No, thank you. >> I call the glass zoning board of adjustment of regular business meeting for December 18th to order. Terry, can you please read the opening statement? Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, I hereby announce that adequate notice of this meeting as required by
set act has been provided by adopting a schedule of regular monthly meetings for the year 2025, which schedule was posted on the Burough Hall bulletin board, mailed to the South Jersey Times, and filed with the Burough Clerk. >> Everyone, please rise for a salute to the flag.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Mun, >> here.
>> Mr. Ellis, >> here. >> Mr. Lopez, >> here. >> Miss Laferty >> here. >> Mr. Perer, >> here. >> Mr. Smith, >> here. >> Mr. Began >> here. >> Mr. Cowen >> here >> and let the record reflect that Mr. Santor, Miss Wyman, and Mr. Fel have
been excused. >> Okay, Mr. Alice, can you swear in our professionals, please? >> Well, certainly. Uh, gentlemen, uh, each of you raise your right hand as you've done. Do you swear or affirm testimony you're about to give tonight is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, believe? >> I do. >> That's two yeses, Mr. Chairman.
>> All right. Everybody has a copy of the minutes. >> Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I >> opposed. So be it. >> Okay, everybody has a copy of the bills. Do I have a motion to pay the bills? >> Make a motion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? So be it. All right. We don't have anything incoming outgoing. Is there anybody from the public that has anything to say on a non-aggenda item?
Nobody here from the public. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um u Mr. Chairman u members uh we'll just remind ourselves on the agenda you see Nicholas Broco application ZB25-03 is postponed. Um that is got to be
renoticed a piece of it but the 200 foot list is not going to be renoticed. So if you receive notice uh by virtue of being on the 200 foot list to 932 North Main Street the Nicholas Nicholas Bronco application there'll be no further
notice. You need to come back here uh 7 o'clock January 15, 2026 to be heard. Um is there anybody here on that application? It appears not, but I ask anyway. You're here to be heard on that? >> No, I I what had happened was I had sent >> Are you here to be heard on that? Who?
>> No, he's the applicant. >> He's the applicant. >> I apologize. >> Well, there you go. Okay. >> All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right. ZB25-04 Matthysse and Matthysse Development, 55 Washington Avenue, block 53.02, 2 lot 43 to 46. It is the R5 zone looking for
bulk variance to build a single family dwelling on an undersized lot. Gentlemen, thank you. Uh board Charles Gavin Operman on behalf of the applicant Matthysse and Matthysse. Uh I have my principal Kevin Matthysse here and our
engineer planner uh Richard Carlson. >> All right. Do you want to have him sworn? >> Yes, please. >> Sure. All right, fellas. Raise your right hand. Uh, do each of you swear a firm testimony about to give tonight is true and correct the best your knowledge, information, believe. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So, one is Kevin
Matthew. >> Kevin Matthew. Hello there. And the other is Richard Carlson. U Mr. Chairman, do we know Mr. Carlson? He doesn't I don't know. >> I don't know. >> Okay. Why don't you call a quium a little? >> All right. Mr. Carlson, please come up. Uh can you please starts with your
please provide your full name and your uh profession for the board please? >> Yes. My name's Richard Carlson. I'm a professional engineer. >> Keep your voice up. We all want to hear it. Yes. >> I'm Richard Carlson, professional engineer. >> Um
>> what's the name of your business? >> It's just Richard T. Carlson PE. >> And have you presented before the boards uh before zoning boards or planning boards before? Yes, I have. >> Let me just hit a couple quick questions. Where were you graduated from college? >> Grad Winer University.
>> Okay. And what degree were you graduated with? >> Uh civil degree. Uh a bachelor's degree. >> Well, >> and engineering. >> Okay. There you go. Right. Right. Right. Right. And um are you a licensed uh uh
uh engineer in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And how long have you been so licensed? Uh, I think I got my license 1989. >> Okay. Okay. And to your your your colleagues and your council's uh point,
you've appeared before a number of boards in New Jersey to testify in support of applications or because you work for boards or something else. You tell us. >> To testify for applicants. >> Okay. And and you've done that tens of times or dozens of times.
