This is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven Planning Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. At the time of the board reorganization in January of this year, the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of
the schedule has Notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 30th, 2026 and the Two River Times on February 26. >> Well, I guess will be sent on February 26, 2026.
>> That notice was also posted on the Bulletin board in Burough Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by this. >> Copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of the Burough Clerk. Copy of the notice has also been sent to members of the public as have requested
such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given, the board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of the meeting. >> Uh so we'll start with roll call. >> Uh Mrs. W >> here. Mr. Olsen
>> here. >> Mrs. Hoey here. Mr. Pa >> here. >> Mr. R here. >> Mr. Nick, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Nant, Mr. Brandonetti and Mr. Da.
Okay. So, let's rise and have our salute to the flag. Pledge allegiance 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. >> So, um we're going to we're going to start really quickly with the uh with the administrative items uh today uh and and get through those and then and then hear the application uh or about about the brothers. Um so so first uh let's
let's do the the meeting minute uh meeting minutes from January 20th uh which were sent and distributed to everybody prior to the meeting. >> I didn't have any comments. >> I didn't either. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Mrs. Brush. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Olen. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hoey. >> Yes. >> Mr. Powell here. Yes. >> Mr. Golf. >> Yes. And then um we have two contracts uh for approval. Uh the first is to authorize
the contract for for board attorney. Um those contracts or that contract was sent uh prior to uh prior to the meeting. I I don't have any comments. I signed the contracts um both for board attorney and board planner. Can I can I do those in one motion?
>> Sure. >> Um so I I'd like to uh I'll tell you, let's do them separately just in case. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's so we we'll go with board attorney first. I'll make a motion to approve the contract board. Second.
>> Uh Mrs. Bush. >> Yes. >> Mr. Olsen. >> Yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> Mr. Po. >> Yes. >> Mr. D. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And then uh I'll make a motion to approve uh the contract for
board planner. Second. Yes, >> Mr. Olsen. >> Yes, >> Mrs. H. Yes, >> Mr. Ba. >> Yes, >> Mr. Rob. >> Yes. >> Uh, and then so with regards to uh to
the master plan discussion. So, we have um we now have a final list of subcommittee appointees which we will bring uh forward to the board at the next at the next meeting. Um we have a survey uh what I think is a final
version of the survey um where we've we've gotten comments from uh from planner and from some other members uh of of the governing body as well. So we'll be looking to send that out in short order. Um but that's really the update on the on the master plan right
now. >> Um >> is there a place where we can we can see the copy of survey? >> Oh I I'll you haven't seen me. I'll send it to you. Okay. I'll 17 before we got um then um so we had some ordinances
come up uh for affordable housing to council and so we're supposed to com as as as the planning we're supposed to comment on those on those ordinances. Um, so I Doug, if if uh you want to give a a brief background,
>> I thought we were going to ask someone. >> Well, my understanding from my email correspondence with uh Serenian Tender and um William Olen from Serenian who wrote to me on Wednesday the 11th, I am planning to attend the
planning board meeting. And that is that is who >> that is gentleman William Olson from >> Mr. Olson here. William Olsson carry that matter. >> We can carry that matter to the next meeting or until later.
>> My concern about carrying it to the next meeting is that you it could have a time >> constraint. Absolutely. Mayor and council have done it. I think we probably need to move on this at this meeting, but I think we should try to effort I I can I can walk us through
some of those things, but I would be concerned in case I missed something. My >> recommendation is that we wait for Mr. Olson. If Mr. Olson does the show in the near future, I can walk you through some of the issues. Why don't we Yeah, I I didn't mean to say carry it to the next
meeting, but what what I meant is we can we can start we should hear the application. We'll hear the application and then uh by the end of the meeting >> by the end of the meeting. >> It's from Serenian the >> Mike Edwards from
>> our affordable >> the affordable housing planner. No, attorney >> attorney. Right. >> End of this book planner. >> Right. >> So, um, so today today, tonight we have,
uh, the Balaras Brothers, Inc., uh, to Volo Pronto application at 610 River Road, block 32, block 5, zone B1. Um, carried this from the last meeting without further notice. Um, before I'd Yeah, ask her to come up for both
parties. And then um before we'll get started. >> Anybody who's going to be testifying in this matter, think they're going to be testifying, think they might yell something out from the audience, let me swear you in at this point in time so I don't disrupt the proceeding. If you
could step forward, raise your right hand. You saw me swear. That's awesome. You should >> you saw me swear the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> I do. Yes. Yes. Okay. By the same
admonition as I usually give folks um before you start test everybody can sit down and go back to their seats. Before you start testifying in this matter, I would ask that you state your name clearly, loudly, spelling your last name. We are recording this matter and
if a transcript needs to be made that way we will identify the voice of the individual who's speaking then we can then create an appropriate transcript council if I may >> John Anderson on behalf of a law firm of
boss San Philippo and Mil representing the applicant Paul's brothers inc trading as top >> the jurisdiction last time in this matter but we did not mark any exhibit is your permission. I'd like to mark the exhibits. I also recognize Mr. Gadowski.
You're representing individual police board. My name is Ron Gajeraskki. I have offices in Redbank, New Jersey. I represent two individuals this evening who own properties. One is Miss Reed De Vincent. She owns Jason Lot 4. And then
on the opposite side, Mr. Gary Liser owns lot six. And I'll be representing both of them in this matter. Okay. May >> may I ask one question before we start? Uh, and I don't want to sound disruptive. Can could I have an issue with regard to the notice which I could
either address now or during the hearing go, whatever it may be. >> Okay. What what is your issue with the notice? >> Okay. my my issue with regard to the notice and I'm looking at a letter that
in January 7, 2026 which it's called notice of hearing and I think what's important in this matter is that notices are intended to work for the benefit of the public at large.
uh the average person regardless of the degree of his education should be able to read it and understand it. When one reads this notice and I'm looking particularly at page one says applicant is seeking amended site plan approval
waiver of site plan approval and or waiver of site plan submissions and details together with bulk suit and I have difficulty understanding exactly what that means. Is he coming in for a site plan? Is he coming in for variances? Or is he coming in for a waiver? Because there's different
standards with regard to use goes on to say grant side block 32 lot. She was to permit the existing permitted use dining in takeout delivery restaurant with seasonal cafe
seating. Uh to my knowledge, there has never been an approval uh from a board site plan approval, a board of variances with regard to this outdoor dining that they just simply never existed. >> You said you had an issue with the with the notice, right? So
>> with the notice >> with the notice. So So before we get into like the merit, like all the the different aspects of the application, what is the issue with the notice? Talk about the issue with the notice >> as I'm pointing out is that number one, it's not clear. It's not specific. It's
dealing with multiple. For example, speaking in terms of site plan approval, then waiver of a site plan approval. I think for the average person, it's difficult to comprehend that and deal with it. Also on page two it says in this application applicant seeks to
continue to operate a seasonal outdoor cafe restaurant of the covenant size either with the approval of the planning board which >> what's I I don't understand what's unclear because it goes through all the different aspects of the application. >> Let me just note my objection to the
notice and we could go on from there and just hear from different council. >> Uh if it please the board I'll take the second objection first. the absence of a prior site plan approval for the cafe. Uh, cafes are um permitted accessory
uses for permitted use restaurants in the zone. I think Mr. Gasowski is probably correct that there's been no site plan that directly addressed the cafe. But in the second paragraph of my notice, I said forformational purposes, the existing restaurant operates a
seasonal outdoor cafe pursuant to the Bureau of Fair Haven's general licensing ordinances section 4.4-2. and by virtue of annual licenses issued by the Burough of Fair Haven Mayor and Council, the most recent of which allowed for 10 tables and 40 chairs to accommodate 40
patrons. So, I think there's no argument there, no plausible argument that we did not disclose that the cafe seings been conducted pursuant to a license under the general licensing ordinance. I put it in there expressly for that reason so there would be no confusion. Um, with
respect to the argument that the notice is somehow too comprehensive, uh, if I had not put one of these arguments in the alternative and we had gone down a different fork in the road, we'd be hearing that my notice didn't have adequate specificity. >> Can I ask a question?
>> Is there anything about this notice that's different than the normal course? Was it was to your knowledge was spelled the same way as we would always do it. >> That would be a question for the chair. That would be a question this individual with regard to his notice. The board is not in charge of >> We didn't send the notice out.
>> We don't no this this notice is prepared by this individual. We send a notice with regard to retract. >> But Mr. Gra, if I can Mr. Garaski, your your objection is noted. I think it's
adequate for purposes of this record. I'm going to recommend to my colleague that we go forward. recognize that you've created that issue on the record. >> Thank you for courtesy of responding. >> Certainly. Um if I could and this also
goes to you Mr. Gazarowski, but if I could council, I would like to mark as I understand it to be at this point in time. If you have additional ones, please let me know. Same thing with Mr. Gazerowski. I am working off of the completeness
review number one going back to October 9, 2025 development county admissions. I'd like to mark as exhibit A uh the Burough Fair Haven standard development application form plus the Burough Fair Haven checklist
as one exhibit as exhibit A. Exhibit B would be the narrative of development with exhibits submitted by the applicant. Exhibit C is the property survey prepared by Insight Engineering dated 72125
consisting of one sheet exit excuse me exhibit D by the architectural plans prepared by Steven Reed I hope I'm pronounced that correctly AIA dated August 4th 2025
consisting of two sheets exhibit E would be the minor site plan prepared by insight engineer Hearing JD August 20th, 2025 consists of two sheets. Aerial photo and photo front facade marked as one exhibit uh exhibit F. Exhibit G will
be the certified list of 200 property owners. Um PB1 was super planning board one be the December 19th 2025 continuous review by the B engineer or the safety chairman
EB2 will be February 12 2026 technical review again prepared for Mr. Ella EV3 January 12, 2026 waiting board review uh from CCH over
the signature of Don Mills. EV4 will be this is the markment of fair haven ordinance. This will be what it was originally proposed or at least originally passed 2008-06
EV5 is the freehole ordinance and this is person. referencing the licensing ordinance. Um, this will be 2013-06 PB6 will be the ordinance in its present form 4-2. The licency will have been
formed uh characterized as seasonal sidewalk cafes and sidewalk restaurants. Do you have any other exhibits that you'd like tomorrow? Uh it was >> as you go along just as long as you don't
>> just um I think maybe two for now. Um it was part of the um broader narrative of exhibits but I think it might be important to separately mark the planning board resolution from July 12th of 2005 for ease of reference. >> July uh
>> 12 2005 >> we'll mark that as exhibit H. And then um there was an email uh dated May 1st, 2025 from the burrow's um fire
marshal to the burough administrator and it was subsequently sent to myself and Mr. Gasarowski on May the 2nd of 2025. If you can mark that email >> May 2nd, 2025. >> May 1st. >> May 1st. And then
>> I'm sorry. May 1st. Do you have copies for the board? >> Uh I do. Okay. Because I I don't know that we have Oh, we have those. >> I believe it. >> Okay. >> I can get you one. Mr. Mr. Gastroski is going.
>> Um, anything else? >> Uh, that'll be it for now. Sorry. >> Um, Mr. Gazki, will you be having any exhibits that you refer to? >> I shall, but I would introduce him at the start of my case. I don't. >> Okay. Then you then I I would like to
with your permission we'd like to mark them. >> Thank you. >> Uh 01234 as objectors so we can make a designation. So we have the planning board exhibits. We have the exhibits from the applicant. Uh your next exhibit then the soon
exhibit. >> Before we proceed, I'm looking at this email from Martin. Uh does my colleague intend to call him as a witness as well? >> I I don't know at this point. I'll just mark the exhibits. We'll get there. >> Okay. >> Eventually.
>> That's smart. >> Okay. >> Uh Mr. Kovatz, was that exhibit J or exhibit I? >> Well, I think I think we had exhibit H was the resolution that you marked separately, July 12th, and then we had
exhibit I was the 2025 email of May 1st. So, our next exhibit will be exhibit J. >> Okay. >> I just like to do that at this point in time so I'm not interrupting your presentation. Fair enough. Very organized. >> Anything from the board? >> Nothing right now.
>> Take the web. >> All right. Uh, as I said, I'm John Anderson. I'm here representing Beras Bros, Inc. You're going to know that as Pavo. Um, it's a restaurant in town. Uh, I've got Miss Baldderas, Patricia, seated to my right. Her husband, Arturo,
couldn't join us. He's still at the restaurant working this evening. Um, it's a two-member LLC. They're the only members. Um, you should be aware and we put in our notice that they also own the building itself, albeit through a separate entity, uh, Bros Holdings LLC
where both of those people are the only members as well. Um, this application pertains to 610 River Road. It's the Tavo Pronto property. That's the only use on the property. It's a singlestory building. There's ADA space out front.
There are three regular spaces in the back. There's a refuge enclosure in the back. Um there's a alleyway of sorts to the west of the property and you're going to hear quite a bit about that. Um presently and for maybe the last 17 years that's been a seasonal outdoor
cafe licensed by your governing body uh operating each and every year. Some varying levels of seating. Um at present 2025 at least it was approved for 40 seats. Um, we're not here seeking to
change the use. Uh, we are a restaurant. We will remain a restaurant. We're not here seeking any kind of approval to get an addition or new gross floor area. Uh, it's 2368 square ft. It was 2368
ft when it was first approved back in 2005. It remains that way. And if you approve us and you love what we have to say, it will still be 2368 ft. Uh, and realistically, we're not not really seeking any setback type
variances, coverage type variances. We'll speak a little bit about the coverage, but um, no new coverage, so to speak. U, we may be slightly at odds with what we were approved for back in ' 05. That could be uh due to a variety of
things. That might just be the way the numbers shook out. Um different engineers calculate things slightly differently, but we're not adding any more hardcape. Um about the only improvements that we want to add would be a few benches out back. Um and the bike rack to better accommodate some of
the the kids coming from the schools or your bar sports fields coming to visit us and and allow them to organize their bikes and uh you know not not have a nuisance condition. Uh so why are we here then? Um we were brought into court
in Freehold um by Mr. Gastraki by Mr. Gasarowski's client, the Shutters. Uh, we were a party to that litigation. The burrow was a party to that litigation, and your zoning board was a party for that litigation. And the general gist of
the litigation was that um, somehow the mayor and council had acted improperly when they approved the seating for the outdoor cafe in 2025. And the allegation was that there should be no seating
there because under the prior approval going all the way back to 2005 that alleyway was supposed to have been striped as a fire lane. Um so that litigation was dismissed they call it without prejudice and we all agreed that
in lie of litigating that at the uh superior court and freehold. We would come in here and we would put on our case and we would attempt to persuade you uh that there are either change circumstances or good cause that would allow you as a board to revisit that
condition involving the fire lane. So it's a very limited purpose that we're here for. It's potentially removing a condition involving a fire lane and then also revisiting um an alleged condition limiting the number of seats in the
interior of the restaurant. Um and the allegation would be that it's limited to 12 seats in the interior. And candidly, that's not the way we operate. We have more than 12 seats in the interior. We have about 40 seats in the interior. Um, but the plan we've put in front of you
this evening is to modify the seating and actually reduce it. Bring it from the 40 we presently have down to 33. Um, doesn't involve any expansion. Like I said, you'll hear from our architect. He'll walk you through the floor plan. I think it's a good plan because right now
as I go in there, I see a bunch of tables in the middle of the restaurant. If you're familiar with it, you'll know where they are. they're up kind of near the deli case and it's a little tight and the circulation is not optimized and I think if we got the 33 seats in lie of the 40 what we're going to do is push
that seating to um a bette with some chairs up against the wall and it frees up more space in the interior of the restaurant. It's just a better circulation pattern. Um so I'll speak to each of those very briefly and then we'll get uh going with some of the testimony. >> I I don't usually don't interrupt. You
got 33 seats that you're proposing inside how much seats in the outside area. >> Uh we've shown the 40 that was approved for 2025 and um I think that you know may be a little bit up for discussion um
in two regards. One is is there any kind of approval that you have to grant for that cafe seating or does it continue on um through the general licensing ordinance and number two would be um is there some chance to maybe revisit that
number? you know, is is 40 in excess of what we reasonably need. And that's that's a fair dialogue that we'll have with you. >> And the relationship period for this year runs from when to when? >> Oh boy, you're going to throw me for a loop. Go back. April one through is it
>> November one or December one? >> It's a little later than I would have thought. Let me just hold >> I don't want to hear. So total seating or total potential people on site by way of seats 33 inside and you said 40,000 >> 40 hours >> 40
>> and I I have the ordinance here >> said I didn't want to disrupt you by >> Oh no that's that's quite all right I want to be um responsive just give me one second I've got it here April 1 as Miss Baldera stated and then it's no later than December 1. So that's
the period in question. Uh keeping in mind that uh as it exists now and as it's proposed it is truly seasonal in the sense that it's not covered at all and it's not enclosed at all. So uh I don't know at least this year I don't
know that you would have want to be out there December one. Um certainly not by mid December you wouldn't want to be out there. >> So So it's not an operation at this time? >> No. Um, I think if you had gone to the site, you would have seen the tables and chairs out there, but they're not set
up. The umbrellas aren't up and nobody's sitting at them right now. So, thank you. >> Um, so just speaking to each of these two conditions. Uh, starting with the fire lane, which I think is probably admittedly a lot more cut and dry. Um,
so a fire lane, I mean, you the whole idea is you want safety, right? You want a safe staging area where you're going to bring your volunteer, all volunteer first responders in this case, to fight a fire. Um, there are certain minimum
requirements that are, um, engrafted on fire lanes through the International Fire Code. Um, one of them having to do with width, uh, which I understand to be 20 ft in width. >> But we didn't technically swear you in as witness. It sounds that you're giving
actual testimony at this. I'll scale it back a little bit. You will hear about some uh requirements for width and clear height with respect to the fire lane. You will hear about an email that's been marked and you have all in front of you from your fire marshal with his analysis
of the situation. And what we will be submitting to you is that marking that area as a fire lane would be uh at odds with the international fire code and as such would be unsafe because it would be luring your first responders into an
area that's uh of inadequate uh size and inadequate clear height. Um on the indoor seating there's a couple things that you're going to hear kind of the critical path or kernels that you need to know at at the outset to follow us through the script.
We are a permitted use restaurant as I said. Uh we were granted approval as such in 2006, but you're going to hear that at that period of time your ordinance was a little bit different. Um and it had different categories of restaurants. You kind of had to put yourself in a box. Class one, class two,
class three. Uh at that point we were a class two, which I think is predominantly like a grabandgo takeout. Um but you're also going to hear that those distinctions no longer exist. which have one broad category of restaurant. Uh you all finally you're going to hear that the parking
requirements for restaurants have changed since 2005 when we got the approval. At that point in time there were two different metrics that you're going to hear about. One of which involve seating. Now uh there is no metric that ties parking to seating. That's been removed completely. So,
parking is solely tied to your gross floor area, which as I told you before, and you'll hear again, uh, is 2368 square ft. That's how we were approved. That's how we remain. Um, so nothing we're doing triggers any kind of relief as far as parking other than potentially
removing that condition on the seating, but it doesn't impact our overall parking count. So, we have four witnesses for you. I have Miss Beris going to start. She can tell you a little bit about the operations and I submit to you that she's going to say this is the way they are and if we're approved they're not going to change
marketkedly. We have the architect to review the floor plans and layouts. We have an engineer who's going to talk um about the relatively few uh site improvements, tell you a little bit about that alleyway, and then we'll wrap up with a planner. And Mr. Kovatz, thanks for pre-marking those exhibits. I
hope that'll help to move things along. >> Miss Bair, >> yes. You were previously sworn. You're the owner of Waldaras Brothers, Inc.? >> Yes, my husband and I. >> All right. And do your husband and uh yourself likewise own Dob Bros Holdings LLC? >> Yes.
>> Um Do Bros Holdings owns the real estate? 610 River Road. >> Correct. >> And we'll call it Tavlo Pronto or Balderas Bros owns the business. Is that right? >> Correct. >> All right. >> Uh is Tavlo the only occupant of 610 River Road?
>> Yes. When did you first acquire Tablo the business? >> In 2010. Okay. >> When did you acquire the real estate? >> In 2018. Okay. >> And at this time you own both the business and the real estate, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. When you acquired the business
assets of Tavo, was it already uh open to the public? Was it doing business as a restaurant? >> Yes. Um, when you acquired the business assets of Tavlo Pronto, was there already a PA patio located in the alleyway on the west side of the
building? >> Yes. >> Um, when you acquired Tablo Pronto, was it already conducting um outdoor seasonal cafe type seating? >> Yes. >> Uh, have you continuously operated Tablo
in that manner since 2010? Yes, we've had a Sidewalk Cafe license every year that we've been there since 2010. >> Okay. Um and I I said it in my opening, but I just want to make sure that Sidewalk Cafe is open air, right? >> Yes.
>> No um no heaters of sorts out there, no cover, >> no >> screening or anything? >> No. >> Um have you ever increased the size of the building in which Tablo is located? >> No. Would you tell us a little bit about the food
that you serve at Tablo? >> Um, we do a lot of Tablo. We're open from 8 in the morning till 8 or 9 at night. We do breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee. We have pizza, paninis. We do a
school lunch delivery to the local Fair Haven schools. We do special dinner packages. We have lunch specials, dinner specials, um package dinners, family dinners to
go. Um there's a lot going on. We have um you know, people eat in, people take out, they order sandwiches, we do sandwich platters, we do off- premise catering, people come and take them some. Um we have a a big afterchool
crowd. the middle schoolers come over from Norwood. Um >> with um with some exceptions for some of the drinks that you might sell or chips or things. Is the majority of the food like prepared on site by you know you,
your husband, your staff? >> Yeah, most of the food is is prepared to order. Um there's chips, there's drinks, there's uh we do a lot of desserts, there's cookies, cake pops, things like that that are prepared that the kids,
you know, can grab, but mostly they order and we prepare the food. >> Um do you have any kind of drive-thru or drive up window? >> No. >> Um do you have more than one location? >> No. >> All right. You said a little bit about
your hours of operation. I think you were giving me the generalization. 8 to 9. Are there any days of the week that have shorter hours? >> 8 to 9 is only on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, we're open 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. And
Sunday is a little shorter. We open at 8 and we close at 4 p.m. >> Okay. Um, >> uh, you have an existing refuge enclosure in the rear of the property. >> Mhm. Yes. Um, how frequently do you have your ref use hauled away?
>> Um, garbage twice a week and recycling once a week. >> Okay. And to the extent uh you have control over it. Do you try to do that earlier in the morning before you know things pick up in the area? >> Yes. The Delissa picks up for us, they try and come early. They're typically
there before 7:30. Sometimes things go wrong and they get there later, but typically before anxiety is >> um real quick on staffing. I mean, what what would be the sort of the most staff members you would have on site at any
one point during the week >> on our busiest shift like Fridays and Saturdays? We have nine plus my husband. So maybe 10 on um a busy on Friday or Saturday the least maybe six.
>> Now I understand your husband drives to work. Is that right? >> Yes. >> How about the other staff members? Do many of them drive vehicles? >> We have very few drivers. I have one one morning girl drives and one afternoon
boy drives. We have um we have a lot of Uber people. We have some bike riders and our We have a lot of high school kids who work as cashiers. They walk from RVR. They take the bus. We have very few employees,
>> parents, their friends dropping off. >> Mhm. >> They carpool. >> Now, you're asking the board for relief from these two two conditions involving the alleyway and the seating. Is that right? >> Yes. >> You're not proposing to add to the building in any way? No. No additions or
anything like that? >> No, no change. >> As far as exterior improvements, are we we're really talking about like a new bike rack at this point? >> We'd like to add another bike rack. >> Are you um if the board were so inclined to approve your application, would you be looking to alter your hours of
operation? >> No. >> Would you uh change your staffing? >> No. >> Would you be changing in any material regard the way in which the business operates? >> No. >> Um I think that may be all that I have for
Miss Balderas. >> Benched a bench. >> Oh, yeah. Uh I think we we also said one or two benches out back like >> flanking the the rear door. Is that >> Yes. Yeah. >> And we'll we'll certainly show them on
the site plan when Mr. Ward has an opportunity to test it. >> Both the racks and >> Yes, they're they're detected on the site plan. No, thank you. Does anyone from the board have any questions of Miss >> I but only after the board you ask the
question? >> So your your license was granted in 2025 correct? >> Yes. To the previous owner to operate that I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> To the previous owner >> for 2025 was the >> Oh, I apologize. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so the license for the
outdoor cafe was approved in 2025. Yes. >> To you directly to you as owners, right? And so you went in front of council for that. >> We've put in an application and then it's um reviewed by the police chief >> and then it comes up and it's voted at
the council meeting. >> Okay. >> Approved or usually approved. >> Gotcha. And we we can go over some of the specifics of the cafe seating ordinance if if you like. I mean, the highlights as I see them, I think you really you fill out an application,
>> you submit proof of insurance, you pay, the town conduct their review, and then >> and does the license talk about how how many seats you're allowed out there. >> So, it gives you a license for a certain number of seats, and you comply with that license.
>> Yes, it's approved every year. You have to draw a plan, say exactly how many seats, exactly what it looks like. you have to, you know, draw a plan and then it's approved for >> and and if I'm reading the past history correctly, every year either the police
chief or some somebody representing emergency services also approves Yes. of the the application. They they weigh in every year. >> Yes. >> Mr. after council can hand you the documents with regard to approvements going back
to 2018. >> Give me one. >> There was a license granted every year since 2008. >> Okay. >> Yes. So, >> just so you know where they're at in the record and I can circulate a copy if you like. Um, Mr. Kovac marked in the
narrative with exhibits as exhibit B. So they're they're exhibit B to exhibit B if that makes any sense. >> Just like to read an email counselor because in front of you 2008 from
the other I'm just reading scenario. >> Okay. It seems to be from 2008 9 10 11 and 12. There was not a specific design and I
want you to take your time on this. >> Not a specific designation as to the number of chairs for number of patrons in the license. Looking at 20 n 10 11 was 12. I don't know that
there's a requirement or a limit, but when when we filed the application, we had to draw a plan of what it looked like outside. So, our plan always had the number of seats, but it it could
change. It did change over the years. It was not always >> But you would agree with me. >> Yeah. >> And I got >> Yeah. >> It's a very >> No, I think that's fair to go action. There's no representation on those dates as to the number of seats or patrons
outside in fact I think the only notation and this is 11 10 and 9 and and also 2008 8 9 10 11 that you could move the planters there's also some planters out there and you could move the planters in quote an emergency my word I
think it's very effective >> I think that's accurate uh there's no specific statement as far as tables chairs or overall seats within the four corners of any of the documents you just referenced. >> Then starting in 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17,
take your time in council. Mhm. >> At that point, the license that was approved by may be maring council >> talks about and I think in each instance for each of those years five tables,
20 chairs, 20 patrons. Why don't you take your time? Don't you agree with my representation? That's effective. Okay. And then that's carried forward 18 and 19. >> Mhm.
>> Again, five tables, 20 chairs, 20 pes. There's no mention of planters, but I'm assuming were there planters there at that time? >> Yes. >> Okay. beginning in 22 it appears that now it is for
11 tables. So there's increase in table 36 chairs and 36 patrons. That's 2022. Okay. >> 2023
11 tables, 36 chairs, 52 patrons. >> The 52 seems to be an error. It does say that. >> Well, I'm just I that's what I read. It's if if you do you did you have 52 patrons out there to your re if you recall?
>> No, >> tax me. I couldn't tell you what happened. No, there's no >> logically it probably should have read that there'd be 36 patron. >> I don't >> in 2024 we'll approve for now 10 tables,
40 chairs, 40 patrons and the same thing in 2025. 10 tables, 40 chairs. Do you anticipate on a go forward basis the same number of tables and chairs as
in 25 and patrons 10 40 and 40? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And I imagine that the other details will come from your I guess architect or engineer for site.
Those are all the questions that I had. Yep. So, and I don't have to ask any more needs to happen. >> Yeah. >> I'd like to wait my cross examination until the conclusion of all of their witnesses. So, I'll have the benefit of
not having to call any effect, but I'll have knowledge of everything. >> Okay. >> Have to let council have try his own case. >> Right. >> We're going to let council try his own case. >> Sure. Okay. I it was just an offer if you had a question, but if that's what
you'd rather do, that's fine. >> Uh I I only have one question of this witness at this time and and I believe that she referred to uh during this period of time there were some changes of circumstances with regard to the
neighborhood. Could you can you tell me what they were >> that I said there were changes to the neighborhood? >> Yes. Yes. Any changes? Any changes? any changes to your knowledge in the neighborhood from the time this was approved in 2005 until also the time
that you acquired title to the property. >> Okay. Okay. I made it proper that there had been changes to the ordinance. >> Well, you know, if council wants to testify, we >> I'm sure council council has I I have
marked the ordinances. They are in in evidence and I imagine we can all go through those now the line. I may have those but I don't think it would appropriate for me to ask this witness how the ordinance has changed. I >> I may do that with representatives from
the from the board. >> I was simply trying to clarify because I I don't know that the witness made a profit that there had been a change in the neighborhood. >> Record will speak for itself. Sure. Do you have another witness? >> I do. Uh I'll call Mr. Riti. Thank you.
