Start up. Okay, we're recording. All right. >> All right. Good evening, everyone. We're going to start the meeting. All right. At this time, we're going to salute the flag. Everyone, please stand. 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. >> Thank you. Chairman statement. The notice requirement of the open public meeting law for this meeting has been satisfied. A copy of the notice has
been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the Coaster. It has also filed with the office of the township clerk. Emergency notice. There's emergency notice signs throughout the building if we have a emergency. Reading that. No smoking, obviously,
folks. Uh board policy, no new cases will be started after 10 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10:30. In addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes per testimony. Notice all meetings will be video and audio taped
and shown on the Township Oceans Community Cable channel 77 on Verizon Files and channel 77 on cable vision. Please silence all phones hearing testimony and start of the meeting. At this time, we're going to move into the
park and ocean condominions. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> Before we get to that, u I'm just like to make an announcement. If any members of the public are here on the bio investment corp application, that will not be heard tonight. It's being carried
to June 22nd, same time, same place with no further notice. So, if you're here for that application, you do not need to stay. That will not be heard. >> Did you hear
>> June 22nd? Welcome. >> And you can always double check the website. agendas on there or give us a call and we'll let you know. >> Okay, >> please call the role >> here. Mr. >> Here,
>> Mr. Mr. Mr. >> Here, Mr. >> Here, Mr. Vice >> here. All right, we have a quorum. We'll
start. Uh we'll begin with the park at Ocean Condominian Association, lot 33, lot 19.03, Deal Avenue, and C7 zone. Uh before we get into it, just want to mark some
exhibits. A1 is the site plan application. A2 is a color rendering of proposed deck stated June 7th, 2024. A3 is color rendering of deck and memo from HOA. A4 is conformance sketch plan
variance exhibit prepared by Kier Engineering dated March 30th, 2026. A5 is utility asbuilt survey prepared by Bing Consulting Group dated July 31st, 2023. and I'll mark the uh
the B exhibits. B1 is the board's planners report dated April 21st, 2026. B2 is the board engineers report dated April 24th, 2026. B3 is the memo from code enforcement dated 416, 2026. B4 is
the memo from DPW dated 41626. B5 is traffic safety report dated 41726. B6 is crime prevention report dated 41726. B7 is fire marshals fire marshals report
dated 42726. B8 is a flood risk notification report prepared by NJ dated 1022 2024. And B9 is the resolution of approval dated 1028 2019.
Good evening everyone and thank you for having us. Um my name is Chris Beman of the Beman Law Firm appearing on behalf of the applicant of the park at Ocean Con Association Inc. Um we're seeking preliminary and final amended site plan approval. Uh as per the plans uh the
proposal is to increase the size of the approved decks. Uh the current approval right now is for approximately um thousand square foot deck, I'm sorry, 100 square foot deck. Proposal is going to be decks or patios approximately 11 ft by 22 and 1/2 ft. Uh approximately
247.5 square ft. Uh with the notice, we did indicate that we may also need full variance approval. I just defer to your planner at that point if testimony is going to be required this evening. We did note in the um the report that it may not be needed, but we do have um Mr.
Luscavage uh here tonight to testify uh as it relates to the bulk variances. Um with that, I will call up Mr. Lascavage. He is going to testify to the plans in general, the application, and supply uh again any type of planning testimony and engineering testimony the board sees
fit. >> Nick is going to swear in. Do you swear affirm the testimony you shall give shall be the truth? >> I do. >> And state your name and spell it in the record, please. >> Uh Mark Lascavage. L E S C A V A G E.
>> Is that Mark M A R K or M R? >> M A R K. >> And uh would you uh like to enlighten the board as to your education and experience? >> Sure. Um,
I have a bachelor's degree in uh civil engineering from NGIT. Uh, I've been a licensed professional engineer since 1997. Uh, I am also a professional planner in New Jersey since 1998. Have testified at
many planning boards and zoning boards throughout New Jersey, uh, including this board in, I believe, 2022. Um and um my license is still current. >> Welcome.
