[Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Good evening. I >> Township of Howell Zoning Board of
Adjustment, Monday, November 10th, 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 on the Star Ledger. Second, on January 2nd, 2025, a copy of said notice was handd 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 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, Eileene. Could I ask everybody to please 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. It's because I take too long.
>> Okay. Andy, could you swear in the professionals? >> Roll call. >> Roll call. >> Oh, I'm sorry. That was >> roll call. >> Mr. Burillo >> here. >> Mr. Cancer >> here. >> Mr. Hughes is excused tonight. Mr. O'Donnell >> here.
>> Mr. Roscoll is excused tonight. Mr. Ryan, >> present. >> Miss Scottson >> here. >> Mr. Kabarakus >> here. >> And Chairman Mertens, >> I'm here. You have a quorum. >> Okay. Andy, could you swear in the professionals? >> You swear the testimony you give will be the truth.
>> I do. >> I do. >> For the record. >> Charles Kliff. >> Jennifer Beam. >> Professional sworn. Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Andy. Uh, next order of business, approval of minutes. >> No minutes to approve. >> Correspondence. >> I have two things for correspondence.
The first is case number BA25-03. The Hannah Group ABL LLC will be carried to December 8th, 2025 with no further notice. An extension has been granted to the board through December 31st, 2025.
>> Okay. Anybody here for case number BA25-03 that will be carried till until at December 8th, 2025 with no further notice. Thank you. And second thing
>> uh the second thing I will have the other board secretary send out a email tomorrow about the rules committee just so people can write it down for December 1st 2025 for the professionals and the chairman and the vice chairman. >> Okay. And our secretary
>> yes I'll have >> uh Monday. >> It's first Monday in December. So >> am I included? >> Yes. Yeah. Secretary is part of the rules committee. I thought you were there last year.
>> The chair, the vice chair, and the >> Yes, >> secretary. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> I'll remind Matt, but I think the dates are good for us. >> Free dinner, guys. >> What's that? Yeah. >> Free dinner. >> Same place. >> Oh, can I? >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. >> Same batch.
>> Exactly. I mean, I know you're like out of commission after today, but can you just ask whomever to distribute around the resolution that we did for last year and
the the uh data on the variances grant like we usually get like a spreadsheet with variances granted this year? >> Sure. For this year. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. So you had and that was the second
correspondence. >> Yes, that's all for tonight. Thank you. >> Any resolutions? >> No resolutions to approve. >> Okay, we'll go to our first case. Case number BA23-24X Christopher Kavasosquez. Extension of
time requests for an extension of time on the previous gran granted bulk variance approval for the construction of a single drawing on an undersized lot in AR 2 zone. The resolution of approval was
set to expire one year from the date of the resolution November 4th, 2024. applicant is now requesting an eight-month extension to May 7th, 2026 on premise known as block 183, lot 62,
555 Brickyard Road. >> Good evening. >> Hi, how are you? >> Good, thanks. >> Yep. So, uh, >> can you state your name for the record? >> Christopher Capsasquez. >> Do you swear that the testimony you'll give will be the truth, tell truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh so yeah so we uh obviously made um some changes and concessions in our uh last meeting. So it required a lot of time for the uh architect to come up with plans and then the engineer caught some things that didn't meet the
resolution. So it went back to architecture and then long story short it just overran the time and uh it was something I was trying to expedite but I'm at the mercy of everyone else's timeline. So >> okay Charlie. Yeah. So, the resolution
approval for this application, it was the development of a single family home on an undersized lot on U Brickyard Road. It was approved by the uh board on November 4th, 2024. Most of our resolutions have a one-year uh time period for that uh approval to be valid
on standard, you know, bulker use variance um uh type applications uh before they need to come back to the board seek an extension of that approval. So this uh current approval would expire November 5th, 2025. Uh so they're still within that time. Uh
you're looking for how much long of an extension? 6 months, a year? >> Uh eight months. It was >> eight months. Okay. So there was a lot of back and forth when they did come before the board about changes to the size of the dwelling and things like that. Um they did submit resolution compliance to my office. We issued a
letter in August. There were still some outstanding things. you received that letter and your >> correct >> professionals are working on addressing that. >> Was there any outside agency approvals that also you're working on that hung you up or >> um so it was coordination between uh the
engineer the architect and then also I believe my attorney was in contact with your office regarding the uh the meets and bounds for the easement along the roadside part of the resolution was the concession of an easement um and I think he was working with your office on that as well. >> Okay. So, what I would say is um I would
be a little bit more concerned if they were seeking a full year. Um you know, they are making progress. They did resubmit. They're working on the meets and bounds and things like that. I think the fact that they're asking for eight when they could come ask for a year or longer shows that they're in good faith trying to get this closed to to move
forward towards construction. I I have no issue from an engineering perspective with the eight-month extension of time from November 5th of sorry, November 4th of 2024. >> Okay. >> 2025. Sorry, >> Jennifer, are you good with that? >> I'm good. >> Board members, any questions?
>> Okay. Well, at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion for the extension of time. >> Mr. Chairman, >> I'll make a motion that we grant the requested extension of time eight months. >> I'll second the motion.
>> Second by John. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. Mr. Caner, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Mr. Ryan, >> yes. >> Miss Scottson, >> yes. >> Mr. Kabarakus, >> yes. >> And Chairman Mertens,
>> yes. >> Approved. Thank >> appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The next case is case number BA25-11. George Frey seeking a bulk variance. The applicant
George Frey is applicant and owner seeking bulk variance approval to construct a single family dwelling on an undersized lot and AR2 zone. The applicant proposes a two-story single f family dwelling with associated port
portable well septic system dry well ashalt driveway and other improvements on premise known as block 151 lot 25 480 West Farms Road expiration is December 9th 2025.
>> Thanks Johno. >> Good evening. >> Thank you. Good evening chairman. Members of the board, for the record, John Jackson on behalf of the applicant, George Fry. I uh am handing out a PowerPoint
presentation um consisting of uh seven pages which is being distributed now. Um I'm here with Mr. Rob Sid. He is our engineer and planner. Also, my client, Mr. George Fry, is here. Uh we have an an undersized lot at 480 West Farms Road.
