Everything upstairs. Call the beach July 17th order to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. 48 hour notice is required under the open public meetings act has been met as notice this meeting was emailed on January 31st 2025 and published in the park press the poster and the poster a copy has been placed on the bulletin board in the bureau office and a copy
has been filed with the bur uh chair here Mr. Mr. Mayor here. Mr. Wishbell here. Mr. Hernandez is excused this evening. Mayor Datosi is excused this evening. Miss Mahoney here. Mr. Mayor here. Councilman Wiki here. Miss Harrison
here. Mr. Corp is excused this evening, Mr. War here. Miss Ley here. And Mr. Per here. And also present this evening, Ann Marie Razudo, our board attorney, Gerald Freda, our board engineer, and Christine Bell, our board planner. Um, welcome and thank you for attending
the July 17, 2025 Bradley Beach Language Board meeting. Board will observe a 10m time limit. There there are no new applications or testimony will be started after 10 p.m. without a polling of the full board. If an application is not completed during a meeting, a
continuation date will be announced by the board attorney. We'd like to maintain a civil environment for this public hearing request. No calling out from the audience. Uh, everyone will be given a fair opportunity After the board and its professional staff have completed asking questions of
the witness, the meeting will be open to the public for questions of that witness. This is this there will be a time for questions only and not for comments. If you have a question, please raise your hand. I will acknowledge you and to come up to the podium. Before asking your question, please state your
name and address. Also, spell your last name and direct your question to the witness. 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 the application, I will open the meeting to the public for comments. This will be a time to speak on the application. The same procedure I previously described for questions is followed and all members of the public
who wish to make comment will then be sworn under oath by the board attorney. Please be aware that the applicant and attorney have the right to cross-examine any members of the public who may make comments. Written statements or letters from individuals who are not present petitioners or speaking on anyone's
behalf is not allowable under NJSA4 55D-10D. Written statements from the public not be accepted as they cannot be cross-examined. Public participation in this meeting will assist the board in making their decision. We hope that the public hearing and your attendance will be a
rewarding experience for all and thank you for participating in the process. Yeah. Um well, first we have uh two sets of minutes that I had uh emailed to you. Um the first set I did make a change of request of Mr. Wishbo. Um for the second
application, um I had just listed a few of the changes that were agreed to and conditions. Um it was uh that the owner and neighbor shall apply for a demo permit for the existing garage. Uh prior to the demolition, the applicant shall submit
title reports and date for review. The height var variance was being eliminated. Um there were no bedrooms uh permitted in the basement or attic. Um and the plans were going to be re revised to further limit inferious
coverage and to pick the sump pump and connection to the drainage system which is to be reviewed by the board engineer and uh also additional soil warrants may be necessary prior to construction for review and approve the board engineer. That was the only change that if I might
that was the May 15th matter. That was the May 15th and that was Mr. Wishb's comments on the Dionello resolution. No, what were they? This is for the minutes. We're on the minutes. Yes. And I'm asking you which hearing those were. Yeah. That right. So they were part of
the discussion which was outlined in the paragraphs prior to but that was the second application which was the Dell DL. DLM. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So with that being said, were
there any other changes or that anybody needed made? Any other board members have a any comments or changes to the resolution for the minutes? For the minutes. Um, okay. So, could I have a motion to approve those minutes?
Motion to approve. Second, Mr. Second. Uh, Miss Mahoney. Yes. Mr. Wishbell. Yes. Councilman Noiki. Yes. Mr. Mayor.
Yes. Uh, Missy, yes. Uh, Mr. Bernett. Yes. Mr. Frederick. Yes. And Mr. Mayor. Yes. Thank you. Uh the next was from our um
this is for approval and adoption of the meeting minutes from our special meeting of May 29th. Um that was our um two elements of the master plan that we had reviewed. This is just on the minutes. Miss Mahoney. Yes.
Councilman. Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Mr. Morn, yes. Miss Ley, yes. Mr. Frederick, yes. And Sher, yes. And Mr. Mayor, yes. And there are three resolutions
that were emailed to everyone. Um, the first resolution is resolution number 2025-07. It's approval of preliminary and final major site plan with use in both variances VFR Enterprise LLC block 32.
and 111 and 115 Main Street. This is the car wash if everybody remembers. Yes. Um so I have those members that are eligible to um memorialize listed. So I just need one of those members to make a motion. I'll make a motion we approve resolution
number preliminary and final major with both variances enterprises any use and use. Yes. Have a second. Second.
Miss Mahoney. Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Mr. Warette. Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. No. No. No. Mayor. Oh, he already said yes. He already said yes. Yes.
And And chair. Yes. Yes. Uh the next one is resolution number 2025-08 approval of both varants is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new two-story single family dwelling Michael Lurza and Peter
Duovo block 10 lot 16 that's 1103 and a half beach Avenue. Uh Miss Money. Yeah. Missine, yes. Mr. Wishbell, yes. Mr. Maynard, yes. Councilman Nikki,
yes. Um, Mr. Mornette, yes. And Mr. Mayor, yes. Resolution number 2025-09. Approval of both variances for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new two-story single
family dwelling, Ben and Gana Danelo, lot 14, lots 26 and 27, 106 Park Place Avenue. Mr. Chair, might be heard on this resolution. Sure. So, we received um an email from Mr.
Board member Wishbell that he would like some changes to this resolution along the lines of the things that were added into your uh minutes. Okay. So, I uh did not have time to finalize changes within the resolution,
but if you could just state in general what you think I need. Uh we we can vote on that. We can vote on the written resolution as revised tonight and then I will prepare it and have the chair and the board secretary look at it and they
can sign it from there. Right. So my understanding was that you had three areas of concern and that you wanted more detail in the conditions of resolution. Actually what happened is when I read the minutes I didn't see some things that I thought could use clarifying.
Okay. I never really looked at the resolution that way and when I heard you were looking at it Yeah. I was sort of surprised. So it was if it's covered by the resolution I just know down the road when the building's happening if it's not spelled out clear enough. It's confusion for her.
Yes. And and many of the if if the board members will requ very similar and and the first one went and there were a number of detailed conditions because that was the first one. The second one they pretty much said they
agreed to certain things without that much detail. But I did put in a condition that everything needs to be reviewed by the board engineer and worked with between the applicant and the engineer. And it references the minutes also. So that's enough. I don't even know if you
need to change them. And so I I do not think that I need changes, but I do want to look at it. So I will ask you to vote on it as it is now. And if there is a little bit more that I need to add, authorize the board
attorney to revise if necessary with the approval of the chair. That would be the motion. Approve the resolution as written unless board attorney and board chair agree to certain revisions. Sure. Like I said, someone repeat
anything. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And and and if I may be heard. Yes. And Mr. V is here. Go ahead. Thank you. Obviously, I represented the applicant on that matter. I heard the changes in the minutes. Uh if that's not in the resolution, I think it actually is, but if it's not in the resolution, I
have no objection with those changes in the minutes and the references to to what was there. That was what was agreed to. So, um you know, I and I did review the uh the draft resolution and I had no issues with, right? And he he reviewed all the draft resolutions because he was the council.
So, uh, that sounds like a great, but I do want to respect your initial comments. So, and anyone, of course, if any time you have comments, send them up through Christy and I hopefully I get them. I was just really very cream today
in the office and it was just too busy to get to it and then I had traffic coming here. So, thank you for acknowledging that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. And we do appreciate all the board members eyes on everything. I think that's the process. So, thank you. Did we take a motion yet?
I'll move it with your suggestion with the making changes will be reviewed compared and Yeah. And do I have a second? Second. Miss Mahoney? Yes. Miss Harrison?
Yes. Mr. Yes. Councilman Wiki? Yes. Mr. Warick? Yes. Mr. Frederick? Yes. And Mr. Mayor? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Our first order of business is a um consistency determination. Um we had
ordinance number 2025-20 of the Burough Bradley Beach amending article uh 8 of off streetet parking driveway and loading requirements chapter 40 zoning of the bur's revised general ordinances to allow residential ribbon
driveways. It was introduced at the burough council meeting on July 1st. Um so we just sure Christine provided us a uh a memo from the planning perspective with regard to its consistency and the national plan.
Right. So this ordinance basically just revise the parking and driveway requirements to permit center ribbon access driveways a maximum of 3 ft wide and 50 ft long to a maximum of 150 square ft comprised of irrigated n
natural gas brass only sorry that was the only revision toward the ordinance section and in reviewing it um I found it to be consistent with the burough's master plan in particular the 2018 examination report recommended the burrow regularly review the regulations
within the land development ordinance against its planning goals and objectives clarifying amending and updating when appropriate. It also recommended the burrow review ordinance standards and correct any conflicts and review ordinance definitions. Um, this
ordinance I believe was introduced based on the number of applications this board has seen uh requesting variance relief for urban driveways. So, it's just to clarify what is permitted in terms of that.
Um, yeah, that that's correct. And also, there are a number of houses, some that have been approved by previous boards that do have the ribbon driveways. So it's really not only a master plan consistency but an ordinance consistency for for this board and and our engineers.
Just one comment. Yes sir. Um I think it moderate track with everything here. The only question I have is you can't park a car over the driveway when the irrigation's on.
Sure. They could they could use drip irrigation. It doesn't have necessarily have to be sprinklers. Oh, I understand that. But I mean it is not just a clearcut method. Somebody may not know, realize, they may not turn it on because they don't like it. So just bring that point forward.
Yes. And I mean the key is is for any applicant coming in is the additional cost for the irrigation and setting up and balancing that against saving the 150 maximum square footage in their design plan. Also visually it's I think
it's very attractive when it's maintained properly. Well, I don't disagree with that, but my concern is are they going to use it or are they going to not Yeah, I understand. Yes. Yeah.
Um do I have motion motion the board or any other questions or I just have one? small detail on the ordinance itself section four page um they say the burough clerk is here by direct to
submit a copy within the ordinance to the planning board of the bureau and continues on the planning board we need to change that to so well so um the land use board acting in its capacity as a planning board reviews
but I think when this board was formed they they had to form because technically a combined board is a planning board with zoning board powers. Um but I think in the ordinance when it
was created it said it will be known known as it's a planning board known as the land use board. So that's how we just started being called the land use board. But technically we are our planning. We are okay. Can we send that to the when we return
this to the council? Can we send that with that note? Yes. Um I did do a resolution. Are we talking about my resolution right now? We're just she No, she's talking about the ordinance itself. They're referring to us as a planning board. Oh, okay. Which we we are. Yeah. Which you are. I understand. And
the the statute actually says refer to the planning board. It doesn't say they didn't have joint boards at that time. But I think in our resolution and I drafted a resolution that basically says
does all the wherehouses and then the conclusion is left open for this vote that we're going to have. So so you're going to tell me whether or not you do find consistency. So we don't need to change the ordinance I don't think for
that comment. I'll look at it. Okay. And if you prefer that it be referred to as the land use board because that's how I referred to it in our in my draft resolution. Yeah. I I would prefer that. I I just as a look back we are we are
the land use board. Yeah. I mean even if they list it the way they formed us and listed it as planning board with you know land use board in parentheses or something you know so that they know we were a combined board when this was
adopted or when this was reviewed. All right. So, we'll make it clear in our resolution if it needs to be suggest see the thing is suggesting the change in this ordinance on the second page versus we're only making one sentence in the in the front means that they have to look
at it and make sure that they're that you're correct in making that revision. And the whole other whole other book with section 450 probably doesn't have those changes. I understand,
you know, because unless when we became a joint board, the township attorney at that time was smart smart and and and on top of things and went through the whole ordinance book to change us. There's probably many references to us as
planning board and there's probably references to the former zoning board. So I like to use land use board acting as planning board when we are and when we're doing zoning I like to say land use board acting as a zoning board
especially because that one the councilman and the mayor have to recuse. So everyone knows they shouldn't be voting on that and and they would be, you know, excused from that hearing. And being said on this one, should should Councilman Wiki recuse himself
from voting on this? Um, I don't know if he's required, but there's no harm in having you recused. Well, we voted on that council, right? And you have to approve it on the council. So, I would I would think that you should not vote here for that.
