text. >> I did, but maybe it didn't work >> because I lost I lost my Wi-Fi. Shut it down >> at one part. >> 6:32. We could stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all the 48 hour notice as required under the open public meetings act has been met as notices meeting emailed on January 28th
2026 and published in the park for press the postar and the poster a copy has been placed on bullet board in the bur office and the copies file. Uh Mr. Bagley >> here. >> Uh Chair Cohen >> here. >> Council >> here. >> Miss Mahoney
>> here. Mr. Mayor >> here. >> U Mr. Mayor is excused this evening. Councilman Ricky is excused this evening. Uh Lauren Sar is excused this evening. Uh Mr. Wishb >> here. >> Uh Mr. Warette >> here. >> Miss Lady here. Mr. Frederick >> here.
>> And Mr. West >> here. >> And also present this evening um Marudo, our board attorney, Christine Bell, our board planner, and we're expecting uh Samuel Lvakian, our board. >> Great. Uh, welcome and thank you for
attending the um March 19th meeting of the Bradley Mitch land use board. Uh, the board will observe a 1000 p.m. time limit. There will be no applications or new testimony that will be started after 10 p.m. without pulling 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 from the public request no calling out from the audience. Everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard. After the board and professional staff have completed asking questions of
a witness, the meeting will be open to the public for questions of that witness. This will be the time for questions only and not comments. If you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. Come to the podium or come to the front here. I guess we don't have a podium tonight. Um, and I will
acknowledge you uh uh before asking a question, please state your name and address and spell your last name uh and direct your questions to that witness only. If a person from the public is represented by 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 an applicant and before the board takes action on the application, I will open the meeting for to the public for comments. This will be a time to speak on the application. The same
procedure I previously described uh for questions is is what is followed and all members of the public who wish to make a comment will be sworn under oath by the board attorney. Please be aware the applicant uh or attorney have the right to cross-examine any members of the
public who make comments. Written statements or letters from individuals who are not present, petitions or speaking on anyone's behalf is not allowable under NJSA 405D-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 their decisions. We hope that this public hearing and your attendance will be rewarding experience for all and thank you for participating in the process. Um so uh we will now go to
correspondence. Do you have none? >> There's no correspondence. >> Okay. Um and adoption of minutes. Turn that over to you. >> Uh sure. That's the approval of the meeting minutes which I distributed for from our regular meeting of February 19th, 2026 which was a memorable one.
Make a motion for second. >> Uh, Miss Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bagley. >> Yes. >> Um, Mr. Bernett. >> Yes. >> Miss Ley, >> yes. >> Mr. Frederick, >> yes. >> Mr. West, >> yes. >> Mr. Mayor,
>> yes. >> And >> yes. >> Thank you. >> We have a resolution to be memorialized. Um Christy, are we are we going to do that resolution now? The new one is that
>> um well I mean it's up to you if you want to wait till the end because I know we do have an application. I don't know if it's going to be open for discussion or >> Yeah, we'll change the order I think. I mean I'd like to get the applicants in. >> Okay. >> As soon as possible and and if we could actually push the consistency
determinations till later. >> Okay. >> So we we will come back to >> Hold on. Uh just just to note um I spoke to Sam he had a little confusion on the time but he's on his way and he said he should be here within 10 minutes. So I
don't know you would want to do the consistency first just >> well do we need him here? >> Okay let's do that. Thank you. So, uh, we'll do the consistency determination on ordinance 2026-17,
the bure of rather be supplementing the borrow code. Uh, article four, general regulations applicable to all zones with chapter 450 to clarify regulations pertaining to undersized lots and pre-existing nonconformities introduced
by the burough council at a meeting on March 3rd, 206. We have a letter from Miss Bell, our planner, stating that uh it is consistent with our master plan, which is really what our charge is, but if any
members have any notes on it, um why the change was made, I'd be happy to discuss that. >> Sure. Sure. >> Yeah. the um I mean the basic reason was the um we for and under just because the
lot had was undersized it was causing anything that was that wanted to be done with on within the property to create an application for a variance. But if the um applicant is not proposing anything
that otherwise requires a variance, then this would eliminate the need to come to require a variance for the application. >> So if there's no variance triggers, >> right, >> they can just get their zoning permit, >> right? So if they're if they're building and their lot coverage is because before
their lot coverage was within regulation, they still had to come because it was an oversized law. So if it still fits then there's no reason to trade >> so the folks on the north end of town get some relief in terms of >> um you know again it's got to be
conforming otherwise they will be here. >> Um I thought that was a good followup by the council. Thank you council. >> Um so if we have a vote on that proceed Mr. Chair just let make one observation for members of the public. So this is
the uh board uh making its consistency determination uh with the master plan per our planners report. From here this ordinance will go back to the mayor and council and it is scheduled right now for the mayor and
council to hear it in uh April I believe is the date I have it here. April 7, 2026. So, if anyone has any comment about this ordinance, uh it is at the public hearing before the council on April 7th.
>> That's it. >> Um yeah. And so that would be the time for the public to speak. That's why we're not open public because we don't really determine changes in the ordinance. We just determine whether it's consistent with our existing master plan. >> I just need a motion. Oh, I'd like to
make a motion that we >> find it consistent. >> We find ordinance number 2026-17 consistent with the master plan of the burough. >> Mr. War. >> Uh, Miss Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bagley. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Wish. >> Yes. >> Councilman Wiki. >> Oh, he's not here. >> Council. >> Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. Um, we have warn.
>> Yes. >> Miss Ley, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> And Cher, >> yes. >> Thank you. Uh our next consistency determination is on ordinance number 2026-16 of the bur of valley beach amending and
supplementing the burough code for the bur valley beach article 2 terminology and article 7 off streetet parking for driveways loading requirements of chapter 450 entitled zoning. Uh this is to permit larger driveways on certain
corner lots was introduced by the bureau council meeting on March 3rd 2026. Now, the the reason for this is that uh certain corner lots have difficulty uh circulating into their driveways and
it's it's really just corner lots on north south streets. Um they would have the issue and it was brought to our attention uh by by a resident and it's I think it's an excellent followup. The curb cuts are still 12 feet just makes the driveway a little bit wider so
they'll have better circulation. So, um, if there's any questions or comments from Christine, this was deemed uh to be consistent with the master plan by our town planner. >> Any questions? And then I would make a motion that we approve uh that the
ordinance 2026-18 is consistent with the master plan of the barre >> and the final hearing before the council will be on April 7, 2026. And and Mr. Mr. Chair, I think you said 202616. This one is 2026 18.
>> 18. Oh, sorry. 18. >> Maybe I heard of them. Well, anyway, that's what it is. 2026 18 ordinances tonight. >> Second. >> Miss Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bagley. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Wishb? >> Yes. >> Councilman Cart? >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Bornett. >> Yes. >> Miss Ley, >> yes. >> And Mr. Frederick, I'm sorry. I had only called eight the last vote, but it was still >> And um Mr. Mayor,
>> yes. >> And >> yes. Uh the next consistency determination is ordinance under 2026-9 of the B Valley Beach amending and supplementing the burough code of the Burough Valley Beach article 2
terminology creating a new article 13 subgrade garages and basement of chapter 450 entitled zoning to prohibit subgrade garages and promote flood resistance introduced by the burough at the burough council meeting on March 3rd 2026.
