I like your color. Summary. are I don't know. It's something new. So anytime there's something new pickup trucks on my and knocking my
See that lady right there? The Maple State Township Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2025 meeting will now come to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance so you can begin. 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. Roll call, please. Mr. Lazar, here. Mr. Stevens, here.
Miss Reeves, here. Mr. McDonald here. Mr. Zera present. Miss Mort here. Miss Bevich here. Miss Valentino present. Miss Ry present. Chairman Gate here.
New business 115 East. I think this is Mill Road. Although the agenda says Main Street. Block 112. Lot 16.01. Francis Pertelli. Yes.
Okay. Application number ZB25-09. Zone R2 residential district. Existing use single family home. Proposed use place 22x 20 1 and a half story with a 22x 45
pole barn. Application request for variance relief hardship. How you doing? Okay. How are you? Good. Are you Francis? Yes, I am. Francis, we're going to swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony we give tonight?
Truth. Truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. Francis, I spent about a half hour on Main Street trying to find. You just spent a lot more. It was like, where's Waldo? I don't know. I couldn't find him. Yeah. I don't know how it got to Main
Street to be honest with you. But the the one thing I want to ask you is does your notice say Milro? It everything that I wrote down it says Milro. Okay. Then if it does, we can hear you tonight. If it said Main Street, we No. No. I I mean everything everything I
wrote down was uh Milro. This application does say no. That would have been my error. So we don't care about whose error is. That's all right. No, I'll take it. So I Well, you could reimburse me for the gas. Okay. So, Francis, you want to tell us what you would like to do?
Yeah. What I wanted to do is I right now is I have an existing 20x 22 garage. It's uh concrete. What I want to do is I want to take that down. Let's get to the same page you're looking. Is it in our package here? Yeah. Everything should be in there. I only got two pieces right here. But everything should be in there.
Okay. And I do have these copies. Okay. I got it. If you want, I got this. And then I just did something small that was going to go inside the garage. If you want it, I can I can definitely hit. That's the only thing that's not in there is this. Well,
no, no, no. Okay. Just present what you would like to do. Talk to us about it. So So all in all is I want to take down the one garage and put the other garage up. I just want to have one night. I didn't want to add on. I didn't want to do an add-on. I wanted everything to look right. So the garage is going to be exact. It's going to look like my house.
Why did you need it to be oversized? I guess I got I'll be honest with you. I have between cars, trailers. Um I just had a granddaughter. She's four weeks old. My house is getting smaller and smaller. Literally by there's there's a perfect example. That's the reason why. And then
I got a lot of tools from work in the basement. And I get yelled at all the time about tools. Inside the garage, you're going to have electricity. Yes. Okay. There's there's electricity already in the existing garage. Any plumbing? No, no plumbing. No plumbing. Okay. And your testimony is that you want to
use it for storage because you have a lot of tools. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Um, seems nice, short and sweet, but I'm going to ask the board if they have any questions. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Will you be conducting any kind of
business out of the unit? Will it just be for personal use? It's just 100% for personal. You're not going to be earning any income out of the additional unit? No. Unless you want to come and hand me money, I'm fine. No. No, I'm not going to withdraw. There's no business at all going to be out there.
Any anything else? Questions, comments, concerns, or members? I have a question. Yeah, sure. I catch right here. You You have a survey that shows a one and one half story garage. Yes. Existing. So, that's coming down. That's coming down. And is the new garage going in the same
location? Same exact location. Everything's the same. The only That metal shed. The metal shed will be gone, too. Metal shed's gone. Yes. So, the footprint of the garage is the same. Everything's going to be the same. Yeah. Because I I didn't want to go I didn't want to go sideways. I wanted everything
to stay exactly the same. It just makes my life easy. How's the How's the drainage in that area? I don't have any problems at all to be honest with you. We never had any problems. There's no flooding. There's no puddles or anything like that. Okay. I got two dogs that never come out back all that all wet and dirty.
Does that property flow towards No Road? No, it goes towards It goes towards Main Street where you were driving up and down. I'm I'm literally I'm the second house. You know where Fast and Friendly is? Oh, I know where it is now. I'm I'm the second one. I'm I'm on the
I I found it. I found all of them. Uh Okay, Fred, you got anything? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. I always have something. But just to talk speak of the drainage, it goes to the back right corner. If you're facing the home, the drainage is going in that direction. Uh,
as far as something that's not in the letter because it was something bringing you further into compliance. The old garage is 4 point some feet, our ordinance requires five. They're now going to be compliant. So, that is one variance that will go away as a result of the new garage or the proposed
garage. Uh, I did want to point out that our ordinance 205-04 speaks of a garage and what the requirements are. You can only store so many personal vehicles, so many commercial vehicles. So, and the reason is obvious what this could become if
they such a large garage. So, if you could just provide us, Francis, a little bit of information on again what exactly is going to be in there, how many of your cars, if you're going to put a trailer in there, storage? Uh, it's the majority. It's going to be two cars. Um,
do you have a floor plan or anything? Well, I do. I I I drew something right here. I I can I can more than welcome give it to you guys. I made Why don't you give that to Fred? Give it to Fred. Yeah. And he'll scrutinize that and let the board know what he sees. Oh, okay.
That satisfies my concerns. And that's you're going to do exactly or similar to what's on here. Exactly. That would conform with our ordinance 2000 205-4. So that that's great. The height of the structure. Uh the information you submitted said 15 ft. Our ordinance is
pretty loose with regard to how you determine the height. So is that the overall height? That was the overall height. I I may do this is if I just have to check and see what the different pricing is. I might go up to 18 ft, but I want to check and see. So if I need to if I need to come back and just let you guys know, you let
me know. If not, ordinance requires the building height is if you take the median between the high and the low of the roof. So his high now is 15. Okay? So he would be able to go up as long as he's in compliance. And this would go through Kyle's office. So you're saying the peak of your route is 15?
Yes. Meaning then if he decides to go up to 18, the 18 would be where? The peak. The peak. So that would be the average between the lowest part of the roof and the highest part of the roof. And then you take that midpoint and that's the height of the
roof. So would he have to come back if he decides that? I don't believe so. I would just need to know the lowest part of his roof. I don't have that number. Okay. Okay. And I can get that I can get that with the when with the people from the B and I can work with Kyle on that also. But but he should submit whatever he's
going to do. It's just that he wouldn't have to come back for another approval. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Does that five foot setback require a variance? It does not. No. 5 foot is is a requirement. The existing garage is four I for 4741.
So he is actually eliminating a variance. So that I only have two other comments and they're they're fairly straightforward. Again, the next one is regarding why he's here. The size. Our ordinance allows something that is something a garage that is 768 square ft
in size, which is a 22 because his garage is 22 feet. I made a comparison by essentially 35. Uh Francis is asking for 22 by 45. So, he's requesting an additional 10 ft beyond what is
permitted on our ordinance. So his garage is proposed at 990 square feet. And again, this is something that he needs a variance for. I think it's a C2 variance, which would be a beneficial use. And I I think if you could just provide us some additional information
about your yard, if you have existing sheds, if you're going to be utilizing this to clean up your yard. I I didn't go in your yard, but is this something where kids toys are going to go? Basically, what I'm doing is is I'm trying right now as I have my one trailer in the driveway. I want to put
that in there. And then this way is I have a car that's on Mil Road. Mil Road's heavily traveled. There was a couple accidents that actually like right across the street from Mole. Same same thing. My neighbor lost two cars there. So what I'm trying to do is I try to keep everything off of Mil Road. So all the stuff that's in the backyard.
Yes. I'm going to get rid of the metal metal garage. That's what the That's what Robert asked. So I want to get rid of the metal um metal shed that's in the back and everything will go inside the garage. Okay. So it'll make it nice and clean. That would be a beneficial to the neighborhood. Yes, it'll be clean. Yeah. I try to We
try to keep the cars off Mil Road. Milro Road is like a racetrack. It says 25 miles an hour, but Oh, yeah. It's like they're going down like 40 miles an hour. It's It's ridiculous. Oh, yeah. But I don't want speed bumps. Okay. I ride a motorcycle. I want those people.
Who do you ride? Uh 2015 Road. Rogue Light? Yeah. It's a nice piece. You let me know. Stop on by. You got the address. Stop by. We'll take a ride. Were you ever in service? No, I was not. No. Get a DD to 14. Join our club.
We're I ride with the Centurions out of Philadelphia. That's a cop club. Yeah. Forget it. Gentlemen, you can have this discussion. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, John. I apologize. Last item is obviously architecturally to be beneficial to the neighborhood, we want it to match. And I know you had a
little rendering there, but if you could just explain it to the board, what color your house is, what color your shed's going to be, the trim, just so we have an understanding of how you're going to impact the neighborhoods and the neighbors that are Okay. Right now is my house is gray and black. And that's exactly what I'm doing with the garage. The only thing that's
going to be white on the garage is the um the garage doors. So, I'm trying to keep I'm trying to keep in I think my my personal self is the garage is going to be nicer than what's there now. It's it's it Yeah, it'll be nicer. I'm going to have to build her a kitchen now. What's that? You're going to have to build her a kitchen. She let you build.
That's what I do for a living. Yeah, that was already done. Yeah. Yeah. She wants different cabinets now, but Yeah. Okay. All right. One for the other. So, Mr. Chairman, that's really the only issue here is the size. See two variants. I think we heard testimony that it's beneficial to the
neighborhood, to the applicant, and the community safety on Mill Road. He's storing vehicles off street now. So, that's all I have. Great. Thank you. Uh, hearing the engineers report, does anyone from the board have a further comment,
concern, issue? Okay, I'm going to open up this application to the general public. Okay. Is there anyone in the general public who would like to speak for or against this application? Oh my god, Francis, look at all those hands.
I'll speak for I wanted to get all the stuff out of my yard, you know, kids play stuff, their bikes, their like I need somewhere to put all this. Okay. We're going to come back and I'm going to ask the board understanding
that the public portion of the meeting is now closed. Okay. And I'm going to ask them, do they have a mind to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Motion Lou second by second. Is he allowed? I mean, he's an
alternate. I want to make We don't need the alternates this evening, but he certainly can motion it. He can motion. Okay. Oh, he can second. He can sec. A second. Yes. Yeah. I just want to make sure our motion and second is That's okay. Thank you.
