All right, I'm calling this meeting of the Township of Ocean Planning Board to order. Can I have a roll call, please? >> Napani >> here. Mr. >> Here, Mr. >> Here, >> Mr.
>> Here, Mr. >> Mr. Vice Chairman >> here >> here. Salute to the flag. >> 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. >> All right. The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. and a copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the Coaster and filed in the office of the township
clerk. There is an emergency through the court emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. There is no smoking that includes vapes and ecigarettes. Board policy is no new cases will be started after 10 p.m. and no new testimony taken after 10:30 p.m. In
addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceanceans Community Cable channel, channel 77 on Verizon Files and channel 77 on Cable Vision. All cell phones must be turned off or if
you need to make a call, please make your call outside the meeting room. All right, first order of business this evening is we have resolutionalization BC Breel LLC 3501, Bel, block 183, lot 7 in the I1 zone for an extension of time.
Uh, do I have a motion to accept this resolution? >> Who is uh who's eligible for that? >> Pretty much nobody. Just like two years ago. >> No, no, no, no. When we voted on the extension in September, >> that's who can vote on it.
>> That's who can vote on it. >> September. >> Yes. >> Yes. This is the resolution for the extensionalization. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> No, you're fine. It's one of those days. >> Okay. Okay. We will we will return to
the resolution memorialization. But we need Nicole because our next one is the uh fee schedule for ordinance 2530. So basically what we're doing is we're uh it was charged a fee a flat rate fee
for various applications and um the township has been paying a lot of money out of their uh pockets for that. It's not enough. So we're going to escrow and this way the reviews inspections in there will be um paid for by the
applicants. Whatever is remaining in the escrow account will be returned to them at the end of the project. But it just it stops the township from paying a lot of money >> and that's standard throughout most townships municipalities. I I've actually been surprised if sometimes it hasn't done it. So
>> what's happened here is that an applicant will submit an application gets reviewed by the professionals. The township gets build then they amend it and the township gets build again and sometimes this has happened four or five times on the same application. So it's
it really winds up being ownorous to the township. The governing body is 100% in agreement with that because currently the way it works is if there's more money spent on our professionals that we have to pay for, everybody in this room winds up paying for other people's
variances. So this protects the municipality. We're all for the fees. We've spoken about it. So it makes a lot of sense. >> Any of the board members have questions on this? You would need a uh you need a motion.
You need a second. And you should do a roll call. >> Okay. Colleen, can you handle a roll call? [laughter] Would you do your motion in a second? >> Yeah, I'm just waiting for Colleen to get set. Okay. Um, I'll make this easy. I'll make a motion to accept this. Do I
have a second? >> I second. >> Oh, >> I think I got Mr. Goslin here. >> All right. Roll call, please. >> Mr. >> Yes. motion. Okay. [laughter] >> Yes. >> Mr. Bose.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss Volante. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. All right. Our next order of business is we have an administrative request for two properties located on
Chadam AB block 25.13 lot 11.01 and block 2513 lot 11.02. >> So Mr. chairman in the uh before the meeting tonight uh our professionals have taken a look at these at this application and and what's being proposed administratively and I believe
and I'll I'll transfer over to Jim and uh the two of you and Bennett and it's my understanding you believe there actually are variances that are being triggered by what's being proposed? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. So, so if there are variances that are being triggered, then this is not eligible for administrative approval and
they would have to notice uh for that barriers relief. So, it's really not appropriate to be before the board tonight. >> Great. So, uh can you please communicate to the applicant that they need to notice and bring it back to the board? >> Yep. >> Anyone have any questions here >> on that?
>> Okay. >> Oh, are you counsel? Are you one of the attorneys? the attorney for the >> Okay, come on up. On behalf of the >> Good evening. Take a seat.
