Heat. Heat. Everybody ready? >> Yes. >> Good evening, zoning board of adjustment. Um, please we have the opening statement. Howell Township zoning board adjustment
February 9th, 2026. >> I hereby declare this meeting of the Howell Township Zoning Board to be open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meeting Act in the following manner. First, on December 16th, 2025, a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury
Park Press and the Star Ledger. Second, on December 16th, 2025, a copy of said notice was handd delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell. Third, on December 16th, 2025, said notice was posted in the office of the zoning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell
Township Municipal Building, 4567 Route 9, Howell Township, New Jersey, in accordance with the firerevention code and for your safety. Please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits at the front and rear of the meeting room. Furthermore, smoking
is not permitted in the municipal building. Please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for possible future broadcast on Howell Township TV77. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lisa. Could we have a roll call? >> Mr. Barillo >> here. >> Mr. Caner
>> here. >> Mr. Hughes >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell. Absent. Mr. Orosco >> here. >> Mr. Ryan >> present. >> Miss Miss Scottson >> here. >> Mr. Kabarakus >> here. Chairman Mertens
>> here. You have a >> Thank you. Could we all rise for the pledge of 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. Well, Andy, you got some professionals to swear in tonight. So, welcome them back. >> You swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, the healthy God. >> I do. >> I do. >> State your names for the record. >> Charles Cliff,
>> Jennifer Beam, >> professionals are sworn, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Thank you, Andy. Uh, first order of business tonight is the approval of minutes from the reorg and regular meeting January 12th, 2026.
Elo voters, Burillo, Hughes, O'Donnell, Rosco, Ryan, Scottson, Cabarakis, and Merren. Do I have a motion? >> I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Mr. Ryan was on the first. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Mr. Arasco, roll call. Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Barroskco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kabarakus.
>> Yes. >> And chairman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Resolutions. Zoning board attorney. >> Correspondence. >> Or correspondence. >> Uh there's no correspondence. >> What about LNL paving? In case there's
any members of the public here for BA1806A LNL paving, they are being rescheduled with notice. >> Uh, she didn't give me a date. >> Okay. Did they have to renotice or anything? >> It is with notice, Mr. >> With notice. Okay.
>> When is it again? August. >> No date. >> No date. It's going to they're I guess have to finish what doing what they're doing and then they'll renotice. So, >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Okay. Resolution. zoning board attorney
resolution appointing Andrew Bayer from Pashman Stein for 2025 eligible voters Burillo Hughes O'Donnell Rusco Ryan Scottson and Merrens >> it's for 26 by the way
>> 2026 >> I'm the only one who's retro I don't know why >> you're so sure what that says, but >> okay. Well, >> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair. >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Hughes and Mr. Burillo.
>> Mr. Hughes. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Orosco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson? >> Yes. >> Chairman Mertens? >> Yes. >> Resolution is memorialized.
>> Okay. A zoning board engineer resolution appointing Charles Conliff PE of TM Associates for 2026 elaborus Ryan Scottson and Merrens. >> Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Second, >> Mr. Burillo and Marie on the second. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Orosco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. Yes, >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes, >> Chairman Martens.
>> Yes. And welcome back, Charlie. >> Resolution is more or less >> zoning board planner resolution pointing Jennifer BMPP AICP alakian and corporate for 2026. Eligible V
voters Burillo, Hughes, O'Donnell, Rosco, Ryan, Scottson, and Merrens. >> Motion to approve. Amarie with the motion >> and I'll second this one. >> Second by Mr. Ryan. Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Orosco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Indeed. >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes. Chairman Mertens. >> Absolutely. Welcome back, Jennifer. >> Thank you very much. Next is zoning board license tree expert
resolution appointing Sherry Spiro LTE as CMA Associates for 2026. Eligible voters Barello Hughes O'Donnell Rusco Ryan Scottson and Merrens. >> I'll make a motion to approve. Miss Burrell,
>> Mr. Ryan second. >> Second by Mr. Burillo. Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Rosco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan, >> yes. >> Miss Scottson, >> yes. >> Chairman Mertens, >> yes. >> Resolution memorialized.
>> Memorialized. >> Case number BA22-03A Hutton How New Jersey State LLC resolution granting amended preliminary and final site plan approval with vote
variance and waivers. Elimo voters Caner Hughes Arusco Scottson Kabaracus and Merens. I'll >> make a motion to approve that. >> Mr. Caner with the motion. >> I'll second. >> Second by Han Marie. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Caner.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosco. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kabarakus. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mertens. >> Yes. >> Resolution is memorialized. Case number BA25-12
Maria Hign Ignore Cami resolution granting bulk variance approval eligible voters cancer Hughes Arusco Scottson Kabarakus and Merens have a motion >> a motion to approve >> Miss Scottson with the second
>> and Mr. Cabaracus with the second roll call >> Mr. Caner >> yes >> Mr. Hughes >> yes >> Mr. Mr. Rosco, >> yes. >> Miss Scottson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kabarakus, >> yes. >> Chairman Burns, >> yes. >> Resolution is memorialized.
>> Okay. Now, down to business tonight. Applications before the board. Case number VA25-9 Stewart Street LLC. Bulk varants for SFD with septic system on a undersized lot. Applicant of
Steuart Street LLC as applicant. and Helena Babo as owner seeking approval to construct a stu a twostory single family dwelling on an undersized lot in the R2 zone. Other proposed improvements
include a septic tank, potable well, dry well, asphalt driveway, and other improvements on premise known as block 148, lot 5, 269 Stewart Street. Expiration is April
29th, 2026. >> Good evening, >> Mr. Chair. Can I just before we start? Yes. Just if there's anybody here for LNL paving that's not being heard tonight. So I just want to make sure everyone here is for this application and then not for LNL paving which is
being carried to a date later on. >> Yeah. And we did announce that. >> I know but I feel like >> Okay. Okay. >> People weren't really focused on it. >> Okay. Mr. Jackson, good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Can we put the PowerPoint up?
Thank you. >> Well, you made his night, Jen. You're a kind woman. >> Thank you, Jen. >> Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, John Jackson on behalf of the applicant, Stewart Street LLC. Uh we're seeking a uh an approval for a
single family home on 269 Stewart Street. Um one of the interesting things about this that Mr. Civ and I went through and preparing for this is that it appears that there was a house there um from looking at historic aerial
photographs from 1956 to about 2010. So, um, this was like the, uh, original house in the area. It's just, you know, I can put those pictures in. Mr. Civ can testify to that. And, and I think that
has bearing, Mr. Baron, and I spoke um, a little bit about the the buyell obligation on the isolated undersized lot. I think that has a bearing on it because the doctrine of merger only applies to frontto back lots. That's what I was thinking of when I said frontto back lots. So the lot could not
have merged with the other one. So it it's it is an isolated uh lot. But um what I think we're going to do is we're going to go proceed and um you want to just give me some instruction on that. >> Mr. Chairman, as we were talking uh offline before the hearing started. Uh
the applicant had sent buyell letters on February 3rd. Uh two of those letters were delivered. uh there were four sent and two were not. Um so my recommendation is is it's not
jurisdictional so we can have the hearing. So my recommendation would be to proceed hear the testimony. You have neighbors here who are interested. Okay. >> And then carry it and then Mr. Jackson can perfect the at least we could
determine you know if those let get those letters. >> Yeah I agree. I think that would be the best way to handle this. At least we get everything >> Yeah. >> on record tonight. >> Thank you. So, you know, that that's of uh critical importance because this is an undersized lot and when you have an undersized lot, that is a hardship per
se. >> Um unless you can acquire property that that makes it uh conform. And uh I don't know if you could put the uh subdivision or you had a map with the red lines. Can you put that up? I just want to show you
um not on my PowerPoint what you were looking at with the um earlier to show all the lots the tax map had that up a second ago. There we go. Thank you. >> So >> is this John? Is this marked? Do we know or >> it it is not um I can provide that.
That's um What's that coming off of near maps? >> It is not. That's >> okay. >> You don't have access to that. Okay. So, we well >> just describe it for the record, John.
>> Yeah, sure. So, so what what the circumstance is is our lot is um the two lots behind us meet in the middle of our property line. So, it's like uh it's not a backto-back lot. Our narrow lot fronts two other narrow lots
um not fronts uh lines up within the back. So, um, if we go to page two on the PowerPoint, there's an aerial view. Page three shows the lot and its current condition. Page four uh, is the, uh, subdivision
plan. And actually, you can see what I was talking about on that. That that does the job. So, if you can see lot 15 in the back, That's good. Like that. You see where the north south arrow is? >> Yes.
