[Music] or something. >> We call the October 18, 2025 meeting of the Bradley Beach Land Board to order. Please stand for the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And this is the October 16th meeting. >> Oh. Oh, 16. Sorry. >> You're jumping ahead here. Yeah, sorry. >> That's okay. The 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 Aspberry Park press, the coar and the poster. A copy has been placed on the bulletin board in the burough office and a copy has been compiled with the borrow. Uh, Chair Cohen
>> here, >> Mr. Mayor >> here, >> Mr. Wishbell >> here, >> Miss Hernandez is excused. Um, mayor of Mayor here. He's not here. He's excused.
>> I just didn't know. >> He's out of town. >> He is out of town. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Miss Mahoney >> here. >> Mr. Mayor >> here. >> Uh, Councilman Newy >> here. >> Miss Harrison >> here. >> Um, Mr. Clark is excused this evening.
Mr. Bernett is excused this evening. Um, Miss Lady here. And Mr. here. >> And also present is Amory Rudo, our board attorney. Um Samakian is here on behalf of Gerald Freed, our board engineer. And Jake Burton is here on
behalf of Christine Bell, our board planner. >> Okay. Welcome and thank you for attending the October 16th meeting of the land use board of the B of Riley Beach. Uh the board will observe a 1000 p.m. time limit. There will be no new applications or testimony uh started
after 10 p.m. without the polling of the full board. If an application is not completed during the meeting, a continuation date will be announced by the board attorney. We like to maintain a civil environment for this public hearing request. No calling out from the audience. Everyone will be given the
opportunity to be heard. After the board and its professional staff have completed asking questions of witnesses, uh the meeting will be open to the public for questions only of that witness. Uh there will this will be the time for questions only and not for comments. If you have a question, please
raise your hand. I will acknowledge you to come to the podium. Before asking your question, please state your name and address. Also spell your last name and direct your questions to the witness. Uh the 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 public 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 a comment will have to be sworn in uh 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. Uh petitions or speaking on anyone's behalf are not allowable under NJSA40 55D-10D. Written statements from the public
cannot be accepted as they cannot be cross-examined. Public participation in this meeting will assist the board in making decisions. We hope that this public hearing and your attendance will be a rewarding experience for all and thank you for participating in the process.
>> Uh first order of business is the approval and adoption of the meeting minutes from the regular meeting of September 18th, 2025. >> Make a motion for Miss Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Councilman Noi. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> Miss Harrison, >> yes. Um, Miss Lady, >> yes. >> Mr. Frederick, >> yes. >> Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> And Cher, >> yes. >> Uh, there are no resolutions to be memorialized.
Um, we have our first application and only application this evening. LUB2, uh, R6, both variances for proposed addition to a single family dwelling. Russell Kurts block 57 lot 4 615th Avenue. Applicants proposing an addition
to the existing dwelling to extend the uh two and a half story single family dwelling approximately 825 ft. Um additional improvements include a rear patio sideyard paper walkway with associated store drywall improvements. The applicant is represented by Jeffrey
Beac. >> Good evening. Good evening Mr. Jeffrey Beacon of the Beacon Law Firm. I represent the applicant. I actually have the pleasure of having a application here. These variances, that's what we're asking for, but we're not asking for variances for building coverage or
impervious coverage on this property. Um the variances in general are related to existing conditions of the property. Uh namely uh there is a singlestory portion of this uh dwelling that has a sideyard setback condition that violates your
five uh foot setback and applicants proposing to go directly up at that point. Uh in addition to that there is um a uh roof line that is 36.25 ft existing hip roof that applicant is proposing to extend. The last variance
we are proposing this evening is uh what I guess would be considered a balcony under your ordinance, but it sits way back uh from the rear uh of the dwelling uh on the upper half story. So I have two witnesses this evening and I have Donald Cashman who is our architect and
I have our client uh who is executive this evening to answer any questions as well. >> Sure. >> Would you like to both hands? >> Sure. So, can you both stand up? Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole tree that nothing but the treats will help you buy?
>> I do. >> Thank you. Can you identify yourself for the record? >> Thank you. >> I'll have to when when we put I'll have >> Okay. I was waiting. Sorry. >> Sorry. Um, and we do have a couple exhibits that we are going to enter. I
these were submitted to your board secretary earlier in the week. Uh, Mr. Passman realized uh as we were preparing for testimony that his halfstory calculations were off. So, he wanted to correct that and make sure that we're compliant with half story calculations.
Um, so the first exhibit we are going to um identify is revise sheets A3, A4, and A5. uh and they will revise act of 1013 2025 and as noted on the screen uh it's
number eight on the um on the screen >> and just for the record A1 and A2 in that set have not been changed at all. >> That is correct. So A3, four and five of
the original architectural plans have been revised as of 1013 2025. A1 and A2 maintain the original filing date of 9 10 2025. That's correct. And then what
we would identify and mark as A2 and and I'll have the testify what the changes are. Um these are identified as sheets they're identified as sheets AR13 203 303. Um and again these are
associated with the revisions to the half story calculation that we just want to put through that show. So I guess we'll mark that as A2. >> So I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention. These A's are too much. >> Yeah. So I I don't think we should mark
them A1 and A2 refer to them as what they're labeled as. AR uh so a I'm sorry for the record. A3 A4 and A5 are from the original set
original plans but are revised through 1013 2025. This next set is is three new plans. They're labeled AR one of three, a R two of three, and a R three of
three. And their date is October 13th of 2025. So that should be a small set of plants that we have. Do do all all the board members have? >> They were emailed. I don't know. >> They were emailed and they were posted
on the website. We did Not the hard copies of those because they came too late. What What are we labeling these as if we're not doing A12? >> Just their names. >> Just just exactly what the plans say on your sheets. >> Do do you agree with that, Mr. Attorney?
>> I mean, it's it's a little uh >> it's a little >> unorthodox. It's a little burdensome because of the way it's laden to begin with. >> But yes, if you have those, I'll hand them. >> That's the second. >> This is the AR123.
>> No, this is the one. Um, that's the AR123. Yes. >> And this is the October for the >> So, I only have seven of the AR12. >> That's on the Yeah, you're welcome. Yeah, you will.
>> And these go to Mosine and Mr. >> So, um, you ready? >> Yes, sir. Um Don, you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. >> And your licenser current? >> Yes. >> And if you could just provide the board a little background of your lensure.
>> Uh originally licensed in the state of Maryland in 1983. Liced in New Jersey 1987. Had my own practice for 10 years or so. And now I've had this partnership with since 199.
And you've been accepted as an expert in as an architect >> in this board and others. >> That's accepted. Thank you. Thank you. So Don, why don't we start with the revised plans? >> Let me let me go through them. I apologize for the lettering numbering.