>> So, you just heard from our professionals that they believe that this cannot be heard as an administrative request as there's variances needed. So did you someone want to explain this? [laughter] >> Well, we didn't think that there were any variances that were triggered, but I
guess there's there's varian there's a variance at least for the setback of the window wells, but there's also a deviation from the residential site improvement standards for the width of the driveway was reduced from 20 ft to 18 ft. And it's to have two parking
spaces there which they will need for this residence under the residential site improvement standards. It have to be 20 ft wide. >> You want to speak? >> Yeah. >> So, did you just identify yourself? >> Oh, my name is Raymond Zacher. I'm the
owner of 210 Cadam and 206 Chadam Road. >> And and I'm not going to swear in because you're not hearing this tonight. So, >> okay. I mean we we did get a variance uh December of 2023 actually Nelson uh was part of that um variance that that we
received and uh everything stays within the setbacks. Everything uh nothing changed. The only thing that changed was the bedrooms in the basement because we we presented a preliminary plan at the time when we got the variance. And when we started showing it to prospective
buyers, they wanted a bedroom in the basement and then and an extra bathroom. So, we put that into the plans. >> Did it change the number of bedrooms from what to what? >> Um from total bedrooms in the house. >> Yes. >> Right. So, we were five upstairs and one downstairs in the basement on one
property and now it's five and two. >> Okay. That could also be a residential site improvement standards deviation because it increases the parking requirement. >> So we will >> in fact it definitely is because they won't have enough parking on the site even as it's approved now. So that
increases the magnitude of that deviation. >> So so listen here's here's what we're going to do. This isn't going to be resolved tonight obviously. So, you're going to have to go back uh have some if you if you disagree with our engineer, I mean with our planner. You you can have that
conversation off offline. And if you can come to agreement, great. Then we can put it back on for administrative approval at the next meeting. Otherwise, if he says there's a variance and you want to vary from what you were originally approved for from for the board with a variance application to get the to do what you want to do.
>> I hear you. I was told by by the zoning officer that no variance was needed and everything was perfect. Well, sometimes the zoning officer that sometimes the zoning officer misses something and and it's got to go through planning review, which it wouldn't which it obviously didn't do because there was an anticipation it was going to be in a mistake.
>> Okay. So, you want them to be in touch with you, Mr. Higgins. >> Um, yeah, I think through >> Okay. So, just a misunderstanding from what we were told. >> It might be. And I would also like to talk to the zoning officer to see what her thinking is, but she probably she is
not fully aware of the state regulations or the residential site improvement standards. >> You didn't think that it it applied because it goes over every five bedrooms. So we >> No, no. The the uh DCA has said that every bedroom that's added increases the
parking requirement by.5 spaces. It goes up to five on their table, >> right? Already over five. So, gentlemen, >> as interesting as this is, and I'm looking forward to hearing it at our next meeting, [laughter] >> this wasn't noticed, so we can't hear it. So,
>> yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, our next order of business is our area redevelopment study. Is the representative from CME here yet? >> Yeah, just showed up in
>> Fantastic. Have a seat. introduce yourself and uh let's get started. >> Sorry, I'd have been here 15 minutes ago, but I felt this meeting started at 7. Thought I was getting here 15 minutes early rather than 15 minutes late. Get the right folder out here. There we
go. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is this It is on. Well, I'm Chris Doy from CME Associates, a professional planner with the firm. I'm here to present understand we have another planner here. This is about a month ago, Ron Rinerson had
present at the beginning of the study. We've gone back and made some revisions, a little further investigation. And uh Chris, just so you know, I'm one of Let me just wear you in. So, anything you were going to say this evening will be the whole. >> Yes, it is. >> And I'll just announce to the board um
this was renoticed and it's a new site with a new date on it. So I'm not considering it a continuation of the last hearing. We're considering this a brand new presentation. It's sort of just been completely done to new to a degree. Yes. I have no objection to what Mr. Ro said. Anyway, so I here to
present to you this is an area need a redevelopment study the preliminary investigation for property at block 1.22 lots 33 and 34. That's two adjacent lots uh more commonly known as 1211 and 1213 West Park Avenue.
