All right. Oh, look. All right. I'm going to bring this meeting of the township of ocean planning board to order. Can I have a roll call, please? >> Counciloman >> here. >> Mr. Mr. >> here. >> Mr. Goslin >> here.
>> Mr. Man >> here. >> Mr. Bos >> here. >> Mr. Vice Chairman >> here >> and chairman >> 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. >> Great idea. >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have
been satisfied. 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 exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. There is no smoking that includes vaping 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 Oceans Community Cable channel, channel 22 on Verizon Files and
channel 11300 on cable vision. Did that change? Did we update that? Is that the right one now? Okay. All right. All cell phones must be turned off. And if you need to make a call, please take your call outside of the meeting room. All right. First order of business is we have a resolution memorialization for
Diane Gone, 608 Wildwood Road, block 61.07, 07 lot 4. Do I have a motion to accept the resolution? >> Motion. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> All right.
>> Councilwoman Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Goslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. >> All right. We have a new case this evening. I apologize if I pronounce any
names wrong. Uh, Schlommo Jamal as trustee of the Lisa Jamal 2018 irrevocable trust 1012 Norwood Avenue, block 11, lot 10 in the R4 zone, seeking minor subdivision approval to divide one lot into two fully conforming lots. Uh,
one will be vacant. Lot 10.02 has a residence that is under construction. The only site improvements proposed by way of the application is removal, replacement of the Norwood Avenue curve for proposed lot 10.01 one in addition of street trees on both pros lots
>> and Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll mark in the following exhibits before we turn to the applicant. Exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the boundary topographic and wetland survey. Exhibit A3 will be the minor subdiv subdivision plan. And then
we have on behalf of the board, exhibit B1 as in board one will be the board planners report. B2 will be the approval from the township engineer for the new house. B3 will be the approval for from the township engineer for the pool. B4 will be the report from DPW. B5 will
be the report from code enforcement. B6 report from the Crime Prevention Bureau. B7 will be the report from the Traffic Safety Bureau. Those are all the exhibits we have. >> All right. And who do we have representing the applicant tonight? >> Good evening, chairman, board members.
My name is Anthony Soro with the law firm of Ancel Grim and Aaron here tonight on behalf of the applicant. You've probably seen me here before in the audience taking notes for Jennifer's hearings in the past. I just want to point out that I am not Jennifer, so
please keep that in mind. This application pertains to 1012 Norwood Avenue in the R4 zone. Applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval to divide the existing lot 10 into two fully conforming lots to be known as lots 10.01 and 10.02 pending
confirmation from the tax assessor. There's a new home and related improvements currently under construction on lot 10.02 which has already been approved and received the necessary permits which will remain. As for lot 10.01, it's proposed to remain
as a vacant building lot with the exception of the addition of street trees and curb work on Norwood Avenue. No new construction is proposed via this subdivision application. As noted, the two proposed lots will be fully compliant. Your board planner had called
out one potential variance for having a hedge height in excess of 4 feet in the front yard on proposed uh lot 10.01. We will agree to remove the hedge row completely, thus eliminating that variance and making this a variance-free application.
As you likely know, the courts have held that with very limited exceptions, a planning board must approve an application for a fully conforming subdivision, calling it a byite application, which as you may imagine is the reason why Jennifer is having me
handle this one. Tonight, we have our engineer here to provide some brief testimony on the limited work being proposed. And we thank you for your time. So with that, I'd like to call our engineer, Patrick Ward, to walk us through things. >> Sure. >> Do you swear a testimony about the G
will be the truth, the whole truth about the truth, South God? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Patrick Ward, WD with Insight. >> And you are currently a licensed engineer, state of New Jersey. >> I am. Yes. >> And also a planner. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, um, Anthony did a great job
summarizing everything. I don't have too much more to add. We're in the R4 zone. Their 10,000 foot lots are required. Both of our lots are proposed to be well in excess of that. Um, we meet the area, the width, the depth requirements. Um, our office was a part of the permit applications for the house that's under
construction now. Um, as he said, everything was permitted and it's, you know, about halfway through construction. Um, that that's it. I I uh I agree with everything he started with. I don't want to be repetitive, so happy to answer any questions that the board may have.
>> Does the board have any questions? Seeing none from the board, we'll open it up to the public. Do any members of the public have questions for the engineer? Okay, seeing none. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
>> Motion to close public hearing. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Does someone want to make a resolution on this? >> Make a resolution. >> A positive or a negative resolution? There you go. >> All right. Do I have a second? >> Seconded by Mr. Manell. Yeah. Roll call,
please. >> Subject to the comments in the engineers and planners reports. >> I believe he said that they were taking out the hedro alto together. >> The the only condition I would have is that any new development on lot 10.01 be
subject to the tree replacement tree removal ordinance that's in place at the time. We agree. Okay. And I don't have any other engineering comments. Yeah. Okay.
