board's website. >> Roll call. Mr. Ross >> here. >> Mr. Greg >> here. >> Mr. Mr. >> here. >> Mr. Luben. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Neal >> here. >> Mr. Dioro >> here. >> And Miss and are absent.
>> Please rise for the pledge. 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. >> I have a motion to approve the minutes
of the April 23rd meeting. I'll make that >> Mr. Ross. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Luben. >> Yes. Mr. O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dioro. >> Yes. >> Next is the resolution approving the
application of Ronald Rotano and Carol Costello 4164th Avenue. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, that is an approval to a uh for floor air ratio bearings and bulk bearings approval to effectuate a number of improvements to an existing
single family home. I sent this late. I apologize. The gist of the findings were uh we had the first uh meeting and there were um see we said that there were a number of questions and concerns regarding the accuracy of some of the
building coverage and lot coverage calculations. Some potential inconsistencies, concerns regarding the accuracy of the floor area ratio calculations and uh concerns regarding the nature and extent of the specifically requested relief. So we adjourned it uh so we could get those
answers. We did get those answers. It was further complicated by the applicant's architect was not there to testify. Uh they revised the plans and the architect came and testified and everything uh was fine. And the conditions of note, there are a couple plans. One that the structure is only
going to be is a single family home. The existing sheds to be removed for the plans. Uh the designated existing concrete uh to be removed for the plans compliance with the burough's half story ordinance. Uh the attic not to be utilized as habitable space. The attic
shall not be heated or cooled for the testimony presented. Uh it's going to be accessed the attic access via the set of cool p cool down stairs for the testimony. Only one driveway. Remember one of the things that they were doing was relocating the driveway. that the existing curb cut at the site
shall be permanently closed once the existing driveway is relocated. Um and that the existing driveway once it's relocated perpetually replace it with lawn and grass. Uh the dormer shall comply with prevailing zoning regulations. I think we ultimately said
no no dormer variances. The relocated driveway shall be driveway. Uh the designated pavers and concrete shall be removed from the site for the approved plans. air conditioning condensers in some compliant locations. No further expansion pending approval from the
board. Um and uh let's see, we had in there, I just put in there that uh and I think we talked about this, the board does not authorize or legitimize the applicant's use of any property owned by any third party including the burough because I think they sort of said that they
sometimes parked in the municipal rightway and sometimes people think they said it in the courtroom. There were tape recorders on, they were sworn, there were lawyers here. So, so we just said that that's not, you know, we don't uh can't legalize that. And uh we've
also said I think we wanted the floor ratio calculations just to be verified by TED. We're making very clear that we approved the A7 plans that were discussed at the the last meeting, not not the earlier one. And I think um that
was just and we have our standard condition now standard condition about you know you can only do what the plans and what we give you approval for and if you do something different all that are off. So if that's uh acceptable we can adopt that if that's the board.
>> I'll make that motion. I'll second >> yes. >> Mr. Greg >> yes >> Mr. Mr. Yes. >> Mr. O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Ready to start? Before we get started,
um I I was asked to um just inform or make it public uh the fact that uh there's a um there's a land use um law out there called the Resilient Environments and Landscapes. known as R
E A L RE and it appears that the governor is going to announce that uh that is going to be delayed for at least one year having to meet the new standards has to do with flood elevations and all different things. Um
but but it was going to increase the number of properties that would fall into what would be considered flood hazard. Um I believe it was increasing the the height like Two feet four total.
>> Four above the normal >> four above what it is currently. >> Okay. Which which is dramatic. It doesn't affect Belmar as much it does other shore towns because like I've heard that Manisquan the whole downtown area would be considered underwater.
I don't think we're quite as as low as Madison is. But in any case, Councilman Dunovan got word that uh that announcement will be imminent and she felt it was important that the board knows this as well as the general public. Okay. So with that, we're going
to hear our first application. Uh John and Shea. >> All right. And u Mr. Chairman, if I could just do a couple of uh preliminary procedural things. You recall this is a continuation of uh Mr. for a second. I'm very sorry.
I I only realize now we have we have um two leaders that are not here tonight. Um and if I'm not mistaken the second application fairness and because I'm in the notification zone, I'm going to have to recuse myself
from that case. So I did want to let the applicants make the applicants aware typically a use var or not typically a use variance requires five of the seven members to vote in favor. So it's a super majority. It's not a simple majority. And tonight we have seven
seated members but I have to step off. So for for your case who who's our >> Yeah. Jennifer Krypkco here is the attorney for the >> And who who are who are you representing? Are they here? I represent the >> Are they Are they here? >> Yes, they are. >> Hi. I'm going to be your neighbor around
the corner. Um so because I'm going to be your neighbor, I am not going to be able to hear that case. So um in that case, uh you're going to have to get five out of six votes um in favor of your application. Uh it's your choice. You can move forward and and and and do
that or uh adjourn for tonight and come back when when you have a full set. So for the record, Jennifer Krimov from Mano Criminarian here on behalf of the applicant. I recognize that despite my youthful appearance, I've been doing this about 30 years. Um,
>> I'm intimately familiar with it. Um, April and I I think I go back as long as she's been here. Um, before that I wrote for the Co-Star newspaper. So >> that's what I thought I knew. That's >> long time ago. >> You did live for me. Uh but in any event, we are going to proceed and then
at the end of the conclusion, we may ask for an adjournment for purposes of a vote in order to have um additional board members listen to the tape. That'll give us the opportunity to get feedback from both you and the public in the event we have to revise plans anyway. >> All right. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, with that, we're going to hear the first case. >> Okay. So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation to withdraw that we started the application on April 23rd and at that point we ran into some uh issues
and confusion and uh about potentially inaccurate res information in the previously approved plans or potentially inaccurate or inconsistent information in the uh recently submitted plans and confusion regarding some of the
standards and calculations in in the prior resolution and I think we had uh uh Chuck we had differences regarding uh different front yard and rear yard setbacks and maybe was and we had F questions. So against that backdrop um
we carried um so that the applicant could more clearly look at the situation and the situation was further compounded because April was out getting the most superior and excellent uh clerk of the
western hemisphere award. Uh so it was just further confusing uh and and so we adjourned it. So, um, we didn't necessarily make the applicants renotice unless it was a a big change and I don't think there was, but they did still renotice. So, a we appreciate that out
of an abundance of caution and to be transparent. So, first up, is there anyone here with any questions or comments or concerns regarding the new notice uh the attorney provided? We see any. Okay, we don't see any. Uh, the board secretary and I reviewed that
notice and found everything to be in order. So, it would be my humble opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight. And April, just for recordeping purposes, do we have uh everyone here eligible to vote tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay, good. So, then what we're going to
do is just mark into the record the new information that uh we have. Um and I'm going to mark in uh and April is going to uh correct me if um so we're going to mark in A5.
And A5 is uh revised architectural plans prepared by Arch Design Studios. And that's dated January 5th, 2026. And I think that was one page. And then we have as a
six and this is uh revised plans prepared by Arch Design Studios. Was this the same? >> Two pages. >> Okay. Two pages. January 5th, 2026.
And A7, we have a communication from Arch Design Studio dated May 15, 2026. And that was some calculations. And I believe
um at the last hearing we had uh John O' Conor sworn, Sheila Okconor Sworn and Joseph Dmbrose this morning as a design professional but not as an architect as I recall. Okay. And so why don't we just swear in uh Ted Bianke, you are the uh
zoning officer of the great bureau of BMAR. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth to the best of your knowledge to help you guide? >> Thank you. And uh what we'll do, Mr. Chairman, this is you'll remember Michael Kofsky and I think he's got
answers uh to the source of the confusion and we'll turn it over to him. Good evening. >> Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask attorney Green Road
and Davis and our office represents Mr. and Mrs. Okconor property located 47 South Lake Drive in Belmar and designated as block 839 on the official tax. As Mr. Kennedy explained when we were here last month,
some questions were raised regarding um certain calculations that were provided on the plans as well as the effect and impact of a previous approval granted by this board back in 2021. Um, we acknowledge those concerns and decided
to go back, review the resolution, review the calculations, and be able to come here this evening and present what we believe is the accurate information based upon our review of those documents. Um,
when we were here last month, what we thought we needed was a rear yard setback. Um, We thought it was dimminous in nature. We were asking for less than a foot from where the current property line is. As we looked at the resolution,
we realized what we were looking at was not the rear property yard line. It was actually the side property yard line. So, as a result, this proposed addition fully complies with the side setback requirement. However, in our review, we
did identify some other variant we believe that we need. Um, and because there are a lot of different numbers here, we thought it would be best to put together a small exhibit to give to the board to provide that vis visualization as to what we're talking about. >> All right. So, I'm going to, you know,
before I forget, why don't I just mark the old for record keeping purposes, the old fire resolution for this site that was approved on March 30th, 2021. We'll mark that as A8 just that we have at 10 A9. Uh Mike, what is A9 here?
>> Um >> an exhibit showing um Google image of the property and identifying the specific size, rear and front yard lines. Okay. >> And also um a summary of what's required in the zoning ordinance, what was
approved in 21, and existing. >> I love the color. >> Hey, very nice. Uh, as we proceed though, I would like to defer to Ted. Uh, Ted, I I know sometimes when we see these odd shaped lots, you know, you you you would advise us something like
there's two front setbacks or there's two rear setbacks. like you would I I just want to make sure that what's presented here is is the applicant's interpretation of what is this front
side and rear as opposed to um or not as opposed to maybe in concert with whether the town agrees with that or that you agree with that because I I don't know by you simply saying this is front side and rear and I can that's your opinion
broken title But the property of the rules say it's two rear setbacks or two side two. >> So I just want to make sure that we're we're in in sync with each other here in terms of what the definitions are. >> Perhaps I can give my thought on
>> just give me a minute. Let me ask >> um there's two fronts Dean and South is that the short Little short red be considered what? >> And he's got that designated as front. And then also South Lake in red is
front. >> Yeah. Side word would be >> So we are in agreement. >> Yellow. >> Yeah. And then the rear will be the >> All right. So we're in agreement. >> I would say green. All right. I just wanted to see what what
>> I would say the green one he has on his rear joint. >> And what would that make yellow side >> required to have a rear joint? >> Yeah, I understand. Um and but you believe that the rear would be
>> opposite opposite the address >> green yellow green >> green the green >> would be the rear yard >> green is rear and then what is here on yellow would be side >> okay so that's why I took that pause for a minute because I just wanted to get
the zoning officer's uh opinion on that first before you proceeded now please proceed I I don't know that it's going to change the outcome but I also just don't want accept this fact the the front side and rear designation are engaged.
>> Sure. Um so in the burough zoning code for corner lots it establishes how a particular side lots are determined. So like the official said any fronts on a street is going to be a front yard
regardless of whether you have one or two >> discrepancy. And then the code goes on lot lines that are coexistent with sidelines of a budding lots shall be considered sideline sidelines. So
what we've identified here in yellow sorry and then it goes on lot lines that are consistent with rear lines joining lots shall be considered rear lines lot lines that are consistent with lots lot lines that are joining corner lot shall be considered sidelines. So here what
appears to happen and as set forth in the resolution the property adjacent to the subject property that is located on Street and the intersection of Nin Street is also a corner lot. So based on that language, it appears that at 2021
it was determined that where we have green is the side and that's reflected again in the resolution based upon the varian relief that was granted back then. >> Good question. In 2021, that was the first aid station. >> Correct.
