[Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Good evening, Eileen. Opening statement.
>> Howell Township zoning board of adjustment, Monday, July 28th, 2025. I hereby declare this meeting of the Howell Township zoning board to be open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meeting Act in the following manner.
>> First, on January 2nd, 2025, a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger. Second, on January 2nd, 2025, a copy of said notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell. Third, on January 2nd, 2025, said notice was
posted in the office of the zoning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building, 4567 Route 9, Howell Township, New Jersey, in accordance with the fire prevention code and fear 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 How Township TV77. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eileen. Could we have a roll call?
>> Mr. Barello >> here. >> Mr. Caner >> here. >> Mr. Hughes >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell >> here. >> Mr. Rosco is excused tonight. Mr. Ryan >> present. >> Miss Scottson >> here. >> Mr. Kabarakus >> here. >> And Chairman Mertens,
>> I am here too. Could everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay, Anique, could you swear in our professionals? Do >> you swear the testimony is given to be the truth? >> I do. >> I do. >> State your names for the record. >> Charles Conliff, >> Jennifer Beam,
>> professional war, Mr. Chair, >> thank you. Uh, do we have any minutes tonight? >> No minutes to approve tonight. >> Correspondence. >> I have two things for correspondence. Case number BA21-8X,
extension of time for Muhammad Caillou, will be carried to August 11th, 2025 with no notice. Uh, no notice is required for an extension of time. >> Okay. So, anybody here for case number
BA21-18X is going to be carried. And what was that date again? to August 11th, 2025, the next zoding board meeting, >> and no further notice. Okay, thank you, Eileen. And the second one, >> the next item is case number BA24-20,
Julie Rich LLC will be carried to September 15, 2025 with no further notice. An extension has been granted to the board through September 30th, 2025. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, anybody here for case
number BA2420? That will be carried to September 15, 2025 with no further quick check. >> I'm here for that. >> September 15th. >> September. >> September 15th. >> What is their cancellation policy?
>> It's their case. They can decide how well how they want to present it. So >> they can just keep as far as they want. >> Yeah. I apologize, but that's that's beyond our >> policy. And another thing I just like to put I know last time I was here you
should wait. >> Okay. So that will be carried to September 15, 2025 with no further notice and an expiration of September 30th, 2025. Okay. Next we have a resolution for case
number BA19-26A Oaklenn LLC resolution granting use variance amended preliminary final site plan approval eligible voters Burillo Caner Hughes
O'Donnell Arasco and Merrens do I have a motion >> I'll make a motion >> motion by Mr. Hughes >> second by Mr. Rodo. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cancer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes?
>> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Mertin? >> Yes. >> Resolution approved. >> Okay. So, we're on to the meeting. Okay. Up first is case number BA25-06, Jersey Central Power and Light Company
use variance and preliminary final site plan with both variants. The applicant is seeking approval for replacement of existing public utility structure along JCPNL transmission line corridor and improvements to a public utility
substation Laravey. The proposed improvements include the replacement of existing lattice tower and wood pole structures along the utility transmission line corridor on various lots and blocks Smithsburg to Laravee
Collector Station. The application was previous heard on July 14th, 2025 with an expiration of September 20th. Good evening. Good to see you back. >> Good evening. >> It's been a while. >> Feels like it. >> Yeah. >> Before I get started, we have an exhibit
that we just like to pass out. We're going to put it up on the television tonight. Is it okay if we just pass it out real quick? >> Yes. All right. Thank you. >> Now, do you have anybody new that's going to be testifying tonight or we're just uh fighting the same old some somebody from the old cast? So we have one witness this evening, Mr. Josempa,
who testified at the prior hearing. So we'll just be recalling >> Mr. Before we get started, Mr. O'Donnell, you're certified. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to make sure we have that on the record. [Applause]
So good evening again and for the record, Benjamin Nadell caring on behalf of the applicant JCPNL partner with the law firm Saul Ewing out of Princeton, New Jersey. The application before you this evening is for preliminary and final major site plan approval along with Dvarian and C variance relief. The
application is in support of the New Jersey Clean Energy Corridor Project, also known as the NJCEC project. Uh just a quick recap for everyone. There's two components to this application. The first component is the replacement of existing lattice towers and wooden structures in the utilities transmission
line corridor. Uh there's a total of 60 structures being removed from the rightway. And there's a total of 31 new steel monopoles on concrete foundations being proposed in the rightway. The second component is to upgrade and improve the existing Laravee electrical
substation. Tonight's hearing is a continuation of the board's July 14th hearing. On July 14th, you heard from five of the applicants witnesses. First, you heard from Larry Josempa, First Energy's general manager of planning, who explained the NJCEC project scope and
purpose. You then heard from Jeffrey Morris, a civil engineer with Boswell Engineering, who explained the new improvements to both the rightway and the substation. We then heard from Amy Jones, the project's environmental consultant, who provided an overview of the environmental permitting for this
project. We then heard from Christine Caffone, the applicant's professional planner, who discussed the variance relief being sought by the applicant. We then heard testimony from Pamela Dopart from Exponent. Miss Dopart had discussed the science behind EMF and public utilities. I do want to mention the
