6 regular meeting of the lake homo planning board. Um those requirements of open public meetings act have been satisfied by the publication of required advertisement in the co-star on January 15, 2026 and by
posting it on the Bolton board in Burough Hall. A copy of said notice has been filed with the burough clerk and sent to the coart. Notice of the meeting will also be posted on our website. All meetings are open to the public. Please stand for
the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. here. >> Mayor Hickey >> here.
>> Mr. Rhiners >> here. >> Mr. Cavalusi >> here. >> Mr. Petraino is excused. Miss Krill >> here. >> Mr. Ne >> here. >> Mr. Boyce here.
>> Minhosa >> here. Mr. Seagull >> here. >> Mr. Paragalo >> here. >> Attorney Robert Whittick >> here. >> Engineer Alan Hill Jr. >> here.
Secretary here. >> All right. The first order of business is the um Tinro and Dedra continuation of their application for 1817 Pine Terrace block 15 flooding. >> Mr. Chairman, I have to excuse myself.
I'm within 200 ft. >> Okay. >> Also, for the record, I just want to say that I received a form from the house. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have to also
>> Okay. >> I didn't know what you were talking about. Yeah. That is so Okay. >> Yeah. Take a look. >> Thank you. >> Ready? >> Okay. Hear me. Good. Good evening. Uh
chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Michael Delasio on behalf of John and Dear Drainero. Uh representing them again in our resubmission call resubmission a continuation of application for 1817 Pine Terrace. Uh last meeting we spoke about the lot size
and the width and the restrictions that were put. Yes sir. >> Hold on one second. Mr. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> And I will be testifying in my capacity as a professional engineer. That's okay. >> Recognized at the last meeting. >> Thank you.
Okay. So, the board, you're aware of the lot size. We were aware of the restrictions I spoke of regarding um the reduction in height based on the lot size, which was a 75% reduction. Um what I'm presenting back to you today is a fully compliant um structure when it uh
in relation to height, uh front yard setback, the size of the driveway, impervious coverage, uh building coverage, and all other u bulk requirements. I'm here only seeking relief on the 30 foot uh frontage and
the size of the lot that 3000 in an R40 zone. So, we submitted new architectural plans that um and a new professional engineering site plan that reflects of such. I have a new zoning chart on that site plan. It's dated uh April 21st,
2026. Um if you haven't any time to review it, I can run through it with you again. Simply on the site plan, all we did was move the house. The size of the home was compliant. We moved it back to get the 20 foot driveway. Um, and as far as the um architectural plans, we
included a basement which is compliant with our uh um seasonal high water table. We reduced the height of the first and second floor to and reduce the roof slope to meet um requirement. We're at 26 ft where we're allowed 26.2
and that's from the curb. >> Okay. Um, I have one question. Sure. They went over. Um, >> did you look at the burrow ordinance about how high you have to be above the water table? >> Yes. The seasonal high. >> Yes, we're two feet above it.
>> Well, two feet to the top of the slab, not to the bottom of the slab. The slab needs to be two feet clear of the season high groundwater table. So, it would be too low as proposed. We so four inches.
>> I don't know how thick the >> forest left. I think so. So that was the I only saw the plans about half an hour. >> Okay. >> But the ordinance is clear that it's the the slab itself needs to be 2 feet
above. The entire slab needs to be >> not issue. Mr. Chair, >> anybody else have any questions? >> I do. If it's if it's not shown, can you put a drywall in in the front?
>> Yeah, the drywall itself is 2 ft above the it's a 4ft drywall, the detail on my plan and it keeps it 2 ft above the seasonal high water table and we'll be go we'll be applying for full grading and drainage uh with the engineer. Any comments um regarding that? If we have
to move it, put in the yard, we have to keep it 10 ft from the structure, which we did, and 5T the the setbacks uh are on the side, 5 ft and 7 1/2 ft from the front, but that'll be uh fully reviewed by the engineer uh when the when the
grading and site plan application comes in >> and and not under any impervious surface, >> right? Yes. No, it's on it's in grass area. That drawing should show four bedrooms. >> Yes, sir. >> But I only see one parking space.
>> The garage counts as a second. >> Yes, sir. >> So, there's no relief requested for that. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> I would make a suggestion that the um
even though the basement's going to be 2 ft above the season where table that might be in that basement to be tied into the to the drywall system. >> Of course, everybody else good. >> All right. Do we um can we open up to
the um public motion open to the public? >> Second. >> All in favor? Anybody from the public like to make a comment? >> State your name and address, please. >> Sure.
>> Hi, Christian McKelby 1819 right here to the property. I have a letter that I prepared some pictures. Can I get this to the board? >> Is it? >> It's to show the the property line. I just wanted to show it to you. It was something that was discussed last time. Is that okay if I just read this letter?
>> Oh, yeah. I think probably I mean ma'am not to be disrespectful is are the documents that you're preparing to or suggesting that you want to present are they uh related to any questions of the applicant or >> it's um I have a pending fence
application that's because it's it's holding because of what they're doing. So I was asking the board if they could it was discussed at the last meeting that >> I'm not suggesting that you can't discuss it. I'm just suggesting that for purposes of the meeting >> does this do you have any questions as
it relates to those materials of the applicant? >> Yes. >> Of the fence line. Yes. >> Okay. Then by all means if it relates to a question, >> please feel free to ask the applicant whatever question you want if you want.
>> Oh. So do I direct it to them or >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, I've expressed my concern and we've had discussions about it about the I >> Hold on. We should probably swear. All right. >> Do you solemnly swear that testimony uh
and evidence and or questions that you present to this board and any witnesses the truth will help you? >> Yes, I do. >> Please proceed. >> Okay. Um we've had verbal conversations briefly about it. You guys are verbally committed that you wouldn't put a fence within the first 20 ft. Therefore, I
could open my car doors and stuff that very narrow driveway. I just would like to request or be part of the approval that it's documented. Therefore, when the propertyy's sold, it's not something I have to go through with the the new property owner that they suddenly want to put some type of structure there. >> Correct. That was part it was we did
discuss that about not not restricting her driveway by putting a fence along the uh south side of the home. Uh so we would leave you requested 20 ft from >> 40 I would put in a fencing request. So I have two parking spots. >> Okay.
>> So my fence where the asphalt was >> you could put your fence anywhere on your property. >> Agreed. But where I have the fence so 40 ft from the front of the property >> would be my fence going back. >> Okay. So we will not exceed that 40 ft from the front of the property. >> Correct. Would be ideal.
>> And that's on the subject property. >> We Well, I guess it would be so that >> I'm just trying to >> future owner so that a future I have >> I have a picture to speak in the microphone. So please >> I did submit I I did >> Sorry, ma'am. I don't mean >> you can still consider so I did submit
the uh the revised deed uh at prior to closing that um we we executed with the prior owners about removing the the shared driveway easement. So that does make her driveway narrow but it was a it was a willing obviously it was it was benefit to both parties to do that at
that time but I think you wanted to brought up the um the point of hey let's not allow a fence there so we at some point will leave her with an 8ft driveway. So our car door can ultimately open into the, you know, property ultimately kind of. So we would be okay
with that. And if you're requesting 40 feet from the front of the property, that's that's fine with us because we have 20 ft to the house and the 20 more feet. And if they want a private backyard, it's going to be tied to the back of the house anyway. >> Is that acceptable to the board?
>> Does it all understand that? >> So we're going to put that as part of the stipulation. >> Yes. Anybody have any questions or you look confused? >> No, no. I was just looking for your your >> I think what what what's being discussed
is what you had suggested and proposed in terms of making sure that your driveway is not encumbered by any anything that happens on this subject property, fence, whatever. >> Yes, they verbally agreed >> 40t. Well, this is also going to be in
writing and it's going to be assuming the board grants the relief that's being sought by the applicant. >> It's going to be in writing and it will likely be recorded in some fashion and so you're the interest that you've expressed assuming the board is is comfortable with that and I'm not taking
the board's thunder that should be protected. >> Okay, great. Anybody else have any questions for this minister? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Those in favor.
>> Opposed. All right. Open it up for just general comments. Motion. >> So moved. >> Second. Anybody in the audience have any comments? Seeing none, have a motion to close it.
>> Second. >> Those in favor. >> Okay. Any board members have any comments before we You think someone want to make a motion? >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the stipulation that compiance with the description raised and the discussion that we just had
about the fence. being no more or no less than 40 ft off the front of the property >> groundwater approval >> and all the necessary approvals
>> resolution okay Have a second on that. >> Second. >> Mr. Pavalooi. >> Yes. >> Miss. >> Yes. >> Mr. N. >> Yes. >> M.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Seagull. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. That's a good >> Thank you, Mr. Wick. Was there a resolution prepared for tonight? Is that not >> What's that? >> Was there a resolution prepared? I did not prepare well because to be perfectly
honest I wasn't sure what I was going to be preparing and I know what the board was going to be voting on under these circumstanc I get it. I've done advocates work for 35 years. >> I'll circulate something probably I can get something to you then
>> and then we'll certainly No, no, no. I understand. I get better. All right. Uh, next thing on the agenda is major subdivision plan application for supporting LLC,
762 22nd Avenue, >> block 36, lot 25 and 26. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself. I'm within 200 ft. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. board for the record. John Jackson on
behalf of King I have a uh PowerPoint we do our presentation I have all the plans and exhibits on that and what our customer will do is I'll mark this and they'll hand out copies it's basically everything the board has already some aerials so if I can mark this as one
exhibit and then put the power >> just just as a very easy simple matter of because I see there's a lot of people here and I just want to make sure something doesn't come along and be problematic down the road. Uh it was brought to my attention that when
notices were prepared there was a very very minor typographical scrier's error referencing at one point a property in brick. Okay. I don't think there's any question that it was just a
simple scrier's order and it was nothing that in my opinion as attorney for the board should have any possible impact or ability on the board taking jurisdiction this evening. I would be happy and invite the board to make any comments but it's my legal opinion based on my
review of the case law that that there's not an issue at all but I just want to make sure that the record is clear. So if there's somebody looking at this transcript at some point down the road, some somebody doesn't have to follow. So
just just a simple thing that I wanted to make sure the record is clear. >> Thank you. I see that now that you point it out. >> Just as I said, >> that's only one place unless you know I I've done I've been around long enough to know that you know, you never know.
>> Can you speak into the microphone, please? Can't really hear. Yeah, John, you grab the >> Thank you. I can just so I can work this and I'll move this around. >> You're in Vegas. >> You think what? >> Act like you're in Vegas.
>> Wouldn't be the first time. >> So So I, you know, I think the process here is going to require a trip back. Um, so I could even renotice and cure whatever the issues are on that. I I as I said I I I as the board
attorney I am extremely comfortable saying that I'm the fine and I'm comfortable advising the board that it's okay for like I said if god forbid somebody's looking at a transcript at some point I don't want it to be an issue for the applicant or for the board.
>> Thank you sir. >> My pleasure. Thank you. >> So may I proceed? >> You can please proceed. >> Thank you. Um, so if I could hand these out. It's a >> Mr. Jeff, I'm just gonna remind you you can pick the mic up and
speak to the mic. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, um, as I indicated, this is a PowerPoint presentation. I think I said 11 pages. I'll ask Mr. Stevens to hand this up while I set up the projector if that's okay.
11 pages and um the screen is going to block some people. So maybe I should move it over here. >> We have this screen too. >> Then the board you can't see. You have to turn around. So um I mean I know when we have boards they sit up here and face this way too. So I think this is better
than the boards. Um, >> well, I could just as easily relocate over here. That's right. >> Maybe some people have. >> Okay, thank you. How can I see this? >> Miss Frank, can you can you take a step
over to this side? You'd be able to see it that way. Appreciate it. Keep yourself comfortable, please. So, thank you for your indulgence. While I set this up, hopefully uh this will prove to be a uh a way that everybody
can see it. And as I indicated, in the days when we used boards, no one could no one could see that at all. So, uh hopefully this is an upgrade. Um for the record, John Jackson on behalf of Natalyia Skora. Um we have
this property uh at the end of 22nd Avenue where we seek to create a a four lot subdivision. Uh the PowerPoint gives a little overview. The uh first two homes that are illustrated are really just examples of the type of home that
could fit there. We're not proposing a specific home, but my client has uh built many homes and she knows that these can fit on the footprint that Mr. Bill Stevens, our engineer and planner, who's here tonight and is going to testify, um has indicated would fit on
the plot plan. So, um, the next thing there's a a picture of existing conditions basically taken off of Google Earth. Shows a vacant lot with some trees on it. Here is an overview.