It stemmed from the fact that I reexamined the this half story definition and it's very difficult to calculate. So I had to put the paper and pencil back to it of this half story. Again, this is a twotory
plus half story that's existing. And that half story the definition has where it's 5t or greater must be uh no more than 50% of the second floor. So just a miscalculation. It's hard to
calculate that with the slopes. I thought I had it the first time and I I guess I missed. So sweet and this anyway wasn't much of a change. The difference is the existing half story is over this 28x
28 box if you will. It's got some dormers on client wants it a little bit bigger gets a little bigger. Calculations are off. So now it's about 1 foot 10 shorter than the addition was on the original set of
plans. So I thought, well, I better do it the right way. Bring it forth as slightly smaller so that all the numbers were accurate. So it's not much different than the original set. Anybody looking at it would never know the difference, you know, because it's 1
foot 10, which is that big in scale. So and the elevations minor changes didn't affect anything other we're talking about here in terms of height. It's still a height variance because we're adding on at that height. But anyway, just as a clarification,
that revision that you've all gotten with the weird letters is just 1 foot 10 different than the one that was originally presented. You would hardly know. But I don't want to I don't want to present something that's not accurate. So that's why I revised.
>> Excuse me. One second. Members of the public, can you hear the witness? Okay. project. >> Project. >> She'll tell you if she's not recording, >> but they said they can hear you. So, you're doing >> anyway. If I can put that to bed, I can
talk about what the project is. Even with that minor change, it's still really the same project. Again, here's a house, two and a half stories. Had a one-story projection in the back. that one story projection. I wrote bad kitchen, a bad bathroom. Those
are on these are on my sheets and two of my sheets did not get that shows the existing plans and so forth. You can see it has small kitchen bathroom
additions. The design of this project is expand the living space behind the original living room and dining room for a master bedroom suite, a family room, and a
revised kitchen. Now, the master bedroom is out the back. It's got it bathroom and walk-in closet. Forward of that, we have a great room space. We have a new kitchen, a new family room, and some place to eat in. And that's the footprint of what we're
at, which is about 875 square ft. And that's leaving the other footprint piece around. It's a wrap around total 875 >> on the first floor. >> On the first floor, which is where the majority of this,
>> I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you just open number eight and go to sheet two >> just so that we all know everybody knows what we're talking about? Just go to sheet two. >> The second from the left is the first floor plan. A bunch of dash lines. When
I measured and surveyed the house, those were beam ceiling. It's really very nice. But behind that beam ceiling is this place where there's a kitchen, there's a bathroom, a little entry. There's a
built left of that piece of the original square of the house. to the left in the front there's a porch but to the front there's a porch and behind that probably was a wraparound porch before but it's been closed. So that's the flavor of what the first floor is. Second floor
has four bedrooms very small one bathroom. The half story up above portion in the back is really a bedroom. The other ones are sort of acting as closets but they may have been bedrooms way back
in that way. Here's a basement. It's about 6 and 1/2 ft tall. So now a client comes to me. I want to have my guest on the first floor. I don't want to go up and down the stairs anymore
and and change those bedrooms up there on the second floor and the third floor. Half story. Let me bump it out a little bit. I want a little more space and replicate dorm where the stairway is. Replicate that just behind it. And that's sort of the expansion. And then
if you go to the next page, scroll that should be the proposed plans describing in the dark shaded wall. Walls are sort of expanding like the new walls. So on the left is the basement. Yes. Underneath the addition is a bit a basement. You step down
water table allows you 7 and 12 7 foot nove that we have this new master suite. We pitch it on a new stairway that's wider than the old room stairway.
Tonight come off the driveway off the stairs where you stay down on that level in the front. Second floor, we've got these other bedrooms and refurbished and so forth. Four really nice size bedrooms
closets, three bathrooms out better. Then you go to the half story which this the trunk a little bit, but same idea. There's a second dorm room behind the stairway. There's this space which is now sort of like a family room. There's still a room that could be
a bedroom. I don't know. It's kind of used as a bedroom, but what it is. And then the balcony out the back, which is a little controversial. That's the flavor. What is the other next two sheets are elevations. What
does it look like? So from the front, you won't really know any different from the front. From the east side, that dark shade area is a bad PDF, but that has a dormer on it. Maybe it's easier hard to
see. It's another dormer similar to the one in front of that dark spot. Um, and that's the expanded uh half story. Now problem with expanding half story is this existing
roof is that much above the 35 height limit and this is based on the grades taken from the uh surve. So it's not like one spot. It's like it changes a little bit but it's basically 1 foot
three or 1 above 35. down with the way the roof is now. It's hip root performers. You It's very difficult to add on to that and not maintain that same height. Again, it's a hip loop. So, it's not much of a ridge
line because it tips in on all sides. So, I didn't I thought, well, I'm here for the other occasions. It's architecture is difficult and aesthetically unpleasing to try to drop
that down 1.3 just give that a different slope. It would just be a mess. So here that and I did calculate on the upper left of that same drawing there's a calculation of how much of this roof is above 35 and it's
this little crosshair piece. That's it. The door comes up to a point chopped off like you know one foot. It's like a little area. It's like not much. You would never know from the street that it's not 35. I know, you know, it's
not soaring above and it's also sloping. So it doesn't feel like a flat 35t or 36. >> What's the 35 ft permitted and what you say 36? >> It's 36.25. And you all can check
the discrepancy. Your server says 35. >> That wasn't it. That's not the >> That's the application. >> Your application says 35.25. Your survey says 35.9 say 36.25. >> You're testifying to the revising
looking at the grades all around the thing. I don't know where the survey is from but from his survey points I went up and I did all that and some of it one one size 1.3 one because the ground changes so >> worst case scenario is 1.3
>> I think the comment was more so just for clarification >> exactly right I just want to I think it's very >> and and for the record though whatever the ridge height is right now you're keeping that same >> ridge height same >> correct It's not going to be any higher
than than >> and the grade isn't any higher either. We're not changing the grade either. >> And and the fact that you're proposing that uh dormer to the rear east side, >> um that's going to be tucked in behind the the existing dormer in the front.
