I'm making this announcement in compliance with the open public meetings act being chapter 231 the public law of 1975 laws of the state of New Jersey. The planning board secretary has prepared a schedule of the meeting of the planning board of the burrow of Kennaworth for the year 2026 and has
posted a true copy of the schedule of the bulletin on the bulletin board located at the front entrance of Burrow Hall and has mailed true copies of this schedule to the local source the star ledger and is maintaining a copy of the schedule in Burough Hall. Accordingly,
the notice requirements of the Oakland public meeting act have been satisfied in regard to this meeting. Can we stand for the pledge of allegiance? >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call, please. >> Mayor Carlo, >> here. >> Mr. Pero, >> here. >> Uh, Councilman Scarice >> here. >> Mr. David, >> here. Mr. Kzi here. Mr.
>> Here, Mr. Pantina. >> Oh, he's here. >> He's here somewhere. He's not >> here. My name >> Mr. Scaderi >> here. >> Mr. Low. >> Mr. >> Le
said that. Y >> I'm right here. >> Sorry, I was like writing a note down. >> Mr. Klo >> here. >> Uh Mr. Pinkoli >> here. Okay. Is there a motion for to approve the me uh meeting minutes of uh
February 24th, 26? >> So move. >> Moved by Mr. Clementthy, second by Mr. Scader. All in favor? >> I. >> Um Kathy, any communications? >> Uh we received correspondence from Mayor Carlo accepting planning board member Tonyy's resignation effected 22426.
>> Okay. And I guess that's about it for now, right? Okay. Um application number 25007 um uh Elshik Enterprise LLC. Uh Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself
from this application. >> Okay. Let the record show that Mr. Masio Masio has to recuse himself. If another member of the board would like to come up, he's a regular member. Nick >> Nick Pantina, would you come on up? Um before we get started, I would like to
um just uh put some uh new type of rules technique for our board here tonight. What we're going to try to do to have clarity. Um we're going to have the applicant, their attorneys, their
professionals do whatever they do. Um present their case. Um, we would then like our professionals to go back and forth a little bit. Of course, if we have a question, we could ask the question, but sometimes the questions um
tend to be answered in the let's call it the cross uh when when that's all going on just to expedite things a little bit. And then we would like to hear from the public before our board uh starts to go back and forth to figure out what we
would like to do. And we do understand that the applicant has witnesses and different things that something may stir up. And yes, no one's going to restrict you from asking the question, but let's see how we could um hone that in and
make this work out uh a little bit more streamlined. Everybody understand what we'd like to do? Okay, with that >> it's yours. >> Uh Gary Goodman on behalf of Elchic Enterprises. This is an application for a minor subdivision at 530 Monroe
Avenue, which is at the corner of North 22nd Street. Uh our request for variance is to have uh the uh 15t front yard setback that's required. We're looking to divide the property exactly in half
to 6,500 square foot lots where 5,000 is required and that would uh require a barren u because we're asking for a 25 ft um up front 15t front yard. Um, uh, my witnesses
this evening, Ed Deck, uh, who will give a survey, uh, testimony, and I've asked him to do a study of the lots within the zone and the neighborhood, uh, to measure the front yard setbacks on the
various properties. Uh our architect Roger Winkle is here to answer questions with regard uh to the varian for the attic. Uh and also the bumpout for the chimney. Uh and uh I'd like to
call out my first witness, Ed Deck, please. >> Okay, Mr. Goodman, to uh just move this along as well. I think it'd be a good time to swear in our professionals and uh get that out of the way and then we could move on to adapt. >> You want the professionals to be sworn
in? How about Mr. Elic? Should he be sworn in as well? >> When it's time. >> When it's time. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You want to get sworn in, gentlemen? Mr. >> You guys >> raise your hand. Do you u
there are four professionals that are have risen. So clear do you all swear uh that testimony shall or testimony you will get tonight >> Mr. Chair was sworn in. >> Thank you sir.
Mr. the deck. I know you've appeared before us quite uh quite a few times. Your license and everything is still in order. >> Still in order. >> I think the board will be okay with you to pursue. >> Thank you. Um can I put this display over there? >> Wherever you're comfortable that we could all see what you're doing.
>> Excuse me one second. Um, Mr. Mazio, could you open up those rear doors? That the doors need to be open. >> There's some music playing back here. I don't know how to turn it open. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> Mr. Chairman, do we have a hand mic or is this the only
>> No, unfortunately that's the only mic. >> That's all we have. And I know Mr. Deck is going to project tonight so we can hear Mr. Deck. >> Yeah, I'm feeling much better now. >> Good. Thank you for stay keeping your distance. >> So the disqualifications have been
accepted. Yes, sir. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Mr. Tech, could you describe to the board the uh existing conditions at 5:30 Monroe, please? >> Sure. Uh what's uh on the easel there is the cover sheet for current applications. 530 Monmouth, I'm sorry,
Monroe Avenue, Barrow of Kenworth Union County, New Jersey, block 12, block 43. Um on that uh cover sheet we have the list of property owners in the 200 ft. We have a 200t radius map and also a zoning map. Um right here on the right
hand side uh we also have various notes uh and a zoning box schedule. What I'll do is just go now to the second sheet which is the existing Um on sheet two uh you can see the existing property. It's
uh 30 ft wide by 100 25 ft deep and uh it is um has had previously an existing structure which is now has been
removed along with the shed which and all other secondary structures have been removed. Uh there was a driveway that serviced the building that connected Monroe Avenue to uh the side street and um
um pretty much um that's the extent was there again what's there now uh everything's been removed except for the fencing along the property along with the construction trans what is Mic
Enterprises proposed separation line, >> the uh proposed subdivision line. If everyone's uh does have any questions about sheet two, I'm going to move on to sheet three, which shows the proposed subdivision.
>> I'm sorry. >> Mr. the deck. Are any of these uh sheets new that we haven't seen? >> Uh the last revised date is February 06. I believe the board has that. >> Okay. So, you're not presenting anything new to us? Okay. Thank you, Mr. D.
>> Sheet three is the proposed subdivision plan. As you can see, what we did was separate the two lots uh equally down the middle. Uh we have two equal size lots 65 by 65 by 100 ft deep deep from
the uh 22nd street right away line >> and uh mck the kennelorth land use ordinance provides for what in terms of the front yard per ordinance >> the front prevail the setback for the
front setback is 25 ft >> and in our corner lot there I I don't know what number you could designate what number. Uh we are requesting uh 15t. Correct. >> Right. This 12.02 and we are um requesting a variance from
the street line Monroe Avenue to the proposed building of 15 ft. And in support of that request, uh, uh, uh, Elshik Enterprises requested that you make a survey of lots in the zone in
that specific neighborhood and come up with um, uh, a a chart in terms of what lots were underneath the 25 ft requirement. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And have you um been
able to generate uh those uh charts and examples? >> Yes, I have um a handout here that I can distribute to the board.