Uh so if there's any questions or comments on that >> I can go over it quickly if you like. Sure. So it's basically there are four things that are important in this um ordinance. Um one it adds a minimum of 3
ft of vertical separation between the lowest basement floor and the documented seasonal high groundwater table. So that raises it from where it is now which I believe is a foot. >> One foot. Um it requires certification of groundwater and flood elevation for any
application with baseline. Um it also disallows belowra garages which of course we know have inherent draining issues uh promoting flood resilience and it also clearly defines basement and sellers and the regulations
pertaining to both of those because before they were not well defined and so an applicant can come in here and claim something was a seller and we didn't have a definition for it so we needed to clarify that. >> Perfect. Yeah. the subgrade garages
really were part of the big trigger. Also, there were some that were spinning water into the curve all the time. And you know, I I get concerned about that because once once it happens, their systems aren't working, right? Then people put it in the sewer and
we're all paying for filtering water that's already. So, um, I I would make a motion that we approve the consistency review for ordinance 2026-9, the B Beach, uh, making this consistent with the master plan. Do I have a
second? >> I second it. >> Miss Mahoney? >> Yes. >> Mr. Badley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Wishbar? >> Yes. >> Councilman Park? >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Warnett? >> Yes. >> Miss Ley? Yes. Mr. Frederick? >> Yes. Mr. Mayor. >> Yes.
>> And chairman. >> Yes. >> And for the record, that will be heard by the council on April 7, 2026. >> Uh so uh next up, we'll do the uh the resolution uh for real later on. Uh but
we will move to applications land use board application 2023-1. Uh oh. That's not going to be heard tonight. >> I just wanted to make the >> I'll let you shall I make the announcement here. Uh that application
uh for use variance with both variances of Jefferson Berry block 85 block 5 423 and a half M Avenue will not be heard tonight as the applicants attorney Richard Stone has requested the matter be adjourned to the May 21st meeting uh
to allow them to revise the plan. So if there's anyone here with regard to uh board application 2023-1 that will be heard on May 21st. So, uh, want to make that clear and our next application would be Lisport
uh, 24-06 both variances for construction of the new 2 and a half story dwelling Michael and Carvita Pavo lot 18 lot 18 510 Place Avenue. The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing story dwelling and construct a new 2 and a half story dwelling with associated walkway, covered porch, rear patio, asphalt driveway. The applicant requires variances as it relates to front yard setback, side setback, building
coverage, length of curb cut, HVA setback, and shed setback. So, I don't see an attorney out here. So, are those here? >> Yeah, please step up. >> Before we get started, um Mr. West needs to recuse himself. he's within 200 ft.
>> Um, you are allowed to participate and ask questions of the applicant because you're within 200 feet, but you do have to take a seat in the >> See, I I would I would ask for a determination from that because I I feel if he's within 200 feet,
>> um, he can participate from the audience. >> Yes, he has he can't Great. Please come up. >> I can't recall. You guys just probably only rely on the uh the computer screen. >> Whatever is better for you. I mean, we do.
>> Okay. >> There's two of them. So, the public can see and board members can see. >> And of course, they have the file plans. >> I probably shouldn't refer to this now. >> Is that different, sir? >> No, it's the same thing. I just didn't know how to position it. >> No,
>> whatever's convenient for you. >> Okay, I'll I'll pull it. Thank >> I don't know if the extends there, but if you want, you can also >> Okay, thank you. >> Appcate.
>> Thank you. represent yourself. >> Nobody gets it right. Perfect. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think I realize I'm mispronouncing his name, too. >> And you have a professional here, so we
like to get his ials and swear him in if that's okay. >> Just for just for the record, sir, what is your name? The applicant. You're the applicant. >> Yes, my fellow. >> And your wife could be the fellow. >> Okay. So, both of you are present. You're sitting here at the table. You will be prosecuting the case.
>> And our witness. >> Okay. Um, >> raise your hand. >> Yes. We're to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you guide. >> Yes. >> Your full name and your company. >> Yep. Alec Abdias. last name is S hi S I A S um registered
architect and landscape architect city in New Jersey and let me just confirm sir I have a set of plans which it consists of three sheets originally dated April 23 2024 and the last date I
have on these is February 11 of 2026 >> correct >> there was an earlier revision that our board engineer I believe had. >> So, uh what was the changes between
the uh the March 2024 and November 21? That's the plans that we had that our experts here reviewed >> the the uh November 21, >> right? >> Yeah. So, between the original submission and the November was
primarily design changes on our end. Okay. >> And I I'm pretty sure that was the case. and uh between the November 21 date of 25 and February 11th was in response to the uh review. >> Okay. So you you're going to go over
those uh changes and you'll make sure so you captured some of the things that our report our our experts report gave you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. >> Yeah. There's Yeah, I'll go with the variances. I think >> Okay. Very good. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Great. I just want to clarify what boards have you testified in front of? >> Uh, I've been in front of Bradley at least twice. Um, mostly Monouth County boards, probably 20 to 30 of them. Okay. >> I mean, I could I could go over some >> and I've been I'm on a planning board in
my town and been on a zoning board myself as well. So, um, yeah. >> And your expertise is as an architect? >> Architect and landscape architect. Today, primarily architecture. >> Very good. Okay. >> You want to experiment? >> Sure.
>> So, Mike, my wife can be she goes by. Um, we after coming through college and saving for 30 years, we bought our we bought our house down. So, we couldn't be more excited. So, it was March 2021. At the time, we had short-term and
long-term goals. So, the short-term goal was just use it as a getaway. So, every two, three weeks, uh, us, the kids, something would be down. Long-term goals was she retire down to private beach and we would do that right when the we're fortunate that our kids
call us every day. We're super close. Um when they went off to college, I told all of them. The only thing you could possibly do to fend me is ask me for permission to come home. This is home. You just come. Moving down to Bradley, it's still home, but right now it's not
large enough. I got to do it. You know, if I want to come just so one of the primary drivers now for the revolution. Um, the goal was to do this 7 to 10 years from now on, but my wife had a medical procedure. It didn't go as well as we'd
like. She can't work. So, we can't carry two houses anymore. So, we're going to renovate. Come down. So, the part of renovation is hard to think. And the other thing is, boys, I know you grew up in Chester. Bradley needs your home. Just come. Don't ask.