Okay. Roll call, please. M. Beich. Approve. Mr. So we go on to Donald. Mortimer approve. Alternate. Mr. M. Valentino
approve. Mr. Dga approved. M. Rainey approve. Chairman D. Approve. Unanimously approved. Thank you. Okay. You have uh was it 45 days, Robert? So to start until next month when the
resolution gets adopted. Okay. You have 45 days uh within which if you do anything you're doing it at your own risk. Okay. You probably know your neighborhood. You know that probably not at risk. Yes. But if you do within that 45 days and you have six months within which you
have to begin something. Okay. Otherwise you have to come back and I'll have to find out where you are again. All right. I'll put a sign out there for you. I got you. All right. Good luck, Francis. Thank you. I really appreciate everything. You guys have a beautiful night. Okay.
Have a good weekend, too. Okay. Item number two on the agenda, 215 West Woodlon Avenue, block 14, lot 2, Lance Priscilla. Application ZB25-08. Zone R1 residential district. Existing
use, single family detached home. Proposed use, new 24x40 detached garage insulation. Installation of a new privacy fence, driveway, sidewalk, and apron. Request for variance relief.
Lance, how are you? Good. How are you doing, sir? Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm testimony you give tonight? I do. Lance, you want to describe what's going on? Yeah. So, uh, good evening. Um, me and
my wife live at 215 West Wong. Uh if you look at the packet um I provided on so example A and B on page two just an overview of the neighborhood and where our property sits. Uh in example B you can see that we have a yellow curb all around our
corner property. So that's no parking. Uh so my wife primarily parks her vehicle in front of 211 Westwood Avenue and I park our third vehicle in front of 403 North Kohl's Avenue just for reference. So part of the scope of the
project is to get the vehicles off of the street in front of the neighbor's homes even though it is a public street. Um I actually this is I guess a somewhat unique application. We have the project permitted and approved already in one in
one variation and I'm just trying to to make it more beneficial I suppose to my neighbors in the neighborhood by applying for the variance. Uh, I'd like to I guess walk through some of the zoning definitions and how I had what was approved and how it meets
the zoning regulations and how I think the variance would be a benefit to the my neighbor. Okay, why don't you do that? Is that all right? And whatever exam whatever exhibit you're on what page make sure we get there as we go along with you. Okay.
Uh so page three is a copy of our the the most recent survey. Um yeah, sorry. So you can see the front of our property fronts West Willon Avenue and
the driveway in the existing garage that was there before it was torn down uh exits onto North Kohl's Avenue. The existing garage was a 20 by 25 I believe roughly with a single 9 ft by I think
it's 38 and roughly 38 and 1/2t long single car driveway. That's what was there. That's what was there. Okay. So that that's actually been torn down at this point and it's it's it's dirt.
Um right now you have no garage. Right now the garage Yeah. was torn down. Yes. And uh and to to start well I was starting the the what was the approved project. Uh so I really just wanted to work
through some of the definitions just because there was I guess push back from the previous uh zoning director. So I just wanted to clarify things as we work through it together. I can hardly read them. So if you're going to reference them just uh paraphrase them. Okay.
Okay. It's just one of the main point was that the definition or the definitions defined in the beginning of the the the chapter are supposed to apply throughout the entire chapter and that didn't seem to be the case last time I was in front of the site planning like two years ago. Mr. Chairman, these are definitions from
our ordinance. Yeah, this is definitions from the ordinance from from the Maple Shade zoning ordinance. So, height of building uh Mr. Turk touched on the height of the building earlier in the previous applicant. I'm going to just bypass that the right away
line. We can almost bypass. Lance, pull that microphone a little closer for you. As you're sorry, looking down and talking, I'm losing it. Sorry. One of one of the definitions I'd like to touch on is the building line. So, Maple Shade defines a building line
as the parallel line to the street line at a distance equal to the depth of the required. I'm assuming that means front yard and not front yard. And example D on page four here is really just a definition I pulled off off of the internet that how most
townships define the the building line which is parallel with the front of the building and not parallel with the street. It's important for the corner properties, my corner property and several others and the surrounding blocks because the houses are on a 45 degree angle to the the street line.
But I'm going to ask you to speak to that when it's your turn. Yes, Mr. Chair. So, example G, it's just the yards. It defines what a front yard, a sideyard, and a rear yard are supposed to be. Um, example six, sorry, page six,
example H is referencing my zoning. my zoning area or my zoning I'm an R1 zoning defines that I require to have both a front yard, two sideyards, and a rear yard by by zoning code. Um,
typically corner properties and other in other areas on a corner property like mine, you'd have two front yards and then they typically would give you like two sideyard setback requirements instead of a rear yard setback requirement. Um, but Maple Shave requires me to have
two sideyards. And you'll see you'll see it's somewhat somewhat I I think it's a little silly in the way that I can what was approved um plays out with the rest of the the block like my neighbor's house.
And then example I is just it goes into what permitted structures for me. It goes into what a private garage is, the square footage requirement, and that maple that the zoning code allows me to have two garden sheds at 192 square feet.
Uh, example J, I think I think we can almost ignore because um the person that had an issue with the the fencing zoning is no longer here. I probably should have removed that example. And then example K is just uh the off- streetet parking requirement
for new new residential construction is two off- streetet parking spaces and currently I have one off- streetet parking space essentially. So it's just you know trying to bring the property up the code with this project. Lance before you go any further because
you referenced a lot of the code I would like uh Craig to weigh in on just that portion of it. Sure. Uh we could just look at the next one first, Mr. Chairman. I think this is the most important. Is that page eight?
It is page eight. Page page. Page eight. Lance had received the prior approval which expired which is the above the top of the page. Well, the the the approval was was through and permits were issued for the
project. Oh, permits were issued. Yeah. Paid for. Okay. Then your approval is still valid. could be. Okay. All right. So, that's even more important because if you see what is proposed versus what was approved
uh it's a much more conforming plan uh for imperous cover, for setbacks, impact the neighbors, sideyards, driveways, etc. And I'll go through all those. Okay. What what Lance had spoke to already was regarding the height. And I
know you said we'll skip over that, but we have to deal with the height. Yeah, that's that's that's fun. So, the height permitted in by accessory use is 15 ft. The definition of height for a building, which this would be a building, is that half between the highest and the lowest point and that's
permitted to be 15 ft. So, in this situation, um you use many decibels. I I round it up and I it's 16.38 ft. So he would need a variance for 1.38 ft. So in the case
of the prior application that was just a singlestory unit. So it was just a A-frame, a flat A-frame on top of the garage. In this event, I think you should explain to us what you're doing with that half story or the attic space. Yes, the attic space. And how you how
you get to that attic space while we're talking about the height. Mr. Chair, we'll go through that. and if you have windows in the front and back and and that just give the board an idea or an understanding of what you're doing and what you're not doing. Should I work through the page eight first about how the the approved
Let's go through the height first. All right. Should I Why you need the height? Yes. Oh, yeah. Uh if you could just turn to page uh 13 in the packet. What page is it? Page 13, please.
So, this front elevation drawing of what was approved on the left and what's proposed on the right. So, the old approval was almost a barn type. Yeah, it's a gamrell style roof. I'm I'm requesting a gable style roof. Uh, which is more fitting, I think, with
the neighborhood or at least with my existing or my direct neighbors. So all these dimensions, the height, elevation, all these dimensions are taken off essentially the the the slab, the the floor inside the garage, which would which would be grade level for a garage
as the apron approaches and you would drive into it. So you can see the overall height seems awfully large on both of them at 21 and 8 and 1/2 in or 21 ft 8 and 1/2 in is what was approved. And what I'm
proposing is essentially the only change between these two structures is the shape of the roof. Uh the wall height's still at 8 foot two and 78 essentially. Can you explain to the board why you need that space? Why why do you need to go so high? What are you trying to do?
Well, we accomplish my house is only 750 ft. It's me, my wife, and my six-year-old. It's on crawl space, so there's no basement. And the attic access for the attic would be in my my son's bedroom closet. So it's essentially like 20 in by
14 1/2 in between the the the rafter or the the ceiling joists. So your reason for it is for storage. Correct. The majority of it is for storage. We have no storage in our house. Upstairs you're going to have electricity or in that attic you're
going to have electricity. The the garage would have electricity. You would have a sub panel out there mostly be because the requirement we plan on putting solar on both the house and the garage at some point in the future and you would need to be able to to back feed the the service through the sub panel.
Okay. Uh what about plumbing? Any plumbing? Uh no plumbing, just the electric. Okay. So, how would you access the second floor? Well, right now the proposal is just a ladder and a winch. Oh. Uh there was they said per previously they said
permanent stairs was like a no-go. U so I revised it to just have an attic and I'll add an electric winch so we can have like a basket to lower and raise things up to the attic. So that is the one variance that we spoke about. Uh as far as I don't want
to do you want me to go through the letter? I think I can go through the letter and almost hit well u interrupt what Lance was doing. I just wanted to make sure that when he was referencing all that code, correct that you could I'll pull that together, please. That's all. Well, I was going to work through that
code, how it applied to the the site plan. Let's I don't know if that's necessary. We'll do the second one that Lance spoke about, and that was Maple Shades different than other townships where he has two sideyards versus the two front yards. And I think Kyle and I are
probably working on that, too. interrupted. Susan, I'm I'm not sure. I guess you were here and Kyle wasn't obviously, but this board a couple of years ago spent a lot of time Yes.
on looking at corner lots and things of that nature to change the code. And at the time Joe Gray was the engineer and uh Predict was here and we went through at least three meetings uh scrutinizing that code and then
submitted something to Robert. Who do you submit to when when we approve something? You submit it to township management or the planning board or John? We have copies. We have copies of we're working on that. Was that ever passed? So it was not passed. No, because when
it got to me there were questions on there. there were things that needed to be changed and those things were never changed and then when we had the change in our zoning office recently but now we're on board to get Fred and I got on the same page I said here it is and he said oh okay so now that's what's being worked through those things that are changed will they
come back to zoning so they can see what those changes are yes okay we're working on that now I would hope in the next month we have something better we should have something they also have to be approved planning board yes sorry lassformational
So when we found out where we were. So would you like me to discuss more about the height and the description? We spoke about the yards. I just want to go through the yards. In this situation, we have two sidey yards, a rear yard, and a front yard. Under our definition, the front yard is where the house faces.
