Seattle. That was interesting. Good e good evening everybody. >> We're going to call the uh regular uh the township ocean board of adjustment meeting for January 15th to order. Do a roll call. >> Mr.
>> Here, >> Mr. Delom >> here. >> Miss Mr. Chamora >> here. >> Miss Li >> here. >> Mr. Pelli >> here. here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> here.
>> Okay, let's move to the flag. [clears throat] >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay.
>> The notice requirements of the ocean of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. A copy of the notice having been sent to the Hasbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. There's an emergency through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. There's no smoking. Uh
no new cases will be started after 9:00 and no new testimony will be taken after 9:30. Uh we will be limiting 45 minutes for each testimony tonight. So that is in all cases. We were holding that 45 minutes for each case tonight. All meetings will be video and audio taped
and shown on the Township of Oceans Community Cable channel, channel 22 on Verizon FiOS and channel 77 on cable vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a call, please make your call outside of the meeting room. Uh we have minutes for approval. Uh January Do I have to do them
individually or can I do them at the same time? >> No, there shouldn't be a >> It says January 16th. Okay. You're just testing me. Got it. >> Yeah. Uh what about what about the administrative approval? Is that not on
here either? [clears throat] >> No. No, we don't. >> I'll do that in the office. >> Okay. So, that's gone too. Okay. Okay, we have three resolutions to be me memorialized tonight. Two Dwight Drive, uh 250 Cliffwood Road and 741 Roosevelt
Rosel have >> those will all be done together. Is everybody up here eligible? >> I have it. >> Oh, well, just make sure the right people make the motion. Mr. M,
>> I'll move for positive resolution or positive a second. Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And vice chairman. >> Yes. >> Okay. The following cases, the following
case is being carried to the February meeting will be and will notice for said meeting to Texas A LLC 219 Lewis Street, block 17, lot 26 and 44 in the R4 zone. So that is moved to the February meeting
which is February >> February 19th. >> Was there anybody here tonight on that application? >> Don't see anybody. >> Okay. With notice. Okay. Old business 55 WPR holdings. >> Mr. Chairman, I see that Mr. Aens is not
here yet. >> Okay. >> So, their attorney is not here. Um, so maybe we should I know [laughter] what we originally talked about. >> Okay. So, we'll start moving on moving on to new business. We'll uh move to Floral Lax 240 Overbrook A lot 22, lot
34 in the R4 zone. Please come forward. Where's the applicant? >> The applicant's not here. >> So, who's the attorney? >> There [snorts] is no attorney. We have the uh I'm the engineer. >> You can't represent the applicant. >> She needs to be here.
>> She needs to be here. >> Neither be the attorney or >> Wow, we're doing great. Moving on. >> Be a short night. >> All right. So, >> I'll we'll find out. We'll find out if we can get her. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Okay.
>> This is why we recommended an attorney. [laughter] >> Okay. Maybe third times a charm here. EOM 41 Holdings LLC 41 Peach Tree Road, block three, lot 59 in the R5 zone. Attorney is Mr. Salvatore Alfieri. Did I
say that right? >> Yes, sir. >> Time to time. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Salvatore Alfuri of Clearary Gobi Alfur and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant. >> Before you start, I'm just going to mark
in the exhibits that I have. Exhibit A1 will be the application, the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the elevation certificate. Exhibit A3 will be the topographic survey and exhibit A4 will be the plot plan. Then I
have the following exhibits on behalf of the board. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report and exhibit B4 will be the letter from the plate
editor. >> Thank you Mr. Lex. >> You're welcome. Go ahead. So, uh, as I said, my name is Sal Fury, uh, Clearary Jacob Alfury Jacobs. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. Uh, we're here tonight to present an application seeking some variance relief related to
a residential property as far as it concerns, some existing improvements and then, uh, some new improvements to that property. We have two witnesses tonight. We have a representative of the applicant who's going to come up and just provide some very brief testimony as to what's currently on the site and the and what what's new and what we're
proposing. and then we have some planning testimony that will get in and uh we believe will justify the variance relief that we're seeking tonight. So, if it pleases the board, I'd like to just jump right into the testimony. Thank you. >> Right there. And this is the survey.
>> So, if we have a copies of the survey that we just for the benefit of the board, um we can mark that A5 if that's okay. Is this the same survey as A3 that we marked in? >> Uh is it I >> the existing >> is it dated June 10th, 2025?
>> Oh, it's a different survey. >> Yeah, the survey. So, this is a survey. >> Just showing the existing conditions. >> Okay. So, this is an this is an existing condition survey. Yes, >> we'll mark this in as exhibit A5.
You want more? I have more. You want? Yes. Yes. Absolutely. >> She's a representative. She's a All right. So, I'll swear in the witness you swear testimony about the whole truth about the truth. >> Yes.
>> I just am >> a M y r i c t e r m an >> and your uh your affiliation with the applicant >> consultant. A consultant. Okay. Go ahead. I shouldn't say just a consultant. >> [laughter] >> insulted for
>> it's been it's been a long couple years here and we finally made it here. >> Um okay, good evening. Thank you. Um so the existing conditions are we are in the in the flood plane zone. Um it's a residential home. Um there was um an
existing driveway which I believe we had discussed was going to be redone. The tree that the town had asked for to remain. Um there's an existing pool there that was put in probably 50 60 years ago. We went back on the pictures. It's all existing. Um the client went
and put in new pavers just to redo the pavers. There were some pavers there that um had broken and that triggered an issue of anything existed. Whatever was existing would need a variance in order to replace it. Um, so we're looking for the uh the
variance to um replacing the pavers around the pool as well as also to make a PA pathway from the side of the house leading into the backyard of the pool being that it's in the wet plains in order, you know, when it rains and the grass is swampy and muddy that they
could step on onto the pavers. Um, there was also a concern regarding the fence in the backyard um that it wasn't sturdy enough and protection with the pool. Um, and the client has agreed to do the six-foot um, white vinyl fencing, sturdy, durable for protection um,
around the property. Um, I think that's all the exist and the gazebo pretty everything that's on the property is all existing. Um, the only thing that we have that we did already was the papers around the pool until we had an issue of getting a CO on the property that that triggered it. Um, also the pool heater
has been placed onto a um, it was like a three foot high box >> to address the flood >> to address, right? We we figured we got around that issue. Um, but we're here just, you know, as the hardship as owner, you know, just to enhance the property and just to make it work for everybody. And for the board's benefit,
um we did review the planners report and the engineer and and as Amy alluded to, uh we're prepared to comply with all the comments and the recommendations of both the planner and the engineer should the board uh be inclined to grant the relief we're seeking here tonight. And that that's generally our testimony
about what's on the the site unless the board has any specific questions. Uh we do have a planner who's prepared to testify uh in support of the the variances. Is the you said the fence is it actually going uh in in the backyard also? >> You said all around the property the fence
>> the f whatever the fence that is existing to be replaced with this with the six foot vinyl. >> All right. But so so currently is not a fence in the >> plans fence around the whole pool. >> There has to be a fence >> around the whole entirely around the pool >> as the barrier. Correct. >> Yes. With with self-closing
>> self closing gates 100%. >> All right. So you're putting the pool uh the pool safety fence. Correct. what we call that's what we call >> full barrier >> full safety fence which is not which is not the white vinyl fence that's going around the property it's a separate fence >> it is it will be going right because the
back right now it's the pool in the backyard there is some sort of fence but it's not >> we need we need to have a plan if the board approves it we need to have a plan showing >> we'll have the pop still copy of the of the survey in front of you just so you can see it
>> thank you >> I just want you to see where the fence is now >> on It has to connect, >> right? And that's >> you can't use the the third or like the edge of the right side. Correct. Yeah. >> It will enclose the whole
>> the existing fence is dilapidated stock. >> So replace I'm sorry. Is the fence going to cross over the entire backyard or not? >> So >> So here's the pool. This is the backyard, right? So this is the wooded fence right now.
>> Yeah. So I believe that as the fence is currently built, it has an opening which needs to be addressed, right? That's that that's a concern. So what we're going to what we're proposing is is that we're going to >> the survey shows that it only goes on the side property line, right? And it doesn't doesn't go any place else on the
site. My concern is I don't care whether it goes around the whole property. My concern is that the pool is made to be safe and secure. And we we would defer to the board as far as you know and work with the planner as far as the the placement of the fence. But we're prepared to enclose the the fence, I
mean the pool completely, comply with all the safety guidelines, comply with the height guidelines and what we're willing to stipulate to that and we'll work closely with the planner as far as you know the specific um you know placement of the fence in terms of uh you know whether it would run across the whole back part of the property.
>> So Mr. I'm not trying I'm not trying to be difficult with you guys. I'm really not. I'm just trying to get a better understanding is the intention that this fence is going to run because we see that it runs on two sides of the property. It doesn't it doesn't even run all the way to the property line.
They're just sort of sitting there running out >> almost to the full property line but not >> and then it just stops on both sides. >> So we would So the question is yes, are you going to run it the entire length of the backyard or are you going to just enclose it to the pool and then come
down or something like that? I'm just not clear with you of what you're saying. >> Right. So they want Yeah. They want to know if it's going to be the whole perimeter of the yard or if it's going >> I don't think she knows but say the >> the owner's here. >> Do you want a second to talk to the
owner and show them what we're talking about? >> Yeah. >> Just so we can know what's going on. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> There's another option because this the plan shows the fence is only on these three sides, >> right? You can enclose the pool just
itself with like a broad iron fence and a gate so that you can leave the three-sided vinyl. >> And that's what I thought they were doing originally. That's why I said that >> aesthetically that's beautiful. [clears throat] >> How about you go over to her? >> Wanted to thank you.
>> Yeah. My my report I revised my report a couple days ago because I suddenly realized the fence wasn't enclosing the whole pool. And basically all I'm concerned about is the safety of the pool. >> Yeah. So they can put the fence wherever they want to as long as it completely
encloses the pool. Close the entire property. >> They got flagged because they replaced the pavers. >> You got it. You got it. >> The the applicant uh the owner of the property would like to run the fence across the the the whole back of the
property. So they would it would be the the as as Amy had alluded to the the white vinyl fence with all those safety precautions all the way around the property across the back of the property and enclosing the pool. >> So it's so so essentially where the fence line end is now
>> go across >> it would run across leaving the rest of the backyard >> open >> open. Correct. >> Okay. >> There's a brook >> which is fine. I mean I'm not complaining about it. I'm just trying to get Yeah. >> Right. So basically the idea would be like kind of on a diagonal connected. >> Okay. Does the board good with that?
>> Sure. >> Yes. And >> Jim, that's okay with you. >> Yes. >> Okay. So So we're going to need a uh we need revised plans basically showing the white vinyl fence doing that. >> Absolutely. fence on the plan is going to have to change >> because that shows an 8ft highwood fence
>> and we'll comply with the six foot requirement and we'll provide that plan >> and I'll provide an updated plot plan showing the fence going across as well as the specifications of the the fence to be used. >> Okay, that's all I have.
