and justice for all. >> This meeting complies with the open public meetings act noted. This meeting still complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting was published on the municipal bulletin board and the applicable newspapers.
>> Okay. Roll call, please. Kathleen. >> Mr. Heyman >> here. >> Mr. Martins >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Miss Cusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. >> Miss Bradley >> here.
>> Do we have any resolutions this evening? >> We do not. Okay, I do have uh two sets of minutes. One was a makeup set from March 5th of 2025 and we need a motion and a second to approve those minutes.
>> Motion. >> Oh, so the eligible ones to vote are Dr. Hoffstein, uh, Miss Rosal, myself, Mr. Heyman, and Mr. Martins. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> I also have minutes from our last meeting um in November 19th. Eligible to vote are everyone but Dr. Hopstein. I
mean Dr. Hopstein, Mr. Marian. Don't ask me why I said that. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. >> Mr. Heyman. >> Yes. Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano,
>> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> I'll do better on this one and get it right. I have two vouchers. One for this evening's recording secretary in the amount of $175
and one for the uh makeup minutes for March 5th of 2025 in the amount of 100. I need a motion and a second to pay the vouchers, please. Motion to approve both. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins,
>> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Selectia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> Miss Cypriani, we have announcements for this evening. >> Yes, we do. Number three on the agenda,
James Hughes, 280 Faraday Avenue. Um that was uh to be heard tonight. It's being carried to the February 4th, 2026 meeting and notice is being required. >> No executive session for this evening.
Any matters for discussion? >> Nope. >> All right, we can swear on our professionals. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that or affirm that the testimony you give this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name and position for the record.
>> Mark Romire, board engineer. Ernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Tumalo, assistant zoning officer. >> Okay. No administrative approvals for this evening. So, we are going to move to applicant number one. Miss Jenny's. >> Applicant number one.
>> Yes. >> Applicant number one, which we're going to switch to applicant number two. We're going to start with applicant number two on the agenda, Raphael Farhe. And if I mispronounced, I apologize. Interpretation 35. Perfect timing. 3540.
>> Miss Jennings, the reason for the change is that uh board member uh Cusano has a conflict with uh Burnbalm, so she'll leave after Far. >> I'm sorry, I can't hear. I I'm sorry. I
can't hear you. the microphone for me. >> I can tell you, Miss Jennings, that the board's determination to get to a vote in that matter is maybe not quite as great as your own, but pretty close. Okay. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm Wence
Goldman and Spitzer. On behalf of the applicant, as the board is aware, the applicant is here this evening uh seeking minor subdivision approval and an interpretation for property at three Bear Trail and 44 Pittney Lane, which
are identified as block 20201, lot 40 and block 21003, lot 2, on the township's tax map. on the three bare trail portion of the property. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing single family residential dwelling and construct a new two-story
single family dwelling. As for 44 Pittney Lane, the existing two-story dwelling will be converted into a guest pool house. Those lots will also be consolidated into a new proposed lot. Once consolidated, the property will be approximately 2 acres. And in addition to the new single family dwelling and
the guest house, a swimming pool covered cabana and perimeter fencing will make up the remaining substantial improvements. Applicant is seeking an interpretation of ordinance section 244-6A and 244-47B8 to ascertain whether the guest pool
house shall be deemed an accessory or principal building. It is the applicant's position that the guest pool house which is existing and proposed to remain is an accessory building. An accessory building is defined in ordinance section 244-6A as quote a building which is customarily
associated with and subordinate and incidental to a principal building and which is located on the same lot therewith close quote. The guest house is intended to be subordinate to and will complement the new principal home on three bear trail. The applicant will
reside and primarily use the new home not the guest home. The guest house will be used for the enjoyment and entertainment of guests and for residents from time to time. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to have a guest house located in the same lot of a principal home that contains a pool. If the guest house is deemed a principal
building, the applicant will alternatively seek a D1 use variance because no more than one principal building or structure is permitted on a lot used for a single family or two family dwelling purposes. If required, the record will alternatively and independently establish that the applicant satisfies a positive and
negative criteria to warrant the request of relief. Um, with respect to um the proofs, we are going to present the testimony of several witnesses, Yehuda Back, our site engineer, John Daney, our planner, and Nali Gut, our architect if
needed. So with that, we are in receipt of one review letter dated, it's the board engineers review letter dated September 9th, 2025. So if we could have uh Yehoodi uh sworn in, we can just kind of describe what we're doing so you understand and then we'll have the planner testify on the
interpretation and we might as well do the use variance at the same time >> if that's your preference. >> Uh do you swear or affirm that the uh testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? And would you state your name for
the record? I think Miss Jennings did, but honestly, she spoke so quickly I didn't get it. >> Can you give him the microphone, please? I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. >> Thank you. >> Okay. My name is Yehuda Back, BACK. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the
state of New Jersey. Um, just a little background, I I started working in engineering with New Lines Engineering in 2017, which is also when I started college right here in Ocean County College. From there, I transferred to NJIT where I graduated in August of 2021
with a bachelor's of science and civil engineering. Um, then I took the required FEP exams and about a year later received my PE license. Since then, I have been testifying in front of boards throughout New Jersey, though I have never been in front of this board. So, thank you for having me. If this
board accepts your credentials, I'm just going to ask that while you're testifying, if you could just speak louder. I'm sure you can tell. Sure. The acoustics are terrible. >> Yes. >> And the lighting is glaring. That too is going on. >> It used to be super dim. Now it's super glaring. >> It's blinding me. Literally paint.
>> Okay. So, if you could um Mr. Back uh just uh if you're going to rely on any exhibits, let's identify them for the record and just describe the existing conditions and what the applicant proposes to do here. >> Sure. So the variance plan in front of you has been prepared under my direction. I have four exhibits. Exhibit
A1 is our variance plan. Exhibit A2 is our grading plan. Exhibit A3 is the existing condition/demolition plan. And exhibit A4 is the aerial overlay. If I if we can pull up exhibit A3, which is the existing condition plan, I'll get
started. Thank you. So on this plan, north is up. On the top of the site, you can see I'll try to point it out. Oh, that doesn't work. Doesn't work. On the top of the site, you can see Bear Trail, which is a township rightway.
On the bottom of the plan, you see Pittney Lane, which is also also a township rightway. Look at that. It's the top of the plan, you have Bear Trail. The bottom, we have Pittney Lane. And you can kind of make out the two lots that are existing, and
I'll describe them. So, the first lot is Three Bear Trail. That's on the top or north of this of this site. Um, it's block 20201, lot 40. The lot contains 1 acre and is currently improved with a two-story single family dwelling, a
pool, a shed, a hot tub, and a covered outdoor area. All existing improvements on this lot are proposed to be removed except for the wood walkway which is all the way off to the right or the east side. The second lot in question is 44 Pittney
Lane or the bottom one, the south side, which contains 1.01 acres and is currently improved with a single family dwelling with a wooden deck, basketball area, driveway, and a PA area. All existing improvements on this lot are proposed to remain.
Um, we are located in the R1 zone. The immediate surrounding properties are all residential in nature. Um, we are proposing to consolidate these two properties. Um, which would mean removing that separating property line
between the two. Um, can we please pull up A1 just to see what we're proposing? So, as I said, on the bottom property, everything is to remain as is. On the north northern property, which is Bear
Trail, we are proposing a two-story single family dwelling. Um, additional improvements include a swimming pool, a septic field, a covered cabana, and fencing that will surround the perimeter of the property. The main entrance to this to this property will be off of Bear Trail on
the north um with a secondary entrance provided on the south side of the property off of Pittney Lane. The site is currently serviced by septic and public water and will continue in this manner because the property is proposed to be consolidating consolidated and the
existing home to remain on the Pittney lane frontage is now going to be an accessory structure. A variance is required for having an accessory structure in a front yard that Pittney since we have the the two frontages bear trail and pit and pitney lane. Other than that we are in compliance with the
R1 zoning requirements. Uh should the board approve this application, a plot plan will be submitted to the zoning department >> and you had an opportunity to review the board engineers uh re review letter of September 2025. Do you have any comments that you'd like to address?
>> No. >> You're good with everything that he says in there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's really all the direct testimony from this witness. >> Any questions or comments, Mr. Roier? >> Yes. Just a couple follow-up comments for the applicants engineer. Just want
to go through a few items just so everyone's clear. So, the applicants engineer already stated they're proposing to remove that shared rear lot line. Um, which does have some effect. Typically, it would
separate the two neighbors rear yards and provide some separation, but in this case, it's now all one proposed as all one new owner for the entire property. Um, so there's there is now a pool basically straddling or on top of that
where that shared line was. Um, just to keep that in mind. Uh and now that there's one large lot I've recommended in comment six that uh we just take into account actually comment seven we take into account how
the building coverage and impervious coverages are affected. So just if we go through comment seven for building coverage 15% coverage is permitted. So on lot 40
5.3% exists and 21.6% is proposed which which would not typically comply without the consolidation. So in other words overall with the combined lots they meet the requirements for the building
coverage but technically there's there's a lot more building coverage on the upper lot. That's the larger house. Um, and on lot two, which is the bottom lot with the smaller, that's the existing house to be converted to the guest
house. 6.8% exists and 7.7% is proposed. So, that would comply. Uh, and then when it's consolidated into as proposed into the large piece, as I said before, it would still comply. But my concern is if
you have such a large building on the top half of the lot per se, does that have any effect on the neighbors? And I'll ask that to the applicants engineer. Does having a so much mass on the upper portion of the lot have any effect on the neighbors properties uh in
your opinion? >> So from an engineering standpoint >> without any design, yes, but we will be obligated to provide grading and and any drainage, drywalls or you know the regular for the houses. Okay. Yeah. So, that was my concern. If you if the applicant's able to address the grading
and the drainage to make sure that um that portion of the lot is properly handled with the with the large building footprint. And then when it comes to impervious coverage, 50% coverage is permitted. So, looking at them separately, they both would comply and
also looking at it combined would comply. So there there is a lot of um impervious coverage but overall they are within the limits. So I just wanted to bring that item those items up. Um just regarding storm water, can you
just can the applicants engineer please confirm uh you're able to properly grade and infiltrate water for the site? >> Yeah. >> Okay. and off- streetet parking. You have ample room to as per the RSIS requirements.
>> Yes. >> For off streetet parking spaces. >> Okay. From an engineering standpoint, that's all I have. >> Mr. Peters, >> Madam Chair, um I guess my question is actually Miss Jennings. In your opening,
I I heard you use the word minor subdivision. Um is this simply a lock consolidation? >> It is. I must have misspoke. It's a lock consolidation. >> Just double checking because >> No worries. >> That's all I had. Thank you.
>> Any questions for the engineer? >> I don't know if there goes the engineer or just Miss Jennings. Uh we have two deeds for the properties. Each deed has a sept different owners. Have they been consolidated yet?
>> No, we have not consolidated the lots. We will consolidate the lots if the board gives us the approval. We're here seeking an interpretation. We were consolidate the lots. Does it become two principal uses on one lot or is it as we believe one principal use with an accessory use? So that's part of the
challenge that you're going to be determining. But no, we have not consolidated the lots as of yet because they're actually two conforming lots as they stand today. So they don't need to be consolidated. The applicant just wishes to consolidate. I'm sorry, just mentioning just I want to clarify if the
the deeds are in the names of two separate individuals or entities, does the applicant have site control >> on both lots? >> The the client's indicating they're in they're in their name. >> Yeah, >> absolutely.
Madam Chair. >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> One follow-up question for the engineer. Um to the best of your knowledge from the plans that you've submitted, um there are no bulk variances that are being requested. >> No. based upon this design either as it relates to the
new building, existing building, whether we call them principal, accessory, the location of the pool, the proposed fences to the best of your knowledge, they comply and the applicant's not requesting any relief for those. >> Correct.
>> Thank you. >> Any questions? Mr. Mr. Hyman, >> I just want to know how the um the fact that you're having one, they're both really um front, they both have frontage. How would that work out? Meaning, if you have on Bear Trail and
on Pittany Lane, um what's the front, what's the rear, and do they have the same setbacks as they had before? >> They they will have the same setbacks. They both it's actually going to be a little bit wor and not worse but they both will have front yard setbacks which
we're complying with both the beer trail and the pitney. >> So you're saying that on Pittney Lane it doesn't become a rear yard. >> No because it fronts the street. So just by definition it's a front yard. >> Guys I just want to clarify that because there are properties in town which do
back to frontage and they are considered the township does consider them as rear. So I don't know the specific one. That's why I'm asking. Thank you. >> Any additional questions for the engineer? >> Would you like to call your next witness?
>> Sure. At this time, I'll call up the planner, John Dini. Do you swear affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And could you state your name and your credentials for the record? >> Hi, my name is My name is John Taikina.
I'm a licensed cler in the state of New Jersey. Happy to my studies at R University in 1992. spent the last 33 years doing this. >> Yeah, that's just being picked up. >> I thought it was me. >> Hi, my name is John.