>> Mr. Reidi, as you're getting set up, would you uh annunciate your credentials? You're a little bit away from the microphone, but start to put credentials on the record if you would, sir. or before the witness proceeds. Can council make the representation that
these materials have been provided? They're simply one larger board if statement and the materials and these remark regard to the documents that we identified before. Yes, I believe that the two boards on the easels are going to be the two sheets comprising what you
marked as exhibit D, the architectural plans dated August the 4th of 2025. Mr. Ridi, have there been any revisions or changes that we need to know about? >> No, there is. >> And if you would put your credentials on the record, sir. >> Even RII license architect
um offices in Brett Bank, New Jersey. Um licensed in New Jersey as well as New York. Um, have you previously testified before the planning board here in Perry? >> Yes, I have uh on this uh matter at one
time and uh more recently uh >> I I'll acknowledge his credentials. >> Thank you. Has he qualified before this board that played him? >> Have you qualified before other local land use boards in Mammoth County? Red
Bank burrow brick in Ocean County. Um I was in front of this board for um a um recent job um on River Road um
provisions canopy provision. That was the last thing I did miss in fair. >> Uh Mr. CD. Has any board ever refused to accept your credentials as an architect? >> Not yet.
>> And your your license is in good standing in New Jersey? >> Will the board accept your witness's credentials as an architect? >> Yes. >> Mr. Recidi, are you familiar with 610 River Road? >> Yes, I am. >> And you prepared the plans on the boards in front of you marked in as exhibit D?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, sheet A1 on the left hand side. Would you uh just how many seats uh the applicant has presently and what the proposal is for
indoor seating? The A1 drawing indicates the uh what we proposed to do in the in the in the matter of basically moving furniture uh and reducing the seats uh making it more uh acceptable
for um circulation as well as um access to display and uh the cash. >> I see that you put a photo uh board an array of eight photos up on the easel. Correct. >> Have that marked, Mr. Kovat.
>> So that was marked as Well, I don't think I have those photos. >> This has not been previously marked. I think we're up to J if I'm not mistaken. >> Yeah, you can tell us those in the valley.
>> Some of those photos may be on A1 already. Some may not be. So, we'll just mark it. But ultimately, did you take those photos? >> I took them all. And even these boats are blowups of some of the ones that already exist on on A1 and A2. >> The weather looks a little nicer there.
Would that have been like more of a summertime? >> Nice sky. >> Um, back to your point about the um the tables u the way they're laid out. Uh initially um the budget errors has had tables in
front of these uh display area. Uh there's two very large um uh glass refrigerated cases for displaying all the product. Um and uh in front of that was a bunch of tables and um behind it
were our and this refrigerated casings for uh sodas and beverages as well as uh pasta. Um what we're doing is kind of rearranging things and moving the the refrigeration forward towards River Road
and coming up with a bankette seat here about 20 ft long to have a more conducive and intimate dining area. And I know that the Berases want to do more more dining uh evening dining and this sets that up for them a little better.
And it also keeps the uh areas in front of these display cases open for customers uh where they will stand, decide what they want, have a sandwich made. Uh and the cash trap is is right there. Behind all that in the plan is
the make line or the chef's line. A 14oot hood is in this area. Um that is where everything happens. Uh a little further towards River Road is coffee area. Um, and everything in this area is
open Garia style to the to to the rest of the uh space. The only thing that's around the corner is refrigeration um and an office and dishwashing. >> Right, Mr. Aidi? Ju just to to get the
record clear, approximately how many seats do we presently have in the interior? >> We are showing 33. >> Uh, that's the proposal. How many do you think we presently have? >> 41, I believe. >> I think that's right. So, it'll be overall a net reduction of about eight
seats. Is that right? >> Is the back of the house, the the area that you talked about, the cooking and things, is that staying unchanged? >> Nothing's changing. Um there's no alterations, no additions. um except for moving some of these
refrigerator cases and and the tables and chairs around and swapping out some table for low low tops instead of high tops. Um and and the banquet itself that's that's the only >> the stools in the front of the house by the coffee that stays unchanged.
>> The coffee area is the same as it was. >> Stools in the rear by the back door, they stay unchanged. There is an 18inch uh bar height counter in the back with six seats added already. That's existing in one that
will be made. >> Oh, but just moving the tables that are in the middle of the restaurant near the deli case, getting rid of them, pushing it towards the wall with the banket seating. And I think there's like a farm style table up front now. currently
existing there is a farm table in the front which you'll see here um which is a large table it's 8 by10 and that's going to go and then in its place will be two hightop four seat tables >> okay >> at the front
>> and then would you just show A2 for illustrative purposes as far as what the uh the approved cafe seating for 2025 Y the outdoor cafe um as was mentioned earlier is 40 seats, 10 tables,
combination of market tables and umbrellas um over the favorite area and then a collection of some wood and some steel picnic tables uh for a total of four seats. >> All right. There's a little brick patio
there and I'd asked Mrs. Veraris about it previously just as far as whether it was in existence when she purchased. Um I'm going to show you a document. Hasn't yet been marked into evidence. We'll just get you to review it quickly and see if you can tell me how long uh that
paper patios existed for. Believe we're up to exhibit K. Mr. Kovac. >> Correct. >> And I'm showing you a zoning permit. It's application number 09-80
dated July 27th, 2009. Um, it's going to ask you to review the scope of what was asked for here. >> Adding papers to the outside area that create a patio for customers. The use of the area conforms to current activity.
>> And I'm going to show I can have a copy. Sorry, sir. And then I just show you the second page. Mr. Aidi, ask you to tell me whether that was in fact approved. >> Yes, it was. >> And the date it was approved >> on 723
09. >> So that's the patio depicted on 8 tier. Is that right? >> Right. And that patio does the patio it conforms in every way to the building, you know, it's not it's not uh
>> Yeah. like it's not the grade is what it's supposed to be and the setbacks like or the the it's on there it's on the BARS property correct like it doesn't >> it it doesn't go over the property lines in any way and it provides for the
appropriate sort of you know uh setbacks I guess side and bows >> it is definitely at grade we can have the engineer >> represented is that the zoning problem was issued >> yeah at I don't know whether he's I don't know
that this witness would speak to what the setbacks are all those things all >> can have Mr. Ward uh using his survey that he did just show you that it's within the property line and all those things. I think the the point I was attempting to make is it's it's not new.
It's not something we're adding. It's been there for a time. Um you know going back uh 17 years or so. Um, and that's kind of the front of the alleyway. What you see when you when you come up to it. >> Property lines is here 16 ft away from
the building and it's about a foot and a half to the adjacent building. So, it's within the property. >> The distance between the property line and the building for is a foot and a half. >> It varies. Uh, both buildings are not
square to the property. Uh I think it's like a foot 10 at the front and closer to a foot in the back. So um that was pretty much all I had for Mr. Reciti just to make the point that
no no additions no alterations and Mr. CD there. There's no proposed changes to the elevations, anything like that. >> Nothing. Nothing at all on the outside except for um uh adding a bench and some benches and and another bike rack. Um there was no
alterations, no construction. >> So just reduction in interior seating and a little bit of a realignment. >> Yes. A little furniture. Where where's the bike rack going to go? Where? Uh >> it's shown on the site plan. So my next miss uh witness, Mr. Ward, can can show you that.
Yeah, on A2 it's it's in this location at the back of the store. You see that the uh the picture that show the back of the building. >> Sorry, is that that's the current on the on A2 that's the current bike uh bike
rack >> or is that the proposed bike? >> That's proposed. >> Okay. >> Is existing at the at the front of the front of the >> right. Okay. >> Yeah, we we Mr. word can testify to it, but we thought the back of the building was maybe more appropriate because a lot of our patrons are the school children
and they get out and they come down like Third Street and then they come up Cedar and they come in the back and sometimes you notice the bikes there. So, it was a way to just give them a bike rack where they're coming to rather than trying to force them to come to the front of the building which they're not going to do.
>> And the purpose of the of of the lower number of seating inside is to make it I guess make the restaurant more open. Is that primarily the >> object there or your your purpose there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, especially when the school kids come
in, it's it gets, you know, tight, right? Um this to my mind, it it gives them a little area to like line up in a more orderly fashion so they know who's next and they're not, you know, just picking and choosing amongst them. Were you talking to me about things like the
trash can at this meeting or No, because I'm just wondering is there an opportunity to put another trash can back here where the bike rack is? >> Oh, like a like a a container that like they could put their refu. >> Yeah, >> I think that's probably up for discussion. Yeah, we would have no problem as an
additional discuss with the burotation. >> I think that's fine. >> Excuse me. Uh I know that copies were given to the board of exhibits. Do you have copy those? I believe that was part of the original packet that made it I mean at least it was within mine pass to the permit but
>> yeah um that was part of the narrative which was exhibit B that was exhibit C to the narrative so I just thought marking it separately might be nice for ease of reference >> it it was presented Mr. Do you have that?
>> No, I don't. I I gave it to you. You asked for >> This is the exhibit. >> Yes, that's Well, that's the zoning permit. >> The patio approval. Yep. >> And this was in the first year that it was issued. >> Uh well, that's a one-time approval.
That's not like a seasonal thing. That's just for the like the pavers themselves, not for the seating on them. >> This is for the pavers, not for the use. >> Correct. Yeah. Does anyone on the board have any further questions? So excuse the
doesn't seem that difficult in terms of what they're trying to do. >> I have any further questions? Any uh further witnesses? >> Do you want to ask any questions? Um >> yeah, I'll call Mr. work, please.
>> Have all those photographs been marked in evidence? >> They have been. They have been marked. Yes. >> Photo board has been marked as vivid J. the representation that some of those
photos are in a small version on the base level city architect collection council can ask you to make the representation the boards that Mr. board will be referencing previously been marked within the
materials but these are disar. >> Yes, Mr. Kovat certainly. So the board on the left appears to be the survey which was marked already as exhibit C. However, the board on the right the aerial although we marked an aerial this
is not the aerial we marked. Um this is an updated one that Mr. award uh obtained and you know maybe edited in some ways or or did overlays. So we'll mark that >> step L this area. >> Yes, please sir. >> If you could mark that.
>> Yes. >> You said L right? >> Yes. >> We're going to take that from you. That's why children understand. >> Well, gladly. >> You can keep the board take the program. >> Okay. And then and if it's easier for you, we may have a reduced copy if if
you know I just I worry about the secretaries and their offices getting cluttered as well. >> Then the date of the aerials uh October 1st, 2025. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh Mr. Ward, would you place your
credentials on the record, please, sir? >> Sure. Uh I received the bachelor of science and civil engineering from Drexler University in 2009. I've been with Inside Engineering my whole career, 16 years, and I'm licensed professional
engineer for over 11 years, almost 12. And uh license is current and valid in the city. >> All right. Have you testified before this board, sir? >> I have. I've testified before this burough's planning board and um more
than a few times of the zoning board of adjustment. Um yeah, >> other local land use boards. >> Yeah. Throughout throughout Mammoth County, probably almost every town, and then throughout New Jersey, up north and south. >> Your credentials are up to date and current. >> Yes.
>> And has any board ever refused to accept your credentials as an engineer? >> No. >> Will the board accept the witness's credentials as an engineer? >> Yes. >> Thank you, sir. Um, all right. As I ask of all my witnesses, Mr. Ward, are you familiar with 610 River Road? >> Yes, I am.
>> All right. You prepared the survey marked in as exhibit C and you also prepared what we call the quote unquote minor site plan marked in as exhibit E >> and that aerial that you just identified. Is that right, sir? >> That's correct. >> Um
at the beginning of the hearing, my uh my colleague, my adversary, Mr. Gastarowski raised a question or concern about the notice. You know, is it a site plan? Is it a waiver of sight plans? Um, part of this, I think, pertains to, um,
how closely aligned our proposal is to what's going on right now on the site. Um, so maybe you could have your survey on one board and your site plan on the other and just alert us to anything at all that might be changing between those
two things. >> Put them on the front and back. So, I'm going to do a quick swap. Sorry, it's already for a loop, but no, that's that's nothing much. I think that's a good question. >> Of course, there'll be some details on
the site plan that aren't on the survey, right? you have a, you know, zone table for instance. Yeah. But I really want to kind of get down to glass tax and look at like the four corners of the property as you depicted them from an overhead view and just kind of make that side
byside comparison and alert the board to anything that we're proposing to change. more so. So on the board's right is the survey that was entered in and submitted with the application. On the board's left is
sheet 202 of what we're calling our minor site plan set. And as you can see, subject properties noted um part of our drafting standards for existing conditions on a site plan as we showed them grayscale and anything that's
revised is shown as a black line weight. So they're virtually the same. The additions to we'll call it the drawing on the site plan are the building envelope the setback lines. Um we do
denote where the we're proposing the additional bicycle racks which is down at the southwest corner of the building. We're showing benches at the entrance the rear entrance should clarify and a bench at the southern end of the patio
but we also didn't know the number of parking spaces uh on site. >> All right. And for parking, that's four spaces existing and proposed, right? No change. >> Correct. Yes. >> All right. So, really just the bike rack and I guess call it three benches. Two
at the rear uh ingress egress and one in the alley. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um the board previously um asked us to consider the possible addition of a refuge receptacle on the exterior of the building if they ultimately approve.
Is that something the applicant can provide? Yes, if she doesn't already. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, there was a question from the boards previously about the location of the patio at grade within the alleyway.
>> Can you confirm that that's entirely within the applicant's property? >> Yeah, it's easier to see on the survey in black, but yes, it's right up against the side of the building in question and it is wholly within the property. Lot
five. Um, are you able to give some kind of general um, indication of where it is in reference to the property line? I know it's it's relatively close, but again, it's just, you know, pavers in lie of what was asphalt, right?
>> Yeah. I would um I would approximate it's within about 18 inches of the property line. >> Okay. >> But I have a scale on my body right now. >> Okay. Um why don't you um you talk a little bit about the alleyway? Um just want to kind
of get down to some specifics, nitty-gritty on its dimensions and and clear height. >> Um how wide is the alleyway uh at the front of the property? You know, if you if you were to look at the two buildings Yep. at the front nearest River Road,
what what do you have as the overall width inclusive of our property and the neighbor's property? >> Right. So building corner to building quarter is what we surveyed that's 18.3 ft >> 18.3 um and then from our building corner to
the property line which I think is also important is 16.1 >> okay ft. So 16.1 from our building to property line 18.3 if you include that additional strip uh that's the neighbor's property between their building the wall and our property.
>> Correct. But not uh certainly not more than 20. Right. 18.3 max at the front. >> Correct. >> All right. Um what could you tell us about the uh overhead clearances at the front of the property?
>> So any obstacles or impediments there? >> Yes. Um part of our survey effort was to locate um the location of laterally of any overhead wires and also the sag elevation on
there. So our our plan does denote the overhead wire elevations at their lowest point and points to each wire. So, uh, actually, you know what, John? I have to exhibit that.
>> This should be a new exhibit coming, Mr. Kovats. Um, I'll get you any relevant dates, but it's it's going to be a a photo that Mr. Ward annotated to try to sort of call out or highlight um the
location of any of the overhead wires. >> Yes, we have uh copies for put forward. Is there a date on this Mr. Ward? Is that >> printed today? Um the Google Street View is from September 25.
>> We do show these sag elevations in of the wire. So what these wires do, they come from existing infrastructure on River Road, cross a portion of our property and um are connected to the adjacent building to our west. Um the
lowest elevation that we were able to determine was about nine and a half feet of the wire. Um I think it's about nine and a half ft and up to roughly 15 ft height. Three or four wires. >> You probably just interrupted. Sag is
not a knock or something. It's actually sag. >> Yeah. Just like a rope that's sag, but it's a wire. Make sure if >> All right. Um, >> all right. So, just kind of recapping
that before I put Mr. Hol's email in front of you that previously marked. So, we've got approximately 16 feet um of width between our building and our property line. Uh, not taking into
account the little extra space on the neighbors. And we have, would you say, uh, nine and a half or so feet of height between the grade and some of the wires at or near the building? >> Yeah. Lowest wire. >> All right. I'm going to give you a copy
of Mr. Hall's email from May the 1st of 2025 in reference to the International Fire Code Standards. Um, >> you have a copy? >> Uh, I do not have a copy for you, sir. Um,
>> may I see your copy? Sure. I'll put it in the Are you going to ask any questions of the witness at this time? I It's pausing because it's hard for me to ask the questions if I've given you my copy.
Uh we take a break and we get copies made from the board as well. >> I think that we provided your office with a copy of that. I sent it was yesterday. I'll note that your office was copied on
it on May 2nd when I received it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Why don't I one of the board members has been so kind to give you his temporarily. >> All right. Mr. Ward, have you had an opportunity to take a look at the email
from Mr. Holy, the fire marshal for Fair Haven. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, does he make a statement as far as what the uh 2018 International Fire Code >> I'm going to object to um the consideration of this document because
it's really calling for opinions and statements being made uh by the author. He should be called upon to testify to authenticate this also so that he can be cross-examined. I would I would gently suggest to you that as >> I would gently suggest to you that as an
administrative proceeding the strict rules of evidence are not employed before the board can take in this information and give it the rate that it deems appropriate. I understand the nature of
the also what's referred to as the residual but I don't know that this necessarily is going to be something that falls a foul of that. >> Um I would also just add >> recommendation that to the extent that
this document was previously supplied to based upon Mr. Anderson's representation to you and the board has in its packet and has reviewed it. I believe Vicky testified to in this proceeding
he's our >> he's our he's our burrow's fire official. So yeah, >> but Mr. Gazki has raised a point of authentication too. The authentication issue goes to how long that it has been within the department's possession at
this point in time. And generally speaking, with regard to the administrative code provisions on these, if there hadn't been an objection range, I believe it's 10 days before the hearing. >> I would also page two to this.
>> The one you have is doublesided. >> So I would also just supplement for the record, Mr. code has to say even though the board's not required to adhere to strict rules of evidence. If one were to look at the rules of evidence, you would see that there are exceptions for
hearsay for things like records of regularly conducted activity allowing um writing about conditions observed at or near the time of observation with a person with actual knowledge made in the regular course of business as their regular practice. Um I think Mr. Holy
was called out there to take a measurement at the request of the shoers. >> Have the witness testify to what his knowledge is about. >> I may um may have Miss Balderas come back to speak to that particular aspect shortly. But I'd also just reference the
public records um uh exception to here say 803C8 as well. I'd also say that you know I'm cognizant of the board's time. I I would have no problem hearing from Mr. Holy and the flesh, but I I think the email probably covers it and Mr.
Ward's going to supplement with his own knowledge of the code and his own measurements that are going to confirm. >> You bet to you, but at this point in time, the board is going to accept it. >> Understood. All right. So, Mr. Ward, you've had a chance to review the email
May 1st, 2025 from Mr. Martin Holly. >> Yes. >> Okay. And it discusses the 2018 International Fire Code. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, does it give a um standard as far as what the minimum uh width of a fire lane is pursuant to the
2018 International Fire Code? >> Yeah. So, he references what the actual phrase fire apparatus access road is in the definition and then points to a specific subsection of the the minimum required dimensions of such a road
>> and does he make a statement as far as what that minimum requirement is? Yeah, the the unobstructed width of 20 ft and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 in. >> Okay. And were you able to independently confirm the requirements of the 2018 International Fire Code as far as the
minimum width requirement and the minimum clear height requirement? >> Yes. So, I looked at this specific code and just verified the information in this email and from what I saw is consistent with what Mr. Holy uh has applied here. >> All right. When when your office
surveyed the property, you took measurements both as far as the width of the alley and the clear height. >> Yeah. Based on the physical improvements, yeah, we have that's where those dimensions come in. Yeah. >> Were you able to independently confirm that the neither the width nor the clear height were compliant with the 2018
International Fire Code provisions uh involving fire lanes? >> Correct. Yeah. >> I have a question. Is the 2018 code the most recent code? I saw so but from what I could gather in my research I believe so. Yes.
>> Um applying that logic uh you know we made a profer at the beginning of the evening that the board would hear testimony that the location of fire lane in the alleyway was improper because it did not comply with that code. Are you able to give testimony on that topic at
this point in time? >> Yes. So, the original approval required that to be striped as a fire lane um based on what we just spoke about in this email with the fire code regulations. It's not suitably sized for
a proper fire lane. Um I'm not sure it's practically would ever be used as such. So in my opinion it would be that uh that specific conditions really >> and that was a zoning board condition. >> That was a planning board.
>> Okay. And that was done in 2005. >> Okay. >> And I I think it may be in the email from Mr. Holy as well. Um the last paragraph he says he went back to an older version uh in in that case in fairness 2006 code which would have
presumably postdated the approval slightly um but said that version mirrored the 2018 international code. So Rich, do you remember? So So when the the planning board did that, they what
was that a part of? Like was it a part of like a site plan approval or what? Do you happen to remember? I show on the spot. >> I believe we have the resolution of approval marked as an exhibit for approval. >> It's in your materials. I don't know if
Mr. Anderson wants to send the recollections. The applicant approved requested site plan approval is granted site with variance relief. Barance relief benefit was for rival therapy lies not performing parking requirements.
>> That's right. For the parking >> and the applicant was granted that as a part of that relief and I think it's reflected in the resolution and again the resolution will speak for itself. and trying to just subtext it. Basically saying that there was a report from the
burough engineer at that point in time or a representative from the bureau that their recommendation was that that area be striped and I think they used the term fire and lane um within that resolution. Those are removable materials and certainly
something that's been marked into into evidence. >> Yeah, I I can confirm a few of those details um just for the board. So, but did the fire chief in Fair Haven or the somebody at that time was like >> I don't know that that's reflected in the >> Yeah,
>> it's not. And so they didn't I can probably give you some clarity on that issue, but I might have to mark uh something else into evidence to do so. the board wouldn't have I mean without they we wouldn't have well speculated as
I was here but I I'm just saying like I I'd like to understand how the suggestion that that be a fire lane came about if it's not if it's not possible for it to be a fire lane right was it something that was suggested based on
that's that's kind of >> I think the resolution speaks to that but I don't know who speaks to the justification people So, the the best I could do um and I'll tell you what I'm reading from and if we have to mark it, we can. Um the
resolution references a review letter by Dave Kramer um the engineer at the time. Uh one of the dates of the letters that it references is June 14th of 2005. I went back and I looked at it um and he says uh and I quote, "I defer to the
burrow fire official to confirm that this dimension is suitable for emergency vehicle access. However, at a minimum, it is recommended that this aisle way between the structures be delineated and marked as no parking fire lane area." Um and his status,
>> he says status, the plans have been revised to contain fire lane pavement markings in the alley. No further action required. What wasn't clear to me is whether the fire marshall ever actually weighed in on it at that time or whether our predecessor and interest sort of just folded and said, "Oh, they want a
fire lane. We'll mark it as a fire lane." So, I don't know that anyone really. >> So, they is there a reason why you would not want that document? >> Uh, no. I think we can mark it in >> that as exhibit N talking about it enough. It should >> all right. Exhibit >> the applicant. So, so, so the applicant
went before the planning board. the boards approved a a resolution or I'm I'm sorry approved the site plan and as part of that site plan said that that alleyway had to be a had to be a fire lane or strike for uh for fire for for a
fire. Then they they went to I assume comply with that and then we're told it's not possible. Is that is that what happened? and and we're told by a fire chief speech read that he would that the
individual would defer to the fire official >> and the fire official said this is not possible. >> We don't have >> I'd be speculating as far as whether the fire marshall ever reviewed it and what their opinion was at the time. Uh I
don't frankly I can't sit here and tell you that it ever was physically striped as one. It may or may not have been. I don't know. I don't have recollection of that. I don't know if any of my witnesses do. >> It's it's in it's in the resolution. >> Well, no, it's not in the resolution as
to what the fire code official said. It's a resolution that it so a resolution was was made that if it would be stried as a fire and what we're hearing and what we've been maybe not at that time we can't speculate but what
we've now heard is that it's not poss it's not physically possible and wouldn't conform to code is that I mean >> that's what we're hearing. >> Let's put it this way. Somebody could have went out there and painted it that way because the suggestion came up and they just said, "Well, that was
suggested we'll do it." I don't know if that was done or not. If it was done, it probably was improper because it gives the illusion to a first responder that they should park a truck there and in doing so, they're parking a truck in a narrow, like objectively narrow area
that's unsafe. >> Got it. First of all, uh this was part of the resolution, but in addition to that, if you look at the resolution number 18, it says its condition upon the quote approval of the burrow fire
official. So that proposed fire lane on that site was approved by the burrow fire official at that time. >> That's what the resolution called for. >> Says they were supposed to approve it. No record showing that they did. I don't have a record.
>> You guys are asking you're referencing resolution approval. >> I'm looking at the resolution of approval on page well two things. On page four, we look at the uh on page item four, quote, complying with
the recommendations of the plboard engineer as set forth in his letters of June 14th of 2005, identifying the alleyway between four and five as a no parking dash fire lane
area. So this was reviewed by the burl engineer. Then we go on to the following page. >> But my point is there you're not referencing at page at that at that number page four. It does not say that the fire official
designated this. It says to comply with the recommendation of the engineer. >> It also but it says on page five number 16 >> that is conditioned upon the approval of the fire official. And I don't want to jump ahead, but I do intend to call a a
fire expert, if you want to use that term, and I would represent to the board that he will show at that time that this resolution was approved that the fire code provided for a fire lane of 18 ft, not 20 feet. But we'll get to that.
>> Okay, >> that's interesting because jumping ahead, we only have 16 feet to give because we don't own your property. But again, there's and I want to make sure that the record is clear. It says it's conditioned upon the approval of the fire official.
>> Yeah. >> So there was no approval as of this resolution from the fire official. >> Well, there's nothing in the record. That was 20 years ago. I >> I just But if it >> I just wanted to be clear. Your representation before was the fire official had been had required it. that
the the fire said that I >> fire marshal in Fair Haven never approved it. I think you can all say that, right? Like there's no Okay, let's put it this way again. There's no record of that. They did. >> There's no record of it. >> I think the best that you can say and this is why I want to make sure the record's clear. >> Yeah.
>> It's not represented in the resolution that the fire official said yay or nay. It was conditional. >> I understand. But there's nothing there's nothing in the resolution that says that that open lane, which they're referring to as a fire lane,
could be utilized as an outdoor cafe. >> But it it Well, that that will be your argument. I'm not going to get this. >> And I just want to observe one thing for the board. While we don't know what the fire marshall did or didn't do back in '05 or or frankly ' 06 when construction
was probably wrapping up, which might have been covered by the '06 code, if what Mr. Gerowski says is true, assume it's all true that the fire marshall reviewed it, approved it, the standard was 18 ft at the time. Well, it don't we have changed circumstances then if the
code later changed and said you you can't have a fire lane that's less than 20 feet wide. I you may have a greater issue. The planning board decided that it would accept that. This this issue is now before this planning bid as to whether
or not they're going to accept that. >> Correct. >> You're asking for relief for the condition. Mr. Gaz are asking I'm assuming he's say there shouldn't be relief from the condition and he'll make his case. Therefore, you may >> accurately frame Mr. He's actually he's
seeking relief from the condition of the planning board with nothing to show how that relief was ever granted 15 or 18 years ago >> or ever acted upon at all. >> I'm sorry. >> Or acted upon at all. I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Gazer.
>> I'm just I'm just always conscious that there's a recordation. Well, look, and I I don't want to jump ahead. Well, of course, I want to jump ahead and get away with it. Okay. But having said that, I intended for all the buyer expert to go into this issue of
why that condition was it was in the approval. I should buy it >> and and and the board will hear that and take into consideration whether or not that's appropriate at this point. So, to the record though, what what I just want to make sure I understand
having is that the planning board said it needed to be a a fire lane. And then subsequently the governing body approved a license for an outdoor cafe that was reviewed by
the police department and other first resp like like and the first like that the people that put would un would make the determination of whether it was a fire lane or not whether it could be a fire lane or not. So at so so when the
when the outdoor cafe was approved by the council that was taken into consideration >> that that cannot alter the condition of the site plan resolution. There's no testimony. >> Actually there may be something in the record that says it can but we're not
there yet. >> Okay. >> And and I may be skipping ahead. I don't want to do that. But to the to the chair's point, he said presumably it would be reviewed by the police chief. It actually says it's forward to the municipal engineer and the chief of
police and then they consult uh with the fire prevention and health department officials. So 17 years >> I'm I'm reading from the ordinance. It's been marked into uh evidence this evening, I believe, as PB5. Uh no, I'm
sorry. PB6, the current licensing ordinance. section >> section 4-2.2 >> and it it says uh a completed application shall be forwarded to the municipal engineer and chief of police who shall conduct an investigation
including consultation with fire prevention and health department officials and the of the data contained in the application. But >> may the hearing council will examine the application along with the report of the municipal engineer and police chief. >> It was the municipal engineer that
insisted in the resolution that a provision be made for >> I'm going to I'm going to object to your characteration characterization as insisted because he said he'd defer to the fire for sure. >> Well, filming were a fire official. That's a statement. A fire lady.