>> Correct. Yes. >> All right. Great. Well, well, welcome to Glboro. >> It's mostly been in >> good enough, Mr. Chairman. >> Yep. All right, then we recognize you as professional engineer and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good. >> Uh, the application was submitted. I believe it has been deemed complete. Um,
and there was uh the engineers report from Remington Vernick provided for request for certain testimony uh as well as some clarifications on our submission. I believe the engineering requests have been completed. Uh, and I would and certainly answered any of the
additional testimonial questions as they come up, but I wanted to make sure that Mr. Carlson answered any of the engineering questions prior to going on to my client's testimony for the other aspects. >> Mr. Rean, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so one one
of the item uh there were two items in completeness review. uh one of them being uh the zoning the zoning uh uh data table had to be updated which they did. The other one was uh regarding the wetlands location. There's no wetlands
on the site but adjacent to the property there's a there's a stream corridor with some associated wetlands to it and the transition area the 50oot transition area would overlap onto the site. My my question was, which wasn't a 100% answered, they they showed it on the
plan, but where where did that information come from the actual wetlands transition, was there a wetland expert or was it taken from >> It was taken from >> It was taken from D maps >> from the New Jersey D maps, right? And
it also approximates where it would be like a 50-foot riparian corridor. So um for this use it probably is sufficient to show that but I believe since there is on a private property there is a transition area I think at some point as
as a condition they should show a uh a restrictive um conservation easement on that part of the property little >> for that 50 ft. >> Yeah. Which cuts off the corner about. So if that's acceptable that would be something that >> does the applicant understand why that
request is being made and agree to that? Yes, I would say we are and as a part of one of the other inquiries was a deed consolidation of the lots. >> It would be easy enough to incorporate that into the consolidated deed. >> Okay. Well enough. All right. Thank you.
>> Uh there then there's also um uh sidewalk. They were requesting a waiver of sidewalk. That is something that would have to get the waiver from the council on that. So that would be a condition that they get that waiver from council on that since we have the safe
streets initiative and safe streets initiative in town. So that would be that part of it. And they did address the grading. Uh we didn't fully review it but they did have the information there but as part of their building permit they would have to submit for a
grading plan review also. And that's it Mr. Chairman. And of course you understand the grading plan is required if you want to move forward if you're granted relief from builders. You understand that and you agree to that, right? >> Yes. >> Pretty standard stuff. >> All right. >> All right. Well, thank you,
>> Mr. Cowen. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Um, with reference to a letter that Remington and Vernick supplied dated September 30, 2025.
Um the applicant's property is in the R5 zone. What is being um proposed is a permitted principal use in the R5 zone. Um I just wanted to reiterate uh that
the sidewalk um would require a waiver if the applicant is not able to uh provide that. Um, I'd like to hear from the applicant whether there's any um trees being removed as part of this application.
>> Uh, no, there will be none. >> Okay. >> Um, >> it's a few trees on the neighbors is adjacent, but that would be on him too if he want to. But the lot is pretty much open >> as far as the subject lot. There's no treasure. Okay.
>> Thank you. You saying you laid out the building envelope and there are no trees in a building envelope. >> It It's on the outskirts of it, >> right? >> It's outside of the building envelope. >> Oh. Oh, yeah. The footprint and all that. Yeah, definitely. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Clear. >> Um, we also recommend consolidating the
lots. >> Yes. >> And we and we hit that and and and council was um was good about it because he said, "Look, I got to do a deed of consolidation. We're down with that. So, we'll also fold in the 50 foot limitation on that overlap from the
wetlands that was uh just talked about a little bit ago. >> Understood. >> Fair to say, council. >> Yes. Perfect. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I actually um was in touch with the uh I think the county and they recommended to me which building lot to
use because it's several uh numbers 43, 44, 45. and they sent me an email. That way, I'll send it to the surveyor and it'll be lot 43 as one instead of all the additional lot numbers. >> And you could also forward that to to
our >> right. The countyy's going to make the call. So, you need to loop us in. >> That's who's going to make the call on the lot is >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> The um proposed lot coverage of the building. Um there's 20% of the lot is
required and you're proposing 21.3%. >> Yeah, I think we're uh we're proposing 18 uh 1801. I'm not sure exactly square footage, but >> what will be required of that 20% is 17.
So we actually only 100 >> squares >> of the difference. >> Can you give some testimony about why that extra 100 square feet might be required? because of the U proposed footprint of the house, >> okay, >> that we chose. And that may change too.
I may go to a uh right now it's a rancher and ranchers require more footprint. I may go to a twotory, so it may shrink within the footprint. >> But your application this evening is is for the 188 square feet. >> Correct.