Uh, right right next to Burman Park. And, um, you know, you can see there they're you know, the lot is vacant as it exists. It's at the end of the street. Here is our proposed four lot subdivision. You can see the corner lots a little
larger and we have the zoning table on here. In this zone, the minimum lot size is 4,000 square ft. All of our lots exceed the minimum square foot. So, as far as bulk dimensions, we have a fully conforming subdivision terms of the
dimensions, the setbacks, etc. We do require some waiverss that Mr. Hill has pointed out in his letter uh for things like um drainage, etc. M Mr. Stevens will address that. I know he's worked on that as well.
So that that's basically an overview of our application. With your permission, if I could have Mr. Bill Stevens sworn. He is our engineer and plan. >> It's fine. Thank you. >> Mr. Do you solidly swear that the testimony that Sorry, would you raise your right
hand and thenly swear that the testimony that the board this evening mean the whole the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. Mr. Stevens, >> I'll go over there. We'll do. If >> I could ask you please before we get
underway, um would you please just briefly describe your product? >> So, William Stevens, STENS. I am a professional engineer and a professional planner licensed to practice here in the state of New Jersey. I have appeared in that capacity
before most boards in Ocean County and many boards in Mammoth County. However, that is this is my first time here in Lake Ko. I have been practicing for the better part of 40 years now. I have substantial experience and responsible
for many great engineering works throughout Ocean and Mammoth counties. Mr. Chairman, >> please proceed as the board recognizes you as an expert in the field. >> Thank you and good evening. >> I don't know if you want the point or if
you want that. >> So, Mr. Stevens, uh, with the board's permission, I feel like uh Bruce and little Steven over here. Can can you please um give the board an overview of the application? Um, I don't know if you want me to go to the aerial
first, the neighborhood, uh, the zone, and the general overview of what we're doing, and then we'll go into the specifics. So, so I think just to begin my testimony as the planner and engineer, this application we have here this evening is is according to your ordinance is what we call a sketch plot
review. So what this really is, it's meant to be an informative session where the applicant present what their proposal is and then hear from the board and from the neighbors concerns, comments, and then at which point in time we will bring a subdivision application back to the board at some
point in the future. So it's kind of an informal session, but however, albeit we're going to try to present our case, tell you what we think and what we have in mind, and then hear back from the board and from the public. So the subject property it is known as block 36
lots 25 and 26. It is at the intersection of 22nd Avenue and Marggerum Avenue as can be seen on the aerial photograph. I'll use your cane for the time being. As can be seen in the photograph, the subject property located in the center
of the map, Burham Park located immediately adjacent to it, 22nd Avenue to the bottom of the map and Marram Avenue to to the right. So, just for a, you know, a bigger perspective. Obviously, everyone here is
very familiar with the site, but I'll just zoom out a little so you can just give the big picture there. Right? So, that's where we're at. Zoom in. All right. So, please proceed. So, the subject property is
approximately 0.5 acres in size and the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into four lots to construct four residential homes. Gapman is not seeking any variances from the R40 zone requirements. This is in
the R40 zone. As Mr. Jackson said in his opening remarks, the lots are required to be 4,000 square ft and all of these lots exceed that. They're they're all larger, meet all the bulk requirements of the R40 zone.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide this property so that the floor lots will front along 22nd Avenue. All have frontage along that roadway. They will all utilize municipal water and sewer service. There is presently on 22nd
Avenue there is a street light at the intersection of it in Marram Avenue as well as a street light being at the entrance to the park. There are also fire hydrants located at the intersection again of the two roadways and at the entrance to the park. So the the property itself is surrounded by
roads that have curves and sidewalks and are presently developed. All surrounded by residential homes say for the park that is located to the west of the subject property. As I said, we're seeking no no variances. However, there are some
waiverss that were pointed out by your engineer that would be required for the design as it is presently prepared. The the first waiver that is pointed out, we are proposing a small retaining wall to be located along the property line of
the park. Your ordinance prohibits the construction of new retaining walls for development. That retaining wall is is really just our way. It's something my firm does when we develop smaller lots to try to be good neighbors. It's meant to act as a dividing line between the
two properties and keep storm water from traversing one way to another. The the other waiverss that were >> and the adjacent properties, right? >> Correct. BM Park
located immediately adjacent to that home. The other waiverss that were pointed out by your engineers all year with the dry well. We'll talk more about that when we get into uh talking about storm water
management. As I said, the property is in the R40 zone. the the smallest lot that we have within the development has a lot of 4,948 square feet where the largest lot that
we're proposing would be the corner lot on the corner itself because obviously there's two front yard setbacks there. That would be where we would want our largest lot to be. That lot will be 6,142 square ft. In the R40 zone, we're required to have a lot width of 40 ft.
Presently, all of the lots as proposed have at least 42.5 with the largest being the corner lot having 58 feet in lot width. So, they're completely conformed. >> Yes, sir.
>> Um, the 25 ft wide on the street 22nd Avenue is 25 ft wide. >> What is >> correct? 40 42 1/2 ft is the minimum lot size along 22nd. The largest would be our corner lot which is 58 ft along that
river. So they all do comply with the R40 zone and the applicant is is proposing to build this project to create this subdivision to be in conformance with your zone. Storm water management is is
an issue for these properties. The groundwater table here is is very high. We have gone out and done geotechnical work here. We find groundwater to be approximately three feet from the surface of the existing grade. So there won't be any basement. There won't be
anything like that. We are proposing to manage the storm water by doing three different things. one creating a dry well in the front of each lot that will infiltrate storm water coming off of the roofs of the proposed homes.
Then also in the rear lots off of this picture. We're proposing dry wells in the rear of each lot to capture any rear yard drainage. So again to be good neighbors to make sure we don't have storm water going off onto anyone else's property. And then in addition to that,
what we're proposing to do is to build all the driveways out of permeable material. They are proposed to be 18 foot wide driveways with singlecar garages. So we we do meet or exceed the required off- streetet parking. So one of one of the things about storm
water for this project is the project as it's presently de designed, it is not major development. So, it's not required to comply with the D storm water rules and new best management practice rules. Your ordinance allows for a 60%
impervious coverage. If this if this property were developed to that impervious coverage, it would be major development. So, we're going to propose to limit the impervious coverage on these lots to 49% or less, which would
be the threshold to major development. Presently, as designed, it's significantly less than that. I think that's really an overview of our application. Perhaps one of the things we could talk about is going through your engineers
review letter for the project. One of the things that your engineer pointed out to me and and did take the time to have a phone conversation with me, which I do appreciate. One one of the issues is that the NJ geo web
mapping shows the park property as being entirely wetlands. We fully we fully agree. He asked that we introduce a copy of the geo web map as an exhibit so the town could see what he sees. So what we see here is again
the burrow line between Lake Como Spring Lake, the creek located to the south in Spring Lake itself, but the DP has an entire park mapped as weapons. >> So for the record, that's page 11 of the PowerPoint, the the burrow's own geo
weapons, >> right? So your engineer rightly says, "Well, what about wetlands or wetlands buffers for this property?" So we we started to do some research into what work had been done here and we found interestingly that the township itself
had went and got an LOI for the park. >> Explain what an LOI is for these folks. >> A wetlands letter of interpretation from the D which defines where wetlands are and where wetlands buffers are. So the LOI that the township received for the
park shows that there are no wetlands or wetlands buffers in the park itself. So having said that, we've also done work on site ourselves. We don't believe there are any wetlands or wetlands buffers on our property, but your engineer asked that we bring this to the
board's attention so that they could see what he was seeing. We don't believe again there are wetlands or wetlands buffers on the subject property, but bound by whatever decisions the the board makes. We think that the wetlands LOI that the township got for the park
really speaks for itself. Obviously, if that properties not wet, this property isn't either, but that's simply my opinion. >> So, engineers when they go to a site and they do inspections, there's features that they look to because there's criteria that make something wetland. Correct.
>> That would be correct. There are three parameters that make properties wetlands. It would be water obviously, soils and vegetation, none of which are present on our site. >> So the type of vegetation that grows in in water basically.
>> Correct. Yes. Wetlands vegetation. >> What was the what was the letter of interpretation for what received by the township that I have a copy of December 28th, 2023. Um, it's the letter of interpretation. I can make that part of the record if
you'd like. I don't know if you want to refer to that. Is that what you were referring? >> Correct. That's what the question Mr. Nef had asked. Yes, it was December 28, 2023. It is part of our exhibits. It's in our exhibit package. So, you do have a copy of it.
And I I think it speaks for itself. >> I probably do that. >> Okay. Sure. Just >> can I just say that the genesis of that point in my letter had to do mainly with the the mapping that we saw was the blue
area on that map and that's what kind of generated our our our my comment. Um I was not aware of the LOI that has been provided. So, um, just to be clear,
>> yeah, Mr. Jackson, just for purposes of the record, um, one of board members pointed out, I wasn't paying attention. Um, maybe we should just mark your packet so that >> Yes, I thought I That's my custom. I thought I said that. I apologize. >> No, no, I I don't nail down that detail.
>> No, and I was asleep at the switch, so my bad. So, we'll call the whole thing A1 just for >> Thank you. And there's 11 pages. 11 pages dated dated today. Thank you. Please proceed. I'm sorry. Thank you. >> All right. So, um we we discussed the
wetlands. Is there anything else? Uh there are other matters in Mr. Hiller's letter. I have it up. Um he talks about the 60 and 50% which you addressed. He talks about the LOI for Burman. You've addressed that. Ordinance 2401 20241
establishes standards for grading and drainage. Uh can you address that? And let's go back to the retaining wall for a moment because that's mentioned there. So so so this retaining wall approximately how high would it be? It it it's very low
>> less less than two feet in height. It it it is low. We could grade the property without the retaining wall. Again, it's something my office is promoting just to be good neighbors to separate the storm water from one property to the next. Being that it is the township's property, it's something that I wanted
to do. But again, if the if the board feels strongly about it and does not want the wall put in, we don't need to put it in. >> So, let's just go through this for a minute. So, on on your plans, you have uh you know, what are these things? The 123 and the 118. And then over here, we have 122, 122.
>> So, those are those are elevations. They're they're grades of of the proposed grading of what we're looking to regrade the property too. >> And then on uh we have the existing grades on another document. Right. >> Correct. Yes. >> So explain how these grades work. In
other words, which way is the downhill here now or is it pretty flatter? >> It it it's really very flat. We have a 12 contour just off the property. So the the water is generally going in this direction towards 22nd. There is a small
low point located really at the property corner with the park and that's we're just trying to avoid any water going onto the park from our property as the property were to be developed. >> So explain the retaining wall along this boundary right here. What what does that do? How does that get you to the grades
of 12 that you show in your plan and explain how that keeps the water on this property and keeps it from spilling off it helps it? >> It just simply acts as a curb. We're proposing to build swailes will direct water to the rear dry wells and then partly to the front and that retaining
wall keeps any water from the swale from going in a westerly direction towards the park. >> Okay. So, we're not and and the change in grade is what about a foot? Yes. The propertyy's fairly flat. Yes. >> You're going from 11 to 12, I think.
>> Correct. Yes. >> So, in in your view, you know, the the board can grant a waiver which is different than a variance, different standard. Uh, and that has to do with whether there's a good reason for it. I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what what are the good reasons? Why do
you uh propose that and why is that a good reason here? I >> I think it makes for a better engineering solution for the reasons that I have before. It gives us a dividing line between the properties and also separates storm water. >> Now, in terms of being next to another household, another neighbor with the
park, it's a little different, right? >> With the park, it's a little different. And this Mr. Hill and I, and again, thanking him for taking the time to talk to me about this, that, you know, there's less complaints are going to come from the park than if we had another home was immediately adjacent to
us. However, it's just it's my plan. It's my idea. It's it's what I think should be done here. If the board feels strongly against it, we could eliminate it. >> Why would you think there'd be less complaints? Because no one lives there or because the park is used by dozens if not hundreds of people.