>> This is argument. This is argument later on >> for your closing after you presented your case and we'll probably delve into the ordinance and the provisions as to what supersedes planning board approval etc. But
>> as you say we're jumping ahead. Why don't we let council put his case on crossexamine? >> I just have a few more few more questions on the survey and >> survey. >> I don't know if Mr. Anderson film was >> I think I I I may have covered all the
material I had planned for Mr. Ward. M Mr. Ward, anything that uh that we'd reviewed? I guess just from a from a standpoint as the engineer, can you confirm we're not, you know, increasing the size of the building, altering any setbacks, adding signage, altering
refues? Is that all staying unchanged? >> That's all unchanged. So we keep or you you asserted you keep asserting that nothing's nothing's changing right the way the building's operated the the site plan's not
changing physical characteristics of the building are not changing and so rich there's no code violations here there's no like nothing here that's you you know goes against this the zone that it's in there's nothing here like like because
we keep saying it's nothing's changed nothing's changed or nothing's changing, but that doesn't mean that >> even in my review letter, I I called it technical review, but I said since there's no site improvements being proposed, I would classify a couple
benches and a bike rack as more of a site amenity. It's not really a site improvement where there's physical construction and >> you know >> theoretically would at least for the bike rack would would be beneficial to the surrounding
>> area so kids aren't leaving their bikes all over the place >> perhaps on the Google anyway. >> Yeah. I mean it >> well I mean >> the main thrust is we're coming to you for relief from these two conditions involving the fire lane and the indoor
seating. up those those things will change from the express wording of the '05 resolution though they will not you know change from the realities on the ground now if you visited the site other than there'll be fewer seats >> that's the use of the key word condition
the condition and if you look at the letter that he submitted from Mr. It says very very clearly uh I defer to the burough fire official to confirm this dimension is suitable for emergency vehicle access. Then he says
however at a minimum it is recommended that this aisleway between the structures be delineated and marked as a no parking fire lane area. And and that's what the board did. They put under site plan no parking fire lane
area. How how clear can it be? >> Right. But if the fire lane is illegal or is not able to be is not up to code to be able to be a fire, then how >> I I was well and I apologize for jumping ahead, but so far there's no proof at
the time that this approval took place that the width of that fire lane was not up to code. Let's assume that it was up to code and we can show that it was up to code. Then that site plane stands as it is. But real quick, Mr. Gasarowski,
you you said that your officials going to testify that the standard was 18 ft in, >> right? >> Remember the testimony from Mr. Ward just a couple minutes ago where he said there's only 16 feet between our building and the property. >> Let Mr. board show us what the required
width of a fire lane was at the time of the approval. >> You're going to make that proper. >> Pardon me. >> You're going to make that proper with your witness. He's shown that it doesn't comply under either standard 18t.
>> We're going to ask council to stop their closing arguments before the case is over. >> Yes, Mr. Anderson, if you're done with this witness, if you're done with this witness, does any member of the board have a question for the witness? If not,
>> by by the way, that's clearly in the resolution and it was never challenged. Was never challenged by the pro. >> I'm going to ask that you call witnesses to that effect so that so that you've created your record. But what I'm trying to do is make this orderly because we
still have other business pass this application soon. >> So, so I have one more question for the witness. Mr. award. Um, back in 2005, based upon what you surveyed, assuming neither one of those building footprints have changed, would
we have had adequate um area, adequate width between our building wall and our property line to accommodate an 18t fire lane on our property only? No, the only response to that is that we
have just over 16 feet and the boundary and the building would not have moved. The only thing at the time was the county asked for a right ofway dedication which was provided that wouldn't affect that dimension. >> No further questions.
>> Does anyone board have any further questions on the site plan survey? Thank you. I don't >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I have Mr. Janu as my next and perhaps final witness. Then >> you didn't share your head forward. Mr.
>> Mr. Jan will be the fourth. >> I'm the fourth one. >> I'm going to clean up. >> Before we um get the witness credential, um I just want to do a little bit of a time check with Mr. Kovat with the board. We're now at 9:00. Though this is
my last witness, we're hearing that there'll be, you know, crossexamination of my witnesses perhaps and then witnesses for Mr. Gasarowski. Is there a a cut off time in mind for new witnesses or for concluding testimony this evening?
>> You will finish this application before we adjourn. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. >> I said we will finish this application before we adjourn for the evening. >> Okay. That is for my cl my my witness being testified, my cross-examining
their witnesses, and my witnesses being cross-examined. >> Is that is that what you're saying? >> Yes. >> You think that'll be accomplished before 10:00 or 10:30? >> We're going to finish tonight. have the um affordable housing and president on
>> Okay. >> to discuss that matter. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Well, it started. So, we've got finished. >> Okay. >> If you felt like you wanted to take a recess with us and quickly address that, I I'm not
>> by the hour. >> Yes. I'd like to I'd like to recess on this on this hearing. >> That's fine. >> Bring in town. >> I can just ask everybody to step back. >> Certainly.
>> We need to make motion or anything but recess this journal. >> We're going to we're going to briefly recess this matter. May I ask for a motion to briefly recess this matter? >> Second. Um, let me briefly open it. Is council
available? >> Can you hear me? >> We can. >> We can. >> Perfect. >> Good evening. Uh let me just pray put a couple things on the record briefly. Um this is our hearing as mentioned
earlier. We have three resolutions that have been review by mayor and the council ordinance by mayor and council with regard to the affordable housing status.
uh they have been my understanding is presented for first reading. We now have our opportunity to basically review those ordinances and report back to mayor and council as to whether or not
they're consistent with mastering plan and development regulations and where there is any inconsistency. Uh we were we are obliged to advise mayor and council of that. The fact that we may find them inconsistent, I'm not saying we're going to, but the fact that
we may find them inconsistent, does not change whether or not mayor and council can move forward on these ordinances. It simply changes the voting requirement. So, in light of that, council, may I ask you to put your appearance on the record and then we're going to get to the
ordinances if we could. >> Sure. Absolutely. My name is William Olsen from the law firm Serenian Edwards Buzzac and Nolan and we are the affordable housing council for the burrow of fair haven. >> Okay. And I ask you to address the first ordinance that we're reviewing this
evening and I believe that is lost. A lot of papers by what I need. >> Is it ordinance uh 2026-05? >> Yes. >> If you can just give us a brief overview. It's my understanding that we already have an ordinance like this on
the books, but there are some minor modifications. Well, I shouldn't say minor modifications, but there are some modifications to update it with with regard to the requirements of the current fourth round. Is that correct? >> Correct. So, the amended or the fair
housing act was amended in March of 2024 um which changed the process by which a municipality can comply with its its affordable housing obligations. Uh so the burough fair haven has gone through the process of filing you know and
adopting the housing element fair share plan with the court. Um it was not substantively challenged by the uh fair share housing center. The bureau entered into a consent order with the fair share housing center kind of outlining how it was intending on complying with its affordable housing obligations. Part of
that obligation is passing a affordable housing ordinance which also includes a development fee portion of the ordinance which is 20 ordinance number 2026-05. Um it's considered a land use ordinance but it is more of a um an administrative
ordinance for how the bureau will intend on complying with its obligations. It is largely derived from the amended fair housing act and the regulations that have been passed recently uh namely NJAC 599 and the uniform housing affordability controls which are NJAC
580-26.1. Uh those outlines outline the requirements for affordable housing units to be considered creditworthy uh for the bureau to comply with its affordable housing obligations. We have something similar to this
already on the books, but this is basically I think updating what we need to have to be in compliance with the regulations. Correct. >> Correct. >> Can we move on to the next ordinance? I believe that one deals with the
uh Methodist church property. >> Correct. So, as part of the burough's round three affordable housing requirements, um the bureau received what is called a vacant land adjustment. And so, when a the bureau or municipality receives a vacant land
adjustment, in essence, it says, you know, we can't address our entire affordable housing obligation at the present moment due to a lack of land constraints. um there's a certain number that we can address which is called the realistic development potential and then the remainder of that obligation gets
thrown into what is called unmet need. So unmet need is has a slightly different legal requirement um than what you know your general RDP or or traditional affordable housing obligation would be. There's not an affirmative obligation to address it at
the moment. Um but you have to address it into what you think could develop over time. In this case, uh it's the AHO5 zone which was originally adopted in round three, uh which was a senior senior zone which was projected at 8
units per acre. As part of the round four compliance, the bureau has made the decision to change it from um a senior to a multifamily site and then increase the density uh from eight units to 10. And so that's what this ordinance does.
So essentially we we still have the 10 units 10 dwelling units per net acre for inclusionary. It's no longer age restricted housing. Correct. >> Correct. And it went from it went from eight units to 10 units an acre. >> Right. So we've struck the language with
regard to eight dwellings per net acre for inclusionary effect. We struck that from the from the prior ordinance. Correct. >> Correct. And we've revised then with regard to this particular and again this is the overlay the underlying zoning stays the
same. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So and we and then we've just basically modified the particular section of the ordinance to basically update the correct reference to the code. Is that correct?
>> Correct. And so far with regard to both ordinance 20265 and 2026, to the best of your knowledge, is there anything that is inconsistent with the burough's master plan and or
inconsistent with its obligations under the affordable housing act? >> No. >> Okay. Moving on to the last uh ordinance. This is ordinance 2026-7. Um, this is basically a modification to
the schedule permitted uses in the o affordable housing overlay districts. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Is there anything in there? And this is really just fine-tuning what is permitted in the schedule. Is that correct? >> Correct. And in particular the AHO5
zone, >> right? We have the AH0 AH0 Oh, sorry. AHO-1 23 4 and five. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And again with regard to the just it
really is a schedule that's modified. It identifies then the permitted uses, the non-permitted uses, the conditional uses, and the accessory uses. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Is there anything with regard to this schedule
that in your view is inconsistent with the master plan or development regulations associated with the affordable housing? No. >> Okay. Do you have any further comments that you'd like to make with regard to these three ordinances?
>> Not at this time. Any other questions for >> um so the Methodist church um location is we we created an overlay
zone to give us optionality for further housing >> that that was in existence before we had always had that. Is that correct Mr. Olson? >> Correct. that was done um at least in round three um to address the unmet need. So that was a an ordinance that
was already on the books. >> And so this is really just taking out the age restriction. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And also increasing the units per net acre. Correct. >> Correct. >> Originally been we'd either had 10 or
we'd had eight. We're now taking out the eight units for inclusionary families. Is that correct? Correct. It's uh yeah, eight units for the senior. >> Sorry, I I made one followed your question. >> No, that's that's helpful. I guess
>> nothing that we're developing now, >> but the overlay is a is correct me if I'm if I'm wrong. >> The optionality remains there. The optionality, I like that term, the optionality. It gives us >> the optionality number one, but it also
is something that we have demonstrated to the court that is a viable option that gives us protection from the builder's revenues. Is that is that fair characterization, Mr. Charleston? >> Correct. The underlying zoning is is remaining the same. Um, and the overlay just, you know, really adds a potential
use but does not take away from from the current zoning. >> Any other question? And by making it more dense, it it actually adds takes units or or takes uh prescribed units
away from other overlay sites or the the units that will be needed at other overlay sites because this is more dense or is is now more dense. The the units at the other sites can be lower. Is that correct?
>> No. So in round three the the the overlay zones addressed you know the round three unmet need that unmet need is still there u but this increase will be you know addressed also towards the fourth round unmet need um which in the
burough's case the affordable housing obligation for round four is 92 units um and the realistic development potential is zero so the increase would go towards the unmet need which is 92 units Oh, okay. I got you. >> So, is it fair to say that in regard to
these ordinance amendments, we're up with regard to the ordinance changes we would have to make to comply with the fourth round? >> Correct. >> We did all these during the second third round. >> Yeah. >> Does any member of the board have any
further questions? Do we have any um >> is that method? Sorry. Is there any is anyone using the church still in use? Is that active? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> It's a bowl.
>> Yeah, that's right. That's metal pl, right? And um you know the scouts used the fire pit out front that but so that is >> I believe there's four tenants uh administrator mentioned the other day for tenants sticks and sprouts is a tenant.
>> Yeah the tenant I believe he mentioned another church uses for office space. There's like >> okay so cell tower >> the cell towers on that. that yeah that
might >> anything further from the board >> I I don't have anything does anyone have any comments or anything they'd like to add that to send back to council >> yeah I mean generally what would happen and we can probably excuse Mr. Olson at
this point >> thank you Mr. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Have a wonderful evening. >> Yeah. >> Is there any we should open to members
of the public? >> Fair enough. Yeah. Uh does any member of the public have any comments or questions about these ordinances as they were so described by a council? Please. >> So close. >> Generally what happens at this point in
time is I ask permission from the board to prepare a writing to mayor and council essentially saying that you know we understand the purpose of these ordinances number one what the purposes are number two that based upon
representation obtained by Mr. wholesome that there's nothing that's inconsistent with the master plan annual development regulations nor anything that we would necessarily bring to MR council's attention in this instance as I said the the vast majority of these from what I
understand we've kind of got them on the books and they were current as to the third round we're now updating these for the fourth round what Mr. also represented it doesn't appear to be anything that seems to be consistent with the master plan and in fact I would
I would generally suggest to you again this is open to many board comments you know we have an obligation under the master plan it's designated to provide affordable housing it's one of our special reasons in regard to the master plan uh unless there's anything addition
that she'd likely intent I would basically prepare and let you say finding Um it's agreed. >> So I would ask with with the budget in mind that um we don't need to rehash all of the points. We just think those four
points that you know I think those four points are great but we don't need to to rehash the the ordinances. I don't know if you were going to do that or not. >> Okay. >> My life is complicated. >> No. Usually what I had you've seen them you've probably seen them on council
before paragraph what we're doing. We owe we owe Mayor council par a letter saying that he considers this and that we're >> fineist consistent with master plan. >> I'll make a motion that it's it's okay for Doug to go ahead and track that
letter to anybody on the board. >> Mrs. Bush, >> yes. >> Mr. Olsen, >> yes. >> Mrs. Mr. >> Yes. Mr. R. >> Yes. Let's uh back to back to top
and we'll be ask that I know process. >> I've been working with Mary >> like literally got one of those, you know, off calendar. >> Yeah. Oh, she told me just call me on
>> throw something. >> Okay, I will at least follow years just finished. Uh, I would make a motion to return of the application. Uh, we have a quick roll call
here. Mr. here. Mr. >> Here, Mr. >> Here. >> Thank you. Um, back on the record, we have Mr. Janu with us who's been previously sworn. Um, Mr. Janu, would you place your credentials on the record, please, sir?
>> Certainly. Good evening. Uh, my name is Andrew Janu. That's Jan Niw. My address is 315 Highway 34, Colts Neck, New Jersey. been a principal in the firm of Beacon Planning and Consulting Services for 28 years now. I have a bachelor's and master's degree in civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute of
Technology. Currently serving as the planner for the Burough of Freehold, the burrow of Carter, Township of Livingston, as well as redevelopment planner for South Amboy and Bon. Uh in 2022, Governor Murphy appointed me to state board of professional planners, testified before this board as well as
the zoning board here in Fair Haven. Over the years, um been qualified throughout the state as an expert in land use. Will the board accept the witness's credentials? >> Yes, we will. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, Mr. January. Um, have you visited the site in question? >> Been to the site, reviewed the area,
visited the area, have reviewed the ordinances, the master plan, and the, uh, the historic ordinances related to this as well as the documentation that's been discussed this evening. >> All right. Why don't you start by telling us a little bit about the zone the propertyy's located in? >> Sure. So, the property is owned within
the B1 business district. This is this commonly referred to historically through your master plan as the central business district. Um this permits restaurants, retail sales, personal uh service establishments, business service establishments. Uh the restaurant here
Tabalo was approved in 2005. Uh the resolution that was referenced by this board. Uh the uh use of a restaurant was permitted. There were variances granted at the time for certain setback requirements as well as for parking. Uh
the application this evening seeks to uh eliminate two of the conditions of approval because of changing circumstances quite frankly. Uh we are seeking the waiverss of the two conditions uh with resp specifically with respect to the fire lane because it's been determined that the fire lane
uh does not meet the current code requirements or from what we understand now the code requirements that may have been in place at the time for a fire lane. We also have an issue with the overhead clearance. We have wires hanging. I believe it was testified to about a little over nine feet where 136
clearances required. Uh that is information that uh quite frankly wasn't considered at the time. I think the board deferred to the engineer that the engineer deferred to the fire code official and there's no record of the fire marshall making a determination. But we do know that that's uh not a two
code and quite frankly I think somebody on the board properly mentioned that if it were striped as a fire lane uh it may entice a fire official to drive into that improperly with low overhang lines and create a situation that you really don't want to do especially when you're
facing an emergency. Uh the second situation that changes related to the parking uh as this board knows the uh your definitions of a restaurant change. At one time there were restaurant classifications, classification 1, two, and three. At the time that this was approved, this was a class 2 restaurant
that uh that those definitions changed uh by resolution. I believe it was 2015, 2016 uh I'm sorry, 22-15 was the ordinance that changed those definitions. Um and the uh parking standard also changed. It's no longer a
u if you will, a relationship of parking to seating. It's now related to square footage. the square footage has not changed and will not change in this building and I think Miss Miller in her uh letter of evaluating uh the situation currently indicated that there are no new variances or waiverss required for
this application and essentially those terms are grandfathered. Uh so as I had mentioned we are seeking the uh those uh conditions remove those conditions specifically for the record. Our condition number four which reads complying with the recommendations of
the planning board engineer as set forth in his letter of June 14th 2005 identifying the aisleway between lots four and five as a no parking fire lane area. And as also was read into the record previously, the uh the engineer
uh deferred to the fire uh marshall in terms of determining the appropriateness of that fire lane. Um I think Mr. Gazerowski indicated that his expert would be testifying that at the time it was an 18t lane. 18t was never probable in terms of being able to provided the
the only 16 ft available. So even at the time that would not have been a compliant fire lane. Second condition would have been continued use of the building as a category 2 restaurant. The main purpose for which is prepared foods packaged to go and not to be consumed on site. Accordingly, seat is limited to 12
seats inside. Again, the definitions have changed since then. The parking requirement is no longer related to the number of seating. It's related to the square footage. Uh Miss Miller in her letter kind of reiterates that before she reaches the conclusion that there are no new variances required. Um but
given those situations, we are asking for those two uh conditions to be removed. Um we've heard extensive testimony regarding the operation of the facility and quite frankly none of that's going to change. Um there are more than the proposed 33 seats in the
building. Now the uh the fire lane or the proposed fire lane has been granted uh cafe seating licenses for the past 17 years. And as as the officials that uh have make recommendations with respect that have gone through that they've
increased the uh seating count within that cafe outdoor seating area from 20 to 36 to 40 over the years. The most recent 2025 was I believe for 40 seats at 10 tables. Um, that's been an ongoing it's been I think it's wellreceived by
the community and I I think uh given that it can't be used as a fire lane and it would be dangerous to use as fire lane um it's a practical application for that property. I'd also like to profer that uh in terms of firefighting at this property, not that I'm a fire expert,
but the firehouse is a block away. I think it's a 645 River Road. It's not far. The hydrant is located out on River Road, so the nearest water sources. So it's very likely and again I'm not a fire expert or not but I've done planning for >> but objectless if you being a fire
expert how can you give testimony with regard >> about the proper as a planner having worked with fire code officials over the years I know the most common things that they look for is a safe area to be able to park a truck and to have access to water and you know quite frankly the
practical application here is that would be uh from River Road where they would have access to the front of the building isn't far off of River road and they have close access to a fire hydrant. >> I think that's all very logical and I would go one step further and just say
>> your testimony and the other testimony were we're talking about a singlestory building not like a mid-rise or like a high-rise. So if there were any other reason like the need to get a ladder in there or something like that, that reason on like a a truck with a a ladder
in the immediate might not be there. >> Agreed. Agreed. Um quite frankly, can you um so continue with your train of thought and then when you're done if you just describe the overall area a little bit more from the perspective of a planner, I will put up the aerial on the
board for you so that can aid your testimony. >> Sure. And I was going to say other than for the for the purpose of fighting the fire, there would be no need to access the side of that building quite frankly because there is no stamp, you know, typically there maybe a stand pipe connection that the truck could pump into the there's no stand pipe connection. there's no sprinkler system
other than uh the required fire preventive system at the hoods. Um so again there's uh it's a practical application of that alleyway to be utilized for outdoor seating because there are two two elevations of that building quite frankly that can be
accessed for firefighting. >> Can I show where those access? So certainly there's River Road and then there's a 20 foot easement through the rear of the property to access the back of the property. So
there's access to the building from the front and from the rear >> and the easements off of Cedar. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Is that ement for all four of those properties? >> Uh I believe it is >> just that's the town designated as >> Yeah. Yeah. On the attack map, it shows
that surveying all that all those properties >> as an additional emergency access for those four properties. >> Actually has access to the parking in the rear as well. There are there are three parking spaces behind Tablo. >> Yeah, I think as best we could tell, we can mark it if you want. There was a
filed map from like a 1940s subdivision and that was the first that I saw a depiction of a 20 foot right away in the rear accessing all those properties. Um, I mean with with respect to kind of just a relief requested and removing these conditions, I mean from all
practical purposes, I think they're they they're logical given the changes that occurred, given what we now understand regarding the width of the uh area on the side of the building, what can and can't happen there and what restrictions there would be for emergency vehicles. Um, also understanding the intent of the
ordinance, the changes of the ordinance and how that applies to the parking at the situation. I'd also like to go on to say that there was a little bit of a discussion about your master plan in 2016. Uh there was a master plan re-examination wherein there was a
survey of uh residents in terms of what do they want to see in the central business? What kind of businesses do they want to see? And one of the most popular responses pursuant to that to that uh re-examination report was they want to see more restaurants. They want to see sitdown restaurants. They want to see takeout restaurants. They want food
service. And they wanted ice cream. they got nickel. So, I I think we're very much uh not only are we a permitted use, but we're in keeping with the sentiment of the community in terms of what they'd like to see, what they'd like to see grow, and what they'd like to see in foster. And I think that's consistent also with the council actions for 17 straight
years remove uh approving that cafe license for the outdoor seating. It's something that facilitates a local business, helps that local business survive. Um, and I would also just like to for the record state that in in this miller's letter, uh, there was a very, um, I think pertinent statement that,
and I'm just reading it into the record, um, the existing property provides four off- streetet parking spaces, one accessible in the front of the building, access from River Road and three spaces at the rear of the building, access via driveway easing from Cedar Drive. The parking requirements for restaurant is based on building the floor area. The
existing 23,000 ft building would require 35 spaces. No change in the size of the building is proposed. The existing parking nonconformity is not affected by the applicant's request to eliminate the seating limitation of the prior approval. Uh then she goes on to say that there are no new variances or
waiverss required for this application. I think that's an accurate uh interpretation of what we're asking for this evening. Uh and uh the planners um and at this point I would just say it's it's consistent with what your community has voiced in your master plan
examination. It's consistent with the purpose of municipal land use law and that it's a permitted unit use in a business district that encourages restaurant uses. So I think for all those reasons this board can consider the elimination of those conditions. >> Would you also just briefly um for the
board's benefit and it was a point that Mr. Kovac raised earlier about the sort of the confines or the the text of the seasonal sidewalk cafe licensing ordinance and what uh you know may have been in the in the minds of the drafters of this or what they were trying to
encourage. Would you just take a quick look privately at what's been marked as PB6 um reading 4-2.1 to yourself and 4-2.2 and see if you can discern any intent there to facilitate uh outdoor cafe
seating. So, um what I take from this? So, first of all, this is an ordinance uh of your community in chapter four of your ordinances. Uh it was uh looks like it's first introduced in 2002 and amended through 2013. Um the ordinance
specifically say states that any other planning board or zoning board of adjustment actions related to site sidewalk cafes are superseded by the provisions of this licensing. So it's clearly saying the mayor and council are are basically taking responsibility for
the licensing and controlling cafe licenses uh and sidewalk restaurants. Uh then it goes on to say that the applications shall be made to the burough clerk reviewed by the municipal engineer and chief of police who shall conduct an investigation including uh the consultation with the fire
prevention and health department officials and the data contained from reviewing the data contained in the application. And then finally it states no license shall be issued until resolution of the mayor and council authorizing the issuance of a license has been adopted. The decision of the mayor and council shall be final. So
they're clearly uh taking uh responsibility and control of the the application process. They are conferring with the emergency uh uh people responsible for emergency response, the fire officials, the police officials here in the community to make sure it's a safe application and um as was stated
previously, this uh this application has been approved by the community for 17 years running. Um and has given the uh the opportunity for it to quite frankly grow from 20 seats to 40 seats over the years. And just in terms of overall permitted uses in the zone, is it my
understanding that outdoor seasonal cafe seating is a permitted accessory used to a principal use permitted restaurant? >> That's right. It is it is recognized as an accessory use. >> Any questions of this witness?
Do we don't Rich? There's been no like I said before the same question. There's been no like code violations or or any kind of complaints or anything like that issued with regards to the outdoor cafe.
>> Not that I'm aware of questions for any board have questions for this. Yeah. >> Can you explain more why the board should consider perhaps I misunderstood or I know you've
spent some time with condition number four. Why why relief condition number nine? >> So condition number nine was predicated on >> I understand there's a difference in how to categorize restaurants and those types of things.
Why shouldn't we continue to perhaps limit the seats inside? So, so your ordinance changed to where the na the parking is now based on square footage and I think as Miss Biller picked up the it the building size itself would require 35 parking
spaces today a a variance was granted at the time for 12 spaces. So there's not a great record of why 12 were selected at the time. But having said that, the uh the ordinance at the time was based on
square footage as well or the number of seats and at the time it was one space for every three seats. So if we look at the variance that would have been granted at the time for 12 seats and we interpreted that to the ordinance in play at the time that would have
permitted up to 36 ft up to 36 seats but it was a category 2 restaurant at the time which was basically defining the restaurant as predominantly takeout or delivery with some seating. So the board condition at the time tried to I think
in my interpretation and reading of that limit that to what a category 2 restaurant should have been. Those definitions were abandoned and essentially the restaurant definition today which would apply to us is a hybrid of category 1 which was a full sitdown restaurant and a category 2
restaurant. So, if we're looking at what was considered kind of what could have been the seating with 12 spaces versus what we have today, I think it's consistent with the intent. >> I mean, I I would go a step further and I'll kind of tell you my thinking on it as I'm like parsing. >> Finish the followup question.
>> Okay. >> Before I cross, >> aren't you cherry picking? >> No. >> Because I mean originally they took a look at it and said, "Okay, we're not going on square footage. number of seats.
So you don't have a lot of parking. >> Yeah. >> So we're going to grant you a variance for parking. But that was that was the understanding based upon how many people were going to be inside. >> Well, was how many people be inside? And
>> that's where I'm going back >> and potentially. Yeah. I will say I don't think I'm cherry-picking because I came to the same conclusion your planner did that there are no new variances or waiverss required that this satisfies the requirement based on the square footage. Um >> well I'm going as to the basis for the
relief condition. >> Again we the basis for that and why we're asking you to revisit it is because the circumstances have changed. The definitions of a restaurant have changed. The definition has been broaded. We are a restaurant now that would allow seating, takeout and
delivery, whereas the category 2 was predominantly a takeout delivery with some seating. So there's been that material change in your definitions and there's been a change in how the application of parking standards apply where it no longer is based on seating. It's based on the square footage of the
building. The square footage of the building hasn't changed. The building was approved with 12 spaces. A variance was granted for 12 spaces at the time. I guess that's what I was wanted to get you based upon the square footage. How many parking spaces it needs
>> today? 35 >> 35 >> right and it would have been more in the past because you've actually lowered the parking >> right >> by prepared this. So if they came before the board today
they deficient by how much pardon >> or wouldn't they? >> It's a grandfathered condition. >> I understand it's grand. >> Yeah. If they were building a new >> if they came here today and said, "I've got you can't count my patrons anymore."
>> But you used to be able to count the patrons, just square footage. >> Well, at the time it was patrons or square footage. >> Either or, right? Whichever is greater. >> Whichever is greater. And at the And at the time it was 20 per thousand square feet. Now it's 15. So actually the
standard has been lowered with the new lord. >> That's the old metric. the the greater would have been on square footage, so that should have probably controlled back in '05 to begin with. Um I I know you have points to make, Mr. Kovat. I I
just wanted to simply say that as I reread condition nine, something occurs to me, which is to say you can't cherrypick, I'll use your word, the 12 seat limitation without looking at the sentence that precedes it, which is to
say the condition is continued use of the building as a category 2 restaurant. That category doesn't exist anymore. We can't be forced to be a category 2 restaurant. The there's a plausible argument that this condition is uninforceable at this point. has been superseded by your ordinance.
>> Question. >> Not at this time, sir. >> That's right. Austin, would you like to begin? >> I'm going to start uh cross-examining the first witness who bring up Mrs. Bair. I listened to your testimony and uh I
take that there was a given point in time when uh you andor your husband or your partners purchased the property in question. You have to answer it verbally. You can't shake your head. >> Yes, we do. >> Okay. Uh and at that time was it an
ongoing functioning uh place of business? >> Yes. >> Uh and what was the name of it? Do you recall? >> Tavalo Pronto. >> And uh how did you become aware of the fact that Tavlo Pronto was for sale? Did
you live in the area? >> My husband and I both worked for the previous owners of Tablo Pronto. >> What was his name? >> There were three partners. Okay. Now, uh, how long had they been open for
business before you, uh, purchased the property? >> They opened somewhere around 2006, 2007. >> Okay. >> And we purchased the business in 2010. >> Okay. So it had been an ongoing business
for approximately four or five years >> from whenever they opened in 2006 2007 until we purchased it in August of 2010. >> Now had you previously either owned or been employed uh in this restaurant type business? >> Yes.
>> How long a period of time was that? >> 20 years at that time. >> Okay. So basically just just a point of clarification was the question in the restaurant business more generally or at this restaurant. >> I think it goes to the issue of when
they purchased the property what were they aware of? So uh I mean I I'll abide by the board of board attorneys rule. >> You ask the question just that way. >> Yeah. >> We we bought the business in 2010. We bought the property in 2018. So, are you
talking about when we bought the property or the business? >> Well, you bought the business, you said in 2010, correct? >> Mhm. >> And you you bought the property in 2018, >> right? >> Now, when you bought the business in 2010, how long had you been active in
the restaurant business? >> 20 years. >> Okay. >> I just want to clarify specifically your record. active in this restaurant business or restaurant businesses more generally like >> well they said they were in the restaurant business for 20 years and
they bought this property in 2000 they bought the business in 2010 they bought the property in 2018 I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong that when you bought this property in 2010 uh you had been in the restaurant
business for approximately 20 years prior to that >> correct thank I need all the help I can get. Uh, thank you. And I'm not too accepted, so I apologize. Okay. So, now at at the time you bought the property, were you
represented by council? >> I just want to clarify. At the time you bought the business, I I misspoke. Okay. >> Okay. >> At the time you bought the business, were you represented by council? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh
were you familiar with the resolution of approval that was granted to the prior owner for the operation of this business? >> We purchased an open operating business. So we bought what we saw
what what was already in operation. >> Okay. At the time that you bought the business, was there an outdoor cafe operating? >> Yes. >> And do you know what in what year that was opened or started?