>> I'm still a planner in the state of New Jersey and have been since 1992 when I completed my studies at Ruckers University. I've done this for the last 33 years, testify before planning and zoning boards throughout the state and around the country on behalf of applicants just like this. I've appeared before more than 180 boards around the
state. I was last here uh earlier in the fall and it's nice to be back. >> Mr. Teen, that the board this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um so I am here to talk about the application from a planning standpoint. Um board's actually being asked to do something you don't do
a whole lot of which is uh interpret the ordinance. It is absolutely one of the uh things that you're entrusted with and and it's absolutely part of the due process of our zoning process. So I give the township a lot of credit that it you
know let the process roll out the way that it's supposed to. Um, I do believe according to the definitions that that are provided in your ordinance and how the applicant is uh stating that we're going to operate the facility. We're going to operate the property that we
have a principal residential structure that'll be at three at Bear Trail Lane at Bear Trail, I guess. And uh and then we have, you know, an accessory guest house that'll be at uh 44 Pittney Lane. the 44 Pitney Lane address will go away
um because it will be a principal residence at Three Bear Trail. Um and everything uh would be accessory. Everything else on the property would be accessory. Um and uh again it would be consolidated lots. So everything would go together. Uh I understand the
engineer's concern about looking at it differently and you have more things on one side of the property than the other but in general all of it um is compliant in terms of bulk standards and coverage etc. And the applicant does have uh the obligation to go through and and make
sure we plot a plot plan and we have good drainage and all those things and your ordinance provides for all of those uh all of those elements. So I think it would be most appropriate for the board to find that is an accessory uh accessory use for a guest house um with
the principal dwelling at three bear trail. Um I and then by the nature of that um we would end up Ernie with a with what is technically a bulk variance in that the
guest house at Pittney Lane now is an accessory structure in the front yard of uh that exists on Pittney. So as Mr. Kyman, you know, requested talked about, you know, in your ordinance, if you have frontage and access, they're both
treated as front yards. So, the applicant has the quoteunquote burden of having two front yards. Um, in this instance, it' be a C2 variance. Again, you'd have variance relief typically with your C2s. Um, so we need to show it's um relates to this specific piece
of property. Um, we need show we advance some of the purposes of zoning. we need to show why this represents a better planning alternative then would be a compliant plan and then obviously we have our negative criteria. So um this relief would relate specifically the
three bear trail no other property um conveying this approval doesn't convey any precedence to any other property. Um somebody else would have have to have a want to have an accessory structure in the front yard would have to make their own case. Um there's no precedence that applies. Um, in terms of uh this
application, I think it's a C2 variance. I think it represents a better planning alternative to have a guest house that looks exactly like a single family residential house, just like every other house on Pittney Lane. Um, exist in that
front yard and and really continue to present that full home appearance uh on on that front yard. Again, the concerns generally from a planning standpoint with an accessory structure is they're usually smaller. They might be unsightely. They might contain things
that um you know, you typically want to put put in the back, if you will. Um whether it's a shed or something like that. In this house, in this instance, it's a guest house. So, it's it's actually a house and it provides a much better presence on Pittney Lane, I think, than other what other accessory
structures uh formally would be. um we need to uh talk about advancing some of the purposes of zoning. So in this instance, I think we're providing for sufficient space and appropriate locations uh for residential use in accordance with its environmental requirements to meet the need needs of
New Jersey citizens. I think we're providing for a good civic uh an attractive u environment uh desirable visual environment. Let me use right word desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement.
Um, and again, because I think by having a what is truly a home, a structure that looks like a home that looks like the rest of the homes on on Pittney, um, that's going to present a better, uh, and more attractive frontage, if you will, uh, to this property than would be
somewhat diminished, uh, accessory structure or or something else. Um I I wouldn't you know if it was a if we were going to try to put something there and we had two frontages you'd want to go to it being a bit of a C1 variance or
hardship in this in this instance we are kind of creating our own problem. So that's why I believe it is a C2 variance and again this represents a better planning alternative uh by the by that nature. Um the final aspect of it is um
you know your negative criteria. Are we having any substantial detriment to public good? Are we having any uh substantial impairment to the zone plan and the master plan? In terms of the public good, it's going to be a new house on Bear Trail with a pool and cabana in the back and then a guest
house on Pittney. Uh it's going to comply with all of our coverages. we're going to have the opportunity to have a uh the additional engineering, the additional review of the plot plan to make sure that we take care of drainage, make sure we're not providing uh we're not, you know, running any water onto any of our neighbors, any of those
negative impacts that could be there. Um >> I'm sorry, could you keep your voice up and maybe slow down a little? I don't know about the rest of the people up here, but I'm having a little trouble. >> Thank you. I I I please, you know, throw something at me when I talk too fast. I
apologize. Um, so yes, I think that uh, you know, this represents a better planning alternative and we are going to satisfy our negative criteria and that we're not going to have any substantial detriment to the public good or to our neighbors. We're going to have um again a compliant plot plan in terms of
coverages and setbacks and and appropriate drainage and all of those things that we make sure that we're not going to have any negative impacts on our neighbors even though we have a little bit more on the north side of the lot than we would typically have on the south side of the lot. Um and then the
uh and then in terms of uh Pittney, we're continuing the uh continuing the existing view and the frontage that that they see today. Uh somebody at my hearing last night said, you know, everybody likes progress, but nobody likes change. So what we're going to
have on Pittney is no change. It's going to continue to look just like 44 has looked for the last 15 or 20 years that it's been there. So, uh I think that that that goes to meeting the negative criteria in terms of uh substantial detriment. And then finally, in terms of
uh the master plan, it's an R1 district. Um your master plan does talk about uh providing for and uh the integrity and the continuity of your residential districts. Um again this is continuing as a single family home albeit with a
fairly large guest house but again a guest house that is compliant in terms of its coverage and all those types of things parking etc. Um so again I think we're we're you know continuing what the master plan envisions for the R1 district and in no way are we impairing
them. So, um, for those reasons, I think the board has the ability to grant the request of relief, uh, as a, uh, ex as an accessory use as a guest house to a principal use of single family home at Three Bear Trail, uh, with a C2 variance
to provide for the accessory structure, the guest house on Pittney Lane. I'm available for your questions. No, I I'd actually like you just to because I don't think the board's probably as familiar with the ordinance as as you are. So, I think it might help them understand a little bit the definitions
that you're relying on to come to your conclusion. So, I think you haven't written down. I think it'd be important for the record to indicate what you looked at in the ordinance and what definitions you relied on to come to that conclusion. >> Thank you. So, um the definitions that
rely on is first is uh what is a principal building? So your definitions are in 244-6. A principal building is a building which is conducted the main or principal use on a lot. Um and that would be the single family home at three bear trail. A structure accessory is a structure
which is customarily associated with and subordinate and incidental to the principal structure and is which located on the same lot therewith. Um so again the key elements there are that it's customarily associated. So again, on a
twoacre lot, it would not be un toward think that we would have a guest house um that would be present um you know, as an accessory use uh or a pool house or whatever you want to call it. So that wouldn't be untoward on a twoacre lot. It's a very large property. Um but the
key is it's subordinate and incidental to the principal single family use. And again, we want to make sure that we're continuing um these single family uses. Um in terms of the R1 uh the R1 zone and the permitted accessory uses it
customary accessory uses building and structures which are clearly incidental to the principal use. So the key here is that whatever is going on in the guest house is incidental and subordinate to the principal single family use at three bear trail. And that is really what I
think is the key element of your ordinance definitions uh that we follow. And again, it it does a few things. One, it it clearly it's incidental. The lots are merged, so you're not going to be able to sell one house without the other, etc. Um, it all goes to it all
runs together. Um, and you just end up with a, you know, with a twoacre parcel in a oneacre zone. Um, and again, I think that, uh, the benefit of having Titney Lane continue to look like it always has is a is a good thing. Um
there are requirements then for the accessory buildings um and and the requirement that we do not meet. Did >> you just cite the ordinance section? >> Yes. 244-147 is accessory buildings. So detached
accessory buildings shall be located in other than a front yard and we're requesting to have it in the front yard because we only have two front yards and two sideyards. So anything going out towards Pittney is considered a front yard. And then uh the accessory
buildings uh shall shall not occupy more than 25% of the area and we comply and the accessory structures uh shall not shall uh shall not be less than 10 ft from the principal building and we are far more than 10 feet uh between the two
buildings. So again, I think that uh we meet the definition of being an accessory use and structure to the that's subordinate and incidental to the primary single family use and we meet the rest of the standards other than
we're in a front yard because we front on pin lean. And you maybe just why don't you say alternatively if the board doesn't agree with our analysis that it's accessory whether you believe we're entitled to a use variance for having two principal
structures on one lot. Certainly. Um so in in that instance uh we would need a D1 variance to rel for relief from chapter 244-162 uh where no lot utilized for single family or two family dwelling shall contain more than one principal
building. So that would be the relief that we seek. That would be a D1 variance. As the board knows uh for a D1 variance. Um we uh the board would need to make certain findings uh first and foremost that the property is particularly suited
for the proposed use. We need to reconcile why the governing body uh didn't zone it that way or the Medici criteria as the board is very familiar with. We have to talk about what purposes of zoning we advance. And then we do need to meet our negative criteria. Once again, in terms of um the
uh the property, these specific two acres uh are particularly suited to be two homes on one lot because it has been two homes on two lots uh for a large number of years. The newly constructed home uh that's proposed to three bear trail would be um would be compliant in
terms of coverage and all those requirements. Once again, um again, we're consolidating consolidating the lots. So that gives us the ability to uh have the uh improvements between the two buildings uh not be burdened by uh by
that rear lot line. Um in terms of uh in terms of the Medici criteria, you know, we have to reconcile why the site not being zoned for two homes on one lot near the R1 was and because it was not anticipated that individuals
um I believe would want to assemble this type uh you know to assemble this type of property and combine two two single family homes onto one lot and uh as the applicant proposes. Um it's interesting on the team, you know, we debated long and hard about what is the best thing
from a land use standpoint. Um you know, how does it uh how does it relate for from a land use standpoint in terms of getting the approval as an accessory structure or getting approval as a uh as a variance to have two buildings on one lot. And we ultimately determined that
that it's almost a distinction without a difference um because the applicant is placing significant handcuffs on himself um by having the consolidation onto the onto the two lots and they're exposing himself first and foremost to this
process. Um but again that gives the board the right and the ability to impose reasonable conditions on that approval and and again I think all that can be done in the context of this approval. I don't think any additional approval would be necessary and the plot plan process would uh would address it
but I think it's totally reasonable to think that the governing body wouldn't think that people be buying up single family homes uh around neighborhoods in Jackson and combining the lots and and wanting to do that. It's not um it's not the norm, if you will. Um and certainly
not in in what is a fairly modern single family neighborhood. I mean, it's it's only, I'd say, 15 or 20 years old. So, uh very rare to see in a uh in this type of context. So, again, I don't think it could be foreseen um that the governing body would have been thinking about this
when they drafted the R1 district. Um we continue to have uh the same uh the same purposes of zoning or special reasons providing sufficient space and appropriate locations uh according to their respective environmental requirements. We continue to promote a
desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Again, the site certainly has sufficient space. As we said, we're going to continue to have compliant building coverage, lot coverage, and setbacks for the two
homes. Um, the site will be attractive. We're going to have a new home on Bear Trail. Um, that will be a very attractive modern home. Um, befitting, uh, you know, with the neighborhood and, uh, we keep the guest house as the existing home on Pittney Lane. And again, that's attractive, I think, to
keep Pittney Lane the same way that it's been for the last 15 or 20 years. Um the usage nature makes the overall development process easier and more efficient as well. Uh and we think the we can manage any of these external impacts uh that might be present and then this uh negative criteria would be
the same. Um again we're not having any substantial detriment to the neighborhood. All the external impacts will be addressed as part of the pod plan process and again we're compliant in terms of coverage setbacks etc. And the R1 zone and the master plan is going to continue. So again, it's going to
look largely unchanged uh you know in the R1 district as it has for the last 15 or 20 years. So for that reason, I think the board again has the ability to grant the approval. I'm available for your questions. >> Any questions from Mr. Sahina?
>> Yeah, a whole bunch of questions. Um let me just maybe start. Mleia foundation. I think all lawyers would like that term. Um I I think evident by evident by the length of your explanation which I
appreciate there's a lot of stuff here right in my mind when I look at this there are a lot of questions that you want us to answer um so let me just start with okay is it an auxiliary uh
axiliary or is it you know the primary so is it a C2 variance or is it D you have to go to the Dvarianes right um so I'm going to try to peel back that onion a little bit. From everything you described, the look and feel of it, it looks like another primary residence,
right? I think you admit that and and and what you stated was that's one of the purposes. Hey, it looks just like everything else. It doesn't stand out, right? But the key is the uses, I think, what they're going to use it for, right? Um is Oh, is there going to be testimony
about the usage later? And I shouldn't address it here because sometimes I get that. >> No, I'm the last witness. I mean our >> okay >> our I mean we have the architect as well but the uses as a single family home >> that is the use on on bear trail and
that would be how the rest of it is used again it's just our client is question is about the use of the pitney lane >> right >> pity lane is a guest house so it'll be used >> so what's it going to be used for >> so you know when you know when I have when I have guests at my house
unfortunately >> they sleep in the living room and my office and and all over the place. And not everybody necessarily likes that. Some people would prefer to be able to have their guests close but not too close. >> And um that's what our client wishes to
have and but strictly guests of the principal household. >> Understood. Um okay. Maybe you're a very popular gentleman. I'm sure. But I don't often have guests at my house. you know, once or twice a year, maybe the
holidays. >> Get a shore house. They'll be there every weekend. I guarantee it. >> You're right. You're right about that. And Jackson is a beautiful place, so I could understand why people would want to come here. But, um, you really need a guest house. I
mean, you have that many guests often enough that you need a whole house for it. >> The cl the client obviously does. That's why he's here and he's hired us and he bought a second home because that's his needs. >> Okay. I knew I was going to get a nice answer from you, so I appreciate that. Thank
you. Um, okay. So, so if we go down, Okay, let's just make believe it doesn't pass that. We go down to the D1 side of it. >> Um, I was going to ask the lawyers, but but
you you opened that door. So in an interpretation versus, you know, coming for a preliminary fine and all that stuff, can you help me understand exactly that legal term that you're only searching, you're only looking for at this point an interpretation?