>> Shown, which I think is reflected on the architectural plans that you submitted. Um I mean on the site plan but as far as the architectural plans um >> is this what's being proposed what what you submitted with the application
>> proposed now correct >> okay I know it's dated 2006 but this is still a current plan that you have >> yeah we right now that proposal because actually it was a uh the owner of it now I'm I'm purchasing off of him that was his plan that he got from like a modular
company so I assume that, but I'm a modified with my architect. So, when I get to the uh permit process, then that will be reflected there as far as Okay. >> code and everything. >> But in terms of the architectural, >> he's trying to get you. Do you know what
you're building yet? Is I just want to cut to the J. >> Oh, yeah. But that, but it just may be a second story. >> Okay. Well, then that's just quick quick question. I mean, you're asking us to make a decision on stuff we don't even see, >> but that's it for you. You have pictures of the site. Sorry,
>> we'll bring it over and we'll introduce it. >> Well, okay. So, we have professionals that have to see it. >> There is a public even though there's only one guy here. >> So, so you we're this is the board that
may or may not grant your relief. So, obviously they need to see it. So, pick a spot there or there on the side. >> All right. There you go. >> There you go. >> It's a little tight for you. >> That's fine.
>> You're fine. >> I believe you have copies. >> I do. Yes. >> Speak up, Kevin. We don't have a speaker near you. Would you like to provide a little testimony about what's being proposed? The
architectural >> um right now what's being proposed is a single family a house. It's a twocar garage. Um, and it has um, currently this particular model is like a four bedroomedroom.
>> Um, let me see what else. >> I thought I read Did I read threebedroom in there? I thought I read three bedroom says three on the >> Yeah, this it shows that. >> Well, that's different. So, it's >> three bedroom.
>> Yeah. Well, that's what was on the What was that? The uh site plan. >> Yeah, but the the model was uh uh uh it was a four bedroomedroom. >> You're not making any sense. We got a threebedroom as part of the application. That's what you're here to get approved.
>> Right. Right. >> So, why are you even saying the word for? >> Um >> there aren't four bedrooms. There are three bedrooms. Yeah. >> We just established that. >> Oh, okay. >> So, why would you say four? Well, well, I was thinking in terms of when I modified it to the
uh twotory, I was going to do like a four bedroomedroom. >> Well, yeah, >> we just asked you what are you building? So, you're building a rancher or you're building a twotory? >> Not modifying it. You're not We're not We're not part of the of the project as well. >> Okay. Right. All right. For now, I want
to get this approved, but I want the option if I wanted to go to a twotory and to create more space because I didn't like the layout of the first floor plan. Optional, but if I get approved, we can prove it for what it is
now for the threetory. And then when I go to uh submit my permits, when I do the updated plans, I wanted to see if I can do a twotory instead of a one story. Whatever, if I'm not mistaken, whatever we approve here, that's what it's going
to be. >> There's not going to be an upgrade modification somewhere down the road. >> So, hold the phone or or a professional had a comment. Maybe that >> Yeah, maybe. >> Whatever is approved tonight, if it's the square footage of the footprint, that's that's important, right?
>> Also, the number of bedrooms is important in terms of the intensity of the of the building itself. >> Okay. Uh it has to meet residential site improvement standards. But with his twocar twocar garage and a what is it 20
foot wide or a wider driveway um whether it's a three or fourbedroom it's a difference of two it's two parking spaces they they could fit them within those areas too. So it shouldn't make a difference three
or four bedroom as far as RSIS goes. Um, so the most important thing I guess is the footprint itself, >> right? >> And they could only build up to whatever they get approved, right? If they go for something smaller in footprint, then
I don't know if they need to come back. >> I thought that was something be held with the construction. >> Do you have a minimum square footage? >> Yes, sir. Do you >> The square footage is the variance is >> No. No. No, no, no, no. Is there a
minimum? Some towns have a minimum floor square footage. They don't want you building any um >> smaller than >> anything smaller than like 900 ft for one floor. I'm thinking of national park, quite frankly. >> Right. >> Um so, so Glass doesn't have that restriction. Okay. All right. Well,
that's some flexibility for you. Good. >> That's why I wanted to entertain it because the fact that it's not a septic system. If you dealing with a septic system, then you'd be restricted to how many bedrooms that were occupied. You you just you're going to make a more com Don't start talking about septics. You
just Yeah. Yeah. Don't worry about that. The council was was I think addressing your concern and interest. >> So So m Mr. Lopez, does does that make sense to you or does that help you a little bit? >> No, I I I totally understand what you're saying. >> Okay, good. Say that.
