I just wanted to knock that one out. a little further. >> Good evening. How are you? Yeah. Dennis, >> I think you for the fact you still have your coat on, you're not planning on hanging around very long. >> And
It appears that >> they don't understand. There's there's there's enough weight over there to bounce you guys out. >> That was a metaphor. Oh yeah. testing. >> Thank you, Bill.
>> You got the bills, too. Got the bills over there, too. >> Yeah. Perfect. >> Okay. >> Be very concise. Thank you. >> So, we have everybody's going to be
here. >> Well, I don't know if Dennis Griffin's coming. >> We have Let's see. >> Why don't we get started? >> One minute, Bill. One minute. This is >> This is an emergency. >> It's an emergency. >> Oh my god.
>> Emergency. >> Well, you just do what you got to do what you got to do. >> But I I'm showing almost 6 pm. Like >> um >> set. >> Hang on. >> If you're ready, Bill, I'm ready.
>> Okay. >> All right, guys. The regular meeting of the Cait City Planning Board is now in session and in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975. Adequate adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of
that act, they should so state this time hearing. None will pledge allegiance led by Mike Jones. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay, we'll start with a roll call. >> Mr. Bizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones >> here. >> Mr. Riggs, >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgon >> here. >> Mayor Mullik, Deputy Mayor McDade >> here,
>> Mrs. Reed, Mr. Lunhome, >> Mr. Padus >> here, >> Mr. Krippen. Okay, the we'll move right into the application for this evening which is Carney's Inc. 411419 Beach Avenue block 1041
lot. That's 2122 and 23 for a relief variance site plan of submission requirements. Anybody want to come up? Mr. Sandman, >> how are you? Got to hit hit the microphone.
>> There you go. >> All right. Good evening members of the board. on behalf of Carney's Charles Samman. We're here before you today uh seeking certain relief um amongst that is a waiver of
sight plan uh the request for uh a variance and um that's basically it. Um in in a nutshell what's going on here today is uh Mr. Corn is proposing to make it minor. Let's Everybody should
turn their phones on, vibrate if you haven't already. Go ahead. Mr. Corn is proposing to make a minor alteration to the building being that he wants to move the entrance way um a
little bit further south to accommodate or to open up the room and to make it just more aesthetically pleasing inside. Um, other than that, uh, there really are no other changes and, um, Mr. Carney is here to testify to answer the board's
questions with regard to what he's planning, at least generally. And then we're going to have, um, Mr. Schultz testify and then Mr. Rammy Nasser is going to testify with regard to the engineering aspects. >> Far away. >> Do you want to swear in client?
>> I'm sorry. Yes. >> Who is being who is your client going to testify? Everyone please raise your right hands. Mr. Herurles, um, will you raise your hand as well? Do each of you swear affirm to tell the truth. Old truth done with the truth shall be God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Cronin, just real briefly, explain to the board um exactly what
you're proposing to do. Keep in mind that we've got the two professionals here that are going to explain it in detail. >> Okay, just to keep it short, reiterate kind of what Mr. Saman said. Our plan is for a full facade renovation to enhance the building's appearance and connection to the beachfront. Uh the project
includes new operable windows and doors to create an open air atmosphere and improve the guest experience. >> Okay. Um Mr. Carney, um are you changing anything in the interior of the property in terms of seating? Uh are we're
repositioning seating in the main room uh that was existing on the left side and moving it in front of the windows the new operable windows uh in the main room which would be on the left side of the building. >> Are you increasing the number of seats? >> We are not.