>> They're actually looking for two alternate relief. So the first thing that they're and Mrs. Jennings will correct me if I am uh misspeak, but the first thing that they're asking for and the thing that they would like best of all is a determination that the Pittney
Lane structure is an accessory uh structure accessory use, right? >> And then if that determination is made, that's if that's what the board's determination is, that's sort of the the end of that. there's some relief because it's also now an accessory lease on
principal road front yard, but that's it. And then if you say that, then they would go and then just submit their building plans. So that's kind of their first choice. And and you've heard testimony >> um that they think that that's appropriate and and okay, when it's time
for the board's discussion, we'll talk about that a little more. If the board does not feel that it is an accessory, then alternately they're looking for the D1 variant to say that they could have two principal structures, which is not
under our ordinance permitted in a residential zone. >> Okay, that's very clear. Thank you. Um and and and the reason for combining those two questions into this one session is just because hey let's get this over with already instead of okay go get the go get the interpretation
first once that's decide then come back and whatever the conclusion is come back or don't come back actually right >> but you kind of consolidated it because just to get get this over with and why waste time plus why pay your expensive
lawyers more kindness of your heart. No. >> No. All right. Anyway, um you've answered my questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make sure we sort of had our our
structure right. And Mr. Martins asked Mr. Chipriani the right first question. What are we here for? It all seemed to go together in the direct testimony and then Miss Jennings said, "Let's just make
sure we're sure." They're here first asking for an interpretation. If they are not successful in the interpretation, then they are asking for a devariance. So, I'm going to ask both the attorneys, does the board need to act on the interpretation first?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, I don't want to steal any of the board members thunder. Um, I'm not sure from a planning perspective. >> Could you hold your microphone up? Uh, the board's having trouble hearing it. >> Certainly.
Um, I don't believe the applicant has proved their case for an interpretation. I do believe they've proven their case for a D1 variance. So, that's going ahead to the end of the book. That's
my professional opinion as it relates to the interpretation application um either to Miss Taiken or Miss Jennings. Was a zoning permit applied for? >> I don't recall at this moment. >> I I I couldn't find one and and again I
guess but we knew we needed an interpretation, >> right? And that's I just want to make sure the the things that the zoning officer can do if the zoning officer denies an application. The >> No, we did file a zoning permit
application. Okay. >> So, it's in my July 3rd, 2025 letter item number five application for zoning permit. >> So, this is not an appeal of the zoning officer's interpretation, >> which is one of the things that the applicant can ask for. You're asking for an interpretation of the ordinance.
>> Correct. the interpretation of the ordinance would run counter to the zoning officer's determination. Um, and so I I guess to Mr. Taikina, the first thing we're referring to the the house down on Pittney, the existing
house down on Pittney as a guest house. Can you reconcile the difference? I can't find the definition for guest house in the Jackson Township land use ordinance. So when when someone comes in and says we're proposing something that isn't defined in the ordinance, I just
instantly think it's a use variance. >> Well, I got a guest house approved for another client who had a very large guest house with his home. >> I'm just I don't see anywhere in Jackson's or a zoning permit. >> The board's decisions are not presidential. >> No, it wasn't from the board. It was a
zoning permit issued from the zoning officer. >> Okay. To answer your question, Ernie, I agree there is no definition of a guest house. >> Okay. And you're aware of the current use of the house. >> It It's
the current use of the house on Pittney Lane. >> Right now the it's empty and they just their guests will stay there when they come. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Forgive me. This is going
>> I wanted What are they currently using for? And I missed your response. >> I said it's currently for their guests when their guests come. Otherwise, no one's in the home. >> So, no one's living there day. >> Nobody lives there full-time. >> So, in defining it as a guest house, it will not be occupied full-time. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. >> I'm not 100% sure I'm supposed to ask the question, but if the board were to approve either the interpretation of the ordinance or the use variance, is that something that runs with the property? Other words, if if at some point they wanted to use it full-time as a not a
guest house, what would have to happen then? Well, in interestingly, in my opinion, if the board were to make the interpretation that it is a guest house, then yes, the the approval would
be it's c it's incidental and subordinate, i.e. it's not being used all the time. Um, if if the board uh makes the determination that a D1 variance is necessary to have two
principal uses on one lot, then we're saying no, it's two full-time single family homes on one lot. And that would be a, you know, again, it's two principal uses. So, they'd be two full-time uses to use your
terminology. And John, we we deal with zoning officers, both of us, all the time, from different sides of the fence. >> Hardest job in the town without question. I >> I want to make sure that we leave a very clear and concise record for the zoning officer should there be a realy transfer. Most of us are old enough to
have seen properties be sold. So, this one's going to be in whatever fashion this ends up in. I think it just needs to be clear on the record what it is and what happens if it if someone wants to sell the house off or sell the property
to somebody else and that whatever restrictions come out of the application this evening run with the land so to speak. >> Agreed. >> Um I guess my last comment to the board or or I don't know a question to Mr.
Tyena, the differentiation between the existing house on Pittney Lane going from a principal to accessory use. The only thing that sort of that seems to drive that is the removal of the lot line.
>> Yes. >> Well, and it's use and it's no longer a principal residence. It's a guest house, not used whole time. >> So again, I just it would seem to me that somehow removing a lot line change doesn't change the use of a piece of
property or or structure from principal to accessory. >> I think maybe though if you look at it a different way, if that lot was vacant and we decided to consolidate and build a brand new guest house that looked just like the one that's
there now, >> that's a fair argument to the board. I don't agree with it, but that's a fair argument to the board. So again, for for the board members, I'm just trying to >> put some closure to the interpretation portion of the application
>> because if if we agree with their argument about the interpretation, that's the end of the hearing. >> So I have a I'd like to follow up on uh Mr. Peter's questions a little bit. Um, and I have some questions about the
house on Pittney right now. I think Mr. Hina that you said that the development is about 15 or 20 years old. Is that correct? >> Yes. From my review of the aerials, that's about what it looks like. >> And the house is currently empty. Correct. >> Yes. >> Is it? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Yeah. Sorry. And uh but prior uh it was used as a single family residence. >> Yes. >> And um how many bedrooms does it have? that I don't know. >> Miss Jennings, do you know? I'm sorry. >> No, but the applicants here, we could always ask him that question. That's
fine. >> Do you know what the square footage is? >> No. >> And um once the consolidation everything occurs, what would be the distance of that house? I'm not good at reading this kind of thing. That of the pool house
from the pool >> guest house. Okay. So, it's a guest because it was it was described both ways. I'm not trying to It's a guest house. Yeah. >> So, we're going with guest house. Okay. >> Um All right. And um in terms of the use as a guest house and
and I I think this is a concern um you know that as Mr. Peterson said is not a defined term. Um, and guests come in all sorts of uh guises and stay for differing amounts of
time. So, if the board were to accept it as a guest house, how would that be distinguished from just an sort of an extension for residential purposes of the other house? In other words, why couldn't you just
have people live there forever? How how could the board ensure, you know, you're asking for it to be treated as an accessory use? But it looks to me like it's a single family house that's been used that way for, you know, 15 to
20 years, something like that, with some number of bedrooms with people living in it without any definition within the term of guest house. So, it's hard to see how that that varies.
Again, I think we could work with the board to decide what a >> There's a gentleman in the back raising his hand. >> Yeah, he's the applicant. >> I figured, >> do we want to have him sworn in? Maybe he can answer some of your questions.
>> Yeah. Why don't you come up, Mr. Uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give before this board will be the truth and nothing be the truth? >> I do. >> And will you state your name for the record? >> Raphael Far. Want to repeat the question? >> Yeah. Just so for the record, you are the applicant, correct?
>> I am. >> Okay. And I think they have just some questions with respect to how you anticipate that the guest house on Pittney would be used. >> So it is a guest house. I mean for >> keep close to your mouth. >> It is a guest house. That's how it's been used since I bought the property a
few years ago. Um I have nine siblings. My wife has seven siblings. None of them live anywhere near me. And so whenever they come in town, they come in with their seven, eight, nine kids. And I'm not having them in my house. Um that is what's happening this weekend for
example. There's I have a hundred guests for a bar mitzvah for example. So this is normal for me every summer it's like that. That's what it is. In terms of the question about why this wouldn't be used as a um an extended stay America guest
house um for other random people. The way that I look at the property and way I envision it is that um it would be impractical to have guests that are not um part of my world looking at my pool which is going to be uh 15 ft away from
the house. It is now no privacy between the two lots. It's not meant to be a a private property. It's not separate property. It's meant to be able to be close enough to have family. My uh elderly in-laws, for example, are actually staying in the house right now. Uh my my mom, my mother-in-law is
recovering from surgery, so we're taking care of them. Uh my housekeeper goes over, takes care of them. It's easier for us to be able to have those types of uh visits and and things often. >> You Mr. very I unlikely I also have a large family and
I actually live on a compound with my home and my law firm close by and I end up shoving people into offices. So I I certainly understand the appeal of what you describe but I think le let's start with the basics. How many bedrooms does
this the Pittney structure have? >> It has four. >> And how many bathrooms? >> Four. >> Do you know what the square footage is? 2900 something. >> Okay. So whether they're your relatives, which obviously makes a big difference to you
whether they're your relatives or somebody else, but in terms of the use and sort of what I mean it it it sounds like from what you're describing, you have a lot of people coming. You've got a lot of relatives. Sometimes everybody comes at the same time and things, but
it sounds like the guest house is likely to be occupied a lot of the time. Is that fair? >> No, it's typically specific times around summer vacations and uh holidays and
special occasions. >> So, and and what I think you had heard the reference before about whether this the approval runs with the land. So, if the board gives an approval, either says yes, that's an accessory use or uh goes the Dvariance and gives the Dvarian.
Either way, now it's it's there. So, you could sell it and and now what's going on there? And I'm I guess wondering if there's any limitations that you can
think of that will allow you to use it as you wish but without converting it into a full-time second residence. >> I don't follow. >> I think Mr. Jennings could explain it to you. They're trying to think of conditions that you would agree to have imposed so
that you can have the home considered a guest house. So limitations on time frames like somebody can't be there for 6 months. Uh something like that, >> right? Because so you're not here, as I understand it, asking this board to
approve to let you have two single family homes on this consolidated lot. That's not how you're framing this application. >> Well, the use variance is that Right. But >> the interpretation is not correct. >> Yes. I I I understand your position on
that. Um but either way, you know, you had said I think or maybe Mr. Skina, you know, in earlier about, you know, you looked at it and it was a distinction without a difference. Didn't really matter. But I think for the board's perspective,
it it does matter. not whatever the form of the approval. You know, if that's what is essentially being asked for, whether you know you're framing it as an accessory use, say the board granted as an accessory use and
called it a guest house, there's no there's no restriction and it is a full-blown single family home that's been used that way, I think, since uh 1989. So, it's essentially however you frame
it, you're aren't you really looking for two single family houses on this one lot? I guess it's either or. We thought it was easier to go for the accessory use structure, but if you think it's easier to get the Dvarian, then you know
>> and that that that you know distinction is up to the board. board's heard your proofs and and will continue to. I think it's just a question of what the what the use looks like under any circumstances. >> Is the concern while I'm living there
and changing how I want to look at it or is the concern that if it were ever to be sold obviously as one lot uh that somebody else might use it differently? Well, the the zoning ordinances in Jackson uh do not typically permit two
single family homes on one lot. Um so, and the policy is always to try and move towards conformity. So, creating something that's nonconforming long term is something the board takes
seriously. If I were to come here and knock down the house on 44 Pittney and build the same square footage um pulled back just a bit, it would be essentially the same thing and would be conforming. >> Isn't that correct or is it not correct
then? >> May I interject on this? >> We have an anxious participant. >> Just just quickly just to address that comment. The only difference would be as the zoning officer who regularly approves pool houses, cabanas, none of which are explicitly defined in our
township code. Sorry, I can't see. And none of which are explicitly defined in our in our um township code. So, we're working off interpretations from attorneys and the like. Um me specifically when I do my reviews, the only difference would be that it's not considered habitable space with with
bedrooms where people can sleep. It's more so the more more often we see for pool houses, cabanas, gas houses, the verbiages are interchanged because we don't have a specific definition. So you'll see people apply for for uh for
varying different requests, but all essentially the same thing. Um it's just that they don't allow they don't allow for habitability. >> So where >> right there I think M. Jennings have made clear they're not considering this a pool house. They're considering it a guest house. >> Right. But that's what you're saying for
them to to rebuild something that would be >> not within the setbacks. Isn't that what you just said? The same square footage and everything. The issue would be that you're allowing people to stay there. And I feel like that's the difference
between the what would considered accessory. No, I I would still argue that it's accessory. when you look at your the look every ordinance that I come across in every town has a general accessory use definition because you can't possibly think of every accessory
use that come come and because things change all the time I think about when I first started my career gas stations didn't have mini marts and all of a sudden they started popping up everywhere so you'd go in and you would argue this is accessory to a gas station and eventually everybody agreed and they're all over the place or ATM machines you didn't have them or
drive-throughs we didn't have them now we have them they weren't specifically listed in an ordinance. And that's why you have something like this that just says anything that can fall into the definition that's customary necessary use building or structure. As long as it's incidental to the principal use, it can be considered an accessory use. And
so I know you guys are thinking, well, this was a principal use and you're changing it to an accessory use because his home is much larger. You can see the size of his home from from there. So his principal home dwarfs really the what we would call the single family home. It just happens to be a large accessory
structure, the function of which would be a guest house. Question on on this. The >> if it's an accessory house, how how does the town control what is going in there? You may use it just for
a family, but 10 or 15 years you may decide to sell it. What will stop it from becoming a boarding house, a bed and breakfast? Uh what what how long will it be rented a lease for a time set
by the week, by the month, by the season? Uh >> but that's a really, you know, respectfully that's an enforcement issue. There's nothing that would stop anybody who owns a single family house from renting it to anybody dayto day until somebody catches you doing it, right? So it's really an
>> respect. Respectfully, councelor, you're here asking >> the town to call it a guest home. >> We don't have a definition of guest home. I think the board's entitled to ask for some >> These are the questions that that >> some range of what what your client thinks the guest home is or isn't going
to be. So, it's not something that the town has to go after to make sure it's compliant. It's not something against your client. It's about what happens successionally. I don't think it's unfair to get some parameters to something that's not defined in our ordinance.
