Are we live? We are live. The Maple Shade Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9th, 2025 meeting will now come to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This meeting has been advertised in accordance with the open public meetings
act. Please roll call. Mr. Lazar here. Mr. Stevens here. Miss Reeves. Mr. McDonald here. Miss Kazarachi here. Mr. Jerga here. Mordor here.
Miss Bevich here. Miss Valentino present. Miss Ry and Chairman G here. First item on the agenda under new business 105 McCrae Lane block 35 lot
3.03 03 Flex Raino LLC application ZBA2-7 zone R1 district residential duplex residential approved duplex proposed use variance certification of
pre-existing non-conforming use under NJSA 405568 good evening Mr. Gee ladies and gentlemen Mr. Kingsbury. How are you? Uh my name is Damian Deluca and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Deluca Lewis and Burr and I represent the applicant tonight which as Mr. G
mentioned is Flex Reno LLC. I have with me the two principles of that entity, Justin Hall and Carmen ISA. Uh they own that LLC which owns the subject property 105 McCrae Lane which is block 35 lot 3.03.
Uh I'd like to give you an introduction, explain why we're here. a little bit of a unique situation and the relief that we require. I think that'll help speed things along. So, this property is is currently a duplex. It's been a duplex since at least 1989. We'll provide
testimony to that effect tonight. One of the people that we have with us is David Lewis, who sold this duplex to my clients in January of this year, and he owned it since 1989, so roughly 36 years. And it was a duplex at least that
far. and and before that as well. Excuse me. My clients bought the duplex. It's a top and bottom duplex, first floor and then a second floor, two bedrooms in each. And they renovated the inside of the building. They got permits to renovate the building. They renovated
it and they marketed for sale and they found a buyer and uh before they went to closing uh someone on behalf of the buyer, it may have been the realtor, I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter, contacted the town about whether a CO was required. And uh Mr. uh Sony at the
time said that no, there's no CO required, but uh there was a reference to it being a duplex. He said, "We don't have any records that it's a duplex." So he issued a letter saying, "Hey, you need a use variance to continue this as a duplex because our records don't
reflect it as a duplex." So the applicant contacted our office and another attorney in my office, Mr. Graia, has been handling it, but he's away on vacation. So I'm covering this hearing for him tonight. But we we filed an application on June 6th after
receiving that letter on May 8th. And in that application, uh, we sought two different forms of relief. One was, um, what's called a pre-existing non-conforming certification, which is also known as a section 68 certification
under the land use law, which I'll get back to in a minute. And in the alternative, if he didn't grant that a use variance to permit uh a duplex in the R1 zone, which is where this property is located, which doesn't permit a duplex as a permitted use.
Um so the proposal is to keep this as a duplex. We have it under agreement to sell. we were ready to go to closing and uh as you can imagine we're we were we had the unhappy surprise of finding out that the township apparently doesn't have any records of it being a duplex.
So we came here to legalize it as a duplex so that the the sale can go forward again. It's it's set up as a duplex. You'll hear evidence of that and it's been renovated as a duplex and you're also going to hear evidence that the town um did inspections and other
things for many many years when it was a duplex. So, it's been no secret that it's been a duplex. Um so, whenever we get these applications, the first thing we do is we try to find out two things. One is when did the ordinance go into
effect that made a duplex not a permitted use in this zone? That's number one. And number two, what do we have in terms of evidence to show that it was a duplex before that ordinance was adopted. Uh so what we what we do to
find out how old the ordinances, we call the town, we submit open requests and we did all that and we were unable to deter determine when a duplex was was first a prohibited use here. And one of the exhibits that I have and I'll review the exhibits in a minute is our Oprah
request. And you know, it's that's not terribly unusual because towns don't always have good records going back many decades. Uh but you you you it's hard if not impossible to prove a section 68
certification, i.e. that the duplex the non-conforming use predates the ordinance unless you know when the ordinance went into effect. So often you'll have a date, you know, 1972, and you then produce evidence that goes back to 1972. And if you do that, then
the board has to find that this use pre-existed your ordinance and therefore can be sold as a duplex and continue to be used as a duplex. We were unable to to get all that information because a couple things. Number one, uh, we we found in our in our research that there
was an ordinance adopted in 1979 and one in 1956. And those are our exhibits. And and I'm not going to go into a lot of detail there because um I don't think it's necessary. But in 1956, a duplex was what they call a special exception,
which I think is the predecessor to a conditional use. So long as you met conditions in section 10003 of the ordinance, we have not been able to obtain despite people looking for it from the township a copy of old section
10003 which you know goes back 50 70 plus years. So we don't know whether this duplex met those conditions when that ordinance was adopted in 1956. There was an ordinance adopted in 1979 that's in our exhibits. That ordinance
is similar to your current ordinance. And in that ordinance, it said a duplex or a conversion to a duplex was a was a conditional was was a permitted use if you met four or five conditions. So they called it a permitted use if you met
conditions. So it really reads like a conditional use. And those conditions are similar to what you have on the books today. What year was that? 1979. What was pardon me? What was the coordinates number?
So if I'll identify the exhibits now, so really quickly. So exhibit A1, you all have a copy and I have extra copies, is a survey that we submitted. Damian, let us catch up with you as you move on. Yeah, sure. So if you open or take the clip off your exhibits, okay,
exhibit A1 is the survey which shows the existing conditions as of May 19th. Exhibit A2 is a handdrawn floor plan which had been requested showing the first and second floor. Exhibit A3 is a series of photographs of the existing building which shows, you know, I don't
think there's any dispute that this is a duplex, that's why we're here, but it shows multiple entrances, multiple meters, multiple heaters. Exhibit A4 is a photograph of some other nearby duplexes. And then we get into the old ordinances.
Exhibit A6, excuse me, A5 is what I'll call the 1956 ordinance. the exhibits of other duplexes. That's A4. Well, were they determined to be duplexes? Yeah, my client researched those and
determined he'll testify to that. They were determined to be duplexes. I don't have personal knowledge of that, Mr. Ge, but my client Well, I mean, they're they're coded as duplexes. Uh, they were approved. I I believe they were approved. They exist. The reason I I'm showing you that, and we'll get into it in the
testimony, is this isn't the only duplex in the neighborhood. Um, and that relates to the negative criteria. If we get, but if you're using these as your exhibit to prove that there are other duplexes in the neighborhood, it has to be determined that they are legal
duplexes. This is duplex. Two versions. Yeah. I do not know and I I'll ask my client and he's going to testify as to whether he researched whether they were approved as a duplex. Okay. But let me put it to you this way. The township has not issued violations to the best of my knowledge that they are
illegal duplexes. You know that doesn't happen. I I I do know that that doesn't always happen. So at least a dozen of these every year. Yeah. Where people have converted their home to a duplex because of having a family
member in it and then after that family member moves on they say, "Hey, I got it as a duplex." Yeah. No, I I understand and I I'll get back to that. Um, and I'm not suggesting that if somebody else converts a single family to a duplex, that means you have to grant us a variance. That's not what
I'm saying. What I'm saying is, well, if you could just defer that for a minute, I'll get back to that. I promise. So, exhibit A5 is the 1956 ordinance and exhibit A6, and unfortunately, there's two exhibits here that were stapled together. Exhibit A6 is the 79 ordinance
which is dated July 25th, 1979 in the lower right corner and it starts with section 135-9 of the ordinance and that that exhibit runs about seven or eight pages and then behind it and inadvertently stapled to
it by my parallegal is our OPER requests which I'm not going to get into but I just wanted them to be part of the record. So when you were doing your research, you didn't find an amendment to the code in July 1971, did you? It did not. The reason why I say that is that
because of the number of duplexes, alleged duplex come before the board, year after year after year, the board decided that they would do a guideline as to what constitutes a duplex. Did you get a chance to read that? No, I was I'm not aware of that.
Okay. I think Mr. Kingsbury tried to give that to Luke Grabiac. Yeah, I'm emailed it to him. Okay. Yeah, I'm not familiar with it. Okay. So, what happened then is Mr. Sony who worked here at the time, right, did the research,
he and I put together what constitutes a legal duplex, passed it among the board members, passed it to to engineering and to legal, and it went through four iterations. During those iterations, the date 1971
was somehow verified by those folks as the date that we would have to prove the duplex predates in order to conform or to to obtain the section 68 certific. Right. Okay. I haven't seen that. But I will tell you, we're going to table the section 68 certification because because
of the absence of records that we've been able to find, uh, I don't have evidence tonight that this was a duplex as of 1971. I I have it back as far as at least 1989. So, what I'd like to do is table the
section 68 and and hopefully that will be moot if you grant the use variance. uh but so far we have not been able to obtain the necessary records. Now you can you shouldn't infer anything from that other than there's an absence of
records. Uh the fact that the township doesn't have any records showing that this is a legal duplex doesn't mean it is a legal duplex but it also doesn't mean it's an illegal duplex. We just don't know. This could have been this could have been a duplex in the 50s. It could have been a duplex in the 70s. It
could have been illegally converted to a duplex any number of years along the way. I don't know the answer to that. So, as a result, I don't have the necessary proofs to prove that this duplex predates the ordinance because number one, our research was not definitive as to when that ordinance was
passed and I wasn't aware of the 1971 ordinance. But even if I was, I don't have yet evidence from 1989 back to 1971 showing that this was a duplex. So I need to table the section 68 certification. Okay. Um so in the
alternative we apply for a use variance. We called it a D1 use variance because a duplex isn't a permitted use in the R1 zone. We have Mr. Turk's review letter. He's classified as a conditional use variance because the R1 zone refers to
the uses in the RA zone. And the RA zone lists a conversion to a duplex as a conditional use. Uh and we believe that whether you apply consider this as an a D1 variance or a D3 variance, the
variance is justified. The the standard of review is a little different. It's a little bit more relaxed for a conditional use variance. for the conditional use variance, we have to prove that this site will accommodate a duplex even though it doesn't meet all the conditions of the conditional use
ordinance. And the the primary condition, I think the only condition that we don't meet is the lot size. One of the conditions in the conditional use, the list of conditions in the conditional use ordinance is that you have to have a lot size of at least 9,000 square ft per family.
uh and we don't meet that because this lot is 11,393 ft and we have and proposed two families. So with a conditional use variance, we would need to prove that this lot will accommodate two dwelling
units even though the lot is 11,393 ft as opposed to 18,000 square ft. That's the standard or the positive criteria for a conditional use variance. The difference between that and a D1 or regular use variance is we have to show
that the duplex is particularly suitable for this site based on whatever characteristics may exist relating to the site and we think we can meet the standard of proof under either. But I'll focus on the conditional use standard as requested in Mr. um Tor's letter unless
anyone tells me otherwise. Um we're we're going to present oral testimony as well as the documents to show that this site has for at least 36 years and probably a lot longer and does duplex no complaints, no police incidents, uh
traffic or other incidents that you would associate with use. This has operated successfully uh as a duplex for decades. Um and therefore that's the best evidence that the site will accommodate a duplex even though your ordinance doesn't permit a duplex. Uh we
also have to prove of course the negative criteria which is a two-prong criteria. One is that we're not going to create substantial detriment to the public good. What does that mean? That means that we're not going to change the nature and character of the neighborhood
or materially and negatively impact the neighbors with things like traffic, noise, trash, vibration, glare, dust. And again, the best evidence I can offer, it's not complicated, is we have a track record at this property of
having no adverse impact on the neighbors. Um, it's been operated as a duplex. Uh it's been known to operate as a duplex and we're going to present testimony that that's been at least for 36 years without any issues associated with negative impacts on the neighbor.