>> Okay. So your testimony today is that you intend to the seating moving forward is going to be the same as the seating has been in the past for probably as long as you can remember. >> It is. >> Okay. Um there's also a couple of apartments upstairs or at least presently there's a couple of apartments
upstairs. Can you explain that? >> Yes. So the front apartment which you'll see over the other room which I believe the address is 419 uh before 2006 that was three apartments, four bedrooms. After 2006 um which was approved the
renovations, it's now one apartment with three bedrooms and my father Joseph Carney currently resides in. In regards to the apartment in the back of the main room, uh, which is 411 Beach A, that is a one-bedroom apartment, which I currently reside with my family, and
that has not changed. >> Okay. So, previously to 2006, it was four apartments and now there are two. >> There are correct. >> Okay. And you're not planning on changing that in any way, shape, or form with regard to this application? >> We are not. >> Okay.
That's all the questions I have. Mr. CL if the board has any other questions. >> I'm sorry, but I had a question for the apartment that Sean is occupying. How many bedrooms? I might have missed. >> One bedroom, one bathroom. >> One bedroom, one B. Thank you very much. >> Absolutely.
>> Anybody else? Okay, I'll have Mr. Dave Schultz to testify about the architectural have been submitted. >> Good evening. I'll be brief. accepted as an expert architect, Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. >> You like to give me I can give you my credentials if you'd like.
>> No, you're you've been accepted before. >> Thank you. Um, as as has been said already, the purpose of this project is to open up the front of Carnese to make so that people can see in as opposed to the blank wall that's there now. And we
are in the same footprint as the front wall. In fact, we're going to use the same foundation for that front wall. We are moving the entrance south so that it can be a little more prominent and it also allows us to have seating along the window line so people can be sit sitted
at a table and looking directly out and people walking by can see them. I'll just walk you through the exhibit. I think you probably you probably know what we've we've provided already. So sheet one, this is the existing survey on the left and sheet two is the
proposed survey. There's not a lot of difference. And I'll show you the architectural plan in a minute. This is maybe clearer, but in essence, the wall stays. It's going to be now operable windows and peers like an oldfashioned pub would look like. We're keeping some
of the roof line that exists. And we're creating this new entrance at the corner, kind of a vestibule, um, and a little in that for a like a port. So, it's under cover right here. Um, I think Ramy's going to go through the details on on the rest of this, but everything
is pretty much existing non-conforming. >> So, um, may I ask these drawings are all the board has nothing's new because I thought maybe something new was coming. >> Say, say again, I'm sorry. >> Is there an exhibit of a plan tonight or No, >> there is an exhibit of the plans.
>> Okay. But it's >> the things we're looking at already in the packet that's before the board. >> That is correct. Okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, the next page Z 100 shows a architectural plan of what existed what exists now
>> and how many can I ask you how many seats are total in the existing condition. >> Um I'm let Rammy answer that. >> I think >> okay I'm sorry I'm jumping >> over that earlier today. So he'll go into that no problem because he's going
to address the parking situation. But um I think I as the architect I would I would also concur there's no added seats in these plants. So this shows the recess where the barrel exists today right here and it's pretty much a solid
wall except for that we want to open all this up and create an entrance at the corner. So the second sheet or the third sheet is an architectural plan that shows what we're proposing. So bar. So there there you can see there's tables along the
window. Peers in operable byfolding windows are shown. The elevations will show that more clearly. A nice double door entrance. There'll be a chandelier here. And it's very it's much more open and engaging and transparent so people know what to expect when they walk
through the door. There's no interior changes proposed. >> Mr. Schulz, would you say that's a safer configuration? Chuck, you Chuck, can you speak into the micro? I'm sorry. >> Mr. Schultz, would you in your prof professional opinion, would you say that that is a a clearer path and a safer
situation that presently exists? >> I think it is. It's safer. It's also obviously easier to find, but more importantly to me, it opens up this for seating. So, we're moving some seats along the window line so that people can see in. Okay.
Um, this next page is really just lighting details. And I guess what's important is what you would see from the outside. There are there are hoop fixtures, traditional hoop fixtures at the top that line up the the signage.
The signage is not internally lit. It's exterior lit. So these hoop fixtures exist here. And on the western side here, there's down lights in this little porch and there's a chandelier in the vestibule and of course pendant lights over the tables.