>> It was 2010 and they already had the sidewalk cafe. >> Okay. Do do you know when they started operating the sidewalk? >> I believe it was 2008. >> 2008. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Now you said you had retained the
services of an attorney. Correct. >> Correct. >> Was the fact that you believed there to be an operating outdoor cafe important to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. What what uh what process did you take to determine
that in fact the operation of that outdoor cafe uh was legal? We worked for those owners. They also owned a restaurant in Long Branch. My husband worked for them. I also worked
for them. I It was already operating when we bought it from them. So, we were familiar with the business. We had eaten in the Sidewalk Cafe. We had eaten at Tavalo Pronto. We had been patrons of that
restaurant as well as employees of those owners. >> Okay. >> In in their other restaurant. >> So, but when when you when you bought the business >> Mhm. >> were you aware of the fact that there had been a resolution uh of approval dealing with the
operation of this business? >> I believe we knew that they we had to apply for the sidewalk cafe every year. Well, what does this say in this resolution that you had to apply for a sidewalk cafe? >> I don't know if it says it in the
resolution. I'm just I don't know if it says it in the resolution. I'm saying you're asking me what did I know at the time when we purchased the business. >> You you believed >> that you could operate a sidewalk cafe. >> I had an attorney that helped us purchase the business.
>> Okay. Well, have you familiar with the uh uh resolution? I'm going to read it to you. It's it's it's an important part of his case. It's paragraph 4 and it says that what must be done in other words the board is saying to the
applicant. What you must do is comply with the recommendations of the planning board engineer as set forth in his letter of dream 14 comma 2025 identifying the aisle way between lots
four and five as a no parking fire lane area. Now what do you think they meant when they said no parking objection >> fire lane area? >> Objection. The witness is not gonna doesn't know what they meant. She wasn't there. Were you there?
>> Well, you knew that they meant you couldn't park there and that it wasn't fairly. Is that what you're saying? >> Is that what you're saying? Your client believed? >> No. >> Just said I objected to question. Stop. >> Let me let me
>> We're all talking. Nothing gets on the record. >> Let me rephrase the question. You read the resolution before you acquired title to the business. Correct. >> I did not read the resolution about the sidewalk cafe.
>> Well, show me. Can you show me in this resolution or it makes any reference whatever to the sidewalk cafe? >> I knew that the Sidewalk Cafe was open and operating. >> Okay. the day we closed on the business
and we purchased the business. I knew that the Sidewalk Cafe was going to be in effect until December 1st. And I knew from the previous owners who were purchasing the business that we would have to make a new application the
following year to have a Sidewalk Cafe renewed for the following spring. >> That's what I knew. >> And I understand that. But tell me if you can when you purchased this property I'm sorry strike that when you purchased
this business was the operation of the Sidewalk Cafe important to you? >> Yes. >> What steps did you take when you acquired this business that the Sidewalk Cafe had received an approval from the
planning board and zoning board to operate? >> There was a license. There was a sidewall cafe license. They didn't lodge an objection. >> Could she answer the question not become >> Well, you're you're asking a leading question of her about if I were to >> you previously offered that the planning and zoning board never approved it that
there would never been a site plan. Now you're asking her a leading question asking her to appine that they had. It's a lensure ordinance. >> You you're aware of the fact that at the time you purchased the business neither the planning board or the zoning board approved the utilization of that area of
the site uh for a cafe. I know that there was a sidewalk cafe license issued and posted in the business that we purchased. >> Okay. Now, when you purchased this business, uh
did you have a ca I mean you were present here today and you saw various experts put on the board various site planes. Correct. Prior to your acquiring the business, did you have occasion to either review a
site plan or discuss it with your attorney andor your husband to ensure what it meant? >> We bought an existing business and my attorney handled the business that we
were purchasing. So, I did not review a site. Did you did you ever see prior to buying the business a site plan which reflected the utilization of that alleyway area for a
cafe? >> There was a cafe. >> No. >> And there was a pa patio. >> My question, >> did I read the site plan? I don't recall. >> You don't recall? Now, uh, when you p when you purchased
this business, uh, were you aware of the fact that there was a specific limitation for the number of parking spaces that you would have the use of? >> Yes.
>> What was that number? >> Three in the back and the ADA spot in the front. >> Okay. Now, uh, did you have employees at that time? >> Yes. >> Now, did you work in the restaurant? >> Yes. >> Did your husband work in the restaurant?
>> Yes. >> Did you drive to the restaurant together in one car or did you each come in separate cars from time to time? >> We probably came in different cars or we switched. >> Okay. So if you came in different cars, that meant that there would only be two
spaces available for customers. Correct. >> Only if we parked in those spots. >> Funny. >> Only if we parked in those spots. >> Well, where else would you park? >> There's street parking. >> Well, okay. You tell me. You tell me. When you came to work, where did you
park? We bought I think in the second year we bought a delivery vehicle a little Fiat and we would bring the Fiat and then we would switch off. I would go in the morning and then he would come in the afternoon. >> Okay. So there was only >> we used the Fiat.
>> I apologize to it. So all during the course of that day there was at least one vehicle the delivery vehicle which was always on that property for use for deliveries. I wouldn't say it was always on that property.
>> Now, how about with regard to uh the nature of the business itself? Now it's said that uh in number nine continue use of the building as a
category 2 restaurant the main purpose of which is prepared foods packaged to go and not to be consumed on site accordingly seating is limited to 12
seats inside. Did you see that? >> When we purchased the business, there were more than 12 seats inside. >> That's not my question. >> I don't recall if I read that site plan. >> Well, do you know do you know this is a resolution now? Do you know what do you know what a resolution is?
>> Not necessarily. >> Well, do you believe that a resolution is necessary to operate a business or a use on a particular legal conclusion? You're asking for her belief. >> Pardon me. >> You're asking for her belief.
>> Yeah. What a what what's what's the purpose of a resolution? The resolution says >> the w the witness so far has testified. If I understand correctly she did not read the resolution. She did not review a site. If you're asking her then what's
in the resolution? Isn't that a little unfair? Mr. Yes. Rowing, >> are you are you aware of the fact that the time you purchased this business, there was a resolution which said there could only be four parking spaces? >> No. >> You were not aware of that?
>> I knew that there were four parking spaces. >> Okay. Uh were there any other parking spaces besides those four on the site? >> On the site? No, but there's street parking right across the street.
>> Okay. Now with regard to the business itself at the time you purchased it, was it operating at that time basically as it's Do you still own the business by the way? >> Yes.
>> Was it operating at that time as it's operating today? >> Yes. Now, when people would go into that building back in that time to purchase something, the food they were purchasing was put into a bag for them than to take
out, wasn't it? >> If they were taking it out. Yes. >> Okay. But doesn't it say here that its main purpose is for prepared foods packaged to go? So, most of the food being asking, you're asking her what's
in the resolution. She's testified. She doesn't know what's in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm just asking, don't you think? >> That's a fair. Okay. I appreciate that. >> No, I'm just I >> I need all the help I can get. Uh let's go. >> Let's go further. Assuming for the sake
of argument that you had a hundred customers come into that store in a day to purchase food. How many of them would be purchasing prepared food being put in a bag and taken out of the building?
>> About 45%. >> Okay. >> And uh would it be fair to say >> take out 45% or D in 45? >> I'm sorry. Take out would be 55%. >> D in about 45%.
>> Okay. Now would it and I I know this is hypothetical but if the 55% of the people came into the building to purchase food to take out would it not be natural to assume that
maybe some of them walked there but many of them probably broke their cars there to park. >> No, we have a lot of people walk there. We have a lot of kids. We have a lot of bikes. Yes. Very many people. So now then uh of that 100%
45% of them would remain in the building to eat. Correct. >> If they were eating in Yes. throughout the course of a 12-hour day. >> Okay. Now if they were eating there and sitting at a table, would the food also
be brought to them in a paper bag as the takeout food was? >> No. >> Okay. And uh how many how many uh tables were there and how many chairs were there at the time you purchased uh this business?
>> I don't recall. >> Pardon me. >> I don't recall. >> Wasn't it 12? You don't recall >> 12 tables? Yeah, I I'll get back into that. Now, at the time that you purchased this business,
there were hours of operation, weren't there? >> Yes. >> What are your what are your hours of op you still own the business? >> Yes. >> What are your hours of operation right now? >> Monday through Wednesday 8 to 8, Thursday, Friday, Saturday 8 to 9, and Sunday 8 to 4. Now during the initial
time when you purchased this property weren't the oper hours of operation at certain days 8 to 8 and on others 8 to six >> I don't before we open it >> at the time you purchased >> I don't recall >> okay
now uh at that time in 200 uh 10 purchased in 2010, correct? >> Yes. >> Uh how many meals would you say you
served a day >> at that time? I don't remember. >> Okay. >> I know what we do now, but I >> Mr. President, can you make a profer to the board as to this line of questioning as to the relief that's being requested? Yeah, I want to I want
to I want to find out from her at that time. We know that she and her husband worked in the facility. I want to know how many other employees did you have working in the facility. >> I understand you're going to tell me what the question is. I'm asking you to
make a profit to the board as to how that relates to the relief requested by the applicant or your objection to the relief requested by the applicant. Well, Arctic Ocean goes on with >> condition four and nine.
>> Four and nine. >> Yep. Those are the conditions that they're seeking relief. >> I know. They're seeking relief to have uh more tables and more chairs and accordingly more customers. Correct. >> Well, you're not going to make a profer
to the board as to what your line of questioning is doing to McCart. >> Well, I want I want I want to know how many employees they have. want to know. I'm asking you to I'm asking you to make that relevant to this board. >> Why that's relevant to the board's
consideration? >> Well, it's relevant to the board in the fact that when they acquired title to this business, they agreed to the use of the business and now they're saying circumstances have changed. But what are those change circumstances?
>> Could you you want to ask it that way? >> Yeah, sure. you you recognize you're coming before this board for relief. Correct. >> Correct. >> And with regard to the number of uh tables and chairs in the outdoor cafe, I
I believe the board attorney read into the record how there was an increase in the number of tables and chairs over the years. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's for the outside areas. >> I did I said that for the time, but I I
did say that. Okay. Uh now would you agree with me that if you have this increase in the number of tables and chairs and you have an increase in the number of people moving out there that would also require uh additional
employees on your behalf? Would it not object? >> We're not increasing >> objection. Lack of foundation. You're making a profit that more tables and chairs equate to more people. You haven't set the foundation for that yet. been testimony, digital testimony.
>> There has not been testimony that more tables and more chairs equate to more people. You could do a more robust takeout business, lay a foundation. >> At the at the time that you acquired title to business. Okay. How many employees did you have?
>> I don't recall. That was 15 years ago. >> Less than we have today. >> Okay. >> But we've had about the same amount. We have not our employee count has not gotten much bigger. I would say in the last 10
years we've probably been about the same size. >> How many years? >> How many employees do you have today? >> We have 22 including my husband and my son. >> 22 employees. >> 10 are part-time. >> Witness testified previously as to how
many she had at any one time. >> Okay. So, let's go back a step. I asked you a simple question. I asked you how many employees you had today and your first response was we have 10 22 employees but you qualify that by saying
uh some are part-time. Correct. >> Correct. >> And those 22 employees does not uh include you and your husband. >> It does include me and my husband. >> Oh, it does include. So >> yes, >> collectively approximately 22 employees. Uh, and you
started out with three or four. >> Probably eight or nine. >> Okay. >> But I can't be sure without >> of the of those 22 employees, including you and your husband, how many of you drive to work? >> My my husband drives and we have two
employees that drive. We have one in the morning and one in the afternoon. >> All the other ones walk there. >> They take Ubers. They walk. They ride bicycles. We only have two drivers besides my husband. >> That includes you and your husband or
does not include you and your husband? >> Three, including my husband. >> Okay. So, that basically takes up all the aotted parking spaces in your approvals. No, from 2007. >> You didn't ask her if she parks on site yet. >> Okay. I don't I don't I don't have too
many more. Now, uh, when I was listening to your recitation of your menu, I I believe you said coffee, pizza, special dinner packages,
uh, eating out, takeout, after school thing. Uh, how does that differ from the menu that you had in 201 uh 10 when you acquired the business title?
>> It doesn't differ much. >> It doesn't differ much at all. >> No. >> Okay. Do you do you believe or do you enforce any type of a rule or restriction that both you and your husband and well as
your employees uh must park on site or you can park off site? >> No, we encourage everyone to park offsite. With regard to the operation of the
Octura Cafe, have you ever appeared before the planning board or the zoning board for an approval to operate that outdoor cafe? >> No, that's in front of accountant. we make the application to the burough
council. >> Now, when you make the application, do you also appear before the council and give testimony as to the number uh of seats, the number of tables, and uh
uh the number of uh customers you'll be serving. >> All of that information has to be included in the application that we have to submit every spring. Do >> you have a copy of that application with you? We have all the approvals I have.
They're all on file. >> Okay. They were marked into evidence earlier this evening. >> No, >> there is no document application. We have proof. >> I may have them at my office. I don't have them with me.
>> You have them in your office? >> You need to do that. >> I have no further questions of the weeks. Thank you very much. You want Mr. Reciti? How could you show us uh
off off the record now may I ask uh how long Mr. President, you intend to have this meeting go on for >> until we finish. >> That may go that may be another couple of hours. >> Why? >> Why?
>> But let's call the next witness. >> I mean, I I'm not being uh >> Call the next witness. >> May I May I approach council for one second? >> No. Call the next witness, please. >> Okay. I'm I'm going to put on the record that I strenuously object to this issue
of continuing with this hearing until you say it reaches it conclusion. That may take us past midnight at this point in time. So be it. Please call your next witness. >> I'm sorry. >> Please. Please call your next witness.
We're uncomfortable. You're wasting time. >> I want to voice I'm wasting time. I want to voice my I have never encountered something like this in the 60 years I've been practicing. It's unconscionable. I'll call my next witness. >> Thank you. >> Who's your next witness? Your next
witness. >> I'm going to cross-examine who's who's your next person to testify. Mr. City, Mr. City was my second witness. Could you put your examution there?
But it's not sincerely these marked day one day two. >> They were marked um if you're talking about the um architectural plans, they were marked as D. And if you're talking about the photo board, it was marked as
F. Uh, I'm sorry. The new photo board was marked. >> Mr. City, uh, when were you admitted to practice architecture instead of New Jersey? >> He's already been verified.
>> He's already been verified. >> I know, but I just >> You're wasting time. >> I'm not wasting time. You're really You're really berating me. >> I am berating. You are berating wasting my time. >> And that's what you're doing. We're not. >> But I want the record to clearly reflect that. >> You're going to say to me, you're going
to purposely keep us. That's just absurd. >> Already credentialed him. >> It's fine. >> Mr. Gastroski, I think in fact you might have said that you would vouch for the witness or accept his credentials. >> His credentials. >> I'm not Let me say this right now. I
know Mr. Ridi to be a gentleman. I know him to be a good architect. I know him to be an honorable person. I knew his father and he emulates his father. >> Okay. So, get on with the question. Thank you. >> The question is when did you begin
practicing architecture in his study >> was licensed. I was licensed in 1983. >> Okay. Now, when did you first become acquainted uh with the applicants in this matter?
um recently in last year. >> Pardon? >> Last year. >> Last year. >> Yeah. >> Oh, so when we're talking in terms of this facility, uh you had nothing to do with the
architectural reconstruction of the interior of the building. >> That's not true. I uh were worked for the previous owner of the Okay. Uh >> when did when did you work for him? for the uh previous application was
2005, excuse us. >> 2005. So we're going back to 2005. You were of you were aware of the contents of that application in that resolution. Correct. >> I'm going to object on grounds of
relevancy. His knowledge is irrelevant about what it said. Well, in 2005, were you called upon to design the out what is commonly known now as the sidewalk cafe? >> No, I was not. >> Okay. Are you aware of the fact that uh
the resolution of approval in 2005 clearly stated that there could only be four parking spaces? >> I don't I don't recall that. All right. Do you recall the number of tables that were mitted in the interior of the
building at that time? >> No. All I remember is um seating. >> Okay. How many seats were 12, wasn't it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, 12 seats would basically make up either three to four tables, correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, were you aware of the fact that How about with regard to the mechanics of the interior of the building? Was that all designed by you or was it all in place when they purchased? >> No, initially it was a different it was a different use.
>> Okay. >> And we changed the use to a restaurant and we did the layout for it. So, with regard to the interior of the restaurant as far as the tables, uh the uh stuff in the kitchen and whatnot, that was all put in place by you.
>> I I did the space plan for the building. >> Now, when you did that, uh did you design it pursue it to a standard that would say how many customers and your clients could accommodate? >> No.
No. You just filled up space. >> No, we we had 12 seat. We showed 12 seats. >> Why? >> We showed 12 seats. >> 12 seats. That was required by the resolution of approval, wasn't it? >> You could say yes. Were you aware of the
fact that when you began uh let's say designing the interior of the building that there was a resolution of approval which prohibited any use of uh the outside area between the two buildings except as a fire lane?
>> I don't recall anything like that. when when you were first retained back in I guess we say in 2006 or whatever it may be, were you called upon to design uh an area where where the fire lane uh was placed in the resolution?
My recollection is that that that fire lane at the time that we prepared um the design for the approvals was um for parking. We had three cars parked inside
of the building and the it was the pass through for coming in off a river road to get to those three spaces. The one or two in the front and around to the back. So there was and correct me if Paul what you're saying is that it was your understanding at that time that that
area between the two buildings between buildings four and five was an open area that was to be utilized for uh parking or traveling through to the rear. >> Right. That's correct. >> As a matter of fact on the original claims which you prepared, it did say
parking over there, did they not? So >> that's correct. At that point in time when you put parking in that area and you put the travel the way next to my client's property there was no concept of a sidewalk cafe.
>> Not not in 2005. No. Do you recall when you recalled upon or did you have any part in designing anything with regard to the placement of the buildings and chairs in that area
for the sidewalk cafe? >> No, >> that was done by them. Correct. >> It was done by someone else. Before you began your work, did you read or familiarize yourself with the resolution?
>> From when? 2005. >> Yeah. >> I probably read it after it was codified. >> Okay. After it was what? >> After it was approved. >> Okay. And when it was approved, when it was approved, it was approved with that
area there as a fire lane. What wasn't it? >> I don't I don't recall that. >> Okay. Now, as an architect, you're familiar with what a fire lane is, aren't you? >> Yes. >> What What does it mean? >> Fire department access to the building.
And who makes the determination as to what that access to the building would be >> as far as the phys physical uh shape of it, >> right? Yeah. >> It's probably something that is in the
code for minimum standards. >> Okay. And and a fire lane is there basically to protect the building and the public from the dangers of a fire, isn't it? That's it's to allow the fire
environment to fight a fire. And this is what the planning board said. We want there to be fire access so that the fire department can fight a fire if there's a fire there. Objection. Isn't that what
architects know about? The need for the fireland is something that I'm not familiar with in this case. Um I'm not sure that it was ever it should have ever been required quite frankly. >> But it was required, was it?
>> Yeah. But I'm I'm I'm saying by code by fire codes by the building code. I don't know what where it says. >> Well, tell tell me what fire codes and what building codes would say that it's not required. >> Fire. In my in my experience, the use of a
fire lane would be for allowing a building of that use and construction to be enlarged.
uh or if you wanted to add a story to it. Um the code would not allow you to do that because it might be of a smaller amount allowed for that particular use and and construction type.
>> And there are uses of the code to increase 100% the area that you're allowed to build. And one of them is fire department access around the building. Another one is sprinklers, blah blah blah. That's But you appear
before plotting boards and zoning boards uh let's say routinely on regard to buildings that you design. Correct? >> Uh and you're aware of the fact that a planning board or a zoning board has a jurisdiction to say if you want to use
this building you have to have a filing. And that's what they did in this case. Objection. >> Objection. We've labored over the point of what they did or didn't do and who they didn't know what they did and who that person in turn deferred. >> He he was the architect. He was aware of
the plans. He he knows what they called for. They called for there being a fire lane here, didn't they? >> We're going to stipulate that there's a condition of approval. That's the whole purpose of us being here tonight. Did when when the condition of approval when
a condition was placed on there, did the developer or the owner of the building consent to it? >> I can't answer that. >> Why? >> I don't know. I can't answer that. Uh just briefly, uh did you remain in contact
with the owners of this building as time went by and business increased or as your service had basically terminated? That's basically done in 2004. In 2005, I was complete I completed my >> okay
>> my services as a architect. You're familiar with what the zoning requirements of the city were with regard to occupancy and seating. Were you not?
>> Objection. >> We have a specific ordinance governing occupancy. >> You know, if she doesn't know, just tell me he doesn't know. >> Yeah. Can you ask me the questioning? >> I think I can remember that for back. Let's take a quick look at uh
the exhibit. What is this mark two? >> This is the outdoor camp, >> right? >> Did you have anything to do with the preparation of his outdoor uh campaign plan? >> No, I stated before I was stated before
I did not anything to do with that. Who >> who provided you with these photograph? I took what? I took all >> Have you been by the property lately? >> Today? >> Yeah. Yeah. When you were by the property today and you looked at that
area where the patio is, isn't it just filled with uh chairs and tables that are not being used? >> Looks just like that. Looks just like the kitchen. >> Like that here. >> Okay. >> But nobody is serving food there, are they?
>> No. >> And a car or a fire truck can't get through there, can they? It's not being It's not being used as a fire lane. >> It's a cafe. >> Thank you. >> It's an outdoor cafe >> despite the fact that the board approved with Senator Good. >> Right.
>> I I have no Thanksgiving next. All your next >> Yeah, I would have two minutes, please. >> No, >> I can't have two minutes to make to make a rest. >> No, you cannot.
Why don't you Why don't you Why don't you really just call this gentleman? >> I said so then behave like >> gentlemen rather than gentlemen. Call your next witness. >> Okay, I shall. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. It's Mr. Ward.
How you doing? >> I know I'm sounding repetitive, but what are you what what are your qualifications? You're a licensed professional engineer. >> I put those on the record at the beginning. >> Well, I just professional engineer. >> Okay. Do you also a licensed uh
architect or planner? >> Licensed planner but not qualified in this capacity for this. So you're testifying solely as an engineer. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Now uh when did you become first involved in this project? >> Uh last year.
>> Okay. So that would be in the year 2025. So prior to that time, you had absolutely no contact with or interest in professionally or personally with regard to the design of this building or
the use of this building. No, our involvement started last year. >> Okay. Now, uh, did you take all of these photographs or they taken by other people? >> I didn't take any of them. >> Mr. Gasowski, those are not his exhibits.
>> They're not an exhibit. >> Would you like for him to put his exhibits up? >> You know, if I want to have him refer to what he has, did you ask him to produce any exhibits? >> He's produced exhibits. Those are not that. Has he produced exhibits that have been worked into evidence?
>> He has. >> I'm asking, would you like for him to put >> Yeah, you do that. >> Thank you for your help. Uh 6 River Road is is your exhibit? >> Yes. >> And this one down here?
>> No, that's the architect. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, what is this? Some some of them are doublesided and we can you see this? >> Yeah. Come on. You got Let me look first at uh what you have
here. That is the minor site plan 16 road. Would you remember marked on that? This was part of the application. I don't know which >> it was uh exhibit E. Mr. Gastraki. >> Okay. Now, with regard to this exhibit,
uh did you did you and or your firm perform the survey work? >> Yes. >> And you're showing on the survey for uh mod number five uh the building itself. And then there
is uh a dotted area. It says paper patio. >> Yes. >> And that paper patio extends uh outside the dot. What's the purpose of the dotted line? >> Principal building setback. >> What?
>> Principal building setback. >> Go ahead. And when I'm looking at the uh line, you show a distance of 18.3 ft from the
the northwesterly side of the building. >> Yes. >> Uh to the northeasterly area of uh BI from the corner of the building to the corner of the building.
Where's the P? >> Oh, sorry. I put the survey up because you're referencing the survey. Now, we're looking at the 610 River Road. Uh, and I'm looking at the that be the westerly side of the
>> our hour left. Yes. Okay. And I notice uh that on lot four there is a mechanum area in the front. Correct. >> Yes. >> And it shows three parking spaces that
are the parking spaces for lot number four. >> It shows three strike lines. Okay. Yeah. >> But how about with regard to uh lot number five, the subject property? How many parking spaces does it show uh
in the front of the building? >> One ADA space. >> What? >> One ADA space. >> One handicap space station and that's it. So theoretically, anybody who is pulling off River Road uh to go into the uh
store cannot park cannot park in the front of the building. >> I don't have an answer to that. >> Why not? Well, you said anyone can't park. >> I said legally cannot legally park in that spot. >> If they have an 88 tag, they can. >> Okay, very good. Very quick.
>> Now, I'm also looking at the area of lot number four. And it's in front of that building. It's madam, is it not? >> Yes. >> And it's madam in front of uh lot number five. >> Yes. >> And it's madam in the area between uh
lot five and lot four. Save for the pavers, >> right? Except for the pavers. But when it was approved was back in 2005 or 2006, whatever it was, there were no pavers there, were there?
>> No. The pavers which we've mentioned were done by zoning permit >> and that area was all mechanical. When you look at the plans that were submitted then that shows that as a area for parking and traveling through, does it not? When you look at which plan?
>> The planes back in 2004. >> Do you have them? I don't have they haven't been marked into evidence. Do you have them to mark? >> All right. Now, and I I think you also had a measurement on here showing that from the edge of the building on lot
number four and the edge of the building uh on lot number five. Uh what is the distance between those two areas? >> 18.3 ft. >> All right. Now let's just talk briefly about that 18.3 ft.
Uh is the required distance for a fire lane regulated by uh a state agency? >> Believe it's under the jurisdiction of the uniform fire code. >> Okay. And is the uniform fire code
controlling upon uh the municipalities? >> I don't have an answer on that. >> Now h having said that if in fact in the year 2005 or whenever these approvals were first secured uh do you know what the required distance was for?
No. Okay. Let's assume for the sake of argument that in 2005 the required distance for a fire lane is less than it is today. Is the owner of the property who has a building up and relied upon approvals
when that required space was 18 ft. Is he entitled today to the benefit and protection of the approvals that he got when the required space was 18 ft? >> I don't know. less. >> So, you can't answer the question. >> I I don't know the answer to that question.
>> You may stating slightly the distances because it's 18t building to building, but you keep forgetting that it's 16 ft to the property line. So, we only have 16 ft. >> I'm not I'm not questioning. I said building to building, didn't I? I >> mean, I I appreciate you building to
building. >> Apologies. >> I have a question. Did Did we Did we hear at any point what the standard was in 2005? I mean, we heard today that is 20 feet wide in the fire, right? >> Mr. Gazer's question. >> Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sorry. >> Even for a moment. >> Assume for a moment. Right. >> You have You have not heard any
testimony as to what it was, the distance, and or whether or not the burdened fire. You haven't heard any of that. >> You know, I know. I want to apologize. I >> No. I mean, I'm just I'm just I'm answering my client. >> I asked Could you speak louder?
>> I'm sorry. Sure. >> No, no, no, no. It's not your fault. They have they have not heard we have not heard any testimony as to what fire code was in existence in 2005. Nor have we heard whether or not the
burrow had adopted the uniform fire code 205. >> I I appreciate that. >> That's what I said to >> we're we're going to get to that and promise you >> we're there.
>> Uh I lost my train of thought. Uh you're saying that it was your firm that prepared the survey documents? >> Yes. >> Now the only the only survey which shows the presence of the physical
buildings are walking is that portion of the survey uh which deals with uh bond number five. Correct. >> Uh no I disagree with that. You think you think that lot number six? You don't show the entire building, do >> you? You didn't ask about lot six
though. >> And you're referencing the site plan, not the survey. Mr. Gasowski, >> the survey shows the survey. It shows the property conditions and overlap. Just >> do you have to the site plan? >> This is the site plan. >> Okay. So, the site plan shows
lots four, five, and six, correct? portions of >> but the only the only lot that was truly surveyed was lot number five >> subject of this application yes >> okay
where do you show the parking spaces I want to require to the rear of the building >> right here with the three >> and the only way that you can get to those three spots is to come off of uh Cedar Avenue.
>> Yes. Via the 20 foot rightway easement that was mentioned earlier. >> So if someone is traveling down River Road and they're either unaware of that ingress and essress and they don't care about it, they could either park
illegally on the subject property in the handicap spot or alternatively they could park over onto my client's property. No, they could also go back onto River Road and find a other parking options if
they wanted to go to, >> but they wouldn't be able to park on site. Well, let me >> That's not true. They could park. There could be a spot open in the back. >> Is in in the ordinance, is there a requirement as to how many parking spaces a person must have on their property in order to satisfy the
ordinance? >> There's an off- streetet parking standard per you by use. Yes. >> Okay. What what's the off street parking requirement for this? Well, >> believe this is the perview of the planner, the applicant's planner, but it's based on the square footage. >> You you don't know the exact
>> It's 15 per thousand if I'm not mistaken thousand square feet. >> But you didn't take that into consideration when you prepared this. >> Well, this is the site plan in in terms of taking it under consideration. I mean, we we look at the whole zoning
ordinance, but this isn't a a snapshot of existing conditions. We're not changing the parking. We're not proposing new off- streetet parking. We're not reducing off- streetet parking. This is what's there today. >> Okay, we're almost through under the
conditions. How many parking spaces are required on this site and how many have have you provided? >> There's four existing. I haven't provided any. There's four existing. Um it's 32. John, what the number? I
believe the numbers either 35 or 36. I can do the math real quick. >> 35 or 36 parking space. >> Yes. Just one simple question. Where where are all these cars supposed to park? >> I don't have my planner hat on and I'm
not going to put it on. That's really under the perview of the planner. Um, >> have you ever designed a plan where >> I haven't designed this is a snapshot of existing conditions. We haven't designed This isn't a new development. So there's no design for the park. >> You you just simply memorialized what
was there? >> No, we we provided a snapshot of existing conditions for the purpose of supporting the request for the condition relief. >> For the purpose of supporting what? >> The condition relief we're we're talking about and we we show a dimensional analysis of the property.