>> And u so >> unless the board has any questions uh we'll move on to the planning testimony. >> I just want to make sure I understand. So what brought you here is so you were you replaced the pavers in kind that were there because they were
falling apart got flagged. You need a variance for that right now. >> And we also just want to add the the the pavers as a walkway that hasn't been done. That was just part of the plan. >> Okay. So that's not on the survey. >> It's on the second one.
>> Are those >> that doesn't require varian? >> That's what I was going to ask. That doesn't require variance. Right. Okay. >> There's just the papers around the pool and the fence. >> Okay. >> Oh, you know what it does? It's about 5t from the property on >> Yeah. So, there's a set there's a set
there's a setback variance as far as >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Kristen Shepard who's going to be providing the professional planning testimony in support of the variance relief.
Great. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth be God? I just state your name for the record. >> Kristen Shepard. S H E P A R D. >> And is Kristen with a K or C? >> It's C R I S Ten. I should get in the habit of spelling that.
>> Okay. And you are a licensed planner and your license is in good standing in the state of New Jersey. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you so much. So, as we know, as as what has just been discussed, we're here talking about some variances, which is what I'm here to discuss from a planning perspective, um, we already had some
testimony regarding these specific variances. So, I'll just incorporate those into my testimony as I go on with the C1 and C2. So, starting with the C1, the board has the authority to grant a C1 where there is unique physical condition hardships. Um, and in this
case, I believe a C1 is warranted given that the flood plane is right behind the house and it is um the property is irregularly shaped. It is fully developed property and I believe it's substantially constrained by the 100red-year flood plane. In addition, the rear of the property absel
uh conservation area as well as the well pond brook which further limits the feasible location to be able to put some of the equipment for the pool. uh because of these sight specific conditions uh I believe strict compliance with the flood plane uh regulations would impo would impose an unreasonable hardship and one that is
not characteristic in the typical R5 zone properties. I do believe a C2 variance is also uh something we can discuss tonight if the board would approve that with the benefits outweighing the detriment specifically relating to the other setback relief variants here. So I'll start with the
positive criteria. uh statutoily as planners we must uh demonstrate at least one purpose of the municipal land use law is advocated in this behalf and I believe multiple are I'll start with purpose C which focuses on providing adequate light air and open space I will reference the planning report that was
dated January 13th from the board planner um from this year it mentions that the proposed structures are open and do not pose any concern regarding flooding so this is directly promoting this goal to ensure that there's uh adequate light air and open space being provided provided. I'll also reference
purpose G. Purpose G, it uh really aims to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of residential and recreational uses for public and private. So, all accessory structures uh are permitted as of right within the R5 zone, which is where this property is located. Uh the placement
and configuration of these improvements are consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. I do have a um exhibit I can show. It's a little bit small to be able to pass around, but we did do a th00and foot radius that uh of the neighborhood in specifically where the site is and
within 1,000 ft um there are is a pool with accessory structures like a patio um in every block. So I believe it really does establish that this is the neighborhood norm. And I'll go even further to site the Sikon and Franklin Lakes Planning Board uh decision with
which specifically recognizes that C2 relief is appropriate where improvements uh such as pools and tennis courts encroach into setback areas and where such amenities are common within the surrounding neighborhood. >> Do you want it Do you want to mark it in?
>> We might as well we have it here. We can mark it. >> We can mark it in >> as A6. >> It's A6. Is that It's a planner ex planners exhibit. It shows an aerial, right? It does. Would you like me to pass it out now? >> Yes. >> I only have uh I have less than as uh you are here. So, I'm gonna have to pass it around. >> That's okay. That's fine. The board is
more important. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> And I realize it is small, but you will able to see the >> Yeah. So just to further uh put on the record that exhibit really is to support that there is neighborhood conformity with the pool and the accessory
structures that are here uh tonight with part of this application. >> So it's this uh these reasons that I've just stated. I believe that the uh positive criteria can be satisfied under both C1 and C2 here. So I will also move into the negative criteria which is a two-prong test. I'll start with the
first uh prong which is uh ensuring that we demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. So the rear of this property abuts undeveloped open space [clears throat] and the proposed structures will include buffering as already discussed. The applicant has
agreed to construct the conforming fence and uh plans will be revised and provided as was just previously mentioned. And as noted in the board's PL board's planning consultant report dated January 13th, the flood plane encroachment does not raise safety concerns as the structures are open and non-habitable. Based on these factors,
it's my opinion that the proposal will not result in any substantial detriment to public good. Uh furthermore, uh onto the second prong, it's my opinion that there's no substantial negative impact on the zone. As I've mentioned before, this site is bordered by open space preserving air and light. Its accessory
uses and primary use is permitted within the R5 zone. And furthermore, the uses and accessory structures are consistent with the neighborhood Norman and character. So, in conclusion, based on the testimony I just presented, it's my professional planning opinion that the application as a whole meets its statutory burden of proof for the
entirety of the requested relief and that the board can grant the variances here tonight without substantial detriment to the public, good or imparent, on the zone or master plan. >> And that concludes our planning testimony. If uh anyone has any questions, be happy to address them. Any
questions from the board? >> Any questions from the public? >> Okay. Thank you. >> I would just ask Jim, do you have any >> They shook their head. I looked at them. They went like this. >> Yeah.
[snorts] >> Yeah. Mr. Malik, everything okay? >> Only comment was regarding the foot which Okay. >> Okay. >> Any closing remarks, statements you' like to make? >> So, um I just again to summarize again,
we're we're coming in today to seek variance relief to improve the fence to improve the backyard and and to essentially look for the blessing of this board for existing improvements that are in place right now. Um so, you know, I believe we provide substantial testimony and support uh for the
variance relief. And uh as I stated earlier, we're uh willing and and will comply with all recommendations from the engineer and the planner and we'll work with the planner if the board is uh inclined to grant the relief to address the fencing and and provide updated plans.
>> Any com any comments from the public? No. So we'll close the public comment portion this case. Um anyone want to make a resolution? >> I'll make a resolution positive. I'll >> second.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you so much for your time. Have a great night. >> Okay. Next case. We're
You can't record ahead. >> Applicant is in Mexico. Unfortunately, didn't know that until about 15 minutes ago. If we're carried to February, I confir Well, we're I'm bringing her. [laughter]
Apologies for wasting everyone's time, including our architects, but if we can, you know, whatever the board can do. >> You were brilliant tonight, just like [laughter] best job I ever did. >> Uh, notice, no notice. >> That's up to the >> I don't think the board I mean, is
anybody here on this application? What's which application? It's >> that was 240 overbrook. >> Anybody here on 240 overbrook? No, I I don't think we need to renotice. >> Okay. So, we're going to carry the 240 Overbook A to the >> February 15th meeting,
>> 19th meeting >> without further notice. >> Without further notice. >> So, so I know no one's here, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you were interested in the four laxed uh 240 Overbrook Avenue application, block 22, lot 34, that application is not being heard tonight. That application is being
carried to the February 19th De said February 19th meeting at 7 p.m. You will not receive any further notice. If you want to be heard in the application, you need to be here on February 19th at 7 p.m. >> And then there was one more.
>> Okay. >> Mr. Farmer's here, so they're actually going to go forward. >> Okay. >> I know when I'm done, you said that was brilliant. Yeah. [laughter] The next case we're going to hear is 553 North Edgemere LLC. 553 North Edge block
59 lot 20 in the R4 zone represented by Mr. Faber. >> Farber. >> Farber. Sorry. [laughter] This, by the way, >> your first >> This is Faber. >> Does it say Fab? >> It does say Faber on it. >> Shame on you.
>> Yes, it does. >> It does. Shame. >> It says favor. I know it's Farber, but I read it because it says >> Mr. Don't worry. First of all, if I let out a little cough, I am I'm long past, but I have residual
>> a flu and a secondary, but it's been a week ago and antibiotic, then I'm fine. >> So, [clears throat] I don't cross the line. >> I will not come closer. >> All right. So, I am going to mark in the following exhibits. Uh, exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself.
Exhibit A2 will be the elevation certificate. Exhibit A3 will be the permit by rule application. Uh exhibit A4 will be topographic survey. Exhibit A5 will be the architectural plans. Exhibit A6 will be the proposed dwelling
grading variance soil erosion and sediment control plan. Then I have the following exhibits on behalf of the board. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report and exhibit
B4 will be the memo from the flex. >> Administrator, >> can you repeat what B uh 4? B3 was >> B3 is the board engineers report. >> Thank you. >> And then did you get the rest or >> uh flood plane on? >> B4 is the flood plane. Right.
>> Okay. One second. Well, good evening. Rob Farber representing um my clients uh 53 North Edgemeir uh block 59 lot 20. I want to start off by saying I've had the pleasure of appearing before you you
this board on numerous numerous occasions. I don't recall ever another application where I have sat through and attended technical meetings with your professionals, on-site reviews, and just tons and tons of reviews, meetings with
the clients. This has been an application that has been in the making for a while. And I just want to give by background. There was a pre-existing home that there that was permitted out for renovations. in the process of
renovations. Uh it was somewhat gutted out. There was a storm. The walls collapsed. We are essentially recreating the home with some caveats. The lot is nonconforming because of width. And although we're going to talk about a
lot, there are only three variances that are entailed with this application. The first applica, the first variance is the width of the property. It should be noted that it's a nonconforming lot, but in terms of the bulk requirements, in
terms of the physical height, not the number of stories, but the physical height, we conform. Setbacks, coverage, uh, pvious versus impervious, we conform. We are creating a home that will look exactly the same from the
street. not exactly but extraordinarily similar sizewise, shapewise to what pre-existed um and it conformed in the to the extent that the side yards were not strike that that the property is not wide enough.
The two other variances are grading variances which will be uh applying on and discussed as well as the fact that under the the house had a pre-existing basement before it was it it crashed in
onto itself. >> The basement is being converted into a walkout basement. There is a half story and because of the grading scenario this now becomes a three and a half story when two and a half story is all allowed
but because the basement is now deemed the first floor etc. So I want to start with those caveats. Um I would like our first witness to be David Feldman the architect who can describe the structure
in more detail. What was there? what is proposed and what we're looking at today. >> Okay, >> Mr. Feldman, >> you are a life strike. >> Let me swear. Okay, Mr. Felman, do you swear that you're going to give the truth, the whole truth of the
>> I just state your name spelling your last name for the record? >> David Feldman, Feld M- an Principal Architect of Feldman and Feldman Architects, Wall Township, New Jersey. >> All right, Mr. Felman, you are a licensed architect with the state of New Jersey and licensed in good standing.