So what if we said it would be less used less than a certain amount of days a year. So do you think 150 days would cover it? Cover the summer, cover your holidays. >> So not to be used more than 150 days in a one calendar year. >> I don't know how you could control that.
But just some throw out some other things to consider. Uh will the guest house pool be used when the pool is closed? Uh is there any hired staff to maintain the place?
Cooking done on on on uh living staff? Uh what about parking? Um and so on. There just too many different different things that could go into this house as an accessory use without limitations placed on it. So, how do we
place limitations on on this? Or or can we? You're implying that if it's an accessory use, he can do whatever he wants and that's the end of the application or there's no application. >> Mr.
>> So, I just kind of want to go back to what Mr. Peter started and Miss Cypriyani kind of followed up with as far as length of stay and you actually presented a scenario that I think we should explore because I think that
would be where it could convert to a residential home per se. So you say right now you have an in-law stay in there because they would they had some surgery. So, if you had, god forbid, one of your in-laws needed full-time care,
is it a potential that you would move them into this house and let them stay there for as long as needed? because I think then that kind of falls into is it becoming a residential home because you're allowing them to stay there for
an unknown time as compared to just you know you know >> I think my wife and I would fight about that >> because it's designed as a guest house for both of our families and if her >> she's gonna hear you resist
>> I get it but you you're probably going to be presented with it at some point in your life like that. I have 91y old parents, so I can kind of tell you there's things to look out for. >> It happens to be there are some plans in the in the other house that if somebody
was actually that elderly and infirm and could not get around at all on their own, there's meant to be a a room on the first floor of the new home for that type of scenario. So, I mean, I don't know if that's what answers your question. >> No, that's fine. I again that's just one
of the scenarios that I in in what you're describing you're going to use the house for. That's the one scenario that I think is a clear one that could become considered a residential home instead of a guest house.
>> Thank you. Um, I'm honestly struggling with calling it a guest house, understanding the difference between a guest house and a principal house. Um, sounds to me almost like it's a name only. You'll either call it this or we call it that.
The fact is it has a full kitchen, I'm assuming, in that existing home. Um, when we look at a mother daughter home, for example, generally don't have that kitchen kind of thing. um it's all
secondary ancillary to the principal structure. So if it's just for sleeping quarters, there wouldn't be that kitchen. There wouldn't be that ability to have it as a primary principal use. The fact that we're calling it this, I
just don't see how it makes it into a guest house. Um, also the fact that it has its own parking from Pittney Lane and it's not off of Beer Trail. Um, I would think that if you had a normal guest house,
you'd have a driveway that went from your principal structure to the guest home. Not that they're entering from a separate um frontage. That by itself shows that it's
not or looks at least that it's not secondary at all. So I'm just struggling to make differentiate between a full house being left as it is unless
there are changes being made to that home um to become a guest house. Miss Jenny's, can I ask I mean I think it's evident, but it really the reason that you're making this application right now
you you've got both lots go both houses. It's really for the lot coverage and because you've got the pool straddling the line. >> Correct. We want the pool located in between the lines. We want to remove the imaginary line.
So the planner earlier was saying that once the two are combined, we're going to lose the address for Pittney. And the reason when they're they're keeping the look of Pittney House is so it doesn't disturb the the houses on the street so it doesn't create like a different look.
If it was changed to like what a guest house where it's not as inhabitable, would that make a difference? Like does that make sense what I'm trying to say? Because right now it's a home. It's like a >> Let me interrupt and I'm gonna ask you a question. I just want to make sure we're
all on the same page here right now. >> Sorry. Thank you. Right now on Bear Trail, there is an existing home, but that is your home that you live in. You're going to demolish that home. Where will you stay when you demolish that home? In the guest house,
>> probably. >> Sorry, but Okay. So, you're going to This is to answer your question. So, you're going to demolish the existing home on Bay Trail. You're going to rebuild a bigger home. You're going then the home on Pittney Lane is going to
stay facing Pittney. So, they're still going to have a house at Bear Trail. They're going to have a house facing Pittney. So, the look will be the same, but there will be a guest pool house. And then the pool will now straddle what is right now the property line.
>> Right. >> So there will be one address but it's still not going it's not going to be any >> so the address is bare trail but if it it's not a permanent because they're building the house
>> bear trail. Well there's a house there on >> but they're going to make it is it going to be bigger? So, it's going to be bigger. >> And the the reason why it's >> Pittney Lane is staying the same is just to confirm with the look of the street.
>> Is that what was said earlier in the planning the planner? >> No, I think what he's saying is because it will remain the same, they'll have no negative impact on the neighborhood on Pittney Lane because they won't know the difference. It'll look exactly the same as it does today. But yes, it will function differently because somebody
won't be living there 24/7. So I guess since it's going to look the same, it's it's it'll be like almost like a residential home. So So that's why we're asking that question where how do we know moving forward that it's not going to be someone living there for a long
period of time. So that's why I was asking if it was to change to more not as a residential home but more of like a guest house where there's no kitchen or whatever, would that make a difference to the actual
definition of like what the guest house is supposed to be? That's what I'm asking. >> So like Mr. time in my struggle reading the application and trying to be prepared for tonight was I did understand that you were going to demolish so my question was where will
you live so even living somewhere for a year that's not a guest home am I not understanding this is that would that certainly a year is a long-term stay and you know I think that Mr. refer you would say, you know, well, I'll go to
the 150 once I move back into my house. That this is a temporary thing. But it it does highlight and and I think you're clear on what the board's struggle is here. Um the J.
>> Yes. So, the only one thing that I do notice positively um for the guest house is to me, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, is it will have sheer utilities, meaning the septic, at least the septic, I don't know about
the electric, but that's what it looks like to me is so they that by itself does give some kind of continuity to the home. I don't know about the electric if they're going to be running new from the principal home to there or they're going to be paying you know separate fees um
you know from JCPNL but I'm not sure you know like Miss Bradley said before um during that time when you knock down that home where's is there an existing um
sewer that you're going to be using? There's no I'm assuming there's no sewer on Pittney Lane. If you're going to be connecting it to the um >> I got the other side engineer answer those questions. I have no idea.
>> I'm just assuming that the septic is going to go in during construction at some point. So, how would that function? There's there's there's an existing septic on the Pittney Lane one. So that would stay for that house >> always or is it being shared? Meaning
are you removing that during construction? >> No, it doesn't it doesn't need to be removed during construction. At the end when you want to put in the the the final let's call it final septic system. You can you can you can remove it afterwards. >> It's currently on the left side of the house when you're facing the house on Pittney Lane. It's currently on the left
side towards the front. >> The existing septic. It's it's not in the way of anything. It can remain there probably even after the construction is all done. >> We're not proposing that though. >> So at the after the construction is complete, will the two structures be on
one shared septic or will they have two septic systems? >> On one shared >> and the electric is going to be consolidated into one >> that I don't know. >> You what I'm what I'm trying to say is is that the board I think is looking for
things to say yes. We see that this could possibly be a ancillary guest house somehow. I'm just not putting those dots together. That's why I'm trying to figure it out. I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just trying to see
how it could be secondary to the principal home. >> Miss Miss Jennings, and I don't know if you want to talk to your client. Um I did hear the restriction on no more than 150 days a year. Um, and I, you know, obviously this would have to be accepting when you
were staying there during construction, but is there any kind of limitation we could put on how many days in a row, you know, no more than 14 days in a row, something like that.
Why is it enforceable? >> Sorry. >> How would it be enforceable? meaning the town has, you know, if the town creates this um rental, I'm not sure what they called it, a rental department that, you know, has
inspections for rentals and this is not considered a rental and it's not being rented. That's my understanding. Then nobody's keeping track of who's coming and going. >> It's a very difficult situation >> in terms of the enforcement. It is
difficult but not impossible to enforce. But what it also does is create um a clear limitation if it were done as a condition to make the pittney house into guest house so
that at least if it were sold it it's always carrying the restriction. >> Yeah. Would it be helpful if the utilities were in fact uh limited to one account so to speak in one meter or something like that where that would be more difficult and then the the the
board here could always restrict anybody else going forward on changing that? >> I mean I'll just speak for myself personally. It it wouldn't it would >> I would just That's because I was talking law I was trying to be cool but um
>> yeah I mean personally that wouldn't change um it wouldn't change. Let me take the opportunity to just ask one or two more questions right around that line of how many bedrooms. Will it have a basement? >> What have a basement? >> The the auxiliary house
>> existing already. It's already >> right. So it has a basement. Right. So it has a basement. Um, now you know know we compare this to other type of things. Um, show houses, stuff like that. Again, usually you don't have a basement in a
guest house. It's a guest house, right? You just want people to sleep and and and eat there for a little while and and then go away. I'm done with you being a guest. Um, okay. That was that I do on the code enforcement part, right? We often and I
think was brought up, we often um talk about code enforcement. Oh, and then that's a different department, right? We do kind of restrict them a lot. We um handcuff them a lot because it's so difficult
as I you were mentioning to um you know to enforce it. it it and and by us putting those restrictions, you know, I I don't see a benefit to that either just because it's so difficult to um
>> to enforce >> the uh >> those are my thoughts. >> Chair was saying you looking for ways to to to see if it could if that were the will of the board if it could be conditioned in a way that that makes it
something besides two single family homes on one lot. >> Yep. Yep. >> Mr. Chairman, >> you're saying that when you tear the house down, you're putting in a much bigger house. How many bedrooms are in
that house now? >> Trail right now. >> Yeah. Yeah. um four buy it, one in basement. So, >> okay. And how many more bedrooms going to add in the new house?
>> Um what? Eight. >> So, you're going to have four in the guest house and eight in the bedroom, and it's going to be all in one septic system. Do
>> you have enough property to build a septic big enough for that? >> Two acres. >> Yeah, that's the plan. >> Yeah, but you have two acres, but you have to factor in the house, second house, pool, what's left?
>> There's lots of area left to feel look at the plan, but the site engineer can testify. Come on up, Hoody. >> I'm just curious because it's a massive amount and we haven't even discussed if there's any living in the basement. >> Yeah. So, we do have to comply with the
health department requirement and we did we did do a concept that shows that we do have enough space. It's a I think it's a pressure dosing system which allows for a smaller septic field. >> All right. So, you won't be coming back for any waiverss because it doesn't fit. >> Not for the septic. >> All right. I mean, it's it's it's
interesting because that's a massive system. I mean, to me, it would be smarter to have one on one and then one on another, but you know, just out of curiosity. All right. Well, good luck with that one. Um,
so there's going to be no living in the basement either building. We'll certify to that. >> Yeah. I don't We don't have anybody living in basement. >> Okay. And um the guest house,
you're never going to rent that. >> No. >> And you're willing to swear to that, too, and put it in writing that it'll never be rented. >> You just said he's under oath. >> Yeah. >> You think you're putting in a condition? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't I don't want to rent it or
have any interest in making any money from anybody living on my property and having to deal with a tenant on my own property. >> No, I get that. I mean, you have to understand from our point of view, people like, "Well, how could you let this happen?" Well, we try our best not to let it happen. All right. Thank you.
>> So, just for Mr. Tremor, um Ray, I I thought Ray would uh touch on this. I thought he was going to ask how if they have to call the fire department, how did they identify
that guest house property? That was a question for you. H how do they identify the rear this guest house property in case of an emergency? You're saying it's the rear, but they're going to come to the front and it's
probably not even accessible from beer trail. So, it's a little difficult situation. I'd like to see how they're going to plummet and get to it. But that's again that's why I wish them luck. Any
additional questions, comments? >> Can we just rewind just a second where we uh you said there's you're you testified that there would be no bedrooms in the basement. Were we talking about the new proposed house? Was that part of your statement? >> Talking about the Pittney house, right?
Talking about the house on Pittney. >> I'm sorry. question. >> So, the question the question was um initially to the applicant was uh to put on the record were there going to be any bedrooms in either basement and I just wanted to clarify because I thought I
heard the applicant testify that there would not be any bedrooms in the basement. >> So, >> and so I asked to clarify there are four bedrooms and four baths. None of those bedrooms are in the basement. No. >> The four bedrooms that are in that house
are two in the loft and two on the first floor. >> And that's for Pittney now on Bear Lane. Did I hear you say there was one in the basement? >> Bear Trail. I >> Bear Trail. >> I I mean right now there is currently in there is a uh a bedroom in the basement,
the current house. But in the new house, um I don't even know how far we got exactly with where the rooms are or where the bedrooms are are uh designated or anything like that about basement. >> I don't have your plans for that house yet.
>> Allow me to jump in. There is a basement bedroom. >> We have we have the architect here. So why don't we have the architect testify? >> Basement bedroom is right next to the locker room. for for you to tell the truth or nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Yeah, there is one guest room.
>> Nali Gut the whole speech architect in New Jersey and several other states and the principal of Gut Van Architecture liquid based firm. Um these drawings are appear on my supervision. >> Hear them. >> Should we do it again?