>> What what do you what do you believe supports the conditional relief you're seeking? >> It's not that's not >> it's not your ball game. That's something else. That's that I would not characterize it as ball game. It's not that's not my under my purview or argument for this. >> Well, did you testify that you weren't
planner? >> I'm not qualified for this application for this board as professional planner. >> The standalone planner, Mr. Question. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Shannon,
>> how you doing? >> Good. Uh in your uh introductory comments, you reflected the fact that you were the planner whether it be for other municipalities or
planning boards or zoning boards within those municipalities. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh we you're in that capacity you both I take it either prepare plans or review plans or comment upon them uh
to those respective boards. >> We well we review applications for boards. That's good. >> But you interpret and you apply the existing ordinances of the mun municipality. We also
stipulate if variance relief is requested what's required to grant that relief. >> Okay. So, uh I think and I correct you if I'm wrong, you're basically not you personally, but there's four provided parking spaces on this site. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> And pursuant to the ordinance, how many parking spaces are required? >> 35. >> Okay. >> Well, 36 if you're around. 36. Okay. 35, 34, 36. But >> that's under today's standard.
>> Under today's standards. And that and that's why we're here today, are we not? >> No. This has a grandfathered variance for parking. >> Grandfathered variance for parking. So you're telling me it's your testimony as a planner. >> It is also the planner.
>> Let me finish. your testimony as a planner and your testimony as a planner who is represented and given advice to planning boards, zoning boards and municipalities that there is a justification for granting a variance for four parking
spaces, one of which is for handicapped when 35 or 36 are required. >> Well, as I said, today 35 or 36 are required. That was not the case when this was heard in 2005. And you have the opinion of two municipal planners, myself and Miss Miller, that there are
no further variances or waiverss required with this application because the circumstances are such that the parking is well tell me what those circumstances >> the definition of the use has changed and the parking standards have changed.
>> Uh the property is being utilized today basically as it was being utilized back in 2005. Is it except for the outdoor cafe? Yes. So what's the change in circumstances? >> At the time the restaurant in 2005 was
classified as a class 2 restaurant which assumed the primary business of the restaurant would be takeout and there would be some eatin. That was re that definition was lifted and now the definition allows eatin and takeout very
much combining class one and class two restaurants. So, so you're basically 31 to 32 spaces short. >> The variance at the time 32 spaces. >> No, we're not. >> You're not sure. >> We're not. The variance at the time
considered that 12 parking spaces would be required and the approval is for four. That carries forward and remains today. >> It you can't it's not carrying forth because we're >> Can we Can I finish please? I wish you
would. You wish I would. Wish you finished. How hard do you wish? Listen, I'm a night person. I'm good till 4 a.m. >> Why are you here? Because the chairman says you got to be here. >> And you're testifying to the question. >> But you're getting paid, too. Probably
at that rate. >> So, you're saying that when this was approved and four spaces were provided and 12 are required, correct? >> Correct. So now there are still only four spaces provided and there are what
35 or 36 required. >> The applicant can rely on the variance. The variance runs with the land. You know that that's basic land use. >> It's basic land use that you could increase uh a parking provision by almost four times.
>> No, the parking provision went down. The parking requirements were reduced from 2005. >> Yeah. Show me where it's show me what book says you can do that. Municipal land use law. >> Show me Show me the site to the municipal land use law. >> I didn't testify to the MLU. I didn't testify to the MLU. You're asking where
you testify there. So what Andrew Janu, right? It's >> my professional opinion. >> Larry, did you read the uh notice? >> Yes. >> Now it says the applicant is seeking
amended minor site plan approval. What is being amended in the cyclone? >> We're adding to object because you called out and you objected to the form of notice because it asked for relief in the alternative. One of which was
amended site plan or a waiver of site plan. >> Oh, tell tell me tell me what you're looking for before this board. >> We're asking for the relief from two conditions of approval from the 2005 resolution. >> And that's it. >> That's it. >> Okay. And those two two conditions are
>> four and nine. >> Yeah. And and condition nine says that you must have a fire lane that's open. >> Condition four. >> Tell me tell me what >> you're mixing up the condition. >> Well, I'm getting old. So tell tell me I
know you that's giving you a break. Tell tell me what the basis is for relieving the condition of the requirement for fire lane. So, first of all, the condition for the fire lane was part of the engineer, Mr. Kramer's review letter, and in his review letter of
June, he stipulates that he defers to the fire official, but would recommend striking it as a fire lane at the least. What Mr. Kramer didn't look into at all was whether it was a viable fire lane. I think you >> How do you know he didn't look into it?
because he deferred to the fire marshal, the person that would have the pertinent experience to to stipulate that. >> Now, was did the planning board approve his plan with the fire lane? >> They accepted his recommendation
>> and his recommendation was based at on a deferral of the fire lane to the fire marshal. We have no evidence as to whether the fire marshall ever >> Well, there's no evidence to the effect that he didn't. Did he? Is there? No, we can't tell either way. Having said that,
we know that even if we looked at the lowhanging wires at the time, it's not viable. It would be my opinion that it'd be misleading. >> Do you have photographs of those hanging wires showing in our engineer? >> They were exhibited already. >> I'm looking I'm looking at the
resolution where >> you look at the exhibit though approval of the fire of the burrow fire official. So to take your argument, we've got to accept the fact that you're saying that this planning board >> approved this project without the
approval of the fire official even though >> it was condition of the approval. >> It was conditioned upon it. We don't know if the fire code official. >> Let me ask you this. when when an approval of substitution is granted, uh if it's not challenged
within 45 days of the approval, then it's locked in stone, isn't it? >> Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion. >> There's an appeal period. I'm aware of that. >> What's the appeal period? >> 45 days. >> Yeah. Did anybody appeal this decision of the planning board back in 2005 or
whatever? >> I'm not aware of anyone. I'm not aware of anyone appealing it. So that means that it was approved in 2005. No one ever challenged it. And as it stands today, it's still a valid approval. And you're saying that you want to get that
removed rather than going to perhaps the uh governing body to change the ordinance. >> Well, yes, we want to have those removed. And I would apply also that the governing body has reviewed that alley over 17 years and approved patio seating
there, including a review by the police and fire marshes. I'm motion Was there ever the granting of a site plan approval or the granting of a use variance or any
type of a variance by either the zoning the zone board of adjustment or the planning board with regard to this outdoor cafe? >> The zoning board and the planning board specifically don't have jurisdiction. I read into the record the ordinance that
stipulates that that stays with the mayor and council. >> Show me where it says sir. >> Chapter four. >> Yeah, it's child for generalized. >> Do you have your copy? I think it was in the Let me just I'll come back to that. You
you uh I think this was your testimony. You said that and I paraphrase that the the municipal body or whoever it be is taking a position that we want more restaurants
in the municipality. No, I didn't testify that the municipal body said. I said that there was in the 2016 re-examination report a citation of a survey taken of residents and businesses in Fair Haven and that the majority of
in Fair Haven. It's part of the 2016 master plan. We're in Fair Haven, Ron. >> Yeah. What What have I got to do? I know where you you may seem funny, but you're getting >> Ron, get on with the question. >> You should know Shil. Yeah, >> we're I realize I know you're trying to prolong info.
>> Tell me tell me where it says by way of in the master plan or the planning board wherever it may be that says literally the governing body has adopted the uh >> you said I said it was part of a survey.
I never said the governing body. I said it was referenced in the master plan. >> Show me the >> it's on the website. you need to do your own work. >> And by the way, it's stipulated in the 202215. There are reference to that on the
second page of that ordinance. Oh, shoot. >> You want to just read it into the record. Say what you're reading it from. >> Read it into the record. >> The record show. >> No, this is this is the ordinance itself. Would you just start with the um
the title or the uh ordinance number that you >> Yes, this is ordinance number 2022-15, an ordinance amending chapter 30. >> And give me the page that you're going to reference and try to give me a paragraph number or or you know where it falls on the
>> I'm looking for that citation. Here we go. It's on a third page, fourth paragraph. >> Whereas the burrow's 2016 master plan re-examin Can I read it into the record first? Whereas the Burough's 2016 master plan re-examination report incorporated
a resident and business owner survey conducted in October, 2015, wherein respondents were asked to identify uses or activities they would like to see in the business district which are not currently there. to which most of the uh respondents identified small retail or
restaurant use such as far pharmacy, bakery, sitown restaurants, and an ice cream shop. More than 60% of the respondents stated they were not in favor of allowing drive-through businesses in the business district. >> Yes, you please. Thank you.
>> Fourth paragraph on fourth I mean this basically what all this really says is that there was a survey. >> That's what I testified to. >> Yeah. Finish please. I know you're Michelle smart.
>> Let's go. They will they would like to see in the business district but are not currently theirs. Well, this property is in a business district, isn't it? It >> is. >> This one says they like to see in the business district that are not currently there.
>> They like it on to say small retail or restaurant uses. So, there is a restaurant use there now, >> including sit down restaurants. >> Can I finish please? There's a restaurant there now and that restaurant has been there since the year 2005. Is there a question before the witness? >> What
>> is there a question for the witness? You're testifying. >> Uh, show me where it says in here that they are recommending that where a business comes in, whatever it may be, and they are deficient in parking by
over 100% that they should be encouraging that. >> It doesn't say that. Thank you. Next witness, please. You're show. Bring them on. Bring them on. >> You're all through.
>> Yeah. I I'm not asking you that dismissively. You've concluded your case. >> I've concluded. >> Please. You that you're you're on here. So, next witness. Call your next person. Okay. Please. >> I'm going to call my first witness. Okay. And and I would once again object
to the position taken by this board that uh we're going to proceed which may take another hour or two. >> We're going we're going to we're going to finish. So be >> despite the effective >> your objections been noted. Please move forward >> on people's help. >> Your objective your objection has been noted. Please move forward.
>> Someday we'll find out. Let me let me pause my next witness. probably fair to observe that we were all here in January when we adjourned at your request because you said you had a conflict. >> We all came out and we put on the record. They accepted jurisdiction and they didn't have any applications that
night and they all had to go home after they did the reorg. >> Okay, >> that's the way it works. Life bobs and that's the way it will work. We will finish tonight. >> Board granted me a courtesy and I appreciate uh and I'm not going to go into personal
reasons. Uh let me call uh Mr. Failen. >> Can I stand just for comfort? >> Sure. >> Mr. Pal, uh you last name for the record? I'm sorry. >> First name is David. >> First name is David, last name Piaz and
Peter. H E L A N. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Well, Mr. Gasarowski, before you start, uh, credentials for Mr. Failen. It was a little unclear to me exactly who you're representing. >> It's a little unclear to me exactly who
you're representing this evening. >> I represent the owner of that property known as lot number four and that property known as lot number six. That's who I represent. >> Is it the owner? >> Yeah, >> the owner. >> Oh, I'm sorry. with regard to uh uh with
regard to my lot number uh uh four I I represent the tenant who's been a tenant for 20 30 40 years. >> Would you just put the name of the tenant and the principles on the record for conflict purposes? >> Oh, I don't have I don't have in the top
of my head the name of the owner, but I will call my clients to identify who the owner is broken though. What the name of the tenant, please, sir? >> Mr. De Vincent. Christina Dinc.
>> Is it in an entity or is it an entity? >> Let me call her. I'll identify the entity. Okay. I don't recall the entity. >> What about the other property? The the Navis building. I >> I'll provide that to you before the end
of the evening. Okay. Uh let me call Mr. uh Band please. Mr. Please give us your full name and your address. >> First name is David, last name Piaz and Peter. H E L an 8 Ruthanne Drive, Manahawk in New Jersey.
>> And you would retain by me to give testimony before this board this evening, correct? >> Yes. >> Would you identify to the board what the nature of your testimony will be? Tonight I'll be testifying as to the history if you will the sequence of the
uniform fire code in the state of New Jersey as well as the purpose functionality and deployment of fire apparatus with regard to fire lanes fire zones. >> Okay. And uh you you'd be called upon to give professional testimony are you not?
>> Yes sir. >> Would you give to the board your qualifications uh as an expert in the field of giving such testimony? So, I'm a retired firefighter and fire code official. I served 20. >> You say firefighter and I'm I don't want to be rude to interrupt you. Uh, did you
serve in a fire company or however what was your capacity as a firefighter? >> So, for the first 22 years of my time, I was a firefighter the last three years. I was the safety officer for the department. It's a combination department in Bergen County. >> Can you move up a little bit, please?
>> Okay. >> In Bergen County. >> Yes. >> Okay. What are what other qualifications do you have that might serve to qualify you as an expert in giving testimony before this board this evening? >> Firematically, I hold a fire officer 2 certification of the state of New
Jersey. That's a proboard certification allows allows or uh represents to be able to lead a company versus a crew operation, which would be a fire officer one. Additionally, I hold uh building,
fire, and fire protection licenses in the state of New Jersey to do public agency code enforcement work. >> I I would ask this board to take comments as I said by client testifying as an expert witness in the field of
fire safety to explore his role. I I do. >> Okay. Yeah. Maybe just before you >> Yeah. I mean, I I just want to know a little bit more about your role as a fire code official, the duration, the years, location. >> Sure. Um
started 1996 as municipal fire official. Served in that position till November 2005. >> What uh what municipality or or municipalities? Bergen County, Dumont, New Jersey.
>> From there, I did a short stint short stint in the Burough Fair. Had to leave that position under a department personnel provisional hire rule. Went on to work in the township of North Bergen as the fire protection
subcode official. I was hired 10:16 2006. left um May 12th, 2021. I've testified in several criminal courts as an expert witness in the state of New Jersey approximately 10 times now.
>> Have you testified before a land use board? I've testified but before the for two land use boards in Ocean County and one in Bay County. Do >> you have um like any formal education or training in the
area? >> In what area? >> I guess is there like any is it schooling required or >> so I possess the requisite licenses that I eval that I enumerated earlier. How do you obtain testing or
>> educational testing and experience criteria? >> It's got a question sir. The test value gave quote was that with regard to sub code official enforcement or issuance of summones. So all at the municipal level
in conjunction with my public employment, yes, in conjunction with my private work or my expert work, if we want to call it that, uh testified to both the investigation of fire as well as to building and fire codes in
different construction or fire safety deficiency cases, civil litigation, failed to qualify as an expert in subrite official. No sir. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Uh during the course of uh the examination and cross-examination of the applicant witnesses, issues arose with regard to uh this alleged viral. Recall that? >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Now, did you do any research to determine what in fact you required with a fire lane was at the time that the prior owners of those properties received very appropriate? >> Yes, sir.
>> And what do you have with regard to that? Are there any documents or brochures or >> I have some I have some documents if you just indulge me for about three minutes to lay the foundation because the establishment of fire zones or fire lanes takes two paths in the state of
New Jersey. The first path is through a planning or zoning land use board. That would be on any project either new construction such or a change of use or something that came before the board. That's one pathway to the establishment
of fire lanes and fire zones. The other pathway is through the provisions of the infome fire code where an existing building that has never been subject to a board that produced a site plan or resolution is determined by the fire
marshall to require fire zones where none existed. So knowing that there's two pathways, pick a path and I will walk you walk you forward on that asking questions to that.
>> We'll proceed. >> What pathway has fair haven taken? So in in this application no what pathway has fair haven taken? Are they a have they delegated to the land use board or have they adopted and fired?
So that's a two-part question. The first part is >> the board does not have the authority to delegate and I'll explain that and justify that in a moment. The second part is has the Burough Fair Haven adopted the uniform fire code. Municipalities in the state of New
Jersey don't have a a discretionary choice in adopting the uniform fire code. is a statewide minimum fire safety standard. The only discretionary decision that the municipality can make is whether it will be enforced locally through a local fire code enforcing
agency and official or if they will u enter into an agreement with either another municipality or perhaps the county fire marshal. Their third option is they don't do that. They can decline to enforce the fire code locally, in which case the division of fire safety
has jurisdiction to enforce the fire code. But when the fire code was created, the the founding language in the statute did not allow municipalities to opt out. Period. They could opt out of doing the job, but they would then have to designate another agency to do
it. >> Same question. Well, how does fairing go? >> So, the burough fairing currently has a uh ordinance that um I'm going to say contracts. I'm not sure that's the right word, but arranges with another
municipality to share or provide the services. >> Okay. Um there was a second part to that though. There were you asked two questions and I forgot what the first one was already. next which path they took.
>> Okay. So the burrow a municipality doesn't decide which path. The project will determine which path it goes down. So again, if we have an existing structure, it's been around pre97879
time period, never went to the board or doesn't have a approved site plan through one of the boards, that project or that facility could be required to provide fire lanes under the authority of the fire marshall through the uniform
fire code. However, if there's a project which has gone before the board and has a approved site plan with or without fire links, the moment that there is an approved site plan, the fire code has additional language which prohibits the fire
marshall from making a determination with which conflicts with the previously approved site plan >> and it certainly wouldn't be the recommendation of a fellow like Mr. to
with regard to a fire >> as the as you've heard the testimony that the resolution >> correct >> the engineer >> Mr. Kramer made a recommendation >> correct >> what authority would you have to do that in 2012
if you know if you don't know why >> I'm gonna try to answer it oh no Okay. So, I' just been informed that in addition to the position he held as the burrow engineer, he was also a first responder. So, I'm guessing he had some
sort of awareness or responder credentials, not fire credentials. >> Yeah. So, I I don't know. I'm just Okay. Something was whispered in my ear and I'm passing along. I don't want you to think I'm >> He wants to be sworn to take his testimony. >> Okay. >> Other than that, >> I didn't want you to think he was
telling me what to say to you. I just if he was, you'd be foolish. >> Okay. No, I mean it's your testimony. It's your sworn testimony. Correct. >> So, I'm asking you as to whether or not I'm trying to get to the nut of what I
think is the issue. Okay. Whether or not >> where are you reading from? >> So, this is the Department of Community Affairs Bulletin 97-1. It was issued October 1997. The subject is fire safety and prior
approvals for development. This document, this is a two-page document. This was provided to us one page in the uh in the Oprah that was furnished by the municipality. So, I trust that the municipality has it since
they furnished it uh to us. >> We marked that. I apologize. We marked that as >> mark it as 01. So, did you >> Did you bring an extra copy for me, sir? >> Sure. >> Do you have an extra copy for me?
>> And I apologize for that. >> We'll make sure that we can copy. >> Yeah. Otherwise, I I can't really consider it. >> Gentlemen, you want to examine it for a period of time? >> Well, you do. We'll give it to you. Well, >> why don't we see where he's gone?
>> Yeah. We see where we are first. I just since we marked this exhibit taken from you. >> Okay. 0 01 >> 01 parts. >> Yeah. >> Uh so the question uh has to potentially
delegation. These boards are local agencies with the primary authority to ensure that land development proposals adequately address fire safety issues other than those involving the buildings themselves. The fire safety of any building associated with the development is of course
covered by the uniform construction code and is the responsibility of the construction and subcode officials of the municipality. Most boards make it a regular practice to consult with the affected fire department in order to have the benefit of their expertise when reviewing application. But it is the
board which establishes the actual requirements for a project by applying governing ordinances and standards as well as their own good judgment. What is required of a particular project is set forth in the approved subdivision and/or site plan and the resolution of the
board which approves it. The municipal engineer is the responsible authority to ensure compliance with the plans and/or resolutions. These are the governing requirements for site plan development of the project. I believe that answered the engine copy.
>> That's a different document we're going to get to. Can >> Can you just reread the part where it says that the board establishes the rules but with consultation of the governing requirements and standards? >> Sure. I'm reading right here. You just want to shadow and make sure I'm most boards make it a regular practice to
consult with the effective fire department in order to have the benefit of their expertise when reviewing applications. But it is the board which establishes the actual requirements for a project. >> And I want you to pause for a second and give that >> there. >> Okay. Well, I want you to highlight the
next words because I I think we might be trying to like downplay these. >> Okay. Um by applying governing ordinances and standards, comma, as well as their own good judgment. What is required of a particular project is set forth in the approved subdivision and/or
site plans and the resolution of the board which approves it. Is that good or >> it's fine? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Am I allowed to ask questions? >> Actually, I'd like to answer his first. >> I'm sure I had a question. I didn't
>> I don't know if I'm really loud >> at this point. Am I bossing or >> I would I would allow him to do this examination first. You have questions later after the cross examination unlike what's happened this evening. I like to
have direct testing on the go first have crossexamination. I apologize. Okay. Continuing I'm on page two of that document. You want to shadow along just to >> Sure. It should be noted that the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code authorizes the
fire official to designate fire lanes for existing installations. Fire lanes for new construction, if required, should be designated on the plans approved by the planning or zoning board. All provisions of the UFC, it's an abbreviation for uniform fire code,
apply to existing properties and are not applicable to projects under development. what what's new construction? >> So, in the context of the document, they're speaking to things that go before the courts. If you if you read the document in full, you'll notice that
they don't address change of use as a differentiation between a new out of the ground building and an existing structure that has changed from one thing to another. In the context of the document, just like in the uniform fire code, it applies to existing buildings,
buildings that have already received their certificate of occupancy. So in this case, I know council is trying to latch on to that existing. >> Don't anticipate what he's doing. Just provide your testimony. >> Okay. So
there may be some question or concern in the minds of the board and people present that the phrase authorize the fire official to designate fire lanes for existing installations would somehow mean that this is an existing installation because it was not
a new construction building when it was built. That's some nuance in the document. If you read the entire bulletin front to back, you'll understand better that they are using new construction in what refers to uniform construction code projects
versus an existing building, which would be the building that is present and has not ever had the benefit of a board resolution or a board approved site plan. >> But it does. >> That's what was granted in 2009.
>> Is there another question for the whippers? >> Sorry. I'm I understand I I didn't hear your question. >> I didn't say husband. >> So talk to yourself. >> I'm going to continue just going with direct. >> Well, let him ask you a question as
opposed to you just testifying in the narrative. What was the next question? Mr. President, >> I I listened to the testimony as you read. Is there anything in this uh these articles are put out by the state that deal directly with the question before
this board as to whether or not uh on this particular site plan an 18 ft uh fire lane was permitted. So there's been an extensive amount of discussion, most of it incorrect tonight about which
code, which dimension, what applies now versus what may or may not have applied in 2005. The important distinction here is the provisions of the uniform fire code both in 2005 and 2026
are not applicable to a fire lane created by a planning or zoning board to an approved site plan. The board, as that section says, establishes the actual requirements for a project by applying governing
ordinances and standards as well as their own judgment. Notice it doesn't say that the board applies the uniform fire code. If the intent was that the board would make sure that the fire lanes comply with the uniform fire code, it would have said so. In reality, a
board can establish any fire lane. In my prior experience, I established fire lanes that were three feet wide. >> Was there a building on the other side of it? Was it 3 ft between two buildings? >> No, sir. It was not. Would you like me to explain? >> Yeah, explain.
>> So, the discharge out of a building leads to a public way. That is a code requirement. having a walkway coming out of a building that approaches a parking lot. It is very bad practice to put a parking space right there because the
people filing out of the building on the walkway will run square into the front of a car and have to begin to diverge and move around that car. That's problematic for people that need a hard surface to roll a wheelchair or a walker and then you can't navigate that around
the car. So, I would establish three- foot wide fire lanes at the termination of those exit walkways to get them safely into the main aisle where they would have plenty of width to go. The creation of a fire lane at 3T, 69, 32,
54, whatever width it is, is the discretion of the board. >> The board does not apply the uniform fire code. The board is not enforcing the uniform fire code. Chances are before tonight, most of the board has not even seen the uniform fire code,
whether it be present day version or the code that was actually in effect in 2005 when that board when the resolution was put forth in the site plan created. The code that was in effect in 2005 was
actually the 1996 edition. Okay, this 2006 uh edition of the fire code which Mr. Holy references in his email. He said he checked back from the current 2018 to the 2015 and into the 2006. Well, the
2006 edition was not effective until January of 2009, meaning it would have had no bearing and no influence. Second was the concept offered that the building has to comply now or the
site has to comply now because the codes have changed. Okay, I'm going to read to you in a moment where the statute specifically says the opposite. But before I do, just contemplate if on January 20th, 2009, when the 2006
fire code went into effect, that's when it changed from 18 to 20 ft in this document. Okay? If that was true, if that premise that they put forth tonight was true, that would mean that everywhere in the state of New Jersey, any fire lane which existed on Jan in
January 2009 that was not 20 ft wide would suddenly have to be expanded to comply with the code that they're saying tonight has jurisdiction. That doesn't work for a lot of logistical reasons and
that stands contrary to New Jersey Administrative Code Title 5 chapter 70 subchapter 3.1 C code adopted scope and applicability subp part D. This chapter establishes fire prevention
requirements governing the safe maintenance of all buildings and premises subject to this code. It is not the intent of this subchapter, the state fire prevention code, to require the installation or upgrading of any system, equipment or building component not already required by New Jersey
administrative code 5 call in 70 subchapter 4 or by the uniform construction code in effect the time of construction of the building or at the time of installation of any system, equipment or building component. This subchapter shall not be cited as the
basis for any retrofit requirement. >> Is that for like sprinklers and things like that or areas of refuge? >> Am I done? Am I direct or want me just answer real quick? He asked a question. >> I mean, I can hold it.
>> Yeah. So, I I I get what you're asking. This subchapter, meaning anything in subchapter 3, which is the entirety of the 2018 International Fire Code, New Jersey edition, what you've been referring to tonight as the New Jersey
fire code is actually one subchapter in the entire uniform fire code. So when you go into the international fire code and you open it to chapter five to read to read what Mr. Molly has cited as the
20ft law. You're in subchapter 3. The premise is you are trying to retroactively apply chapter 5's fire lane requirements to an existing installation that had a had a board approval prior to the adoption of the
international fire code. Beyond that, the international fire code contains the a provision in this was added by New Jersey. This is not in the model edition fire code. This
is a New Jersey modification in 503.1.1 proposed fire loans shall not conflict with prior approvals issued by the planning and/or zoning board. Were you saying that a planning board can never revisit the decision of a prior planning board?
>> I did not use any of those words. >> However, since you raised the point, what I will say is that nowhere >> that that this planning board could revisit and decide what should be appropriate for a fire lane in that
area. >> So, any board has >> no that's a yes or no. >> Could you repeat the question? Are you saying this planning >> Mhm. >> does not have the jurisdiction to revisit
the fire lane issue on this property >> at the applicant's request. >> The uniform fire code does not me. >> I'm trying to ask about the planning. >> Okay. The planning board does not enforce the uniform fire code. you know
from fire code does not require the planning board to take any certain actions. >> But you said you said at the start though that the planning board has the authority to to designate in its own best judgment where it thinks a fire
should be or if a fire should be included on a certain property. And so theoretically you would that would also mean that same planning board could then reconsider
that ruling in a prior resolution. That's the question that's being asked >> under governing regulations and standards and in their good judgment >> and and in their good judgment. That's exactly what the bulletin says. >> May I make a comment on the question? >> Isn't that what we're doing tonight? >> No, I'm I asked a very specific
question. >> Yeah, I think I got an answer. >> Yeah. after a class. Let me ask you now, Mr. did you did you have occasion to read the resolution of approval of the board back in was it 2005? >> Yes.
>> Uh at that particular time, did the board in its resolution set forth a specific width in the resolution itself of the proposed fire?
>> We're not interested in the width right now. What we're asking is what we're asking is he he your your expert testified at the very beginning of his of his testimony that the planning board that one avenue for the creation of a
fire lane is for a planning board of adjustment to create that fire lane as part of the resolution. What we're asking now is is I it would theoretically follow from that that if an application then came before the
board again that the board would then have the authority to either make the same resolution or reconsider the resolution in light of new circumstances, new information, new facts and and come up with a different conclusion. But there's been no
testimony by the applicant that a fire lane is not necessary. >> It does. But we have but the the authority rests with the planning board. >> Pardon me. >> One one avenue that he he says that the authority rests with the planning board
to reconsider this. >> Why don't you create the issue? >> I apologize. the issue that we've been dealing with thus far and their argument was that because the fire lane was not 20 feet that is now required the fire
lane that was 18 ft is is is void and and of no consequence. Now that may be I mean for example we're talking about >> that's not that's not no I I I mean that
I disagree. So you can disagree. >> I think we we've also heard that there's there's adequate fire protection based on the water being on the street and river road and also an easement behind. I mean on onetory building where you don't require a ladder. My understanding is that we have a solution for
>> yeah in 2005 it was the board engineer who said >> we understand we understand look look it's it's well covered territory because you keep repeating it that the board created the spiraling in a resolution
and so what I'm saying now is based on the document with which your expert is reading from it would follow from that from that logic that the board could then reconsider that in its own best judgment for what is is can and be
considered and decide that that that resolution, you know, needs to be revisited or needs to be >> revoked. But there's and I'm not sure I'm not trying to talk over you, believe it. I apologize if you think I am, but
there's been no testimony to the effect that there is some alternative fire lane that could be utilized and thus the fire lane required in the resolution of approval uh can be voided and you know it may very well be at some
point in time a court will make that decision but that's our position. So what can you get into that? Uh >> so all right there was a question about the the dimensions if they were in the resolution or something to that effect. Uh condition four simply says complying
with the recommendations of the planning board engineer as set forth in his letter of June 14th 2005 identifying the aisle way between lots four and five as a no parking fire lane. So the resolution did not contain a dimension.