>> And uh we would just offer uh Mr. Lcavage as an expert uh for testimony purposes. >> Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, I'm geographic discipline leader of Collier's Engineering and Design located in Homeell, New Jersey. >> And you'll be testifying as both planner and
>> correct. Yes. M scout, you just passed out this exhibit. Can you just tell us what this is so we can mark it? >> Sure. This is the Park at Ocean aerial exhibit. Uh it is an overlay of the proposed improvements uh on a recent
aerial survey. >> We're going to mark this A6. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. And Mr. So, Scavenage, if you can just take us through with regard to the proposal this evening, um, give me the boarding testimony that they may
seek for the extension of the deck or patios. Sure. Okay. Starting with uh the site location and existing conditions, the property is identified as block 33, lot 19.03.
It's located wholly in the C7 community mixeduse zone. Uh it is the residential component of the Ocean Commons development, mixeduse development. Uh was originally constructed by LAR. Uh has an address of 1603 Highway 35.
Uh total tracked area is 14.88 acres. What you see before you on the exhibit, the the reference property is highlighted in yellow. in the center. Uh north is to
the top of the page. Um what you could see there is the existing existing townhouse development which consists of 12 buildings and 70 units. In terms of the surrounding uses, you
could see to the west is the Ocean Commons commercial development area, including the Miller Ale House and the Turning Point and the Wawa. Uh to the north, you could see there's a wooded area, which is a the stream
corridor, the popler brook. Uh to the east, you could see the library site. to the south is deal road and further to the south uh is a residential development.
So the project background uh the original development uh received site plan approval in 2019 and then again subdivision approval in 2021. uh construction on this part of the project. The residential portion began
in 2022 and was fully completed by the end of 2024. As part of that approval, most of the units um were permitted 10x10 decks. Uh buildings 11 and 12, which is the
westernmost buildings shown here, uh we're permitted an 8tx 14t 9 in deck. And building three, which is uh toward
the northeast end of the property, uh did not have a deck approval. So that u summarizes the existing conditions. um and and most of what's been approved and built in the uh site plan.
So, our firm was um approached by the homeowners association uh to look at the feasibility of expanding the deck sizes uh throughout the development. So instead of the 10x10 deck, they asked
us to look into putting in either a deck or a patio uh with a size 11 ftx 22 1/2 ft, which is approximately 247 square ft. And that option would be either an
elevated deck that would meet the first floor or a step down patio patio of an of an equivalent size. Now, they put that out to all 70 units. Uh not all of the uh homeowners
uh wanted to participate in that. And we knew when we looked at it, there could be the potential for relief being required or at a minimum an amended site plan, which is what we're here for tonight. Uh >> just just to clarification, it's not an
amended site plan by definition in the ordinance. Even though you're amending the site plan, it's a minor site plan. >> Okay, that's just technical definitions. >> Understood. So we'll we say that we're proposing a minor site plan uh for the
decks. And with that, uh not all of the uh unit owners wanted to participate. Uh so we were asked to look at just 46 of the 70 units on the plan and what you see before you
is the 46 units um in the 12 buildings all the areas in that are that magenta that is represents the deck off the back of those units. Now when we looked at this um in the ordinance, it was our
interpretation and the very conservative interpretation is that the deck would be part of the principal building and therefore needed to meet the setback requirement um of the zone which was a 20ft perimeter
setback. And when we did our analysis um of the project for those 46 units, we found that there was 13 units uh that required relief from the 20ft setback.
Uh mainly it is in building three in the northeast area and in the two buildings 11 and 12 along the eastern limit. uh and that's where depending on your interpretation
uh would need variance relief. There's also a >> mark just just for the board's edification. My report says there are no variances necessary. That's an error. I did miss those those setback variances. Mr. Scavage is correct.
>> Okay. and and just there's so there's the 13 U setback variances and and I can elicit those of which units they are but just wanted to get through the other two variances. Um there is also an
encroachment uh to the eastern parking area. So, in the mixeduse zone, there is a requirement to be a certain uh footage off of the library building that's on the eastern portion and also in general
any structure on that lot. And with that there is one unit that violates the setback from the uh the library building and one unit that violates the um
the setback from the structure in this case actually the parking area. So I I guess if we're the interpretation we're proceeding as variances, I guess I should list the unit numbers and what
the variances are. Yeah. No, I haven't. Okay. So the variances for perimeter set back. Um first going with the building uh number
two in the northeast end of the I'm sorry building number three the northeast end of the property. The units in that structure there's six of them. There's a variance uh where the deck would be 13.3 feet off of the
perimeter uh property line. There are then seven units in the buildings 11 and 12 where uh those units would be 16.2 ft off of the western
property line. That's units one 161 165 167 169 171 175 and 179. And going back to the easterly structure setback,
uh that was building that was unit 111. It's 71.4T 4 ft off of the parking area where 75 ft is required. And then the easterly setback um off of
the building off of the library building uh the violation is unit 113 96.7 ft um where you need 100 ft. So that's all the relief that's required in this application.