>> Well, it's it's going to match up with it. Again, the better drawing is the one from the AR series. >> That was on there. >> That's the number two and three. It's these sides. You can bring those up. But matching dormers, one's over
>> where the the tab at the very top. Yeah. >> It should be the three sheets. >> No, number seven. Number seven. >> Oh, seven. >> Number seven. >> There's that second door. And let me see how it lines up plan. The next
showed in the elevation. That's the west side. That's the west side. That one does not have a second door. It just maintains the same out the back which mimics the door that was at the back
>> on the east elevation. The next sheet >> next sheet scroll to the next one. There's a better version of it. It's shaded so you can see what's new and what's not new. >> Which is the shaded one to the left is new. You see how to
>> orientation wise on the right side here is the front. >> Correct. >> Correct. And that's the shape. >> Yeah. And the shading throws it off, but it's all the same material. Of course the same just that it's supposed to give
you a visual how much of that is >> and and it almost appears by this u facade that you have a gable roof going from the front to the back. But that's not accurate. >> That's not because those are doors front and back set back from that angle roof
roof. Also while we're on this elevation this elevation which is on the driveway side from front to back of the first floor. There's four windows sun room. Then you have the existing two double windows which are part of a D space. Then the
left of that is kind of that's where the stairway is and there's the entry door from the side. Uh, and then the other window that's right on that second floor. You see
the dark line back existing. There was a one story piece here. This is now two stories. This is one story. This is the roof over this new piece here. And then this is that balcon that's tucked in behind the roof. It's tucked underneath so it doesn't
look so obvious. And then this is a new door. This is a new door that's existing. And then some of these are these are new windows. We put a new window here just to give it more balance. Look more like this.
That's really that's the impact of what you're going to see. No impact on the front looks exactly the same. >> And from this side it's set because it's the driveway side. It's set pretty far back on the property. Main Street.
>> Um and then let's go back to the last set of All right. So, so I just want to run through the board so they understand the variance that we're requesting for the setback if we can. >> Sure.
>> This entire line of the house and I'll go foundation first. Second is 2 something. >> Is there any point? >> Oh, it's got
>> So So what Don's pointing to is the the west side >> west side the west wall is about 2 feet and change from the property line as it exists. This piece too which is one story. the addition
not here but over here and then it jogs back to five feet. So this line stays the same on both this floor and the next one the second floor now maintains this same line because structurally it's very difficult to set this back and then you
have a very skinny elevation or floor plan. So if you go to the next page, you can see that that line is being maintained here. That's over the one story piece. Then once we get past that, okay, now I'll abide with the setback.
Boom. That's back and goes back to this point here. >> And Mr. Pass just articulate. So there was another discrepancy. I believe on the block plan you have 4.9. >> I talked to him about that and I shoved this back four inches to make that work. >> So again, you can just change. >> He changed I thought he changed it, but
maybe you don't have it. 4.89 >> when I saw that. Well, he measured actually the siding went back looked at the foundation. >> I I shove this back >> just to clarify. >> Yeah, that's fine. But the intent was
I'm going to jog it back after this existing space, you know, wall so that it does meet. I don't want to violate the syntax. Here it is violated because it becomes a second floor over that. mostly roof on the upper level. So it
doesn't really doesn't really count. >> So the half story you're not even close to that 5 foot where the walls are >> correct. >> Correct. >> What is the permitted and what is the variance for the sideyard set to the balcony?
>> I'm sorry. Oh, okay. To the balcony >> or to the >> We're talking about the balcony. You're not changing the ground level, correct? >> It's more than 5t. It's >> a balcony. >> I want I want I want to make sure I know what you're asking. So, I'll give you
the correct answer. But I believe what you're asking is when we build this balcony, which is a piece of it, you're probably It's probably uh 10 ft from the property.
I'll have to check that. If you know how large your attic is, it be your closet. >> You don't show that. >> So you have So if you go to your wall, it will be 5T closet. So 5t plus your
attic closet will give you the That's right. >> So, it's an additional This is an additional about 5 and 1/2 ft. Now, that balcony edge is a good 10 and 12 ft from the property.
>> So, it is not exacerbating the existing nonconforming >> portion. Correct. So, the ground level is a is a pre-existing condition at what footage? >> 2.09.
>> 2.09 of the ground level. Right. >> And then the balcony. I thought >> the balcony was exacerbated. You're telling me no, it's it's >> it set in. >> Okay. So the the variance for the balcony is
merely that it exists that it's not it's not the sidewalk set. Okay. Thank you. >> There's a second floor going on also in that area. >> Right. This is >> which is going to be less than >> that's that's the variance request.
>> Yeah. Just imagine the first floor. >> Just pull that up just a little bit >> just so we Yeah. Okay. So amor just a little more so we can see the bottom. >> Yeah. So so you see where it says second floor plan proposed that third third
floor. >> Yes. Yes. This is >> so >> revised A3. >> You'll see right at the top of the screen there's a job that section right now a part of that is only one story
>> plus roof >> plus roof. So that section on the second floor requires a variance because it's going straight up from there. But when it where it jogs, it conforms. All of the new construction that's proposed to the
rear from that jog is fully conforming as far as >> Okay. So what is the number that the second story needs as a >> 2.09 ft >> is what it exists at? It's what it's saying is what is exact
>> 2.09 and there's nothing there right now. So >> correct. >> So there's no existing condition that's the exacer >> half story is fully compliant with that. >> Okay. Mr. um in terms of the impact of this
2.9 ft is it is it 12 feet 6 and 1/2 in um north to south that's now going to go up two stories and that's that's the negative impact. >> Yes.
>> Can you say that again Mr. Chair? Um well I mean I'm just going by you know what's here on on A3 second floor plan. um 12 ft 6 and 12 in
um is is the distance um I I want to say uh from north to south that will go up the additional story that's the increase in impact that's correct better way to put it that's correct
>> I'm going to add just note the building if you're less than 5T less than 3T you cannot have on that wall as a fire rated wall. As far as if I'm the neighbor, there's
no windows that close, which I think is part of the five setback, which is why most towns have a 5ft set back at minimum. So, you have windows on the neighbor, someone's two feet away, you don't want them to have windows that close to you. So, this one does not have
any windows >> at 12 and a half. And then I wanted to ask you about where you can perform at the five feet in the addition. Um is that a fireplace jog out that's less than two feet that we're seeing? >> Yes. >> And that's permitted. >> Two feet. >> Yeah. Two feet projection.
>> Yes. Okay. >> And now my other question is on this side now that we're going to be up are the fly rafters going to be on the property line or how far do you think they're going to come out? They go I don't have 18 in or something plus the
so I don't think it would go over the propert. I don't know if the surveyor survey the siding or the foundation but there sometimes two and a half inches. That's a lot. In other words, still the same answer but just so you know that two
feet and >> just think about the name. >> Yeah. Yeah, it should be over. We'll make sure it isn't. >> Mr. Chair, just to clarify the role, you're collecting all your roof leaders that are going into a dry back. So, you shouldn't have any adverse effect from
the e >> there won't be any, >> right? >> And that's going to be a new addition to the property. >> Correct. Yes, that's correct. >> Great. Thank you. And then um I did have one more. I'll turn it over to my colleagues. Um, when you do the addition
on the second floor, that gives you the opportunity because it's going to change your 50% number above because you've added the floor below is now bigger. So, you've got to build a bigger um half story, which is fine.