What is your address? 215 West Woodlon Avenue. Woodlon Avenue. So he's not on Kohl's Avenue. So he fronts his front yard is on Woodlon Avenue. His side yards are just like anyone that's in between. He has two sideyards and he has a rear yard. So, there is a rear yard variance that would be
required for the garage. Um, again, you can go through that. We'll go back and forth as far as testimony on the rear yard. The rear yard is required to be 12 1/2 ft where he's proposing five. Um, again, you have an exhibit of that.
Um, I have this the the my CAD drill and slight plan. That's that's somewhat rough. Tell us what page to go to. It would be page eight. Eight. Yes. Okay. So, I probably should have put the streets on here, but essentially on the left hand side of
that drawing where it says 90 ft or 90, that would be my neighbor that's that's my neighbor's sideyard. His driveway uh is essentially on the property line or maybe a foot foot in on the property line. in this house is I think it's
about 25 ft. No, less than 25 ft. It's probably about 20 ft from the property line, but essentially my backyard, this rear yard that we're we're that's being contested is like my neighbor's sideyard and front yard to be to be frank. Is is the layout generally consistent
with the rest of the neighborhood? Other people have garages. Uh other people do have garages. I have I have examples of that later in the packet, but but is it consistent? Just your testimony. Is it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood? The proposed or the the approved?
The proposed. The proposed I would say is more consistent. It's essentially what was there just slightly slightly larger than what was approved. So again, what are the benefits? What if you you could most likely bring this
into compliance, but it would require the garage to almost touch the house. Is that correct? Correct. So, I played around with this in CAD for quite a while. In order to meet the the rear setyard at 12 1/2 ft, you're very you ended up with what was approved because that's essentially the
only place you could you could place that garage 12 1/2 ft off the rear property line and not have it essentially one or two feet off of the off of the house. Right. And and by doing that, you were able to push the garage further back off of Kohl's Avenue. Is that correct?
Yeah. with the with the proposal, you'd have it behind essentially it would be in compliance with the new the new zoning code if it ever goes into effect having the two front yards. It would be 30 ft back from from North Kohl's. It would be essentially even
what the front corner the furthest front corner of my my property, right? So that would that would bring that into new compliance if if that ever goes into effect. So having a new layout which is called proposed on page eight, correct? actually gives you more of a I
want to use the word normal layout of the driveway compared to what we had previously. Oh, absolutely. Because if you would if you look at the approval um that that garage is essentially blocking my entire neighbor's driveway. So, do you believe there's a benefit to
doing it the way you have it shown now? Oh, absolutely. Because right now, my neighbor would only have that 7 and 1/2 ft to be able to peek out when he's pulling in or out of his driveway. And North Kohl's is right there by the baseball field. It's pretty busy. We we had spoken about that at site plan a couple of times. You've come before us
a couple times at site plan and it was a bad situation. The prior approval was going to lead to some real sight distance issues and the proposed use now has eliminated those concerns. Uh there was a fence issue initially with in the past.
Yeah. With an interpretation of how the code read. But as of this proposal, there are no issues with fences. She's proposing a three-foot fence in the sideyard, which is another front yard, and then the Woodlon Avenue front yard. So, I believe it's a picket fence. Well, right now there's a chain length
3ft chain link fence that goes all the way around the property. Yeah. But I have examples of the fence. Yes. That would be proposing fence. Lance, you want to take us through the fence beginning with page nine, I guess. Uh, sure. It's it's really just a revision of the chain link fence that's
already existing. Um, essentially in by code I I'm not going to say that, but I'm just proposing a three-foot see-through fence, either a picket or like I said on page 10, there's essentially the examples. I'd be looking to install one
of those three, that kind of fence along my driveway and my neighbor's driveway to provide adequate sight line for traffic. And then essentially from the side of the garage and then through my entire backyard, it would just be a six-foot privacy
fence. And then it would transition back to that same proposed 3-foot fence to meet the the zoning code for it being in my front yard along my my other neighbor my other neighbor's property. If if that makes any sense. That makes sense.
So I mean the the three-foot chain picture with the little kitty swimming pool That fence, that's the fence you would be on your neighbors between you and your neighbor. Uh along essentially any Yeah. Anything forward of my my house my house building
line would be one of those style type fences. That would be in the front front yard as well as in front of the garage. Yeah. Which technically in front of the garage is my rear yard. So, it gets kind of convoluted when we're discussing this, but because that would technically
be allowed to be a sixoot privacy fence, which I'm trying to, you know, eliminate. Okay, Lance, we skipped you around. Where would you like to go now? I I'd like to go back to the height if possible. Before Lance goes back, could I ask Fred
if he if Lance would like to put stairs in the garage, would that be a problem? Would he be able to do that instead of having the pull down? We would we would not control that. There's nothing in our ordinance that I'm aware of and I'm pretty familiar with our ordinance that would I was told that would be a no-go. I
mean, I would like stairs so my wife can carry my wife and my kid can carry stuff to the attic, but I'm going to ask ourselves. I don't There's nothing in the code that No, you could do stairs inside. Outside, we were concerned with the outside. Yeah, I don't like the outside stairs. It was just a
security thing, too. It was It was more of a utilizing the space inside on the ground floor. But that might be a much better What? Having step having stairs. I initially proposed years ago during this pro this project planning that I
was going to have stairs and they they do you have a floor plan? I I do have a rough floor plan. What page? I'm working on that. I have it somewhere. It's I think it's page 11.
Page 11. So I I could talk that through as well. So on the ground floor, it's just really standard standard garage. Uh I do con electrical construction for a living. So I have a lot of tools that would be stored on the lefth hand side and those DeWalt tough system boxes if anybody's
familiar with that. Um and then just a standard workbench like cabinets, a worktop with you know cabinets. Uh the electrical panel will be sighted in the rear left hand side uh fed underground from from my panel from the house. And then I had allocated the
area for the the ceiling opening for the ladder and the winch area in the back right hand corner. And then we do uh anybody familiar has driven by, we do a lot of gardening. So some some of the shelving on the right hand side of the garage is going to be used for like plant starts in the winter time.
So if you were doing a stairwell, where would that be? Uh right where the ladder and the winch area would be. So I think that would be safer. Yeah. Really? I mean that that that was my initially proposed in the site planning meeting several years ago. Mostly
because I have a song and most of it's going to be like Halloween Christmas decorations stuff that we have no room room for right now that I have to get in and out of the crawl space regularly and there's not a whole lot of room in a in a in a crawl space. Well, and we have no say. Yeah. And you
do and if that's what you want, you put steps up. Okay. So, you're most likely going to put stairs inside. Yeah, I would do stairs if if permitted. It's not. But I, like I said, initially I was told no. So, I'm just trying to be in compliance.
I think you would be in compliance. But as far as building codes, where they go in there and the height of the risers, the length of the Yeah. would follow the IRC, the current IRC that's posted on the New Jersey website. Uh, I'd like to dis just discuss the
elevation a little bit. I think it's is it 13? It's 13. How high would the ceiling be? Oh, that that's what I wanted to touch on. Just perspective. There's a lot of big numbers here, but essentially the
overall wall height would be 8'2 in, which is an 8ft wall is a standard singlestory um, you know, residential wall. The proposed overhead door is only a 7 foot overhead door. A standard entry door for a house is only 6'8. So it's
only about 4 in shy of that. So for perspective, it's a relatively low ceiling for a garage. Um I tried to build it as low as possible in order to meet the height requirement, right? Uh 7 foot's about this the smallest overhead door you probably want to to
install nowadays. Are you going to have to duck to go in less? No. But like for example, the number one selling vehicle last year was a Ford F-150 and that has an overall height of 75 in for the average for the the
different model lines. So if you buy an F-150, you can't really install a garage door any smaller. What is the height of the door you're proposing? 7 ft. 84 in. Oh, okay. I can take air out of So it's close. So, I I thought I was
being somewhat reasonable with it's it's as low as I could build it. Um, building the garage essentially, like I said, with that in mind, the floor joist add some height to that because they clear span the structure. So instead of being a few inches shorter, they have to be
like a minimum of roughly a 6 in 16inch eyejist if you're going to if you're going to meet the like the 40 lbs per square foot floor loading for like the the the attic the attic floor, which is a a standard floor loading for a residential house. So it's more than
what you would normally see for like an attic an attic rated storage situation, but since people would possibly be up there walking around, we have a lot of stuff going up there. It's just slightly overbuilt. But that does add a few inches to the height of the of the building.
And that would be the variance from 16 feet 16.3 to the 15. So So really the only difference is it's it's an 8ft standard 8ft garage, you know, a wall height. That's that's relatively common. You need that wall height above. You need at least 12 to 14
inches above an overhead door in order for the the tracks to be installed. So that's really the minimum height wall I can build. that provides allows you to now store your things. Walk up there. Yeah. So, and if you're going to build this the the the footprint of the garage
isn't going to change. So, any additional storage in the attic by the additional roof height, it's it's essentially not costing a whole lot more in order to gain some additional square footage for storage. Like the the the rectangle for the walls is going to
remain the same. So instead of having a low pitch roof and essentially having all that dead space up there, you just increase the roof pitch a little bit and then you can, you know, you have more storage. And you need that storage because your house is 700. It's a it's a shoe box. And what's a square foot of the garage?