Yes, it is. >> Yes, I have. >> Mr. Feldman, if you could describe based on what I said, what the h what was there and what we're proposing. >> So, here
what originally was there um according to your ordinance would be considered a threestory structure to begin with. Um the existing grade in the front of the home is relatively flat. However, on the right side or south side of the
property, the grade does slope down, which we are not proposing to change at all. Based on that slope, your ordinance would consider the original home having the basement as a story and then the second being the first floor and the
third being the second floor. There was always an original two-story home from the front of the house. However, again, based on the ordinance from the rear, that would have been considered a threetory. >> Mr. Feldman, the original house also had, I'll call them, for lack of a
better term, dormers and a floor on top. Correct. >> Yes. It it didn't have a habitable attic. >> It it was um just a twotory from the front, threetory from the back according to the ordinance. Um, so what we're proposing is basically um to duplicate
what we originally had permits for. We originally submitted the the application as a renovation addition as Mr. Farber um explained. Um there were some walls that were left for construction and
during a act of nature a storm came through took those walls down and then when we went back to the town the town decided that this would be considered a new home hence needing a variance. Um the major difference between what was
previously approved and what we're currently proposing now is the fact that we are eroding out a portion of the rear yard. So basically this area to the east which
faces the lake which is not seen from the street and has no detriment to any of the neighbors um is considered now to become a walkout. Okay. Plus the third floor or the habitable attic is now triggering I believe the reports that
are are saying that it's a three and a half story. Um, the intent is to create a full basement with some usable space, um, some mechanical room, storage, entertaining area that could then come out to a patio area and then
walk up a couple of steps to the existing grade, which the engineer will be able to testify to um when he during his testimony. Uh, the first floor is basically identical to what we originally proposed. um which
would consist of a living room, dining room, family room and kitchen as well as a deck area. And the second floor is again very similar to what was originally prop proposed and approved for construction initially. Um
as well as the habitable attic that we're proposing. It's important also like Mr. Farber said was that even though we are considered a three and a half story structure from the front it meets all your requirements. Uh we are
under the 30ft height limit. Um we are not really changing the grade um to any significant uh change on in the front of the elev in in the front of the house. Really the significant changes are only occurring to the rear like I said
earlier is not seen by anybody. It faces the lake, it faces east, and um there's really no detriment in my opinion. In addition, what we're proposing is, and the engineer could talk about it a little bit more, is that
there was a [clears throat] garage on the property that was I think about 3 ft 2 ft off the property line. um on the south side of the property. We are proposing to remove that garage in
entirety um and locate a new cabana on the north side of the property that conforms to the 150 ft square footage uh conforms to the uh 10-ft height limit and is again in conformity with all your
regulations as per the ordinance. Sorry. No, go ahead. No, no, please. >> How many bedrooms in the original home? >> I believe there were four >> and now we're proposing six >> and >> five five plus a maid's room.
>> And the attic, there was nothing in there before. >> Correct. It was It was a walk up attic. Um but it wasn't really habitable. >> And what about now? What are the plans? Uh, the attic now is going to have a
bedroom, game room, and a deck area that overlooks the lake. >> The new building is on the same footprint as the previous property. >> Yes. >> Same exact footprint found >> as what was previously approved. >> Previously approved.
>> Yes. >> Except there's a front that's >> Yeah. Okay. Let's see. to lift six bedrooms. How are we with parking? >> So, six bedrooms requires three parking spaces. >> Actually,
no. Which Ben is not aware of. The residential site improvement standards were amended. Previously we were going on their requirements that had the number of parking spaces
tied into the number of bedrooms and they the standard said these are the parking spaces that are required to minimum. They have changed that now because they were getting a lot of push back from towns and now the residential
site improvement standards are the maximum that the town can require. Our ordinance has not been amended to comply with the residential site improvement standards because they always superseded the ordinance. So now
with this change the parking requirement is two which I'm not happy about but but that's that's what the requirement is now. >> Miss Litman with regard to your question and um Mr. Lynn will approach this. I believe the uh plan provides five
parking spaces. So I think it's a moot point and hopefully Mr. Higgins will be out. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Sorry. That's okay. >> Any other question from board members? >> Um Fley, can you just reiterate the
>> the point about the heights because I think it's important for the board and the public to understand that it's a number of stories, not a building height. >> That is correct. So, so what's in question is the number of stories of the structure that we're proposing. Um, your
building ordinance allows 30 feet for, uh, I believe this was 30 in the zone, 35 ft. Um, and we are proposing a building height of 2910 from the finished floor to the ridge. Although,
now that I know it's 35, maybe we'll raise it a little bit. [laughter] Yeah, don't do that because you'd have to come back. >> I promise. Okay. [laughter] >> Right. >> So, it does conform to the ordinance
with regards to the height of the structure allowed. >> Okay. >> Any questions board members? Can you explain our board professionals have the
the proposed grade change of 4.16 ft and one has 7 feet? >> I think that's a good question for Mr. L. >> Okay. >> But that's a very good question. I'd just like it clarified or explained.
>> More questions from the board. Any questions from the public? >> Okay, good. We have to come. Well, questions. This is questions only for the architect. Okay. >> Okay. If there are no further questions from
the border of the public, I would like to call Mr. Scott Lynn, >> please. >> Uh, Mr. Scott Lynn will be uh sworn in. I'll vote him when you're done swearing him in. >> He's [clears throat] your engineer, right? >> He is a draftsman with engineering
experience who's test applied to engineering matters before the board on New Jersey. >> But he doesn't have a land engineering license. >> No, although I don't have a New Jersey licensed engineering license. I do have 37 years experience. I've appeared before this board many times and >> yeah, we've seen you before. >> Yeah, probably 20 other towns in the
town. >> Okay. Uh do you swear? All right. Do you swear testimony about the gib will be the truth, the whole truth, but the truth of God? >> Yes. >> All right. And uh just state your name. >> Scott Lynn Lynn from DS Engineering, Rocky Hill, New Jersey.
>> Mr. Lynn, you've testified before this board on numerous occasions. Correct. >> Yes. And you've worked closely as a drafts person and have been involved intricately for 37 years with uh this work. Is that correct? >> Yes, as a design engineer as well.
>> Okay. Um again, we offer him as an engineer. Excellent. >> Well, >> as a with design engineering experience >> with design, but he cannot be offered as an engineer. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um can you please describe
from a point of view the topographical issues of the grade? Let's start with that. >> Sure. So might be best if I go up to the board actually. >> Okay. So as uh Mr. Farber and Mr.
Feldman represented earlier, uh the property in question is in the R4 zone, right? The minimum lot area in the R4 zone is 10,000 square ft. We're about 10,500 and change square ft. Uh the minimum lot depth, all the sideyard setbacks, front yard setbacks, rear yard
setbacks for both the dwelling, the pool, and all the structures are conforming. It's just the the lot width, which is along the frontage of the property is required to be 90 ft. We're at about just over 60 ft or so. Uh the
the um the dwelling as was represented by Mr. Feldman is primarily staying the same footprint. We are adding a porch to the front of the house but still meeting the front yard setbacks. Uh in addition to the uh dwelling
itself, there is an existing garage which is in the southern part of the corner. Originally that was going to remain but after uh a lot of meetings and uh contemplating with the applicant and owner it was decided to then remove
the garage which is here and then um kind of cleaned up the whole property as a whole. the garage was a little rough to begin with and construct a new cabana which is 150 square ft maximum which also meets all the sideyard setback requirements and the height
requirements. Uh as far as the grade as Mr. Feldman represented the the majority of the grade in the front of the house is staying the same. Originally this there was a big long concrete driveway which went down to the garage. It was
pretty much at grade to the front of the house and then sloped down quite a bit. There was a retaining wall, an existing retaining wall which separated the driveway from the backyard elevation. Let's say uh what we are proposing now is to
effectively keep this grade as it was originally. The house here was around 20, elevation 21 above sea level down to 20. Well, it was pretty flat. It was pretty flat across this back part. What the
applicant wanted to do was to make this backyard more usable. So, we're excavating out that area. We're having a walk out basement as Mr. Feldman represented. There's a retaining wall with steps that go down to this lower
patio with a retaining wall that sort of separates the grade from the lower patio being at about 1866 19 up to the existing grade which is in the pool area about 22. Okay. So with that we are also proposing
a retaining wall along the northerly property line which 90° back to the house. This area is going to be excavated. this whole area will remain primarily the same elevation as it is. So to answer your question, we have a grade
difference which the ordinance permits a maximum of a 2ft grade differential. Unfortunately, we can't meet that. So, we have about a four 4 and 1/2 ft grade difference here that's being proposed as a result of lowering the pool, the
cabana, and so on and so forth down to about 7 ft, which is the the patio elevation versus the existing grade. >> I'm sorry, >> you're saying it's both. >> It's both. >> They're both, right? >> Yeah. >> Just where it is. >> It depends where you measure it.
>> So, the lowest by the spot. So you're walking up steps to get to the pool, >> correct? So this this this patio elevation will be lower. You will step up to the pool elevation and the cabana would be at the pool elevation as well. >> So it's about uh 4.5 is what you said,
right? >> Correct. >> And then the other one is seven >> seven feet. >> Seven exactly. >> Yeah. About y >> about approximately 7t. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. So the lowest point from existing grade
you're going down is seven feet >> from from the from right from the existing highest grade to the lowest grade. >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> As as a as a condition of this patio >> just where the patio >> That's correct. Y >> and then as you move to the pool you go
back up to existing grade. >> Yes. >> And then as you move north >> it the grade >> 3 ft. >> Yeah. And we're excavating that out. Yes. >> Okay. >> And just out of curiosity, the existing home before it was destroyed, there
[snorts] was a great differential of more than 2 ft to the garage. Significantly more. >> Yeah. >> So this is is this a mitigation similar or how would you characterize? >> I would cons I would consider it a better use of the property really for
the for the use of the backyard. Okay. I don't know if it's a mitigation necessarily, but this is not being changed. However, this this area in the backyard is being more functionally more functional. So, essentially the property drops. So,
the front of the property is much higher than the rear of the property, which is always the condition of the property itself that sort of creates this problem. >> Absolutely. So from where the ground floor level is
to the 7 feet down on the patio, what's that? What what's what's elevation of the first ground floor compared to the patio? >> Sure. So the finished floor is going to be at 29.03 to be technical. And the patio walk out
is actually at uh 19. >> How you how you going to >> Well, there's there's the box. Uh there's going to be drains in here that will accept that water and drain out >> into the into the dry well ultimately. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Because you're creating a bathtub.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, there's also a a a fiberglass deck which is going to be above that patio, but of course there's still going to be rain water that >> run off from the top. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, as far as other conditions of the site as we're proposing, um we we
are proposing a a rather large dry well in the front of the property which is going to handle all the impervious coverage uh generated even though it wasn't there before. We are taking in the house and the patio and the cabana into consideration and getting that into
a drywall. Uh, we did receive a report from Ben dated December 15th which had about five or six comments in it and of course we're going to agree to addressing all of Ben's comments as part of the approval if you decide to grant the approval.