>> I can because we have something back behind us so it's hard to hear. I'm sorry. We keep being told we're going to get a new sound system. Please bear with us. >> I apologize. You said nal nali gut. If you could just tell us a little about your credentials, please. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. Licensed architect in New Jersey and several other states. I'm
the principal of G van architecture which is a liquid based firm and these drawings have been prepared under my supervision. >> All right. This board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, I was just jumping in on that question about the new Pittney plans. There is a guest room in the
basement. I'm sorry. The bear bear trail. The bear trail house does have another bedroom in the basement. And the total count bedrooms is 12. There's uh >> 12 between the two. >> 12 between the two. Correct. So it's
it's eight for the new and four for the old. And that that's all that's all being serviced by that one septic system. >> I'm sorry. So to be clear for me, so the discussion we just had about the septic system and how many bedrooms are in there and both both both places, right?
Um that included these basement bedrooms, correct? Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure that's it. Thank you. Mr. Sle.
>> So, is the architect gonna come up and speak again or is can we ask questions of him now? >> Um, I'm not I guess he could answer questions if you have some. I mean, it's really a consolidation and whether or not this is an accessory structure and we're entitled to a D variance, but he
is here. >> Now, Taly, come on up. They think they have some questions for you. >> I'm just trying to understand the floor plans that you laid out here. So, there's a basketball court today on Pittney Lane, correct?
Or yeah, on Pittney Lane there is a basketball court, outdoor basketball court. Correct. >> I don't even know. >> He's the architect. He didn't design the basketball court. So, do you have any questions regarding the actual structure? >> Well, the reason I'm asking is in the basement floor plan, you have a
basketball court, >> correct? Yeah, that's correct. >> That going to be indoors? >> Oh, that's indoors. Yeah. And how deep how >> we were going very deep on that like 18 feet I think. >> Okay. >> And so I guess my next
>> this this all this all um helps define the Pittney house as a accessory use when you see this house. >> Yeah. I was say I I don't know if Miss Jennings had anything more she wanted to put on. wanted to open the public for questions for any of the witnesses and
then I'll uh kind of review where we are >> before I open to the public. Anyone else on the board? >> Before I open to the public, anyone else on the board have any questions? >> We're going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and make a comment about the testimony you've heard this evening,
please do so at this time. Deb Jones, Tyson Road, Jackson. Sorry. Could I just >> Oh, you can. >> Can you swear from the testimony before this board will be the truth and not the truth? >> I do. >> Um I'm just a little confused on the whole
guest house thing. I'll wait. It's okay. I have a question about the guest house where we're calling it a guest house. Everything I look up about a guest house doesn't really match what is happening here. This is another home.
I don't really understand why we're condensing it if it's about a pool. I don't know why you wouldn't just keep the pool on the property and go for a variance if you want to move it. That doesn't make sense to me. And then we're saying 150 days.
If the owner who owns the house, if he's going to keep track of how many days people are in and out, then to me that's not even a guest house. That's a bed and breakfast because it's a business. Now, if you have to really maintain, they do a over 150 days. We're moving it
to the to the um zoning officers who are already trying to keep up with all the new things going in and how they're breaking the different zoning laws. I I just it seems very strange to me that if it's
two properties and two houses, there's got to be a benefit to be able to condense it into one lot. And if it's all about a pool, that's a problem. >> I think that it's about the impervious coverage or the lot coverage,
>> but then that wouldn't fit into the neighborhood because it's one thing to say the house has been there for 20 almost 30 years, but if we're changing it that much, it it just seems like we're always pushing boundaries, I don't understand.
It doesn't make any sense to me. And why not just have the other house? How does this later on affect the rest of us, the taxpayers? Because something has to change in their taxes if they're going from two lots to one lot. I might be crazy, but at some point in time,
something's going to have to get reassessed. Then what? It just seems like there's a lot of questions that nobody seems to have the answer to. And when they're asked, it's like eyeballs are shooting all over the room to see who's going to answer it.
You either know how many bedrooms are in your house or you don't. And if you don't, then you might not know what the bedrooms are all being used for. I just I have questions as a lifelong resident in Jackson. >> Thank you for coming forward. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this
time? >> Just to address the um tax point that you brought up. This is a land use board. Unfortunately, that's No, I just want to, you know, explain that's not something we can consider. Um, anyone else wishing to come forward?
Seeing no one else come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Miss Jennings, do you have any closing comments or remarks? >> No, I think that the board understands the issues. I just think you're grappling with how to resolve it. Uh, so it's really two votes in my opinion. You
vote whether or not you think the second house is accessory. And if you say no, then we move on to whether or not you think the applicant satisfy the positive negative criteria entitled to the devariance. >> Just a quick a quick question quick. How
far over the property line does the pool go into the Pittany property? >> I'll have uh Mr. Bach come back up and answer that question for you. The the new proposed pool is almost entirely over onto the Bitney property.
>> Almost entire you >> the new house. The pool is over the >> mountain. >> But how far does it come? Is is the whole pool over? >> Almost the entire pool. So it could be constructed on the property.
>> Sorry. Well, one question because of the t of the income tax, right? And I'm not going to ask a question about it, but because I I um I'm I'm I'll explain because I've asked questions about it before and I got the same response. Oh, you can't ask. You can't ask, right?
that doesn't play a factor to the extent that if they were paying separate taxes which makes it look even more like a res two residential homes. Can I ask about that? >> I I >> or even consider it.
>> I I I don't understand the question. So why ask it? >> I I'll try to ask it better. We asked whether it was have separate meters, se separate tanks. So the question that came to mind is are you paying separate taxes on two different addresses
>> right now if they consolidate the lot they will pay one >> one. So as far as our tax assessor those guys they would consider this one piece >> right and then obviously if when the the new house is built in a larger size that
would change the assessment as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm really not concerned about how much but just the fact that at least and this helps you I think that um the tax depart our tax department views it as one is going to view it as one house with an accessory
>> probably they will view it as one lot >> one lot house >> they they okay yeah I think we beat we beat the source to death right >> if you decide that it's an accessory they'll view it as an access you decide that it's, you know, then
>> Oh, okay. Well, that's good. Okay. >> They don't have their own. Okay. Got it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, please. >> All right. So, as Miss Jennings has talked about, and I think the board is really aware, the initial question is on the request for an interpretation. Um, and that request for the interpretation
is whether the uh what we've been calling the Pittney House qualifies as an accessory structure. Um so that's the first thing the board has to determine. Um the standard or the the definition was read into the record from the uh
township's code and that is that an accessory structure is one that is customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land building or structure and located on the same lot. Obviously if there's consolidation it would be on
the same lot. Um, in terms of looking at this interpretation and making that determination regarding an accessory use, uh, the standard from, uh, the Cox on land use is that when the board is asked to determine if a proposed use is
an accessory use, which is the question that's before you right now, that's the initial question. It is important to examine analytically the nature of accessory uses to determine whether they are in fact accessory in nature if associated with the principal use on the
same factor of land or determine whether they would be permitted independently on attractive land where no other use exists to which the use in question could be considered accessory. In this case, clearly the Pittney house, the
existing house would and is and currently is permitted independently on attractive land with no other uses. It's a been for approximately 30 years a single family home on the testimony. It's a four bedroomedroom, four bath home and it's been used in that lot
current uh used in that way um for the bulk of the last 30 years. Um it is currently on its own lot though there has been testimony and I believe that there would be consolidation um of the lots. So on that basis whether
if we're a guest house um I don't you know it's up to the board. Um and there there's some case law on this um where and we talked about beach houses. There were references to that. In
certain cases, it were Laski versus uh planning board and urban versus planning board. It's been held that those beach houses were accessory structures, but in those cases though, it was part of the court's determinations that those structures had never functioned
independently, that they had always been accessory structures. So, you know, that's the initial question. My recommendation is the termination of the board that it it is not an accessory use in the totality of the circumstances. Um
but that is certainly the first question and um you've heard the testimony that was uh given as um to the from the planner um as to the belief of the applicant that it is an accessory
structure and I will repeat that the standard from the township code is whether it is customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use. Mr. >> Thank you. Um, personally I don't see
without further restrictions the way that it would be incidental or you know ancillary secondary to the principal structure without removing um the kitchen in the pitney lane. Um the fact that it has a separate driver
also makes it in my opinion that it's not a secondary, it's its own principal use. So if the applicant was amendable to make some kind of changes with that, I can see it, you know, being more sheared
use that it would be ancillary. Um as it stands, leaving it as is, I don't see the way it is. questions, comments, Mr. >> So, as far as Mr. Heyman brought up the the driveway on uh Pittney, I I agree
with him. That's where I'm struggling with this being a guest house um and an accessory building. If that driveway was closed off and everything was consolidated on the one lot, I think there'd be a better argument for that.
But I I think as long as those two driveways exist, I I I do I struggle with it. So that's kind of where my my brain is at now. >> Question. >> I always have a comment. Um but but
I I will I would also struggle with the restrictions if if we tend to apply restrictions that we have to be very careful with them because whether we want to isolate ourselves from code enforcement or code enforcement or not
um we I think we need to consider whether they can be enforced or not. I don't know if legally I can do that, but >> common sense tells me I should. >> Right now, the request is it's with a
request for an interpretation. So, the only question right now is whether it is an accessory use. If it's the determination that it's an accessory use, then once that determination is made, then that's the end of the board's
involvement. If the determination is made that it is not an accessory use and then we move to the request for uh variance then the question of conditions rises again. >> Oh okay. Yeah because I just say that because we we talked about adding
restrictions only 150 days or this or that and that to me doesn't solve the problem >> right now. The first thing the board has to make is that determination whether it's an accessory use. >> That's fair. If I could just add because the applicant's obviously listening to the comments. He says he could close off
the driveway on Pittney if that would assist in your analysis of whether or not it's accessory. >> Would you remove the kitchen? >> No, he doesn't want to remove the kitchen. >> Any other questions or comments?
The the removing of the driveway helps because if it's going to be one electric, one sewer, one driveway, you know, if in case in the future he were to sell that, it'll be hard to, you
know, I think that restriction. I I do like that one. >> Dr. capacity. >> Uh just uh getting back to the septic systems and we Mr. Peters has told us numerous times that we have no decision
about how the septic system where it should be and how large it should be. This is the Ocean County Board of Health that decides that. So anything with the septic system is is not for us to decide whether it's good or bad or whatever.
It's a decision that that'll be made by an outside agency. Second, I I I just I just don't see how how this can be considered an accessory building. What I don't like is that
we're just letting the applicant do whatever he wants if we decides in an accessory building and there's no way to uh to put any limitations on or restrictions on on what what could be done. and
he he may be honorable and it may stay the way he says for the next 15 years, but there's always somebody who comes after and you never know what'll happen. >> Do we have a motion either? >> I didn't know.
>> Um I I have to agree uh with Mr. Heyman, Mr. Select, Mr. Martins. I I'm struggling with seeing this as an accessory use. It is a separate standalone house right now. Removing a property line doesn't make it accessory. It's still a standalone home. They could
come to the home and you would never have to see them guest or no guest paying or not paying. It's still a standalone home. So although we're talking about we're using this word incidental and it's still a house all to its own and
functions it there's nothing even sharing electricity. It's still standing on its own. I I'm just I I don't see it from my point of view. I don't see it as an accessory. I see it as a standalone home. It's a standalone home now. And
further proof for me that it's a standalone home is when he tears down the house on bear trail he's going to live in it. So I'm struggling with how we could see it as an accessory. So as far as I'm concerned in regards to an interpretation I would say it's not
an accessory use. Want to add to that. It's you're going to leave the kitchen. It's a fully functioning house. That's it. It's not a guest. It's a house. Functioning house. Okay. >> Um, our attorney, are you going to ask
her to make a motion? >> You asked Miss Bradley to make a motion? >> I was just going to say, okay. You know, based Well, I didn't know if one of you were going to speak up. So, >> occur to me, but >> Right. Because you always ask me. Are you ready to make a motion? >> So, so I would just say, you know, you know, just
>> for the applicant's benefit, um, Miss Bradley, you're concerned with, you know, being there um during that construction period. I'm not so concerned with that because again we all know what the endg game is that
the intent is to build this new house larger house and again we know that the living there is temporary so it may be for a longer period of time but again it is temporary so even though it's the applicant themselves that are not it's
not like their actual guest again it's a temporary use so although yes it will be for a longer period of time. Even then if we put that 150 restriction except for you know this applicant that during the construction or if that would
fall in place once construction on the principal structure commences you know or something like that um would be fair as well. So again, you know, the fact that they do have shared
um septic there, they they are willing to close off the driveway um definitely are two steps in the right direction for me. Seeing it as a secondary, um the kitchen
definitely is a big um thing to me that says that it's really independent on its own. So again, I still struggle with that point. >> I understand your I understand your point, but I think what I was trying to say is it can it does stand alone right
now. And the fact that he's able to use it as a standalone piece of property when that other house won't even exist once they tear it down shows you in itself it's not an accessory used. It's a fully functioning home on its own. And that's what I'm struggling with in calling it an accessory. I do agree with
you. I was just using that as a point that that to me proves it's a fully functioning home that can stand on its own because when that property on bare disappears when they demolish it, that house on Pitney is going to be in use. >> Correct? >> You understand what I'm saying? So, it's not that I disagree with you, >> but I'm just saying that to me proves
that it's a fully functioning home and can stand on its own. So, I can't I don't see it as an accessory use. >> Got it. Thank you. >> So, um I'm not sure exactly how to word my what I'm about to say. You can fix it for me. Okay. But I am deeming that this
is not an accessory use. >> So you're making a motion. >> Motion I making a motion that this that the interpretation read that this is not an accessory use. It would be considered a primary structure. >> I'll second that. >> So do you need to rephrase it or we
could No. Okay. >> She fixed it before I can mess it up. So we have a I'm sorry >> what a yes vote mean >> I can hear >> what a yes vote >> yes so a yes vote means that we do not agree that it is an accessory structure
it is a principal use okay we all everybody's on the same page you going to say something oh okay >> so a yes vote means that you're agreeing that it is not an accessory structure it
is a primary a principal structure Okay. So, Kathleen, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> no. With the conditions, I feel like it
could be an accessory if certain conditions were placed, such as, you know, the driveway, one utility. It's one tax.