It simply described the aisleway between two lots. Um later underlying premise writing you have the writing from Mr. >> What the underlying premise what that I'm reading the >> no you have a letter from the B of
engineers recommending that was that was referred to in the resolution. >> Yes. So that's uh believe we have that that was the June 17th, 2005 letter that was already introduced in evidence uh by the applicants. >> Just asking if you have
>> I can go get it's on my computer if you if you need me to refer to it. >> Someone had it that you could give it to me underlying letter. I have the resolution. >> I think I might have given a copy to Mr. Gasowski. It's not >> if you get into this.
>> I'm I'm trying to >> I know. I'm >> Ron. I think I gave you a copy of it. What? >> Dave Kramer letter. >> Why? >> The Dave Kramer letter. It was exhibit uh N.
>> You don't you don't have it. >> I gave you just now >> like when we were going over when it got introduced as Leven. Well, I mean, if you don't have a copy, >> I gave you one. If I give you mine, then I'm without >> I'm not going to take it. I just want to You want to just look through your back
real quick? >> I don't know. >> Got it. this >> brandmer original letter which is dated January 11th, 2005. I >> believe there's a reference to two letters in the resolution. Is it not?
>> I'm just uh you can borrow my copy. It's the June 14th, 2005. Mr. Gastra House already has the June 14. Hold on. In the whereas clause it says whereas the planning board has carefully reviewed the plans and further received
from your engineer David A. Lir see postfulness advice and recommendation pertaining there to as noted in his correspondence of March 8, 2005
and June 14, 2005 have the June 14th one. It's been marked in as N. Um I think I haven't compared the two recently but I think the update was to put statuses underneath all the open conditions.
>> I'll accept that recommendation. You read the portion Mr. Pender's report when it says it says subject to the fire official. >> Correct. And I would I would offer that
>> just I'm just asking you to read that within the record so you can make sure the record is clear. >> 1 point 1.3 is what you're talking on that letter. >> We'll have the letter. Yeah, we'll leave that. >> The dimension between the existing structure on lot five and that on lot
four to the west is approximately 18 ft according to the plan submitted. I defer to the burough fire official to confirm that this dimension is suitable for emergency vehicle access. However, at a minimum is recommended this aisle way between the structures be delineated and marked as a no parking fire lane. And
then the status update was the plans have been revised to contain fire lane parking pavement markings in the alleyway. No further action required. >> Does it indicate that he confirmed the fire official anywhere in those reviews? Not that I saw.
>> Did you see any review from a fire official in the fire? >> There was none provided in the Oprah where we requested that. >> Rest of your knowledge. That doesn't mean >> to the best of your knowledge. >> I'm going to answer it then you can tell
me I'm wrong or whatever. But um >> do you have personal knowledge that there was back? No. No. I'm going to read about the fire code official. Let me ask you about that. The document isn't going to tell you if the fire code official and fair exact. >> Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna offer that
sections that this is very straightforward. >> I appreciate that you think it is. >> No, no, you can you can cross-examine it. You get to what you want to. >> Okay. >> My question to you is do you to your knowledge >> I was not here in 2005. >> I understand.
>> Okay. You're anticipating something I'm not going to answer. >> All right. Well, I'm I'm still in direct mode trying to remember what I was last talking about. We'll suffer through it. >> Okay. Well, we all have. >> We have so far. >> All right. Fair enough. >> Okay. >> I'll slow down. I'm sorry. >> That's right.
>> I'm not as smart as you on this stuff, so I got to go slow. >> I'll go slow. Don't worry. >> To your knowledge, the Fair Haven Fire code official make any recommendations back to the engineer? >> I have seen no evidence of that.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to try not to interrupt you. >> Okay. You remember where you were on direct? >> I know what I'd like to say next. I'm not sure that that's what everybody
wants to hear. >> You got to wait for a question in front of you. >> Okay. >> So, you ask you whisper into your attorney's ear. >> Ask me. Ask me that. Ask me about those two things right there in the resolution.
>> So why why did the fire official if he didn't agree why didn't he challenge the resolution say hey I never approved. Well, >> maybe in the in the resolution, >> maybe he said, "You don't need a fire lane." >> Why? >> Maybe he said, "I don't agree with you,
engineer." Maybe he said a variety of things. You don't have it in your record. >> You look respectful. You have a resolution. You have the letter from Kramer saying there must be a filing there. And in the resolution, they said
>> have subject to the fire code officials thoughts, but at a minimum. And then he goes forth. Now your guy wants to tell us something. >> If you're saying that 20 years ago or whatever it may be, he didn't approve it. We lo some place some time.
>> I'm I'm looking at what's in front of us. Let me explain to you what's informed at this time that it doesn't that it doesn't appear. I mean, do you have a letter of compliance? Do you have a letter of something along those lines? You have something that says it was put
in. I know you have a document that you say scratch there usually with regard to your edification usually you have a compliance >> but but let's assume for the sake of argument that >> and for the sake but for the sake of argument the guy's going to get there
but at the end of the day I don't have anything that ever said that this was other other than planning board wants this done wants you to follow the recommendation the recommendation is subject to fire code official fire code official we haven't heard from and it
doesn't exist today and every approval for the licensing of that area going back to 2008 has allowed for the outdoor cafe to occur subject to then some >> but but the site plan was changed the
site plan itself was changed to reflect on there what the resolution >> required >> I understand but there's but but there's a compliance ISS issue as to whether or not it was done and then your history from there is because the planning board wanted
>> didn't occur and then it didn't occur and you've got an area now that's been in existence from No, hear me out. I'm not I'm not I'm not informed of your examination of the witness from this point out it doesn't appear to have ever
been placed there and in fact mayor and council which I'm assuming have to be charged with knowledge of their own ordinances variances and all these actions have approved this subject not only to number of tables number of
chairs number of patrons but also in the back of their minds Someone said at some point in time in case of an emergency you can move the planters. >> Remove what? >> The planters. So it wasn't something out of their
minds. >> Let me say something respect. >> So now but let me finish. So now from the planning board having said this and from everything I can see the planning board can revisit that and determine whether or not something
should be there in its place whether nothing should be in there in its place. Now your witness wants to tell me something >> there not I want to I want to By the way you know how much I respect your knowledge. >> Well yeah but it's it's you know it's getting on close to midnight. We all say
things at this point. >> One question in the bar late at night. >> First of all, the the the issue of the applicant prior to this conversation here was that not that there was not a necessary fire lane, but that this fire
lane was deficient because it wasn't 20 ft width, but rather it was only 18 ft. >> I have to finish it because they finished. So well let's assume for the sake of argument
that my position with regard to that is correct that they approved a barling that was 18 ft wide and under the regulation is still valid. Now the next question is can this board
based upon testimony from the applicant say that a filing there is not necessary. Do you have the power to do that? I I think that's a question. >> That's a question and we haven't heard
that portion yet in this hearing because the board eventually is going to talk to his professionals and examine them. >> Well, does the board have testimony from the applicant where the kid is testifying through an expert who's
testifying that given all of the circumstances, a fire lane is not necessary? We haven't heard that. He he would do that in his closing argument to point to all those little landmarks he's made during the course of his testimony as to why that's justified. I don't
expect him to do that at this point, just like I don't expect you to tell me here's why it shouldn't happen. >> Can I read one to you to the record be my expert about the wis could you read this please? So, so we're reading from
the 1996 edition of the state fire prevention code which was sub chapter 3 of the uniform fire code. Wait a second. Wait, I want to I want to get respect. I want to get the attention of the board. I think this is important. Would you would you read it slowly, please? >> Sure.
>> So, I'm reading from section F311 which is entitled fire lanes in the 1996 fire code. >> Say again. F311. F-311.0 is the section fire lanes 311.1 designation. The fire official may
require and designate public or private fire lanes as deemed necessary for the efficient and effective operation of fire apparatus. Fire lanes shall have a minimum width of 18 ft 5,486 mm.
311.1.2 2 prior approval. Proposed fire lanes shall not conflict with prior approvals issued by the planning and/or zoning boards. 311.2 obstructions. Designated fire lanes shall be maintained free of obstructions and vehicles and shall be
identified in an approved manner. 311.3 It's the last section. Maintenance. All designated fire lane signs or markings shall be maintained in a clear and legible condition at all times and replaced when necessary to ensure adequate visibility.
That was that's the full extent of the fire lane section of the uniform fire code at the time the application was heard in 2005 until 2009 when this code was superseded by the next edition which
would have been the 2006 fire code. Now >> can I follow up on that? Let's assume just for the sake of argument that on an adjacent parcel >> there's a project which is built which has fire access that is comparable to or
better than the fire access set forth in that resolution. Do I think that the board has jurisdiction to say you know what this fire lane is no longer necessary because we have one next door. Do I think you have jurisdiction to act
upon that? Yes, I do. But that's not the case here. >> Just the question answer in this. >> I'm sorry. >> Is there a question answer session? Like are we supposed to be is there supposed to be Q&A? Are we supposed to be >> I thought I was given direct testimony,
but we've moved on apparently from that. >> Just let go. Um, it seems it seems like it's Yeah, we know the testimony. >> Okay, >> let's mark these all into evidence. So,
they're before the they have >> I have 01. If that's the bulletin 971 document 02, not 02, 02 code
02 is the 96 code that I just read from. And what will be 03 is a yet to be discussed memo from the state fire marshall to local fire code officials. Date on that.
>> Yes. I'm sorry. Go through the date. >> 03 date on that. >> I excuse me. >> You don't know because you handed it off. >> Believe it was 2002 but I'm sorry 2020. 03 is June 15, 2020.
>> Yeah. And that's the memo from the state fire marshall to local jurisdiction fire uh fire officials on handling outdoor dining. The relevant passage, you might not be able to see the highlight, but the relevant passage on
access is in the middle of the page. back. >> I will if I take them now. Is that all right? >> Right now. Can you believe he's with me this evening? I'll leave I'll leave it with you. I just, you know, thank you.
Back to the resolution under the conditions section of the resolution which is the second part if you will points 16 and 17. 16 is the approval of the burough fire official. 17 is the approval from the building official for the Burough Fair
Haven that the renovations proposed with regard to the existing building in accordance with the applicable codes. as to the do we know what happened discussion. What I do know is that the building eventually received a certificate of occupancy and went into operation
sometime 2006 maybe 2007. We're not clear, but it got a certificate of occupancy, which would mean that under the bulletin, the burough engineer as the responsible authority verified that the the site the approved site plan
and resolution of the board, the terms were met just like I'm sure that somebody verified that the building official was okay with the work that had been done in the building. So, do I have firsthand documents? No. But I have the facts of the case which are the two
approvals required in the conditions of the resolution from two different municipal officials evidently were met because the bur the burough engineer is required under the bulletin to issue that final sign off to lead to a certificate of occupancy and
no one has disputed that they are operating under a certificate of occupancy since 2006 2007. >> No. And but for your client, >> I'm sorry. >> No one. And but for your client, there's no one claiming that they didn't comply with the resolution.
>> Okay. The same the same premise follows from there. >> Yeah. Because the resolution presupposes everything was done. Well, I would offer that the resolution may presuppose that everything was done,
but the the final approval to issue a certificate of occupancy is dependent upon a sign off from a burough engineer that the conditions of the resolution were met. Just the same as when the resolution says for, for example, plant
15 arbor vites along the east side of the property. The building officials, the fire officials don't go out and count the trees. The burough engineer handles that and issues a closeout letter or a closeout document to the construction department that says, "Hey,
the resolution requirements or the conditions of the resolution were all met. I recommend the issuance of the certificate or you decided to make these modifications and require you to unless you tell me otherwise, I'm going to sign off."
>> Sure. That would have been in the minutes of a subsequent meeting, I presume. Right. >> It was an internal not if it was internal compliance from I I would just I'm going to suggest to you stick with the fire. Not not
planning something. >> What other terms of the resolution wouldn't been met? Then it seems that if there's a resolution as a legal document that was not challenged, it carries forward. >> I'm going to object to I would suggest you
>> unless you have direct evidence of that. >> Okay. >> You're not a licensed professional planner, you're not an attorney, are you? >> No, but I am a licensed construction code official in the state of New Jersey and under that lensure, I would be the person to sign the certificate of occupancy. However, I couldn't do that
until all prior approvals had been met and that never happened. >> I'm sorry. >> Talking to myself. >> Oh, okay. So absent the sign off for that prior approval, there would not be the issuance of certificate of occupancy. That's plain language in the
construction code, something I am licensed to enforce. >> So here we are today. >> You're not done. >> Okay. All right. >> Yep. >> So the establishment of a fire lane on private property is not exclusively
based on the ability of the fire apparatus to drive or park on it. In fact, the section of the fire code that has been so widely talked about tonight says that fire lanes are quote necessary for the efficient and effective operations of fire apparatus access to building openings by firefighters or
egressive occupants. This follows in concert with the outdoor dining memo from the state fire marshall where they specifically discussed that site plans including property location, occupant capacity, activities and layout varied
from establishment to establishment. Mr. Below are guidelines to assist local officials in ensuring uniform and consistent enforcement of the fire code. This is not an all-inclusive list, but common items are listed. Fire department access. Access for fire department vehicles must be maintained. This
includes street and parking lot access. >> I'm reading from 03. >> Yes, sir. I am 03. >> Yeah. Uh, fire department access, including aerial apparatus, must be able to reach surrounding buildings. Barriers blocking streets and lots must be easily
movable so apparatus may enter. Tents are not permitted to be set up in designated fire lanes. So that's the guidance that was issued to help channel how outdoor outdoor dining was added to
existing facilities. The key passage being that they how was outdoor dining defined in DC. So, it's not outdoor defining in the context of the memo refers to the executive order signed by then Governor Murphy permitting restaurants, cafeterias, dining establishments, and
food courts with or without a liquor license bars and all other holders of liquor license with retail consumption privileges collectively referred to as food or beverage establishments to offer in-person service at outdoor seating areas effective June 15, 2020.
So, that's the context of the memo. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And you're relating that to this application? >> I'm relating to the fact that outdoor dining as a term, a catch all term used in this memo specifically addresses what
the Burough Fair Haven calls a cafe or some towns call a sidewalk license. You can call it what you want, but the description evidently captures the essence of what's happening. >> That's your That's my testimony. And there's no there's no evidence to
the contrary of that here. >> Well, there is no phone numbers. That's >> all my testimony. What? >> I I might have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you were wrapping up, but that was your testimony. >> No, no. I'm on page three of 11.
Uh so these provisions clearly establish that that fire lanes are not just about parking the fire apparatus but providing a safe environment for patrons occupants of adjoining buildings and fire responders. >> Egress kind of situation. >> I'm sorry
>> like providing safe egress. It's kind of one one of the things you're referencing there or is >> well it says safe environment for patrons. So we have to look at it in the totality and that is I have to be able to safely get people out of the enclosed structure that can't be encroached or restrained encumbered by what is being
proposed with the outdoor dining and the outdoor dining people still have to be afforded a passage away from the building because the area of danger to generally it's considered the public way so either the sidewalk or the street. >> Yeah. I'm thinking about like in an
emergency and I'm looking at this photo here with the wires. >> Yes. you know, you have if anybody's eating outdoors, they have two ways to escape. They have the the north and the south. >> Um, and if any sort of emergency response vehicle was pulled into that
area and then the tables and planters were moved and a wire was knocked down, um, looks like it would fall right in front of the the door to the building. So, I I I feel like it's like if you if you want this designated a firing, like
you're creating a hazard condition with with the wires and if the truck >> is pulled into a 16 or 18 foot space, can that even open? Can they access the equipment either side? I >> I'll I'll jump ahead to that because
that was the that was the last part of where we were going, but So, my testimony notes actually closely mimic the testimony provided um by Let me second one of the
cross-examinations, I believe it was Mr. city. The architect, he spoke to this um sometimes building codes require this open space or additional space in exchange for uh getting an addition,
things like that. What Mr. Recidi is describing is a frontage increase or an open perimeter increase under the building code. And we don't have time to go into what that means, but it has absolutely no application to this project because this never was an IDC
uh regulated project. This was a rehabilitation sub code project in 2005. And if nothing's changed going forward, the provisions of the International Building Code for open frontage increases and open perimeter doesn't apply. Point one. Point two, if you
provide open frontage or open perimeter to achieve an increase, it doesn't have to be paved. It has to be at least 20 foot of minimum width, but it could be trees, woods, creek, mud. It's strictly about establishing an open space as a
version of a fire break. Whether or not you can get a truck into it is absolutely immaterial to discussion. Okay. Biomatically speaking, it's my understanding that the Burough Fair Haven does not own or operate its
own aerial apparatus. That the aerial apparatus comes from a uh either Redbank or uh Rumson as mutual aid, which is fine. The distinction here is you you only have a limited opportunity to
deploy an aerial device. Hoses bend, ladders don't. Okay. So, I agree with the testimony that the fire hydrant on the corner is the closest. I agree that the fire truck is coming from approximately 400 uh
tall as 600 ft from the station to the front of the of the subject property. and the hydrant is along the way in what we call a forward lay. That's where the engine should stay out on River Road. The aerial apparatus would be arriving a few moments later because they're just
simply coming from a larger travel distance. That front parking lot is essentially their optimum position. Even though there's wires, and we've heard testimony about the wires and the clearances. Number one, the clearance rules were not in effect in 2005. The
aerial apparatus doesn't have to park under the wires. Objectively, you put the turntable at the opening to this alleyway because what that gives you the ability to do is to extend the ladder at a low angle horizontally towards the back of
the structure to >> That's a tough one. >> We heard your testimony. >> Let him finish. Let him finish. Come on. Let him finish. >> Yeah. I appreciate that what I'm saying is inconvenient, but it is my testimony and
>> we're listening. I'll listen. Go ahead. So, keep going. Please. >> The availability of the alleyway allows that aerial apparatus to be extended rearward. Okay. We are limited by the length of the aerial apparatus. If you put the aerial out in the street, it will run out of ladder just past the
front wall of the building, making it more or less ineffective. Hoses, they bend and can be extended to fight the fire. Assuming the worst case scenario that the building is just truly on fire front to back, left to right, attacking from the front door and the
back door is problematic. Okay, you're fighting over the long dimension of the building. If you fight from the alley, you're fighting from the windows that are spaced along the entire length of the the depth of the wall and you only have to cover the width to the opposite
wall that is well within the reach of the host stream. And if you deploy that from the aerial ladder or from the aerial bucket depending upon which one you're getting, you're able to keep your apparatus out of that danger area and keep the firefighters off the ground
next to the building. Instead, they're 10 15 feet in the air in the safety of the platform. I believe that was the question. Well, yeah, that but you haven't solved the wires um in that scenario when you're getting the the what you call it the the rotor of the electric turntable.
Like if you're getting to the corner of the building, you would be taking out wires. >> Yeah. So, in the front parking lot, we have the parking space. You pull in, you have the parking spaces, and >> two or three on the right. >> Ideally, you place the turntable
directly in the center of that aisleway. Okay? And because we're going at a low angle, we aren't necessarily encumbered by the wires. They might have to jog it left or right a little bit. If it was me, I would say even back in just to give yourself more ability to work under
the wires. I visited the site. I looked at the wires. They're not great. Okay, I admit that. You know, if there was something better to do, yeah, put the wires, you know, underground would be great, but that's not practical. some big debate here. Bury the wires.
>> Very long talking about burying the wire. >> Well, I'm not. But anyways, yeah, I think um in in a fire would uh you know, if the first >> engine to respond was coming directly from Fair Haven in front of the building. Yep.
>> The second engine to respond by front of the building or on River Road in On River Road in front of the building. Yeah. On on the road. On river as described. And then the second one, um, it seems like with a 20 foot easement, we would have the space we would need to
pull in behind the building to get the turntable and ladder above and behind. And I know you're talking about, you just mentioned like you you don't want to fight from north and south. But if you're fighting from above and below, wouldn't that kind of change that a little bit? >> You wouldn't typically fight above and below at the same time. the the second
apparatus. Okay, the first engine comes to the firehouse, hits the hydrant on the corner here. >> Y >> straight in, they're done. That second apparatus ideally would go to the back unless there was a more pressing issue in the front like spreading to the adjacent buildings, but we'll assume for
right now it's just the just the restaurant. Coming to the back poses a problem because the second closest hydrant is actually in front of the the BP Valero station which while it's 475 ft away is past the incident.
The hydrant that you would have to get if you were going into the back would be the one at Parker off of Cedar. That's 840 ft. >> Cedar Parker. Believe there is actually no hydrant on Cedar closer than Parker, believe it
or not. >> The the two trucks can't plug into the same hydrant. >> So, they generally will not, especially when the front engine will likely have the responsibility to feed the ladder because the ladder could use up to a,000 gallons per minute. The hydrant's probably only going to give you that,
maybe a little bit more. Generally, the sec >> any stand pipe in the Acme shopping closet. Okay. So, a stand pipe, as you refer to it, is used for fighting fires in a multi-story elevated structure. Could you help me understand how that's relevant?
>> I'm just asking if there's any stand pipe in the acne shop. >> Let him finish. So, let him let him finish. >> He's saying he's saying stand pipe. Do you mean fire hydrant? >> Not sure if I'm using. Please, >> just let him go. >> Let him finish his test. >> Yeah. So, it's a little problematic
getting water into the back. Additionally, you have to assume the worst case scenario. You have to assume that the front two parking spaces or the front spaces on both sides are occupied as well as the the legal parking spaces in the back. That creates a bit of a
restriction because to pull an aerial apparatus in, you now have to contend with that reduced width. I've seen some issues with ground bearing concerns in the back. >> Now, we're getting back to the width. Isn't that what we're lacking in the
alleyway? >> I'd like him to keep going. We can ask questions later. Seriously, let's let them go. We can ask our consult our professionals questions at the end. We can clarify, but I feel like >> fair enough. >> Let's let them go.
>> I appreciate the the the further. >> So, in response to the I'm trying to sum up here. >> Let's get those marked. that you were just reading from. >> We did read we have all them >> what you bring up to the board.
>> Well, no, no, he may need to refer to an examination of course with him. Hold on. >> I'm sorry. Maybe cross his hand to it. In the opening statement made by the applicants council, they made the point
that the fire that that the fire lane is not a safe staging area for volunteer firefighters. I'm not sure what the volunteer aspect had to do with it. They cited that the international fire codes clear with and clear height requirements were not met. I believe we've already dispelled with how the international
fire code does not apply to the establishment of the fire lane in 2005 under the board's jurisdiction. um making the area uh at odds with good safety practices because it would lure responders into a non-compliant area and
prohibit parking a truck. If we're going to believe all of that, what we're saying then is that a five-yard setback, I'm sorry, a 5-ft setback in a yard between two houses or two buildings is
simply unsafe because if the code says 20 and we're only providing 16, maybe 18, depends how you want to measure things. If it's not 20, it's not safe. And anything less than 20 would be to lure firefighters into an unsafe environment. That's just simply not
true. 20 feet could be dangerous. Depends what's happening. But given the opportunity to have open space, earmarked, reserved, and unencumbered is the advantage to firefighting. I I categorically disagree that if you
don't give them 20 or more feet, you're lure you're luring them into an unsafe operating condition. There are plenty of spaces adjacent to buildings, commercial, multif family, and residential in the town that are less than 20 ft. And the fire department would freely operate on them because
that's the only space they have. All right. Fire zones are intended to be immediately available, directly accessible, and incumbrance-free at all times under all weather conditions to support any manner of firefighting dictated by the unfolding facts and
conditions of the emergency. It is flawed to make a blanket assumption about firefighting activities using strictly theoretical scenarios as we know that practical experience rarely matches expectation. It is poor community fire protection planning to compromise an existing fire protection
feature as the fire itself will already be unplanned and unpredictable enough. Nothing we do here today should hamstring tomorrow's fire ground effectiveness and force first responders to first overcome poor planning decisions. The benchmark of wellplanned
community fire pro protection is that all protective features and measures are taken from a best interest of the community standpoint as the guiding principle and not the narrow mindset. It can't or won't happen here. >> That's it.
>> I think so. Thank you. >> Have any questions? >> No. >> That was very Thank you. Thank you. That was very uh >> appreciate. >> Um what are fire trucks made of?
>> I'm thinking not because I don't know, but if I say they're made of steel and you say they're made of aluminum, are we going to have a existential debate? I don't think we're going to get down to alloys or their complex scientific things. Are they made of some type of metal? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> What are their ladders made of? >> Metallic, metal, alum, steel, aluminum, depends. >> Is there any scientific reason why you would avoid putting a metal truck or a metal ladder near a power line?
Put it near it. What's near? >> I think we're playing a game now. >> No, we're not. Because there's an actual statute that I know that I don't think you do about how far you can safely operate from energized power lines. >> How far can you safely operate from
energized power lines? >> 10 feet. Oh, sure. >> Okay. So, we've got a >> energized power lines, not telephone. Telephone's not included in that. >> All right. We have a 9 foot high electrical service that attaches to the
front of your client's building. Do you agree? >> That's what the testimony I heard was. >> Do you have any reason to uh doubt that testimony? >> No. >> Uh do you know how many feet the um the front setback is for your client's
building or mine? >> From the property line or from the sidewalk? >> Let's do the property line first. I I do not know the property line setback. >> Okay, good. So my de my my measurements were based
on the center line of River Road hypothesizing or supposing that's where the fire engine would park and then the length of hose pull from the center line of River Road to the front of the building taking the first 100 ft of hose line leaving the second 100 ft of their
200t hose line to get them either through the front door all the way out the back or down the side to cover any length of the side front to back. So, if I told you that the building was set back 25 ft from the uh front
property line, um that's our building and yours and that that wire attaches to the front of your building and it goes on a diagonal right across the property. >> I've seen it. >> You have to keep 10 ft of clearance from it. Would you would you put a truck or a
ladder underneath that that p that power >> wash that'll try that wire all the time? >> I'm not opposed to trying it. >> Would you um be so confident in your assessment that you would risk the lives of a volunteer firefighter here in Fair
Haven? >> Would you repeat that question, please? Is the witness's degree of confidence in the testimony sufficient to uh wager the life of a volunteer firefighter here in Fair Haven? >> I'm going to object to the question on
the on the on the premise that my testimony intentionally endangers firefighters. As a firefighter of 25 years, trained to be a company officer, the supposition that I would say something, let alone do something that would knowingly place a
firefighter in risk beyond the risk of simply responding to the fire is unfair. That's like saying, you know, would you would you not defend somebody if you knew they were guilty? >> So, you uh you previously testified that a fire is sort of an emergent scenario.
things are happening really quickly and it's nice to be able to just see that fire lane and go for it, right? Is that your testimony? >> I don't believe I used any of those words. >> Is that the general gist of your testimony? >> No. My gist of the my gist of my testimony was that the fire lane needs
to be immediately available and unencumbered. That doesn't mean I'm going to charge into it at 60 m an hour. Does unencumbered mean unencumbered from aerial obstructions like tower lines, >> the lane or the airspace?
You have you have no basis to apply a rule that doesn't apply to the situation. >> If you have to keep 10 ft of clear width to it, how could you get a fire truck under a 9 foot tall power line?
the apparatus can pass under because it's not 9 ft. The ladder is not at the building at 9 ft. The ladder is in the parking space and the wire sits at a at an incline. I believe the testimony was
13 uh 15 foot of vertical clearance at the high side. >> How um how long are these ladders on an aerial? It depends. Uh the Burrow of um the B of Redbank has two different aerial ladders that are between 100 and
110 foot of measured length and I do not know what the Rumson area is. I'm going to presume it's a anywhere between 90 and 100 foot. So if we're 25 ft front property line with maybe some additional call it 5T
thereafter, how is it that you couldn't use the aerial from the roadway to access the roof without coming into contact with the wires? >> Uh speaking of wires, have you noticed the wires that run parallel to the curb on River Road on that side of the
street? So that positioning in the street is ineffective because those wires are much higher and in order to reach the roof you would have to run the aerial full distance full extension at a high angle literally placing it against
those high lines in the roadway or parallel to the roadway. >> So you don't want to get near those wires but you want to get near the wires by the eye. You have to keep 10 foot of distance from energized electrical wires. >> I think we need to keep the testimony going here. We we I understand your
question. I understand your objection. I understand and I understand your objection force objection and so but >> was there any um clear height standard in 2005 under the um international fire code?
>> No. In fact, the section that you read over my shoulder was designation, conflict, maintenance, and more. >> Just keep it to the question because it's very late. These people are all authors. So, there was no uh clear height requirement in 2005. Is there now
a clear height requirement? >> The international fire code starting in 2006 edition, which was effective in 2009, has the 13 foot6 clear height requirement. Sure. >> A change in the code from 2005 to
present. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Um you think that's a change in the code that the board can and should take into account when they formulate their judgment as to where the appropriate place for any kind of firefighting apparatus would be? >> I think we can all agree that the site
is constrained by a number of factors. The wires parallel to River Road, the wires that run from the pole to either building are essentially permanent constraints as well as the fact that the buildings are the subject building is tight to one
property line on the left and has this alleyway on the right. My position is that nothing would change because we'd be further reducing what little opportunity there is to effectively operate at that building. The wires aren't great, but having a
fire lane is. >> Okay. You previously testified that the ideal location for marshalling the fire apparatus as far as a aerial would be the rear of the building. Is that right? >> I never made that testimony. My testimony was that the aerial coming
from either Mutual Lane Town would position in the front parking lot off River Road. There was an there was a question asked about coming in off of the back. >> I thought you said that that would be the ideal location unless there was an exigent circumstance where the fire was
spreading from the front of the building to the neighboring. >> No, that was the second qu that was the question about the second engine and whether or not the closer hydrant at Valero versus the one at Cedar and Popler >> Parker
>> Parker. So, if you're going to the back of the building, you will be taking longer dropping about 800 feet of hose because the hydrant that is servicing the back of the building is at Parker, unless the
situation dictated that you put a second engine in the front immediately, likely because a second building is involved, either the building the office building to the left or the the gift store to the right, in which case the hydrant at Valero
becomes the the goal. >> Um, I'm still having a little bit of a hard time understanding how the truck gets positioned in the front parking lot. Are you saying that some portion of the truck ends up in this alleyway? >> No. No. You position the truck in the
front in the driving space of the front parking lot. Okay. We have to assume that there's cars present on both sides. Whether it's backed in or pulled in depends on which vehicle they bring. the rear mount or the mid mount. You ideally want to get the get the turntable.
