[music] [music] Heat. Heat. Okay. Good evening, Hal Township Zoning Board of Adjustment for June 8th, 2026.
Please, we have an opening statement. I hereby declare this meeting of the How 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 fire prevention 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, >> present. >> Mr. Caner >> here.
>> Mr. Hughes >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell >> here. >> Mr. Rosco >> here. >> Mr. Ryan >> present. >> Miss Scottson >> here. >> Mr. Kabarakus >> here. >> Chairman Mertens, >> I'm here as well. >> You have a quum.
>> Thank you. Could everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance followed by a brief moment of silence for our troops overseas? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Okay, Annie, could you swear in our professionals? >> I do. >> I do. >> Charles Kliff, >> Jennifer Beam.
>> Professionals are sworn, Mr. >> Thanks, Andy. >> Okay, Lisa, do we have any minutes to approve? >> No. >> Correspondence. >> Yes. Uh there was an email for from attorney Salatar Alfieri, attorney for case number BA2608
AthW Property LLC, which is on tonight's agenda. Mr. Alfier has asked that this case be rescheduled to June 22nd, 2026 as there was a problem with their notice. >> Okay. So they will notice and the
expiration will still be September 24th, 2026. If anybody Should we mention that they need to talk to environmental commission? >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'm going to convey that
to uh uh Andy later and Jennifer. Okay. Anybody for that case? This case BA2608 will be carried to June 22nd with notice. And if anybody is there for that, we'll
see you then. Anything else, Lisa? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. First order is a resolution case number BA25-20 Nick Zuckus. Resolution granting bulk varants for a single family dwelling on
an unimproved street eligible voters Burillo Caner Hughes O'Donnell Rosco Ryan and Merren. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Mr. Mr. Hughes with the motion.
>> Second. Mr. Oasco. Roll. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosco? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan? >> Yes. >> Chairman Merren? >> Yes. >> Resolution is memorialized.
>> Okay. Good. Okay. Applications before the board tonight. Case number BA23-11, Christ Church of Howal for an extension of time. The applicant of Christ Church of How Incorporate as applicant and
owners seeking a one-year extension of time on their conditional use varants in preliminary and final site plan approval with both variants as approved in the resolution memorialized on June 10th, 2024.
Good evening. Good evening. Uh my name is Richard Skiria. I'm at the law firm of Halen and Wright and represent the applicant Christ Church of Howell uh located at 71 Oak Glenn Road. Uh just very briefly uh we came here before this board for preliminary and final major
site plan approval and a conditional use uh D3 variance uh for the church to construct a one-story uh 22,185t addition to the existing house of worship and to construct a new one-story 1,653
foot accessory maintenance building. This board granted the application by way of resolution which was memorialized on June 10, 2024. And pursuant to the terms of resolution and by statute and JSA4 55D-52,
uh the pro the protections provided by the site plan and the variance expires on June 10, 2026. If construction is not commenced by the date and no further extensions are granted, Christ Church is here seeking an extension of time for one year as afforded by the statute for
the preliminary and final major site plan and variance protections. Uh the reasons for this extension is Christ Church is still waiting from the D uh for approval before construction can begin. Uh their board planners issued a final letter of compliance on May 13,
2026. Uh I will just briefly if the board uh uh wishes will pres prevent uh present very quick testimony from the applicants engineer as to the reasons why we are delayed and our request for a one-year extension of approval. So >> okay before we go there let's just hear
from our engineer and see if we can maybe Charlie. >> Absolutely. Yeah. So we issued a letter or resolution compliance on May 7th. Two of the outstanding items we had were one getting a letter of compliance from Jen's office on the architecture which they have since gotten. The other one is
they need to give us the D permits. Um they kind of have been getting jerked around a little bit from D. They filed an application with a broader scope and then D told them we want you to do something with a lesser scope. So that took a lot of time. They were keeping us in the loop. So this isn't something that's a surprise to us. Um and then
there's just a couple items they have to address with the township of engineering department after the fact. paying to the sidewalk fund. Um any tree removals complying with that ordinance and then a couple other, you know, uh outside agency approvals, but nothing that I'm concerned about from a board perspective.
