Heat. Heat. Good evening everybody. Lisa, could we have an opening statement, please? >> Uh, Howell Township Zoning Board, April 27th, 2026. 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 not 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, please? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barillo, >> present. Good. >> Mr. Caner, >> present. >> Mr. Hughes, >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell is excused. >> Mr. Rosco is excused. Mr. Ryan,
>> present. >> Miss Scottson >> here. >> Mr. Kabarakis >> here. Chairman Merens >> present and here >> you have a farm. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask everybody to please rise for the pledge
of allegiance in a brief moment of silence for our troops serving overseas. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, Andy, could you swear in our professionals? >> Charlie and Jen, >> do you swear the testimony you give the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you guide? >> I do. State your names for the record. >> Charles Kliff, >> Jennifer Beam.
>> Professionals are sworn, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Andy. Um Lisa, any minutes? >> No, no minutes tonight. >> Correspondence. >> Okay, that's good. Next is resolution. The first one is and the only one case
number BA1806A LNL paving company incorporate resolution granting use variance and amended preliminary and final major site plan eligible voters Burillo Hughes O'Donnell Rosco Ryan Scottson and
Merrens do I have a motion >> I'll make a motion >> second >> Mr. Hughes and Miss Scottson. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson.
>> Yes. Chairman Merren. >> Yes. >> Resolution is memorialized. >> Okay. At this time, uh, we can go to our first application tonight. Case number BA25-9, Steuart Street LLC.
Bulk variance for SFD with septic system on undersized lot. Application of Steuart Street LLC as applicant and Helena Belle View as owner seeking approval to construct a two-story single family dwelling on an
undersized lot in the R2 zone. Other proposed improvements include a septic system, portable well, dry well, ashvalt driveway, and ailerary improvements on premises known as block 148, lot 5, 269
Stewart Street. This application was originally scheduled for January 26, 2026 when it was carried to February 9th, 2026 and was then carried to March 9th, 2026 with no further notice. And on March
9th, 2026, it was carried to March 23rd, 2026 with no further notice. on March 23rd, 2026. It was carried till April 27, 2026 with no further notice.
Expiration is April 29th, 2026. >> Thanks. >> Elbow voters Burl Caner, Hughes, Arasco, Ryan, Scottson, Kabaracus, and Merens. >> Good evening, Mr. Jackson. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. >> Chairman, members of the board, for the
record, John Jackson on behalf of the applicant. Um, I'm handing out a revised PowerPoint consisting of seven pages. I think uh perhaps the uh probably most useful thing for the board would be uh page seven and six which show a comparison between how we started and
what we're proposing to the board as an alternative. You'll recall this is an isolated undersized lot. Uh we had a proposed structure. There were some concerns raised by the board's professionals, by the board members, as well as by members of the public about the size and scale of our original
proposal. So, what my client has done is he's gone back and he has significantly scaled down. Uh we'd still be more than happy to go with the original proposal. So, the board essentially has a choice. Um we have that second proposal that's been reviewed, engineered, and uh with
that segue, if I could have Mr. Rob Civ come up and he'll tell you the engineering differences. And then we have Kristen Shepard. She is our planner. She'll just uh briefly explain the differences. >> And Mr. Jackson, we should probably wait till the so the public can see, >> right? We have this electronically.
>> I do the PowerPoint. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> So, we'd want it up on the board is all I'm saying so everyone can see it. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bear. >> Okay. Uh Andy, so we're the same professionals are testifying. Mr. Jackson,
>> Mr. Savior, you're still on your oath? Yeah. >> Yes. I I think the planner is >> Kristen Shepard. She >> was she here the last time? >> Yes. And she provided testimony. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> If she did, then the professionals are still under oath.
>> And just for the record, I have some updated buyell letters that I'll provide to the board secretary for your final. >> Mr. Chairman, with your permission, Mr. Rob S. weren't qualified last time. Do you want to do that again or is he still >> qualified? No, he's good. And good to see you again.
>> Good to see you. Thank you. And the whole work. >> Uh just to recap what Mr. Jackson said, we were here back in I believe it was February. We had a 29 foot wide house that required se uh side setback variances. We were proposing roughly 15t sideyard setbacks. After our
presentation and then some feedback from the public, it was suggested we come back before the board with a smaller, narrower house, which is what we've done. We've submitted plans which is on the was on the PowerPoint for a page 19 foot wide house
>> which now provides the minimum 20 20 foot sideyard setbacks which complies with the zone that the property's in which is the R2 zone but does not comply with the R40 zone the 40,000 foot lot area because we are on one because we
are on septic because we're on septic we have to go to the AR1 standards so But we'd still need the sideyard setbacks for that, but we are complying with the primary zone of the R2 of the 20 foot sideyard setbacks. God bless you. >> God bless you. >> Thank you. Excuse me. I'll sneeze 20
more times in a row. Please forgive me. My allergies. >> Um, but aside from that, nothing's changed from an engineering standpoint. I know Mr. Con's done an updated review letter. It's pretty much the same topics we covered in the original one. Um, unless there's something additionally we need to cover, I'm more than happy to go
through it again, but it'd be very similar to the testimony we provided in February. >> Thank you, Mr. Civ. So, uh, we actually comply with the zone if we had water and sewer hookup, right? And that's really not something we can do. Correct. And, uh, just, uh, so the the house is
substantially smaller. I'll just note, um, there are stairs going down. We just reserve the right to a basement if the engineering and everything. It makes for a good, uh, you know, amenity. put the kids down there, man cave, office, woman cave, whatever the case may be. So, I just wanted that to be in the testimony.
>> So, that's our engineering testimony. I have nothing further from Mr. Civ. We think the plans are self-explanatory. If uh my next witness will be uh Miss Shepard, >> Charlie, >> yes. So um with the revised architectural plan and plot plan they
provided previously um they had a dwelling that encroached into the required sideyard sebar set back in the R2 zone uh by about 5T. So they took 5T on each side shrunk it down. Dwellings about 19 and a half plus or minus feet wide. Uh it doesn't comply with the AR1
sideyard setback requirement of 30 feet but the lot width is 59.33 feet. strict appliance of those setbacks would not have any buildable footprint. Uh so they did shrink the structure to comply with the underlying R2 sideyard setback requirements. Um we also discussed last
time around they need a uh variance for the front yard setback. Uh the area one requires 50 ft. Um we did talk last time that the underlying zoning the R2 allows on internal streets which this is they would be able to have a 25 ft front yard
setback. Uh so it does comply with the underlying zoning. Uh the board may recall there were some concerns from the public regarding additional impervious coverage on the li on the property and potential drainage impact. So you know they could shift this structure back
probably another 25 ft and potentially comply with that 50 foot requirement. But we're adding 25 ft by the width of the driveway of additional imperous coverage. Um so you have to kind of weigh that in your consideration of it. Um the lot frontage that's an existing
non-conformity you know Mr. uh Jackson provided the buy sell letters um two other questions I think changes that I had the first option you came in with there was a deck and some stairs on the back the second rendering shows a sliding door to the back of the
structure but there's no deck and a or any kind of stairs in a landing. Is is that being withdrawn or is that proposed? Are you going to come back at a later point? Cuz it would technically require relief because >> Yeah, I'm assuming you're talking about the rear sliding door that's shown there.
>> Yeah, we would have used the same landing and deck that's shown on our plot plan, the original plot plan here. I mean, it just didn't show up on the architectural plans, so it never got transferred onto the >> Okay. So, would it would be basically what was presented the first time around as far as how far it came off the back of the structure. Wouldn't be any wider than the 19 1/2 ft width of the
structure. >> Correct. Um, and then another uh I think questions, concerns from the public was regarding the grading of the the sideyards and not sending water to the neighboring properties. The revised grading plan is uh does have more
accentuated swell grading uh along the sides of the structure. Once you get to the rear of the property, past the neighboring homes, it does naturally overland flow how it does in the existing condition. Um, but they've done a better job of making sure it gets to the back of the property and not onto
the neighbors to the side where the the homes are. Um, they do have drywall size for the roof area for the water quality storm. You know, um, we don't have any impervious coverage restrictions in the R2 zone. So, um, they don't need a variance for that. But, you know, if the
board if you hear some uh from the public if we're still concerned about previous coverage, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask that to maybe be increased to also include the driveway. Um, but we we can hear from the public and see if that's something that you feel is warranted.
>> Okay. >> Jen, do you want to hold off till after the planning testimony? >> Yes. >> Okay. Board members, any questions for Mr. Sib? I do. >> Mr. Ryan, >> Mr. Civ, back on February 9th, we
discussed the basement and yet we redid option two and I still don't see a basement being drawn in there. Is there any reason why we haven't included the basement as part of the architectural plan? >> My client indicated to me that the stairs say down on the first floor to show that this it would go down to the
basement. >> Okay. Do we have an idea of what the basement will look like? It would just be, you know, a cinder block basement that would be under the footprint of the house instead of a foundation. It will just go down. >> Full basement, not a half basement. >> No, it's a full size for the size of the underneath of the house. That's where
mechanicals could go and like a you know, it could be storage on a on a smaller house like this. Send the kids down there to play when >> the weather's bad, that kind of thing. >> All right. And we also I also asked the question about did we know if there was any prior septic that was part of the
2011 demo? Have we found anything out on that? >> I have not found anything out of that from the health department as of yet. We'll continue to do some research. >> Okay. >> And if we do come across it, we'll address it appropriately. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You might be right. >> Anybody else?
>> Okay. This Okay, Mr. Jackson, I guess we're ready for your planner. And then um I again with your permission remind me shepherd she's still under oath still qualified till sworn perh >> planner with Christine Capone's office. >> Okay good to see you back.
>> Good to see you guys again. >> Yes. So uh as was mentioned we're here seeking some bulk variance for the front yard and sideyard setbacks. As was also mentioned this has been improved a bit from the previous house submission. So now we're looking at about um uh 20 ft
of a setback which would be in compliance as the engineer mentioned from the Ford and the R2 but because we're looking at the AR1 zone we're finding those setbacks uh variances here. So in this case I believe because this is an existing um isolated
undersized residential lot. I believe the C1 uh variance can be argued here which is a hardship variance because this hardship was not self-created. this lot exists with this uh with these types of uh this the skinniness the thinness of the lot and the way that it's structured. It really would provide a
hardship for our applicant to build on. So I believe the C1 could be applied here. But in the event that there is no C1 hardship found, I will still put C2 testimony on the record. So C2 flexible standard, I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. And I think multiple municipal land use laws are
promoted in this case. I believe purpose A is promoted because a residential uh house, a residential zone is permitting this type of use. Therefore, that is really um fundamentally promoting the public good for purpose A and I believe
that purpose G is also promoted in this case that's encouraging the appropriate use of land given the constraints of this legal ex existing lot. Something can be built here and I believe what's being proposed um is really the appropriate use for this type of land. So I believe the positive criteria from
a planning perspective is satisfied. So then moving into the negative criteria as planners we look at the two-prong analysis. The first prong in this case is really is there substantial detriment to public good? And I do not believe from a planning perspective there is substantial detriment to in this case as
was mentioned actually by the board engineer. Um the grading plan has been updated to ensure that some of those original concerns have been addressed. And I believe that the single family home is contemplated in this zone. So this really satisfies that negative
prong, the criteria here. And then that second prong is whether or not there's substantial impact to the zone plan or the ordinance. And I do not believe that there is here because really the this is sight specific relief that the applicant is requesting tonight and this was characterized by that underside
undersized or non- sewarded lot. So I do not believe that providing this variance relief would create an undesirable precedent. And section 18852 the ordinance itself recognizes that existence of these lots do provide a framework for the type of reasonable
development that would have to be put on that lot. And I believe this application does satisfy that. So, uh, based on all the testimony I just provided and previously as well, I believe that the relief can be granted under the C1 and the C2 statute and that there's no
substantial detriment to public good or impact to the zone plan and the master plan. >> So, just a couple follow-up questions. We we meet the underlying zone criteria for setbacks if there were water and sewer, >> correct? >> So, that's a hardship in a way too that there's no water and sewer there which
makes us have to have expanded setbacks by virtue of that. >> Correct. So I mean under C1 normally what you do is you look to see whether once the hardship exists whether uh our plan takes into account you know our deficiency and whether it respects the neighborhood. I'm paraphrasing that.