We have we have adequate parking. One of the comments in Mr. Torres's letter correctly points out that the existing parking shown in the survey doesn't meet your parking ordinance requirements because a significant portion of it in the rightway. We're going to enlarge the parking to comply with your ordinance,
the applicable requirements for parking, which is three parking spaces under the residential site improvement standards, one and a half spaces per per dwelling unit. So, we will have three parking spaces on the site and we'll submit revised plans that Mr. Tour would review
as a condition of approval to make sure he agrees that we comply with the parking requirements. On your RSI requirement, where are you getting that from? Uh, two bedrooms, one and a half each. One and a half for a two-bedroom unit. There's one and a half in each.
One and a half parking spaces per for a two are required under RSIs. I thought it was two per family. It's right. Duplexes fall under single family. So it would be two. So So you would need four under your ordinance or under RSI?
Under our ordinance and under RSI would be based on bedrooms. And it still recalls it comes down to be I'll look it up now as we're talking. take take a look and if it requires four instead of three, right, then we'll have to add a fourth parking space uh which I believe we can comply with. Sure.
Uh we think three is enough, but if if that's what you require, we'll comply. Uh and so that also shows an absence of negative impact because we can park the cars on the site and so it's not an imposition to the neighbor because it's not like we're taking up their street
parking. So th that's the standard that we have to satisfy for conditional use variance. Um and we'll present evidence along the lines that I just mentioned. Um Fred's letter also points out that in the R1 zone under section 17A of the
ordinance, you have a lot size requirement of 9,000 ft. And I note this is important per family, which is a little strange because in R1, they only permit single family. But when it says the lot size, it's 9,000 square ft per family. And I'm not sure why that is,
but I just thought I would note it. Uh, but we are less than 18,000 ft. As I mentioned, that is uh the same condition in the conditional use ordinance that we don't meet. So, I think those are the same relief that's subsumed into the use
variance. Um, parking I mentioned will comply. The last thing I'll mention that relates to relief is on exhibit A1 which is the survey on the right side. Mr. Torque points out there's a set of steps that enters the building on the right which is entrance
to one of the two units that landing. So you walk up the steps, you get to a landing, you turn left to go into the door. That concrete landing encroaches into the sideyard setback. That's an existing condition. Whether you grant use varants or not, that condition
exists. It predates um it has nothing to do with the use. When you say it's a pre existing condition, you mean when it was converted to a duplex, they did that. I don't know when they did it, Mr. Ge, because there are no records that show when that happened and therefore what
existed when that happened. But that's an existing condition. Um that's if they encroached on a setback, wouldn't they not have required a variance of that for that? If they would have at the time, but I I don't think from that you should presume that they put the steps in without a
variance or a permit. That that's there's no indication in the record as to whether that stoop either predates the ordinance or got a variance or, you know, got missed. In your earlier testimony, you said that uh they had
permits for what they did. Was that one of the permits? No. No. That that stoop has been there for many, many, many years. You could see it in the photograph, exhibit A2. Uh the permits that they got was for all for interior renovations. Okay. Uh so the renovations, excuse me, A3, the the
renovations that have occurred are on the inside of the building. But if you look at exhibit A3 on the right, that's the stoop there. And you could tell I I don't know when it was installed, but it's been there for many years. We're not proposing to change it. Whether this whether this application for duplex is
granted or denied, that stoop exists, and there would be no basis for which the township could make us remove it because um we don't know the circumstances under which it was constructed. There's certainly no indication that it was constructed illegally. We just don't
know. And this and this happens. You know, you see this as a board. I see it as an applicant's attorney. Uh but the only thing I want to point out there is that the house complies with the setback. The steps are an exclusion to the setback. But Mr. Tourk has interpreted the ordinance that the
landing doesn't is not an exclusion. So you can't have steps without a landing unless the steps go straight into the house. So you're saying that that house has a entry for one of the units on the left and one on the right.
That's what I understand. So, one of them when it was a single family home because it wasn't built as a duplex if they got permits to change it, one of those set of steps had to be the primary steps. You're you're making some assumptions that may be true, but we don't know
that. The the this may have been built as a duplex. I don't know. And you may be right. I just don't know. Well, what did they get for permits if they What were the permits for it? Probably both had it. The permits that my clients obtained this year.
The permits you said this is permitted because it has permits. The no the stoop that encroaches into the 8oot setback is an existing nonconformity. It's not new. It's not proposed. It exists today. You said you didn't know if it was built as a duplex or not.
I don't. And I'm asking you when your client got the permits to do the conversion interior, what was it for? So my client did not get permits to convert the interior. When my clients bought this property in January, it was a duplex. They got permits to renovate the
two units on the inside of the building. That was their permits to renovate the interior, which was already a duplex, just to modernize the interior features of the duplex. It had nothing to do with that entrance or anything else. Uh so the permits they got was to
renovate the inside of the building which was and is a duplex and it it didn't come up in that context. The issue came up when somebody called apparently Mr. Sony and said hey we're
buying a duplex. Do we need a co for that? And this has been related to me. I wasn't present during the conversation and he said well no but you're not allowed to have a duplex there. And that's what precipitated this application. Yes, sir. Who told you you didn't need a co?
No one told me. Um I what what was related to us was that someone called the township on behalf of the buyer. I represent the seller, the current owner, and somebody told somebody from the buyer that you don't need a co for the
resale, but a duplex is not a permitted use. That's my understanding. And my client will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think I am. No, but I wasn't present during the conversation. Okay. I have a question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. This uh building was sold in 1987 888
89 89. And what's the steps there then? Do you know? Mr. Lewis will answer that. My understanding is yes. Robert, you're saying that a in the R1 zone a duplex is a permitted conditional
use? No. in the R1 zone. Let me pull out the ordinance. The R1 zone does not permit a duplex and it does doesn't list it just in the R1 zone. That's what I saw. I thought then I misunderstood you. No, the R1 zone says
you kept referring to a conditional use. Conditional use variance. That's not the same as a use variance. Right. Okay. That's what I That's what I said. We applied for a D1 variance, a use variance. Okay. Uh because in the R1 zone uh it
lists permitted uses and it says see the RA zone essentially, right? And in the RA zone they list several permitted uses and then they list several conditional uses. One of which is two or three family dwelling on conversion only in accordance with the additional
provisions of section 20574 the ordinance which is the section that lists the conditions. Okay. So you want to tonight you want to apply for a use variance and if you don't get
it, you want to come back for the pre-existing argument. Well, I I certainly don't want to dismiss the pre-existing application. I I don't want you to take a vote on that tonight because I admittedly don't have evidence yet going back from 1989 to
1971 or whatever the date is. partially because I didn't know uh partially because I didn't know exactly what date I had to meet. And you're saying it's 1971 and I'll look at that if I have to. Um and partially because we don't yet have evidence as to the prior use.
That's not because I doubt it was prior previously a duplex. Mr. Lewis is going to testify that when he got it, it was had been a duplex. He just doesn't know when it started because he didn't buy it until 1989. I understand that. That just strike me as a backwards way of doing it. Uh but
it's your you're the lawyer. You know, you can do whatever you want. I would much rather go forward with the section 68 application. I don't yet have the proof to do that. Right. We've tried really hard and for months. Part of that's because um township doesn't have great records. That's not a
complaint. That's just a fact. Uh part of it's because, you know, we've we've interviewed some neighbors. they haven't lived there that long. So, in these applications, and I've handled many of these, you usually have somebody who's lived in a neighborhood for 30, 40, 50
years, or you have old records that show multiple kitchens, multiple Yeah, I agree with that. Utility records, whatever it is. I tried to research it myself. I could only go back to the year 2000, 25 years ago. Yeah.
I didn't know what happened before that. Yeah. So, we got to 1989. So, I although I I'd much rather go forward with a section 68 application, I if I go forward with that tonight, you're going to deny it and you should because I don't yet have the evidence. I don't know if I'll ever have that evidence. Uh
my clients uh are trying to sell this this duplex. So, the other way to legalize the structure is to get a use variance uh or a conditional use variance, however you interpret it. Uh and that's why and of course there are some time constraints involved.
Well, it's not a conditional use variance. Well, uh we apply for a D1 use. If it was a conditional use variance, the ordinance would say this is permitted as long as you meet the following conditions. It doesn't say
that. It just says duplexes are not permitted. So, the straight use variance. I I don't necessarily disagree with you, Bob. Uh what what it says in R1 is a building may be erected or used and a lot may be used or occupied for any use
permitted in the RA residents district and no other doesn't mention duplex specifically but right it certainly and it doesn't list any other any other permitted or conditional uses. What does RA say? So when you turn to RA
which is section 20510 and 11 it lists in section 10 permitted uses in RA and in section 11 it lists conditional uses and subp paragraph C is conversion to a two or three family duplex as per in
accordance with the conditions set forth in section 74. So then you turn to section 74 and that lists the conditions A through E. um and uh which would be the conditions that you would apply if it's a conditional use. No, if you don't
interpret the ordinance to mean that the conditional uses in RA or also conditional uses in R1, then it's a D1 use variance. If you interpret your ordinance and I don't know how you've done this historically to mean that when
it's when it says in R1 a building may be erected or used and a lot may be used for any use permitted in the RA district whether you include permitted and conditional uses then then the uses permitted uses and the conditional uses are the same in R1 as they are in RA and
this would be a conditional use variance. If you interpret it to mean that only the permitted uses in RA are permitted in R1 and there are no conditional uses in R1, then this is a D1 use variance. Before we go any further, so that we
don't have two strains that we're going after and that's a legal matter. I'd like you and Robert to decide what we're doing. Yeah. So that's the issue, Bob. And and you know, so we apply for a D1 use variance. Well, I looked at R1. It said anything in the RA zone
and I looked at RA and it said it allowed single family dwellings. Right. But you got to look below that to conditional uses and and that's where it says conversion to a duplex. But if you don't ages
in RA are also conditional uses in R1, then it's a D1 use and that's what we need. So, as a practical matter, does it make a difference? The only difference is the proofs. I've got to prove in a D1 variance that the
site is particularly suitable for a duplex based on the characteristics of the site like the structure, the layout, etc. For a conditional use variance, it's slightly different and slightly less stringent. And that standard is that we have to show that the site will
accommodate two units even though the condition all the conditions aren't met such as the lot size requirement. It's a slightly different standard. Yeah. You still got to get five votes. I do. You know that. Right. But our thinking could be
different depending on which way are we are to go. Less stringent, more stringent. So I'm looking for advice, legal advice. Yeah. Well, if the ordinance says anything that's permitted in the RA and
the RA permits conversion to conditionally conditionally, then it's what I would call a conditional use variance. Okay. So, that's where we are. Pardon me. That's where we are. That's where we are. Okay.