>> Those houses weren't built. I don't think that doesn't change the >> So this map reflects the resolution that was granted in 2021. Correct. with that person. >> Okay, we're good with that. >> Okay, let's go.
>> Okay. Um, so as we've been discussing, there was an approval in 2021 that granted four separate variances related to the front yard setback for South from South Lake Drive, the rear yard setback, which
again we show here in yellow, and that approval was for 17.10 which obviously again reflects the current property um as it is a variance for the max voting coverage of 32.35%
and a variance for the improvements coverage of 64.10% % approval. Um all that approval related to the um allowing the applicant to construct a front yard on the property that that was the extent of the
construction that took place during that as a result of the application. Now, interestingly, and as we found as we doing our due diligence, after the approval was granted back in 2022, 2020 end of 2122,
there was an adverse possession action brought in the Superior Court of New Jersey that our clients want. As a result, they received approximately 344 square feet um from the adjacent what are now three
lots, but was formerly the more ambulance um volunteer ambulance. >> Can you tell a little more about the 344 square ft? Did it did it span those three properties? Was it like 10 ft by >> uh 5t by like 30 ft?
>> It was approximately um 2 and 1/2 ft at the point adjacent to D Street. It ran the length of those three properties to the end to the corner lot of my client's property. And at that point it was approximately 3.25
ft. >> Okay. >> So in total again that was 344 square ft added to the total lot size which obviously impacts the calculation for coverage area ratio coverage. So when
they built they their back property line, what used to be the first aid uh station, their back property line had to inch inch but come forward by how many feet? >> Uh it changed throughout the width but it started at about 2.5 ft and then up
to three >> somewhere between two and three feet times times 150 ft. I guess >> 125 ft. Okay. and that following the adverse possession action. Um, in order to
perfect that, the pre or previous owner of those three lots actually appear before the planning board obtained subdivision appro approval to cut off that that small piece of the lot. >> So, you gain you gain 344
square feet in terms of your lot or your total lot square footage. Okay. um and that lot was then deeded and consolidated into my client's lot. So that's why the calculations may seem a little bit off where back in 2021, you know, we're approved for a building
coverage based upon a square footage of 1,952 ft and the building coverage was 32.35%. Now we're looking to add an additional 36 square feet of building coverage. yet the deviation from the 30% requirement
that we're asking for tonight is less than what was approved back in 2021. >> Okay. >> So, >> I was going to say in a nutshell, >> yeah, >> looking at 2021, looking at today, we're not comparing apples to apples. It's it's a larger property. >> Well, but what I'm encouraged by is the process worked, right?
>> Absolutely. We saw inconsistency. We questioned the inconsistency. Now, we're coming back to this meeting with the proper answers. >> Absolutely. That's all we really wanted. >> And a shout out to the board members because >> we didn't want to delay this. We didn't want to not approve it. It was just a
question of the numbers were off. We discovered that and now we know why they're off. >> And had we approved it under those circumstances, not that you would have that just would have been heartache and misery and aggravation and cost and delay for them later on.
>> Thank you. So in short, tonight we're here uh seeking what are essentially four variances. The first is the setback to South Lake Drive. In 2021 is approved for 9.16 ft. In the course of construction, it was constructed at
9.08. So it it is a deviation and requires additional varian it was previously approved for what? 9.16 ft >> and now it's >> 9.08. >> Thank you.
>> The second variance is with respect to the rear yard setback. It was approved in 21 at 17.1 ft. It's currently 18.08 ft. We've actually reduced the deviation
for the requ at 32.35% seeking approval for 31.04%. And then the final one is with respect to the improve coverage. 2021 it was approved at 64.1%
were requesting a a small increase to that to that to 682%. Um those are the four variances that that we are seeking and I'll just touch upon the floor >> and Mike just there is no floor ratio
variance correct touch that um as as you can see in our plans that were submitted um were well below the 65% per floor area ratio um back in 21 48.24%
was approved for seeking um an increase. >> Okay. I just have to ask a question here if you don't mind for a second. Um since the 2021 approvals and they beat it into our heads when we take the class
that that stay with the land. Um I'm the first Um, if you're going down, if you were approved for 9.16 and you're going down to 9.08, um, that's not a varant. You already have that from 2021.
>> Yes. My only Well, no, we we need a variance for that setback. >> But you're saying you got approved for 9.16 in 2021. So, >> right. So, so we're further
closer to It refers to the setback the >> existing is 9.08 which is less than what was approved right 9.16. Am I am I misunderstanding something? >> So you build less than what you were what it was approved at.
>> It's referring to the distance away from the road the amount of feet. So we were approved to to build. >> Okay. So so you I guess you missed it a little bit then when Okay. Is that the same then for the rear yard? Am I my understanding?
>> No, that that is the reverse situation as you were just previously alluding to. >> Okay. So then you don't so you don't so you need it for the front yard, you don't need it for the rear yard, you don't need it for the building coverage, but you do need it for the new
um yes uh we thought out of abundance of caution fact that the 21 approval was granted based upon those plans, the fact that these plans in the existing lot differ from those that it was better
to seek that relief from the board, have it approved, memorialized in a resolution reflecting what's out there than not bring it. >> All right, I get it. But but you said four variances. It looks like two only only two variances are
>> but but for memorialization purposes you just want to reflect the proposed as as as we'll re we'll reaffirm the prior variances that were provided >> and I think in the past what we've done
and certainly up to you in the past when he's has excess like now you're going a little bit down for building coverage I think >> correct And in the past what you have done, you've said, "Well, hey, you can't store this extra building coverage in
the bank. You know, you're you're abandoning the prior and if you approve it tonight, that's the building. >> We'll just go with these new numbers and for you and then that'll become the new record, right? The new official record and and you won't have to piece together the 2021 approvals with the 2026
approvals." >> Right. Fair enough. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, uh, my client testified at the last meeting. Um, I don't want to take up much more of the board's time unless questions like address. >> We have a second application that's
anxiously waiting to get up here. I'm >> wellware to get up here and get their property approved. So, yeah, we would like to move. >> That's all we have for >> Okay, so with that, we will open it up
for board questions starting on our I just have one question on the impous coverage. So it looks like you came in about 500 square ft higher than the 2021 approval.
>> I assume you paved more than expected. >> It may have changed. because nothing's changed. >> Right. But what I'm saying is >> the 2021 approval was for 500 square ft less. So did the job just go over in
2021? >> I don't know if those numbers were just off in the end. Nothing's changed. So I'm assuming that calculation might have been off in the original. This has been verified from last slide. >> Yeah. What you have now? >> Yes. >> Okay. I have no other questions.
>> Great. >> I don't have any questions. >> Everything that was the only question I have no questions >> and I have no questions. So with that, we'll open up to the public. If anyone hears from the in the public uh is here
to speak about this application, please raise your hand, be identified, and step up to the microphone. I do not see anyone raising their hand. So we will there's no one here to do that. Excuse me. In the back, you're not
here for this application, correct? Okay. Not just Okay. So with that, we close the public session and open up the board comments and we will go the same order that we did for questions. >> I have no further questions on favor of
the application. >> I'm fine with it. Also, >> thank you for taking the time to review the previous same thing. I I appreciate that you straighten out the problem and I'm in favor of the application. >> Okay. And I just want the members of the
public to be aware in the last meeting we went over this application exhaustively. So, we're not rushing this through tonight. There was just some technical technicalities that needed to get clarified which all did get clarified tonight. So I am also in favor of this application. So with that, Mr.
Kennedy. >> Sure. Please summarize everything. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I think uh if the application order be approved, um we start with our standard compliance all the promises, commitments, and representations that team made throughout uh this hearing process.
Compliance with our affordable housing rules and regulations. uh compliance with outside approvals with the caveat if the outside approvals uh require material changes. Uh they have to come back uh for us and basically our standard approval that we're giving you
approval to do this and you demolish the home instead. All bets are off. You need to come back. Ultimately, we'll need a professional certification that your improvements have been installed in accordance with the testimony presented the approved plans and the resolution. And Mr. Chairman, we talked about we're
going to wave the applicant's going to wave or abandon to the extent of inconsistency to the extent he was previously approved for higher uh relief in 20121. You're abandoning it in favor of today's numbers. And at the last time
we talked about uh compliance before we got into all the uh the trouble so to speak talked about compliance with the half story inclusion of the roof pitch on the half story on the on the plans and I had in my notes confirming that
the rooftop deck has been removed. >> Yes. And um and then let's see we other thing just out of an abundance of caution I think what we do is have our friend April uh just check with the tax
assessor to make sure that the new lot and the other lot have it consolidated and it's all record and we just want to make sure because obviously they've said it's consolidated. We just have the assessor confirm it because we don't want that 344 square foot lot to be a separate standalone result which is not
it's already been uh and um so that's um that's it Mr. Chairman we'll consolidate the lots if they've already not been consolidated but it sounds like they have um so if that's in all addition to our standard uh changes if that's
acceptable uh we can adopt that. I I just have one comment and it's something that I know we've done in the past if there's been some emergency but typically um we can't proceed until next meeting when we do the formal adoption
of this but in the past we wave that since they've been delayed a month would it be possible that we allow them to begin the process without having to wait for next month? Uh yes, with a caveat, I think at the last meeting uh some of the
board members suggested that I have a resolution uh to prepare to speed read into the record. I have that if that's the pleasure of the board or if you want to wait. I just I don't know what happens in the
in the >> Well, I I wasn't trying to rush rush resolution. I was I was trying to allow them to proceed. Well, let me defer to April. Did anything stop them from getting a permit? Like the res in the past? >> No. >> Okay.
>> All right. I don't know if you have urgency or not, but I certainly don't want to delay another month. >> No, we would move to approve this application. >> Second, >> Mr. Ross. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ray. >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Mr. Lib.
>> Yes. >> Mr. O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Good luck. >> While you're still up there, is it okay for me to set up? >> Sure. I know you are, but while you're still
out of an abundance of >> his favorite words besides attorney, right? >> Uhhuh. All right, Mr. Chair, can I uh preliminary procedural things? >> Yes, please. >> All right. This is the boss Brown
application 1900 at Ocean Avenue. So, uh, the applicants, uh, attorney submitted, uh, public notice and is there anyone here who had any questions or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the notice they received?
>> Okay. Uh, the board secretary and I reviewed the notice, found everything to be in order. So, it be my humble opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight. And, uh, for the second final time tonight, we will swear in Ted Bianke. Ted, you are the zoning officer and construction officer of Burough Don.
You swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you're providing will be the truth best to help you guide. Thank you. And what we'll do is we'll mark the record that we as a board have before us. So A1 is a development application
and that's dated February 18th, 2026. And A2 is a minor land use zoning permit and that is uh dated uh April 28th, 2025 slash May 20th, 2025.