I do appreciate the um the exhibits showing the impact of the uh 30 to 36 4 in. Um that was very helpful. And so really we're talking on that hatched area on the top that you reflected
that's that's basically just 16 in that it's above. What is the roof pitch on that? Yeah, very helpful. >> It's probably I think it's a 10 on 12. >> 10 on 12. [Music]
So that hatched area. [Music] So you took a saw saw 35 ft. >> That's where we come off. >> That's Yeah. That reflects exactly where you're doing it. >> It's helpful for the border. >> Yes.
just >> he's not going to testify about the >> physical attribution. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But I think there's a discussion needs to be happening whether or not that's >> Yeah. If this goes forward, that's >> Yeah. My my client uh will provide
testimony on that, but obviously Don can testify as to the architectural detail of it. It's about >> but it's about it's a 70 foot balcony 10 by 7 ft >> on the second floor overlook in the back. >> Well, not but >> it's in the back.
>> Yeah, it's in the back. >> Yeah. >> Any other board members have a question for M? >> Yeah. So, I understand the hip roof and I understand the um desire to keep that, but just looking at that really what it
impacts is your dormers mostly, right? Because you could just drop that roof a foot, four inches, whatever, and you can build that hip roof and maintain your main gables. All it's really impacting is your dormers. So all you're really doing so you can
actually meet the code and all you're going to do is you're sacrificing some room interior room dimension because your dormers had to get smaller. So so I understand you made the testimony that it was messy with the roof lines and the problematic. general. My suggestion
would be that to reframe that it's the dormers would become smaller and then it would reduce your floor space on the interior, but you could maintain your slopes of your roof lines and your and your hip roof without um jeopardizing
any architectural or structural um what you're doing is you're going to have to reduce your dormer sizes. >> So correct, it can be done that way. The most important impact of that is maintaining the ridge line so that it
looks like it belongs and also matching the two dormers. If that's a jeopard, you'll get jeopardy and that doesn't look right. I mean, I've done plenty of additions where you would do something like that with this. It's not that big. And if I if I had the existing dormer
and the new dormer was smaller that close, just aesthetically I think would be unpleasing. And I'm thinking, okay, what are the trade-offs? And I I go through this. Why would I ask for this variance? Well, it's pure aesthetics. You can do all these kind of things to
it, but then it looks like you did that addition. Why is that dorm work right next to the other one and smaller? Now, this my client wants the other door. I get it. You know, he's my he's where I do all this work. But I'm trying to make it look nice because on this board, you
know, after this, they get to build it and it's all done. three years from now. And I'm looking at that, I'm like, that that's why I did it because it matches. Not that it looks like a smaller version of the other one in this case. Okay, there's other cases where you would do a smaller one, but not in this case. It's
just too close. So that's why I did it. You can vote against it. I understand. But that's why it's done. >> So you can't make both the same size. Is that what you're saying? >> Well, one's existing, one's new. So you want them to match. >> So Right. So you have to I have to
change it. You know, that's over the stairwell. It has headroom issues. I mean, yes, you know, we can do anything. We're trained to do anything, but we want to do something that's aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood, for the house. The
interior space isn't wasn't the important piece of it. It was the aesthetics of having it getting a little bit bigger for more space in general in size and to have a matching. That's it. I >> think changing the existing what's the
issue? >> Just dropping it down. Yes. >> Yeah. It's more It's not more expensive. >> Yeah. >> But it is the intent. I mean, if I can understand the intent is to make it look like it was all built like this.
>> That's it. That's my job. >> So chopped up. >> Mr. Pman, when you did the calculations for the 50% on the two and a half story. Did you do the 33% at 7? >> I did.
>> Yes, it's tight. >> It was a vin diagram of those two calculations. >> But having that steep roof, you know, and there's certain things you can do and getting a 7 foot height in those closets help. We can in these closets,
you can make them seven feet, 6' 11. So for the resolution, what are you gently talking about? >> Well, this is about the building code because if this building were considered a third story by the building code, you
would have expensive ramifications. My client things you have to do to make it a threetory building versus a twostory with what they call a talking. It's a half a living space with access
with a stairway but only at the seven foot and higher mark. The area of that half of it can only be 33% of the floor. >> Not a variance issue, not a not a zoning
issue. It's a building construction issue. Not only do we have to comply with the ordinance for the half story, but we often have also have to comply with the construction code. >> Yeah. Just making sure for the homeowner that we say, "Okay, we'll give you a variance for what you have." >> And then he comes to and says, "Oh, you
can't build that." So, >> we had a long conversation with that the other day. I think Mr. Wishbance question. >> Mr. Chair, I just just a couple. One's the minimus. And are you going to testify about the drywall or somebody else talk about? >> I didn't design the drywall. Can you
testify to >> someone testify to it? >> No, we're not going to testify to that. But obviously, >> so your drywall is miscalculated. There's discrepancies and there are two different type of drywall that you're showing. >> Yeah. So, so we will provide plans to satisfy you as as
>> excuse me, I'll articulate my concern. One of the dry wells is shown as 600. One is shown as 900. There are two different types of drywall. Do you do you have a >> 500? 600 what? >> I'll explain.
>> You let us Click on the agenda. >> Go down to the agenda. The top one. >> Yep. >> There you go. >> And you want the bottom. >> All right. So, I'm I'm gonna get nerdy. So, these are a little bit. >> So, these are two different types of
drywall, right? This is a Marshon unit. It's a pre-fabricated unit. Concrete box. The idea is that water comes in. You have two outlets that you drill another manhole structure, like a little orvisit. That's nice. On the bottom, it'll have a hole in it and it'll stop to percolate. What this is is this is
like an old school BMP from like, you know, 90s, which is fine. And inside, I don't know if inside all of this is supposed to be stone wrapped, which you don't show. And the idea of these perforated pipes that you could open up that cap, look inside to see what water
elevation is. I would recommend to the board that they would have the applicant go with this MON tank which is 900 compared to the 600 that they provide up here just because you have more storage capacity and it would just be I honestly it's probably just two details that they threw up. Um but if you'd like to I
could articulate a little bit more if you'd like. We'll we'll we'll stipulate in the resolution that they will make that change. >> Well, I I'm not I don't think I can stipulate to that because here's here's the thing. We are not asking for an purpose coverage variance. In my
opinion, this issue is not under the perview of the board. We can make it as a resolution compliance to provide a plan that will be satisfactory to your engineer. But this is beyond the scope of the board for this application. But you are coming you are coming here for relief and this is >> but we're not asking for relief on
purpose coverage or >> building this could be a concession if you will that you show it >> well >> we prefer this one >> well you're you're right on the limits really you don't need a variance for this you are right on the limits but I
mean we could consider a positive benefit to your overall application >> and the positive benefit is we are providing a drywall I don't think we're required to even provide a dry with this application but we will provide that but without having the ability to talk to
the engineer about this normally I'd have an engineer here if I had previous coverage but we don't on this application so >> so who designed these two different >> landmark engineering engineering but they're not they're not here >> okay
>> how would you like to handle it if I I'm not going direction. >> The the MON tank that you show, that's actually another detail below it. I believe is most likely what they're going for because you have a 900 g. I I would prefer to see for a drive system
that would help any adverse effects of your neighbor lot larger system. And again, just to get a little dirty. This system doesn't have the stone voids inside it. It has it around it. So, what that does is the stone now allows for more water to be inside that tank. Um,
as a best man practice, it's better to have that Sean tank without the boys in it. Um this is not even exaggerating from 2004 the best management practice. >> Okay. So let me just question. >> Sure. >> Um so I get this right and I agree with
what the attorney is suggest the attorney is suggesting which is a condition that you be uh you review and reasonably require what you want. But here we're telling you the board wants
this and so I'm going to write it into the resolution as a condition of compliance subject to reasonable approval by our hard board engineer. And the the idea would be I think two of two dry wells that are both the same.