Okay. So Damian, to go on further, you're obviously going to bring up your clients and you're going to have testimony. Would you like them to do that first before I call on Fred, the engineer? Yeah, I think we should provide the testimony because some of that's going to address some of Fred's comments.
Okay. In his letter, which might help uh with Fred's review, we've reviewed Fred's letter and, you know, a lot of it talks about the standards that we have to meet. There's no issue there. um and calls out some of the things parking
setbacks that I've tried to address. Uh but I think it would make sense to have our my two witnesses come up. I'm going to ask Mr. Lewis to come up first and then I'm going to have the applicant's principal, Mr. Hall. So, Mr. Lewis, why don't you come up and sit next to me? Mr. Lewis, how do you spell that?
Oh, let him tell you that. Okay. Could you give us your name, please? Sure. David Lewis. L Yeah. David Lewis. L E W I S. Oh, easy. It's the easy one. That is easy. You got to raise your right hand, please.
You swear or affirm that testimony you give will be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Are you the owner? Was the owner? Was the owner. Previous owner. So, so yeah, I'm going to provide I'm going to have him provide testimony which hopefully will
I just want to know who he is as he testified. Yeah, he he's the prior owner. Okay. So, you're the owner that bought it in 1989. That's correct. Okay. Yep. So, uh, Mr. Lewis, were you present to my introductory comments? Yes. Were they factually accurate to your knowledge?
Please pull that mic toward you, please. Very soft spoken. Okay. Yes, I was here. And were they fact were my comments factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? To the best of my knowledge. Okay. And is it correct that you purchased this property in 1989? That's correct. So, approximately 36 years ago.
Yes. Okay. And when you purchased the property, was it a duplex in 1989? Yes, it was a tenant occupied duplex. A tenant occupied duplex. Yeah. I bought it with two tenants in it. Okay. And Damian, I have one question. Sure. Sure. Mr. Lewis, when you bought the
property, there was an agreement of sale, right? That's correct. How did that property get listed on that agreement of sale? That's a great question. I don't have that information because normally in an agreement of sale, if it is a duplex, it'll say property to be used as a duplex or
single family resident, right? And I could clear up a lot of matters if you have that agreement settled. Yeah. I Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Lewis. When when you when you bought the property, before you signed the agreement, did you go and look at the property? Yes, I did. And did you know when you signed the
agreement that it was a duplex? By the looks of it, yes. Yeah. And what was it about? Not necessarily legal, which is the question before us, right, Mr. Gee? There's no question that I don't have evidence tonight that before 1989 this was legalized as a duplex. No
doubt about it. Okay. Um so it was used as a duplex. It was used as a duplex since at least duplex Mr. Lewis bought it in 1989. That's what we know so far. Okay. Um now when you bought it as a duplex, you inspected the units, correct? Correct.
Now what did you see that indicated to you when you bought it that it was a duplex? Those two separate units with two separate entrances. The utilities were uh separated, the gas and the electric. The water and sewer is one, but the uh PSSE and G bills were
separated. Separated. Separate. Water and sewer is one. Yes, that's correct. And they're separate kitchens, separate washer dryers in both units. Separate gas and electric meters. Correct. Okay. Now, when you bought it, to the best of your knowledge, was it a was it
a new duplex or uh was the uh were the units had they been there for a period of time? They had been there because the carpet was worn and it needed fresh paint and stuff. So, after those tenants moved out, then I pulled up the carpet, re re
uh replaced the carpet and repaint it, freshened it up. Okay. So, you know that when you bought it, it was a duplex and you know that it was being used as a duplex when you bought it. Is that correct? That's correct. But you don't know when it was converted to a duplex or when the duplex used
began. Is that also correct? That's correct. Yeah. Um, now is there one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second floor? Yes. All right. Now, um, I have another question. Yes, sir. Mr. Mr. Lewis, when you looked at the
property and when you first bought it, understanding that the property existed for some time, but you looked at the utilities, did those utilities look were they dated or did they look like they were newer? I was just going to ask that's a tough question because it was
30 some years ago, but uh I don't recall looking at like the the meters on the side of the building, that sort of thing. I don't heaters or anything. The heaters themselves usually have dates on them, right? Yeah. and they've all been replaced. So, no, I don't Yeah.
Well, let me ask it differently. When you when you bought this property, did uh any of the improvements inside the house, whether it be the heater, the kitchen, or anything else look new? Not brand new. No. And you
I'm not saying brand new. No, I'm saying before where you said the property might have been built, did they look like they were the utilities that came with the property or they look like utilities that later were replaced in the property? They Yeah, they weren't original to the building cuz I'm
assuming that building was built in the 20s just by the the architecture of it. I think it was the old farmhouse at the corner there. Uh so no, those were not the original heater because there was two heaters in there. So, why would you have a single family home with two heaters,
I guess, would be my Well, you you would have to ask the number of people that convert single family homes to two family homes without a permit. I don't know why. So, so Mr. Los, you didn't convert this home to a two family home. No, I did not. Okay. And do you know when it was first
used as a duplex? I do not. Okay. Um, did you ever receive a complaint during your ownership relating to any of your tenants or the duplex use itself? Not that I recall. Were you ever issued any violations or citations from the municipality relating
to the duplex use? Not relating to the duplex. One time one of the tenants moved out and they left all their junk on the curb and I got a citation for that. So, I had to get a moving company to take it to the trash dump. To your knowledge, was the township aware at any time during your
ownership that this was used as a duplex? Was the township aware? Yes. Well, not directly, but every time a tenant moved out, I would have the smoke detector inspection done for either unit. So, I' I'd call the fire department to come in to do the
inspection. Um, just recently the township has uh an inspection on rental units and I had to pay two separate bills for that. And then we did the leadbased paint last year and again
that was two separate bills and I I gave copies of my reports to the township. It's two separate reports, first floor unit and the second floor unit. Mr. Lewis and Damian, you are aware that there are agencies within the township,
all townships that may perform their job and in the performance of their job may do it even though they don't know that it's a duplex. Sure. Separate tax bills, separate meters, things happen. So that doesn't mean it's a duplex. It just means somebody did it.
Mr. Gay, there's no question it's a duplex. Okay. What we don't know is when it started as a duplex. We know, unless you find Mr. Lewis's testimony not to be credible, that it was a duplex when he bought it in 1989. Now, what does that mean in the context of why we're here?
It doesn't mean that it predates the ordinance because of the reasons that I mentioned, I'm not going to repeat myself. You'll be happy to hear. It doesn't mean that we automatically get a use variance. Okay? But the fact that I don't know when the duplex started doesn't mean that the duplex was
illegally started. We don't know. There shouldn't be a presumption that the the duplex started illegally or was converted illegally. We don't know. Now, that means unless I find additional evidence, I can't get a section 68 certification. We should not be proving that it's
illegal, but you should be proving that it is legal. I can't yet prove that it predates your ordinance. I can't. I I've said it multiple times. I admit it, which is why I want to table that part of it. But we still have the right to ask you to grant a conditional use variance to permit
that duplex to continue. If you don't agree and we can't come up with additional evidence and the decision stands, then all the new work that they've done, all this the duplex improvements would have to be removed and this would be have to be converted
to a single family. Obviously, we would like to avoid that which is why we've pursued our right to ask for conditional use fairness. Now, we have to prove that we're entitled to it. And the reason why I ask you about an agreement of sale is that all of that conversion back to what it was, they
would have recourse back to the realtor if that realtor signed that as a duplex and didn't have a right to do that. Mr. G, there would be no recourse against anybody 36 years ago. There just wouldn't be. He bought this property 36 years ago. It was a duplex. He doesn't remember if the agreement said it was or
wasn't, but we know it was a duplex based on Mr. Lewis's testimony. So, that you know there isn't going to be any recourse against Mr. Lewis's prior seller. So, what we are here to do is
since we can't prove the section 68 certification, at least as of tonight, we'd like you to finish hearing the evidence and answering your questions on the conditional use fairance and ask you to determine is this site does this site accommodate two units even though the
lot size is less than 18,000 square ft and and and and any other conditions in the ordinance? We believe it does and we believe the duration of the use helps prove that it's been a duplex whether
legal or illegal for 36 plus years. We don't know how long. We know it's at least 36. Now that doesn't mean we automatically get the use variance. I'm using that to show you that this property has functioned properly reasonably without incident as a duplex
and it's big enough to accommodate two units. It has two driveways. It has two entrances and it's worked. There hasn't been a history of violations and it hasn't upset the neighborhood from any impact perspective. So that's why the
duration that we know about is relevant to whether the site will accommodate a duplex because we have a proven track record. Now, I'm not telling you that if someone, and we don't know this, but if someone illegally converted this to a duplex some years ago, that doesn't mean
you'll automatically get a used variance. What I'm saying is take a look at the track record and it's functioned as a duplex without incident for at least 36 years. So that is probitative that the site will accommodate a duplex
because it has since uh 1989 and probably long before that. We just don't know how long. Uh now there was a question about the steps on the right. So this is a survey I'm showing you exhibit A1. There's there's an entrance on the left and there's an entrance on the right. The entrance on the right, which unit
does that serve? If you remember, that's the first floor. Okay. And then the unit the stairs on the left is for the upstairs seat upstairs. Yeah. Was were those two sets of steps there when you bought the property? Yes. You didn't ask. They're concrete steps that were there. Yeah. Okay. And you don't know when they were added, right?
No. Okay. Um, and did you happen to go buy the property before tonight? Yep. Does it look the same on the outside as it did when you sold it? Yeah. Does it look the same on the outside as it did when you bought it?
Well, I've replaced the roof and things, right? But yeah, the same structure, the same footprint is still there. Okay. Same same entrances. Yeah. Generally the same parking, right? Same meters, same But you didn't go inside for I didn't go inside. Okay, fine. Fair enough. Um, that's all the questions I have for
Mr. Lewis at this point. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Lewis? And you sold this in Janu this past January? Yeah, I think it was the 10th of January. Yes. And you replace these heaters when Well, over the years whenever something
broke. pretty new and both of them at once. You had to replace them. Did they break down? What was the reason for replacing both of them? I think it over the time we can call on you if you're getting some signals from the Yeah, my my client I don't know if they replaced them since
I They may have replaced them recently, but did you replace the heater? I haven't seen those pictures. You folks would have to be sworn in to testify. We're going to have him sworn. I thought he said he replaced. Can I see the pictures? Yeah, sure. So, I'm going to show you exhibit A3, page four. And you see those
pain heaters shown in that photograph? They look newer than what I had. Okay, fair enough. Mr. Hob will answer that question. But over the years, I replaced the hot water heaters and things like that. And replace them in kind. Did you ever add any? In other words, were there always two of each?