public was granted the opportunity to cross-examine each of our witnesses during the last hearing. Uh you'll recall from the July 14th hearing that the board specifically requested testimony as to the infrastructure on the substation property that connects to May's project. Over the past two weeks,
we met with the board's professionals to clarify these points and we have a very brief presentation for you this evening to finalize our testimony with just one witness. We'll recall Mr. Josempa, First Energy's general manager of planning, who also testified during the last hearing and who's prepared to offer
testimony in response to the board's questions raised at the last meeting. Before we call Mr. Josempa, I do want to highlight two topics that we'll discuss this evening. So, first uh during our meetings with the board's professionals, it was determined that taking a phased approach to the construction of some of
the infrastructure on the substation parcel, specifically the infrastructure that connects to Mayott's project, would be a better approach for the overall project. First Energy and JCPNL have agreed to delay construction for the infrastructure that connects directly to
May. And we have a new exhibit this evening that we will present that breaks out those improvements. So the board can see the differences between the two types of infrastructure. And as part of that phasing, it was also determined that there is approximately
0.19 acres of tree tree clearing that can be delayed uh until Mayad's project is approved. >> So Mayad gets its construction permits. >> That is correct. Once Mayad gets it construction, >> not approved, construction permits.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. U then the second topic for tonight uh so during our meeting with the board's professionals last week uh the existing security fence around the substation was discussed uh specifically the barbed wire that's installed at the top of the
security fence as a result of our discussions with the board's professionals. Uh JCPNL uh is going to agree to a condition in the approval uh to work in good faith with the board's professionals on an alternate design for the security fence. Uh it will not
consist of barbed wire uh but it might be up to 10 feet tall. So tonight we're going to be seeking a variance for the height of that fence. Again, it might not be exactly 10 ft. We might come in less. We don't expect it to be greater than 10 ft. >> So we're going to seek the 10ft variance
>> and that's something that I would be supportive of. >> Okay. >> It will resolve their security concerns but also not provide the barb wire which we don't allow in town. So I think it's a >> good >> compromise. Exactly. So I would be very
supportive of the relief and I feel like I requested it so I feel like we should be able to to deal with it in that way. >> Okay. And Mr. Nel, um we also agreed we
are going to get the tree fund for the clearing of the trees. >> Uh yes. So, uh, and during the last hearing, Miss Jones confirmed we will comply with the township's general. >> We appreciate that. Thank you. >> Um, so with that, unless there's any
questions, we'll go ahead and call Mr. Josea. >> No thanks. >> Great. >> And since Mr. Josempa was previously sworn and is still under oath. Are we're good to go? >> We're good. >> All right, Mr. Josempa. Um, and just for the
record, um, you recall you're still under oath from the July 14th hearing. >> Yes. Great. You'll recall at the conclusion of the last hearing, the board asked for additional testimony regarding the improvements on JCPNL's Larave Larabe substation parcel that connects to May's project. Would you
please discuss those specific improvements within the JCPNL Larabe substation parcel? >> Yeah, before I do that, I'd like to give a little bit of an overview of this entire project overall from what the BPU awarded. So, the BPU awarded various
developers and transmission owners what's projects to develop offshore wind and that's all called the state agreement approach. I'm just going to stop you. Just give them the se like what you're phasing. They already know about the fact that offshore wind is
like put on hold. Maybe not. Yes, maybe. They don't care. Focus on your project. What on your project is required for the May project and how you're going to phase it. That's all they need to know. That's it. So, let's go ahead and uh do we need to
mark the exhibit into evidence? >> It's A34. >> A34. Great. >> So, um Mr. Josemp, you were involved in the preparation of the exhibit that we'll be using this evening. >> Yes, I was. >> Can you please uh walk the board through
the improvements that are highlighted in red, which I understand are the improvements that will uh connect to Mayot's project. Yes. Uh what this is if you look at the the diagram that's on the screen is the the outline of the
properties in blue and then within that blue outline there is a gray outline that is the outline of the substation that's on that parcel. So those are those are kind of the key components. We'll talk around those those things so you can understand
what's going on. So we'll start at the top and we'll work our way down. So, at the very top of the property line, but outside the substation fence, there's a red line that runs from left to right. In the middle of that red line, there's a dot that has a three beside it. That's
structure number three. So, from structure four to structure three to the May property line, which is on the east side of the property, those facilities will not be constructed. So, until we get May's construction permit. So that'd be structure number three and
the spans of wire between four and three and three to the structure on May's property. Also to the right just under that red line there's a little red line that is the communication cable. It's an opt optical fiber communication cable that
would run between JCP and L substation for communication to Mayod's proposed substation. Now, since they won't have their property, that will not need to be installed until, again, they have facilities on their property after they receive their construction permit. So,
those things at the top of the screen will not be constructed as part of this delay in the in those components. >> So, is it safe to say that everything on the exhibit in red is going to be delayed until such time as Mayad is in a position to get their construction
permits? >> That is correct. >> Thanks, Awesome. >> So I think we >> again just to confirm for the record, Mr. Josempa, First Energy and JCPNL will agree as a condition of the approval uh not to construct the improvement showed