>> Can I interrupt for one second? Exhibit A1. What are we calling that as our exhibit? >> A1. We we'll call it A1 and we're just going to go proposed elevation. >> Yeah. Elevation of proposed building. >> Okay. >> Single family dwelling.
>> So I have a question. I don't know if I'm going out of term, but nope. If you're if you're looking if as you said to go to a second story >> and then that would shrink your square footage >> and then you may then very well be not
asking for an additional variance for whatever setback. >> Wouldn't that be your easier way to go? >> No, because the envelope to be conforming is is too small. So I would have to just stay within that footprint.
It It won't change anything for me. It'll just be >> Didn't you say you were going to that would reduce your square footage? >> It's a possibility. If I go second floor, I may bring the house in because I I won't need all that much footprint for living space on the first floor.
It's optional. Anything else, Mr. Cow? No, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> You have anything else? >> Uh, just wanted to confirm that we are requesting a waiver for the uh sidewalk and I believe there was actually a comment on curbage as well, which we
require a waiver for. So I I I think the board's professional had asked for and you might want to your engineers here. You're paying them. So you might as well get them saying something. So why are you asking for a waiver of uh of the curb >> um and sidewall and the sidewall? >> What's you know what's the big idea so
to speak? >> The way the waiver nothing up and down the street has curbs or sidewall >> because it's fairly new. It's a fairly new street. >> Street. It has to I mean it should start somewhere. And wouldn't curb appeal
increase your value? >> Well, they may or may not have an answer to that, but if the board wants to see curb and sidewalk, the board can require curbon sidewalk. It's that simple. >> At least >> life in a big city, so to speak. >> Yeah. At least to nowhere like all
>> and that may be the case >> and that will be >> look funny looking a curb stop. And you may feel that way, >> but if the board wants curb and sidewalk, they're going to make that a condition of approval and there's going to be curbon sidewalk. And the board seems to feel that that would be forward
thinking because while you say there's no other dwellings there, um their position seems to be that uh there will be, but I'm just saying what I just heard. Mr. Chairman, members, did I miss that or something else? >> You're right.
>> All right. Well, there you go. >> Um Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, >> I may have spoken a little too soon here. I I wanted to mention this. This is a bulk variance application and I think we should hear from the applicant with respect to the proofs that are
necessary for either a C1 or a C2 um >> bulk variance um if possible with respect to the negative positive and negative criteria. I think we should hear some some testimony on the record about that. >> Okay. Sure.
So Kevin, the the request is for us to describe a couple of things. The first is positive criteria. This is to address whether or not our proposed variances are going to improve the aesthetics. Uh given that the property itself is consistent with their plan, the ma the
master plan and the designs uh mostly for the purposes of why do we need these variances so you can build what you are looking to build? What's the advantage to the variances? Why couldn't we build within? >> Okay. Right now, um, it requires 8,000 square
foot for the building lot itself. Um, we have 8,500 square feet, but the difference is we have 100 foot frontage and we have 80 foot in depth and it should be reversed. It should be 80 foot frontage and 100 foot depth. If I had
that, then I wouldn't be here tonight and that's the reason. So, I'm actually 500 square foot bigger on the uh lot, but it's just the the uh setback codes 80 versus 100. So, that's the difference. So, Mr. Chairman, it sounds like the
applicant is making a hardship case, which is a C1 uh variance. Normally, the testimony would come from their planner. Um I'm not sure if this gentleman is a licensed planner, but perhaps the engineer is a planner. And >> that's what I thought. Yeah, he's not
he's >> if he can just corroborate, you know, basically um summarize that as well, that would be helpful. Well, no. Um, as was said and indicated on the on the
plans, uh, just the the buildable area on the lot because of the depth and all the front setbacks and, uh, others, you know, restricts how big of a house you could build. I mean, literally in depth, I I don't know
off my head, but the lot has shrunk to the buildable size, which would make the living space of the house, if you had the three bedrooms on the first floor, living room, kitchen, and stuff like that, you make it
into a little dollhouse almost. >> Um, as far as aesthetics and stuff, I mean, he plans of building, you know, comparable house that's
presentable to the neighborhood and probably upgrade to the the lot itself. Um, you know, dress it up, landscape around it, clean up. Um,
go ahead. >> The front setback is 40 ft according to the ordinance. Is there any other houses nearby on that street that have a 40ft setback or do they have less than that? >> Uh, everyone that I've looked at have
less than 40 ft. Most are in the neighborhood of 20 ft setbacks. >> Did you measure that? >> I I did not measure 100%. >> You're estimating. >> Yeah. Uh, take a shot.
