It's a dead battery. We can do it together. >> I think Michelle call to order the April 16,6 meeting. Stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. The >> 48 hour notice is required under the open public meetings act has been met as notice of this meeting was emailed on January 28th, 2026 and published in the
aspir press, the co-star and the poster. Copy has been placed on the bulletin board in the burrow office and the copies been filed with the borrow clerk. Mr. Bagley >> here. >> Chair >> here. >> Councilman Clark >> here. >> Miss Mahoney >> here. Uh Mr. Mayor is excused this
evening. Mr. Mayor >> here. >> Councilman Nikki >> here. >> Miss Arcine is excused this evening. Mr. Wishbo >> here. >> Mr. Warnett >> here. >> Miss Lady is excused this evening. Mr. Frederick >> here. >> Mr. West >> here. And also present this evening am Marie Rosudo, attorney to the board,
Michael Shafi, our board engineer, and Christine Bell, our board planner. Welcome to and thank you for attending the April 16, 2026 Bri Beach Landers Court meeting. Uh the board will observe a 10:00 time limit or no new applications or testimony will be
started after 10:00 without a polling of the full board. If an application is not completed during the meeting, the continuation date will be announced by the board attorney. We would like to maintain a civil environment for this public hearing to request no calling out from the audience. Everyone will be
given the opportunity to be heard. After the board and professional staff have completed questioning a witness, the witness will be opened up to the public for questions only of that witness. Please give your name, address, and a spelling of your name uh to our
attorney. Uh this will be a time for questions, not for comments. If uh if you'd like to take a question, raise your hand. I will acknowledge you, bring you up to the podium. Uh, if a person from the public is represented by an attorney, he or she must speak through that attorney, all attorneys should register their representation with the
board at the start of this hearing. After the board and its professionals have finished questioning the applicant and before the board takes action on any application, I will open it up to the public for comments. This will be a time to speak on an application. The same procedure I previously described for
questions is followed and all members of the public who wish to make a comment will then be sworn in by the board attorney. Please be aware that the applicant and attorney have the right to cross-examine any members of the public who come up to make comments. Written statements or letters from individuals
are not who are not present. Petitions or speaking on anyone's behalf are not allowable under NJSA4 55D-10D. Written statements from the public cannot be accepted as they cannot be cross-examined. Public participation in
this meeting will assist this board in making decisions. We hope that this public hearing and your attendance will be a rewarding experience for all. And thank you for participating. >> Um we don't have any new correspondents this evening. Um I did distribute the
meetings from our prior meeting of March 19th. if anybody's had a chance to review them. If anybody's want to make a motion. >> I have I have a question. >> Sure. >> Under 2026 19 uh Councilman Park
provides an explanation as it raises basement. Is is that correct or is it should be two feet? >> It go it went from 1 ft to 3 ft above. Just the minutes to say Councilman Clark
provides an explanation as it raised it to one foot. >> I think it was one foot from what we have existing. >> No, it went from 1 ft to 3 ft. So, it raised it two feet. >> Raised it two. Okay. >> Motion to approve. Uh, Miss Mahoney.
>> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Bagley, the change. Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Wishbell. >> Yes. >> Council Park. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Warette. >> Yes. >> Mr. Proick. >> Yes. >> Mr. West. >> Yes. >> And Chair Cohen.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um the first application under consideration this evening is LUV25/07. It's for both variances for proposed demolition of the existing one-story single family dwelling and construction of a new 2 and a half story single
family dwelling on the centerized corner lot Nan Pop and Company LLC block 75 block one 106 Central Avenue. The applicants proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a two and a half story single family dwelling on lot. Applicants represented by Kevin
Iadi esquire. Uh this matter was partially heard um on December 18th, 2025 and it was carried to February 19th, 2026 at which time um we did not hear the application and an additional request was made to carry the matter to
which is April 16th. Um and this was in order for the applicant to meet with the board professionals and their professionals to revise the project and resubmit plans. Um, Mr. I just want to note for the record that I do have
signed certifications from Mr. Mayor, uh, Miss Mahoney and Mr. West who were not present in the December meeting, but they have watched the video and they are eligible for >> very good. >> There was an error. I had Mr. Bagley listed as well, but I checked my minutes and he was in fact there.
Thank you. >> Even ladies and gentlemen, Kevin Sides on behalf of the applicant. Um, as Christie uh announced, we were here on December 18th. Um, the board heard the property owner and also heard from um,
our architect. During the architect's testimony, questions were raised, suggestions were made, and we carried the hearing at that point in time so that we could sharpen our pencils, go back, see what more we could do to bring this project closer to conformity. Uh,
we've done that since that time. Um, well, let me start with improvements of the plans over existing conditions just to summarize uh kind of where we're at. There's an existing structure. There are many that exist and we're looking to reduce
and uh in some cases eliminate those nonconformities as part of our proposal. Uh for example, uh front yard setback compliance along Second Avenue has been corrected increasing uh from 24.94 ft which is nonconforming to 26.36
ft which is um sideyard condition has been improved um where there was a substantial deficiency. was only 2.3 ft from the property line, we've been able to increase that set that to a conforming 5.17 ft. Um, and when you
only have 2 ft, increasing it to 5 ft, you'll see makes a pretty big difference. Um, the rear yard setback has been meaningfully improved. It is existing 2.3 ft. That's been incre increased to 5.17
ft. Um, from a bulk standpoint, the building coverage has been reduced uh from 42.14% which was our last proposal to 41 I'm sorry, which is existing uh to 41.88%.
So, we're improving that. Um, the lock coverage has been brought into full compliance. um originally 63.13% we've brought that down to 54.31%
which is below your ear limits. Um the proposed building height remains compliant and from the last proposal that you saw back in December um we also were able to eliminate some variances that we had originally proposed. Um, for
example, um, the the um the the sideyard setback, which I had mentioned earlier, and the building coverage that we proposed in December was 45.9 ft. We brought that down, as I mentioned earlier, to 41.88 ft. So, what we're
left with with this application is six variances. Okay? And out of those six variances, five relate to setbacks. Um, And you probably know better than me, your front yard setback standards have
front yard setback to the building as well as front yard setback to the porch. So we require and we're requesting variances for front yard setbacks for porch and building along central ad and front yard setbacks for porch and
building along secondary. So there's four variances right there, but they're really a two for one, you know, the way I'm thinking about it. In addition to that, you have the building coverage. And you'll hear from our architect and our planner and our engineer this evening um that we really brought this
to as little building coverage as as possible for this house to to work as a house. Um you'll see in the floor layouts, if we make the building any smaller, we lose a garage or we lose any reasonable semblance of first floor
space. Um you'll also hear a little bit about the porch along Second Avenue. Um, we really think that a porch adds something to the home along Second Avenue. That's not where the front door is, but it is where people are walking
along the street and expecting an inviting frontage and the the porch adds to that. You're going to hear about that as well. So, I think I've gone on Oh, no, I haven't got on enough. I want to mention one other thing before I call my first witness. Since the last hearing,
uh, soil samples were also taken at the property um at the suggestion of board engineer. That was done. It was submitted and we were able to um determine the uh the appropriate height or the appropriate elevation for the
basement floor. And that's going to be 2 ft above the water table as required. And we have all those details. And what that does, it it lowers the height of our B, it lowers the ceiling height of our basement, but that's part of our
proposal as well. So, without further ado, I'd like to call our recall our architect to tell you about the plants. >> Yep. That's what I'm here >> not
the main tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth will help you. >> All right. I just want to note for the record that we received a set of plans from the architect that
do not continue the original plan. There's a new plan date on this. So, the original was in October of 2025, I think, and the new ones are now I can't put my fingers on the page. March >> March 9th.
>> March 9th. So, this is a complete replacement of the prior plan. It's not a revision of the first set. So, we'll go with uh with that being said, we'll go with your testimony. >> Great. Thank you. Yeah. So, uh, before
you begin, you test spot at the December 18th hearing. Is that correct? You were sworn in. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And were your credentials accepted by the board? >> Okay. And my license is still we confirmed that in December.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, so the plans I'll be referring to tonight are dated March 9th, 2026. What we're looking at right now is a 3D view of the proposed 2 and a half story home. Uh this will be looking from the
corner um of second in central looking east and just go over some general building elements. We have the front covered
porch here on the second floor. the main entry to the home here and beyond that garage entry. Um, and
you also see window here which is attach them. So, um, our intent was to, um, shrink this building, um, in certain directions, mostly with the goal when we heard from the neighbors and from the
board, uh, really from the side door set back lines. Uh, two and a half ft was very tight. So, um, we reduced the building by about 4 foot in length to get away from the backyard set.
six to five and also we reduced the width of the building to improve the side effect as well. One thing we lost to that was beautiful storage and garage. So before we had a 14t oversized garage which um the applicant was hoping to use as parking but also as bike
storage town. Uh so what we did by we removed the shrunk down garage, we introduced some bike storage underneath the front porch which is elevated due to the raising bases that basement plan besides the
dimensional shrinkage and remain mostly the same. We did bring the laundry room down into the basement. It was formerly on the second floor as it was result. So, scrolling on, we're looking at the first floor at the bottom and the second
floor at the top. Uh, so >> can you just give me the dimensions of the garage, please? >> Yes. >> I don't think they're >> Yes. It's just a little hard to see. >> 12 by 19. >> Okay. 12 by 19 garage.
>> Correct. That's a clear interior space >> and one car can fit in. >> Yes. >> And that's the space that you want application >> for parking. Correct. >> Right. So you're not considering the driveway as having parking. >> No,
too small. >> Driveway is too small. That is an existing nonformity as well. the existing driveway zero >> the car existing there's one
>> one other change we had to make to get the porch further away from central ad is we had to switch the porch that the porch was next to the garage now it's next to the kitchen but it still remains a five bed house Um,
five bath house with one bath in the basement and one bath in the finished. Um, one car garage. Overall dimensions of the home on the first floor are 25 by 7. On the second floor, there was previously a balcony that's facing the
side that's been removed. because we recaptured that space into the second floor. It kind of offset some of the area changes from the the previous proposal to now. But overall the um the previous area we proposed was
3,44 ft and the proposal now is 3,686 ft including 726 ft in the space. >> Could you repeat that please? I'm sorry. I'll go through 4x4 if that's easier. So, the basement area is 13.
>> I like the total. >> I like the >> Okay, the total is 3,686 square ft. >> The original >> It was 3,844. That does not include the base square footage. >> That does not include the basement. It
does not include the garage. The basement the basement uh 1332 Is that enough room? >> That would be the perimeter of the foundation. >> What is the height of the basement?
>> So, we from the top of the floor slab to the underside of the joist is 6' 8t. Um the layout stayed very similar to the last proposal. Three bedrooms on the second floor. The study den later on the first floor. So this gives
the kidies the opportunity to age in place. Um so that at one point they aren stairs anymore. They can take up quarters on the first floor. So you have a stair that leads from the first floor to the second floor. Three
bedrooms. the recreational area which faces Second Avenue with access to the porch. And then as we go all the way up, we have attic space. This is could be a finished attic space here. Walled off on both
ends walls with utility spaces, storage spaces. I think we mentioned last time that other than the other than the space that's shown as shown as recreation area. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> But you do have a full bath still
included in the attic. Correct. >> Correct. >> Where are the five bedrooms? You had one on the first floor. >> One on the first floor, four on the second floor. >> Okay. Because I heard you say three and then a recreation room. >> Uh three standard bedrooms and on suite. That'll be the fourth bedroom.