That's a fair paraphrase. >> Yeah. I I believe Yeah, I believe so. And it's consistent with the other residential homes in the in the area. This is a residential zone. >> So you see no negative here? >> I do not. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
>> Jennifer. So, I don't I don't disagree with the testimony. I do think this falls within the C1 for the lot area. I do think it falls within the C1 criteria. And I think that the buy sell letters that Mr. Jackson has provided us has enabled us
to consider the lot area and the frontage um as part of the C1 criteria because the lot is a lot. You got no responses back, John, from any person that you sent the stuff. So, >> he reached out saying, "Do you want to buy property from me or do you want to
sell me property to make the lock conforming?" Got no response. That's his obligation. And so, he is able to argue that under the C1. >> Okay. >> I do think that the C2 and uh the sideyard setback and the front yard
setback are part of a C2 criteria. I don't disagree with the with the testimony. I don't know about like criteria a the general health safety and welfare. I think that's very broad and I don't know that that's applicable here. But I do think that what they're
proposing is an appropriate use and appropriate location which is criteria G, which is a single family home in a single family zone. I think you guys need to focus on whether you'd prefer the Okay, so let's
let's be clear because they have no sewer, they have to comply with the E1 zoning requirements, which requires setbacks that the width of this lot, I agree with you, make compliance a hardship because it's physically
impossible to have any kind of physical structure on the property. So then they look to the underlying zoning. So what they're proposing now is a narrower home that propo that complies with the underlying zoning requirements in terms of sideyard setback and front yard
setback. Right? Front yard too, right? Um however, because they don't have sewer, we our ordinance requires them to take the acre lot setback requirements. that are less than 15,000 square ft of area.
So that's difficult to comply with. So, you guys are going to have to ultimately decide at the end of the day, I don't mean to steal your thunder, whether you'd prefer the narrower home that kept the underlying zoning
setbacks consistent or you would prefer the larger home for whatever reason, whether it's aesthetics or what have you. And I'm sure that first of all, you need the variance anyway from the sideyard
regardless. But if it was the wire home, I'm sure criteria I would factor into your testimony. Correct. Correct. >> Correct. I was I could not argue purpose I in this case because I I personally do not believe aesthetically that that
>> the narrower home. I understand what you're saying. But if the board would prefer the wider home, then your argument for the setback relief would include criteria I. Correct. >> Correct. >> I don't take exception to what she's proposed. >> I have to correct one thing I said that's uh a mistake. I just there I did
have a response to the buy sale letters and I believe the people are here tonight. I did send a uh comparable sale and that I haven't heard a response to. >> Okay, fair enough. But I do think the fact that he sent them and even if they're negotiating qualifies him to
argue the C1 for the area in the frontage. Um, I do think there is an argument to be made over given the width of the lot because that is in the statute, you know, um, for lack of compliance with the AR1 sideyard
setbacks because if you put 60 feet on either side, you have nothing left, right? Is it 60 ft? >> Yeah. >> 30. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, you'd have nothing left because the lot is less than 60 ft. However, let's look at the underlying zoning and
they can comply with the underlying zoning with what they're proposing. If you feel like that's more appropriate, that's fine. But I'm sure a lot of these people here want to say something. But I think from a statutory compliance, I don't disagree with what has been presented to you thus far. >> Okay.
>> So, was that was that the buyer that was here from the last meeting that expressed interest? >> I I seem I recognize him. I see him in the audience. I did send a comparable sale and I have not heard a response to that. >> And then Mr. Chair, I just want to I'll ask Mr. Civ a question then a couple
more points. So, um the number of bedrooms in the dwelling from their what was originally proposed to now. It's not changing. It's still four bedrooms. So, there's two and a half parking spaces that are required. They went from a two-car garage down to a onecar garage. So, you get one parking spaces in the garage. um their driveway from the
street from the actual edge of the physical roadway. They do have the ability to park two cars um you know 9 by8 parking uh stall dimensions but they are providing 8 and 1/2 ft rightway dedication along the frontage. So um I
think it would probably just be cleaner if they were amendable to shifting the structure back 4 and 1/2 ft. So we have a true 36 ft from the rightway line to the front of the dwelling. So there's two 9 by8 spaces. Is that something that could be accommodated, Rob?
>> Um, normally I would say yeah, that isn't a problem. My only concern is is as we shift the house back, we shift the drywall back and then we start getting into our separations from our septic fields. >> Well, can the drywall go to the sideyard? >> Um, I'll we'll take a look at it, but it's
going to be hard because we have to make the 50 ft from the wells. >> Yeah. So, what I would say is let's hear from the public. Um, you know, and I think last time around, John, was there a commitment there would not be any bedrooms in the basement? >> We we'll agree to that.
>> Okay. And that's the because that all dictates what the parking requirement is in terms of RSI. So, um, you know, I looking at the rightway around this adjacent to these properties, the likelihood of Stewart Street getting widened in the next 10 years is probably
not very likely, but at some point in time, it could be. So, that's where my head is coming out with that. So if the board's and the public is particularly concerned about available off streetet parking, you know, I think the structure could be shifted back four and a half ft and we could look at maybe
an alternate location for the drywall just to make sure for future you know build that contingency into uh into it and then just to give the board some um extra clarity. So the the just the 2D footprint of the dwelling, the prior proposal, and this is just plan view.
This isn't to totaling up both floors, but the original dwelling was about 1,625 square ft. They've reduced it down to 1,247 ft. So it's almost a 25% reduction in in the footprint. Um, and obviously they
haven't shown um the deck and the landing that they they had on the first plan, but with with the home and the driveway and the porch and the walkway, they're at about like 12 and 12 and a quarter uh impervious coverage uh with this proposal. So, it's it's pretty um
modest compared to uh you know many other adjacent towns on small lots like these have you know 50 60 65% in previous coverage. So this is very a very limited amount compared to uh you know what's permitted in some other neighboring municipalities. So I just
wanted to give that uh clarity to the board. >> Okay. Thank you Charlie. Board members. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Jackson, we do have a new option here. So in that situation, I do think that it's appropriate to allow the
public to make comments. So if that's okay, I'd like to entertain a motion to open the public. >> Motion to open. >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Burillo. All in favor? >> I. >> Lisa, do you have a statement for the
>> The chairman has opened the hearing 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. You will need to provide your name and address and you will be sworn in. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Do you swear the testimony I give will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I swear. State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Brandon Smith, smi th and your address. >> 267 Stewart Street. >> So, I am the applicant that came up last
time or not the applicant. I'm the neighbor that came up last time. I said that I offered to buy the property. So, I did not respond to Mr. Jackson because I had to talk to a couple of my attorneys and find out why what was
going on with what he sent me. And I have all the paperwork here that I can show showing that what he sent me is not in the same zone nor has anything near
what this lot is. And who is first off >> the applicant? Sorry to interrupt you. Are you saying in terms of like comparables? >> In terms of comparable, >> not not the property. You're saying that I'm sorry. >> Comparable. Yes. Comparable. So the
applicant that you stated is Mr. Jackson and Helena. So the property that he sent me saying his client sold his client isn't Helena. She did not
just sell this property that he sent me. So, he gave me a price for a property and is trying to sell me a property through clients that do not own this property yet. >> Okay, >> this is what it says right in the
paperwork. Helena is the owner and the people trying to sell me the property do not own this property. The closure was supposed to be on March 30th. The closure on this property still has not happened. This property has not sold. So, how am I supposed to go back to Mr.
Jackson, come back with a price when his clients trying to sell me the property do not own it? >> John, do you have an response to >> Yes. Um, my client is a contract purchaser. This is not an unusual circumstance. Under the municipal land
use law, a uh a contract purchaser is entitled to make applications. And in that instance, we have made a buy sell based on what the price is. We're entitled to the benefit of our bargain. And I have not received any response uh from this gentleman in terms of our offer. So, you know, it's that's where
we're at. And uh the fact that my client's a contract purchaser has no bearing on the circumstance. be contingent upon I would assume that's the >> that's what he's saying it's contingent upon sale which I can see they're doing their due diligence but showing me a
property that they sold that is nowhere in the vicinity of where we are that has water and sewer hookup is not a deep and narrow property but a wide property that would fit a house like this and I have the aerial pictures of the property I
have all of his deeds that he sent me to show it. And we're also going on the aspect that you brought up that there is no known septic on the property. Correct. If you could bring up the aerial, I can
show you where the crush septic is because I'm still in contact with the actual owner's family. So, I know where the crush septic is. >> Okay. Mr. Sib Charlie this is >> well so uh well and septic falls under
the perview of Mammoth County Board of Health and anytime we have a former structure that was demolished we always make it a condition of any board approval that they have to provide certificate of abandonment for wells and septic from Mammoth County Board of Health. So we can certainly make that a uh condition of if of this approval if
the board is inclined to act favorably and this wouldn't be different from any other you know redevelopment of a site that had a prior structure with the septic system. So >> and if you come across it during construction anybody comes across it during construction it's you bury it on site and that's what you do and handle it in accordance with the rules and
regulations. >> It's already buried on site and it's going to be in the way of where they want to propose the house or where they plan on moving it to. >> So that's what you would do. you would excavate the material out where the house is going to go and bury it somewhere else on the site. >> Okay? So, when you wipe out over the
trees on my side of the property and if you know trees, you know that however far the canopy reaches out is how far the roots go. When you wipe out all those and it kills a huge tree that's leaning onto my
property. >> What's next? >> I'm not sure which tree you're specifically referring to. >> If you want to bring up >> the view, I'll show you. I was going to ask you answer your question is like I said we'll excavate out material for the basement. Um a homeowners property owner is allowed to excavate on their property
whether the branches the roots that gives them the right to excavate that material on their property. We're just going to excavate it and bury it somewhere else on the property. >> Okay. So my next question is privacy because obviously
going this far this deep onto the premises my property is fully open on the lefth hand side. So I have no privacy. How many windows are on the side of this house again looking directly onto my property?
>> Yeah. Were the comparable sales vacant land, existing sales in Howell or were they single family and vacant? >> The one that's he sent me. >> Yeah, >> it was vacant land. I can give it to you if you want to see it.
>> So So Amarie, I'm not sure like the the value issue isn't really a board issue. That's not really a lands. >> No, no, I understand. And I I guess I'm just trying to understand like >> it's what he sent was vacant land >> but in a completely different zone an R3
zone more towards Ramtown area that has water and sewer hookup. It is not near our area. A house that what they're trying to design here would work wideways because it would match there.
deepways. It does not work where we live. >> We provided a sale comp $340,000 for a lot that we thought was in similar size vacant that we thought served as a basis. The standard for a uh buy sale is what the value of the property be would
be with an approval. So, we thought that was an appropriate comparable. And in response to that, I've received nothing. And actually, even >> on a different zone, not your comparable. >> Excuse me, sir. Oh, I I just Mr. Chair, I just have to jump in here. Like the the negotiation back and forth is not
something you guys want to consider on this. >> So, I get that there's there's discontent over the comps that were sent and the offer. >> I understand that. >> Um, with respect to privacy,
they could clear the lot if they wanted to. If they put a house on this lot, every single tree on that property could go. and there's nothing the neighbors can do about it and it's their right on their property just like you have the right to clear trees on your property. So you are not guaranteed a right of
privacy. I just want you guys to be a clear I understand your concern. >> I don't have a right to clear trees on my property because All right. So if I take down certain trees technically I'm supposed to put more trees back up >> only if it's it's an acre and part of a site plan or a subdivision.
You're if there's a house on the property, right, John? Tell me if I'm wrong. He can clear his property today if he wanted to. >> You can as long as you're not encroaching on any kind of easement or wetlands or protected property. But uh >> and we're also going off the fact that right now that this property you're
saying was never subdivided because you couldn't find record on it. Correct. >> I am not I >> that's what we're going off of. That this property was never subdivided. >> Regardless if it was subdivided or not, the lot exists. a lot exist >> and they're entitled to come in
with an application. That's why they're here at the zoning board, which is the board where people are doing things that are not generally permitted by our ordinance. And the reason that they're here is because they need a septic system. If they were connected to water
and sewer, what they're propo what they're proposing today, they could go right to the building department and get a permit. So, I just want to focus on why we're here. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the lot was subdivided previously or
not. The lot exists. It's owned. They're coming in as a property owner or a contract purchaser, as they're entitled to do, to try to propose a development proposal, which is a single family home. That's it.