The lot has unusual geometry. Uh it's 1.5 something acres whereas two acres are required. Uh so we're slightly under size. Uh there's a foundation there. So apparently there was a house there. Mr. Civ and I uh took a look at some historic aerial photographs. It looks
like there was a house there as recently as uh like 19 >> 2002 just from aerial imagery, but there's nothing there now but a foundation. Um so we're seeking uh Mr. Fry would like to build a house here for his daughter. Uh he purchased the property and uh we think we have an
appropriate plan for it. So uh with that said, if I can have Mr. F uh Mr. S sworn >> is Mr. Fry going to testify. Ch >> perhaps. So why don't we can we swear you as well? >> Yeah. Come on. Just stand up right
there. >> Do you swear the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your names for the record. Robert Civ siv yes I do >> the witnesses are sworn mr chairman >> thank you
>> thank you and uh Mr. Civ has appeared here before I'm offering him as a an expert in engineering and planning uh so I I don't know if you want me to go through his credentials or bill acceptable >> it is thank you >> thank you uh Mr. Siv, could you please provide the board with an overview of
the application, the zone, the size? I see we have the aerial image up there. Maybe uh you can use that to help. >> Sure. The site is identified as block 151, Tax Lot 25, is located at the northeasterly intersection quadrant of Lemon Road and West Farms Road and is in
a regular shaped lot that has an area of approximately 1.5 acres. As indicated, the site was previously developed with single family residential dwelling, accessory structures, and ancillary utilities. And I'm just looking at that aerial. I just want to make sure that where the thumb or the
the red mark is not the site. >> I'm sorry, it's below it. I didn't fix that. >> The site is actually on the lower side of Lemon Road. >> Yeah. >> So, don't go by that >> tick mark. >> Yeah. I apologize for that. >> I have it on here. Um, it's at it's it's actually in this
location right here. >> Yeah. Under the blue line. >> Okay. >> And and the existing foundation that was there from the previous house is located in the front area towards West Farms Road. The property is located within the AR2
zone which requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres and we are before the board tonight as the zoning officer has determined the property does not qualify for the existing residential lots record of grandfather clause or 1.5 acres. We need two. There is a grandfather
provision in the ordinance that would allow it to be developed if it met certain criteria. According to the zoning officer, we don't meet that criteria. So that's why we're here tonight. Um so the applicant would like to develop the property with a two-story three-bedroom dwelling. Um we have prepared a plot plan
for the site which we can put up on the screen which would show where the proposed house is going. Um but first just to get the board oriented there's a there are a couple standards to address for this property. First, I would assert the property has
not been merged with the adjacent lot since to my knowledge the two lots have been existent since roughly 1961. I believe the house was built in like 1965. And second, the property owner has not created the hardship and the property has been maintained as a separate suitable building lot.
Therefore, the subject lot is a standalone lot and has not been merged with any other lot. With this in mind, Mr. Jackson has sent certified mailings to adjacent property owners asking if they are willing to buy and or sell their property. It's my understanding he has received one letter indicating that
there may be some interest, but at this point in time, I don't believe an agreement has been reached. Um, so with that said, we'd presume under the reasonable argument that the site meets its burden of proof and that it cannot acquire additional lot area and is in keeping with the neighborhood which has
a number of residentially developed lots on tracks of lands that are in the 1 to two acres size. So this is this would be in keeping with that area. Um, I don't know if can we put up the plot plan by any chance? Um there's there are there is one variance that we are proposing
that is associated with this proposed development. The ordinance does require a 50ft rear yard setback. We are proposing a 31 foot yard a 31 foot rear yard setback. Um we are orienting the house to face Lemon Road. Um the
applicant believes Lemon Road and rightfully so is a less traveled road than West Farms Road and there is a stop sign at the intersection of West Farms and Lemon Road where the vehicles approaching West Farms Road on Lemon Lo have the stop sign. So we felt facing
the house to Lemon Road and having the driveway come out on Lemon Road was the safer condition because the traffic is slowing down and stopping for the stop sign there. So by doing that the howl ordinance determines your rear lot on a corner lot by whatever way your house faces or the front door faces the other
lot is your rear lot. So by facing the lot towards Lemon Road our rear yard now becomes the angled lot behind the house which now requires a 50ft yard setback. We are proposing a 31 foot yard a 31 foot side
rear yard setback for that house and that is the variance we are going for for the reasons I just explained. Just as a side note, if we were to have rotated the house to face West Farms Road, then that same property line would become a sideyard and we'd only need 30 ft and point we become compliant. So
it's really just strictly by the way the house is facing that it becomes a rear yard. >> There's a farm right behind it >> and determines the setback. Um, there is also a potential second setback variance that may be needed.
>> U, we have a 51 foot front yard setback proposed. 50 is the minimum required. We've had a little bit of a hard time determining what the rightway width is needed and if there is any right additional rightway needed for this road. The tax map has it at 76 feet
wide. Um, because this lot was created in the 60s, there's very little mapping available for it to see where the center line or the rideway is. Um, if we were to be required to provide some additional land to the town, we can either do it via easement, which would maintain the 50 foot front yard setback,
or we might have to reduce our might require a variance to reduce that 50 down to maybe like 40 or 40 foot. >> Now, with regard to that particular variance, we would have uh both C1 and C2, right? The geometry of the property and then C2, we'd advance the purposes
by providing that road widening easily. Correct. This is a very unusually shaped lot because the way it necks down in the middle and then widens up a little bit again at the back. Um, this is very irregularly shaped and it would be a hybrid C1C2 type of variance. >> Can we just uh slide down to the uh
larger image above so we can see the whole geometry of the lot for a second. I think there uh zoom out a little >> slide so we can see the top above the lot. >> Above it. Yeah, >> up here. >> There we go. You can see how the lot necks down to this point and then starts
to open up again. So, it's a almost like a hourglass or half an hourglass shaped lot. We're proposing to put the house in the front, I'll call it the southwesterly or southerntherly portion of the property facing Lemon Road. And that's the largest portion of the developable part of the property.