So these are the specs on the lighting and and all the fixtures are >> Would you say that that provides more lighting than what is presently um offered? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Schultz, would would in your opinion would you say that that lighting presents a a a more well-lit uh area
than is presently? Yes, because right now there's very little light from this building. So now you can see the exterior. These are elevation drawings. The top row is the existing. You can see the barrel, the stucco.
It was interesting. It was novel, but you know, in today's world, that's not inviting for most customers. So we want to really open it up. The inspiration comes from a pub concept, and the carnese are Irish. So it's Irish pub
concept where these operate and people can see in. And this is the new entry motif. This roof exists. We popped up the corner to bring attention to the corner. And that's where the signage exists on the on the uh south facade.
Oh, west facade is the next sheet. Sorry. These are all the materials. This was all presented to the HPC. >> Has the HPC granted preliminary approval? >> Yes. unanimous. >> And Mr. Schultz, in your opinion, would you say that what is being proposed
enhances the whole block? >> Yes, that yes indeed. >> Uh this is the west or west elevation. So this is what exists. It's fairly bland. Um these are fixed glass windows. So what we're proposing to do is really
applique. We are going to replace all these windows with operable windows to match the front. Uh the the last two windows are new. We're poking those into where the brick exists so we can get more light into the back of the restaurant. Um but other than that, it's
really uh moldings clappered to make it really kind of complement the whole front of the restaurant and Kate May for that matter. So that's gives you and it here's the sign that faces west and there's details of that sign.
I think they're next. Yeah, last page for me. So, these are some this the two signs we have are logo signs. They're circular. So, you're looking at the overall sign here which
is about 4 foot2 by 3 foot2 about 8 foot plus 8 8 foot eight square feet. And there's a little bit of an overhang here. So, it's less than 10 square feet. So, there's and this is the blow up of the graphics themselves, but there's two of these. They match both on the south
and the western side. >> Quick question. It appears that you have two entrances now and two entrances will remain. Is that correct? >> The one for each building? >> Yes. Correct. We're not changing the other side. Correct. >> And you're not proposing to alter the
entrance on the on the other room as it is called at all. Correct. >> The entrance will stay. We are take we are replacing the windows in the in that building, but we're not changing the facade. >> Okay. That's all I have. Board, have any questions of Mr. Schulz?
>> Am I to assume the reason the main reason you're here is because you're enclosing the existing entryway and creating more. It's a front yard setback variance because you're enclosing that that entryway. Is that am I right? >> Um, it's the infill of the recessed
entryway. Correct. >> And it's the vertical expansion of the existing footprint. Um, as you could that one elevation illustrated, they're going a bit higher that but that's a non-conforming structure. >> Yeah. But but for that reason, they wouldn't even be here. >> If it wasn't for that, they would not
have to be here. >> Yeah, we Okay, we're not adding any square footage. That's all I have. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Next, we have Mr. Nasser. >> All right. Thank you. I'll try to speak on
my qualifications on record. >> No. Um, >> I've been >> He's been here before. >> You're good. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Just a little just a quick background. This property is known for 11419 Beach Avenue. It's in the C2 Beach uh business
district. It's known as block for 1041, lots 21, 22, and 23. It's an existing building. Uh I believe portion of the building was built back in the 60s and the other portion was built back in the early 1900s. So it preceded predate any
zoning ordinances. So So whatever is there now that if it doesn't comply with the zoning requirements in existing non-conforming, but it cause a hardship. So we're looking at that as a hardship variance as a C1 variance, not a C2 variance. Um, talking about the approval
that was received back in 1996, uh, they received an approval uh to to add an to do a couple additions. And at that time, uh, the additions were to the rear and to the side of the building. And, uh, they were supposed to have 144
seats for the dining room, which that's what they have now. And they had to do some modification on the seats at the bar to bring it down to 64 seats, and that's what they have. So that total 28 seats. So based on the requirements and that would be 52 parking spaces and then
uh as Mr. Carney stated that they used to have a four apartments uh through the past few like maybe 10 15 years they >> 2006 >> 2006 they they reduced them to two two apartments and I'm looking at two parking spaces per unit. So that brings
us up to 56 parking spaces based on the 1996 approval. This board granted a variance from 56 parking spaces required to 49 proposed and that's what we have at this point. So there's no physical change to the characteristic of the building except the outside of the
facade is changed and the number of seats are not changed whatsoever in the inside the building. >> Okay. Um everyone can I'm trying to do the resolution here uh tonight if we can. Um, and Mr. Herurles's report is what I usually incorporate into my
um, resolution, but his parking is all the letter I everywhere. So, I got to fill that in with stuff. So, can someone give me clear guidance on what I'm putting in those numbers? >> Yeah, hold on for one second. There was a You just mentioned that that 1996 approval.