>> Why do you think there would be more? >> Because it's open space. The chances of having any drainage problems there would be small because it is all pvious materials. It's it's not like you're going to cause any kind of detriment to the park. I don't believe. How could you say that?
because we're holding the water on our lot, >> right? So, we have a storm water management plan that we're proposing and we believe that it meets your requirements, meets the ordinances and is satisfactory to solve any storm water
issues. However, if there was some small overflow from from a grass area alongside a home or alongside a driveway, the the the detriment to that would be minimal. That was all I was really trying to say. >> So, the the reason why I brought that
up, I said it it's a little different when there's a house next door. If you're on 4,000 square foot, excuse me, foot plots that are 60 ft wide, 40, 50 ft wide, when your your driveway is right next to someone else's or your house is right next to someone else's, you might have a 24 in curve basically
and that's right next to your property. So, they're a little higher. When they're standing on their car, they might be looking down at you and your car. And I'm trying to think of the reasons why a retaining wall would not be appropriate. Maybe also in the overall scheme of things, you don't want properties re-engineered and changing
the grades. So here we're pointing out it's only a foot that we're regrading the property. And when I say it's next to the park, you don't have that proximity where somebody is going to be in their car right next door or on their lawn or in their lawn charter in the backyard and the property next door is
immediately 2 feet higher. So, we think when you're in the park, you're running around, playing around with the open space, it doesn't have the impact like it would on the house. So, that's why I brought that up, why I think uh next to a park. I'm just trying to think of the reasons why you would have a prohibition
on retaining walls. Like Mr. Steven said, we could do it without it. We just think that's a better solution. And if you go to the basis is it have the impact on the people next door. you know, if you're playing soccer in a field and it's a big open field. I think having a two foot on the boundary where you can't go into anyway because it's
off of the park, presumably there'll be a fence there um or or a hedge row or something to the bark. We don't think it would have an impact. So, councilman, I hope that Councilman sitting in front of the right mark. I apologize. So, uh sometimes with board members, the name
place doesn't change. >> Uh what about the property owners um on larger north of that. >> Can you address that, Mr. Stevens? >> You're going to raise the property foot. It's going to go up onto their
properties. >> So, our intention is to create low points on our own property to not only contain our storm water, the low points that are going to be located in the rear yard, but to also take the water from our neighbors as well. So whatever water
is coming from their houses in this direction is going to be able to continue coming in that direction. >> Well, let's >> Is there water coming from their houses in that direction? >> It it's it's very flat, but you know, we can we can say like the corner of the park and this back property about
elevation 13 and then as we come down it's about elevation 13. So there's about 2 feet across the property. It generally grades in this direction. Some of these elevations are higher. >> Yeah, you're changing the height. So, you're going to change the way water
flows off the property instead of go right onto those houses. >> No, we're doing just the opposite. We're changing the height by creating low points beyond our houses to collect the storm water from theirs. >> The retaining wall is only on this side, >> right? The only retaining wall we were
talking about was here. It's just because the the proximity of the property line, in my opinion, it's a it's a better solution. I don't uh I honestly don't see how you're not going to put water on the properties that are to the north.
>> Well, you might make a little mud pool in your backyard that some of that wood is going to go on. >> But it but it isn't, sir. >> Explain. >> So, from an engineer, >> so water runs downhill. The grades that we have, for example, let's let's just look at this at the lot. We're looking
at the the second lot from the park. We have an existing grade of 12.3 on that property line. We're creating this drywall at 11 and a half. So this water is going to flow in this direction. It's not going to go the other way. It can't. >> The water the water from the yard that
direction. >> Correct. >> I'm I'm not I'm not following. >> Maybe I'm not following you, but you're talking about >> he's not. We're going to create low points in our backyards to do just that. We want we
want to be good neighbors of my firm. I've been in this business a long time as you heard in my opening saliloquy. I try my best to do the right thing and to be good neighbors wherever we go we build anything. That is what we try to do. We're saving some vegetation along
this property line so that we can clearly show that we're not changing any of the grades here. And again, from there, we're going to lower our yard to take any water that's coming from that direction to us. The houses themselves are going to contribute to drywalls that
will be located in the front. And the driveways themselves will pitch the 22nd are going to be made of permeable material also. And >> just for clarity, um, when we were talking about the height of the retention wall, if the retention wall
happens, would be about 2 feet. There is no intent on your side to raise the grade of all of these properties up two feet. Correct. >> Not not generally. So, although we are changing the grades and and there is some some filling going on in in this
area where the houses are going to go. >> So, the grade in the backyard and and to Mr. Cavaluzi's point, the grade in the backyard is going to be higher or lower than the grade that exists right now in the backyards
where the where the dry wells are, >> right? Where the dry wells are on that line >> from from Marger Avenue to the park on that line. >> Is is your intent to raise the grade of that property or lower the grade of that property? So generally they're at grade.
They're just about at grade. I mean there are anytime we engineer something there's slight modifications of things but basically this line is at grade. So this line is a line we're proposing to save trees on. So we're not going to change the grades past here at all. And then like I said we're going to make this grade lower than that so that we
take that storm water and then but then we do intend to raise the grade where the houses are just because again we have a high seasonal high water table here >> and that's where the houses are. We have swelles and drained features around that. Right. So the water will move around the houses. >> Correct.
>> All right. Let's go back to Mr. Hill's letter. So we I think we addressed that raising the grid. We talked about that. Two dry wells, roof leaders. Um they don't achieve the two feet of separation. Can you address that point?
So the the waiverss that we're looking at for the drive wells, one of the things Mr. Hill pointed out was that right now the way we have these systems designed in the rear, we had proposed to put in seepage tanks in the
in the back of the homes. And the reason why my staff does that, they like these things because homeowners don't take them out. You're not moving one. But here with this high water table, Mr. pointed out that we don't meet your twoft separation criteria with those tanks. So, we're looking at some
alternate shallower systems. They're going to do the same thing. However, they're going to be shallower so that they do meet that requirement. We are not going to seek a waiver from the recharge trenches being less than two foot high above the seasonal high water
table. >> 16T curb cut versus 18t. Hold on. I'm sorry. >> You're going too fast. So the one we are asking for a waiver from when we talk about drywall design is your ordinance asked for two feet of
cover over the drywalls because we have such a high groundwater table here and trying to meet that twoft separation. We would be seeking a waiver for providing two feet of cover over the top of those drywalls. And then presently the way that they're
designed or ordinance also seeks to have a separation of 10 feet from the dwellings and five feet from the property lines. We are looking for some waiverss from that. Although when we go through and look at this alternate design that Mr. Hill has asked me to look at, we'll we'll try to get closer
to meeting those where we can. >> So he uses throughout the term variance relief. You've had discussions with Mr. Hill. You agreed uh that they are actually waivers, not variances. >> Yes. >> Yes, we agree. >> What what Mr. Stevens so far has
portrayed as waivers instead of variances is correct. >> Like these would be design waiverss. What he just described um as they're not as zoning criteria. They're actually in the um section of the ordinance that's for like
uh you know like performance standards for development. So they're not a variance from let's say zoning you get variances from zoning criteria but design waiverss are are let's say um for
like engineering uh or engineered uh functions that are not part of zoning but more like um design performance um criteria. >> I I don't know that I could have described it any better than
So, basically the the the design changes that are going to be made to this, it's going to still >> drain the same amount of water, but it's just going to be in a different design up a little bit higher and maybe a lot wider
>> or like a Yeah. Whether it's a disposal field as opposed to a tank, but and it may have a larger footprint, but it'll act in the same way that the um that Mr. Stevens has, let's say, designed and intended for it to happen. And the fact
that there's no basements in these homes, you know, makes it conducive to, you know, the those systems maybe being a little closer to the home than ordinarily would have been. So, um, you know, the size of the the recharge systems that, uh, Mr. Stevens has
suggested is, you know, going to when it where adjacent to existing properties um is going to be conforming. It's really probably more in the front yard where some of those waiverss will come into effect, but they will not affect any
adjacent properties. So if so I understand what what we're talking about here is not it's not going to have a drywall is going to have a retention pond retention. >> No no they're going to it's essentially
a dry well it's just different. It's not a concrete box or um like the typ like a typical dry well would be but it functions the same way. It may be pipe
inside of stone filter fabric but in a larger field or something along those lines that it's it's the same idea. It's just really different materials uh different footprint but same effect that >> and Mr. Cavali just so that if I could
chime in a little bit what what Mr. who is essentially saying is, you know, these are things that sometimes need to be done on the fly on the engineering end. Sometimes they can be dealt with as close resolution compliance items, but through the course of the review process by the engineers, it was determined
that, you know, the board doesn't necessarily need to grant I'm comfortable with both with Mr. Hill's characterization that these they don't require, you know, the standard of proof for, you know, bulk variance relief. I think if they were out in the field
conducting the engineering and getting ready post approval. You know, I don't think it would be even an issue. >> Is that fair out? >> I think yes. And I think it's important to recognize that they are going to honor the twoft above the groundwater table which is really actually that's a
state criteria in major development. It's part of this resolution and they're not seeking a waiver for that. They're seeking a waiver for cover which is like a debatable criteria and for the various setbacks which we already kind of went through. So the important one is the separation from the seasonal high ground
water table. >> Say the last part of that again. The important one. >> The important one is the separation the twoft separation from the seasonal high ground water table to the the engineered system that they're suggesting and they're not seeking a waiver for that. >> What is the seasonal high?
>> So we're we're about 3 feet on this property from existing grade. It's shallow >> and so seasonal high groundwater is where at one time uh the the groundwater table got that high in most cases it's
not that high whenever it gets measured but there's like modeling of the soil there's ways to detect where that point was and actually you measure from there the the actual groundwater table might be four or five feet below even though seasonal high maybe 50 years ago got to
within three feet. So, it's kind of a belt and suspenders approach to not impacting ground work. >> Okay. >> Well, on that back to Mr. Hill's review letter, the next comment he had is requesting that we reduce the width of
the driveway cuts. We are proposing 18 foot wide driveways with singlecar garages for these homes so that we will have three off- streetet parking spaces. But we also showed 18 foot driveway aprons on our sketch plot. Mr. Ar pointed out that your ordinance only
allows 16 foot wide aprons. So we're going to reduce them to be 16 ft in width. >> Can can I ask a question about that too? Is there a way to get these driveway cutouts laid out to get the
most amount of parking on that street as possible? Obviously, it's parked and parking in this town is quite a nightmare at times. So, um we we would like to keep it as many spaces on 22nd
Avenue as possible. >> Thank you, Mr. Kavanagh. Mr. Hela did point that out in his review letter. One of our driveways falls short of making a of making a a parking space in between. So we're we're going to do something. We're going to relocate them so that we
end up getting that additional parking space here. Mr. Hill did request that in his review and we're going to agree to that make that change to our design. >> So I can orient myself. Where's the fire hydrant in this map? So, there's a fire hydrant right here at the corner of
Marram and 22nd. And there is also one right at the very property corner >> at the entrance of the park. There's there's fire hydrants on both corners. >> It's clearly not where it is. >> I live across the street. That's not where it is. >> What? The one closer to the park? Yeah.
No, it's >> right. >> The one to the right of the driveway. >> It's on It's on our plans. It's It's close to the entrance. Sorry if I misspoke or that was not clear. >> We could probably take a look at it. And >> there it is. >> It's right there.
>> And show where it is on the plan. >> That it right there. >> Corly. >> Yes. >> So it's it's it's really good. I mean, we have fire hydrants at either end of the project. So obviously we're meeting any kind of fire.
Firefighting needs. Yes. There's one at each each side of the property. very well laid out. >> Any other questions about the curb cuts and road? So, so that'll be maximized. >> So, you could you're not going to be able to get a parking space in between
those first two driveways because there's a fire hydrant there. Correct. >> There is a fire hydrant here. Correct. >> You're not going to be able to get a parking space to the east of that before the other driveway. Thank you. >> What is it?