design consistency. So to ensure that there's a cohesive appearance across the development, uh the deck materials and the colors will be controlled by the HOA. Uh the railings will be white PVC. Uh and this will ensure that's a a
uniform and coordinated architectural treatment. And then as outlined in um the reports from the professionals uh in building three there is an
existing underground storm water management system uh where the decks would be um potentially coming in confl conflict with excuse me. Uh I think there was a
question as to how much cover from the grade to that storm water system. So the answer is that there's four feet of cover over the system. We did review this with our structural engineers and u the decision was that um
we would not put any footings over the top of that system. We would put um we'd put the footings adjacent to the system and deep enough where uh they would meet the bottom of the storm water system. So there would
be no um influence of the deck upon that system. Uh the deck would >> overhang. But the the utility as well plan um shows that the storm water
management um manholes have a rim of 56.53 and the exposed top of the 24 in uh pipe elevation 55.39. So it's really that's saying there's only a foot of cover. Is that am I
reading that wrong or how I don't I don't see where there's four feet of cover. Okay. There is I'm going by the asbuilt that we have. >> Yeah. >> You tell the survey.
>> Yeah. I was going by the the crosssection of when we we actually constructed it. >> Well, it regardless of the cover, we're not putting the footings in the system. So, >> okay. >> Um, >> so that those you're saying would not be
decks. They they might be >> Well, they would I I think there's a choice from the homeowner. That's why we put it as decks or patios. So, they may do patios. They may also do a deck where their the footing would be
where the deck would be um would be less than the 11 ft and where the the footings would be outside the system, but then there would be a certain amount of the deck that could the lever over the top of the storm
water system. So it may not be 11 feet, maybe seven feet or something like that and they would have that option. But we're committing to the fact that we wouldn't have the footings over the top of the storm water system. >> Okay. If
if the the I guess the homeowner association or would have to perform any maintenance if there's a canal levered overhang of the deck over the the system that might be in the way might have to be removed in order to uh maintain the
the the pipes. >> Yeah, it's a it's a great point. We did talk to the homeowners. They are very much aware of it, not only for maintenance, but you know, in the unlikely uh position where there would be a collapse. They understand that the
decks would have to be taken out to to get to the system. and they'll they'll make that arrangement and make them with the agreement when they're building. Um they'll they'll understand that and sign off on that if you will.
>> And that would be the case for either a deck or a patio, >> right? But a patio I think you're talking about a paper patio would be different impact. >> Yeah, you could remove pavers and put them back. concrete would be different
that out. Um it's it's something for the board to consider. Um you know, it's you've heard the testimony. Um I think we would have to see a detail that shows, you know, exactly where these these uh deck
footings would go um in relation to the recharge trench. uh if if the board were to consider that um and it's you know up to you guys whether you want for in in that particular building
building three um so that that was all I had for that one. >> Does this condition only affect building three? >> It's well it looks like building two also has a similar situation Mark maybe you were going to talk
>> Yeah. Building two, there is one unit that is just at the edge of the 11 ft. Um, we we think we can design around that one, if you will, without affecting the footings. >> It looks like So, that one does not extend as far into
the um underground uh drain system as building three. Um but it still does look like it could be over top of it and it would be the the same situation. If it ever needed to be
maintained or exposed, those decks or patios would have to be removed in order to do that. Okay. >> Do you know what what they're doing for building three or two? Are they patios or >> they they have the option. They haven't
picked as yet. The application is either the decks or the patios and they understand if they do do the decks that >> but there's no indication what one way or another. I think they want to do the decks. >> They want to do decks. >> Any applications made by the unit owner will still have to come before the town
to get approval through construction as well. Correct. >> Correct. >> And just going through the uh the reviews that we received. Um and I'll just note that there's no new encroachments into any regulated areas,
freshwater wetlands. Um, no additional environmental impacts were identified. Uh, and we did receive either no comment or no objection from code enforcement, DPW, fire marshall, um, police
department or traffic safety. Uh and then I believe the director of community development um and recommended uh allowing flexibility for all the unit owners to be part of this, but once again this is a financial commitment that was only
made by the 46 units. So theoretically the other 24 um if they wanted to do something different they would have to come back to this board. >> 46 I read 51. >> I thought I read 51, too. It's on the 46
or that's 51 in the report. >> Believe it's 46. >> Just a question for Colleen actually. Are we allowed to approve it more broadly? I mean, or is that something that they have to >> permitted to do that? Can we change that
as the >> board? for those that didn't pay for these services. I mean, could we >> No, they'd have to go through just approval and the whole thing. >> Okay. >> But I mean, yes. What was presented you
can approve. My suggestion was only to include everybody since they were coming here and doesn't mean they have to do it. Any previous or subsequent owners that want to do it >> have the ability. >> Thank you. I >> I have a technical question.