>> You're looking >> right now. The way we have this house is is is in the setback is in line with the neighboring house which is non-conforming. So I I want the house to still look conforming even though it's
non-conforming >> but it's it's not going to sit back this way staggered. It's going to be in line with it and makes it, you know, look right. >> Okay. Do you have photos of the street? >> Uh I got a video on my phone, but >> that'll work.
>> But yeah. Well, no, it wouldn't work because how we going to see it? You could look at his phone, but you can't enter it into evidence. So, >> these are all pointers for >> before you jump to that skyscraper, you got to iron out some of these
>> routines because you got to, you know, >> there is um if I might. >> Yeah. Um there is a uh on this on the site plan a depiction of the neighboring house on Washington Avenue
which is uh to the left. I don't see a north um to the left as you look at the site plan. So that if that's accurate, that should be um an indication that uh the neighboring house is actually a little
bit further toward the street than what's being proposed. >> Yep. >> But if you just told >> or at least comparable, >> if this is this is his plan, he signed it. If he just told me he did a measure, why would I take this as being accurate? >> You just told me you didn't measure.
>> And it's your plan. So I can't If you look at the plan in the bottom left corner provided by the one who indicated where the house is, but there's no there's no dimensions on it. It shows it shows a one and a
half story frame dwelling, but and it shows what the sideyard setback is, but it doesn't show what the front yard setback is. Why? >> Not on the neighboring house, >> right? But it does show their sideyard setback. So
there's no way that we can determine whether that is truly >> less or more without a dimension. >> Good point. Or a picture >> that could be provided though as a condition. I can have the survey if you want to.
>> Well, yeah, it can be provided as a condition. As a condition, you come back next month. We look at it next month and we start all this again. >> No, we won't do that. >> Well, that would be the condition. >> No, >> because how else could it be a condition? >> Yeah, but >> we look at the photograph and we pass it
around like to one another at their offices and then take a phone vote or something. I mean, you know, come on. Think about this. This is why we do it this way. So you feel like that I don't feel anything on the hired help. I'm the attorney for the board. The board's
going to tell you exactly how they feel. >> I mean the depiction on the plans of the neighboring house survey >> and again there's no dimension. >> Nope.
>> And I don't have a scale right there. >> I I understand what you're saying sir. I did go to the street. I did take a look. I do have a photo. >> Well, what the board can do if it makes sense to the board is just to say that the house shall be set back the same distance from the property line as the
house next door is if you want to use that as the as the paradigm for the yard stick. >> Little bit of punching in the dark because to your point, you don't know >> what >> what the setback of the neighboring house is. >> I don't know if they got a variance. >> You don't know if they got a variance.
if it's if it's actually quite quite sensible, quite nice or or something else. But that house is old. It's an older house. Yeah, that house been there a long time. The neighbors, so it's definitely before
I mean >> the rules. >> Maybe maybe you want to request what variant what resolution approved that house and use it to your advantage. there. You'd know what they're what they were granted. >> I don't know. I I gotta find out what
year that house is built, but it's very very old. >> Doesn't look old. >> But the one left to the left of me >> doesn't look old. That's There's only the one house on the street. >> Yeah, it's like Yeah. One there, one across the street, right?
>> On, you know, on that time. But I'm willing to do whatever I need to do to make sure it's in line with what is existing. >> Gentlemen have anything else? >> Believe that completes the application
from the standpoint of uh addressing the uh design. We want to aesthetic with the community, keep it consistent, as my client has testified, >> desires to make a home that's uh consistent with the community design, fitting on an undersized lot. Uh the
parent has sought to make that possible. Uh the desire to have a option of of extending it to a possible fourb still fitting within the same footprint of our proposed uh and the variances of size so that we can confirm that the
building can be with sufficient for off street parking etc. I believe the testimony has been provided and answers to the questions presented by the engineers uh and seek to have a vote tonight. Any other questions from the board?
>> All right. Right now I want to open this up to the public. Do I have a motion open to the public? >> Motion open to the public. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak about this item that's on the agenda in
front of us currently? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clark Perpine, zoning officer for the Burrow Glass. Two things. First of all, the house next door was built in 1955, so predated the zoning code. >> Looks good. >> And it is probably >> possible.
>> However, you know what? It is the uh I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand and do you swear from testimony you're about to give is true and correct to best your knowledge or faith and believe. >> I do. >> Now you just published something on the record and is that true and correct to best your knowledge and believe. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry for the interruption.