Put that here. >> Do we need to mark this as an exhibit, Mr. Deco? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So invoice was not provided. No, it's new marked as a >> It went around twice. Okay,
>> got some numbers back there. >> Hopefully everybody has >> uh Mr. Please go through for the board what you these people >> that would help. >> I don't have any answers. I can't. >> There you go. Cheers. Sorry.
Okay. Well, what I have here um on the cover sheet is a copy of the uh Pharaoh's zoning chart. And you can see where uh it's kind of small, but Monroe Avenue runs from Michigan Avenue all the
way to continues on, but the R5 stops at approximately uh North 18th Street. Um so what we have done then is >> taken u copies of the pharaoh's tax maps
>> and upon those tax maps we've handwritten in each lot the distance of the distance from the property line to the building. And I'll go over this way uh of on each
sheet on a sheet for sheet basis. On the north side, um we have from Michigan Avenue to 19th Street, which would be the east side of 19th Street, we have 12 lots and out of
those 12 lots, four of them are less than 25 ft. Turning to the second sheet, it's also the north side. There's a continuation from 19th Street to And I'm stopping at
the uh separation between 15th and 14th. That's where the uh R5 zone stops. And there we have a total of 10 lots that are being evaluated. And eight of those lots are less than 25
ft in setback. Six lots, I'm sorry. Six lots will fit less than uh 25 ft in setback. On the third sheet, we now go to the south side. Again, we're all in our zone. There are
a total of eight lots. We're not counting the uh St. Teresa's property. And uh out of those eight lots, seven of those lots are less than 25 ft from property line to building line. And then
last street is also south side. And we show that stops at cross street one street. Again, all of them in the R5 zone. There are five lots on this sheet and three are less than 25 ft. Uh and
you add it all together there. It's a common or a total evaluated number of lots of 35 lots and 20 of those lots have a front setback of less than 25 ft.
>> I have no further questions. >> Mr. David, >> out of the lots that are less than 25 ft, how many of those lots are greater than 15 ft? >> What way? >> I think that's a pretty clear question.
>> 25. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said 50. That's why >> Oh, I'm sorry. 15. Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. How many of those are >> right? So, out of the lots that are less than 25 ft, how many of them are greater than 15? Maybe they're 20, they're 22,
maybe they're 18, whatever it is. >> Okay, I could let me go the other way. Like 15 ft or less. Do you want to do it that way? >> No, I'm more interested in how many are above 15. >> Okay. Uh, just give me a second to count that up real quick. One, two, three,
four, five, eight. Okay. >> 16. >> Thank you. >> So, raises one more question. I I know I'm going a little bit against what I spoke about earlier, but to that point and to the testimony that you're trying
or the testimony that you're making is that out of all of those um you would you agree that they are pre-existing and non-conforming? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Okay. So, they you we don't know if any one of those had the ability to come
before the board for a hardship or a variance, but that's what's out there. They're pre-existing non-conforming, right? >> Okay. >> I don't remember, just to make comment, I don't remember the exact year that the
barrel went to a dual front yard setback. So that you needed, if you're on a corner lot, you need 25 on the each side, >> right? But I can tell you it was after probably every house that exists >> to just make that comment
>> to the non the existing non-conforming use. >> Uh Mr. Russo, >> Mr. Deck, for the you for the lots that are less than that don't need the setbacks. Do you have a general sense of the size of the dwelling on those lots? Are they one story, one and a half story? I notice there's a lot of pe
ranches. >> Well, that's a good question. generally do that analysis, but they're all single families. >> Thank you. >> Um, Mr. I have a couple of questions on the testimony and then some follow up on
the >> So in terms of what was presented in the logs that are noted here uh would you have looked at how many of those were the ones that are less than 25 or more
around 40 to 50 ft how many of those lots are undersized >> I have not I do that analysis >> okay just visually if I'm looking at this um several of them appear to be lot size that are lesser than the 5,000
square ft. >> I agree. >> I can't put exactly number on it, but that's what it appears. Um going back to the chairman and vice chairman's point, do we happen to know how many of these were new construction or recent
constructions that have had that? Uh well I I know there was one uh near the intersection of 18th Street in Monroe. That's very new construction. Two sorry
204 North 16th was a new construction >> and that's at 15 ft. one one shot. >> All right. Um now, as >> I'm not sure if you're putting your planning hat on right now,
>> but um just teameing with the testimony that was provided at the last time and this um the the board's um decision over here is for the specific piece of property, right? the one that is before you, you have given a scenario of
everywhere else where the setback is permitted. Uh was there any efforts made to make this a conforming setback requirement? And by that I mean you have a an old size lot which subdivided and
you're meeting the lot size requirement. The lot size requirement is 5,000 square ft. Was there some iterations made to make this a compliant to law question to be directed to the owner
who's here and is going to testify next. >> Okay. >> Mr. Dick is a engineer and he's a surveyor. >> Right. And I cannot provide testimony as a planner. >> Okay. I was just asking as a you know >> right >> for somebody designing the site if that
iterations was taken in mind. Um now in terms of uh some of the other engineering questions or site layout questions that I have um was this subdivision doesn't show us any
accessory structures such as shed or anything you proposed at this point. >> Uh it has to be understood that when later in time if you have to propose a shed it will have to go through zoning permit and if it doesn't comply you have to be proposed. Absolutely. Yes.
>> Um in terms of patio, I see there's a revised patio being proposed in both those lots at the back. Uh we would if the board happened to look at this, we would ask you to provide some kind of if there are plantings being proposed or lighting being proposed in those.