I don't know if either Ben or Colleen can answer this. Is the construction complete on this or is it still because bonds haven't been released? Is it still under construction? >> Yeah. >> Then Okay. I stand I will stand
corrected on my earlier. >> What? >> They're done. >> They're done. Oh, okay. They are done. So, it's a minor site plan. It's not an amended site plan. Okay. I counted with my finger 51, but I'll double check. >> Can we take five real quick? We'll just double check our number on that.
>> Yeah, it could be 51. >> It's noted a few of the reports as well. That was 51. We want to double check. >> Yeah, we can. Real quick. Yes. >> Okay. With the chairman. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Please. >> We're back. Yes. Roll call again.
here >> Mr. Mr. >> Here >> all right so with resuming if uh Mr. Scavenage, if you could just clarify with regard to the amount of units that are subject to the sub. >> Yes, and I apologize for that. We did start out with 46 units, but five more
came on board and I did check our exhibit and our plan submitted. It is 51 of the 70. The having said that, the only other testimony I had um is with regard to the justifying the variances. So unless
there's other questions, I can go into that. >> I can ask it afterwards. But the uh existing uh downspouts and and drainage pipes, are those going to be uh impacted by this construction? Because
there's like it looks like there's a collection system that goes along the back of the buildings. >> Correct. There's a collection system that is a couple feet off of the back of the building and then ties into the underground system. It appears that that with a deck that would be on the
elevated portion of the uh so it should not impact um that system. >> Would there be a requirement that the homeowners would be marking off the leaders just to make sure there was a >> Yes, absolutely. >> We could agree to that.
Did you also address the next point in the letter about privacy fences? >> Uh we believe the the existing privacy fences won't be impacted. Okay. So in terms of um the bulk relief
for this application uh we believe uh this proposal would satisfy the criteria of a C2 variances um that is um positive criteria. We believe that the application would promote the general welfare by enhancing
the livability and functionality to units through what would be meaningful private outdoor space. Uh they provide sufficient space for residential use particularly in a town home setting where the private yards are very limited. Um they serve as a
decentralized recreation space which is especially important uh given in this development there are no on-site amenity areas and I think that's important uh to point out uh and we believe they will
contribute to the desirable visual uh environment through what we would say is a uniform and coordinated design. So um those are four purposes of zoning specifically uh purpose A, E, G and I.
Uh importantly the proposal does not increase density, does not increase building height or the intensity of use. Uh and the design represents an enhancement to what is an already existing and improved development.
In terms of the negative criteria, the proposal can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Uh any encroachments, as you can see, are very minor and primarily located in the rear yard areas. Uh there's no adverse impacts to light,
air, or privacy beyond what is typical for a town home development. Uh no concerns were raised by the reviewing entities other than the ones that we spoke about. uh and we believe in terms of the infrastructure and the storm water constraints uh we can adequately
address those uh based on the testimony provided. Uh the proposal also does not impair the zone plan or ordinance. The overall development pattern remains unchanged. Uh residential use is not intensified.
Uh the design enhances the functionality of the units while maintaining the intent of the zoning ordinance. So in conclusion, the proposed amendment represents a modest and well-ontrolled improvement to the development that enhances livability, provides functional
outdoor space, and maintains consistency with the approved site design. Uh so in my opinion, as a professional planner, this board can grant the noted variances as the benefits outweigh any potential detriments.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Lavage. Is there any other questions of uh Mr. Luscavage prior to concluding testimony? >> Yeah, I just have a couple. Uh on the privacy fences, can you point I I don't remember where I saw them. I thought they were in between each unit when I drove by the other day.