Uh it the the final proposed would be 960 ft. So it' be bigger than your house. It the the approved the approved allotted 768 ft would be bigger than my house. So, since that was mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I'll just run through that. We
already went through that exercise with uh Francis. Our ordinance allows a private garage to be 768 square ft in this case because it's 25 ft wide instead of 22. What would be permitted would be
um I didn't write down here. It's probably I think it was 25 by 30. It's it's 24 24 by I think what was what was approved was 24 by 32 which gives you exactly the 768 square feet. Okay. I'm asking essentially for the
additional 8 ft in length 25 which is one sheet of plywood which also corresponds to exactly one garden shed. It's an additional 192 ft of of floor. So you mentioned that shed. Yeah, let's
just briefly you had mentioned in in your application. Yeah, my initial proposal was I would forego the second garden shed that's approved that's allotted by the zoning code in order to incorporate that square footage into the garage. Our our ordinance allows two 192 foot.
That's correct. Within 3 ft of the property line anywhere in the side or rear yard, right? And now you have a you have a shed there now. It's a plastic type shed. I have a I have a shed there now and it was mainly erected to store everything that's currently was
in the garage. Plus a lawn mower. H plus your lawn mower, right? Well, yeah, that was in the garage, too. Okay. Right now, it's just temporary storage for for this project. So, part of your testimony is you forgo that second shed. Yeah. Compensate slightly for
Yeah. I totally I think the second garden shed allowance is kind of Okay. a little silly. All right. Yes. But since it's in writing, I would like to incorporate that square footage if possible.
This oversized garage, the height we were talking about architecturally. Tell us about what it's going to do. Is it going to match your house like the prior application? Color shingles are going to like is this going to fit in with the neighborhood? Fit in with your existing structure? I would imagine. We haven't resided yet.
I have like cream colored vinyl siding that's faded from years ago, but we do plan on eventually residing with probably some sort of horizontal lap like Hardy or or LP Smart Side. It looks like standard lap siding that's pretty I don't know uh historically appropriate
for the area. Most of your bungalows in the area had lap siding on them at one point. So that that was our plan. We plan on doing if we can afford it a standing seam metal roof on both structures, but eventually that yeah, they would they would match probably in either like a navy blue or like an olive
drab with like the off-white like trim as part of a variance. We're looking for how it fits in and doesn't disrupt the neighborhood. So that's I mean there's definitely a few properties that I drive by every day I would like my house to look like. But I like that that bungalow craftsman aesthetic especially with like
the ultimate proposal is that everything matches. Oh yeah. Okay. Anybody who's drive you know drive by and made comment about how great that the lawn or the garden looks usually you know we're we're aiming to get the rest of the property to look like the like
that. Okay. So what next would you like to go to? Uh I just have some examples like for those who haven't visited the site. So on page 14, I have a couple examples. L would be
standing in my front/sideyard looking at my neighbor's house. Uh the two yellow posts that I have highlighted uh indicate where the front of the approved the currently approved garage would be. And you see and you can see, Mr. Chairman, how horrible that would have
been for the neighborhood. Essentially, it would be building my garage and everybody else's front yard sight line when you're walking down the block. Example M is standing in my neighbor's driveway looking at the what was approved the the front of the garage.
It's hard to see in the photo, but there's two orange um metal stakes, 7 and 1/2 ft off the sidewalk. That would be like the front where the overhead door would be of what was approved. So you could see just standing in my neighbor's driveway that it pretty much blocked that entire like view of that
entire corner. And example N was just staked out, measured and staked out the four corners of what was approved. Just to give you an idea how it looked from the sidewalk there. What comes to mind is we had an application on Martin Avenue where
somebody wanted to put up a porch and we were concerned that that porch would be enclosed so that the neighbors couldn't see down the block. Yeah. And then you see something like this that was approved. Well, I mean neighbor could be anything, but it technically is in my sideyard in
my backyard. So it, like I said, when you read the code strictly, it's that's how you end up with something like that. Even even though I I don't think it's the best solution for this property. That's why you need interpretations. Okay. What else?
Uh the page 15 essentially can be ignored. There was a dispute with the previous uh zoning officer about fencing and how fences are measured and how the code reads. It's really just showing that from my survey marker to the edge of the street paving, I had well over 9
ft or 9 and 1/2 ft. Uh there's a an example queue. There's the the the survey marker with the pink piece of plastic attached to it. And that's Are you speaking about the fence? Yeah. Yeah. There are no issues with the peter,
but it was just stating how the code reads and how I I was, you know, matched disputed. It was disputed and resolved. So, example R is from my front porch. That's my neighbor's garage um across the street. You could tell that he's got
a 6ft white privacy fence behind his car. So, I I wasn't able to go over there and measure. My assumption is that that's an 8ft overhead door. So, that's a a foot taller than what I would be building. But essentially, the garage would look very similar to what he has built there. Okay.
If anything, it would I mean, that wall height's probably 2 ft higher than what I would have cuz I'm assuming that's an 8ft overhead door. So, that's probably a 9 ft wall height. And I'm proposing uh an 8ft wall height.
Um page 17, this neighbor's also, it would be the property to the right of that white garage. that's nestled in back there. Just an example, they have a two-story garage right there that they they rent out. It's a rental, I believe, from the I think both pro I think the
whole property is a rental. Wow. But somebody there isn't a a single a single bedroom, I think, unit up there. Let's not go. What's that? Boy, that just we probably will be seeing that sometime,
but not now. next meeting. So, it was just I was told to give examples of things that were good relevant to the project that were in the immediate vicinity. Page 18, uh, this poleb barn uh was permitted and
approved and inspected. I know that for a fact in I think 2019. Uh, for reference, not to um, she has two 8ft overhead doors and that center door is a 10ft overhead door. So by that I believe that that gutter line's 12 a
12 foot wall height for reference. So that's about four feet taller than what I would be building. Do you like your neighbors? I do. I like get along I get along with Christina very well. They're great neighbors to have. They're very handy. You can't have the height of the doors
because you're choosing the second floor for your storage. Right. Essentially, if I was, again, not to criminalize my my it was looked at and approved by the inspector, but if I was to guess, I would say
that's higher than probably 15 ft average height. But just, you know, like I said, for example, if if if we're going by what what what is rel like relatives to to my neighbors and I think my garage project isn't isn't too
far out of scope. And then this is again this is my neighbor directly across the street on North Kohl's. So, he's got uh again, this was more relative to the the fencing dispute I was having with the uh
prior and that you could probably be disregarded. Lance has a very professional package you have to but it is interest again it is interesting to note on that on that last page that I was told there is a dispute about the driveway
size as well but they have two driveways and then they just they had an addition done I guess recently that I assume was approved. We'll deal with yours later. So it was just you know it was an example that didn't really need to be an example. Right.
neighbors are going to kill him. So that concludes Lance's presentation. Do you have anything else? I'm willing to answer any questions. Go ahead. Summarize the board if I'm looking at an August 11th letter and
item number one was regarding the height. We heard testimony about the height. The reason he's asking for the variance is for storage. He has a 700 plus square foot home. Uh he'll have access to that to store various items. Um and again a benefit to him not being
outside kids toys, bicycles and all the other things that go with it, garden tools. U so the size is the second variance and that is the 768 where he's proposing 960 which is a 25 by 40. We saw a floor
plan. We heard testimony and again I think you're identifying benefit as well as benefit to the neighborhood. Cars are now on out on the street. I assume it'll be parking in the driveway. Correct. Cars in the garage. Uh again, I think that's a benefit. If anyone knows that
corner, it's the baseball corner. And it's it's crazy. I call it the F1 corner. What's that? Because people take the best line around that corner. Yes. And that's an early head-on collision at least once a day on a Saturday. It's it's a So that's a very So again, this is a C2 variance. I believe it's a
benefit to the neighborhood, benefit community, benefit to the African. Uh on the second page again, rear yard, we spoke about that. He's proposing five feet. We have 12 and a half feet. They could move it. It would look more like what was approved. And I don't know that
that's in anyone's best interest, especially regarding safety, sight distance, and so forth. Last part was again his willingness to relinquish, and this was in the application, his ability to build the second shed of 192 square feet. So that
would kind of again balance or somehow come into play with regard to the size variance that we just looked at. And then the architectural improvements and I think we heard testimony on that. His goal is to have the same. We heard testimony on colors and and doors. So I don't know if the board wants to hear anything more on
that but that's really all I have. Fairly straightforward more variances. House is situated oddly corner lot. Our definition is a little off, but from the approved to what is proposed now, uh, I believe is a significant improvement for
the township. Robert, do you have all the variances listed? I do. Okay. So, board members comments, questions, concern. I do have um a question. Sure. Uh going back to the examples, example W,
uh example X, I notice where the position of the garages are such that the neighbor Jul, excuse me, example W, page 18. I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. I noticed that in the example where the position of the
garages are the housing next to next door when they look out their side windows they're not looking at a tall building. Okay. as such for the garage.
Also in example Y, the next page, page 19, same thing. At least they're not looking at a tall structure next to them. Now, my question to you is if we
go back to page two, which is example B. In this particular example, I'm very familiar with this curve because I take it every day. I go into my house, so I know where your house is located.
Uh the house on the first house behind you on Kohl's Avenue. I'm assuming that is a small rancher. There's a lot of ranchers along there. I believe it's the same layout as my house, but they have an addition put on it from years ago, it looks like.
Okay. Now in the picture here the structure looking out their second window. What are they looking at currently? Currently they were they were look looking towards my property. Yes. They would have been looking at my garage that that was existing
which which isn't honestly the wall height was taller than what I just proposed. So oh this one was taller. It's a it's a standard it would be a standard. It would look similar to the the example that you shown on uh on page
18. It was probably that roof pitch. So on page eight or sorry, page 19, uh my neighbor across the street, they have like the pod in front of that garage. That's probably a 7 foot overhead door with an 8ft wall. Mhm.
They just have a lower roof pitch than what I'm proposing. All right. Now, with your proposed garage, is the proposed garage in the same spot or I'm thinking maybe it can be pushed to the right so when they look out the window. So, if you go looking at it,
if you go to page page 12, okay, I got two renderings of what was approved and permitted and then what a rendering of what I have proposed. But it doesn't show the neighbor's house what they're seeing. It it doesn't, but you could see relation to to how the
structure is in relation to my house. It hasn't changed. This is to scale. So, what was approved was essentially 7 ft off the sidewalk there. It would be blocking both my neighbor's sight line out, his side windows, and his driveway.
right now or what what I'm proposing would be behind the front of my neighbor's property or behind the front of behind the front building line of my neighbor's property. Oh, I understand that part. But when they look out their side window, what
are they looking at with your typically he has his car parked in the driveway. So, he'd be looking at his car and then what was my existing garage that was already there? That was the side of the house that has the driveway. Yeah, I understand that. So, he'll be looking at the new garage.