>> Um is there any kind of fencing being proposed >> at this point? No. >> Um I think next is my architectural question. Um uh the last time uh the questions were on the se street trees and the revised
plans show the number of street trees that the ordinance requires. I would just bring it to notice that in the type of species you would have to uh you know provide us with the planting details and that would have to get by DPW. >> Certainly
um >> in terms of the HVAC equipment that is being proposed uh the ordinance requires certain kind of buffering around the HVAC and I believe that was also the questionnaire last time. Is there
sufficient amount to put a 3ft buffering around it? Because we didn't see it in the plant and uh would that be and uh provide a 4ft high evergreen heading around the sides of the HBAC? >> Yeah, I I'm familiar with that and we've
done that in the past and we'll do that. >> You will comply with that. Uh is the subdivision going to be filed by >> we would recommend that the before filing the deed meets and bounds and the legal description get approved from the court attorney and
>> yes >> um I'm not sure this probably might be an architect's question but I'll ask anyway and you can tell me uh the the garage size um as You know, our ordinance
requires a certain minimum square ft area. Was that taken into consideration for the 20 >> owner and architect will address? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you very much. Um, is that all we
have for um Mr. Deck? >> Okay, Mr. Deck, we'll reserve you later on to come back. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. I did not see you. Um, we had issued a a revised uh engineering letter dated March 17th, report number three. And I I believe at the previous meeting you had
agreed to address the engineering comments in the letter. They're basically the same besides the variances. >> I've been through that letter and we agreed to all the issues that are cited there. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Russo. Mr. Goodman right? Okay, >> Mr. Chic, just state your name, address for the record. >> Almost. Mr. Shik, you were sworn in. I'm excused by
>> Sir, do you swear testimony? >> I do. >> Uh, Henry Alik. >> Mr. Ali, I'm going to ask you questions. >> Sure. >> Okay. So you've heard basically the testimony of Mr. Jack the question for
your board and the threshold question really is why should you be granted the variance >> to defer from the 25T and build 15T >> okay >> front set >> and I asked you that question and I asked you to address that question.
um this piece of property when became available on the market. I uh I grabbed it very quick because I just love the location. It's a great location in town. It's a prime location in Kos
and uh it happened to know that it happens that we have me and a wife related family in a block and u I happen to know bunch of the families lives on 22nd street and I look at it is you know
what I need to do nice two homes in a block. This block is being a prime location in Kenworth. I see in it. You know what? It's a potential to set a new record in sales in town. And with that, of course,
the town is going to benefit. You know, we're bringing in we're taking down a $15,000 home. We're bringing in two homes. It's going to be bing somewhere around 22 $23,000 in revenue to the town. So, that's a win to the town, too. And I look at it from
the perspective of an investment before a builder is you know what I like to build two center hall colonial and two center hall colonial something that will be uh remarkable in a town something
will put my second shot on it in a town and everybody know how I build in this town. I mean I done so far out there in neighboring town beautiful homes multi-million dollar homes and I feel this block it deserve just two beautiful
homes and that's why I'm shooting for two center hold colonial and I'm not going to do less because I look at it it's a nice block and a 65 foot how often do I get 65 foot lot in town I
don't get the the the opportunity So with that, you can put a two nice home. It's going to get two nice families living in there. And it's going to be nice to this the extended family that we have on 22nd. And it's going to be nice
to most of the families I know lives on 22nd Street. And that's where I come up with this two, you know, nice houses, nice layout houses, blah blah blah. Okay, I can look at it as a sale is I was known in a lost
pool of real estate breaking record in this town. I know this town I got separated a little bit from Ken after the boom with the real estate market dive in ' 08. I kind of slow it down a little bit. Okay. And I went to surrounding town and I did very well in
surrounding town. I came back to Ken. I done couple of project here and there. I sold one to my daughter and Kage last year and I think everybody lost the house I built for my daughter and Koolage and I feel this block it deserve
to do a two nice homes and that's what I'm after and as far as sideyard 15t sideyard I'm looking for and a variance I said I believe I should grant that because it's
already been approved without planning 4 and the latest but not lost is 204 North 16th Street. Mr. Deck get that already block plan and was built without coming to the planning board with the zoning
approval with that symbol. Then in front of the planning board a north 17 it came years ago few years back 2011 and I believe I'm not mistaken 203 or 23 205 north 17 the same situation
you know they built the two nice homes in >> I got that's the question asked is very simple as to this property >> why this property this lot you think deserves a bare
So far you've rambled on and have not addressed anything that mattered, right? The financial benefits that the town or to yourself not in front of the sport inconsequential does make a difference, right? What occurred by other boards or
other applications, they stand separate. Everything's treated differently. Question's really simple. Why do you need the variance for this problem? Yeah, if I could, you know, follow up to this Elshik. So, um, you understand and
the board understands, council understands that if you came here with an asset right subdivision, it you would then say to the board, you have a ministerial privy to approve my subdivision, which would give you a 50ft lot and a 75 ft lot. Uh, you obviously
are aware of that and you're chosen to go for these two 65 ft lots. Uh, so what is it about the as of right subdivision that would give you a 50-ft lot and a 75 ft lot that you think is detrimental to
uh the plan on this particular street? And what is more beneficial about your desire to build 265? I just said that. I just addressed that that I like to build two central colonial and I need the size a lot to be
able to to do so and I need a sideyard to wave to get a waiver for the sideyard to 15 so this way I can be able to build what I like to build. Okay. And that's that's the bottom line. I'm also addressing I'm addressing something Mr.
Deck does not follow up with me as a builder. I know the town in and out and I'm trying to address the issue of two new houses which was was granted one by the board or maybe outside the board and
one was granted by zoning. I'm trying to be >> to be addressing that because Mr. Deak does not know the knowledge of that. >> Yeah. But we're going to focus just on this particular property as opposed to what's occurred in the town. >> Got it. >> Yeah. So your your your uh position is
that confining one of the lots to 50 foot. I'm >> not interested in that. >> Negatively impacts the construction of these two homes. >> I'm not interested in that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Plain and simple. I'm not interested dividing one lot 75 from one lot 50. I'm not interested in we we have
more than that too, but I'm not interested in that. I want to split them down the middle. I think the houses will look beautiful in the street at 65 foot. This is opportunity does not come often in town. I know Kenors I know what's available in Kenworth. I know going
forward I don't think a Ken was going to have the opportunity at 65 ft lot. >> Okay. >> I have no further questions for Mr. Eli. >> Do you have anything else to uh say Mr. Elshik? >> On my end I'm good.
