonna um >> Mr. Chairman if I could just do a couple of things. Um, I think there's going to be the next meeting is >> May 28th. >> May 28th, uh, 6 o'clock. So, just, uh, Mike Ksky, just for the record, do you on behalf of your client consent to extend the time frame within which the
board has to act? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And then, uh, I'm going to suggest that if all these numbers that you previously noticed for work out, no new notice. But if the numbers
change or if you need F variance, I think you're going to have to renotice. Just out of an abundance of caution. So, um, new notice possibly. Um, >> Mr. K, could you pause for a second? When you said May 28th, are you sure that the agenda is clear to add this
application on to May 28th? Because I know that that's the next meeting, but we don't know. >> Texted me. She had texted me while we were here and I just said, "When is the next meeting?" >> Right. >> We were talking. >> Right. Right. But But but I want to make
sure that we have room to carry this over. >> I would assume that we do. Let's proceed with the assumption. Okay. And then with that, you're going to have to act relatively quickly because >> the notice period um I think it's 14 days. So
>> it takes four days, >> right? Whatever you're looking at, you you know, you've got to get that posted up there. Um, >> he's not gonna let you forget that >> people said yes. >> Great. Okay, good. So, we can see you
May 28th. So, it's not for you. And you know what we'll do too to speed the process? Typically, there's a one month delay um between um you know when we approve the application height and then certify it a month later. Um what we try to do is we can see if we can accomplish
both of that in the same. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, this way you're not going to lose a mark. >> All right. And then uh just on the uh adjournment to May 28th, 2026, 6 o'clock p.m. Um who'll make that motion?
>> I'll make that motion. I'll second it. >> All right. So, that's Tony and Mark. And we can do an all in favor on this. >> Any opposed? Okay. It's tough to be the board secretary.
>> I would like to make them I'd like if we're all done, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. All right. >> Thank you very much, guys. >> Thank you. >> All in favor of adjournment. All right. >> Thank you.