>> Um, in addition to removal of the driveway straight that the garage >> there is a pool that there's it's permanent and it's we we don't need a variance for that. But the question I have is we are adding more parking on the other side. Correct. >> Correct. So, what we're going to end up
with is five spaces in total. Those five spaces will be three within this area of the site, which is the southern part of the property, and then two additional spaces on a separate driveway on the northerly part of the site. Now, I I did
hear what Jim said about the RSIS requirements for parking requirements. Um, my understanding and when the site plan was prepared, we did meet the parking requirements for a sixbedroom house which only required five spaces, but I'm
going to look into that, Jim, because that's news to me as well. >> Yeah. Well, >> I just learned about it last night. [laughter] >> I just learned about it right now. Thank you, Jim. >> Uh, probably if you had four spaces, you
would comply easily with the RSIS. Like the more you have the better. >> Sure. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> It goes so far, by the way, the new rules that if the board requires more >> than what ours has, you have to have like send a report up to the state of New Jersey advising them why you're
doing that. >> So, it's completely flipped on its head. >> I see. >> Good for lawyers. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> And developers. Um, as far as any other testimony regarding the site or site plan or construction,
>> other than the width of the property and the number of stories and the graves, both wise, we comport. I mean, there's not overbuilt. Um, it meets the height other than the number of stories. We're five foot or so below the maximum. And
in terms of coverage, we're good. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah, we're well under the maximum impervious coverage. The maximum uh allowable is 65%. We're at about just under 45%. >> But nonetheless, we still added this discharge area the uh
>> correct. >> So, >> yeah. >> And uh we did have I I feel it's important [clears throat] for obvious reasons. We did talk to the professionals and we tried to make this as appropriate as we
>> Yeah. on several several occasions. We even met out at the site with uh Jim and Ben. >> Two TRM on a site this >> Yeah. Yeah. Plenty. Yes. [laughter] >> But they were good times. It was It was productive. Very productive.
>> Very productive. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> You said the original structure collapsed. >> Are those walls being reinccorporated in the exact same place or is this a start from scratch? Yes. >> Well, wait. You got saying two different
things. >> Okay. So, to answer your question, we are replacing the walls in the same exact location of of what was there previously. Those walls as part of mother nature doing what she did. She uh
the bu the house just collapsed and entirely and part of the foundation also went with it. So, in order to accommodate a new structural house, a new foundation needed to be built. That's part of the reason why we're here, actually.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Malik, is everything in your report answered there? There was one that I had a question on which was the you were asking for a copy of an approval uh from a prior >> yes
>> retaining wall plan. Was that addressed and [clears throat] do we need to address it tonight? >> I I can address that Ben if you'd like. >> So back before all this happened before we had to submit an application for a variance. We did have uh permits issued
for the the reconstruction of the house pool plans um and All the improvements in the backyard were also submitted by the contractor and those permits at least the plans were approved at that point. So although
we are removing the garage and proposing a cabana, the intent of a pool and patio was originally approved as well. I hope that answers your question. >> This is answer. >> It doesn't provide the copy of the plan
that we will say. We'll make approval contingent on the you receiving that also. Okay. >> Yes. Um I'll also say uh the last comment in my report uh talks about the uh FHA applicability report. Um
essentially uh what what applies here is NJD permit by rule. Um the and what a permit by rule is it's uh a permit that's already been issued by the state for certain regulated activities
uh subject to somebody you know a resident complying with certain conditions uh that are linked to that permit. Um so in this case uh you know the the pool the patio the retaining wall that is is close to the regulated
area which is you know near deal lake uh flood hazard uh area repairing in zone. So there there are certain conditions that um need to be met and the report lists those conditions. It just doesn't specifically address how the application
complies with those conditions. So that that's what what I'm looking for which which uh the said they they will provide uh and and you know that that will be condition of approval and I have no problem with that. >> Okay.
Any other questions from board members? Okay. >> I have no further direct from Mr. Lynn. >> Okay. Any questions from the public for Mr. Lynn specific to what he testified to? >> Let me just let me ask this question though. Mr. Farmer, do you have any other witnesses?
>> As of now, I do not. >> Okay. So, so Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that you, since there are no other witnesses, just to be clear for the public that it be questions and general statements. >> Okay. Questions or comments from the public? Sir, you had a comment. You need to please come up. Uh, grab a
microphone. You have to be sworn in. Please state your name and address. >> Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, but the truth help? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> It's Steven with a V. Last name Asulin. A ss o u l i n >> o u l i n. And your address, please,
sir. >> 567 North Edgemere Drive. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, uh I uh I live uh two houses down from uh this property and you know that I lived here for 10 years and the neighborhood uh it really changed.
There's uh really estates going up. Um it still has that uh charmmy feel. the you know uh my neighbors are walking their dogs, my kids play outside and this property um has been you know in the limbo for so long now. It's really
like uh it's taken its toll on the neighborhood as far as the you know the overall you know the houses being built next as you you know the board knows all the uh variances and everything that went up but uh just the charm of the
neighborhood uh would really uh move up a lot if uh we could get this project underway. Um me, I spoke to my neighbors. No one really has any serious concerns. You know, obviously they have to do what you do and comply with all
the ordinances and the board's requirements. But as far as, you know, an a neighbor walking by and seeing a construction site, it's all right. You know, I get it. 6 months, a year. Okay. This is going on years. I have a blue tape. you know, this property, it's
really uh I would love to get this project underway, you know, not just for the whole neighborhood. I'm not speaking for myself as well as all my neighbors. Like, if you live on my block, there's, you know, everyone's walking their dogs, the kids are playing outside. Uh they're riding their bicycles and, you know,
walking around the construction site that's boarded off with gates. Um, yeah, I just want to say to the board and and the members here that I I really have no issue uh with this project getting underway and I'd like to, you know, see
an estate. I you know, nothing uh within the conformms of the board. Obviously, nothing uh crazy, but uh you know, if they're complying with the requirements, uh yeah, I would love to see this project get underway. Uh, it's been a while where we had a construction site
and yeah, I'm a little tired of it. That's just my personal opinion. >> Oh, thank you, sir. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other comments from the public? >> Sir, if it's a conversation, I think I hear you that it's an eyesore the site,
but that's why Mr. Farber's here. It's indicative of the fact that they're working really hard to move forward and and begin. So, I as an attorney and an officer of the court, this isn't a courtroom. There
aren't rules of evidence. And I can tell you, subject to Mr. Lexine stopping me if he thinks this is improper. Um, I did have communication via text with the uh
one of the neighbors at uh 555 North. I don't think we can go with the text message that you had with the neighbor as evidence of anything. >> It did show him the plants. >> Okay, >> it's fine. >> That's why I said >> I don't think you need it >> because we can't ask that neighbor questions. And
>> Mr. Lex, I am not orange. >> Okay, >> it's a good try. >> I don't know that it's necessary. >> Yeah, you'll be all right, Mr. Okay. Any other comments from the public? If not, we'll close the comment public comment section. Okay.
Anything else from the earth? >> The only comment I have is that removal of that garage is a substantial improvement. >> Okay. >> It's not the most aesthetically pleasing thing to look at. >> Got it. >> Nothing. >> Uh, we went over the the comments in my
report. The applicant agreed to comply with them, so I don't have any other >> great >> questions. Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion for a positive resolution. >> I second. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fuji. >> Yes. >> Mr. Leski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Konaga. >> Yes. >> And vice chairman. >> Yes. >> Well, thank you very very much. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you for accepting my testimony.
>> Okay. We are going to take a two-minut break [clears throat] or five minute break. would come back here at >> 8:10. 8:10 if that works for everybody.
>> Uh, make a motion to open the meeting back up. >> Can I just say all >> Okay. >> I I we can just we can just make it clear for the record that everyone who was here before is back. So, we don't need to do the roll.
>> Mark is right there. >> Okay. We are going to recall 55 WPR Holdings LLC 55 WMSA point road uh block 113 lot 35 in the R six zone represented by Mr. Atkins,
>> Mr. >> Akens, sorry. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Uh, good evening, chair, board members. Mark Akens on behalf of the applicant. At this time, I'd like to call um a principal of the applicant, uh, James Harmon. Ask that he
be sworn. I'm going to like to ask him a few questions. Thank you. >> Right up here. You have to be sworn first. >> All right. Mr. Harman, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be? >> I do.
>> And state your name by your last name for the record? >> James N. Armen. H A R M A N. >> And middle initial end? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And your relationship to the applicant? >> I'm the sole
member. >> Okay. Thank you. Of the LLC. >> Of the LLC. And that LLC, thank thank you, Mr. Lexine. And that LLC, Mr. Harmon, is what name? Uh >> 55 WPR Holdings LLC.
>> Okay. And um again, you're the sole member of that LLC. >> Correct. >> Right. I'm going to show you a document that's identified as a um a deed and it's not certified, but it's a deed from
uh Joseph and Adila Canali to Marian-ASC Property LLC and New Street LLC. So, two LLC's there and it's dated uh June 21st, delivered on July 1st, 2024.
Um, I'm going to show you that. Can we mark that? I think we're up to A13. >> I am up to That is correct. A3. >> A13. Right. >> Do you have a copy of that for us? >> I'm going to give you this copy. Yep. I'm going to just mark it and then I'll give it I'll give it for the record.
>> Sure. A13. I'm going to mark it as January 15, 2026. And this is a deed to this property. >> This is a deed toif to to the property located at 55
>> Damasa Point Road. Okay. So now with regard to that deed that's been marked as A13, Mr. Gazowski, when when you say can I have that back, sir? Oh, you want? >> Yes, sir. >> We're just going to leave it in the record for the moment. So, showing you
A13, Mr. Harmon, now these two LLC's that own the property, Marian SC Properties LLC and New Street LLC. Do you have any ownership interest in them? >> I do not. >> You do not. Do you know who the members are? If you know, >> I know one of the members. Yes.
>> Okay. And who is that? >> His name is Howard Freriedman. >> Okay. Terrific. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask that we mark um another deed which I'll mark as A14. My math is right.
And this is the deed for 53 on Amamasa Point Road. It's a deed that's dated August 27th, 2025. It's between Kyle Taj Haggler and Paige P A I D GR LLC
as the grantee. Okay, I'm going to show you this this document. Mr. That's the deed to 53, the property on the east. >> This is not the property in question. >> It's not the property in question. It's the property to the east.
>> [clears throat] >> It is >> just for identification. >> Just for identification. >> Okay. Thank you. And Mr. department. Calling your attention to what's been marked for identification only as exhibit A14. Page Group LLC.