on red on the exhibit in front of us which has been marked A34 until such time that Mayad uh has a construction permit. Yes, sir. >> That's correct. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> Um, Jen, I'm sorry, Miss Beam. They have
to then come back to us. >> No, they don't. >> They're asking us to approve the entirety of their site plan, but they're saying that these improvements will only be implemented at such time as May gets their construction permits. >> Okay? That way they don't have to come
back, but the improvements are not going to be constructed in the event that the project doesn't move forward. It depends on how you guys like what your disposition is at the meeting that they're here. But these are the things
that they need to do for that and they're willing to say we're going to put a pin in it until such time as they're pulling their construction permits, which I think is fair. >> That way they don't have to come back. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. I would just suggest if the board acts favorably that this exhibit be made
a a sheet in the plan set just one full plan sheet of the overall just how it is colorized and that way it's pretty clear for the board and part of the >> I agree Charlie thank you >> okay >> so um that'll conclude our direct testimony
>> since he testified last time I said that there would be no further public comment unless there was new testimony. Do we still have to form? >> I'd open it up just on this limited point. >> I was going to >> Yeah. >> Motion to open the public.
>> Motion. >> All in favor? >> Eileen. >> The board will now be open to the public for questions or comments. Please come up and state your name and your address. Seeing nobody, I'll make the motion to close. >> Second.
>> Second it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Yes. >> Anything else? >> Okay. Board members. >> One. >> One quick question. U Mr. Nadell, I
heard you say earlier that there was a compromise made in lie of the barb wire to go 10 ft. You said it may not be exactly 10 ft. commit to some kind of range like on the bottom end. Talk about six feet, right? >> I would say no greater than 10 feet. Six
feet is not going to cut it because 6 feet requires the barb wire. So, >> right. But what would the minimum be? >> I would say probably 9 ft is probably the minimum. >> So, between 9 and 10. >> I mean, right now it's 8 feet with a foot of barb wire. So, it's 9 ft currently. So, I would say between 9 and 10 feet probably is what we're talking
about. >> And my client just said that sounds about right. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks, John. That's all I have. >> Hi. Um, I did mention this the last time and I just wanted to um make sure or maybe just ask it again just for
clarity. the the improvements to the infrastructure for JCPNL's transmission line corridor and the Larabe station is not contingent on
um the MOAD project or or how can I say it um the financial uh part of it right so when
In 2022, JCPNL was awarded um the project. They were given $723 million in investments. Does the offshore wind project, if that never materializes, does that
how does that affect the infrastructure improvements? So whether offshore wind moves forward or does not, JCP now will continue to advance this project because of the improvements to the infrastructure and the additional capacity and reliability
that is added to the system by these upgrades. >> Okay. So it's not it's not dependent it's not contingent or doesn't go along with MOAD's um approval of construction permits. >> Correct. Okay. >> The only the elements that were
discussed tonight would not be constructed. If the if the if Mayor did not get their construction permits, then those things shown in red tonight on that exhibit would not be constructed. >> Okay. That was that was that's that was my concern in this whole thing that that
JCPNL is going to still move forward with improving the infrastructure even if um um the the wind energy development projects never materialize. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Nadell. Any further we >> No, I didn't think so. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Members of the board, uh, at this time I would entertain a motion. >> Make a motion. >> Yeah,
>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we grant the use variance and preliminary final major site plan with bulk variance for this applicant uh, with the contingencies so described this evening uh, including the fence and the future
construction if needed. Is there anything else that I missed? Oh, your well typical the reports and the ex you know Charlie's report. >> Oh and yeah and everything stated in the professionals report >> plus whatever has been testified to the
previous night and tonight. >> I think that covers it. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second by Mr. Ryan. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Merren. >> Mr. Nidell, you did a very good job uh
presenting this case. I think you uh had some good good professionals and we appreciate your time and I vote yes as well. >> Application is approved. >> And we also would like to thank the board and the board's professionals. We've been working together with the
township for well over the last year and a half on this project and we do appreciate all the cooperation and working together um to make the project successful. So, thank you to all of you as well. >> Okay, good luck. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay, the next case up
on the agenda is case BA18-01A, Freehold Church of Christ use variance and minor site plan application to Freehold Church of Christ seeking approval to construct a onetory
parsonage with two proposed drywall, concrete walkways, concrete patio and utilities on block 141, lot 20.02 O2 46 Strickland Road. Expiration date is
September 2nd, 2025. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, and the members of the board. My name is Edward McKenna. I'm an attorney for Redbank, New Jersey. I'm here on behalf of the Church of Christ. They're located at 46 Strickland. Um here in How we have
with us this evening the minister of the church, U John Brown. Uh this application is to establish a parsonage which would uh be appended to the church. >> Okay. >> And this application actually has been
heard before uh by this board in 1992. It was approved in its entirety including all the things we are asking for this evening, meaning the variances and a waiver. And uh Miss Capone will address that in her planning testimony.