Everything is one primary lot. >> Mr. Tremer. >> Yes. >> Miss Cusanna. >> No, she doesn't vote. >> Oh, have seven, don't we? >> No, I thought that was >> Oh, Mr. Leia, I'm so sorry. >> Forgive me.
You do. >> Forgive me, Leia. Go right ahead. >> No, I agree with Miss Guzelle. So no, Mr. Seleia. >> No, Mr. Selectia. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes, >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the determination has been
made by the board that it is not a uh an accessory use. So, that moves the board to the second question. Um, and that question is whether the applicant has made the standard for the D1 variance.
As you recall, that standard is that they have to show the both positive and negative criteria. The applicant must establish special reasons um including that the application advances one of the zoning purposes and you heard testimony
um uh from uh Mr. Ina um and all it can include promotion of general welfare desirable vis visual environment um and uh that the pro proposed use can also satisfy the positive criteria.
proofs demonstrate it is peculiarly fitted to the particular location for which the variance is sought for the negative criterion the applicant must show and you did hear testimony um that the variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good including the effect on surrounding
properties and would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinances the conditions that have been discussed that would um as being on such an approval there was an agreement to recommend recommendations
um from the board engineers report that there would be consolidation of the two lots. There would be grading and drainage uh so not as to impact the neighbors. It would be used as a guest house. There would be limitation to no more than 150 days a year except for
occupancy by the owner during construction of the uh main residence on Bear Trail. Um there would be no bedroom in the basement. Um in the Pittney Lane house and that that Pittney Lane guest
house would not which would be used as a guest house would not be rented. Um that the driveway would be closed off from Pittney and that both structures would have shared septic. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. No rentals.
>> If you're done, >> is it time for me to be able to ask a question? Yeah. Um, so related so now related to the D variance, do we get a second bite at the apple and ask questions again specifically related to that and does
the public get a chance to do public comment on that specific item or we're done? >> Well, so Miss Jennings said in the beginning that she was presenting both aspects. So right now that's done. you and the public had the opportunity to a
ask questions um on that as well and and there was a discussion of that. Okay. >> I don't know if there's >> any desire to open anything else up. >> Well, I mean if he has a question, we're here. We might as well answer his question. That that's fine.
>> Okay. And the public as well, they'll be able to come up and say whatever they want to say regarding the D1. >> Okay. So the public already had this opportunity for for comment, but >> that that's up to the board and the chair, >> right? Because the public commented on
what what we just ruled on. They they did not comment on on obviously on um now the Dvarian. >> So Mr. Warren said the the applicant did make their application on both aspects and when we were talking about the
conditions and all those things, they did apply that. So the public did have that opportunity. As I said, whether it's going to be reopened is up to the will of the board and the chair. But why don't we start with you asking a question since Miss Jennings has indicated that they'll be answered.
>> I'm not ready to ask a real question yet. Sorry. My whole point was my whole So here's my whole point and I started it at the beginning where we consolidated this thing into one, right? And I I understand what what was said, but I don't know that the public
understood all that, right? And so I think it's appropriate to give the opportunity at least to the public >> to come up again and ask questions about the D because it was not clear to them. I believe there isn't a lot of people here anyway. >> I'm sorry. What was Hold on. I'm sorry. Forgive me. No, no, no. Mr. Martins, I'm
asking you a question. >> I know, but Go ahead. >> No, you did. I I want to address something. You said it wasn't clear about the deed. What wasn't clear? Let's see what we can do to help you here. >> What Mr. Bart is saying is that if I may, was that he didn't think that it
was clear to the public that the application was being submitted that that Miss Jennings was putting on her case for both the interpretation and the D. So, he thinks it would be appropriate to open it back up to the public uh for
any questions or comments on the D variance. Right. Right. And us too of course, but >> to me like which >> that's entirely up to the board. >> My whole point if it wasn't clear is to at least here today to treat this as two separate pieces. One is done. Now let's
go through the process and looks like I don't know what you're talking about. >> I hope I can clear for the sake of transparency and fairness to all. I I'm I I will I have no problem with opening it up to us as well as the public. That's why I was
asking you the question. >> I wanted to make I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. >> Yeah. >> I And again, for the sake of transparency for all we're all residents here, too. So, let's all make sure we're on the same page. We can open it to the public and we can ask more we'll ask more questions and then open it to the
public. How was that? >> Okay. >> Okay. I I I actually would like some clarification because those conditions that we were talking about were if you guys were going to deem it accessory, if it's a separate principal use, we're not going to close a driveway off. It's going to be considered a principal use. I mean, those were conditions for if you
wanted to deem it accessory. >> To me, that's very clear. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Right. >> So, um, Miss Jennings, that clear. So uh I guess will any >> those all related to it being incidental to the primary principal structure
>> including the acceptance of the engineers recommendations? >> What what was that again? The engineers recommendation. Oh the grading. Yeah, we're doing all the grading. You have to do all that. >> So just to be so to be clear for everybody out here. So just the the one
you're taking exception to and I understand is that you were saying that the driveway being closed off on Pittney was only if it was deemed an accessory. Were there any others that were an issue? >> Yeah, like the number of days to be used. If it's going to be a principal structure, it's a principal structure and then you don't have to worry about
enforcement, right? You were concerned about how we going to do enforcement. It's really only still going to be used the time that we think we're going to use it, but there would be no restriction on it if you're going to deem it a principal structure. I would agree. Yeah, that's fair. >> We're now we're now in a whole different
ball ball game. >> All right. So, I just want to go. So, uh consolidation, you still want to go forward with forward with rating D and drainage not to his impact neighbors? Yes. Um you're not willing to limit the
use. You're not willing to say no bedroom in the basement in Pittney. >> We can remove the bedroom from the basement. That's not an issue. >> Okay. >> Not willing to say the guy that Pney won't be rented.
>> Won't be rented. >> I think I missed it. It could be rented. Sorry. >> No, no, no rentals. >> Cannot. So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. So take um and will the structure still have shared septic? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So then just the conditions that we have right now or the consolidation grading drainage not to impact neighbors, no bedroom and basement will uh the pitney property will not be rented and structures will continue to have shared subject. >> Correct. Okay.
>> Mr. Roar. I don't see any benefit to requiring shared septic. I think might be better off just not having that requirement if the applicant agrees. That's fine. I think there intents to have it shared, but I guess we don't have to make it a condition to be
shared. Mr. Peter, you have anything additional? >> Mr. Talo? >> No. Okay. Mr. Martin, do you have any additional questions? >> Now I do. Yes. Um and I guess so now for
this what exactly is the variance that that um that that we're going to >> okay so it would be a D1 variance which would allow for two principal structures on one lot
>> and the reason it's a variance is because currently you can't have it >> because they're trying to consolidate it. It's considered one lot. If they kept it separate, it would not be considered one lot and they don't need any variance. Am I interpreting that correctly?
>> Right. For the existing houses, >> in order to build the house that they want to on Bear Trail and place the pool where they want to, that's where they need the consolidation. >> Okay, that's very clear. That's where the pool park come in. Thank you very
much. So we're we're going to have two principal structures and then the pool house is going to be an accessory structure. >> Okay. So the there is no pool house. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I wrote it wrong. I
wrote guest pool house. There was some initial talk about that. >> Somebody said guest pool house and I wrote that down. Okay. >> There would be two single family homes. The the new larger one on Bear Trail and the
older one designated as the guest house for purposes of our conversation and clarity on Pittney. >> Gota through the chair. >> Yes. Mr. Could you get some clarification on what this house on Pittney now is? Um, based off of your
previous testimony, it was a guest house. What are you asking for now? What is that principal structure? What is the usage that will be for? >> It's a single family home that'll be used for the guest of the resident on
Bear Trail. Did that answer your question, Mr. H? >> I guess >> I didn't know I'm I didn't know if you were going to ask something else. It's a single family home. No, my my my my understanding before was is what I struggled with on the last question was, you know, if it was a secondary use, my
understanding was is that if they were able to tie in that use and show that this is the intent of the purpose of this home, then that's why they would be agreed agreeable to those stipulations that we had on the record before. Um I don't I just don't I I'm
struggling now with why would you remove those stipulations? If this is the same use um that you would have before, what exactly changed the fact that it's meaning the variance from the C2
variance? I'm just not really understanding what changed here based off of the applicant's testimony. Well, you didn't deem it accessory. So, if it's going to be a principal use, it should have a driveway, for example. It it's going to be a principal use. So,
you've changed it back to what it is today. >> Right. So, that's why I asked you what is it being used for? And again, your response was for guests. >> I said a single family home that's going to be used for the guest of the person on Bear Trail. It's just going to be a home. It's going to be exactly like it
is today, but he just uses it when his guests come here in the summertime and on holidays. >> So again, so >> it's not going to be rented by anybody else. >> So it's basically unrelated to the principal structure meaning not sorry the principles. Yes. Correct. You're saying is it's totally unrelated.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> And the Yeah. No, but Right. So the the I think what the difference is is that it uh Mr.
Farhey's anticipated use has not changed but if the property were to be sold it could not be subdivided again if the house were in Bear Trail if that's built because it would be creating a
tremendous nonconformity. Um but it could be sold as a property with two single family homes on it. >> Yes, Miss Tumula. Miss Jennings, um just to put on the record, if it's if the Pittney house is not owner occupied as
you stated, he's going to be using for his guests. Is that not um does that not require a CO from the town and code enforcement inspections if it's not owner occupied? he is the owner and his extended family
members are going to stay there. It's not really a board land use issue. It's a CEO issue. I don't know the answer. >> I just just wanted it voiced on on the record. >> Mr. Warren, did you have any more questions?
>> No. Thank you. >> Questions, comments. >> Just one thing. If we're stipulating that it can't be rented, so if in some future time somebody wants to rent it, they have to come back before the board. >> Correct.
>> Would you like to make a statement before the public? We're going to go ahead and open We're going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and making comment about the testimony you've heard this evening? Seeing no one come forward, we're going
to go ahead and close public session. Board, it's up for us up to us for discussion. And just to clarify uh one more time because we went back and forth, the uh conditions
that have uh been agreed to are uh lot consolidation, grading, and drainage so as not to impact neighbors. No bed bedroom in the basement of the Pittney house, and Pittney House would not be rented. my
>> my only comment is um I understand that really this all looks like oh you know what's it a difference without a real difference or whatever if if we approve this >> a distinction without a distinction without a difference. But I think again
for code enforcement and how this gets treated in the future and everything like that, um I think it makes a difference. And so um I'm probably going to be voting yes on on the D variance, but I think it's
again that that's why I'm not making a motion. I'm just stating what I would do if somebody's willing to make a motion or explaining my vote when it time comes. Okay, >> Mr. >> Thank you. Uh although I would have
preferred the stipulations of the prior um request for the interpretation. Um my opinion as you know showed in my vote um was that it was not it didn't
meet the standard for myself um to be considered a secondary but being that it's now in front of us as a D
variance um and the applicant is agreeing to stipulate that there will be no rentals Um, I appreciate that. Um, although I would have liked the prior stipulations, but I am okay with what it
is now. Any other comments? So, I initially when we got this, I strugg I didn't I was like, what is the purpose to be honest? Why would you do that? Um but then again when you start talking about criteria I understand what
why you're doing it and let me see if I can make it clear um for the people from the public. The benefit here is you can now move that pool over the property line whereas before you would have had a huge nonconformity right you could well you couldn't have done it if you left them as separate lots. So the problem
was you would have ran into a problem there. So now you can build your dream home on your on the bear trail existing bear trail lot. you can put the pool where you want it to be. There will still be two homes. The home will still face Pitney, so it will not change the character of the neighborhood, which
honestly I appreciate. Right. Um, and although Mr. Hammond, I can't believe I'm about to say this. Originally, I agree with you about the driveway, but I think in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, I think I appreciate the fact that it's two separate driveways. To be honest with you, when you think about it like that,
my only concern here is back to what Mr. Roireer said at first. I was when he first said about one septic, I thought like Mr. Tremor like that's got to be huge. So I think I kind of agree with Mr. Roer that if they
choose to leave it is two, I have no problem. >> Yeah, we have that. Right. So I'm just, you know, for my own, you know, >> correct. So I was just saying those concerns were all just to make it ancillary to the primary residence that I wasn't
>> really requesting that >> um because that's what I thought made more sense necessarily. It was just show me that it's >> secondary so that we can close off Yeah. If you close off that driveway, yeah, it it would have possibly changed that
character. and again the septic but I was just looking for the positive in the proof really of showing that it would have been but at this point that it's not and they're requesting specifically for that principal use >> right >> like I said although I would have
preferred those other stipulations and you know >> this is I think fair >> so um that I think the uh testimony and explaining why makes a lot more sense to me now and just to addressed uh some of
your concerns earlier. It doesn't change we we cannot as a land use board considered tax, but just for the record, it does not change anything. It's still two homes, square footage, everything else. So, um again, I have I do I would
support uh a D1 variance at this point based on the testimony that we had and based on the comments from Miss Brienne. So, I would go ahead and make a motion that we approve the D1 variance with the stipulations that Miss Cypriani so eloquently stated that I did not.