Do you have any ownership interest in Page Group LLC? >> I have no ownership interest in Page Group LLC. >> Do you know who the members of that LLC are? >> I know one of the members. >> Okay. And what's the name of that member? >> His name is Howard Freedman. >> Okay. To your knowledge, do these LLC's,
the ones that I've referred to that are reflected as the grantees in A13 and A14, do they have other members as well? >> They do. >> Okay. And it's clear, right, that Marian SC properties and Newell Street Marian
Street Properties LLC and New Street LLC are the co-grantees of 55. And yet a third LLC is the grantee of 53. on the point. >> That's my understanding. >> Correct. >> All right.
>> I wonder if you could tell the board, Mr. Harmon, what your interest is as the contract through your LLC as the contract purchaser of 55 Wamasa Point Road. >> Well, it's my intent on uh board's approval to build a single family house
for myself and my family. Uh I'm not a developer. It's uh it's um I love the location there and um have intention of building a house for my family and potential grandchildren.
>> All right. So So I'm just going to say this. You know, the board does not take into consideration that you are in that you're going to live there personally. I I don't allow that because again, as I always say, if I had a nickel for every single time a developer came in and said that they are going to build a house for
themselves and then live in that house and then they sold the house two seconds after they got the approval, I would be a billionaire. So, I'm not saying you're not being honest, but that is why I do not allow that way in anyone's thinking as to whether we should approve an application.
>> Fair enough. >> Having stated your intention, Mr. Harmon, what did you do months before you came to this board? uh after speaking with uh my architect and design crew and so forth, I
>> I'm going to object to this line of questioning. What's the relevance of what he did as far as making determination as to why he was buying this lot? He's before this board. There's a house on the lot.
>> So, Mr. Gazeraski, there has been a significant issue made by a member of the public as well as Mr. Galbin at the last hearing in your place over whether uh Mr. Harmon is the owner of both blocks or not. So there there's
been time spent on this and I think that's why they're putting on this testimony right now. I don't think it's >> Repeat that Mr. >> So at the So in the previous two meetings including the last meeting, Mr. Galvin, who was here for you, >> right, >> made an issue over whether Mr. Harmon is
the owner of both lots. All right. So, I think that's what they're doing now is trying to explain the interest and whether or not they are the owners of both lots. >> And I'll keep it very short. >> Yeah. I I think I don't think it's inappropriate. B I I will continue to say I think this entire line of
questioning is irrelevant and I agree with you. They're two different properties and I don't really care if Mr. Harman stood up here and said, "I am the owner of two of both plots. It's irrelevant to the conversation, but nevertheless, it's been made an issue of again by Mr. Galvin who who stood up at the last meeting and said, "Oh, it might
actually be an issue and also by a member of the public." So, I do not begrudge Mr. Mr. Akens for for going with this line of questioning. >> He's going to establish that he owns both lots. >> That he does not >> does not own both. >> They do not own both. [laughter]
I'll stipulate that he doesn't own both parts. >> And I'm done with my line of questioning. >> Yeah, but he's not the only one raising the issue. So, I don't know if he want to be done with that line of questioning. >> Well, I I I am. We're going to we're going to rest I'm going to rest on the direct examination of Mr. Harmon at this time. >> That's fine.
>> Someone wants to cross-examine him or produce documents to the contrary, I welcome hearing that. >> This this gentleman here is still open for cross-examination as to the lot in question. Yeah, that's what that's what we just said. So, unless the board had the board
should ask the questions first if they have any questions for Mr. Harman. >> So, Mr. Harman, you don't own both lots. >> I do not. >> You're welcome. >> I have no questions. >> You should open it to the public. [clears throat] Any question? >> Okay. Public. Does the public have any
questions? >> No. I have questions. >> Let's let the public, if you don't mind, I'm gonna let the public go first. I'm gonna let the public go first if you don't mind. >> It's all good. Okay. >> Please come up forward. Yep.
>> Mr. If you can give the gentleman here the the microphone and then we'll get to you when we're done with him. >> You got to I think you got to do we have to >> Yeah, sir. Just state your name again for the record. >> Just
>> road. >> Okay. And Mr. Villio, you have been previously sworn in this application and you recognize you are still under oath. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Um, didn't you tell me as well as other
neighbors here both at an event you held in anticipation of this meeting um that you were going to live in the property that we're discussing as well as the property next door? You owned that property? How could I possibly live
in both houses? >> That you owned own both propert one person at a time. You cannot talk over each other. So are you done with the question? >> I just wanted to be clear that he own was going to live in 55. He stated to an
event of all our neighbors which um disincclined them from coming here and he w owns 53 the neighboring property and that he [clears throat] was going to sell that property. That's what he said to
multiple people. Did you not say that? >> I just want to I just want to be clear. So 53 is the other property. >> Correct. So he told your your testimony is that at a I still don't know what the relevance of this is, but but but but you're saying at an event that you were at, he claimed [snorts] he owned and
lived at 53 or >> no that he he was kind of courting the neighborhood in anticipation of this meeting. He had an event where he told a number of people in the neighborhood
that he was going to live in 55, the property we're discussing. >> He was going to live at 55 >> and he owned 53. He >> Okay. >> And I'm So I guess cuz I have to ask it in the form of a question. I'm saying didn't you say that? And he's saying no.
We can have other people. He's >> but he doesn't he he admitted he doesn't own the property. So whether he's either whether he said it previously or not, I don't care. He doesn't own the property. >> But even if he did, that's his prerogative. How is it relevant
>> to this process? >> Are you upset? Does it hurt your feelings? I'm just trying to understand. >> Sure. I didn't I wasn't going to bring it up today until he was lying or he started to lying to you. >> Well, he's under
that. And I wasn't going to bring it up again. Honestly, I genuinely wasn't going to bring it up again until this question came. So, >> let's just he he has said under oath that he doesn't own the property. We have the deeds that say he doesn't own the property. >> Let's move on.
>> Okay. So, I mean, he brought it up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else from the public have a question for Mr. Harmon? I said, Anybody else from the public have a question? M. Okay, Mr. Gazerowski.
>> Oh, I don't know what you [cough] uh I'm sorry. Uh I want I like for my own clarification. You've testified that you owned two lots in Ocean Township, which I guess are located on the same street, are they not? I testified he do not own lots.
>> He does not own two lots. >> Do not. >> That's asking. He said he does not own the lots and you stipulated to the fact that he does not own the lots. >> Okay. Does not own the adjacent lots. >> He He actually said he doesn't own either lot and you stipulated that you
agreed with that. >> Are you a contract purchaser for both lots? >> Contract purchase for one lot only. >> For one lot. Mhm. >> Now, with regard to the lot in question, uh, when did you take title to that lot? You haven't taken. >> He's a contract purchaser.
>> I acknowledge my mistake. When did you sign a contract to purchase that lot? >> You haven't got a contract? >> August of 23. >> Okay. Now, at the time, >> 24, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. At the time, did you visit
the property? >> Of course, I did. Uh having said that, at the time that you visited the property, did you intend or have plans to purchase that property uh to use it as a residence for yourself or your family, or did you purchase it for
the purposes of constructing a house on that lot for sale? >> Can we do a point of order here? This has nothing to do with this application. I don't want to be here all night. I'm not going to do a special meeting for this to come back to listen to diet tribe. Let's get to the point of sir. It
has nothing to do with it. We We heard you. It has nothing to do with it. >> Say respectfully. I don't >> No, I am saying it. You're You're disrespecting me and my time right now. So, let let's You have the board here. You know, we're not paid. I'm here on my day off. You're wasting my time. I want
to hear this application and get it done. >> You're not helping the case, sir. >> I'd like to make a comment. Whether the this applicant owns the house or not or is it contract or not is irrelevant. That has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all. So let's move on and get to the point.
>> This board testify test. >> My question of him is is it have is it your intent to do you have a contract to purchase this lot? >> We've established that. >> He said yes. >> Now uh that you sign a contract to purchase the lot and construct a house
on it as a builder for speculation. Objection as to relevancy >> doesn't matter. Mr. Gazowski, >> can everyone stop? Mr. Gazowski, what is the point of the question? Whether he he's building it to live in it or he's building it to to sell it, who cares?
>> Respectfully, the point of the question is there is in fact an existing house on this lot. So if in fact he were to purchase that lot to reside in that house, he would not be before this board seeking variances. >> Okay. That doesn't that doesn't
>> I don't I don't understand the point of your point. >> Well, the point of it is that before this board, there are numerous existing pre-existing non-conforming uh structures on on the property. So, in looking at the property, there's a house that was [snorts] for sale, he purchased
it. And my question of him was, did he purchase it for the purpose of residing in the house or did he purchase it for the purpose of demolishing? >> Mr. Gather, Mr. together ask you. With all due respect, I think that's completely irrelevant. I if if your point is did he did he understand there
were nonconformities with the property when he bought it? >> Is that your question? >> That has nothing to do with whether he's he's buying it as a speculator or he's buying it to reside in the existing house. Your question is simply did he buy the property knowing that there are nonconformities?
>> Mr. Mix respectively. All I'm asking him is that he's let's assume for the sake of argument he's a knowledgeable person when this property was on the market for sale. It was on the market for sale as an existing house. So if he were purchasing as a house for a residence,
he would not have to be here seeking variances. >> We all know that. >> Okay, that's stipulated to you. >> That's that's obvious. If he's not if he's buying an existing house, then then you would not need to come here to get variances. >> Let me ask one last question. Did you buy this house for the purpose of
residing in a house on that? >> Objection as to relevancy. >> Mr. Mr. Mr. Garaski, I I've already said that question is irrelevant. Whether whe whether whether whether a builder is going to personally reside in the house or not is completely irrelevant to whether this board grants variance relief or not.
>> I would respectfully say it's relevant with regard to his proofs needing a variance and I'll rest it in that. >> Okay. I don't see how but that's fine. >> Thank you. I understand that. [snorts] >> Questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Harman. You can >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Harmon. Applicant. Thank you, chairman. Applicant now calls Douglas Klen, licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. >> And Mr. Gazer, ask if you can please give uh Mr. Mullen the the microphone. The microphone if you can get the microphone, please.
>> It's not working at all, Nicole. technology [clears throat] >> as we go. Yeah. >> You have the microphone. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Mr. Kazarowski, you wouldn't get the microphone until it's your turn. So, >> we should be speaking on that one.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. This is the >> In Mr. Gazowski, in all I'd say, you should probably be sitting back at the back of the audience until such time as we do public comment. >> You want me to sit in the audience?
>> If you don't mind, >> I don't mind. I don't mind. >> I don't care if you keep yourself there unless No objection. It was working too. Let's see. >> Okay. You ready? All right. Do you swear in testimony you're about to give [clears throat] to be the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the true self you got.
>> Yes, I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Douglas Cleland. >> And you are a licensed uh engineer state of New Jersey. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And your license is currently outstanding. >> It is. >> Thank you. Nothing further. We don't need anything else. >> Thank you, Mr. Flex. Uh, good evening,
Mr. Clo. Are you familiar with the applicant's uh, contract property? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. And were you retained by the applicant to prepare engineering uh, drawings of plot plan and depict variances in connection therewith? >> Yes, I was. >> Okay. What can you tell the board about the engineering relative to this site?