And I'm going to mark as A3 I have a uh minor land use application denial and that's dated May 15, 2026. And A4 is a minor due something application denial
dated in May 21st 2025. So we can talk about that in differences. And then we're going to mark as A5 is the burrow of Belmar uh application checklist and A6
is boundary topographic survey prepared by insight surveying and that is dated uh or last revised uh April >> August 7th 2025 >> August 7th 2025
So that's A6 and A7 is a plot plan prepared by Insight Engineering and that is uh dated January 27th 2026 consisting of three sheets and then A8
is architectural uh plans uh prepared by PLM architects architect and design and that is >> 12726. >> All right. Last revised 12726.
And let's see. I think that's it, April. Right. So, this is Jennifer Krypto and Jennifer. Uh, just as we indicated, we have currently six people and we need the the five yes votes. And as was stated earlier, at this point you want
to proceed and you'll determine later on whether or not you're going to have a vote tonight. >> All right. And I missed it. Who is the acting chair? Just so I can >> Tony. >> How are you, >> vice chair? Good, man. How are you? >> Good, ma'am. That makes me sound old, doesn't you?
>> I did. You are correct. Uh, good evening again. I am still Jennifer Grimco on behalf of the applicant. Couple of things just to explain the reason for the two different zoning uh determinations. Originally, our architect had submitted for a zoning
denial before hiring me and before hiring the uh engineer whose firm prepared a current asbelt topographic survey. Upon review of that and in um revising the application, there were some changes as a result. So, we
resubmitted and Mr. Bianke was nice enough to do a second review letter as it relates to that. So that's that's the reason. So I'm just going to talk about the variances as identified in the second review letter because that's really the only one that is um
appropriate. So if I could just move a few more things in. A9 are building permit applications uh from October 13th and September 21st, 1970. And they indicate that back at that time
they this was a two family home and has consistently been a two family home. And I introduced this just to I have had experiences in the past where we went before the board and they said, "Well, how do we know that you've been there?" And I did file an open request with the
burrow and there were no you didn't need one >> and there were no other records. So this is what we got. And members of the public, if they're interested, I'm going to leave them here and help yourself. 810
you have a copy >> is the neighborhood aerial prepared by insight engineering and that is with today's date and again this is Patrick Ward our planner and engineering will testify to it and just
identify for the record this is just to orient the board with regard to the subject property as well as just a few more. Thank you. >> A1
similarly is a closeup of the same aerial indicating what's existing on site today. Yes. May I quote you on that? >> No, unless you give it back to Alison.
>> That was all off the record. And then lastly as A12 is the proposed conditions which shows a color rendered version of the plot
plan overlaid on the area close up. So and having been working with Pat for a very long time I imagine that is what he's going to testify from. And with that, I would ask to have our
architects sworn and qualified, and we'll get started. >> All right. If you could please uh state your name and business address. >> My name is Patricia Mijack Peters. My business address is 360
street. >> And I'm sorry, Patricia. >> Mitch Peters. M I S Y A K. >> M I S Y A K. P E T E R S. >> Okay. Good evening and welcome. If you could just raise your right hand. Do you
swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to best your knowledge to help you God? >> I do. >> All right. And just for the record, uh you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed architect. >> Yes. Correct. >> And your licenses and certifications and qualifications are current up to date and in good standing?
>> They are. >> All right. You could just briefly give the board a little bit of a a flavor of your uh educational background and certifications. I was educated at the univers Virginia Tech University. I graduated in 1992. I received my degree as an architect in 1997. I have been
practicing architecture for over 30 years. I've currently at my current practice which I am the sole proprietor of for the last 20 years. So I just celebrated my 20th anniversary. >> And you've been personally I know you've been accepted as an as a um expert in
the field of architecture in front of many boards. >> Yes. testified before in the state of New Jersey. I consider myself a Jersey girl architect. I started my career in Morris County. I worked in Hackinat for 10 years and I've been down here for the last 20 years in Ocean County. >> Very nice.
>> Thank you. >> We certainly accept your >> So I I just want to set the stage and then I'm going to turn it over to you to kind of walk through the changes. And just so the board is aware, Pat Ward, who's my next witness, is our engineer and professional planning. So, as it
relates to the variance really, all that testimony is going to come from him. So, I just if I say, well, we're going to defer to the next witness, that's the reason why uh what Patty's really going to do is just walk you through the existing and proposed conditions of the
architecture itself. So, Patty, just briefly before you start, and I just want to set the stage for this. Currently, there are two residential units in this structure. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Okay. And the combined number of bedrooms between the two units is six. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. And in the proposed condition, and we're going to go through it in great detail, but this is important as it relates to some of the other planning testimony. We're going to continue to be the pre-existing non-conforming two family. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> And we're not adding any bedrooms. >> No. >> Okay.
>> There will be a total of six. >> Right. And the reason I share that, as you know, is that, you know, bedroom count affects parking. I just wanted the board to understand that we're not making any change with regard to the intensity of the use. We're just making the building uh more livable for the inhabitants. So, why don't you talk a
little bit about when the owner contacted you, what the goal was, and then we'll walk through page by page the existing and proposed. Okay. So, when the I was hired by um the Basseran family to help them bring this current this existing building into the 21st
century, it was a two family. It's identical floor plates on the first and second floor. So, they they both align. The house was in disarray. Um, one of the conditions that they were they were asking me to help them with is they have
a daughter that is on the autism spectrum. Currently, there are a number of people that come from the beach because they are in Ocean Avenue and they do have a very, very big front porch. When you're on the autism spectrum, a child needs a sense of
continuity. They don't like surprises. So, what happens during the summer months in particular is when it rains, people from the beach run off the beach and they run up and they decide that it's okay to stand under their open front porch. So, part of the
construction of this house, um the reconstruction of this house was to provide some barriers so that people didn't feel free that they could just run onto their front porch and startle their daughter. It's also to make the space more comfortable so that as they
as they age and progress from almost a teenager into adulthood, there was a place for their future daughter to stay connected and part of the family and hopefully someday have her own private residence. >> So, with all of that as background um
and and what brought us here, let's talk about so the existing conditions. We have a full basement that was previously, it appears, that was previously finished at some point. >> That is correct. It appears if you go back into Google Earth and you do the time lapse, you can see that Hurricane
Sandy, as everyone knows, did quite a bit of damage. Um, a lot of the basement is studded out. There was what appears to be a bedroom. There was what appears to have been existing bathroom. And there was a full set of walk down flight
stairs with a full door into the basement. the stud the studs remain there but all this all the siding or um >> finishes >> finishes and ceiling and all of that has been removed. >> Okay. And Patty importantly though the floor to ceiling height of what's there
is habitable. >> Yes it is very habitable. >> So that square footage goes towards Florida ratio today and what they can use. And we're proposing to eliminate a basement alto together and create a non-habitable floor plan. We're taking all of that space off the table.
>> That is correct. The existing square footage of the basement as it exists now today is 1,388 square ft. So, we have no doubt that that was space that was used prior to at least Hurricane Sandy and could be. >> Can we pause for a second?
>> Can you confirm whether or not this property is closed? I think we should start there. >> The the engineer can make an evidence for you. >> All right. Um, good evening, Mr. Ward. if you could just uh state your name and uh business address.
>> Sure. Patrick Ward, 1955 Route 34 W, New Jersey with Insight Engineering. >> All right. You swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to best your knowledge to help you guide? >> I do. >> And just for the record, you're testifying tonight in your capacity as >> uh professional engineer, professional planner. >> Okay. And your licenses and
qualifications and certifications are current, up to date, and in good standing? >> Yes, they are. >> I know, Mr. Chairman, he's been here before. Do you want his qualifications for the record? No. >> Okay. And and Mr. I know the answer to this, but I didn't want to give the testimony. So that's why
>> it's quite right. I think just for a matter of fact, >> the short answer, are we in a flood zone >> partially? Uh the garage at the rear is really in the flood zone. The house itself is beyond the limits of the current >> but the but the property itself is in a
flood zone. So flood compliance would be required >> for the the flood zone has to touch a structure any part of a structure for it to be subject to the rules. Um the garage and I'll get to this my testimony. We're proposing flood vents on the garage based on its current elevation. Doesn't happen today. >> The house does not require it.
>> Right. But more importantly if as and when the real rules go into effect and that was news to me. We've been following them very closely while I was sitting listening to the board chair. I actually Googled it. I can't find it. So he has an inside track that I don't have. Um >> the town is very in tune with that and
it's quite likely that that >> I imagine >> I think it's great >> but right Patrick brings me >> as the four feet goes up it could once the real rules come into effect potentially now be in a flood zone once it >> most definitely will correct so so with
that being said that aside is it seem to assume then Mr. that if 50% if the you would assume that a project of this scale would offset 50% of the uh >> value. Yes.
>> Correct. Now, which then would require the basement to be filled in anyway. Is that right? >> In in a few in the future at this moment in time pre-real, there is no requirement for that. We're doing it out of really an abundance of caution for future facilities >> because you're not in the flood zone. >> Correct. that the flood zone today the
FEMA maps do not touch the main home they touch the garage so the garage will be brought to code the house will not but we're doing that as an abundance >> anticipating that it will be and while I love the year delay I think it's going to get adopted no matter what you're
going to hear testimony as to uh flood safety and things real aside current standards is where I always go I was just curious is if the renovation cost associated with this parcel would then automatically defer to half the basement.
>> We're choosing to do it. >> I'm sorry for the two minutes later. >> That's okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we're making that just a crawl space and there'll be a hatch access to the crawl. And what would the floor to ceiling height be in the crawl space? Approximately
>> approximately 4 ft. >> Okay. And even though it's not required today, we are putting flood vents in that crawl space. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, we're anticipating it and we're doing that as it relates to the garage on the first floor. We are adding flood vents, but we are not making any
change to the first floor footprint. Right. Okay. I can ask the board to turn to the second sheet AB1. So currently and what I had to do in order to make it very clear is as the board will see there are labels for
apartment A and apartment B for entrances for dining rooms for bedrooms. So it's clear. So in looking at the existing first floor, the covered porch and entry is shared by the two apartments. >> That's correct. >> And the living space on the first floor
is all part of unit A. >> Correct. >> Okay. And in that we have three three bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a dining room, >> and a bathroom. Yeah. >> And a bed. Okay. And off the back there are exterior stairs that go up to an
entrance into apartment B. >> Yes. There's several exterior stairs out the back. At the back there's stairs that go down that go down to the basement and then a set of stairs that go up to entrance B. >> Okay. And as Patrick comes when he testifies, that is non-conforming as it
relates to the distance to the garage as well as the reard setback. And by eliminating those stairs, we're reducing the nonconformity there and eliminating it as it relates to the garage. >> Yes. >> Now, I'm sorry, Jennifer, which stairs are being eliminated >> in the back of >> I'm sorry, on the what's what west side
>> for the garage? >> No, the structure structure. >> There's seven stairs that goes to the basement. another one that goes up to a second floor platform to enter the building. >> And then there's also four steps up at the rear of the building. You have to go up four steps to get into the house.
There are no interior stairs in this building now. So if you want to get to the second floor or to the first floor, all of the stairways are exterior and open, not covered on the back or covered on the front. And then on the first
floor, we're proposing to enclose a portion of the uh east side porch as you'd indicated, provide a modified porch, and then just reconfigure the space, but we're maintaining the three bedrooms in that
unit. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And then as you look at the garage, what we're adding is storage in the attic. >> Correct. >> Okay. And what's the height of that storage area in the attic?