No. Whatever was there and they replaced it. Okay. Broke. Hey, John. One one question. the stairs that we were speaking to on the right side of the building as you're facing the building. Looking at this floor plan that we received tonight, it looks like it goes into a bedroom.
Did it always go into a bedroom or was that the entrance into the house? Actually, what across the front of the building, it looks like if you go inside, it was at one time a porch and I think that was just the two different ways. Oh, okay. It's labeled. Yeah. Uh, so so yeah, I think that
whether it was an open porch or a semi-encclosed you're looking at. So exhibit A2 is the floor plan and if you if you look at it at the top of the page, it says porch and if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Lewis, to the left shows steps, correct? Yeah. And and that wasn't the the
entrance that anybody any of my tenants used. My tenants used on the other side. Mr. Lewis, I'm going to ask you to speak up again. Oh, sure. I'm sorry. Um, if you're looking at the house and those concrete steps I think you're discussing
on the right hand side, that's not an entrance that was ever used when I owned it by the tenants. They, the first floor tenant used the steps in the back of the building. The second floor tenant used the steps on the left hand side of the building when you're looking at the
building. So, those the right hand steps were like just there. I I point that out that they're really unusable. They they're in and out of a bedroom according to this layout. So, no, I I read this as in you know, Mr. Holl will address that, Fred. We'll get
confirmation on that. I read this as in and out of a porch and then into a bedroom, but we'll get testimony on that. But it's the same difference. I'm not sure what the significance of that is in the steps been there. It's unusual to walk into a house
through a I think that's what Fred is saying. Yeah, I think we would all agree to that. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Lewis? I have a question. Sure. Is it possible you're off by a year on when you bought it?
Because I looked up your deed and it's dated 1990. So, that's not particularly significant. Yeah. But I just want to be factually correct. Is that the date? Uh, Bob, or the date of recording? Yeah, it was uh I thought it was the fall of ' 89. So,
does that deed say how it was bought? No. No, they never say that. Uh, give me a second. Sure. So, Mr. Lewis, the agreement of sale, did you buy through a realtor?
No, that was a direct purchase. The deed from when you sold it recently is dated January 2024. And it says that the deed from when you
bought it was dated uh July 31, 1990. So is that I always thought of 89, but yeah. Okay. That was just something stuck in my head. I don't think one year is a big deal. I just want to get it straight.
Thank you, Mr. Kingsbury. Uh, thank you, Mr. Lewis. I I can't speak for Mr. Lis, but he may plan on leaving here. He just volunteered to come here tonight. So, does anybody else have any questions for him in case he leaves or is anyone I don't think I'll I'll stick around. Stick around. Great. Thank you. In case I don't know if there's anyone from the
public, but if they have questions for you, they can ask questions, too. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hall, why don't you step forward? Thank you. Your name, please. Uh, Justin Hall. H O L L. What's your first name? Justin.
Justin, you seem like a quiet speaker, too, so raise your right hand, please. Sir, you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay. Now, Mr. Mr. Hall again remembering to
use the microphone. Uh are you one of the principles of Flex Reno or Renault LLC? Yes. And is your partner uh here with us tonight as well? Yes. Are you the only two principles? Yes. Okay. Were you present during my introductory comments? Yes.
Was it was it factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? And if not, just let us know how not. Yes, it was. Okay. Is it correct that you purchased the property on or about January 10th of this year? Correct. Okay. And when you bought it,
uh, was it listed with a realtor? It was offm market. And what does that mean? Um, it was through a, uh, wholesaler. So, it wasn't listed like you would list with a realtor to sell your home. Correct. Okay. And, uh, you bought it from Mr. Lewis, correct?
Yes. Now, when you bought the property, did you inspect it before you signed an agreement to buy it? Yes. And you inspected it before you closed, correct? Yes. And was it used as a duplex whenever you saw the property before you bought it? Yes.
Okay. Now, um you've seen the photographs of the outside of the property. Did it look like that on the outside when you bought it? Yes. All right. Did it have separate kitchens, separate utility uh meters for gas and electric and separate heaters? Yes. And was it a d used as a duplex when you
bought it? Yes. All right. Now, what work have you done to the property since you bought it? Um, so, uh, the interior only, um, we basically updated everything, new kitchens, uh, new bats in both units,
um, repaired and paint the walls, new flooring, um, and then the two new furnaces you guys see in the pictures. Okay. So, the furnace is shown in page four of exhibit A3 are new that you've constructed since January. Yes. Did you obtain permits for the work that
required permits? Yes, we have plumbing, electrical, and mechanical for the furnaces. Damian, I want to interrupt you if I can for a question. I'm having some difficulty with this. So, you did all those upgrades and you didn't. And when was it that Mr. Sony
said you needed a variance for a duplex? Answer that. Prior to you doing the upgrades? No, it was after the property was listed on the market. Um, we had the uh the buyer um and uh not sure who reached out
to Sony um but that's when he's kind of like tipped him off and that's when he was like, "Oh, this is isn't in the correct zone." How long had you owned it prior to Mr. Sony being contacted? Um we bought it in January and I believe it was April when we listed it. Um and
that was around the time they Okay. So he became aware of it when you listed it on the uh Yeah. on the MLS. So just to sum up, so you bought it in January without it being listed, correct? Yes. You you pulled permits to do some of the interior improvements that you mentioned.
Yes. Correct. Yes. You you completed those improvements, correct? You listed it for sale. Yes. Using a realtor. Yes. And uh is it correct that you found a buyer? Yes. And is it correct that on May 8th, Mr.
Sony wrote a letter uh to you as the property owner advising you that a duplex was not a permitted use in the R1 zone. Yes. Okay. And is that when you is that the first time you learned that the duplex that you had purchased was not may not have been a legal duplex? Right. Correct.
So my question is Justin, if Mr. Sony got involved when you were about to sell it, why wasn't he involved when Mr. Lewis sold it to Justin? Yeah. Um, well, it was it was offm market, so
it wasn't on the MLS. Um, dark web or something like that. Yeah. So, yeah. So, that's probably where some um fumbling occurred,
right? We had to do better due diligence on that. When was Mr. Sony's letter? May 8th is the date of the letter this year. May 8th, 25. Yes, sir. We filed this application on June 6 after we got that letter and he retained us. We filed the application.
And And so is it correct that that closing with that buyer has not occurred? No, it has not. And why hasn't it occurred? Um well, he's a military veteran. He's going to use a VA loan to live in one unit and rent out the other side. um his lender and title company will not
close until we get the correct approval and then the resolution as well as waiting the 45day appeal period. So we're looking at like Octoberish of when we can actually close. Justin, your firm is a firm that buys houses and flips them. Is that it?
Um so we have a couple rental properties. Um this is actually our first flip. Uh we're both registered nurses working full-time. Um and then uh so this is our first flip and obviously didn't do the correct due diligence and now um here we are.
Okay. When when you bought the property it was a duplex and at that time rightly or wrongly you expected to be able to use it as a duplex. Correct. Okay. Now um the there was a question about the steps
on the right side. So I'm going to turn to exhibit A2 which is the floor plan. And I'm going to point to the upper left corner. Are those the steps that we're referring to? Yes. So, is it correct that those steps enter into a porch, which then enters into a bedroom? Correct. Yes. And we kind of figured um
whoever lives there may use it as a bedroom, may use it as a, you know, living room. But and I guess if the board uh decides to impose it as a condition to eliminate those steps that doesn't seem like that would significantly and negatively affect the
the you know your ability to use that first floor as one unit because they can enter on the back. Correct. Okay. Danny, I have a question. Yes, sir. If you don't mind. No. Having a porch off a bedroom is I guess somewhat unique. It's not like it's a screened in porch or anything.
It's a closed room now. Obviously was a porch when it was originally built, which we see in many homes in Maple Shade and throughout New Jersey. What is that room used for now? What are you selling that as? Is that a second a third bedroom or what exactly is that
space used for? Um, what could the prior owner use that space for? Uh, not totally sure. Um, I guess it could be storage. Um, I guess if you have children, it could be like a playroom in the front there. Um, I guess
it would be up to whoever ends up living in that unit. So, when you bought it, could you tell what it had been used for? Um, no. Were there tenants in the building when you bought it? Uh, one tenant had just left and then it then it was vacant one week.
Does it still have Excuse me, Damian. Does it still have a slope floor because of the fact that it was a porch at one time or um there's a from the bedroom there's a step down into the porch but I wouldn't say it doesn't slope
you said perhaps there would be a condition that you would remove that entry and they would enter through the back. Would that present a case where they would have no fire entry exit in the front? Yeah. So it's a good question Mr. Gee.
So, what I was thinking was if the board is concerned about that non-conforming setback of that landing, we we could probably remove it, but that would of course we would have to make sure we comply with fire. Assuming we do, I can't imagine we would have any objection to that.
Okay. If that's something that's uh helpful. Um I'll continue. If people have questions, I'll ask them. Um now, the floor plan. So, did you have you changed the layout of the floor plan? No, the layout is the same.
Okay. So, the porch that we've been talking about that was used. We're not exactly sure for what, but it's laid out the same way as it's laid out there. Correct. Okay. And the bedroom that's next to it, no change. You haven't made any change to those walls? No. Okay. Um
the my understanding is that the first floor is slightly larger than the second floor. Is that correct? Correct. Which is typical. Um, the total floor space is roughly 1786 ft. Correct. Yes. Do you know how that breaks down between the first floor and the second floor?
Um, not totally sure. Okay. Um, and this floor plan, exhibit A2, although handdrawn to the best of your knowledge, is it a scale? Yes. Um, now parking. I'm going to go to exhibit
A1. Mr. Torque, let us move with you. Okay. Sure. Exhibit A1 everybody is the survey that we submitted dated May 19th, 2025. And Mr. Hall, that shows the existing conditions as of the date of the survey.
And is that accurate? Yes. Now, the driveways are on the side street, which is Maple Avenue. Correct. Correct. Is it also correct that you're willing to enlarge those to comply with the applicable parking requirement, whether it's three or four spaces? Yes.