Right. All right. So I'm a little rusty. The last time I did a consistency, he was not a doing easy thing for me to recuse. So So you just list him as excused on on that vote there. All right. So we're straight. Sure.
We're doing a There needs to be a motion as to how we feel about this. Any other questions or comments on this board? Um seeing none, do we have So we just for my record, we're not making that recommendation. We're leaving it status quo just the way they have it written for now. Yeah.
Okay. Yes. So, we're making a motion that we are finding it consistent with Well, I don't know. Someone has to make a motion. So, you know, I'm leaving it up to another board member. If they'd like I'm requesting a motion from the board. If not, I'll be happy to make
a motion to approve the consistency that we agree is consistent. Okay. Second. We second it. Money. Um, so I have Mr. Mayor made the motion. Money second. Uh, Miss Money.
Yes. Miss Sarosine. Yes. Mr. Wishbell. Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Um, Mr. Warnett? Yes. Miss Ley? Yes. Mr. Frederick? Yes. Uh, Mr. Mayor? Yes. And Cher,
yes. Thank you. Very good. All in favor. Uh so we will then move on to uh land use board application 25-4 bulk variances for demolition of an existing two family dwelling and
construction of a new 2 and 1/2 story dwelling uh Anthony Marco 25 116 Good evening Mr. chair. Thank you, sir. Members of the board, Jeffrey Beman of the Deacon Law Firm, Ocean Grove, New
Jersey. I represent Anthony Ranata DeMarco. Um, and they are the applicants this evening. Uh, this evening I will present testimony from Mr. DeMarco. I will present testimony from um Doug Sand who is our engineer. I will present
testimony from Edwardi who is our architect and a final overview planning testimony from Ryan Le. What's the last name please? Brian left L E F. Okay. Thank you. So sir, raise your right hand. You swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. Your full name for the record and your address. I don't live here. So we want the address here. I want the address where you reside. Okay. Anthony Joseph DeMarco,
32 Drive, How New Jersey. Okay. And this is your talk about the property. Thank you, sir. A brief summary. So, um this property uh is 116 Mave Avenue in Bradley Beach, lot
26, lot one. It is in the RB single family zone. Um, it is at the corner of McCabe and Beach Avenue and it presently contains a two-story two-unit residential dwelling, a detached threecar garage, a concrete driveway and
p and patio space and walkways. Um, the applicant is proposing to rem remove a number of varants non-conforming conditions on the property. Uh he's proposing to keep a portion of the existing detached garage but make it smaller uh to make it a little bit more
conforming to uh the ordinance by removing some of the existing uh setback conditions. Albeit uh there will still be setback conditions um based on the existing location of the rock. Uh there are nonconformities that the application
is addressing by either mitigating or eliminating. There's an existing curb cut of 26 ft wide which not conforming and the applicant is proposing to reduce that to 18 ft. It doesn't conform with the ordinance, but but it is certainly better than 26 ft uh while the ordinance
is 12 ft. There is an existing driveway width width as wide as 26.1 ft at the front yard line uh and increases to as much as 29.1 ft within the front yard. And the application is proposing to reduce it to 18 ft at the lot line and
18.7 ft maximum width within the front yard. Again, that uh what permitted is 12T. The existing driveway width is 38.6 ft in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing 19.5 ft. What is allowed is 24
ft. So, he's removing that. What's being proposed is removing that barrier condition. There's a front yard setback to Cave Avenue 12.1 ft existing where the average setback is 17.1 ft. The applicant is proposing to completely
eliminate that variance and have a front yard setback of 17.2 ft. There is a front yard setback at Cade Avenue to the porch. 7.4 ft exists. 8.8 ft is allowed. The applicant the applicant is also
proposing to remove that variance uh with a porch at 9.2 ft. There's a front yard setback to Beach Avenue at 12.4 ft whereas the applicant's proposing 15 ft which conforms to the ordinance. Um and it appears that the average setback at
Beach Avenue is 7.2 ft. Sideyard setback to a principal dwelling is 4 is 5 ft required. The existing is 4.3 ft. with what's proposed. It'll be a 5ft setback and that barrier will be eliminated. Minimum building separation between the
principal structure and the garage 5.7 ft exists. 20.4 ft is proposed if that conforms to your minimum uh separation setback of 20 ft. Again, another variance that is proposed to be removed from existing conditions. And then the
last variance that is proposed to be completely removed is the existing imperous coverage. It is 71.7% uh 60% is permitted and the proposing a conforming 59.94%. There are two variances that are being
proposed with this application and we think the uh alternatives of reducing all of these variances um is a a better zoning alternative but the applicant is asking for a maximum building coverage of 37.9%.
35% is permitted. That represents a uh 2.9% increase from what's permitted or 145 square ft. And we'll provide testimony why we think that variance is justified. I also want to point out that the difference between the existing condition which is non-conforming is 105
ft. Um the actual uh I'll let the testimony provide the reasons for that. And then the last bar we're proposing which new variances. The applicant is proposing a 4ft fence in the front yard
uh which is an open fence whereas the ordinance does allow it only a three-foot fence in in our front yard. So in all the current site has 12 uh nonconformities. What we are proposing is to remove seven of those. We are proposing to keep two.
We are proposing to significantly miticate two conditions and we're proposing two new conditions with this variance. Um, so it's we believe it's a significant difference with what's there. We also again as I indicated it's a two family home. Now they're proposing
a single family home. So with that overview to the board, I'm going to uh ask Mr. DeMarco. So So the board understands everything presented is correct upon our
review. The only difference is we we're looking at four variances. because although they're making the width of the driveway and the width of the curb cut less, it still doesn't meet the ordinance. So, we believe that they should be getting variances for those
two things as well. You're looking at four variant for the fence. I have lots and then I have the two that you just mentioned. Driveway width and driveway curb cut. Yes. Those are the four variances that are being saw here. That's right.
Plus, well, what was the separation? That's not a variance. It's separation. It's not it's an existing number for me that's being removed. Okay. Okay. You talked too fast. Sorry. So, so, so the two the two existing conditions that will remain,
one is the rear yard setback to the to the garage. Um, that's an existing condition. We're not proposing to change the rear yard set back. And there we are reducing the size of the garage. So, we'll reduce some of the sideyard setback uh where the existing footprint
is, but there will still be an existing sideyard setback for what's remaining with the garage. So I think those are the two variances that um Mr. Freda is indicating are those variances are not requested or approvable by the board because they're already existing
conditions. The the other two conditions I would agree with Mr. Freda. We are making changes. We're modifying the driveway. Um and with that modification we're just we're asking for variances albeit very mitigated from what the existing conditions are. We could leave
the driveway the way it is but then you're going to have impervious coverage issues still and then you're going to have um the existing uh conditions. So we were asking to for permission to reconstruct the driveway uh with variances but smaller than what's there
just to keep the record clean. So the 4.1 side is being reduced by the demolition of the portion. Yeah. from just from the definition. Yeah. And then and then basically that that is going to remain at 4.1 and I believe it's still 1.2
in the rear. Um and so we're just going to acknowledge those pre-existing conditions. We're not going to variances for those. No. Okay. Right. Great. Thank you very much. And I'll just note that the the major thing is taking this from a
nonconforming two family to a conforming one family. the lot is conforming as far as the lot size with our zone and now the use will be conforming. So I think that's important to not notice. Well, let me correct let me correct that
because the use is actually permitted in in the RB zone. A two unit two units are but okay I think we would all agree one family residence versus a two unit residential dwelling is a better zone. Okay. in a way that um confirms
your testimony or your presentation about sorry about the driveway because um you would be required to have four parking spaces as a two family. That is correct. Which they're going to have four parking on the site anyway. Yes.
Two in the garage, two in the driveway. Correct. So, and Mr. Marco just if if you can just you know give an overview of how long you've owned the house and um you know how you use the house. Sure.
So my wife Ranatada and I bought the house in January of 2017. Um at that time we brought it we bought it with the intention of you know as a two family using it as strictly an investment property with the benefit of you know around the edges of summer in June and
September getting some time here. um as we that's how we took the first few years during co we spent a little more time here like I think most people did with beach houses and then um over the past few summers we spent more and more and more time here and finally
decided last summer that we would like to make this our permanent primary home. So you know about a year ago we started you know talking to Ed and the others and uh engaging them on what would that look like? What is it going to take to do that? Um because the current house as
it exists today does not work as a two family that doesn't work in the layout for a single family to live there and also since we have a dog the yard not have having a fence in it and with the way it's set up wouldn't really work either. So went through all this engaged
you know uh Ed and Insight and Brian and eventually Jeff to come here today and hopefully uh be allowed to do the things we want to do. And um as far as the u I'm going to review the letter real quick with you as
it pertains to you. So in on page five section six uh Mr. Freda and Miss Bell indicate a number of general comments. Do you have any issues with those general comments? No. Okay. And specifically when it comes to your taxes, are they current?
They all current. Um and you know you're going to have to make a payment August 1st, right? I am current. Okay. Because they have to be current throughout this whole process. That's the answer. Um so, so as the as the owner, you've only here for approximately eight years. Uh what have
you noticed as your concerns that you said, hey, for year round living, this doesn't work. Um the house, like I said, being a two family, we would have to go out upstairs. It, you know, doesn't only work for bedroom space and things like that. It's okay. we can make do during
the summers, but in the winter it's just not functional. Um, the other thing is it's an old house. There's certain things that are continuously issues. We replace all the all the plumbing in the house at some point. Replace a good portion of the wiring as we go. The
wiring is continuing an issue. So, you know, I would not I would want to get all that fixed anyway. So even if we were to try to do a construction in place, it would be as we talked to several builders about it and it was
over 50% of the house would have to be torn down, renovated, gutted and at that point they all advised at that point just tear it down and start brush and you can make a better footprint on property and you can get you know eliminate a lot of the existing non-conformities
compliance with new code and not have all the electrical issues. That would be nice. Um now as as far as the um the layout that's being proposed, you're proposing a fairly large porch, correct? Yes. Why is that? Cuz you know we're you're at the beach.