>> Okay. couple seconds. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It was important that we are a corner lot that we want to um make nice streetscape towards both Second Avenue and Central Avenue. So the house
essentially has two fronts of the home. What we're looking at here facing north is this is facing secondary street and that's the cover porch and open porch
access to porches above. This is conceptual section. So 9 foot ceilings on the first floor, 8 foot ceilings on the second floor and to the tide in the attic 8. This is the elevation
central entry port. One car garage access above. This is the elevation facing the rear of the property. Two garage windows windows
and the elevation is the ocean. Um, windows, bedroom windows, windows, stairwell, stairwell, garage, bedroom windows, kitchen windows, dining window
underneath the porch here, the white storage area. Um so that concludes sort of the general data about the building. Overall I think the we took a lot of care and um providing architectural style that is
complimentary to a little bit. Um, we look to scale down the facade where possible. Um, and offer the uh a nice home. Any questions from the board?
Before we before we get there, I just have one question about the coach. Was any thought given to um reduce if we keep the porch? Was any thought given to
reducing the size of the porch? And what did you find? So our original application I believe had a 10 foot wide porch. We reduce that to 8 foot six and that's clear outside. So we also have to reduce the columns and the rail lines.
The clear is about 8 foot which we think would be suitable forum. round table chairs. I think the shortest this porch could get would be 6 foot clear for rock chairs
for 6 foot clear 6' 6 for some reason in terms of that yard set back on I don't understand why we can't meet that. I mean, even with the plan, you're still, you know, we're very liberal in
terms of how we do this. Give you the option and you're still asking for a variance even though the average again this is all tying back into building.
So all these little variances that seem minim >> if you were a if you were to reduce the porch by the two feet um do you know uh what type of reduction that would have to cover if I can just understand. So
the average is required 21.8 for this chart. The existing is 15.2. Proposed is 17.8. So, we have improved it by moving the porch 2 ft further back from Second Avenue where it is now.
>> Right. But you're knocking the house down. >> No. Understood. If we were to make it 21.88, that would be we'd have to move it another 4T. So, it would be an 8 foot porch to a 4ft porch.
I actually did the little bit napkin uh math to get that calculation. About 2 feet you'd be just a little over 1%. If you did the 4.1, you'd be about 2.17%. >> Building building coverage reduction >> building. >> Yes. >> Yeah. 47 square foot space 1%.
>> So yeah. Yeah. I mean there is an opportunity to uh at 4T I think you know 4ft porch is pretty shallow but I think we can do better um for set of rocking chairs and table you
want at least 5 foot clear on a porch I mean the house can get too you have options >> I mean I'm just being very frank you know that portion of the lot is not impacted by the unusual shape. The
portion of the lot that is impacted by the unusual shape is the central avenue front variances which I believe you're entitled to because of the unusual shape. But I don't believe and that's just my opinion. I'm sharing it with you as a
professional. I don't believe that you're entitled to that in this portion of the law. >> Uh I I think you know speaking with the keys we can sharpen our pencil on the porch and get closer to the 21.88
average that's along Second Avenue which would give us maybe about 2% building coverage. And the proposal 2 ft would be 19.8 21.8 required but I'd have to speak with the
community. I think the course is important element to them. So it would have to be more maybe taken away from the house. >> But a twoft reduction would be about 1%. >> Yes. >> So what what would it take to get to 35%?
Well, if you move the porch in about four feet, then 4.1 feet, you would also probably have to pull in the width from the east side another 3.8 just roughly. >> So that's that would be what >> that would be the that would be to hit 35%. Yes. >> So we we thought about some as a number.
So I think I think number 336 ft to hit 35%. Which is basically the garage, the whole garage. >> Well, let's let's let's talk about the garage. I know we made mention in the opening statement about the uh
difference between 2 feet and 5T makes a big difference. Um the requirements are 25 ft. So if uh you know to me a big difference would be oh we went from 2 feet to 19T
2T going from two feet to 5T is not that big of a difference. Um I I look at um the um volume of the building that would not be there if there was a 25 foot
setback. So basically if you didn't you wouldn't you lose the garage, the stairs and maybe a little of the bathroom that would be about 25 ft from the rear setback. And if you look at all of the houses that go down Second Avenue
um with rear yards, um I can see this the side of this building which is now in the backyard setback which is now dominating the sky which is I think tremendously impacting air and light for
the people around who are adjacent to the properties where that building is being construed. in that setback. So the 25 the variance from 25 ft down to 5 ft is a
huge issue for other reasons. if if if I may because we we played with the dimensions and of course we ideally would come in with a fully conforming application wouldn't be there but the problem with the shape of
the lot is it gives us such little if we're looking at this diagram I'll say I'll say height it gives us such little height that the only way to fit the elements of a house would deem to to elongate it a
little bit more. So that's where the hardship and the shape of the lot comes in. >> Tell me about the elements that you're finding the hardship. >> Well, for example, look at on on the first floor. I testifying for architect, but >> I can I can take this
first floor. I mean, besides the fact that this is planned on being a retirement home for future and we do have a a study den for aging in place, >> there's I don't think there's any fluff on this first floor. We have a standard bathroom inside
very modest entry area, a den that's a 121, you know, standard size bedroom and then a condensed great room, living room and kitchen. Um, I think there's opportunity for a foot or two probably still, which
we already kind of did a few times, but for 12 feet, um, you're losing the garage essentially. and and and losing the garage on a property like this is is very um difficult for the owners because you have no storage.
>> Had you considered a detached garage which can be 5 ft from the rear set back and 5T from the side set back? >> We have not. >> Yes. >> Which would mean >> a back. Well, if if they did also have
uh you would need the back. Yes, you would need the variance for that, but it would also also create a backyard because you don't know where you're going to put your grill. >> So, losing the garage, what does that mean as far as the building coverage? >> I'll ask you
36 ft. Um, meet the building coverage. So, if we took that whole garage and eliminated from the plan right now, we still would not meet the building coverage. Very slow. We could probably around 30 37%. >> Okay. Instead of 41.8.
>> Yes. >> And of course, you do have storage planned for your basement. >> Yes. >> And you have storage plan for your attic. >> Yes. >> True. It's not a garage storage >> and losing the garage still has variance
because you're supposed to have two spaces. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then well even the whole garage you still wouldn't meet the 25 ft here. If you subtract the garage you'd be at about 186. >> Uhhuh. >> So we'd still be here for a variance for
rear yard set. >> If you had no garage though our driveways are one foot off the line. So you can then utilize that five foot space that's currently there and possibly park two cars in there because
you're under coverage. >> Yeah, the garage wasn't there. >> And my concern is with the parking. Um so the house is how how many bedrooms now? >> Five bedrooms. >> I'm sorry. the house that you're that's being
>> current house I believe it's three bedrooms >> three okay and so you're going to five and you providing one parking space um you know second avenue and central's three blocks from the beach it's a very dense area
>> and if you are having five bedrooms um I assume you're going to have more people um than are in the house now but it just seems like it's it's a a lot of house without a lot of parking The house is made to hold a lot of people, but it's not, you know, the
parking would have to be on the street, which is, you know, really causes a problem for for parking if you don't have those two spaces. Understood. We believe the spot in front of the garage is not a
legal parking spot, but you could park a car there. It' be off the side, >> but if you're using the garage as you hope for storage for bikes, >> then we remove the bikes. So we add we took the bikes out of the garage and did a new porch under porch space. So the
garage is solely just for a car that before we had an oversized we shrunk it down to one standard one. Um but yeah we did explore that the
to get that 25 foot step back and get close to building coverage would essentially mean that the house would end here. most likely four bedroomedroom houses, one bedroom. We lose two bedrooms and a garage. One of those bedrooms you have to be go back
to four bedrooms, >> which is recreational area could be a bedroom as well. >> Yeah. Why would you lose two bedrooms? >> Um because this master bedroom is going away. So we would replace this master bedroom here. So something along these
lines and then you can see on suite this. So yeah the lounge area. So originally the idea is that people can hang out the second floor porch as well. That would be more of a public area. If we had a
bedroom where the lounge is now, you go three bedrooms. We can private more a private balcony rather than a public second terrace. But these are tradeoffs. I I have the same concern about the lack of yard set
because once you only have two and a half stories now, you know, the houses on either side of it are only one story high, right? So be a lot of air and sunlight from those houses being that
close to them already house on Central Avenue right at the minimum of 5T but I mean just at that minimum not even minimum minimum 25 yard that option
So, what I'm what I'm hearing is you're having trouble fitting a 3600 foot house on a 4700T lot. Um, what is and we have Bradley has 4,000 2500t
lots, 4,000 lots, 5,000 lots all throughout the zone. So, it's a problem that you know that uh people people can't build big houses on small lots. What is what's unique about
this lot that you're seeking relief from to be able to get 3600 square ft of a house? >> Yeah, I think we'll the planner has done over and seen some of the other being
developed and I think she'd be better test. >> So, we have our professional planners here can talk about the uniqueness of the Latin those. >> But just just adding to that, you know, the way the lot is quite a lot where it
narrows is where you're going back towards the garage. >> Yeah. Steps back twice as it narrows. >> That's where it narrows. So in fact, if you take off and move the house in, you're getting it more away from that narrow part.
Couldn't you also, if you were concerned about losing square footage, couldn't you bump out the northern side of of the house along Central because you do have enough setback that you could probably pick up what 5t or so on footage? >> Uh, it would be counterproductive for the building coverage. But maybe if we
Yeah, if we took away there, if we add there, but at this point, it's just taking away not adding, >> right? which you're achieving. If you're taking away the back end of the house, maybe you're adding square footage, but you could potentially provide a hallway into your balcony.
>> There's ways to do that and still reduce your your impervious coverage, reduce your buildout, and configure the house to maximize your available space on meeting. How tall are the first and second
floors? The first floor the 9 foot clear ceiling height and the second floor 8t clear. You testified that the basement had 6'8. So is that going to be space? >> It's about the minimum. It's not it's not intended to be a
finished space. >> No. No. Basically, we have we have a bathroom and a balance of the space is not going to be sheetrock insulated. >> Yeah. So, right now the way it is this portion right here is drywall and
finished. So you come down first clean area as you come from the garage come down you have like a sand wash area in the beach and then you have a bathroom area to wash off the rest of this is unfinish
>> you say so it's just just block walls >> concrete walls I think >> a lot of the board's comments about removing the garage make a lot of sense if you removed it and had an outside access from that side of the house into
the basement. Thick the basement up 6 in 8 foot six maybe the basement could be more useful and for storage and foresense. Um yeah, I think we were at least building night too. So we have to do
some tweaking. >> Another quick question is um your groundwater. So I I was I started to read the um the technical groundwater report and it was unclear to me you guys measured the groundwater based
on the water in the sump. >> Mr. Cunningham engineer performs the best. >> I just wonder clarity on that. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? We'll open it up to the public. We have no other question. >> I I have one more question. Sorry. Um
the third story. Um so the back and the front of that are all going to be storage. >> It's going to be closed off unfinished attics. So could be used for storage. storage. Yes. But I imagine you open
that door and you're seeing insulation wall. >> Okay. So the all the light then comes in from what are their windows? One window by the hall and then two towards the front of the wreck area. >> Yeah, there's two dormer windows. One that faces the ocean and one that faces
central lab. And this is the stair that connects all the levels. And there's a dormer here with it as well. >> Is that front room? room storage with the three windows, the two dormers and the front window. >> So, this one room is the finished space.
This T-shaped sideways T-shaped room. So, this is over the bedroom on suite which will be unfinished and this is over. >> At the previous meeting, I did ask that that would be finished because It would violate the
half story. >> And is there Hback? I'm sorry. >> We made just large enough to get the two doors which are Saturday >> and HVAC on the property at all or just all in. >> So yeah, our previous proposal had
varants for the condensers which were located in the setback. So we relocated those. So there's no longer variance required for the condensers. So, we are planning on two outside condensers to serve the HVAC. >> Where are those going to be? >> They're going to be uh at the corner of
um central and second. >> So, you utilize that extra space from the part of the lot that's not impacted. >> That little triangle space that's left over is the only spot where those conventions would go without.
>> And would mechanicals be in either of those spaces? I imagine that yeah, the mechanicals would be in the attic >> or the whole house. >> At least one unit in the attic and possibly Any other questions for the board?