But I'd just like to introduce uh Mr. Mr. Steve Kizlick from Abington Engineering. He's going to give a brief description. >> Okay. Mr. McKenna, what we normally do is we'll get everybody sworn in first and then >> Yeah, Christine knew to come up right away.
>> Yeah, she knows the truth. >> Do you swear that testimony you give will be the truth? Swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth. The whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes, >> I do. Please state your names for the record. Starting with the gentleman in the blue jacket. >> Yes. My name is Steve Kislick. I'm a
licensed landscape architect in the state of New Jersey and I'm a partner at Abington Engineering. >> You need to spell your last name, sir. >> K I S E L I C K. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Jonathan Brown. I'm a
representative and minister of the Freehold Church of Christ. >> Okay. Thank you. And hi, Christine Kafone, planner for the applicant. >> Okay, >> Mr. Gizley, would you uh present to the board just a brief description of the application?
>> Okay. The church >> credentials. I'm sorry. >> First and then, >> Mr. Gizlook, uh, you are a licensed landscape architect. Yes, I am. And a member and partner of Abington Engineering, correct? >> Yes, I am. >> And you have appeared before the the
boards in Howell Township before. Yes, and been qualified as an expert witness, but that's correct. Correct. >> Okay, we accept your qualifications. >> Thank you. >> Now you can go. >> Uh, briefly, the church is looking to provide a residence in the rear yard of
their existing property, which will consist of 1387 square ft. It's a onestory building that will be 15 feet high and it will be 280 ft from the
frontage along Strickland Road. Uh the purpose of the residence is to provide a full-time uh parsonage for a full-time minister. And that briefly explains the proposed condition.
>> Would any of the uh members of the board have any questions of Mr. Kislick in that regard? >> No. Jennifer, >> no. >> Charlie, >> no. The only questions I have, so just to give the board some added uh background on this. So this was here in 2018. They uh paved the gravel parking
lot and maybe expanded a little bit. And as part of that, they also put a little storm basin kind of on the southeast corner of the property um in front of the church. Um I think that the parsonage that they're proposing is a very modest structure. It's one story in comparison to like the site. there's
existing non-conformities with the site doesn't meet the conditional use fair um conditional use standards for a house of worship which none of that I I don't think is changing with the application those are all things that were considered as part of the last application uh before the board so I take no issue with that um as far as a
stormwater perspective they are providing dry wells for the house of worship which we found acceptable they just need to clarify some details on the plans just to make sure it matches what was shown on the plan um uh and And then just to clarify, I think the application documents had this
listed as a major site plan. We didn't consider that at based off the limited scope of it. So, um, this is a very minor addition to an existing developed site. Um, the couple things I had questions on. So, the waste, it's all going to be like household waste. So,
they're going to have like a the same holeer that comes in to collect for the church to collect for the parsonage. >> That's correct. And then as far as lighting, there's no additional lighting other than maybe some security lighting on the residents in the entry and exit exit ways. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um
I believe when this was here last time, the board granted a waiver of installing sidewalks along the right ofway. >> They did. >> Uh I take no issue with the continuation of that given this is just adding a parsonage for the house of worship. Um, the only other two comments that I had
was, uh, anytime we get a property back before the board, we'd like to see rightaway dedication or an easement be provided to get the master plan half with. Would the applicant have an issue with providing that if if it hadn't previously been done as part of the last application? >> No, we'd have no problem with. >> And then looking at areas, the
stormwater basin that was put in was supposed to have a sand bottom. It just needs a little TLC. Would the applicant have an issue with like clarifying that and removing any vegetation as a condition of the approval? No, not at all. >> All right. That that's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Okay.
Do we need to even hear testimony? >> Anybody need to hear testimony from the applicant of South? >> I'd like to know. >> I don't personally I don't think so. I think the request to have a person there is perfectly
>> Yeah, because I I really don't >> and it's such a minor application. I don't I personally don't need to hear anything >> even from our their planner. >> I think she should come up very quickly because I don't think I need to hear from the pastor.