>> I don't even know. What is it like? >> The spot that would be open with a driveway east all the way to the edge of that driveway. >> Yeah, there's no parking. >> Okay. >> It's yellow from the park. >> But isn't there going to be a driveway where that tree is basically? Probably
there's there's a driveway there, right? >> But you can start parking there. So they're going to get rid of that spot. >> Yeah, there are curb cuts here or one >> that's not used. >> I think I saw one time looking at some
historical areas there was a house located in the corner of of the park and this property, but it was quite some time ago. I don't even recall the year it was there. >> Do you have an idea of how many parking spots are technically there now and how
many would be there after the construction of these four houses and if you don't I understand if you don't we can always figure that out. >> You know I I I I don't Mr. Mayor I'm looking at it looking at what's what's
laid out. It looks to me about four I would guess just by looking at what's across the street and what's there >> it's probably like six >> six to seven right now >> because it I mean if you take from even that John >> sorry I
>> the zoom in tonight >> because it looks like the the parking bracket that was on the pavement there was about the location of the westerly side of the driveway apron that was there and if you just take that back to within say 20
some odd f feet of the intersection, that's about 120 ft. So, if they're 20 ft long, it's probably, you know, just doing straight math, you know, six spaces. >> And if we can we figure out what how
many are left after we we modify this and and go to 16T and we get a rough estimate of how many spaces are going to be left there. to 16. >> Want to go back to our plan? >> Sure. I'm just looking at this. You
know, if you if you have the full >> I did the same thing, but Mr. Hill is correct. You do the measurements. There's more than what we what we see striped on the pavement there. >> All right. Zoe want back. >> All right. So, if if there were six
spaces to to the hydrant, then three of those would end up being taken up by drivers. I mean, I think that's an easy way to look at that. We ended up losing three on street parking spaces while while gaining 12 off street parking spaces, but again,
there'll be more people, you know, new houses parking there. We understand. We'll again do our best to maximize what we can do for the maximum number of on street parking spaces we can maintain. We will do our best Architectural plans number five that
like I said we're not proposing any specific plans but Miss Squora has developed houses and those plans will fit on this lot. Just a example of what could go there. >> Right. And again this is this is a sketch plot application. when we do come back with a subdivision, we certainly
could provide some some more conceptual architectural plans for the board to review. >> So, uh, >> so to be clear, you're not looking for a subdivision tonight. >> This is simply a sketch plat application. So, it's interesting, you know, Mr. Hill and I had this conversation. It's unusual step in
municipalities, but your ordinance requires it. Your ordinance very clearly states that every applicant for a subdivision will make a sketch glad application and come for what I would call is really an informal hearing. >> That's exactly what I was going to say. It's an informal hearing.
>> Yeah, that's right. We noticed anyway. But >> well, we have jurisdiction, so don't worry. >> So, so the so the point is that we would present our case. We would hear the board's concerns and the public's concerns and then come back with an amended application to try to address those things.
So for the board's identification, what that means is, you know, they're going to build a foundation and there's a lot of people here that are going to have probably have some comments, yay or nay. The board's going to have some questions and comments, yay or nay. And then the act team is going to take those comments
and go back to huddle up uh in their offices and come back with modifications based on what works and and certainly to try to satisfy, you know, the concerns that are raised. He um Mr. is absolutely correct. I mean, it's otherwise known as
an informal hearing. I've done it, you know, throughout New Jersey and it's always been called an informal here, but you know, be that as it may, nobody has to worry about a vote tonight. But that now is, you know, it's a great opportunity to be heard about what your concerns are.
>> Yes, the whole point of the thing. And uh then hopefully with that all being said, we we end up with a better project that's good for us, good for the township, and good for the neighbors, >> right? Are there any other uh matters on the letter that we should address now? I
think that was pretty much everything. >> It talked about one of the driveway spaces not being quite long enough for a true parking space. You want to point out where that is? >> Yes, it was in between these two driveways. This falls short of the 16 ft. And what Mr. Hill and I agreed was
that we would reconfigure that driveway situation so to allow for that parking space to remain on street and and again to maximize the on street parking opportunities. >> Okay. So that's um that's basically our
overview of the application. >> One more point, Mr. I would like to talk about go back to that where you were talking about the improvements on Arger Avenue. There is existing curb and
sidewalk. Mr. Hill's reports states that they're in in in poor repair. The applicant would agree to repair any and all defects in the existing curbs and sidewalks along that roadway should the board look favorably upon our ultimate application.
And then moving on on 22nd. Can we go back to that gentleman? >> I'm really being a pain, aren't I? Sorry. >> On 22nd, Mr. Hill points out that 22nd Avenue was recently paved and I think is inside of a 5-year moratorum here in municipality.
and his concern was that if we're going to build four new houses, four new curb cuts, water, sewer, and natural gas services out into 22nd Avenue that it would leave the pavement in a state of disrepair. So
he had asked that as part of the development again, if the board were to look favorably upon it, that the applicant would agree to repave 22nd Avenue from the intersection of Marram to the park its entire width so that when we get finished, it looks better
than it does today and we would agree with you. The council actually just passed an order and said you have to go to curb to curb curve to curb anyway if you open up the street. So, it's pretty much doing the whole doing all of our
>> It's it's a valid point, Mr. Mayor, and we certainly agree. And again, want to be the best neighbors that we can. >> So, Mr. Stevens, I know we're not at that stage, but in your view as a civil engineer, can the uh waiverss be granted uh in this case? Is there good reason
for it? And are they something that has no negative impact on >> I I think that they are I think the waiverss that we're looking for are dimminimous in nature and and we'll only end up making the project a a better project should they be granted >> and with regard to the one retaining
well we don't have to do that right >> we don't have to the town feels strongly about it to me I think it's good design I think it's good that's my opinion typically we do >> so the other waiverss that we're down to really are the height of the dirt over
the >> cover over the drywall and presently the way that the front drywalls are designed. They don't meet your other standards being 5t from the property line and 10 ft from the homes. We're going to be looking at some different technology so maybe we could try to make
that a little bit better, but we probably still will end up needing those waiverss. the drywalls that are located in the back of the homes, the low points we're creating in our rear yards for our neighbors, they will they will comply with all the conditions of your orders. >> And what's the purpose behind having I
think Mr. Hill said without basement, it's really not an issue. Can you elaborate on that? Why that waiver really isn't anything significant? >> Right. So, if we had basements in these homes, for example, and we were putting dry wells in the front yards that were close to the homes, there would be the
possibility of recirculating water back into the basement because the drywall itself would be above the basement floor. But in this case, because we're not going to be building basements here, it it isn't an issue. >> So, the reason for that protection doesn't exist. >> Correct. In my opinion, yes.
>> And that's a classic basis for a waiver, right? >> Yes. >> And and the other one demanding I think Mr. indicated that um that covering dirt over that's my crude way of putting it that's not a big deal either.
>> Correct. Right. So we we could comply with that would just simply mean us raising the job higher and higher and higher and higher and I think I've already heard enough tonight that the board really doesn't want to see the property significantly raised >> as far as FEMA and everything like that. We comply with everything >> we do. Yes. >> And these new storm water management
regulations. How is that going to uh impact us? So they don't apply because this project is not major developed. >> So the project not being major developed means does not need to comply with the new storm water management rules or the the BMP put forth by the D.
>> That's why we're at that 40% or 50%. 49.9. Can you explain that? >> Correct. So I thought I already did, but we'll do it again. So, your ordinance in the R40 zone allows for this property to be 60% impervious coverage. We are
proposing to limit the impervious coverage of this property to less than 49% so that we don't end up becoming major development in the future. That was something I managed to discuss with Mr. Hill. >> So, it complies. >> Correct. Right now we're significantly
below 49% the way this is designed, but at that magic number, it would push it over to major development. His concern was that somebody could move into the future and want to pave the entire thing, thereby pushing the project into major development, >> which we disagree that that would do that at that point because now they're
new lots. But that's we're going to stay under 49%. And the impervious coverage, I know you said when under you're not supposed to ask questions, you don't know the answer to. Oh, here I go. Approximately what is the coverage as it is? You have it on your zoning table. >> I have it somewhere in my notes.
>> That's where you're not supposed to ask. You don't know the answer. >> Mr. Jackson, if the board were to grant relief, excuse me. I'm sorry. If the board were grantable, you would be okay with the resolution
or sorry, the coverage of 49% or less. >> I would have to take that under consideration because like I said, I don't think stormwater management regulations have a creeping major subdivision element to it. Um a creeping major subdivision is let's say five lots
is a major subdivision. So you say oh I'm going to do four lots and then I'll subdivide it again. And uh under the municipal land use law they call that a creeping major. you can't circumvent the the major subdivision criteria analysis etc by doing it incrementally
which I never understood because every lot has been subdivided since the dawn of time but that said that's what a creeping major is I don't think that the the the storm water management regulations have that kind of uh mechanism like I view it as a difference between tax planning and tax evasion
one's okay the other isn't um so I I'll I'll reserve on that if I may and we'll deal with that one. >> Well, since you're gonna since you've indicated that you're going to come back, maybe you and I can bat it around and try. >> Absolutely. You know, I I I I'm going to
understand I'm going to telegraph. I'm going to understand what the board's concern is going to be about these issues. And I think that you know that the issue assuming the boards really consistent with more or less what you're looking for is enforcement down the road, right? If it's not recorded, if it's not this, if it's not that, I mean,
what happens? >> Understood. What's the stop somebody after they buy in that of putting like the pool in and the patio and all that around there and that changes? >> Well, that's what I just said. I don't know that there is a stop once the
original subdivision occurs, once the original approval occurs. I don't know that there's anything that would prevent one of the homeowners from going and putting a shed or a pool or gazebo or whatever. and then that would trigger the uh major development from the storm water management because it's already
gone through the first thing. But if the concern is that that could have a negative impact on the surrounding property, then maybe it would make sense to put it in as a condition. That's my concern. >> That was run with the land >> that and that would work under the case law because that type of a condition, you know, sort of an antivarian
application for lack of a better word that's been deemed to be >> I I I appreciate where you guys are coming from and trying to get this down so that we can control the storm water because especially in a small town like this, this can become an issue and the water table here all throughout the town
changed a little bit. But my concern is that later on and It's happened later on where people will turn around and change something or put an addition on and then raise the level of their property and then the water goes to somebody else >> and and this is what I don't want to see
happen with these properties. >> To your point, if that's a condition of approval that can be documented, memorialized and your attorney could protect and make certain that that would not occur without further relief from the board. >> I I don't know. You know, as they say, >> yes,
if that's what the board wants. I don't know. Yeah, let you know I think the weather report is clear, but why don't you know you and I can battle it around between now and the next meeting? Okay, thank you. So, did you get that impervious as we are? >> Yes. Get getting back to the the board's
question about impervious coverage for each of the lots. The corner lot itself is is 28% impervious coverage. And then moving to the west, so this is 28 imper 28% impervious. This is 35% impervious
being our smallest lot. This is 34% impervious and 32% impervious. So even at the 49, there is still significant impervious coverage. If somebody wanted to put a pool or patio or something else in like that, it still could be done and still
be under the 49. So, we're significantly under what your ordinance allows and and um you know, more than comply. >> I've got one more question. Um are you guys going to confirm that um
you're going to get the tree removal permit and make sure that we take care of the trees like so that it meets with the shade tree commission in town? >> Yes, sir. We be again not being here in Lake Como ever so I'm not familiar with
what you guys do. So just really doing what I would do. So so what we did is we conducted a tree survey of the property. Portions of the property are already cleared but there is significant vegetation on the site. A lot of the vegetation on
site is already being choked out by a lot of vines. You could see it from the first picture that John had. >> Go back to that. So, some of the vegetation isn't stuff that that a forester would want to stay. Now, I am not a forester. I'm an engineer and a planner, but I do have foresters.
The the first picture that you have there you go. Right. So, you can you can see there's a lot of of vine growth choking stuff out, but we're happy to work with with your environmental commission or whoever it is in town with handles looking at tree clearing. And yes, we're we're going to
need to get whatever tree permit would be required in order to clear some of these trees. We have done some preliminary tree work ourselves. I do have a true survey that I haven't shared with Mr. Hilly yet, but we certainly will in the next go. >> Thank you.
>> Generally, that's a requirement anyway. Certain thickness of breast height have to plant >> plant or buy a tree, >> right? So if that's the ordinance, we will comply with that. If that's the board's direction, we will comply with
>> So Mr. Stevens, just going back just, you know, to wrap up in terms of the engineering and planning testimony, you believe uh that the board can grant this application without any detriment in the surrounding properties, the public good or the zone plan or any of the negative things they talk about under the uh
MLUL. I >> I believe that they can. I mean, again, we're talking about a fully conforming subdivision. We're asking for no variances and some, in my opinion, dimminimous waiverss. To me, it's a it's a very clean application.