>> Uh, that being said, we'll open it up to the public for questions only. Uh, please step up and um step up and give your name and address and spell your last name. >> Uh, my name is Peter Sharp. S H A R P E.
I live at 301 Second Avenue, which is directly across Central Avenue. Subject is Mr. Fernandez. >> Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I do have some questions. Um I'm considering the western wall of the
house, the one that runs parallel to Central Avenue. Um in the December plan, um I don't really think that one was going to be moved much, but it looks like in this plan, um it's been moved out quite a bit
compared to the existing footprint of the house. How much further out is that western wall going to be compared to the existing footprint of the house that we're all used to in the neighborhood? Um, one second.
Now the existing is 17.9 ft. The propose is 11.64. So the difference is right around 7 ft. >> 7 ft. Okay. Okay. Um,
and if I understand the um square footage numbers you gave, between the uh March plan and the previous plan, um, we're talking about a delta of 158 square ft for a home that is sized at 36 86 square
ft. Are those correct numbers? >> Those are correct numbers. >> Okay. So, this is a after all the tubing and throwing the lines here, we're talking about 4% increase in the square footage of the house.
>> Yes. Just to add a little to that. So the previous proposal had a balcony um which was encompassed into the second floor. So before we subtracted that balcony, now we added that back in. So
the numbers don't reflect how many many changes we made on the outside walls. one to one because of that. >> Okay, understood. But uh >> so yes, you're >> okay. So uh Mr. Fernandez, since you
were here in December, you probably recall, let me ask you, do you recall comments made by the board members at that meeting? Uh pertaining to what they thought was the excessive house size given the lot size. Do you recall that one of the board
members used the word over building several times and he was concerned with how much the applicant is squeezing into the slot is that you remember >> generally I think the conversation >> okay and there were other comments too
by other members uh I pointed them there matter of public record on the minutes of that meeting so but that was one of the main themes of the comments at that meeting as you recall So here here's my main question, Mr. Hernandez. Um, we're looking at a
building here with the same building height, there's only a 4% reduction in the overall square footage. Number of variances, um, last time was nine. According to the table prepared by the burough engineer, thorough planner, I
counted, uh, eight letter B's this time around. So the number of variances um has not shrunk that much. So given all that against the backdrop of the comments from the board members of the last meeting, how have you
materially addressed the comments about the overbuilding on this lot? >> So um Mr. Chairman, I mean this seems to be a question about justifications for the variances and we have experts here
tonight who can answer that question I think a lot more efficiently. Mr. Fernandez is testifying about the architecture of the building. Mr. >> Sh, could you hold that question? >> I will. Sorry. You mean to speak out of turn? >> Sure. >> But uh Okay. Sorry, Mr. Fernandez. >> I will just um let you know there is one
typo in our chart. uh we didn't cross out the V for sideyard setback. So that is no longer a variance. >> So then there's seven V there. Okay. And Mr. Commanders, one more question,
please pertaining to the west wall of the house. Uh I know that there are a couple corners that are sticking out here. We could get that picture up there. the first floor. Okay. The places where the uh the corners of the house there approach
Central Avenue. What is the closest approach of those corners to a sidewalk there on Central Avenue? What would the average passer by see how close that house was to the sidewalk when he's
walking down the street? two and a half story building. >> So, the engineer has a site plan. >> Okay. >> With this building, >> I've done it again. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Which will show the proximity of the house, the stair, and the entryways to the sidewalk. >> Okay. Again, apologies.
>> That's fine. >> Thank you, Mr. Any other questions from the audience? Please step up. Your name and address and spell your last name. >> Cynthia R. So I don't know if any of these
questions are going to be to the Okay. So can you identify any specific condition of the property that prevents compliance with the 25T? >> The property is a corner lot which is more restrictive than the standard interior lot which kind of been going to
this. So overall, when you're on a corner lot, you're restricted on the size of the home. So if I go one lot over, basically that that block can build a bigger home than the corner just by following the rules. So because there's special restrictions on the corner lot, it it makes the building the
way we see it, it's become a longer building. In order to fit all the requirements that a modern home would have, you need more space going lengthwise because you're restricted widthwise. >> So it's It's because of the size of the home you're building on the property that you can't.
>> So the hardships that we're claiming for this variance are three. One, it's an undersized lot. Two, it's a corner lot. And three, it's an irregular shape lot. Because of those three conditions, we're seeking variances for a home where we feel that the rules of of the township,
>> it's it's it's difficult to build a home to meet the rules of the township on that type of lot. um is the need for these variances specifically the rear yard setback created by the design of the house rather than the land itself.
I think there are solutions to meet the real setback um for any home but those solutions have to make have to make viable sense to want to knock a home down and build a new home. Um, and I think that's what we were challenged with.
>> Have you ever considered um to try to comply with the 25 yard setback to not build a 2 and 1/2 story structure on that back side of the house, which is like does the whole house have to be two
and a half stories height? >> There's any number of houses that could be built instead of the house that we're proposing. We're proposing a home that the kidneys feel are a viable option for them to invest in this town, invest in this property. >> Um, okay. Um,
so can you go to the slide with the side? So the side facing. So how many So there's more windows on that
side than on the the front side facing central. Is that >> possible? But possibly very >> I I I did count them but I counted um 15 on that side and some of them are
double. So that means like there's 26 windows on that side. Um are you aware that those side windows would be over looking into a house and into a yard. >> So, I'll just think occasionally do window treatment. It's more about light and not view.
>> Um, are you have you done any shadow studies to see how that would affect shadows in the surrounding properties? >> So, actually are you the one if I'm looking at the Kenny's house, are you the one right to left your home? >> Well, if you're in the front >> on Second Avenue. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So in this case, I don't think the
Kenny's home ever cast a shadow on your property because now the sun rises in the east, >> right? >> Okay. And it sets in the west, goes around the back of the house. >> So I would say 90% of the day, this home is casting a shadow onto Central Avenue
and Second Avenue and not your property. But would a two and a half story property I do get afternoon sun. So would a two and a half story property um block the sunlight that's coming into my yard and into my house in the back of my house?
>> You know, a solar study would have to be performed, but I would say worst Yeah. in the in the winter months, um you know, afternoon 5 6 p.m. when the sun is most in the northwest north, that would be the worst time of year in terms
of possibly casting shadow on the property. But most most of the day, most of the year, this should not be casting shadow on the property, >> but there's no guarantee, right? We can we can it's not much to do like a
a solar study. So >> um so but if if the back of the house wasn't two and a half stories high then it wouldn't it wouldn't make a difference right or the garage was eliminated that or if the 25 foot seck bath was adhered to and you
had a two and a half story house I would still get light in my yard and my house >> understood your concern. >> So um I'm just wondering how you if you can quantify how this proposal will affect sunlight, open space and privacy
to the neighboring property. I don't know if you >> sunlight would be something that I could put together. Open air is harder to define. What was the last? >> Privacy. >> Privacy. I think you have more privacy
um from the street at least. Um, but >> for the record, is is your property the one that we're proposing to move the house 3 ft further away from? >> Yes. >> That's how that's how it promotes open air.
>> But it doesn't but it doesn't but then you're but then in the backyard where the 25 step step backwards, you're building two and a half stories. So then I don't have any air um or light coming in because I have a wall from the front of my house to the back of my house. two
and a half story wall. >> Thanks very much. >> Any other questions from the audience of just this applicant, the architect? See, >> thank you. Um, our next witness is Bob
Cington. Swear me again. >> Yes, please. wasn't >> right. You swear to tell the truth the truth about your God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Why did you enlighten the board to
your education training experience? >> Um I received my natural science degree from New Jersey Technology in 1979. Um I After that I worked for three
different municipalities in Ethics County being Roseand, Montlair and Mil Burm acquiring my experience time. I received my professional engineers license by examination in 1986
and from 1986 to 1988 I served as a council of engineer and that May of 1988 I success property. >> Sure. If you want, I'll navigate back to it
for you. >> Are you? >> Yes. >> This is the revised last revision 32327. >> Correct. And in vision there was a port sheet.
>> Yes. >> And you did that report as well. >> That do we need to enter that into the record the soil study? >> No. >> No. It's been submitted through uh >> it's been on >> the board secretary and there was a
report we received today from this witness as well which the board members got. I don't think it made it up to the >> It did not. >> Oh, that was my my letter. >> Yes. >> The response regarding that.
>> So this is the cover sheet. It's essentially just The checklist compliance with the key property owners utilities are owner and professional name. My title
block show the 200 500 lines around the sub right now. And it also indicates the zoning of all different blocks surrounding surrounding the site.
She we have the existing conditions plan and also the site site demolition plan and usually simple basically proposing to
take everything off of the block that is manmade and and do you know replacement of new Under present conditions, the driveway is over on the right front of the
central front yard that exists requires is the driveway. And then there is also a carport which because of the way it was constructed
in there um It's really not suitable for a fulls size car. You could get a smart car or something like that and there still be able to open the doors. Just take everything off the lot. Um the utilities, the water and the sewer would
be water will be turned off and then we would cut the water line. The sewer we would cut and tap and clear for reinstallation. construction attempting to save as much of the
existing sidewalks as as possible and we would be taking out a section of the curve that exists now that apron area and course it says these plans at any of the
current sidewalk in the right way that might become damaged during construction that >> yeah that's a requirement in one of the reports and you work with the uh board engineer to do that >> well I used to be on the other end of
that so I get it um so uh my site plan is basically we the house that Mr. Fernandez designed and
set it into the lot at the requested setback in um and that's to the siding. So, it's actually like 5'4 in to the foundation just so we don't have a a problem when
it has built and the same same that this is the rear yard and the yard is the same same thing on the sideyard. The setback is actually
to the siding on the second floor because of the architectural detailing of the house. The second floor this portion of the house I'm pointing here now on the front and the same area in the back. The second floor is 6 in wider
than the first floor. So those setbacks are taken from that wider part which is the second second floor. So at ground level um it's more like 5'8 from the property line to the foundation but that
step back is taken from the from the second floor and again we have our little bit of wiggle room in there. Um, from the previous issue of the plan, we were able to pull the line
the line of the house here back a few inches from Second Avenue. So, there's no longer a front yard north setback required at this location.
And the uh the house is saw similar to the existing house. Um and um so there's different dimensions given to the
different points points on the house but essentially um at this location here the house at the left front corner of the house it's set back complies and that's where we had the room
this little triangle here since the Following is the building setback line. We have this little triangle here where we're able to locate the two air conditioning units.
Um in the interest of imperous coverage, the sidewalk that goes around to the back of the house to access the rear garage door is it's made out of twoft square flag stones with a
little in between where I mean the existing from the house all the way to the property line is is concrete now. So it'll be a little more be a little more area along the back back line of the
house and the main entrance to the house is at this location. There's a set of stairs goes up and sidewalk coming from the bottom of those
stairs over the driveway. Now, there was a little bit of confusion in my interpretation of your driveway ordinance, and that's why I believe one of those V's is not going to wind up being there.
Mr. Shai was nice enough to explain to me about the 10 foot requirement for the width right at the property line. Um, and then any pretty much anywhere else in the front yard, it can be 12 feet.