>> They are in the back. >> They are at the party wall between each unit. Yes. But the decks will be on the other side on both sides of each unit so that they won't be impacted. >> They're on the side. Okay. So, are they are you looking for a privacy fence because I know some of them are getting
close to the library there. Are you looking for a privacy fence there, too, or >> No. >> Uh, no, we would not. And in in terms of the library, if you do if you have been out there, you'll see that there's a a tree line through there. It's very hard to even see to the back of the units. I mean, you can, but
>> Yeah, you can. Yeah. U on building number three, too. Um, I guess that's to our professionals cuz I wasn't on the board then. No decks were approved for the original one because of that drainage. Is that why? Do you know? >> I I can't speak to that because I wasn't
the board engineer at the time here. >> I'm looking at it. I'm sure the drainage was a part of it. But the other thing is that the buildings are set back at the 20 foot setback line. So any depth on those buildings would have been would
have required a variance because it would have been set back less than 20 ft. So I'm sure the decision was made not to have deck stairs to eliminate the variances because there was a lot of public opposition to that application.
>> I guess that question are you looking for 10 by10s on those ones or or the larger ones on on building three? There's nothing there now, right? No, we would be looking for the 11 by 22 and 8. >> 11 by 22 and you think all decks on that not papa
>> are passed? >> Correct. I I think the testimony is based on when we were talking with the board engineer is that they may be they may not be 11 ft because of the drainage system, but they're still looking for the uh um a deck as opposed to just a
patio there. I don't have any anyone else. >> Just so we're clear, when the application was originally approved for the 10 by10 deck, which units was it not approved for? >> So, yeah, I can go through that. So,
there's >> only been building three. >> So, building three had no decks approved and building 11 uh buildings 11 and 12 had a different size deck. They didn't have a 10 x 10. They had a uh 8
8 foot by 14 ft deck approved. That presumably was because of the there there is a setback there as well. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Just how are you going to just how how are you going to determine that the
decks won't interfere with the system is there technique other than old maps that you're not sure accurate >> I mean military guys >> so that would be so we do call out that
the the contractor will have to locate the system we have an asbuilt so we have a very good idea where it is uh but also the design will have to be approved through the construction department and part of that will be as I said they'll have to have the footings and
demonstrate that it doesn't uh interfere with that system. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, I I mentioned before that that we need a detail for the the deck footing and and how that interacts with the storm water system. It it may
be helpful for the board to see that as well, so you know, you understand exactly what um maybe like a cross-section of the underground system where the the deck footings would go, the overhang, how much of an overhang is there in into the system that may be
helpful for the board to to make a decision. >> I don't see how you can make an informed decision without that kind of information. >> Agreed. Everyone agree with that? >> Yes. >> I think that's the concern of the board is that drainage area there. U not
understanding it. I think that's why there's so many questions on versus deck, understanding that the deck is intrusive. You're going into the ground, you know, trying to get a clear fact of how deep the drainage system is. Um, again, I understand your testimony is,
hey, the homeowners understand it, but we don't we don't quite understand the depth of it right now, you know, presented in the facts here on that. And I think based on the professional's recommendation, you know, we'd like to get more details on that to understand that and how you're going to adjust it.
And I I did did hear you say we would move them in, but I think it would have to understand, you know, is quite straight, is it zigzag, is it affecting one homeowner? Is it all of them? The whole building. I think there's some unknowns right now specifically for building three and potentially building
two with units 121 and 122 there too on where that drainage pipe is. >> We get something partial or we're just going to kick it down the road. >> You anything else? Right now >> uh no
I guess um Mr. Bill brought up interesting idea. Um, and maybe I'd defer to our attorney about this. Uh, if if the applicant wanted to remove the the decks in question and
have the board vote on the remainder of the decks that are not in conflict with the stormwater management system uh or present that the whole thing at a later date. >> Do you want to take a few minutes to discuss it?
>> Please go ahead. Thanks for allowing us some time. We appreciate it. Yeah. >> I guess we'll call the roll just of the members that are present. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Mr. >> Here >> I guess I'll ask you. Did you have time
to talk to your clients? >> Uh we did. And um with regards to the running that the the board's asking or requesting to be submitted, um Mr. Lavich is just going to go over that briefly just to make sure that we submit what the board's looking for. >> Okay.