He'll be looking at the new garage. Yeah, because previous it was like a 20 by 25 garage that was had like a 9 foot wall height and it had I think maybe a three or four and 12 pitched roof. So, it was relatively low. It was the the roof was caving in. It had missing
shingles and asbestous siding. So, going with what Joanne is looking for looking at page 14. Okay. Example L. That's what was approved, right? That's what was approved. Correct.
That is not what I'm The neighbor's house would be that yellow house. Correct. That would be four. I think it's 403 North Poles. Is there a window on that side? He's got that little octagon window there. That's the only window they would be looking at. I don't quote me on this. I believe
that's the only one in that stretch of the house. Correct. So, because I believe that's as addressing what Joanne is saying. And if they looked out a window and looked at that garage, that would be the window they would be looking at. That would be the window. Okay. Do you have any windows on your side to give it articulation?
Like on what would be the left side of your garage? Uh, no windows on the garage at ground level. Did you ever consider that? Uh, I I have I mean, you could have fake windows that that give it some design so that if somebody's looking at that
side, they don't see a wall. Yeah. I mean, um, I mean, I I could I I opted not to include windows in the garage for theft reasons, but Well, if the fake windows were there, you wouldn't have a theft situation, but it would give it articulation. It would
make it look more like a house than a than a garage. So, I would I'm I'm not going to say I'm going to require that or suggesting that it be required, but to address what Joanne is talking about, number one, there there will be a sixoot privacy
fence there. Okay. On that side of the garage, if that makes a difference. Okay, let me not complicate it. Joanne, are you satisfied or not? understanding that the window that you're seeing there, the octagon, is the
one that you were concerned about somebody looking out. That's on page 14, right? I see on page 14. Example L. That little circle. Yeah, the little circle. What about the back window? Where is I don't have a picture of his of the
back window. Oh, is that I know I know his kitchen his kitchen is behind that window. Mhm. Like that's the front living room like my house. So I know his kitchen wall runs along that that window. I mean that that wall. So I'm not sure if he actually has a window
on the side of that house. That's the only window. I believe if you look at page two looks like there's two. There's two windows. Yeah, there's two windows there. Page two.
Page two. Page two. Mhm. Example B. Example B. There's two. Yeah, there's two windows. See four 403. I don't see the windows from that view. I can pull up a street view and see if there's windows there.
Well, it's in example B on page two. Can we see it in example B? Yeah. On page two. Uh, yeah. No, I I can't see windows. The house on page four. What are those two little? Yeah, they're his trash can, I believe. But
but behind us will see the windows from straight up so that we don't have to use a magnifying glass. Why don't you pull up that picture? He's going to see a 6ft fence. Yeah, he's going to say fence.
He does have a window nearing the back of the house. I don't know. Can somebody pull it up or do you want to look at my phone? So there is a standard window in the back. There's a standard looks like a 2ft x 4t window
about 8 8 ft past the the peak of the roof. How high do you expect that window would be? Existing window fence is 60. Correct. Yeah, it would be a 60 fence. He has a privacy fence there for reference if somebody wants I could pass my phone around if you really want to look at it.
It's on it's available on Google Street View. So, they're going to be looking at a sixoot fence and the roof of your garage is going to start two feet above that six foot fence. So, so there's no there's no view to begin with.
So, you're saying the neighbor has a sixoot privacy fence? He's installed. And if he looked out his Yeah, he does already. Um, if he looked out his rear window, he would see his fence. Well, now his his You'd have to look at the fence. His rear side. Yeah. It would his his
privacy fence. He's got it at the end of his driveway. So, it comes off his house perpendicular to the wall that basically it touches my my chain link fence right now. Okay. But I'll be But you're proposing a sixoot fence, correct?
Yeah. I want to fence the backyard in at a private at privacy height. Yeah. Does that sixoot fence need a variance? It does not. Not where it should. Okay. Or sorry, not is it six foot? I'm sorry. Is it 60 in or six foot? I thought it
was six foot was a standard privacy. I thought it was 60. I think the code says 6 foot. Oh, code said 6 feet. I don't know what you're proposing. Yeah, it was 6 feet. Whatever the code allows. I think it's a standard privacy fence panel. And that privacy fence is going to go
down what would be the left side of that garage. Correct. It would go down the the side of the garage and it would turn in my rear my rear corner of my property and and proceed down my other neighbor's side yard. So, your neighbor looking at his rear side window would see that fence. Correct.
Mr. Chairman, if you'd like, I've just pulled up a picture of what it looks like. A visual. This is from July 20, 2022. So, that was the existing garage. This is the existing garage here, right there. and he parks his car essentially next to
his house. So that's the side of the neighbor's house, right? He has three windows. Yes. Okay. But you can see that there is the fence there already. There's a six foot fence there. Susan, I think your package is as good as his. And please,
it appears that both windows are facing the garage. Yes. Correct. So that was your old garage there? Yeah, that was that was that came with the house. And now your your new garage is going to be 7 and 1/2 ft in from the sidewalk. Further back.
So I would like essentially what's proposed it's it's about 8 ft forward of where that garage is existing. That existing driveway that you're looking at there in the photo is 38 ft long. The new front the the proposed front of the
new garage would be at 30 ft. It would be a 30- foot long driveway. So, it would move up eight feet, but it would still be about several It would be about five to 10 feet back from the front of my neighbor, the front the front building line of my neighbor's house, like the front the front of their house.
So, addressing Joanne's question, it looks like the neighbor looking out the window under the old garage would see the same side wall. Yeah. No, nothing's changing. That structure was already there. And that structure is three feet off the
property line currently or was was currently. Okay. Any other questions, Joanne, with regard to that? No. No. Okay. Any other questions from board members, comments, concerns, issues? Okay. I'm going to open up this
application to the general public. Is there anyone in the general public who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no takers, I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting. Ask the board members to make their final comments before making a motion with
regard to this application. No comments. Is there a motion? Is I have a garage size, height, rear setback, and no second shed. You confirm. Okay.
Understanding that any motion would include those variances. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Motion made by Miriam. Approve. Seconded by I'll second. Bill. Roll call, please.
Miss Bevich, approve. Miss Mortimer, approve. Miss Valentino approve. Mr. Zera approved. Miss Raiding approved. Chairman G approve. Lance, it's been two years.
You made it. You made it. Uh there is a 45day right that if you do anything within the 45 days, somebody could appeal our decision and then within six months you have to begin and do something.
Already already in motion. Are you doing this yourself? Uh, no. I have a contract or a contractor that'll be doing the foundation work. I'm going to I'm going to try to do the framing. And if you need a side job, you can contact Kyle and find out who's going to present an application so you can
report. Really good talk to you, Lance. Thank you. It was awesome. Good luck. Good luck. Your garden looks great. I am by I buy your house all the time. I'm probably one of those. Thank you, S, for the effort. Quick. Um, but I'm past your house.
Those um what are they on the fence that are growing the the orange yellow flowers? The browneyed susans were removed. Oh, they were? Yeah, we had a we had a we had a actually a complaint a few years ago. Get out of here. They blew over in a storm and somebody
called said it was blocking the eyeball. So, they've slowly been removed. I just put the last set in on North Poles. I changed them out to the yellow like dillies. Oh, yes. They're more compact and they're going to fill in eventually. Oh, okay. Yeah. The guy was really pleasant who
came out to to code officer. He was like, "I'm a gardener myself. I hate to tell you to do it, but I got I got home from work and just trimmed them up and that's fine." Yeah, I understand. No, I don't know who it was. It's anonymous. And you like your neighbors?
Uh, yeah. I like I like my neighbor Anthony who's behind me, which is why I was pushing for the variance. Oh, good. Plus, he's 85. I don't know how much longer he has. He's just had surgery. So, but I feel for anybody who like if I was
to build what was approved, I just think that was unfair to them. Thank you. Good luck. Good luck, Lance. Good luck, Lance. Good luck. Thank you. Go home. Get a beer. Get a beer. Early start tomorrow morning.
Good night. Good night. Thank you. lost my agenda here. Okay, that concludes our No, make them sit on. Okay. Number three, 105 McCrae Lane, continuation from 7925, block 35, lot
3.03, Lex Reno LLC. Application ZBA25 07 zone R1 residential district existing use residential duplex proposed use residential approved duplex
application use variance certification of pre-existing non-conforming use under NJSA 4055 Mr. Mr. Chairman, just before we start, we do have two uh that they're part of this application. They're on Zoom uh who will be supporting, but I just need to
check. Can you hear us? Okay. I think you are muted. If you could just unmute so we can tell if we can hear you. Thank you. I can hear you. Excellent. Both of you can hear us. Correct.
Yes. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Do we need one more? I can hear you. Fantastic. Thank you. Are you sure? Yeah. You've seen most of it already. Um, can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?