Um, I I just didn't get that into my into my design. We're calling for a 12t curve cut and I kept a 12 foot wide thicker section of concrete sidewalk there for the driveway. I understand that that's going to have to be 10 ft
and then once we get past the rideway line, we could put some chamers on and widen out to our our 12 ft. um in that I know it was just a short time ago but I I agreed in that letter that we would we would correct that proposal
>> that was today's you know based on I mean my feeling is you know based on the unusual shape at that location that for circulation it may be better to have the so if you want to continue to ask for that I I I have no problem with based on
circulation if we're going to do that though just make sure that when they go down the driveway It's straight. You don't it because a lot of times you flare it out. That's really what the concern is with the 10 foot because usually you flare it out another foot on each side. That was one varian, you know, based on the unusual shape I felt
was >> well the kitties aren't post. >> So um and um initially there were some some comments about uh after our first issue of the plans which
never got presented to you. Since then we done um another another drawing which um then weed a proposed drainage system in the front yard. It's a 50 foot long
piece of 24 in perforated HDP pipe that's surrounded by an envelope of stone. the leader drains for essentially the entire roof of the house were able to be piped into into this as
well as the some >> just real quick on this would be possible to get a pop-up emitter or something for his capacity to open back up in the house. >> Um yeah so what I have what we have there is um
>> manhole it we have we have these surge outlets on the on the on a couple of down spouts. Okay. Just out here and down spout down spout here. >> And this is just instead of just having the pipe the the down spout come down
and go to the top of the pipe, we put a key there. We put a key there that has like a a little cover over it to keep whatever you want to call them from going. And that would work for the
>> you can tell them from Sussex County. >> And that that would work for the sumps discharge as well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> What is that called that you're making? >> That's called that infiltration trench. >> Does anything like that exist on the
site now? >> No. >> Where does water tend to go? Well, the um the uh some of the leaders um come down and and dump on the ground. A couple of them go into the ground and we
don't know where they where they go. Some builders years ago used to tie them into flooding drains. I didn't see anything coming out through the the faces of the curbs along along the road. Um I do know that the sump pump um
basically discharge onto the ground. So we're going to be trying to make that a better situation. And there is a right in the center that little circle is we have a we have a manhole access there which is just a a T
made out of the same piping material with a a green HTP cover. which is basically strong enough you can drive a small riding hole over it. >> And as the attorney pointed out
previously, there is no significant storm water management on the site. >> We're not aware of that. >> Right. But the infiltration trench now is an acceptable form of storm water management for this property.
>> It is um what we did encounter when we did the and discuss soil. But pretty much right in the center of we drilled a hole and I got some samples. >> Okay.
>> What was the original original soil? But so the bottom of this system is we set the grade so at the bottom of the excavation is 2 feet above what we
believe is the water table. And that's is interested in that. Um as far as drainage, the um so there's the proposed pipe storage area under the under the porch here and this sidewalk
in the back will step down a little bit. So what's What happens is there's a very small amount of rain water that might fall in that depressed area sidewalk. The floor will be pitch to a drain that will just be piped down into the sun.
Talking about a very small small quantity over there. The balance of the bike storage area is under porch above it and pretty much there's not any rain water going down through there.
It indicates 6 different corners. So the uh the plan shows reinstallation of sewer and water services back into the house and instead of just coming in straight
before the sidewalk and that configuration. So they have to be accessible >> and there are there is an elevation change with two steps there.
>> Well that that's there now there's some maintaining that same perform. >> Yeah. So there there are some there are some steps in this area now that the surve there's a couple steps there now that's
that's got to be maintained. You're also using forest paper. So you did not include that in your lot covers. >> Correct. So um the the pavers that we're proposing for for driveway they it is a forest paving system although we didn't claim any credit for that. I mean
coverage, you know, eventually over time, you know, 20 years from now if they're still going to function at 100%. You know, we don't know that. So they're not going to convince anybody that that's going to be considered impervious.
>> So impervious could be considered impervious going forward >> and the impervious is compliant. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Even so papa are sort of extra. >> Um it you know it's extra it's not that
much more difficult to put them in. It's not that much more expensive. So, we often don't um recommend them because they're not maintained. Obviously, this is a little bit of a different instance because the applicant's property um you
know, I would think we would just want confirmation that if Por's papers are going in, the applicant intends to maintain them properly, even if they aren't being counted, you know. I could certainly ask my
questions. Pretty much covered everything. Um, oh, one thing we do want to note added to the plan about the uh the planting between the curb and sidewalk must be natural glass. I see you're not proposing anything there, but please add that to the plan just in case. Sir, >> um you covered everything we have we
asked for with the drainage um with the recharge with raising the basement. Um a lot of coverage is under so the previous pavement doesn't matter to you. >> Great. Any questions for the board members?
>> You did the technical report that you provided that. Can you explain how you arrived at the groundwater based on >> Sure. So about 10 days before um uh I was going to go do the exploration um I
Mr. Kenny and I agreed that he would raise the floats up in the sump pumps so that they wouldn't turn on until the the water would might be if it did get there almost up to the floor. Okay.
So and when we were there at the in December both in both s there's two sump pumps now kind of catt from each other in the basement um they were about the water was about 10 in down from the floor
after it had sat for a while with the pumps not going and then we core drilled a 8 in hole in the center of the basement floor and I took samples soil samples out of there and I did um what's
uh called a dynamic penetrometer test which is is a miniaturaturization of the standard penetration test that they do with a drilling rig on a on a boring job um just to to um have a degree of
comfort that the um the bearing capacities that the international residential code allows you to assume are actually there. And so we verified that the footings could be designed as dimensional footings. And then after
that hole was left open for about 4 hours, that water that had built up in the hole was at the same 10 in elevation below below the floor. >> And and so postation, where is that compared to that
groundwater? It's two feet above that. >> Two feet above >> as we requested. >> Is there is there going to be an issue because the new orders that was passed here based on permitting the 2T requiring 3 ft elevation from the
top of >> that that you're talking about a flood. people were just talking to my grandma. >> That's what that's what the >> um but this you know this application was submitted and started prior to that
ordinance. So um whatever you know the ordinance was at the time the application was deemed complete is what >> I just want to confirm that. >> Yeah. >> And then do you have you calculations on
the impacts of the JDP rail on this property? >> No. The CF area. >> Are you familiar with the new real rules? >> Excuse me. >> Are you familiar with the new rules of
DP that take effect July 2? >> I am not that would be something that the owner should be advised to. So they're aware that this ultimately based on reality rules respond to a region based on flood waters that
basement should not be built which is a big difference from what's being proposed here not by this application but permits based on New Jersey real rules permits need to be in place by July 20th not to have to comply
with those rules >> unless the state senate keeps for just a possibility to do something. >> We we looked into the the flood hazard issue and whether this property could be rebuilt with the basement, but it this
piece is outside of the flood hazard area and we took a conservative approach and added a foot and did all those things and we're still coming up that it was outside. >> Yeah. But New Jersey adopted the real rules that greatly expand um the areas
of blood hazards >> or in excess of >> it can be contagious. >> Any other questions from board members? >> I I have a question for sure. I'm relatively new to this so maybe just on a property like this.
What are we considering the rear yard? How is that? What we've been talking about is, you know, getting this one end of the house reduced to firms when it's >> so on a on a corner lot. And then this
is it's different in different municipalities, but in Bradley Beach, you have on a corner lot, you have two front yards, the sidey yard and the rear yard. And for the purpose of this lot, the rear yard
is considered the um the yard that is opposite Second Avenue and the sideyard is the yard that's opposite Central Avenue. Some towns can have two front yards and
two sideyards and in some towns one of the front yards can actually be a sideyard. So it's it's different but the way >> it's just in my mind because the house faces central >> the house faces central because of the depth in that direction. You wouldn't
you wouldn't be able to orient the house the other way. You wouldn't, you know, you'd get the existing house would have been tiny little thing. >> Question from the board. I'll open it up to the public. Public step
301. Um, I think I see an entry point for the questions I was trying to ask before I was Mr. Fernandez. Please let me know if I'm wrong. But uh you mentioned the saw to nature of the house and that you move
down Central Avenue. So the points on the sawtooth, the teeth on the sawtooth, how close is the closest tooth to the sidewall? My interest is in preserving the character of the neighborhood.
And now we're going to have a two and a half story structure there. I'm just kind of curious when a passer by is moving south to north on Central Avenue. How close is he going to get to that 2 and 1/2 story structure? Okay. So,
I'm looking at my sheet SC3 now. Um so the the required setback line along there is 15 ft from the property line. Okay,
which would be that would be about 18. So the required setback line is about 18 ft from the site back of the site. Um >> and
>> yeah. So at the first >> just for clarity your question is not about the line but actually sidewalk. >> Yeah. So the question is to sidewalk. So >> I'm sorry multiple people are talking. I was just clarifying question. >> Sorry, hold on.
>> One person at a time, so we'll hold your >> Yes. >> Hold on, sir. >> Just I'm clar making sure everybody's clear on the question that he's not the question is not what is the setback to the property line, but he's interested in the setback to the edge of the actual
physical asylum. >> Yes. >> So the numbers will be bigger than the technical. >> Yeah. So um >> at the first point there arrow pointing at that point
we are approximately 16 8 ft from the sidewalk and then down at the next point there where that corner returns. back to the garage.
At that point, we're 14.8 ft. And then over at where the corner of the garage is, we're about 15 and 12 ft. >> Okay. So, the closest point uh would be about 15 ft from the
sidewalk. So someone who's walking south to north along Central Avenue sidewalk would see a 2 and a half story building within 15 ft. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then as they walk further
north on there um I guess they would encounter a man covered into the wall twoft diameter man cover at some point. Can you uh Bob, can you describe what uh
the manhole cover looks like to >> Yeah, the man. >> So the the manhole cover is flush with the ground and it's it's a green plastic disc that's flush with the ground. >> And then if he continues that walk, he's
going to encounter uh how many air conditioner condensers there? >> Two. >> Two. >> Okay. And they'll be pretty close to the sidewalk as well. So they'll be visible and audible in the sidewalk.
Well, we are proposing some screening plants to be planted around that that's shown on our sheet number sheet number three. >> But have you walked this neighborhood? Have you seen any other instances where
two and a half story building That seems out of character. >> Mr. Chairman, we'll have a planner give testimony on that. >> Again, apologize. >> Okay. Well, planner also be able to address the air conditioning units that
we might hear from. >> Um Bob, is is the proposed air conditioning units residential style air conditioning units? >> Yes, they are. And they require no.
>> Yeah, understood. I'm just trying to understand how the character of the neighborhood might be affected by these three other corner lots that have the same condition. I mean, they told us there was no place they could go last time and they came
back this time. Now they found a spot where there's no Okay. Well, that's understand that is a concern to the board. My concern as a neighbor is, you know, just not having to look at these things. >> Sure. >> Along a very visible portion of the street.
>> Can you describe the screening that is proposed? >> Um, yeah. So, we have proposing five might wind up being six evergreen evergreen shrubs. Something that it's
not going to grow too often at all. max out 5T high or something hedge >> essentially be like it' be like an evergreen >> anyone else in the >> aud Um
I I'm just asking I don't know what is any of the So is the basement like the whole basement that's there now is that being removed the the concrete of the existing basement >> everything that's man-made on that lot is going to be removed subterranean and
above the ground. Does does that ever affect surrounding properties? The digging and the water and does that ever affect the water table or anything on surrounding properties when that happens? And we put in it hasn't been my experience that it
changes the water table or anything like that. >> And is the is the proposed basement larger in area than the existing basement? Um supposing
64 ft long and at the widest point it's 27 ft and It's 2.3 ft off of the property line. Um, under the president proposal, the basement
would be 54 1/2 ft long and about 24 ft wide and would be 5'4 in off your property line. So, but >> and the bottom of it will be um 14 in higher than it is now. >> But but if I'm not getting any water in
my basement right now and I have no sump or anything, I should not have a problem after all this construction. Will I have a problem after all this construction and affect my basement? >> I I would think it wouldn't affect your basement. >> But you're not sure
100%. Well, you can never be sure% I'm just asking because I have no idea, >> but it's not it's been my experience that it would not >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Any other questions from the public of Mr. Cunningham? If not, we'll close.
>> I do have a question. I want to follow up on the manhole question. Is the purpose of that inspection or maintenance? >> Both. Both. Okay. Couldn't get away with something smaller. Um, you you could, but um
it's it's usually that that's usually what we do. I mean, it could be it could be smaller. >> But it's not like a septic tank, right? You don't need total access, right? Are you ever going to pump it out or anything like that? >> No. Well, hopefully you're not pumping it out. No.