>> Okay. Yeah, >> Christine can. >> Yeah, you're you're on a >> see what she says >> on the timer. >> Got it. I'm aware. >> Well aware of it. >> Yeah. Suly notice. So, good evening. For the record, Christine Capone, licensed professional planner, testified here
many, many occasions. We accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you, chairman. So, this application has been before this board in one shape or another for 35 years. I reviewed three resolutions. Uh, one from 1990, one from 1992, and one from 2018. The subject property is in the R4 zone,
and churches are conditionally permitted houses of worship. We for the parsonage, we meet all the required setbacks. So, what the board has to wrestle with is absent compliance with the conditional use standards, is this still an appropriate location for this use? Um given the historic nature of the use,
given the fact that the buffer has been previously considered by this board and the willingness by the applicant to accept the conditions of approval which include working with your professionals should that buffer be need to be supplemented at all. We're happy to do that. I think the board can still find that this is an appropriate location for
this use and then relief can be continued to granted with no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the public good. Taking notice as well that churches and houses of worships are an inherently beneficial use. So I have nothing further on direct. >> Good job. >> Christine, I have a couple questions
because my memory doesn't serve me well here. >> What's the size of this lot? >> 2.98 acres. >> 2.9 >> 2.98 acres and the requirement the conditional use requirement is 5 acres and there is no opportunity to acquire additional property.
>> All right. And um is there septic and well on there or city water? What what's there? >> Uh that I'll have to ask. be connecting to public water and sewer. >> We will connect to public water and sewer >> and sewer. Okay. >> Um and how many people are going to live there? Just one. >> Just one.
>> And that's the pastor or >> correct. >> Priest. >> Yes. >> Just one. Okay. That's it. >> Anybody else? >> Mr. Chair, just >> Yeah. Okay. Charlie, >> two comments. So, um I think it might be
worthwhile if the applicant has any desire to put in a small shed for the parsonage. Maybe like a 10 x10 or something like that, you know, if the board is a good time to do it. >> Yeah. Correct. And just is that something the applicants okay with, you know, putting on the plan a 10 x 10. They don't have to construct if they
ever do want to, then they don't have to come back to the board. >> Yeah. No, absolutely. Yes. We'll be happy. I mean, I think that's something that we could deal with as a reszo compliance issue and you could like show us >> where you would like to put it and make sure that Charlie and I are okay with the location. >> Be happy.
>> You got the thumbs up. So, that's >> and then uh they are clearing some trees. So, just they'll have to get a tree clearing permit as part of any condition of approval. And then I think the representation that it's a house for uh the pastor, it's a parsonage. uh you know something like not to be rented out
to outside tenants or something like that. Is that something optable though? >> No, not anticipated at all. >> Okay. All right. That's all I have. >> Good points, Charlie. Thanks. Okay. Um we'll have to go to public real quick. I don't think we're going to >> make a motion to open the public.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> The board will not be open to the public. If you'd like to ask a question or a comment, please state come up and state your name and address. Motion to close. >> Motion by >> seeing none. Motion to close.
>> You're seconding now. She beat you to it. >> Oh, you did? I did. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, Mr. McKenna, final comments. >> I just want to thank the board for their time and uh this will benefit the church
significantly. So, thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve this application and all, you know, everything looks good
and and they're working with us. So, you based on all the testimony and uh obviously all the the paperwork between the professionals and all, I'd like to appro uh make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Second by Mr. Burillo.
Can I have a roll call? >> Mr. Burillo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes? >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan? >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Martins? >> Yes. And good luck.
>> Application is approved. >> It's good to see everyone. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay, we will begin the next case. Case number BA25-04
SCB Farmingdale LLC. Type use variance description application SCB Farmingdale LLC is applicant and owner seeking approvals to construct a 1500 square foot detached
garage in the SED one zone. The application indicates a threecar garage is proposed with other site improvements on block 49 lots five and six 291 Squonome road expiration is August 29th
2025. Good evening Mr. Jackson. Good to see you back. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be back. For the record, John Jackson on behalf of the applicant who is uh here Mr. Scott Bassender is the alter ego of the applicant. It's a business entity that he has. I'm here with Mr. Mr. Tim
Lori and Miss Christine Capone. And uh with your permission, if I could have Mr. Lorie sworn and he'll tell you about the application. >> Okay, come on. >> We were going to switch things up. >> Probably not. >> You swear the testimony will be the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Please state your names for the record. >> Tim Lori, L U R I E >> Christine Capone. So, so what we're doing is we're uh adding a garage to a single family home. It's really that simple. Um Mr. Lori, you want to give the zone, the
application, the overview, etc. >> Pull the plan up on the screen. [Applause] The property is lots five and six, block 49. It's located on 291 Farmingdale Road. It's located in the SE D-1 zone.