>> Single family home 60t long. >> Yep. >> 20 foot wide. Yep. whatever it is, >> they're they're entitled to propose respectfully. They're entitled to propose what they want on the property.
They came they were here they they got pretty beaten up, I will say, and they came back with an alternative proposal, which is what they're proposing today. Yes, they're entitled to propose that there are no coverage requirements in
your zone as of today. So therefore, yes, the house can be 60 feet long and 20 feet wide. It's up to them to decide whether or not it's acceptable, but at the end of the day, unless you're willing to buy that property, and I'm
not saying you're not, but they are entitled to propose development on a legally existing lot in Howell Township as of today. Yes. >> Okay. So respectfully, I just want to come back to that. At the very first
meeting we had where this stopped, your answer to me when I brought this up was there was a house there, they can build on this lot. >> Okay. If they could build on this lot, why are we sitting here for variances?
because they don't have septic and our ordinance requires any lot less than 40,000 ft² which would be your lot too on septic I understand that you are not allowed in Howell Township as of today to build a single family house
>> 4000 >> on a lot that's less than 40,000 ft without a variance from this board. That's why we're here. >> I thought septic had nothing to do with this board because it has to go through Mammoth County. It does, but we have a requirement in our ordinance that requires that that's why they're here.
>> And if your lot was vacant and you were proposing a house, you would have to be here, too, because your lot is less than 40,000 square ft, which is what our ordinance requires. And you are you were on septic, you would be here as well. That's why they're here. They are allowed to build a single family house.
>> Correct. And the fact that they're trying to sell me a property and walk away is because if I buy the property and I wanted to put an addition on my house, I wouldn't need a variance because it wouldn't go out that far. >> You would need a variance because even
buying their property, you're not going to be 40,000 ft. >> So, but you're still on septic. You're not allowed to be on septic less than 40,000 square ft. I I mean, I'm going to defer to John and to Andy because this is getting
>> dicey, but at the end of the day, if you want to buy the property, you're more than welcome to negotiate with them. But at the end of the day, >> not him. >> Okay. Well, he's a contract purchaser and he's here asking for approval. He gets approval from this board, then he's
going to be the guy you're going to have to negotiate with. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, there's one other factor, and I'm sure your council will confirm this. Under the case law, the hardship, the buyell is one factor that the board may consider. You could give the variance notwithstanding the buyell even if they wanted to buy it because in
this circumstance, we have a lot. There was a house there. My client has plans etc. We meet the criteria under C2. Like I said, I don't think the only hardship has to do with the undersize. It's also because of the plumbing not being there. So, it it it's not as, you know, as I
don't want to say as it's not as simple as this gentleman presents. and uh you know this is the process and uh we believe that we've satisfied the requirements under the process. >> Okay. >> So >> I don't want to keep going back.
>> Yeah. No, I I don't I think we're at the point now I but we have to abide by the rules that are set forth by the municipal laws and we will make our decision after we hear everybody.
Absolutely. Okay. So, >> well, I I guess my I'm not clear. Are you against the application or do you want to buy? So, if you want to buy the property, you can still continue to negotiate in good faith. And >> I can still negotiate. >> I'm just saying that's not really the issue for the board.
>> I'm not going to go back and forth because this isn't a place to go back and forth. >> No, I I agree. That's what I'm We're saying the same thing. >> Yes, absolutely. If I was still talking with Elena, same way I did. And if it got shut down, I know exactly what would happen. she'd wind up knocking on my door again and I would give her an offer
again and I would go from there again. Otherwise, Elaine is the owner. The issue you have is she's under contract with with somebody else to sell her property >> as of right now. I also know what they offer, but I'm not going to bring that up. >> Anyway, we're not involved with the
not something for here. >> That's something that I can go back and forth with her. interested, >> but I still have to bring up my points on everything. >> No, you're entitled to do that >> and it was noted. >> So, ju just to be clear on one thing, I
want to bring Andy in on on this. >> Yeah. >> So, right now, the negotiation to purchase the property is on raw land. If hypothetically if the board votes in favor of the application then the purchase would be on improved
land. >> Okay. So you're saying on raw land they said that I had to do it on a land with a house already built. >> Okay. So you had you spoke. We're going to let >> I'm just I'm asking a question and >> I'm sorry. >> He's the attorney. I'm going to let him answer that question. >> I'm sorry John. The question is,
>> so so the negotiation for the property right now um is based off of it being raw land or based off of it being improved. >> No, it's as if it was improve. It's as if with the approval. >> So if the board votes in favor of the
application doesn't change the value then that would be negotiated between the >> Well, the property is worth more within >> I mean >> with the with the approvals. >> Well, but there is there's Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Of course. >> Okay. So then
>> we're not going off raw land right now. We're going off as if there's a house there with a footprint. >> Yes. >> No. >> Without approval. >> With the approval. >> No. But as of right now from the last meeting, any negotiation I had, which is
in the letter that he sent me, is that as the approvals are there, even though the property was being sold as raw land, I was told I had to make an offer as if there was a house already built on it. >> That's accurate under law. That's accurate. >> That's >> even if the property is being sold as
raw land. >> But it it's not though. There's it's >> But the property is being sold as raw land. >> I don't know what that means, honestly. I don't mean un they talk about unimproved property. >> Unimproved. That's what is being sold as. >> But the law is there's an application before the board that hasn't been
approved. >> That's not what the law says, >> right? >> Unfortunately, he's right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't make the law. I >> He doesn't make the law. >> I mean, I'm not trying to be like I'm not I don't have a say like I don't have a stake in for or against anybody. I'm
just saying that's >> based on the contract. So what what the law acknowledges is that the house is for sale. Anyone could buy it. >> Y >> somebody did. They invested in an architect in an engineer. They brought it to the board. They put their neck on the line because you know how this all
goes. And what the law says is that the fair the appropriate amount is with the approval. That's what you get to buy out the person who did all that work for. So if you're willing to, you know, take the fruit of all their labor, then you have to pay for it. So, you know, there
there's a bigger >> and and I think that's why it's based on the the mark with with an approved house >> and that's whether you use their plans or not, by the way. >> Correct. >> Well, he >> he meaning he could just leave it as >> I could leave it as
>> well. And and that's why the I respectfully the rules are that that's only one factor in a hardship. The board could say, "Okay, you came up with an offer. we're going to approve the case because there are other hardships and also under C2 and it can't be used as a block and then if you got that approval
then you can't go build the house that we had approved then the idea is you're making your lot more conforming and um so that that's >> you know that's where we're at. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the audience? Good evening. >> Uh my name is Gordon Inerno. I reside at you. Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. State your name, spell your last
name. You were that uh >> Gordon Inferno. I N Ve R. Uh I reside at 263 Stewart Street. Um, I guess I just wanted to uh take in all
the information and uh I would just ask the board to uh maybe do a resubmitt on the size of the actual structure. Uh I think that's really the biggest consideration now. So that's really all I wanted to mention. I know there was a
previous look on the size. It was reduced from what was it 23 to 19. I I think uh there should just be consideration without being too subjective into the actual size of the structure. I think the structure should be condensed more. Uh thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? I'm afraid to make a break. You want to sit down? >> Sit down. >> Uh, my name is Celeste Kelly. I live at 272 Stewart Street. >> Miss Kelly, do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Um >> and then Kelly ke L L Y >> correct >> and then just your address >> 272 Stewart Street. >> Okay. >> Um there's two things I wanted to bring up. One of which is I could have sworn
the last meeting I was at which was not the one previously but before that that one of the things they brought up was the privacy issue and they're kind of disregarding the privacy issue with this house being
so big so on the piece of property that has that Brandon the neighbor will not have any privacy. It's it's unless they're going to have it all windowless on the side, which I don't know if that's been changed or what not, but
that's a that's a concern is there is no privacy for him. Um, also somewhat for me because it it it'll be kind of directly across from from my home. So, it's like now I can look out and I can see wood, trees,
a few trees. Um, but not people, which is a nice thing about our neighborhood. We have, we're full, but it would be even fuller if that was a a full residence with four bedrooms, we're saying,
right? Four bedrooms. So, >> you know, two adults, four adults, who knows? So, but that's that's one of the issues I wanted to bring up. And the other issue which I don't think was addressed but if they are proposing this
home for this small lot my understanding is you can't put the well and the septic next to each other. So one or the other is going to have to take precedent either the front of the house or the back of the house. What I want to know is how are going to how are they going
to service those things? I mean we're talking about a narrow piece of property. A truck's not going to be able to go through there. If Brandon should decide to put a fence up there, then they're gonna be out of luck because they're not going to be able to unless they got hoses or whatever.
There's just no way that they can actually service that area. I don't necessarily think that this is a hardship case because nobody has said that they have to put a house there. They could put other things there. They could they could just grow a crop there
and have a little farm stand that there's nothing saying that that that it's a hardship. >> Okay. >> Excuse me. Let's get back to your first comment. >> Uh John, uh Charlie, how would they get back there to service?
>> So, with the current proposal, they reduce the structure 20t wide. So, they have 20 feet on each side of the structure. If that were a paved roadway, that would be enough to satisfy fire code for two-way travel. Um, okay. >> A single driveway typically is around 12t wide, so there's room. Obviously, if
someone puts a fence in, they need to get service. Then they're going to have to put in a double wide gate or they're going to have to take the fence down to be able to to service it. That's not the board's problem. That's the applicant and a future owner's problem. And then as far as location of the well and septic, that's all dictated by the board
of health. So, if the board were to act favorably, they also have to get board of health approval if they haven't obtained that already. If they don't comply with the separation distances to wells and septics on neighboring properties, then they'd have to come back to the board, you know, um with a smaller house
with a smaller septic field that complies with all those setback requirements. So, um it's under their purview. If they can't get a board of health approval, then they got to come back to us. And that's how it has been on all these types of applications. >> Charlie, >> yep. Is access to the septic tank part
of the board of health's approval process? >> Of course. >> Um I'm sure they would look at that to make sure that it's accessible. And I would just note that, you know, at least per the applicant's plan, they're showing that both adjacent properties have septic systems in their rear yard. So
it's not something that's atypical for for a homeowner to have a septic system in in a rear yard. So >> thank you. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to add or not. >> Yeah. >> Um I can tell you we have our septic approval for this lot >> based on where the well and the septic
field is shown. >> And then I've also done septic repairs in the neighborhood for other homeowners that had their septics in the back and we got back there to do the repairs. >> Okay. >> But did they have to go on to a neighboring property? >> I think what Charlie was saying is that
based upon what they're proposing, they don't have to go on a neighboring property. There's 20 ft on either side of the house that they're proposing on this property. So even if there was a fence on the property line, they would have the ability to get in the backyard. >> I think it will be difficult though,
especially if you run >> Well, it could be difficult, but if they can get back there, the board of health is going to tell them they can't put it there. And like Mr. Civ said, it's there's not shouldn't be an issue with that. But I understand what you're saying, but I think we've have to go
with the the counties. >> Well, and I also like to say um I kind of think because everybody, you know, we're we're going through all this the these issues with getting variances and everything, but I think it somebody put
the cart in front of the horse because they they've went and spent all this money on attorneys and architectural drawings and who knows what else. what are approvals before they even have the approve the ability to build. So to me
it's just kind of like they kind of >> well they they have to do that in order for us to know what we need the plants. That's part of the process to any application is we need to see how they're proposing to do it and they do have to have professionals because if
they don't have professionals we their testimony would not go too far with us. >> Right. But what I'm saying is you they've done they've they've they've invested a lot already. >> Yeah. That that's actually pretty common, >> Kelly. That's the way it's done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I
>> that's the chance they >> Yeah, that's the risk they take when they're doing this. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, you answer my question. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Do >> you swear the testimony you'll give will
be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> State your name for the record. >> Tony Tedesco, 1016 Lakewood Farming Road. How >> can you Can you spell your last name, please? >> Teed D. Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Um, so I have lived here for 46 years.