>> Jennifer, >> no. And it shouldn't come as no surprise to this board that the D is taking longer than anticipated. It's a pretty standard mantra here in How. So, I would take no exception to the request for the one-year extension. >> Okay. Board members, anybody any
questions or concerns about >> Okay. We'd love to hear from your engineer, but I don't think >> I I don't think we need to. Thank you. >> Yeah. No. >> So, what's the pleasure of the board? >> I'd like to make a motion, uh, Mr.
Chair, to grant the extension of time. >> Mr. Hughes with the motion. >> Have a second. >> I'll second. >> Second by Mr. Burillo. Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. Yes, >> Mr. Caner. >> Yes, >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes, >> Mr. O'Donnell.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Rosco. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes, >> Chairman Merren. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, >> thank you. Have a second. >> Unite. You too. >> Now you guys can go home and watch the Knicks.
>> There we go. Plenty of time. >> 8:30. Rich. >> Yeah. Not that we're paying attention. >> Think of pregame. >> Okay. So, the case that we're going to be hearing tonight, case BA26-05,
Joseph's Maseruba, use variance and minor subdivision application to Joseph Masakuba as applicant and or L EO. Massa as owner seeking approval to subi
subdivide two existing lots into three proposed lots. Construct two single family homes and maintain the existing for family dwelling as well as other proposed improvements including ashvalt driveway and drywalls on premise known
as block 125 lot one and two 156 Roosevelt Avenue. expiration September 9th, 2026. >> Good evening. Uh Vince Howard from prehold on behalf of the applicant. Okay. >> Good to see you all. We'll try to be
quick to get you home for the game. >> I have four witnesses. Do you want to swear them all at one time? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> that would be perfect. >> Come on, Joe. >> I have the applicant Joe coming up. Jimmy, >> we'll ask. We got it. >> Okay.
>> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> State your names for the record and spell your last. >> Professional engineer. >> James Hens. James Higgins, professional planner. >> Gregory Clark, professional architect.
>> Joseph Mazakova, applicant. >> Okay. >> Professionals are sworn. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Mr. Howard. >> Okay. So, >> Joe, hang on. Take this thing. I'm gonna I'll call the applicant. Okay, that's the application team. Try to get as quick as possible.
>> You could sit down too. These are on mic if you if you want more com either side. >> Go ahead. E >> you both can sit either way. You can sit next to each other. Whatever you how trying to make everyone comfortable. >> Thank you. Just tell them what what Joe
would have to stand. You can sit. Good. Uh good evening. I am the applicant on behalf of 156 Roosevelt in Howell. Um we [clears throat] currently have a four family uh single level house
on the property. Um it's 200 by 150. Um 200 feet by 150. Um we're looking to um reduce the four units down to three units. um and basically construct two
family homes. There's a wide piece of land in the back of the structure. Um we we came to this idea after all of the property um was converted to public sewer, public water, and natural gas.
So, if you look to the left side of that picture, that's the 200 foot side um that we'd be looking to um construct the homes. Um and if you look to the left of
the actual house, those two apartments that we plan to combine, there is a plan showing how we plan to do that. Um those are located at the rear of that structure. Um, that's what we're looking to do.
>> Okay. >> And for the record, the reason for the use variance as opposed to a simple subdivision of what it looks like because the four family is pre-existing non-conforming, but when you make the lot smaller, it's considered to be an expansion even though it's not. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, that's what you want to do. Joe, do you think what you have plans to do fits into the neighborhood? We we do um we do think that um on this on this uh south side, excuse me, the northern side of Route 9 and this Ardina
acres um they they are constructing um se not several but quite a few single family homes which appear to be on a 50 foot wide lot which is what we propose >> and also on the south side of Route 9. I see the same.
>> I would just suggest perhaps you leave that kind of testimony to Mr. Higgins. >> Oh, okay. >> I mean, you're not qualified as a planner to talk about if it's consistent with the neighborhood or not. >> I know, but in terms of new homes, I do
see new homes similar in the area. >> Okay. >> Any questions of Joe? >> Do you have any more questions for your witness? >> I do not. >> Okay. I'll just ask uh one question. So, it's it's four units and they're all onebedroom in the existing structure.
>> There is a two um the back two units are onebedroom each. There is a threebedroom and a twobedroom on the front side. >> So, there's two onebedrooms, a threebedroom, and a two-bedroom. >> That's correct.