>> So I guess I'm referring to everybody has this drawing. I forget what exhibit number it is. >> No. So, normally if you were doing a deck uh and we didn't have the drainage issue,
you would have your sonnet tube footings at the corners right of the deck. So, what we're saying is because we're overhanging um the drainage system, we would pull back
the uh footings to say halfway this location. So, the drainage system, we would be in virgin ground. We would not be into the drainage system. And from what our structural engineers was telling us, we would bring the footings instead of them being the normal three
feet down, the footings would go down somewhere around 7 ft. So they would be deeper than the storm water system. So that would that would decrease any bearing on the storm water system. So >> the part of the deck will actually be can
>> correct. Yeah. But I just wanted to explain what exactly what that meant. Um, and that exact that exact width, the 11 feet, you know, we we would still look to do that 11 feet, but it may be less than that uh
for the cantal lever because obviously there's only a certain amount of of u the deck that can be cantalvered without additional foundation. So, we just wanted to make the board aware um of that
>> and just wanted to ask the board um as it relates to those units that are subject to the uh the drainage issue if we're able to submit a rendering that meets the board's comes meets the board's satisfaction. Um would the board be willing to grant the decks on those units? Um or is it something where the
board might only be looking to do the patio? We're just looking for some feedback on that aspect. I think we still need to see the the schematics of of the drainage pipe. I understand you know the seven feet and the setback. I think the concern is you know is it hit affecting one house you
know one unit >> is it a straight line you know for that and that's where having all the facts I know the testimony but being able to see it I think we'll be able to give the board a better idea of >> just just to be um to clarify that the the drainage system is pretty much
parallel to the building. So all six units would have the same would be the same cross-section we would be showing. >> And then Ben just you say it goes down by 123 and one I'm sorry 1221 in building two. Then does it snake
around? >> You need a similar detail. It may not be as as severe of a an overhang uh for units 121 and 123, but we still need to see how that would work. And I I might have missed it and I to
you. How high off the ground are the decks there? I don't I don't >> So they would be meeting the first floor. So approximately 2 and 1/2 to 3 ft. >> Diver to our our engineer. Is that enough room if there was an overhang to work on the pipe?
>> Well, I I think and and there was testimony about this. If there was to be work done on the pipe, it's likely those decks or patios would have to be removed um in order to access the the pipes that are
underneath. If they're working on the other side of the the drainage system that's closer to the property line, likely it wouldn't need to um it wouldn't need to impact the decks or patios. But um regardless
of the the height above the ground, they would be in conf. Um, I think one one other thing is with if if uh the applicant comes back with a revised plan and and a detail, I think the decks would need to be like fully
architecturally or structurally designed with sign and sealed plans because um essentially to the point where they could be submitted for uh to the building department because we don't want to run into a case where it's
approved by um you know the board and and by me and then the building department looks at it structurally and says no this fence post has to be moved out uh 2 feet uh and then they're they're not considering the conditions
that the board put put into place. So I I think uh a full sign and CLD either structural or architectural plan of the decks uh should be submitted. I guess the question would be is there any other is strictly the structural
issue what the board has you know if if you guys are looking at it and saying you just don't like the proximity to the property line or you know the potential for somebody you know for the board to go through that expense. we really want to know is can
we will we get an approval if we go through this process. I think that's I know that's tough for you guys to say, but at least you could narrow it down that the only issue here is the the issue with the drainage system and you know, not something else. Like if you
guys going to look at it and then say, you know, I don't like the way it looks from this viewpoint, you know, that's a considerable expense for the board to go through just to uh to find out they're doing patios anyway.
I I think the the board's concern is really the drainage on that in the effect of that uh you know essentially putting that on top of it and then having you know if there's an issue you know and and again I know we're saying we're going to set it back but if you know we accidentally hit something you
know I think the real concern raised by the engineers you know something happens during construction and not knowing six months down the road u you know something is clogging the pipe I think that's really the concern there because of the drainage issues on the property as a whole. There's a number of I don't
even know what they're called, the drain wells throughout it. I know there've been a lot of work on them throughout the whole process here that we've seen. You know, it's very open to the public, but I think that's the main concern from the engineer and the professionals here that the setbacks. Um, again, I think that's where Ben's,
you know, recommendation is we really kind of want to understand, you know, the size in each one of the these. You know, I know it's up to this, but, you know, those plans would be better for the board to make a more determined for the the whole units as a whole. I think what the applicant is is getting at is
would the board consider approving the the setback variance for the decks if they satisfied um the the items that we brought up today um that
if if the setback variance would isn't going to be approved they don't want to go through the the hassle of of doing this work. So that that's their question. I think our issue is really the drainage issues with buildings three and possibly building two, right? Like I
think that's mainly where concern is. >> Yeah. >> So >> that's really >> I don't think it's I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's at all. If I were the applicant there I would have given the same exact testimony to Mr. Right.