Um, and what's there now, would you agree, is essentially one twocar driveway and one one car driveway? Correct. So, how will you expand those? We just make them deeper and and and wider if necessary. Deeper and wider as necessary. And we've
worked with um Fred on that. Okay. Um, now how are you h how do you propose to handle trash on the outside? You have trash cans. Yes. So, in the for the downstairs unit,
it'll be at the the rear by those back steps. Um, and then on the for the uh upstairs unit, I'll be by the steps on the left front of the house where they enter to go upstairs. So, where will that trash area be? If you're looking at exhibit A1, the survey, where will you put the trash
cans outside? Um at the the rear steps for the uh first floor and then um if you're looking at the front of the building to the left side, those steps that go up to the second floor, that'll be for the upstairs. You have the rear steps.
Uh there should be. So, so you're proposing that the trash for the unit that utilizes the front stairwell through the second floor, correct? Would be in the front yard. Then the trash
cans would be stored in the front yard. Correct. So, so first of all, we'll put the trash cans wherever you like. Um, we're not So, we're asking because when you go to multif family housing, the concern is you end up with two, three, four of
whatever. Right. And now it becomes no longer I'm sorry single family residential community. And it's the same thing before we get off of the parking. And I don't want to go through my letter now, but parking is looked at a little differently, too. It clearly states that it can't be an
extension of the rightway. So if you had a a threelex, a triplex, you would need say six parking spaces. You can't load them up along across the front of your entire house because that's not what they do in single family home zones.
When you have three units together, this now becomes like a commercial or a a business and therefore you need parking lots. And that's what our ordinance alludes to and we'll go through that. So, it's this is a very complicated piece
and application for such a simple application. It's not unfortunately. I wish it was for your sake. Um, but the ordinance says how you load and unload parking when you have multif family. Yeah, I I didn't see anything in the
ordinance, Brad, that prohibited two two guard drug list. Now, it's when you get to parking that says it can't be an extension when you have uh a use a conditional use. So, so the the uh conditional use says all
street parking stalls in the size and number as set forth in article 15 of this chapter shall be provided. And of course, there are separate parking design requirements in your ordinance as well, which I acknowledge. Uh these two driveways will be perpendicular, not an
extension of the Maple Avenue rightway, and they'll just be wide enough to have two cars pull out without being behind each other. uh which we interpreted the ordinance to permit. So we we expect to be able to comply with that provision. All right. We'll go through it. We'll go
through it. Okay. Okay. Damian. Um yes, I'm just trying to fit everything in here. Uh you're going to have further testimony from Justin. I'm going to call on Fred. But in between there, uh you mentioned a couple of times if that's
where you want us to put it, we'll put it there. If you want us to have a larger driveway, we'll do that, etc. The reason why I asked you earlier about the guidelines document, the guidelines document said if you didn't uh have a pre-existing non-conforming use, these
are the kind of things that the board would be looking for. There's 20 of them. Well, I want to take just three or four minutes so you can look over them. I grab a copy of here. Happy to. Well, when when you're done with Justin and and before I go to Fred, I would
like you to look at these. I I appreciate that opportunity. I'll do that. Uh, and I'm almost finished with Mr. Hall. Uh, now, um, looking at section 74 of the ordinance, which lists the five conditions, we've
talked about the first two, one of which is lot size, two of which is off- streetet parking that I just discussed. The third condition is that no structural alteration of the building exterior shall be made except as may be necessary for the purpose of sanitation or safety. Is it correct that you're not
proposing any structural alteration of the building exterior? Correct. The fourth condition is that the conversion shall be authorized only quote for a large building that has relatively little economic value or usefulness as a single family or other
uh conforming use end quote. Now, the truth is we're not seeking to convert this structure. It already exists legally or not legally. We're not sure, but we're not seeking to convert it, but we're seeking to use it as a duplex. Correct. Correct. And the lot the building size we just
testified to about 1786 ft. So, go back to that one you just skipped over. So, so it is not a large building that has little or no use as a single family home. Yeah, I I didn't skip over it. We were talking about that condition right now. And and the ordinance doesn't define
what a large building means. I don't know what it means, but there's nothing unusual about the size of this building. I would agree with that. It's typical of a home in Maple Shade. Agreed. Okay. Agreed. Um the fifth condition
is that the board of adjustment may prescribe such further conditions with respect to the conversion and use of such building as it deems appropriate in accordance with section 78 uh which I believe is a reference to the standards
of review for proposed variances. So I think that condition is intended to mean that the board can impose reasonable conditions if it grants the conditional use. Yeah. So um so we we clearly don't meet the lot size. We believe we meet
the parking requirement of the conditional use in the absence of structural exterior uh renovations and we probably don't meet the condition D relating to such conversion shall be authorized only for a large building that has relatively little economic
value even though that's not clear. I think we all agree this isn't a large building by any definition. It's a typical building. We agree with that. Um, now exhibit A4 are some photographs of some other nearby uh duplexes. Three. Can you just identify where those are?
Could you let us catch up with you? Yeah. Exhibit A4. You'll see three photographs stapled together. A4 is. Is this what I'm supposed to be looking at? Uh, no. No. This is what you're supposed to be looking at. Ah, okay.
This is a All right. I'm going to share with Robert, so I'm going to hold you up. Fair enough. So, can you ident There's three photos of three duplexes. Correct. Correct. Just identify where they are, please. In proximity, but you don't know if they are legal duplexes, right?
Correct. Okay. Um, so here's a 124 North Styles A, which I believe is right next door here. Um, the next page is 30 Spruce A and go to the last one, then I'm going
to ask you a couple other questions. Yeah. And then the last one is 15 West Lynwood F. Now, are these properties how how close are they to your property? Um, all under a half mile. Okay. Now, how do you know these three
properties are duplexes? Um so the 15 West Lynwood A here um recently sold within the last year as a duplex. Um 30 Spruce A. Um I actually went back um a little bit to look at the meeting
minutes and I believe this one was approved by the board uh for duplex approval. Um and then 124 roughly when uh I I forget exactly when. Okay. So you believe we did but you you're not sure we did? Not 100% sure. I think
that's where I found What did you see that indicated that it had been? Um I went to the meeting minutes and I saw it on the resolution on the township's website. Right. I don't recall this coming before the board. You've been here a few years. I have.
And then 124 Styles is actually on the market right now as a duplex. Okay. As a duplex. Right. This one came before the war. Yeah. This one before this was the tour family. Oh. Is that Styles Avenue? Styles Avenue.
That was approved. Okay. Okay. So So Mr. Chairman, but that was approved because they could prove that they pre-existed. They could prove that the the Leon Santor was in here and had people testify
when they were living in that. So, just to make sure there's no confusion on this, the reason we're showing you these three photographs is to help address the negative criteria for the Dvarian, which is that granting a duplex isn't going to change the nature and character of the
overall neighborhood. That is to say, we're not going to be the only duplex within that within that half a mile radius roughly that that Mr. Hall mentioned. And it doesn't mean that because there are other duplexes, you have to grant this application. We have to show that you can grant the variance without substantial detriment to the
public good. I.e. for example making a residential neighborhood commercial neighborhood. And that's why we're offering and that's all that's the only reason we're offering. Okay. I agree that the fact that there are three other duplexes doesn't mean you have to grant the application. It means
that if you grant it, you can do so without uh changing the nature and character of the neighborhood, especially in the neighborhood which has had duplex for at least well, we'll say 35 years now uh back in July of 20 1990. Um Mr. Chairman, I think that's all the
questions I had for Mr. Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall, anything else that you wanted to add? Um no. Okay. Did you get a chance to to review the guidelines that I've been referring to? No, you did not. Okay, Mr. Chairman, before we move on, just to
follow up on a few things that were presented tonight. We received these this evening, and I'm looking at them now. I have not determined where 124 North Styles is, but the other two properties are in the R2 zone where
duplexes are permitted. So, these are both in an R2 zone. I've yet to because we're running out of time and I'm trying to do this on the fly. Uh 124 North Styles may be in the R2 zone. I'm not certain. It's right across the street from
municipal building on the corner. Uh then it is in the R2 zone. I think the ordinance was changed. That's in the commercial zone. In R2. I'm sorry, sir. I think the ordinance in R2 was changed in 2006.
to prohibit duplexes. So these may be pre-existing. That's correct. But in the R2 zone, not in the R1. That's correct. That refers to the RA. That's what I'm saying. When we speak to character of neighborhoods and all that, right? It's a different neighborhood. Okay. Smaller smaller lots. So everybody knows
that's a smaller lot. What's which is a smaller lot, Fred? The R2 RA biggest RA R1 R2. That's how it goes in. So R2's smaller lots in R1. Yes, it is, sir. Yeah.
So again, we're and I don't doubt what you're telling us, Fred, as to what zone they're in. They're they're relatively nearby. Ours is on a larger lot than those. Uh and you know, it's closer to compliant as far as the 9,000 foot lot goes. Uh only only offer for that
limited purpose. you're not if you grant this variance going to adversely affect the neighborhood from a planning standpoint because not only does it it already exists, but it's larger uh or at least it's in a zone that has larger lots than in the R2 zone which is right
next to the R1 zone and that and that's it. That's the purpose of exhibit A4. Okay. So, I'll look at the guidelines, Mr. Gay, if you have them while Are you through with Justin? I am. Anybody have a question or Justin? I was just going to say just to make this all
all the time that you owned it and your dealings with the town with inspections and stuff, you were never questioned on being a duplex that was generated when your buyer that was generated through your buyer.
Correct. Yeah. When we got the permits, no one raised an issue about it. Um it was until we basically signed the contract and then the the buyer um let us know. Anyone else? Just have a crazy question. Who has
access to the porch on the back? The enclosed porch in the rear of the building. Yes. Um that's the first floor walk. And are these the stairs that go up to the second floor through their porch? Um where is that on the
in the rear of the building? There's a set of stairs in the back that goes up into that porch. Is that how the If you got rid of the front stairs, is that how the tenants upstairs would have to go through the first floor's tenants porch to get up to their apartment? Um, it looks like the rear steps you're
pointing at. And that's uh entrance will take you into the first floor unit. Um, but not to the second floor. No. So, how do the how do the tenants get up to the second floor? On the left side of the building as you're facing the building from the crate, right? Well, you said if you get rid of those stairs.
Oh, there's another set of stairs. Yeah. On the So, there's one entrance and it's the same entrance for an exit on the second floor. Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is there's one entrance for the second floor on the west side of the building
and there's two entrances to the first floor. One through the porch in the front, one in the back door. Correct. And you had a fire inspection for that. That goes first floor. Uh, not yet. We're waiting until we get approved and
then we can get the fire certification. You would have a tenant upstairs with only one exit should there be a fire. Yeah. So, my my understanding, not my understanding, Mr. Lewis testified that when he owned it, he would have inspections whenever the tenants would change and that and they had an upstairs
tenant then. So, I don't uh that was always approved was his testimony was always inspected. Okay. This is this isn't a situation where anyone that we know of in the last 25 35 years has hidden the ball on the
municipality. You had township or uh the township fire inspector come to the house. We'll ask Mr. Lewis to come forward. Yeah. Every time I Why don't you come to the microphone, sir? Prior to the new tenant occupying the
space, I always would have the fire marshall or somebody from the fire department come out and check. He was in uniform said Maple State Fire Department. I don't recall that whether it was in a uniform or not, but you'd call the town, you'd call the fire department and the
fire inspector would come out each time I changed a tenant. That was standard practice. I'm a realtor, so that's the normal procedure, right? When you rent out and you had to cut and you cut him a check, too.