The property consists of an existing two-story single family house and we are proposing a 1500 square foot garage in the rear in the rear of the property. The the lot has existing variances which
is the minimum lot area which is required 120,000 for the zone. We have a 29,289 square foot lot. We also have existing variance for the lot frontage which is 200 feet is required. We only have 100
feet of width on this lot. So you can see this lot is under size in the zone. We also have um setback variances for the existing house where we have the front setback require 60 ft. The to the porch of the house is 44t. We have a
side set back of 50 feet required in this zone. The house sits 5.7 feet off the side property line to the east. We have um we're requesting there was in the review letter stated about waiverss for the driveway. As you
see the driveway enters right along about 3 feet off the side of the property line. We can relocate that driveway so we have so we can have five feet and not have that waiver anymore. In addition, there's another waiver that was requested for going into the garage.
As you can see, in the 1500 square foot garage, we have two two garage doors in the front and then we have a side door that goes in the side. And there's also a rear door that opens up according to the the plans. This is a prefab metal
building that's going to match the house in the same color. It's shown on the upper right hand portion of the plans. And we have um if you go back to the plan view, we're showing 20 ft of
20 ft of pavement in front of the garage. There was a comment about having a side entry garage needs 30 feet. We can certainly increase that 10 feet that's in front. As you can see, right beyond the garage is a is the sewage is
the septic field area. So that's why we stopped the pavement there. But if we move the garage back a couple more feet, we have plenty of room in the rear setback that we can certainly get gain that 30 feet and not have not have that waiver request anymore. The board
engineer stated in his review letter about possible wetlands to the rear of the property. My environmental specialist has gone out there and the wetlands is more more than 150 ft away from that property. So, we do have room to move that property back. And if you
look look on like an aerial view, you'll see along along the east side there's an existing warehouse building that's set toward more towards the end of our property in the in the rear there which further confirms that the wetlands are
further off site. There's a stream approximately about 1500 feet away from this property. That's a basic overview of the site. So let me see. Now, going through the the May 1st, 2025
letter from the board engineer just to make sure I cover everything. We're proposing the garage the garage average height is 16 ft. The peak of the garage is 18 feet. We conform to the setbacks for the accessory structure, which is
two times the height, which is 32.10 ft from the side, and then from the rear, we're over 77 68 ft from the rear. That's why we we have room where we can push this back to eliminate that waiver of 30 feet in the
front. We also agree on the prefab steel structure that we there's a comment from the board planner that she would like some more architectural textures to the to the face of that building the sides. We can certainly accommodate that and
work with the board professionals during compliance to add those items to the steel structure. So fits in more with the character of a garage. >> I would suggest though you still seek the relief because I don't think you're
going to 100% comply with what we ask >> in ordinance. I'm not saying what I ask. I'm saying or the phone and all that stuff. So, I think they should still receive the relief, but I would welcome working with them as a reser compliance item to
to address the like the blank wall that we're going to see. >> Good. >> We've agreed to that. Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And I noticed we we're we're located on on Squankham Road, which is a county road. There's and we will pay into the
sidewalk fund there. There are no sidewalks within any proximity of this site. >> I'm not so thrilled about that. >> I think they should provide skywalk. We talk about this all the time. We have to start somewhere. Sidewalk has to start
somewhere. And the community is becoming more more walkable. I mean, maybe not so much over here yet, >> but if we don't get it from them now, we're going to have to put it in at some point. >> The the applicant has agreed to do it.
>> Okay, great. >> Yeah, >> perfect. >> Got to start somewhere. So, >> thanks, Jim. >> Mr. Chair, can I ask some questions? >> You sure may. >> Yeah. So, uh on the plan that we have, it says the wetlands in the back are from Geo Web. Did you have someone go
out there and prepare some kind of field delineation or recommendation report? I have Penny Griber from my office who's an environmental specialist who's been dealing wetlands for 30 years. She went out there and she noted that the wetlands
are 180 ft off this property at least. >> Did she formalize anything in like writing in a memo to you or anything like that? >> I can I can get it to you. Yeah, I I would say if if an environmental professional is going to put something in paper that says there's no impact to wetlands and they're way well well off
the property, they provide it for our record, I don't think that they need to go get an LOI. However, if the report says something otherwise and there's potential that buffers could be on the property, then you know, they would have to address that as a part of resolution compliance. uh the structure itself.