Um, and I'm really disappointed, I think, as well as the rest of the town. I know there's not that many people here to support us tonight, but I'm hoping that that will change after a while. Um,
to the concern for the privacy for this uh house on Steuart Street, I think that is a concern for the township and I think it should be for every single person who lives within the township. Okay. There are variances in in place
for a reason, especially in this neighborhood because it is small lots. Um, and if you're going to make the septic and the water um the well smaller, is that going to be sufficient
for the amount of people that will be living in the home? >> That's a question for our engineer, but the answer to that is yes. >> And how do we know that's a yes? It's going to it has to be approved by the board of health which Mr. Civ said. >> Is there proof behind >> do you h you said you had the septic
approval correct? >> Yes. >> So you had test pits witnessed by the board of health for a four-bedroom home. >> Yes. >> And they approved it. >> Yes. >> In its current location, but was that with a regular size well and septic or was that with the proposed having to make it smaller because of
>> it was b the way the septics are sized is based on the number of bedrooms. Correct. >> So it's based on a fourbedroom house. >> Okay. So again, you said just a few minutes ago, you guys were just talking about having to possibly make that smaller. >> So if you make it smaller, >> so just
>> Yeah, nobody said that. >> No. So just to clarify, right? So >> I could have swore >> as a condition of the board, if the board is attacked favorably, they're going to Mr. Civ is going to have to provide a copy of Mama County Board of Health approval for the septic system that's proposed. If that approval said that the septic system was sized for six
bedrooms, we would say that is not in compliance with what the board acted favorably on with the application. They presented a four-bedroom dwelling, they got a septic system for six bedrooms, that would be an issue and they'd have to come back to the board. Now, the separate one, we talked about the septic system getting smaller.
uh they've already done their they've already done their leg work and they had the board of health approval. But if they hadn't right and it didn't comply with the 100 foot setback to an adjacent well, the septic disposal field or the well, you know, wasn't 100 ft from the septic system on the neighboring property and they had to reduce the
septic disposal field to a smaller footprint, then that would limit them to how many bedrooms that they could have put in. But they already have their approval for a four bedroomedroom uh septic system and a four to accommodate a fourbedroom dwelling. So that what they're proposing right now is not going
to change. If they came back at time of resolution compliance and they had a septic system that was now double the footprint, we would also question why is it double the footprint? Give us the board of health approval saying what the number of bedrooms are. So they have their approval for fourbedroom. They're going to provide the copy of the board
of health approval. If it doesn't say four bedrooms and it doesn't show exactly what was uh presented to the board, then they'd have to come back to the board to seek relief of what they what they presented. >> And what is the actual um like distance from property line to home? Is it
supposed to be? >> It's not from property line. It's from well >> from well to home >> or septic to septic septic to well. It's not from your property line. It's from it's from >> literally put a house. >> That's up to that's up to the board of health. We don't have any jurisdiction over that
>> because I know that like if I had someone propose to build a home right on the edge of the property line, which it sounds like it is very small where his house will be uh you know the home that is going to be built will be literally
on top of his home that I I just have you looked at the plans at all? >> I just here. >> Okay. So the proposal is complying with the 20ft setback on either side which is the underlying zoning requirement. The
board of the board of health review is the septic system which is in the rear yard which is all the way in the back behind the home which Mr. Civ who's their professional engineer has indicated that the board of health has witnessed the test pits which is required and has approved the septic
system. >> Yeah. So, and just to add to that, right? So, they look at the disposal field, making sure it's 10 foot set back from the property lines. They make sure the disposal system is appropriately separated from the septic tank, that the septic tank has appropriate separation from the dwelling, and that also all
those components also have appropriate setback from those same infrastructure on adjacent property. So, if the board of health had an issue with what was being proposed, they would not grant this applicant approval for what's being presented. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
>> Anybody else? >> I'll make a motion to close to public. >> Second. >> Mr. Caner with the motion. Emory with the second. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh >> do you allow a brief closing or
>> I just have a question. Um Hey, Nick. Talking to your mic. It's hard to hear. >> As the meeting was starting, I was asking Glenn, is is it normal for the board to have to decide between two options? >> Can I can I address that? >> Yes, you can. >> Can I Yes. Do a quick answer some of the
questions. >> Okay. >> As far as it normal for the board to decide, no, our application is for the smaller house. Um, and that was in response. We put we haven't abandoned the idea of the larger house. if the board says we think the bigger house is nicer, better, more appropriate for the
neighborhood. We gave the smaller house um but that's what our application is. We haven't abandoned the old one. So, is it unusual to say A or B in the context of an application that started here and then we responded to it to bring a smaller house? It's not that unusual. Uh
but, you know, one out of 50. Is that unusual? Maybe less than that. So, it it's it's, you know, define unusual. So, if I if I may just talk about the merits of the application briefly, Mr. Chairman, um, as a summation or
>> Yeah, you can do your uh, but >> can I just follow up with M Mr. Jackson? So, >> option two is a is a concept sketch and then there's actual plans, architectural plans for your original. So, why isn't there architectural plans for
>> your No, no, that's a concept sketch. That's what they call it. They don't call it they're not calling it architectural. They're calling it a concept sketch. >> That's uh what's required for a uh zoning submission. Different than the full construction drawings where you might have
>> So why did you submit for the first you gave complete architectural >> Ians? I don't know. He might have had them but these are sufficient for a zoning application and pretty typical of what you receive for a zoning application. We have the dimensions of the rooms, the layout of the floor plan, the the elevations, etc. Um,
>> right. Because you bring an architectural spe um person and they tell you about the architecture and isn't that the normal procedure of way things home? Not typically for a residential home. >> We typically require more detailed
architectural when it's a commercial application >> or it's a large subdivision but a single family home. We're trying not to overburden what is required. what they've submitted is exactly what we get for every single family residential
application, not anything different. >> So, and I I just want to add because what was originally submitted was a concept sketch, but I believe they did follow up with an actual signed and sealed version from the architect. So, uh well, it's a concept sketch, they did provide a signed and sealed copy and I guess the question would be Mr. for
Jackson. So, you do have the front elevation, but you don't have the sides and the rear, but is the commitment that the new structure would be architecturally compatible with what was previously presented as far as finishes and sidings and and all that? Okay. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, Mr. Jackson, before your summation, anything further from Jennifer or Charlie or John? Okay, Mr. Jackson. >> Thank you. I I you know, let's start out
with the idea where you have an isolated undersized lot. You know, when members of the public come to the podium, they'll make a statement to the effect of, well, you should follow the zoning regulations. The zoning regulations also have a board of adjustment that say in exceptional circumstances, due to the size, shape of the lot, peculiar
exceptional circumstances, you're entitled to relief as a hardship. You're also uh can prove to the board that you advance the purpose of the municipal land use law by satisfying some of the criteria and you can get your variance under C2. Just because a lot is small and already exists and there's other
homes around it does not condemn that lot. So that's why we have this process and I would submit that this process is a success story. We have an applicant who came before the board. There was opposition to it based on the size of the house. um some of the statistics
that relate to this lot. This lot is 250 ft deep. It's only uh 59 ft wide and our house is only 19.25 ft wide or our revised proposal. That is a very modest house. We're not overpowering or
overdeveloping this lot. Um Mr. Civ, I had him run the numbers were like 12.39 somewhere between 12 and 13% building coverage. That is a very low building coverage. Um, we're not overdeveloping this property by any means. Um, I think
Miss Beam said that this, uh, how or this zone does not have coverage requirements. Mr. Kunliff in his explanation, some towns will allow 30 50% on building coverage. So, we're not overdeveloping this property. We're being respectful of the neighbors. Um,
we have a 20 foot sideyard setback. That is a very large setback according to our planner. And you can even see from looking at the aerials, it's compatible with the development pattern in the rest of the neighborhood. There's a lot of room on the side of this house. As far as privacy, when you build a new house,
it is bare. Granted, however, when people get in for their own sake, they'll want to grow trees, they'll get shrubbery, uh you put up fences, and as you as the house gets lived in, it grows into the neighborhood. That's the normal course of things. Um so, we we thank the
board for the time and attention. We respectfully submit we've met the criteria. We've responded to what the concerns are and we're hopeful that the board sees the merits of this application and approves it. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
Okay. This time, what is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chair, I'm going to make I'm going to make a motion to deny this application. Um I don't believe that the burden of proof or the negative criteria
has been met and specifically um to the scale, the the style, the aesthetically um to the neighborhood, to the block. Um, Stewart Street is Stewart Street and
the um surrounding area is mostly ranches or like by levels or Cape Cods. Um, they're not twotory structures. Um, there are a couple twostory structures, but they are on much bigger lots. Um
the 263 Stewart 6969 acres which is 120 by 250 is a two-story structure there. Um there's another two-story structure at 275 Stewart that's 46 that's 80 by 250. Um the
proposed property at 269 they're proposed it's a.34 on 59 by 250. The two adjacent properties are both ranches. Um they sit at 79 by 250 and 60
by 250. Um you know across the street you have two high ranches or two buy levels. Um they sit on 75 by 208. Other houses on Stewart Street um 279
259 255. Um, let's see. 279 STW, it's 80 by 250. Um, 259 STW is 115 by 250. 255 is 100 by 250. And they're all ranches. Uh, and
one cape. So, I just believe the that the proposed two-story single family home on undersized lot would be out of character and would fail to blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. >> Okay.
Do I have a second? A second would be voting yes on the denial. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Can I make a motion? >> Yes. I'd like to I'm sorry. >> I'd like to make a motion that we approve this application with all the
considerations given. And I have a couple things to say. >> Mr. Caner, before you go ahead, there was a motion to deny on the record. >> I haven't heard a second, but I think there needs to be a declaration that that motion dies if there's not before
you make a motion. >> So this way there's not competing up on the, >> you know, it's a little confusing on the record, but >> fair enough. >> Okay. Do I have a second on the denial? Okay, seeing none.
>> So, I think that that motion died. >> Okay, >> now it's open again. >> Okay, reopen it. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the bulk variance uh with the septic system on the undersized lot as proposed with all the
considerations given. Uh couple comments. Uh first of all, Mr. Jackson, you said very large setback. U the setbacks are exactly compliant with the ordinance, so they're not very large. It's it's what it's supposed to be. That
being said, um the h the the way the ordinance is written, this house is a not a big house. It's and and you know, there's 20 ft setback on both sides. That's sufficient room for privacy. Um
it's only got two bedroom windows. It's not and it's not a big house. Um, and the other thing is the Mammoth County Board of Health approved the septic system. So, there's no consideration there on the septic. It's approved by another board that does this kind of
stuff. If it's put in and it's not compliant, it's not going to get approved. Um I believe that we we we have no choice here because the property as it was propos Oh and the other thing I want
sorry uh the only other thing I wanted to say is through this process that house was reduced by a considerable amount to make it pretty pretty darn narrow. 19 and 1/2 ft wide is pretty narrow providing enough space on both
sides to allow for the privacy. Um, I I think they've done everything that they've been asked to do through this process and therefore I make the motion. Sorry to speak so much. >> Okay. Do I have a second?
>> I'm going to second it. Um, but I do want to make it abundantly clear. We we understand the concerns about privacy, things like that, but as Mr. Caner said this fits everything that they've been asked to do. So, I just want to put that
on the record. >> Okay. Second by Miss Johnson. Can I have a roll call? >> Mr. Barillo. >> No. >> As per my previous statement. >> Mr. Caner? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Hughes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan? I'm going to vote yes. Um, but Mr. Jackson, I would really like to see any future diagrams that are claiming to have a basement to show the basement
going forward. >> Very, >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kamarakus. >> Yes, >> Chairman Merren. >> I respect decisions. I understand uh
where everybody's coming from with this application. I tend to agree with Mr. Burillo. I do think this house is out of proportion to what the the neighborhood is and something like this I could see in a beachfront
community in this neighborhood. I just I know that they've complied. They made concessions. I just don't like the appearance where it overtakes the
natural part of this neighborhood. So, I am going to vote no as well. >> Motion carries. Application is approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I know these aren't easy and appreciate all the time and thought put into it.