Inspector must come to inspect. And Mr. Lois, what were you want to add to that? And each time there was a fee for it and obviously a check. And was it one check or two checks? Well, it was one check for each floor. I mean, depending on when the tenants
moved out. Gotcha. So, it would be one check because the both tenants weren't moving at the same time to hopefully not. Got it. Yeah. Right. Got it. Okay. I don't know that we can move any further on that one. I think Mr. Lewis, thank you. Justin, thank you. Thank you very much. Um,
before I go to Fred, I want to give you this and give you at least five minutes to go through it. Just skim read it. Skim read it to see the kind of conditions should a use variance be granted. What this document says in the
beginning of it, it's a guideline to determine whether you are a pre-existing duplex or not. And if you are not, then it says if the board should grant you the approval, here are the kinds of things that we would look at. The reason why we don't look at them if
you're determined to be pre-existing is we don't have any jurisdiction. It is. What we would do, we would ask Robert to send a letter to the township manager saying that we just gave somebody a pre-existing certificate. We don't know what that property looks like. And we would ask the township
manager to use her resources to determine that it's safe for public, safe for fire, that type of thing. Right. In that, we are skipping over that request with your application right now. and you're asking us to grant you a use
variance. These are the kinds of things. Sure. If you were to uh receive this earlier or if you were to come to a site plan meeting, we would ask you to re review them because they're quite extensive. I can't reach. If you wouldn't mind just
giving that a push. Thank you very much. That was sent to your office, Damian. Okay. I sent it to There's two dots at the bottom of it and then go to the next page. Oh, those are the first bullet points. Yeah. Okay. Why don't you huddle up with me? Oh, yeah. I'm going to five minutes.
Yeah. What's up? How do you get to the second floor? How do you get to the second floor? Where's the stuff? Yeah, that's they enter here and they go up through internal steps. That's to the first floor, right?
But that that is the entrance to the second to get to the second floor. There's a set of steps there. Oh, that's what my understanding is. that I gave him the correct answer. He wants to know how the people get to the
second floor. Okay, I'll have Mr. Hall answer that once everybody's uh back from the break. Hold on a second. Michael, back in your chair, Kyle. Michael, come on. All right. You heard that? How does how does the tenant get to the
second story? Um, so on the Maple Avenue side, um, there's a set of steps in the front of the building. Um, and that's they walk up those steps. Correct. And that leads you to the second floor. So, they enter in here and there's a second set of
steps that go upstairs. Correct. Okay. I gave him the right answer. Excuse me. Was this tenant occupied when you bought it? Uh tenant had just moved out. So, it was vacant when we closed and then we started doing the uh were vacant.
Uh, correct. Yeah. And then you did the renovations while it was vacant. Yes. Okay. I'm on the calling Fred now. Oh, shoot. I go ahead. If there's a fire and they're that entrance is blocked, how do they get out?
That's the only entrance into the second floor. Second floor. So they pretty much burn up. How do they if that entrance is blocked by fire? Yeah. So, so first of all, um there's no question
that this building has to be fire code compliant and nothing that this board does posit, you know, approval or denial changes that. It's no different whether it's one family or two. You have stairs going upstairs. The stairs, there's only one set of stairs like there is in my house to get to the second floor.
You know, there's egress windows required. I'm not a fire code expert, but we would stipulate that we have to comply with the applicable fire code. Okay. One of the things that's mentioned in the guidelines that Mr. share with me is a lot of them are getting confirmation of things like that
from the appropriate officials or inspectors that you have for example that the windows lock the window guards that are required are there that the pickets in the ports aren't too wide for a children's head to fit in between and I didn't you know I looked at it quickly but we're fine with all that uh we we
would the zoning board doesn't have the authority and we would never ask you to approve something that wasn't fire code compliant we have no choice but to comply Of course, we want to comply. Okay. Any other questions before I'm free?
Did you have any other witnesses, David? No. Okay. Justin, thank you. Thank you. You stay here, Justin, just in case. Please. Great. Good evening, everyone. Time's yours, as Andy used to say. Almost done. U just real quick, we I I do apologize
for the late of the letter, Damian, board members. Um there is there are three letters missing in the proposal section on the first page. I just want to go through typically the first thing we hear as the chairman mentioned is that this was a pre-existing non-conforming. The applicant always
argues that point first. If they determine it's not, if the board determines it is, we all go home. If they determine it's not, we hear the Dvariance, which is what we're doing first in this scenario. So we did determine that this is a D3 variance,
which is a conditional use. And I did the same thing. The R1 says all the uses permitted in the RA and the RA uh conversion of two and three families are conditional uses. So those conditions
are listed on P that are very basic, very common. Um the lot area per family, it's 9,000 square feet. So being that we have a duplex, it's 18,000 square ft per
our ordinance. The applicant has 11,393 or something along that line. So uh they do not comply on that one. The second condition of the conditional approval is the parking stalls. Um we do not even have enough information
to determine how many bedrooms under RSIS. It would be number of bedrooms. If that information is not provided under the RSIS and yes, our ordinance says two per per unit. RSIS has a whole scale of how determined. If you don't have the
bedrooms, you make an assumption that it's 2.5. Tonight, we were giving given a layout and testimony. So, there are two bedrooms. So, they do require 1.5. Then there's some exception for visitors, but we have plenty of space on
street for this visitor parking. It's a half a space. So we did receive that information tonight. So it looks like the number would be three potentially with one on street parking. The issue is on site when you look at
the survey that was provided in exhibit A1 there are no parking spaces that conform to our ordinance which is off out outside of the right of way. So the largest space was 15 ft by some
dimension wide. The next one was 12 feet. Our ordinance requires 9 by 18 per house etc. I don't want to go through all that. So therefore, I say in bold, the applicant is to provide appropriate information for determination of
required parking, which we heard tonight testimony and the graph that was provided. And currently, the plan does not comply. And after we're speaking tonight, it still does not comply. We've heard that they said, "Oh, we'll build this. We'll do that." And we're going to get back to parking in a few seconds, but I want to go through the five
conditions. The third condition is no structural alterations. The reason that is is you're in the R1 zone or whatever zone you're in, you want everything to be generally consistent. That's the purpose of the master plan. That's the purpose of zoning. Council members, governing
bodies long before us have made determinations of what they want these neighborhoods to look like, and that's legal in New Jersey. So, we talked about that one porch on the side. They could remove that. It would eliminate the need for a potential variance. But then we
have a door that goes to nowhere. And we've all seen these conversions in our lives where there's the door that goes to nowhere. In this case, you see where the stairwell that Mr. Kingsbury was wondering where it was, there's a window at top of that that is blocked off
halfway with some siding because the stairwell goes through there and you can't have a window, however the interior construction was. So, that was an alteration. The next thing that I see as an alteration was the front porch. Now, it may have been done 30, 40 years ago. I don't know. But that was a front
porch. Um I've lived in Maple Shade my whole life. Grandparents on Lincoln and here they all had these types of front porches. I go back now, they're all closed in similar to what this gentleman has, but there have been deviations. So that's for you to decide. There would be
more deviations if they take that variance away with that porch that goes to the bedroom. Uh but I just want to point that out. I think there have been deviations common throughout the township. I think you'll see these porches converted the windows with the siding halfway across.
Again, does it look like the house that it used to be? That's the purpose of this statement. They want this house to look like the neighbors next to it, the neighbor next to it. They don't want to see blocked windows, blocked doors, doors that go to nowhere, that type of thing. So, that's item three. Item four
is the large building, and I don't think we have to go through that. Uh we've we've seen recently on McCrae Lane another unit that was the home was like five six thousand square feet. Now that's an unusually large home that um
has relatively little economic value or usefulness as a single family or other conforming use. So we've heard testimony tonight that that also is not the situation here. This is a 1700 square foot home at Maple Shade. Sorry.
So, so that's the fourth that's the fourth problem. There's fourth condition that doesn't comply. So, now we're at the fourth. The fifth one says, and this is for the board members, the board of adjustment may prescribe such further conditions with respect to conversions of units such that buildings as it deems
appropriate in accordance with ordinance two 205-78. And we're going to go to that in a moment. Um, so with that, uh, we heard, uh, Damian talk about the positive and negative, and he's going to go through some more of that tonight. How this fits
in with the neighborhood. Does it impact the neighborhood? Sometimes neighbors come in and they're upset with some situation, but I'm going to glaze over that to go to uh the third page. And we're still going to go back to these proofs, the positive, negative, structural reasons
and the parking and and the Well, we're getting to the parking. That's where we're leaving now. At the end of the and I called it, I think on an email to you, gobbleygoot. Uh um there is a statement and it's it's relatively confusing and this is from my
my partner Jay who is a 100% planner in and out as Damen knows right I do. Okay. U the last paragraph in this says specifically for a D3 variance the applicant will need to demonstrate that the use would be appropriate despite the
deviations and the from the conditions. We just went through those conditions and also demonstrate that the grant of relief is reconcilable with the municipality's legislative determination. So that means you are here tonight
uh I won't say questioning but you are going to make changes to something that a governing body established. So that's what you have to that is what you're confronted with this evening is does this meet the proofs and fit into all the criterias and make sense
versus all the rules and ranks that were set up uh long before this and you know it it would have been great if he had found that this was gifted in 1951 and uh we wouldn't be going through all this. Then our ordinance at the bottom of page three just speaks to the use
variance comments and these are typical in the u the MLULD and you'll go through those compatible with the surrounding area mitigating factors etc. You can go through all that. Correct. Yeah. Yes. Then I went back to 205-78
which was the parking um sorry 278 there's a lot here should be considered the applicant should address the following items. Okay. So in 2000 uh 20578 there are A through F. So there's
uh six items there that again you need to prove tonight and this is standard through the MLUL that we will go through. So that's stuff we're going to hold and we're going to hear some more about that. But I want to get to the comments and that is where we're going to talk about the parking
in item one was the lot size. We've gone through that. We understand it doesn't conform. It actually would be a variance uh in addition to the use variance. it would be a bulk variance. Uh item two is off- streetet parking.