Mindful of the prior witnesses in this matter. >> Sure. So, it's been a little while since we were here. I'll give you a quick refresh on um, some of these property information items. The lot size being 5,873 and a half square ft zoned in the R six
highdensity single family zone. It's an undersized corner lot with frontage on Camp Avenue and Wanamasa Point Road. Uh 10,000 square ft is the required minimum lot area for our lot and uh we are just
over half of that required area. Um and it's much longer than it is wide. um as appears pretty common along Wanamasa Point Road. Um we have a a lot width of 40 ft where 100 ft is required. So I
have an exhibit here. Uh I've got it up on the board. I would like to just pass it out. Um it shows a colorized version of uh the plot plan drawing that we did. Um and then also we have added uh some landscaping details to that.
>> Can we mark that as A15 please? And Mr. Akens, if you didn't already, we're going to need or at least the call is going to be A13 and A14. >> Yes, I have them right here for you. >> Just we're bound to forget it otherwise. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. No. No. Good. Perfectly
good. They're for you. around. >> So just just so we have a little bit for our record. So A15, the color plot plan, Mr. Clen, that that was prepared by your office under your direction. >> Yes, it was. >> And what's the date of that document?
>> Uh it has a date of Let me just double check. December 4th. >> So this has a a date of 124 2025. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please proceed. >> So uh just wanted to go over some of the
the summary of changes from the prior submission. [clears throat] Uh we took the comments received from the board, its professionals uh and attending members of the public into consideration. we went back to the drawing board um to make improvements to the design. So,
uh the prior detached garage was redesigned uh to be an attached garage uh which allowed us to improve overall parking configuration, setbacks to the dwelling, setbacks to the driveway and
building coverage. So the prior propo proposed front yard setback to Wanamasa Point Road was driven by the location of that existing detached garage. Um so this has been increased from 5.99 ft to
19.15 ft and that can be seen um plan south where we now have um the driveway in front of the uh attached garage. The setback to the eastern property line was also increased from 2.44.
That again was driven by that location of the existing detached garage. Um that has now been improved to 3.2 ft. Um and again that is along the eastern property line. The front yard set back to Camp Avenue
decreased slightly from 10.92 ft to 10.71 ft. Um this was a direct result of that shift away from the Eastern property line. Um the driveway setback from the corner has increased from 7.32
ft to 15.66 ft. And uh this was largely thanks to the elimination of the additional parking area that we previously had um on the western side of of the detached garage and and driveway that we were previously proposing. So,
we've greatly increased that setback from the corner, which uh also enhances safety at that intersection. Um the driveway setback from the eastern property line was increased from 3.05 ft to 4.334
ft. And the driveway width was also reduced to 20 ft which eliminates the need for the driveway width variance uh while providing adequate space for the parking of four vehicles. Two spaces are
proposed within the garage which was expanded slightly to allow for um you know comfort getting in and out of the car. Um also uh two places are proposed within the driveway in front of the garage.
That is all shown and indicated on the plan. Uh you can see the uh the white line with the with the cross line going through it indicates the four parking stalls. Um the number of proposed parking spaces is compliant with both your ordinance and the RSIS.
Um three is the required maximum for uh five bedrooms according to the RSIS and uh two parking spaces [snorts] are required for per your ordinance. Um also the air conditioning units and generator
were removed from the roof um and placed within an al cove adjacent to the garage. So, plan left uh on the western side of the garage. You can see the generator and two AC units. Um while this location technically does not
meet the required front yard setback, the mechanical equipment is no closer to Camp Avenue than the proposed front building line. In fact, it's slightly behind it. Um and it will also be adequately screened from view um with
landscaping that we are proposing. Uh this eliminates the need for the setback variances for the mechanical equipment to the eastern property line and also eliminates uh any potential noise impacts as the proposed dwelling will act as a sound barrier. Uh building
coverage was also reduced by approximately 30 37 square ft. Impervious coverage for the total lot remains compliant. Um, we've also prepared an exhibit which shows um the existing building footprint versus the proposed building footprint.
Uh, and I can pass that around now. >> That'll be exhibit A16. >> Yep. It is dated 1215 2025. >> And can you describe it again for the board's benefit, please? >> Sure. So, there are red lines and green lines on here. The
red represents um existing building footprint and the green represents the proposed building. >> So red is existing, green is proposed. >> Yes. >> While you're passing that, can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> This white along the left, that's you're
going to fix the sidewalk like we discussed last time. >> Yes, we are proposing Yeah, I got you. Appciate it. >> It's okay. move this into the green. Setbacks are actually set.
>> Okay. So, take us through A16 now if you would please, Mr. Clen. So looking at um the exhibit I just passed out um A15 as I indicated the the red dashed line indicates the existing building
footprint um and the green dash line indicates our proposed building footprint. Um, as you can see on balance, uh, the footprint is very consistent with what existed. Um, and in many cases improved as it relates to
setbacks to three of the four property lines. So, um, looking at the southern property line, we can see the existing detached garage there. [snorts] Um, and then the green line behind it, which is the limit of our proposed attached garage.
And then um along the eastern property line, it's it's a little difficult to see because it's not that much of a difference, but uh we did improve that setback as well. Um the red line being closer to that eastern property line than the green. And then again in the
back um adjacent to the water, same situation where you have um the existing red footprint u slightly closer to that back property line by the lake. And then um where you see the green encroaching
beyond the existing footprint is largely on the camp Avenue side where we in fact you know shifted the house slightly towards Camp Avenue which sort of explains that expansion. [snorts] Um and then you have the area in between where um previously in the design we came
before you with before uh we had an area between where we were connecting the detached garage to the home. Um so that's been filled in with uh proposed building footprint. Uh but I do think it shows that they're very comparable. Um and in many cases on
three sides we are in fact uh uh increasing the setback to three of the property lines. Um also a a landscaping plan was prepared uh with the help of a landscape designer and our tree expert. Um, we are
proposing to provide and these are all shown on that first exhibit I handed out. I'm going to go back to that one on the main door here. We're back to 8:15 now. So, we added our uh proposed trees and
shrubs to A15. Where is it? Go. Um and we are proposing to provide um 10 new trees on the property. Um and 157
ornamental shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Um >> the the trees that we're proposing are largely between uh the driveway, the home, and Camp Avenue. Um, we've spaced them out pretty
well. Um, and there's also another tree uh behind the patio uh on the eastern side uh between the patio and the water. So, there's 10 total trees being proposed. And then you can see along uh
the eastern side of the driveway uh around the mechanical equipment um really along the entire foundation of the home between Camp Avenue and that front building facade. U that's where the variety of uh shrubs, ground cover,
grasses are all going to be planted. Um, and given the existing condition of trees on the property that you you heard from our tree expert, um, I believe this will greatly improve the aesthetic. Um, it'll improve sight lines, particularly
for that intersection between Wanamasa Point Road and Camp Avenue, uh, and maintain adequate light and air for the new trees to be able to thrive. Um, also based upon testimony from our tree expert at the prior meeting, uh,
our proposal fully satisfied fully satisfies the number of required replacement trees without the need for a monetary contribution. Um, we do recognize that uh the proposed evergreen shrubs, which are located
slightly within the public rightway along Camp Avenue. Um, they're they're tucked really close to the property line, but they are technically within the rightway. Um, and we would of course stipulate, as was discussed before, that we would prepare a hold harmless
agreement with the township for this encroachment, making the shrubs the full responsibility of the applicant. Um, we also note that the specific type of shrub chosen for that hedge row uh will remain and be trimmed to a maximum
height of 2 and 1/2 ft, which is therefore not impacting any sight lines or intersection safety and remains uh fully compliant with uh your ordinance subsection 21-20.19. Um, we did add the required sight
triangle on the plot plan that was submitted to the Ford. >> [snorts] >> um for confirmation of of no impact. And we chose this location uh for this row of shrubs to provide adequate open space between both the uh proposed
evergreens and the proposed trees that I mentioned before to allow for healthy root establishment and aesthetics. Um so overall and as indicated uh in your board planners memorandum, we do feel these changes resulted in a
significantly improved application from the prior submission. Um and we appreciate the feedback uh from the board that helped us arrive at this result. >> Was there and I I apologize. Is there a new plan that was submitted or are we just looking at this?
>> Uh no no plans other than what was introduced at the December meeting. Okay, that's what I thought. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> So, so when you're saying that I talked about the prior meeting, you mean the first meeting? >> The the first meeting, this being the third meeting, the December meeting being the second meeting. >> Understood. >> Yes. >> I'm just making sure that we weren't
talking about last. >> No, we had we had the our plans prepared for the last meeting, but I didn't get to testify then. So, >> fair enough. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I have no further questions. Chairman of Mr. Well, >> any questions from the board?
>> Yeah, just one question. You're replacing, you're putting up 10 trees. How many are coming down? >> So, um, >> that was in the tree experts report. >> Yeah, give me one second. I can >> It was like 16 or 17 or 18 in that number. 16 trees.
>> I have 16. Yes. >> Yes. >> Many of which are some of which are less than 6 in DBH. Um and also the the tree expert uh testified to the health of these trees, many of many of which are dead,
declining, or hazardous. >> That's fine. Thank you. Any questions for the board? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Do you have the one behind the patio? So the 10 doesn't even include the
street trees, right? >> Which is an additional >> There is also two trees that we're proposing. So really there's 12. >> Yes. Okay. Any questions from the public?
>> Mr. Gazerowski. Please. >> Thank you very much. You're welcome. >> I I I just have uh several questions. I'm looking at this exhibit. Uh was was this exhibit prepared by you or was it prepared by [clears throat] someone in your office?
>> It was prepared under my direct supervision. >> Okay. Fine. And you would stipulate that it's an accurate reflection of what is existing and what is proposed. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Gazeroski, are we referring to a >> A15 and A16? >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Now, with regard to uh A16, have you had occasion to visit this site? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh as I understand your exhibit
uh you've got some dotted lines and the red dotted lines reflect what is presently existing on the site >> as far as building footprint. Yes. >> And and that reflects a a number of what we would call pre-existing
nonconforming conditions. Correct. >> There are pre-existing non-conforming condition. >> I'm sorry. There are pre-existing non-conforming conditions associated with the existing home >> with the existing home. And with regard to the proposed home, what you have
outlined in uh >> green >> green reflects what is proposed. >> Correct. >> Right. Now, is it not a fact that if in fact the applicant were to come before this board and basically mimicked or
complied with what are the pre-existing non-conforming conditions, he would not have to come before the board seeking additional uh non-conforming conditions? >> Not necessarily. Um, if there was an
increase in height, um, are you referring to if we were to match the >> Well, yeah, I'd like clarification on that, M. Are you saying if they tore down this house, >> new construction? Right. >> And built completely a new house exactly in this footprint. Is that your question? >> Yes.