>> There's a second. >> Uh, Miss Rosal. >> So, we have a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley,
>> yes. Great. Thank you so much. >> Get Do we get a break? >> All right. That clock back there is wrong. It is 9:15 with 10 minutes, please. We're going to call this meeting back to
order. >> It's a little cold. >> Okay. And now we're going to go back to applicant number one, Israel Burnbound, youth variant 3490. Thank you for the record. Donna Jennings from the law firm of Will Goldman and Spitzer. Um, I know it's been some time
since we were here. >> I'm sorry. Can I ask you Thank you. So, the record. Um, yeah. So, the last time we were here was uh sometime in August, I believe. Um, and we submitted some revised plans. We were supposed to be heard in September, I want to say, and
we got carried because it was not a quorum. I just want to make sure, just for the record, that the board members who were not here for the first two hearings have reviewed the videos and andor read the transcripts. Can we just have that put on the record so it's clear? >> Numerous times.
>> Yeah. Yes, they have. And they have uh submitted the certifications that they've done. So >> in addition in addition to being here for both of them >> that's five hours I'll never get back but yes. >> Okay. >> And for the record Miss Jennings Miss Kusano is no longer on the podium because she had to recuse herself for
this application. >> Thank you. >> Understood. And so, uh, we did submit just minor revisions that we're going to have our, um, engineer review, Ellie Halpert, who testified first, and we have a new report August 13, 2025 from
Reington and Vernick. And also an August 13, 2025 Morgan uh, review letter. Oh, I'm so sorry. I promise I'll get myself together now. Do you swear or affirm that you the testimony before this board will give the be the truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> And if you could state your name and credentials for that >> Eric Halpert, licensed professional engineering planner in the state of New Jersey. I've testified before this board before and these plans were prepared under my supervision. >> Mr. Halbert, this uh board accepts your credentials. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> So, if you could, Mr. Halpert, just describe uh the minor revision since we were here the last time. And as the board knows, all other testimony has already been presented. >> Anthony, could you pull up the revised site plan that was submitted?
And could you go to the um to sheet number three of this um set? Thank you. Sorry, it's not working great. the um revisions um depicted on the
plan. Um my previous testimony discussed the um operations of the site and the entire site and my testimony now is only to discuss uh the revisions. The board at a previous hearing had requested a phasing plan um in order to understand
how the site will be um operating while the um shul tent is operating and then how the site will operate when the tent will be removed and demolished and the wrestling school is going to remain. And
um in uh to um address that request, revised plans were submitted. And um sheet um C30 C C301 and C300 um depict um a phasing plan. So C300
depicts the plan. Could you zoom in Anthony a little bit to this area? the how the site will operate while the tent is standing. There is presently a gravel area. The site will be improved with additional
gravel area, additional asphalt. There will be 15 a section of 15 spots followed by a section of four spots, 19 spots servicing the tent. The requirement per
the current ordinance for a 650 square foot um place of worship is 17 spots and there would be 19 spots provided for the tent during the temporary um
operation of the tent that the applicant is seeking approval for. This would remain the applicant is proposing for this to remain gravel as this is temporary in nature. The applicant would be improving the
degraded rear asphalt area and add additional asphalt for the wrestling school use in order to provide the parking required for the wrestling school. So the phase one depicts parking
along the western side of this parking area just east of where the tent is. 19 parking spaces sufficient for the shul use. Anthony, can you go to the following sheet
and could you zoom into the same area and pull it a little bit to the right so we could see the parking to the rear sheet. Uh this this uh phase two depicts how the site will operate when the tent
is no longer there. the parking spaces that previously existed where the uh where I am pointing to will no longer be there. Again, the wrestling school will be improved with parking spaces that are
asphalt. There will remain a the gravel area will remain just for an emergency turnaround. Um and the entire driveway servicing the wrestling school will be asphalt leading to the the drive access
to the um rear parking and to the parking that is in the front. The wrestling school will also have two EV spaces. It will have EV spaces. It it will have ADA parking spaces compliant
with the um requirements. That would be all the revisions that have been submitted and I can answer questions regarding this. >> Um yeah, I I had a couple questions. One, you said E and then ADA spaces. Is
it just ADA spaces or is it both ADA? >> Both. And if a condition that after the certificate of occupi is of that co would you say is needed to
take down the tent and the parking spaces and any other 30 days. >> And are those I'm sorry if I didn't follow. So the changes that would be made after
permanent site elsewhere is that the tent itself would come down and the parking space would be removed. Would there be any I think there were um mechanicals or things that were in place. I assume they would be taken away as well. >> Correct.
>> The plan indicates tent to be demolished, concrete pads and HVAC to be demolished and removed. All all the structure and everything associated with the structure will be removed. >> Excuse me. How many parking spots will the wrestling school have uh after the
tent is taken down? >> The wrestling school is going to have um 29 asphalt spaces with um two EV spaces and then 10 green banked spaces. >> Mr. Morris. >> Yeah, thank you. Just a quick thing
actually this is for Ray. Um the AV spaces is there concern with the fires that because it requires more water and all that kind of stuff. Are there any do you have any concerns there >> or anybody? >> It's always a great concern especially out there where there's no hydrants. It
could take thousands of gallons. But unfortunately that would require at least a >> right >> if you didn't have a hydrant you'd have to have a a sistern with a commercial well >> that would be activated >> you know upon
uh >> and there's nothing in the code or anything to to force it. So >> luckily it's in a place where there's not too much that would be infringed upon on if it went on fire and it would
just be a more of a headache for the fire department. There's not much we can do about that because there's nothing there. >> Okay. >> I mean, >> yeah, thanks. >> If it was a more permanent situation, I would I would be more aggressive with
it. But I mean my question is when the shul is done, they pull the tent down. What's the future of this property? To me, it has potential for everything to be torn down and then something else be built there. So, what are we looking at?
>> I think you're going to have to kiss the the the the microphone because it's not coming across that great. But >> so, Miss Jennings, just to help um Mr. Mr. Chairman and the board all understand even though the ten shoe will come down when the CO is issued for the permanent
structure which is on Brewers Bridge. Correct. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um the homeowner, the rabbi will still be living in the home. >> No. >> No. There's going to be a new home attached to the shul. So, the rabbi is
also moving to the new sh. As I understood the request was to allow two principal uses, but those uses shift. So there' be phase one essentially where principal
uses would be the wrestling school taken down the principal uses the home and the rest. >> Correct. Do we actually need the EV parking
spots? >> EV parking spots is a requirement under state code. At least one EV spot. >> Okay. So, they they'll be away from the building. >> They're the they the they're depicted uh somewhat close to the building. They
could be moved to a separate spot if the board will impose a condition. >> I would say put them as far away as you can. >> Chair, what what would be the reason for having two principal structures? Why not have the home be the principal structure
and the wrestling school building an accessory structure? What advantage is it to have two principal uses? So, wrestling school was, as you may recall, originally approved as a home occupation and at that time it was
essentially an accessory because it was uh run by the owner of the home. When the home was sold, um then it was no longer a home occupation, which is why they're here requesting uh that use. Um, and so the
wrestling school is not accessory to the home any longer. >> It's not related. >> It's not related. >> Okay. Well, I'm just reading from the uh minutes of the last meeting and um just
find stuff here. You just said that the resting school does not have a variance protection. Miss Jennings stated that the opinion that the resting school would promote the best interests of the community and is a good cause to help neighborhood
children and can occur without detriment to to the community. However, this is a a testimonial to the school and the owner, which I agree agree with the with that statement except that we're talking about land use here. So the testimonial
may be uh good for him but it doesn't clear up land use. Um also that the wrestling school will need two variances. Now I guess one would be the use and one
would be the principal structure. Yes, it would be a if it's a principal use, this would also be a principal structure. >> Okay. And just continue. Miss Jennings advis the board that she does not represent the school.
And if the board does not want to grant the D variance, then she would ask the board to make a resolution just to approve the SH. You still stand by that? >> Yeah, I mean, we'd like to see the wrestling school get approved. He's been there a long time. Um, and nobody has
had an issue with it. Uh, so we would like to see him continue. But correct, I don't actually represent the wrestling school. >> Okay. But you agree he he's still a commercial usage on on in a residential area which is not permitted. >> Yes. But it's the same exact use that's
been there for a number of years. And when you guys originally allowed him to go there as a home occupation, you had made some specific findings. is you actually found that the wrestling school operation shall not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the adjacent property owners property. Um things to that
effect. So I feel like you've already made these determinations that the use was appropriate at this site and the only thing that changed is he doesn't live in the house. The rabbi does instead. So I would think that the board would find that this is still an appropriate site for the wrestling
school. >> That was still done as as a variance for home ownership of of the property. So once he saw the house, it completely changed. >> Right. >> Okay. So when the rabbi moves into the new
location, the house will be unoccupied. It'll be empty. >> The house will be empty once. >> Well, temporarily. I'm sure somebody will move in there. I just don't know who. >> Oh, okay. No, I just want wasn't sure if it was being sold like so when it's
sold, it's sold together with the wrestling. So, >> uh, Israel Burbam owns the home. He allows the rabbi to live there because he's part of the shawl, >> right? And then, okay. >> To continue, if the home is sold to
somebody else, that person has to accept the wrestling school if it's >> right. It's part of the property. >> Correct. >> To finish that thought, the other issue is that Mr. Burn Brown could continue to own the property and just rent the house in the front similar to the what's going
on now. He's not living there, >> right? >> So, he could continue to rent the house that's up front. Um, my comment or question was for Mr. Halpert. Um, talked about phase one 19
parking spaces. Is there a a trigger or a threshold or a time frame that triggers those improvements? Should the board grant approval, we will have to come back for site plan approval.
Um, and the board the we would agree to a certain time frame to submit the site plan application and then only after the site plan application would the board would we be able to install those improvements. >> Okay. I I don't know if that testimony
has been offered to the board so that it could be put in a resolution. Robert Albert, what is a reasonable frame time frame for the submission of a site plan? A >> site plan would be able to be submitted within four to six months should the board grant approval?
>> And how long before we anticipate the uh permanent shel, for lack of a better phrase, being completed? The permanent shul has received approvals and has begun um construction um site improvements.
Um construction is reasonable to believe it could be completed within 18 months. >> It is hard it is hard to give an exact construction has commenced. >> It appears that they they're working on the foundation if I
>> if I remember when I passed by. >> Correct. with uh the town adopting uh ordinance 3123 and then we have 244-46A section G. Is the house of worship now a
permitted use in this location? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. So, there's no variance, no Dvariance needed. >> No D variance for the house of worship, just for the wrestling school. Thank you questions. You have anything for us?
>> Uh no, Madam Chair. Um the applicant has stated they'll have to come back for a site plan to formalize any of the engineering concerns, but at this point uh this is satisfactory the layout. Any questions, comments? >> No. Council uh there's no board chair,
excuse me. >> Questions or comments? >> Um will the applicant stipulate that this use for the wrestling school stay specifically for a wrestling school? >> Yes, it was changed. did have to come back to the board. Thank you.
>> Just just give me the reasons why wrestling school deserves variances when when it's still a commercial entity in a residential area. It is not related to
any other property, any other part of the uh site. Well, we had our planner basically testify and even though it's no longer home occupation, it's going to operate exactly as it has operated in the past.
And you do allow quasi public recreation clubs and we would say that it's similar to that. So since there's no change in operations and the school has never had an impact on the community or in the neighborhood from a zoning and planning perspective, we believe that it should be granted the variance so that it can
continue to operate. >> Would it be be operating as a quasi public club or a commercial entity? >> It is a commercial entity. No one's denying that. That's why we're here for asking for the Dvariance. That is correct. It is a commercial entity.
>> So basically the quasi public club is means nothing. Well, if I may, my understanding was that the uh request was that the wrestling school be given a conditional use variance as a uh
private recreational what was it called? A uh >> Yeah. Right. >> So, it's being presented as a private recreation use. I I would agree that it is commercial, but the
it's being asked for as a conditional use variance. >> Mr. >> So, Mr. Heyman asked if you would if you would come back if you change it from a wrestling school. I want to see if you'll take it a little step further. If
Mr. Rivera no longer runs the school, can we have it where the new ownership would have to come in? Well, that actually goes against the law. >> Yeah, I was say I I it's a it's a very
sort of common sense approach, but because as as Dr. Huffy was saying, it's a land use approval. It's a question of approving the use, not the individual. >> Okay. So then we shouldn't be looking at the 15 years of good use that he's
presented. We should look at it as a new application. >> You should look at at it in terms of it being the wrestling school. You could certainly take into account the past years without any negative effect on the
neighborhood. But it is true that if Mr. Rivera would leave and another person came in and ran a wrestling school, they would have the ability to do that if you were to approve it. Any additional comments before I open it to
the public? >> Any comments or anything before I open it to the public? Miss Jennings. >> Oh, sorry, Gina. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if we're going to continue uh renting
the single family dwelling, I know touch and base what I said before, Donna, that would be subject to uh code enforcement co regulations. >> Correct. >> All that normal. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um, but at this time there's no one lined up to rent it once. >> No, we don't know when the building will
be finished so the rabbi can move. >> Okay. Um, I know I had mentioned previously um I have notes from one of the last hearings about um like a sunset provision. I know we had uh touched base on that. Um basically giving a time frame. So
for the new this is um that's what I'm looking for. Sorry my my vocabulary is failing me. This approval is contingent based the house of worship that's currently under construction and then this use will be vacated. So, I believe there is um the
sunset provision that I have notated uh in our code gives I believe it's a one-year time frame and they can come back for an extension prior to that one-year time frame. Is that something that we are looking to implement on this application should the board choose to approve it?
>> I mean, that's obviously up to the board whether they want to bring them back. The condition that has been discussed thus far would be that it would be triggered that by the um grant of a CEO to the permanent jewel.