You want to sit on the porch and enjoy the outside? Okay. Do you have any um ocean views from that porch, will you? Yes. Yeah. Um and then you indicated that you have a dog yard space and things like that and you're asking for a variance for a 4ft fence where the ordinance only allows a 3ft
fence. Could you just elaborate on that? Yeah. So the breed of dog that we have is a jumper. So the concern is with a three-foot fence, she would be able to jump over the fence. She probably wouldn't, but it is a concern. And especially if we were to get another dog, it would be the same breed. And
they are known specifically for spring. And if you can just describe that the fence location really the front yard is beach, correct? Yeah, beach. We're trying to consider the sideyard, not the front yard, but I understand we're on point. So, um, how does how does the proposed elevation at
the house compare to the the elevation where you're proposing the three foot or the 4ft fence? So, the four So, the house sits on a mound and drops down. I think it's about a little over 3 ft is the mound. So, we're proposing the fence to be towards the bottom of that mound. So, if we
weren't higher with it, it would be, you know, more of an obstruction. Um, but where we're proposing it, it would probably not be much at all. The other thing is uh we're not requesting it to be at the edge of the uh property. We're requesting it far back further back from
the uh the site triangle to allow for not obstructioning any beans or any traffic. Um thank you. Any questions? Just one quick one and maybe you want to pass it to your engineer. I don't know. Where do you propose to put gates in
your fence? I assume one would be that by the garage, correct? Do you have any other locations, but one garage, one on the right side of the house, um between that house and
neighboring house, and then two, one would be on the right or the east side of the house, correct? And that's a little So, so the house is is reconstructed into a one family house going forward.
Is that is it now considered one family or like when it's sold or could it be a two family? Zoning will allow as a one family. Construction will allow as a one family. Any future applicant would have to come back to the zoning officer at a minimum
to make an application for change. If it's in the RV, as you stated though, wouldn't it be a use? It is. It's a permitted it would be a permitted change of use as long as it meets all of the other standards of change approval plus your zoning
ordinance at that time. Mr. is for this or maybe an engineer. But I guess you know I think that the idea of what you're doing here is great to you know this new home here home as well for now built. Um but a
couple of my questions are um you know you you're still asking for a building coverage and you're taking you're going to take the roof off the garage you replace the roof. Uh I might have to ask the builder but I'm assume never have to happen. You're taking off the half the walls. roof's going to be replaced.
And so if you're going to do that and you're going to basically rebuild this garage and you have this variance for building lot coverage of a building, you know, I guess if you were to be conforming of the size of that garage, could you actually alleviate the amount
of building coverage by removing the wall in to meet the 5ft offset? I I'm going to let the engineering architect explain that rather than I mean yeah they're the professionals he you know my clients hired them he doesn't always understand the the nuances of the professional testimony so I I'd rather
defer that to them. That'd be great. Thank you. I but we expected that question. I do as a followup though I do have one question for you if I may. Um, can you just explain the existing layout of the
home on the site and the and the odd shapes? Sure. So, if we can go to this to the u the plot plan. The first page has the or the service line. What do you want? Yeah.
Yeah. So, the house has changed hands many many many times over the years and has been added on to at least two if not more than I can tell. So, it's it's an odd shape. It's we've had weeks in the house because of additions where they
didn't quite right. I guess we've had to get repair. Um, so it it yeah, it is a an odd shape and it leaves no chance of creating a real yard space except the little strip on the west side there. So, one of the reasons we want to do this
also like I talked about the yard space is to make it more square so that we can get yard space and get rid of a lot of the concrete that green grass and have a more usable yard and a more functional house too.
So, you have a a more conforming geometry throughout the site. Yes. You have a question, Mr. Marco. I'm going to ask you instead of because the architects always say, "Oh, it was my client's protocol, so I'm just going to ask directly to you." Um, why
is there no bathroom on the half story? Because the half story is not meant to be livable space. It's meant for storage. And you know, hobby maybe like artist free or whatever, but it's not meant to be liveable at all. It's just I have downstairs now. I hate them. I've
almost killed myself a couple times coming up and down with large boxes. I would prefer to have a look upstairs. And the uh do you anticipate finishing the basement in the future? No, not at all. Great. Further questions? Uh I'm going
to turn it over to public. Uh do I have any uh questions only for this applicant from the public? Uh seeing none, I'll close the public portion. Okay. I'm I'm going to bring up Doug Pton.
I believe that Doug may have one additional exhibit, correct? Yes. So, we're going to have to mark that. Doug, if you could just identify the exhibit. Sure. It is a site layout rendering. It's a colorized version of the plot
plan that was submitted to the board. Um, it has a date of 711 2025. That's the revised date, sir. Yes. And that is uh that's a plan that you already submitted.
No. No. This is totally new. Okay. Totally new. Explain what you when you said the plot plan. Yeah. So, uh, We basically take the clock plan, colorize it, and overlay it on an aerial image. The board has not seen this, but it what is represented on
the plan matches what was in the development. Okay. And I have some handouts to pass around as well. And are they colorized, sir? Yes, they are. Okay. So, one of those needs to be marked as an exhibit with our board secretaries. A1. Yes.
We're not going to take the large one. We're going to take one of the smaller ones. Thank you so much. Counting up. Hopefully broad enough. Yeah. Tell the truth so you got it. Yes, I do. Your name and your uh business address, please.
Sure. Doug Wellen. Last name is C L D L L A N. Uh business address is Insight Engineering 1955 Route 34, Sweet 1A. And that's
Thank you. Does anybody can Sure. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I currently work for Insight Engineering as an associate. Uh I've worked there for the last a little over 11 years working on a variety of projects from uh
single family homes all the way up to larger commercial site plans. Um I've appeared before this board before um other boards in the area. We also had the the privilege of serving as the board engineer for the city park.
Perfect. Any licenses are current? Yes, they are. I offer as an expert. I guess he hasn't been accepted as an expert on Thank you. All right. So, can you just um we're going to start on the cave avenue if you could just provide an
overview of your plot plan. Compare existing conditions versus proposed conditions. Sure. So, um, looking at, let me skip ahead a little bit here to, uh, proposed variances and existing nonconformities.
Um, looking at the McCabe Avenue frontage, that's, uh, south um on the the lower end of plan bottom. Um, both the building and the porch front
setbacks are currently non-compliant. um 12.1 ft for the building, 7.4 ft for the porch. Uh and we are proposed to eliminate these non-conformities um as part of the project. Moving over to the Beach Avenue
frontage, which is the western side plan left. Um the building front setback is currently non-compliant at 12.4 ft. Um we are proposing to eliminate that nonconformity as part of this project. Um also on that same frontage are the
maximum curve cut and apron width um which is a variance. It's an approved condition uh required is is 10 ft. Um currently 26.1 ft exists and we are proposing 18 ft. Um maximum driveway
width in a front yard is a variance uh an improved condition. Um 12 ft is required. existing is 29.1 ft at its widest point and we are proposing 18.78
ft. Um both of these variance requests are improved from the existing condition. Ultimately, with a two-car garage on a corner lot, um it's very difficult to make a 10 foot wide driveway or 12 foot wide driveway expand
to a 20 foot wide driveway over such a short distance um given the location of the front yard um because we are a corner lot. Um which complicates turning movements uh in and out of the garage and we would not have been able to park two cars next to each other in the front
of the garage. Um, but I do understand while we have a two parking space requirement and technically that could be met inside the garage, we feel it's much more ideal to be able to provide these parking spaces outside of the garage, not only for visitors to the
property. Um, but also in the event, you know, over time it may be the applicant's intent to park in the garage. But we all know we accumulate things over time and, you know, if that were to be used for storage, um, you know, It provides a great value to have
those parking spaces outside. Um, also the fence which is along the same front beach avenue. Um, maximum height permitted is 3 ft. We are proposing 4 ft. Um, and I just want to bring the
board's attention to it. The unusual topography of the lot. um it's very common in Bradley Beach, but um it was really a driving force behind the request for the variance. Um because the
rear yard area where the patio is um is so much higher than street level um we felt that 3-foot fence um you know would this is not my engineering opinion but a personal opinion would probably look a
little strange, feel a little low. Um so we did go with working in addition to you know obviously providing security and privacy of that rear yard area. Um because of the two front yards you know we don't have a lot of space to work
with in terms of recreation area. Um so providing using some of that sideyard area. um you know as the the client our client um testified through their dog um to be able to provide a little extra space um usable yard space. Um the rear
property line would be next move to where the existing garage is. Um the accessory structure minimum rear yard setback. It's an existing nonconformity. So this is plan north um top top of the
page. The required setback is 5 ft. It currently exists at 4.1. We aren't proposing to change that um particular setback, but we are reducing the overall size of the garage. Um also accessory structure minimum sideyard
setback existing non-conforming at 1.2 ft. This is plan right eastern eastern property line um required is 5 ft existing is 1.2. That technically is not changing. However, as I mentioned, we are reducing the width of the garage.
It's being reduced. Um, so in my opinion, would be would be less impactful. Um, and then along the same lines, that side property line, um, the existing side back to the dwelling was 4.3 ft. We're proposing to eliminate
that non-performing as part of the project. Um, and then moving on to uh, maximum building coverage. This is a proposed variance required is 35%. Currently exists at 35.8%.
We are proposing 37.9%. Uh I know our architect and planner will speak more to it. Um but I just wanted to speak to the overall reduction of the turbine surface on the lot. Um and much improved drainage situation. Um,
as the property exists today, there doesn't appear to be um drainage infrastructure. It's the the coverage is non-performing at 71.7%. Um, with our proposed grading design, not only are we directing surface runoff
to the rightway, uh, protecting neighboring property, but we're also, uh, capturing all of the roof runoff from both the garage and the proposed dwelling and piping that in a roof leader collection system to a nearby inlet. Um, the board engineer had a
recommendation to provide a section of perforated pipe and a stone trench to provide facil some infiltration within the property lines and we would be more than happy to accommodate that. Um overall uh I spoke about the the
non-conforming uh lot coverage already. Um but also as was was mentioned earlier there's 12 existing non-conformities here. Um eight of them are being eliminated. Uh two are being maintained
uh related to the existing garage. um somewhat improved by the reduction of that garage. Um one is improved related to the driveway. Um and one is the new variance related to building coverage and also uh the fence coverage as well.
Um and that pretty much concludes the the direct testimony, but I'm happy to take questions just to you just follow up with a couple questions. Also, I I'm not sure if you testified to it, but the distance between the existing garage and
the um existing dwelling, uh we're mitigating that requirement. Yes, we are. And it is currently 5.7 ft between that existing threecar garage and the existing dwelling and the proposed
condition um 20.4, which complies with your ordinance requirement of 20 ft. And so, to create that 20.4 ft. You're not only reducing the width of the garage, but isn't there also a change
with the rear portion of the house as well? Yes. Yes, there is. Um the existing dwelling uh was you know stuck out further to the north rather than you know and our our proposed dwelling positioned on the lot with the
average setbacks um you know on the front both fronts. We comply with the front set back on beach and the average front set back on McCabe. Um and that one other point I just wanted to make regarding those averages. Uh we did take
the average along Beach Avenue. My understanding of the ordinance, uh please correct me if I'm wrong, but the two the two dwellings to our north um actually have a a setback existing that is less than 10 ft. So uh we were
not able to use those as part of an average. So our we have to comply with 15 foot which we do. Um and that you know further set the house you know towards the east and you know I think that impacts also you know where we were
able to put the fence. Um you know to keep it within the front yard really cuts down on any usable space in the backyard. Um you know given those two front yard setbacks that comply with So with the what's proposed you're creating larger open spaces than what's
existing. That is correct. Yes. Um and are there any issues with uh you know talked about the hard pipe and perforated pipe in the trench. Are there
any other issues that you would have with um Mr. Freedom and Miss's letter regarding the general conditions? Uh no issues. We we're more than happy to comply with the comments and answers. And I just wanted to bring uh to the attention the uh what's being proposed
as far as the perforator pipe and and piping for the roof is you're proposing to um pipe some of that overage into the storm sewer. That is correct. Um in my opinion, I feel given the proximity of that inlet,
uh we felt it best to make that direct connection. Um but obviously we'll comply with your your board of engineers ultimate recommendation. Um but this you know basically eliminates that need any need for overland flow for that roof
runoff where you know uh if that inlet wasn't accessible. Uh you may have to go to a pop-up emitter. Then you're talking about you know overland flow through the gutter line of the street. Um ultimately where people are going to be parking
their car. So, we're eliminating that water um in in a rain event and making a direct connection. But obviously, we'll comply with anything that your board recommends. And in your experience, not only as a
general engineer, but also municipal engineer, um having the combination of the trenches as well as the overflow into the street. So, that's also going to avoid some other issues like winter conditions and things. Correct. Yes. Um it'll eliminate icing
concerns during the winter. Um and then also providing that the perforated pipe in a stone trench will help facilitate um infiltration into the groundwater. Um anything else you want to add? Nope. I think that's it. Thank you.