Those are all the questions I have for Mr. Stevens. I have Natalya Sura here as well. Um, but I don't anticipate asking her any questions being that she is not an engineer and this is all engineering at this point. So, that's that's what I have. >> Mr. Jackson, excuse me. I was picking up fine when you were over there, but your
last statement not clear. >> Thank you. I I'll just repeat I have Miss Natalyia Skora here. Um I don't anticipate calling her as a witness, but if the board had any a question for her, she's available. But that said, the you know, this is an engineering case and Mr. Stevens has provided our engineering
testimony at this stage. >> Board have any questions for the witness? One one question. >> There's there's two lots, buildable lots there. You're proposing four. >> Um well, I think it's one. How many
lots? >> That is correct. There are two existing lots. We're proposing to make them four, >> right? So, if you were to develop the two lots that exist today, would you need any sorts of either waiverss or varants for those? You could you could
build what's But you are you already have a right to build the one. >> You want the right to build the four. >> Correct. >> Would you would you build the two but the lots are there now without waivers and >> so we're not asking for any variances.
The waiverss that we're requesting really deal to how we're proposing to handle the storm water management. And those same conditions would exist for the other two homes. Whether that gets looked at when you go through an engineering approval here in Lake Home, I don't know. But the same conditions
would apply to those two houses that apply to these four. >> So you'd be able to build substantially larger homes though, right? Because you have much larger lots and all the criteria would be double. >> Correct. Yes. Substantially larger. You know what the
dimensions are of the existing lots? >> That should be on the survey, right? some reason it's down towards the end I believe >> page six you have a copy of survey in your presentation that one right there
>> that does >> you can't see >> can you blow it up so we can read it a little bit John more >> but I don't know if >> it's clear enough now So the property measured along the common property line with our neighbors is 183 feet in that
direction and it's it's a it's 100 ft along marum and thenund and looks like 38 but don't quote me on the last number. It's 13 something along the park. I should be able to survey
>> scale. All right, he's got big >> the big one. You can see. >> Oh, there you go. Now it's absolutely clear. >> So So that's the survey and the lots are basically evenly split between the two. As I said, it's about a half an acre the
property is. So each of the lots is about a quarter of an acre lots, substantially larger than what's required in the artboard zone. This may be a question um for Al the We've done subdivisions before where they have not presented homes or what's
going to go on those. Is that something that is required or >> Well, maybe the applicant can share why they're giving that instead of just asking. Well, I mean, they're not seeking any relief for any of any of the structures that are proposed. So, none's
going to be granted here. So, you're presuming that they're going to be fully conforming structures that would come before the zoning officer when those lots go to be developed. >> So, what was the intent of putting dimensions on top of the subdivided lots
that you're asking? >> That's the building envelope and that shows what the setbacks are. that shows the size of the house that could go there and the prototypes that we showed could fit on that dimension. Um, the reason why my client doesn't have full architecture because the four lots is
because we want to make sure lots and then we can engage the architecture. A lot of times this board probably sees um on a on a zoning case where you have an undersized lot or somebody wants a setback, it makes sense to have the
architectural plan because in that be adapted to the variance relief that you see and it makes a more persuasive case. In this case, all our issues have nothing to do with the house itself or the dimension of the house. Um, but if if we had a
we could and and the idea is also they're going to be custom homes, people, you know, want to buy. >> And that's kind of where my my question's going, right? We're talking a lot about where driveways are going to be and where where things are going to be built. That's not 100% accurate. Those things could change after a
subdivision happened. >> Well, they would be sentenced. >> It's a good point, Mr. Mayor. Again, thankfully, Mr. Hill gave me his time and also offered that as a concern of his. And just so the board is aware, my client is going to build these homes for sale. We're doing this is what we're building.
>> So, they're not the lots aren't going to be sold to somebody who goes and does whatever they wanted to. No, we agreed to at the end of the day, this is what we're going to build. And why do we why do we prepare a development plan to show the board how we can accomplish this development and and still end up
satisfying the concerns of the board as well as the requirements for such things as storm water management, parking, water, sewer, all those types of things. That's what we do as engineers >> and that could be set in stone. >> Right. Just to jump in for the mayor's education that would be all part of any
resolution should see fit to grade the application. I mean, you know, again, you and I will arm wrestle whether it's but it certainly will be part of the res. >> No, we have we have no issue with this plan being the plan that will be developed. The only caveat once in a while condition something changes, but
you'd have to come back to the board and get the board's blessing for it with notice to the neighbors if they change the condition of approval. And this would be a condition of approval that it's that layout. >> Just so I'm clear what you're saying, she plans on building the houses and then selling them, not selling the lot
for someone else to design the house on. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. So that way we have some control. Councilman and we can guarantee that we can get the on street parking spaces. The driveway should be 16 ft wide at the curb and those types of things. Yes.
Any other questions from the board? I have a motion to open up to the public for questions of the witness. >> So move second. All those in >> favor. Okay. So any neighbor come up and state your you got to stand up and state your
name and address. At this point there's no comment. The only thing you can do is question the witness. what he testified to a later state >> at a later state there will be a chance to make comments.
So, um, Mark Devote, 743 21st Avenue and 737, two houses. Um, uh, my question is about the parking. Um, I just I just want to be clear what I'm faced with all the time, uh, living
right around the corner is, um, you know, this is a ball field and we all know that we live in that neighborhood. We love the kids coming in on Saturday. It's cute. But, uh, the cars fill up tonight coming over here. Um, the entire street was filled. It was filled all the way down to 20th Avenue
and it was filled 600 ft down 20 uh second. No parking spaces. I have seven cars in my two properties. Um, I parked them off the street for the convenience of my neighbors across the street on 22nd and on Mar Road because
parking is very tough there. gentlemen have done a very good job. You really have of showing you what can fit here. Right. So years ago, we changed the name here. My family's been here since 1924. I've never been to a meeting. We don't
participate in politics. We changed the name of Lake Ko because we wanted something better. And we've done that. Things on the lake and the private we have in town. Now we can fit this here. The parking spaces are disappearing. It's pushing it down. Moving everything
to an R40. Looks like it can be done. You've done a great job. But is it what's great for the town and putting the people out? The people down the streets in each direction don't have the ability to park multiple cars in the drive.
>> So, what's my question? >> Just wanted to set things up. >> No, no, no. >> I was taking up the six minutes. We delayed it. Sorry. We don't want we don't want everybody to not feel that you've been hurt. >> Okay. Yeah. Um my question is the
parking spaces are important and it's important that we get it right on fixing those things so that we lose the smallest amount to in further inconvenience in a lesser way the people going down the street and in front of me. I have seven brothers and sisters.
The cars in my driveway, the seven cars aren't for them. They're for my f my immediate family. I keep them off the street. I'd love to put them in the street, but there's never any room. So, that would be my question is that needs to be worked on and get those numbers straight. I'll be out there tomorrow. I
built 40 substations in New Jersey for PSCG. I'll I'll measure it and I I just want to know that we can fit as many as possible. All right. Um agreement. >> Yes. Thank you. We certainly have heard that the board's concerns already and
we're going to do our best to preserve what we can. I said thank you. We we have heard that concern from the board and we will do our best to keep as many on street parking spaces as we can. >> Maximize
>> maximize the on street parking. >> I just want to for purposes of the record your question in essence to Mr. Stevens was you're going to represent to this board and to all these people that are here in the public that you're going to do your very very best to comply with
maximizing the available parking spaces. >> Isn't that right, Mr. Stevens? >> Yes. >> The answer I'm looking for is is that your question? >> Accurate. Yes. >> Thank you. >> No further questions. >> No further questions. >> Anybody else in the audience have come
up? Just remember that it's not comments, it's a question. You'll have a point later on to make a comment. >> Okay. Question. >> Name and address. >> Name and address, please. >> Barbara Frank, 761
22nd. My question is I have three questions. There's no way you're going to be able to uh keep the trees that are in that lot right now building these four houses.
And yet you said you were going to save the trees. >> You don't show one tree and the they're they're right in the front and they're in the back and the sides. There's no way you're going to do that.
>> So we talked a little bit about the trees. What we're doing here with this, this is really a sketch plat. So we haven't prepared a real tree survey yet. My office has done the work. We've surveyed the trees. We know what's there. >> You have trees marked right now.
>> We've marked them all. Yes. >> Yeah. >> And we've surveyed them. So, what we're going to do when we come back is to show which trees need to be removed and which trees can be saved. For example, we have a 10-ft strip located along the back of the property where we're going to leave
trees between us and our abuing neighbor. Other than that, the majority of the trees are going to be cleared, >> of course, >> but we will work with the township and with your environmental commission. I'm not sure who does trees here in town >> shade with the shade tree commission and
we're going to replant and at the end of the day, we like to think that it's going to be a beautiful development. >> My second question is uh and my neighbors will attest to this. This is a flood zone. The water stays there for
weeks after a rainstorm and it does not uh dis go uh evaporate. It stays there for weeks. I don't I hope your engineers are correct but it does not go away.
And the third question, what are you going to do about the uh rodents and possible uh reptiles that are in that lot right now? I know they're there.
I saw a rat walk out walk out yet uh Sunday come out on the street and just walk up the sidewalk. Are you going to terminate them before you begin to build?
>> So, generally what happens is with, you know, with the clearing of the land that those types of nuisance issues, rats, for example, will go away. I mean, there won't be rats. >> Oh, where will they go? >> I know where they're going to go. Across the street to
>> It really is beyond our control, man. Oh, come on. >> Trap them. >> We will do our best. >> Trap them. >> You're going to have to do better than that. >> I don't want any rodents on my property
or coming into my garage or house. >> Oh, certainly understood. None of us want >> Well, what are you going to do about them? >> Before you begin, >> trap them. We will uh talk to the township and work with whomever in their
in the offices here deals with pest control and see what we can do to make a situation that obviously now is bad better. It's not something we normally address as an engineer. It's not my specialty. It's not what I do. I'm an engineer. We
build things. Road control isn't what I special. >> But you're going to have to consider it >> because they're living there. dy noted and you will consider. That's the best answer I can give you tonight. >> It's not good enough for me.
>> Okay, man. We'll work on that one. >> I live in the lot right next door. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. 2113. Umvious obviously this is probably going to affect me the most. So, I just wanted to say that outright I'm not against the
development. You guys have every right to do what you're going to do. But I do have some privacy and buffering concerns on your proposal here. I see that >> you can take the mic with you.
>> Take the mic with you. >> All right. So, you should still grab the mic. I can't hear you. >> Okay. Sorry. >> So, right here you guys have where your like proposed uh buffering is going to be, >> correct? Yes. >> And this is your existing here. >> House sits like right
>> Okay. So, you live in the house in the front. Okay. I was curious. >> I don't really want to look into this person's backyard particularly. So, I was hoping that you could extend this all the way >> do some type of landscaping along there >> and obviously any of those deciduous
trees that are existing along the fence line there. If you could keep them, preserve them. Um, I know that, you know, some of them are in bad shape, but most of them are beautiful. Like mine are beautiful. >> Trees that are along your property and
here >> uh here. Yeah, they're like all >> Oh, here. I'm sorry. Sorry. I thought this was your house. >> Well, it is. This this right here. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Right. Right. So, in the back, yes. Where the vegetation exists, we're going to keep it. Where it doesn't exist, we're certainly going to to plant it.
>> Buffering. Okay. >> You You certainly can ask and we certainly understand your concern, but trust me, the town's going to ask. They're they're going to want >> and I I don't know if I'm allowed to ask the board the question or if I have to address it. So J just to address your a lot of times when we do these applications one of the things we'll
agree to do is put a row of arborites or wayland cypress or some tree that's suitable for the environment. Generally the port engineer would have a a large voice in that to to provide a hedge row and I imagine that would be okay right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So we can do that. We can work uh
with the board entrance here to to show a plan that would have landscaping along the back. >> Okay. Am I allowed to ask question? It's not me. >> Um, so the other question is know you guys have a shade tree commission. Um, obviously they've already spoke that
their engineers were out, you know, marking the trees and everything. Is the shade tree commission anticipating? >> Um, are they anticipating coming out and doing an on-site inspection of the trees that they've marked to determine, you know, are you guys in agreement that
these trees are, you know, healthy or unhealthy? com. >> Yeah. Generally the way that works, you're allowed to remove trees and those ordinance are generally about replacement >> and paying money and making certain that you have a net.