>> And when converting them down to from four to three, what's the new bedroom count going to be? Six kitchens. >> Yeah. >> Be two bedrooms. >> There'll be three two bedrooms. >> Three. A threebedroom, a twobedroom, and a twobedroom.
>> So, you're seven. >> Seven. I apologize. >> Okay. >> The two in the back. I've reduced it by one, but it's actually going to be two. So, seven. >> So, you're just eliminating one of the one bedrooms. >> Go ahead. >> I don't believe it. >> Well,
Is it on the plan? >> Does >> Mr. Burl? >> I thought the plan said >> the two rear just going to remain the same. >> So So the rear of the building has a
onebedroom and a onebedroom. >> We we plan to combine that into one apartment with two bedrooms. >> Can we bring it up? Can we somehow bring it up? >> Well, there's an architect, guys. So, we have the architect here who can testify to the floor plan. >> Okay, we can wait.
>> Okay, just one quick question. >> Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Caner. >> So, four families or four different family groups live in this house currently? >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> I mean, the the one-bedroom apartments
don't have that's limited to person. Charlie, Jennifer, anything more for the Okay, >> so that's all for now. Thank you. >> I've called. Yeah, >> John, could we briefly give the board
your qualifications? >> Um, liced professional engineer for about 50 years, still practicing from before the board a number of times over that 50-year period. >> Good to see you back. We accept your
qualifications. Thank you very much. Um, we have a report from Charlie Kiff asking for certain things to be done. We agreed to everything he wants done. We've been to um Shade Tree. We've been to Free Old Soil. We got those
approvals. Uh we had the tank that was there, septic abandoned. We provide all that documentation to Charlie in advance and we agree to uh abide by his report and uh clean up the plans as much as we
can unless she has other other things he wants us to do but we we agree. >> Okay. >> Any questions of John? >> No, it would be uh we'll ask Charlie first. >> Yes. So, uh, the drainage ditch that
runs along the south side of the existing property and the two future residentials, your applicant agrees to provide a drainage ease into the township. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And then did you have an environmental professional take a look at that to see whether it's regulated in any fashion from D?
>> Sure. >> What was their recommendation? What what was their finding for the board's record? >> Um, if if there's any D issues, we'll make applications. And that'll be as part of the subdivision approval. It won't be at left after the fact for some future
owner to have to figure it out. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Um, we had a note about um the drywall sizing for the two new single family homes. That's going to need to be tweaked a little bit um for the calculation purposes. Does the applicant
have any intent to put any patio back there or any other type of accessory structure in the rear of those two properties or wants to allow for it in the future? >> We'll show some improvements when we do the calculations for the dry wells so that we're ahead of the game.
>> Okay. >> So, if they want to put in a small shed or something like that'll be factored into the drywalls. >> Yes. >> All right. And then as far as the existing multif family with the driveways, there's no change to any of that layout. That's all staying existing. We're not adding new impervious or anything like that.
>> That's correct except for the consolidation to three units. >> Okay. Um talked about the draws, talked about the lot grading. So everything's going to be graded in to the south where the existing drainage dish is into an existing conveyance system for the township, not onto neighboring
properties or anything like that. >> Correct. And we're going to also install curb and sidewalk where it doesn't exist on both streets. >> Okay. >> What did you say? You going to put the sidewalk in >> sidewalk and curve on both streets where they don't exist? >> So, you're not asking for that labor? >> No.
>> Okay. >> All right. Um, there any need to put like exterior AC units or anything like that >> um in the future and any intent
>> be AC units for the two new houses? Uh the existing house has air conditioning and um uh heating and it's connected to the water sewer and the gas. >> Would the applicant agree to condition that those be put in the rear yard for those two res new residential lots because you are you meet all the
setbacks, but it's only a sixoot setback in between the properties. Was that reasonable condition? >> That's reasonable. Yes. >> Okay. Um and then obviously generators at any time in the future that's going to have to comply with the ordinance for future lot owners. And we have just a couple technical items as far as clarity
on the plans and in the zoning schedule. You'll agree to address all that, correct? >> Yes. >> All right. I think that's all I have. >> Hey, Charlie. Jennifer, you want to add anything? >> No. >> Okay. Board members. >> Yeah.