>> That's on lot 15. Lot 14 is below that. Our lot, you know, it goes to the middle of that. Now, all all these lots are undersized. Um, so and and you know I I don't know if the buy sell letter that creates a you
know an unusual situation to have if one of those lots did want to buy ours that would make a very strange geometry of the uh combined lots. If lot 15 or 14 was was combined with our lot and the the the buyell letters were received on
5.01 and and lot 4. So anyway, there there's our uh plan. Uh with your permission, if I could have Rob Civ sworn, he will come forward and he'll just give you the engineering comments, then we'll go through our planning testimonies. That's >> okay. Do you have anybody else that's
going to be testifying? >> I do not. >> Okay. >> Okay. And >> yeah, I said our planner. >> Oh, okay. So, what I want to do is get them sworn in and then >> I think he misunderstood you. >> You did not, John. Actually, you didn't
say that. Why all the time? >> You're losing your mind. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, the help you got? >> I do. >> I do. >> Please state your names for the record and spell your last. >> Kristen Shepard. Uh, last name is Shephard. S H E P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P A A R D. >> Robert Civ si V is in Victor E. >> Okay, so while you're waiting for Mr. Jackson, you want I know I've seen you here many times, so we'll just get everything on the record just to be >> sure. I'm a licensed professional engineer, professional planner,
testifying tonight as a professional engineer. I have over 30 years experience in the engineering field, graduate of NGIT, and I've testified before this board as well as numerous boards throughout New Jersey. >> Okay. An active license and everything. >> Yes, my license. >> Okay, that's Thanks. We accept your qualifications. >> Thank you. And I'll just get started on
a quick little summary. Uh the site is identified as block 148 tax slot 5 is more commonly known as indicated 269 Stewart Street is located approximately 1,800 feet north of West Farms Road along the westerly side of Stewart Street and has an area of approximately
14,866 square feet. As Mr. Jackson indicated, the site was previously developed with a single family residential home which based on the historical aerials was from about 1956. Then we went to the 2010 aerial. the house is there. You go to the 2012 area,
the house is gone. So between 2010 and 2011, that structure was removed and now the property is vacant. The property is located within the R2 residential zone, which requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square ft, unless there is not
central sewer, then 40,000 square feet is required, which is why we're here tonight. Um, just one little point of administrative clarification. We're not going for a subdivision. I know Mr. Jackson indicated that's the subdivision map. What's on the screen is actually the plot plan or variance plan. There's no subdivision.
Um the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story approximately 2700 square foot two-car garage single family house. The house is located generally in line with the piling front setback of 31 12 ft of both neighboring adjacent houses with a paved driveway from
Steuart Street, a portable well in the front yard and an atgrade septic system in the rear yard. Now, there are three separes associated with this application. There's a front yard variance and two sideyard variances, and the planner will get into that a little bit after I'm done, but that's the gist
of this application is putting a single family house on the vacant lot that's there today. Um, just to maybe provide some additional clarification, Charlie, I'll go through your review report dated December 8th of last year. Um, I'll just pick on the items that are not just
statement of facts and then if I miss something, just jump in and I'm going to go to page two. At the bottom of page two, it lists the V waivers. There's two of them as it relates to curb and sidewalk. Um, I've been before this board many times. I know the feeling as
it relates to curb and especially sidewalk. I'll defer to the board. We did not propose any curb or sidewalk. There's no curb or sidewalk in this area. My feeling was it be it's a little out of character for this part of the town, but again, if the board wants it here, we will do it, but I'll defer to the board on that.
>> Okay, >> going to page three. I'm going to go to item number four. Uh on our plan, it does show a rear landing deck area in the back. Um it
measures 11 and 1/2 ft wide by 5 foot deep. Whether you call that a deck or landing, I suppose makes a difference on whether a variance is required or not. Um because it is 5 foot by 11, that obviously maths out to about 55 square
ft. My suggestion would be we call it a deck. Um that way if we need the variance, we have it, but it's not big enough to put a whole patio table and, you know, sit out there and have dinner on. >> Yeah. So, and I think the we brought it up in the letter is um if the applicant has any intent or a future owner to like
put a deck in that's something modest, I think we should discuss it tonight so that way if the board does inclined to act favorably on the application, they don't have to come back for a variance for a a deck that's attached to the structure. So, that's that's really where my my question was was coming.
>> And at the moment, I'm not aware of any future deck that this particular applicant is proposing. I I don't take issue with it. It's really just the, you know, egress from the back of the structure. Five foot wide. It's not a lot of space to put like a table or even a a chair on there. You know what I mean? The width 11 ft. You're not going
to fit a table on there. So, I I have no issue with it. >> Good. Um, number five talks about the buyell letters. I think we've covered that to some extent already. I'm going to jump to item number eight and it just asks if
the if there's any proposal to have habitable basement and/or attic space. The answer is no. There'll be your traditional attic and basement areas. No h no habitable space. Continuing on to there's no sewer and water in the area which is number nine
which is why we're proposing the well and septic. The well is in the front yard as indicated and the septic's in the rear. We do have an application at the Mammoth County Health Department. We did do soil logs and we are anticipating approval of that septic system relatively soon.
Item number 12 at the bottom of the page indicates that there is some activity or noticing for D land use activity for neighboring properties. What that has to do with is both the property to our north and south
at one point in time had underground heating oil tanks and they've both been issued NFAS or no further action letters and nothing else is required and it should not impact our property as well. >> So Charlotte, I don't know if there's anything more you want on that. >> No, that that's fine. And our question was regarding well because it is an
undersized lot. So board of health that's ultimately under their purview. though. And I believe really the only other thing to touch on in the letter is there are about five to 10 trees on the property that we may end up clearing as as a result of the development of this
property. They've kind of grown as the previous house that was there has not been there since about 2010. And there's about five, I'll say to eight, maybe 10 that'll come down as part of this application. And we will submit the appropriate tree clearing permit as part of that. >> What about replacements? >> Um, we're not proposing any specific
trees at this time. Um, if the board wants us to obviously plant some trees, we can do something >> a little bit tight for our property based on the septic and the wells and then the house in the driveway, but I'm sure we could find some room for a couple. >> Jennifer, any
>> opinion on that? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Short of that, I think Charlie, I covered most of the engineering, if not all. If there's something else? >> Yeah, I I'll just jump in real quick, Mr. Chair. So, and just to clarify, so it's a fourbedroom home. There's only uh was it three two and a half parking
spaces or three parking spaces required. You have a two-car garage and then you have at least space for two cars in the in the driveway. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And we agree that there would be no habitable basement and the the dwelling that's shown it's all any potential third story or attic is all gable roof.
So there's not really much space to put like habitable area up there. Correct. >> That's correct. >> All right. Um the variances that we talked about. So um the property is in R2 which has certain standards. The fact that it's not serviced or not able to be serviced by public sewer and they have
to put in a septic system, they require relief because we require 40,000 square feet for for lot service by by septic. So So they need that relief. As far as public water and sewer, I can agree with Mr. um Civ. There's nothing on Stewart that I'm aware of. There are some
projects in the area um but at best those would be coming from West Farms Road and you know that's at least probably 1,000 feet or 600 to 1,000 feet from from West Farms Road. Um that would be a significant hardship to make one property owner run sewer to to this
property. Um regarding the front yard setback, so um when you're not meeting the 40,000 feet, you're also subject to the setback requirements. That's 50 for the front yard setback, 30 for the sideyard setback. Um, so they're proposing 31 and
a half ft from the front yard area. Um, you know, could they shift the structure back to comply with that? Yes. But then it's only going to require a longer driveway that's more impervious surface. Um, you know, does that create more runoff and potential impact to the neighbors around this? I I would say
that's probably does. So having a shorter driveway is probably a better thing from a runoff perspective. Um the sideyard setbacks, they're proposing basically 15 feet on both sideyards. So uh if you applied the one standards to this lot, you wouldn't have any building
envelope. The lots 59 ft wide, 30 ft on both sides, you you wouldn't be able to build anything without a variance. If this property was serviced by public sewer, you would have a 20ft setback requirement. So, they would still require relief, but the building envelope for that house would be like
19.3 feet or something like that. You know, as far as you're going to get something that's going to look like a sideways ranch or like more of like a rail car, you know, stout and and that um and long, you know, they're asking for 5ft relief on both sideyards. What
does that look like from the street as far as visually? Does it fit more into the neighborhood? Does it look more like a home and less like something you might see in a shore town or in like an urban area? You know, this narrow tall structure, you know, that's that's something for the board to consider. The
lot frontage, that's an existing condition. You know, 100 foot is required in R2. Um uh they're at 59 ft. I I will say I went back to try to do some darches and see if there was a subdivision for this property because this is lot five and the adjacent lot is
5.01. Um, I couldn't find any history of a subdivision for this, but the deed that I found said there was two distinct lots at least going back to 1967. So, and you also heard them put testimony on the record that the subject property did have a home on it up till
about 2011. And speaking with Mr. Aguar, he was able to actually pull open the township's record. There was a um a demolition permit for a single family home that was approved in 2011. So that would seem to confirm the representation
um that they've made the sidewalks and the curbs. >> Excuse me, Charlie. >> Yeah. >> Do we do we know the size of that home? >> That's a question for John. I don't know if that's something that we >> according to this record, it was like just under 700 ft. >> Did that did that did that infringe on
the on the uh side sets? >> We don't know. >> Probably was zoned differently then. 654 ft instead of 55 by >> those are small. >> Yeah, >> it's like a bowling alley lot. It's
super narrow. >> No, I know you can see that. >> So, anybody know what the an acreage of the property is? >> It's uh just about what 13? Yeah, a third of an acre. So, and they are providing rightaway dedication. So that further, you know, I mean, we could get
it as an easement and it wouldn't change, but no way you you cut it. The lot doesn't meet the R2 standards even if it was serviced by public sewer. So, >> and what is the square footage of the new of this proposed home? >> Is that gross to 2700? >> That's the That's gross.