>> They would have to come that then the house would be torn down. They'd have to get variances to build a new house. >> But but these would these would be pre-existing non-conforming conditions. >> Not if the house was torn down. they they'd be eliminated once the house was demolished. Mr. Gazerowski, >> having said that, would you agree with
me that with regard to what is presently there, which are non-conforming conditions in what is proposed in the new construction, there are a greater amount of nonconforming conditions than there are with regard to the existing house?
>> No, I would say we have improved several of those conditions. Pardon? >> We have improved many of those conditions. Okay. I >> I have no further questions. Okay. >> Nothing on cross on recross. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Uh since there's no questions from the
public for this witness, you are free. >> Thank you, Mr. Colin. Thank you, Chairman. Applicant now calls Robert Dudak, licensed professional planner. >> I do have an exhibit. I don't know if you want to pass it out now. >> Yes, you might as well. >> Okay. Mark it is A17.
>> A7 is a planning. >> Yeah. Take >> like nine quarterbacks. >> Thank you. >> I have an extra copy. >> Could you describe A17 for the record, please?
>> Let me let me swear it in first. Sure. Sir, do you swear a testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth but the truth help you guide? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Yes. It's Robert R O B E R T. Hudac Hu D as in David Ak. >> Mr. Hudach, you are a licensed planner
and your license is in good standing in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. And you've been I think you've been before this board before. >> I don't think I've been before this board, but >> No, you haven't. You've been before me before. I don't >> been before you a number of times already. Yeah, >> we'll we'll still accept you at this. >> Thank you for accepting his qualification.
>> Thank you. >> We appreciate that. >> At this late hour, we want to dispense with anything we can. >> All right, Mr. Hudach, you you followed this presentation from the first hearing to the December hearing to the hearing this evening? Correct. >> Correct. >> You familiar with the site? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And uh as a licensed professional planner, have you had the opportunity to consider the variances that are set forth in the application now under consideration before this board? Yes. Okay. And what can you share with the board in that capacity? >> So, first I just want to go through this exhibit which I prepared. Uh it's dated
today, January 15, 2026th. I sourced these uh views from Google Earth, although I have visited the site previously back in November. It was before Thanksgiving. I can't remember the exact date, but I wanted to get more recent photos. I used Google Earth and
took these photos. As you can see, they're photos. There's an aerial photograph in figure one. Figure two, you have camp Avenue, a street view from the northern portion of the property. And they continue along Camp Avenue for street view 2 and street view 3
and street view 4, which is actually at the corner of camp and Wanamasa Point Road. Figure [snorts] six is Wanamasa Point Road Street View. Our property is to the immediate left where the garage is located. Another view of the garage
on figure seven along Wanamasa Point Road. And then a picture of Camp Avenue facing south. So coming from the Deal Lake side of our property facing south. And the final photograph figure nine is Wanamasa Point Road facing east. So our
property is to the immediate left if you will in this exhibit. Okay. A7. [clears throat] >> Okay. Okay. So, with respect to this application and I'm going to try to summarize a lot of my points here
because I know it's a late hour, but uh the courts have outlined a specific paradigm for evaluating cases involving undersized lodge such as we have. The case obviously is the board knows, but for theification of the public, Dalmire versus Lacy Township. In that, Judge
Serpentelli summarized the law that requires the applicants in undersized lot cases to carry the burden of proof as in other cases as to both the positive and negative criteria. Demonstrate that efforts were made to bring the property into conformity by attempting either to acquire other
property or to offer to sell. In our case, I understand that occurred. We only have one adjacent property to ours. Uh and even adding that property off the you just looking at it, it's 40 foot wide. we would not meet the 100 foot minimum lot with anyway would have to acquire a third property if you will
submit detailed plans of the proposed house would describe its appearance and prove its compliance with building codes. We did that as well and attempt to where applicable to demonstrate compliance with uh use and bulk standards and the location of houses uh
in similar locations on other similar size tracks. Again, you've heard we've heard the board's concerns and address some of those issues in the in our iteration as Mr. Cullen had already stated and attempt to demonstrate that the proposed use does not violate the traditional purpose of zoning and we'll
talk about that a little later. The court further applying that the board should evaluate the testimony, determine whether it should elicit additional testimony to supplement the record, make specific findings a fact based on the record and support its conclusions. Consider whether in lie of denying the
application, it can approve it subject to reasonable conditions which would modify the proposal and obiate or minimize any negative impact. And remember to be conscientious of its review of the facts since outright denial may amount to confiscation thus requiring condemnation by the
municipality. And I took that directly from the Dalmire uh case. Now with respect to the hardship criteria, there are two types of variances. The first is the C1 known as the hardship criteria and there were some questions about this from the public if I recall from the
first meeting. So under the municipal land use law to summarize the C1 variance may be granted due to the exceptional narrowness shallowness or shape of a property whether there's exceptional topographical conditions or other unique physical uh
physical creations particular that creates practical difficulties known as undue hardships in complying with ordinance requirements. As noted in both the Lang versus zoning board of adjustment and Kaufman versus the planning board of Warren cases, the standard for evaluating a variance under
the C1 criteria is not one of inutility. Although that may be the case in certain instances, and we'll talk about that a little later in this case. Rather, the standard is whether strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance imposes practical difficulties that inhibits reasonable use and development of the
property. In our case, as noted in Mr. Higgins reports the lot is substantially under size and narrow, only 40 foot wide and is testified to 5,873.5 ft in area. Because it's a corner lot, it is two front yards. It's also
bordered by De Lake, further limiting the buildable area. We also uh we have a requirement of a 30-ft front yard setback and a 30ft rear yard setback. So that combined 60 ft of yards would virtually lend this property
undevelopable. We couldn't we couldn't comply with the front and rear yard setback requirements. As noted, we addressed the board's concerns regarding parking and now ensure that four vehicles can park on site, two in the garage and two in the driveway. And because of the limited building area, it can't not be
accomplished without some sort of variance relief. The rear yard setback also is noted as non-conforming due directly to the lot size itself. The location of the AC unit and generator are also a result of the undersized lot. As discussed in the previous previous
hearings, we relocated into the front yard. They're richly in the sideyard adjacent to the property most immediately next to ours. So, there's really limited places in which we can put these AC units and generators that would not require variance relief. So,
the front yard is only practical location. So, I'll go into that more with the C2 variance, but suffice to say, it's directly related to the property itself. Building coverage exceeds the permitted amount due to the small lot size, and compliance would preclude a functional single family home
on the site with parking in the garage in accord with modern standards. Even the existing home on the lot exceeds the the building coverage standard and demonstrates that we can the lot can accommodate a greater building coverage than what is permitted. Similarly, the driveway corner and sideyard sepex are
directly related to lot size and the location of the principal building that we propose. Thus, under the C1 criteria, I believe the board can grant those variances. Now, there is the second type of variance known as the flexible C, the benefits versus the detriments. These
are cases where the board finds that the benefits of the deviation outweigh the detriments. The proposal offers a better zoning alternative and the purpose of the municipal land use law as outlined in the m municipal land use law are advanced by the proposal. Our proposal provides on-site parking eliminating a
need for onree parking on Wanomas of Point Road which is a narrow 20 foot wide street. And if you look at figure six, you'll see there is actually a car that's parked caddy corner on one of the properties on the um northern side, if you will, of Wanamasa Point Road. It is
very narrow. Having been there, it's it's a difficult uh road to traverse. Southernly side. I apologize. Southernly side. >> I apologize. You referenced figure six, but obviously a card figure. >> Figure nine. >> Thank you. Nine upside down is a six. So, >> well, I'm a southpaw like Mr. Akens, and
we think sometimes think backwards. >> Left-handed people are in their right frame of mind. [laughter] So, as I as I was saying, the garage and driveway improve safety and access for emergency vehicles, which is consistent with the elements of the master plan. The driveway setback variants are
necessary to accommodate the vehicle access and parking on site, thereby reducing congestion and enhancing overall safety. The garage and home are, as you've heard, are proposed to be connected. The setback along Wanamasa Point Road is measured from the garage because it is attached to the principal structure and the majority of properties
along Manoa Mono Wanamasa Road have garages as you can see in figure 9. Thus, the proposals in keeping with the existing development pattern in the area. As I said earlier, the AC units and generator are placed in the front yard away from flood hazard and as far
as possible from the adjacent neighbor's home, minimizing noise and visibility impacts. other location would be closer to the neighbor's home. Regarding building coverage, the proposed home appears to be in line with the size and shape of other homes in the area. It's also noted that our proposal does not
exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage. Just as an aside, looking at the home, the proposed home itself, it's about 414 square ft that consists of the covered patio and the covered porch. Thus, if you look at it that way, the building coverage is approximately 27.6%
6% which is in line with the current structure. With respect to the purpose of the merely usable land use law, purpose a the general welfare, the replacement of an aging structure with a modern code compliant home enhances neighborhood character. Also accommodating the parking on site
advances the safety purposes of zoning. Uh purpose B, safety from flooding. The project is sensitive to environmental concerns and locating the structure where we've proposed minimizes flood risk due to the proximity of the property to deal lake. Purpose C, the appropriate population densities.
Purpose G, providing sufficient space for a variety of uses and locations according to the respective environmental requirements is also advanced. The purpose the proposed use is in line with the zoning. It's a single family home. single family homes are permitted in the area and the
variance being sought to address concerns like parking and environmental concerns such as flooding. Uh purpose H free flow of traffic. Again, locating the parking on site is important especially with a 20 foot wide street. Desirable visual environment. Purpose I
design provides an improved home on the property creates a cohesive streetscape. The garage is consistent with other homes in the area facing Wanamasa Point Road. Purpose M, the efficient use of land because the proposed development provides a single family home that complies with the maximum permitted lot
coverage requirement on an undersized lot and located in the garage along Wanasa Point Road is consistent as noted with other properties in the area. Additionally, the 2023 master plan states that this area of Ocean Township is, and I'm going to quote, is unique in
that lot sizes tend to be smaller than the balance in the R six zone. Most are 40 foot wide and any proposed development on these lots requires variances from the zoning board. This situation not only places an additional burden on the zoning board but
frustrates improvements to properties due to the additional cost of to applicants and the resulting delays due to the necessary time to complete the board approval process. It's recommended that this area be examined when the land development ordinance is being revised
and a new zone possibly designated R6A be created for this unique area. So the master plan itself recognizes the challenges and difficulties in developing in this particular area of the uh of the township. All right. So I offer that the master plan again recognizes the uniqueness and our our
proposal is in line with these recommendations of the master plan. So on balance, the benefits outweigh the deviations or the detriments, I'm sorry. No variance of course can be granted without a finding that the negative criteria is satisfied. That's that there
will be no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. The proposed home, as I've said, is consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood with respect to use, represents an appropriate uh use and
size on the existing undersized lot. We're not increasing lot coverage beyond the what's functionally necessary and maintains adequate separation from deal lake. There's no adverse impacts to light air and open space. In fact, the sideyard setbacks are slightly improved
from what we proposed initially. The AC units and generator are placed as far as possible from the neighboring properties to reduce disturbance. And as I noted that the proposal is supported by the objectives of the master plan, particularly with related to on-site parking and improved safety and
aesthetics. So overall on balance, the project will not cause any substantial detriments to the public good nor intent or the intent of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. So on again on balance with with all of the proofs that have been presented, I believe the board can
grant this variance relief based on these proofs provided. Thank you, Mr. Hudach. Chairman, board members, no further questions of Mr. Hudach. >> Board members, any questions? What was the lot coverage? >> Um, it should be on the plant.