Thank you. >> No, it's not a D variant. Yeah, I was I was more I was I was more about the height that >> Yeah, I mean I drove. >> No, I just was count usually have
>> Yeah, use five. >> For use. >> That's a D variable. These were C, but just the majority. You need four. >> We got five. >> Yeah.
Uh, I think the other one came in blank without any attachments. I have a zip drive. >> Okay, we're back. >> Have to have them transport or listen to this. Okay,
now we got the first course case. Okay. Before us now is case number BA21-7 17A Gabrieli How Realy LLC a use variance and amended preliminary
and final major site plan application of Gabrieli How Realy LLC as applicant and owners seeking approval to construct a two-story 39,116 square ft foot GFA building for truck sales, leasing and servicing with
associated driveways, loading and fueling. The site will be accessed via a 36 ft two-way driveway from US Highway 9 North, which provides eternal AC access
to the site. Additional improvements include various drive aisles, visitor inventory and employees parking, a fueling tank station, loading zone, and one visitor inventory and employee parking. A fueling tank station loading
zone and one storm water basin, as well as additional storm water improvements on premise known as block 133, lot 109.01. 109 and 113.01
1207 and 1209 US highway 9 north expiration is August 14th 2026. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. It's been four years. >> Yes, >> about that. >> Okay. >> Ready?
>> Yes. >> Okay. My name is Mel Goner. I'm with the firm of Sils Cummus and Gross representing the applicant Gabrieli Howell Realy LLC. As you've indicated, the property is at 1207-1209
Highway 9 North. We the property is now known as 109.01. When we were previously before you, it was two lots 109 and 113.01. uh as a condition of the previous approval that we're amending those were
consolidated and that was the new lot number that was designated by your tax assessor. The property is located in the HD-1 highway development one zoning district. Um we did uh uh serve notice on all interested properties based on
the property owners based on the list we were provided. Those were served on um sent on April 16, 2026. we published uh in the newspaper on that same day and we did submit an affidavit of proof of service on April 21, 2026. I don't know
what your practice is. We were advised that everything was in order by your secretary, but I don't know if council >> Mr. Chairman, the board has jurisdiction to proceed. >> Thank you. Um as you've indicated, this approval was granted back in 2022.
Um and we will have someone dis one of our witnesses discuss but as the board may be aware there were a number of buildings a great extent of imperous cover in a sort of haphazard way on this lot and a number of environmental issues
um in the intervening period and we have appeared back my colleague Adam Fela appeared before the board seeking uh a two uh one-year extensions of the period of vested rights. Um we have spent that time well if you've looked at the site
and also pursued uh the environmental cleanup and permitting that was required um and we can report that um working with the LSRP that the cleanup and the reporting that's required under
applicable regulations is ongoing and it is anticipated that that cleanup will be completed uh and the um the reporting obligations to D are on schedule as they were previously reported um to the board.
>> What what's LSRP? >> The license site remediation professional. >> Thank you. >> Um and someone will correct me if I mixed up those words. That sound right? >> Um okay. So we are seeking amended preliminary and final site plan
approval. The board may recall um that when we were previously before you, we did obtain approval for as described a uh twostory facility which will be for sales and leasing and service of um of
trucks. Um and the representative of the applicant and owner will give you some more of the details on that operation. We should say at the outset that we are not proposing to change the operation. what the board previously proposed is still our proposal. The reason for the
uh the amended application is we've shifted the building on the site and we have sort of reallocated some of the interior space and we will have someone describe that to you. We previously um sought and obtained a D3 variance um the
sales showroom and sales is a conditional use. We required at that time uh a variance um with regard to the signage being proposed at the site and also with regard to um uh authorization
to be able to service vehicles that were not sold on this site. Um, as um you'll hear, uh, Gabrielli owns a number of sites and the way the conditional use standard was written, if a if a truck
was sold at one of their other sites, that would be an off-site sale and would not allow them to service that at this location. That's the relief that we previously sought and that was granted uh with your previous approval of the application.
There were also a number of uh C variances um and waiverss. I shouldn't say a number, there were a few. Uh those uh generally had to do with buffers, both the residential buffer as well as the farmland buffer. Um and with one minor
adjustment, those remain as they were previously granted um at the time we were previously before you. Um we can report that as to some of the relief uh for example with regard to tree replacement where previously we were not
able to put all of the required replacement trees on site we do believe at this time we will be able to do that. So there have been some uh positive changes which eliminate waiverss or relief. Um you also may recall there were discussions about sidewalk um and a
question about whether DO would approve the sidewalk. um because that's obviously within their jurisdiction. Uh we are proposing the sidewalk. We do have our DOT permit, so that's no longer an open issue. I won't go through all of those, but those are the kinds of things that we will certainly bring you up to
date on. Um Paul Aventto is the applicant's representative and um oh I should note in the review letters we received from your consultants they have identified an additional um var additional D3 variance um the um
operation is now being characterized um as a service station or service facility um which is also a separate uh conditional use separate from the showroom and sales and um um I'll let
them explain perhaps but my understanding is because um we um uh have proposed that uh if for example we sell a truck to Howell Township because this is a municipal sales focused
location not exclusively but that has always been the um intended major focus of this operation. um and sales is the major use. Service remains accessory to that. However, what we would like to be
able to do is provide service to our customers. So, if Howell wants to bring one of their other trucks in, one that they didn't buy from us, they're a customer and therefore we'd like to be able to provide that service. Um so, that has been characterized as yet
additional conditional use. Um and that is what we are uh we've added um at this time. Um so with that um I would like to have Mr. Aventto and um he will present what we do at the
site, what we're what if anything is changing at the site um and um answer your question. >> Okay. Is he the only one going to be testifying or are we going to have >> Oh, no. He is um a fact witness as a representative of the owner. We do have Julia Algio who is a licensed engineer.
She previously testified on this matter. >> Uh we also have brought an architect. Um our traffic consultant and our planner. Uh certainly with regard to the architect uh excuse me the traffic um our expert Michelle Brehoff is here for
your questions if you have any. Uh but we would otherwise not propose to present direct testimony. Uh with regard to um Phil Clark, our architect, who is a different architect than previously appeared, um we do have renderings to show you with more detail than were in
your packet. We can call him or simply have him answer your questions. We leave that to the board. Uh and then because of the additional variance, we do have our planner with us. So those are the those are the people that are here and will be guided in part by the board once we get through our engineering and our
>> Okay. Andy, do you think we should get everybody at once? >> Gotcha. We The board likes to swear everyone all at once. And I think since this is a new application, even though it was I think we should swear everybody clean it up. >> So anyone do you swear the testimony you
give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So >> and state your names for the record and spell your last starting with the gentleman at council's table. >> Paul Avento. A V is in Victor. E N T O.
>> Okay. Philip Clark. Last name is C L A R K. >> Okay. >> Julia Alio A. >> Michelle Bryhoff. B R I E H O F. >> Daniel Block. B L O C H.
>> All the witnesses are sworn. Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. And so your applicant will kind of give uh Mike you wanted to get a kind of update on or did the attorney address that? >> Yeah, because there's one that's looking for the extension of time
>> I assume going simultaneously with this. >> Right. Well, if we our our understanding and I will defer to your council, but if you grant this approval, there will be vesting that attaches to the approval you grant this evening. that would obiate the need to extend the old um
vesting the the vesting that attached to the previous approval that we're amending. If the board should decide they want us to proceed with the previous application for some reason, then we would want the extension to protect that approval for an additional
year. We're we can ask for three one-year extensions. We have been granted two. It's sort of belt and suspenders because we didn't want to leave a gap in those protections depend not being able to predict an outcome. >> So Mr. Ryan, my suggestion is let's see what happens with the application and
then if you need to reach the extension. >> Okay. >> So agree >> and Mr. Chair, if I could just give some additional context too. So when this prior application came in and um we originally said that they didn't meet all the conditions for uh service
stations and that they also didn't meet all the conditions for sales and showrooms for new and used automo automobile vehicles. Um when they revised the plans the first time around, they were able to demonstrate that they didn't need the conditional use variance for the service stations. However, since
the interior of the building kind of changed with this new amended application as far as the number of service bays, there was also like a showroom that had a, you know, display for a vehicle and some sales offices. Those are no longer in the building. Uh, we had brought it up again just to make sure that they're providing testimony in
the record on all the uses that are being contemplated uh just to get it on the record um with all the conditional use requirements. And I'll let Miss Gonchar Mr. Avento get get into that for us. Okay. >> Okay. Um, since you've asked us um to
give you a little bit to some of the board members who weren't here previously, Paul, I'm going to ask you to just tell the board who Gabrieli is um or the related entity to the owner, what they do, and then briefly tell us what we propose to do at this particular
location. >> Great. So, thank you for having us again tonight. We appreciate your time. Um, Gabriel, this year is our six 60th anniversary in business. Um, we currently have 31 truck dealerships in
four states, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Um, when we were here the last time, we had 21 dealerships. So, we increased our dealership network by 10 dealerships, and that's done through acquisitions. Um, we currently have five dealerships
in New Jersey. The last time we were here, I believe we had three. Um, we currently employ in the state of New Jersey 301 employees in the state. When we were here the last time in 2022, we had 250 employees. Um, the number of new
employees at the Howl will remain the same between 35 and 40 employees. Um, our operation is identical as we had the last time. We are we are a uh proposing that we're going to emphasis on
municipal customers. Some service on vehicles purchased at other sites for those customers. Our parts to be sold at the dealership is basically cab and engine parts, headlights, motor oil, mirrors, filters,
transmissions, um etc. Hours of operation remain the same Monday through Friday 7:30 to 10:00 p.m. Saturday 7:30 to 5 and closed on Sunday. We do not do any body work on the trucks. Uh only one
location in our 31 locations has a body shop and that's where all our work goes. Um they anticipate a number of visits to the site. Um the parts get delivered um by our trucks probably have two,
three, four trucks going out daily to deliver the parts to the customers. Most of our part sales are done on the phone. We do have some visitors that do come and pick up parts, but the majority of our part sales is done via telephone and by delivering of the of the of the parts
to the customers. the frequency of deliveries um two to three times per week and some of the deliveries are done with a 26 foot box truck. Uh the refuge to be generated is office trash boxes, steel
and dumpsters and they are removed once a week and you will hear about uh we we did relocate the dumpsters at a better position and it'll benefit the town also. Um >> excuse me. Yeah, the there was a lot of discussion at the last meetings because
the dumpster although it was not visible from nine because of the topo and ultimately we had proposed a a sort of swinging gate >> um that has been located so it does not front to Route 9. So that's a change that will be discussed by our um one of
our other um expert witnesses. So, our new trucks when they get delivered from the factory are delivered by a driveaway company. Um, and that's done during the course of the day. Uh, the fueling of the trucks is an above ground tank
double doublewalled. Um, and it's only for our customers. It's for our leasing and rental department. When they return a truck, gets refuelled. If it goes out again, it's full of fuel. When it comes back, we refuel it. And all the trucks
we sell to municipalities by their by their bid. We have to have the trucks fully fueled before we release the truck. So that's the there will be no public sales of gas at that uh fuel at our location. Um on the on the leasing
and rental side, most of the trucks that are leased are box trucks and most of the leases are three and fiveyear terms. So they're not in here daily coming in. It's not like uh Havis or any of those places where people are coming in every day. Um so one of the reasons that
prompted us to kind of change the structure of the building um the business model we found out that we're using it at all our other buildings now have changed over the course of the years. All of our new recently finished buildings that are in construction or in
the design stages we have a minimum of 16 days. And we felt that having the 16 bays maximizes the space of our building and provides a better experience for our customers. We'll be able to get the trucks out at faster time than having trucks sit and wait until it's done. So
now we hire more mechanics and have the trucks done faster by having uh four additional days. Um also our sales department shrunk a little bit. Um and that was the reason why we took the truck out. We felt that in all our locations we don't have trucks inside
our showroom because those trucks are very large and it takes up space that we can be utilizing better for more um office space and for sales space for the employees um and it will help us change the space better smaller footprint for
the sales staff and support staff. >> So the new trucks are now outside. >> So yeah so so and that I forgot to mention that. So all the new trucks are outside and when you think about it, when a customer comes to look at a truck, they like to feel and touch the truck. So when it's outside, there's a
lot more room for them to walk around the truck. And we have displays already set up from the previous. Probably will remain about the same. But it's just easier for a customer to look at a truck when it's outside rather than inside. Not like a car dealership where you know they have three or four cars inside,
they sit in it, they you know play with it, then they go outside and take a test ride on a totally different vehicle. So for us utilizing the space in the showroom is much better used for us as as office and sales space. >> And it's true that we the um application
was previously approved with outside um spaces for demo for uh a display as well. This is not in in L of there always was always ever one inside. Ju just for a quick reminder, can you just run the array of trucks that you sell? >> Yeah, please.