>> So it's just I just want to clarify they're only proposing one dry well. They just show >> two details. >> They show this is one detail. This is your MON tank. >> Okay. >> And this is a different type of dry well. >> And just so you see 600
>> 900 M tank. This tank would be >> a greater impact on any adverse effects of drainage compared to this. >> Okay. What is that 600 gallon? >> So this is a So yeah, I want I'll get >> I want to know what we're putting in. I don't care what you
This one is a 900 prefabricated MON tank is what they're told. that >> okay only one not two different >> I like talking about engine >> no that's fine I just you know >> okay Mr. Chair does that satisfy the
board general >> that satisfies me any other board members issue >> an issue just but I tend to I understand this is part of the And
the force you're talking about putting it in moralization of the force that issue whether or not it's required or not. >> Well, and that's my point. I mean I I I
I'm not trying to go with your side. I'm just trying fair about this. >> I'll just um I'll continue to try to articulate my side. Right. We brought up how far out the eaves go. So the e are within 12 in let's just to say of the property line. What this is showing what they're proposing is a reason why I
think it is more favorable to have an application if they propose this. The reason being is because now all of your roof leaders all those gutters are collecting and not potentially overspilling onto your neighbor's property from that. >> That's why I would recommend that. >> In addition, there's a substantial
addition to the roof systems. >> Yes. >> Which increases the run and If I'm am I mistaken the runoff preconstruction should be the same in post construction. So this would be a way for them to accomplish. >> That's correct. >> And and again we would have to
accomplish those things anyway. But my my point is to force us to choose one system over another if both of them work is in my opinion beyond the scope of this board. >> Okay. I mean why were two submitted? Was that >> that I don't know. I mean I'm not an engineer. These were submitted by your
>> Yeah, it was part of our uh I guess this is the plan the plot plan >> and and I will point out that the same company Landmark who did this pot also did the two surveys that we have in in there and our engineer has already
pointed out several deficiencies in those plants as well. This is probably a deficiency in the plan showing two different things and not picking or choosing what you want. So again, I'm going to use the word reasonable with our board engineer. He's going to reason
reasonably require what is appropriate. Knowing you don't need an impervious coverage, knowing you don't need a building coverage, but >> drive wells work wonders for the neighborhood. So you >> Well, and again, that's
proposing requesting the drywall. Yeah. and and it's the type of system that you know me sitting right here, my client sitting right here and architect sitting right here, we don't know the difference in cost. We don't know the difference in impact. Um and but at the end of the
day, I agree with Mr. Coin. We've got to keep it at least uh no no worse off than what's existing with this proposal. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with that being in the resolution. What I do have a problem with is mandating a certain system if we can accommodate it with with a system
that satisfies our obligation. >> All right. We might have to duke it out when I write the resolution. >> That's enough. >> Is there currently a drywall or No, >> there is not. >> No. So, what you're saying is there's plans to put a drywall in. Period. Which is already an improvement.
>> Yep. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Correct. So I agree that the fact that that's the intention of the plan should be acknowledged as um you know an improvement the property whether it's a 600 or a 900 is an improvement. So
rather than you know overreaching I think it's probably a good idea to acknowledge that for what it is and not get into some of the >> but no one's done the storm water calculations which which really would tell us to Sarah's point whether it is 600
>> well and look again at the end of the day that's not my decision that's not the architect's decision that's not the board's decision that's Mr. Rocking offices and we will provide a clearance, you only have about 15 of
the usability of that bathtub or shower. So, if you're ball or anybody bigger than 5T, that's almost not usable. That's not my perview. I just wanted to throw it out there just as a just so you know. >> Oh, that's I took a
>> good one. >> For the record, that was the unidentified I said very >> Mr. Um I think if there are no other questions for Mr. Pass.
>> Uh sure that'd be great. Uh at this point in time we'd like to open it up to the public. Any uh questions for Mr. Passman? Questions only. Uh please step up. Um, just give your name and address and we'll be happy to have you question this pass.
Seeing no hands, I'll close the public portion for questions and thank you. I'll call my client up. >> Okay. For the record, this gentleman has been sworn earlier tonight. Your full name and your address, sir? >> My full name, Russell Curts.
615th Avenue. >> You are the applicant. >> I am the applicant. >> Thank you. >> And Russell, you're also the owner of the property. I know the property. Um, is there anybody we could pull up the tax map by any chance?
>> I believe um >> might be on the the borrow somewhere. >> It's on the county site. >> You have The keyboard is right in front of you. And you can also
>> Do you want me to do that? >> You can. Yeah, cuz I can't get over it. >> And it's it's sheet 12. >> So [Music] She 12. She 12. 57. >> It's 57. Why is mine 12? I pulled it up
yesterday. >> Maybe she'll try to see sheet seven. >> Why does that say 11? I can see it from here. >> I see. You know, I see >> your bottom corner. >> That's all around >> and I'm walking to
>> Yeah, >> so for the record. >> So, for the record, this is this is the burrow's tax map sheet 11, which is which is this block. Um, we are lot four in block 57. So, we're that lot that Mr.