>> Second floor. >> What is it in 2D? >> 2700 square ft. So the first floor is about 1,52 ft and then about a 475 ft garage or roughly 2,000 foot footprint.
>> 2,000 square foot footprint. >> Are the other homes in the on the street similar in size? >> Um >> there's a mix of houses on this street. I'll let the planner get into the types of houses, but there's a good different
mix of houses in this area. >> Okay. And and I will say just for the board's uh reference, we did have a within a couple years ago maybe two or three properties to the closer towards West Farms Road come in for a variance to add an addition to an an existing home there. So um you know the
households are changing, you know, from what they probably were 50 years ago. So more more people are living at home, you know, um kids that are going away to college are not buy able to buy that first-time home. So the realistic part of it is families are staying around the unit staying together a little bit
longer than than what it used to be in the past. >> Okay. >> Um the couple other things that I'll just touch on real quickly. Uh so well and septic, right? That's they've got an application into the board of health. Um
they're ultimately going to have to satisfy board of health. If it comes back that the neighbors to the rear have a well and a septic system that's too close and they can't build it as they're being shown, then they they'd have to come back to the board to um modify the footprint or or move the septic system or move the house. So, that's ultimately
under their purview, but it would be a condition of the approval. Any utilities proposed with the the new home, um any openings in the road, they're going to have to comply with the township's road opening ordinance if the board acts favorably. They also have to get a free old soils approval because it's over 5,000 ft of disturbance. and we do have
that. >> Um, and then the last thing I would just say, um, emergency generators, building mechanicals, um, is there any intent to put in patios or any other accessory structures or shed? And I just bring it up now so that
way, you know, we can get it on the record if the board, you know, let us discuss it, consider as part of the application. And if there is any relief that would be required, let's let's talk about it now. So, you know, people don't have to come back if the board acts favorably on this.
>> I'm not aware of any sheds, patios, or anything of that nature that this applicant's asking for. The only thing I would mention is we will have the AC condensers, and we'll probably put them in the back of course, side corner of the rear of the house, but short of that, there's nothing else as far as sheds or patios or decks that it's on
tonight. So the AC condensers are going to be in the rear of the structure, right? >> In the rear. Correct. We'll do in the back or in the side rear corner. >> Yeah, I would say let's have it at the back of the structure just because they're asking for the relief of the sideyard setback. Um, you know, and ideally if it could comply with at least
a 20 foot setback, you know, for for the home for the R2. I think that would be something that uh might help mitigate any noise impact to the neighbors. >> That's something we could do. question for John. >> Yeah. >> The demolition permit, did that uh take
care of any existing septic that was on the property? >> Uh that would not uh that would be a separate permit uh through board of health. >> Where was the other? >> Do we know where the prior was and has it been addressed? >> I can tell you. >> I don't I don't have any records.
>> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> Go ahead. >> Uh sorry. Um, I can tell you when we did the soil test pits, we touched base obviously with the health department. They came out and witnessed the soil logs for this test pit, this septic system. They did not have any records of the septic system on this property. Um,
so we do have a note on our plans that should have that that septic material be encountered during construction of this house. It will be addressed with appropriately. So, we don't know where it is, but we have measures in place if it is encountered. Okay. >> Yeah. And I'll just say that it does
appear from what I looked at with the deeds that these properties this in 5.01 might have been, you know, owned by a family. Um, so I wouldn't be surprised going back in the day if they had a septic system on one property and both tied into it. So that's also something
that that could be uh realistic. But um, as far as as Mr. Civ said, if they encounter it, they're going to have to abandon it and uh, you know, they got to comply with all board of health regulations in that regard. Thank you. Okay. >> Anything else?
>> I just have a couple of follow-up questions for Mr. Civ. >> Can um and you could see this looking up there on the uh >> I won't call it a subdivision on the plot plan. >> The uh Mr. Civ, does our property on the
front yard setback align with the front yard setback on the two adjoining properties? >> Correct. That was the goal when we put the house on the property was to generally align with the house to the north and the house to the south and basically connect a straight line. It's
about 31 and 1/2 ft between the two of them and that's where we placed the house. We thought that would make the most sense. >> Now, there are a lot of lines up there, so it's hard to pick out where the front of our house is. Could you trace it with the with the uh laser?
>> So, it Front of the house is right here. >> So the rest of that that's just different features on the plans. Correct. That that's the rectangle. Can you just trace out the rectangle of the house? >> Sorry, I don't have a very steady hand. That's why I became an engineer. >> All right. So let let's take a look if
we can on uh page six of the presentation which is the uh architectural floor plan. So these are the plans that obviously we're going for variance. This
is this is what we're building. So um our our uh the width of our house is only 25 ft, right? >> I believe that 29 >> 29 I'm sorry. 29. Correct. >> 29. I got to put my glasses on, too. 29.
So, we got a 30 foot house width and um the a good portion of the footprint is taken up by the garage on the front, right? >> On the front of the house. Correct. >> So, the the the ground floor footprint, while it's a garage, we need the parking
spaces. That ground floor footprint um is is um you know, is that appropriate for this lot? >> Yes. So on now we we're not having a uh a basement, right? >> I believe there is a basement, but it's not habitable space as far as living
space. >> Okay. So not not a habitable basement. So we could agree no living space in the basement. >> Correct. >> And uh >> are they where's the plans that show that space >> in terms of >> Yeah. So >> claiming there's a basement even if it's
not habitable. We want to see it and it's not provided. >> Yeah. You only have the first and the second floor. There is no basement, foundation or foundation plan for this. >> Okay, we could we could provide that. >> Correct. And I think the architect or the applicant didn't provide the house basement or foundation plan because it's
basically going to be a rectangle and they didn't get to that stage of the construction documents, but we can provide that. >> I mean, I wouldn't consider these construction plans, Rob. These are architectural plans for an approval before the board. And as this board has
reviewed and you've been here multiple times, every floor counts. So I don't really understand that rationale. We're not asking for detailed construction plans. We're asking for a plan that shows a basement. Right now based on what they have, they would not have
assumed there was a basement associated with this proposal. >> Okay, understood. >> And that goes to the, you know, question about parking and things like that. right now if there were I know they said that there's no intent to put basements in there uh bedrooms in the basement but if someone were to right um there's only
so many cars I can fit in the driveway that's probably going to be used for storage and the driveway is only so wide and so long and Steward Street is not exactly the widest road in the street so um you know we don't want to be seeing cars parked all up and down Stewart Street especially with an undersized lot condition so that's where the board's
coming from >> yeah totally agree >> where are the steps to the basement on that plan. >> I'm sorry. >> The steps to the basement on that plan >> probably where that door is. >> Okay. >> Behind the garage probably. >> Yeah. These are the ones going up and
down. Up and down. >> Okay. >> You said step >> Yeah, that looks like a door which would go down. >> All right. So, if we could take a look at um page >> four of the presentation again. >> I don't think it shows page.
>> Yeah, it does. It does. It's just showing up to the second floor. Well, you have two on the main floor. So, >> yeah, because I think what would be important >> if you have it on the main floor, Nick, I think that and I see a door. >> That door would have to obviously go down. >> You can't see it on here. >> Yeah, I can't see it on there.
>> I think it would be important to know for the basement, is it like a Yankee basement in terms of like more of a storage utility basement or is it >> a deeper >> standard basement? An 8 foot ceiling basement or is it >> Yeah. >> a crawl space basement? >> No, it's going to be a full height basement.
>> Okay. So, if you could just zoom slide that to the left and down. I just want to show the uh the the map in the upper right corner that's in color on this drawing. There we go. All right. So, Mr. Mr. Mr.
Civ in the immediate v that that's the tax map in the immediate vicinity the lots here are all pretty undersized for the zone correct I just wanted to point to that and then uh finally if we
could just look on page one of the presentation This is just uh to show that there's there's no habitable attic. It's a relatively low attic. >> Correct. >> So there's no room up there to have it, you know, seven feet. That's a
relatively squat attic. Correct. There's zero intention with this application to have habitable basement and/or attic spaces part of this application. And just uh to to put it up there, I'll just ask you to take a look at slide five, which has the more detailed
elevations. Now, that shows this property has a slope on it, so we'll have a little bit of a uh downhill. >> Correct. >> And that's basically shown in this and and that shows all the the views of the house. >> Correct.
You can see the attic doesn't even really have windows. All right, that that's those are all the questions I have for Mr. Civ. Thank you, >> Charlie. Jennifer, anything to add, >> comments? >> I think the only thing would be um
regarding the curb in the sidewalk. So, if the board is inclined to grant relief, then they would have to make contribution to the fund or they'd have to go to the governing body to seek relief for that. So, um, and as far as a curb, I don't take issue. If you look at, uh, the couple properties to the north of this, they do have like asphalt
rolled curb, not concrete curb. And, uh, the reason that they probably have that is the the grade starts to drop off pretty drastically. So, um, if we were to put curbs on this property, it's going to channelize runoff from the street and then just keep sending it downhill and eventually someone's front
yard is going to start bearing the burden of that. Um, you know, if anyone's been up like Turpac Road, uh, and see where there's no curb, you can see the edge of the road just gets eaten up when, you know, all that runoff gets channelized. So, I don't have an issue from that perspective.