Yeah. So um again, I think the testimony was pretty much to the ground point. Um and probably 99% of the agree 100% about connecting to the catch basin in the street. However,
catch basin there is only about maybe 18 in deep. Um, we know that there's flooding here during heavy rainstorms in the intersection. I don't think it's good to tie the property system into the bas. I
think it'd be much better to run straight out to a popup emitter at the curve. Um, and what I would ask site to consider putting in, you know, 20, 30, 40t areas of trench so we can get as
much of that particip as possible. And we're happy to do that. Yes. You repeat that. Yeah. So, um, we're going to request that they do that they do not tie into G and that instead they put a pop-up
emitter at the for overflow and that on site they put in per perforated portions of perforated pipe in the stone trench to allow the water to dissipate into the ground. Uh,
there's certain rainfalls that happen around here. we all know about it and there's nothing we can do. The rain's going to come and it's going to go. Um, and probably nine times out of 10 rains that come through, it would work as it's designed. But there's those times when
we just get inundated and if it were to back up, it may even back up into the house. Uh, and that's how bad and how long. So, for those reasons, uh, I'd like to see you guys do that. If I may ask, Mr.
Fa, is there a way to do both a popup meter and tie in? I' I'd rather you just stay up because you know what? If it was a drainage basin like you'd see on Route 33 or highway, they're fine. But these are not big inlets. They're small and they're
not deep. So, you can imagine water coming down the street, it's going to fill that inlet up. And the pipe coming out of it is probably very small as well. So, it's not going to have a chance to keep up with all the water coming through. And we notice a an intersection has problems. Beach Avenue
is your lowest point going north south. Just one quick clarification. The preference would be to have a problem in the grass strip between. Yes. And on the uh beach side and it'll be it'll be hard pipe between
the property line and that popup. Correct. Correct. Correct. Thank you. I brought I I wanted to bring that to your attention. I I wanted to make sure you didn't have an issue. So, board members, this would be assuming approval. This would be a condition of approval and uh it would be
along the lines of description of what they've just said and subject to approval of the board engineer at the time of construction uh construction plans being revised and reviewed and
approved by board. Okay. Jerry, can I ask a question? Just for my own education, just for my own education, we're talking about emitters on both McCabe and Beach. How many would be required? And looking at this piping
system, it would obviously have to be redesigned to feed those popup emitters. No, they only need one. Just one one on each side. So the one that runs in front of the house parallel to the cave, if they just ran that straight out to Beach,
okay, then it could pop up right by the curb, which is right near the inlet, by the way. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. It's upstream from the inlet. Now, there's very little slope on Beach Avenue. So, we got to pick our fights here. Um, but I think it's best that we stay out of
that catch face all together. So you just have one popup emitter total one popup emitter with the perforated pipe. Right. What that also does is it actually keeps water in the pipe and keeps it in trenches so that more of it will seep into the trenches rather than
just curious. You don't think there's any need for a more elaborate underground system? No. Um we basically taking the water off the roofs, right? So, uh, there's going to be range when nothing's going to be big
enough. So, you got to kind of look at the 90% capture and I think that if they can get us, you know, 40 ft of trench on the site install, that's going to go a long way.
Remember, right now we have and we'll also review with you where the best location is. You might decide to make No, but whatever whatever works best as far as anything that does overflow to get to
that inlet will work with the engineer if they're going to um just a couple of little things. um the driveway a section I guess you call it sidewalk that's
behind what you call a concrete and in a driveway that technically is called concrete. So um you can remove that note that says proposed sidewalk and label it as concrete apron.
Okay. because that needs to be built to the same thickness and have weld wire fabric reinforcing it. Unlike the sidewalk and then lastly, the curb is in good enough condition where it's in pretty good shape. Sidewalk, I see the attempts
have been made to try to patch up cracking and and joints. Um, it's a lot of sidewalk, but it really should all be replaced. My plan is Thank you. That's a It's a big ask and I think it
would go a long way to help the neighborhood. That's all I So all new sidewalk on both Beach Avenue frontage and um the cave frontage, right? If if you look at it and you think you can say the handicap ramp on
the corner is probably the best piece of sidewalk you have. What's the newest piece of sidewalk we have? Yeah. So um Mr. Wiki. Yeah. Um back to my original question that I you know to the engineering perhaps um the rationale of of um
maintaining the um setback you know of the existing wall when you're when you're tearing down a big portion of that garage. Um is is there the opportunity to reduce the variance ask for the building coverage by just you
know re you know reducing the the garage you know you know in one direction or the other or or move it back to at least accommodate the setbacks and and you know if you want to maintain the same area garage provide the setbacks from the property
line I'm not sure what's what's adjacent to the garage on on either side is that other other building structures up against that property line as well or I couldn't tell from the area. So, um to our to our north there is a dwelling
that's a 4.1 foot setback and then to our east it looks like lot 21's rear yard. So, there's no adjacent building on lot 21. You're taking off the roof, you're taking off the front, you're going to
replace the garage doors, right? You're going to re facade the whole thing. And what's the rationale of keeping it up against the property line? Um, I'll I'll defer to the architect on in terms of the foundation. I'm sure it has to do
with the foundation's construction um and the lack of practicality and feasibility in terms of of moving it. Um, you know, but maintain maintaining the slack from an engineering standpoint. We can move that wall
instead, you know, achieve a 5 foot, but we also wanted to be able to park two two two cars in there um to provide uh ample parking on on on site because go any less car
you're reducing the garage between the wall to the south. So the portion we're removing is to the south, correct? So the foundation all the way out there. Just a question, you know, is there a way to get achieve that building
coverage? If I can comment, the the the size of the garage that's going to remain is really about small as you can have for a two-car garage. Right. So, if they were to make it any smaller than what they're proposing, then they're looking at like a onecar garage
or one and a half. Yeah. A golf cart car. So, so that's kind of I understand why they picked the picked the size that they did. Having just done this, we reduced our garage size in order to meet the the
zoning requirement of building coverage. So, I mean, you know, it's nice to have two high garage, but you know, how often are you going to park two cars in there and, you know, just just a consideration to try to achieve that coverage?
Well, I our architect would provide some additional testimony as to why the coverages and how the layout of the property as far as those coverages go. Yeah, I I think obviously a professional speak, but if you look at the way the
existing garage is constructed, the doors are in the part of the garage that's remaining and then the part they're removing is just like a addition. Yeah. So, they're keeping the part that
functions as a garage and removing a storage area. It looks like I'm using In my book, if you're removing all the garages, maintain these two walls and replacing everything else, then you eliminate the building coverage at
the expense of parking spot, right? But you're going to provide for Yeah, it's nice to have that, but you're also have a wider driveway, which is reducing parking on the street. That's correct. Well, I disagree with that because the existing driveway is even wider. We're
actually making more openness on the street. Yeah, I think that's what he's saying. Oh, okay. But then you would need another variance because the driveway the driveway width can't see the width of the of the garage, right? So then you'd have to
either have a variance for the driveway being wider there or you'd have to taper to you'd have to reduce it all which would then get it to be conforming. I mean not well then you wouldn't have the parking cost but to get to the building coverage I
don't know if this is accurate so you can check this but it's you have to go down 145 ft grand yeah so I don't know that garage is pretty small to take 141 square ft off it is
going to like completely change basically maybe even less 141 square ft that's a Okay. Um, my other question would be is on the fence, I'm having a hard time telling exactly where is the fence
as you commented about the fence sight triangle. Somebody commented about making sure that we we have good visibility, but it's not clear where exactly. Well, he's showing you that I would just let that sight triangle thing go right out of your head.
It is far enough away in the in the rightway. So, uh, just to start off on a corner, we do show the 25T side triangle. Um, that's right here that I'm pointing at. Um, the fence starts at the top of the
stairs where the covered porch transitions to stairs coming down that leads to that walkway. So, from there, it goes out to Beach Avenue, follows the front property line, makes a turn, follows a driveway where there's a gate
and a small walkway for access to from the driveway connects to that existing garage and then from the other side of the garage continues along this side property line and ties back into the house and that's where the other gate is correct.
Yes. So you're taking a fence across the driveway to the gate across the driveway. Okay. Nothing across the I'm just looking at the plan on my glasses. So you know the fences are hard to see. I will I'm going to just jump in on the No fence truly on the corner on the corner
of beach and ocean correct. Okay. Right. Yeah. This is that tight triangle area. All of this is open space. Y Doug, how far back does does the fence start on beach? If you know
that's 25 ft. We're at least 30. Um, that's a wonky awareness. The whole I mean understanding your fence height to to what is considered front and side and that's that's every municipality in the state, right? Yeah.
We have that everywhere. And not not that it requires a variance on the eastern side. Is that going to be the open fence also along the property line or is that going to be transition to a different type of fence? I believe it's all one. Is this the fence you're proposing
throughout? It is. I apologize for the clunky image, but we Yeah, that is the one that we're proposing, so we wanted to show it. So, it's really not a pick fence, though. Like, that's a pretty intense fence. So, the neighbor next door
though, do they next door to them, do they have a 4 foot on their front yard as well? Lot 21. Yeah. Let me see. The The door is 346 when it comes to a fence. So I'm saying for that next door neighbor, are you putting four feet on there?
So the fence along the east side is not we're allowed to go for we're four we're allowed to go four feet along the side from the front of the house on from the frontage of the cave. We're allowed four feet to the rear of the house. We're allowed six feet to the corner. What I'm saying is ft to the to the
front of the house. That's what I meant. Porch forward. There's no fence. Yeah, there's no the fence stops as Doug just testified. I think you could just point Doug, it stops pretty much straight across from the other side. And there I just confirmed that they they
currently don't have a fence on lot 21. Yeah. No, I I I know the area. So there's no fence going forward from the cave, but that's Yeah, that neighbor so they don't all of a sudden have a 4 foot fence in the front yard. That's why I was asking.
Correct. Correct. Good question. So the fence, what did you say? The fence stops like at the plane of of the uh front house here. No, middle of the house. Okay. Yeah. So So you doing it?
Yeah. Do you want to use the pointer and show? You were doing a good job. You are. I'll let you do your job. So here we go. This is where it ties back into the house. And then this is the other point on Beach Avenue top of
the stairs where goes out to beach follows that property line makes a turn follows the driveway. There's a small pedestrian gate there ties into the garage corner and then off of the
other garage corner and down property line and back to the house. So no fencing. I'll just be saying So just something about the fence. You're saying his house is up in a BM.