>> No. I just want to concern. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I mean on the grading plan um is there any what's the differential between existing and proposed in terms of uh grading up the property?
>> Um there there's not much change at all in in the grading. We're tying into the to the grade that's that's there pretty much there now. So any um like any excess excavation material from from the
drainage or whatever, we're not going to like be losing that on site and raising the grade. That's all going to have to get all the way. >> Okay. So So the the top will reflect basically what's there now. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um
anyone else? Mr. Oh, I have another member. Actually, I closed it already. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. We'll have other um next witness. >> Mr. Chairman, would it be okay that we take a five minute recess?
>> Oh, absolutely. >> Absolutely. And I'll make a motion to take a five minute recess. Do I have a second? >> Favor. My parents where's your parent? Okay. I definitely request because it's a
violation. % requirement to make it up. All right. I don't have Exactly. Pacific. >> All right. I don't know.
>> But it is what it is. Uh-huh. >> It's it's it's uh it's it's business on top. Sure. >> Yeah. >> My daughter My daughter was in here. Yeah,
red light district. I just saw actually 36 hours in >> did I check all these things. I didn't know. Yeah. >> So you are so couple to the right.
>> That's their right. design. Yes. I need to leave. What if I realize only one person. >> Was it I guess we were in And it actually is really like there's
an app get on their phone. They're so I'll get annoyed today. I don't care. Yeah. Nobody knows. No, they said they would. They said, We got her. She's like so
around the house. My day starts at 4:4. >> Actually, this is lunch, too. Even I had to go to soccer practice. >> I was I was hoping three to six years. >> It was a lot of fun.
>> Somebody somebody brought a kid who's three and he is the biggest. He's so cute. just off. >> You got almost the little ones from one side and I got like kindergarteners like you know ready to really start playing. Seriously.
>> It is. It is nuts. I don't basically have to split the team into like three. I've been lucky to have an engineer. I spent all weekend like how do I micromanage practice? Like I have a spreadsheet with all the kids names. So all of a sudden I have like a list
where they show up. Free kids contact football. It's hilarious. Yeah, but he doesn't have to drop his application. >> So, we should address that >> and then go back to this one. >> Sure.
>> Outdoor uh I just heard about that. Which like 3,000 people opened it up. >> Where? >> I think it's by the fairgrounds. >> Yeah, it's what the fairgrounds is. >> My mother used to work at camp for like
10 years. Who's that? >> I just wanted to do a little >> Can I just do a roll call real quick? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bagley >> here. >> Chair Coan >> here. >> Councilman Park
>> here. >> Miss Mahoney >> here. >> Mr. Mayor >> here. >> Councilman Nikki >> here. >> Uh Mr. Wishb >> here. >> Mr. Warnett >> here. >> Mr. Frederick >> here. >> Mr. West >> here. >> Thank you. Uh, now that we're back in, I just want to uh make the public aware
that our second application, LUV25-09 use both variances for David Christensen, block 28, block 34, 324, McCabe will not be heard tonight. >> Yes. >> And uh if anyone's here in in that application's uh
view, then they would uh there will be a renotic if you're within 200 ft. be noticed and they'll they'll be uh coming back on another date. So, that will not be heard tonight. >> So, Mr. Chair, if I might just make a bit of a record, please. >> The applicant, David Christensen, is here. Can you please come up, sir?
>> Sure. >> The applicant has indicated that he has uh the presenter is going to be the architect. >> Okay. >> The architect has a family emergency. That's why he's not here and he's not coming here. Uh Mr. Christensen, I
explained to him and I I would just like to make a brief record that the applicant's notice is deficient and that is why we are taking this matter off the agenda because technically we do not and
technically and legally we do not have jurisdiction if the notice is defective. The notice in this case should um include the reference to two separate Dvariances. A D1 variance because there
are two structures on one lot which is a use variance and then a D6 variance which is a height variance which I believe is for the home. That's a D6 variance. So the D6 variance was not
referenced and the D1 variance, it wasn't referenced by the right number or anything, but he also didn't reference that the variances because there are two structures on one property. That's the layman's term of what what the D1 is in
this case. He only said we need a D1 use variance, that kind of thing, because there's a pre-existing non-conforming use or structure. And what it is is two uses two structures on the property that are not performing. In addition, there
was a discrepancy in the affidavit uh just not actually explaining how the um notices were done which they were done by certified mail and I knew that we have certified mail slips but Mr. Christian's a uh Christensen's affidavit
which was provided not with counsel and the notice he doesn't have counsel he's relying upon his uh architect uh the not the affidavit failed to state the manner in which the notice was given. So, I
thought at first he went around to all his neighbors and handed out the 200 to the 200 foot list, which is perfectly acceptable, but he just didn't tell us how he did it. He did, however, send the certified mail slips, which I didn't have. So, Mr. Christensen, with all that
being said, we have to cancel tonight. Not because your architect isn't here, though. A courtesy call would have been appreciated at some point. Maybe he didn't know until last minute, >> right? But uh I did explain to you that
two use variances are unusual. It's it's uh the heaviest type of variance that you need relief for. Uh and it's nice to have an architect that knows what he's doing and all that, but he's no um he's
not a replacement for having a planner and he's not a replacement for having a lawyer. Especially when you come to the legal part of how do you do a notice right? So this notice was it's deficient in other ways. I don't need to go into it because the most important thing is
he didn't describe the use balances appropriately. So that being said you will have to work out with Miss um Christy Dickard our board secretary uh when you can come back and what changes you may need. You know, we're not going
to tell him, your architect, how to do a notice. Lawyers generally know how to do a notice. We're not going to tell you you have to have a plan, but generally >> I would say they need a plan. >> Okay. Okay. She's she's our board
planner, Christine Bell. And look, this is a planner from the applicant before you. >> Planners testify about whether or not you should get a news, >> right? or any other variants >> just given the fact that this isn't just a bulk variance. You know, it is a D1
use variance and a D6 use variance. Um there are certain, you know, proofs that you need to put on the record um based on the statutory criteria. Um I would recommend that you hire a professional planner to do that for you. And just in
general, they've issued a report. I assume you've seen it. it was shared to your experts. But there is a lot of relief that you're looking for and I think even seeing the applicant before you who this is their second time coming
uh you can tell you need you need to have a solid presentation. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a record. >> Appreciate your patience for >> No problem. I appreciate yours. >> Thank you.
>> Next, this is Barbara Alen. You swear. >> Oh, I'm sorry. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> What's your full name, please?
>> Her name is Barbara Alen. E H L E N. And for those who would like to learn a pronunciation, my brother has taught me that it's like pouring ale into a cup. credentials. >> So, uh, I'm a licensed professional
planner in the state of New Jersey and an AICP. I've been with Beacon Planning since 2008 and have worked my way up to Princip. I've been accepted as a planner throughout the state of New Jersey, uh, including Red, Middletown, Long Branch. >> You've been here.
>> You've been here. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, Barbara, did you do a study uh for planning purposes of the subject application? >> Uh, yes. Can I just uh jump right into it? >> Great answer.
>> So, we've heard a lot of testimony this evening that it is for uh reconstruction of a single family home. The existing home um pursuant to the local tax records uh let me see dates to about 1954. Uh the lot is
undersized and it is irregular. uh the existing home. The applicants did look to uh construct above an addition uh but unfortunately the foundations are not capable of supporting uh an upper floor addition. So
the applicant did look at bringing in a building that would maintain the existing footprint and just and would be able to go up to the permitted height within the district. but instead because of the foundations they are seeking to reconstruct and that gives them the
opportunity to bring in some more setbacks. Uh there are I understand there are questions regarding the setbacks along central and first um and second I'm sorry second avenue uh with respect to the the setbacks to the eastern and southern property lines.
It's an interesting conversation because we've been talking about how the rear setback should be from the southern property line. So when you're looking at the propert that to the right of the property that that is your rear yard but actually per your definition that's a sideyard
uh because the house is oriented towards Central Avenue and so that that side of the property is actually considered the sideyard and would be permitted a 5ft setback. So if we looked at >> the current I'm sorry the current the
current um side to the south >> the current side to the south. So for your definition, I'm sorry I pulled it up on my phone. >> I I agree with her because the front of the house is on central. >> So So when we were saying they need a 25
foot setback, >> so they would need a 25 foot the So the way the ordinance is written and the way the lot is laid out, um I think this is a unique circumstance because um the
front door is not The front door is on the long side of the lot, not the short side. >> So the technically based on the way the ordinance is written, the front door is on central. So the rear yard is the lot
line behind that. Um the sideyard is the lot line on central. >> So the that is not the variance. The variance would be actually to the 25 ft to the eastern line. Can I use the mic
for it? So this set back of 5T would actually be permitted. It is this set foot set back of 5T. That is actually supposed to be the rear yard which would require 25T setback >> which you can't possibly do. >> Which we can't possibly do. The the
southern lot line is only 38.08 ft long. So requiring um a 25 foot front yard and a 25 foot rear yard uh there would actually be no there'd be negates uh for a single family
>> and I believe with the 15T that apply to second avenue because one >> no that's uh that's based on the >> okay so even with the 25 and 15 foot we would
still be at 35 ft and you would only have a building width of 3 feet permitted within this section of the lot. Um that being said, as it is a corner lot visually, although the ordinance says there's a side and a rear, this
does appear as two side darts. And this house will now be set back 5 ft, which is the expectation of a house of joint as a central house. that house would have expected five feet on either side and we are providing that five feet. So
with respect to light air and open space even if this was a conforming lot if this was another interior lot that neighbor would only expect 5 ft. So with respect to light air and open space we do respect what's anticipated.
Um, and it is a function of the fact that this lot is irregular and it is undersized. So, we we're providing setbacks that are visually anticipated. >> I have one question. Did you since um you're saying the lot is undersized, did
you uh issue by sell letters to the neighbors? Did you see if there was any additional property available? >> So, an undersized lot that is already developed does not need to provide by sell letters. >> Right. that you're starting from scratch
and you can you can certainly provide, you know, a testimony for variances, but the undersized nature of this lot that you're developing from scratch can't be a hardship if you didn't see if there's more land available.
>> I believe actually that the by sell only even if you're rebuilding it only applies if it was vacant land to start with. Those are the what's being referred to as the DMER is the DM meer case and the DM meer case applies to isolated undersized locks um of which
this is not. This is a develop proposing to demolish and reconstruct. But even if we were to um look at this through a down mile lens, um we can see clearly and cleanly that there's no
excess land that exists that would help us bring this lot into that much although it's not required here. This is not an isolated undersized lot. They were meant for lots that a lot
of lots I've heard it uh that lots in Mon County such were sold in newspapers like 25 by >> Berkeley I live in Berkeley Township in Ocean County and that's exactly what they did >> and so what happened was like if there were several lots maybe some would buy three would buy four and then you'd have
a middle lot that was isolated and vacant and so that was a lot of where that came from. Uh so with respect to setbacks um as I noted that's visually what is anticipated. With respect to parking
there is a carport on site. It is 8 ft wide. So even if you could get a car in there you you can't get out of the car. So it's not effectively a parking spot. So the applicant, yes, is technically
providing one parking spot, but it's an improvement over where there is zero parking currently on site. And with respect to the driveway, yes, we do not provide the full width length of a driveway. But again, the rear that part of the property is only 38 ft deep. A
standard parking stall is 18 ft deep and the driveway they typically require 20. So getting you can't get two fully stacked parking stalls on that portion of the lot. So uh the applicant is proposing one full parking within the
garage. And I do know that yes on site the driveway is deficient in depth. However, if we continued on and yes gone over a little bit onto the public property, but outside of the sidewalk, it's about 19 ft. Again, an average park
install is 18 ft. So there is the proposed configuration is an improvement over existing conditions. Um I believe and that leaves us I believe our main question now is about the
setback along Second Avenue and the building coverage. So Second Avenue the applicant is uh stipulating that they would um pull the >> uh Yeah. Um I want to uh represent uh
Mr. Chairman that the applicant is also mod proposing to modify their application at this time to um reduce the the porch along second a by two feet.