>> So, by comparison, that that line across the back is what about 8 900 ft long. >> That is 855 ft plus or minus. So the the frontage of our property, how many lots across the street is that? One, two, three, four, five. Five lots. >> Roughly four lots. Yeah. >> Four. Four, five lot. Portion of the
>> Right. Right. >> So that would all remain undisturbed, right? For the most of the lots that also front. >> That's correct. >> All right. Please continue. >> So that is the application. I mean, I believe the variances meet the positive criteria and that it promotes the sufficient space and appropriate
location for a residential dwelling, promotes good civic design, and that the lot is in keeping with the lots sizes that are in this area. As I indicated, there's a number of one to twoacre lots in this area that are under the 2acre requirement, and it provides the adequate light and open space. As it
relates to the negative criteria, I believe there's no substantial detriment to the public good. it's compatible with the neighborhood and it will not substantially impair the intended purpose of the zone plan andor the master plan. >> So, so let's take a look at um some of the review letters. Uh the the first one
we have is uh from environmental no comments proposed to have septic. >> The first is from the Mammoth County Health Department I believe Mr. Jackson's referring to and we do have Mammoth County septic approval for this lot. We've submitted the plan you see on the screen. They have approved it. Um,
we do not have a mounted system. The water table is fairly deep in this location. So, we have we do have their approval for the health for the septic system. >> The next one I just happen to have in uh my file, fire bureau uh July 29th letter. Any objections from fire bureau? >> No objections.
>> Then after that, I have the TNM letter. We'll go through that in a little more detail. Um, >> Mr. Kliff, I'm not sure if there's something in particular that I may have missed in your review letter touched on. So, uh, I just want to jump
back to a few notes, right? So, we talked about there's the existing lot, the configuration of the lot with lot area and lot depth. Those are existing non-conformities that absent of purchasing land from adjacent properties. That's not something that could be changed with the application. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> All right. And then the rear yard setback, there's a 50-ft requirement where 31 ft is required. And uh, >> it's proposed >> is proposed. Sorry. And it is a corner lot. So you got two fronts, you got a rear and a side. The side really doesn't come into play here because of how elongated the lot is. It's really just
that rear yard because of the triangular nature of how everything comes together. And then the front yard setback, we put it in our letter as really potentially being required. Um, anytime an application comes before the board, we look at the master plan to see what the recommended right away is. Um, and you
know, if there it's deficient, ask them to, you know, uh, provide that right away so that way things can come into conformance with the master plan. Uh, the tax map showed 50 ft. The master plan says 60 ft. Um, I would say if the board is particularly concerned about
the setback or anything like that, uh, we could certainly require the applicant to dedicated as a roadway widening easement. Certainly, it would be cleaner if we do need the rightway for it to be just dedicated as a rightaway. I think they're making a good faith effort to try to sight it on the property and
comply with that front yard setback requirement. You know, if we made them shift it back further, it would then just push it further into the rear, exacerbating that relief. So, I really don't take an issue with it. We did have a similar application on an undersized lot with the septic system in the front yard on a corner lot. Uh I think it was
like Peskin further east than this property. >> It's a little bit further down, >> not that far. >> A little bit further down the road, but it's it's in the vicinity. And we were concerned about mounting of the septic system. Uh Mr. Sev, you do have board of health approval for the septic system proposed. Correct. >> That is correct.
>> And then when you did test pits, uh can you give us an idea on like the depth to the water table, you know, from grade? >> Sure. Uh I believe and I'll double check that we did not even hit seasonal high on this property. We did three test pits and all three of them
no groundwater indicators were observed for a depth of 10 feet. So ground water in this area is pretty pretty deep. >> So So usually when you have a mounted septic system, it's because you have a high water table. Uh you can either provide additional dosing before to kind of reduce the separation or you have to lift the system up. That doesn't seem to
be a concern here specifically since they have the Mammoth County Board of Health approval for the septic design. Um as far as the lot grading, can you give us some testimony on like the existing drainage patterns, what's proposed? Um, we did have a technical comment about the drywall needing to be
increased in size because our calculation differed a little bit from on the plan. Applicant have any issue with the dressing? >> We can coordinate that. >> All right. And then as far as the existing and proposed grading, can you just give some clarity? >> Sure. Where the house is cited on the plot plan roughly where the high point of the site is for this part of the
property and then it sheet flows towards West Farms Road andor Lemon Road and we'll continue to maintain that drainage pattern post construction. >> All right. So the front of the dwelling facing Lemon Road that generally is pitched towards Lemon Road. The frontage
that faces West Farms that generally breaks and pitches towards West Farms. The rear and the side it looks like it pitches also towards West Farms, but I see on the on the plot plan there is a low area on the property behind you or at least
from this property there's a 11617. Where does does that water just go onto the neighbor's property? Can you give us some clarity of what's there? >> That continues on towards the neighbor's property and then over to West Farms Road. Our topography just stopped there um as it relates to physical topography
of the property, but it continues on to West Farms Road. >> All right. So, it's largely the rear yard is going to be grassed, right? The roof area is being collected in a recharged dry well for the water quality storm and it would only overflow and then carry on that way. The driveway
itself, that's going to be pitched towards Lemon Road. So any runoff from the driveway will be will be directed towards the street right away and not in that area. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And there is an inlet at the intersection of West Farms Road and Lemon Road that picks up that storm water runoff. >> Okay. And then uh the only other comment
and it comes up on all these ones is uh they need a waiver for curb and sidewalk along the frontage. Um I'll let Jen chime in on that. Looking at the neighboring properties and the characteristic of the neighborhood there, it would certainly requiring the sidewalk would to me would be out of place. Um but typically if this board is
inclined to grant a waiver, it comes with the applicant making a contribution to the fund for this installation of sidewalk. Um it just because of the nature of this property, it being a corner lot and particularly elongated, you know, obviously that contribution would be pretty significant, especially
since the frontage on Lemon Road there is is pretty lengthy. But uh you know, I'll let Jen chime in on that and that's something for the board to ultimately decide on. Okay, Jen, chime away.