>> The other thing I wanted to bring up is the fact that the house is also a one-story rancher as well as the house across the street is a one-story rancher. So, if the and my only concern is if the applicant comes in after your approval for these variances with a
two-story house, I want to make sure that the zoning board considered the fact that the front yard setback is reduced to the point to match other houses which are only one story high. And now you're going to put a two-story house with the same front front yard
setback where normally two-story houses would sit a little further back. So you can make your decision based on that however you want, but you know if he he can come in with any plan he wants as long as it meets the footprint and any
other conditions you put on it. But I would caution the applicant as well as the board to approve a setback where he may come in, you know, without any restriction on the building height to approve that setback. Currently, the code for undersized lots takes that into
effect and actually reduces >> the maximum height based on lot size >> just for that reason. So, I just want to make you aware of that. >> What's the maximum what's the height on that on that dwelling? >> The one across the street you're saying they reduce the maximum height? No, I'm
just saying our code would require for a reduced lot size that the maximum height >> be lowered in >> the same percentage as the setback. >> John, the other two are ranchers one story. >> No, no, that's I heard that part. That's why I was wondering where he got. >> Yeah, there is a twotory further up the
street towards South Academy, but it also sits back a little further. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else from the public? >> Do I have a motion to close the public portion? >> Motion to close. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> oppose. So it What's the pleasure of the board? So let me just ask this. If in fact you moved the house further this way, you would still be meeting the 10- foot setback on you only need to meet one 10-ft setback. That way
you would move the you could move the garage back further and then you could be putting yourself into a greater front yard setback. So, if the garage was more in line with the house,
then your setback wouldn't be as great. >> Okay, I got an answer for that. >> Okay. >> Um, I don't have much of a backyard. That's why I favored the left side so I can have more space on the right side. That's why I would want to put the garage
on on the left side because once we get this, I think we only have 19 ft of a backyard. So I I shift it where it's more to the left. That way the backyard and the sideyard would be kind of in conjunction with one another so I can have more
space. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have a motion. Oh, I'll make a motion to approve the C1 variants that are called out in
Mr. Cowan's letter. Um, >> you all the board also called out curb and sidewalk >> and anything else that was spread on the record will be part of the motion. But you're making the motion to approve and then the board would consider your motion. >> Mr. Chair,
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> One second. >> Miss Laferty. >> No. And I'll tell you, I there's just not enough information. Um I'm confused
of whether we're having a one story, a two story without knowing exactly what the setback will be. Um I I understand what the gentleman said regarding, you know, the the sidey yard, but and I definitely are a
no to the curbing and sidewalks. >> Mr. Per, >> u I'm going to go no. um not knowing the size of the lot, the building that is going to be placed like uh our M beer pond said um about the proposed frontage, how far back it's going to be.
Um if we had an idea of you know what the final building was going to be then maybe be a little more open to that uh at this time. >> Mr. Smith, >> no. Same thing as far as the setback. We we don't have a clear idea and
understanding as of right now. Mr. Lopez. >> Um, no. For the same reasons we were sent, we given information um did a site visit based on this information different documents, different pictures.
So, it just seems unprepared and not really in line with what I thought. So, >> Mr. Mun, >> not in favor. >> Thank you. Well, uh, we'll consider that. >> You got a lawyer. He's a good lawyer. There are options, but they've got to be
what they're considered to be substantial under the law. He'll tell you what that word substantial means and the significance and importance of it. And maybe we'll see you again. But in any event, we wish you a healthy and happy holiday and a good new year. Thank
>> you. >> All right. Uh let's see. We don't have any reports when it comes to the workshop. We didn't meet this month. Mr. Alice's report. Um well well well thank you Mr. Chairman members. Um
you'll remember we did have a matter uh ascenda and uh application for use variance and that was granted for block 33 block 26 resolution 25-11 for your consideration.
>> All right. Do we have a motion to make a motion? second. >> Mrs. Laferty, >> yes. >> Mr. Perer, >> yes. >> Mr. Smith, >> yes. >> Mr. Lopez, >> yes. >> Mr. Moon, >> yes. >> All right. There's no old business, no
new business. Do I have a motion to open to the public? >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Is there anybody from the public that has anything they would like to say? With that being said, >> I make a motion to close. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> So be it. >> Looks like we're going to be busy next month. >> We have two applications for the January meeting along with reorder. >> Cool. >> Okay. >> All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. All in favor? >> Opposed? So be it. >> Hey, happy holidays everybody. >> Sorry, George. We'll get you next time