>> I remove >> I'm sorry. >> I removed the tree. >> But you know, maybe the mayor would know or somebody would know the nuances of Lake's particular uh process. >> Um our shade tree commission is two months old. So, um I wouldn't say that
they would do that. We do have an environmental commission uh that is very involved in uh the tree replacement program um that could they could be um considered. We would not hire our own arborist to come out and check trees. That would be the responsibility of the
applicant to do that. Would they even need an arborist? Probably not because if they're doing construction, they have the right to remove certain trees as long as they're replacing them appropriately. Excuse me. Do you mind if I just say um
right now our zoning officer John Row is the one that uh you know processes those applications, but like the mayor was saying and some other people have said, now that there is a shade tree and we do have an existing environmental
commission, maybe he can start uh having them review them as well. Uh, mayor, if that's something you want to consider. >> It It's really not up to me. I mean, it's it's the process that's already existing. Um, if the Shade Tree
Commission in their their growth um recommends to the council that that become a function of the Shade Tree Commission, that's something the council would have to uh undertake and consider. >> Okay, great.
Yeah, that was my concern. It's one of the last question. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Gretchen Schmidhouse, 2111 Margerum Avenue. I live in the property just north of Carry
and we have again these are kind of, you know, um there's a lot of conforming lots in Lake Como and we both have lots that are 25 wide by 185 deep. So we have very little, you know, space, very little width and we run the entire
length of the subject um property. Um may I start by asking a question of the board? Is that okay? Yeah. I'm wondering about the setbacks. You know, we have the corner lot on the corner of 22nd and
Margarum. I'm wondering if um lot 251 ab budding uh Berman Park would be considered a corner lot. Um it's on the end, you know, at the end of a dead end street. Um it ab butts municipal
property, green acres, parkland. Um you know, that additional setback would be a really good thing. But, you know, to me, um, you know, I think often culde-sacs are similar to dead ends, but not exactly the same. But often, um, you
know, something on a a a parcel on a dead end street would have two corner lots in effect. And I don't know if if the board has well thought about that, but >> I have to be honest. That's a question
I'm not necessarily familiar with the answer to. I have to take the position at least off the top of my head based on my understanding of how you know municipal property versus public rightways operate. I think the park is
kind of slightly different animal. I mean I would be happy. I mean we all understand that the you know the applicant is going to be coming back again and I was already to Mr. Jackson that you and I are going to pass some of these issues some of these legal issues around but I I have to be honest. I'm
not sure. I I I have to think intuitively. Of course, law is always counterintuitive, right? But I have to think intuitively. And feel free to chime in, Mr. Jackson, but I I I don't know that that it necessarily fits within the definition of corner lot.
>> Would it be something worth exploring? Well, looking into >> Well, so there's we have a definition of what a corner lot is in town and it's a lot being mean a lot at the junction of and budding two or more intersecting
streets with interior angles up up up up. So that's about and then they go into some criteria but that's the overriding thing that it's a corner lot is where two adjoining streets come together. So I
kind of a stretch to say that the park would be considered that. >> Fair enough. All right. Um I'm also you know I I feel a little silly because I received this kind of sketchy notice referencing brick township and whatever.
Um I didn't know I was coming from an informal hearing. Um I didn't under understand that at all. I thought we were hearing, you know, the actual application tonight and I'm not familiar with this process. So, I guess
my question to you um is what is the timeline? I guess the trees have been marked, right? Um there was somebody on the property the other day and I'm just curious what the um you know what the timeline is now. Okay. So, as far as the
process, when you read the actual ordinance, to me, it's a little confusing because it says when the board approves the plot plan, it talks about that being the approval. So, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hill agreed we will come back for another session. So, that's tactically to was
kind of after I did the notice because I I didn't know if we were coming here and this was it when I first did that. As far as Bricktown being in there, I can't help myself. >> No, I understand. >> Um, it's I apologize. It's a type typo error, but um the the time frame uh
that's hard to predict. Um it would depend on how fast we can get all our plans finalized and then what the board's schedule is. Um you know the board how far in advance are you noticing. Obviously the county wants to get here as fast as possible. Um, so
we'll be working toward that goal, but just from doing this all the time, engineering revisions, >> sure. >> Getting it on the schedule is not an instant proposition. >> Yeah. You're waiting for everything before the tree removal starts because there are there are a lot of mature trees.
>> The tree removal um would we're not proposing to do that now, right? No, no, no, >> no. We uh we're not going to do any tree removals until we have full approval from the board and from >> shade tree commission or environmental
commission. I'm not sure I have that straight yet, but all right, whoever regulates that here in town. Yes, that is absolutely the correct statement. And as I said, I did a tree survey. I'm going to present that with our next application and we'll have time to talk about what's located along your property
line and if there's things that you know on the border be able to or not. So, we can talk about that. >> That's great. Um, and I would like to um Barbara will appreciate this. I'm going to ask again about um the rodents and the vermin because I have a business in
Neptune City and a lot across the street was cleared. And as I understood it, there is some kind of a requirement that um it an exterminator um provide a certification. My business was overrun
with roaches and um mice for a full year. I had to rent a uh so it's really it's not a laughing matter. >> It's very serious, especially with the timing. If it's cold weather, we are all going to be infested because there's there's a lot going on in that lot, I
have to tell you. >> So, we certainly understand that's news to us, ma'am. We just we just learned that this evening and as I said earlier, it's not what I do as an engineer, but we'll work with the township and and we'll do the best that we can. >> Thank you. And lastly, if I could just
ask, who is the SCORA team? Um I can't find >> Hi. >> Hi, I'm Missora. >> Um I work with >> Why don't you come up here and be sworn so you can get this on the record? >> That's with your permission. >> Yeah, just if you don't mind, we swear
that I need Yes, >> we're kind of going a little >> Yeah, that's why I asked. >> So, I'm the company with my brother. He's not here today. He's traveling
>> and we're going to be there every day on site and all houses are going to be built. And how long have you been? Um, >> pick the microphone up. >> I built my first house in 2017. >> Very good. I'm young, but I'm a second generation builder. >> This is what my dad did. And um Bill can
attest to that. >> You're based in Ocean County. >> I am based in Jackson. >> Share share the mic. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. No, that's all. I was just um I couldn't find any um you know, any reference to score a team and I was just curious uh who the builder.
So the intention is to um eventually subdivide and you will do not me personally but you will do the construction and and sell the homes. >> You're not you're not selling the >> No individually. >> We are going to build the homes and sell
them. >> Um I'm in charge of the design. I'll pick the houses and um Greg, my brother, he manages the whole project. >> Okay. >> So we'll see you there and loud and clear about the rodents. I'll get an exterminator to come out. >> All right, Natala. Thank you very much and thank you board members.
>> Thank you. Unless anyone has any further questions for Miss >> Yes. >> for her. >> I was going to ask her if she can sit down. >> She hasn't really tested. >> Good evening. I'm Diane Edgar. >> I live on 2114 Marram Avenue on the
corner right here on the first house right here. So I've been in my house 27 years. the house is like 30 years old. So my main concern and my questions are mainly for Mr. Stevens is is there any
possibility that water is going to increase on my property, get into my crawl space and hurt the integrity of my building, you know, my home, my structure. >> So that's my main concern. But I have sub questions as well. So again, I
wanted to ask about the water table, what it is today. What would it be if all the grass and the trees are stripped off the property and it's seasonal rain time? Is that water table the same? So that's one question.
>> Um, and then I have several questions about the water runoff and the structures that are built for collecting it. So if the properties are raised higher and a lot higher than my property, Ma'am, I don't mean to >> water runs. Ma'am, >> excuse me.
>> I don't mean to cut you off, but maybe if you could ask one question. >> Okay. One, that's the first question about the water table again and and the property and my >> I'll get to my integrity next on my house. >> Right. We would not expect a water table to change with development of property.
>> Not expected to change at all. Okay. So my next question is water runs down if you build the property up even though you have these structures is not the water going to run down and I'm the first house on Margam Avenue and I
believe that my property is probably lower than what those properties are going to be. So again that is my concern. I don't mind the beautiful houses, but I don't want to have to pay to repair my
house, lose value in my house or do something with my underground area. Those are the questions. Those are my next questions. And I also want to understand how that works, those pump systems and where the water goes. >> So the the water from the s all of the
system. So what our proposal is is that the roof leaders from the proposed homes themselves would be collected and discharged to a dry wells would be located in the front yard of each of the lots. So that's a series of underground pipe and
stone that's meant to store and infiltrate the water into the ground from the roof. So there should be no runoff. >> So where does it go under the ground >> into the groundwater? >> And where does it go then? doesn't have to drain somewhere. >> It stays stagnant just the way it does.
I mean, the ground water itself runs, but it runs it at slow rates at shallow elevations. >> So, it doesn't run into the pipes, any of the pipes and the water that drains into the town, the streets. >> So, that is something I'm really not that familiar with, ma'am, as to what
the drainage system is in the roadways themselves. I will do some more investigation to look into that. Again, working with the township engineer, we were looking at managing the storm water on our lots. So, we meet the municipal ordinances for that, but I do understand your concern.
>> There's a neighbors on Marram and there several neighbors here tonight on 22nd and I know we're all concerned about the water. So, we really want to make sure we understand that and know that we're not going to end up um in a problem for our homes. >> Are there any issues now?
Oh, I have a little bit of water and I have a sump pump. >> And you have a basement in your house. >> A crawl space. >> I have a crawl space and several other houses have, I think, basement. So, I'm not sure. Uh, some might have
crawl spaces. I'm not sure, but I do know a lot of my neighbors are sitting here and we're all worried about the water. Um, so that's that question. Um the other question is I'm so concerned about the park because the park really floods
a lot. So isn't it now with the vegetation going to make it worse for the park? >> Our proposal is to keep our storm water on our lots. So the proposal I started outline was to take the water from our roots, infiltrate them underground through dry wells to take the we're
going to construct the driveways out of porest material to again >> this is the backyard which will have no vegetation property. >> Well, they're going to be, you know, lawn or soon lawn. That's typically what the scores what they'll >> I hope some more trees.
>> And yes, we're going to we're going to do some landscaping as well. And as I said, our intention is to create low points in these backyards to collect runoff so that water doesn't run off of our property. >> Okay. And this basically most of we're a town of porches and patios and so I do
believe these people will want patios. So, it will reduce that as well. And good, I love porches and patios. So, that's what our town is. Our town is a middle-ass town right now with lots of wonderful people. So, um those are my concerns for the most part. But again, I
just want to know specifically, maybe you could answer me at some point, how much higher that is going to be compared to where what my house is, which I'm right on the corner of 22nd with the white paper. So basically I think I covered most of
my points except my water runs downhill. So I still think water is going to run downhill >> and I still have some. >> Thank you very much Diane Edgar. >> Thank you. Hey, my name is Henry Smith. I live at
763 22nd. So, the last house on the opposite side before the park. Um, been there since 2019. Um, lots of flooding issues with that pipe in that corner at that park. Uh, we had that large rainstorm probably what,
three, four years ago. Um, >> and they came out, they looked at it. I know that they did more work to it to make it wider. It still floods. Um, so my question would be when was the last time that people who are applying for this have been to that lot?