So on the on the Beach Avenue side, the land comes down. So how you going to do the transition with the fence? Just curious. It's level all the way across the sidewalk. The back of the sidewalk is getting level. Yeah. Where that transition will take place is along the driveway.
Um which am I seeing topographical lines? Yes. Yes. But I'm saying it's 14 ft 13 ft. Yeah. So it's still a foot transition. The fence goes across a transition of of a
land drop. So the f the fence in the front that short section will be on an angle going down. That's the way they usually do it step. I'm just I'm just curious.
It's only a 4ft fence. So it's kind of hard to step four fence. I understand, but it seems kind of weird to have a fence doing this. It would be like you actually want to come down somewhat in a transitional piece.
Well, you see what I'm saying? It's only It's only like a 10ft section. Actually, it is. It's exactly 10 ft. Yep. Is 8 ft, right? 8 foot sections of fence. It's just a little more than one section of fence. It's going to be a little tricky.
Jerry, the type of fence that can go in the front yard. What What's the description in the ordinance for that? What they're what they're proposing? Yeah, it's an open fence bottle. Only issue is instead of it being 3 ft high.
What kind of dog? What kind of dog is a jumping dog? A weed terrier. I mean, refer to as a jumping So, so if if I could to the point that the council was making, would would you
would the applicant consider breaking that 10ft section up into two sections, 5 foot and five, and kind you see where I'm coming at? Stagger so that the that the rail is level as can be. Okay. Right. Yep.
I think that's where you're going. Exactly. Because you can't put a fence on it. You see him over silly just you're you're talking about with the parallel. Yeah. Just that stair to the beach. There's a transition of topography.
So you got to deal with that. I'm just curious how you do that. That makes sense. There's something I was referring to the professionals on that. I'm defense guy. Well, there you go. You know, I've installed some very small sections of pens in my own house, but I would say
that that's you can because it is vinyl, you could probably work with it and cut it section and yeah, try to make up that difference so you don't have the slope. Maybe it's maybe it's a little less of a slope or a little less of a slope. So aesthetically, so it looks agree.
I'm not um suggesting the fence should go high, but I thought in order to contain a dog, six feet is usually recommended. It's not that big. Okay. But you don't you don't think that the three people You don't think that the three people do?
I have concerns that three three feet. Yeah. Sorry. I don't know. I'm very short. So 3 feet for me. Can't jump that. That'll that'll stop me. I know that some rescues, for instance, like if they're, you know, if you're trying to
adopt a dog that they're requiring a fencing yard, they don't allow fences less than 4T. Yeah. I was familiar with nothing less than six and four is also the pool code department, right? It's about the pool code fence compliance is
it is. Yeah. Okay. Is that something that we should be looking at overall is does it make sense having fence? I Every person comes in here who wants some change to go for the fence is going to I have a jumping dog. I mean that becomes an issue, right? I
mean let us go because we have a jumping dog but all dogs jump. And so you know now we're we're challenging why do we have a three-foot ordinance for a fence? So the three foot fence ordinance is in the front yard. Um, and this is a
particular instance because it's a corner lot. So, there has there's two front yards. Typically, you know, if someone was just in the middle of a block um and they were fencing in their yard for their dog, you would assume it's usually their rear yard. Um,
they could close that off, right? And they could close that off. And they're allowed to have a higher fence in the rear yard. It's just in the front yard that it can only be three feet high and uh because this is a corner lot, they have those two front
yards. So, it kind of creates that issue for them. And we allowed 4 foot fences elsewhere with variances along corner lots. We have we have it's all sight per site, but yes, we have that's a good point.
Well, this particularly too I think because of the elevation change, right? So, you have foot fence at two not quite two feet but way lower than where the house sits. So that it creates an even stranger right situation optics wise
running start the dog is that is the concern will an invisible fence solve the problem no they don't invisible fences don't work with them they run right through them and yell and keep running
I believe the ordinance was written for the visual aesthetic of a three foot fence. It gives people the option. I think four is if everyone comes in with a dog and says fence. Quite frankly, I prefer no fences in the
front yard, but you know, we're obligated to follow I really don't find so far more I did have a question about the the parking since we're making the curb cut smaller.
Have you done any calculations to see if that creates additional parking on each avenue for us? So, we do provide a dimension from we've approximated the yellow painted curve that is just north of the inlet that we
were talking about earlier. Mhm. And we have almost 71 ft to the extent of the apron player. Um we don't technically add another space, but I would say that we provide more room for
I believe three vehicles can park there. Okay. Um assuming approximate, this is being conservative, but 23 ft for a parallel stall. Um, and we do provide some additional room for those three vehicles. We're not adding it really. We're just
creating flexibility for an F150 as opposed to Correct. Yeah. It won't be as tight. Mhm. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Uh, any other board members have any questions before I open up the public? I just clarification. Are the proposed
AC units really 20 ft away from the structure? Yes. Yeah, we have them uh adjacent to the garage um along with the generator kind of tucked between the two structures.
And to dubtail on that, James Town ordinance, I know we have particularity in our ordinance has a statement about the AC condensers and the proximity to the houses. Have we looked at that? I like the idea where they're going. I just don't want the applicant to get jammed
up by the zoning officer. Well, they're not put them up against the house within so many inches depending on the size of the unit. I thought like people were putting them remote in their houses and causing problems. No, that's why I'm asking ordinance. I don't know that this would be a
problem because it is up against a structure. Okay. So, I I think this would be an issue. more about you point. What about noise mitigation, right? Because then the ordinance also calls for some sort of sound barriers around
these things and this is now tied up against the garage which is going to reflect the sound outwards. I'm just curious, is there anything in the woods that requires mitigation? there. There's only so much you can do, right? I know. So, and we all Rally Beach is full of
our lots are small. But they have to put them somewhere. They are in the rear yard. Yes, they are. Um I think they've done a good job as they can find a spot for them. Yeah. And I think the proposed location is really as far from either of the
neighboring um houses as you can. I agree. A great spot. It is. It's good spot. I'm just curious if we have still requires any more mitigation as far as either greenery or greenery or fencing. Well, the green that that's all when it's in the setback within the setback
allowance, right? But when we do have them, we make them straight in buffalo usually usually make I mean if you want them to put some take up just curious it just it seems like I thought if the ordinance doesn't require
it there's no point. I don't think there's any. Okay. No more. I would like to open it up to the public for questions of Mr. Interested. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion for this witness and
call Mr. Thank you. Yes, I do. Your last name, please, sir. Edwards. G O R L E S K. You're the architect, right?
Can you distinguish your license? Sure. I have a bachelor of architecture degree from New Jersey University. I'm a New Jersey licensed architect. I've been deal since about 2006, licensed since 2018 and I've been several times.
Great. Thanks very much. Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Last being ahead um could just provide an over overview of what the program you were given. Um the Mr. Co's um comment from the beginning if you
right so as Anthony said this meeting has been about a year in the making. We met just a little over a year ago and I mean since day one the the scope of the the project was to tear down the existing two family home and rebuild a new single family residence that
couldn't be their permanent home. Um, and so, so what discussions, uh, did you have with them as as far as what you came up with your plan? I mean, so typically when I first meet with client, I like to get a feel proud of the house, time, rentals,
how big their family is, or it's growing or necessary, whatever the case may be. So, so basically this is the program that we came up with for a four bedroomedroom, threeb home, uh, two and a half stories
on a foundation approximately 2758 ft of total living space. And of that living space, what is the ground floor footprint? So the first floor footprint is 1,164 square ft just living space.
That's the living space. What's the total building footprint? So it's 1164 for the living space and then the front porch is 326 square ft and then In addition to that on site you have a proposed garage.
Yeah. So there's an existing garage which we are proposing to remove approximately 9 ft. Yeah. The existing garage is 20 foot 9 in by 28T 5 1/2 in. And we're going to
reduce that to the same depth east to west 20 foot 9. But take off at 9 ft and make it 19T 5 and 12 in. Keep the I'm sorry, I didn't get the numbers. The existing is 20 foot 9 in east to west by 28T 5 and
1/2 in north south. That's existing. And you're taking 9 ft away, but you saying 9 ft. Isn't there another measurement? 9 by something. Yeah, 9 by 20. Okay. 9 by 20.9 is the
So 20.7. Okay. is the section being removed and you're going to end up with leaving what 20 foot 9 in east to west by 19T 5 and 12 in north south. Thank you.
And that 19 12 uh foot depth uh or I should say width because it's oriented towards beach. Correct. Correct. Um that's that's sufficient to accommodate two cars. Yes. Do you want any smaller? What would would be your opinion.
It gets tighter quicker once you get below 20 ft. And then um the existing garage layout, how does that look from Beach Avenue? So from Beach, it's basically a three bay garage, but there's only two doors. It looks like at some point somebody
filled in Third Bay and the storage behind that right now. Okay. So the two where those two doors are existing, that's basically where the two doors are proposed. Correct. Correct. Um, and then as far as the uh the primary dwelling, you indicated that the porch is 326 ft. We're asking for a
variance, correct? Yes. What's the variance total square footage? Uh, 141 square ft of porch. All right. And that porch is only on the first floor. Most of it is one story first floor. There's a 5x10 section of upper porch
that's set back on the second floor off the city. So not unlike many of the common homes in Bradley where you'd have a open porch above the the enclosed porch, you're actually setting that upper porch back even further uh from the setback. Yes, sir.
Um and it doesn't go all the way across. It does not. Um so so visually that front porch for the most part, especially as we get to the corner, is only going to be one one story high with with the roof and openness.
Yes. Right. Um, and then as far as the um the parking layout, how many parking spaces are required under R RSIS with a fourbedroom home? That's more of a question for Doug. I think there's three.
Um, and then as as far as um we accommodate the burough ordinance parking a minimum too, correct? Right. Yes. And you're actually proposing for correct. In your experience, what are you envisioning envisioning any future owner this property is going to use this
garage for? So, not just not just parking. A little bit more. Um, and as far as the the uh overall calculations for that upper story, um, did you have an exhibit that you wanted to provide just to show the
calculations? I did. You want to give these to you? Sure. Um it's just one sheet uh one drawing which shows how I calculate the area on the half of the lab. Is this
not set? This is going to be A3. just being marked as eighth floor and if you could just describe what what we're marking. Yeah, this is just my calculation for the habitable attic to show that it meets the 50% code of second floor below. And so so how did you calculate?
So hold on a second. Hold on a second. So A2 marked with today's date of July 17, 2025 is a plan with a date of June 30th, 2025 issued for zoning and
consists of one sheet and the witness is going to describe what that one sheet does. It says habitable attic calculation for So, so the gray box with the black outline represents the area of the
second floor which is 197 square ft and then the box in the middle with the crosshatch represents the finished area of the attic is at least 5T. And to be clear, you didn't count the stairwell area when you do these calculations. Um, and so what is our total percentage?
So it's 5001 square ft, which is 45.7% of the second floor. And you said you calculated that at the point where it's 5T and above. So that's where the ordinance calls it uh is at 5T, but we have knee walls. So the knee walls at the dormer uh are 5
foot headroom and then the knee walls on either side are actually seven foot head. So we can go all the way to the top. Um and then what's going to be behind those areas on that upper story? Most of it's going to be duct work that
storage as far as calculations. No problem. It is a nice to in terms of habitable this will be insulated
to code insulated drywall and we'll have capacity but correct um it's it's just intended to be just a bonus room Mr. Pleski, did you do the computation for the UCCC?