Hawking just pointed to. And, and as everyone knows to orient you, east side where you see Fifth Avenue is Fifth Avenue straight up to the beach. And, uh, north side of the property, Fifth Avenue is where that jog is going around
the school and the and the uh, church. Um, so Russell, um, you're asking the board to grant a variance for a balcony on this property. >> Yes. >> Um, can you just explain some of the reasons why you're asking in this particular location for this particular
project? >> Yeah. The the point of the balcony is to give us an opportunity to have a view of the ocean. Right now, from the third floor, what we see is the corner of the the school. And by having a point of view that's a little bit further back,
we can uh see down uh the straight part of Fifth Avenue to the beach and get a little bit of the benefit of the ocean view, a little bit of perhaps the breeze off the ocean and just kind of a nice ambiance. I don't know what else to say
for for enjoying something my wife and I always talked about. Um, so the so that's that's the main point >> and and your understanding obviously is that you you're asking for a variance for this condition? >> Yes, I understand it's not permitted by
the current rules or laws of the >> you understand that balconies are permitted under the ordinance on those half stories. Correct. >> Uh, yes, but only in the front. >> But but only in the front, >> which will just give me a better view of the school. >> And
I'm not any better school both my kids >> and probably the church tower as well I would think. Um so from the standpoint of this property um and the master ordinance with the encouragement of utilizing views of the ocean and those kind of things that's
your your rationale as to why for this property proposing this. >> Yes. >> In addition the location of the balcony when it comes to the overall structure if you could just provide an explanation to the board. it. Um well um it's it seems like the
appropriate the the reasonable place to put it would be just a you know a small door you know a door out the back and a small platform to be able to get that advantage that you know we that I talked about uh a chance to you know enjoy the
the view maybe down to the ocean maybe a breeze and uh just uh be I mean we're not trying to help a barbecue out anything like that. It's just a small thing that, you know, we've talked about for years, but haven't really gotten around to until
now. >> Alternatively, I I suppose with this application, you could propose a little bit larger second story and enclose this area with glass windows, those kinds of things. Correct. >> Uh I suppose so. Yes.
>> Um a little more money. It would give you those views, but inside versus outside. >> Uh, yeah. I mean, I hate to say it this way. It's just, you know, not what we
This is what we talk about. >> And when you said that you talked about this with your wife, how long would you say you talked about this with your wife? >> Well, um, I mean, we bought the house. Well, she bought the house in ' 86 and uh
>> 87. >> Yeah. I mean um I mean she she passed away in 2021 so we don't talk about it anymore but but except emotionally but um that's I mean you know we were we
were both working she worked up until she got sick and you know and then it was then it was during co so there wasn't really time to anything at that point but um I'm still going forward I mean the kids understand
I mean they're part of this discussion too. >> And you understand that if the board doesn't like the balcony, what would you propose? >> Uh I would in that case I would come back with a proposal that would uh uh
maybe build out the second floor a little bit deeper over the over the proposed first floor uh to uh get the coverage requirements to enlarge the third floor a little bit more out the back. So again, we could try windows that would be open sides.
>> And as your understanding when we're talking about coverage, I'm going to go to Mr. Wishb's comment. We're really talking about coverage when it comes to the building code because this balcony is already accounted for in in the third story half story. >> I say one other comment or two about
other things. >> It's it's your application. All right. Um, we talked about groundwater coverage. I know it's not considered in the application a favorable thing, but at at some extra expense, when we did the garage apartment, we made a significant part of the driveway open
pavers. So, there would be better groundwater absorption water. So, I know it doesn't count in any of the calculations because you don't get credit for for open pers, but I just wanted to point out that I am sympathetic to that issue and have made
taking actions in that in that regard even even though it cost me a little more money. And as far as the bathroom, no, you cannot stand up in that because you only have about that much. My wife couldn't either. She was barely
5t and you can't you have to sit on the stand. >> It's actually better for us. Okay. Anything else you want to add? >> I mean, we we've been there for a long
time. We love the house and uh we kind of want to keep the same look and feel because I think it's such a really we try to take good care of it. This is kind of >> Thank you. Any questions?
>> Have you done any calculations on the angle? Because it doesn't appear that the angle is going to be correct for you to look down a to see the ocean. >> Well, um well, for one thing, u you know, a balcony, an open kind of view would give
us a chance to kind of swing our I mean, it's not like the window has to be aimed right down Fifth Avenue, right? I can out at an angle from the balcony. Um From this angle, it appears to me, and again, I'm not an engineer, but you'd be
looking at the 35 foot houses on on Fifth Avenue and not looking down. So, I'm I'm puzzled how you can see the oceans. >> Um, well, is it okay if I >> Yeah, sure.
>> I mean, what I'm trying to do is roughly get a line size. >> Uh, No, it's okay. I'll just kind of do it with my hand. >> Okay. I'm trying to get a line of sight down this avenue, right? >> And so that comes back and that hits my
lot. >> It looked like if you did the balcony in the front that you would have a better shot >> the balcony in the front. I look here. >> No, you got you have a setback. I have a little bit of a setback. So, I'm looking
here, but I can look out the the second floor windows and the third floor windows and not see the ocean as it is. And the third floor dormer is already back behind where the front porch would be. >> This isn't 65, >> yes, 615th Avenue.
>> I mean, have I engineered it to give a direct line of sight? No. But it uh it just it looks it looks to me like it it lines up. >> If you were to put excuse me if you were to fly a drone at that elevation and then just turn and be able to look had
the drone video, you probably would see that you're going to be seeing trees inside the houses and apartment buildings and possibly not even be able to see the ocean from that view. I'm on the 300 block and it's it's difficult. The glimpses of ocean are very minimal from the second half story. So I I'm
just I I understand your desire, but I mean before you look at that effort and everything, I don't know that you actually can even accomplish that. >> Well, I I would still get the briefs even if I don't get quite the direct line of sight I'm looking for. >> I mean, there there is a fair amount of
play here, right? But I not around see But it's clearly not from the front of the house. >> Right. >> With regard to that, there's no mention of the with the variance for the balcony
on the documents on the uh >> the there's no mention of the variance in this. >> Yes. No. So the yard was adjusted. So what we did have is um if you're referring to
our letter um the balcony was an oversight on our design existing before. So it went from 4.89. We just wanted to have testifi testimony excuse me and they did testify that it's
going to be 5 ft and not >> Yes sir. Regardless of the deal, that's nobody's guaranteed deal. >> The we've struggled both the years rear balconies >> and have
shot 99.9% of them down. It's for reasons are privacy reasons, neighbors privacy issues, >> uh overlooking, you know, people's backyard. Mhm. >> Yeah, you can you can tell when looking in the backyard, but having an open
porch or open balcony, it just seems to exacerbate the issue. >> Um, I would not be I would like to set the balcony up and just because shouldn't really because it's just all about can of worms in the
future of more balconies not in the right place. And I we just we've fought this so many times >> and uh to the ordinance the ordinance changed dramatically to prohibit that
because of the discussions. I my personal opinion is just can't be just rid. >> Just to echo the vice chairman's comments, um there are no balconies allowed on garage apartments for that same reason and it was done
intentionally by the council and the planning board at the time. And also uh with the adjustments to section 450 of the ordinance, it was a lot of time put on the balconies to allow them just in one location when you're up that high
and it is a privacy issue. So we have to think about the the other residents. >> This is the the application is a in our opinion a unique property when it comes to the location and the angle of the street. the the direction of Fifth Avenue as it heads east where how this
property sits within block 57. So so you know trust me we've had these conversations with our client we do think we we had to come in for Barance anyway. We did think that this is one of those unique situations that you take
advantage of what your master plan says about uh about having the you know the the ocean uh views and the ability the ocean breezes and those things. So you know we thought that this is an appropriate property for that. I understand what you're saying. I
understand what the ordinance says and again we've had those conversations with our >> and the ordinance does reflect and life also which are things that we are considering the balance of your application. >> So you know again we're looking at a balancing act here and um I don't
believe the property is uniquely suited for this because it is six blocks from the ocean. uh if you were in the ocean block and you had a lot this big that I would probably I don't believe this this lot is specifically suited for this
request. So the words >> are going to I'm going to have to have a quick discussion before before I do that and probably Mr. >> Right. Because I don't like bifurcating votes. No, no, no. I don't want to go down again
>> from this application. I noticed it particularly. >> Well, we have we have members of the public. So, maybe we should if you're done with this, >> maybe we should hear if any questions have >> at this point. >> Are you done with this one?