>> So, I'll opine on the issue of sidewalk. I I'm not I do not think that sidewalk is appropriate along Lemon Road. There's nothing there. I think a contribution along that. I do think however you need to evaluate the potential for sidewalk
along West Farms Road cons >> considering that there's been a significant number of development applications along West Farms. Um there's like literally zero shoulder. >> So anyone walking along West Farms is
going to be walking in the roadway. So that's something for you to consider. I'm not opining one way or the other. I just it's something for you guys to talk about. >> What I would ask, however,
um Mr. Jackson, is are you submitting the testimony regarding like the dimensional issues associated with the lot as a C1 or C2? >> We are uh under C1 and C2. Uh I did send
out the letter. I I believe the gentleman is here tonight. Um Mr. for uh Yera I believe. I he's here. I spoke to him. Um we we made a proposal to him based on what we believe is the fair market value. He declined at that price um under the law of hardship.
>> I agree. I'm just asking. >> So, so we're we're seeking it under C1 also um also under C2 on the basis that we're putting an attractive house there. We haven't put that up yet. But also, as you mentioned, the sidewalks and the road widening. We believe we advance the purpose of the municipal land use law by
this development will allow a road widening either dedication or easement as well as 150 ft of sidewalk along west forms road where it's uh could be needed where if we did the buy sell that wouldn't happen. So with those two considerations I think we could also justify the variance under C2. So the
reason I bring this up is that in order for them to to opine that the relief associated with like the lot area, the depth, the width, all those things, the dimensional requirements
are uh qualify under a hardship. They have to send the buy sell letters out to try to mitigate that issue. They've done that. There was interest. the interest was in my, you know, from what I understand, and I'm assuming the individual will come up when we open it
to the public, but the price was not what they wanted, but that's not what's required. They have to make the offer and they weren't requiring an exorbitant amount of of money. It wasn't like they were asking for $50 million for this
property. It was a legitimate offer. It was rejected. So, they are entitled to utilize the C1 hardship requirement because they did attempt to mitigate it in some way. I take no exception to the application. I don't think sidewalk on
Lemon Road is appropriate. If you guys feel sidewalk on West Farms is appropriate, that's fine. However, in this portion of West Farms, I can tell you there's zero sidewalk. >> So, it may be a situation where we, you
know, you know how I feel. You got to start somewhere. this may not be the place to start. I'm just going to throw that out there and therefore the contribution may be better utilized by the town to put sidewalk in an area where it's connecting a sidewalk network
or in in an area where we we do see sidewalks. So, >> you know that I'm usually the one pushing pushing pushing for sidewalk. I don't know that this site really is the one to fight that fight, but I'm going
to leave that to you. So there's really no new developments close enough where it's >> No, definitely. >> If there was a newer development or something's going to be happening soon, I could see your point at times we
should be pushing for the sidewalks in this situation. Uh I think we all tend to agree that there's >> like this is there this is an >> in go someplace that needs it. >> I I would I would agree with that, Mr. Chair. I think that we have other
sections of town where utilizing money that this applicant will put into our sidewalk fund to facilitate completing some sidewalk networks where we have the infrastructure in place >> is probably the best alternative.
>> Okay. Any qu any more from you guys? >> No. >> Okay. >> Board members, any questions? >> Yeah. Go. What's behind it or on the back of is that that development that was never developed? >> It's a farm. >> Yeah. >> On the back of it where the where the
where they're requesting relief. >> Yeah. The the new development's further down. Okay. >> Near Richard. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. >> Questions? Um, also with respect to the rear of the
property, and that's the rear considering the way the house is oriented, uh, as proposed, that looks like a dirt driveway back there. Is is that the applicant's property or is that the adjacent farm that that owns that dirt driveway back there? I'm looking at an aerial view of the
>> the adjacent property. >> Okay. All right. The only other question I had was the What's the side setback off of West Farms Road? How far is that? 97 ft. It's a little hard to read. >> A side step off of West Farms Road. That's a front. >> Okay. So, what would be that? Because
it's two fronts. >> 50t. >> You asking for the You asking the minimum or what the house at? >> What is it set at? >> The house is set right now at 97 and change feet off of the current property line. If we dedicate the additional
footage that's being required, it'd be about 85 feet. So 88 5T off of West Forms Road, >> the right of the property line. Yes. >> Okay, that's all I had. Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> Seeing none. Okay. >> Was the um the letter from Freehold Soil Conservation District uh satisfied? The one from May 12th, 2025? >> We have Freil certification. I'm not sure what's in that specific letter that
you're referring to, but we have their certification. >> Well, this one was um provide a two and 10 year pre and post storm water analysis of the disturbed acreage only. >> So, Nick, if they have freehold soil certification, they must have satisfied. >> They must have satisfied that that part of it. Okay. >> They're not going to issue a
certification if they're outstanding items. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Is there is there a farmland buffer requirement? Is that what we're >> not for a single family house? >> Okay.
>> Okay. Not seeing anything else. Um I think we will go to public. So I have a motion to go to public. >> Motion to go to public. >> Second motion. >> Second. All in favor? I. >> Eileen. >> The board will now be open to the public
for questions or comments. Please come up and state your name and your home address. Thank you. Good evening. >> Good evening. We'll need to swear you in. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> State your name for the record. Spell
your last year. >> 466 West Farms. >> Can you just spell your last name, sir? Yeah, y um I heard a lot going on. Be patient with me. It's my first time here, please. Um I heard there was an offer that was rejected. Um I never received a
letter. I never Well, I'm just making it clear. Can you stay where you should talk to the board? >> I I never got a letter. I actually received a letter 10 days ago. Um >> has the variance been granted yet? >> No. >> That's why we're here. >> Okay. Well, I'm just trying to
understand. Are you immediately adjacent? >> Yeah. If you could put the property back up on the big farm next to it where the need the 50 ft set back over your yard, but they only have 31 ft. That's my
property that it's going to back up to. Um I received a letter about 10 days ago saying if I'm interested on the property, which I am. I've been interested since the day I bought my property. the previous owner. The day after I bought my property, March 4, 2020, I tried to purchase the property.