>> All right. Councilwoman Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Burkowitz. >> Yes. >> Mr. Goslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Manell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bognovich. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes. >> Chairman. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> You can come back anytime. You're much quicker than she. All right. Our next application is for Rebecca and Eric Brown, Ryan and Gabriella Sherman in a state of Albert F. Koenig, 1298 Wikipico Drive, block
140, lot 1.01 in the R six zone, seeking minor subdivision approval to amend a previously approved subdivision and obtain any variances that may be required. All right. >> All right. And I'm going to mark in the following exhibits. Uh, exhibit A1 will
be the variance application. Exhibit A2 is a survey of the property. Exhibit A3 is the amended minor subdivision plan. >> We then have the following board exhibits. B1 will be the board planner report. B2 will be the board engineers report. B3 will be the report from the
fire marshall. B4 will be the report from public works. B5 is a report from code enforcement. B6 will be the crime prevention bureau uh report. B7 will be the traffic safety bureau report and B8
will be the original resolution of approval. >> All right. And who do we have representing the applicant tonight? Good evening. Kevin Assad of the law firm Zagrefutes on behalf of the applicant. >> Great. So away. Thank you. Um you some
of you may have remembered um last year we were here on the same property 1298 Wikipekco Drive. The application was for subdivision of this property into uh three conforming lots. The subdivision plan that was presented to you that
evening was based on a survey that was done by Morgan Engineering. After the subdivision was approved, there were no uh well, there was an existing conditions variance, which we'll talk about in a second. Um, after that subdivision was approved and perfected,
a neighboring property owner raised some questions about the property line. After those questions were raised, Mr. Serant did a fresh survey and found that the neighbors questions were good questions and that the survey that the original
subdivision was based upon contained some errors. So, a new survey was prepared, a new subdivision plan was prepared, and what we will be able to present to you is a modified subdivision. Same idea, one lot into
three. All the lots conform. The only once again variance that is involved in this is a uh front yard existing conditions variance so that we can preserve the existing structure on one of the lots. Um, other than that, uh,
from a technical standpoint, the subdivision application is exactly the same. So, with that background, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Serant so we can go into greater detail. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Hi, Mr. Sant. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Help God. >> Yes, I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Charles Serant. >> And you're a licensed planner, excuse me, engineer, and also a land surveyor in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay. So, um Kevin did a pretty good job
of summarizing it. Um Faith Baptist Church, the property owner to the south, came to us about three or four months ago and said, "We think you're coming into our land." I um I immediately obtained the title search on which Mr.
Koig survey was based. And it was a rather unique property and that it was a a cobbling together about uh four or five parcels over about 60 years and Applebe Drive had been relocated since those original parcels had been
spelled out. So the bottom line is there was an error in the survey that I relied upon uh in that we were encroaching into the church's property. So, um, we modified the survey. Uh, Mr. Koenig retained the corner lot, but he he had
already deed out the two out parcels. And so, what we did to correct the subdivision is we kept the parcel on the south side of Wikipeka at the same area as as it was conveyed out. and the shortage in the property which was about
I believe about 2,800 3,000 square feet was taken out of the corner lot. So the corner lot is now 14,680 square ft. Um as opposed to as opposed to previously
approved at 17,500 square ft. Um the lot on Applebe lot 1.03 doesn't change at all. Lot 1.02 02 to the south got about 3 ft wider uh but maintain the
same area as which it was approved. So no variances were created due to the change in the plan. The only change is that lot 1.01 got got a little smaller. How much smaller is it? Did it say
>> I think it's I can tell you exactly uh about give or take a couple square feet. about 2900 ft. >> Lot 1.02 got a little bit bigger, maybe 100 square feet. >> So to say it another way, the only lot
that was reduced in size is lot 1.01. >> Yes. >> And with that reduced size, is that still a conforming lot? >> It is. >> Okay. And does that in any way affect or exacerbate the existing conditions
variance that was previously approved? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Do you still need that tree waiver? >> No. Well, um you need we Yeah. The condition of the last approval was that a plan showing 11
street trees should be submitted >> and and I pulled out the plan that we submitted as part of resolution compliance and give or take maybe one change to this plan. We're going to mimic the plan so that ultimately 11 street trees are provided. >> So you'll comply with that. You don't need the waiver and then we we do not
>> and then any uh future development of the vacant lot should be subject to the tree replacement for the tree uh removal ordinance that's in effect at the time and I think that was the condition of the last also.
>> Yeah. >> Any board members have questions? Just want to clarify 10 lot 103. No change. >> I'm sorry. >> 10 103. Yes. 103. No change at all. >> No change whatsoever.
>> And then 102 slightly bigger. >> Uh slightly bigger. 3 ft wider due to the due to that southwest corner being a little bit uh peculiar. >> And then 101 for the existing houses. It got a little
bit smaller. It's still conforming. >> It did. Yes. All right, Ben. Anything else? >> Uh, no, I don't have anything else. >> I felt bad not asking you last time, but just >> um anything else from the board?