>> Okay. Anyone uh from our professional team uh need to ask Mr. Mr. Elshik anything or want to get >> you want me to address uh you're talking about the shed >> Mr. Elic >> what we need we need to have the professional ask a question and then you
answer and then we could follow so we could keep structure here >> okay >> um Mr. Chairman I just had that one question which is what I think Mr. given tried to answer. I don't think I have received my answer as to whether an iteration of a compliance subdivision
uh was taken into consideration. I've got the reasons why, but was that taken into consideration? Can you have a compliance? >> Yeah. So, Mr. Shik, when you sat and looked at this piece property and it was explained to you the land use ordinance,
did you uh consider a concept or are you now considering a concept if this board was turn to turn you down to have a 50ft lot and 75 ft lot which is as of right pursuant to the ordinance? >> Not interested in that. >> I want to
>> The question is did you consider not? >> No, I'm not considering I'm not considering I want to split it down the middle pl and symbol. Okay. Either to get approval for the variance or not to get approval of the variance, that's a different story. But as of now, I want
to split this property down the middle. >> Okay. And and so what what you're what you're saying, if I understand this uh correctly, is that if the uh lot is split down the the middle, you will go back with your architect and figure out
what will fit there without without any variances. >> Correct. So you want two 65 ft lots understanding what the land use ordinance is says and if they give you two just basically you're asking for a lot line a subdivision line correct
>> an as of right subdivision line then you will go back design whatever houses fit without variances correct >> and and build them if it turns out you need variances you'll have to come back >> yeah I I'm not going to come back I guarantee that >> okay I think you've answered Any
questions? >> Okay. >> At least my question. >> Anyone else? >> No. >> Okay. Um, seeing no one, I think. Thank you, Mr. Elite. >> You're welcome, sir. >> Okay. I think we uh Oh, you have your
architect. >> You have your witness. >> I'm going to call Roger Winkl. He's the architect. He designed the current houses that are proposed that are before you. and um I would ask him to uh
basically explain to the board what it is that you designed in terms of the design of the houses, the rooms, bathrooms, etc. >> Can you just state your name and spell it for me? >> Yes. Uh Roger Charles Winkl W I N K L E.
Um, my office is at 947 Park Avenue in Planfield. >> Um, hi. Well, I'm I've been an architect since 19 81 and uh, excuse me, 1981 and I've been
in practice myself for 40 years. I've been before this board year and a half, two years ago. Your license still current? >> Yes. >> Your license is still current? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chair, I don't know if you need
more. >> We don't. Thank you. >> Um Okay. I I'd like to quickly run through the two home designs. I um I don't have any
large exhibits for the for the um people to look at, but uh >> what we have in our hands here is what you have there. >> You have the designs that we did. I'd like to start with the corner lot
204. As Mr. jokes said he was hope hoping to do center hall colonials. They're these these two homes are actually side hall colonials. The real difference
is that the door is in in the center of the home rather than walk in and have the living room on one side and the dining room on the other. Um you walk in and uh the
garage is to one side and the living room dining room is on the other side. So if we look at sheet A1 which is the first floor plan uh this home is uh 40
45T wide and 40T 4 deep. Again, uh it's a center hall. The door is in the center of the home, a twocar garage, uh which is 188x
20t4 in. It's got a a front porch. So, you go in the front floor and uh there is a stair in front of you as you enter which goes up to the second floor or you could go straight through
to the back of the home. Uh on the left side of the foyer is a dining room and to the rear of the home is a fully open kitchen, dinette and family room.
Uh that floor is 1317 square ft. We go up to the go up to the second floor. Uh the straight stair leads to an open
open hallway. Uh the second floor has four bedrooms. Um, three of the bedrooms are similar in size, about 13 by 13.
And there is a master, which is 21x4 with two walk-in closets and a large master uh bath. There is also a common bath and a
laundry room on the second floor. Uh the second floor is 1542 square ft. Uh which makes the total square foot for that house
29 59 square ft. If we go to >> Mr. Mr. I'm sorry to um detail but the drawings say 16.2 Excuse me. >> The second floor plans the drawings say
it's 1642. >> I guess my eyes to see. Yes. If I look if I look at the bigger print on the sheet one, it is 1642. I'm looking at the smaller print
>> but but the total is 29 59. If we go to if we go to sheet A3 the elevation sheet and
they it shows um it shows the a colonial look with a a 16T single single garage door. Um, this particular plan has the single door
because the garage is only 18 ft for wide, which is a little a little narrow for a twocar garage, but with the 16 ft door, it could it could fit the two
cars. It has the front porch. on that on that topic. >> Sure. >> Um as um so you may be aware the organ says there is a particular size for a twocar garage like with one car should
be a minimum of 240 square ft. So that way was that consideration given to the size of the >> um we were not aware that that that had
a minimum of 42. So, I mean, if if the board were to ask you to rethink and redesign this, is it possible to meet that requirement? >> It this particular plan really wouldn't be
possible to meet that requirement without taking space from other areas. And uh and I believe this house is getting >> is pretty locked in with the uh setback
lines. >> Miss EP, can I ask you a question because I there's some I have to ask the people out there to please hold your conversations down please because it's hard to hear up here and we are recording so we need to document
everything that's going on. So it is a little bit difficult to hear you with that going on. And if you could just tell me what you were saying about the uh square footage in the garage and it doesn't uh comply with our ordinance. Is that what you were saying? >> So um our ordinance requires each
parking space shall contain a minimum of 240 square ft. They have a twocar garage. They'll need 480 square ft. The current uh the way at least we measured the garage space is about 380
square ft in the proposed lot 12.02 and 440 uh square ft for 12.01. So my question was can these be complying garages at this >> and the answer was
>> I I don't we can't really comply would be over the setback lines if we if we made the house >> this is a waiver then >> yes it's a waiver um and to to consider
to that point the requirement is because it's a fourbedroom and a fivebedroom right that's why you the two and a half parking spaces and the three parking spaces. >> Um because this is a four. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> So, um again the idea is always for the board to reduce the number of variances that wer and that's what the end question is trying to go forward. As you've heard the board is interested in the setback getting lower so this waiver
can be removed and so on. real quick. Um, are you quoting parking soul space as 240? >> I'm quoting the ordinance requirement. I believe the section is 120-17.2B.
It says each parking space shall contain a minimum of 240 square ft area for twocar garage that is that is that section speaking about garages or just speaking about parking space.
>> Uh I believe the parking space is 9 by8 in the store, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that's less than >> I believe this is the parking area which you >> I'm sorry. Uh the right two in the garage and two
>> outside. >> Yes. No, we would need a waiver. And as you just mentioned, a typical parking space in in an outside or so is usually like 9 by 18,
>> but you know, we we have that room in the in the garage a little more. I mean you you design enough houses to know the garage can get used to keeping the garbage bins, keeping the storage. So typically garages are designed a little
larger than a stall size would be because the idea is the homeowner is going to use it for storage also. Given that this is a single family with no shed that's being shown, then that would be the idea behind it. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um chairman if I may can I just continue asking? >> Absolutely. >> It's possible. Uh the second question Mr. Winkle is he may um so you know about the lookalike ordinance requirement in the ordinance.