>> Talk to them. >> I tried to purchase that property. I couldn't get a deal with the guy. The guy was extremely racist. I was born in Cuba and I heard a a Cuban comment every time I tried to talk to him. Um, the first time I got asked a lot of money for the property. Um, but anyhow, I
received this letter saying that I have to treat it as the variance has been granted. I don't know. So there's a requirement that if the lot is under size, which the lot is, they're required to sell to send these letters to their immediate adjacent neighbors
>> saying, "Do you want to buy my property or can I buy property from you?" >> Okay, >> that's what that is. >> Okay, so I'm interested in the property. I been interested in the property from the first day that I had that property. I brought my tax records. The property next to it is farm. I've read online
about the buffer zone, but I guess it's not for a single family dwelling. >> No, >> I think there should be some sort of a buffer because that's not fair. That side driveway that is a working farm. >> So, you're saying that you think you need a buffer from a single family home
with a driveway? >> Well, at least they should have the 50 ft. >> They do not require the 50 feet. That's not required. >> I'm saying they should have the 50 feet of setback. At least they How are you going to put a house 31 feet from my property? I mean, it's going to be nothing but a nightmare in the future.
And this is a hardship variance, which I don't see the hardship because I've been trying to buy this property. I have a contract that I signed. The realtor told us, the previous realtor, that if we signed that contract for the full asking price, we will get the property. We send that we signed the
contract. He called my realtor, the landlord, the owner himself called my realtor and said, this is when they dropped the price to 125. So if that Cuban wants it, he'll have to pay 160. >> So have you negotiated with Mr. Jackson? >> Uh I received a letter and right
>> Did you reach out to him? >> I sent it. I have the letter here. I have a copy of it. >> He's asking if he spoke to the lawyer. >> Did you speak to the lawyer who sent the letter? >> I signed my letter and I signed it. I sent it back to him that I was interested in the property. >> Okay. But have you reached out to him to
negotiate? >> This is how I reached out to him. So I was waiting for him to >> You get this, John? I Yes, I did. And I spoke to uh his attorney, Mr. Middleton, on two occasions. >> To get on record, Mr. Wait, one one at a time. Let him talk. >> Mr. Tim Middleton is not my lawyer. He's
a personal friend, and I called him to talk to him, and I guess they talked, but he's not a higher lawyer that I hire or anything like that. >> But he was talking on your behalf. >> Well, I guess he I don't he didn't even call me that he made that phone call. So I I had no doubt Tim Middleton would
call John Jackson and negotiate a deal on your behalf without your knowledge. >> Ma'am, with all due respect, he did not. He was supposed to call me back. He did not call me back. Okay. Once I send it to him and that's why I'm
here. If he was my higher attorney, he would be here. >> He's your BFF. He'd be here, too. >> He's not my BFF. He's a personal friend of the family. I mean, >> I just feel someone's negotiating on your behalf, you would make sure that they were here. >> Okay. But while I'm here and I'm interested in the property.
>> Okay. >> So, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Just for the record to clarify, I I did get the letter and I indicated that Mr. Civ indicated that right at the beginning. And the the letter as as indicated by Mr. Yara identifies that
you can either sell or buy. He checked he would be interested in in uh in buying. Uh the letter as in accordance with the law outlines it would be a value as if the variance were granted. And um I had a conversation about three or four days ago with Mr. Tim Middleton.
He indicated that that was his friend. And I conveyed and he said that he had a an offer to you know was interested. I told him $375,000. That's what my client felt was the fair market value. And I haven't heard back. And I also spoke to Mr. Yera in the back of the room today and he said at that
price he's not interested. My client >> he never said that. I he just mentioned it to me back there. >> Hey guys, maybe we should if they need to walk. >> Yeah, I like I don't think this needs to get argued in the >> Yeah, because we're going back and forth. >> Honestly, this is the first which this
is the first time that I ever heard of that price. Uh Mr. Jackson has representative. >> I understand that, but see, we're we're going back and forth on this. So, let's take five >> and you guys go in the back and chat. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We can probably do the last the other application while they're >> Yeah, one other thing before we go off. >> You have cop. Did you submit the buy sell letters? >> I have right here with the certified. >> Okay, that would be helpful. >> I'll hand
Thank you. >> Yeah. No, I don't know. So, no. So, what we'll do, I think Jennifer's idea is good. I think we should maybe get the other application in because I don't think that's going to take too long. >> So, if everybody's good, we'll >> Yeah, that's a good idea.
>> So, let's move to the next application. [Applause] Andy, is there any formality that we have to we've never done this before? We're waiting. >> Yeah. Right. >> Um, >> is there is there anyone else from the P? We should just find out if there's
anyone else from the public here on this application. >> Okay. Yeah, we're still open. So, we haven't closed yet. >> Yeah. I don't Is that Yeah. >> Anybody else from public like to make a comment >> before we >> Okay. >> Okay. A motion to close. >> Motion to close.
Second. All in favor? >> I. >> So I think with that, Mr. Chairman, we'll the board could >> just go jump. Let's just >> adjourn or put the here remainder of the hearing off until the applicants come back. Applicant and the adjoining land
owner come back. >> So we can't do anything with the other. >> No, I think you can. Okay, that's all it says. >> Let's do that and we'll >> Okay. Okay. The next application is case number BA214. Ralph and Gerald Dean Martinez seeking a
bulk variance. Applicants Ralph and Gerald Dean Martinez as applicants and owners seeking bulk variance approval for a recently constructed patio and pavers that were installed within the required side and rear yard setback on
premise known as block 1.20 20 lot 361 Deborah Deborah Deborah Lane expiration February 25th 2025. Good evening. Welcome back. >> Good evening ladies and gentlemen. >> Okay.