Just show up. So that's that's really the big drive when I went through all this with with Al. We went through the plans, went through what I thought concept of what we want to do. And he said it's more efficient to just knock the house down and then start all over. You see, your foundation, the basement
walls, it's built like a tank. You're good to go there. But for what you want to do, it's going to be very expensive and it's a lot faster just to do it this way. >> Thanks. Um, yeah, I think that sum summarized it pretty well. So, when we first met, I think when they purchased the house, the the original a lot of
conversation I have with people is they think they're going to do a renovation edition. At some point, with how extensive it gets and how much you're doing, you're really not saving any money per se. You're dealing with other things. Ceiling height issues, old framing, you open the walls up, you find
all sorts of things. So, um, so I don't think they were happy to hear that, but, uh, one of the things I said, the foundation, however, is great. Um, they did like the proximity of the house to the street. So, I said, really what we should do is work off the existing foundation, do an addition, go back up
from there. Um, some of the project goals that we had was to obviously modernize the existing floor plan. Now, it's a new floor plan. Uh, they love the there's a pretty large front porch right now. We're looking to basically maintain and recreate that. Um, as as Mike's describing, I think four four kids,
right? All with families. >> We have three two three boys and a granddaughter. >> Okay. So, as they're getting older, they want an open floor plan for family gatherings. They envision some weekends. There's a function for family there. Um, and uh, also, as he mentioned, for for
longevity, we need a first floor bedroom obviously for aging considerations. And then the second floor was uh, needed to be four bed. Um the the also the attic was going to be a walk up just as excess space kind of a basement alternative. Um
the existing basement's not high ceilings. Um so uh I guess to go through the plans to kind of show how that worked out. Um let's see here. So okay corners on both. Great. So on the first floor uh you can see the pretty large um
or deep porch on the right side. Uh they also wanted to carry it across uh the full front of the house full for aesthetics um and and usability, but here could actually be a usable functional kind of like an outdoor room on the front porch. This side uh we we
know we're up against the front door setback. Uh six feet really kind of the functional minimum to a porch. You get below that, it's really almost more decorative. So that's that's kind of where we went with that. Uh on the left front corner, we have a first floor bedroom. Um a a guest stand, maybe a
bedroom flexibly. There's no there's no closet. So, um uh bathroom, full bath there, uh mud room, side entry from the drive, and the the main thing, the main open floor plan, kitchen, dining, living, uh switch back stair here, big
sliders going out to the back door. Um on the second floor, the stairs landed a central hallway, and you can see the four beds and uh group of three back. in the short term, at least or hopefully longer, uh this will be the master suite
on this side. Um and with the kids having um kids having grandkids, things like that, they want a little extra space in the bedroom so each family can stay in one staying for the weekend. And you can see again a habitable attic here within the roof framing meets definition
of half story, but gives them some extra space, more like a reck basement type alternative. Um on the exterior, this is the front elevation. You can see the front porch going from whole span left to right. The right sides the deeper
front porch we referred to. Um you can see on the right side here a little side entry with a covered entry just typical with the rain protection. Uh the rear elevation you can see the sliders covered uh roof entry. Um just again let
it be open because it's raining. uh it is facing north so it's not looking sun protection but that I'll I'll go over why I'm talking about that in a second but um yeah so that's the exterior you can see the the habitable attic uh within the roof frame so it really will
be a two and a half story home um so that that's the overall architectural description for plans elevations um now what I'll do is go through the variances uh you know what the what's required what's existing what's proposed um So
minimum front yard setback port uh it's 8.9 due to the neighboring average uh setbacks which there was a survey completed for uh we're currently at 7.8 uh we're proposing 7.7 and really the 7.7 is actually a little bump out just
to give a little more detail for these columns. So the main porch is actually um 8 8.7. So uh 7.7 again is just really stairs and columns right there. Um again obviously porches I think are always a
great element in downtown neighborhood type um uh settings 50 foot well yeah 50T lots things like that so uh even though it is a slight encroachment in the setbacks I think it's within the character of the neighborhood u minimum
side setback is 5 ft we are 2.2 two existing and that's along this side right here. You can see it on the um you can see it on the site plan. Uh we are proposing to maintain that due to the existing foundation. There is we are
proposing a slight extension in order to accommodate stairs here that goes back about another seven. So we're building on the 2.2 setback uh for majority of it and then there's a small extension here. Then we set back to I think it was like
seven or eight feet back um uh where where where could make sense for plan on the inter. >> Before you go through the rest of your variances, could you maybe just describe to us or show us what parts of
the foundation you're keeping? >> So we I I anticipate we're actually going to be keeping all of the foundation, which What type of foundation is there now? >> It's a mix of block and um and uh brick
>> and concrete. >> Did you have analysis done by a structural engineer? >> No, I generally do that myself. >> You're not the structural engineer? No. >> So, you say that the foundation is in great manner. However, you also stated that you find all sorts of things when you take down walls. >> Yeah. >> If you go to your next page, you also
show full new foundation walls in the light granach. So just so the board's aware that's something that I think is quite egregious to be honest. >> Um we all know you're going to start looking into it. We all know that if the board does go move forward. Foundations
are designed for a structural load of capacity of that building that's there now. So what could potentially happen is that you will approve this in the event that you approve it. Design new str new structural foundation for this house and the engineers going to say you can't do that. You know, so then the whole entire
thing's gonna go it's not even you could eliminate three variances if you just abided by those setbacks setbacks back coverage cover. Excuse me. The other problem that I do see is you don't know if the footing dimensions are correct. You
don't know if the reinforcement is correct. I know you're saying you're stating it. It's just really hard for me >> to digest and see what's on the screen now. >> Got it. Okay. Uh >> I mean another question is I mean are there footings there now? >> So there's some type of foundation there
now. You don't no one's done a test or geotech. You don't know if there's slab. I don't know if they're concrete to heal piles. >> How how old is the house? >> Built in 1999. So it's a older home. But the truth is we've seen it all the time.
What's going to happen is they're going to start ripping into the walls. And to your point, you're going to find all sorts of things and you're not going to be able to use the foundation. That's what's most likely going to happen. it would have been a different story at least in my opinion for everyone that forgive me I know what I'm doing I don't want to do the guy poking you know what I mean but this is one that's a little
uh gets me going right so if you had a structural evaluation done prior show from a PE structural engineer that the foundation that you're proposing is but when we're looking at this plan I believe is what Christine is alluding to I don't know how you're going to match a
foundation that you don't even know what type of foundation's there now to the foundation that you're going to propose So, I guess how I would respond to that. If if I'm dealing if I'm doing a tear down or an ad level on top of a brick foundation, that's kind of where I time
out. Like there's there's probably no footings under a brick foundation. There is for at least the vast majority of that, it's either a mix of block or concrete. And there I believe from what I can see, you can't see everything the way it was built. Um there's walls that
have been bolstered from block. The thing is pretty heavy duty. >> So again, you not being an engineer, I almost don't want to have this conversation, but why would the wall be bolstered reinforced if the original was as good condition?
>> Right. And the foot the proposed footprint is overall greater than what's there now. Correct. So you will need to put in additional foundation. >> Correct. Correct.
on that note like that wall that's the 2.2 ft currently maintains a twotory house and now that sheer wall would be 2 and a half stories. >> So someone's got to rate that. >> Yeah. And in addition to you are absolutely correct in addition they're
expanding like Christina just mentioning. >> So now your load isn't just another half story. Your load is if I want to articulate as best I can oneird of the home now weight bearing on that wall. could could an engineer come in there and have different columns and
short. I just my opinion to the board at least for my own professionalism is that if there's nothing here structural analysis no geotech work for soils and what could actually be fitting there what type of foundation it'll be I think it's hard again my opinion it
would be hard to vote yes on all of the variances you're tearing down the vast not really all of it you can make this much more compliant have a more favorable application to the board and every res know that the house is safe.
>> So >> great. I think kind of to go off that the reason I originally asked about um how much of the foundation they're keeping is because you know they are obviously increasing the size of the
house and um I think there's an argument for the variances right if you're building on the same footprint but they are expanding on it so there will be need to be you know extra
extra foundation, an extra layer of base in those areas where one doesn't exist now. And um I think to Sam's point, if the board approves this application with the variances because the
expectation is they're building on the existing foundation. That is what you're approving. If for some reason they're unable to do that and you choose to act favorably on the application, I would just strongly suggest, if they end up
pulling up the application, pulling up the foundation, you would require them to come back because then you're not building on the foundation that's there. Then you're starting from scratch and there's no no need for the variances.