>> Jennifer, what's your take on the sidewalks? I know >> I mean, it's a single family house, right? So, like normally, you know, that I would be advocating for sidewalks no matter what, but that's a pretty significant burden for a single family house. And even if they don't put it in,
they're going to have to contribute to the fund and then at some point the township can put the sidewalk >> in goes in somewhere that needs it. I agree. So everybody here is >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's going to be that's not going to be an issue. >> There are no sidewalks anywhere in the vicinity. >> I would not.
>> So other than that, you guys are good. >> Members of board, any questions for the engineer? Is there a little bit of a drop in the grade on that one side? You can see the foundation. Okay. So, there is Okay.
>> And is that going to affect any the people on the side? The J, you know, the properties. >> We're proposing swailes that >> Okay. Swailes. Okay. >> Yeah. So, so the property itself uh grades from Stewart down to the rear of the property in the existing condition.
And that's kind of what >> I would just say um they are providing drywalls size for the water quality storm for the home. >> This is in the R20 or sorry the R2 district which currently doesn't have any impervious coverage limitations but it is an undersized lot. You know they
are going into the sidey yards. If any of the neighbors are particularly concerned about runoff or you know especially the ones to the rear I'm sure Mr. Civ could uh maybe provide an additional drywall upsize it to like maybe some of that concerns. But um again, it's in the R2 and there aren't
impervious coverage restrictions uh per our code right now. >> Okay. >> Okay, Mr. Jackson. Um I guess that's it with your engineer. >> You want to bring your next witness? >> Uh Kristen Shepard, please. Or a planter from Consulting Group. And I'm going to
ask her to sew over there because I don't care if I get Rob Z sick. I don't want to get her sick. >> Okay. >> Very nice of you. >> Such a gentleman. >> I know. Thank you. >> I guess I'm good. >> I know I've been sworn in, but do you
would you like >> Yeah, just need qualifications. >> Great. Yes. So, I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is active and in good standing. I've had this license for the past four years where I've testified at a number of boards across the state of New Jersey. I've also created numerous comprehensive plans, master plans, and
zoning ordinance recommendations. >> Okay. Thank you. We accept your qualifications. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Shepard. I know that you prepare an outline uh with your an with your uh planning analysis and with the chairman's permission, do you want to just go through your outline and narrative point uh form and advise the
board uh what your views are on this? >> Yes, I will. Thank you. Uh so good evening. As you all know, we're here tonight to talk about the applicant requesting some bulk variance relief. Um and this is based on the unique physical characteristics of this property. So this is an is as discussed before this
is an isolated legally existing undersized residential lot because this lot size width configuration and septic constraints based uh the strict compliance with these bulk requirements would in um would lead to practical difficulty in developing a permitted single family home. So we're going to be
talking about the C1 hardship relief here. Um so this hardship is not self-created. The applicant did not create the slot, subdivide it or impose the existing infrastructure limitations. All of these requested variances stem from the same underlying condition in this case, which is the undersized non-
sewer nature of the property. So, in response, the applicant is proposing a modestly scaled single family home that minimizes impacts and remains compatible with the surrounding residential development. And I can get into that in more detail, but in the absence that any C1 hardship is found, I will talk to the
C2 criteria argument as well. So, I will speak to the positive criteria. uh statutoily as planners we're required to only satisfy one purpose of the MLUL in per in being promoted with this application in this case I believe multiple are I'll start with purpose C which is to provide light adequate light
air and open space and in this case the dwelling significantly exceeds the rear yard setback and complies with the height limits for stories um or the height limit excuse me for height and stories um and although the sideyard and front yard relief is requested the overall site layout preserves meaningful
open space and does not impair site uh air or adjacent properties and as discussed pri previously the relief is dimminimous for the sideyard the relief request and the front yard is consistent with the neighboring properties shown on the map I also believe that purpose G is
uh advanced in this case so that's to provide space for residential units in appropriate locations and in this case the property is zoned for residential use the requested variances allow the lot to function as intended under the zoning scheme despite its pre-existing size and infrastructure constraints so I
will now go back to uh the negative criteria. So this is in my opinion not going to uh significantly cause any substantial detriment to the public good which is the first prong of the negative criteria. It's a single family permitted home. There's no increase in density. There's no subdivision. There's no
non-residential use. The height scale and massing are consistent with the neighborhood. I do have a list of about three properties on the street of Stewart which are of >> Don't do it. >> Okay. >> Don't do it. >> Thank you. So there it's of similar uh size. >> It doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> Don't do it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Jen. Um and it does our proposal does uh maintain adequate separation between the structures and as I touched on briefly in the positive criteria. Um there is no impact on light air or privacy. The septic system as already mentioned will be uh adhering to
the county and township board of health approval and will be uh ensuring public uh protection of public health and safety as well. The application does not impair the intent and and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In my opinion, the town code section 1852 specifically, oh,
I'm sorry, 18852 specifically rec recognizes undersized lots that are non- steward and provides a framework for their reasonable development. The lots in the area are also of similar undersized nature as shown on the screen by the engineer giving his testimony. So, in conclusion, based on the
testimony I presented, it is my professional opinion that this application meets its statutory burden of proof. It satisfies both the positive and negative criteria and it can be granted without substantial judgment to the zone plan and to the public good. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Jennifer. >> Okay. So, I do not take exception to a single family home being put on this property even though it's undersized and it needs a septic system. But to stipulate that this site is promoting air, light, and
open space when it does not comply with either sideyard setback is not not something that I can support. I don't support that justification. So I don't take exception to the relief globally of putting first of all putting a single family house on the lot is permitted. It's permitted in the zone. So we're
talking about the size of the property. I know buy letters were sent out. I know the two on either side were received. You did not get any response back. Correct. >> Correct. You also sent them out to the back and I recognized the, you know, the difficulty with the fact that the lot line bicts the property. It would be
difficult. If one said yes, the other said no, it would get you close, but you definitely would not be get them to a conforming lot. So, I do feel like there's a hardship involved in terms of the the property itself. There's really no ability to make this site
>> conforming in area. Um, that being said, they're asking for a single family house. The house is modest in size. I don't feel like a 2900. And that's the right number, right? 2900 2700 >> 2700 >> in Howell in today's day and age. I
mean, I'm sure Matt and Amry would know this better than I would, but I don't feel like that's an enormous house on an undersized lot. I feel like it's a modestized house. They have complied to the best of their abilities with the sideyard setbacks on either side. If they like, as Charlie stated, if they
complied, there would be no building envelope, right? If they even tried to comply further, this would be like, what did you use a railroad property, right? Where it's like, right. It's just like I I mean, I lived when I was in college in a railroad apartment, which
was like super narrow and deep, but aesthetically and fitting into the neighborhood, I don't think that it would meet the character of the neighborhood. So, while I don't agree with the airline open space argument, I don't take exception to the relief that the applicant is requesting to put a single family home on this property. And
I also feel like the disposition of the septic is up to the board of health. Like that's outside of our jurisdiction. So, with that being said, I don't take exception to the pro to the application being sought before you. >> Okay. >> Board members
have to say >> Yeah. said it was >> 2700 first floor roughly the footprint is 2,000 >> footprint. >> Okay. So that's all the testimony that you have. Okay.
>> Uh Mr. Jackson, I'm just going to take we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll come back and hear uh go open up the public. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Um, anybody from the board have a question?
There was a discussion about the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If we can get some clarification on the square footage of the house because the numbers in our head here are match matching up. I don't know if Mr. Civ has anymore. All >> right. Mr. Civ, you want to come up?
I think testimony said 2,000 square feet. >> I'm not the architect. I was just reading off the architectural plans. >> So, I'm looking on the cover sheet. There's a building information uh table, I'll call it. >> Yeah, I can't read it.
>> Yeah, we can't see it. >> And it says the first floor finished is 15,552 ft and the second floor is 1,150 ft. If you total that up, that's where the 2700 came from. Then it says unfinished 474,
which is the garage. Those are the numbers that I was reciting when I gave the testimony. >> What was the square footage of the garage? >> 474 square ft. >> Okay. 2700. >> No. >> No. >> So, it's over 3,000. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> 3100t.
>> Yeah. That's what I >> was almost 3200 ft total. >> Yeah. >> Also doesn't include the basement or the attic space, >> right? Does that include the basement, the attic space?
Correct. >> Why did we go up to 3,200? >> Well, if you add When you say 3200, are you adding the 27 and the 40? How do you get 32? I guess >> because of the garage counting the garage >> be like okay it's like 31 31 change
>> got it okay I got it I got it I got it >> right okay >> yeah generally when you talk about square footage of buildings or homes it's the heated space not garages not porches not decks >> and that's so we don't count the garage
No, >> but this time the basement is going to be unfinished, but things can change. So, we have to make sure we have that covered. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chair, I would just add too with the garage, I think if the board is inclined to act favorably, we
have some language in there that the garage shall not be converted to habitable space or anything like that as well. Um, >> and that would hopefully, you know, eliminate that question mark about the gross floor area of the home. >> We would agree with that. >> Okay. You'd be okay with that.