>> It's coming up. >> The sidewalks. Are there any sidewalks in that area already? There's snippets of it periodically as we develop, but it's not consistent. >> You got to somewhere, right? >> Okay. >> My mantra.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Actually, real quick while >> one quick question. >> John, hold on. >> Oh, no. Not for not for Mr. Banka. I want to ask our John about with the rental and all that. Is everything in in
order? >> Never mind. There's currently four rentals on the property. They they're all licensed uh uh appropriately with the township. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, code code. >> Yeah.
>> Uh yeah, codewise everything is solid >> as of today. Yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I got a question. >> Yes. Tom. >> Hey, John. Is there a limit? I mean, this looks like a boarding house. Can they expand it beyond four in the future? Is there a limit? Now, you would
require uh a hearing back at this board. So, traditionally um uh uh this area of town has, you know, uh some homes that date back prior to the issuance of the first ordinance that made two families illegal. So, we
do find them here and there. Uh this one had a history of being a for family rental. Uh I've been here about 10 years and there's some that predate uh the certificates predate when I started here. So, uh, it's always been policy that unless we find something that
contradicts what we're seeing there, uh, that we continue that, uh, assuming that it was done appropriately, that it had already been vetted out by the prior, uh, code enforcement. >> It's it's pre-existing conforming or non-conforming, but non-conforming. >> So, is there a cap in that neighborhood
what they could go to or >> Oh, so >> the cap is a single family. >> Yeah. So the the zoning is single family. >> So they got a variance to have more. >> Well, they predate. So they're pre-existing non-conforming. I'm just >> they're proposing to go down from four to three, >> right?
>> So in the event that you approve the application, then they're allowed to have three, >> right? >> If they want to go back to four, they would have to come back for a use variance. >> All right. I'm trying to get a feel like what's going on in the neighborhood besides that if others are like that. No, but this has been I think this
predates even me which is beyond 10 years. These units have been there a long time. >> I would probably say as far as family wise, this is probably one of the larger ones. You're not seeing too many four families. >> It's ordinary for over there. >> Okay, that that's fine. >> So So just to keep stuff straight in my head, part of what we're approving or
disapproving is the reduction too, right? >> Or is that just Okay. All right. Cool. I just want to make sure that's part of our thoughts. Okay. >> Okay. Everybody good? >> Yep. Okay, >> Jim, would you basically give them your qualifications? >> Sure. I am a licensed planner in the
state. I've been licensed for 45 years. >> Uh, one minute. Jennifer, do should we have the architect first or Yeah. >> Can we jump? >> No, I mean I I don't think the architecture is going to change Mr. Higgins testimony in terms of the
variance, etc. I mean, it is a reduction. I think it's really just going to show you how the inter I mean, I don't >> Okay. I mean, if you're okay with that, that's fine. >> I'm fine. Jen, >> there are a question. There's questions on the bedrooms. >> Correct. But I don't think it has
anything to do with his testimony because it's going in his testimony. It's going to go we're reducing it from four to three and then there's a couple other little bulk things and then he's going to testify to the D2 variants. I don't think the number like the bedrooms
>> are I don't think the architectural testing will change. Okay. If worse comes to worse, you can always come back. >> Okay. I also want to ask real quickly too. The two after the subdivision, the two houses that are going to go there, are they conforming? We're not involved in >> Well, that was one of the questions that
I had, which I will wait to ask the architect because, you know, we allow two and a half stories, 30 ft, and all we're going to say is will these houses be conforming to the bulk standards and the the height? My assumption is he's going to say yes. So we don't have to
see floor plans and all that because it's a building department. >> Correct. Well, you guys had some not on the new ones. I think you had some questions about how the old the exist. >> Yes. >> So, and to clarify, they did provide as part of the one of their exhibits. It was the existing main level plan and
then the proposed main level plan. They only just they just showed for the two rear one-bedroom units. So, right now it's two individual one-bedroom units. Yes. They're combining them into one apartment that's going to have two bedrooms and uh one of the bedrooms is going to be a living space and then
they're carving out a little smaller. >> I saw the I went throw it. I was just trying to make sure that the two lots that are the subdivision >> singles. >> Yeah, they're singles, but those houses will be conforming and we're not factoring any of that in right with Okay, that's all I want. Thank you.