>> So, so most of the trucks are we sell dump trucks. So, most of most municipalities buy dump trucks and they buy uh box trucks, but the majority of them buy garbage trucks, dump trucks, and box trucks. And on the leasing side, the
majority of them are 26 in 20 in 26T box trucks, 14 foot, 21 ft box truck. Occasionally they'll buy dump trucks. Um, and those are ones that are on long-term lease, three to five year leases. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. I think how bought a
truck from us recently. >> And that's the same mix of trucks that we were we spoke about four years ago. That has not changed. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and um okay, I think that covered
>> Yeah, I covered mine. >> Um yeah, I think that was all that we wanted to um unless the uh board has any questions. Um that is consistent with what we had presented to you previously. >> Mr. Aventa. So, um, looking at the
original plans and the current plans and the biggest change, so you had under the prior approval 111 parking spaces, you're now proposing 116. Um, the biggest change I think for inventory parking, so I
guess display vehicles that for sale, you went from 39 down to 34. So, it's five less vehicles, but your service vehicle parking went from 23 up to 40. Uh, and so you said it's four additional service bays in the building.
>> Can you give us some like context of h when a ser vehicle comes in for service, how long is it sitting parked on site before it gets serviced? Is it there for days? Is it there for hours? >> Right. It's good question. So that's one of the reasons why we went to four
additional bays to get the trucks in faster because when a when a truck breaks down, they need the truck right away. especially a municipality, especially in the snow season when they have to get out there and plow the roads. So, typically a truck comes in,
they diagnose the truck. If it's a major issue, they get in right away. It can take two, three weeks if it's an engine change, but it stays inside the building. Um, the other other repairs, usually within a day or two, they're on
the ground outside to get them in. And that all depends on how many trucks we have that need to be repaired. So, so typically one to two, we try and move the truck in and out within one to two business days. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I just wanted to get
that on the record because it's it's not like they're abandoning the sales component and this is just becoming a service station. It's just so when they have things that are there for a little bit longer because it requires more work, they have the ability to park those on the site and still keep up with
the pace of what they need to provide for municipal clients. So that's all I have right now. >> When you say business days, that also includes Saturday, right? Cuz you're open on Saturday. When you're saying one to two business days, that's including Saturday because >> Saturday
>> Saturday is a business day for you. I know it's not a full day, but it is a business day. >> Yes, it's uh 7:30 to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. >> So, it would include that as a business day. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> the only day you're closed closed is Sunday, >> right?
>> Thank you. >> And you don't foresee probably in the situation you said snow truck coming in and somebody working out on Sunday. I'm just saying we think that
rain water in an emergency. >> That's a good question. So, we do have at all our locations, we have three to four service trucks that are equipped with all state-of-the-art equipment inside the truck. And if somebody calls up like we have New York City during the
the two big storms we had, we had a we had to have them four trucks 247 during that period of time. Um so we do provide service to the customers and sometimes the municipalities will write in their
bid that you must maintain 247 service in case something happens. So what we do in that situation we'll have one of our service guys in the truck be on be on call if it breaks down he goes picks up the truck and goes directly to the
customer and fixes the truck. That's the service we provide. So you >> and the trucks are located on site of course. Correct. Okay. >> Yes. >> So is it I guess what they're asking is do we want to provide flexibility? Is that what you're >> I would say you might want to say that
you're open your standard business hours are what you had in identified Monday through Friday plus Saturday. And in an e situation like >> a snowstorm or some other kind of emergency you may be required to do some
emerent repairs on Sunday. You don't want to preclude Sunday. >> That's what I thought you getting. >> You don't want to preclude I think that's what I I don't mean to speak for you, but that's kind of where you were going, right? >> That's why I was asking. >> He doesn't want to preclude Sunday as closed close. Not that you have normal business hours on Sunday, but in an
emergency, you may have to do service, >> right, >> on a Sunday. Thank you. >> So that there's not so we wouldn't be invaluable. Well, and also you're not providing a disruption in service to your clients, >> right? >> We appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, because it sounds like it's more picking up a truck and just going
and on location, right? Yes. >> Right. >> But now that's just to be clear that could be three o'clock in the morning at at times. >> Could be. >> Okay. >> Could be. >> Yeah. Again, regular business hours is what um and I I guess it I should ask you this question um because it was
another thing we had committed to um that um there were questions or concerns about lighting. I should say that we did get a waiver last time uh because the average is 0.5 foot candle and we were an average of 1.1 but the board did
request and we had agreed at that time that the um that the majority of lights exclusive of necess lights necessary for security would go off an hour after closing I think is what had been and that we are still um committed to that
same limitation. So, I should mention that. >> Speaking of ours, um, that is all that we have for direct from Mr. Vento, unless there are other questions that we >> I just have a a question for clarification. Uh, all the repairs are
going to be done inside the service space. Correct. So, no repairs to be done outside in the parking lot at any time. >> And the state of disrepair, so trucks get taken apart, it stays in the bay. It's not brought back out. Correct. Right. We have we have bins inside the
building and then once they're full they get uh picked up and and discarded. Yeah. No, we we run I mean we got 31 operation uh dealerships. We run a very clean operation. >> Good question, John. Thanks for asking that.
>> Board members, >> we're good. >> Thank you. >> I have I have I have a few questions. >> Sure. >> Just run through them really quick. So um you said leasing but no rentals >> and rentals >> there are rentals that happen. Okay.
Okay. >> But can you there was a I think in previously um you had indicated that it isn't a retail operation and what is the rental for? >> It's the well most of the rentals are done um right now during some holidays
like the Christmas uh holiday season. Um, a lot of the, uh, fish companies need additional trucks, refrigerated trucks. So, we have refrigerated trucks, small box trucks. So, they'll come and they'll rent them for a week or two. But
the majority of our rentals is when their lease truck breaks down, we give them a replacement truck and that truck is a rental truck to that customer. and they just pay for the mileage and in their contract we provide them free of
charge the replacement truck and they just pay for the mileage. >> So it's a longer >> a downtime can get expensive. >> Yes, exactly. >> So um so daily rentals would be unusual or >> uh we don't do daily rent. Okay. >> One reason is insurance. Nobody can
provide enough insurance and we're not going to take a risk of having, you know, somebody come from, we don't even know who they are. We do not deal with them. We deal with our customers have been customers with us forever and they're the ones that we do uh rent daily rentals with. Okay.
>> It's a very risky business. Plus, getting paid, too. >> I'm sure is an issue. >> All right, Mr. Dento. So now, um, with regards to the the the different types of trucks that you sell, you could essentially have a dump truck and a and a garbage truck that are the same exact
truck, same exact frame, but with different bodies on them. Do you upfit those bodies on site or they come in already ready to be sold to the customer? >> Good question. So, we do not. So when
when the salesman makes a deal, they decide what body they want to put on the truck. We design the chassis, we build a chassis, chassis gets shipped directly to the body company. It can be in Ohio, Maine, anywhere. They mount it, they do
everything, then the truck gets delivered to us. We prep it and deliver it to the customer. We do not do any fabrication inside our buildings. >> Okay. Um, two more quick questions. the fuel tank size. I don't think I heard the size of that fuel tank.
>> I think we shrunk it. I think it uh You know what? I don't um Phil might have it. We We should >> I think that might be better for Okay. >> the engineer back to you for one of the witnesses. >> Yeah. We don't Yeah. >> All right. Then my last question is with with regard to the the repairs that are
going to be done in those 16 bays, um is it just all kinds of repairs or any kind of limitations or is it pretty much everything? Everything. Okay. >> All right. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, I think we're set to go. >> Okay, we'd like to call Julia Alio, our
site engineer. Okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> If I could make a recommendation, Mel, I would focus on what's changed. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Because it's important for I mean, I know you guys know this site was already approved for this use. So if you guys
don't act favorably, they still have the ability to go back to what they prior. >> So I would focus on what's changed. >> I certainly >> we have an overlay that we'll show you. So that may help and that'll give you what the change is in one picture and
hopefully that'll be >> uh >> um >> Sure. >> So we'll just need your credentials again when >> Yeah. Let's qualify you first. Okay. >> All right. Um All right. Can we have Julia's been sworn so can you please
advise the board um with whom you're associated uh your background um your position and licenses that you currently hold? >> Uh certainly yes. Um I am a um prof licensed professional engineer. Um also
a licensed professional planner but not tech. >> Excuse me. Can everybody hear her? >> Maybe speak a little louder. These This is not amplifying. This is >> No, we hear you fine. >> A little louder. >> Okay. Well, me everybody. >> Yeah. Yeah. You can bring it closer. >> Is that better? >> That's much better. >> Okay. So, I'm a licensed professional
engineer. I am a a senior principal at the firm of Collier's Engineering and Design. Um I've been licensed for um over 35 years in the profession over 40 years. Um my office is in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. And I have I was
the um testified on behalf of the applicant for the original application here again. >> Yeah. Will you accept your qualifications? Thank you. >> Thank you for accepting her as an expert in the field of engineering. >> Um okay. So um what do you want to put something up just so they have something
to Why don't we do that? Can you um you want the aerial? Is that what you want to start with? >> We have I have several exhibits um that we put up. We have an existing condition exhibit which I think we can pass on. Everybody knows this was the auto pick
and everybody if you've driven down Route 9 you understand that the site has been undergoing environmental cleanup. >> So it looks totally different um now than it did previously and then what it will be. So I also have if you wouldn't
mind putting up the site plan exhibit. So, just real quick to show the board what we are proposing and then I can um here we go. >> So, can you identify? >> Yes, it's called um Gabrieli Howell
Realy LLC site plan exhibit and it's dated April 27th, 2026. Um, so what you see here is a um um color rendering of our landscaping plan.
And this plan is very similar um and identical in most spots to what was previously approved um with the exception of the building being shifted to the south. And may I point out that Route 9 is on the bottom of the page.
So, north is facing >> left >> and uh south is right >> as you're as you're looking at the drawing. >> Just for orientation. >> What's the cross street? >> That's not Oh, yeah. >> Okay. So, that's a good question. >> For orientation purposes, Julia, can you
just tell us what's around this just to reorient the board? >> Sure. So, um, on the south side, what you're looking at is the driveway to the, uh, New Jersey Transit bus depot.