>> Yes. >> Um what would you say is the typical difference between the two elevations? As we just heard both are colonial architecture. So why would you say it's substantially different?
>> Uh well, one house is 5 ft wider than the other, I believe. And they both one house has a single garage door. The
other house has two garage doors. the uh the what they they both have a front porch. The roof line on on the house we were
we're talking about now. The corner lot has um a double gable gable on each side with dormers up above. the roof line on the second house
if you want me just to skip to that. So I mean going back here I'm not sure whether I think both have >> the twocar garage door right there
that was provided where the garage door >> and the other is on the house at 208 which shows two doors.
I think your report shows a single door. My opinion is that they they're they're a little similar, but they do look and if if we were if the board didn't
agree, we could we could make the the um corner that with a hip roof would be totally make >> I would I mean I would defer to the board meals on that but I do want to
make a point that our ordinance does say that they have to be substantially different the the the elevations that have been provided do appear to be similar colonial style some you know I mean I do understand what you're saying
about you know adding the two and I I apologize for not having seen the two different garage doors, but other than that, you still have the porch, you still have the center door and the shutters and the gables. So, um I would leave it to board to decide whether they
think it's substantially different, but I do want both to hear that it is possible to make them substantially different by changing the roof line. >> Yes. >> So, um that's something to consider. Um and the other two things I think Mr.
Goodman uh will uh want you to clarify. I believe I think it was the sideyard setback as well as the >> two there are two issues and we discussed them. One one was the um the attic >> story >> and and there was a question I believe
on measurement in terms of whether it constitutes a third story or not. >> Okay. >> That's that's on the on the second house. >> Second house. is is basically
a similar plan on the first floor except it's basically um 5 ft wider and the second the second floor of the second house also has four bedrooms
and but the sec but the second house is where we're proposing a finished attic space and that's that's what you're questioning. >> Okay. I have I have a hand out.
>> This is >> how many do you have? >> I have about 10 or 12. >> Good share. Mrs. DeMarco, this is our second exhibit. >> This is A2. >> A2.
read the definition of story. Let me see. >> Okay. Your definition of a story as an addict. >> I'll read that. An attic having a space within the possible floor area with
headroom of 5 ft or greater over 50 over 60% or more of the story directly beneath or when the line of intersection of the roof decking and the wall face is more than 3 ft above the top floor
level. An attic should be should count as a full story. the uh the plan sketch that I have handed out.
The shaded area shows the section of the attic which is 5 ft or greater and it includes includes areas over the master bedroom
tray ceiling and the cathedral ceiling. So those are actually raised but including all of that space uh we have an area of 433 square ft.
The second floor is 1880 square ft. So uh we are we are quite a bit below the 60%. How? >> How much? >> How much%?
>> I had it written on >> 56%. >> Just about somewhat below. >> But but I I made this to to show that we we do need it. So we would be in that story.
>> Okay. And this will only be on this property, not the corner lot. Even though you have the same elevation correct on the roof. It's only on this house. >> Okay. The other one will not have >> The other one will not have a walk up
and there was another issue with regard to the bump out which I think was for the chip and that is a situation where uh the five yard 5 foot setback is being um the the bumpout goes uh shorts it to
three foot. Correct. >> Yes. And so that would constitute a waiver rather anariance because your ordinance only permits it in the front yard. Correct. The cowwork ordinance only allows me such an intrusion in the
front yard, not the sideyard. And um so uh our argument would be that you know it's a aesthetically pleasing to have a a fireplace in a house and it's sort of a diminous uh type of variance request
and the impact really would be on the very project that Mr. Enterprises own. So that's on the corner. >> Okay. So, uh I think that that is all the questions Mr. Chair and I have for Mr.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. Does anyone uh have any questions right now or I think we should open to the public at this unless Nick you have something now? >> Well, I just want to ask a question that nobody else is asking. So, um Mr. She u just question.
>> Sure. >> Okay. I understand what it's a big piece of property. I understand it's a big lot. It's ideal to get two 65 ft lots. I know that that's like hidden gem here in um I understand what you said in your
profession as a builder what you would like to put in. I get it and I understand what you said you would not like to put in. I get that too. But um just hear me out. If if you were to move the line, so they weren't 265 by 100
lots. If you were to move the line and they were unequal lots, let's say, I don't know, 75 by 155 by 100, you could still get maybe you won't get a 50ft wide house in, but you could still get a 45x 55 ft house in on both lots.
You're a builder. You can make it work out. I'm just saying. I don't know. I'm just asking a question. >> Excuse me. Could you just tell me what the split was again? 75 and 55 is 130, 130 deep, >> 100 ft back, right? If the board is going to say that they want 25 ft on the
corner lot, 25 off of Monroe, 25 off of North 22nd, 25 off of Monroe plus the 5T plus the 20 ft in the back is 25 and 20 is 45 off of 75 off of
20 25. No, it would be 25 and five off the side. That'd be 30 off of 75. That would 45 ft wide and 55 ft deep. 197 2475 square ft footprint. Other lot
closer to Ray's house would be 55 by 100. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just setting it setting. Yeah. 55 by 100. 5 foot on either side. 10 ft off of 55 is 45 ft wide. Same depth. same size house.
I'm just saying you wouldn't need a baron to talk to G of Monroe because you meet 25 ft. You wouldn't need a bar for 22nd Street because you'd have 25 ft and then whatever else you you're talking about. Would that be something that
you can make two center hall colonials work? I don't know. I'm not a builder. Just saying. >> I believe I addressed we addressed this already, sir. And I'm not going back about it. >> Well, I'm just asking you. >> You free to ask anything you want. >> I'm the builder. I'm the investor. It's my call. I'm sorry.
>> It is your call, but I'm on the board and I get to >> I understand you are on board. >> Okay. I understand you're on the board, but we addressed this already and I made it clear. I'm not interested. >> Okay. Sure. >> I mean, that's the that's you trying again. I don't get it. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Elshik. You made
your statement, Nick. I think he answered you perfectly. I think uh everybody is um ready to make a motion. >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry. >> You need to open the front office. >> That's what I'm about to do. >> You got me scared.
>> Okay. Uh a motion, babe. I'm >> a motion to open the meeting to the public. Yeah. >> Second by Mayor Carloich. All in favor? I >> Okay. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this application and this application only, please come up, state your name for the record clearly, and
spell your last name, please. >> And address and address. >> And this is questions and comments. >> I'm sorry. >> Questions and comments. >> Questions and comments. Yes. >> My name is John Lobiano. I live at 540 Monroe Avenue.