So, you're going to shift it back as you need it to and then you're going to expand in front of the two garage entryways to be 30 ft. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, what's the need for the third garage door to the back of the site or back of the building where there is no
driveways to that? >> The need for that is he has he has race cars that he races down. How would he get it back there >> on a trailer? No, it's just he's not going back there. He's just opening the back door with the trailer to so he
doesn't hit the back of the back of the >> Wait, but how would the trailer even get back there without a driveway? >> No. If it's going backing into from the front to the back. >> I'm still not understanding the need for a door. If it's not going out of the building,
you don't if you're backing something into a building, you don't need a back door open just in case you're going to hit it. That's really >> It's also when you're working in the garage, it lets the air in and stuff like that. It's all open. >> Full bay >> door for that.
>> We'd prefer, but you know, if that offends the application, we'll abide by it. But um I don't I don't see how it really >> you know or some type of representation and conditioner approval that no driveway will be expanded and then should that happen they would have to come back to the board to seek amended approval.
>> I'll agree to that. >> Yeah. Yeah, remember and I I think the overall tone of my letter is I'm just concerned because they the town did uh reszone a lot of these properties to different versions of the sedd and a lot of them allow tree contractor businesses
and things like that, landscape contractors and the height of the structure and we question and that's why they were deemed incomplete originally is it's not a standard residential garage. It's like 12 feet to the ease and then another 16 or what 16 18 feet to the to the ridge. So, uh, you know,
are they putting a lift in there? It just it looks more commercial in nature, and I just want to make sure we're getting on the record what this applicant intends to use it for. And that way, it becomes part of the record. So, if the property sells at some point in the future, >> uh, we're not getting someone else
trying to run a landscaping business in here and >> or even a >> So, Mr. Jackson, can we get can you uh >> Yes. I'd like to mark this. This is what my client does want to do with this. He has a race car and a trailer and give it
to Mr. >> This will be A1. >> There's there's going to be no lift in there. It's just to store the car. >> And you grab that and pass it around. >> It's not just to store the car. It's to store the trailer. >> The trailer as well.
>> No, I know. I'm gonna >> Do you have that electronically or No, >> I you have the power. Guess not. I mean, >> I was told not to. >> I told him not to bring a power. >> I have a password. >> I don't need it.
>> I'm good. >> Get that right now. >> So, and then um it's a county right away obviously, so you'll get a letter of no interest on on their end. Um the roof leader collection system and the drywall, we had some technical comments. You'll comply with
that as conditionary approval. And then uh sorry I had two more things. So the lots uh have they been consol they will be consolidated? >> We'll consolidate. I don't think they >> I'll find out. I'm not sure on with the
survey that we got from from the other survey. >> If they haven't they will be as a condition. >> And then there's an access easement along the eastern side of this property that serves this property. Can you give us any idea on what that is for? What the history of that is? whether the applicant has any intent to put a
driveway in there at some point in the future. >> Yeah, we we have no intent to put a driveway in there. I believe the access easement went back to that warehouse that's in the to the rear of the site.
>> Let me get this up there. >> So, it's for storage of these cars and nothing else. >> Personal get the Mr. Ryan. >> Sure. Mr. Lori. Um, the application is calling for a threecar garage. We're really looking for a threedo garage.
Correct. >> Correct. >> So, what would you say the vehicle capacity of this three-door garage will be? >> Probably four. Four vehicles. >> And it's not just for cars. It's for other types of >> No, just curious. Yeah, four cars. >> It says three car garage. It's not
>> It can do more than three cars. It's 1500 square feet. >> Yeah, it's just he can put his toys in there. You know, various things. >> 50 ft of parking spots. 9 by 18. So 9 by 20 say. So that's like two and two with a couple extra feet. >> Okay. Just just want to be clear on
that. >> So what is that? He's saying four >> max four. >> Max four. >> Yes. And just to clarify, so it's it's for the applicant's own storage of his own vehicles and other related equipment and impermanences. It's not we had another user with a large
point and they were operating essentially a commercial enterprise on that premises. This is just for their own personal use of their own personal vehicles and equipment. Uh trailers, >> you know, fancy race cars
>> for his own personal correct um Uh Scott Basser's here. He owns Martell's in Point Pleasant Beach. He's not going to be running a mechanic shop out of there. This is for his stuff. >> Okay. Just it's on record. That's that's fine. >> We just want to make sure it's on record. >> Thank you.
>> We also need it's going to live there. >> Yes. So, >> you can go. >> And we talked about we talked about this. Your professional and I talked about this. Christine and I talked about this. >> The use of the residence is going to be for his family. Correct. It's not going to be rented out to a third party. It's
going to be for his family. >> And if we ever seek to change that, we'll we'll address it at that time. >> Whatever the requirement is address. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So So and then two last questions, right? So the perpetual easement on the neighboring property that serves your property, right? >> If the applicant ever were to put a
driveway at some point in the future, they would agree they would have to come back to the board because we already heard testimony that they're not going to put out pro uh put a driveway to the back of the structure. >> Now, Charlie, would that include if they just put some stones down? I mean that's we want to make sure that >> Yeah. I mean
>> whether it's gravel or any kind of >> driveway. Yeah. And I think this applicant has the best intentions with this property, but like I just want to make sure it's clear because we see properties get sold and then someone else thinks that they can do XY and Z and that's not what this board considered with the approval. >> Uh and then the other thing is the
driveway. You said you're going to relocate it. Are you paving it all the way back there or is it going to >> Well, yeah, we'll pave it all the way back. >> Okay. That's that's all I have, Mr. Chair. Okay. Anything else from any of the board members questions?