I did for the one/3. Yeah, we're below. We're going to be five B construction. It will be below the third. Yeah. Is there a requirement of no bedrooms in the attic? No, because it meets the definition. Okay.
So, it could be used for for a bedroom if if it was intended to be. Okay. Or in the future, someone could use it as a bedroom. Would there need to be additional parking if there's a fifth bedroom? Our ordinance allows two bedrooms plus a
bathroom, right? So, this is really underway. Yes, it is. The uh the basement there's no tent right now, but in the future he could.
You could, but Okay. And any change from your permits, you actually have to go back in and get revised permits to change the CO. Correct. Correct. Um, and so when you started this
project, uh, were you even looking at renovating the existing wall? No. I believe the existing house is built like 1902 or 1905. So the amount of renovation that have to be done to a house like that is probably worth it. And As far as in your mind the layout on
the site, how does how does that apply to the variances that we're requesting this evening? Yeah, I mean as Anthony said, the existing house is kind of chopped looks like added on to multiple times and zags and now I tried to design something um a little more streamlined.
And how many bedrooms are in the existing dwelling? Five bedrooms. We were actually reducing that to out to four bedrooms. Correct. Um and I'm going to ask you the same questions. You had an to review um Mr. Freedom, Miss Bell's letter. Um do you
have any comments or concerns about the general comments in section six? Um and then going back to the garage, um the roof's going to have to come off. Yeah.
And then so maybe go if we have um what type of pitch of that roof is that roof going to be on the garage? 612. in one set. I I may 15t height or about 6 in below the maximum could be
for new. So we're not proposing no height bearings for that access no height bearings for that no height bearings for the inside. And and was there a reason uh there's a decision not to not to rebuild the entire garage as opposed to keeping
particularly the rear wall and the sidewall considering the how old the house is. The garage itself is actually in pretty good shape. So, I figured we could, you know, keep as much as we could and rebuild one wall basically. And you indicated, I'm sorry. And you indicated there are three bays.
Was there an existing um wall, do you think on on the wall that you're proposing to use? Existing door. No. No. The the the wall that's on the I guess the south side. New wall. Yeah. That that new wall. Was there do you think there was previously a wall
there? No. Okay. I don't think I have any other questions. Mr. What is the main component walls? They're mostly blocked. I have to verify
this. I think the whole wall is block the block and and really as was mentioned before is this has like 19 and change by 20 is less than 400 ft. two garage. I think it's 44 square foot.
And that's really the minimum standard even that's tight for two cars. Great. Uh I would just say that the record is that the only consideration to meet that one variance that eliminate it would be only to build one one and a half car
garage, reduce the width of the driveway and reduce the car. Although As you noted, one of the bays would end up being used for bicycles anyways. So, you're probably not going to put two cars in there typically. So, so in order to get rid of that variance, we'd have to remove approximately another seven square foot
seven width 7 foot width by 20. Correct. So, that's a tradeoff. Any other questions from the board? If not, I'll open it up to the public questions from the architect. Uh, seeing
none, I'll close the public portion. Just one thing, I think you said this already. You are okay with complying with all of the requirements of the report of the board engineer and further review and revision of plans before the
construction. Thank you. I have no other question for Mr. I'll bring Mr. L. Thank you everybody. Do you have preference on exhibit. Oh, no. Brian, you just have to be sworn. Yes.
And you have to give it to your car, too. I will get you one. The one I had in my pocket. It was the only blank one I had. Don't ask me why. Okay. Thank you. I'll raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? You have nothing to tell the truth. So, how have you done? I do. Spell your full name, please. Brian left. Last name LF.
And your your business address? I'm currently the president BML Studio in Barnett, New Jersey. And Brian, you are a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I am. And your license are all current? My licenses are all current. Uh, and have you tested before this
board before? I did, but it was during COVID and I got to do it remotely. So, this is the first time you're seeing anyone in person here? Yes. You've been uh accepted as a witness in other municipalities? Yes, I spent a lot of time in Asbury Park, as a matter of fact.
Thank you. Uh so, Brian, obviously you were hired by Mr. DeMarco, Mr. DeMarco, uh to uh provide an overview of planning testimony this evening, correct? Correct. And if you could just if you can go through um in your estimation from a planning standpoint uh the the
benefits and the and the detriments of any of this application. All right. Uh normally I start with a description of the property, but I think that's been beaten to death tonight. I think everyone knows what we're talking about. Uh so I'm going to jump right in and just get to the meat of my testimony here. Uh and that's really while the
impos proposed improvements reduce or eliminate a lot of the existing nonconformities on this lot uh they are seeking several variances. Uh they include the maximum building coverage where 35% is permitted 35.8 exists and
37.9 is proposed. uh rear yard accessory building where setback uh where five feet is required, four feet is existing and proposed or 4.1 ft is existing and proposed. You have the sideyard accessory building
setback at 5T required where 1.2 ft is existing and proposed. a front yard fence height variance where three feet is permitted and four feet is being proposed and the maximum driveway width of 12
feet permitted where 38.6 ft exists and 18.78 ft is proposed. There are conditions which will be improved on this application. They include the principal building front yard setback going from 17.2 two feet
which is required. Uh 12.1 ft exists and 17.2 feet is proposed. So that eliminates the variance. We have a porch front yard setback along the cave where 8.8 ft is required 7.4t exists and 9.2
ft is proposed. Again that variance is eliminated. The principal building front yard setback on Beach Avenue 15t is required whereas 12.4t 4T exists and 15 ft is proposed. Again, another variance eliminated.
Principal building setback sideyard of 5T is required where 4.3 ft exists, 5T is proposed. Again, variance non-conformance eliminated. The minimum building separation between the house and the garage 20 ft is
required, 5.7 ft exists, and 20.4t is proposed. another non-conformance that will be eliminated. The impervious coverage, and this is always a big one in just about every application I've ever worked on, uh 60%
permitted, 71.7% exists, and I'm happy to say 59.94 is proposed. So, it brings that even into conformance. We have an existing non-conformance where maximum driveway width in the front yard where 12 ft is permitted,
38.6 6 ft exists and 18.7 ft is proposed. Again, that condition is approved, although variance is still requested. And then you have the maximum driveway width in the rear yard where 24 ft is permitted, 38.2 ft exists, and
19.46 ft is proposed. So that non-conformance is also eliminated. So looking at the variances that we are requesting this evening, I'd like to look at the the building cover first where 35% is permitted. 35.8
square ft is ex or percent is existing and 37.9% is proposed. The increase in cover is largely attributed to addition of a wraparound covered porch along both frontages. The existing structure has about a 95 ft covered porch along the
cave. The proposed home will contain a 325 or 326 ft porch. It's a significantly larger area and all that goes towards your building coverage. The actual living space on this is only increased by 57 square ft and a detached
garage is being significantly reduced by 187 square ft. The proposed building will comply with all setback requirements which eliminates several of the existing nonconformities. As the porches are open air structures, the additional building cover that's
associated with this application will not appear bulky, crowded, or out of place. It will serve to enhance the aesthetics from all public vantage points. It allows the owners to enjoy the porch area in a wider variety of weather conditions while it's covered.
If the porch area is not covered, the proposed condition would otherwise comply with the building cover regulations, but I believe a front yard setback variance may be required. The second variance that's being uh strictly proposed with this application is the fence height within a front yard
where 3 feet is permitted and 4T is proposed. This applies to the beach avenue frontage only. There are no fences in the front yard along the cave. The proposed fence is an open picket style. It's not a picket fence, but it
is picket style with a top rail. Uh, so it's not a solid fence and it's not opaque. It's not going to completely block any views. As was previously testified, the primary reason for the fence to be is to secure the dog. Uh, no one wants their dog running around in
the neighborhood, jumping over the fence, especially right near the beach where you're going to have people walking back and forth uh, fairly constantly. Uh, the property does contain a significant elevation change between the public sidewalk and the and the home.
This is an existing condition and it's going to remain. The private patio area that's being proposed and the stepping stone walkway between the patio and the front porch is approximately 3 ft higher than the sidewalk elevation. Uh where the fence is located is approximately 1
ft higher than the sidewalk. So you're looking about a twoft difference in elevation from where the fence is to where that back patio is and even the the stepping stone walkway. The additional height will help secure their dog and screen the views into the property from motorists. While people
walking down the street will have a clear view over an average adult will have a clear view over a 4ft fence. Uh someone who's driving down the road because of the view angle. It would provide some screening. The fence is not located within the intersection sight triangle where it would interfere with
sight lines. In fact, where it's being located does not interfere with any sight line whatsoever. Even the adjacent home along Beach A has their front porch almost immediately against the property line. Uh so you're not even blocking someone else's front yard uh with a
fence. So given the unique site site topography and the fact that it's a corner lot containing two front yards uh where this would otherwise be a sideyard fence the 4ft fence will appear in scale with the property and provide more utility for
the owners. Next we start moving to some of the other uh variances that some of them being improved some of them are don't staying the same. uh the side and rear yard accessory structure setback. Since
these both pertain to the garage, I'm going to address them both together. Uh the proofs are the same. There's a 5yard side and rear yard 5 foot side and rear yard setback that's required for accessory structures. Whereas the detached garage is located 4.1 ft from
the I want to say rear property line and 1.2 ft from the side property line. These are existing conditions that will remain. The condition along the eastern property line or the side lot line does get somewhat improved because you're reducing the length of the wall. So the
impact of having that garage close to your property line is reduced. Portion of the structure will remain will be renovated with an enhanced appearance. So what is a block garage now will have siding. Everything is going to be renovated. It's going to look new. It's
going to be a huge uh boost to the aesthetics on this property. And this condition for these two variances does not result in any new impacts. Uh that's the important part. Next we have the maximum driveway width in the front yard where 12 ft is
permitted, 38.6 ft exists and 18.78 is feet is proposed. While it's still a varying condition, the proposed construction will significantly reduce the driveway width and represent an improvement over the existing conditions. The plan will provide for two vehicles
to be parked in the driveway, which reduces the on street parking demand and increases parking within the right ofway for the public. So, just to wrap things up, I think that addresses the variances that are being sought. The applicant would like to make
this property their primary full-time residence. As the existing structure is outdated and in need of some repairs, uh they're proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 2 and a half story home. They're proposing to reduce the size of the existing detached
garage and the associated driveway uh which also brings down the impervious coverage. And while the proposed improvements require some relief from the Bradley Beach zoning ordinance, several non-conforming conditions will be corrected as part of this application or minimized.