So, what's going on? >> So, we had a pool and a concrete. >> Before you go on, sir, maybe just identify yourselves for the record first and then I'll swear you in. >> Sure. >> Why don't you stand up? Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? I do. >> Okay. State your names for the record. Spell your last. >> Ralph Martinez. M A R T I N E Z. >> Gerald E. Martinez. M A R T I N E Z. >> And your husband and wife? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, >> pool install concrete was installed as uh per plans around the pool. Uh once we got the scope of what everything looked like, there wasn't very much room. Um, so we kind of looked at, we knew we couldn't extend the concrete because it was permanent at the time. We thought we can extend it with patios, uh, paper
patios rather because they're removable. So we went about three more feet from, uh, what we're supposed to as far as the, uh, the initial variance for approximately about a 75 ft running. >> Okay. So Jen, what are they uh, seeking now? >> Yeah. So, this applicant, they were
actually before the board to get relief to build a pool with a concrete patio uh with certain set side and rear yard setbacks that were approved by the board. >> Um, as part of that application, I think they the prior homeowner had like a pool at some point and there was like concrete that almost essentially went to
the side in the rear property line. With what they were proposing, they were actually pulling that back, reducing impervious coverage. Um, so it did afford the applicant opportunity to kind of grade around the pool to get water to go towards the rightway and not onto neighbors properties. I think when they were here last time, some of the
testimony was that they're kind of like on the low side of the neighboring property. So any runoff that would be generated would essentially like kind of flow across their property and towards the uh the street. So, um, you know, we can open up to the public and if any members of the public have any concerns
regarding like drainage, um, that would be where my concern would come from because that's the reason why the ordinance says 10 foot set back to pools and or to to sidewalks around it to allow the there to be room to grade and let things like percolate and not go on to neighbors properties. Um, I think
this is a little bit different case. Um, where, you know, they probably could have, if they wanted to the first time around, sought some relief to kind of maybe build right to what was there previously. Um, when they were here last time, you know, it was positive that
they were shrinking the patio, but I don't recall there being neighbors who were particularly concerned about what had existed there. So, um, really they built the pool, the concrete, they just added patio, you know, further beyond what they were allowed to to or got approval for the first time around. But,
you know, I would open it up to the public. If there's concern, that's where my concern would come from. If there's not, I really don't have an issue with it. >> Charlie, question. Are pavers considered pvious or impervious? For our purposes, they are considered impervious, but uh you know, sometimes if the join and has
sand and stone under what they're in, if you if you stick pavers in concrete >> Well, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Then it's impervious. If it's in sand, that's different. But like it depends. If it's a driveway where you're driving over it, it gets compacted. So like we
here consider it impervious. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, we did have rain over the weekend, over the summer. You know, this is you built this. How long has the patio been here before you submitted your asbuilt to try to close out the permit? This has been like this for >> existing since uh 21. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we did have a
particularly harsh summer with a lot of rain. So, I would think if a neighbor had a concern about the runoff, we'd hopefully see them here tonight. So, if there's no neighbors or public that are concerned, I I don't have an issue with it. >> Jennifer, >> same >> same same thought.
Board members, >> just real quick, >> the um document that was presented to us, >> the neighbor behind you, am I reading this correct? They run pavers directly up to the fence as well. >> Their backyard, yes, they have uh PA
stones also also to the fence. >> Okay. So, where does any of the rain runoff go if everybody's pavered up? >> We when part of our initials that we had drains put in also. So there's drains on the side of our home. >> So there are drains in the bigger. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Would you know if your neighbor has any? >> I don't I wouldn't. >> Just Just figure I'd ask. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So you're on the low end of the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We never have an issue. I mean, everything runs out towards the street.
It's never been a problem. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> There's a lawn area on the side, too, right? A little bit of >> Yeah, the other side of where that patio is. The back end is grass. Yeah. The whole other side of the house is grass. Yeah. If that picture right before, if you go back, you'll see it. >> Okay.
>> That whole side of the house is all grass. >> Yeah. Looks really >> Oh, I remember. Yeah. >> Looks very nice. >> Yeah, it's beautiful. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, if there's no more questions from the board, we're going to have a motion to go to public.
>> Motion to open to the public. Second by Mr. O'Donnell. All in favor? Yes. Hi. Hi. >> The board will now open to the public for any questions or comments. Please come up and state your name and address. >> Motion close to the public.
>> Second by Emory. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, anything else from anybody then? I'd like to entertain a motion. >> Go ahead. Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
that we grant the variance requested. Both bulk varants requested. >> I second the motion to >> Okay. Second by Mr. Burillo. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caner.
>> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ryan. >> Yes. >> Miss Scottson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kabarakus? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Merren? >> I'm jealous. That's really nice. >> Yes. Same. >> Same. >> Approve. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Party even. >> Yeah, they'll they'll be hosting a party later. >> Yeah, I'm only around the corner. So, let us know. >> I'm down the street. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, we'll take a five minute break.
>> The board will now take a five minute break and reconvene at 7:51 p.m. The meeting will now reconvene. >> Okay. Where are we? >> We we had a conversation as I indicated the um >> well I I don't have to recount the exact
sequence of when and how I spoke to Mr. Middleton, but um it's a little different. But anyway, the um I I had told the gentleman our price is 375. he thinks that's too high. Um, we're also, uh, you know, my client purchased the property. He has engineering, he has
legal, he has the application fee, he has the architectural fees. Um, and we're seeking our variance, not only I'll address that at the end, but not under C1 and C2. Um, he's had the property for over a year. Property is unique. He wants to build this house for his daughter. Um, I'll make the arguments at the end of the case why I
think we're entitled under C1 and C2 regardless of the buy, sell. Um that's one factor that the board can consider the buy cell and um >> I don't think it has any delletterious impact on the running of a farm. Gentleman might disagree with me on that
but um that's we'll make our case but right now we can't agree on the price. >> Okay. Do you have any further what else would you like to put on the >> thing I could say is um >> hey to >> I well I just uh Jennifer I called Mr.