>> Um, to on the east side on the top of the page is that's also part of the the bus depot property and that's a detention basin. Um on the north side um is um it's like flood plane and and
wetland bannon meadow meadow brook which basically ends at the property line and obviously on the south is um no I'm sorry on the west is route nine. So um
skipping over right to the overlay or should I describe anything more about the site? Would you like any more description about this? >> Well, just if you can advise the um access is from Route 9. Has any of that um changed in terms of how we're
accessing the site? The um the limit basically of disturbance around the site where the curbing is okay. Has that remained? >> So, what you see here is >> Could you identify this and we'll mark it. Is this A3 Andy? So, we're changing the numbers, Marillo, because the there
were pre-marked exhibits up to A28 according to what? >> Oh, my the application she marked up, >> right? So, actually the last app uh one was would be A29 and now you're up to A30. >> Thank you. >> And this is this is
>> Yes. So, this plan is entitled overlay exhibit and it's dated April 27th, 2026. Now, can I ask the board, we do have 11 by7 copies of everything we're putting up there. Is it easier if anybody wants to see an 11 by7 >> which hand out
>> if they only do you want them or these you can see with this? Okay. All right. Good. Okay. >> Okay. So, what you see here is an overlay of the original plan um and the proposed plan. Um, in red is what was
previously approved and in black is what we are proposing for this amended plan. Um, so we could see it's essentially identical. Um, as you look at the perimeter curb starting at the driveway,
that is completely identical to what was previously approved by the board as well as by um the NJ DOT. Um, and if we go clockwise around the site, you could see that the curb lines, the basin, everything is identical to what the
previously approval um had, you know, and and you know, continuing to go, you know, up the page and now to the right. It's identical. When you get to the corner, um the top right corner, you'll see Yeah. Um there's a difference
between the black and the red. We're proposing five additional parking spaces. We've reor we've reoriented the parking a little bit. So, we have um all of the employee parking located up to the northern end and there's I believe
29 spaces in that row. And then as you travel down um down the right side, you'll see the curb line is identical until you get to the bottom right hand corner of the the site. if you don't
mind circling that little area. We've um yeah, we've brought the curb line in, created a little bit more grassy area for um uh buffering, and we've held completely the curb line as it was previously approved
um along the the rest of the curb line along the front where the display parking spaces are. Um in that area you could see that dash line and that's labeled a residential buffer. There's a um across Route 9 there's a residence and that buffer and the design of the
landscaping and everything in there has remained unchanged. the uh the proposed signs unchanged. um you know and all of the prelim I'm sorry prelim perimeter landscaping remains unchanged with the exception of
the area up at the top where we carried through um the landscaping concept where um we've added the additional parking >> and have we uh I had indicated in my introduction that where previously I
think we um were uh getting a waiver I guess paying for trees that could not be located somewhere around 40 trees is my recollection. Um we are now um able to meet the uh replacement requirement on
site. Is that accurate? >> That's right. The the plan is fully compliant. We meet the street tree requirement, the parking lot tree requirement, the replacement tree requirement for tree removal, and then there's also an impervious surfaces um tree requirement, and we've met that. So
it's fully compliant for the number of um trees proposed. >> Would you please show where those trees are going? Those replacement trees. >> Sure. Can we um revert back to the prior exhibit? >> The rendered site plan.
>> The rendered site plan. Yes, please. >> Right. So um all all of the required trees um have been incorporated into the design. I can't say that there's one exact place, but they have been
incorporated into this plan so we meet the number of replacement trees. They have really focused their landscaping on and Julia, you can correct me if I'm incorrect, but you've really focused kind of more on the northerly side of
the site, maybe a little bit to the east and that little odd triangular piece on the top. Um, I don't really see the need to really buffer the New Jersey Transit bus
driveway and parking lot. So I don't think and as we discussed when this came before us the last time that it is very unlikely that the property immediately to the north is developable because of the environmental constraints which is
why you guys granted relief from the strict buffer requirements because nothing could go there. But they have really attempted to put the landscaping along that property line in the odd event that at some point in the future something goes there. But it is very
very unlikely because the environmental constraints are significant in that wooded area. I mean I didn't speak out of turn right that's consistent with what we discussed at the last meeting. that that is the in the record that the um the testimony was that because of
wetlands and other constraints they flood >> planes it could not be that is that was the testimony from the previous >> I guess my concern is that putting 40 more trees in are they putting them in where they're not needed >> I mean we're buffering
wetlands so I don't know that they're necessarily providing what we anticipate when we think about the trees in terms of buffer or what have you. I do think what they've done along the frontage is going to be a drastic
improvement over what is on that site currently. And even with the cleanup that's been happening there, the site is in way better shape than it was even when this came into us originally. Um, I think Mel, what they're saying is
is that they're not necessarily opposed to and I I think what I'm hearing from Mr. Caner, right? I'm not going to broadly brush everyone, but they may not be opposed to give, you know, having you continue with that
relief if those trees really are not providing any kind of significant benefit. So, I would suggest it's 40 trees. That's a that's a financial commitment. >> I think that's a good point. >> I mean, >> especially in the back in that triangular piece, like what are we doing
back there? Like what are we buffering back there? You got the basin for the the the bus depot and then you have environmentally sensitive. How about this? if it would be satisfactory. How about Miss Alio's office work with
Charlie's office and looking at the landscaping design to determine if there are things that you're proposing that really are not necessary that maybe if you guys are willing to continue the
relief that you granted previously for strict compliance and you guys work it out. Maybe it doesn't come out to 40 trees. Maybe it comes out to 30 trees. I don't know. But it's up to you guys. And if you're dead set on planting the 40 trees, that's on
you. Um, you know what? To the extent that there's an economic consequence to that, if if the board is okay with it, we're happy to work with your consultants. If the numbers, if they feel that for the dollars, they'd like to get more trees somewhere else on the
site. Paying it out. >> I'm jumping on with Mr. caner with this because I think that's what we're you know exactly what he's getting at and I I think it's a better idea. Yeah. >> So, as long as you can work with Sherry,
>> um I'm I'm comfortable with that. >> Everybody else. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah, that's a we usually do have a letter. We didn't have something from Sher probably because amended >> an amended, >> right? So, we're happy to we'll we'll work with her. Um again I I don't since I don't know how those numbers shift I
don't want to make a commitment but so we since we don't know what the suggestion will be but >> then I would then I would suggest then that at the end of your presentation that you do ask for the continued waiver. >> Right. Okay.
>> In the event that when you work it out with Sher she comes up with things that you could remove. They don't have to come back then to get the waiver. Right. This is being given to you at the advice of the board. So it's, you know, I don't want you to guys have to come back here for this. >> We thought you'd be happy.
>> Listen, it doesn't happen ever, right? >> You know, and because there were hund as I recall because we were talking about adding trees the last time when um I think we were providing 120 and we were I remember the discussion. Could you put six more? Do you think you can fit them
up in the triangle? So, I guess we thought that you would be excited about us meeting it, but we will work with them. If we still need >> um you know to make a contribution for a portion, we will do as uh as Jen has suggested. Um >> and and we're specifically talking about
the north and the east side, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, >> the triangle. >> Sherry tells us she'd like to see two more trees on the right hand side. I I'm not good with the north and the west. I'm thoroughly confused, but I can do right and left. So if if her suggestion is take a couple out of there and move
them somewhere else, we're certainly willing to work with them and and you know to keep more trees but maybe somewhere else on the site and and that's something we can work with. >> Mr. Chair, I had a couple quick questions. Um can we look at the overlay again? I know there was a bunch of
parking on the south side. Now that it's moving there, I assume all those spaces were moved somewhere else. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, what we did was um the I'm getting myself confused here. Okay. So, the red was the original
location of the building and the parking along the south side that you're referring to the vehicle they were first for service um vehicles vehicles to be serviced. What we did was we shifted the building towards the southerntherly
property line and then um reoriented all of the bu the service spaces in the >> in the new one >> in in on the north side. >> Okay. >> Of the building. Yes. And then and then the other question was I I remember last time and I just don't I don't remember
all the details but on the south side we had those two loading bays that went downhill and then now it looks like it's turning into one. Can you just address that a little please? >> Yes. So it might be um clearer to look at the other. I
apologize for making you go back and forth. Um, so on the original plan, um, on the I'm going to just go bottom right and bottom left as opposed to north and
south. So on the bottom right of the building, that was a a double space from what you see. So, we had the the one loading dock and the trash compactor container side by side and they were
facing Route Nine. And we did ask for a waiver. We did we were granted a waiver for that. Um, however, with this modified plan in the front, what you're looking at, that is the loading dock. And there there's a retaining wall on the right side. There was a question
about the retaining wall and the material. And the retaining wall will be a U split face block matching the split face block on the building. But in the rear, right behind where the loading dock is, that's where the trash container
>> um compactor system will be located. So >> the loading dock is still on a on a downward angle. Okay. >> Yes, it's recessed. But with this design here, um the the the trash, you know, uh compactor system will not be visible from roof lines. It'll
>> behind that on the building. >> Yes. Be screened by the building. >> Mhm. >> Right. And again, that also um eliminates one of the um waiverss >> that we had previously requested. So that's been eliminated by this um modification. >> Yes.
>> So the lo the loading dock is smaller now. >> Yeah. Well, there was always one that was but they were side by side. The one loading dock and the the trash >> container went from 35 to 20 ft.
>> I'm sorry. >> I think that's correct. >> The the width of it went from 35 to >> Yes, it got narrower. I can give you exact open. >> Is the new loading dock area going to be
striped or report? It says, "Additionally, the 30 foot by the original 30 foot x 100 ft striped loading south of the building has been eliminated." Is the Yeah. So, previously they had a separate
um like loading area striped adjacent to the driveway aisle um separate from the loading dock where you could back in and drop inventory and things like that. So, that is no longer shown on the current site plan. So I guess is the representation that all loading and
unloading activities are going to happen in that drop loading dock. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah. Yes. So all they they did eliminate the stripe loading area. Um the actual drop loading dock that you back a truck into, you know, drops down
in grade that was two bays wide. One bay was for like, you know, inventory coming in and out and another one they literally just had a a rolloff type of dumpster container in front of the other loading bay. And I guess you just bring trash right out of that. They've moved
that now to the back of that bumpout. So any debris or refu and everything like that should be going out behind that bumpout. So it's not visible from Route 9. Um, the only thing that would be, you know, you'd still have the loading in the front of that bumpout, but it should
be coming out of either a box truck or some type of trailer. >> Correct. And then there's also, I think, a retaining wall that kind of provides some screening, too. >> Swing. We came back with the design. I remember that >> that it completely shielded it because the board wasn't comfortable that the
topography if there weren't cars in front that it might not be fully or trucks in front it might not be blocked. And we came back um because you the board was so complimentary they liked our swing gate but we don't need that was that was to convince the board to
give us that waiver and now we've eliminated the waiver. So, and I'll just ask a couple more questions of Miss Alia. So, um, you've you've got an LOI, you've got a FHA verification, you have your TAW permit for the wetlands, correct?
>> That's correct. >> And the limits, everything on the north side of the property with the amended site plan is consistent with the limits of what was previously presented to the board and approved by D. Correct. >> 100%. >> All right. So, the only real changes to the limits of the parking area and the
curb is at the uh it's a southeast corner. So, the upper right hand corner, you added a couple parking spaces in there and that's squared off. And then at the lower right hand corner, so it's a southwesterly corner. You've actually pulled the the parking area uh in a
little bit to have that uh I guess it's like the hotbox enclosure location, right? That's in a grass area instead of in the like the paved parking area. Correct. >> That is correct. Yes. >> And really internal to the whole paved area, the only change is you shifted the building southerntherly. The parking
area or the parking spaces are um that were along the south side of the property. So adjacent to the bus depot driveway, those have just been shifted to the north side of the building and it's >> Yeah. So >> our our drive
>> and the changes you're proposing are really more efficiency. Correct. >> It's not expansion, it's efficiency. Right. >> That's correct. So this um provides the um Gabrielis with a more efficient
layout and um you know a better use of the site based on their current operations. >> Um and nothing is changing in terms of storm water, right? We complied before, we comply now. We have no no changes. >> Only changes for you know where the pipes are and the inlets are located
based on the new layout. >> And just for the record, I >> I'm sure um circulation fire department all approval. >> I didn't see any anything updated from
>> because we now have that drive aisle on the side. I mean, Charlie, what do you think? So, um I don't think that the fire bureau uh reviewed the application or issued a memo. Um I would just if the board's inclined to act favorably on the
amendment site plan, make a condition that the fire official has to sign off. They do have a 22 foot wide drive on the south side of the building where that bumpout is. Um which I believe meets our requirement for oneway circulation. Um, you know, the days when the fire beer
wanted 30 foot around the entirety of the building have have uh have changed. So, um, I don't foresee him having an issue with it, but we can make that a condition of approval. >> I think it should be on the condition, >> please. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I should say for the record, Environmental Commission, Shade Tree
Commission, and Farm Bureau, is that what I got right? Farm Farmers Advisory all issued letters with no comment, but those are the only ones that we received. Um >> if if I may before you proceed, could you just identify on the
>> the plan here where the uh above ground fueling tank is going to be and fueling station? >> Yes. So under the canopy. >> It's under the canopy. >> Correct. And it was like that for the previous application as well.