>> Just so I don't forget along the lines, um, we're not looking to deed restrict this property. It would just be a condition of approval. >> Deed restrictions. No one can even the board changes. Okay. I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank So our next witness is Miss Capone. >> Nazarero Capone.
I like >> and since you have been qualified, we don't have to hear about you again. >> Okay, good. So, >> so good evening. This is a application for an expansion of an occupied use because while the zone permits a myriad
of very intensive commercial uses such as manufacturing and self storage, it does not allow for the residential use. So when you have the garage associated with the residential use, we are therefore expanding a non-conforming residential use. So the Burbridge case tells us that you could look for
beautifification, but you should also be looking for more than just mere beautifification to make the site function better. And you heard from Mr. that we will eliminate the non-conformity with respect to the driveway setback and also agree to as a condition of approval to provide the sidewalks which I know is very important
to this board as planner BM always says we have to start somewhere. So I think that those are two benefits that the board can take notice of and betterments that are associated with this case. So as far as particular suitability there's an existing residential use on this property and the property is Mr. Lorie
described it as undersized. I would say it's seriously undersized. It has only about 29,000 square feet where the zone requires 120,000 square feet. So, it's a very small lot compared to what the zone allows. And that's because the zone allows for some intensive commercial uses. So, as far as having a substantial
detriment on the zone plan, I don't see a substantial detriment on the SED um zone plan for this area. Given the existing conditions on the property and the existing configuration of the lot, I think the existing conditions um and the undersized nature of the lot render it particularly suitable for this proposed
use. And I think that the board can rely on criteria G, which talks about sufficient space and appropriate locations for a a variety of uses as well as criteria M. And for the reasons I stated as far as the permissibility of uses in the zone, I see no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the public
good if the board were to move favorably on this application. You've already heard the willingness to accept the conditions of approval to relocate that driveway and construct the sidewalks, but beyond that to work with Planner Beam on the architecture. um we will request that relief, but as we have worked with you previously when we have
these prefab construction buildings, we know there's things that we can do to enhance the curb appeal and work with your team to ensure that that happens. >> Okay, she says uh >> I'm good. >> She is good. >> Charlie,
>> anybody from the board? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yep. Motion to go to public. I'm just going to make Yeah, I make a motion to go to public. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Yes. >> I
>> The board will now be open to the public. If you have questions or comments, please come up and state your name and address. >> Public close to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Any further from the professionals? >> No. >> Okay, Mr. Jackson, >> that's our case, Mr. Chairman. I'll submit. >> Okay, this time I'd like to entertain a motion. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chair, uh I'd like to make a motion
to approve this application. We've discussed quite a bit tonight, you know, putting in the uh sidewalks, working with Jennifer on the architecture, and uh all the other stuff put on the record. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?
>> I'll second that. >> Seconded by Mr. Caner. >> Eileen. Roll call. >> Mr. Burillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hughes. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson?
>> Yes. >> And Chairman Morren? >> Yes. >> Application is approved. >> On behalf of Mr. Basser, thank you very much. Have a good luck. So long. Okay. Before we close tonight, um Tom, you and Jennifer spoken about our
>> class. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What time is that going to be? The starting time? >> Six. >> Six o'clock. Okay. >> Yes. >> On August the 25th, right? >> August 25th. >> Okay. >> For what? >> We can do it before, we can do it after. Whatever you guys want. What do we do?
>> Yeah, this is supposed to me knowledge. >> Just a little update on >> Oh, okay. Oh, >> we were going to do like our little class on like >> So, what is the preference of the board? Before or after? >> Before. >> Yeah, I think we're all Let's do that.
>> Yep. >> We're going to know that's for the whole board. >> And if we're late, we got to bring you a note. >> Bring her an apple. >> At least >> August 25th or something. >> Yes. August 25th. >> Yeah. >> So that's going to be we'll call that.
>> So Eileen, when's the next meeting? >> The next meeting is August 11th. >> And what do we have on August 11th? Just to give it >> I have an extension of time. I have the Zerelli application. >> And the Atlantic Auto Bodies.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> That's it. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to close. >> By Ann Marie. Second. Second >> second by Mr. Brillo. All in favor? >> I Yes.