So so we are pulling in that porch. What's important is the home itself needs the setback. this the wall itself meets the setback. And so what we're talking about are the front porches which do not present the same visual intrusion
as a as a wall and it's also providing um frankly it's providing outdoor space. Yes, the lot is undersized. So the applicants are looking for places where they can sit out and enjoy. And so it it softens not only the look of the home,
but it also it provides a place for them to sit outside and meet their neighbors. Like the one thing that I wish my home had was front porch so that I could sit out front. And it's one of the things that you have promoted within your ordinances because you allow it to
intrude further into the front yard. Uh because you know if it's open it doesn't count. So these are characteristics that you are looking for in a home with respect to building coverage. Um I I would concur actually with the
architect. The lot is narrow. So we have to make a longer home to actually fit the living space. We are looking for a home that is, yes, will serve this family and how they want to be here for the long term
and how they want this to be their retirement home, but we're also looking forward to the functionality going forward. Um, people work from home. So, yes, that first floor right now is a den. A lot of residents are doing work from home. Ever since co uh they are looking
for those spaces uh that can uh accommodate growing needs or if this family they are having their kids come and their grandkids come but in the future a family might want to be able to have uh a room for them their kids and a
guest room. So it's not necessarily just this applicant in this home style. It's about reinvesting in the community's home housing stock in a manner that makes it attractive not for now but also into the future. Um,
with respect uh to the uh your master plan and ordinances, you are looking to uh reinvest in the character and single family nature. Yes, the homes adjoining this property are singlestory, but that's no guarantee that they're going
to stay single story. There is a transition uh in this neighborhood and within the community to two two and a half story pops. And so isolating this down to a single story um will actually make it the outlier going forward or
penalizing it for the height when homes to either side may be able to meet those uh may be um able to go up to a second story and keep their foundations and so they will be now the ones uh that are
tall and close to the property line. So it is a transition within the community from these one story up to two and a half and it is happening along this neighborhood along this block and within the community as a whole. Uh so this is a reinvestment uh with respect to
municipal uh land use. It does promote a desirable visual environment. It is a reinvestment in the neighborhood in the home itself. The home dates to the 1950s. Uh the the shape of the home now if I can um kind of has a larger sawtooth going
on and what happens is it breaks up the interior living space. So you can have these tiny shifts and everything but suddenly you're going forward you don't have a continuity between within the home itself. Um and it also uh it's a reinvestment in
existing property and it is taking into account these constraints but it's asking that you provide for a home that again is not just for this family but going forward how is the home for used and even with um we're talking about
outdoor space there is limited area on this property so these porches and configuration do allow for the outdoor enjoyment uh of this neighborhood and this area. I also wanted to note that we are bringing down the impervious coverage um
from uh an existing 63.13% down to 54.31% and providing drainage where is not currently provided. Uh we are increasing actually the setback along Second Avenue uh where 15
feet I believe uh is currently provided and we are actually increasing that to 17.8 >> and with the with the extra 10 ft I believe that should be 19.8 So it is an improvement over existing conditions >> and again this is
>> what >> does that change the impervious coverage >> it should uh reduce the building coverage I think Mike said based on his calculations it >> about 1% >> 1.1 >> and it'll increase that uh setback and
again that is the setback to the porches not to the home itself the home itself is compliant So the least visually intrusive uh is what is in the in the setback area. >> So I just want to get this straight on Second Avenue. Now the porch is now
going to be 15.80 instead of 17. >> 19. >> No, it'll be 19.8 instead of Yeah, we're reducing it by two feet. >> We're giving you more set back. >> And so 19.80 when you should supply 21.88. >> Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. But the original the current configuration only has a 15.2 foot. >> So with respect to >> that's on second, right? >> Correct. >> Let me just restate that. The required
with the averaging plan is 28.88 >> 21 >> 21 I wrote 21.88 >> from the building front to >> no from the >> porch to the property line. And now it's
going to be 19.8, >> correct? >> Oh, and what is the building coverage going to be? Did you calculate that? >> I did not >> subtract 1.1%. So it'll be uh 40 >> 40 >> 40.7
>> something very close. >> Uh so with respect to substantial detriment I know with the single family home it's not creating additional noise. It's not creating additional trash. It's not creating additional traffic above what is anticipated within this
district. We're imagining we're imagining we're managing storm water on site and with this with respect to the size of the home. As I said, we meeting the setbacks that are envisioned that those neighbors would anticipate
naturally from a home on this lot. Are there questions that I may answer? And I believe >> um Um, can you uh scroll? >> There's always arguments on whether or not to scroll. Get on the road. So,
here. So, these are the plans that these are the revised plans that we were presented and we're looking at a building envelope which has a 25 foot setback in your line. >> Southern line.
>> No, this one. This this southern line is >> southern line building back. >> Yeah. >> So now you're claiming that that's this is wrong. >> Yeah. So your plan has the 25 ft right
there. >> Your plan has >> Do you know where is the front door on the existing >> central? Yeah. It's central. And as a condition of any approval we might receive, uh we'll agree to um revise the building envelope as shown there uh to
provide the correct building envelope based on the side setback where it should be. So so with that setback from you have a very you know a convincing argument regarding the interpretation of the lot.
But along central, you're still not achieving that setback of of the 15 ft >> because the rear yard would have to be 25. So your front >> No, not not rear, but front. Why not meet the 15 foot along the entire
length? >> So we do step back when we can to improve that. >> There's uh and >> points. It's only points of the building that are that are within it. It's not as though
it's the entire length of the building. So, we stepped back so that we meet it in certain places. It's just at the points. >> So, you're saying >> I think it was about 15 ft in the down front there and that was inside the >> Okay. So, that little piece sticking in
the right the last piece where the garage is, you're saying that that's basically all with the that one corner comes outside. Yeah. So, we meet all along here. It's where the slot line starts to come in that we run into our
our difficulties. >> And even this like over here, this porch building is actually hard to see because it's in the driveway. >> Yeah. And so the shortest is here. So,
so if you project that parallel line, the 15 foot offset and you project it all the way to the right to the south to the corner of the garage, you the garage is outside that set back as well. >> Yes. >> If you had dropped that set based on
your interpretation of our ordinance, >> that corner garage would be outside as well. And we're still having excessive um building operated. So, could we actually shrink that house a little bit to fit your setbacks?
>> So, to meet the 15, you're saying >> Yeah. to meet the setbacks as you had interpreted them with with the maybe exception of a corner here or there, but pull it in so that you fit within the revised setback
envelope. >> You want to say >> I see what you're saying. Uh let me ask um I have to ask the engineer >> because anyway the garage doesn't fit that then you know or more of it's outside and there variance for these
corners >> right I think um just and maybe you can speak to this a little bit more I think you know just overall the board's um feeling is uh you know building coverage
is a ratio, right? So, theoretically, you should be able to comply with that. If your lot is a little bit smaller, maybe the house you put on it is a little bit smaller. So, what why um so in this instance, I I see what you're saying is it's also the fact that it is
a we're narrowing. So, we're trying to match the character of the lot. And by making the house a little bit more narrow, we're going a little bit wider to provide that kind of living space uh that that frankly a more modern home is
providing. >> Um I have a number of questions. M um when you said that originally they looked to add an upper floor to the property, but if they did it on that foundation, that would still require variances.
>> It would. However, I have found uh I mean, some of the history of the the the community, they've looked more favorably upon homes that are just trying to renovate and build up >> uh instead of having to, you know, if a
home is established with that with those foundations in those locations, uh typically there's a little bit more leeway with the board uh discussing that just because of the hardship of moving a foundation. >> And then the neighbors, wouldn't the
neighbors anticipate the 35% coverage if that's what the ordinance says. >> Uh it would depend. A lot of the homes in the area, it is different areas, different um different home types. A lot of the homes are older in the area. Um,
with respect to percentage, I'm not sure how visually obviously it would be just because we are meeting setbacks, those sideyard setbacks that would be anticipated by the neighbors. >> But wouldn't they anticipate you would meet the 35% so that you wouldn't have
the 70 ft of >> Yes. But in this instance, we're actually increasing the amount of um herbous. So in one instance, you are seeing a a larger home, but you're also seeing more
grass area. >> But grass area isn't helping with air and light, does it? In this instance, I am finding that the air and light isn't the same um impact because it's a corner and those two homes on either side would
expect about a 5ft setback. >> But if you use that back line of of 25 ft off the southern line, there'd be much more much less bulk um that the neighbors can expect.
35% is the expectation. you were here at the last meeting and I I said on a vacant lot it's a non-starter. So I'm saying it again right now because there was an expectation that the residents deserve. As I said at the last
meeting, we don't have four area ratio. So the only thing we have to pro to protect the neighbors from bulk is the 35%. Your clients have testified that they're going to wipe the lot out. It's going to be an empty lot.
So everyone should have the reasonable expectation that it would be 35%. >> And widow climate also in the current in it is a higher building coverage uh than what is being proposed. So the current building has a larger
building coverage percentage than what is being proposed this application. >> The current building. >> Yes. >> Oh, absolutely. But the current building is only 16 ft as per the testimony of your architect at the last meeting. So there's a lot a lot different in terms of the air and light.
>> But if you were able to go up on that foundation, you would presumably be given you presumably would retain the existing lot building lot coverage. >> Well, that's an assumption because many times many times the the architects will come in 2 feet with a little short roof
and and the new addition will meet the five. That happens many times in this. So, but we're still talking about the same building coverage on the lot. >> Well, yes, you're right because we don't have floor area ratio >> and so the existing
>> You're absolutely right. But in this instance, we have building coverage >> and in this instance >> and we should meet the building coverage. >> In this instance, we have an existing home that has a larger building coverage and we're actually an improvement over that. >> Okay. And and you said there was an improvement in terms of parking, right?