And I so I just want to go a little bit further with that from your applicant's perspective. And I know you're not an attorney, but you're preserving or attempting to preserve the foundation. For what reason? Is it
because you want the existing variances to continue or are you saving money by using the partial uh basement and and or is it a combination of both? Because you're You're you're saying these are
existing conditions and we want to continue them. But if you get rid of that foundation, what you need to really say is we need the variance period. Because once you start with a clean slate, we have an we have uh the basis
to then say yes or no because if you have an empty lot, you should be able to make make some of those variances go away. Yeah. >> So you really have at this point based upon both experts here, you have a decision to make. Do you want to go
forward with your proposal which makes it very difficult to the for the board to assess? And you might find out when the shovel goes in the ground that you have to come back and start over again with us. So you really should either get
to geotech or make a decision one way or another. Do you need to anticipate that you can't use the the existing foundation or you can't use a lot of the existing foundation? >> Yeah. >> So, you kind of have a choice here. I
think Mr. Chair, should they continue with the application as is or do you want to get that geotech or do you want to just make a decision? We're going to take that that away and ask for the variances and the board will
determine what can be sort of agreed upon. >> Okay. Yeah. I all all great points. Um first I would think if we got an approval a heavy condition of the resolution would be if you tear this foundation out and I I have had that
happen before. It does happen. I don't anticipate that happening here, but if so, the risk would be we have to stop at demo, come back or move the footprint over. A B I I think primarily um I I
think it was probably a cost driver and maybe more disturbance and things like that on the site driving it because one of the negatives we discussed was being 2.2 ft from the lot, you basically can't have windows there as a fire code. Um, so >> right on that B on that side.
>> Yeah, that's that was one of the negatives we talked about if we want to keep that. Um, I don't I there was never any discussion. I don't think they talked about it was the idea of keeping the foundation in order to keep the house that close because that wasn't that that's a negative, not a positive.
>> So if if we're starting from scratch, it would be, you know, conforming on setbacks. Um, >> so to that point, you are pretty much starting from scratch in your front yard. You're still enhancing that front yard set even though it might be >> correct. You are enhancing that setback. >> Yes.
>> So that's another variance that you could have the board with a more whole application. >> Yeah. >> That's that's not a problem today. >> Yeah. And I think that's also existing on some other of the hardships that you created yourself with the um air
conditioning the condensers inside of the setback >> like you put them there not in the backyard. >> Um the the curb cut which you'll get to is like well why all of a sudden is it why does it need to be 15 feet wide? >> Yeah. >> So you you've created these things to
make it even more challenging for us to be able to >> Right. And it it is a conforming lot and your building coverage is over when it's not. >> Yeah. I see this perfectly rectangular 50x 100 lot >> that you're basically
>> except for that western wall and I guess the front wall because I guess the rest of it has to come down. The walls won't still exist in the basement, will they? >> Um >> but what walls in the basement? Well, the well the walls now are they
you're going to knock those down and the basement will continue because I don't think it was a basement laying in this. >> I think there was >> Yeah, I don't I I'm not sure if we were thinking crawl space or full basement if we're going to expand it. >> But Sarah, you have to recognize that
experience you mentioned. You have to you have to recognize that you're here presenting to this board with what's the word incomplete package. You don't show not the full package in complete design. You don't show you're not coming here and say hey crawl space. I know I can
build this. You come in here saying hey I don't really know what's going on downstairs and I think I can build it. And that's what again how many people are zealous which is not how I am. I feel passionate about this. This is a structure that you really can't tell, at least myself as an engineer, it can feasibly be here with this foundation
and that's what you show us. >> Um, going back to our attorney's comment, you know, if the applicant wants to continue, they can continue. I I never want to tell people they can't continue with the application. That's up to you. But when I read the the synopsis here, the applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing two-story dwelling and construct a new two and a half story. My first question was, Why are we here? Because it's a conforming block. >> Yeah. >> I prefer people to come in. >> Yeah. >> Um these are design choices that were made
>> by you know the family by yourselves. It's just so >> um you know it is a conforming lot and you know we have a lot of people come in with 20 foot lots 25 foot lots and >> they don't have a lot of design choices. >> Got it.
>> And you have and quite frankly our ordinances are very little. Um I mean and on that street matter of fact there was a tear down at 415 Parkplace Avenue. >> I got half a dozen phone calls from people. Mr. Chairman, how can they build
a house that I said there's no variances? So when you I want you to come to a meeting when someone has a conforming lot and ask for 10 variances. These people have no variances and you don't our ordinances are very fair I think for
the designer for the applicant and and quite frankly for the bur. >> Okay. >> So I mean I'll let you guys think about it. We can continue Mr. Paul. I have no problem with that. But that's my expectation when I when I looked at the pack.
>> Okay. And let me just add the proofs for variances are such that if you're creating create self-creating hardship that doesn't count if you can eliminate variances reasonably that's what the law you know
requires you to look at and decide it's kind of a weighing position. Are you going to get the Are you going to be denied the variances or are you going to work with what you have in front of you, a conforming lot to try to make it conform?
>> So, and the other thing is you have a regular lot. It's a rectangular lot. It's not on two frontages. It doesn't have any hardship because of the lot itself. Yeah. >> So, you have uh the only thing you have going for you currently is well, it used
to be 2.2, >> so we're staying with 2.2. That's where the rub is. >> Yeah. >> You're not really staying with 2.2. You're just relying upon an old foundation that may or may not work. So, in one respect, you're doing your
clients a disservice by asking for the approval now and then we'll see once we dig up. You might wanna you might want to just carry this. >> Okay, >> pick a new date and maybe you either do the tech or think about what we're saying and come up with a new design.
>> Okay, >> so if you want time to talk >> Yeah. back I mean I just want to be in addition to the geotech based on the 2.2 and the closeness of the property to the west.
>> Yeah. Um, I would need to hear planning testimony how that's a positive benefit. >> Got it. >> Because you're expanding that to two and a half stories. Two and a half ft. I'm not going to misstate how close that is, but that house next door is not 5T.
>> It is very close. And I think they have the reasonable expectation for a new house that they can pick up the five feet on that side. >> Got it. >> So I I would really need planning testimony in addition to the >> Okay. And is there anyone in the public
that's here on this matter? >> I I have a basic question in that regard. Normally we see the notifications and plans, the list of people that were notified 200 ft that was not in the package. I just wanted >> Well, that was done.
>> Let's ask Christie. I assume that the appropriate notice package was filed with you and that there were no issues. You found all of the 200 foot people. See, I don't know that they actually have to list everything on the plans. A lot of people do. >> State
on the site. >> Yeah. >> I I just want to make sure there's nobody here. >> Yeah. Everybody know. >> You're Are you here on this application? >> I'm just here. But I did get I did get
>> Okay. For this matter. >> And you're here. Oh, you did? So >> what one it's more minor issue but just in the same context of what we're talking about getting rid of the variances.
Two of your variances are because of the shed. >> We were going to get into removing that. We we have some modification. >> It's it's plastic. It's literally just >> that's why I'm asking. That's all >> I I think. So
I don't I I understand the concern with the foundation. I I totally get that. If I guess the question I would have it doesn't sound like even if the foundation was or is reliable, it it still seems like a hard cell is what I'm hearing. So at that point I
would think I'm I'm thinking out loud and for Mike um I I would agree if we are going to rip the foundation in a truly new house, I I don't see why we would need So, um I don't know if it makes sense to carry
um you should >> you should decision you can make you can follow >> you can carry from tonight to a date certain that we would announce >> and you would not have to do notice at that time if you're ready with new plans
>> 10 days before >> okay >> you can proceed if you find out you don't need to proceed you can withdraw, >> but you would you should continue it because you spent the money doing the notices already and the law allows you to preserve. We'll >> do that.