>> Yes, >> they were approved for 208 seats. >> It's approved for 144 seats. at the in the dining room as a seat table seats >> and they were supposed to reduce the number of seats in at the bar area. They
didn't specify how many seats, >> right? I I Yeah, >> but when we counted we have about 64 seats. >> Okay. >> So that how I came up with the numbers of >> So the 20 So 208 was the number that you came out with as a total seats. >> Uh 208. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Your plans indicate 108 seats for
the main room and 103 seats for the other room which is 211. >> My plan. This not my plans. I think it's actual plans. >> Okay. So, are they do they need to be revised to be consistent? >> What do they have? I'm sorry. What do they have in the numbers? >> They had their plans indicate 108 seats
for the main room. >> Okay. >> And 103 seats for the other room. >> So, they have an extra three seats, I think. Yeah. >> So, there's 211 based on that count. >> It should be 208. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. The the 144 are the actual seats at the table and the 64 at the bar.
>> Are we talking just about one side? >> Both both sides >> combined. Combined. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, so 208 is the appropriate number and the architect plans need to be revised consistent with that. >> Correct. >> And there's no increase from 208. >> No, we're not increasing anything.
>> I I this this accounting matters because it's going to end up in the resolution. >> 208. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, just summarize. There are 208 seats permitted by what? by a prior variance. >> Previous approval. >> Previous approval in 1996. May 13, 1996.
>> Okay. And they will continue with 28 seats. >> Yes. >> We're not proposing any expansion whatsoever on the inside of the building. It's just closing an entrance and opening another entrance. >> Okay. Um,
can we go back and do we agree, Craig, that that would require f 58 parking or what was the number? >> Yeah, it's 208 divided by 4 is what are required? >> 56 parking. >> 56. >> All right. Can we go to Craig's chart? >> I filled in the chart. You want to go
through the numbers the way I filled them in? >> Yeah. Uh, please do. >> One space for every one space for every four seats. We have >> You need a mic. >> Can you grab your microphone, please? I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. 28 seats and that equates to 52
parking spaces. So, the number I'm putting there is 52. >> 52 for the restaurant. Yes, sir. >> And four parking spaces for the two apartments. >> That's what it is. Yeah. >> Four for the apartments. >> Four for the apartments. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
>> All right. And then employees. >> Oh, we didn't have any employee. We didn't add for the employees. >> All right. We just use these are the numbers we used from the original approval back in 1996. >> And if I may, if Mr. Carlike testify, he's he's going to tell the board that they're not increasing any employees up
and above what they had way back when. >> I'll let the engineer deal with it. >> Okay. >> I mean, there's there's an ordinance in the council. >> So, let me get >> it was hard to translate this from the 96 variance approval that was granted and bring it forward. I don't think they
considered any employees back then. So, I mean it it would just be noted that they haven't increased any but or they can put that on the record just so that we have an accurate accounting what today's is. Um but
um there that's why I had a hard time bringing the 96 data into this because the discrepancies that existed >> the employee count remains what it was for the previous >> consistent with the original approval. >> I I don't
>> Okay. Uh well the required doesn't change the required is the required >> right they're not so >> so we have to put in a number and then say that that you can decide that I guess that that was incorporated in the prior variance so it's permitted you don't need a new variance for it but the
required is the required number. >> Well that would that would basically require that the applicant give us a headcount for how many employees he has. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. What is the most employees you have on your largest shift? bartenders, waitresses cooks dishwashers,
>> and make it make it make sure you're on the shift. >> Yeah. >> So, any one time? >> Yep. >> Got two kitchens. >> I think >> about 30 employees.