Uh, I intend to probably go through this in about 10 to 15 minutes and just see if you have any questions after that rather than kind of reading through all 80 to 100 pages of a document we have here. >> Is the the board okay with that? Are we good? Are we all familiar with this? So,
you can you can talk 8 minutes [laughter] for 8 minutes. I I I do tend to ramble a little bit, so it might might get closer to 9 or 10, but we'll try and be brief. I think we have some other matters here this evening. But before I go into the um specifics of this, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page
here in terms of what this is and what the redevelopment process is. I would like to look at redevelopment as essentially a 10-step process. And what we are on right now is step number two of that 10-step process. So this is the beginning stages of redevelopment. I want to make sure it's clear. There's no
site plan or no proposed development at this stage. There is nothing for you to vote on in terms of an actual development application. And this is purely the second step of a 10-step process. The first of which is the governing body passes a resolution that says we would like the planning
board to investigate some property to see if it meets the criteria to be designated in need of redevelopment. that happened back in August where the governing body uh adopted resolution R25-161 uh declaring that declaring requesting that this board uh conduct an
investigation into these properties uh and stating specifically that they want this to be a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment. That's pretty important. Uh prior to 12 years ago when the state changed the laws, any redevelopment designation meant that eminent domain and condemnation was potentially on the table. That's off the
table here. There's if this goes through more steps in this process, the township would not be able to claim this property for eminent domain. Second step is the planning board investigation, which is where we are tonight. As you have a professional planner essentially prepare a report on your behalf and come present to you to
show the findings of whether or not we feel that this property can meet any one of the criteria necessary to be designated and need a redevelopment. The following steps are the governing body follows up on the recommendations from you. If they designate it and need a redevelopment, then somebody prepares a redevelopment plan, then the town is
able to potentially negotiate with redevelopers, designate a developer, um prepare a redevelopment plan, which can be done either by this body or by the governing body as a new ordinance. Uh then you can negotiate redevelopers agreements with the potential redeveloper, followed up by that
developer submitting a site plan back to this board. And then ultimately, if that site plan gets approved, then they can seek construction permits. So those are essentially the 10 steps and we're on step number two. So this is early in the process. Okay. Now on to what this property
actually is. As I said, this is block 122 1.22, lots 33 and 34, 1213 Park Avenue. This is two adjacent properties that are developed nearly identical to one another. They are, if you've been by the site on West Park Avenue, it's two buildings that look like kind of ranch
houses, but they're they're a little bit bigger than that. They're pretty deep. It's uh there's a sign out front for Anora Senior Living. Um they've both been used historically at least for the past approximately 10 to 15 years as um senior residential healthcare
facilities, which is similar to an assisted living facility, not quite a nursing home, but a little bit more uh care given to the residents there than there would be say an independent living 55 plus community. Both properties are developed, the two
of them together are a little over 3 acres. Uh, one is about an acre and a half, one is 1.62 acres. They're both developed with commercial structures that have been operating, as I said, as the senior living facilities. Don't think I need to go through land use and zoning. But the statutory
criteria, the important thing here, as I said, what the laws require is before any property can be designated in need of redevelopment, we're at the second stage, which is a review at this board to determine whether they meet any one of the criteria. And I have to stress it's only required for this finding that
they meet just one of the criteria. It doesn't have to be five of them, any one of them. and that the town can designate in need of redevelop, excuse me, in need of redevelopment. I'm going to quickly go over what those criteria are. Criteria A is essentially substandard buildings. There's something
less than optimal about the buildings that they are dilapidated or obsolete. Uh B is vacant commercial space. And that's important to note because a few years ago the state changed the law from uh vacant for a period of 10 years to just substantially vacant for a
period of at least two consecutive years. C is unimproved vacant. >> We only need to do the ones where AB d H where >> the ones that don't apply. I won't go over them. But we have A, B, D is obsolete improvements and and then H is
the smart growth area which that relatively excuse me the smart growth area is areas that the state has designated as where they encourage development and redevelopment where there's existing infrastructure and that's where the state essentially wants to see growth. The state development
redevelopment plan breaks the state down into essentially five different categories of land use. uh category 1 and two being the smart growth areas or the essentially the growth and development zones and the three through five are the areas where the state wants to see conservation and preservation.
So I'll get to the properties themselves. As I said, they are each developed with a singlestory uh commercial senior living facility. Each of these has uh 15, we'll call them bedroom units. They're essentially the resident units of a single bedroom that range in size, although I did measure
them each individually, anywhere from about 80 to about 110 ft, give or take. And they each had a half bath, so they had a toilet and a sink, but no shower or bathtub in each of these units. the property at 1213 West Park um was
actually techly not in necessarily terrible condition and it was uh occupied of the 15 residential units there's four of the 15 units occupied the rest remain vacant um
being operated as I said by Anora Health as a senior residential healthcare facility and let's see I'll get straight to it the other the other partial 1211 exact same configuration or nearly the exact same configuration. 15 residential units, same thing. Bedrooms ranging from
about 80 to about 110 ft², half bath. Uh the only major difference between the two, uh 1213 has four, the 15 units occupied. 1211 has zero units occupied. has been essentially completely vacant for about 3 years now as what the records we have showed
except for there is a commercial kitchen in the vacant building that is operated by the the same facility owner because the four units where there are still residents at 1213 uh they have no commercial kitchen in that facility so they can't cook for the residents. So they do all the cooking in the vacant building then they walk the