Doesn't matter if it's the front or the back. The turntable is the point at which the ladder will deploy from. You want to get that as close to the center line of the alley so that you can run that full depth of the building and and reach it with the the length of
the ladder. >> The ladder go over or under the wire. >> It depends on what your evolution is. If you are fighting the well-involved fire coming out the roof, you likely are going to be up high spraying down low. If they opt for it, they can run
horizontal at a low elevation, maybe only 6, 8 feet off the ground, straight back or as close to straight back in the alley, so that they can deploy the hose, the the stream of the gun into those windows along the right side alley of
the building, the picture windows. >> If the if the apparatus isn't ending up in the alleyway, why is it important that the alleyway remains stripe full with Nobody has proposed anything less than the 16 foot width. >> You said you approve all the time
three-foot or less. >> I do and I explain the situation for that. I don't think three-foot is what we're talking about here. My point of the three-foot was that as a board reviewed project, the board can accept the recommendations of the fire marshall. And if I only said I need a
three-foot fire lane, there's no reason necessarily that the board would go, well, 20 is what the fire code says, so we'll just give you a 20 and knock out two parking spaces. >> Is the board free to revisit anything that happened in 2005 regarding the installation of a fire lane in the
alleyway? >> I believe when I tried to discuss that earlier and he told me to stay in my lane and not discuss such things. >> That's what you thought you heard? Pretty sure that's what I heard. Stay in my lane. Stay away from the resolution.
Right. >> Are they okay? Are they will pay for itself? >> Are are they I'll just say it a little bit more simply. Are they bound by the 2005 condition? Is it immutable? Can it never be changed? >> I don't know one way or another to that.
Um, hypothetically speaking, if they had the discretion to revisit the condition as we've asked them to do, would you be saying that they're uh able to use their own good judgment in fashioning whether there should be a
fire lane at all, where it should be, the size of it. >> I think that's the exact function of the board in any matter before them to ultimately use their best judgment in the interest of the community good. So, if they perceive there to be uh a potential for an attractive nuisance
where somebody might bring that fire engine in quickly into an alleyway, not understanding that there were overhead wires, they'd be free to fashion a condition where that uh area was not striped as such or where there was just a very small area striped as such.
>> Was there a question? I sound like you were fine. The board will make their decision based on the best interest of the community. Good. I don't know that anybody on the board is concerned that someone's going to drag strip a fire truck into the front
parking lot of the building. >> You said that there was some mutual aid coming. Those would be people that aren't necessarily from Fair Haven or familiar with the property. Is that right? >> I don't know how familiar they are or not. My understanding is that since Fair Haven does not have an air apparatus,
they've been relying on mutual aid from either town for essentially forever. And as a result, I would think that they have a pretty good understanding of the community they're protecting with that ladder truck and also the understanding of the Fair Haven Fire Chiefs who arrive
first and make the operational calls, how and where to position given the location and extent of the fire. All right, last uh last question or or kind of multi-art thing. Um I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Were were you saying that back in 2005
it was a mistake for the board to have deferred to their engineer or to have deferred to their fire marshal at that point in time? >> No. In fact, my testimony is the exact opposite based on bulletin 97-1. The board takes input from the fire
department, fire chief and is the uh the board engineer who puts those findings or or uh criteria into the resolution and later enforces them. I'm going to say that's third paragraph on page one.
>> All right. um if they were free to um seek the counsel of the fire marshal back in 2005, will they likewise be free to uh to abide some of the concerns raised by the fire marshall in 2026? >> I would think the board relies on all
municipal officials in making decisions. >> I have no further questions. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I have just a brief question. Uh I've listened to all of your testimony. We we've got the
uh letters from Mr. Kramer and board. Uh do you agree that uh Mr. Kramer who was the board engineer was justified in recommending to the board at that time
that they create this fire lane? And do you believe the board was justified in acquiescing to that direction and create this environment? >> I see no reason why that would be contrary to good practice and sense.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, please. I've got to go to the men's room. >> Argue over that. >> We're going to go into a and then I'm not being a wise guy. My clients are
also here and Mrs. Levinson's is in her 80s. I'm in my 80s. Having said that, well, we're just creating I think we're taking a break. That's right. We're here. We We're We'll take a break. >> We will take a >> take a quick break. Three minute till
till 12:30 bathroom. That's right. >> We'll take a three minute bathroom. Please, please go. >> Every which is creating a a giant problem for anybody. >> We're not We're not We're finishing. We're trying to resolve a giant problem. >> Result would be your return.
>> We're done. Go to the bathroom. Take your break. We're giving you your break. Take the break and we will finish tonight. Full stop. >> I'm sure my wife is calling the police department looking for me. I I've never experienced this in 60 years of practice, but I appreciate you
letting me go to the bathroom. Okay. Can I get a slip and get it stamped and I come back? here. >> Mrs. Here, Mr. >> Here, Mr. >> Here, >> next. Uh,
>> all set. >> Yeah, we are. Y, let's go. We'll call my next witness, Mr. Lever. Mark Lever. >> Hi, Lean. Your last name, please. >> Mark with a C. Lever. L E V E R.
>> You want to stand up? Come here. Come closer. >> All right. >> I can't sit for a while. This has been >> wash you close so we can speak loudly. You can speak loudly. >> That's fine.
>> Well, >> yeah. >> Was the witness certified to tell the truth or I didn't tell you this. >> It was not sworn earlier. >> You were sworn. >> Yeah, it was in the beginning. >> SW another day of experience.
>> There you go. They weren't so serious. It'd be funny. >> Mr. Lieber, uh, you were retained by me to give professional testimony this evening, were you not? >> I was. >> And what is a field or area of your knowledge or expertise >> engineering? You give us your
educational background, please. >> Yes, I have a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering, also from Drexler University. I have a graduate degree. It's a MBA from Rucker Grad School and I was licensed in 2003 as a professional
engineer. 2005 as a planner, 2006 I completed the certified municipal engineering certificate program and in 2007 I was appointed as a member of the How Township Planning Board. I also served on their environmental commission and their affordable housing advisory
committee. I uh since moved out of How Township. However, I've also been qualified as a expert witness in municipal court and superior court. >> Uh you were retained by me to give testimony before this board this evening in your area of expertise as an engineer, were you not?
>> I was. Yeah. >> Okay. I would ask this board to take confidence of my client as an expert. >> So, I'm going to Yes, that's >> Thank you. Any problem? >> Okay. Thank you. I going to examine this
from more of a planning and zoning perspective. I want to talk a little bit about the parking um because I don't really think it's that cut and dry. I I get the fire issue and I get the seating issue, but I really don't feel there's been enough information
presented tonight to weigh either of those issues. First of all, we don't have the fire official here to provide any testimony whatsoever on why something that was previously required is no longer needed. And we also don't have any kind of parking analysis or report quantifying the number of the
patrons expected to visit this property, how they get there, and where they're going to parl. Now, why is that important? Because the adjacent neighbors on the lots that Mr. you guys are asking us here for tonight have been dealing with a constant nuisance of
being blocked in by both patrons and delivery vehicles or simply having no place for their own people to park now. So >> objection lack of foundation but continue. >> Okay. So really aside from this missing testimony
I'm actually confused myself as to what the application's for and I'll tell you why. On the one hand it doesn't have anything to do with pardon. It has to do with condition four complying with >> I get that. I'm gonna I'm speaking in terms of, you know, let me get that.
>> On the one hand, they're saying that this is just an amendment to a prior approval because circumstances have apparently changed, but the operation hasn't changed. But on the other hand, they're saying that they've been operating this restaurant contrary to the prior approval, having added seats
with no approval. But none of that really matters because they don't need to be concerned because all the variances are existing non-conformities and that I heard earlier that the parking variance actually runs with the land because the original approval was only you know given a parking variance
as well. However, there's a difference here that original approval was only for 12 seats. This application is for many more seats. So therefore I would say there's a new parking variance required >> based upon >> based upon the change in the seating
law or planning doctrine. >> No just opinion >> sounds arbitrary capricious unreasonable. >> It's not arbitrary because the prior approval specifically said they were given approval for four parking spaces. Okay. And there were 12 seats indoors.
Mhm. >> Now the indoor seating is 33 seats and they have 40 seats outdoors. So how do you say and argue logically that the parking variance runs with the land? >> Thank you. Now there's other
inconsistencies I found in the application which I do want to bring to light. One is is that the application form that was provided indicates that the present approved use is a restaurant. But in 2005, the approval is not for a restaurant. It was for a
catering/dei takeout operation. Now, I obviously am aware of the two conditions they want to remove from the prior approval and that the current application is to actually reduce indoor seating. Okay. But they testified the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Wednesday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Thursday through Saturday and on Sunday 8 to 4:00 p.m. Now I go back to the minutes from 2005 and it says there the hours of operation were from I quote 8 or 9:00 in the
morning to 5 or 6:00 in the evening. The minutes also state that there is not going to be any waitress service. They will not serve dinner. That doesn't sound like what's going on this property. >> Say that again. >> You have a copy of the board minutes.
>> It was part of the packet there. They're all in your packets. The prior minutes packet. >> Those must have been something that's an opra was not. >> That's okay. >> I'll have to submit it. >> The answer is no.
>> I'll have to submit them. So, another thing that was raised in those minutes is the number of employees at the restaurant. We heard tonight that there's 22 employees, 10 part- timerrs, and 9 to 10 of the peak shift. The prior approval actually said that there were only three employees. So, when I look at
this as a planner, the current restaurant use, the hours, the employee mix are not as the same as what the board originally granted. Now, I get it. The ordinances governing restaurants have changed in the burrow, but without any review or comment, this restaurant
use has evolved over the years into something totally different. And for the board to say, "Hey, that 2005 approval with four parking spaces is the same as what they're asking for today is just illogical." Now, I back that up by saying during the
board's deliberations in 2005, the members said on the record they were concerned with the lack of parking. How in the world does this concern not continue in light of the huge increase in seating? Again, that's just totally illogical. There was also discussion at
that meeting about a letter from a neighbor, Boon and Deon, which apparently allowed parking by the restaurant's employees on their lot. But the board members questioned if that agreement could ever be rescended. And I personally feel there's a big difference between three employees parking next
door versus however many employees there are now. And by the way, is that agreement even still in effect? Don't know. Now, obviously being in the B1 zone, you have standards for parking. We heard it tonight, 15 spaces per thousand square ft.
Now, there was an application filed to this board in 2013 to increase the permitted seating. And you know what happened to the application? It was abandoned. They never followed up with it. Why? Because they just added the seating anyway. And that's how they've
been operating. Can you confine your testimony >> concerning a student's prayer? >> Yeah. Getting for this not as to very seriously. You've given you a large leeway. So far your testimony doesn't
seem to be relevant before. >> So increasing seating is not relevant to the board without approval. I'm asking you to define your testimony with regard to planning or engineering the applicant's prayer for relief for
condition four or none. So condition nine can do that. If I don't follow you just so the record's clear. Now to go on. If today 36 spaces are required for the
number of seats proposed and only four spaces are provided, where is the applicant study and where is there evidence that additional parking is not needed? If you were considering a new restaurant with a 32 space parking variance, would you just simply wave a
magic wand and say no proofs are required for this request? That doesn't look too good on the record. I also want to tell this board that I do not follow the logic in any way that it's always been this way and that people are just going to park anywhere they want and
that the whole neighborhood is one big shared parking lot especially when you have adjacent properties that are clearly aggravated and impacted by the constant abuse of their properties by not only patrons but by delivery drivers as well. >> Again, objection, lack of foundation. I
have photographs that can be submitted. Now, how do you determine that a lack of off street parking prior to this area? So, people do these material
>> was a little inapprops. You said that there's like this building controversy or that these people have these grievances, but none of them have testified. So, that's not in the record. There's no foundation. >> That's why he's here because this is not a victimless crime,
so to say. Now, let me go on. Okay. Your code chapter 30 land use and development indicates that the purpose of this chapter is to exercise the authority delegated to municipalities under NJSA 40 col 55D1 to regulate
development and promote good planning practice. We're all familiar with that going into parts B and C. Purpose to secure safety from fire, flood, panic, and other natural and man-made disasters. and part C to provide
adequate light, air, and open space. Given the nature of what's being requested tonight, tell me please, in what way could the applicant's proposed plan possibly satisfy secure safety from fire when you're seeking to eliminate a fire lean? And
also, you're reducing an area of light, air, and open space to accommodate a specific outdoor seating use that doesn't actually appear to be approved by any prior board action. Now, this was a new application before you tonight.
Would you not similarly have the same concerns about the availability of all street parking or the maintenance of a fire lane between two structures? Why doesn't Mr. Holly come down here and testify before this board as your fire official that he is absolutely fully
confident and recommends to this board that this fire should be disposed of. I'm waiting for the email that says those exact words. He will not do that. I understand the governing body has an ordinance that overrides municipal land
use law powers that grants a de facto site plan approval to outdoor seating in the burrow. And what I mean by that is that when a applicant submits a plan, the wording says a plan must be submitted to get a license for outdoor seating. That
to me is a approval that is reserved for a land use board as a site plan for an outdoor seating. Now your ordinance has a different you say that nope, we take all that power, we give it to the governing body. They're the ones who decide. However,
you said earlier, Mr. Kovat that questioning the prior witness. You were asking him, "Do you have any evidence whatsoever in your file or confirmation of discussions between Dave Kramer and the fire official when they decide to put that fire in place?" I
want to ask you the question in a different manner. I want to ask >> Let me explain to you. You don't ask me any question. >> Okay? And I'm gonna ask the board questions. >> Ask any questions to >> I will ask the board questions. Okay. >> Your direct test. So far, you haven't gone through question and answer
testimony. We've given you great leeway to make a speech. >> Okay, here's my testimony. I want to know where in the file there is any confirmation or evidence of any discussions between the governing body and the fire official every single year
those licenses were issued. I would want to know that. So the last thing I want to say is that let's talk about the board's powers to modify and or eliminate a prior approval regarding conditions.
Again, you heard earlier the standard here is that the app has to have a proper showing of change circumstances or other good cause warranting modification andor amendment. What are the change circumstances? Did something happen that all of a sudden a
surplus of off streetet parking became available around this property? I haven't heard anything about that. They didn't submit any studies about how the off streetet parking demand is going to be accommodated. Why? Because they've been getting away with it all this time and no one said anything. the original
approval for 12 indoor seats has been completely ignored and they went ahead and did their own thing whether it was the prior owner before this current owner and now the board's saying it's always been that way. Well, you know what? I don't think in the record that's going to look very good because I don't
think the board properly weighed the evidence required to give them a parking variance. The next thing is um the board stated in 2005 they had a serious concern for lack of parking.
How is the board not concerned with lack of parking today when they're asking for even more? In my opinion, I think that the entire parking situation requires a variance. Okay, I disagree with the horde planner that no further variances are required.
I disagree with Mr. Janna who I've known for 20 years and respect that the variance for the parking runs with the land because it's a different situation and it's a different amount of seats and I feel that a parking variance is required.
So, that being said, I think the only way the board could possibly act on this application is you got to figure out this parking variance and then you're going to have to figure out why a previously required fire lane is no longer required
and uh otherwise I just think you're voting arbitrarily. That's all. >> Let me let me ask you one question. uh with regard to the opinion letter of Mr. Kramer back in 2005
saying that uh the application if approved should include uh a piling >> do you agree with that opinion >> yeah I mean Mr. Kramer I known him for many years. He himself
>> was anything in the resolution of approval back in 2005 that is in any way contradictory to the recommendation of Mr. Kramer? >> No. Is there anything in the testimony
of the applicants uh witnesses which justifies or explains the elimination of a fire? >> God forbid there's ever an incident there. >> Now, we've listened to all of these.
>> Is there an answer to your question other than God forbid? >> I'm sorry. >> Is that the complete answer? >> No. >> I'm just saying that the board the the board has to make a decision based on whatever evidence is presented. I just don't see any evidence
for someone to say, "Hey, we have something here that's to protect the public safety. Why don't we just get rid of it because we don't want it there anymore?" That's basically what I'm hearing in the audience. Is there any
testimony in your opinion as a planner from the applicants witnesses which in any way justifies the elimination of the fire lane which is set forth in the original resolution of
approval 20 years ago? >> Honestly, that's a better question for the prior witness because I'm not an expert in fire lanes. But I could tell you to piggyback on the question about the relief for the parking. The type of information that I'm used to getting is someone submits a parking study that
says, "Hey, this is how many people come to this restaurant every day." And we did a study and it says 15% walk and 5% ride their bike and this amount of people drive and this is where they park. And to say, "Oh, they park at Acme or they park at Dunkin Donuts or they
park across the street." I don't think that really is to satisfy the intent of the burrow's code for having off- streetet parking. >> Well, have you ever been witnessed to an application where testimony is given where there's a required parking
requirement of let's say four spaces and 32 or 34 are required and the board just complet a board not this board a board just completely ignores that deficiency in the application. >> Not without extensive studies. 15
questions. >> I will be extremely brief. Um before I commence, I just want to invoke the net opinion rule. I think Mr. Lever unfortunately chastised the board a lot and asked them, you know, rhetorical
questions, but really didn't provide any why and wherefore or anything to substantiate his opinions. There was no foundation laid for any of the statements that he made. That being said, I'll ask him a few questions and we'll move on. Um, Mr. Lever, you opine
that a new variant should be required. Um, isn't it true that the uh present parking requirements for restaurants are based entirely on gross floor area? >> Yeah. Okay. Um, do you have any reason
to believe our gross floor area uh has changed or will be changing immediately over that which was reviewed and approved in 2005? >> No, we know it's not. >> Okay. You opine that this was not approved as a restaurant. Isn't it true that it was approved as a category 2
restaurant in 2005? >> Yes. >> Okay. Which was a subset of restaurants more broadly. Correct. >> It was. >> Okay. Isn't it true that those type of restaurants don't exist anymore? There's one and only one category of permitted use restaurants.
>> Yeah, it's been nothing. >> Okay. Um you opine there had been no change of circumstances. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the um change in the parking standard to eliminate any reference to seating and the change in the nature of the restaurants to allow
restaurants that do takeout and dine in and a mixture of the two? Wouldn't those be a change in circumstances, a change in law? >> Well, the change in circumstance is the operation of the restaurant compared to what was originally presented to this board. That's the change in circumstance. >> You see no way wherein the ordinance
changes would constitute any kind of change circumstances. >> Well, let's put it this way. If the application was approved with 12 seats, under what municipal ordinance would they be able to increase that to 40 seats inside? What if the municipal
ordinance changed and you didn't you didn't have to specify that you were predominantly or exclusively takeout and a restaurant just became a restaurant. You could do takeout or dine in. >> I don't believe that's how the ordinances are interpreted. You have a specific approval for a specific use.
You can't simply just change that use. >> No. There was a mention in your testimony of the meeting minutes from 2005 and a concern with the lack of parking. Uh did the board ultimately approve the application in 2005
notwithstanding that concern. And if you're going to try to read to me, I don't want to be read to. I just want an answer to the question. >> Yeah, it was approved >> inclusive of variance relief for parking. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm just looking for one specific section here.
>> Would have been a good time on direct to leave that, but that's not part of my question. >> Go on then. >> Um, just wrapping up here. Um, you opined um that we have to satisfy
some of the requirements of MLUL as incorporated into chapter 30. um one of which was um sort of a safety related um section, the other being light, air, and open space. Um can you explain to me how putting tables outdoor for the patrons
to enjoy uh light air and open space is detrimental to light air and open space? >> My detriment is that it's a loss of space that was previously providing a safety function. >> That's not a light air and open space. That's a safety issue.
So, so we've struck the light air and open space for just down to safety. >> Mean it's a yard area. You're taking away a yard area and you're filling it up with the seating. >> Was it previously dirt or landscaping or was it previously
asphalt? >> No, it was paved. >> So paved. Still paved, albeit with tables and chairs. >> Sure. that somehow what does that do? Does that increase impervious? That detracts from light air in open space. >> It certainly increases noise.
>> It's not light air open space. Okay. Um All right. The safety issue. Uh kind of the elephant in the room. Uh I think your case essentially is that you're proponents of safety and good citizens looking out for the well-being of the firefighters in town. um by assuring
that there be a um fire lane between these two buildings. Is that right? >> I offered testimony that this fire was created for a purpose and I think it might be arbitrary to just eliminate it.
>> Um does your opinion take into uh consideration the existence of the wires, the electrical overhead wires in front of the alley at 9 foot off the ground? >> Yes. No further questions.
>> I have one followup question. Mr. uh Weber, did you have occasion to look at the original site plan approval that uh Mr. Kramer commented upon? >> Yes. >> Now, uh in that original application,
uh we're we're talking in terms of a fire lane. There wasn't but a paved area for parking and for vehicular traffic, was there not? >> The area in between was paved yet. >> Yeah. So, what the has done now, he's
taken away the parking and now he's coming in for a variance where he only has four spaces and he needs 30 something. He he's eliminating a drive-thru for people to get through to the back parking area
and he's eliminating the pilot. I mean, is there any basis for that for that activity or request for usage for that? >> There was something in the minutes about a back and forth discussion and they
suggested that should be a one-way a one-way lane. Um, give me one second here. That was during the discussion with the board and Mr. Kramer. >> Is there anything in any site plan, any
site plan application before a planning board or a zoning board of adjustment that makes an application for a use variance or any type of a variance to put it out to a cafe out there? Well, they took, if I'm understanding
your question correct, they took that ordinance and they basically pulled it away from the land use boards and they put it in the hands of the the mayor and council. >> I have no witness. >> Okay.
>> I have one last witness. Uh, I call Miss Christina Deinces, please. >> Good morning. Absolutely. >> Would you state your full name, please? >> Christine De Vincent's. I own Sheffers.
>> What is your uh relationship to uh person who runs that store there? >> Which store? >> What? >> What do you mean? >> Your mom? >> Uh that's my mom. My mom. My mom. My sister and I started the store 26 years ago in Fair Haven. It's been our only
location. We've been serving the community for 26 years. Yeah. >> Do you work in that store? Yes. >> And how long have you worked in there? >> A long time. 26 years. >> And during that 26 year period of time, uh, did you witness the transformation
of Jason parcel of land uh, from being the Tavo Pronto restaurant to this outdoor cafe. >> Not only that, we witnessed it was a dry cleaner. Um, and for years we operated it was a dry cleaner and then RO
Brothers bought it. Yes, we've seen significant changes in the property and on the property >> generally. What impact has that change with the uh outdoor cafe had upon uh your quality of life in your store in your business?
>> It is a nuisance. Um I would love for everybody to have outdoor cafes for the record, but it's got to work and it's got to function. It's got to function over form, I guess. Um it is there's a lot of children. It's very noisy. It's
very ricochusy. I have a direct line with Amy, the principal at the school. The fences are being broken. There's a lot of vandalizing. There's a lot of litter. It is It's not good. It's changed a lot and it's put a burden on
the businesses around them. >> Okay. Have you have you encountered have you expressed any burden upon your mom's business and your business >> such as >> such as calling the police or or
the problem? >> Um my father was a land use attorney. Um we have come to this this room and discussed this. Um, we've pulled the resolution and we've been fighting this for quite some time and it is on the
record for some time. There's plenty of police records as to what goes on on this property. I think adding this additional seating exacerbates your neighbors and and we're not even being looked into. We're not even being
there's never even been a forum where we could sit down and work this out. The town has just abandoned us. Now uh did you take a series of photographs to uh substantiate some of the complaints which you made?
>> Yes. My father again was a land use attorney and he said take pictures, take pictures, take pictures. Resolution. Resolution. Resolution. >> Did you take photographs? >> A lot of photographs and a lot of videos. We have thousands. >> Let's just talk about the photographs.
We went through a series of exhibits in these photographs. should be look at then would you tell them whether they were all taken by you then go through them one by one identify the exhibit number and tell the board what it shows >> there's a lot I will go by fast and I
will shall I pass them to you as I >> and you got to mark them >> it's important to us it's important to my business it's important to us >> how many pictures are there >> there's probably maybe >> probably exactly Count
them as one exhibit. He's going on. >> 36 36 37 Yeah. Okay. 04 or 36 images taken approximately when over what course of time
>> probably within the past two or three years >> looking at you know what the hour is what >> I could cycle through them quickly the pictures you want to get a description what >> I'm looking at them and the first two say 2021 that's five years
>> we've been fighting this for a long time >> I'm just asking you over What period of time was it? >> Probably from 2021 to present. How about that? >> 2021 and present >> and we have a history going back to very
early on in this process. >> And they depict conditions in and about >> how it impacts us and the community and the neighborhood and how Yeah. >> No, I'm going to go for something tighter. >> Okay. >> They depict conditions in and about your property in and about the other
property. both properties. Actually, three properties. Gary Leser couldn't be here today. He is the other um on the phone. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Um and there's some pictures for him that we've >> about property,
>> the backlog in particular. >> Do you own the property that >> No, I I I've leased the property for 26 years. >> Do you own >> uh he lives in California, Alstone? >> Okay. Do they >> he consent to the to the >> Yes, we've been fighting this for the
years. He's he's retained my father. He's retained Brooks Arcs who's passed and now we have >> Oh, has he retained Mr. Gastroski or have you? Because Mr. Gastroski forgot who his client was earlier. >> I'm sure >> I wanted you to put on the record who your clients were earlier and you forgot. Can we
>> is one of my clients. He signed a retainer letter and the other client is this young lady's mom and her. So my only problem with that is Mr. Leaser's property is titled under the name of leaser and associates. So it would indicate that there's more than one owner. So I
>> would put those owners on the record >> with regards to the property which you're leasing. Who who is the owner of the property >> of of six my property? Yeah. >> Uh alto. >> How old is it? >> 101. >> 101. >> And I've taken care of the building for
him for 26 years. Yeah, pretty much. >> Why don't you go through these, give them the number, then tell them what it says, and we'll >> Okay, I'll start alphabetical. So, we'll name them in a This is garbage pickup,
garbage everywhere. We have stains on it. It creates a a marinara sludge, we call it. Um, garbage is picked up on our property. the garbage containers, the call them dumpsters are slammed down and
it and it kind of tears up our our parking lot and it's just several times I come to work in the morning, I can't even get into my building. The garbage is there. They're they're picking up the >> pass the photos around. >> Sure. Sure. Can I go down this way? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
These ex uh exhibit B truck on our property signs are clearly posted. We just they everybody ignores the signs. There's no management telling anybody where to go, where to park. There's no signage on the property telling customers or delivery truck where to
park. It's vacant. It's just non-existent. >> Isn't there a sign there? >> We put a sandwich to sign up that's constantly being run over or moved. >> But we actually posted a sign this week because we got a letter from Mr. Gastroski for the first time saying that
Mr. leaser had a problem with people parking on his property. They responded. We said, "We don't instruct them to do that. We don't control them. They're not our agents. >> There signs in place to tell you where the trucks park or where the customers
not have a dialogue between individuals. >> This is direct testimony. We're going to talk about the photos. May I ask you to restrain yourself, Mr. Anderson, about making comments and if you can just continue to tell us what the images are." Um,
>> this is perspective from our back door. It's exhibit C. This is my truck. I drive a pickup truck and it's parked in this spot every every day. I'm at my work a lot. Here's a top of the park parked in uh their delivery truck is parked in our lot.
Um, exhibit D. How do we get in and out? How do we get in and out? Why are these number? Okay, I'm gonna say we can't get in and out. These are These are We are boxed in. This is the photo. We are boxed in.
Okay. Exhibit E. Again, boxed in. Boxed in our back lot. No vehicles can get in or out. Exhibit F. Delivery right in the easement. Can't get in or out. Blocking
everybody's parking. Delivery at the alley at the back door. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Cars blocking. Walked in again. >> I'm going to ask, >> okay, >> what the condition
has to do with the applicants? >> Because when those trucks block us, our employees can't get in and our customers can't get in. I need customers in my door to run my business. That's not the forest to seed.
>> But what's going on in the you are giving them more seating which requires more parking. Correct. Isn't this how this ties in? >> Don't know. That's their burden. That's your burden. >> Okay. in terms in terms of in terms of
looking at obviously there's a history here but in terms of looking at this history and the limited jurisdiction this board this evening >> has no jurisdiction over how property happening to your property
do you follow what I'm saying we have we have jurisdiction over >> the applicant's property because they've given usiction >> well what's going on on the applicant finishes. >> But in terms of locking in on the property, I'm trying
to narrow the focus as to the objections or the conditions and the applicant was seeking this evening. >> I can't assume that more people are going to be more traffic. you if you had a traffic study to that extent, if you
had that kind of testimony as opposed to your opinion that that's going to happen, certainly would listen to that. But your testimony as a non-expert is as to factual issues over which we have jurisdiction.
>> Okay. So, do I just how do you want me to proceed? trying to be help. If you have something that says, "Look, um, this is why we this is why we need the ingress orgess on that property. Um, this is why you can't give
them relief uh to to more seats inside the restaurant." I mean, their their application for seating doesn't have anything to do with the outside. >> The No, hear me out. The application right now is to either create a fire.