And that's kitchen to the That's from back of the house to the front of the house correct? >> Yes. Come on. Yes. Servers, all that. >> Yes. >> Bus boys. All right, Craig. What I did was I that comes to 86. Then I put existing 86
proposed 86 I put an asterct and then under um status and that asterct is going to say um >> based on >> a variance was granted and I usually doesn't do this but I'm trying to do the resolution. I know a virus was granted
in 1996 that did not include an analysis of employees due to the ordinance in place at the time.
Therefore, the employees are not the are the same at present and therefore no new variance is required. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. And that just just for the
board's clarification, the 96 uh planning board approval granted a variance for them increasing the required number of parking from 49 to 56 spaces. So that 56 spaces is consistent with the number of bar seats
plus the number of apartments. So there's been no increase from the 96. I don't believe that employees were counted back in 96. Um, that's why we have that asterisk that that Rich is including in the resolution. So, I think our accounting is good right now. >> Yes.
>> All right. There you go. >> Okay. >> Forward. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, now for the very interesting stuff. Just the proofs for the record. So, sorry I have to read it. I'm getting too old for this. So, >> well, I I also have to write some of it down. So, do it pace that I can.
>> So, I'll be slow. Uh we are requesting a variance to allow the new door to be set at 6.3 feet in lie of 10 also closing the other door to be set at 6.3 ft in lie of required 10. I'm looking at this as a C1 variance which is called the
hardship variance pursuant to NJSA 405D70C1 whereby the reason of exceptional situation unique to this property the board can grant a variance the requested variance because a strict compliance with the C2 regulation would result in
exceptional and practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the owner of the property if he needs to comply. that mean he has to cut out three 3.9 ft from the building to set it back to just to beautify the building. So that that's where the undo hardship comes in. Uh as
we know this site was previously approved uh no proposed modification on the inside very minimal just the beautifification on the outside and we're not changing the footprint of the building very very minimal changes. Uh we don't believe there's any negative criteria. We're not increasing the
number of seats, so there's no increase in traffic or noise or any additional impact from what's existing at this point. We believe that the requested variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public goods and will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan
and zoning ordinances. >> Okay. Uh we're requesting a number of waiverss tonight. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> To the board. Uh, we have three. >> I supported all of those. I'll go through those in my review. >> Okay, good enough.
>> Any questions the board might have? Mr. Nasser, >> is this plan the same date as what the board got in their packet? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any question? I >> I had one question. the the elevation at
the street. What What do the windows look like? Are they going to be floor to ceiling or are they going to be halfway up or what? >> Actually, >> they're going to be there's going to be a seal. >> Let me
the elevation page. That's good. Uh, I don't think you can see this from where you're sitting, but there's a >> It's in our package, right? >> It's in your package on the same page. It there's a there's a sill line at about 2 feet above the ground that's
going to be finished, you know, filled in with panels and then there's peers. So, the windows are about 6 feet tall and with a two-ft sill. >> And the uh historical commission reviewed this? >> Yes, they were very pleased.
They had no problem with it. >> They said they have conceptual approval, >> right? >> Okay. All right. A lot better. >> No other questions for members of the board. >> My only question is where's the pizza oven going?