>> We would also agree no bedrooms or anything like that in the basement. >> You know, maybe someone will want to put a bar down there some days and watch. >> Okay. A man's c a man's cave, but no, no bedrooms. Okay. >> No bedroom. >> Okay. >> Anybody else questions, comments? I
think I'm just a little I I think the you know the size is a little concerning. Um you know there's you know you've you've got similarly sized homes.
There's two or three in particular that are at or larger but they're on much bigger lots. Um, I'm assuming there's folks here that are going to make comments about that, but um, is there any possibility the
builder or the the person who's looking to build um, would consider reducing the square footage of that house to some extent or changing the configuration of that house? because I'm also looking at other properties nearby that are smaller on similarly sized lots in different
parts just not just a quarter of a mile down the road. Um so just wondering if there's any flexibility there. >> Well, can we put um the the presentation back up page five? I mean the short answer is
yes. You could always you know you can make a two-bedroom Cape Cod, right? It's it's always possible to have a smaller house, but I I respectfully submit that the you know, if you look at the profile from the street, that is not a wide house. It's barely wider than a than a garage. And then when you look on the
side, I you know that this lot is 200 something feet deep. It's um let me double check that. >> Yeah, 250 ft deep. for that length of a house on a 250 foot lot deep lot. It's it's still going to have a very big backyard setback comparable with
everyone else. We have reasonable sideyard setbacks on a lot uh of 14,866 ft to have a 2700 foot living space house. We think that's appropriate and not out of proportion. um you know that that's
still a lot of property 14,000 square 15 almost 15,000 square feet so that you know the short answer is yes if it's to face a denial or to make a smaller house I could talk to my client about that maybe we could make some kind of sec concession but that does a lot of
violence to the architecture and everything else I don't know how you shrink it down >> okay well I think what we'd like to do is then hear from the public and see you know what their comments are so >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, just one more quick question uh for Mr. Civ. The the septic,
>> why was the decision made to tuck the septic all the way at the very rear of the lot and not bring it closer to the rear of the home? >> So, there's two reasons why. And the primary reason is we have to meet the setbacks to the other septic systems. So what we did do when we designed this lot
was in communication with the health department, we got the documents that showed where the septics and wells were on the adjacent lots. So as you can see where you have to maintain a 50ft separation between the septic fields where we're right at those separation distances. That's why it was decided to
put where it is. It also allows for some area between the house and the septic field for use of the yard area. If you look up on the screen um the plot plan, you could see the septic fields that Mr. Siv was referring to >> and other wells too.
>> Okay. >> So there's the neighboring septics and then the wells. >> I guess there were were no encumbrances with the septic on the properties to the rear of the house then. >> So correct. When we looked at theirs, their lots are similar to ours. They're long and their septics were closer to the house. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Okay, Lisa, we're going to go to public. >> I'll make a motion to go to public, Mr. Chair. >> Second, Matt with the motion and Maria. All in favor.
>> Mr. Chairman, is open hearing up for members of the public to ask questions or comment on this application. If you would like to speak, please come up to the podium and you will need to provide your name and address and you will be sworn in. Good evening. >> Evening. >> Uh, we'll have you sworn in and then
>> you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. State your name for the record. >> Caitlyn Benija. >> Spell your last name, please. >> V E N E Z I A. >> Brandon Smith. M I T. >> Okay.
>> Just tell the board where you live and >> I live at 267 Stewart Street. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. It's my husband. >> Okay. >> Um I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed construction of a two-story
single family home on a lot that the township has already deemed non-buildable due to its size. This is this lot does not meet Howell Township's requirement for a buildable property and granting exception would impact not only me but the entire neighborhood. A larger home on an undersized lot would affect
surrounding property assessments and increased property taxes. As a firsttime homeowner, I'm already managing rising costs and this approval would likely force me to appeal an assessment again. >> If I could just interrupt and I know you have something prepared. So the board, this is a land use board.
>> So like taxes and money, that's not really a reason to either grant or to deny the relief. It has to be land use related. >> Just so you know. >> This is my first time being a homeowner, so this is all new to me. So >> No, no, no. I And I just wanted you to be aware. So that's not really a factor
the board legally can consider in terms of higher taxes, lower taxes, whatever it is. >> Right. Understandable. Um, our neighborhood is all septic and well, so I'm concerned about the water runoff and drainage. With such a small lot, where will the excess water go? Especially during heavy rain during well drilling
and pumping, water has to be placed somewhere, and I'm concerned about what protections would be in place to prevent the water from entering my property and getting into my basement. This matter has the potential to significantly and negatively impact my quality of life. I'm experiencing considerable concern
regarding possible damage to my property, particularly to the tree roots that may be affected by excavation equipment used for the septic system in the back of the property. I'm especially worried about the mature oak as situated between my property and the property in question. Um the
neighbor property um damage to its root system would severely affect the quality of life of the tree. and during a major storm, the tree could fall, resulting in serious damage to my garage and the valuables inside of it. So, my question is, who's going to be responsible for my damages? So, I'm not putting that
through my homeowner's insurance. So, is a township going to be responsible or am I going to sue the homeowner? >> You have to sue the homeowner. >> Okay. Um, lastly, I find it extremely disrespectful and offensive that someone would have the audacity to send me a certified letter asking if I would sell a portion of my lot or my lot in
general. So, let me be absolutely clear when I say this that my lot is not available for sale. I'm not selling part of it or any part of it at all. Um, so I'm not only speaking for myself, but I'm speaking for my fellow neighbors that are here today. >> You can't do it. >> Okay, I'm done.
>> Now, what I was bringing up >> on the map located >> the bottom. >> We're to the next door. Right next door. >> Yes. On the bottom. >> Yeah. >> Yes. On his window. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Now, what they brought up that, you know, privacy wouldn't be an issue or
anything. This house is going to be what, 60 ft long. >> Is that what their map was showing? Roughly 60 ft long. >> Yeah. >> So, take that approximation versus my house and the house on the other side of
me, which are roughly maybe 30. You're doubling the length and it's going higher in the air. So, even if I put a fence up, we're just going to say my wife and her friends decide to go out in the summer and go out and suntan. I got to worry about whoever's there
looking in my yard, watching what I'm doing, watching what my wife's doing, watching what the neighbors are doing. Where is the privacy? >> Isn't there a two-story house on the other side of you? >> Yes. And their back is with the back of my house.
>> They also don't have that. >> Okay. So, their back of their house is close to just about in line >> with your house my house. >> So your backyards are back basically >> correctly. >> Correct. And same as how that map is
drawn, none of these properties run in perfect squares. They run on angles. >> So I don't know where the perfect square >> that so that that's that's a GIS database. That's a a database that the applicant used, but they didn't create it. It came from like the county or
something like that that or or the state. It's not that they generated this map themselves. They used existing parcel data to to give everyone an idea. It's not meant to be a survey or exact. It's just a general idea of what's
>> going on. If I could just I just want to clarify a couple of things because I know it's brand new. Number one, the town has not rendered this property undevelopable. I want to be very clear. It's undersized. Yes. But it is entitled, the applicant is entitled to
develop their property in in some way. May not be this way, but in some way the town cannot say that it's undevelopable because then the town would be obligated to buy it. We never said that. We said that the zoning requires X. They're less than X. That's why they're here. So, I
just want to be very clear about that part of it. Um, secondly, I understand your concern about the two story and the proximity and I would focus that argument and I don't mean to speak for you, but I'm trying to help on
the fact that there's a setback variance on the property line coincident with your house right on your property line between your two lots. So, the house is going to be closer than permitted and two stories. They are allowed to build a two-story house just
like if you guys decided you wanted to put a second story on your house, you're allowed to do that, too. So, the concern is privacy. I totally get it. And I would focus that argument maybe on the fact that they require a setback variance on that property line that's
next to your house. So, it's going to be closer than permitted. But, they are just because you're one story, they are allowed to build a two-story house. Oh, >> absolutely. >> So, I just want to be very clear to the board. Yeah. >> Um, but I totally understand your concerns. >> Absolutely. >> Can I ask a question?
>> Absolutely. >> So, my next question is when they bring up the hardship. >> Yes. >> Saying that, you know, it has to do because it's I think you said because it's undersized and most people wouldn't buy. They want to build up, do whatever.
I'm guessing the owner didn't let whoever know that they came to my house and I offered to buy the property. >> Clearly, that's news to me. However, when your wife spoke 5 seconds ago and said, "I'm annoyed that I got a letter asking to buy the property. Under no circumstances would I do it." That's
conflicting. >> They She said that we got a letter asking to buy our property. >> I agree. So, that's required by law to say, >> do you want to sell your property or a portion of it or do you want to buy their property? So, you're saying you would have bought their property.