They're not looking to increase the seating outside. >> They're looking to increase the seating inside. >> Mhm. >> Socrease >> which is decrease but increase my thought increase over what was originally. But in terms of what's
happening in your property outside of those issues, I don't know that the board can offer you relief. And that's generally a good indication as to why that's not relevant. >> May I respond to that?
>> Is there any way to stop meaning the original approvals for were parking spaces if they're parking all over that area including problem because of the increased? >> You had no enforcement jurisdiction. >> Pardon me.
>> I had no enforcement jurisdiction over that. We're not asking we're not issuing for enforcement. We're we're saying that by further increasing their approvals and the number of people that can come there, the number of cars that can park there, the number of
employees, this adversely impacts their problem. Let them live with their original approvements. Let them live with uh four parking spaces in 12 things. We're also talking about the number of people coming onto the property in this outdoor cafe. Where are
they parking? >> Certainly not from what the pictures you've showed me so far. Can I discern that? >> But on top of that, >> on top of that, if you could show me that >> that would be that would be something. >> It's a little hard to prove
>> the front parking. And I'm sure you're all aware. I I'm assuming you've all been on the property or to both either location. There is a parking problem upfront created by what is granted on our neighboring property
and it's it's just we're we're completely frustrated and and it's what you guys decide affects our business. >> Well, let me ask you this question. is a common occurrence when people are frequenting the Tibo pronto and they're
parking in the front since there is no parking for them except for handicap parking that they're parking in your parking spot. >> They do they they come in rather than back off which is a safety issue. They they come in and they see it's handicapped and they can't go down the
alley. So what are they what are they to do? What are they to do? They back up or they they back onto River Road or they come into our parking spaces again and again and again. They park in our parking spaces. Signs or not, we have to
chase them out and we spend half our day chasing everybody out. We need our parking spaces. We need customers to come in and purchase items in our store. And we need our parking spaces. >> How many parking spaces does your build Mr. Stone's building? >> We have, I believe, four up front. four
or five up front and then five in the rear. >> Rear. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So 10 10 plus, right? It's we're rough rough of that, right? >> And there are two businesses in the building, right? >> Yeah. So really we only have two spots each. >> What do we mean this?
>> So So now now we're talking about increasing the number of people coming into this adjacent property while by 600. >> It's messy back there. unsafe and >> but as the testim testimony is presented not everybody's driving a car
>> not everybody's parking in the back I'm not saying that they're not >> yeah but they're not coming to my store on a bike and taking an armwire or a lamp or a you know it's this is we are two different businesses and you got to understand that you know we are
>> let me do this why don't you hand the pictures to Mr. Anderson, I think we can probably from the general tenders of testimon guess what we're looking at. They're all really pretty much in and about the area. >> Just for the record, we have called everybody. We have come to the town. We
have talked to council people. We have we've done everything we've had and not one person has offered up a solution. And now the applicants coming before you, they're attempting to legitimize
this outrageous expansion of their business which adversely impacts my cloud. >> I don't understand the extension. >> Sorry. >> Make their case. >> You're right. >> What is the other business in in the
bill? >> Excuse me. >> What's the other business? 606 is a woman's clothing store >> where cars get hit like our cars that get hit all the time in the back. It It's There's police recon. I >> I I'm I am sympathetic. I hear you and I see the photos and I can I've seen the
kids there >> and you know what? We were raised to do the right thing and and it's really hard to >> My question is what solution is there? The business district is a >> How about some s proper signage at our neighbor in business to tell people
where they need to park? >> I don't disagree. I don't think that has anything to do with what we do here, right? I mean, it's I I agree with you. It should there should be some like I you know, uh lunchtime is probably a mess with the the kids coming out from school. >> It's a very unsafe and there's photos of
bicycles and back there. Very unsafe. I have a video of trucks backing out around kids in their bike >> out across the street at Sans Soup. I mean, they they have a weird parking situation, too. They probably have more, you know, people eating in there than
than the Bulldogs. Um, I think that, you know, you see other examples of like Krowers and the former Defalco full business. They share parking lot spaces. The business district is challenging at a minimum. And I I I don't think that there is a way to create more parking
space anywhere near where you are. I mean, has Mr. Stone talked to the former Boon people as far as expanding parking over there? Is that in that that's a big lie, right? There's I I I just don't know. >> I've rented that space knowing that
those this is what my business needs and it requires. It meets my demographics. it meets the p spaces I need, the size store I need to own and operate. And I did my due diligence. I know what I need as a business person to do that. I I
can't speak for anybody else. I This is why we chose this space and and you're just keep going more seats, more seats, more people, more people. the >> the outdoor dining, you know, this all
gets exacerbated in the summers, too. Um, >> what what are the what what is the behavior or the conditions surrounding this outdoor dining room? >> What do you mean? >> How do the people behave or how is it patrol?
>> Mostly children. I I would say it's it's a lot of children. Um, a lot of bikes, a lot of children, loud customers will come in and say, "Oh my god." You know, like those kids, you know, it's it's we're constantly out there
trying to rain them. They're throwing footballs in the front lot where there's no >> they're cracking bottles in the backyard. A a little teenage girl cracked through our fence and I filmed her doing it and she turned around and said, "Yeah, I did it. I did it. I did
it. >> That's bad behavior though. Like down. How does that It's >> But that property is like there's no They're They're funneling those kids in that alley. It's a free-for-all in that. Come by one day when the kids are there. Come by. I I beg you to come by.
>> Maybe. Could I start my cross? >> Sorry. >> May I start my my cross? >> Is that your examination? Is that >> I'm sorry. Is that your examination of the witness? I see these photographs have all been passed so she no longer has them before
her. >> Oh yes back. >> Okay. >> You want them back for examination? >> No. What I what I would do is we know Beth's going to add things now ju just describe to the board
what you believe the differences between what was originally approved for parking spaces and 12 tables for takeout food as to what it is now.
>> There's a lot of tables. Um, I had to go in there one day because there was an incident outside and I took my phone in and videotaped it. Tons of tables. Tons of tables and chairs. We have customers go in every now and and then and record. They'll count the tables and chairs and
it's a lot. It's a lot. Not 12. >> What this applicant is before you >> next question to the >> is for you to legitimize >> No, no, no. >> Your clear violation argued. You have another question for your wins? >> No, I have no I have no physical. Oh,
would you also No. Uh, and your mother your mom works in that store every day. Now, >> not every day. No, no, no. Right. No. >> What impact does it have upon her? >> She loses sleep at night because it's not right. >> Right.
We talk about it all the time and how unfair it is and what we have to put up of it on a daily basis when I should be coming in and doing my job and not monitoring parking lots and that's all we do. We monitor Uber and Door Dash which are out of control out of control. There's no
rule set up for them. There's no regulation set up for them and they're kind of scary people. All of the activity on that law is being created without there having any approvals to do it. And now they're seeking an approval
to to legitimize that question. >> There's only asking question to the witness. >> I have no further questions in the group. >> Any cross-examination? >> It's going to be very brief. Um I'm I'm just I'm having kind of trouble here
because it sounds like the real grievance is the children of Fair Haven, the students coming from the school. >> Well, the grievance is the chairs. It's the tables and chairs in the restaurant that the resolution clearly states you were approved for 12 seats. >> But the chair is
>> resolution resolution resolution. >> The chair isn't a bike. The complaint is bikes. to complain is children making noise with the unamplified human voice. Um, one of uh, one of the components that we are actually planning to um, add
as part of this application would be a bike rack. Would that help in any way to, you know, resolve some of the pictures of the bikes? Did you see any of the pictures of the bikes? >> The bike rack will not help. I've listened to this all night. the bike. I
will not use it. >> Point is that the is the issue isn't so much the >> it's the the kids is really the issue, right? That's >> the bike's not going to help. >> I mean, >> sounds like the grievance is not the
use, but the user. You don't like our customers. No, it's the 12 chairs that's turned into god knows how many chairs are in there on >> itself. The kids from some fun. >> It's just not the kids. It's it's the customers that park and sit there for an
hour and have lunch when I could have customers coming in and out and we're kind of we have to protect our we have to protect ourselves and it's getting more and more difficult and you guys keep throwing up these barriers and it's it's difficult. >> I've been doing this for 26 years. I
have spent more time in that area of town than probably any of you have spent in that area of town. I see what goes on every day. Every day. I'm the first one there in the morning. I'm the last one to leave. >> I just have a few more questions. Um,
>> if you don't mind me asking, how long is the remaining duration of your lease at the property? >> I think that's probably maybe two years. I'm sure. >> You don't own it. Do you have any uh right of you know option to purchase? Right of
>> right of refusal. Yes. >> Okay. But do do you have an option as opposed to a right of >> we we've tried to buy the building several times and he's not interested in selling. >> Right. Why did you try to buy the building if life is so agonizing being there?
>> We bought the building as a financial move, not not because of your restaurant. We wanted to buy the building for a financial move. >> When was the last time you tried to buy the building? maybe six years ago. >> That'll be at a point in time where we had outdoor dining.
>> We tried to buy it since we moved into that building. How about that? >> Okay. So, >> through the duration. >> I'm I don't know. It can't be that bad if you're trying to buy it. You you want to take a two-year lease part of my business and it's community
jam. >> I don't I don't want to take up too much more of the board's time. I mean, most of my questions are not really questions. They're just observations or statements. >> Close. >> I'll save them.
>> Is there anyone else you'd like to call? So, >> no one ask questions. >> I do have I do have questions. Uh um where are please identify where you
employed? >> Burough fair. >> Okay. Previous this morning. I know that you had an opportunity to review the application this instance. Uh is that correct? >> Correct. >> Yeah. There was a question earlier from Mr. Gazeraski concerning the nature of
relief that requested. I believe you made a recommendation to allow the applicant to wave full sight plan. Is that correct? That is correct. >> And the basis for your recommendation,
>> the basis of the recommendation based on my February 12th, 2026 letter was I recommend the board wave the requirement for site plan review since the applicant is not proposing any site improvements. Earlier during the
hearing, I had mentioned that I classified those as site amenities. >> Okay. So that's that's something that the board will consider as to the waiver. Um any additional opinions with regard to the applicants prayers for relief?
>> I have no further comment. >> Hello Mr. Miller. How are you? >> I'm sorry. Do you have any cross examination of Mr. Gardell either? >> I'm sorry. >> Cross examination Mr. Gardell >> of who? >> Mr. Gardell. Yep.
>> Good evening, M. You were previously sworn. I know that you prepared a report with regard to this application. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Date of that report was January 12th, 2026. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Um
you've heard testimony that was given by Mr. Lever earlier that he believed additional relief was required in this instance. He spoke to variances for parking. Um, do you have an opinion as to whether or not variances are required for this application? >> Yes.
>> What is your opinion? >> Don't believe variances are required for this application as outlined in my report. >> I'm having difficulty hearing you with regard to that. >> Um, no, I I don't think any additional variances are required for the
application. Um the uh application is to request removal of conditions of a prior approval. Those conditions which are no longer applicable under the current zoning ordinance. What about with regard to the
applicant's position that there's an increase with regard to tables and potentially more patrons inside than what was originally approved in 2002. Does that impact your opinion at all? No. >> Okay. Why not?
>> Those are not threshold issues under the ordinance any longer. >> Okay. Because the different framing of the ordinance, it doesn't it doesn't arise to additional paradigms. >> Correct. >> Any design waiverss that are
>> I no. you have an opinion as to whether or not condition four or condition nine can be granted by the board. >> I'm I'm sorry to have an opinion on whether they can be granted >> whether the board has jurisdiction.
>> I believe they do have jurisdiction. Uh and I don't see anything in what has been presented that would uh keep the board from >> No, I'm not asking whether should or shouldn't. I'm just asking. No, I believe that's within that >> any examination Mr. asking.
>> Pardon me. >> Any cross examination? >> No, we don't any opening up to the public. >> Any members of the public would like to speak with regards to this application?
>> Anyone online? >> Mr. Soul hang with us. >> Okay. >> No hands raise. >> No hands raises. >> No hands raise. Would you like to make propos? >> I would. Thank you. I faith the
most important witness who gave the testimony was the first witness who was the owner of this propert. Uh clearly when they purchased this property they
knew exactly when they were first leasing it. They knew what they were getting. They knew that if they were going to operate this facility, they could only have four parking spaces. They knew that when they were going to operate this facility, they could only
have 12 tables. And those 12 tables were to satisfy people who were coming in perhaps to grant the sandwich or coming in to place their order and wait until they could take it out. That's what they bought.
Uh along comes uh this resolution which was passed which we're aware of and clearly you have the testimony by way of a written letter from the board engineer at that time saying there should be uh a
fire lane but when it wasn't a fire lane when you look at the plans it was still a passageway. It was a passageway both for cars to go through to go to the rear and it was also a place for cars to park. If it had stayed that way, it
would have had a lesser impact upon their neighbors. So, I now listen to what they're seeking and think about what they're seeking. They're looking to get a variance where four parking spaces were permitted and
one of them was for handicap parking and increase it to 32 parking spaces or 35 parking whatever it may be. Also with regard to the number of clients who would be coming to utilize this and the number of tables on the on the premises
increasing the utilization of this property by hundreds of percent. uh my client has the right to have the benefit of the protection of this board
not to grant those variances which will adversely impact your quality of life and her business. That's why we have zoning ordinances. We have zoning ordinances. We have a procedure where a municipality and the
governing body establishes zoning and this municipality did that years and years ago. And that's why when the first applicant came in after they bought the uh dry cleaners, they were limited to
poor spaces. They were limited to 12 tables because they were told this would not be a restaurant. This would not be a place where there's full service food sold. People would come in, place an order, the food would be put into a bag,
and they'd take it to home or wherever else they're going to eat. Uh what I find difficult about this uh application, and I said that this was an attempt by an applicant to legitimize to
legitimize their behavior for the past 20 years. is they've done it contrary to the approvals, contrary to the resolution. They never came back uh before the board and sought uh uh relief
from this thing of this of the uh fire lane. And just think about it. We're talking about we're talking about eliminating a fire lane. And they're not saying eliminate the fire lane, but you can continue to have parking there and
you can continue to drive to the parking in the back. They're saying we're going to completely cut off any access to the rear of this property because we want to have a a cafe there. We want to expand our
business. That's not what they bought. When they bought this property, there was not a cafe there. So what they're doing is they bought something for whatever the number may be and good for them they're making money I hope to make a lot of money but it can't be at the expense of other people and they're
saying that basically well you could find some other place in town to park. Well can you tell me in this area right here where they're going to find an additional 30 parking spaces if they're not going to be parking on my client's property. If you're going to be
parking on somebody else's property in the neighborhood, uh you have zoning to protect not just one person, you have zoning to protect the residents and my client is looking for that guarantee. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Um, we're before you on a extremely limited scope of relevant issues. Um, a fire lane that was probably uh never
warranted in the first instance and um a removal of a condition involving limitation on indoor seating. Uh there's been a lot of distractions, a lot of noise. I want to stick to those things. Um you heard tonight that the fire lane
um at least as far as our property is concerned could never have been more than 16 feet wide. And even if you included the neighbor's prop would only be 18t wide. You know that under the prevailing standards now that's not adequate. You know the 16 feet wasn't adequate under the the former standards.
even the um the 2006 code, I believe it was, or maybe even the 1996 code. Um you got another big overarching issue there, which is the overhead wires. Um I read the room, I saw you guys, I took your temperature, and I think you're fairly persuaded that
those overhead wires are a hazard, and there's no good reason to fool people into thinking that they could bring a fire apparatus uh anywhere near them or under them and get into that alleyway. I did not hear from Mr. Failen any real cogent reason why the alleyway on the opposite side of
the wire should be striped as a fire zone. He wasn't planning on putting apparatus in there. He was saying the apparatus would stop short of it and would operate from the parking lot in the front yard. That can happen nonetheless without the striping there. Putting striping there just encourages people to believe that they can drive
even further, drive into a hazard, get electrocuted or take a wire down and electrocute others. um they don't have the kind of time that he's talking about and he knows it. He's he was a firefighter for over 20 years. They're going to come in like bats out of hell. They're going to set up and we don't
need that risk. I don't want that on my conscience. My client doesn't want to hurt her conscience and I know you don't want it on your conscience. Um the sites operated safely since ' 05. There's never been an issue. We have a a very relatively small building. There's
nowhere you could stand in that building where you can't see uh an exit front or rear. They're big glass doors. You can get out. Nobody would go out the back door only to walk around into the alley to go up front. They would just go out the front door. Similarly, nobody would
go out the front door only to walk around the alley to the rear door. They would just go out the rear. Um it's an imagined problem. um getting rid of the fire lane uh from here forward is a is
actually a good idea. It's safe. Uh keeping it or or compelling it to return is a bad idea. It's unsafe. Um and I think you heard from Mr. Failen that you have the power and you have the judgment and you're not bound by that earlier determination of your board. You can
take into account all the testimony, all the circumstances, what the fire marshall told you, what you know the current code would require, the clear heights that have been since imposed and all those things. You know, they're changed circumstances. Um, and the safety factor is the good cause and that
gives you the hook to forever on remove that fire lane. It's it's operated this way for 17 years. There's been seasonal outdoor cafe uh dining there. Your governing body has always approved it. Your fire marshal and your fire
officials have gotten a say on that. And it's it's operated basically without incident. Nobody's been hurt or killed out there to my knowledge. Nobody's been injured by by fire, electrocution, or otherwise. The grievances that you're hearing have nothing to do with safety
of first responders. It's a means by which the adversary can say, "Don't allow tables to be there because those naughty children make noise and disturb me." Um, and that's not appropriate. You know, I understand kids. I have kids of
my own. Probably many of you guys do. And they don't always make the best, most prudent decisions. Um, but they can do that even if there's no cafe seating. They can do that whether there's 12 seats or 30 seats. There's still going to be kids there. They're still going to
come in. So, come for the food. It's good food. Scratch made right there. I would argue you can't get better uh around. I drive all the way uh from Redbank to get it. And I don't hesitate because I know there's going to be parking. I've never had a time where I didn't find a spot
either immediately behind the building or right on River Road. Right. And the reason is because the only time those seats are taken is when the kids come in at lunchtime when they're off from school or after school and they come on bikes and they don't come in cars. And what we're offering to do is to put in a bike rack which we hope will go some way
to resolving the issue where you have an abundance of bikes out there, organize them and get them out of the way. Um the seating, I mean there's just obvious palpable change circumstances on it. The condition as it stands requiring us to
be a category 2 restaurant with 12 seats has been superseded by ordinance. You can't make us stay a category 2 restaurant because you have no such thing in the town anymore. There's one and only one restaurant. It has one and only one parking standard. That parking
standard itself has changed since 2005. And all it says is you are governed by the gross floor area of your establishment. A gross floor area is what it is. and what it has always been 2,368 square feet including all the back of
the house not proposing to expand that in any way what it was we should have been governed from day one under the GFA standard and the only standard now is GFA and they've reduced the amount of spaces that you need on a per square
foot basis. So the standards gone down, not up. And we're actually proposing to you to have fewer tables than we presently have, albeit more than the restriction in the um resolution. Admittedly, um we talked about Mr.
Failen. Um Mr. Lever to my mind basically presented what amounted to a net opinion. He had no foundation for any of his testimony. He had very few if any exhibits that he marked a single exhibit. Um we were sort of railing
against the board and what you can't do and asking you questions but he never presented any proof for why we don't have the change circumstances or the good cause to remove conditions four and nine. Um everything was in that opinion unsupported by the fact and by the
record. It's not something that you can hang your hat on in you know denying us this evening. Um, and then we had the neighboring property owner, get the name right, Miss Steen. Um, I I tried to take a look
through the 40 some odd pictures, you know, just some generalities. A lot of them went all the way back to 2021. I'm thinking if this problem is so egregious, it would have impossible for her to get more recent photos than a 2021 photo if this is happening day in
and day out as she would lead you to believe, but many of them were four or five years old. Um, some of the the photos depicted, you know, loading of of trucks or unloading of trucks not on the property that she leases, but on other
properties. Those areas where those trucks were located are easement areas that service our property as well as hers. Nobody's established that those trucks can't be there. Um for a restaurant of this size, we're not required to have a loading zone
irregardless irrespective of how many seats we have. You know, we can be good neighbors and ask them to use Cedar Avenue as a a load and unload point and they will do that to a certain extent, but if they have a new delivery driver or somebody who doesn't normally do that route, they might park in an
inconvenient space and they might be have to be asked to move. And we're happy to do it if we observe that. It's not like we, you know, have no um willingness to cooperate or or help to try to make things um better. I mean, we
we offered to meet with Mr. Liserf um prior to him obtaining counsel. He declined. That's its right. Um say he has to meet with me, but he didn't want to. He did retain counsel. Council wrote to me threatening to file yet another lawsuit against us. My response was,
"The lawsuit that you're threatening to file is baseless, but we're good neighbors, so we're going to post a sign saying, "Please customers, don't don't park in Mr. Leaser's spots. We don't want you doing that. You're not allowed to do it." Right? We posted it this week, though we're under no duty to do so, we did it. And I I reiterated my
offer to meet out at the site and talk reasonably about what it is that he perceives as happening and ways in which we could overcome those things. I never got a chance to offer to do any kind of signage or any kind of striping because nobody wanted a solution. They wanted
essentially what I'm reading is a a grievance, right? Um, and we didn't hear from Miss Defense Ends about whether she's posted her prop her lease property no parking or whether she's warned people or whether she's put signs up
>> or whether she's put signs about towing, whether she's ever consulted the towing ordinance or whether she's ever towed anybody. I mean, these are simple solutions to the problems that she says she's experiencing. And the problems just are not connected in any way to uh the existence or non-existence of a fire
zone on the westerly side of the building or the number of seats in the building. They're just not. You could have extremely busy takeout business with very few seats and they could be doing rapid turnover, sending people in and out all day long and you might find things are worse. You could take away
the outdoor cafe seating, the kids might still come. now they have no seats and they might be sitting on the front curb. There's just there's been no causal um relationship established. There's no no
basis laid for why it is that what we're seeking relief from would in any way exacerbate these conditions that have been perceived. Um you know, you have the power to do this. We're not expanding the building. We're not changing the use. We have been and
always have been a limited use restaurant. We used to be in a bucket called a category 2 that doesn't exist. Now we're just in the broader category of just restaurant generally in the zone and uh we can do what we're doing without any additional parking. Um that
being said, I mean it's it's not as if we've never made an overture to the neighbors to say, "Look, we don't want to abuse the situation. We don't want to take advantage of your parking, but if you have additional parking, would you consider like, you know, a little license or something like that where we could use it, but could be revocable at
will and we've been rebuffed. And I would submit to you that that establishes a hardship because we only have a property of a certain size and it's basically filled up with as much parking as we could get there. I I can't locate additional parking on
that site. I can't put it in that alleyway in lie of seating because the alleyway is not wide enough to support cars stacked along a wall with enough room to open a door and still have a through lane. It just doesn't work. That was never going to be a reality for the
site to have parking in the alleyway. So, we we have what we have. We rely on the existence of the public parking. Um, it's it's a a good thing. It's I think a wellrespected establishment, does a nice business. It's producing first rate
food. It's feeding the community. And I think most people if they were um they're asked to comment on it, I think they would have a positive view of Tavo overall and what it does for the community, the children, and their parents. Um in terms of just feeding them, having a reliable go-to place
downtown that makes the town more exciting, more vibrant. I mean, frankly, Mr. Liser hasn't spoken tonight, but his office tenants are probably walking over there and eating. Other people in the local establishments, the dentist's office, the doctors, they're walking in and eating. It's just a nice thing to
have. It's a nice amenity. I just don't think it would be wise to put or to enforce unwelcome uh what really are essentially arbitrary, capriccious, and unreasonable restraints on this use at this site. Um
the the tell for me, I think, was when Miss Defenseen said that she continues to try to seek to become an owner of the property. whatever she's now relaying to you, you know, 20 years later in this forum, I have to sort of question the
credibility of that when somebody says, "It's so bad. It's so bad. I can't stand it. My life's a living hell, but yet I want to buy this building and be here forever." So, I think we've made our case. I don't think anybody has um offered any credible evidence that could undercut that case and I would implore
the board to uh grant us what we seek which is the excision or removal of conditions four and nine. >> Okay. >> Close your comments. >> We ask the public here. We asked Doug to come >> yesterday.
>> Yesterday we're going to now deliberately um So Doug, would you mind? >> Let me frame a resolution for you. I I will frame it in a positive. Not that I'm attempting to do that, but I think the conditions that you also have to review, but the applicant agreed that
they would review the engineer placement of trash receptricles, additional bike racks as did indicated, you know, that they proposing benches. Essentially, the applicant this instance is coming before
you for an amended amended amendment of conditions of approval. This property is located at 610 River Road. Um, contains approximately 7,699 square ft. Uh, the building from singlestory building contains
approximately 2,368 square ft properties located in the B1 business district. You've heard the testimony wherein the applicant seeks relief from the conditions of approval and resolution dated July 12th, 2025.
Condition four, they'd like no longer to be bound by, which is comply with the recommend comply with his recommendations of the planning board engineer as set forth in his letter referring to the then engineer of June 24th identifying the aisle between lots
four and five as no parking higher lane area and condition nine, continued use of the building as a category 2 restaurant, the main purpose of which is for prepared food, packed happens to go and not to be consumed on
site. Accordingly, seating is limited to 12 seats inside. As to the latter condition, the app was obviously testified that there is no longer that designation of restaurants. They also have they also consume food inside and
that they're proposing inside seating for approximately 33 seats. Outdoor seating is not being increased. It is 40 seats that is presently approved by lensure by the bureau of Bar
Haven. Um a yes vote is a positive vote approving both of those conditions and waiver of the site plan and the conditions of the trash bike rack
and benches discussion. first couple things in my head. Um well, first um I I do believe it sounds like a very challenging situation there and I'm sympathetic and I I don't know that there is a parking
>> direct comments toward just yeah understood. Um in the spirit of uh kind of so we know that the mayor and council have jurisdiction over our seating and we have for nearly two decades had
approvals from police and police services that had um I think that kind of is one of the overarching kind of things that's in guiding my opinion on this. Um, I know that where would 30 plus parking spaces go
for parking, it was a constant in the business district. I mean, it's it's not it's not >> it's not limited to this. >> Yeah, exactly. We talk about this stuff all the time. I mean, if it was new new construction or something like that different, but it's not. This is just um
maybe in the spirit of good neighbors u in addition to benches and bike racks and garbage cans, is there some signage that um I think there needs to be extensive signage. I think there needs to be whether that be >> painting on the driveway about where deliveries go like whatever you know
there needs to be extensive >> you know >> I think proactive talking to drivers >> but I think like some sort of I think door dash has got to be an issue I imagine that's >> yeah that's that's definitely unsavory
when you mix kids that your board members want to hear you >> okay understood um I think something that addresses door desk drivers pulling into the uh any anywhere near the um um handicap spot. Uh I think that signage that um directs parking behind the
building u would be useful and I think that something that can help kids understand that litter is going to be um policed in some way um would be beneficial. I don't know how you do that but I do think an effort can be made to um help the kids understand that they need
to be respectful of all the neighbors when they're choosing to dive. I have 10 10 other thoughts, but I'll listen. >> Yeah. So, um, for me, this is it's a parking issue masquerading as a fire
lane shoot. Um, and I feel like I I can sympathize with the parking. It's a problem all over town. I I get it. I pulled in the wrong spot, so never do it again. Um, but I feel like I'm not empowered to solve a parking problem. I
I need to focus on fire issue. I don't like power lines over metal trucks. Um I looked at the resolutions for 8 71 18 or 18 years um that the prior governing bodies have approved.
They were all unanimous except for the very first one had one vote against but the other 17 were unanimous in favor. And I trust the process that the police chief was involved or fire marshal um the engineer. Um and I don't think
you have 17 unanimous votes in a row. There's something wrong. Um but I it's become very clear to me tonight that there's a problem with the parking. I'm foc on the fire uh fire lane aspect. Um the rack drop
thing is a is a non-issue category that's existed before. Um that's what I see. >> No no no any anyone have I I agree basically what with what Dave said with what Brian says. >> Yeah. I feel strongly about the delivery
trucks that something has to be done. It says stopw >> um signage. Yeah. >> Or confined to the easement right >> in the back. Right. The delivery trucks can use that. >> Yeah. But they're blocking. They block so you can't get in and out.
>> So, one thing I found out I'm police commissioner. >> Oh. >> To me. >> Um, >> but I'm going to I'm going to talk with the chief about >> enforcement, seeing what we can do on that because that that does need to be fixed.
>> I'm sure he's heard it before, but I'm going to reiterate it. So, um, make a any opposition to any of those conditionals. >> I mean, I would just ask that if we're going to impose them that there be, you know, sort of specific, identifiable,
not murky, not gray. >> I just don't want to take up any more of your guys time coming back in here. If there's a disagreement of whether we >> I would have work with in that burrow answer here with regard to signage with regard to the designation of areas for
loading and unloading. Um already talked about designation of areas for bike raft. Um it's my that's my language proactive
here. Um so the frame your resolution I will ask a motion second as I said a yes vote is a positive vote you have to vote positive because I've simply framed it that way. vote no if you don't think you
want to wear that brief for a motion and a second that that does not bind you to vote that simply brings it before the board. >> I'll make a motion. I'll second it. Motion is to uh approve to approve minor site plan approval to wound conditions 4
and nine room and also uh waiver site plan review and then indicated site what the plans is a indoor seating for 33 patrons and outdoor tables. Yes. >> Mr. Olson. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hoey.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Ba. >> Yes. Mr. Law. >> Yes. Thank you all. >> Thank you for your time. >> Second. >> No, no, no. Now we technically open anything. Anyone from the public still want to
hang out with us? >> Any seeing none hearing none?