>> Um, one question on that just to be sure. The only thing I would think we would want to maintain, but bumping it back to the 8.9 neighboring setback, that's as of right, correct? >> 8.9 is as you've done, you've done a very nice averaging plan.
>> Okay. And so, you know, our our engineer acknowledges that.9. >> I think that'd be the one thing we would want to >> and and that goes back to the liberal nature of how we do it. You know, we actually give you that that option. >> It's a good ordinance because a lot of times you have where you have to bump back. Everyone's here and then it's
like, you know, >> broken tooth. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> Um, >> okay. So, I guess on that note, we will carry. >> So, let's let's see from our board secretaries what we look like in April and May. Um, April we have two uh
applications scheduled. Um, May we tenatively have two. So, how long do you think you need to bearing in mind that if you're changing your plans, you have to have them at least 10 days before.
>> Okay. So, May is the safer. >> May is uh May 21st. Yes. What's proposing May 21st? That's fine. >> I mean, Mr. Po, your family's very
fortunate picked. It's just a matter of it helps. We did have a structural engine before we also said it's gorgeous. The foundation is there. solid but I I heard everything else that you said and I don't have those documents
with me and that's not the same as but anyway okay >> uh soils >> you have an engineer come in and do a soil sample like a boring they'll be able to tell you what type of soil you
have what type of foundation should be constructed most suitably constructed and on top of that did you get did you get a home inspection or was it a structural engineer? >> It's probably required for new residents, right? In Bradley Beach, a
lot of towns require geotech support soil. But that's a soil board. Just to be very clear for the soil, just a soil board until you see the outer table isn't the foundation, >> a foundation design. So, you need to find someone that will do so.
sample tool to give you a foundation design. Do we need that regardless of >> No. Well, >> so so if you're just doing if you're doing a build, there's what I was trying to explain and articulate. Forgive me. It's not there's two different types. Geotech also incorporates anything in
your soil. So you would have to do a soil boring that would show you your nerdy strata in your soils as well as your season high. If you were going to continue with this design and show that this is sufficient, you'd have to have an engineer do that same soil boring.
And to be able to take your sample soil to find out what type of soil it is what% of soil and give you a structural design >> all of these things can be worked out in the next month so that you can get ready
for May so Mr. chair, I will announce the new date. So, uh, members of the public, I know people said they're not necessarily here for this, but legally we're announcing that this matter, which is the Balo residence at 510 Parkplace
Avenue, Bradley Beach, block 18, lot 18, um, will be scheduled for May 21 at 6:30 p.m. in this building. There will be no further legal notice given. If we carry
that even further or it is withdrawn, members of the public can check in with our board secretary before coming here on May 21. >> Now, that assumes that they designed something that still needs a variance could come
something that doesn't. As I said, you can let us know we are doing a compliance and we don't we withdraw our application or we do want to hold that May 21 >> and then even if you need to go to June in May we can announce the June date as
well. >> That way you can pick up the phone and call Christie. She'll help you. >> Can I can I ask about the rationale for the driveway? >> What the curve cut 15 ft? >> We we were going to narrow that down. Uh, >> okay. >> We had it on there and we were like, you
know what? Let's just notice for it and >> keep it in there. One question I do have, um, the AC equipment, if we, if we, you know, redesign this as a new house, we're likely going to be 5 foot on the left side, I'm guessing, to keep the driveway the right side. Um, and
there's a 5ft set back for the AC. Is that something in general? Sometimes ordinances are there that are not favorably upon the board. I don't necessarily like the AC units being in the backyard. Um, where I'm going with this is that
>> um the the neighbors don't like them to be in the side. >> In a short town, we're very close to each other. We don't want to hear your air conditioner next to our bedroom window. >> So that's why they go in the back. >> Sometimes I find one in the back. Now every neighbor hears it almost, you know. But anyway, okay. So,
>> well, that's again something if you end up with just a variance for the for the AC. That doesn't make any sense. >> No, just to clarify, you can't even set it back. This campaign set. >> Yes. Start with >> Got it. Pick your poison. >> Yeah. Got it. Okay.
>> All right. It's been a pleasure. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next up we have uh an informal concept review uh application LUV 26-3. Thinker Investments LLC block region 2
block 1401 13D street. The applicant has requested a concept hearing with the planning board with regard to their proposal constructing a three-story building. The first floor consisting of professional offices and a residential apartments on the second and third
floors totaling three residential units. Uh one is a onebedroom, the other two are two bedrooms. Uh the professional office on the first floor will consist of approximately 575 square ft. Uh and
Mr. Markens is representing investment. Uh good to see you, Mr. Chair and board members. Mark on behalf of the applicant. Uh since this is an informal, we won't have any testimony, no formal exhibits. Uh but I do have with me the
project um uh principles as well as the project architect Chris Rodman who he is to my right your left. So by way of background >> is he a principal? Did you say >> he's not a principal? He is the project archite with me.
>> Mr. I just >> Yes. >> I apologize. I did not revise the description of the project on the agenda. Yes. I did receive from your secretary the Yes. which was posted on the website. So they kind of So what we just read is a
slightly different than what's really being. >> So I'll take everybody through it. >> You corrected it's three units. Okay. >> Right. Correct. Correct. Right. So So by way of background, this is a 13 main. Um it's a very small existing building. What we're proposing is a multi-use
building uh which is consistent with the OP zone. Um it would be a first floor small office. On the second floor it would be one twobedroom and one onebedroom and on the third floor would be one two bedroom. So a total of three apartments, two of which are two
bedrooms, one of which is onebedroom and a small office on the first floor. This lot is uh undersized at uh a little bit more than 4,500 square feet where 5,000 is required in the OP zone. Um the um
the primary variance that we're seeking to get some feedback from the board on is that we so under under Reese's there's 1.8 spaces required for the onebedroom apartment and that kicks us up to six spaces where we only have room on site for five. So I know that this is
informal and I know that our discussion is totally non-binding on the board but we certainly wouldn't want to trouble the board if if the board uh didn't support ultimately the request for the variance. I think that's really the the basis for um the the primary relief that's going to be sought if we proceed
with the application. But before we delve into that, I was hopeful that Mr. Rugman could spend a little bit of time and walk you through what is a very handsome design and what we feel is a very efficient floor plan that's been developed over some time. So with that, no need to swear him, but he is a registered architect, chairman, and
board member. >> I don't I know you have some preparedness, but could you explain to us what's there now? pretty good. >> Yeah, it's a one story CMU building used as a professional office space. >> It's a teeny tiny building.
>> Is there is there a basement or >> No, no, it's just I think there's one or two steps up and just slide over. I um also because I know you mentioned before where you start sorry um Mark mentioned that uh it's in the um the
zone correctly but were you aware it's also in the um recently adopted AH2 affordable housing overlay zone. >> So uh Mr. Cuba had not uh indicated that
on his plan. So it um so it's an overlay zone that supplements the existing underlying zoning. So I think in this instance because um you're proposing three residential lodge just based on
the um overlay zone requirements um a minimum of one affordable unit is required. is the trigger is the trigger for >> well it's a 20% set aside but it says a minimum of one affordable unit
fractional units rounded up construction on site it doesn't have a trigger for units it says a minimum of one >> but the overlay is is a supplement to the underlying zoning >> I I must have I thought the trigger was
five once you go to five units now you owe one because that would be 20%. >> So that was my understanding. Um that's what I I question it, but I think we should clarify that. >> Sure. We'll certainly take take a look at it. And I don't think again my
understanding when I've dealt with other municipalities uh and including city where I was the burough attorney for about 25 years. had overlay zones is the over the overlay zone doesn't take the place of the underlying zoning and an applicant may elect to pursue a
development with the original if you will underlying zoning form. >> So the way this ordinance is written it says each overlay zone established here in supplements the regulations of the underlying zoning where the provisions of an overlay zone impose standards that
differ from the underlying zone district the overlay zone standards shall control. These are affordable housing amendments that we just adopted >> under round four. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> March 15.