>> Oh, absolutely. And we that's a totally different situation. >> We had discussed with her already. I gave her an offer on the property and she turned around and decided to go. She came to me before the property went on the market and she went up an ex a
substantial amount from what I offered and I wasn't too too far off of what she was asking. I was fair with what the land is. >> So I would put that back to Mr. Jackson behind you. So now hearing that a an adjoining neighbor had offered to buy
the property. >> Did she mention anything to you? >> Let me >> go ahead. >> No, you were I I >> So >> I didn't hear. >> So you sent the buy sell letters which is required by law. So do not be offended. It's required by law. Okay.
>> That can you would do you want to buy our property or can we buy your property? That is that's a requirement that he had to do. It wasn't him trying to be rude or disrespectful. It's requirement under the law. So that I just want to be very clear. However, what they're saying is the original
property owner came to him. He said he would buy that property that you're proposing this house on. Is that still the case, >> sir? >> So what? >> Mr. Smith, hold on. >> Is that still the case? You're still willing to buy that property?
>> Yes. Um, at the amount that she's asking for right now, >> it has to be fair. It has to be quote fair market value. >> Fair market value. But fair market value right now is what buildable is. So >> what do we agree is fair market value?
What is an acreage go to? >> What is it per acre? >> Can I can I address this? What >> the requirement is is that it is what the lot would be worth with an approved house on it. It's not what it was for sale at for vacant land.
>> So that you would require an appraisal. So, it would be substantially more than it was for sale as >> but if it's a vacant lot. >> Can I can I finish? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> I'm telling you what what the rules are and then you can decide what you want to do. The rules are if uh you are interested in buying the house and
that's why the form letter I sent to your wife said I want I'm interested in buying or I'm interested in selling. If you sent it back, said, "We're interested in buying," we could have a discussion, and we would tell you what our price would be, and you would tell us what your price is. And if we could
not agree, and you still said you wanted to buy it, if you thought we were lowballing or something like that, the board would have to have a hearing to determine what the fair market value was. >> So, that's how that works. But the the the test is what the fair market value is with the approval
>> of a house on it. >> With a not with a house on it. That would >> So, you just said with a house on it. No fair market value on vacant land right now is if I bought the land to say I wanted to put an addition on >> that would be fair market value on vacant land. There is no
>> he well he Mr. Jackson is saying it's the it's the value of the property as if approved meaning they had an approval from a bo from this board to build a house >> so it's not vacant that >> the house that we're proposing. >> Yeah.
>> I don't know about that. >> Yeah. Well, I don't know about the house you're proposing. >> Not the house you're proposing, but a house to be this house, >> a buildable lot, >> buildable lot with with approval cost of engineering and whatnot >> with approval, but not based off the house that they're
>> presenting right now. >> So, we don't want to get involved right now in your negotiation, but it is of interest, I think, to the board that, you know, you offered to buy the property. So, >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. So, so tell what what is your you know I don't know if you put in the record here what
the offer is. What are you offering to buy it at? And I can respond to that. Not tonight, but what's your offer? >> Do we need to do that right now? >> That's not appropriate. >> That's that's in between us and us only. It's not in between the board. >> It's not that becomes a question for the board if you don't want us to get into it now. But
>> no, I don't I don't want no I'm going to definitely say no on that. >> So I'll leave it at that. >> Yes. >> Now you should communicate with Mr. Jackson after tonight about yes, we want to buy it and we want to pay X and whatever that is and put it in
writing. >> Okay. >> So you have a so it's memorialized. >> Absolutely. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Nothing simple. >> No.
>> Nope. sit up in the front if you want to be closer. >> Just just for the record what >> Yes. >> I I just want to read into the record what our buy sell letter actually says because I think it's a fair you know we use this basically form all the time. Um, in the alternative, you may have an
interest in purchasing our client's lot at the quote fair market value, which in this instance means a building lot price as if the variance had been granted. It is our intention to demonstrate uh that the hardship exists as our client is unable to either acquire land or sell
land for its fair market value. So, we lay that all out and as you saw, there was an insult to getting this, but that's this is the first we're hearing that there's an interest in purchasing it. >> You want me to
So, Mr. Jackson, I think the testimony from the n the neighbors that they communicated with your client, not you. >> And the the letter that I sent you, if you still has it, has my email. If you can, please email me. Do you have do you guys still have the letter? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> If you can't get a hold of him, you can contact the office and and the office has his contact information. >> So, the B cell letters were mailed out on February 3rd. >> Yes. >> The second round of them, right? Or all
of them? >> The uh theirs was mailed out on January 5th. >> January 5th. Okay. Thank you. Somewhere. >> So, >> the two behind >> in fairness to Mr. Jackson, he mailed them to the two adjoiners on either side in January and then was advised by
Eileen to perhaps also include the two properties behind >> and so those two properties were sent out on February 3rd, >> right? Because we Right. We did it as soon as Eileen told us. >> Yes, I agree. >> Okay. So, the neighbors on the side had it >> from sometime in January. Right. >> Yeah.
>> The people in the back >> have yet to say that they've gotten it, but Okay. So, we had two different mailing dates. That's That's where the confusion came in. >> Oh, >> okay. >> Mr. Auar, is that Auar? How do you say >> Auar? >> Auar was able to look on the post office. Uh they tracked the certified
letters and it's online. And what we looked at the post office attempted to deliver them and they were not successful yet >> which typically hap that happens a lot with the certifies because you got to go to the post office if you're not home when they come. Next time I'm
>> Yeah. >> Okay. It's on the record. >> Are they sent by regular mail in addition to the certified? >> They have to be certified. >> They can certify. >> Okay, let's move on. >> Good evening. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Jake Perez. >> P E R E Z. >> P or B. I'm sorry. >> P. Got it. Perez. >> Okay. >> And where's your address? >> Just stand up to the mic so we can hear
you. >> Uh my name is Jake Perez. Uh my mom lives at 273 Stewart Street. It's the property that butts right next to the >> what you guys are talking about. >> So uh yeah, I'm speaking from my mom. Um she's the homeowner at 273 Stewart
Street. >> Um >> Well, you really >> Yeah. >> Is your mom >> She's here. She's just a little scared to get up here. Well, maybe she could just come and just say that. >> Can you okay standing next to him and just say you this is your statement >> this way we
>> Yeah. Okay. I agree. >> We don't We're not looking to be mean or anything. >> And by the way, you guys could sit too. There's a mic. >> There's a mic right here. Make yourself comfortable. >> Thing is a microphone. If you sit, you can also bring it closer to you. >> All right. >> Yeah. Just
>> Yeah. >> Uh it's all stuck there. >> Ma'am, if I could just swear you. Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yeah. >> And state your name, please. >> Michelle Perez. T E R E T. >> And is Jake your son? >> Yes, he is.
>> And is he authorized to speak on your behalf? >> Yes, he is. >> Okay. >> Well, now that I'm up here, I might be able to do it now. >> Now that WE GOT YOU COMFORTABLE. >> WELL, you're now that I broke the ice. >> You're both under oath, so you can you can both testify. So, whatever. >> We're not scary. We're your neighbors.
We live in Howell, too. >> Okay. Um, where were you? Okay, >> now it's all the house is too big. What are you going to say? >> The varants requested are not minor. They are substantial, cumulative, and extreme. And they would allow a
two-story structure on a lot that is fundamentally non-conforming. Specifically, well, we went over all the lot sizes and you take it. >> Sure. >> All right. So, as as directly abudding homeowner, my mother would bear the full burden of these variances. A two-story
home built this close to the property line will tower over her home causing a permanent loss of privacy, visual intrusion, reduced light and open space, and a negative impact on her property value and quiet enjoyment. In addition to bulk concerns, there are serious and unresolved well and septic issues given
the severity of undersized lot and reduced setbacks. It is unclear how compliant well and septic systems can be installed while meeting required separation distances from structures, property lines, and my mother's existing well and sept septic system. The proximity of the new septic system raises legitimate concerns regarding
groundwater protection, well contamination, and public health. These impacts would fall directly disappropriately on my mother's and adjoining adjoining property owner. The applicant is also requesting waiverss from downstream storm water analysis, wooded area and tree identification, and
an outbound survey. No curbing or sidewalks are proposed without proper analysis. Increase in provisions in elevation create a real risk of storm water runoff being redirected onto her property, including potential basement flooding. Living with that uncertainty, creates ongoing stress, not a
speculative concern. Finally, the properties being acquired by an LLC investor in this area. Investors owned property have raised occurring concerns regarding over intensification of use, higher occupancy, and long-term maintenance, which further magnifies and impacts an overbuilt non-conforming lot.
Any hardship here is self-created and granted this level of relief would cause substantial detriment to an adjacent property and undermine the intent of the zoning ordinance. For those reason, I respectfully request the board to deny request variances or waiverss and require full zoning compliance.
>> I I also want to state that I did receive the letter um and >> the buy sell letter. >> The buy sell letter and uh I do not wish to um buy or sell. Uh, I put it in the mail today because I was just moving in and I just found it. It got It just got
all mixed up with all the >> That's totally fine. Totally. >> Yep. All >> Absolutely. You staying stating on the record. Perfectly fine. >> Yes. Thank you. >> I also have something I just want to um >> Yeah. >> Uh give to you for the meeting. It's I have left it on my seat. Okay.