The ordinance two 205-67 and the RSIs. So 205-67 tells us like the old days they need two parking spaces per unit and they have plenty of room to put parking. The RSIS comes in and changes things. It
puts footnotes and asterisks and that's where they come up with one and a half plus a half space for guest. It's still generally two per and that's what I would recommend for the applicant that there be two per. We had asked for in that comment additional information is required including number of existing
bedrooms. Until tonight, we did not know how many bedrooms we have. Now we know there's two first floor to second floor, right? Uh driveway lits uh the driveway lengths and widths obviously they don't comply. They're all non-compliant. So we
really have zero parking on this site right now. Well, true, Fred, but we got your letter on Monday. You submitted a floor plan. And I'm not being argument. I'm saying I know you're not. I'm saying what the ordinance call. We didn't and this isn't a complaint. We didn't have there wasn't time to submit
revised plans to show compliant parking. which is why I'm here tonight to say we will comply and you'll have to confirm that we do comply and that's why that's all I could offer in the in the Damian I prefaced my comments saying that you have plenty of room so I I do expect to be able to comply right I'd like to make one comment too
everybody comes in here and they need to be at the very next meeting when we look at an application we say you really should spin for a moment hear from us go back and do your homework and then come forward no I I listen because we get to an
evening like tonight where there's a lot of unknown and you're going to ask the board to approve the unknown. They haven't seen it. They don't know if it ever will exist. It's always better to do the homework and then come forward. I agree with you. Uh all all I'm saying
and I think Fred and I agree on this is um we either have to comply with the parking or ask for a variance. All I'm saying is we don't we don't need a variance because we will comply, right? We haven't yet, but we will. That's what that comment says that they need a variance or they need to comply.
So, that's that's what we're pointing out with the variance. Item three was waste, storage, recycling. So, I think that's something we still need to hear about where it's going to be. And again, this is not like a single family home, which is anticipated to be in this area. Now, you have we're allowed to get maybe
two. I know I have two recycling containers and two or three waste containers. Typically, if you're having smaller units, so let's say these are under 900 square foot units, maybe the waste is less, but we don't anticipate that. So, now we may have four recycle
bins and six trash cans. And we even heard something about it maybe being on Maple Avenue. And that causes me to pause because I know living in town when people put leave things out some some people leave them in the right of way
let alone in their front yard. Um I'll get off that that we need an ordinance on that but I'll get off of that. Uh but again, when you're dealing with multif family, it's a concern and there should be an area designated. We've asked every site that comes in before us, hey, what are you doing?
Because this isn't like a single family home. And nothing against renting a house, but sometimes ownership pride isn't there either with where they are stored. And I don't mean to be cynical on that. I just know it's a reality. Ownership pride is not there. Um the
landlords are far away. uh absent landlords. So, nobody knows what's actually going on. And I'm not saying that in a negative way. Uh so, that that was item three is that we should talk about that a little more. And there should be an area uh behind my garage. I built a little fenced in area. Maybe
that's something that should be here versus having these cans scattered throughout the the yard. And really up to the renters and it would change from renter to renter to renter. So to get some standard into a zone where
something's not permitted, they're asking for an exception and I think that there should be some area dedicated for the storage of these containers. We agree. We agree. Yeah. Thank you. Uh four is the parking
which is 20567D. So after it tells you 67 tells you how many spaces you need, then they tell you how you can do the parking. And this one I went back and forth with and uh if you read the comment, this is exactly what it says in our ordinance. Access to off-
streetet parking shall be on site. So therefore, not in the right of way the way it is now. Uh on-site aisles to permit each vehicle to proceed to and from each space without moving another vehicle. We've heard cases where we've had
duplexes, triplexes, where there's just been a long driveway. One was over by the OOLPH church. Um it's and they ended up putting something in the backyard, a parking lot. You can't have multiple families. I can tell my sister to move, my wife,
my kids, but when you have multiple families, now you're blocking each other. And obviously that doesn't create a I'll say, and I'll use words of the master plan in our ordinance, a harmonious neighborhood, which the R1 allowed with single family houses. Now
we have something different. So when this article talks about article 67D speaks to on-site aisles permit each vehicle to proceed to and from each space without moving another vehicle. Then it further goes on to say and this is the one I'm a little hung up on
Damian and and Mr. Chairman and board. Parking spaces shall not be an extension of any street right ofway. So to me it means two things. You can't park the way it is now. They have a wide grass strip. There's no sidewalk in on Maple Avenue. There's one on Lynwood. I mean McCrae,
sorry block over uh McCrae, but there is no sidewalk there. So you think that's your yard. You typically would u the distance from the edge of paving to the the right of edge of right ofway is probably 10 to 15 feet here. So they
would assume that is sort of their space. But you cannot have parking in the right ofway and consider that to be viable parking. That's why I said you are zero compliant with parking currently. Uh the other thing that it says to me,
extension of any right ofway. So if this was a triplex, you couldn't put six cars along the whole front of your house. That's not the intent in the R1 zone. And again, I'm distinguishing as we're going through this multif family versus single family because that's really why
we're here tonight. So, I'm I'm kind of torn apart with this one because to me, this says you cannot have four parking spaces that come directly off of the rightway
that you would need some kind of drive out, but then that leads to a parking area. So, I don't know if the intent of this ordinance, Mr. Kingsbury, means that they want to have parking. You're asking me an engineering question. That's engineering. So, I think we need to see something more on this. Um, they do have a large
area along Maple Avenue and I think having two driveways that would be dedicated, maybe two double driveways, it would go one lot in to be dedicated would be reasonable and conforming with the single family way of life. Um, right now in looking at
areas, if you go to Google, oh my goodness, there have been campers and boats and everything you can imagine parked on this property. Um, that's the only way I get to go. I don't walk down that street. So, that's one I don't know the history of. Um, so, so anyway, that's an item that we need to talk
about and we have to hear Mr. uh, Luca said that you would comply. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. I our plan was and I I believe this complies, right? I think you agree, but I'm not sure. I certainly won't speak for you, that we would submit a
plan that showed two separate twocar driveways side by side so that no one has to pull a car out. that would be perpendicular to the rightway and be large enough on the property itself and not within the rightway to fit 9 by8 parking spaces.
Okay. So, the next item is really speaking to again the deviation. I'm asking that testimony be provided and we've done this with other sites where we've had waste containment, parking, stairwells, lighting because this isn't a single
family anymore. This is multiple families, people utilizing lighting, landscaping, that type of thing. Security, those are things I think you have to look at when you're talking about multi multiple families. There are two different families using the yard, for
instance. We already determined the yard was smaller than it's supposed to be, but the way this house is positioned, there is a relatively large lot there. But security, lighting, those things should be addressed with regard to this parking. Most of us have lamp posts out front of our house. You know, we go
through the normal scenario of looking at maple shade. Um, and especially in the R1 zone, which are typically the larger lots, larger homes. Um, six I put in every application, which is the affordable housing. And Sue, I'm going to we defer this, I guess, to the
tax people. Um, but there may be an obligation, Damio. I don't know. I to up ahead. No, no, it is what it is. I haven't looked at that yet, but if we have an obligation, obviously we'll fulfill it. I I just state that this board can do nothing about that. It's just something that we have to put in. Understood.
Right. And then the last item, uh, number seven spoke to that stairwell. The setback, the minimum setback on the right side of the home is 8 feet. The rear of the home is 8 feet. Don't know what the front is. It could be eight or more, but then we had that
stairwell, this concrete landing. And and again speaking to Jay steps if you lead right up to the house they're steps and they're always excluded. Our definitions do not define steps and landings but to me it it's an extension of like a porch. You can put a little
roof over it and um a porch to a porch I guess we would call it into a bedroom. So to a porch I like porch to a porch. So again I think those are the the major items but looking back to the conditions uh we don't comply
with uh the one two three and four uh regarding the parking you your testimony is that you will uh make an effort and you will comply and then number five there again goes through the fact that the board can look at this
from being single family to conversion. What else you may see that the governing body giving this document didn't see? So that's all I have. What does it mean when it says parking shall not be an extension of the street
right away? What does that mean to me? It means that the parking can't be an extension. You can't come directly into a parking area, which is what we have all over Maple Shade. So they don't want the scenario that I
just said and where do we have these? It was across from MoP and a couple where you put your front yard now becomes a paved parking lot. Uh we have we have places all over town where people are doing that and it's becoming even if you drive I my office
is at the other end of Morstown so I drive through these big homes in Mortown are now six, seven, eight cars in the front yard on Main Street. So they want a driveway of some sort. They're driveways. Yes. That people are parking now. The front yards become parking lots. Okay.
And when this says it shouldn't be an extension of the right of way to me, that's what it's saying. You can't line these all up. That's why I was torn with this because D under I have it up here.
D says access to off- streetet parking shall be by on-site aisles to permit each vehicle to proceed in to and from each space without moving another vehicle. Parking shall not be an extension of any street right away. So
that's they're the words. I I don't know how to interpret them more than that. Mr. Kingsbury, I was hoping your wisdom would come help a little bit, but So you're considering Maple Avenue as the right of way? Maple Avenue is a right of way. Sure. Anywhere there's a street that the
municipality owns will be a right. That's from the property line to property line across the street. Damon, before you give any response the phrase engineering report. Well, I'm reading what the say I'm just
reading what the ordinance says. Damian, before you give any response to Fred's engineering report or address the negative and criter negative positive criteria, some overriding thoughts are coming through my mind. I got to share them
with you. Sure. A zoning request application does not have to go the site plan, but it is always beneficial if they do because the site plan is a place for a work session. We're having a work
session tonight. The zoning board and planning board meetings are meetings for decisions. One other thing that happened quite a while back is the board said, you know, we give a lot of uh approvals
for applicants where we say you got to do this, you got to do that, and they said they're going to comply and then a year later we looked and they didn't comply. They got their CO. So we said, well, you know what? From now on, if we give approval, we want to see it on a piece of paper. We want the
engineer to say, "Yeah, it's there." Not that it's going to be there. It's there. You would have known all of this had you come to a site plan meeting. You didn't have to come. But if you would have known all of this and you would have said probably you're not going to come
tonight. You're going to go back and do your homework. Now, we just spent a couple hours here. And I know you would like us to give you approval for things you're going to do. and this board has already voted
internally to say we're not going to do that anymore. So, let me respond to that. Um, I acknowledge and agree as someone who's been doing this for for quite some time that when you apply for a variance, the board has the right to impose
reasonable conditions on the variance and you get a review letter from your professional and every application I've ever had requires as a condition that we comply with the review comments unless there's any exceptions to that that are discussed at the meeting. And that's
often the way it's handled. There's no question, however, that the board has the discretion to say, well, you know, sometimes changes are arise to the level that we need to see it first, not just impose it as a condition for Mr. Torque in this case to check as a condition of
approval. Now, the fact that those conditions weren't implemented in the past, that's really an enforcement issue. But you have the right, Mr. G as as as the board to say, you know what, we want to see a plan with compliant parking and with the trash enclosure, which we agree to provide. And if
there's lighting proposed for the driveways, we can add that. Although, uh, you know, I'm not I don't get a vote, but I don't think you need lighting for two driveways, but if the board feels otherwise, we'll put it in. Lighting has positive impacts and negative impacts. That's a judgment call
um for for this property. Uh so you absolutely can say come back after you submit revised plans that address as many of these comments as you can address. You have the right to do that. Uh we obviously you also have the right
if the board as a whole feels like you have enough information to to vote on the application tonight for a conditional approval meaning a D3 variance with the conditions that you choose to impose. You have that right too. So it's your call. Uh I acknowledge
that you have that right and if that's the way you go then then we'll come back. Uh, you know, obviously we'd prefer to go forward. Uh, well, you're right. If if the board does the comments, it's your job to read the tea leaves.