And I realize this might pit some of the residents versus the others. And you know, we're good, but they're not. And I know I live in a neighborhood just like this, so trust me. But I think we can get there. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate everybody, >> but the variance, I mean, the sets, I don't think that's like I said, the d like counciloman Cap said, it's it's really the drainage issues that >> Yeah. I I know you can't ask, but I was we were kind of just looking. I'll just be as frank as I can. We were looking at
is there a fatal flaw that if we did this there's you know something you can't get over you know we didn't we just want to know that >> if possible. >> Yeah. >> Understood. >> Do you have an idea when we look in July?
I know it's a little hard to say. This is a lot that you got to do. >> Just so I want to get it on the record. Are we coming back in? >> I think >> about noticing and then we have >> I just want to put it out there like I think if we're not talking about
buildings two and three that I mean I would have been comfortable approving everything except for buildings two and three if you're willing to proceed on that b you prefer to proceed on that basis. If you want the decks patios on buildings two and three then you would need to was really that's what you know we were
trying to get out >> just just to clarify that too. Um, no way. We can just have that part go through and then come back for just the units voting. They have to vote on your application, >> the full application.
>> I mean, they could vote on and eliminating those. >> Correct. >> Those were modified as um as Miss Havlin mentioned that becomes the application. In that case, those people in buildings
two and three wanted to come back with decks. That's a different application at that point. And what council is is asking is could the board vote on everything except for buildings two and three, get that in the bag, and then
come back next month on the same application with perhaps the details that we're talking about buildings, three That's a very efficient idea. I don't that works technically. >> I think it has to be two applications.
You know, if we make a if we make a recommendation for a resolution excluding buildings two and three, please correct me. I think it's a new application for buildings two and three >> in the future. weeks for
three weeks for the plans to get in. That would possibly put us at the next meeting then if that's >> site plan requires 21 days. >> So I did I'm just looking so you don't have to renotice. >> Yes. So if we announce it now kind
>> of notice >> there was aboutund and something >> I just think it probably be best to say July you know you rush through and get it in and then by time Ben looks at it
and does is able to report. Yeah, >> just so we could announce it now, which >> that's okay with with the attorney. >> July 27th. >> Okay. So, any members of the public are here on this application. It will be
adjourned till July 27 with no further notice. And I have to ask so the applicant consent to extension of time for the board to act. >> We do through July 31st. >> We do. Thank you.
>> And I can I spend can you just repeat again what you recommendations to bring for next meeting from the applicant? >> Yeah. Uh >> just so we get on the record. should should bring a detail of how the the decks are going to be
constructed uh with the locations of their uh foundations and supports uh and and the location of the storm management system that are adjacent to units two and three. Um the plan should also be signed and
sealed uh by either an engineer or an architect that that would be submitted to the building department. Um so that we can we have a full design of of what the deck um
is is going to be. uh in instead of just a a plain detail that that just kind of shows uh locations of of foundations without any actual engineering uh design. >> And do we need any plans on the on the drainage pipe that we need from the
applicant? >> The applicant submitted as plans. Uh so those are, you know, the show the locations of the the recharge trenches. Um I'm fine with those. It should just
graphically be shown in a in a detail showing where the foundations are and and how you know the distance from uh the existing system >> and anything different do they need to bring if it's patio versus you know if one's patio one's deck one's patio do you need anything or it just needs to be
detailed on each and every one? They could they could bring two separate details showing the a a patio and a deck and how the the two would look over top of the storm system.
>> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Anything for questions for us? >> Thank you. >> Thank you every time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Motion to close the meeting at this time. There's no further business at this time. Okay, I'll make a motion. Um,
>> I second. >> We have a second. Mr. Be second. All in favor? >> Thank you, everyone.