>> Okay, >> Jim, would you give the board >> Yeah, >> I apologize. >> Okay, no problem at all. >> Okay. Uh yeah, I am a licensed professional planner. I've testified before this board numerous times as an expert in field >> and welcome back and we accept your
qualifications as well. >> Thank you very much. Um it's basically a very simple application. It's a 30,000 square foot lot has on it now a four family residential structure on the uh one one half of the lot. The other
remaining portion of the lot is going to be subdivided into two fully conforming single family residential lots. The representation is, and I'm sure you'll hear this from the architect, is that the houses on that those two lots will be fully conforming. Those lots will be
7,500 square feet. The zone requires a a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. So, they exceed the minimum lot area by 50%. They're fully conforming in terms of width and depth. The proposed lot that'll have the now three family that
was is now a four family will be changed to a three family will be 15,000 square ft. And therefore, the density that's being proposed on that lot is identical to the density that's recommended in the
master plan, which is one residence per 5,000 square feet. The difference I see is that the intensity of the use would be less than if this lot were subdivided into three single family lots and had single family residences put on it that
had three to four bedrooms in each residence. Here you're going to have two maybe three bedrooms in two of the units or three of the units. So that you're going to have fewer bedrooms than you would potentially have with single family residential uses. So when I look
at this, I think what's being proposed here is not only a better alternative to what currently exists because the character of the area is one of mixed single family and two and three and four family residences. There are approximately 12 to 14
uh lots in the area that are smaller than the subject site and have uh have either two or three or four family units on them. So that's the character of the area is the mix of single family and and multif family uses. That's what's being
proposed here. It's in a density that's actually slightly less than the density recommended by by the master plan. So when I look at it, it's the really I think the elements are there for approval of a D2 variance which for is technically an expansion of a
pre-existing nonconforming use simply because it's it's an expansion because by reducing the lot area, you're increasing the intensity of the use of the non-conforming structure. And even though we're reducing the number of units, it's still uh increasing the
intensity of the use, but it fits in well with the character of the area. There are no changes to the uh to the layout to the access or to the layout of the site. And there's one, I would call it a dimminimous setback variance, rear
yard setback variance of six inches for approximately a 10- foot wide section of the building, which if anybody could go out there and notice that by looking at it with a naked eye, I would be very very impressed. >> So, I I think clearly it's a substantial
improvement to the area. Uh I think that it's the uh it's it's a I think it's a superior planning alternative to what currently exists there and I think guarantees can be granted. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Thanks, Jennifer.
>> The only So, I don't disagree with the testimony. I do think that the density is consistent with what the vision was for free acres. We all know that those are small lots, right? 50 by 100 uh foot lots. Um, you know, what they've proposed here is they're not just
carving it up to the absolute minimum. So, all the lots are oversized and the lot that maintains the three families is three times what is the minimum lot area in the zone. So, they're allowing for that extra area. Um, there's no site
improvements on that property at all. Um, so they do have, you know, a circular driveway with a driveway extension. um and some other areas where I'm assuming the existing tenants park their vehicles currently.
Um and but it's important to note that the number of bedrooms has not changed. It's seven currently. In four units, it's going to be seven proposed. In three units, the back unit is just going to be a little bit more livable as opposed to just two small one um bedroom
apartments. The one thing, Jim, that you didn't mention, which I don't take exception to, but it does need relief, um, is the rear yard setback for the large lot, which is, uh, lot 1.01. 20 fts required, the way the subdivision
is laid out. It's the rear yard setback because of the bumpouts on the windows, or I'm assuming those are windows, right? Um, uh, is 19 and 1/2 ft. So, you're talking about a 6 in >> deviation. I don't really take exception. Number
one, you know, anybody moving into a new home immediately adjacent is going to see how close the existing structure is to where their property line is. Um, and they do meet the requisite. I'm assuming that and I would ask the architect as
well, but I'm assuming that what's shown on these plans are just like building typical building envelopes to show that a a de a house can fit within the the setbacks, etc. Um, so there could actually be greater separation if the width of the house is a little bit less
than what's shown here. But >> it's a 6-in deviation. I don't think anyone's going to notice a 6-in deviation. So, I don't take any exception. And and quite frankly, the you could play games with a side lot line and make a little jog in the side lot line to eliminate that variance. It
accomplishes nothing other than making an ir regularly shaped lot. >> This is a better alternative. >> A weird fence. That's >> Yes. Okay. >> Board members, any questions?