>> Okay. No, no questions. We'll open up to the Oh, Craig will go. >> I'll summarize my report if that's appropriate. >> Um, I'd like to summarize my October 31st, 2025 review memorandum for this application. Uh, you've heard testimony from the applicant indicating what
they're proposing to do. Um, they are asking for a C1 variance as well as a preliminary and final site plan with the waiver of requirements. If there was ever a candidate for a waiver of site plan requirements, this is it. There are
really only two aspects of site plan review that I asked for be added onto the plans and they've provided that uh for review. Uh the signage, the signage has been reviewed and complies. Also entry lighting. Um I've reviewed
that. That also complies. So there those two aspects were really the only aspects of site plan review. The site is essentially entirely covered by buildings. There's a small um delivery area at the rear that's accessed through an easement. That's really the only area
that's not covered by buildings. The rest of the site is essentially the building. Okay. All right. Uh with regards to completeness review, um there were three waiverss that were specifically requested um from our preliminary site plan approval
checklist, item 3, V, and W. Uh based on the nature of this application, I supported all of those waiverss. So therefore, we did recommend deeming it complete. Um we've sort of gone through uh the zoning table on page 305, but
I'll just rehash that. Um, so the one variance that's being requested is for the building setback to Beach Avenue. There is a 10-ft requirement in the C2 district. 6.3 foot exist to the existing face of the structure. They are
infilling that the barrel entry is what they're referring to it that's being brought out closer to the street but no closer than the existing structure. So it's falling in line with that the foundation of that structure. Um, and there's also vertical expansion that
that tower is getting larger and you can see in on that that elevation um, perfectly shows it on the left hand side on the bottom. You can see that's a vertical expansion within the setback. That's really the only reason they're here and it triggers the site plan review and the variance approval
requirement. Um, there are existing non-conformities that relate to the site um, that relate to the structure. They are not being exacerbated. Lot coverage is not being increased. Um it is the area that's being infilled is already impervious area so there's no adverse
impacts there. Um so um that's just a summary of my variance reviews. I'll move on to page 405 the general review comments which typically um become the conditions of approval. Uh I've asked that the zoning table should be revised
to reflect comments in this review. In this case, we discussed the parking requirements and that there that's going to end up in the resolution. Rich has um has u essentially indicated that that data has been in indicated with an asterk because the
employees weren't counted on during the 1996 approval. Um item number two, they talked about the apartments. They were indicated on the survey. That's kind of what raised a little, you know, question in my mind, what they were, whether they
were being operated or not, and how they affected the parking count. We have now gotten that in accounting. So, that question has been answered. Item number three is the off- streetet parking. Um, they've indicated that there is no increase in the number of seats. So,
this is not this the improvements with the reconfiguration of seating, the reconfiguration of boosts within the interior and the relocation of the doorway does not increase any seats and does not increase any parking requirement.
Item number four, um I just my review of the lighting. They did provide compliant entry lighting and we found that acceptable. Um items 5 through 11 are our standard conditions for this type of application. Um I'd just like to just summarize that we did receive reports
from the other uh uh departments um for review and I'll just summarize they all recommended approval u with no comments. The fire department re uh that approval was recommended on 11625,
police department 111025, public works 11725, and Shade Tree November 7th, 2025. So, we received all of those. Um, all of the other items five or uh 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 11 should all be conditions of approval. I won't bore you with those. And I just want to make sure that we add another condition that specifically states that the plans will be revised to indicate a total of 208 seats where they
right right now they indicate 211. That's it. Craig, I do have one question. The only variance that I have here is the front yard setback. Um, if they're putting a tower in that side, like right on that side,
isn't that I mean, it says existing confirmity, but isn't it going higher or is it that high already? >> Yeah, it might be appropriate to grant that. >> Ramy, could you just pull up your plan and tell us what that setback is on that side?