Tim put it on the phone because I never heard from him. So, I just wanted that clear that I'm not here lying or any of that. Um, the first time that I ever heard about 375 was tonight. Um, I don't know what the property is really worth. I know what I was willing to pay all the
time. Um, do I get like a fair market hearing? Like, how does that >> That's a legal issue. >> I mean, even if the board proceeds and does whatever the board's going to do tonight, you could still try to purchase the property. I mean, if you're able to
reach an agreement, >> don't I get like an appraiser and like to figure out what the property is really worth? Cuz I had no time to figure out what the property is worth or tonight I just get here and I get thrown 375. I have to make my mind about it right now. Like I mean,
>> you mentioned that you signed a contract. >> Yes. >> When was that? >> Uh last year. >> Around when last year? >> So about November. or I want to say they dropped the price from 160 to 125 which in 3 days of that I had a signed
contract send it their way and the gentleman the realtor his realtor called my realtor and said if you sign full asking price um you'll get the property >> so your contract was for 125 >> 125 so that was the asking price that's what we were informed by his realtor um
and then he reached out to my realtor and said what I said before tell that Cuban that if he wants it to him is 160. So I actually really never had a fair shot uh buying this property. >> Okay. But that's not >> nothing to do with
>> I just think the board understand that >> the board just as a factor the buy sell like it didn't work like it failed. >> I have a copy of the contract here the day that I signed it and everything if anybody wants to review it. I mean I understand what's going on here tonight
but you ask me and that's exactly what happened. And if they would have said to me, you know what, 135 is what it takes. I would pay the 135. I want to clear it. I want to add it to my property. I had I heard a comment outside. You want to build on it? I'm willing to sign anything that I would not build on that
property. I just want it added to my property. >> It's the interest that I have from Mr. Jackson. >> Secret legal issue for >> Yes. Has nothing to do with the case. If he isn't happy with that contract, he should be suing or somebody should be suing somebody, but it shouldn't be interfering with the case as it is. I
agree Mr. O'Donnell. >> So the only issue, Mr. Chair, with respect to the buy cell is if the applicant is using the size of the property and claiming that the variance relief for the undersized lot is a
hardship. That's the only time we require buy. If they provided testimony, which Mr. CIV did to justify the undersized lot under a C2 or the flexible C. The buy sell issue is irrelevant to this proceeding. They can
now they can negotiate their issue separately, but Mr. Civ did put C2 criteria on the record to justify the size of the property, which is the only issue associated with the buy sell. It
has nothing to do with them proposing to develop the property. It's just how they choose to justify the fact that the site is undersized. They have provided both C1 and C2 testimony. Correct, Mr. Jackson?
>> Yes. So therefore, in the event that the buyell is unsuccessful, they're going to, and I don't mean to speak for you, rely upon the C2 testimony that has been provided, which does not require the buyell issue. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So here we have a single family house with some relief. That's the only thing you guys should focus on. So to clarify, >> what you're saying is we're considering the merits of this application for these two variances
>> regardless of any other transaction. Correct. They want to build a house on this piece of property. >> That's it. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I have a question about the house, and forgive me, I've got langitis, so I apologize. Um, I don't normally sound this horse. Um, was there any consideration of building the house
wide rather than deep to accommodate that 50 foot setback or try to make it a little less make it more give them more set back versus the 30 plus that you're asking for? >> Yeah. Is the witness finished with his testimony and then we'll >> we we closed.
>> No, no, we didn't close. >> Oh, we didn't we closed. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, but he would I guess this witness had this objector or neighbor had >> Okay. >> was pending when you did that. So, is there anything else other than the the
buy sell issue you want to raise about the the proposed uh project? >> You're asking me? >> Yeah. I well I I don't know how to speak fancy but all I'm saying is if a house goes there 31 feet away from the farm
there's going to be a lot of complaining with the manure and where all the stuff is the same thing that happens all the time with the farms that's why with the bigger developments they get the 50 foot buffers know what's going to happen >> so I just so I just want to provide the board some clarity too right so we heard the
applicant's testimony on the reason why they're citing it to front on Lemon Road from a safety perspective perspective the same dwelling footprint that they have. If they rotated in 90° facing West Farms Road and shifted it closer to West Farms Road, that rear yard would be treated as a sideyard and they probably
could do this as a byite other than the existing non-conformity for the lot area and the lot depth >> because the sideyard setback's 30 ft. >> Correct. So, I mean, we heard why they're citing the way it is and why they're asking for relief. It's because they feel like Lemon Road is the safer alternative. >> I agree. I think that's a
>> agreed, but understand they could shift it and then it would be a sideyard setback which they would comply with. >> I'm not I'm not suggesting that they need to do that. I'm just saying like this is why because they want it to be a safer alternative, but I think it's important for this neighboring property owner to be cognizant of that that like,
you know, >> they could do something else with this and they would essentially be working with like things that couldn't be rectified uh other than buy sell. Well, seems to me too that he's the owner of the property knows he's
building a house with the farm on the other. The farm's already there. So, whatever is there, he knows he's building a house next to a farm. >> Mr. Ya, are you concerned about the fact that he might complain about the farm? I'm just trying to get understanding. That's all. >> Absolutely. They will. They do all the
time. We have another farm that we've run on 463 Casino Drive and there was a development that went back there and they're always complaining about something. Either smell of the manure or the flies or they're always complaining about something. >> So whether they're 30 feet or 50 feet, that's going to be a similar issue
>> to be perfectly fair. >> So I would just submit Mr. Jackson, you're representing that your client is looking to build a house for his daughter. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you're going to stipulate on the record that you acknowledge that next door is a farm.
>> We think that's a huge upside. >> Okay. But what I'm saying is that >> there's an acknowledgement. Mr. Bear, is there any way we can put as a condition of approval that there's some kind of stipulation that they submit like an
acknowledgement like in writing notoriize that they recognize that there's a farm next door. So when if at some point in the future they come to the governing body to complain about the farm, we have a piece of paper saying, >> "Well, Jen, I would just put it in the resolution."