>> Has that location changed or just shifted with the building? >> This is the Julia, the can the station is now not underneath the canopy. >> It's like an aisle. >> The fuel tank is on the island. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> But it's not under the canopy.
>> Not under the canopy. >> Adjacent. Adjacent. >> What is that? >> Outside of the canopy. >> So it's that line there. >> No, it's it's it's shown underneath the canopy. >> It shows underneath the canopy. >> If that's so relative to the building, it's still
in the same location. It's just shifted south with the building. >> This is it. >> And it is a smaller tank, but the tank itself does have ballards around it. I think that's dictated by like uh like fire code and things like that. Um but they're going to have to get all, you
know, building permits and fire approvals as a condition of the board approval similar to what the original approval uh was. Uh and the tanks dualwalled, right? So >> I was just going to say um the the record that is not changing. It was a dual >> double wall
>> wall. Absolutely. And we were asked about any required permits and the testimony previously which is the same that any state requirements or any other regulations that we will comply with. This is a feature they have at all their other locations. So they have companies that they work with to asssure that
these are maintained and inspected and that is not changing. >> And then I think the only other question I have for Miss Alio. So, and I think it was similar to the what was shown previously, uh, to coming in and out of the site for a WB67, which is the
largest type of semi-trail you would get. Uh, it does cross over the the island that's in the site driveway. Um, can you give us what's the status of the DOT access permit? Has that been signed off? Is there any amended approval required with uh any of the site plan
changes? Um the DOT accesses permits are fully approved and executed. Um we do not um as far as I we don't do not require DOT approval for we not
changing the driveway. We're not changing the trip generation. So it's not subject to a DOT reapproval. >> Okay. But you have the access permit and everything like that. All right. I >> think that's all I have for Miss Alio. Anybody
else with a question as a witness? >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um we um we would like to show you if you'd like to see it the rendering of what the building has changed is going to look like. We have
our architect here. Uh other than that, I think we've described interior what the changes are. So, we won't belabor that. But um we um can show you the uh rendered building with the changes and that's probably all we would call the
architect for unless the uh the board is satisfied and doesn't want to. >> Okay. Um that's up to the members who are not here. >> I like to see it. >> Okay. Um, can we ask you to the the um the
plans that we >> Did they come through the did I >> I have GTS is that it or you >> if we can have our witness. Um, >> well, he was sworn. >> He was sworn, but we need to qualify him because he didn't appear last time.
>> Okay. So, you're sworn. Uh can you give the board your name um and with whom you're affiliated and license uh if uh confirm that you are licensed in the state of New Jersey in your field? >> My name is Philip Clark. I'm a registered architect in the state of New
Jersey. I'm with ClariS Design Build whose home office is New Town, Connecticut. >> And your license is in is in good standing as you appear this evening. >> It is. Okay. >> Okay. We accept your qualifications. Thank you. Thank you for accepting him as an expert in the field of
architecture. So um uh can you just identify this was not part of the um plans they were uh would not have been on um Miss Rabano's list. So I think we're up to it would be a >> 31
>> 31. Okay. Can you describe for the board what we um have marked as A31? First of all, was this done did you prepare this or was this done under your supervision? >> It was done under my supervision. >> Okay. And you just tell the board what they're looking at and we'll so that we
can uh I give it a name to go with the exhibit number. >> You're looking at a um colored rendering looking uh uh northwest the northwest side of the building at the twotory structure as proposed. Um, it's it's we're staying with the
gray the gray shades which is what >> speak loud. >> I'm sorry. We're staying with the the gray the gray shades which was what was proposed last time. We've got the the split face dark block at the base. Um, we are changing proposing to change the from above the block was stucco that was
proposed last time. We're changing that to an architectural white panel. I think is a little sleeker and it it goes with um the uh design guidelines that Gabrieli we we prepared for Gabrieli on all their buildings. Um we did change
the service right up uh that uh under the canopy to the left which is to the north that originally was actually coming out was coming out at two stories high and um it was a dark blue structure. It really took away from the
the appearance of the rest of the building. So, we lowered that that canopy. It's now 14 foot clear, which is is ample. And we and we turned it to a white uh structure. So, it was just too pronounced on the last design. Um
we um it's still a two-story building, a lot of light. Um it's it's very sleek, we think, and it fits with uh the other all 31 sites are going to this model. Um and um based upon your review of what
was previously approved um and the your review of the ordinance, does this meet the architectural requirements um as the previous uh approval did? >> It does. >> Previous building. Okay. Um and um the front of the building is twotory and the
rear is a single story but with the same comparable height. Actually, we so the building is raised five feet from the original design. Uh that had to be done. Um the uh the types of cranes we use uh in the rear in the service bays um
requires the the 5ft height. It I guess it was just a miss on the first go round, but it is raised up to 32 feet and uh now that's an appropriate height for the the crane that runs along the inside of the um service base. >> All right. So it was previously 27, it's
now 32. And that is still within the height limitations of the um uh applicable zone. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um so that is really what we wanted to show you what this is going to look like. Oh, let me ask you.
Previously, we did obtain uh variances for signs because the uh sales and service conditional use requires you to comply with the sign standards. we exceeded the number of signs permitted and also the dimensions of the signs
permitted. Um do we um are we within the parameters of the variance previously granted possibly slightly smaller in some places but we are within the variance that was granted to us previously as to the signs. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Um and uh the same number as well. >> Yes. Six signs. >> All right. And I think the conversation last time is that they were um interior illumination um for all or almost all of the signs. Is that >> on the facade,
>> right? Okay. And that remains the same >> in terms of the illumin. Okay. Um so that is um that's what we have for the architect unless you have questions uh of him. This is what we are proposing. >> Jennifer.
>> Yes sir. >> I have nothing. I think it looks great. >> I think that what they're proposing is consistent with what we've approved previously and I take no exception to the adjustments that have been made as opposed to the building the building
changes. >> Mr. Chair, um just one question for the architect. So I think the last time around there was a condition that all any rooftop mechan mechanicals would be central to the roof and would be not visible from the public. So, it's not
shown here cuz this is kind of looking up, but there are a couple rooftop units with this with a screen. Can you give us an idea of like what that screen wall, what the material, what it looks like, and just the general height relative to the rest of the roof? >> Thank you. I
>> I'm sorry. Yeah, we did um compress them to towards the back of the front roof. Um, and we screened them with a a metal horizontal uh cladding about five feet high to hide the entire um units. There are three units and there it's it's a
same it's a gray a gray metal consistent with the top coping. >> All right. So, it'll fit in with the rest of the building and it's five feet just enough to screen the units. >> Yeah, I you you're probably not going to see the units at all but there there is
a screen in front of them. >> All right. How how how tall is that parapit right there? Do you know how tall that is off the roof? >> Um it drops down I think uh 2 and 1/2 ft I believe. So it's 29'6 I believe.
>> So the the the screening would go about 2 and 1/2 ft above that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very nice design. >> Well, thank you. >> Yeah. Real scoot. Okay,
>> I got a question. Uh the um >> Andrew, >> since the building was moved >> south, I guess it created a little bit of a side setback issue. >> Is it an issue like further on down the road if the neighboring property be changed to something else?
>> No, that neighboring property is an access road to a lot that's in the back. So there's not enough width there for anything to be I mean maybe something small but no it should not be an issue. They meet their setbacks. It's still
they're not asking for a setback relief. Well, if we are a service station, >> right? We're right, but technically, >> but other than that, we meet the H the HD1 requirements, >> they meet the requirements. And let's not like think about as well as as you
continue south, the pods building is going up, which is a three-story building at the jug handle that's not that far from here. So, this is going to be significantly smaller than what's going up. And then the the U-Haul place that's already up that's
next to Twin Pond is already three stories. So this is not going to create an issue whatsoever. >> Yeah. So get the medical building. >> This was just a service station by itself. It wouldn't meet that setback requirement of the conditional use standards. But the the service component of this is an accessory to the sales and
showroom component of of the site. And and the the NJ Transit how garage there that's been there at least since the 1990s. So I I don't foresee that coming and going anytime in the future. >> It's pretty busy. >> Okay.
>> So that would be the only if we don't need to ask for that if we think we should ask for it as a technicality and the same thing with the um >> I think we're good. So >> okay >> and I think we're also very again impressed with the
>> So I don't think we have any further comments questions. >> Okay. And then I'm gonna say so we don't need any further planning testimony. We are reiterating the planning that we previously had and um >> okay
>> with that we would ask that the um that the board approve the amendment to the plans. >> Mel, we have to open in the public. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm so eager. Okay. >> Now that you're live and we're not on Zoom. That's right. >> Yeah, that's that's where the whole last
time. >> Yeah. You thought I was 5 foot eight, didn't you? >> With those shoes you are. >> Yeah. Well, >> and you probably thought Matt was uh small. >> Okay. >> It was a great equalizer, right? >> Zoom does have it.
>> Yeah, it does. Okay. At this time, I'd like to I'll make a motion to go to public, Mr. Chair. >> Second by Mr. Barillo. All in favor? >> Yes. So, the chairman has opened the hearing 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. You will need to provide your name and address, and you will be sworn in. He was listening. >> Each way, the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do state your name for the record. >> Joe Bazonis, uh, Cold Snack Road, 150 Colts Road, Biz N. I think it looks
great. I think we need more business on Route 9. That's all I wanted to say. Yeah. >> 150 Cold Snake Road. >> Yeah. Looks great. Let's do it. >> How rare that is. >> Yes. >> Oh, we do.
>> All that. >> Okay. >> Should have said that. >> So, seeing I don't think we have any more further questions. Are you >> I'll make a motion to close. >> Yeah, that that would be the first thing we'll do. >> We'll second that. >> I'm jumping the gun here.
Okay. Anything you want to because I know we interrupted you while >> No, no, that's okay because I was overeager. No, we would simply ask that the board grant the amended approval uh to the extent that any additional relief was identified. We would uh we would ask for that, but we think we've basically
eliminated some of the relief the board previously granted and we would ask the board to act favorably. Um so we're we are eager to get started now that the environmental stuff is largely behind us. >> Okay. Now is that going to impact the
extension of time or >> you guys act favorably? I don't think they need an extension of for the record that the vested rights period if the board recognizes that the period of vested rights commences again. Uh we're not looking to hold up but just to protecting something comes up we want to
know that our approval um continues to be protected. um under the statute. Okay. >> So, but we don't need an extension of the underlying approval ifing the amendment. >> I agree with that legal >> Okay. What is the pleasure of the board?
>> Well, Mr. Chair, I really think these are uh good changes, positive changes, and uh sounds like they're also well on the road to perfecting this. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> Mr. Hughes with the motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Second, Mr. Kabarakus. Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner. >> Uh, >> Mr. Vento, thank you for coming to How bringing your business to Howell. And yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Hughes.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Ryan. >> Big yes. >> Miss Scottson, >> absolutely. Yes, >> Mr. Kabarakis. >> Yes. I I think that this um this is a huge improvement uh for that area and
for the Route 9 corridor. I very happy to to approve this without a doubt. Yes, >> Chairman Mertens, >> same way as I was four years ago. This is one of the best um improvements to Route 9 in my years on the zoning board.
And with that being said, yes, as well and good luck. >> Thank you so much. I am going to get a clip. I'm getting a clip of this because this never happens. this kind of this kind of enthusiasm. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. It was good seeing you. Good seeing you live.
>> Thank you so much. And thank you for the assistance of your consultant. >> Okay. >> We're close, Matt. >> Yeah. >> I know. >> Thank you again, everybody. >> Yeah. Good luck.
>> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Not being a wise guy, >> Lisa. What's our next meeting? >> I believe that's would be the second week in May. So, where is that? >> Mother's Day. >> May 11th. >> Oh, yes. >> How do we look for schedule-wise? >> Uh there's two cases, Omnicon Realy and
Van Wickle Auto Supply. >> Okay. >> Anyway, uh there's no further business from the board. I'll entertain a motion to close and Marie with the motion, second by Mr. Varillo. All in favor? >> Yep. >> Good night. See you on the 11th. Thank
you, professionals. >> Take care of your mothers.