food across the parking lot uh into the other facility to feed the residents but otherwise they both have dining facilities. They both have the bedroom. Same same exact configuration, same basements. Uh although 1211, the one that is vacant, had some issues in terms of there were some open electrical wires. Uh the basement showed some signs
of flooding, although at least the day I was there a few weeks ago. I will say it did rain pretty heavily the day before, but there was still quite a bit of flooding in the basement. Quite a few others go uh issues going on there. And we do have to note between both of these properties, one of the things we look at when we're doing
these studies is we ask for records of emergency services calls. Uh there is a rather surprising number of times, as much as these properties look like nothing is there, uh dozens and dozens of emergency services calls over the last 5 years to both of these properties. Most of which were for very minor issues. Some of it was apparently
there was a utility pole that had fallen down a couple of years ago in front of the property, but not exactly on the property. uh mental health calls, you have uh senior population there, emergency services for ambulances where where people are in need of medical care. But in particular at the facility at 1213,
there have been four uh just earlier this year, four open fire code violations. They they have since been abdated, but there were numerous uh fire code violations, including um several systems being out of date and systems needing to be tested. I'll get straight
to it now for the property at um 1213. We think this meets redevelopment criteria A, D, and H. Um [clears throat] this this is going to apply to both of these buildings, but I we'll start with just 1213. And A is the generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe,
unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent. And the primary focus here, we feel these are obsolescent both of them because they are senior residential healthcare facilities. how they were initially designed and how they're currently being operated. And that's what the license for this facility is for. But market trends in the last
decade have really been moving away from that. Um, and people seem to want to live in an assisted living facility rather than I'm sorry, not assisted, yeah, assisted living rather than these senior residential healthcare facilities. Uh, and that's largely
because of the lack of a full bathroom as well as a few other things. um that no one seems to want to live in these anymore, which despite the one building being in very good condition actually, uh they only have four units occupied out of the 15. And so think, well, they
can just maybe convert to a assisted living facility if that's where the market is going, that's where the money is, that's where the financing is. Except for by state law, assisted living facilities, which is where people are going, requires that every bedroom be at least 150 ft², which in both of these uh
facilities, the bedrooms are much less than that. As well as more importantly, it requires that every unit have a full bathroom and at least a partial kitchen in each unit. And since they only have half baths and they're undersized, it would be uh extremely ownorous for the owners of the property to try and uh
upgrade the facility without essentially a complete gut rehab of both buildings. And then they'll also lose a lot of units in expanding the bedrooms, expanding the bathrooms, they'll probably go down to, I don't know, 8 to 10 units in each building instead of 15. So we feel that these buildings are obsolete and since they can't be used or
properly converted, that's leading to these vacancies here where of the between the two of them, there's 30 units and only four are occupied. I also feel 1213 meets criteria D essentially for the same reason. Criteria D is very similar to criteria A
but use a few different words including faulty arrangement or design as well as obsolete layout. This is the exact same thing where this obsolete layout and that I don't really like the term faulty cuz it's it's I don't want to say it's somebody's fault whether it was improper design at the time but it's really the obsolescence here in the arrangement of
these units is leading to their their their vacancy and that we see that as as an issue that affects the overall uh welfare of the community by having these uh facilities not being properly utilized. And it also meets criteria H. >> So I'm just going to pause. The criteria H is going to be the same for both.
>> Yes. >> So why don't we do the the other criteria for the second line. You can come back to do H for both. Sure. The only difference between this A, D, and H for both. And it's also criteria B for the facility at 1211 because that one
has is completely vacant with the exception of the use of the commercial kitchen. And I will say the what the law says there for criteria B read it right here is the discontinuence of the use of of the building or buildings previously used for commercial
uh the the abandonment of such buildings or buildings or significant vacancies of such building or buildings for at least two consecutive years. Uh so these are that building has with the exception of the commercial kitchen which is only being used because I don't have a commercial kitchen next door. That building is entirely vacant and it's
starting to show and that's what the one building that is still being occupied is there's still some maintenance and upkeep there where this building starting to deteriorate. There's quite a few things wrong with the building and I think that's due to the vacancy and the vacancy of over 2 years. Our record has indicated it's been vacant since 2022.
Um so it's a substantial vacancy. All 15 units are unoccupied. It's a commercial kitchen that gets used only for cooking for four people in the other building. So, it's not not a commercial kitchen that's run, you know, they're not running a Chick-fil-A out of the building. It's just just to feed the four residents. Gotcha. So, I'm going to stop you before we go on. Does anyone on
the board have questions about these criteria so far that we've discussed? >> All right. Can you cover H for us? >> Okay. Then H is the designated smart growth areas. And as I said, those are areas where the state plan and redevelopment plan as well as the New Jersey smart growth map through the
office of planning advocacy has designated areas where they feel that uh growth and development would should be encouraged by the state. So those are generally areas with highway access or rail or bus access uh existing sewer infrastructure and uh other other um
utilities necessary to support development. So the the state supports de uh development and redevelopment in these areas and both of these properties in their entirety are located within a designated smart growth area. Uh so they are otherwise uh they're suitable for designation under criteria H. As well as
I've said the law requires that at least one criteria be met and for the one property at 1213 we feel it meets three uh A D and H and the other property we feel it needs at least four AB D and H. Uh so that being said, the the crux of all this is it does appear that these
properties both meet at least one criteria necessary for designation under the redevelopment and housing law. And um our recommendation is that you do find that they do meet the criteria necessary and you make a recommendation back to the governing body indicating as such.