And you are? I'm Luke Raak. Luke, did you just give me this? I did. It's going to take me a while. Yeah. Yep. I'm going to go through it briefly in just a second. Um, a lot of it you've already seen. Um, a lot of it is, you know, for purposes of
establishing a record. Um, but it's pretty straightforward. I'll I'll get into it in just a minute. If the board is ready, I'll I'll begin. Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Luke Gravy. I'm with the law firm of Deluga Lewis and Burr. And we represent the applicant this evening, Flex Renault, uh, which is
the owner of the property located at 105 McCrae Lane, uh, designated as block 35, lot 3.03 on the Maple Shade Tax Maps. Here with me this evening are the two principles of the applicant, uh, Justin Hall and Carmen ISA. Um, who, like I said, are the two principles of the
applicants. And we also have two fact witnesses, as you can see on on your screen, who will appear by zoom in just a moment. Their names are Tony Zakardi and Paul Austerling. Um, as your chairman just mentioned, I just handed out You want to give us a spelling of those names when they
they'll be sworn in? Yep. Um, as the chairman just noted, I just handed out a pretty large set of exhibits. So, let me just address those briefly before I get into just a few opening comments. Um, and I'll go through them one by one. Exhibit A1 is a copy of a survey showing the existing improvements on the
property today, which this board has seen. Uh, A2 is a current floor plan of the property which this board has seen. Um, showing two separate units, one unit upstairs, one unit downstairs. Um, exhibit A3 is a plot plan that the board has not seen. We actually submitted to the board about two weeks ago. We
submitted to Mr. Turk's office. Um, and he provided a revised review letter, but we'll get into that in just a moment if necessary. Uh, A4 shows photos of the property, uh, which this board has seen. Um, A5 is a copy of the ordinance amended through 1971, which shows that
duplexes by conversion are a conditional use as of 1971. Um, we do not have a full copy of that ordinance. So, what's contained in exhibit A5 is just an excerpt from that ordinance, and I'll get into that in just a moment. as well. Uh, exhibit A6 is a copy of the 1979 ordinance. A7 contains copies of Oprah
requests and communications that we've had with the township um about, you know, obtaining prior approvals and permits for this property, as well as obtaining a copy of the earliest ordinance either prohibiting duplexes or making duplexes a conditional use in the
R1 zone. um A8, A9, and A9.1, and A10 are deeds, which I'll get into in just a moment, showing the um the chain of title of the property dating back to, I believe, 1944. Um A11 contains property records cards,
uh one from 1982 showing that the duplex has been assessed as a as a duplex, um by the town since at least 1982. Um, and it also is a uh the second page of exhibit A10 um shows the current property rec record card showing that the property is currently assessed as a
duplex. Um, and then oh I'm sorry that was A11 and A12 is a copy of an agreement of sale between um an individual by the name of Austerling and David Lewis who purchased the property in 1990. We heard some testimony from Mr. Lewis at the last meeting um confirming that the duplex was a
continuous duplex used from 1990 through when he sold the property in 2025, but we'll get into that in just a moment as well. So um we appeared in front of this board um I didn't appear in front of this board. My partner Damen Deluca appeared in front of this board with my clients on July 9th, I believe, seeking
a section 68 certification of pre-existing non-conforming use or in the alternative uh a conditional use variance for the continued use of this property as a duplex. Um, at that time we were unable to prove a section 68 certification. We didn't have proofs um that the the duplex use dated back to
when the ordinance prohibiting or making the duplex use a conditional use was adopted. Um, and there was also a lengthy discussion about whether or not we met all the conditions of the conditional use ordinance today. Um and and there was also a discussion about in the event that we did not meet those conditions, which I think this board
agrees we did not, whether or not we met our burden of proof for a conditional use of variance. Um and since then, a few things have happened. Well, actually, I should say the board graciously granted us a continuence in order for us to, you know, either come up with proof in support of the section 68 certification
or if not, um to to to come up with proof that shows that we complied with the conditions of the conditional use ordinance. as this board knows duplexes in the R1 zone are a conditional use or if not that um or to come up with proofs that um in support of a a conditional
use variance. Um and so since then a few things have happened. The first thing that happened is you know we've engaged with the township pretty extensively submitted oper requests um engaged in communication with Miss Dansen Mr. Mr. Wagner um to try to find the earliest version of the ordinance prohibiting
duplexes or making duplexes a conditional use in the R1 zone. Um we actually came up with we actually reached out to Miss Ellen McDow who I believe is now the township attorney. She was able to provide a copy of an ordinance amended through 1971 showing that duplexes are prohibited or conditional use in the R1 zone. That's
the earliest version of the ordinance that we could come up with was an ordinance amended through 1971. And as I said, a copy of that ordinance is provided to this board. um as exhibit A5 and a copy of that ordinance was sent to Mr. Kingsbury and what we were able to to to conclude based on that ordinance
is that conditional uses based on the information that we have first became prohibited or became a conditional use in the R1 zone in 1971 and Bob confirmed that I'm sorry the board attorney confirmed that in an email with me and so at this time I'd actually like Mr. Kingsbury to confirm for the board that
1971 is the the the relevant year, the cutoff year in which duplexes became a conditional use or a prohibited use in the R1 zone. So, Mr. Kingsbury, are you able to confirm that for the board? Yes, I agree with that. I think 1971 is the cut off date. We do have earlier
ordinances, but they were amended up to 1971, but unfortunately, we don't know what the amendments were. So I think that 1971 has got to be the cuto off date.
1971. Thank you. Uh Mr. Kingsbury. Um since the last meeting, the the second thing that that that changed One one second, Paul. Um the the second thing that changed is that we were able to to locate two witnesses um with personal knowledge of a duplex use
dating back to at least 1960. Um, and those witnesses are, we're about to get to those witnesses in just a minute, but they have personal knowledge of continuous use from at least 1960 through the present day. And so what I'd like to do at this point is I'd like to focus on the section 68 certification of a pre-existing non-conforming use for
this property, which as this board knows is currently improved with a two-story duplex building. Uh, one unit upstairs, one unit downstairs, like I said, and which is shown in the floor plans attached as exhibit A2. Um, and and so I'd like to focus on that portion of this application first. And as this board knows, what we need to prove in
order for this board to grant a section 68 certification of pre-existing non-conforming use. U the relevant question is what was the use that existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance prohibiting duplex uses. So in this case, what we're required to prove this evening for the board in order to
obtain that section 68 certification is that the the the property was an existing duplex use prior to at least 1971. And so what I would like to do is I would like to call my first witness. His name is Tony Zakardi. We'll have him spell the name for the board. He's going to testify that he has personal
knowledge of the continuous duplex use dating back from 1960 through 1978. Um when his family when his family purchased the property to to 197 his family purchased the property in 1944, but he will testify that um and you'll hear him testify that um the duplex use
was a continuous use from at least 1960 through when his family sold the property in 1978. Um then I would like to call my second witness, Mr. Paul Austerling, who will testify that he has personal knowledge of the duplex used from when his family purchased the property in 1978 through when the property was sold to Mr. Dave Lewis, who
appeared before this board on July 9th in 1990. Um, after I after we hear from those two witnesses, um, I'd like to briefly just address um or reiterate Mr. Lewis's testimony. I believe it was that um, he owned the property from 1990 through 2025 and it was a continuous
duplex used during that period. I've also provided some additional documentary evidence um in the form of exhibit A12, which is an agreement of sale um which references the duplex in that agreement of sale in at least two sections, but I'll get to that in just a minute. So, what I'd like to do at this moment is Before you go any further, you mentioned
that you were going to talk to what Mr. Lewis testified. Mr. Lewis testified at the last meeting, right? But not every board member was there. Okay. Um, I I did not ask him to come back because I think his testimony was was pretty clear that um, you know,
I don't know that his testimony can be admit admitted here. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask Robert if his testimony Well, I don't know that his testimony is relevant because it didn't go back to where you need to go. It it didn't, but we're going to connect his testimony with the testimony that
we're about to hear from these two witnesses. permitted and that's why I'm asking Robert in that he's not here and people who appear before the board can testify. I don't know that people who do not appear before the board can testify. He he did appear before this board, Mr. board this meeting.
He he appeared before the board at I know that you can give his testimony is what I'm saying. He his testimony is already on the record and and and you know what we're able to provide this evening. I didn't ask him to ask Robert to advise the board. Well, his testimony is on the record. If board
members who didn't hear it think that they need to hear it, they are permitted to go back and listen to the tape if they think it's relevant or would be relevant. I would hope that you would move forward without Mr. Lewis's testimony. So, we
don't have any contest there. Well, we are going to need, you know, his his testimony to to it's certainly relevant to prove that it was a continuous use from 1990 through 2025. Continue with your two Zoom. Okay. And and we'll find out where we are.
And like I said, I also have produced as exhibit A12 a copy of an agreement of sale from 1990 from Mr. Austerling's family to Mr. Lewis, which specifically references in two sections, which I'll get into that the duplex that the property was a duplex use when it was sold in 199. Evidence is good. Yes.
Okay. Yep. Okay. So, can we start with my uh my first witness, Mr. Sakardi, please? Okay. How many board members were not here at the last meeting? Two that I think.
Yeah. Two. Okay. So, there's enough and and I I assume uh th those board members did did not have a chance or you know, it's perfectly reasonable not to watch the the video of the last hearing. I I assume you did not watch that video. Is that correct? Oh, no, actually. Oh, you did watch the video.
I did not. You did not. Okay. Okay. So, I I don't think that's going to be a problem, but go ahead. Uh, yeah. I'd like to have Mr. uh Mr. Tony Zakard is sworn in at this time. All right. The spelling of his name. I
uh we're having a very difficult time hearing the board. Can hear you fine, Luke, but I can't hear very little of what the board members are saying. So, the board members will need to speak directly into the microphone. Yeah.
Is this uh Tony who's talking? That's correct. What's Tony's last name? Zakardi. Z I C A R D I. Is it? Mr. Zakardi, can you hear me? I can. You swear or affirm the testimony you
give will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Zakardi, were you present for my opening remarks? Yes. And to the best of your knowledge, were those remarks accurate? Yes. Okay. And you're the son of Joseph and
Elizabeth Zakardi. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And and prior to this meeting, I showed you a deed um from 1944 from the township of Maple Shade to a Joseph and Elizabeth Zakardian. And you confirmed that those are your parents. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Okay. And at this time, I'd like
to refer the board to exhibit A8, which shows a copy of that deed. Um, and and that deed confirms your unders. Okay. Yep. Sorry. What page would that be on? Um, I I don't have an actual a page number. It's exhibit A8. Page number. Exhibit A8. They're all Each exhibit is
stapled. So, if you you can kind of just sift through the stapled documents. Exhibit A. You said A8. A8. A8. Correct. I'm at A8. I don't know if it's multiple pages or not. It it is multiple pages, but you really just need to focus on the top of the
first page, which shows um that the township of Maple Shade deeded the property the property at issue 105 McCrae to an Elizabeth and Joseph and Elizabeth Zakardi. It doesn't say, right?