>> It's it'll be better to see it from the elevations when we get to the elevation drawings. It slopes, >> but approximate what's the tallest height >> um to at the at the face 15 ft. >> No, no, no. The ceiling height inside >> say 5T. >> Okay. So, it's 5T. So, it's not
habitable. >> It's not habitable >> and it never can be and we're not proposing any kind of HBAC or anything else. Can I just confirm two things here? You're recognizing apartment A, you're maintaining three bedrooms, but you're adding two full bathrooms. Is that correct? >> Um, we are adding the
>> Yes, >> there are two. No, there are two bathrooms now. So, in the existing bedroom number one has this bathroom that is it's it's not a shape. >> It's one and a half bathrooms existing and you're making it three full. >> It's two full bathrooms. And
>> that's a shower, Mr. chair, >> believe it or not. Yeah, it's tiny. >> So, it's two full going to >> three and a half. >> No, three. >> Three full. I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> And then >> we're adding we're reconfiguring the laundry space. >> Correct.
>> Moving forward to the garage. >> Well, before just before we go there, just to add one more thing, Mr. We're also bringing the stairs to the second floor apartment interior to the site and getting them out and making it more attractive aesthetically.
And then onto the garage. The attic storage area you said was 5T. And what's the total building height? >> Total building height is under what's required. I believe it is >> 16T 6 and 12.
>> 16.3 something. >> Okay. How you going to sheet AB2? That was apartment B. And in that scenario, we had three bedrooms all on
one floor. Correct. >> Yes. It's it's an identical floor plate to the floor. >> Okay. And in the proposed, you're expanding the living room. You're modifying the bedroom sizes. You're making the two bathrooms that are there
much larger and more accommodating. And you're giving them a true laundry that they didn't have today, >> and a half bathroom, >> right? And then you have going up to the to the third floor, you're creating um
you're relocating the third bedroom that was on the second floor up to that floor. >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry. Say that again, Jennifer. >> There was the third bedroom in apartment B is going from the second floor to the third floor. And you're providing a new family room,
a new bath, >> and then access to a roof deck over the second floor. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then again, there'll be internal stairs to access it. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, again, the intensity of the use is not changing. It's just being
modernized to standard sizes and adding some bathrooms, which again doesn't add people. It just makes it a little more convenient for the people living there. >> That is correct. Except for the stairwell, we utilize the existing footprint of the
existing foundation. So the stair the stairwell in um is where our new where the new foundation will be as well as the new entry on the first floor. We had to add
the entrance off of 19th Avenue. There will be um stairs that will go up. that requires a new foundation, but other than that, the actual living space stays within the footprint of the existing building. >> Okay. And then unless the board would
like to go over the roof plan, essentially just shows the pictures of the roof on sheet AB4. >> Is that you might as well touch on it. >> Okay. >> So, essentially what's shown in the existing roof is the roof over the existing second floor. And what we're
proposing is a partial third floor uh with a portion of it open. Approximately what's the percentage of third floor as it relates to second floor the square footage of the third floor. >> So they so There are three different
definitions for for the >> I'm asking for from a building >> 600. So it's so it'll be finished 664 square ft. >> And what's the second floor? >> The second floor is a total of 1,553
square ft. >> Okay. >> So it's it's significantly smaller. >> That's right. Well, 664 ft. That is the finished area of the attic or the third floor. So that would be if I were to show you
on drawing that area is based upon face of wall to face of wall. This particular face of wall is only 5t tall but that does take up all of that area. Okay. So turning to
AV5 and again we didn't put it in yet because have it and go. I felt it would have been difficult to have the engineer testify first without understanding the building. Um, in looking at AD5, we have two front yards essentially on
our property. Okay. So, the goal was to make both aesthetically pleasing to both front yards. Correct. >> Okay. So, let's start with the Ocean Avenue elevation. So essentially, it's showing the existing building with the open porch that you indicated people ran
up to, and it's now creating a much smaller porch without any access from the Ocean Avenue elevation. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And we had indicated that um it shows the balconies. It shows the Can
you point out where the stair tower is that you're talking about? >> In the back. It's in the It's in the back of the building. Okay. So, the area in the back of the building as well as uh on the left side is really where the living space is on the third floor and
the rest of that is just the open decking. >> Correct. So, this is this would be what would be considered typical roof and we designed it trying to use the definitions in the ordinance. So, the the wall height in this particular part
above at the floor level up is no higher than 3 ft on the inside. We maintain the pitches as was indicated on the um the roof plans. The main pitch here is 10 on 12. This what you see here in the background is a
dormer. That dormer has a 4 and a half on 12 pitch and it is set 2 ft back from the face of the wall. >> So the intention was to make this third floor as compliant with the burrow as half story as possible >> as possible. >> Okay. and and we'll talk about that as
we go to the other elevation. But before we do that, I would ask the board. No, not yet. This regard, um along the bottom, you show a lot of materials. Are those materials that you would be committing to should the board approve
this application? >> Those whether or not it's those are the types of materials. We would like we would request the difference in manufacturer but >> but I'm talking stone stone yes cement siding hardy board you know those are
the materials we are >> so the colors of materials are accurately reflected and again we're taking what is an outdated not attractive structure and trying to make it attractive and as part of the planning testimony we'll talk about the aesthetic improvements so I want the
board to understand that this these these colors and materials are there because that's the intended character of what the house is going to look like. >> I'd also like to point out that we had a I had my structural engineer go out and do a review of the existing building. Um
brick is never a good material to use at the shore. Um we the current owner has had complaints from her adjacent neighbor that he was afraid that the wall would be coming down. My structural engineer did note that there are places where the lentils, so those are the
metal pieces that hold up the brick above a window and because of the age of this house built in the late60s prior to 1970, um most of that is rusted and we will we will assume that the ties, so those are the metal pieces that hold the brick to
the wall during you know during construction. We are going to assume that many of those have been disintegrated completely. So, we're trying to remove and update. As Jennifer said, from a safety perspective, it was just never a good material to be be
built at the shore. >> So, the intention is to remove >> all of the bricks. >> Okay. Going to AV6. That's the 19th Avenue elevation. And I would just ask the board to look at the front. Uh Patty
did a beautiful color rendering of that uh 19th Avenue elevation and I think that really reflects best as to the material, the design, the colors. And that's on the first sheet. And again, as we look at the 19th Avenue elevation, on
the top it shows what's existing and on the bottom it shows what's proposed. And it shows that uh protrusion for the walk for the entryway are 19,000. >> Okay. And >> getting rid of those steps, >> right? And getting rid of the uh steps
on the side as well as on the back. >> I I do want to also point out that this balcony on the second floor is how you get into the second floor apartment. So the stairs that come up from the grade come up to this this wooden deck. And when we re when we designed, you can see
the bold line shows the outline of the existing house. When we designed our addition, we made sure that we were pulling back because you can you can see how close to the garage, >> right? It's almost on the garage. >> It's almost on top of the garage. >> Okay. And in looking at I think this is
the elevation in the proposed you see the slope of what is called a shed roof. >> Correct. And it again, it meets all of the requirements as it relates to half story, but we learned only after speaking to the zoning officer that
because you have one wall that has a door in it with access that's greater than the 3 ft or 5 ft that technically this does count as a full story even though it's less than half of the floor below. >> Yep. >> Okay. So again, it was our position from an architectural perspective. This is a
half story. But that nuance in your ordinance would basically preclude the ability to have a shed roof on a third floor >> with a full height. >> Right. So, you know, that's what's really triggering it uh as it relates to it. But I think as you're going to hear
through the testimony based on the square footage and the size and the use, it it serves as a half story from a practical perspective. And most importantly, what's the height of the building existing and proposed? The
existing building average to the ridge is 268 and a half. That's based upon my grades. Um Mr. Ward can testify more accurately to the average definition. The new is 34T 10 in. >> So we're under the height. >> We are under the height.
>> So while we're seeking a variance for a half story be considered a full story based on the technical definition, we're not asking for any height variance. We're well within the height that's permitted. >> Yes. >> Correct. Okay. Now, as the garage, as you look at the garage there, again, it
shows a shed roof with a similar slope and design as the shed roof on what we're calling a half story. And that was intentional to architecturally tie these two buildings together. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Where currently it's just a flat box essentially. >> Yes. And the intention of the additional
attic space above the garage just for your typical beach items particularly in bad weather and all season boards all >> and it allows the garage to be used for a car because they have storage up on that that second floor.
And then turn to page AB7. Again, that shows on the rear elevation existing on the left this time, the stair access and balcony that goes up to the current second floor being removed,
the shower enclosure existing being reconfigured, and then the uh addition of the what we're calling a half story. Excuse me. Correct. >> That is correct. We've also located um because it usually comes up these in the
back here. These platforms at the attic level, second floor, first floor level, those are decks that are going to only hold house the HVAC units. >> So again, anticipating that this will be in a flood zone at some point. We wanted to get the HVAC up out of the flood zone
for safety and for maintenance. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then lastly, this is the side elevation, >> correct? >> And again, it it >> this is the name this is the side that faces the neighbor who is concerned about the brick falling off.
>> And there it just shows again that the second floor balcony and stairs are being pulled back entirely and being removed. The the silhouette of the house is somewhat similar from this side with the addition of those stairs. uh on the
right side, but pulling back as you see in the dashed on the right, pulling back those stairs that extended out. So, we're actually pulling them back. >> Yep. >> Okay. And again, you have all of the colors and materials and those would all be consistent, >> right? >> Are there any questions for the
architect? >> Okay, great. Every board does it differently and well, I used to cover this 30 years ago for the first star. I The last time I appeared here, I think it was himself. Not the same level of abundance of
caution. >> So, but he doesn't say it as much. >> And I go way as far back as I do with some of you guys. >> All right. So, Pat has introduced. He's been sworn. He's been qualified. Uh
I'm going to turn it over to him and let him walk you through this firstman engineering perspective, outline the variances existing and proposed and then walk us through the planning reasons behind it. So Pat, I'm going to hand it over for you. >> Thank you, Jen. Okay. Um so just to
orient the board, we're at the southwest corner of Ocean 19th Avenue. Um I'll get into the specific variances in a moment. I want to walk through some of the existing conditions and then from a site perspective what we're proposing. So what you have here and I believe this
was the aerial was marked as A1. Um this is an aerial view. This imagery uh was from July of 2025 just for reference on this aerial. So we have a twotory pre-existing two family dwelling um as stated by the architect. There is first
floor and second floor covered porches that wrap around um the street frontages. The home does contain a basement today again which appear to be previously finished. Property contains a detached garage. You can see the rear uh deck that kind of slightly overhangs the
garage. We'll get into that a little bit later. There's an outdoor storage at the rear uh excuse me, outdoor shower at the rear of the home. And the driveway a little deceiving on here. The yard itself is all sand, beach sand. The driveway is here where you see the two
cars parked. Um, extends right here to the garage. Um, so and then the beach sand really goes from the face of the building to the public sidewalk in the proposed condition. Now turning to A12.
I'm going to keep A1 right below it. I think the similarities are important for some of uh the planning justifications here. We're seeking to renovate and expand uh the structure, albeit very slightly, utilizing the existing
foundation as the architect stated. The basement is proposed to be filled in uh to create a new non-habitable crawl space. Um the footprint of living space will be expanded, but mainly within those front covered porches that were wrapping around at the corner.