Members of the public, does anyone have questions for the applicants? Uh, surveyor hearing. None. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll move. Do >> have a second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I
Um, get a resolution positive, negative. >> I'll make a motion for a positive resolution. >> Do a second. I'll >> second. >> Second it. All right. With the conditions that Jim has specified, Councilwoman Kaplan,
>> yes. >> Mr. Burkowitz, >> yes. >> Mr. Goslin, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bich, >> yes. Vice Chairman Pudis. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Defilia. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh, next order of business. We have the municipalities updated storm water plan. This is a consistency with the master plan finding. So, Jim, take it away. >> I know nothing about it.
>> You know nothing about it. First I saw it on the agenda. >> All right. >> I mean I don't listen I don't know much about it because it's it's storm water management plan which is really an engineering issue. I'm sure I know Bennett didn't prepare it but the question is whether it's consistent with
your master plan and I find it very hard to believe there's anything within it that would be inconsistent with your master plan. >> I uh I'm going to rely on your expertise there Mark and agree with you. Um, so, uh, I will, uh, I'll make a motion to
find the updated stormwater management plan consistent with our master plan. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Do we do >> you can do all in favor? >> All in favor? >> I. >> And the next one, resolution of the township council authorizing the planning board to undertake a
preliminary investigation to determine if certain property located at 1213 West Park Avenue, block 1.22, 22 lots 33 and 34 on the tax map constitutes an area in need of redevelopment with the powers of eminent domain and the board to appoint
CME to complete investigator report on 1213 West Park Avenue block 1.22 lots 33 and 34 >> without >> Yes. >> No, thank you. That that is that is a really big difference without the power
of eminent domain. Um >> Jim >> again I I know the site I'm assuming this is the site of the uh >> health >> health. Yeah. And I do have one question is that it says lot 1.22.
The tax map that I have on my computer and it's from 2005 but it calls it block one not 1.22. Okay. >> So, I I guess we need to confirm which which it really is. >> And it very possible it's been changed since then.
>> We don't have to do that tonight. I mean, we know what property it is. >> So, you're disappointing CME to complete that investigative report presumably. >> So, >> and again, this is the first I've heard about this tonight, but it's a it's a typical procedure. It's a preliminary
procedure and whatever the finding the CME makes then would be recommended to the board and to the council and that you know action would be taken at that time as to whether or not to agree with that recommendation. >> Yeah. All you're doing tonight is authorizing CM to proceed with the
report. You're not saying yay or nay. >> Councilman Kaplan, you have anything you want to add? Any >> they pretty much sum it up. Um, Mark, can you like what is I know it's only preliminary, but what are they like what are we looking for in redevelopment here? Like if this comes back positive, negative from CME, like
what like what are the procedures here? >> They're going to present a report. There's going to be a public hearing on the report. The property owner is without eminent domain. You're going to notice the property owner to let them know that you're holding the hearing and then you're going to hold a hearing as to whether or not it meets the criteria.
>> Yeah. And there's criteria in the state statute that says here's has to meet one or more of these criteria >> and that will all be explained within the report. >> And if it is deemed a site for redevelopment, does that what does that open up funding for them? Tax break.
>> It allows them to create a a redevelopment plan that will clearly define what the zoning is going to be for that piece of property. >> For that piece of property. Yes. >> And that's undertaken by the council. And it could it could open up funding for them depending upon what funding programs are available and what they
want to do >> based under the redevelopment. >> Right. But um >> but that's done by the council. >> Yeah. And as the chairman said, >> but the owner came to us asking >> I I have no idea if that's the case. >> Okay. >> No, we're going to ask by the council.
>> I'm sorry. >> The council will ask us >> to do the investigation. We report back to the council yes or no. and then they do the the next steps. We're just >> and and theor and and legally it doesn't
matter whether or not the property owner wants this or does not want this. The sole question is whether or not it meets the criteria. If it meets the criteria, you can't vote no. >> If it doesn't meet the if you don't agree that it meets criteria, then you're obligated to vote to vote no.
>> So So um that's your job. You're basically the court in this. Does it does it meet the criteria? Does it not meet the criteria? You're not allowed to be subjective in that determination. >> Yeah. >> But we're being >> Yeah. You're just authorizing the study at this point. >> That's all you're doing. >> The study is going to say either it does
or doesn't meet the criteria >> according to the planner. >> And then you adopt or don't adopt the report based upon whether you feel the plan is right or wrong. >> Just like >> same criteria too. >> It'll go through all
>> without the eminent domain. Mhm. >> Okay. So, uh do I have a a motion to accept the preliminary investigation and to appoint CME? >> All you're doing tonight is you're
you're not accepting anything. You're you're the motion is to appoint CME to complete the investigative report. >> Well, aren't we accepting to begin the process? >> Whatever. That's fine. >> All right. We're appointing CME. Uh do I have a motion? >> A motion.
>> Motion. Second. Second. >> How can be all in favor? >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. All right. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> All in favor? I. Thank you, everyone.