>> It's just a written statement. >> Perfect. >> Well, is it different than what was read into the record? Um it there there's a few different things my lawyer wrote for it. So >> I don't have any problem with it. >> Um no I don't have to read it until I
just was going to present it or email it. Either way I have one for I think >> No, you should present it because it should be part of the record here. >> Okay. >> So we can't Yeah. So go get it and Okay. Yeah, that's fine. >> Well, she's getting the letter. Uh you you said you live at uh 273.
>> Uh I Yeah, she lives at 273 >> on the other side immediately adjacent. So there's so 263 is the top. 267 27. >> So it's on the other side from where the other >> Okay. Okay. North this north side of this. >> You just moved in in how big is your lot?
>> Uh uh my mom's lot. I'm not sure how big is her lot. >> The property is 79.25 ft by 250. So, it's it's just under 20,000 square ft, which is the R2 requirement. >> Also, my house is only 956 square ft. My
uh neighbor on the other side is uh 1,200. So, this is going to just tower over and not look, it's going to look so out of place. >> There is a twotory home at 263. >> Not like not as small as this one. This, >> but it's on a much bigger lot. It's got
a huge barn and garage in the back. It's massive. It's whole huge property >> and it's lined up like Brandon was saying. It's they're all like kind of lined up. So, our backyards, >> it's going to be towering over the It took her two years. We looked to buy a house. We finally found this awesome
place. And now >> on a beautiful spot now. They're going to build some >> I put in nine offers and I was um like number 15 and didn't get It took me >> two years to find a house 13. >> Always out bid by LLC's and investors and cash offers. >> I just moved in. Yeah. How long ago?
>> Uh I the house I purchased October 22nd and moved in about a month ago. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next thing. Oh, so you had something you wanted to >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Do I have to read? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just give us generally what?
>> It's basically the same. I just think the um it's basically just the same. I thought there was a little something different in this one, but you want to read it. >> It's kind of long. It's kind of the same thing. This one might be a little
different. >> It's It's basically the same. He just said to present it. That's all in written form. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, why don't you give a or show that to Mr. Jackson
and then >> Andy before we >> I think it's inappropriate to have a letter from a lawyer to put and >> it's not from my lawyer. It's he is my lawyer. So he just um approved of what I wrote myself and told me just to present
it at the meeting. >> Yeah. I I don't think it's appropriate to letter. >> She already read the same thing into the records. think it was appropriate to build a huge house on. >> Okay, guys. >> Okay. Wait, wait, wait. Go back. Let's get back to >> Yeah, just stick just address the board.
>> First of all, Andy, >> I wish I could build a garage. >> Was there a couple things that was said on their testimony that was basically what the previous people said we cannot do anything as far as the value that they lose is our consideration. Yeah,
>> just want to put that on record. And we can't just based on who might be moving in is also out of the equation. >> It's just really the land use. >> But I think your like Jennifer said to the previous uh resident that came up,
your issue is also is more the house is close because they have to get a variance. >> Exactly. My issue is total privacy, too close, noise, uh cars slamming doors. So I would say >> every single family home car slamming
doors is a little unrealistic. >> Secondly, they're entitled to build a home on this property. So the car situation will be the same whether they built a 12,200t home or 3,000 foot home. Secondly, right now they're asking for relief for the sideyard setback. They
are permitted to be there. There's a home permitted to be constructed on this property. >> The size of the home does not even exceed what is allowed in the zone. Right now, the issue is the sideyard setbacks. >> Yes.
>> In the underlying zoning, >> but other than that, they are entitled to build a twotory house just like you would be entitled to put a second story on your house. >> They are allowed to do that. And I understand the lot is underside and the
issue that the board should focus on with this this concern as well as the last concern is the proximity to the lot lines. >> Yes. Proposed house. >> Absolutely. If they can play with those setbacks, we'd be here because a lot is under sizes and need a sub system only,
which we've already agreed because nobody wants to. Well, I mean, aside from this new development that perhaps somebody wants to buy the land, but if there's no agreement on the buy and sell, an undersized lot is entitled to build a house. You are not like we
cannot preclude development on an undersized lot. That would be called a taking, which the town is not interested in doing. My concern is I'm sitting down and my understand but I'm just telling you >> their house is going to be up. My basement, my yard's going to flood. >> I don't know about all that. This is a single family house. This is not a
commercial. >> Well, if you could drive by my house and and look at the you could just with your eyes. >> I mean, Charlie looked at the the grading. >> You could see the grading just by standing in front of our houses. >> So, and and what I would what I would say is they they definitely the plot plan that was prepared by Mr. Um, SE
does show swailes in the sidey yards along both sideyards adjacent to these properties. Now, could that be further divine defined? Could they put like a railroad tie edger to create some more? So, it's definitely a swell and there's no concern with it running onto the neighboring property. We could certainly
work that out with his office if the board is inclined to act favorably. And the only other thing I would say too is right that we're talking about the sideyards, but there's also the front yard relief that they need um a variance for. Now, we talked about that they could shift the structure back to 50 ft,
but we're just adding more impervious coverage. And you've heard testimony and concern regarding more impervious cover and drainage and runoff and things. So, to me, I don't think that I don't necessarily take issue with that really from a runoff perspective. And I would just note the underlying zoning for the
R2. Um there's a 50- foot requirement if it's on an outer street. If it's an internal street in a neighborhood, the setback requirement is only 25 feet. So, you know, a lot of these relief that's being required is because the lot is not serviced by public sewer. And I can
probably tell you that any homes within a thousand feet of this property are not on public sewer. So they would all, you know, if someone wanted to add an addition or knock down a home and rebuild, they would also have to come back to this board and it would be, you know, a constraint. So,
>> you know, it's the sideyard is, I think, the issue that we're we're with here. You know what I mean? >> And and the sideyard relief on either side is 5T is what they're looking for either side. Correct. >> Yeah. So, if if they were to adhere to the R2 requirements, it's a 20 foot
sideyard setback. They're asking for a 15oot setback. So, five foot on either side, you know. Now, if could they put a structure that was 19.3 feet wide or whatever it is, you know, and it's going to certainly be more narrow. It might look more like a town home. They could
add that to the back of the structure and not need a rear yard setback requirement, not need a height require uh variance requirement in the back of the structure. Probably also still comply with the building coverage requirements in the zone. So, you know, I just want to put that on the record as well. you know, they're asking for the
sideyard relief, but they could make it comply and then add more onto the So, like the size of the structure, there's ways to to to make it work if if the board wanted them to make it work. >> Okay.
Anything else you want to add? >> Appreciate it, >> Jennifer. Anything else, Charlie? >> I mean, I totally understand the concern >> and I do feel like it's a the neighbors are at a disadvantage because this is such a significantly undersized lot and
anything on there is going to impose into the setback which is kind of why I didn't buy into the airline open space argument earlier because they're too close to the side lines on both sides than would be required. If they were to
comply with that then you know they would have the adequate sideyard setbacks. They're not exceeding the height of the structure. So, you know, I understand the concern that on either side is a one-story structure, but there's nothing to preclude them from going to two stories. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the audience, >> Mr. Clarification? I'm just reading your report. Minimum require sideyard setback second sentence the minimum requirement
sideyard setback for AR one and we >> emailed you earlier today about >> correct yeah so >> and you just mentioned that you cited R2 >> correct so the property when you are not serviced by public sewer you have a minimum 40,000 square foot lot area requirement and then you're also subject
to the um sideyard setback and the front yard setback requirements of the zone area 1, which is a 1acre lot zoning. So, if you apply those 30-foot setback requirements for the AR1, you wouldn't have a building envelope to build a structure on this property, right? So,
there's and that's the whole purpose of the buy sell letters is to demonstrate that you this property has a hardship, you know what I mean? Um, >> the underlying zoning, if this was serviced by public sewer, right, they would only be subject to a 20 foot
setback requirement. So that's that's the point I'm making. They still do need relief of the 30, but none of the properties on Steuart Street on any of the neighboring streets have public sewer. So it's an it's a hardship that would apply to a number of these properties. You know, I'm looking at the
tax map. You know, the property to the north is 80 foot wide, 79.25. The next two properties north of that are 80 foot wide. If you were had to apply the 30-foot setback requirement on all those, you'd only have a 20 foot width to build a home on those properties. So that's the point that I'm making is the
R2 the 20 foot setback requirement if they were to comply with that it would be a reasonable size home for for the lot that's there >> as far as width of the structure. >> 15 side
>> instead of 20 >> 29 ft wide is the house >> 29 ft is the house. Yeah. another 10 feet, five on each side. >> So, the house would have to be 19 ft wide. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean, if
>> you know, if anyone's been to some of the bungalow homes in some of the short towns, you know, it would look something like that where you've got maybe a hallway on one side and bedrooms on another or, you know, a narrow hallway and narrow bedrooms. So something could be built. It's just what does that
aesthetically look like? You know, >> it's just something to consider. >> I think the garage is wider than that. >> Okay. Good evening. >> If you want to stay seated. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Okay. State your names for the record. >> Uh I'm Celeste Kelly. K L Y. >> Shana Kelly. K E L Y. Okay. And then who's ever speaking first? Just say where you live and >> address. Yeah.