>> Like have you seen it physically lately >> in person? >> What's the question? >> No, just because it does flood and as to Barbber's comments earlier, it stays there. Like there I've seen ducks swimming in a pond there. >> So that's, you know, that's a big
concern for me and that's got to go somewhere. And as was stated earlier, I get a lot of water in my basement. I don't know how my house has a basement over there, but it does. And we get water in it a lot. Um, so, you know, it's been it hasn't been maintained for the past 6 months. It's overgrown. Trees
have fallen down. Nobody's doing anything about that. So, just wanted to know if you've been there recently, just to see kind of what has changed. We've shown Google map pictures in 2023. Um, so not very recently. Uh, I mean, that's changed. and it looks very beautiful in that picture that we did the street view of, but if you've been there recently,
it's very overgrown, not maintained, water stands there a good amount of time. So, that was my first question. >> So, my my client has just indicated to me she's owned the property about six months and uh from an engineering and design standpoint, what the requirement is is to keep keep the water on your own
property. So, it it may improve existing regions. I don't I doubt there's runoff now. I want to get I don't know if you have an opinion on that. Uh if we're contributing to runoff now, but his the design we have, we'll meet the regulations where we'll hold our own water for a lack of a more
artful way of doing it. So we should we won't exacerbate any existing problems. >> Uh and then my second question, I don't know if this is more for the board or appropriate at this time, so please stop me if it's not. Um you know, I have a young son. He's a he's a year and a half years old. Um, and there's not a lot of
kids in our neighborhood because it's not affordable. Uh, most of the houses on that street, I would say, are second homes or Airbnbs. Um, what is our our kind of regulation on making sure that that's a permanent resident of the town benefits from the town, not just
somebody who's coming in, we're taking away parking spots, that becomes an Airbnb. You know, it's just exacerbating that issue. Is there any way to I mean I know it's kind of hard to say but I know Spring Lake put in a rule recently that they um are not allowing more than so
many rentals in a season or you know >> I I think I can answer that on you know my name is Bob I'm the attorney um my my experience has been I live in a shore town I live in Mama Beach um but
you know that's an issue whether it's an Airbnb or whether it's somebody renting you know daily what have you. That's an issue for the enforcement of the zoning officials in terms of you know who can the applicant or any builder or any
person you know are there any restrictions that can be applied or to any potent any potential grantee I I think you know a lot of those have been deemed by no title company will insure it's just not allowed to do that
and I can explain to you the reason why I don't want to go off on a tangent >> there's been historic There have been, you know, deed restrictions that have been deemed to be discriminatory, for lack of a better word. So, you know, the idea is not allowed to do that.
>> Yeah. I mean, just the integrity of the neighborhood, the people that live there that, you know, >> No, no. I I don't mean to be pedantic. Please don't take it. >> Cool. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Stacy O. A. I live at 7472nd
Avenue. So I live across the street, sort of on the corner area on the south side of the street. So I have a bunch of questions, so bear with me. The first one is for Mr. Jackson.
Um, so how how many notices did you send out? >> I don't know the number. Um, I just gave the uh certified receipts to the board secretary. The way that works is you get a list. In this case, Spring Lake is
joining >> municipality. We got to get a list from them too and you send it to everyone on the list that the tax assessor gives you. You see this circle right here? That's the 200 foot radius right here. I'm going to block the thing.
So any anybody who that touches should have gotten a notice plus other statutory requirements. >> Yes. >> I don't I didn't count the number up though. >> How how important is attention to detail
in your line of work? Would you say >> can be embarrassing if we don't get it right? >> Okay. So correct. I mean I know Mr. chairman gave you a pass on this, but I just kind of want you to respond that, you know, how could you, you know, this this error in your letter regarding this
application of this magnitude, how does this careless mistake reflect on your work? >> I I just understand it was a major application and you wrote brick town in the bank. >> Please stop. Okay, please stop. No, no, please stop. >> I'm not going to let you ask that
question, okay, of a fellow attorney. I'm sorry. That's it's not relevant to anything that was testified to. I was very careful to place on the record that it happens all the time and I would be happy to cite the law to you that you know a minor scribers error. You
certainly understood that what the notice meant. You're here. >> Thank you for coming out and participating. No, no, no. Thank you very much for coming out and participating. But you have to understand that, you know, I get it. People get hostile. People get angry in 2026.
you're trying to embarrass somebody and that's not right and I'm sorry I can't >> The other point on this was your um Mr. Stevens offered said that he's going to be a good neighbor. This was mailed at the last possible drop dead minute. In fact, it says May 2nd where it was really May 1st. So he did hit the
postmark but if we're being neighborly just saying that was with the minimum. So let me move on. Let me move on from >> and I'm not trying to pick. >> Okay. So, um, this might be for the board or the at or our attorney. Um, were these two lots always separately
buildable under current zoning or did later zoning change did a later zoning change create the ability to subdivide into four um oversized feeling homes, undersized feeling lots research that I don't know. I couldn't tell you when the actual zoning
ordinance permitting the lots the way they are designed the when the R40 zoning was was adopted, but I can certainly tell you it probably goes back decades. Um, most municipalities do that. I mean, you could see that's one
of the things that happens in Lake there's a lot of undersized lots because lots were developed before the adaptation of the municipal land use law and the ordinance. I don't know the specific date, but if I were a betting man, I would say that my least number.
>> Okay. Could you show the original the current zoning as it is the current property line? >> The current line. >> Yeah. >> Well, we have a survey that I believe shows the property line. Mr. Steven, >> thank you.
>> I have a survey that we had up there that shows where the current line is. Um, it's not shown on the 200 foot map. >> Okay. Well, my question regarding that is >> it is. >> There you go. Okay. So, that's >> I Mr. Stevens could confirm that, but
usually that dotted line in the middle is a lot line. Tax lot 25 on top and tax lot 26 on the bottom. I >> That's 25 and that's 26. And there's the lot one. So you certainly you would you be able to build two homes on this lot
as it is right now? >> Yes. >> Next question is um what will the height be from the curb and what will the height be of the homes overall? >> The heights to be determined but there's
zoning criteria. We're not seeking a height variance. So >> but you had two feet of grading. You said >> maximum building height right here on the zoning table. 35 ft, two and a half stories. >> Okay. >> Generally, that's above either the curve
or the crown of the road. >> That opening picture showed a three-story home. Uh your your first photograph. >> A lot of times you can um have a loft. Two and a half stories is permitted. And generally with that type
of configuration, this is I'm not an architect, but I've done this >> a few times. >> You're calling it a loft. >> That's what the architects call generally habitable attic loft mezzanine. I've seen different terms. Uh
a lot of a half story means the same thing. And generally your your living space above is built within the roof line. That's why it doesn't raise the height of the roof. It's like a kind of like a Cape Cod type thing. But I'm going outside my realm of expertise. But generally that's how that works. So
that you could do that within 35. >> Okay. And that would be four bedrooms or five bedrooms or that's to be determined. >> To be determined. >> Okay. >> And so the next question I have is about um safety. The driveways right now are closely spaced right now and adding
these driveways may create um backing out hazards with the neighbors sort of backing into each other. So we really would like to know could you tell us where the drive >> generally these uh matters are governed by or ordinance and we comply with all
the ordinances. In addition to that, the board simple engineer scrutinizes the plans for that kind of thing. And uh we have not had any uh engineering uh planning or other concerns raised from a professional indicating that our driveways are inadequate or substandard
or unsafe. As well as Mr. Stevens um you know he put his seal on these drawings. So they should be within standards, safety standards. >> Okay. Um so um the other question is
about the cumulative effect of the storm water management. Um, have you considered that the East 4th Avenue Gateway project in a wall has also eliminated all the trees like over the
tracks um they didn't they didn't leave one tree and then other development and then that there is currently a plan in place in Maruchcci Park to remove trees to create a foot path. So my question is, is there going to be a cumulative
consideration for storm water and drainage or are you just concerned only with your lot? >> Generally, when you comply with regulations, the focus is on your lot. It's like a micro takes care of the macros. Kind of like
>> Ben Franklin said, you watch the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves. >> Um, one or two more. a question about the hydrant location on the um margerum 22nd Avenue corner is actually on the
property not between the sidewalk and the street. Um so my question is is the applicant going to keep this fire hydrant on their property or will they move it and will there be any disruption? >> Fire hydrant is not on our property.
>> No, the other one on the corner is on the corner is >> that's why I pointed to that one. But that looks like it's off our property line, too, Mr. Stevens. Can you address that? >> We survey located it. We show it off our property line. We'll confirm.
>> What's confusing to to uh >> No, we agree. It's behind the sign generally, and this is almost universal. the the rightway is the distance between the property lines, the road generally, the sidewalk,
this area of grass, that area of grass. Those are all part of the public rightway. That fire hydrant is in the public rightway according to this survey. So, it looks like it's on our property. People mow that part of their grass. They'll put their mailbox out there, but that is the public rightway. And I'm sure Mr. can confirm that that
is >> to the extent of the the veracity of the survey then or the accuracy of the survey that would be >> and certainly no certainly nobody's going to pour out fire hydr
that I assure you when the MUA or whoever put in the fire hydrant they made sure it was in the public right away >> just even if it's not >> we're not pulling it out >> you know that would be a great way have a problem with the municipality.
>> And one more question, maybe this is for Miss Scora. Um, >> is is it your intention to use these properties as short-term rentals or BRBOs or Airbnbs? >> No. I plan to design single family homes
for nice young families to move in and they will not be designed as rentals. You heard here. >> I think that's it for now. Thank you. >> Very short. So, I'll move it. >> You going to be nicer to me? >> I don't know.
>> I'm pretty nice. All right. Debbie Hillier, 2021 Marram Avenue. I pointed out that you can't see my house. I'm actually chairman of the environmental commission. I'm on the shade tree commission, but it just started. So my question is, do we do any kind of environmental impact
study? I know I know we're looking at trees, but it's more than trees. It's wildlife and lots of things back there. It's bushes. It's if you take everything up, be disturbable there. And the trees definitely like given the the water management, if you take those trees
away, what you're getting there now is going to be a lot more water than you're getting. And I know the Some of those trees are in bad shape back there because no one did anything for all those 25 years with any. But there were some good trees there and I'm worried about them taking even the good ones down for the sake of putting the houses. So I was wondering if they did any other
kind of environmental impact looking at that property. >> We have not done any environmental impact studies of the property. To us it's it's infield development. It's surrounded by development. The environmental impacts are very limited. However, it's something the board wish to see. You certainly could commission
it. It's not what I do. I'm an engineer. I try hard to do my best, but it's not what I do. >> That's not a requirement. I don't think >> I can't say that. So, they're not exactly an expensive. That's when we're
doing acorage. >> Yes. But again, we're a small town. So, the number of trees that have come down, that's why we have a shade tree commission now is one of the reasons that we really are looking very strongly now at what even the littlest, you know, we consider little. It's like a big part
of a wooded lot for us in this area. So the more that come down, the more we worry. So I'd really like to know what kind of impact that one of our last remaining wooded lots taking all those trees down. And have you decided the number of trees that you're taking? That's my second question.
>> So we have just really finished putting together our tree survey. That's something we're going to submit to the environmental commission and to the shade tree commission. So it is something that we can talk about. I mean, obviously, we need to remove trees for development, right? >> Yeah, there's I mean, there's more than trees there. There's a lot of bushes. I
mean, there's animals living all over there, too. I mean, maybe some mice, but also some regular animals that we like. There's deer back there sometimes. So, and I'd really like to have a look at more than just the number of trees that what we're doing there. Suggestions to
the may consider. I think that's >> Thank you. Hi, this is uh Kevin Maccgyver um 2111 large room Avenue uh supplementing my wife Gretchen's questions. Um
there's been a lot of discussion of the uh properties abuing the uh the park but in fact what's very important is that they uh the end property abuts the main entrance to the park and uh I guess my
question is really for the town uh and the board um you know a lot of improvements have been made to the park it gets utilized more and more and does a development of this magnitude create a
u what could be an unsafe situation? You talk about parking uh along the street. Well, even if you can find some parking lots there, who knows? But those cars are going to have to, you know, do
U-turns U-turns, so to speak, in front of the uh the entrance and the exit to the park. So, I guess my another question for the town is, has anyone studied this and considered the safety uh ramifications? Are you going to find
yourself in a position where the main entrance to the park has to shut down? >> Not sure I'm the main entrance. I would know that we have not done any kind of study on that. >> In my prior life, I was an attorney,
okay? And you know, when a lawsuit comes in, it's good to be able to say, look, we looked at it and we considered all all the factors and we made a decision based on, you know, a reasoned analysis.
That's it. >> Question. >> Can I just say something real quick? >> I don't think this necessarily addresses your concern, but we did have our police chief uh review the application and ask
for comments and she didn't have any. So it's worth let you know that >> you know the application as it's presented doesn't seek >> you know it's doesn't give the board a great deal of discretion even though we
hear what you're saying >> but you still have the cars backing out of the driveway u you know during the summer >> I think it's very difficult to disagree with that logic, but unfortunately you know what you're up against is the language language of the ordinance.