That was your testimony. Okay. But there were three, it's been testified there's three bedrooms, now there's going to be five. >> So, so now we're improving the parking. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. Because there's currently zero parking on site that meets. >> Okay. So, if it was a three-bedroom
house and you got one, I would agree with you. But as a five bedroomedroom house, having one, I don't agree with you. >> And what I also additionally testified to was the fact that the driveway when we consider before the sidewalk is actually 19 ft. Yes. that intrudes a
little bit onto the municipal, but that is the that is one foot longer than a standard parking space. So, >> I'm not I'm not saying they may have the proper car that could they could use it. I'm not saying that, but you know, a five bedroomedroom house
has a different parking especially. >> So, if we were considering that it would be two parking spaces if we were allowed to look the driveway that way, which would actually meet your ordinance. Yeah. And the other thing is is that is
that if you if you didn't build the garage and you met that 25 foot line, you could park two, possibly three cars, >> but then you'd be triggering variance for driveway with curb cut most likely. >> U and that would be a positive benefit
for parking in that neighborhood. I wouldn't I wouldn't disagree with you, but it it wouldn't shouldn't affect your impervious coverage because you're already under it'll actually improve your coverage if you remove that part of the house which is where the bulk is. Again, I I'm not I'm not really
understanding what you're saying because um I I've heard no I mean the hardship there's no hardship in the 35%. It can be met. It's not a hardship for you to go to 42. There's no benefit to the community for
you to go to 42. The benefit is only to the applicant, not to the neighbors, not to anyone else. >> The benefit is to the reinvestment into the community's housing stock. This house is from 1954. It is not well laid out and is not certain. So, they're seeking to reinvest. When you reinvest
in a home, you're also looking for the future of it. >> And so, is another family going to come in and want three bedrooms uh on this property? No, you're looking to have a home where a family can establish and have two,
three children and a come and someone come visit and that's what the layout is. >> But but I I I I see where you know the unusual shape and I've said already tonight you're entitled to some relief. Okay. But reinvestment doesn't qualify
you for relief. So it's reinvestment that's looking towards the future of this house of this this house on this lot going forward. So, is someone in the future going to come or is this house going to be less
desirable because it can't accommodate what is sought in the market? >> But that's benefiting the applicant, >> right? >> And we can't the board can't use economics as >> I don't disagree. What I am saying is that you are seeking to reinvest in your housing stock and part of that is making
sure that it meets the needs of residents and future residents and so the house being proposed is in that configuration. >> But is a modern house now five bedrooms, five bath, is that the cons is that what is considered a modern home? I I I I
mean I think that's one of the points you're making that a modern home is has to have, you know, five bedrooms, five baths and and therefore you're going over your building coverage in order to accomplish that on this lot. >> What I am also saying is that the first it's four bedrooms. The first one, yes,
can be converted to a bedroom, but it's meant as more of a den or office, which is a current need uh that is sought. >> There's also a lounge on the on the second floor. Correct. >> There is. Could a conforming home be built on this lot or in terms of
building coverage that would reinvest in the community and meet the you know the modern needs. >> Well, I'm not sure if um if our architect testified about this or not. Um but I know that we talked about it
and we could probably provide some supplemental architectural testimony about that. Um but it was it was determined that um meeting the 35% meant losing a vital facility that
serves the house either. Even losing the entire porch on second half doesn't get us there. Losing the garage by itself doesn't get us there. Um it gets us a little closer, but it doesn't get us there. And in the process of losing the
garage, you also lose two bedrooms. So, you know, it's just not a house that would be built to be able to on this lot to be able >> Well, let's bring him up again and have this conversation. >> Sure. >> Because Yeah. >> Yeah. I've I've gotten into the habit of
testifying as an architect. >> I don't mean to. >> I have a question for the plan. Before we switch chair, according to your testimony, any corner lot should be allowed to have
both interior lines be 25. You're saying this is what the neighbors expect. So you're saying it's okay for the rear yard here to only have a depth of 5t. You're saying it's okay for the side yard here.
So why Does the town have ordinances that say one of those the rear yard has to be 25 ft? Based on what you're saying, every corner lot in town should be allowed to have to be built right up to 5t on the
backyard and the sideyard. And I don't think that's what the ordinances are there to say. >> In this instance, the the front yard is actually along Central Avenue. And so the rear yard is the eastern property line. So if you were to abide by it, you
would only have a three foot wide building. >> No, I I get that. But but what you're saying is any house is on a corner lot should have that >> it might be that the house is oriented the other way and then it could then it would have to provide that 25 foot
because it would be >> but even if this if you consider this house oriented the other way then they need the 25 ft on this side. So yeah, by our ordinances, one of those and it's defined as a rear yard needs to be 25 ft >> and it would be the eastern but that
presents a hardship. >> Yeah. Not not every corner lot is undersized. >> But who chooses the orientation? >> Your ordinance. >> The ordinance chooses the orientation. >> Yes. The ordinance chooses which is the front yard facing the front door. And so yes, the front door is along. Could the
architect have put the front door facing the other street? >> But the existing home is oriented the same way. The front door is along, >> but the orientation can't change. >> Well, but you have to do certain legalities to change that.
>> You know, the US post office, the fire service, the the building department. Are all our other side streets along uh Evergreen or along uh the other road at the front?
>> I mean, it's it's not simple to just say change the front door, >> but the engineer previously testified that the the side setback was different than what you tested. >> Yes. And we had double checked the definitions before I came up to verify.
>> Okay. So his testimony is not required >> uh with respect to the setbacks, the storm war and everything that's proposed. Yes. But not with regard to the standard that applies to it. >> And I I believe they were operating under the assumption that you know based on what they received from the zoning
officer. But our planner looked at it agrees with the board planner that this is correct. Was there a question for me before the architect? >> Well, any any other questions of Mrs.
Alen before I open up to the public and then we'll bring out the um any questions uh from the public of Men A. So, I'm just um you know, this is this is the Google Earth viewing or whatever
it is, but like there's a car in the driveway. It fits. There's room behind it. So, so the current I don't believe the current driveway is conforming either. So, that's an existing condition that's proposed to remain. >> But didn't did you testify that a car
doesn't fit in the driveway now? >> That it's it's not compliant. So, technically there are zero parking spaces. >> So, even though a car fits in the driveway, it's not considered a parking spot. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, um >> it has to have a certain width and length.
>> Okay. Even though Okay. Thank you. Um so, as far as um you know, sideyard. So, so you're you're saying that are you saying that the the where all those pavers are
along the back side that that's you're saying that That's the rear yard, but only for this property or is it that way for home? >> It depends on which way the home's oriented for the front doors. >> So, it doesn't even matter that there is
already a door to go into the house on the on the second side. There is a sliding door to go in. So, there is an entrance there too, right? That doesn't matter. This would be the main entrance is the longest. >> But is that and is does it say that in
an ordinance that >> Yes. >> So that part of the back that's the rear yard. So that should be 25 ft away from my property. >> Correct. But in this instance, the property is so narrow that abiding by
that would actually uh severely limit the what we call the buildable envelope or where a house could be built respecting all setbacks. >> So was this all was this all in the architectural plans and everything that we received?
because I I was I was always under the impression that the graveyard on this was there. I' I've been there since 2003. This is my retirement home. So, this this building along my property
line will affect my retirement. I don't I don't have I'm retired. I don't have plans to make my house 4,000 square feet. So, So you're you're saying that that's not
going to affect my retirement home that building. >> What I'm saying is that the 5 foot setback that's proposed here if this were considered a sideyard would meet what your what the expectation would be for >> would be 5T. So for example, the
property on the other side of your property could build 5. >> But it's already I don't know if you're familiar with the neighborhood, but that's I understand. I'm just saying the expectation within the ordinance is that
you would be divided by >> No, you just said the expectation would be >> No, >> no. What I'm saying is that visually it looks like a if she were if this were both interior lots, her expectation would be violated,
>> right? >> Um are you aware of the development where the church was turn torn down on the rain avenue when lots were made? Um >> no. because that corner that corner property
was used was not used with this that fact that she's talking about the corner of the lot there was um developed with the 25. So this is a you know this the first time I'm hearing of this. Um, so you're saying that affect the
quality and the value of my home because you're saying that so because because if so if there's a large house next to my house, it's not going to devalue my house because I'm losing privacy and light and
air. So, in this instance, um, concerns regarding economics and not >> You brought that up. You're the one who brought that up. >> I said it was a reinvestment for future. I didn't say it was a a home. >> So, is this reinvestment affecting my
investment? So, that is outside the scope of this. >> But you, but you're the one who brought it up. >> No, it's questions only. >> Okay. Well, that's what I said. Is this is this was a question. >> Mr. Chair, the question has been asked
and she answered. >> I I have a few more questions. Now, the the architect testified that there three issues. >> The undersized lot, >> the irregular lot, >> and the corner lot,
>> okay, so when it goes to the undersized lot, it's undersized by 294 that is6%. >> You really relying on that to beized. >> It has to be taken in context with the fact that it's also a corner lot and
it's irregular. >> So, it's not just that it's undersized. Now, we're undersized. We're we're narrowing narrow down um and we have a corner. So, now we're
expecting multiple frontages. So, it's not just one of these factors that we're looking at. It's all three of them and how they've combined into impacting this lot. >> But you work in many towns. Um, we are very liberal in terms of relief on
corner lots with the 15 foot setback and then the average >> I there are more strict towns and there are more liberal towns on how they treat corner lots.
>> Okay. But you are getting relief from the 25 on the second frontage. Correct. >> 25 from this uh meaning from the second avenue. >> No, from central you're getting relief already. It's 15 instead of 25. So we
acknowledge in the ordinance that there is relief built in >> and and that does not anticipate a lot that narrows down to 38 ft. >> But it's it's not 38 ft for the whole run. And not only that, but if you if you match that rear set back of 25 ft,
the impact is not as great at all. You you you've you've created your own hardship here on the angle by not matching the rear setback on the south side of the property. And that's a choice that your your client and your designer made.
>> And again, it speaks to the character of the home and reinvesting. >> So yes, there is a balance. I think to add to the chair's point, you spoke about how if this was an interior lot, the neighbors would anticipate a 5-ft
setback on either side. But if this was an interior lot, do you agree the neighbors would not anticipate a house that goes to five feet from the rear property line? They would anticipate some type of backyard
behi beyond that five foot rear yard rear sideyard setback and and corner lots are unique in that fact that they they appear to be side yards from the adjoining roadway. >> There's not a visual distinction uh where someone like has flipped a house
in a in a front yards and a rear yard, you know, and so in this instance the five feet is consistent. So, >> but I don't think that answered my question. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> So, you your testimony was that if this was an interior lot, the neighbors on
either side would anticipate a 5-ft setback. And I I agree that's the sideyard setback. But if this was an interior lot, would the neighbors anticipate a house that goes all the way to 5t from the rear property?
I think it I think it is unique in the fact that it is a performing lot. So even if um for example, even if we were to remove the garage, we would still extend into the past the joining property
owner's home because it is a corner lot and the house is oriented the other way. When the when when this was designed and revised, was it done with the frame of mind that
there was a 25 ft setback on the southern side and a 5-ft setback? It was done so that we could increase uh those side and rear to that 5- foot and also to permit uh for example the
neighbor to the south had to asked that that area be open so that she could better access her rear yard. >> That's is that really a concern? >> It was brought up by the neighbor and so >> meaning to that they needed to go onto the applicant's property in order to
>> Yes. >> Right. I looked at redesigning this property based on this interpretation as you presented here on setbacks and that you couldn't accomplish to the eastern line a 25t backyard. Why only a 5ft setback?
Why not a 10? Why couldn't we configure a home inside there and not ask for 20 ft if we leave on variance on rear setback? Why not 15t only? Why not why why five feet? and and to have you actually explored because you said you
just determined this interpretation at the break. So perhaps there's another configuration that could accommodate a a bigger setback than 5T from that eastern property line >> because then you're you're running into the front property front setback.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. The eastern side which is the 5 foot where those pavers are. >> Yes. >> Why have this house being 25 ft wide? make it 20 ft wide and and and give us 10 make a 10 foot setback. You required a 25 foot setback. You said you couldn't do that because you'd only
have a three-foot piece of of house, a very small piece of house, but why why do you go to a 25 foot width house? Why not a 20 foot width house? >> We could uh recall our architect and he can go through that. We did we did
consider all these things um and be happy to recall our architect to answer these questions. >> Okay. Because he designed this based on a 5ft setback, not on a on a you know on this reinterpretation. >> It's it's it was designed with the idea
in mind to maximize the setbacks that can possibly be maximized while still providing a house that that can be built. And um again, I'd be happy to bring him up to add a lot of context to that. >> Um Miss Hen, are you aware that our
ordinance allows houses to be 2 and 12 stories, 35% lock coverage on 40 by 100 lots? Are you aware of that? >> How much? >> 40 by 100 lot. >> 35% lock coverage 2 and a half stories
high. >> Okay. >> People are building them. It's it's an undersized lot. It's less than 5,000. But our ordinance allows you to go two and a half stories, 35% coverage, 60%. And people are building those modern
houses on houses, lots that are undersized by a,000 square feet. So I don't understand where the hardship is. And this lot is 294 square ft small. There's lots that are,000 square feet small. People seem to do it. People seem
to be happy to invest. So I don't know are they wrong or are we wrong >> or are you wrong? I mean what is it? >> I think it is uh every application stands by itself and yes this is an older property. There are considerations
uh with respect to having to take down the home and and to reinvest >> and but but your client has every right to renovate the property that's there. Correct. And unfortunately the the foundations that are there are not sufficient or are not in good enough
shape to accommodate that. >> Anyone else have any questions? >> Mr. Chair, you didn't continue the public. >> Oh, anyone else from the public? Otherwise, I'll close the public portion for Miss Alen's questions and
>> Oh, wait. So, you have to come So like this this was in all the plans. So So are you saying that this is wrong where it says minimum rear yard setback 25 ft required? So this is wrong.