>> Yeah. I know I'm aware everybody in this room is aware of it. >> Right. >> The the 45day appeal on those ordinances hasn't passed yet. >> Right. >> Uh but >> whether or not you can get your application in would be the issue.
>> Right. Right. Right. Time filing in New Jersey, right? Okay. >> So, um certainly >> I think you I think there's >> you know we're discussing this now. You have to look at the things. >> Well, right. So, so again, you know, our engineer who's joking Kachuba is also a
licensed planner hadn't reviewed the overlay zoning aspect of things. So, there are a couple things to consider. you know, obviously to verify that what the planner has said, which I don't doubt for a quick second, but then also the triggering event, right, which to my way of thinking, three units would not trigger an affordable housing
obligation, you know, but but but again, that supposition on my part, and I'll need to review the, you know, the overlay zoning ordinance particulars. >> Well, now that we're just going over, if it was just three units, would that trigger a use variance because it's not an office professional use?
>> No. Um, the uh The you are permitted to have residential units on the second and third floors in the office professional office zone. >> But here they have the one on the first floor. >> That's all. >> No, they have office on the first floor.
>> But they're required to have an office component in this zone. >> Apartments on the second and third floor in combination with permitted professional or business offices on the first floor are permitted use in the OP zone. So we've always approached it as a permitted use never as use
>> right >> or you wouldn't be here >> or we wouldn't be board wouldn't have jurisdiction here. >> Yeah. It says 20% set aside minimum one fractional unit. So I think that um you
know we can certainly clarify but based on the way I read the ordinance they can have three units but a minimum like one needs to be um affordable which they are proposing two twobedrooms so one of them would need to be the affordable unit to
comply with >> well it sounds like we're here >> good good that you heard We'll figure it out. >> We'll we'll I'll talk to Mr. Kachuba when he returns and you know, we'll we'll certainly get back to counsel, you know, and then this battle is to let >> there's a court ordering that other
kids. >> Sure. No surprise on my part. >> And we appreciate your your client and you coming in here because we'd rather spend an hour now than spend two hours. >> So, >> plus the cost of getting to the >> It's fantastic.
>> Terrific. So with that, um I'd ask Mr. Robert maybe to just take everybody through the uh through the floor plan and the elevations. We can we can start on elevation since they're up. Um as Mark mentioned, the site is is under size. So there's a challenge kind of
figuring out how we do the parking. So parking's located in the rear of the lot to access that pass through. There we go. >> Yeah. So, you travel underneath the building, access the body here. Um, the
one narrow sliver that's on the left hand side here that would serve as our vertical circulation to access the apartments above. It's also houses the utilities of the building. Um, and then the rest of the first floor. >> Sure. >> There we go.
101, >> right? >> The left por. >> There we go. That's what I was looking for. >> That's okay, >> Tim. >> Thank you. >> So, there you can see the stair on the left in that narrow section and then the rest of the the first floor is commercial office space and then the
rear is uh your private garage is for the park that the parking the one parking spot which is closest to Main Street. You can actually navigate into that one. with that with the stairs behind it.
>> Yes, it's tight. That's that's part of why we're asking for other spots where >> But that one I'm just I'm wondering if that one is even behind. >> Where are your So you have these three, you have two more. >> Uh yes. So yeah, Kuba shows two in the
back and three three under. >> So those not you have an engineer, they'll be able to give you a vehicle maneuvering plan that's going to show you reversing back into it. >> Yeah. And we we analyzed that and uh we kind of went back and forth on the positioning of building because we do we
are set back from the front property line. Um taking all that consideration it's no matter what it is tight it's going to be difficult maneuver but possible. Okay. >> Um >> the number of apartments is the amount
of bedrooms. >> Yeah. In this in this zone commercial office space does not contribute to the parking population and and if you know again when we get to not to get ahead of ourselves but when we get if we get to the board hearing if
you consider a one-bedroom apartment not requiring really 1.8 but one then effectively there's no variance but technically there's a variance because you need two at with the 1.8 requirement under Reese's for the onebedroom apartment one of the things that concerns me about
the parking space, if you will, is what's right behind that is the parking lot for the rep center. >> Sure. >> And that's going to be the obvious place for people to put their extra cars. And there's nothing that says, you know, recreation center only, no overnight
parking, what have you. And so if you've got residents that are guests picking up those parking spaces, they're taking them away from residents that are going to use the rec center. >> Depending on the conflict of hours, of course,
any nonconlict. Yes. >> I don't know if that they allow 24. >> I mean, there's no there's no signs to say any either. Nothing that says rec center only, nothing that says overnight parking or hours.
Um yeah, I I would like to hear from Mr. Khuba on the planning issue because you know there is a hardship in the unusual shape. It's not like the previous application we had where >> and it's undersized. >> Yeah. >> And also we're deficient on lot width I believe and lot depth.
>> Yeah. Well the depth >> and depth really creates your hardship. >> So we've got three metrics working in our favor you know unlike other conforming lots for example. And then for the ingress and egress, um I get concerned, it's my own concern, um of
people, you know, being that we're walking town, uh if the curb cut and the sidewalk where the driveway is could be done in concrete as opposed to pavers. That way people traversing the street would understand that it is a driveway,
not just think it's sideway. >> That's a design uh detail that I'm sure we That's our remaining issue. We're happy to speculate on that. >> Mr. Chair, if I may too, they they nowadays they'll have pedestrian warning signs of like so what you can do is have
a little ball on the side on the side of the building sign if you were interested in something like that condition. So the idea is when a vehicle is approaching or leaving that pedestrian warning will go off and just has a little blinking light. So if you're walking north or south of Main Street, you don't see car
>> because there was a previous application where someone had that when you you come out of that tunnel of the access, people are walking. It it happens very quickly. So, um I just like to differentiate. That's just my simplistic way of doing
it, but you know, we can do it that way. >> Just the recommendation of okay >> also the county requirements because that's >> there will be county witness. >> There are requirements. >> So, that's a DOT that's state.
>> They're not going to require that that system. more of a concession saying the other issues that have to be corrected by the applicant state. >> Are those individual garages? >> Yeah. >> Would you gain anything by removing
partitions to make it open an open garage? >> Um structurally feasible. >> Yeah. I mean just probably in the space of the walls separated.
pick up another space additional space. >> But would it make it easier for circ if you didn't have the walls there? >> I I think again we asked Mr. you know Mr. Chuba to prepare a turn template to make sure that all the movements in and
out you know are are viable. >> I think too looking at this and to TJ's point of cars coming out with pedestrians that there'd be ample backup space for all five spots. So when parts are coming out, they're coming out at first the right way and not backing out
of the property. >> Sure. I I don't think the DOT standards would allow us to back out of the state of highway. Correct. >> And this might be a weird question, but has there been any discussion with the borrow maybe purchase that triangle
square? Well, uh, you know, certainly if the borrow deemed it surplus property under the local land, local public lands and buildings law, we were happy to entertain. >> I don't I don't know if anybody's asked that question. That would solve some of the issues you ask. >> Yeah. I'm not not aware, but certainly
we can. >> It's burden borrowings. >> Well, no. >> That would be understand. I'm just wondering if there's any thought to that have not walked on that's in the inventory
technically >> forever >> you could actually you could give it up technically but you have to repay the payment that was received from years ago >> anything else uh come to mind. Any questions? >> Well, something else I saw that's not
compliance with our ordinance is there's a balcony on the rear side of the building and ordinances only allow balconies on the front. I know there's no houses back there, no res.