That does not say that it's a duplex. No, but that's not the reason. I'm just offering that as proof that that you know that that that he's the the son of the people who did own it. So to make sure everybody's on the same page, I'm looking at A8. Yeah,
I don't see what you're talking about. This is A8. That's because I screwed it. Oh, you know what? No, I didn't. Let me see. Okay. Just direct us where we should be.
Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. the bottom the bottom of of of exhibit A8 if you look um it's actually it shows from the burrow I'm sorry the Merchantville Building Loan Association I thought it was the Township of Maple Shade but you can see it's two Joseph Caesari and then if you continue reading on the right
side um party of the second part Joseph Caesari and Elizabeth Isaacardi his wife of 105 mccra land is that okay and you're providing that exhibit for us so that Mr. Sakardi that's on our Zoom
can testify to some part of this. He well he'll testify that he's the son of of those two individuals um that they purchased the property, you know, indeed in 1944 and he's about to testify that he lived at the property. Okay. Okay. Um Okay. And and and Mr. Zakardi, that
deed confirms your understanding that your parents purchased the property sometime in 1944, correct? Yes. And you lived at the property starting in 1947, correct? No, I was born in 47. And and and you from when you were born,
you lived at the property, correct? That's correct. Okay. And during the time you live lived there, starting in 1947, do you recall which unit you lived in? Lived in the lower level. The lower level. Okay. So, there was an upstairs unit and a downstairs unit. Correct. That That's correct. Okay. And there were two separate
kitchens and two separate accesses. Correct. Yes. Okay. And the the the two separate accesses were located on either either side of the front porch of the building along McCrae Lane. Correct. That's right. The and the left side access led directly to the second floor and the
right side access to the first floor. Correct. Yes. Okay. And and it's your recollection that the building was actually converted from a duplex to a single family dwelling um at some sometime in 1952 or 53. Correct. Uh yes. I was five or six years old when
they they converted it to a single family. And you lived at the property at that time, correct? Yes, I did. So 1969. Okay. And then and then it was converted back to a duplex sometime in 1960. Is that correct? That's correct. And and you know that year specifically because that's the year that your
brother got married, correct? That's right. And it was converted for him to live on the second floor. Okay. And and can you explain how the building was, you know, what changes to the building were made to convert it back to a duplex in 60 1960? Uh the internal stair to the second floor was
uh walled off. Uh a window on the side of the house was converted to a door. An external staircase was built with a landing at the top to enter the second floor unit. Okay. And and and I think you mentioned um to me prior to this meeting that you
you had lived on the second floor at that time, correct? And then and that your bedroom was actually converted back to a kitchen. Correct. That's right. Okay. And you continue to live at the I'm sorry. Couldn't get away from the food. Um and and and and you continued to live
at the property um after the conversion back to a duplex from 1960 till 1969. Correct. That's correct. And and which unit did you live in from 60 to 69? We lived in the first floor. Okay. And after you moved out of the property in 1969, you have personal
knowledge that it continued to be used as a duplex until your family sold it in 1978. Is that correct? That's correct. My father lived there. Okay. And and the basis for your personal knowledge is that your father lived there. Correct. Yes. And you would periodically visit the property during that time. Correct.
That's correct. And do you recall which which uh unit your father lived in? The first floor. And there was a separate tenant on the upstairs on the unit upstairs. In the unit upstairs, correct? Correct. Okay. And so at the time of the sale in 1978 when your father sold the property,
the building was a duplex. Correct. That's right. And it's your personal recollection that the the building was a was continuously used as a duplex from 1960 through 1978. Correct. Yes. Two two separate accesses to each unit. Correct.
That's right. Two separate kitchens. Correct. Yes. And and generally just two separate units. Correct. Yes. Okay. That's all the questions I had for Mr. Zakardi unless the board has any questions for him. I did not want to interrupt you. Yep.
But in listening to the testimony, some questions came to mind. When Mr. Sakard's brother got married and lived in that property, was a family living downstairs and he was living upstairs. Is that it? I I'll let Mr. Sakardi answer that
question. Uh, M. Mr. Zakardi, correctly. Uh, the question was who lived in what unit? Correct. In 1960, my brother got married and lived in Yeah. My parents, my father and mother and and me lived on the first floor. My
brother and his wife and eventually two children lived on the second floor. Okay. So, what I'm going to ask Mr. Kingsbury, understanding that it was the same family and a lot of that happened at Naples Shade, uh parents wanted to make sure
that their children had a place to live when they couldn't afford one. uh which is why we see a lot of these properties. If the date of that constitutes it being a duplex,
I'm going to pass the buck. That's what the board is to decide. I can't What I can say, Mr. G, is that it was a duplex. There were two separate accesses, two separate units. Doesn't matter who lived there, right? There were two separate se separate units at
the property with two separate accesses, two separate kitchens, functioned separately as two separate units. So I I mean I can't imagine that just because different portions of their family live there makes it not a duplex. Correct. There were two separate units hang on one second.
I I don't think you you would define a duplex by who lives there. I think you would define a duplex based on, you know, having two separate units is is my contention to the board. The parents were renting to the son and the son's wife. I'm sorry.
The parents who own the house were renting to their son. Were they correct? Is is that correct, Mr. Zakardi? I I don't know whether they received rent or not. I was too young to know that stuff.
But I will tell you something, Luke. Uh, he built a house across the street on Maple Avenue. I'm guessing it was in ' 63 because, uh, he had two children and it was little tight upstairs with only two
bedrooms. Uh, built the house on Maple across the street from us. Yeah. And lived there until 1978 when he got transferred. Let let me ask you this, Mr. Zakardi. So from from 1960 when it was converted back to a duplex, was it only your
family that lived there the entire time through 1978 or did your family ever have other other tenants, non non-family member tenants? When he built the house, we had another tenant upstairs. And do you recall when when that that other tenant moved into the property? I'm guessing 1963 cuz I think that's
when he moved to the new house across the street. Gotcha. So, so it's your understanding that from 1963 through 1978, one of your family members lived on in one of the units and they had a separate non-family member tenant living in the other unit. Is that correct? Correct. Correct.
Okay. That's all the questions I had unless any of the other board members had any questions for Mr. Zakardi and I'd ask him to stick around. Mr. Zakardi, your next Thank you, Mr. Sakard. if you could stick around for just a moment um until we finish up here, I'd appreciate that. Um my next witness is Paul
Austerling. Spelled O S T E R L I N G. Paul spelled the normal way. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, he's up there. Yeah, he's he's on Zoom. Y Mr. Austral, can you hear me? Hello.
You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Austerling. Were you present for my opening remarks? Yes. And to the best of your knowledge, were
they true and accurate? Yes. Okay. And you're the son of Alan W. and Mary P. Austerling. Is that correct? Yes. And I showed you a deed prior to this meeting uh dated September 18th, 1978 in which the subject property was
sold from Joseph and and Rita Zakardi to Alan W. and Mary P. Austerling. Um can can you please confirm that those are your parents? Yes. Okay. Um and I'd like to refer the board to exhibit A9 now. Um in which you can
see the chain of title here. I'm just trying to show the chain of title. Um, you can see at the top of exhibit A9, uh, the property was deed from Zakardi to Allan W. and Mary P. Austerling, his wife, and that deed is dated 1978. So,
just showing the continuous um or or the chain of title um that our last witness was Zakardi and now we're speaking with the son of the owners as of 1978, Austerling. Okay. Um, and so it's your recollection that the property was a duplex when your parents purchased it in
1978. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. And and can you explain for the board what your basis of that personal knowledge is? Uh, my parents I believe this was my parents' second investment property that
they bought and they drove me by it one day. I want to say it was in the summer. It was just after they purchased it. I think it was a little bit into the falls. Uh, but um, we drove by and they said they had bought this place as an investment property.
And then obviously they told you that it was a duplex, correct? Or, you know, when you saw it, it was a duplex, correct? They had described to me, I was 14, they had described to me previously buying a duplex. As a 14-year-old, I wouldn't know what a duplex is
necessarily. And uh so they had already explained to me some of how they were investing in this instead of uh they they they described what duplexes were to be in. So they said this is another duplex and they give me a couple pointers about what they were doing as far as investing and uh preferring to
invest in duplexes. Understood. And and and they drove you past the duplex property. So you saw it in 1978, correct? Yes, I remember that. Okay. and and you know in the f in the years following 1978 um you recall that you used to accompany
your father to to go do some maintenance work on the duplex. Correct? Yes. So um I remember that uh the probably the the first time I was in there um the first floor was vacant. We didn't go into the second floor because there was tenants living up there. But
we did we did some clean out from a previous person moving out or whatever and I remember doing some yard work and um I remember my dad spending a decent amount of time over there doing some extra work that I wasn't there all the time with but is uh so yes.
Right. But but but during the time that your family owned it from 1978 through 1990 you would you know you would go over to the to to the property and and perform some maintenance work painting mowing the lawn cleaning up the property. Correct. Yes. And and you went inside the property, correct?
Yes. And you went inside both units, correct? Correct. Okay. And and you can confirm that there was one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs. Correct. Correct. Yes. Two two separate kitchens, one upstairs, one downstairs. Yes.
Two separate accesses. Uh one to the first floor, one to the second floor unit. Yes. Okay. Um, and and you actually recall at some point visiting that that you know there was a a woman a woman who was a nurse that that that lived upstairs. Correct.
Yes, I remember uh seeing her uh outside and uh meeting her. Yes. Okay. And and there were separate tenants um in in the units downstairs, you know, dur during the the time that your that your parents owned it. Correct. 100%. Yes.
Okay. and and you and it's and and you'll testify for the board that you know your your parents um they saw the value in not turning over tenants. Correct. They they generally kept the same tenants, two separate tenants um in the duplex, you know, for most of the
duration of the time they owned it. That's correct. They tended to not uh pace with inflation and then keep instead uh keep people in their place. Uh it was more important that they had
tenants that would pay them to try to get to market rate. I think they they had to effect them for their tenant. Understood. And you recall that the individual who your parents sold the duplex to in 1990 was a man by the name of Dave Lewis? Yes.