The proposed improvements will not result in any new or negative impacts to the community. My professional opinion, the relief being sought may be granted without substantial impairment to the zoning ordinance or the overall zone plan. And the proposed improvements will not result in any negative impacts to
the health, safety, or general welfare of the public or the surrounding community. That's my direct. I think that addresses the variances. I'm happy to answer any questions. So, Bri, I'm just going to ask you a few questions. So, So, if we proposed a 12t
wide driveway uh in that entire front yard area, that's approximately a 15t depth area, that front yard area. Yes. Yes. Right. Um so, if we had uh 15 ft, we have a 50ft area of driveway that we
could utilize from the lot line on beach to the side lot line. Correct. Only 50 ft. That sounds right. Yes. So in 50 ft in general, if you only had a 12ft driveway, how many cars could you park in that driveway? If it was just a driveway
with a 12oot, you'd only fit one car in the driveway. If you extended that 12 foot uh or if you extended extended 50 ft, then you could fit two cars. Yes. Now, if you widened it at the 12T mark,
how much parking can you provide on site? by widening it at that point in conforming with with the ordinance. Well, you would provide two two parking spaces in the garage side by side at that point and then you'd still have the other two in the garage. So, you would
have a total of four if I'm understanding questioning correctly. Well, only so so we're proposing 18 18 foot wide curb cut, right? And a standard parking space is 9 ft. So 18 ft goes right in line with a standard parking width for a vehicle. uh
two vehicles would require 18 ft. Not that that can't be shaved down a little bit, but for practical purposes and opening doors and things like that, uh that's typically the standard, but if 15 ft of that area were reduced to only 12 12t wide width, you can only
park one car in really only a portion of that. Correct. Correct. Um, so what we're proposing to to create four off streetet parking spaces is that what's your opinion as far as a zoning alternative? I think this is the other thing you have
to consider on this is the topography where the garage is roughly 3 and 1/2 ft high. So you have a steep garage. So, when you're talking about coming back with a narrow driveway or even trying to move the garage forward to try and correct uh the setback variance, the
topography also comes into play and you would end up with a driveway that would be just way too steep. Uh you'd you'd bottom out every time you try to get into it. Um, so I I think in my professional opinion, the way it's laid out uh minimizes the driveway to the greatest
extent possible and still allows for two vehicles to be parked side by side within the driveway within the driveway and then the two additional vehicles and the two additional vehicles in the garage for a total of four and and so uh Mr. Freda indicated that
let's say you take the garage width and you reduce it so that now you create a conforming building coverage then you would you would not fit two cars in that garage you would only fit one and I think it was pointed out that the driveway is not allowed to be wider
than the garage so you would also only fit one car in the driveway the other way to reduce the building coverage would be to reduce the size of the front porch right which I think is a great amenity and a a bonus actually an asset to the
community in the way that especially on a corner lot uh where from the intersection you're looking at the wraparound covered porch. I think that's a great improvement to the aesthetics on the site. But yes, you could eliminate the
wraparound porch and also come. Any questions? I guess the third way would be if we actually reduce the size of the house by 140 on the area that that's also a possibility. Could you scale back the reference porch so it doesn't over
for utility purposes? I it looks like maybe along the cave you could reduce it a little bit, but being that's the primary frontage and the way it's designed matches the depth of the other porches along that viewscape. It may be possible. I would defer to the architect
how that plays with the roof lines and things like that. Uh, but I don't think it would be nearly as nice looking. If I could comment too, um, to make up the 141 square ft, you would have to
reduce the size of the garage and the porch and still not get there. There's still going to be no red front porch. You consider that you only have 8t water 8t page and 8t versus 10 ft. a lot of the older homes have
that 8 ft is minimum in some and and anything less than that is does not look right. So I think that's just not a way to go. But going back to the driveway though, you could
reduce the size of the opening and you reconfigure the driveway slightly and you could regrade the driveway out because I ran into the same problem. Okay, that that's a question for the engineer. I'm on firm also. Yeah, that's a question for the engineer, but remember they're not over on imp.
I know frankly speak, right? And I think it's important to note while they are slightly over on building coverage, their overall impervious coverage is under still and the overall balance of the tradeoffs
of what we're getting in return far in my in my opinion far aways some of these there. Yeah, we're getting from two families to one family. Improved structure. Um, even the 4ft fence, while
I'm not big fan of it, it's with the topography change, I don't think it's going to be as impactful as it may be. Right. I think given the topography changes of the site, the um the look of the 4ft fence will be minimal. And I
also think um you know because they are a lot. They have two front yards, so that's really acting as their sideyard. And if they were, you know, in the middle of a block, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Correct. Corner lots, as we all know,
have that. I also want to mention to the board that the fence that would run parallel to Beach Avenue, it's going to be like 4 feet away from the edge of the sidewalk. This fence is not going to be up against
the sidewalk. This is pretty wide. here on beach island, right? So be on their property, it's going to be probably a good 3 ft or so from the back of that side. So you're saying it's minimal impact? The only the only advantage would be if
you did narrow the the driveway is if you could get an additional parking spot to um along beach, which I don't believe you're going to be able to do that. And my only other concern is you you're walking along there and the fence is there and the person sitting the car backing up. Now you have an eight. You have two cars next to each other backing
out and you have a lot of pedestrians. Is that is that fence blocking the view of somebody backing out of that driveway and you got people walking through there and it's such a wide driveway with two cars backing up? No, because it's an open style fence. It'll have views even the fence itself
sitting in a car in a driver's seat with another car next to next to each other backing out with a car. Well, only one's going to back out at a time. But so I understand your point though. One to the left say somebody's walking. Does that the fence for the one car that would be parked further away from the fence backing out, the other vehicle is going
to block it more than the fence will. Uh for the vehicle that's parked next to the fence, as they back out, I believe there's enough openness in that fence that you would see pedest first of all, you'll see you'll see pedestrians over top. Well, the one car will be blocking the view. The fence won't come into play, right?
So then it's backing out from the backing out. Can you actually have a sighteline of somebody walking a kid walking along that fence if it's a small child? Uh, maybe not. But I don't I think that's going to be whether it's a three-foot fence or a 4 foot fence. That's that would be my only other
thought on this. But yeah, I don't let me because it's not one car back. Let me say by saying I don't I don't think a 4ft fence is going to have any more impact or significantly more impact on the site visibility backing out of the driveway than a 4ft fence. This is also a single family home. So
theoretically any car parked in the driveway, they would hopefully know each other and be communicating. Um, you could help people. Yeah. I just know it's a more of a road with 18 ft wide versus a driving 12 ft.
It's easier to manage 12 foot when you're walking pedestrians. I think that's like it is. It is. But I'm just saying there's not really I mean I basically share driveway like the driveways are connected. It's one surface. My neighbors my two single car
garages and so we're always next to each other pulling in and out. It's one driveway cut. That's just what it is. So, you testified that the four foot fence gives more utility for the owners. Yes.
Um, would a three-foot fence give them the same utility? No, because their dog can jump over that threeft fence. Okay. So, we're not worried about the land where the dog Well, I the dog is one of the concerns that was mentioned.
And then where's the benefit to the public. You testify to the benefit to the owner, but I'm not hearing any benefit. There's no detriment to the public. There's the actual I mean the statute requires is there a substantial detriment to the public? Not a benefit
to the public. There's a substantial detriment to the public his testimony. There's no there's no that's his test that's his and even the visual aesthetic you don't feel that no given me actually I personally I
think and professionally I think the 4ft fence is going to look more in scale with this house because it's up on that hill I think a three-foot fence is going to look warped and out of place any other questions from the Uh, I'd like to open up to the public if
there's any questions from the public or Mr. Left the planner. See none, I will portion. I just have a brief summary as as testified by all of the uh witnesses that you've heard this evening. Uh, we have a corner lot which affects the the
site situations of the property. you have existing conditions that are significantly being mitigate mitigated with what we're proposing. I don't believe that the variances that are being requested, particularly when you're talking about um the the building coverage variance when we're dealing
with it uh an oversized part porch that is pretty common in your uh your community. uh when we're talking about a two-car garage, which is at its minimum size, which is common your in your community, we have a garage situated on a corner lot. So, so you're either going
to do one of two things. You're going to try to bring that driveway up um off of McCabe, which is not going to look good because you're going to have a driveway at the corner of a property, or you're going to keep it where it's already s already situated today. And we're proposing a garage that's actually
smaller than what's there today. We're proposing a driveway curb cut. We're proposing a driveway which is smaller than what's there today. So the people who live in this neighborhood, the people who come to this neighborhood are already used to what's existing there today. Um these variances that we're asking um I I don't think particularly
with the driveway variances. I don't think they're uh they're substantial. They're certainly not a substantial detriment. They are a benefit to the community because they're smaller than what's existing today. Um I would uh indicate that the testimony as far as the fence is concerned um being the
topography the the location of the fence as proposed I think there was a an assumption maybe some from some board members that this fence was going to go wrap around the entire property but as it's proposed it it sits almost 30 ft back uh from um the property line and
even further than that from the curb line and the sidewalk line. Uh so the location of this 4 foot fence uh is in is in a an area of the property dealing with a topography that I think fits in with this with this and uh it's a better
zoning al alternative than compliance only because um of how everything sits on on the lot. We're we're bringing the setbacks all into conformity other than the existing garage. There are no setbacks here. We're bringing your impervious coverage down to a conforming
condition. Um, many of the lots in in this burrow have non-conforming conditions and you don't have a lot of applications coming before you where where a applicant is asking for uh uh relief on certain variances and it doesn't include a um impose coverage. So
I I think that the building coverage variance is is in general the minimist the way we're opening up the lot. I think that defense variance is is dimminimous and there's been sufficient justification in testimony that it's not a substantial uh detriment to what's
repo proposed and I think the other two variances related to the driveway uh also are not substantial detriments um and they all conform to your zoning ordinance where we're taking a two family home which is situated in a much broader area of this property and
condensing it to create more open space on the lot and view sheds like Mr. comments about the 30 ft. You were referring to paid and not avenue in terms of No, no. The testimony from uh Mr. uh
Cleland indicated that he believed that the fence location was set back about 30 ft from from M. It's on beach. Yes. But it's set from the corner of Mad Beach about 30 ft.
Beach. Correct. Correct. But I'm talking about from the corner where it set back. So it's not going along the entire frontage of beach and it's also not going along the entire frontage of the cave because as testified that fence stops about halfway through the house on that
sideline line which is conforming on that side pretty much from from the line that um Doug draws on the site. It's about halfway through the site where it says it's 18.78 ft in the driveway width. From that point back where the
fence is fully conformed. So the section towards the beach lot line and down to where the um where it turns back into the build to get into the building. That's where it's nonform. It's not the entire front. Um do you have any uh comments from the
board or additional questions? So, so just for one last clarity point when I'm looking at this driveway over the fence fence is going to go right up to the driveway and right at the corner of the property line in the driveway at the sidewalk. It's going to be at that corner and turn. Correct.
Is there any way we can just set that off a little bit so that the driver could actually have a little bit of view angle? We probably could cher that just a little bit just to give some view. That's not bad. I'm just seeing that that grade and that fence sitting there just not seeing somebody.
It's not a bad idea. I just think a slight adjustment there. Yeah. I mean I I would guess I would guess I would guess it would be about a 6ft area where we we could hang it. Sure. Good idea.
Can I get it? Yeah. So please like me to do it. Okay. So, um, let me just So, the the 4ft fence on the west side of the property
as it approaches the driveway will be will be put on the corner will be a 45 degree to the driveway and and turn you assign a number to that it's
I I know two feet one of one length of fence which is probably at least six feet that's at least put in the record what is this accomplishing it increases the sight
of I think it's Um, so this would be your client's not interest. My client is not interested in going to a three-foot fence. Now, if if that's going to be a problem to the board, we
would ask for a bifurcated uh offer. Um, and and make the fence a completely separate issue because we don't want to we don't want to get shot down for an entire application for offense if there's a a concern with the fence. And um I would
prefer that. I'd just like to pull the rest of the board and see if they would be interested in bifurcating that sexual under what it's already at the ML at this point at the end of the hearing.