>> No, it's 25 ft required. It's just a different property line. >> I don't understand. So in that review letter, this property line >> No, we don't. It doesn't say what property line. >> Yeah. So it just it just says that the rear
yard setbacks 25 ft and you're providing >> and you have the same setbacks for both setbacks for both sides. >> So minimum reard minimum size setback. No, what's really thrown us off is the
fact that the building envelope building envelope >> setback envelope is drawn incorrectly on these plans and the revised plans. >> This has two fronts and this has four, >> right? Because if you were
>> two fronts and the sides, >> right? If you were to if you if we were to draw what it really looks like, it would be this little skinny thing. That's right. >> And it would require in my opinion some
relief. I don't know whether or not it's 20 ft. >> My question was about this because this is showing four yards. >> Well, that's that's correct. >> So, this is correct. >> That's correct. >> And for the record, she's referring to the chart that's contained in our board
engineer planner report. Thank you. >> Okay, I'll recall. >> Cory, you're sworn in. You mean um you heard that Koquy? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Um do you have any feedback on some of the questions that were asked specifically? Why we provide, you know, 10 or five uh more feet of setback um along that
Second Avenue property line. >> And also, why can't you meet the 35% building coverage? >> What what does that do to the design if we try to do that? So, um, to be clear,
you can build a two-bedroom Cape on it. It'll meet all the requirements here. Um, so there's Willer's Way. We can build any house requirements. What we're looking to do is build um a house that meets um
the applicant's goals. This is an investment for their house and for their future. So, what we were looking to do was to improve the conditions. um and treat the law on its own merit and try to present the project to the
town that would be suitable house for both the client and the town's own. We approached a project with this is the best we can do on this lot that meets all the requirements and we'd like to get your opinion on it. Um the way this
hearing is is going and I mean different towns experience different is it's more about how can we shoehorn the requirements of the township onto this lot and I don't think that's going to be a suitable direction for the county and
it's not just one it's all three put together it's the fact that it's a corner lot that it is undersized and irregular so if I were if this same building were to go on an interior lot,
um, its footprint could actually work. So, if I took an interior lot that's 5,000 foot, 55,000, you gave the 5ft set back, 25 foot set back, 25 foot rear set back, it would be a 2,000 footprint of the home. The
footprint of this home, Bob, just gave me 1661. So it's smaller than home that would be on an interior. Um so it's it's a challenge because it it has to saw to back because it has to step back because it has to be narrower. It's getting
longer. An interior lot would have a 40 foot wide house. This is 25 foot wide house. So it's it's kind of hard to target one of these conditions and why can't you meet them? It's the it's the it's the lot. >> It is what it is. It's an existing lot
and it has its own challenges. There are a thousand different house designs that will you can build on this property that will meet all these requirements. >> Perfect. So, so this lot is not zoned into economic and utility. This is just a choice of your client.
>> Yes. >> So, so there's no so economically a a house can be built. >> Absolutely. >> Great. Cory, how many bedrooms could there be sufficient parking uh on a house that did you look at that
and do you know for sure? We evaluated bringing that garage in and the trade-off would be we would lose two bedrooms um and we would still not get the building coverage that all the way.
>> Isn't that one bedroom completely above the garage? Yes, if you can pull up >> uh the mass is in front of you. So just go back. >> Yeah. And then scroll up.
>> Today's agenda. >> Agenda. Today's agenda. >> Scroll down to your resubmission. Yeah. Go back. Sorry. The revised submission documents. >> So, I wish I had my software. I can sketch it out. But essentially, we
talked about putting this garage and this stair all the way over. We bought this stair and this garage all the way over. It could be similar to this, right? We lose the bathroom, the den. We still have entry. Um, so we lost a bedroom on the first floor
and then up above if we took all this, moved it all over, uh, we would essentially keep this bedroom. But in terms of having an on suite with its own bathroom, we would then have to take over this bedroom to be the onuite
closet. And the way we would recapture that is to make the third floor. The third floor is entitled to be two bedrooms at that entitled two bedrooms. You do have that lounge on the second
floor. Understood. I'm not arguing that there aren't designs that work on this property. That's less of a development than we're proposing. But what we're proposing is a development that we thought
is in conformity with what we see in the town going around town, what we see on other postal towns and what we see as the kings being something they want investing in retirement. So yes, there's no argument I can make
that we can't shrink this house down. We can but the question at hand is is that really an investment my client >> and that's a choice for your client. Um but I I do want to say that this board
over the last two years is seeing fewer and fewer applications because people are building conformity and if they do come in they need one or two design variances which this board grants but
you know we're not seeing 11 variances, nine variants, eight variants and we have we have a very open schedule because people are build for it's easy for everyone. >> Thank you for acknowledging that you can
build. >> So I'd like to say something if I may. >> Sure. >> Um >> when this project was designed, we were trying to present something that be a better zoning alternative than what is there. Um to that end, we eliminated a
minimum front yard setback that exists. We improved a porch setback on Second Avenue that exists. We eliminated a sideyard setback that exists. We improved a rear yard setback that exists. We improved maximum building
coverage. Um we provided a drainage system. We enhanced the parking on the site. Um all this with a difficult lot and um tried to provide the town with a a beautiful new house um on a lot that
was very challenging, but one that would be a better zoning alternative than what already exists. But that said, having listened um and and heard the board um at this time, my clients are um respectfully withdrawing the
application. Um, did you want to read the letter? >> I'd like to I'd like to turn that over to Mr. Wiki who's working on the knob and and that's the reasoning for this letter
here. So, Okay. So, um is um undertaking a project. Um two and a half years ago, we received a grant three years ago received a grant from the DCA, a federal grant that um
basically um awarded us $4.2 million to extend our prominade from Third Avenue to Second Avenue. Um 3 years ago it took a we did not get a resolution to advance this project in
design until uh last year which we then uh pushed engineer to uh advance as quickly as possible the planning for the prominad center. It came to light that based on the um our beach management plan that we have
restrictions when we could actually construct the prominade on the beach because of bird nesting and because of capital. So we had to go through a capital permit and that um they have restrictions when you can build on the beach. We just experienced the alfall
project that we did um down there at Evergreen um by Bradley Boulevard between us and uh Silen Lake and uh we had basically two and a half months of delays through the winter that we could not build and again we had to meet those restrictions and now we had to stop
construction can't restore the dreams because of the summer restriction. This prominade grant for $4.2 $2 million. The federal government basically is saying the cut off expenditure of that money is
December 31st of this year. Spend it or lose it. And so we are asking the uh DP to wave any restrictions so that we can advance the construction once we receive our capital permit. And this comment
letter is basically going to NJP with a cappa permit requesting um and urging that we get some leniency of summer months to be able to construct this project and be able to complete it within the time frame of this grant
which would be December 31st. So um we've asked um the environmental commission has submitted a letter in support. Um I reached out to the chair and to Christie and asked them if they could draft this uh letter of support as well. Um the project of the prominent
extension. People look at that and say, "Oh, it's just it's a boardwalk enhancement, right? It's it's an extension of a walking path." Yes, this is true. But more importantly, this is a resiliency project of flooding and flood protection for the town. And the most
lowest um elevation of this town happens from Third Avenue. um down to Bradley Bradley Boulevard to the border of Avon. That is the most vulnerable area of flooding um from the ocean because of the lowest elevation at this time. And so this money that we got from federal
government is critical to improve resiliency. You hear about real and and flood impacts of the calf. This project is the first step of helping to build additional resiliency. And so we had asked um support from this board to um
urge the um uh the DCA and DEP um to allow us in that permit uh to um basically give us a relief from the moratorum of um construction uh within the months between March 15th which was
already passed and December 1st. Um if we met the moratorum we would not be able to build this project and we will lose that $4.2 million. So, that's the bottom line. And unfortunately, and I'll say it this um that this I don't believe
that the previous administration when they got this grant understood the ramifications of the timing and the critical nature of the timing of this because otherwise we would have been under construction a year and a half ago.
>> How long do you think it'll take to do the >> It's a solid six months construction. And you have to have it done by that date. >> We have to have it done in spread. So we're looking at ways of um trying to accelerate construction. Um it's again one avenue. It's not all the way to evergreen. This is the first piece. So
we think that we could get some acceleration on it and probably get it done in you know four four and a half months having materials delivered um and do it. We also have worked up, you know, we're working up a pretty complex um pedestrian access plan, beach access plan, putting in temporary ramping at
Second and Third Avenues to allow access to the beach at those entrances, even though that and maintain the bathroom open at Third Avenue. And while we we secured the construction zone, parking between second and third along the beachfront there on the eastern side, we
would probably um have restrict or actually eliminate parking there and allow the pedestrian traffic to circulate onto the street as a temporary um uh walkway because there is no boardwalk there, but they use the sidewalk and that area will be protected for the construction zone. So um that's
all getting worked out in the details of the of the design. So, it's a pretty critical project for this town and it's um um you know, it's it's unfortunate that we are not already under construction or should have been under construction this past winter for this
project to have done it right. And um and then we would have been delayed and we would have been stuck with the same situation of trying to get this thing done before December 31st. We just have to have more to do right now and we got to get D to agree to wave restrictions on this moratorum so that we can build.
Any idea how long that will take? How long? >> Um the public comment period is over Saturday. So this letter is going to get in just in time to help. Um the environmental commission sent their letter U last week. >> Paul would negatively affect that
vendor. That's >> um No. Well, they're aware of it. They were informed and they're aware of it. Um the town's um right now they the concession um they're fixing up the the what was the the um second grill um and they're aware of it what's
happening and then we would be able to provide access still to it. That's at the limit of the construction. So the boardwalk or the prominade actually extends up to that. So we probably would allow some access from the south on to
be able to get there. Uh it will potentially impact their business. Uh but um we're looking at ways to try to mitigate that. maybe uh reduce some of their uh their concession fee for this first year, that type of thing. So, we're looking at ways to mitigate that
for that. Keep >> it. It's an ongoing discussion with them. So, they're >> weren't we um weren't we going to use some of the soil from Silven Lake? >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, the the bulkhead project, we just advertised that
yesterday at Silven Lake. That's along Bradley Boulevard where that snow fences up. So, that's getting replaced. uh that advertisement was yesterday. When they excavate out that material to put the wall back six feet to tie into the other
existing wall at Madison, that material will be used as fill at the prominade. In addition, >> that works timing wise and everything. >> Yeah, because we're trying to get to construction now. And so then they would excavate that out. So that's a coordination thing. And um also all the
boulders that are piled just to the south of Evergreen Beach Access that we took out of that old loom that we just replaced. We're using all that rock to armor that seaw wall. And so that all has to get trucked over there as well.
So it is a complex um you know and it's going to be disrupted. People are going to be freaking out literally. Um, and it's going to take a real major communication plant this town to really understand. Um, and so you guys are getting, you know, the uh, uh, you know,
the wiki cliffnotes of this um, with with a request to help support this by letter to the, uh, D for a capital permit. Um, waiting on some restrictions tomorrow. >> I think we're okay. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Forward the letter to the NJ have Who was my second? >> Mr. Council, >> do we need a roll call on this? This isn't a resolution. >> All in favor? I. >> Anyone opposed?
>> Okay. Thank you. >> No, thanks so much. And we'll >> I will get this in the mail tomorrow. Can you just sign for me? >> Sure. >> You guys said that concert venue is 3,000. >> Yeah, it's 331.
>> There's there's a there's a band that I call Lake Street. who's playing there. My daughter was playing around here. She's like where? She lives in that's my right.
>> Yeah, she's in the sheet. Seating is unclear. No, it's like standing.