A new first floor porch and uncovered second floor balcony is proposed along Ocean Avenue facade. It's a smaller porch and balcony than what exists today in terms of footprint of that specific area. We are proposing a new covered entry off 19th Avenue um with steps down
the grade. This will be a entry with a uncovered second floor deck above. There is a partial third floor proposed with an open area above the second floor for the outdoor use. the roof deck that was identified before this. Our plan also represent or shows the limits of that
roof deck. The mechanical equipment is located on the rooftop as stated previously in complian with the setbacks as a result. The existing outdoor shower area will be replaced and slightly expanded for uh two showers. um the expansions within the area of the
existing shower and also within the area of what is today the rear stairs that come down from the second floor unit which we're removing. We are proposing a second story non-habitable addition to the detached garage. It's intended solely for
storage. Um and again to comply with the current and future EV flood zone requirements, we are proposing flood vents in the garage. We're also proposing flood vents within the the dwelling itself. The existing driveway
uh which is here and then there's a there's a actually a concrete ramp and a couple steps up to a call a walkway adjacent to the home. Those are proposed to remain as is. We're keeping the existing foundation. We don't have to disturb those pertinent site features. Um the concrete walkway that wraps
around the garage and and on the south side of the home is also to remain as is. There are six total bedrooms today existing and six total bedrooms proposed. New Jersey residential site improvement standards require four off street parking spaces in both the existing and
proposed conditions where we technically have two spaces based on the uh size requirements of the ordinance for parking stalls. Now uh functionally and practically and this is really I'm going to go back to A1 because I think this shows it pretty well. You see there's two cars in the driveway in this
particular image. From a functional practical standpoint, the driveway and the garage can fit up to five off- street vehicles. There's room on the west side here for two more um cars and then the garage is suitably sized for a vehicle. >> And that's as we had indicated, that's part of the reason why we want to move
storage upstairs so we have parking on the ground floor. >> Right. That's really the benefit of adding that small space above because it gets all the beach storage u elevated and also the garage can actually be used for parking. >> So it's a pre-existing nonconformity. We're not really changing it in any way
because it's the same requirement existing and proposed. >> Yeah, I just think it's important that you know you can fit more spaces on there than the ordinance really dictates. But um we do we do have two true parking spaces. The driveway, just so the board knows, is about 17 feet
wide and about 34 feet from the face of the garage to the right ofway line, just for context, where the the ordinance requires slightly longer and slightly wider uh to fit actually four vehicles. >> Right. And also though, the right ofway line is not something that's visible. We
have a little bit more room up into the sidewalk. >> Yeah, there's probably about, you know, four or five feet to the sidewalk. >> Okay. And I think importantly, while we're over in impervious coverage, we're actually reducing it as part of this application. >> Yeah. So, a net reduction in impervious
coverage of about 250 square ft as part of this application. So, um getting into the variances, we'll start with the Dvariances. So, we're seeking a D2 variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use. As we started with this two family home is a pre-existing
non-conforming use in the R50 zone. So unlike a just >> use this do you have this on a plan sheet somewhere? >> What's that? >> Do you have these bearings? It's on a planet. >> It's on our uh our plot. >> We could all just that.
>> It's also on my notice. >> Which one do you want us to reverse? >> I would go to Mryto's notice of hearing. I think that's because I'm going to follow that same order and you can look at the plan just for context. Um so the D2 variance unlike a classic use
variance where we're proposing a a non-permitted use in a zone um the question really is can the site accommodate for the expanded use itself. So I want to focus the board on how the intensity of the use is unchanged here. So what's the measure of intensity on a
residential use like this comes down to the number of bedrooms which dictates the habitation of the structure and the off streetet parking demand. In our case we have six bedrooms total today. We have six total bedrooms proposed. This application improves the livability of an existing residential use without
increasing its intensity. Additionally, I want to focus the board on the location of the expansion. So, as we all mentioned here, we're in effect filling previously roofed areas and areas of foundation that exist today. Those first and second floor uh wraparound porches. Um, basically the
footprint of the roof of the building is not changing except for a very small increase at the rear. Um, which visually is the least obtrusive area to expand a building like this. We are proposing the partial third floor, but the overall height of the structure does comply with
a ordinance height requirement of 35 ft. >> And just from your perspective, I know that Patty had indicated that your average grades might be different. What do you have as the height of this building? Yeah. So our proposed height is 34.75 whereas the existing is 26.5.
>> Okay. And 35 is is >> 35 is the maximum. Yep. So in my opinion the site can accommodate the existing six total uh bedroom two family dwelling and it can accommodate the proposed six total bedroom two family renovated
dwelling that we're proposing today. We also are seeking a D4 variance for the floor area ratio. The proposed floor area ratio is 67.4% where 65% is permitted. So when we analyze the D4 floor area ratio variance, we must look at the proposed
improvements and the property to ensure that the site can accommodate any problems with a floor area ratio larger than what's permitted by the ordinance. >> And that's not something you're making up. That's what the case law says considering D2 and D4 variances. It's not the same proofs of particular
suitability and the the Medici reconciliation. It's really can the site accommodated >> right? Are there any issues from the expanded floor area ratio? So in my opinion the site can accommodate the proposed floor area ratio. Just for context to get out of the percentages we
exceed the permitted floor area ratio by 144 square ft which um relative to the building size is a is a dimminitimous deviation in my opinion. As I'll describe in a moment with the bulk variances, the setbacks are generally unchanged or slightly improved
with this case. The driver of the additional floor area is the partial third floor, which again complies with the building height requirement of 35 ft from the zone. So for our bulk variances or our C2 variances, um I'll go through those now too. We have a front yard set
back on 19th Avenue of 19.66 66 ft proposed where minimum is 20 ft and 19.8 is it? So, >> so if we're building up and this I asked this question, if we're building up right over the foundation, how do it get worse? >> Yeah, this is um I have to look at this
to answer this question. So, it's very hard to see on a piece of paper, but in the in AutoCAD, we we figured this out. The property is a rectangle. The house is a rectangle. The house is slightly slightly a skew of the property lines, very slight. So, we're expanding the
house setback in this area in this I'll call it it's a northeast corner of the home because now we're expanding it that 19.8 def um excuse me dimension was taken on the west side of the home but now we have to take the new dimension on this
east side of the home that's 19 >> but it's a couple inches >> uh yeah less than two inches >> and it also provides or gives the flexibility for the finishes that are going to be on the building. It gives a little bit of an allowance so if these finishes protrude a little more that you
took that in consideration. >> Yes, we worked with the architect at length. Um because the brick the brick veneer on the entire house you know nowadays all the towns are requiring the setbacks to the veneers. It used to be just to the foundation survey was done
to the veneers. Um Patty explained that the brick was coming out. The brick has a certain thickness. She's not matching that thickness of the veneer. But we put these numbers together at nauseium to make sure we accounted for that new veneer. So when this is built, the final survey is done. We're not coming back for
>> importantly when you look at the neighborhood aerial. >> Yeah. >> At least it appears in the general vicinity that while we don't comply with the required setbacks, we're either consistent or providing more setback particularly for corner lots. Yeah, you could see it's it's it's a
pretty open. I mean, again, relatively speaking to to what's going on in the area, it's pretty open front. Um, and um, in terms of the size of the footprint, uh, you can see it's it's generally pretty consistent with everything around it, particularly on the actually on some of the smaller
lots. This is a similar size home that you see, you know, and I get into this a little bit. Just to our north, this building here with the little red roof, but the rest of it all building, this is DJ's. Um, this is a currently vacant, but um, commercial property up the corner to our north as well. So, we have
separation from that as well. Um, now rear yard setback to the principal building. We're proposing 23.91 ft where 35 ft is required and 17.4t exist. So,
Basically, this particular setback is being improved because we're eliminating that second floor deck. Um, which is really the entrance landing for the the unit upstairs. >> So, aside from it being in violation, it's not attractive and it's not part of the building. It's just an outside
floor >> and it's and it's an overhang of the existing garage, which I'll talk about in a moment as well. The sideyard set back to on the this is the now the south side. Uh, we're proposing 3.9 ft. where five feet is required and that's not changing. It's just being exacerbated
vertically because we're adding um the we're renovating and going slightly more vertical. The principal building set back to the garage is proposed at 6.27 ft whereas a minimum of 10 ft is required and 0 feet exists today. Zero feet is because the the deck is
overhanging the garage. So it's at zero feet. By removing the deck and those stairs now we have clear separation between the two structures. So that 6.27 is the sha closest point of the shower to the garage. Um really the house and the and the garage are separated by a
little more than that. >> So visually today it looks like they're almost connected and in the proposed it's going to be open light air light air and open space between the buildings, >> right? Yeah. This is it's it's crowd crowded using this term relatively
crowded in the back because that that deck overhangs it overhangs the the the garage. Clearing that out we actually have a you know floor to ceiling corridor between the two structures which is really what the orders wants. >> Okay. Well, we understand that the board
and the zoning officers interpretation is that the third floor is a full story because of the shed roof, let's just talk about that. >> Yeah. So, um to the extent that the board considers the third floor a full story and not a half story by ordinance,
we're seeking a variance for a threetory building here where two and a half are permitted. Again, it's a partial third story. Um, because of the shed roof that the architect identified previously, um, that's considered now a full story. It's really the shed roof is a shed roof to
allow for door access to the usable open deck on the third. >> And I know we've had an opportunity to review many of the resolutions by this board over the years, particularly in this area. And obviously as eloquently as Kevin writes his detailed resolutions,
we're oceanfront property. The view of the ocean is the most key part of this entire structure. >> Yeah. >> And it allows to give outdoor space up away from the hustle and bustle for the family to quietly enjoy without any intrusion. >> Right. And on a property like this, like
most of these properties, um there really isn't a true rear yard because there's a garage there and the and the driveway. That's kind of the one of the disadvantages of a corner lot is you can have a nice driveway off the side there, but there's no true backyard. This actually access your outdoor recreation space. Um, it's usable. It's within the
footprint, too, which makes important. And it's private. Yeah, I think that's important. >> And I know we said it a few times, but again, despite the ordinance definition, we meet the max height. We're not asking for height. >> Correct. Yeah, we're under 35t max.
>> Okay. Wasn't there an exception for Ocean Avenue properties on the pipe with additional >> not in this area? >> Not down here was the the north end of town. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> So, the garage you had heard testimony from Patty were technically two stories, but realistically it's just one story with an attic, >> right? >> That you it's 5t high. It's tallest and it gets much lower. And importantly again, we're completely compliant with
the building height. What's our building height? >> 16.37 for the garage where 18 feet is permitted. The tallest point is at the face of it at the garage door facing 19th Avenue. So when it gets to the rear, it's much shorter than that. >> Okay. Building coverage, which is
buildings and anything with a roof basically is how it's defined in the ordinance. That includes covered porches, covered entryways, all of that. We're slightly increasing it by about 110 square ft, >> right? We're at 44.5%
where the existing is 42.7 and 30% is the maximum. It's 110 square ft of additional roof. >> How much? >> 110. Um, which again, relatively speaking, in my opinion, is the minimum compared to the existing, but I think it's an improvement aesthetically,
>> right? Because now we're giving the covered entryways and we're giving some architectural interest to the building, >> right? Um the impervious coverage is proposed at 66.4% where 55% is permitted and 70.6% exist.