>> Can we bring up exhibit 810? for purposes with this. >> A10 I think it is >> architectural plans. >> All right. So up top is existing. Those are bedrooms
number three and four. Those are remaining as is. >> Well, the architect is yet to testify. So maybe we should let >> walk through it and then if you still have questions afterwards we can >> go from there. >> Okay.
So I guess we'll go to the architect. >> I do note there's nobody in the audience other than us. So yeah, >> they're not asking to have questions. Greg, come on. >> Yes. Greg Clark uh Bach and Clark LLC architect for the applicant. I have appeared before this board. It's been a
while and we're in the old building prementorium. That's how far that goes back. >> I don't know. >> However, >> still [laughter] young enough to be able to hopefully hold a coherent uh propo presentation here. I've been a licensed architect for 25 years uh practicing in
a couple firms. Now I'm the principal of Bach and Clark LLC. I've appeared before dozens of of boards in >> current license. It's all >> current New Jersey architect. >> I accept your qualifications. Thank you. >> But did you hear any of the concerns that were raised earlier? >> I did. >> Can you address them or
>> Yes. Uh do we want to start with the existing building? >> Yeah. I You don't need to put the board up. I usually use the screen. >> All right. I'm going to need to refer this. I can't see that far. >> Um so essentially um yes, the top we're referring to sheet A1. I have the same
sheet here that that you have up on the screen. Uh the top plan is the existing main level plan. It's characterized by two uh very small units. Uh the bedrooms, you know, basically exist uh and they and they actually function as
living area as well. There's um precious little living space in these two units. So by going to the the proposed plan, we attempt to uh just essentially make the apartment more livable. And in the process, we're you know, we're relieving the utilities a little bit. We're
eliminating two K or one kitchen and one bathroom. We're combining them into uh you know into the new apartment with uh you know with a more functional kitchen, a little bit more functional bathroom. The bedrooms both sit outboard all the way outboard on the plan. Uh it
basically the linear nature of this you know was was a bit uh daunting to deal with but we ended up with the bedrooms on on the exterior. The only change that we propose for the outside elevations would be the elimination of the current front door, which as you look at the
upper right hand of the plan, that serves as the front door for one of the units. We're going to close that up and that's going to become a closet. So, we're going to maintain the entry of the lefthand unit on the existing plan to enter the main larger apartment.
>> So, essentially the kitchen basically. >> Uh, correct. Yes. Where's the front of the house in this picture? >> It is towards the bottom of the plan. Yeah. >> All the way in the bottom. If you look at the key plan on the bottom right, >> that that kind of appendage that sticks out, that's the that's where the main
entrance is. >> The photograph show it's a door. Is there not an entry door in the front? >> Yeah. Yeah, I believe there is. >> Showing those those back to apartment. >> Okay. >> Yeah, correct. >> Yeah, we didn't we didn't
>> remain the same. >> Yes. no change proposed to the other two units. >> So, so as we mentioned earlier, the the bedroom count remains the same. Uh we just, you know, reduced it by a unit and made that uh new newly combined unit more livable. And uh
as I said, we reduced some utilities as well by getting rid of a kitchen and a bathroom and combining. So essentially, that's that's the existing that's I mean the existing building. If you have any questions on that, uh, I'll be happy to entertain them before we get
to the new the new buildings. >> I guess one more time, three apartments, one's going to be >> They're all going to be two bedroom, >> one three bedroom, >> one bedroom, two bedroom, >> correct? Yeah. So, the bedroom counts don't change. We just rearrange them a
little bit. So, we're combining >> two oneb units. He's merged them and created >> together. >> Correct. >> Okay. And real quick, with seven bedrooms, the parking lot or parking area conforms to standard.
>> Currently, it does. There's no changes proposed to the parking with the access. >> I'll just note for the record, I looked at Google Earth aerials back to like 2002. I think I saw one car parking on the side of the road on either frontage going back that time. Obviously, that's
not catching every single day of every single year, but um they do have the U-shaped driveway and then they have a separate driveway coming off of Ro Roosevelt Avenue. As far as the two new single family dwellings, so there's looks like they're providing two uh driveway parking spaces and also a
garage. So, three total spaces per RSIS that will allow for up to a five bedroomedroom dwelling on each each home. So, when they go for time of plot plan, they're going to have to demonstrate compliance with RSIS. If they don't meet parking and then they either got to come back to this board for a variance or they got to modify the
driveway, move the structure to provide additional parking to accommodate same. So, >> but that's with the new structures. This existing structure is fine as is. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else professionals, board
members? >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh do you want to basically I can confirm that the two new units are going to be fully compliant with regard to all bulk uh sizes um lot coverage etc. There are no there are no var variances
requested on the two new units. Um whatever the square footages end up being that will be in full compliance. >> Okay. >> And the height as well. >> The height as well. Correct. >> That that height's no more than two and a half >> two and a half 30 feet. >> Yes. Okay.
Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> That's all we have. So, >> okay. Um, just so it's on record. Not that I I think everybody's going to watch the basketball game. So, anyway,
we will go to public. Uh, make a motion. >> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, to go to public. >> Have a second. >> I'll second it. >> Amarie second. All in favor? >> I. >> Yes. >> She's got to make that motion to close. Motion to close by Emory.
>> Thank >> second by Mr. Arasco. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> John has something else. >> Okay. John, >> uh I just have one question for the applicant. Uh with regards to your tenants, uh obviously uh the assumption
here uh would be that somebody's leaving or someone's being evicted to some extent. uh how are you handling uh that situation and the construction or the conversion of the four family down to the three family? So, the [clears throat] back two units obviously
if we're able to combine um we will give the tenants ample notice um I would say at least minimum six months um until the construction is completed uh I mean they would have an option if they
want to move back to the area if that's a possibility for them but um we would give them ample notice. >> Okay. So my only recommendation uh if the applicant's uh amanable to it is that as a condition of approval so
should you act in that uh that no construction permits are uh applied for for the two single family homes until all the construction is completed at the four family to reduce it down to the three and that uh you know that the I
believe there's four sewer connections that one's abandoned that that's fully compliant and done with before you start building any uh any new homes. That's the only thing that uh I would ask for. >> So, >> is that the only sequence that you would
>> Yes, it would because in these situations, uh I've seen I've seen problems with tenants trying to get them out and then you get what you want and we don't get what we want. So, I'm going to be selfish here and I'm going to say that if you want something, we have to get what we're asking for first.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think John is being reasonable, too. We could honestly say it has to be done prior to the filing of the plat, which would even push back filing of the plat. We're allowing them to file the plat with the restriction that they can't get a uh any construction permits on the two new lots until they make good on this existing
home. Uh I think that's more than reasonable. So um a certificate of occupancy designates that >> building >> I mean they don't have to reoccupy the third apartment but uh all building
permits that uh are needed to complete that transformation would need to be closed out before they start construction on on the two new lots. >> Final approval. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So not rented but construction complete. Correct.
>> Okay. >> So, are you agreeable to that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that. >> Okay. >> So, Andy, that will be in the resolution.
But John, that's a good point. I'm glad you brought that up. Okay. >> Just a quick question if I may. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, >> while the permits are filed for the construction, are we allowed to file
permits for the new construction as well or you have to wait and then start that process after? >> You have to wait. >> Okay, that's fine. Okay, thank you. That's it.
>> That's it. That's your closing. >> That's my closing. >> That's why [laughter] >> I think they said it better than I thought. Plus, you're in a hurry to get to the game. >> Yeah. Boy, that that's going a long way with us. I'll tell you that. You're a lawyer with very few words.
[laughter] >> Okay. There's no no other questions. Uh what is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chair, I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve this application uh especially with the uh stipulations that Mr. Aguar put on at
the end there. I just wanted to highlight that. And with that, I make a motion to approve. And >> I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Mr. Hughes with the motion. Mr. Caner with the second. Can I have a roll call? >> Mr. Barillo?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Caner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes? >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosco? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan? >> I'm a yes. >> Chairman Merren. >> I'm going to vote yes as well because I
think everything looks really good here. I appreciate the concessions with some of the things that John had brought up and I that went a long ways I think with us as well. Plus, I don't see any objectors here tonight, so that goes a long way, too.
So, I approve and thank you. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all very much. >> You're welcome. >> Go next. >> Strange piece of me. >> I'm always the last one out anyway. >> Okay.
Anything else from professionals or anybody else? >> And the role in compliance with >> Okay. Our next meeting is June 22nd, 2026.
There's no further business of the board. Do I have a motion to close? >> Motion. >> Motion by Mr. Larasco. >> Second and Marie. All in favor? >> Good night. Take care.