>> I'm finished, but okay. At this point in time, we'd like to open Mr. Curts, the owner, up to any questions from the public. Not comments, just questions. >> Any questions, >> gentlemen? >> Uh, seeing none, I close the public
portion and turn it back to you. >> Can I just have a few minutes to talk to my client? >> Sure. Should we take Should we take a recess like a recess? >> Whatever. >> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion we take a five minute recess. >> That's fine. >> All in favor?
>> Thank you so much. Just keep in mind that the YouTube is still running. >> You can't stop and start the live stream. about went to Zaha Island. However you want to do it
like >> Yeah. No, this was on there. It was just for the first time. Yeah. about >> okay. Okay. Yeah. No. >> And then Yeah.
St. [Music] Well, it's generally [Music] St. Marens. It's fresh. It's requirement. Yellow
one spin. Take one. Thank you very much. meeting. >> Well, we can't say that. >> Anyway, I appreciate that. So, that was You're done, right? >> We can reconvene. Yes, we're ready.
>> Everyone back. >> I'm just going to take a quick roll call. >> Um, Cher >> here, >> Mr. Mayor >> here, >> Mr. Wishbell >> here, >> Miss Mahoney here, Mr. Mayor >> here, >> Councilman Nikki >> here, >> Miss Har >> here,
>> Miss Ley here, and Mr. Fger >> here. >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Chair and board members, like represent spoken to the client. He's heard comments from some of the board members and uh has agreed to remove the document from the rear. Other than that, the application remains the same. Thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Well, you want to open up public comment? >> Yes, I would. Kind of weird. I'd like to open it up to public comment. Uh comments only uh from
any members of the public. Uh seeing none, I'll close the public comment and I'll turn over. >> Thank you. Just a very brief summary. Um so with the removal of the balcony, we're asking for two variances. One variance is is to match the existing uh
um hip roof at the existing height, which as the testimony provided was just a very small area 18 in by 18 in more. I guess it's probably 18 by 36 when you talk about the roof line being 12 over 12. Um, and in addition to that, that
enables you to provide a matching dormer to the rear of the house that's tucked behind the existing uh dormers in the front. Um, the roof line doesn't change anything in the front from the view of the front. It's strictly going back, which from a historical perspective of a of a construction like this, you'd want
to match that. That's what you'd want to do from a historical perspective. The second issue that we're asking for the variance for is we have an existing setback uh condition in that existing one-story uh rear and as a result of that we're asking to be able to continue
on the second floor that same line up to the point where the existing first story um uh ends where anything to the rear of that is going to match your 5 foot set. So those are the two variances that we're asking for this application. Um
and and I think the testimony as far as the aesthetics and those things, these can be justified as both a C1 as well as a C2 variance. >> C1, what's the hardship? >> The hardship is you have an existing structure and condition. >> So we're matching roof line that's
existing. We're matching the existing um setback >> C2. C2 aesthetics character the building in those you know neighborhood those characteristics >> do I have a motion board what
>> approve >> approve resolution >> and if you could state your reasoning for just review what >> yeah I'd like a lot of back and forth just make sure we got
>> so we're we're granting a height varian for 36.25 ft which is the existing condition on the main structure. Uh we're also granting a second variance for the
westerly side setback at 2 is it 2.9 ft 2.09 >> 2.09 ft uh for that portion where the second floor is going to be added. That's uh 12t 6 and 12 in. um where that
second floor will be an increase um into the side setback um and then the balance of the structure will meet the requirements >> and additionally the balcony has been >> the balcony has been removed and the
storm water management plan uh will be approved by Mr. office at time >> at time resolution comp a hardship with the house being hyped out aesthetically
It'll be good to have everything. >> Missy, >> I vote yes. I think that um the balcony was um for gratuitous but a good try and uh I wish you luck on your uh the fifth
that block of Fifth Avenue 600 block has been looking just amazing. There's been a lot of great improvements here. >> Mr. vote. >> Uh, vote yes. Uh, I think the plan will agree. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, >> yes. Vote yes.
[Music] >> Uh, Councilman Noiki. >> Yes. Um, I think that would give a better straight and pleasing. Good job, >> Miss Lady.
>> I vote yes. I think it'll be the roof line. for >> um Mr. Frederick. >> Yes, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. And um basically everything said
before. Thank you. >> And share. >> Uh yes. Uh I vote yes. I believe it meets the uh purposes of zoning item uh I to promote the visual environment through creative development techniques
include civic design arrangement. Um I am very impressed with the uh submissions and made it very clear uh it is C1 and C2 uh alike and um your presentation helped us understand the impact.
Thank you very much. Thank you. [Music] >> Compliance >> for compliance. Um technically two um
and once they're being ready then I'll add a so >> we can move down to just old business. I'd just like to go over uh our our plans for November
uh with Jake in terms of uh the planning we talked about last time you were here. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> And uh we were waiting for the end of the October month, >> right? >> See where the state was and I just want to clarify that you'll be able to have something for us.
>> So they they didn't reach out to us to set up that technical review meeting. Um, but when I did speak to Christine, she said that in her crystal ball, she declared that they will get back to us by the end of the year. So, within probably the next couple months, she
said probably well before December, they'll get back to us with the date to set up that meeting. Well, look, the problem I have with it is that, you know, we've really planned and I think we all agree upon in terms of our conversations here as a board that we
would like to put this to bed by the end of the year so we can turn it over to council January 1st. We're allegedly told that they have until March 30th to submit that. We want to give them enough time. Yep. >> So, I feel like we keep getting pushed
back and we're here to do our work >> for sure. And I reiterated that to Christine and she assured me that that timeline of getting that in well before the new year is completely possible. So, >> it only leaves us two more meetings for,
you know, for us to, you know, review it and really make sure we're meticulous about what we're saying to the council. >> Yeah. No, I understand your concern. We're the same way. It's it's sort of a waiting game right now at this point and that that's what Christine has has relayed to me um since our last meeting.