>> Um I'm at 272 Stewart Street. >> Street. >> I'm across the street. >> Okay. That's right. >> Um I >> think I narrowed it to >> I used to live at 242 Stewart Street, which is on the corner of Stewart and Charles. And we had a similar problem
because we didn't have the footage um when we rebuilt um the fruit stand that my girlfriend said we bought, which basically it was. We've been down there since 1980. I give it away my age, but um I don't
believe that this proposal is something that would fit in our neighborhood, especially if you're going to go and allow them to change the the rules. Um our neighborhood was always well originally after the war, they brought
in a bunch of um army barracks there. A lot of our homes are very similar. Then other people bought properties too and we got things that were bigger. Uh but to to squeeze something in this little spot, I think it's going to if it's approved, I think it's going to start a
precedent and we're going to start looking like North Jersey where we're going to put little houses or narrow houses into any area that we can. The nice thing about our area is that the lots are big. I mean, I know that those
uh those properties are a lot of them are 275 deep. Not not maybe not not real wide. Our original house was 85 by 250. And then our neighbors had a wider a
wider uh area in the front. And it was funny because the two gentlemen that came over that came here after the war, uh, the way they decided who was going to get which piece of property was they flipped a coin. >> And that's when Teddy Teddy bought had
had the wider side and Simon had our side, which was 85. Um, and like I said, if you looked at the at the houses, there is a house that's actually was Teddy's that after they passed, um, the people bought it and they did build up.
The house was the existing house and they just built it up. It does it look okay? They did a nice job, but it kind of does kind of you do notice it, you know, whereas the other houses that that have been built, maybe they have a a
deeper setback, you know, they're big houses, but they have deeper setbacks, so they're not they're not sitting right in front of you. It sounds like this house is going to be sitting right in front of you, so you can't help but notice it. It's just I just think it's not a good good fit for us, for our
neighborhood, you know? It's just uh like I said, I didn't prepare anything, but >> okay. >> I just think it's going to be a eyes sore. Even though it'll probably be nice looking, it'll be a nicel looking eyesore.
>> And uh and what it will do impact as far as water runoff, I don't know. I do know that when they paved our roads and they gave us all these nice little asphalt curbs, um it did affect a lot of people in my area, especially
since I'm at the top of the hill and the hill runs down that way. And somebody my neighbor was very happy that I planted some grass grasses in the at the corner of my driveway. She said, "Oh my god, every time it rained, it washed down and pretty much wash out her uh driveway."
So, and who knows what this this place will do, like I said. And if there's four bedrooms in there and it's an LLC, I question that. >> We can't control that. >> We can't control that. And that's not >> You can't control if other people start
living there besides the single family. No, >> that's exactly what we don't want. >> No. No. Jen, you misunderstood her point. >> Yeah. >> So, it could only be used as a single family home if that's your question. >> Who your knowledge? >> Okay. So, this Okay. the enforcement arm. >> I understand. But like a ver a small
house that's a single family that has a twocar garage and a basement makes me think that more than just the family thing. Whether there's going to be more traffic, there's going to be more issues. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we do have we do have some traffic in our area >> because some people forget that they got
off of Route Nine and they fly up our street. And uh I did propose at one time with the police department maybe should put a speed bump in, but that that went nowhere. Those are the ones that >> we can't I know what you're saying, but that's
not going to be have anything to do with our decision. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. So, >> but it would be an eyesore. >> Anybody from the board have a question for the uh >> just just out of curiosity purely. Uh,
you mentioned that soldiers had lived in >> No, no, I said they brought the army barracks, old army barracks into that that whole area. >> Really? >> Yes. >> Interesting. >> I didn't know that either. >> Yeah. Well, like I said, my neighbors had been there when they first came
over. So, you know, it was uh we had a lot of Russians, Russian and Polish that came over. And we used to have a there. Well, actually, my neighbor who has uh she's got a a larger home and then there's basically was chicken coops and
then they converted them into apartments, but this was a lot of chicken there was a lot of chicken stuff around in this part of how Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There was a lot. >> Those are my people. >> Yeah. So, yeah. There our our neighborhood has a
a long history. Let's put it that way. >> I've been to that fruit stand. I'm sorry. >> You probably were, but it really wasn't a fruit stand. But going back, I mean, our house was made out of pallet wood and when I guess they maybe they didn't
have zoning boards back then when when bought it because we had a we had a summer kitchen that's all it was was made out of pallet wood with tar paper on the on top of the pallet. And that's when we found out about the zoning because we expected to be able to put our addition
where where the where the uh summer kitchen was, but because it didn't have a foundation, we couldn't because we had to keep that >> 30 foot or 50 foot from the because we are on the road. So, >> thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming to speak with us.
>> No problem. >> Anybody else? Sorry. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Yes. >> Yes. Please state your name for the record and spell your last. >> Justin Ericen. E R R I C K S O N. I own
259 Stewart Street, which is two lots uh south, okay, >> of the um property in question. Um property does not touch my property that's in question tonight. Um so I really don't have much to speak on that. Um I do want to just make a couple
points, ask a few open-ended questions. Um, I've resided uh at 259 Stewart Street, owned the property for roughly about 14 or 15 years now. Um, lifelong resident of Howell. Um, our, you know, I heard a couple comments made about the property and neighborhood
itself as far as lot size. Um, you know, I heard the term modestiz home kind of tossed around. Um, I think 2700 um, square feet could be a modest home in the right location. Um, obviously we're here for a reason and it has to do with
the discussion of variance due to setbacks. Um, setbacks obviously are put in place for a reason whether it be the quality of life of neighbors, community. Um, and I just feel like the proposed dwelling is
an exaggeration of what could potentially be proposed to be built there. Um, I understand it's everybody's right to have the ability to build something and and hold hearings like this. Um, I just feel like 2,700 square feet for a lot of that that caliber, that size is extraordinary.
Um, I will touch on a few things. The front overall setback, um, a lot of the houses do sit closer to the street. Um, I don't really, you know, have any kind of opposition to that, um, as being a member of the community. Um, one of the
things I will touch on though, um, recently, uh, my wife and I, uh, came before the board a few years ago and, you know, asked for a variance to do an addition to our home. Um, we have a little over 3/4 of an acre. I think it's just shy of 3/4 um, pre existing
dwelling that was there that we resided in for about 10 years. Uh, was only 880 square feet. Most of the neighborhoods in or most of the properties in the neighborhood are extremely small. Um, I'd be hardressed to find, you know, more than, you know, 20% that would probably even be over 2,000 square feet.
Um, a lot of the community has been changing. A lot of the homes have been being updated, whether it be sold to the younger generation or people moving in, which we appreciate, um, because it does help the overall appearance of the community. Um, I just feel like this house, you know, as proposed, would
stick out like a sore thumb. Um, we do not have curbs or sidewalks in our community. Um there is a lot of children these days uh including my 16-month old son that I have at home. Um as he grows up, you know, obviously safety of the neighborhood is a concern. So more
vehic, you know, more vehicle traffic, um is always something to be concerned with. There is a lot of children that unfortunately do reside to playing in the street um due to not having any kind of sidewalks or anywhere to ride their bicycles and and whatnot for recreational activities.
Um, other than that, like I said, it doesn't directly affect me because I am not attached or touching the lot, but it is just a few of the observations. Um, you know, I the reason my wife and I had to come before the board and ask for a variance was uh for under 100 square feet. It was just a section of our
proposed improvement. Um, and still we managed to have two bedrooms or three bedrooms, I'm sorry, and and two bathrooms and still keep it modest at around 1,700 um square feet. And that's with a property size of over, like I said, half a acre. Um,
other than that, that's pretty much the only concerns that I have is the sheer size of the proposed dwelling and the location, um, and size of the lot. >> Hear you? Let them clear. Thanks so much. Appreciate. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> I'll make a motion to close the public. >> Motion. Motion by Mr. Caner, Mr. Hughes with the second. All in favor? >> I >> um at this time I do want to take a two-minut break and I need I'd like to
talk to my attorney, our attorney, and then we'll come right back. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, it is um the consensus of the board that we will carry this application to March
9th, 2026. There are some matters that I feel should be resolved and talked uh with our planners, with the attorney, and also with the real estate matters that I think we need to address. So, at
this time, I'm going to say that we're going to go to March 9th for our uh rescheduling. Do you need an extension of time or do you need to grant us >> Well, I'll uh I'll grant the extension of time if it's necessary. I don't know
where we're at with that. >> April 29th. >> Okay. So, we're still good with that. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, Mr. Jackson. So this meeting will be re uh we will re meet on
the 9th of March and it this will be and this will be the first on the applications for that night. So okay >> okay thank you. >> You won't get another notice >> March 9th. >> Okay. Is there anything else uh that we
need to discuss among the board before at this time? I'd like to entertain a motion to close. >> Motion to close. >> Motion to close. M Caner Jose was second. >> All in favor? >> I