>> Questions? Anything from our professionals? Jim. Well, just Jim. [laughter] >> I haven't been involved at all. >> All right. So, >> I don't know where Ben went. I didn't tell him he had to leave. [laughter] >> Most places were allowed to have more than one seeing the employee in the same room.
>> I I uh you know, again, this is a new hearing, so I will limit my comments to this. This is this makes more sense. Um I think I understand the concerns about the property. My my one concern is always there are residents there now.
Are they safe? Does the town need to take any outside of this? Short answer, yes. The the building where there are four residents appeared to be completely safe. There had been the four fire code violations. >> I didn't find any evidence on my visit that these were imminent hazards and they the four violations had been
abated. They were again I found that the the number of calls was a little alarming. Usually when I do these studies, I put in these requests for records and virtually nothing comes back and it's almost a formality that we just say we've requested it from the town. was a little surprised to see uh multiple pages of just the the list of
the number of times that 911 has been called to these facilities, but I think to some degree when you have an elderly population, medical service calls becomes a semi-regular thing. >> Okay. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, you do need to open it to the public. >> All right. So, we will take a moment now
and open this up to any members of the public if they have a question on the redevelopment report that has just been presented to us by CME. Seeing none, uh, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion. >> Second. All right. All in favor?
>> I. All right. So, uh, can I >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, if the board is inclined to to recommend that this be considered be designated needed development without the power of eminent domain, I did produce a resolution in advance. So, if that's the board's
pleasure, you can do both in one vote. I think that's a Well, do I have a a motion from the board to accept this report as presented? >> Motion. >> Moved by Premier. Do I have a second? >> And that includes the resolution. >> Oh, well. Yeah. And so we're we're doing
this to include accept the report and the resolution recommending that the governing body adopt it >> without eminent >> without eminent. The read the report or the >> the whole report? >> No, the the [laughter] resolution. I I I did submit it.
>> Yeah, the voice of the board should have it. >> All right, I think we're good then, sir. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Goslin, >> Councilwoman, >> yes. >> Mayor, >> yes. >> Mr. Burke, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Miss, >> yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Williams, >> yes. >> And >> yes. All right, we have one last order of business. It should be very clear. >> Do not do not forget that you still have to vote on BCL. Oh, I did forget that. So, we have two more items, but first
off, let's move right along to our uh storm water management plan. Um, so, Mr. Chairman, missed, if I may, this was this is a document. The board previously viewed it. The board previously was favorable to towards it. >> Um, it's now coming back as a potential
amendment or to be adopted as an element to the master plan. So, this is a public hearing tonight. The public lends notice. So you will go to the public on it also, but it's the exact same document the board previously reviewed and found favorably towards. >> And also just so we're clear, this
document is from the state department of environmental protection that is instructing us to adopt it. So we don't exactly have >> two [laughter] things that you have to do is obviously I believe it is tailored towards Ocean Township. >> Yeah. Okay. So any questions from the
board on this matter? All right. So I'm going to open it up for public hearing. Does anyone have any questions, comments, or concerns on the proposed storm water management plan to be considered as an amendment to the township disaster plan? Seeing none, uh, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing? >> Motion. >> Do I have a second? >> No, Julia got at this time. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to accept this storm water management plan as an amendment to the township's master plan. Do I have a second?
>> Mr. Chairman, if I may, I also adopted a resolution in anticipation of this. So, do you want to do you want to amend that motion to include the adoption of the resolution? >> I think that's a great idea. So, I will make a motion to accept the proposed storm water management plan as an amendment to the townships master plan as well as to accept the resolution
prepared by Mr. Wex to that effect. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Palutes. Roll call vote, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. And I have a motion to close this
meeting. >> All right. Back to Belal to uh bring us back. We had uh Memorial Resolution BC Briel LLC, 3501 Bale Avenue, block 183, lot 7 in the I1 zone for extension of time that was approved at our September
meeting. This is the memorial resolution. Um, and we need a motion. >> What we need to see is who >> Mr. Bice. >> Okay. So, do I have a motion from one of those folks? >> Motion. >> Motion. Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Second. All right. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Burkewood. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Miss. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes. >> Yes. Now, do I have a motion to close the meeting? Motion to close the meeting. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I All right. Thank you. and everyone here. Just so you know, this was the planning board, the zoning board,