>> So you don't feel we could put it on the agenda for the November meeting. >> I I would be able to get back to you if I could speak to Christine hopefully. Yeah. Um >> probably not by tomorrow. Um but I'm sure I could get back to you by Monday or Tuesday, reach out to her and she
could give me an idea of getting it on the agenda. >> Yeah, that was our goal was that November meeting because we Yeah. Yeah. Let Yeah. Let me run it by her, see what she says. I'll shoot her a text tomorrow and see if I can board secretary will put it on the agenda.
>> Yeah. >> And we're specifically talking about the ordinances. >> Uh yes, the ordinance for the fair share housing plan. >> So, let me jump in here. So, Jake, um call you take one of my cards and call
>> I I got you in. So, so I want to uh I also want to get prepared, so to speak. And the the ordinances are mostly done, I think. And we had a a packet that was
sent to us in our work during uh the pre before the summer uh that had the ordinances as they are drafted. So, we can certainly take a look at those. We need we need prison. >> Aren't those drafts included with the housing plan?
>> Well, those draft they were with the housing plan. That's correct. But I don't know that it's all the ordinances. >> Okay. >> And uh I don't you know I would consult with our affordable housing attorney who is Ron and he has a backup >> Mr.
>> Right. Mr. Couterro from my office and he has a backup because he's currently ill. So, we have a backup of um an affordable housing attorney who worked with us in Bradley Beach during the May June uh time period. So, I know she
dealt with uh the mayor and the council on their end of the affordable housing. So, I think that we should have a a couple of discussions that you can then convey with Christine. >> Sure. and then he'll contact you and the board secretary and let's see if we even
if we can get >> the ordinances that are already ready written we can probably do those in November December but again you run the risk of the technical review meeting uh
having stuff that we didn't do in our in our discussions you know you you're going to make a recommend recommendation to the council that these ordinances fit the master plan, fit the affordable housing, etc. You may change things and
then the technical review committee might come in after that and say, "Well, we don't think that this is appropriate here or we don't." That's the problem. >> Well, I mean, there's a couple issues because, you know, there there has been a lot of talk about the uh the sale of the church.
>> The council has indicated that they would like to take some of those proceeds and plan. So again, I'd rather not have a technical review unless we have a solid document to submit. I think that will carry weight with, you know, the reviewers
>> and um I have said it publicly, I said it here that, you know, I believe that should happen. Whatever the number is would be up to the council. Yeah. But I think it would be advantageous for us as a brow to show that good faith because the money has not been put into uh the
affordable housing trust over the last >> the last terms of the administrations. >> Uh so it's leaves us in a problematic situation not having the funds to really do rehabilitations which could be necessary beneficial for our plan.
>> Yeah. So, >> and of course our work then the council still needs two meetings to pass these. >> Well, yeah. And that goes quickly, you know, with with a reor January 1st. >> Yeah. >> Everything else, it does go quickly. So,
I I mean, I think we all agree as a as a group that we really would like to have it done by January 1st. So, if we could still focus on that uh November date again. Um we'll have some time to do the the agenda. I don't want to put it on
the agenda and then not get it done for the public unless but I I think we really need to have a conversation, >> you know, amongst ourselves. >> Yes. >> Christie, I'll I'll reach out to you after I hear from Christine if we can get it on there. >> Sound good? >> That'd be great.
>> Yeah. And I I will I will want to review what we have with the affordable housing attorney as well >> if I well I would like to know exactly what what it is we're listing as well. >> Yeah they they can't be just the factes. We need to identify them
>> right individually or however we're going to do that. Um does this require any sort of special notice? >> Uh I think it does. Um >> well it's it's a >> is it >> it's a recommendation that an ordinance
>> uh comply uh is consistent with the master plan. That's basically what we're doing. >> So I don't think there was a special need for that. >> Well, normally we do consistency review after they have their first read. >> Yeah. Between >> this is more of a workshop item, is it not?
>> It's a workshop. So I mean that that's I mean as far as public participation I mean it's listed on the agenda and the meeting was noticed. >> Yeah. >> Is there a separate notice for this? >> I don't think there is any second separate notice there eventually.
They're just treated as normal ordinances even though they have to do with the affordable housing. >> Right. Right. So any special notice if there is any is going to be at the council end. >> So I I agree that we should talk about
it and then make >> Mr. Chair you'll have have to make the call. Put it on the agenda. Don't >> so before we'll make that decision. >> I did have one other thing I want to bring up to the board to you and to
and that is >> God bless you. You may be aware that there There is now a new law about using publication through the website of your municipality rather than in official
newspapers. The effective dating of that is going to be in March. But the questions are coming up as to whether or not we still have to designate official uh newspapers. We still have to the the the idea of the new statute is get away
from the newspapers and do it through publication on your website. And so we should be preparing for that for our reorder meeting here. And of course, I'm sure your council, your town council and your I'm sorry, your burough attorney is
going to figure out what you guys what the council needs to do. Would we would then pick a specific website and announce that that's where it's going to take place? >> Well, I think for MLUL purposes, the council the the borrow's website is the
only choice, >> the borrow website. >> And how do we handle that for applicants? What do they use? >> They they Well, that's a good question. I don't know that. >> So, you have to you the idea would be is that all the notices go through the burrow's website and all of those
websites are be available in DCA. So you you're a resident anybody you can go one website click on just like tax beach you have those notices. >> Oh >> so so it would be like tonight Mr. Beman's notice about this calling out
the variances would be out in town. >> Yes. So it would have to go through the municipalities throughout the state municipalities website. So you have one area and again >> just forward on >> I I I think it's a little bit halfbaked
right now but that's interesting. I mean I I I like that the DCA is going to have one website but that is going to definitely put a burden on board attorneys, board secretaries to make sure that the applicants are doing right. Frankly, I think the MLUL has to
be amended because it talks about how they have to do notice, how they have to file affidavit of notice, how long it has to be, blah blah blah. >> And you know there there is no amendment of the MLUL while this statute is coming. It's very similar to another
statute that was done without considering MLUL and that's the outdoor that's the outdoor uh restaurant stuff that was pulled >> and and No changes were made to the MLUL. So it basically left the burrow
and and any other municipality, you know, flapping in the wind, you know, home rule. >> Yeah. Yeah. It it it itilated home rule in my opinion, >> you know. >> So we and I do not have my act together
yet on this. I have to prepare for it >> and I just want to put it on everyone's radar that we shouldn't be talking about it because it's a big change. We used to rely upon an official newspaper and that's all we had to look at. So,
>> you know, there are less and less official newspapers actually >> going out. >> Yeah, they're all >> Any other board members have any questions or comments for old business? >> Okay, >> good. Um, that being said, I will make a
motion to close the meeting. >> All in favor? Now they're watch. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. It is my