Okay. And and and um can you confirm for the board that there were actually two separate tenants in the duplex at the time that they sold it to David Lewis? I couldn't testify to that, but I I would be shocked if there if there weren't. Okay. Well, m thank you. That that's all
the questions I had. Mr. Lewis testified at the last hearing that when he purchased it, there were two separate tenants in there. He bought it with tenants. Um but that's all the questions that in a second. Okay. If any of the board members I know you need that for continuation and correct check in with Robert. Okay. So, questions
on the latest witness, comments, concerns. Okay, that's all the questions I had for you, Mr. Osting. Thank you. Thank you. So, that brings us to 1990. And you know, this board did hear testimony from
the owner of the property from 1990 through 2025 that the duplex that the property the building on the property was a continuous duplex use from the time that it was purchased in 1990. Uh Mr. Lewis testified actually that he purchased it with tenants, one tenant upstairs, one tenant downstairs, and
that he used the property as a duplex continuously through 2025. And what I've also provided for the board, um, since, you know, I did not ask Mr. Lewis to appear here tonight. He appeared at the last meeting on July 9th, if we turn to exhibit
A 12, the last exhibit in my packet, and I apologize for the length of that packet. Um, if we turn to exhibit A12 and we look at page two and we look at section 10 on page two, you can see personal property and fixtures. And I'll give the
board just one second to turn to that to that page. Um, okay. But you can Yeah, you can see under the personal property and fixtures items included in the sale, two gas ranges, two refrigerators, and two gas hot water heaters. Um, which is further evidence that this was a duplex. And then if we
turn down to section 13, building and zoning laws, you can see that the the contract states that the buyer intends to use the property as a two family home. And so, yes, we don't have Mr. Lewis's testimony this evening, but I've reiterated that testimony for the board this evening. And we think that this is
further documentary evidence proving that it was a duplex when he bought it in 1990. And he's testified that it was a continuous duplex used from 1990 through when he sold it to my clients in 2025. So, Mr. Kingsbury, in that that did review the meeting.
Karen did not. I know he left it up to the board, but from a legal standpoint, does Karen need to recuse herself or can she accept the fact that there's a deed here? And the deed obviously shows that
it is a duplex. Well, the deed shows that it was sold as a duplex. But he was showing continuation of title. Yes. That that's the purpose of Mr. Lewis. That's the purpose of Mr. Lewis. And you
know, I I m Mr. G, I don't think you would disagree that that Mr. Lewis's testimony was clear that it was continuously used as a duplex during that that time period. Get that on record. I'm just trying to see if I can. So, understood. So, I think it whatever we decide, I don't want to challenge based on that.
Understood. Okay. Um, since Karen Brady did not hear the testimony at the last meeting, uh, I think she should not be on the
Okay. Even though, sorry, I didn't there's a deed showing evidence of what Mr. Lewis thought he bought it for. Oh, that's Uh, that's the applicant. I'm sorry. No, that's not that's not the applicant.
It's the prior owner to the applicant. Prior. He did testify at the last meeting, but he's not here for this meeting. In the absence of he being here, there's a deed that shows how he thought he bought it. Is that It shows how he bought it. All his testimony.
I'm sorry. Is that all of his testimony you're concerned with getting in? Well, well, the it's actually an agreement of sale. you're referring to it as a deed. It's actually an agreement of sale and and and it does show that the property was purchased as a duplex by Mr. Lewis in 1990. Um does it show
that the dup that it was continuously used as a duplex between 1990 and 2025 of his that you wouldn't want the whole board to hear or is that sufficient? I I mean I I would I would like the whole board to hear his testimony from
from last meeting. Um, however, you know, in my if you're asking me, I think that that that what we've provided is sufficient. I'm sorry. That's what I'm trying. I want to avoid this ending up in court. I don't know where neighbors are. My recommendation would be Karen Ready not on this.
That's okay. I'm okay with that. Okay. Um, does that conclude your That concludes uh the testimony that I have prepared this evening. I would like to point out one other thing to the board. Um, and it's in regard to exhibit A3, which we provided to this board
about two weeks ago, and it's in it's in relation to a long discussion that we had uh that Mr. Turk and my partner Damen Deluca had with regard to some of the conditions. And I I would like to say that that this was all in regard to the conditional use piece of this application, which we're not discussing
at this time. However, I would like to say that we have provided a plan. My applicant has provided a plan contained in exhibit A3 that shows um a couple of the issues from the last meeting were parking and and and trash. And this plan shows
that is not before this board if we say that it pre-existed, right? I I just want to you know to state for this board I know what you want to do but I would rather you not do it at this moment. Okay. Okay. So before us is whether you would have presented testimony sufficient to
give you a certificate of pre-existing use. Correct. Okay. And that is before the board. Right. That's the only thing before the board at this time. Correct. Correct. So then I'm going to ask the board members, do they have any further comments or questions or concern about
Yes. What about the tax bill? Does the tax bill show up if it's a one family? I I've reached out to the tax assessor and and um I I hate to refer back to my exhibits, but if we look at exhibit A1, the the tax assessor
A1. Yeah, let's turn to A1. Uh and the T I would imagine it's after in sequence, right? It is in sequence. Unfortunately, they're not all some of portrait summer landscape. Um exhibit A1. Did you get there first?
Yes. Okay. That's the tax assessor two. I'm sorry. That's the assessor's record. This is the assessor's record. This is a property card. The first page I'll let you get there. Yeah. Are we all here? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, the first page shows a property record card for this property
from 1982. And in discussing extensively with with the tax assessor about, you know, how long has this property been assessed as a duplex? It's currently assessed as a duplex. the earliest record that the tax assessor's office had proving that this property was assessed as a duplex is this property
record card from 1982. And you can see um in the top left um you know the the the property was built in 1920 if you if you look in the top left of this document. And right above that you can see number of units too. Um and and again, this this property record card is
the earliest proof of of of um of the tax assessors assessing this property as a duplex. And that's 1982. 1982, correct? We're looking for something that predates 1971. That's correct. And that's where
answering the question. So that's correct. That's where our that's where our testimony comes in. It says a colonial though. Where are you seeing that? It says it's colonial literally direct number of units too. Correct. Any other questions, comments, concerns,
issues. If I could just quickly summarize the issue. Sure. Can you just go to the mic closer to the mic so we pick you up? Can you just pull the microphone closer so I can hear just so it comes on? There we go. Thank you.
The question to be voted on was is uh are you satisfied that it was a duplex prior to 1971 and that it continued to be a duplex up to the current time. If you are
satisfied that those those statements are correct, then they're entitled to a certificate of pre-existing use. Okay. So, I'm going to open up this application to the general public to see
if there's anyone in the general public who would like to speak for or against this application. Seeing no takers, I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting and come back to the board. And you have been so charged by Mr.
Tinsbury as to what your focus is and whether you make a motion in favor of that or against that. And I'm asking the board then to make a motion. I'll make a motion. And the motion is
to approve as a duplex that it pre-existed. That it pre-existed. Yes. Okay. I'll second the motion. Moved by Bill, second by Joanne. Roll call, please. So for this vote with Miss Ray uh sitting out Mr. McDonald is alternate
number one since you were here you will move up into a voting position. Okay. So Miss Bevich approved. Mr. McDonald approved. Miss Mortimer approved. Miss Valentino
approved. Mr. Zera approved. Chairman G approved. So here's where we stand. If this board have one more vote. You're entitled to vote. Police. Did you call seven?
I didn't. No, I voted the six the six people that were here then. She wasn't here last. Dan wasn't here. Dan was here. He served up as alternate number one and there were seven votes. There were six votes. So that there would have been six people. Beth listened to the tape. She said Beth listened to the tape. I'm sorry.
Okay. So I apologize, Miss Reeves. That's okay. Yes. Approved. Okay. this time. So, um, if the board were to have approved a variance for duplex, there could have
been conditions on there because we don't know what that property looks like. Date it back to when you gave all your correct. Okay. But in that, we have no jurisdiction because we said it pre-existed. Now it's turned over to the township and the township will see whatever the
inspections are that should be taken for public safety for fire. Yep. And those kind of things conformance to code will be taking place. Correct. Otherwise, good job. Thank you very much. Thanks members of the board. I appreciate your time.
Okay. Thank you both witnesses. I'll be in touch. We need a motion with regard to the minutes from July 9th, 2025. Make the motion to approved by Lou, seconded by Mr. Gee.
I have a correction. All in favor signify by saying I. We got a correction down here. We have a correction. Yes. Yes. I'm MC, not MAC. My I'm a Mick, not a Mac. He's a MC, not a Mac. Fries with that.
No corrections to the content. Okay. Do we have any resolutions, Robert? No. Oh my god. Isn't that great? I might make it to Carus. Okay. Discussion items. Are there any discussion items we would like to bring up?
Thank you, Susan. Yes. So, I apologize. So there are in front of you, you each should have received a laminated form. This is all this is is just a handy dandy reference guide that comes from the NJPO. I know several of you had to register for the meeting we had or for the training we
had spoken about that you've been registered. Those of you that are registered, you received a book this evening that I bound for you with all the information that you will need for that class. Figured you could look through it. But everybody did get the handy reference guide. So I did not take this.
You can take that. There's a planner. There's a planner that came in the mail and then each of you should have received one of these as well. Are you talking about I'm not I'm talking about this in your pack in your package. You should have received one of these.
Two of you received a book because you'll be taking the course in October. You're not one of them. Yeah. Susan, you also had something on the agenda about uh your financial disclosures. Has
everyone done that? Yes. Happy to say that my warning was taken and everybody has complained that. Yeah. So, the state those those that were late the state will get uh a hold. But we have made known to the state that some members were new that there was difficulty getting on and that we would
really appreciate no fines be issued this year. Yeah. Thank you. It's neat when the state finds you through a voluntary work. It's crazy. I told you it's crazy. Okay. We need you. Are there any other discussion items here?
Anybody's name has to be corrected now. Okay. We love letters. Maybe my nicknames. Permission. Get out of class. We need a motion to adjurnn. Motion to motion to adjurnn. Mike seconded by
I seconded Beth. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Thank you everyone.