>> Okay. I just wasn't sure because I know that was uh previously discussed in past hearings. So I didn't know if that was something that the board was looking forward to implement maybe at this time coming to a vote. Um it kind of just as we know some a lot of times construction
development can take u many many issues can prolong the time frame of of when a co could be issued. So kind of just um puts a little bit more more enforcement action on to how long this will remain.
>> They basically the approval for the operation of the shul would be for one year could be extended upon request of the board. Is that what >> right? then they would have to come back prior to that one year expiration. >> So I just want to make sure I understand. So we I just asked a
question. We gave an estimate of approximately 18 months. So we're if all things go in a perfect world and it's done in 18 months from now, you're saying if it's not done in 18 months, then >> I believe the code specifically states a one-year time frame. Um, I don't know if
that's Gan, maybe your in your input would be best on this is if >> that's something that we could implement a different time frame for them to come back and request an extension. I'm not too sure and I don't want to misspeak because I'm not familiar with that specifically. >> No, that the a specific condition in the
resolution would sort of override that requirement. But I think that the idea that you're suggesting of bringing them back in a certain amount of time, that's obviously up to the board. But as the chairwoman said, the discussion was 18 months. So maybe it's like you want to
do it in two years and then if it's going to be there for more than you know two years, then then have them come back and explain and get an extension. Or I might suggest why don't you wait till we come in for site plan and then impose it
on the site plan because we're going to be back in six months for the site plan. >> Just wanted to throw it out there because this is >> you'll get an update as to where we're at. Just wanted to put it on on the record and give the board um maybe another option to think about and discuss because this has been an ongoing
um an outstanding zoning violation which is obviously we've been putting on hold because they have come to the board and made application to the board. But it kind of just I feel will alleviate maybe a lot of the public's concerns that it's operating without any approvals and will also give us a little bit more of an enforcement tool. Um, so I just wanted
to throw that out there and and give the board another option, something to >> Well, and I thought that the um representation that was made at a previous meeting was once they had the approval, like haven't been able to get the construction approvals because they didn't have the zoning approval. >> Correct. >> But that once they got the zoning
approval, if the board were to give them zoning approval, then they would go in and get the construction approvals. >> Right. Right. Exactly. But this kind of would also like I going back to my previous point, sorry to repeat myself, but there are a lot of things that come into play that can cause delays in construction. So not saying that and
that's never the intent obviously, but things happen, but that kind of will give us, like I said, a little bit more of an enforcement tool that at least whether if if they're um guesstimating 18 months to completion, then we'll be back in another six months, then maybe two years is
something a respectable time frame that the board should choose. good for is you know it should last for 24 months. It needs to be longer than the 24 months then um the applicant must return to the board and request an extension
and I think we'll do do that today. I didn't know she was done. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. >> No, I just You were done speaking. I don't want to. >> Okay. >> They did agree. I I just could feel we agree. >> I could feel the agreement. So, so therefore where we stand right
now that the uh uh since the tent dual intent doesn't need a Dvariance that it's permitted use and basically we have no choice but to to approve the uh the tent sh in the
tent and basically what we're doing is we have a validating years of illegal use uh with no permits and no inspections However, as as uh what I'd like to see done uh in order to approve it is an
inspection an up-to-date inspection by the building construction department to make sure everything is okay there and an up-to-date fire inspection report including that the tent structure meets the New Jersey state fire code sections
3101 regarding membrane structure intents intents. This has has many things that have to be followed and almost every one of them is for safety of people who are using it. So I I would strongly hope
that that the inspector can can do that. We see what's happening in Hong Kong recently with with with somebody not following the rules and we certainly don't want that here. >> No, that that's perfectly acceptable. We've had had the tent uh already
inspected and we had a report the last time we were here so we can continue to update that. >> Okay, good. That that's good. And I'm still having trouble with the wrestling school. When it was a home business, the owner had it was the sole
employee there. Now you're having 29 spots. So there's probably going to be more instructors there. So is isn't it expanding the use of it now? Keeping it Well, >> well, just to clarify, if I may, we don't actually need the 25 parking 29
that's required by code. So, we're coming in with a fully conforming parking requirement. We agree with you. We don't need the 29 parking spaces, but we're trying to meet the code. So, there's got not going to be any increase in instructors and stuff like that.
Steve doesn't have any plans to expand what he's doing. We're just trying to get it more consistent with the code. Could we have something like that place in the resolution limiting limiting the amount of instructors he can have? >> Well, I don't think that
>> I don't think that's an issue because if you look at your old resolution, it was there was lots of restrictions on the time and the days. So, I don't think he was looking for any relief from that and said >> um it would only be himself and anybody
that had lived in his house. So there's not a lot of instructors there now. They would only be open certain hours from 5:30 p.m. to 9 900 p.m. and two classes per day on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday. And both classes start at 5:30 to 7:00. He's not there very much.
So he's not looking to get or expand the hours that were given in the original resolution. He's looking just to maintain what he was originally granted. >> So you would agree that could be put in the resolution? Absolutely. >> And then then it comes what? What
happens if he sells it and we know the resting soil has to stay there? Would that restrict? >> Well, they would have to file a zoning permit and their zoning permit would have to indicate that they were operating in the same manner under the same hours as Steve is. And if they're not, they would have to come to this
board because the zoning permit should be denied. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? >> Uh yeah. Um, so, so I appreciate our experts kind of giving us a watch out, things to look out for. So, never feel
um, so one of the watch outs was how long the construction is going to take, right? And we said that's going to we're going to come back when I just want to make sure um, our person taking the minutes because we talk over each other sometimes.
That's all going to that's all in the minutes. What? >> I also have a court reporter who's taking down everything and I do give the transcript to the board. >> So, you'll have a full transcript. >> Do I get it? But sorry, I didn't. Okay. >> You'll get it. And and also the
conditions will be in the resolution. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Okay. We're going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time and say anything, please do so. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session.
Board, it's up to us for discussion. >> Hey, and uh just Sorry. Oh, that's No, that's okay. Um so, as we had discussed, let's just go through one more time. Um this was requested the uh conditional use variance for the wrestling school um
which was originally approved as a home occupation and then to have the two principal uses that would shift. So the first phase with the two principal uses would be the shul and the wrestling school. Um and then after the shul was
dismantled, the principal uses would be the home and the wrestling school conditions were discussed is that after the certificate of occupancy um on the permanent shel on Brewer's Bridge um is issued that the applicant
would have 45 days to dismantle the shel including the removal of the shel parking spaces and any mechanical like the uh air conditioning for the sh that's on site. The approval for the sh to remain would be good for a period of
24 months. If it's anticipated to be longer, the applicant must return to the board to request an extension based on uh the construction schedule. Um it needs to obtain uh continued updated fire inspection appro tent and also
other uh construction permits which required uh for the tent and mechanicals. anything else that was done. Um the uh wrestling school parking uh will have the required number of AD
and EV spaces. The EV spaces are to be placed as far from any structures as practically possible practically possible. Um, and the wrestling school would be a wrestling school only with a continuing restriction on hours of
operation and all other restrictions from the original resolution approval as a home business and the site plan application would be uh required to be submitted within five months. >> Correct. The only thing is there were
two C variances as well. Uh yes, sideback side uh side your setbacks and I had um a buffer requirement set back as well. >> Yeah. And then there was actually the
house where where the rabbi resides is technically an accessory structure and that's in front of the tent. So temporarily we need that variance as well. >> Thank you. All right. Board comments,
>> I guess I'll start. Um, since I get to vote on this one. Um, I watched the meetings again. Um, and I asked a lot of questions. Nobody responded to me, so I spent a lot of
time talking to myself. Um, I do have a lot of apprehension on this one. Um, I'm a 52-year resident of Jackson, so I understand how important wrestling is to this community.
>> We can be I'm sorry. So, as a 52-year resident of Jackson, I know how important wrestling is to this township. Um, I can go back to the days of Louis Durant winning a state championship. Yes, I'm that old. Um,
but I still struggle with the change from a home office to a commercial use. Um, the other things that I saw in the video that kind of concerned me is for the C variances for the shul with the
home as the accessory in the front yard and the sideyard setbacks. the uh applicants professional stated they were existing conditions and my question kind of went well the applicant created those conditions by opening the tent during
COVID and I get the need for it during COVID but when COVID um requirements kind of went away nothing was ever adjusted because if you had come in for an application could we have
prevented some of these uh ex you know sideyard setbacks by just moving the tent you know a certain amount of space you know over so I am struggling with some of that uh so we will I will listen to the other board members uh I'm still
going back and forth as to where I want to be >> Mr. Martins. >> Sure. Um, so as far as the shul and a lot of the issues you brought up, right, the fact that it's temporary,
um, makes me feel okay about it. Um, you know, as long as when the plans come and we it becomes permanent and and you build it, we meet all the requirements and we're able to go through all that. Um, I'm okay with the shul. Um
the wrestling it's your head versus your heart, right? So my heart says, "Yeah, wrestling. Okay, that's cool. But it is a commercial use in the residential area. I can't get past >> commercial use though." >> Two wrongs don't make a right. >> No, no, no, no. It's not a wrong. He had
it. So >> did he get Did he get Sorry, >> give me a second. >> He There is a Miss Jennings quoted the resolution. I can't quote the year. I'm going to say about 2009. I don't remember >> correct. 2009 >> 2009 he came before the board and was
granted a variant to open to put up the pole barn and open up a resident school. The question before us now is it was a home occupation was still a business, right? But he has a resolution. He got a variance and got a resolution to operate the wrestling school. The difference now
is he's no longer the home owner. But is your burnbomb who is the homeowner has worked with him so that he can still operate the wrestling school according to the terms as Miss Jennings pointed out of the original resolution. So I just want to be clear he's not
operating illegally. So I just I I just want to make sure you understood that. >> Yes. I I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yeah. My counter. >> Go ahead. >> Oh no. I just wanted to make sure I understood. It wasn't >> No, I did. No, thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I was sure he was done. Sorry. >> Thank you. Um I see no issue with um really any of it. I mean there are certain technicalities um because but regarding the shul and the rabbi's residence um they're all
temporary with sunset provisions and they will fall in place. Um the the biggest thing that we're dealing with here is keep going back to is the wrestling school. Um as the chair just stated and M Jennings stated numerous
times, it's the exact same use. It's a technicality. It's the legal terminology is changing because the it's not a home business but on a technical um
purposes for all technical purposes it's the exact same use. Um so I have no issue with it. >> I'm kind of on a little different angle than everybody else. Uh I went there today. I looked around. >> You know Excuse me. your microphone stands as close as possible.
>> I hate these microphones. Wrestling school, I think it's been there for a long time. Maybe the rules got bent, whatever else. It doesn't quite fit there, but there's been no complaints about it. It's not like a big construction company that some people don't like to get their
properties or big buildings. Uh for me, in my mind, it's a good thing for the kids. So, I kind of lean a little lax on that. I'm more concerned about a tent that has people smoking
outside. There was an ash the commercial ashtray and within a short stone throw 20 ft away is a 100 pound propane cylinder that's feeding the heating unit that's not properly done. So, I mean, I don't know who's
approving all this. you know, the I don't have any problem with the wrestling. I have a problem with the tent, but that's not the question today. Um, I am a little concerned when the tent comes down, what's going to happen to
this property after that, which I know we don't have crystal ball. We can't really look in the future. You know, do they have plans on continuing to keep the wrestling school there? And if they are, I mean, again, I think
it's a good thing. And it's so far in the back, nobody will see it. And um other than that, like I said, the tent is more concerning. >> Okay. >> Just just back to the wrestling school
since it was mentioned that it could possibly be severed from the application. If it is, it it cannot be it cannot come back as a as a request for a variance because he
doesn't own the property. Is that true? >> No, you don't need to own the property to make an application to the board. But if you deny him here, he can come back. This is his we are asking for it now. So if you deny him, he would be barred by the doctrine of reg judicata. He can't come back on his own and ask for the
same relief that we're asking on his behalf. >> Okay? So he can't come back. cannot >> cannot >> cannot come back. Okay. >> So, um I'm going to kind of uh piggyback on what Mr. Heyman said. I really don't have an issue basically for the
following reasons. I think um the agreed to the fact We're going to have a updated fire inspection and construction inspection. Uh Miss Tumalo brought up about the things that have gone on already. Uh should we granted that will
uh allow them to resolve that will allow them? What in the world? You saw my face. Oh boy. Um should we granted that would resolve a lot of those issues. Um, so I think the fire inspection, the
construction inspection, that's all a positive thing for everybody involved. Obviously, we want the safety of the people who utilize the shul at this time. Um, we've put on the record, we're estimating approximately 18 months of completion, but we've given it 24 months, and if after that, you would have to come back for an extension.
Um, I don't have a problem with the wrestling school because, as Mr. Heyman pointed out, and as Miss Jennings read, they have an existing resolution. they've acted accordingly from that variance that was granted for the last 16 years. Um, nothing is changing. It is
a technicality. I do understand it was originally granted as a home business, but it's operated been no problems. I don't I we haven't heard yet that there's been a complaint. Um, so I don't have a problem with any of it um continuing the use that it's in. Um, I'm
just glad to see that we will have the inspections and make sure that everybody's safe. Um, so I I would go ahead and make a motion that we approve it with all the conditions that Miss uh Miss Cypriani stipulated. Um, and that's my motion.
>> I'll second that motion. >> Motion and roll and we have our motion and second roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, oh,
>> sorry. Recused. Mr. just lucky. >> I guess they got to make a decision now. Um, >> I'm going to say yes. >> Dr. Hoffsy, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> We don't see you guys. Have a great holiday and I'm sure I'll see you in the new year. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. Still uncomfortable. All in favor? >> I