>> Um, but yeah, I guess >> people making loud noises as the trains approaching. Um, that's a great point. Um, you want to keep going on your >> uh go to the second floor.
Let's do the second floor. Um, so here you see the stair coming up from the first floor. Um, front unit is two bedrooms and then the rear unit is larger one bedroom. And the rear there is that
um each apartment has full size kitchens and then the third floor. Um this is one one unit. Um due to uh codes, we're not allowed to have any windows on the sides of the building. So all the windows will be front and back. So that's the bedroom
windows. So, um, as far as like finishes go, uh, the base of the building would be brick and then cement panel and then the composite panel warm up.
You can see that the top is not carved in the same below. All the windows are large aluminum and glass windows. the side elevations
to have that flat siding as well as so no onsite storage just the garage. >> So is it still a balcony if it's recessed? >> Uh if it's Oh no it's
it's a deck if it's not recessed. It's a balcony if it is recessed. above. >> But I mean, if you're going to come in for a plan, >> the intent of the ordinance is so that people aren't looking in everybody's
backyard. >> Yeah, it's a res more of a resial. This is a >> given the backyard seems to be >> and also to M's point the heat issues in the sliding door because you have
my my thing about this front elevation is that I'd like to just consider maybe coordinate with our engineer. Um we're going to be doing street light changes. Uh the town got a grant. So if you could include a street light and possibly a street tree
>> certainly is a much nicer looking building. >> Yeah, it actually ties in >> with the style of the building next to it. >> It does. >> Um the one thing I did notice, so they also have that wood front on that building, but it's peeling and it's only been there for a couple three years and
it's peeling terribly. I think that's real wood. >> Yeah. >> So, we're looking at a composite. So, >> it's very helpful. you know, obviously put Joe in touch with the planners so that we can, you know, nail down the extent of the overlay, you know, impact
on on this project, which otherwise was intended to conform and comply, you know, with the use aspects of the OP zone. >> Yes. >> What are the requirements for how tall something has to be before an elevator is needed?
>> Three stories. >> Three stories. above three. So that's technically this zone you have an undersized lot but it is 40 you know the the new ordinance is 48 ft four stories
the overlay you know was amended the east side is 40t high three stories the west side is 48 ft four stories with the underground parking the way you designed it >> so that assisted >> that was just recently
>> in the overlay That's the over. >> Yeah. >> What was the original? >> The original OP is I think 38. >> 36. >> 36. >> So if that helps with the design. >> Well, it it what it what it may suggest and again I know this is this is the
beauty of having it informal, right? It may suggest maybe a reconfiguring of the apartments relative to parking, relative to affordable housing requirements. If in fact we don't have a five unit trigger, if we have an X unit, you know, any unit trigger, then I think we take a
look at, you know, some of the some of the yield here and and the the mixture between two bedrooms and one bedrooms, the parking requirements associated with each and then I think maybe we can see if we can get to, you know, get to a more viable situation. I'm not entirely
sure uh the date the council, you know, heard and adopted the ordinances, but we um reviewed them for consistency at our February meeting. So, if you go and look on the February land use board agenda, the housing overlays are all right there.
>> They were approved in March and actually >> they had to be done by the 15th, >> right? I'm sure they're done, but I just don't know the date off the top of my head. >> We just received confirmation the judge signed off on them. So, I don't know if that affects the stop.
>> Well, >> March 3rd >> March 3rd they were adopted. Yeah. So, you know, this is an informal application, right? So, it's not an it's not an application for purposes of the land use. >> Are you looking to do rental or I I know you won't have to commit. Were you looking to do rental or ownership?
>> I think I think that depends. I don't think we made that decision yet from a business point. >> Yeah. I mean, now you can go up and get extra units, but then you have extra parking or you already have parking. >> This is this is why I think again the beauty of being in formal is that we can
at least have the issues identified and not fumble with them, but just spot the issues, which I think is something that's terrific that we've achieved. >> Well, that's a question I have for Mr. Kuba is that being that the lot is undersized, does that still entitle them to the 48?
>> Um, so that's the question. >> I believe so. Yeah. >> Okay. Christine, if um I know it's you you round up all fractions. So if it were six and it got to 1.2, does that make it two affordable housing unit affordable housing units?
>> The way the ordinance is written, it says fractional units rounded up constructed on site. So they would have to also be constructed on site. Yeah. Um and the re reason why these
zones are a little more aggressive in terms of affordable housing requirements than just you know the m general mandatory set aside is because under the new round four uh requirements you have to um show that you can provide 25% of
the unmet need for redevelopment opportunities. That's where these um these ordinances came from. >> And there was a greater benefit in that area, you know, on the west side of the
street blocking the railroad tracks. >> Of course, that's preference. Hence the hence the height the height benefit if you will. >> You are permitted to have a density of 30 units per acre. I don't know how that
affects your site given that it's not that large. >> We're a bit more than a tenth of an inch. >> I'm not feeling 30 somehow. >> But I appreciate the sentiment >> and you still need to figure the parking requirements.
>> It's going to come down to the parking. But but again I I think I think we have a little bit of workshopping to do and and we you know we may need to come back for a second informal for that matter because I you know again there's some metrics that we have to you know reconcile. So >> we're actually going to write an
ordinance for these we want to promote them. >> Most towns do and I I serve as I serve as the Mama Beach planning board attorney and locking board. We encourage them all the time. Anything else for our consideration >> to go a completely different direction
>> since it's apartments and maybe rentals is is single one staircase fine as far as safety >> you'd have to sell so they could now pop out windows you saw that
>> as long as the windows are >> correct egressable Thank you. Good question. Yeah, life safety always very important. >> Christine, just question for my own education.
Two two bedrooms and one bedroom. What they're proposing? You said they have to do affordable housing. It would be what the two bedrooms. >> That's correct. >> And why that as opposed to one bedroom? Uh the way the uh the requirements are written, you
need um like a certain percentage is required to be of all the affordable units in a building is required to be twobedroom and then certain you know you can have up to another percentage be threebedroom or onebedroom. So the
twobedroom is really what you just >> Yeah. >> No, thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to present informally and to have such great dialogue and exchange. Thank you very much. emergency. >> Well, I think a little bit.