So it's a result in an improvement of this condition by eliminating the the net 250 square ft of coverage. >> How is that going now? What's getting >> there's um the yeah is the it's driven by the staircases and that deck. Um >> but it's all cement now. So
>> not all man. There's a lot of sand. So, the the outdoor staircases um there's a walkway also to Ocean Avenue that's coming out. Um and then there is >> but the current stairway on the side is is on the current
>> uh the the front the >> the walkway in the back is on cement. So, >> yeah. So, >> I've seen it just that walkway leading to Ocean Avenue. >> So, the cover porch uh footprint gets smaller. Uh the walkways in the ramp are
reduced by over 200 square feet. Driveway is the same. The garage is the same. Um the steps are being reduced by 50 square feet. >> So that's it. That's >> so it's it's kind of a we have we have a coverage table on our plans.
>> But >> let's finish the presentation and then we'll go into questions. >> And because it did come up, I just want to go over it quickly. So Pat, on your plot plan, Sheet two,
>> you have uh lot coverage calculations existing and proposed. Mr. O'Neal, if you look at page two of three, there's a lot coverage calculation and it compares existing versus proposed. >> Okay? So it literally shows what's existing. So the covered porch is going
down. The covered deck is being eliminated. The walkways and ramps are going down by about 230 square ft. Uh so that gives where it's all coming from in big detail.
>> Okay. Um the last variance is the off street parking. We're proposing two spaces which exist today uh where four are required by the state >> and that's one in the garage one in the drive. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> But realistically as we said four
>> right um okay so in terms of uh the planning justifications for the variances. We'll start with uh how this application furthers the purposes of the MLU well. So, purpose A, this is an appropriate renovation and expansion of a pre-existing two family home, bring
the home up to modern living standards that will promote the general welfare. Purpose B, this application secure safety from fire, flood, panic, and other natural man-made disasters. This is kind of echoing the architect's testimony, but this renovation here is bringing the home up to current building
codes and standards, which overall is a safer arrangement. Purpose C light air and open space is maintained and in my opinion improved here. So the overall lot coverage is decreasing which improves the light air and open space. The roof footprint area is only modestly
increasing. The removal of the rear deck and rear exterior stairs opens up more light air and open space particularly between the existing garage and home. Um, in my opinion, removal of these rear structures offsets the slight increase in the roof footprint area for this project, which is at the rear for the
internal stair. Purpose G. This application provides sufficient space and an appropriate location for an existing residential use. This two family dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming use. The renovation proposal here enhances the functionality of an established residential structure
and use without increasing the intensity of the use with additional bedrooms. The purpose I this application promotes a desirable visual environment through good design and arrangement. This proposal is an aesthetic upgrade over the existing dwelling. It's more fitting with new construction within the burrow
particularly along the ocean front and ocean Avenue. So when we look at the negative criteria, we must focus on the impacts to the public, the burrow, and the neighbors. In my opinion, the impacts of the application are limited. Uh in terms of overall streetscape and character of
newer homes facing the ocean, this home will maintain that oceanfront character. Really now looking at the neighborhood area A10, I believe that is um to our south along Ocean Avenue. I'll get on the other side here. Nearly all
of the newer or renovated homes have I say three stories from a >> three floors. It's three floors practical standpoint. Have three floors with first floor decks and uncovered second floor balconies facing the ocean. While this home is a two family, it has the look and feel of a single family as
the unit access is all internal to the structure. Whereas today, the unit access is external to the structure in the existing condition. As you've previously found, the board is aware that modern design principles encourage the creation of homes and additions where occupants can have an
ocean view if possible. And we are able to accentuate that with the third floor in the deck. Um, and we also have the two front yards here as well. When looking at our neighbors, I feel the impacts are limited as well. I'll go back to
A12 so we can see what it looks like right in our immediate area. intermediate south which is on this side. We're exacerbating the existing sideyard set back to the third floor. However, based on the roof design by Patty, the peak of the roof is about 12
ft offset from the side lot. The eve of our sideyard, the eve along the sideyard is about 7 ft lower than the peak, which limits and mitigates the vertical mass of the structure facing that south side. The removal of the rear deck and exterior stair reduces the massing of the
structure on the west side as well. As I mentioned, opening up layer and open space between the home and the detach garage. While we do require a variance for the third floor of the home uh being a third story and the second floor for the garage, both structures meet the required building heights prescribed by
the ordinance. So, the impacts there are limited. To our north, I see no impact. So, I mentioned this before. Directly across 19th Avenue is a commercial zone with an currently unused corner parcel next to uh DJs further to the north.
There's no impact on that side from this residential structure. In my opinion, the aesthetic upgrade of this project overall mitigates any potential impacts to neighbors in the burrow. To summarize, the proposed development would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor substantially impair
the intent person's own plan. balances my opinion that the benefits of the application substantially outweigh the detriment if any given the board the ability to prove confidence that's all I have for direct >> not at the moment >> it's a lot to have to say
>> I'm sorry >> it's a lot to absorb but excellent presentation >> I guess we'll open it up to board questions Kevin that's okay >> and that would be for correct Yes, if that's okay with you. >> I'm not I'm in charge in a lot of places
here. I'm not in charge. >> You're pretty darn close. >> I'm going to go first just to knock out some of the obvious ones if that's okay with board members here and then we'll go down. Um I review my notes, but here
we go. Um so I just want to I don't want to beat this down, but I just want to wrap my head around it so we're all on the same page. Bottom floor is three bedrooms. How many baths? >> Three. >> Three bedrooms. Three bedrooms. Three full bathrooms.
>> Existing. >> Existing. >> I want to do what's existing to where we're going. Okay. Three. You don't need the drawing. It's okay. It's three >> three bedrooms, two full bathrooms. >> Two full downstairs. >> Correct. >> Upstairs. >> Same. Three bedrooms, two full bathrooms.
>> Two full. They're both going to two and a half bathrooms. It's going to three full. >> So, we're increasing downstairs unit by a half bath and we're increasing the upstairs unit B by a full bathroom. >> No, the first the first floor will have three full bathrooms. So, we're
increasing it by one full bathroom. >> Okay. >> On the second floor, we're going from two full bathrooms to two plus a half bathroom. And then in the attic on the third floor, we add another bathroom. So, we are adding
>> one and a half bathrooms. For unit B, we're adding one and a half bathrooms. Yeah. >> And for unit A, we're adding one bathroom. >> Um, and these are out of order, but I'm just going to address them. I did my homework before we got here. Um, that's
one. Uh, the roof, as noted here, and I'm only bringing this up as I reviewed the plans and drawings. Are we going fiberglass on this? Is that your >> the intent it the main structure will be fiberglass? Yes. >> Okay. Of the roof itself. >> Correct.
>> Of the roof deck. The the the pitched portion will be standing seam. >> Uh third floor. Then if we're going to if this truly is a third floor for our ordinance, it's going to be fully compliant, sprinkler systems, etc. Is that correct? >> Does it have to have sprinkler systems?
>> No, because the building code is different than your zoning ordinance. >> Okay. So the building code and sorry Ted for jumping in. >> That's okay. >> The key wave >> the building code indicates when sprinklers are necessary. So how you
define it your state code official >> wouldn't define it that way. >> Right. And is the intention to keep the sand on all over the entire par? >> Yes. Yes. >> To the best of my knowledge and this is just for the three of you. Can you identify any other property in town that
has sand on their entire par? I didn't even consider that. >> I cannot um pavers credit. What is it? What are we doing with the existing driveway? >> Well, that's something we talked about is the possibility of going to purview papavers >> which then would bring down
>> bring our coverage down quite a bit and recognizing having the opportunity to read some prior resolutions. If that's something the board wanted us to do, we would be happy to do that. >> Thank you for considering that. Um we're not widening the driveway apron. No,
>> at all. Right. So, we're not impeding or taking away the parking spot on the street. >> Just me to one thing because we did the calculation. Pat, if we make the pvious pavers, what does that lower our coverage? >> Yeah. If you just make the driveway limits itself and the walkway to um 19th
Avenue, we would get to 55 right there. >> Which is a tremendous improvement over that right off the >> We Happy to do it. >> Okay. >> Just say that again. I'm sorry. At the
driveway >> and walkway would then be impervious favors which would get them right down to 55 >> pardon me. Pervious favors which would eliminate. >> So eliminated varian. Got it. >> Uh parking right is one 34t from garage
door to right away which results in one parking spot in the driveway and one in the garage by code. Is that correct? >> Okay. But and just to note when you as that question, we're not increasing the parking demand. That's an existing nonconformity that we're not changing.
>> Appreciate it. I'm trying to knock a lot of these out to you. That's okay. >> I just know it's public here and I know that you've studied it, >> but I don't know that the public has. So, I'm just doing that for their benefit >> and we're going to give them the opportunity to discuss as well. Uh Belmar flood zone. Um confirmed it's an
ex zone. Belar, no flood zones. Uh the new third floor deck and balcony. Um, just for our reference, uh, do we have a square footage of that out exterior, uh, rooftop amenity deck?
>> I believe we do. And I see the architect looking as we speak. >> I apologize for the spots. 615T >> 615 touched on this. We touched on the garage. I uh just going to go right to the garage real quick. I guess with the
sloping pitching roof going from the front of the building to the rear of the adjacent property. There's going to be gutters on that. >> Yes. >> In the back. >> Thank you. Um, and then do you want to touch on I had it noted
here again and I could tell you it's most likely the flavor of the board and probably the residents of the community that the sand is an issue. It's I see our DPW out there all the time. >> The if I if I may, the homeowner has has um when she contacted me, she would like
to install some additional planting, you know, shrubs. Obviously, it's a corner lot and it's on a a busy lot and your ordinance has a restriction. >> Change it from grass or landscaping. From sand to grass land. >> I'm just advising. I see our DPW out there. I know
>> taken Mr. Chair. >> So, if the board would approve this, we would eliminate the sand and make it grass and landscape. >> Appreciate just to knock some of those out. I'll save my second sheet for later. Who wants to go first?
I picked on the last time. Here we are again. >> Just a couple questions I had. So, how do you get to the upstairs of the garage and then see is it a pull down? It would be a pull down from the inside and there's a door which you can't see on
any of the drawings but I can show you >> but the door is on the first floor. >> Yeah. So the attic >> so there's a sliding there'll be a door right here on the side. Um because the topography it's much lower at the garage
space you step up. So this this there's a little there'll be a fiberglass little landing here for plants so that they can actually have because there's not there's not going to be enough light. So they can put some plants here and then there'll be an extra little door. >> But again the question is how will you access the second floor?