>> Okay. But like >> it's it's a farm. We know it. >> Jennifer, I agree with you. And that should be in there. And it should also carry forward the same as the variance. Correct. Because if the daughter leaves the next one comes in, then they'll be complaining. >> I think I think that's why Andy's ask
putting it in the resolution of approval for that. Okay. >> In the event you guys approve the application that it's in there and it carries with the land like the variance. That's >> so we're trying to mitigate or take care of your concerns about whether it's this
applicant or a subsequent owner complaining about your farming activities. >> Yeah, that that gets recorded on the deed. So, any future property owner is able to pull up that deed to see that this was something that the owner was aware of when this lot was built. And
then I just want to note it for the record and just >> I honestly don't understand. Sorry, I just don't understand how it's R2 acres. You need two acres. They have 152 and they don't have the setbacks and it's allowed to go through. >> So every property in town is entitled to
come to the board to be developed. Just because it's under size doesn't mean they're not entitled to come for a development. What they're asking for is a permitted use in the zone and they're entitled to ask for relief. At the end of the day, I understand you're unhappy
with the fact that they're asking for the relief because they're right next door, but it doesn't negate the fact that every person who owns property in town is entitled to be able to utilize the property they own. So, I I get you
want to buy it and and we're encouraging you to continue negotiations outside the bounds of this body. However, we're regulated by the municipal land use law and they're entitled to come and seek relief and the bottom line is that they're asking for a single family
house. If they were asking for something other than a single family house, I don't think we'd be having this conversation cuz I think the board would be like, "No, at the end of the day, it's a single family house in a single family zone on a property that's like
half an acre low, less than is allowed in the zone." And as we just said, if they shifted the footprint of this house to face West Farms Road, they wouldn't need a variance from your property line because the sideyard is 30 ft, not 50
ft. So, they would be compliant and the only thing that they would have to get relief from is the size of the property, which at this point there's, you know, not an opportunity to rectify that situation. So, that's how the board operates. This board is a zoning board
of adjustment. All they deal with is variances. If everybody did everything according to the zoning as it stipulates in the zoning, this body wouldn't even exist. That's that's why they're here. And they're looking to evaluate whether
or not the relief that's being requested is reasonable. >> And that's kind of where we're at. >> Okay. >> Do you understand? I mean, it's I I I get it. We get it. But, you know, this
is technically how it works. >> And what the planner is saying is absolutely true. >> They're entitled to come here and after we vote on it, then what goes on from there is not in our hands anymore. So,
but the resolution is going to be more beneficial to you >> with what um our engineer was saying having a clause in there where no one's going to be coming and complaining, you're going to have more than what you
had before you came to this meeting. So, I think there's some positive come out for you. So, but after we make a decision, then it's, you know, it's out of our hands as far as the transactions.
Okay. Anything else? >> How many copies of this? >> Any more questions? >> Can I Okay, Mr. Jackson. >> Yeah, if I can supplement, I have exhibit 15 copies. Mr. S will testify what we're looking at. We'll be paying these different no there a survey from
1965 showing a house there. aerial photographs from 2002 showing the house was there then and then also showing the foundation that's there now uh from uh July 2007 just a wood around it now
that foundation still there now [Applause] >> didn't we finish I just want to make that part >> yeah we finished testimony be open to the public. They were closed to the public with the exception of him. Now it's closed. Like I don't know why we're introducing new exhibits.
>> They meet the front. They meet the back. They meet the sides. Now they meet everything. >> All right. I'll I'll Yeah. I don't you know I agree. There's >> the footprint. >> It's a footprint. >> It's just showing the foundation. I'm sorry.
>> They closed it earlier with the exception of this individual. >> Yeah. We had said earlier if there was anybody else and nobody responded. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Mr. Jackson, can you uh do your summary then, please?
>> Thank you. Um we're >> closed, right? >> Yep. >> Yes, John. >> Thank you. Just um thank you. So, we're seeking the variance under C1 and under C2. want to see one. There's a hardship that you can't acquire property at, you
know, fair market value. Uh, which we've made the offer to sell it at 375. My client bought this property. He's put in money to get engineering to have the vision to put a house there, to make the application, etc. Architectural plans. He has a beautiful vision there to have
his daughter live there. Real estate's unique. Um, it's in a great location. It's next to a forum. We see that as a positive. So we Cox says that the buyell availability is only one factor to be considered under hardship. Um you know the unique nature of this
property where it's located. We think that that is another basis for a hardship. Also under C2 we advance the purpose of the municipal land use law because we're providing a an appropriate house an appropriate location. It's a residential zone. We have a very nice house that's designed just for this
location. We've moved it off of West Farms Road and uh put it on Lemon, which is the better frontage for this type of development. Uh we're providing to paying into the pedestrian safety fund for sidewalks. We're providing road widening, which benefits the community at large that advances the purpose of
municipal land use law. And then on top of that, we're also also into the fund for the sidewalks that would go on West form. So, we're helping pedestrian safety. We're widening the road. We're providing an appropriate house. And we're eliminating a broken down old foundation that's on a property now to
put a beautiful house there. So we're hopeful that the board sees that also as advancing the purposes under min under scene and and can grant the relief. Thank you for your time. >> Excuse me. >> Anything else from the professionals where we
>> uh the only comment I have is just want to put on the record for the property owner and future property owners should the board act favorably. Uh obviously it's a corner lot so you've got two technical frontages. The ordinance does have some uh allowances for like putting accessory structures in that practical
side that's still a front yard. Uh just obviously before you come in at time of plot plan or anytime in the future just be aware of that like you don't need a variance relief for an accessory structure in the front yard but there's still you got to comply with the front yard set back requirements things like that. just noting it now so you know
don't want you to get tripped up on a time of a future as built for a shed or something like that that's at 45 ft where 50 ft's required so >> Mr. Fry has heard that. Thank you for the advice. >> Okay. Nothing else from the board. Okay.
I would like to entertain a motion on this application. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve this application upon everything we agreed upon. And I think it's smart that you put the driveway entrance on Lemon
Road off of West Farms Road because I've been going up that road for years. There's accidents all the time. If I couldn't get the entrance on Lemon Road, I I don't even wouldn't even want to build the house if I had to put the entrance on West Farms Road. So, we
should grant you both variances, the C1 and the C2 and everything else you agreed upon with the sidewalks and and everything. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have motion by Mr. O'Donno. Do we have a second? >> I'll second the motion.
>> Okay, Eileen. Roll call. >> Mr. Barillo, >> yes. >> Mr. Caner, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Mr. Ryan, >> yes. >> Miss Scottson, >> yes. >> Mr. Cavarakis, >> yes. >> And Chairman Mertens, >> I agree with Mr. O'Donnell. This is a
much safer place to have a driveway. So, my vote is yes as well. >> Application is approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hey, John. Hey John, [Applause] >> is there any further business of the
board before we adjourn? >> Just wishing Eileen all the best. >> Yeah, Eileen. >> Yeah, Eileen. >> Yeah, >> congratulations. >> Yeah, >> the next meeting is on the 24th. >> On the 24th of November then Okay. which
depending on flight's got. >> Okay. At this time, do I have a motion to close? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Ryan. All in favor? >> Safety.