I have it in my table as one or the other. Either 0.9 ft or 1.5 ft. >> 0.9. >> Okay. So, there's vertical expansion along that.9 ft setback on the sideyard. >> All right. So, I think they need a
variance of that, don't they? Craig. >> Yes. >> All right. So, um in the chart in the zoning chart, all of your testimony would apply to that equally. Correct. >> Yes. And that's an architectural feature that you feel is important because it's sort of like a Victorian kind of tower thing, I guess.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm going to go into the chart. right here. You see that 0.9? >> If you put a two asterisk there, it's measured to the proposed building
improvements. So, there's a setback. >> That would be on the sideyard setback each column. There's a six-foot requirement. >> I say 0.9 exists and 0.9 is proposed with a vertical expansion. So no closer to the setback,
just going up and that is that tower element that is on the left side. >> That's that's a variance. You're granting you're going to be asked to grant two variances tonight. The front yard setback and the sideyard setback.
All right. I just bear with you. Little editing to add that in Okay. Rich is preparing. All right. We can't hold >> you got it. >> I do have it. Yes, I'm ready.
All right. Um, we will then open to the public. Anybody in the public wish to speak? Yes, Kathy. >> Kathy, we have to you have to come up technically be sworn in and shackled to the table. >> Got it. >> All right. Let me Hold on. I got to put
this in the resolutions. Okay. Ma'am, uh, can you please uh state your name and then give your address? >> Uh, Kathy Ryder, 405 Madison Avenue. >> Is that R Y D R? >> Yes. Kathy with a K. >> All right. And say that address again. I got to type it in. >> 405. I'm sorry.
>> Madison Avenue. >> Okay. Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, truth? So bey. >> I do. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I just want I'm here for to support moving forward with the renovations. I have the miniature golf course next to
Carney's Ocean Puck Golf and I think it will improve the whole area. So basically I'm on board with everything. I think it's going to look good. >> And you're the most effective adjoining land, aren't you? >> Pardon? >> You are the most effective adjoining land owner, aren't you?
>> Yes, we are. >> We are. Yeah. Yes, we are. And the one side's just going to be all windows. And I think um I think they need it, you know, to open it up because it's been so dark and dingy for and I think the it'll improve the whole area. So, I'm on board
with it. So, >> I was wondering if it was going to close the golf course for any period of time. I was I was worried about that. We're frequent flyers at the golf course. So, >> I'm sorry. >> I was worried it was going to close the golf course for a period of time. We're frequent flyers there, but >> No, I don't think so. I talked to Shaw and he's going to get the work done. So,
>> all right. >> We're hoping for the best. Excellent. >> That's why that's why we're doing the resolution night. >> Yeah. Don't don't take it personal. Someone said I was going to interfere with mini doll. I definitely would do it. >> All right. Um
Okay. I'm going to do what I don't usually do is I'm going to read some. Is there you close public close? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Public portion is closed. You you're >> free to go. >> You don't have to hang around. >> Thank you, Kathy. >> Okay. These are what my notes reflect in the resolution that you'd be passing.