And my Oh, my last name is Lobiano. Capital L O capital B I A N C O I live at 540 Monroe for 60 years at that address. Before that I was raised in Kennallorth. So I think I know more about Kennett than the man I was talking
a little while ago said he knows Kennallorth. Well, he built some houses here, but I was raised here and I know I remember when he came here and he lived in the back of me with his girlfriend before he got married. Remember that? I remember that.
Okay. So, we have a variance. Okay. Many years ago in in the early '7s, I wanted to put a dish on my house in the front. And my father-in-law had been involved like you people, same positions. He said to me, "You got to set back the front
and the sides, 25 ft, 25 ft." Okay. So, I went out 14 ft and I stopped because I knew I had the 25 ft that I that I couldn't touch. I knew that. My next door David wanted to do it. He didn't go out any because he was right even with
me at the 25 ft. Mitch Cares the house had just got knocked down. All right. She put an addition on her house on the Monroe Avenue. All right. And when they put that addition on, they went out and they didn't go further than
to even 25 ft. Now the property was s was sold. Okay. And talking about knowing about cattle work, okay? I play I played on that piece of property when it was a ranch. Okay. Before Mr. They bought they built that comp built that house. Okay. So I know the area. It's a
danger to get give anybody a variance on that spot because women park their cars right at that stop sign all day to pick up their children across the street. Cars are zooming by like crazy in trucks. It's a truck dude. Now you're going to build a house 15 ft from the
street from the town property. When that piece that piece of property was sold to 130 ft by 100 130 ft by 100, wouldn't you like to own 130 ft by 100? Certainly. And you're going to build two houses. Now, you say, "I'm going to buy this and I'm going to build some great
big houses here and I'll just get a variance. No problem. I'll take care of that." Well, we have a rule and the code is 25 ft. Don't matter who you are. 25 ft. Maybe if you if your father-in-law was sick or something, you had to bring him in and you had needed a variance as
a hardship, I could go for it. Do something like that. But this was an empty piece of lie made to make money and you build a great big house or whatever it is on here and it's going to block the vision for people coming down the street, kids walking across the
street to the school. It's a danger. Plus, by the way, folks, we're talking about that there's going to get fences involved, too. Get on one of those great big tall fences, white, you can bet your bottom dollar on that, too. That's going to block vision, too. But you can't do nothing about that because that'd be in
the law if you if you don't go past the front of the house. Am I right? What you said before? He didn't give me any reasons that he should get a variance. It was an empty lot and you built the houses to suit. But apparently, I'm going to build what I want because I've been building houses or whoever
whoever gets this builder thinks he just get away with it. as far as I'm concerned is 25 ft. That's it. You can't you can't give no variance for it. >> Thank you, Mr. Integrity of the town. Okay, we want to keep We talk about kind of work and what we love. We love this
town. We were most of us were raised here. I want to keep it that Monroe five blocks there. All those towns have 25 foot setbacks. Five blocks from Monroe all the way down to the school. And they built those great big monstrosities across the street from the school. That's a dangerous sparity. But they got
away with that. Whoever whoever built that, they got to marry us because they were too close. I think I think I think I was. I'm not sure. I am Am I wrong? >> I can't answer. >> I'm sorry. I should have said that. I I I think they did. But at any rate,
>> is it's wrong. We have rules. We have to just right in the very beginning like that as far as I'm concerned. But anyway, I I I love the town. I always did. I was raised here and I want to keep Monro the way it is. Nice couple
ranches, nice houses. Look, and I'm sure the developer can build a beautiful house that can go there in the cold. >> The end. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Loian. >> Anyone else wishing to speak from the public?
>> I see. Okay, we have one more. >> Please state your name and address and for the record. >> David Gomez. G O N O S and I live next door to the uh lot at 212 North 22nd
Street. And I can I ask a question about the uh HVAC? Will the HVACs be in the back of the property or on the side of the property? >> Um Miss Kate, >> so the uh in the revised plans they proposed it if you consider the front of
the proposed house then it's at the rear >> at the rear of the house. Okay. I was concerned about that because I have a window sitting right right next to the property. And uh I just like to uh since I'm up here, I give props to the uh gentleman John Lo Biano
just for uh following the rules as they are and uh backing him up as my neighbor uh for uh about 28 years now. >> Thank you very much for having me. >> Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Come on up,
sir, please, and state your name, spell your last name and your address for the record. >> My address is My name is Hedgi. It's >> Can you speak up, sir, please? >> My name is Aila Hedgi.
>> Uh, I live in North 21st Street, 205 North 21st Street. Uh, I'm at the corner lot. >> You just have to spell your last name. My last name is H E G Y I. Thanks. You're welcome. So, uh look at
that drawing and uh yeah, my concern is uh yeah, probably that uh pretty big houses uh both of them. And uh my my concern was we had a beautiful big tree and let's go. I met the gentleman here.
That was my first time. So now I can uh I don't even I don't know how to put it in. Maybe I was expecting if he wanted to do something or get some change. Maybe this is uh kind of uh
you know nice suggestion if the neighbors come over and you know saying what's his plan. Maybe that tree is bothering him or or it's on his way. But by the time he came home, the tree was gone. And the tree is actually, you can
see on the drawing. Uh the tree was on the property line. And u I'm kind of measuring out. So his new building is going to be all the way where the tree trunk is standing uh between the fence.