>> It'll get from a drop down if you're coming from the Inside the garage will be the main way. >> And that's all apartment B. They get to use the garage. >> Yes. The second floor is for apartment B. >> Just trying to understand the practicality of storing stuff up there. If you got a car that's parked in there
and you need to pull down, >> right? That that's why we're going to have this little secondary door that you can actually crawl onto. That's how that's the differential between the ground and the sec and the first floor at the beginning because of the grade
you're going to be able to access the second floor from the exterior on that landscaping. >> Just a quick elevations the garage slabs at 10. The finished floor of the house is at 16.3. So you're there is a drop down there. Um so there is a height
difference. you will be able to the the hatchway that Patty describes makes does make sense. Hard to visualize >> if you the best way to see it is from the six AV6. >> You can see at the bottom here that's
the entrance to the garage and in the background that's the elevation of the first first floor walk the walking area outside. So >> you still can't get upstairs though. No. Well, it's meant for it's again it's
meant for like a ladder if somebody's in the garage. >> No, I just trying to understand like the testimony was that you can pull a car in there and then you can get your stuff. That's really >> Yeah, I don't think it's for a daytoday thing. I think it's more of a storage you put in your attic. You don't take
things in and out of your attic every day. >> All right. Um the only other question I had you test Well, I got a couple more. Uh you testified that four parking spaces are required. However, Ted's letter says five It's four. So you're just make sure
>> uh how is the building currently used today? >> Two family. >> I mean is the it's owner occupied participantly or how >> the only reason I'm asking >> I'm sorry are both units are occupied now? >> Uh are both units occupied now? Yes. And
both are by you or is one rented out? >> My sister. >> Okay. So it's it's a sister and the owner >> are living in the And that's the intention moving forward is to occupy and rent. And the only reason I'm asking is the use your whole purpose for use was a personal use. I I believe you
testified in the beginning about the daughter and wanting to live there eventually. >> No. So you the intention again some anything could change. The intention for the modifications was to allow for that in the future. >> Okay. But you're you're you're
continuing the use. So we're here for a use fair. Continuation use. I just want to make sure because it carries with the land and you're doing substantial renovations. So, the question I'll put on the record is why not have a single family? >> Um because we have we purchased it with
the benefit of it being a pre-existing non-conforming two family and we want the opportunity for either to rent it at some point because again it was a pre-existing non-conforming use and or to allow her adult daughter to live there separately. separate kitchen,
separate access, you know. >> No, that's good. I just want that's the the use. That was the rational. I just wanted to make sure I understood. >> 100%. I And I apologize. I think that the reason for giving the history was more having to do with why the front porch is being enclosed and things like that.
>> And how long has the applicant? >> How long ago? >> I think I'm sorry. March. April 20 24. >> About two years. >> Two years. Okay. And and the only reason I'm asking this is have there been any
violations with respect to rent noise ordinance? We're not on a animal house or anything. Okay. >> Just wanted to make sure that we're not expanding the use of something that has been an issue. >> I I I love to see the person who puts
this kind of money and design in an animal house. Now, >> you'd be surprised. >> I haven't lived in Belmar since 1992. Um and then the last that was it actually I think got the last two that I had on
your question. Thanks. >> So many questions been asked. I only the only thing left on my list is the ceiling height of the third floor of the house that was described as minimal. It's as slope as a shed.
>> Correct. So it is uh of the 600 of the square footage of that how much of it is 7 feet or more? >> I think that's basically what we're asking for. >> So measured at 7 feet we have 440 square
feet. >> 440 square feet of how many total? >> Out of the 6 um >> 64 >> 64 finished square feet. What's the uh floor area of the second floor?
>> Floor area of the second floor, you find it on the um the first sheet. It is 1,553 square ft. >> That takes into consideration the ordinance has an exception for mechanical rooms when you're calculating
the overall. So 64 would be for the first floor, but then you get an exception for the second floor, but you don't get the correct So that takes out that 36. >> Okay. >> So this is going to be 5B construction. >> Correct.
>> Can we put on the record here the total square footage of the existing building? >> Okay. And can I and Mr. We can, but I just again your ordinance defines it several different ways. So,
are you asking for habitable square footage? Are you >> habitable? What is the habitable square footage existing and proposed of the entire building? And that would include the existing basement. >> No, without the basement. First, first and second floor. >> First and second floor. Okay.
>> The first and second floor I have um >> just habitable. >> I I included the garage in my calculations. 2,838 square ft is the existing >> I'm sorry is that again >> 2830
ft existing without the garage even though arguably it is >> and that's for >> that's the existing second and first floor. >> Okay. And in the proposed >> first give us the sec first and second floor only just by way of comparison.
>> The first and second floor um in the exist in the proposed is 3,117 square ft with an additional 664 for the attic. >> Well no the 664 isn't habitable. You had indicated that there was something less than that was habitable in the attic
based on the seven foot height. >> It's bas Yeah, it's based on well their ordinance defines habitable attic at the 7 foot4 height, not the 7 foot height. The 7 foot height is what the building international building code uses 373 ft.
>> Finished area is is sufficient. We're going from 2830 to 3781. Is that correct? >> No. When you look at what your ordinance defines as habitable, >> we're actually going to ultimately 373
square ft on the top floor is habitable based on your ordinance of 7 foot4. >> But this but the third story is 664. >> That is the finished space. So you are correct. Your numbers are correct. We are calculating based upon finished
square footage. So that goes from 2830 to >> three to >> 3781. >> Correct. >> So about 93 >> and and I guess simply I should have just say the taxable area
>> that yes then that is correct. >> Um already answered the access to the garage. Already answered there full time basically. Um the word
the title structural engineer came up. Um we've seen properties that were changed or added to that didn't have a structural engineer look
at it to make sure that it will work without tearing it down and starting over. There's no question that under any circumstance we will not be tearing this down. We will be maintaining the structure because we recognize that if it comes down more than 50% then we lose
our non-conforming status. So that having done a lot of work in Ocean Grove for example with houses that were built in the 1800s there are ways to sister foundations and to provide structural support temporarily to make sure that the building stays up. Well, you're filling
a usable basement, which not being an engineer adds a hell of a lot of support to the rest of >> I can't speak to that. It makes sense, >> but not but the architect is shaking her head. Yes.
>> When done when done properly, >> right, >> which we intend to do. >> That's all I have. >> I have no further questions. Um, good presentation, very comprehensive. Ju just a question. You said it was built in the 60s. Any
asbestous anywhere inside? >> No longer. If if there was, it's been reversing. Don't be shy, ladies and gentlemen. Anybody out there, sir? >> All right. If you could just state your name and address. >> George Catherone, the owner of the
properties that you see on the aerial view of 103 and 105. >> All right. And just spell your last name, please. >> Sorry. >> Spell your last name, please. >> C A T >> R A M. Bone. B O N E. >> All right. Good evening and welcome. You
swear that the information and testimony you're about to write to the extension provider can do the truth and best of your knowledge to help you guide. >> Thank you. >> First, I'd like to welcome our new neighbors to It's nice to have a wonderful improvement to the corner.
I've been there all my life. All 77 years. Uh so I've seen the >> May I say you look good. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> I said may I say you look good? >> Thanks. It's a salt order. >> I got to move them. Yes. >> Um,
there's certainly a few things that I had questions. A few things might have been mentioned, but I had a little bit of trouble hearing, so I don't want to insult the fact that, you know, but the elevation again, the highest point >> is less than 35 ft. >> Yeah, I thought I thought I heard that.
Um, regarding the the elevations of the grounds, uh, currently the the twotory structure is is a different elevation than the the garage uh, ground floor
elevation. You have a knee wall there and then you the steps and it it it rises up. Uh currently the uh the way the water sheds right now works well that it comes to the street. Um it's I
don't know why they did it but behind the garage they filled the u the uh like an alleyway almost between the garage and the building line. The fence there currently is on the south on the south elevation. the the the concrete
elevation is higher than the driveway. So, if you can kind of picture that and it sheds westerly >> towards your property >> toward my property and that's another thing I don't want to forget to mention. Uh when the kids used to take showers, I haven't seen I think they have a dry
well there. I don't think they're hooked up to the to the uh because the every time they take a shower, the water would come down the shed down onto my walkway. There's not too much room between my living room and bedroom and the um and the garage. So that sidewalk would just
get flooded with water. There's a little bit of that. >> We can plum the shower. >> We can pl we can plum the shower to keep it make sure. >> So the new shower will be plumbed. So that >> I figured it would. I wouldn't I don't think that the town would No problem. >> I just wanted to
bring that up. >> Sure. Um, and I two showers, but I can understand that with being next door. >> Yeah, I've got the same, you know, with grandkids and everything. Um, >> so as far as the elevations are
concerned, is it anything going to be added to the driveway? Is that going to be raised or is it going to be at the same So the way they current the way it currently is now? All right. And when you mentioned the driveway, are you going to I thought I heard no, it's not going to be widened, right? So you're
not you wouldn't do that on the westerly side. If you did it at all, you would do it on the >> We're not doing it at all >> on the easterly side. But that that's all. And uh >> and the only other thing that I think that the board chair asked, we're going to make them pvious pavers. So any runoff that you're getting today from
the driveway is now going to be absorbed into the ground. >> Did I hear right too? There's going to be grass. >> Yes. So apparently this Thank you, Jesus. Apparently the sand is disfavored. So should the board approve this, my client is committed to putting grass or landscaping in place of the sand. >> Yeah, I have papers on on number of
areas in my place. It that works well. Um yeah, but the sand is for the past I don't know how many years. >> We've only owned it for two. >> I'm sorry. >> We've only owned it for two. >> No, I know. I know. Don't even go there. But at any rate, um, is that going to
have an irrigation system. >> I don't know off the top of my head. Probably >> Yeah, it's pretty tough to keep the lawn going with the without that. Whatever. I had to put it in myself in the front and the back. >> If we didn't consider it, we now
appreciate the advice. >> Yeah, that gets pretty pretty toasty. Um, what is the what is the dement? There's going to be two entrances. >> Yes. No, just the 19th Avenue is going to be the main >> 19th Avenue is the main entrance,
>> right? What what was the d the me that's the dimension of that with the cover because it's going to have a cover. >> You mean the height? >> Yes. >> The height and the the um >> of the of the covered area. >> Yeah. The length and the length and width or whatever and and um
>> if you take a look here. >> Yeah. How >> covered area is just one story high. How how how large is that platform? >> It is 7 ft by >> it projects 7 ft off the face and it's
almost 15 ft. Take a look at it. >> Something by something. What are the two dimensions? >> About 15 by seven. >> Okay. Okay. Um and um the other question I had didn't take notes but
>> sorted to memory. Um the um the basement then is is that going to be a crawl space or is it going to be >> a crawl space? >> A crawl space. Okay. And um regarding the uh going back to the
garage um the way I think I heard it was that it's not going to be a gable roof. It's going to kind of be conforming to the to the building like a shed right now. That that lowest point being the south. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> And I'm sorry that you didn't have a chance to look at these. >> Is it up here already? >> Yeah. So, if you look, it's similar to the shed on this story. It's going to be super low and then it's going to come up. >> What's going to be the system for the elimination of the the water that sheds
off the roof? Because obviously it's going to pitch to the to the south. >> We're gonna I think there was testimony that there's going to be gutters in the rear and they'll be tied in to >> Yeah, they'll be directed towards the street. >> So where where the leaders going to go? >> Uh underground pipe do overflow to the street. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, I mean that's I don't think the borrow I wouldn't assume anything. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Okay. So that that's basically it. It just more or less the I want to know if you were going to change the elevations and the water the water shedding. But
>> so I think it should based on everything the engineer said. I think it should improve whatever situation you have right now. >> When you handed out the paper whatever and I saw Judge Voltageio 1970, I used to walk my dog around the corner. It was just grass and beer bottles and and and
sand. So, it was nice to see that home. And now the the the the improvements that are made Germaine to the the times and the modern look or whatever, you know. Thank you very much. Now, if we could do something to help along sitter
offs on the corner for the past 25 years, you know, that that that place is uh I used to come off from surfing at 9:00 cuz you had to get off when the guards came on and Mr. Sitter officers used to make his pancakes and everything else. And that place was like the lighthouse of, you
know, and to see that I said to my neighbor the other day, I said, >> "Can you It's like 25 years, you know, it's been abandoned and And it's not one council, one mayor, this and that. It's been a span of a number of officials and leadership that I would think would want
to, you know, must be able to do something with the owner to to move that along. But that's another another story. But anything that the leadership can do because this town in the past, I don't know how many years, I stopped counting, has made some beautiful improvements. I
love Belar overall. >> I feel your aesthetic for this homeless. The aesthetic of the home that's on the table is pleasing to you as a neighbor. >> You like it, >> the appearance of the house, the improvements that are going to be made
in regards to this application. >> I said I thought I said I welcome it and it's wonderful. >> Just wanted to noted on the record. >> It's it's a great improvement. >> Okay. >> And I will also note just for the record, the neighbor on the other side on ocean was here. He hadn't had a chance to look at the plans. I went over the plans with them during the first
application and you should plan that and I welcome you and I have no comments. >> Great. >> No, it's great. It's it's progress. >> So, it's it's welcome. So, thank you very much for your time and thank you for your diligence.