Um, we have the chart that I've added the two variances. The variance pertaining to the front yard, which is closing in the vestibule, uh, relocating the doors and the um, we're also granting site plan approval. I heard a lot of waiverss, but
are we waving site? >> No. So, you're granting site plan approval with a w of the requirements all I know that's the way you like to do it. Okay. Let me just add to make that clear. The ordinance says you should grant site
plan when you grant that requirements. >> Okay. So, uh these are the key parts of the resolution that we're asking you to approve uh that they're asking you to approve tonight. Mr. Carney testified they are doing a full facade renovation with new windows and doors to improve the guest experience. They are moving
seats but are not adding any seats. The front apartment before 2006 was three apartments after 2006. It is now one apartment with three bedrooms that his father lives in. Then he lives in a one-bedroom apartment. There are not these are not changing. Mr. David Schulz is an expert architect. He described the
object of the project is to open up the front so you can see in and they are using the same footprint and they are moving the doors so they can have seating in the windows. The windows will be able to be open. He reviewed the plans on record with the board. There are no added seats in this plan. The new
configuration is a safer design. The lighting design is also safer. They are modernizing the outside facade. The HBC has granted preliminary approval on June 16, 2025. He believes it enhances the whole block. They are infilling the entryway and increasing
the height of the facade. So, this is an expansion of the front setback. You agree you're also in the sideyard, correct? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rammy Nasser testified as an expert architect. Uh, this is in the C2
district. The building predates the building zoning ordinance. >> There architect. >> He's an engineer. >> Engineer plan. >> Thank you. >> There are 200 seat 28 seats permitted by a previous approval in 1996 and they will continue with 28 seats which would
require 56 parking spaces. The new doors are 6.3 ft instead of 10 for which they seek a hardship variance. The property has an existing condition due to the location of the current building and it is impractical to move the whole building back 3.7 ft. They see
no negative impact on the zone plan or zoning ordinance and no substantial detriment to the public good. Mr. Hurles then reviewed his report dated October 31st, 2025. The applicant had no objection to the condition set forth by the engineer. Kathy Ryder of 405 Madison Avenue testified she is here
to support the renovations. She owns the Goff next door. She thinks it needs the improvements. A motion was made to grant the variances requested. Oh, I don't know. Oh, that's the motion. I'm going to read what it will say. If you grant the application, a motion was made to
grant the variances requested and they were unanimously granted, although I'll write in whatever vote you all vote on. The board finds that little is changing other than the facade improvements. The building location in relation to the front setback is not changing. This advances the purpose of zoning to
promote a positive visual environment. It also improves safety by relocating the ingress and egress. The board grants the application under the C1 standard as the building predates zoning, but would also grant under the C2 standard. The sideyard variance also allows a tower that is an aesthetic improvement
advancing the purpose of zoning. The board uh finds there is no negative impact on the neighbors nor is there a substantial impairment of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. The application is therefore granted if you so vote. The board also grants site plan approval and
then it's the typical conditions as you would find in as outlined in Craig's report. That's what the resolution will read in substance if you were to grant the application tonight. So, the motion that I recommend being me, but how you vote is up to you is a motion to grant a site plan approval with variances for
front yard setback and sideyard setback. Uh, for the reasons set forth in the memorial memorializing resolution, which are also passing on the vote. That's the motion I recommend be made, but how you vote is up to you. >> Um, no, I read it into the record. So I
I think u just >> I will print this um now for the um to be signed if you do approve it. Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. This is a little unusual doing the resolution, but Mr. Corn asked me he's under the gun. He's got to go back to HBC and um so I it
seemed like it was fairly >> I'll make a motion >> application. So >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay. So Mr. Jones motions. Mr. Crowley seconds. Is the resolution and the motion to approve the application one motion or are we doing two?
>> We're going to do one motion. It's alo also authorizing the chairman to assign the resolution in substantial form as I just read to you. >> We have forum I'm printing that out now and Miss Keenan is going to have it signed tonight if everyone wants to. Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Producus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ken. What number would this resolution be? Do you know?
>> Uh, I would number it 11-10-2025 colon 1. >> Okay, I'm going to send this to you again. >> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. >> Good luck with your >> It's going to look good, guys. >> Okay, Miss Keon, use the second one that
I just sent you. It's going to say use this one. Did you send me more than one thing? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. >> Sam, you might want to stick around and get a copy of this so you can use this one. >> Publish.
>> The first and last time for everything. >> Nope. >> So, we have So, we have a >> We still need a motion to pay the bill. >> Some are easier than others. >> I'll make them. No, >> I'll second. >> I just want I figure you know what I'm
going to see as well. >> Motion motion to pay bills has been made. Seconded. All in favor? >> Turn this off. >> Motion to adjurnn. Seconded. >> Yes. >> Good night all. >> Good night all. >> Good night everyone.
>> Thank you.