So I don't know. I I'm open-minded if the houses both houses kind of have the gentleman that's suggesting he can build a smaller house or that's uh u kind of nice and decent that's uh maybe you know
uh acceptable but uh the house is uh it's going to be that close to the curb and uh it takes some view at and and also the size of the house I just uh yeah wanted to see how
it's going to be end or uh what what the gentleman is going to work out but seems to me uh he doesn't want to go with the smaller option or accepting any other option so thanks for visiting me >> thank you
>> thank you sir anyone else from the audience out there >> okay >> see see no one >> I make a motion to close the public portion of this hearing >> motion made by Mr. David, seconded by Mr. Scaderi. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Well, the board heard the
testimony of Mr. Goodman. >> If I could wrap it up. >> Sure. >> Uh yeah, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention to this application. So, uh, just to, um, uh, follow up, my client is, uh, looking for a subdivision
of two 65- ft front lots, and he has proposed two architectural drawings of houses, uh, with variance, uh, with waiverss, uh, actually two variances because the other variance is for the
chimney. Um and u if you should reject that uh then we would ask simply for a uh as of right subdivision line dividing up to two lots and it will be left for the applicant to fit houses within the
confines pursuant to the ordinance. So, um, he has an azerbrite subdivision, uh, at two 65- ft lots, uh, and, uh, he's asking for variances, which you may choose to reject, in which case he would
be left with, uh, the subdivision, but having to figure out how to fit two houses with the bulk requirements of the Kennallorth land use ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. Good. Um,
No, the it's closed to the public at this point. I'm sorry, Mr. Leviano. >> Okay, we heard Mr. uh Goodman's closing testimony and um we now have in front of us everything you heard. The board has to now make some decisions on what we
heard here tonight. Is there anything more from the planner and or the engineer that we could add to this? >> I have nothing, Mr. Chair. >> Nothing. Nothing. Okay. I have a can I have a question. The does the parking
change for a five bedroomedroom house? >> So our code requires for a fourbedroom it's two and a half spaces. For a five bedroom it's two spaces. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I have a question for the for the
attorney because for me with all the experience I have over the years si sitting up here I've never heard uh a request to subdivide a property without known lines drawn. So it sound like Mr. Goodman was saying if we you know reject the variance then what are we how are we
subdividing the lot? >> I my understanding that Mr. Goodman can correct that. I think >> as proposed it's two equal lots. I just don't know if his client understands that that
>> uh so it would still be two equal lots but he's now going to just have to build homes that are going to still meet the 25 foot >> correct setback. I don't know if then he may come back at a later date and say, "Can I move it 2 feet?" Because
>> the way I Yeah, I'm saying the way I interpreted what he was saying was that it's kind of blurred where the where the subdivision is going to happen and they're they'll decide at some point what they want to build. It'll still be Well, that's saying I misunderstood. So, it's still going to be subdivided equally. >> Correct. >> That's fine. I understand.
>> Yeah. And uh I believe my client does understand that he's going to have to come up with an architectural design that fits within your bulk requirements. >> In which case, you won't have to come back to the board. We'll just go to to the zone, right? Understand subdivide
and we can I mean even though that isn't on this agenda. >> So the application was for a subdivision >> and >> and Okay. Okay. Thank you. I understand that. So at the uh Mr. Goodman has
indicated and you can correct me if I'm wrong that he would be okay if that was bifocated by the board and uh so you may want to take two votes. >> Right. >> One on the subdivision which should go first um and then uh the second on
whether or not the variance for the two properties as laid out. >> Right. But then one other point, sorry, Nick. Um, part of this application is also has been reviewing the the plans that have been submitted for the homes and ensuring that they are substantially
different. If we go out of here with just subdividing and then he just goes up to the building department, we have no idea as a board and can ensure that we feel the two homes are substantially different. So, in my mind, that is not a good thing to do. Well,
>> can I just question on that point? So, And I remember when we made that ordinance, right? So that's in our ordinances, right? >> So whether an application comes to the board or whether the application goes to construction code department, >> the ordinances still prevail, right?
>> The ordinance the ordinance still >> ordinance. Yes. Right. the ordinance is still in place. >> So, so the code what I'm saying is that the construction code department still has to so if they don't if you don't give out the variances and and and and you allow
265 ft lots, he's going to go to codes with new architectural plans and they're going to have to say, "No, these are the same. No, it ain't going to work." Oh, they're they're going to have they're >> Yeah, I'm I'm well aware of that. But that's one individual making a determination as opposed to collectively
a board making a decision that the homes are substantially different and we have not left it in the hands of the building department to make that determination as long as I've studied here. >> I I get it. I'm just saying >> I know what you're saying. Okay. >> I don't agree is what I'm saying. >> Well, I I I don't want the construction
code to department. I'm just making clarification observation. That's all. I mean the the other alternative is one application was submitted right you can vote on the application as a whole um make that determination and you know
he can come back and file a just simple subdivision at that point in time >> that's not what I'm looking for >> I understand >> that's your option that was the way the application was presented right Mr. Goodman is seeking a change to the application as a result of
>> Mr. Good one. You have to speak out like this. >> Well, be nice if you'd let me. >> Okay. >> So, so, so the um the I mean the idea of bifurcating the application and getting a vote on the uh variances, but it does
sound like the the board does not uh like the idea of complying with the frontage uh variance. So, uh, if, uh, if that's the case, if the only way we can get a vote tonight is we'll withdraw our request for the variances, withdraw our
architectural drawings as they obviously don't fit with what the board and the public want and simply stand here before you asking for an asset subdivision. >> That's good. >> Can you change that at will? He
>> like on the fly just now. >> He can withdraw those. within his right to amend the application. >> He's not amended by adding, he's amended by subtraction, >> but if he's amending by subtraction, everything that we have in front of us is not accurate. So
>> now the the >> plans aren't accurate. Can't show a house on it with with with a non-conforming sideyard. So he would have to submit new resolution compliance plans I guess for my sub.
>> I mean I believe that the engineer if he wants a clean subdivision plan >> just ask I I would just say I wasn't at the first hearing but it seems like the applicant was requested to come back before the board with architectural drawings. >> Correct. Correct.
>> The board could see those >> and now they're changing that the board chance to get the architectural draw. >> Right. Well, look, the the architectural drawings were submitted, >> but now you're going to change those without >> We we're changing them by withdrawing
them. >> All we're asking for at this point is simply to give us a ministerial right of as of right subdivision, a line down the middle, which Mr. has drawn, I think, accurately.
>> In essence, what's displayed in building or on the board is The left side says proposed site plan. The right side just says proposed subdivision plan. So the only thing that would be left for this board is proposed substitution
>> which is a line down the middle >> which is a equal line down the middle divides it into two equal lines. >> I get it. But I still think the plan should be revised for record drawing. >> Excuse me. I still think the plan should be revised to show for the record that
she's going to file that the clerk is going to file. >> I mean, you can vote on it subject to right because I still have to write the whole resolution that the clean plan will show up that just has the one
exhibit of the the right >> and that is really the only ex only exhibit that was considered. All other exhibits, although submitted, were affirmatively withdrawn. Um, and to uh the vice chair's uh point, uh I think we
can put in that resolution a precursor warning of the substantial differentiation that our ordinance does have. So, we can call that out. The ordinance exists. I don't believe Mr. >> I would not. Um and that at least gives
notice of anyone who looks at this file later. Um that there was that call out that we understood that two houses were going to be there and that they need to be substantially different, right? So that at least um maybe the zoning officer or the code officer doesn't want
to make that decision and sends it up here for a consistency review or a a review of that plan at a later date. If they don't find it complies with the substantial differentiate, somebody else has to make that call. That one person can't make it.
>> So be before I ask you a question, I'd like to hear from Mr. Kinkoli who has had his hand up there. >> So if they withdraw the plans, he's going for approval on a 65 and a 65, not a 255. >> Correct. Am I correct?