>> Thank you. Yeah. >> Good evening. >> We're going to track back to item seven. The resolution uh proposed review of potential adoption of the
resolution supporting goals of NJ and requesting model ordinance language implementation guidance infrastructure coordination, regional resilience planning, extension of municipal compliance deadlines, funding and other relief from the NJ
real regulations. So the resolution that was sent by um Miss Dickard is uh and uh amended by Mr. Zudo is essentially the same one
that was approved Tuesday night by the council. If if Mr. Car would like to give us a little app >> Oh, the council approved this as well. >> The council approved it on Tuesday night. I wrote this so I'm gonna read from it
because better than the right the record. Anyway, this resolution supports the intent of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's real regulations. However, it has done so without yet providing
sufficient standardized guidance, coordinated infrastructure strategy, or realistic timelines which risks inconsistent statewide application. intended flooding impacts and economic
burdens on homeowners. So, as such, presenting this to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is critical because it positions the burrow not in opposition to REL, but as constructive partners requesting model
ordinances, technical clarity, regional planning, coordination, and extended deadlines, ensuring that the regulations are implemented effectively, equitably, and in a way that aligns property level requirements with broader infrastructure
and resilience systems. So, we're not against this. We just need a little bit more time and a little bit more thought that's going to go into how we actually implement these changes. >> And and we weren't really party to the process. Um, you know, in terms of what
role we really they had public hearings on Zoom, I attended one uh but that was it. And we really got no heads up from our environmental commission or any other outside agencies. It's amazing that it's been going on for so long and
it seems like it's really been done behind closed doors and you know why it never bubbled up to to this level that you know it was signed at the last minute right last day of office >> and um >> somebody else's problem there's
engineers and architects currently now designed before the July 20th deadline now that's why this resolution requests it to be held back, the date pushed forward, and we can all come to the table. The interesting thing uh is that
it's it's actually created by the D and approved by the governor. It never went through a legislative process, which I find keeps the voters out of it. And I don't believe that's fair. I think our assembly and senate should have had chance to take a look at it, and I'm
hoping they will. There are uh resolutions out there to hold it back. We'll see where they go. But we want to support the council and understand what's going to be put on to us. Uh if this goes through, we're going to have to look at our ordinances for height and
other issues, ingress, egress. Um and it's it's going to be some time and effort. That's why we're requesting the model like help us out, you know, create a model ordinance. Let the 564 municipalities know how you'd like it to
be structured. instead of us all starting from zero. So >> do we have any partners right now that are actively we know of who are doing the same thing other townships? >> Yeah, other township are similar in conjunction with them or it's just one
our shot at it one shot >> and we're going through the county also. Is the county supporting the same initiative which is very strong is that itself >> county actually opposed. Oh, that's good. So, that's my that was my
question, my point. Are we doing this in mass or is it being we're throwing a lot of stones at this? >> So, it sounds like the burrow is supported real with the responsibility of clarity. Yeah, it's right by >> three three counties have joined
together >> and um perhaps uh the councilman can speak a little bit more to it, but I do know that Bradley Beach has been um meeting and talking with um other kind of like southern Mammoth County coastal
towns including Matisquan, Seagar, Belmar, Avon um basically everything from you guys south. Okay. >> Um and uh kind of like working together. >> Yeah, the mayor has been talking to other mayors. We're actually the
northernmost town of the southern, >> right? >> And uh yeah, so he has been working with other mayors in coordinating their question. What is this really? Because again, a lot of these things get these these things get scattershot and get lost in
>> I do know we've been told that a new model ordinance from DP is forthcoming but we have not seen it yet. Um >> the new governor hasn't made any stand on this either has she? She hasn't she >> doesn't support it or opposed. However,
it hasn't been talked about like the new D commissioner has been talked again not publicly, >> but there's nothing out there saying I'm >> everyone's kind of everyone's doing that little dance. >> The Senate President has come out against it appears that it's going to be
a nonpart bipartisan push >> to at least hold it back. I've said at the previous meeting and at the Environmental Commission meeting that, you know, there's an answer out there. This just isn't it. Even if I mean, I'd like to hold it back until
FEMA comes out with their maps here. We're >> we're burdening our residents with the hardship of this new flood zone that goes all the way back to Hammond almost. And you know where FEMA is nominal. I mean, the the impacts we had were at
both lakes. It's storm water runoff. It's not ocean. It's not sea level rise. Ocean Avenue, you could do a full basement under under the current guidelines. It's not a flood zone. >> So, uh, we're an unusual town like that. Um, so hopefully there's an answer out
there. But, um, I'd like to make a motion to, uh, pass this resolution supporting the goals of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Brazilian Environments, and Landscapes Regulation, and requesting model ordinance language, implementation
guidance, infrastructure coordination, regional resilience planning, extension of municipal compliance deadlines, uh, funding and other relief. Uh, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Sorry, I'm trying. This isn't the order
that I usually have. >> Okay. Mr. Bley. >> Yes. >> Uh, Chair Cohen. >> Yes. >> Councilman Park. >> Yes. Miss Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mayor,
>> yes. >> Mr. Wishb, >> yes. >> Mr. Hornet, >> yes. >> Miss Lighty, >> yes. >> Mr. Frederick, >> yes. >> And Mr. West. >> Yes. Just uh want to check with our secretary here on new business or
old business and scheduling >> and scheduling. Let's see. You want to know who's on or what's going on? >> Well, I just like I like I like the board to understand what's ahead of us. >> So, well, this evening we just carried an application which may or may not be
before us in May. Um but for next month um we are expecting I haven't seen the plans yet though so I'm a little skeptical. Um they had requested to carry that was for uh 106 central >> um they had requested uh to be carried
to April um and they were providing new notice and they are in the process of revising the plan. >> Who's that? >> Um that was Nan Pen Company. >> That's 106. Um they were originally heard um in December, had carried to February, um
partially heard and decided to revise their plan. Um I do have a new application which is scheduled for April. Um that's 324 McCabe Avenue. Um bulk irons is for additions uh to the main house and rehab of an existing
garage apartment. Um >> Christens, >> yes. And then we have uh the application this evening that was requested to carry to May 21st. Um Jefferson Ferry 423 and a
half mammoth. That is the accessory stretch garage thing. >> Um the second principal >> the what the it's not Yeah, that's the >> the bedroom.
>> The bedroom. It's not an apartment. Yeah. um it has a hot. So anyway, so that's supposed to be um on May 21st, but I'm not quite certain if they're going to withdraw. I was
getting a strange >> have a use as well. >> Yes. Yes, that one has a use. Um and then tenatively I pending completeness they just resubmitted um was for the parallelo signs.
Um we're working with them trying to get them figure out how they're going to do this because there's so many entities involved because there's an owner of the building. There's two separate rent well >> businesses being in the building. So I think we've got it resolved. >> We have asked
>> I'm waiting for that signed document back from all the players. >> We have uh requested that they go to having the owner entity be the applicant. >> That's great. then that then will be able to apply it to the structure and
the these tenants and any future tenants. >> Right. So the variance goes with the the land and the property, not necessarily the >> Yes. Not not the entities. So we eliminated the the tenants and we're going with the landlord who's also the owner,
>> which was the best >> suggestion we could >> that makes it work. And then I have uh two other applications that were deemed incomplete. Um waiting on resubmissions. One was severe. I didn't even I don't even think I sent it to the
professionals. I just gave them an administratively incomplete letter. It was really bad. Um and the other one um we were going back and forth. He is u seeking the help of an engineer and trying to get that resolved. So, we're
just waiting on some plans and resubmissions and >> but I mean it's the weather is probably going to pick up. >> Yeah. >> But April and May we have activities? >> Yes, we do definitely. I mean there's two that are kind of on the fence, two that are most likely going to move
forward. I don't know what's going to happen with this application. Um so we've got >> Great. U would you like to make a motion? >> Yes. Okay,
>> our next meeting is April 16th at 6:30 here. down unless the location changes for some reason. But >> all in They also have a sub. So
emergency purposes. >> So Hey.