It is. It is. We'd rather come back with more information than get a denial. That's no great revelation. That's what I'm trying to say. I understand. I understand. And if and if that's the direction we get from the board, we'll come back. Well, I can't give you that direction, but you can ask. Yeah.
You can say, "I would like to have it continuous." Listen, um I don't hear anyone saying that they disagree. So, I'm going to assume that the board generally agrees with your sentiment. I know this board. I know you. And I I know you know the board's general uh
I don't want to put you in jeopardy if you got a chance to comply is what I'm saying. So, um I don't like the fact that there may be a belief that we don't comply in areas where we can comply. Uh I don't like that perception. So, um um I
haven't spoken to my client, so why don't you give me a minute to speak? Sure. Probably all could use It might be a fail safe. Yeah. Why don't Why don't you just give us a minute to step out? Sure. Thank you. Lightning. I might be sleeping here. Um, can I answer a question with a
question? The next meeting would be I'm going to grab my phone. What would the date be? August 13th. August 13th. Correct. Uh, can I just ask does everyone expect to be available on the 13th? Do we think we'll have enough seven members at least
seven members to the board? I know there's no guarantees. Just trying to get an idea. Lost my crystal ball. I'm not asking for a crystal ball. I'm just Does anyone know they're not going to be here on the 13th? We'll all be down the shore. Yeah, where should beans?
We might even have more because we were missing two tonight. Okay. So, sounds like we think we'll have seven. We don't know for sure. Yeah, I'm available. I have another hearing on 13. That's a
continuation. Okay. Well, um uh before you say anything, you wanted to say something, Damian. I wanted to point out on page two, first paragraph at the bottom says of your letter. Yeah. of a letter and it goes through where we're starting about the special
reasoning and so forth. I just want to let them ask the board the question and pose the issue to them and it's the second sentence of in addition the board should consider the appropriateness of two units based on the building square footage that is to be identified in item four because we didn't know at that time
the square footage now we know it's almost 1,800 square feet. So I think it's important that that the board know that's why we're here. are one bigger unit, you're cutting it down the appropriateness of these two smaller units. And we didn't know the
testimony was we didn't know what the first second floor is much smaller. It's a box in the middle of uh the bottom. So I would assume the bottom is probably 1,100 and the top's maybe 6 or 700 or something like that. I'm from afraid
you lost me there. So what I'm not I'm not sure I follow you. Would you mind explaining uh the No, I'm just saying that the board should look at the size of the No, the appropriateness of this when we're looking at how it fits into the
zone, the positive and negative criteria. Was that us? Yeah, that's all. I just don't know if you want to get some feedback on that tonight or so. Damian, let me tell you where I am. Okay.
I think Maple Shade boards are as accommodating to applicants as they possibly can be. I would think after tonight's testimony and all the questions that are
outstanding that if a board took a vote, uh, it would not be favorable. Yeah, I understand. and because you're here and spent two hours with us or longer, they would say, you know, you should have done your homework before you came
here and they may have taken the bills. That's an unfair comment, Mr. Key, in the sense that and we're going to come back, but the suggestion is that we weren't prepared. You know, we we've responded as quickly as we could to the comments that we've received. Uh the timing though is yours to be here
tonight. You're you could have chosen next month. That's true. And I can tell you that for everyone where you go to a board like this and and they want more information, which you have the absolute right to ask for, I've got 10 where the board is comfortable with the level of detail. So, you never know sitting in
our shoes exactly how the board's going to react. From your vantage point, I can see that it's clear what your preference is, and I respect that, but it's not it's not always that clear on the applicant side. You don't always know that, Nick. Which is why it's very good to go to work sessions before. was it's not
available for a zoning board application for a use fair. It is. No, the law doesn't permit it. If there's no site plan, the law doesn't permit a workshop use fair. It doesn't require you to come, but you can come. So, listen, I've been to your site plan committee many times. Not I I think it's
a very valuable resource and I'm not opposed to attending it, but we didn't have a site plan application, which is why we didn't go to it. It wasn't a choice on our part. It wasn't like I tried. I'm going to ask Mr. Kingsbury. Can a zoning application request to attend a site plan meeting or work session?
Yes, but not required to. Yes. And that's what I'm saying. Instead, we spent all the time we spent tonight. I want to thank all the board members for spending that time. And instead of saying we're going to force a
decision, we're giving you an opportunity to continue. And I appreciate that. and we do want to continue it. I just don't want anyone to think that we were here to try to push something down your throat. We learned some things. We hear your concerns. We're going to try to address as many of
those concerns as we can and hopefully get a positive vote and and we'll come back to do that. Okay. But u I didn't foresee all of that before I got here. You could be critical of that if you choose. And you took a hand off for tonight. I did. I did, which is another story.
But uh uh you just don't always know when you're sitting on this side of the table, right? So here we are and well we at the site plan meetings, we try to honestly tell you where you stand and whether you need some more time. Okay. So did I hear you say you want to
request a continuence? I I do. Uh, and it's my understanding that the next meeting would be August 13th at 7:00. And although there's no public here, that an announcement be made so that additional notice isn't required. Mr. Kingsbury, we need a motion for that effect.
Yes, you do. You need a motion to continue this application to the meeting on August 13. I'll make the motion. Motion, Lou. Second by. Second, Mike.
Roll call, please. Miss Pebbage, approve. Miss Kazari, approve. Mr. Lazar, approve. Mr. McDonald, approve. Miss Mortimer, approve. Mr. Stevens, approve. Miss Valentino,
approve. Mr. Jerga, approve. Jimmy, approve. Great. Thank you everybody. We appreciate your time. You get another bite of the app. Thank you. Could I uh make one comment? Sure. Yes, sir. Um we we've had um similar applications
before us before and I thought one of the applicants was very clever in their research to find out if it was a a two family or one family because before these things were invented uh there's a
thing called newspapers. Yeah. And what they did was they went back in the newspapers before 1971 and looked in classified ads. And in the classified ads, if they showed ads for
that property advertising one uh the the rental space, that's a good idea. Then you could see that before 1971, it was used as a rental. Thank you. The gentleman went to the Cherry Hill Library and used Microfish
to find out. Yeah. Old school. I appreciate that. It's a good idea. Thank you. Um and I would like to get whatever information and if you email it, I already have it as to you conclusively determine that the date that we have to
go back to was 1971. Is that what you believe it is? You've determined that in the past and similar applications. I believe that date was researched by Mr. Sony and provided to us. It did go through legal. Mr. Kingsbury didn't dispute it.
Okay. And uh engineering did look at the report, too. Okay. I'll just take a look at that in the meantime and we'll see what we come up with. Did you want comment? Did you want them to comment? No. No. We're good.
Well, thank you everybody. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Robert, we have one resolution. Yes, this would be Karen Henry.
Um, this was heard May 14 and we didn't have a meeting in June, so it didn't get adopted. um 61 North Cedar Avenue
and uh this was a a variance to add a bedroom addition to an existing residence and the residence happens to be in the BD zone. The property had a fire and they
were rebuilding the house. It was a um a house that dated the zoning, predated the zoning, and she wanted to add a 14 by 15 uh bedroom addition because it was
destroyed in the fire. And uh that fire was in February of 2024. uh she still wants to live in the house and the board granted uh the variances necessary to add the bedroom to the back
of the house. No public comment. So it seemed reasonable to the board and they granted a use variance and the related bulk variances to add the bedroom. And the eligible voters are Mrs. Ray,
uh Mrs. Valentino, uh, M. Mortimer, Mr. Zergo, Ms. Curra, and Mr. Gee. Is there a motion? Motion. Bill, second. Second.
Mike. Roll call, please. Miss Valentino, approve. Miss Mortimer, approve. Mr. Zera, approve. Miss Kazari, approve. Mr. G, approve. Is that it, Robert? That's it.
Okay, we have minutes. Is there a motion with regard to the minutes? There are no minutes. I don't think there are no minutes. No minutes. No, I don't have those minutes. So, I will do more research and get those. We have discussions, but we're not going
to go through them. Two very two quick things there. Yep. Doesn't even need to be. The first discussion is um if you have not taken your mandatory training um this last scheduled class through NJO on the 30th was canceled and they have notified us
that they will be uh scheduling one in September. So if you have not taken that mandatory training class you have to take it. Do you have a list of people who should I know this is a five hour course. Yeah. It's online. It's a five hour course. Yeah.
Do you know when in September? We don't yet. No. So, but just kind of keep that over. Okay. No problem. The one we just took, which was the one that was in that room. Yeah. That wasn't on that that's not the that wasn't theired
under NJ. And then I did one online online. Okay. All right. That's We still have people that did not But I mean, is that the one you're talking about? That's the one I'm talking about. Yes. Through the NJPL. The other one is the annual financial disclosure. as appointed board members,
you have to by law file the annual disclosure disclosure. If you did not um and you don't know what your login is, please see Terry. Um the state has already been dishing out their $200 fines. So what's it the state? Yeah, it has nothing to do with us. This is a
state requirement. Appointed elected basically you're appointed officials to award. You're required to file your annual disclosure statement. If you don't have your login, please see Terry. And Sue, there is on that. Is there a list that you could I do have Yes, I do have You don't have to announce it tonight, but could you send it to people that
Yeah, Terry's been sending the email has to come from her, but we I will make sure. So, those people who have not yet conformed know through Terry. Yes. Okay. Yes. Now, this this mandatory training that you may have taken it before, Joanne, you've been on the board a while. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's it's any new member
that has a 5 hour online class and you take a quiz where they give you the answer, right? You don't know when that I don't know yet, but it'll be in September. So, just put it on your radar and and you'll let us know.
New member if you're a new member. I don't remember taking it. You've never taken it? I don't. Okay. I'll find out. I can find out. I took one on water penetration. Is that the one? That's the storm water management. That's the storm water. That's different. Well, that's the only one I took, I
think. I I can go on. There's a list. I can get it right online. It's not a problem. Susan will provide a list. I will provide the list. That's it. Quick, easy. You can adjourn. Okay. Second. Before the meeting's adjourned, I just
want to thank everybody for spending the time we did tonight. It's what Maple Shade does. as we try to talk people through and give them a break if we can. I don't know that they'll come up to speed, but at least they know what the target is. So, I just want to thank you for spending your time tonight. And with
that, I heard somebody make a motion to Michael. Second it, Frank. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed can put it in as many hours as Susan. Captain.