>> Oh, appreciate it. Anybody else? >> All right, seeing none, we're going to close the uh public session. Maybe we should just revisit if there's any other questions. just in case. >> I'm okay. Good. >> Good, good, good. I just uh you had noted there, I guess, you know, water
containment is going to be per burough ordinance, right? Correct. It might not necessarily be able to run to the street, >> but it will be underground and it'll run to wherever the ordinance allows. >> Might be swim drain or contain on site. >> Um, >> any questions from you guys?
>> So, before we go into board comment or I guess we can we'll just go straight into board comment. Chuck, you want to go first? >> Sure. give you some flavor, miss. >> Yeah, I want to commend the architect. I like the drawing typically on the fence when it comes
nice. >> Yeah, I had the same feelings when I first looked at it. I go monitor structure below. It's like scratching my nails down a blackboard, but I'm older than he is. And But I like it. I like it. I like the
plans. It seems like it's going to be a good improvement. I'm in favor of exactly the same. At first glance, modern throws me, but then I look around town and see how many there are now. And
while I might not do it, it really does look good. And this it's a drastic improvement. So, >> I think it looks great. I really like the grass and the papers, too. That's all I got.
>> No, you you're taking advantage of the view, which is million dollar view. A lot of glass, a lot of openness. Um, it's going to be probably great. When you're inside, you're going to feel you're outside, which is kind of I think a lot of
architects strive for. >> Correct. >> Did a great job. Um I have to say excellent presentation, very well thought out and I commend all you like to see you in front of the zoning board more often if there's any opportunity for that. Um I'm indifferent
on this project because typically when we see multif family buildings come to the zoning board there are concessions. What we're doing here is we're taking a two family unit. We're adding 1,000 square feet. We're adding two and a half bathrooms. We're adding a third story. We're adding a third floor balcony
rooftop. For those reasons, I'm probably not going to vote in favor of the application. With that being said, I'm pro multif family. However, we usually see concessions, bedroom discounted, etc. Um, but with that being said,
there's probably a likelihood that I will not vote in favor. Not that I do not. >> You didn't hear my closing then, though. >> Fair enough. Uh, I do like the application, but usually we do see some types of concessions. In order for me to vote in favor of the would have to go
and then improve coverage variance would definitely have to disappear. >> You just took my closing. >> Well, I knew that was forthcoming. >> So, just very briefly, I think we made a number of significant concessions. Well, we didn't change the unit or the use. I
think the amount of investment in the architecture is a huge concession over what's existing there today, which can remain. The fact that we had a structural engineer come and we're rectifying what we know to be a problem and a danger is a huge concession. The fact that at your suggestion, we're
getting rid of the sand. We're going to put landscaping or grass. We're going to add drainage improvements to address the neighbor on 19. We're going to plum the shower that is not plumbed and is having a negative impact on that neighbor. And we're putting the imper we're putting
the Now I got now you got me tongue tight. We're putting the impervious pavers in the driveway and the walkway, which is going to bring a outrageously high impervious coverage down. We could keep everything how it is, rent it out, and not invest in it, not have it on our
occup, but instead we're taking what is a true family home and really investing to it and giving it the aesthetic that that corner deserves being on the ocean front. So for all of those reasons, while the use itself as a two family in the bedrooms isn't changing, the
addition of the B bathrooms is purely for comfort for the homeowners. It does nothing to affect the intensity. The additional square footage again is for the comfort of the homeowners, it doesn't affect the number of people that can live in there. So I think for all of those reasons, while I understand
initially there would be reservation in light of all of the concessions that we did make, most of which were at your suggestion, Mr. Chair, I I I would hope that you would be swayed that the improvement to the public, the improvements to neighbors, the
improvement to the aesthetic outweighs any potential detriment that you see, recognizing that it has to be so substantial on the detriment that outweighs the positives. And I think everything you've heard from the neighbors, everything about this is a positive. So with that, um I would ask
that uh you do vote in favor uh and make an exception on this one based on uh everything we gave and I think that based on the feedback from the board members, I would be comfortable asking the board to go to a vote. >> I appreciate that. I just like to go on record saying there are a lot of
positives associated with this application and it's noted on my behalf. Um and I can go through this but definitely there are You want to proceed to a vote or Mr. Henry?
>> Sure. So, I've taken the liberty of writing some potential conditions if the board stay inclined to approve, excuse me, the application and some of our standard conditions are compliance with all the promises, commitments, and and representations that the team meant
tonight uh uh disclosed tonight and agreed to tonight. And that's our way of catchall if I don't say it right now. if you said it during the hearing. It really counts. Compliance with the prevailing affordable housing rules and regulations and contributions and directives which standard. Uh we sort of
get into this later on. Grading and drainage details to be reviewed and approved by the burough engineer. Uh Jennifer, we will ultimately require a professional certification uh from uh your uh design team confirming that the improvements have been uh installed in accordance with the
approved plans and the testimony and the resolution. Um Ted, do we need an asbuilt survey? >> Uh yeah, we >> excuse me. um obtaining any necessary outside approvals uh with the
understanding that the caveat that if the application or the nature of relief materially changes as a result of those outside approvals, you might have to come back. Uh no further intensification or um expansion absent further formal approval of the board as is New Jersey
law. And uh let's see the uh I guess you said you're putting flood vents in the garage. >> Yeah. So the representations, if you don't mind, I'll just summarize them for you is that there's going to be flood vents in both the house and the garage. So the mechanicals are going to be
lifted above the anticipated flood zone in the future. The structural the the failing structural elements of the building will be remedied without taking the building down. We're going to put gutters on the back of the garage and pipe them in whatever way the burrow requires to ensure that there's no
negative impact on the neighbor where there is today. We agree to remove the sand that apparently is a problem for everybody uh and replace it with grass andor landscaping. And we agreed to the style and character
of the materials that were shown on the plan something consistent albeit maybe not that exact uh brand. And we agreed that the shower will no longer run overland and affect our neighbor to the uh west that we will plummet in accordance with the applicable codes.
And then lastly, we would comply with all of the building code regulations relative to the design of the architecture. >> I think I covered them all. >> All right, let me see. Um we've come here. Uh we're filling in the basement.
Uh let's see. Uh crawl space. I have here that you're eliminating the stairs. >> Yeah, the exterior stairs. That's all part of it. Yeah. >> We're reducing the rear yard setback nonconformity. We're reducing the
distance between the buildings nonconformity. We're eliminating the impervious coverage non-conformity. >> Okay. Okay. And um I had uh so in the the uh garage the top floor not habitable. Correct. >> Storage only.
>> And uh just what are the utilities that are going to be in the garage? And the garage will not be utilized as a dwelling. >> No electricity. >> That's it. >> And let's see. Um, uh,
>> might have to watch some video on this one, >> right? >> Uh, we're going to >> I have my my associate sitting behind me is, uh, training to do what I do and he's taking the most careful notes you ever imagined. So, we can certainly provide those. >> Excellent. >> And then, um, we're going to have, you
indicated that the materials that we've seen are true to form, obviously, uh, manufacturers may be different. Uh the intent to remove the brick. Um and let's see. Um
uh we anticipate or you you're appreciate your active uh involvement to address the potentially changing flood regulations. Oh, if Jennifer, if you're okay with it, and certainly if Pat Ward is okay with it, uh if you could maybe
uh give me your outline, um if you need to just uh hide any sensitive stuff, you can do that, but just we have Oh, very good. Thank you. >> I reckon you also >> Great. And then we had uh
Okay. I know we said how do we end this about sprinkler? Do we just say sprinkler per preparing construction? >> That we're going to comply with the building code. If the building code requires it, we'll do it. >> We don't have a choice. You can't get a varian. >> I think the intention of the board here
is not bad. >> No, he's talking about third floor. >> If the board if if the board requires sprinklers If it will get me your vote, we can commit to sprinklers in the grass as well. >> And then we uh talked about uh well,
we're going from the previous papers. We'll get that no widening of the driveway. Um and let's see. Um, we're going to eliminate the uh we're going to say the driveway and the walkway will be
>> impousvious pavers and >> in order to bring the impervious coverage to conforming and eliminate the fairing >> and we have uh gutters on the roof. >> Yes. Of the garage. Correct. >> Of garage. >> And that'll be placed underground.
requirements >> and we have obviously we talked about changing the sand uh to grass and landscaping to be protect perpetually obviously maintained and replaced as necessary. Um we talked about
I guess as is always the case the assessor will get a copy of the resolution ultimately. Um, we've talked about uh you all mentioned it out that we you we appreciate that you've reviewed and not just giving lip service, but you've reviewed the load
capacity and all those elements. You're going to plum uh the new shower staying the same. Um, and now irrigation of the lawn that is not >> and showers,
>> excuse me, >> showers. >> Showers. Got it. And uh, gutters in the rear of the structure. Let's see. >> The garage. >> Garage. >> And, um, water containment per ordinance.
uh elimination of the impervious coverage variance. Um and I think that was it. >> You sure? >> So, but we but Jennifer, are you on behalf of your client, you're okay with those? Um >> 150%.
>> Perfect. All right. So, Mr. chairman. More importantly, if the board members are okay with those, um if it's the pleasure of the board, um we can have a vote. >> Any additional board comments before we get there?
>> Yes. >> Motion to approve the application. >> Mr. Ross, >> yes, >> Mr. Greg. Yes, >> Mr. Mr. O'Neal. >> Yes, >> that was very impressive. >> You married up.
>> Oh, yeah. I'll kick that coverage. I wish they knew that Vana was a engineer all those years. Come here.