>> 65. So just splitting that >> 265 that line in other places 7500 ft 5,000 ft. This one requested two equal lots. >> This one would be unbillable.
>> Uh one would be a smaller house on the corner because it has the two front side setbacks and the other one >> the other one could be similar to what was presented. >> Mr. Marco,
I understand uh the term bifocate and we could separate the two. However, what's in front of us if we have two 65 ft lots now, uh it would be um almost at the
mercy of the building department to okay something that the board usually has. I don't want to use the word the power but the right to take a look at it to see what's going on there. It is in a very
sensitive area or is the board is the board within their right if that's the right way to put that to say we would like to see what's going on those two lots not just to have them subdivided.
Can we can we look at that as part of of of making our decision tonight because um we do see and and it has nothing nothing to do with Mr. Elshik um you know he quality homes he's a builder in
town all of the above and um primarily what I'm what I'm asking is we're not looking at that we're not looking at his readables we're not looking at his financial we're we're we're what we're concerned with knowing the property knowing the builder and we know he knows
and they know that we don't want two properties to look identical these properties looks so these houses look so identical to us that it it it jumps out by moving an apex over to the other side and having a twocar garage, two doors
instead of one. It just screams what is going to happen if there's not a way for us to look at this another way. I and and we need help here. So I I just think if I can get like five
minutes just to review that question just >> take a break. >> Take a break. >> Okay. >> I think Mr. Goodman also needs to confer his client. >> Okay. >> Motion is >> Yeah. I'll make a motion for a fivem minute recess.
>> A motion made by Mr. David, second by Mr. Clemente. All in favor? >> I Okay. >> Okay. I think we're uh getting ready to come back here. >> Um >> a motion to reopen the hearing.
>> The motion is made by Mr. David, second by Mr. Scader. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, we just took a fivem minute break and here we are. Did you want to say anything at this point or we've had our discussions and we'll give you >> Once again, we're applying for an as of
right uh subdivision. We need no V. We have withdrawn all requests for variances. We've withdrawn all requests for waiverss. We meet the bulk standards on each sides of the of the subdivided lot. And it's my understanding under the
PO uh Manton Group versus Township of Randall that it's a ministerial obligation uh to grant our subdivision. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Good. Okay. The board heard everything. Is there anyone
who would at this point like to make a motion on approving or denying the application that's in front of us? Yes, sir. >> Clarify we're voting on just plain subdivision. That's it. >> We haven't made a motion either way. >> I have a question. So, Mr. Goodwin recorded some case law. Um, is he on
point with what he's stating or >> subdivision as of right is the ministerial function. Okay. The question comes um the withdrawal of the application that was submitted uh and his withdrawal of it.
My understanding is um you know a lot of time and effort was put into this and and the board wants to take uh with the right wants to make some sort of motion. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, so we're good.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, I make a motion to deny the application as it was submitted and presented. >> So, there's a motion to deny the application as it was permitted and presented. Is there a second?
>> Second by Mr. Crinkoli. Roll call. >> Um, Mayor Carlo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Persona. >> Yes. >> Councilman Scre. >> Yes. >> Mr. David. >> Yes. >> Mr. Clementi, >> yes. >> Mr. Pangina, >> yes.
>> Mr. Leawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Scaderi, >> yes. >> And Mr. uh Klo, >> yes. >> And Mr. Kinkoli, >> yes. >> Okay. So, that application has been denied the way it was presented, Mr. Goodman. And I think that's uh what we
have here tonight. Okay, we need to move on to the next order of business. >> You have anything? >> Oh, yeah. I got the agenda here. >> Any comments for the good of the board? >> Uh, no. No, this is for the board. This
is for the board. >> We will open it to the public. We will reopen it to the public momentarily. >> Did we call the board for the possible reopening? >> Oh, the on the 30th. >> On the 30th, we have at least a quorum.
>> I don't think we did at during the work session. So guys, that I think maybe Mr. Krinkley was the only one who wasn't here. We talked about um holding a public hearing for the master plan on April 30th and we just needed a show of
hands as to who thinks they would be available. So we know if there would be a quorum to have that hearing. It's not edged in stone just yet, but obviously we need to know if >> if all right. So we have we have a good majority accepted.
>> But I mean we have a good majority. So mayor, you would be okay, right? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. No, thanks for bringing that. >> Thank you, gentlemen. All right. So, there were no comments to go to the board. >> Well, we also were uh you mentioned um in work session about the uh some
meetings we had to talk about about >> Excuse me, Mayor. >> Holidays. >> Gentlemen, excuse me, gentlemen in the rear. Mr. DeMarco, >> we're still in session. >> We're just trying to close up. We can't hear. Sorry, sir. I know you were doing
with your I heard you whisper. Okay, Mayor, I'm sorry. >> We were discussing or you brought up meetings falling in holidays. Do we want to discuss that? >> Um, we we could discuss that now. Um, however,
>> we have off to our work session there cuz the only holiday I think would be Memorial Day at thismorial. Yeah, >> that's our next our next meeting is April. Okay. Yes. >> Let's let's figure out the holidays. >> Good. >> Schedule
>> and we'll also get hopefully the um document from Ma about what what is coming because if we don't have applications, we can cancel the meetings. >> Cancel the meeting. >> Right. >> Okay. Is there a motion open to the public? >> Yes. I make a motion to open the meeting to the public.
>> Mr. David, who second that? >> Mr. Screes. >> Mr. Screes. Okay. Uh all in favor? Hi. >> Now, anyone from the public wishing to speak about anything you want? >> Say one thing. >> Yes. You got to say your name and address for the record. >> What was your name and address?
>> Ray PZ North two 216 North 22nd Street. >> Okay. >> RPI. >> RPI. >> Thank you so much. >> You're welcome, sir. >> I'll give you a good example. I had to put my car on Monroe with one of the kids neighbors. They were going by. They
wouldn't stop for a kid to go on a bicycle across the street. Thank you very very much. >> You're welcome, sir. Anyone else? >> Seeing no one, >> I make a motion to close the public for >> Sorry, we didn't see you pop up there. >> David Konis, Goss,
212 North 22nd Street. Thank you very much. And if he wants to build the park there, that would be nice. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? >> See. >> All right. So, I make a motion to close
the public portion of the meeting. >> Motion made by Mr. D, second by Mr. Hadi. All in favor? >> I. >> Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Moved by Mr. David, seconded by Mr. Scader. All in favor? >> Okay. Have a good night, everyone.