>> Okay. >> I think I was a little nervous the first time around because I didn't get all the questions in. So at this time I guess my question is for Miss Do you know the square footage of the proposed homes? >> I'm sorry. Can you speak up a little bit? the square footage of the proposed
homes. >> I don't because we didn't do any architectural plans, but I figured they would be around 2500 to 3,000 square feet. So, if each lot is 4,000 square feet, by
your estimation right now, you are going over that 49% of the previous coverage or not? >> No, because you only count you're counting one floor. I'm telling you the overall square footage including an attic which is permitted in the two and
a half stories. So the footprint would still work below 49%. Okay. Um that's fair. Um obviously I think most of these homes will probably I think it
was Barbara's point put in patios, pools, driveways. It's going to add coverage. I would have to hope that the board will require through resolution compliance, but they don't go.
Um, and then I also noticed in um the engineers letter that not that they didn't provide how the calculations come up with like how they came up with a calculation for the improve coverage. So, I just wonder if that was going to be shared and
that was it. Diane Edgar again. Um, I just have one question. When do we get to ask questions about how they're going to build all these four houses? If they're going to be the same time, are we going to have losing water or, you know, anything being turned off while they're
doing it? When do we get to ask those questions? >> They're they're generally not covered in this type of a hearing. >> Okay. that's supporting the construction codes that would be with the building department. >> Okay. >> I would have to approve that. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Sorry, one last question. Um who who is monitoring um the property with the the poison ivy and like the 16inch high grass. Um I know this application's pending, but um there's a poison ivy growing out into the sidewalk. I watch I
go out with my dogs and warn the littlely kids get away from there. Um it's encroaching over. So is that the responsibility of the the owner and have they been notified that the they should be still cutting the grass and mitigating the poison ivy in the
meantime? >> My client re recently purchased the property. I don't know what the status is as far as code >> would be code enforcement from the town and if they if they reach out to the >> if there's an issue we'll take care of it. >> Yeah, we not aware of any
been like this probably for decades. >> So we know our grass there. All right, we'll take those guys. Any other questions from the audience?
Have a motion to close the public. >> All in favor? >> Anybody from the board have any more questions for the applicants? I just have one question and I know you don't really know yet how long it's
going to take to come back before the board. I know you have to do your rest of your homework after hearing tonight and all that. But if it's going to be a long period of time, I would like to that everybody gets renoticed, but if
it's going to be within the short period of time, then >> so Mr. Chairman, we are certainly going to renotice because we're not going to get carried to a gate certainly have work to do Mr. Hill's office to get something that we think will be presentable and hopefully acceptable to
the board. My client is certainly going to be pushing me as hard as possible. She would love for it to be submitted tomorrow, but engineering, good engineering, like good food, takes time. Um, I'd like to hope we could be back in with an application in a space of two to
three months, something like that. >> At which point in time notice is unclear, are you going to file an entirely new application? >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. I I missed that. >> Yeah. So, your ordinance your ordinance is very clear. It requires a sketch
application. >> No, I'm not disagreeing with >> I I have it all with me if you want to hear it went over Mr. But I I know you guys don't see a lot of this. So >> I think he's just uh stating that astonishment. >> No, I I mean I've done informal hearings in past. >> Yeah. I mean,
>> frankly, I read the format and it's I I don't fully get it either, but it's we're required to have a plat submission as Mr. Steven said. >> I think if me and I speak for the board and I think certainly the public, we're happy that you can
>> right. It was I think it was a goodformational session. I know I >> sure open up for any comments from the board. >> I think it's overdeveloping the property. You may very well I mean you've demonstrated that you can divide
that into four lots but I don't think the town is necessarily obliged to grant you subdivision for four lots. you have two lights there. Um, based on what the neighbors had to say about the parking, I'm familiar with that property. I'm familiar with that area and it has uh it
has real flooding problems. Um, and I think putting breaking that into four lots is going to exacerbate. Um, so I, you know, when you come back,
I mean, I don't I don't know what your We'll see what happens at all when you come back. But I don't think we're required by law to grant a subdivision. That's my com. >> Yeah. I don't know if you want me to
make a comment about the case or just >> I think it's best to just coming back. Like I said, you and I have you know I've invited you to >> Great. Yeah. No, it's great. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else on the board?
>> Just just one quick suggestion. When we come back and review the final for the real application. >> Excuse me, Tom. For some reason, I'm not picking you up. >> Negative screen. Oh, it's up here. >> Yeah. I I would just suggest when we
have our next meeting because we got so few of these. I've never seen one, two or something. It would be helpful. attorney that maybe the board can get a refresher on what the standards are for considering something like this and what sort of discretion we have to either
approve or deny an application like this whether it's an executive session which we have to notice or not that's just a recommendation for our next hearing I do want to say I thought the applicant did a great job of presenting this I thought this hearing was very helpful I thought it was people in the audience too I
thought it was helpful to answer your question. I'm always available. However you want to do it, you know, and if we want to do it in exact, we can do it. >> I don't know. I think we should just be a little careful. >> Whatever you think is approp, you know, I think as a as a just a a refresher, if
anybody wants to participate, let's do it. >> Um, just one comment and kind of uh um I I I I do disagree with Mr. Cavali that I don't think it's overdevelopment.
I think even from what we're hearing from our neighbors in this area, most of them said that they would even look forward to beautiful homes being put there, but there are major major concerns about flooding, about runoff. Um, and I think it's it's imperative to
prove to them that the water that is on there is going to stay on there and the system that is going to be put in that ground is better than what is there now. and whatever system that you put in is going to actually improve that area and
not hurt it. Uh, and I think that's where the major concerns are coming from from our residents. Uh, and that's not just in that area. That's all over the town, right? It's parking and it's flooding. And those are the two major issues that we hear about every day. So,
if you can convince the the board and the neighbors that you're going to make that area better, um, I think that most people welcome what's going to be put there beautiful that's just my thought my comment >> thank you mayor
>> I have really just what the mayor said I kind of agree with him I think flooding is one of the major issues I spend a lot of time up on that field >> and u >> you do now >> yeah and um
there is a lot of water in that lot that you're >> proposing to Um, so I would really like to prove that to the residents that it's not going to flood and and I know we've talked about the parking and we're going
to do the best with the parking and uh hopefully come back with something that's agreeable to everybody somewhat. I know we're all going to have to take a little hit here, but I think beautiful homes there would be nice to >> Thank you.
I guess a motion to close this formal motion to close it. >> Does the public want to make some kind? Everybody made comments before, but go ahead. >> I'll make I'll make a motion to open
public comments since that was kind of All those in favor. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Uh my name is Katie Flood and I'm at 763 22nd AB. So again, the last house on the opposite side of the lot. Um I just want to ask the board to carefully consider
the real world impacts that this development could have on the existing neighborhood infrastructure. You know, we've talked about a lot of these things already, but particularly flooding, the drainage capacity, and really the traffic safety. this is a dead-end street. I think that highlights
the fact and you know it makes it much different than a any other location in town. Um you know as discussed earlier this area already experiences flooding during heavy rain events. Many of us have water in our basement already. Um
by adding additional impervious surface areas for new homes, driveways, eventually patios. shore. You know, roadway changes could increase uh storm water runoff and worsen conditions for existing residents. Traffic again is a substantial and
serious concern. Uh you know, there's very limited uh ingress and egress from the park. Like we mentioned tonight, there's a baseball game on the field and we watched a little kid almost be hit by a car. You know, people are coming into
the street. They are backing up not looking and all of these things are just going to be heightened with the addition of four homes on that uh in that area. So, I'm just asking the board uh you know to really consider this proposal um
you know make sure that it is if it's approved it's contingent upon a credible traffic and safety review and then also enforcable uh mitigation measures that protect the residents who live there already. you know, we we see a lot. There's a fairly limited police
presence. Um, unfortunately, you know, despite our best efforts to help increase that, the last thing we would want is for something to happen to someone because there are four additional homes in the area. >> Okay, here's my comment. So,
What? >> You got to tell us who you are again >> again. Debbie Hillier, 2021 Orange Avenue. Right. So, I've lived here 25 years. I've been back in that back car. I can't even tell you. I ran the soccer program for years. My kids did little
league. We did soccer back there. Like, my kids long time. The safety concern is a really big concern. I think four more houses. I'm really concerned. There's parking. There's yellow on both sides. So, I I don't even think you're going to get many spots. I think most of those
spots are going to be gone. People park in that back. They go right into the there and they're parking on the grass now in the back. So, it's not like nobody drives there. People are driving into that park and they're parking that drive because there's no parking. They're unloading things. The kids are
coming back down. I'm really concerned about putting houses right there, especially for I think I'm going to agree with Joe. I think it's overdoing it a little bit there. I mean people have a right to develop their before right to back up to a park where people
are constantly turning around backing up and there's children constantly down that road. Okay. Besides the flooding and I'm worried about all the trees coming down. Um I really think it's a safety issue. And I know people don't want to look at this in a safety issue but it really is. You're going to have four houses with either families or
rentals or whatever you have. You're going to be squeezing driveways taking away parking spaces and that's a busy part. People are there's a dog park. It's beautiful now. There's a dog park. People are always going back there for something. There's pickle ball courts down there and people park on 22nd Avenue. They don't park anywhere else.
They go there and they use that as their main entrance. It's a much easier entrance to So, I really want people to consider what we really can approve or not approve for that area. >> Thank you. >> Henry Sinszky, 763 22nd Avenue. again.
Um, just backing up exactly what you said, I mean that that park, we saw it tonight. Uh, there's a gate that actually closes across the front entrance of that. Um, so my driveway technically is like right on that fence of the park. I have a enormously hard
time backing out if that gate is closed. I can't imagine if there's now another driveway behind it. Um, on top of that, that driveway is going to be right at the entrance to the park. So little Johnny's going to his baseball game. He's excited. He's running in. person behind's backing out. They're trying to look at this car, that car, not hitting
the gate, this that the other thing. It's just I think they're a little too crowded up there. And, you know, like I said, I have a one and a half year old who's going to be playing in that park pretty soon. And I want them to be safe running into that park and not having cars coming in and out. Um, and then as we brought up the flooding, those are my two main issues. So, flooding, safety,
and traffic. Okay. Again, my name is Stacy A, AU. Um, I understand the applicant may technically meet minimum requirements, but this board also has an obligation to consider the real world impact on the surrounding neighborhood, including um
density and neighborhood character, parking and traffic, drainage and storm water, safety concerns, tree and environmental loss, and construction impact. Um, I respectfully ask the board scrutinize whether this proposal is
truly appropriate for this location and that where two homes are currently allowed to go to to four. I mean, is three the compromise here? Um, I don't know. I just feel like it is excessive. Um, I'm not trying to say
that people can't do with their properties what they want. That's the American dream. but within reason and within context of the community that they live in. Thank you. Any
other comments? Motion to close the public comments. Second. >> Those in favor. >> What's your pleasure, Mr. >> Well, in terms of uh as Mr. Stevens laid out, >> procedurally? >> Yeah, procedural. I think we have to
submit an application. And um does the board approve this, you know, as it is and go forward to the next step? Is that how you take it or is it just a comment thing? I mean, I I read this differently than Mr. Stevens. No, >> no, we're not going to vote. >> Yeah. So, so we'll we'll just um
we we'll have to submit an application, revised plan, send notice out, and then we'll go. We're hearing very similar to this. >> Okay. Do me a favor. For purposes of the record, can I ask you to submit a letter essentially confirming that informal
number we're done. We're going to file a proper application notice and that >> yes agreed. >> I think just just to close the record. >> So now you have it in the record and I'll >> thank you. I'll shut down my uh
traveling road show here. >> Thank you. Sam was >> I wasn't aware that discuss. >> I mean, as a matter of course, you know, before the board, we condition approvals on, you know, connection to a drywall.
There's not there's really nothing that can be done about existing sumps that let's say go to the street in any way. Um I mean some towns actually Fernwood has there's a sump line under sidewalk I
think there is a sump line I remember actually we were the engineer so although I don't know every that was only one section
and now they just when they just did the repaving and that they connected that pipe into a storm drain that was put midway down and then it goes further down.
That's the only place. It's on that one side of the streets across the street. >> All right. Um the next meeting minutes that need to be approved.
So everybody read the minutes that's in the packet. >> Don't forget your popcorn. That's what I was worried about. April 13, 2026 at 7 p.m. Thank you.