Everyone's been been sworn and gone and presumably. So each each application stands on its own merit. Yeah. Each variance stands on its own merit. Yeah. And we can ask the board to bifurcate
the request for variances as part of the application process. So I generally always said the board you got to take it as a whole or not. If the board wants to consider the fence
separately and maybe we take a just take a poll right now on who's for the three-foot fence versus the 4ft. Well, I I don't want to make it who's in favor of that. I'd like to make it, you know, can we bifurcate it so then we can let everyone know what our
Okay. It's a very unusual application because there are a lot of positive benefits. Yeah. But yeah, we've got Yeah, a little bit different. Okay. So, you're you're consenting to this procedure. Okay.
We don't we don't want what potentially might be one issue to ruin an entire application because we think it's a good application. We think it's a good application for your neighborhood. We think it's a good application for the Google. Thank you, speaker. Um so, uh there no
other comments from the board. Um, do I have a motion on approving the variances for uh the the four variances with the exception of the fence?
Okay. Motion to approve the application except for the fence. Except for the fence. Yeah. And then you're going to take a separate vote. We'll do a separate vote. Okay. So the motion should be approve the application as testified to and stated including the variance except for
the fence. We're doing that separately. Um that being said, do I have a motion? You have to include one thing. Change the plans as far as drainage not tying into the storm drain. So well there's other conditions that they've agreed to. So I'd like to list them
in that commission that has been agreed to. Right. and and throughout the hearing we have that and and Jerry and I have been marking the conditions. All the conditions that have been agreed to and requested by the board are going to be in the uh
resolution. We don't need to uh add them here. Everything's been So the motion that's present is to approve the application as testified to where minus the fence
minus the fence and we need a mo we have a motion. We need a second. Well, actually I requested a motion from the board. I didn't Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you made it. We needed We need the motion.
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the four variances with the exception of the I'll second. Um, Miss Mahoney. Yes. Missine, yes. Mr. Wishbell,
yes. Mr. Mayer, yes. Mr. Yes, Miss Langy. Yes, Councilman Noiki. Although I would like to see this entire you know site have been completely
conforming the benefit as noted providing additional parking with the driveway. Um there's an overall benefit from that strategy. So I will vote yes. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Council will vote yes. And I believe
that this has offered so much more improvement to what was there. Now, I'm a little disappointed that this is bifurcated, but is what it is. Chair Cohen, um I would vote yes. Um I'm very impressed with the uh submission of the
application, specifically the reduced uh uh setback violation between the structures. Um the uh reduced impervious coverage is substantial. uh and the uh the new sidewalks is a
very much a benefit to that neighborhood. Um and uh you know for those reasons uh I I thought it was a very uh good presentation for a conforming lot that had to deal with historic structures on
to see if there's a motion um from the board for the fence variance. Um the request is a 4ft fence where a 3-ft fence is allowed under the ordinance. Do I have a motion from the board? I'll make a motion to approve 4ft
application. Second. So the motion is to Approve the 4 foot. Yes. Yes. Motion to approve the variance of 4 foot fence as depicted in the with the condition
with conditions and changes. I'm sorry. So, um, Mr. Mayor was my made the motion. Who was my second? Miss Mahoney. No. Miss Sarine. It's my first repeating,
but I go yes. Mr. Wishbell, no. Mr. Mayor, I'm going yes. Um, Mr. Warick, yes. M. Ley, I'm going to say no.
Uh, Councilman Wicki. Being that we've approved other forenses over this, Mr. Yes. And Cher, uh, I would vote no. I don't believe it meets the principles of zoning, the
purposes of zoning 40.55D-2 to promote a desirable visual environment and good civic design and arrangement which is established in the ordinance itself. Um, I don't believe that I believe that the only benefit here is to the applicant and uh, I'm I'm
not impressed with the uh, proofs that were submitted in that regard and for that reason. The motion to approve carries. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] I'm a faster
All right. Thank you. I know how to transgend [Music] like to move on to the workshop for affordable housing And again, the uh the
intent here is that um we we we just started council together as a board um to give Miss Bell direction on how we proceed with the affordable housing. So right now the uh the plan is being
reviewed by the courts. You know, we have we were we were granted immunity, but we have until um well, any objectors or interested parties have until the end of August to comment um on the plan. So really there
we can't move forward on anything until that time. Um but they're going to need direction from us before January as to you know how that overlay is going to be covered. on main street or
right but right now we can't until we we're assuming there might be some type of feedback from you know the courts before the end of August but right now we're kind of just in a holding pattern. So we should just sit then until our
until the end of August. Yeah. Until September. Until the September meeting. Yes. I would recommend in September, you know, we can give you an update on what the status is, um, if there had been any comments, any interested parties in Bradley Beach's housing plan. And, um,
at that time, we're hoping to have received direction from the courts as to, you know, the next steps. Okay. Yeah, that's that's great. We just want to make sure we keep it out there in the public and uh out here for the board
members to to you know have an idea of where we are so we get to the finish line on on March 31st council 2026 council has so that those dates are all none nothing is definite yet right we are we we have
done what we need to do in the required timelines to this point but going forward you You know, I can't tell you a definite timeline of anything. We're assuming that all ordinances will need to be adopted within the first quarter
of 2026, but um we won't know until the end of August what needs to be done if you hear from. Right. Exactly. Because don't forget every municipality is or most
municipalities are in the same situation. And I wouldn't be surprised if the courts started wanting to stagger things, right? This this region here, this region there go in December. This one goes in
November. Or but more likely they're going to push out those those uh ordinances. that's more likely especially if they get swamped with objectives and other things like that, right? So, I mean, you can certainly brainstorm about what
you would like to see, but I would not recommend, you know, having me spend time draft an ordinance or having my office spend time until we're given direction from the the system and the funds to pay you to do so. Yes.
Great. Well, the the council is going to have to pay for the ordinance saying it. Yeah. Um, right. But you don't want me to do something multiple times. No. And I mean, I just I I mean I to speak freely, I I'd like to see us as a
group agree on a template that can be used for that. That's really where I'm coming is that so we're giving direction to the council um as we see it every day here in this room, you know, every month in this room as to what's and we
understand the different properties. So, I think it's for us to just create a template as to what we'd like to see in the ordinance is where I'm going. I don't know if anyone else has an opinion on that. Well, I think we definitely want to have time to be able to address this. And so
the exercise of his body to actually start to identify what are those issues um you know on that you know specific overlay on Main Street is probably something that's going to take some work and effort of understanding for everybody to really come to that. So you know we should probably have a schedule
based on what we think is going to happen but you know what you know back off of that. How much time do we need? And when do we as a group need to start being active and working on this? And um and what we don't want to be is a bunch of special meetings because all of a sudden we get a bunch of applications coming in and now we got to start adding
more meetings um rather, you know, do it in a three-hour meeting here versus in one one time a month that come here multiple times a month to try to deal with this. No, certainly I think that by September, right, we will have direction.
Okay. we will have an idea of what a timeline will be, but until then, you know, we kind of get to take a breath for the summer. I I just think that affordable housing
uh is a subject that we shouldn't play around with. In other words, if we shouldn't be doing something in August, I think we should wait until September. and and yes, I agree with the councilman and with the chair and that we do have
to have a schedule. So, I would suggest that in the September meeting, we be prepared to try to set the schedule. And don't forget the ordinances should not be carried over from December to
January. So, if if we're supposed to do it by March, that means January and February votes. Don't forget it goes to the council, comes back to us, then goes back to the council and that's pretty much two meetings that that has to count
three our meeting and two council meetings which is January February. So yes, time is of an essence, but I also don't want to have a a audience and things being said that we will have
to perhaps take back later. So don't and don't forget most of this is going to be deliberation that you have to do in public. We're not going to be having that in close session. We're going to be doing these discussions with the public, hopefully interested
public here and participating to a certain extent, but also there are people against affordable housing and people against what you say about affordable housing or what you say about affordable housing. I mean, we have to come together as a group to get this done for Brad Beach.
That's the intent. So, I I would, you know, like to propose that um we put it on a workshop agenda for September. Yeah. Um and and Christine, if we could have some kind of overlay map prepared that would show us absolutely um what what we're talking about in
terms of the B the GBW um then u then I think if if we have time at that meeting we can set the schedule and maybe we can you know spend some time on going over you know the concerns each one of us may have uh with regard to that.
Is there going to be you're not doing a sort of a working sub committee or anything? You're No, we haven't set that up, but you know, I mean it may evolve into that for October, November if need be based upon where we are. So, you can actually do that. You can
have a subcommittee working on this most in the public. Well, I didn't say that. That's subcommittee. That's what I'm wondering. So sometimes there's a subcommittee that maybe has a construction official and two board member. I mean you know you
can do things like that in the context of the affordable housing ordinances. I don't think it's any different than anything else that we do and we have authority under the ML to do such committees. Uh whether or not it's advisable is a different thing and
whether or not it it's overlaying something that we don't just makes it more complicated. Three people knowing what's going on and then coming and explaining to the other nine people and maybe you're just more productive by doing it here.
Well, we do have a good interaction here. Everyone gets to, you know, bring something and there's more history with some members and um so I think I prefer to do it here but if we need to expedite it and create a committee then yeah I mean it depends upon what how
much the change changes are are going to be talked about with respect to the ordinances which some of them are written already right they were in the the housing plan you can start looking at them now and seeing what they do there I think it's a good opportunity for us
to educate ourselves to be prepared to such a deal just from a knowledge of the master plan etc I think um Ron Ron would probably say don't do anything until we tell you that Ron Jira consult the affordable housing
attorney, right? And Jen, who's the affordable housing planner, will say, "Don't do anything till we tell you to." We don't want to go down a road that we can't track, right? You know, obviously this is the land use board, so he's got to walk over
me and Chris first. Yeah. And you know, we just want to complete our charge for the council. We don't want to leave them in the lurch, you know, later on in 2026, right? Yeah. I mean, I would not advi. So, every municipality in the state of New
Jersey had till the end of June to adopt their plan and submit it to the system. They're calling it calling it something funny, but then fair share, it's weird. Then fair share has basically the months
of July and August to review and any other interested parties review the housing plans for those 365 municipalities and provide you know any comments any objections to them. So I
would not recommend right now you have immunity you know the plan's been adopted. I would not recommend doing anything else until the that time has passed. Yeah. So, so we're all in agreement. We'll
we'll put it on workshop for the September meeting and if you could prepare a map and then we can start to talk about that how the overlay will operate and you know we'll bring specifications to that and uh that being said if anyone has
anything else old business I would make a motion we close. Wait wait wait. Oh, can we hear what's on for August? Do we have anything for August yet? Um, maybe. I have Well, I have one application
that's um finally um the one that I had sent. I haven't gotten any feedback yet. I just need to know if it's substantially different. From what? I have that under consideration. Let's not talk about that one. Okay. Okay.
because it may be a rice judicata. So, we don't there's a few things going on with that. Um there was another application who had they were originally scheduled for June. I had notified them that they were going to be um moved to July. Um but it turns
out that they had more time to review the engineering review and they're working with their architect to revise the plans. So, right now I sent them a scheduling letter. They're tentatively scheduled for August, but if they're not ready, they're they're not going to
proceed. So, I may have anything in August. So, you know, unless all the restaurants decide they're going to come rolling in like I said they would. Yeah. Yeah. We're waiting for them today. Yeah. Yeah. Where were on the record again? I told you
cuz it's going to be our fault. Yeah. I I would make a Thank you, Christie. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. All in favor? See you August 21st, unless you hear differently from me.
Have a good night everyone. Good night everybody.