>> Lot coverage presently is [clears throat] lot coverage presently is uh 20 oh, excuse me, 32.25 and it's going to 47.45 45 where 65 is
the max. So uh slightly slightly uh slightly more than 18% below the max. >> There's no variance. >> There's no variance associated with lot >> the building coverage we're seeking variance relief for.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Uh, Higgins any >> what >> any comment questions? >> It's a very difficult site. It's substantially undersized >> and the appearance of the site currently
>> I I think is sub substantially substandard. >> Yeah. >> The only the only two comment I do have which I should have brought up when the engineer was here is the landscaping plan shows plantings within the right away and that has to be changed.
Okay. So I I would address those Mr. Higgins by saying that certainly they can be slid back into the property or to the extent that we seek to hold harmless from the governing body for them to the extent that they >> this board just has no authority.
>> Understood. Yeah. Understood. So if we if we slide them back to the property agree it moots the question. If we keep them the way they are, then we agree that should the board deem fit to approve the matter that it would be subject to a condition having to get cons. >> Yeah. Should the board approve the
application, I'm sure Mark could work out wording for a condition of approval that would relate to that. >> I mean, essentially it would be that if the council [clears throat] seems to accept the bur, excuse me, the township accepts it, that's fine. If not yet. >> Yes. Yeah. >> I mean, that's probably the way it would
work. >> Yes. >> So noted. Any any other board members have a question? >> Okay. Any questions from the public? >> Okay, I'll be glad.
>> But you come grab the microphone. >> Give me your name. >> Jennifer Erdos. E R D as in David. OS as in Sam. Jennifer. >> I am You previously testified and you previously been sworn. >> I did. This is more of a question.
>> You're But invariably, you're going to make a statement. Everyone always does. So, [laughter] so, but you recognize you're still under oath? >> Yes. Okay. Go ahead. >> Absolutely. Um, is there a height variance to a property of this kind? I understand that it is making all its
requirements in the footprint. Is there a height variance requirement? >> What's the height of this? >> And is it meeting that height height variance? The maximum building height is 30 ft under the ordinance. This is at 29.87.
No height variance is requested. >> Okay. >> It it complies. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Robert Torrance. >> And Mr. Torrance, uh, you're 1310 >> 13 Oh, yeah. 1310 Garvin Avenue. >> Thank you. And you were previously
sworn. You were still under oath. Do you recognize that? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, this is a corner lot, correct? >> Yes. >> Y and the way that the setbacks on a corner lot are uh enforced differently than they would be on an interior lot
that would be in the middle of the block. Is that correct? >> I don't understand the question. >> So, the way that the setbacks from front, rear, and side are enforced differently on a corner lot. >> No. So [clears throat] you have two front yards on an interior lot.
>> No, but they're not that's not You don't have two front yards on an interior lot, right? So it's a different configuration. You have two you have two front yards you have to comply with versus one front and one side. >> So it's different from an interior lot. >> It's a different different
configuration. >> Yes. >> But so the the maximum lot coverage is 25% in this zone. Maximum lot coverage is 65. >> Excuse me. Building coverage in this zone >> coverage I believe is 25%.
>> 25%. >> And but that's it's the same whether it's an interior lot or a corner lot. It's still 25%. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Um so there's no special lower percentage for an a corner lot.
>> No. And hypothetically, if this lot were an interior lot, it would meet the requirement for the lot area. >> Objection. The lot's unders sized.
[clears throat] >> Yeah. This is R4, correct? >> Yes. >> Right. >> You said R six. R. R. >> Correct. And if it were an interior lot, it would meet meet the lot area. >> Yeah. For an, as Mr. Higgins indicated. >> Yeah. I mean, it's either a yes or no
way. I don't understand the objection. >> And the R six. >> No. Well, objection to relevance. It's not an interior lot. It's a corner lot. So, we're we're going with interior lot questions. >> I mean, that's a fair that's a fair question to you is what is the relevance? My relevance is that the
the there really is no hardship on the request for having much more building coverage than is required because it's a corner lot. >> The issue isn't it's a corner lot, it's that it's an undersized lot in the R six zone.
>> Right. You you haven't heard the witness make an argument that because it's a corner lot, we're entitled to enhanced uh building coverage variance. That's not his argument. His argument is it's a substantially undersized lot at 5,800 square ft where 10,000 is required and
because of that 42% deficiency, that's a reasonable basis as a hardship under the C1 standards for a building coverage variance. That's his argument. >> Okay. I make an argument in the opposite direction that they're asking for special
uh dispensation because they're a corner lot that a person on an interior lot would not get. >> The argument has not a special dispensation for a corner lot. The argument is it's an undersized lot in the R six zone. He hasn't testified to that. You're characterizing it as that,
but that's not his testimony. I I think what he's saying is that even if it was an interior lot, it would still be an undersized lot and they would still be requesting some sort of various >> No, I I I disagree with that. The the required lot size for an interior lot is
5,000 square ft where this has 5,800 ft. So, if it were an interior lot, it would not be undersized as to area. It would be narrow, but it wouldn't be undersized as to area of the lot. >> But it's not an interior. It's not an interior lot. It's a hypothetical
argument we're >> I a corner lot. >> I understand that. >> But the the the zoning ordinance says that lots in this area other than corner lots can be 5,000
square ft. They're saying that this lot can't have a modern house on it because it's >> But this is not a lot other than a corner lot. It's a corner lot. I think we we understand your point. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um,
and do you know, excuse me. Do do you know when the current zoning standards were adopted by the town? >> I don't know the exact date, but it was sometime I believe in the 1950s. I also believe that the lot was created sometime before that.
>> Okay. >> But I don't have exact dates, but it was created sometime before that. >> The the current standards were updated in 2004. excuse me, 2024, less than two years ago. So when they looked at this area, they looked at the
lot coverage and they felt that 25% was appropriate. >> Building coverage. >> Building coverage. Yes. >> Building coverage for the zone. And like I indicated, there is an a a statement in the master plan that talks about the fact that these are unique lots and that
it should be reviewed by the planning board and the governing body to look if changing those standards is appropriate. >> Right. And they did that in 2024 and they decided not to do that. >> Well, the master plan no that is
incorrect. I have the information on that. He doesn't that recommendation in the master plan. We're in the process right now of retooling the entire zoning ordinance which I believe I mentioned in my report and the fact is that the standards in this area are going to
change tremendously because of the unique nature of the area. >> Okay. >> And the those standards have not been developed yet. So I can't go any further than that. >> Okay. But they're here today. >> What? >> They're here today. >> Yes. I agree.
>> Okay. I have no further questions. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the public? >> Okay, Mr. Gazeroski, do you have any questions? >> Thank you. I I do have uh several questions and
I've listened to uh the testimony and I have examined the existing property and I have questions as follows. Uh would you describe the existing house that's on the property as
one which is basically in conformity with the remaining houses on that street? >> How do you mean it's not objective? That's subjective standard is it not? >> Yeah. Let's look for example the frontage of the existing houses compared
to the houses which are located to the adjacent. They basically uh remain the same, do they not? >> No, there's not. They're not all the same. >> Basically the same. >> No, I'm looking at the aerial exhibit.
What is this? A 15. >> I I haven't seen all >> which one. >> Let me ask you this question. With regard to the house in question, uh have you examined all of the architecturals, >> the ones that were entered in the uh testimony today or
last time I should say? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Well, do you know whether or not uh on the proposed structure that is the basement heated or is it not heated? >> I don't know that question. >> Okay. With regard to the first and second floor, they are of course heated.
Are they not? >> I would assume yes. >> Okay. How about with regard to the third floor which is sometimes identified as a home ra as a floor and other times testified to as being uh a third story. Is that heated?
>> I believe it may be. >> Okay. So we basically have at the very least three stories of heated uh space and a question arises as to the use of the third story as to whether or not
it's going to be utilized as a uh >> I'm sorry >> can you just get to the point of asking I I listen I want to be very very careful with the board that we let Mr. Gazowski asked his questions. If this
matter goes up on appeal and the board shuts Mr. Gazerowski down in some capacity and that's the argument is that the board didn't let Mr. Gazowski make his argument. >> That's an easy mode for a reversal by a judge. So I would just and let's just
see where he's going. If it really truly gets irrelevant, Mr. Akens has a mouth. He can open it and he can say I object. Let Mr. Akens make the objection. >> I had a question. We typically limit public to five minutes. >> So, >> does that fall into
>> typically? So, we really don't typically limit >> Well, I think we think we do. Okay. We don't. This is not This is not the council. The council can limit comments to five minutes. >> The board really has to allow the public to make their arguments uh that they're
allowed to do. If the public gets repetitive in what they're saying, we can shut them down. But you really can't shut down the public when they're asking legitimate questions. Understood. >> So, Mrski, again, I mean, it all if you can get to the point of your question,
it would be appreciated, but we're not going to stop you. Okay. >> My my question with regard to this witness is with regard to that third floor. uh is that reflected as being a additional bedroom space or is it a
study or side you know study with TVs and the like? >> That might be a question for the architect. >> Yes. And I I believe there was extensive testimony as to what the nature of that half it's a half story. It's not a full third floor is >> with with regard to the existing site. I
believe you've testified that you have visited the site, have you not? >> I did. And you're familiar with the uh the lot in question as well as the improvement being the house which is upon that site. >> Yes. Would you now listen to the comment
of the attorney with regard to the zoning and it's obvious from viewing the architecturals and viewing the site plan that the existing house which is on that lot has a number of what we would now call pre-existing non-conforming uh
various setbacks dimensions. >> I think this was asked and answered >> not by this witness. >> Yes. >> So Mr. I mean, what are you going with the same commentary that you had before that somehow if this if this property came down that he could rebuild this
house and not have variances? >> No, I'm what I'm saying is is that if this house were to be knocked down and built to the exact specifications and setbacks of what is the pre-existing house, the standards of proof would be less than they would be if it were a
vacant lot and you're looking for these same variances. I don't believe that's legally accurate, Mr. Kadaroski. If the house was completely knocked down, they they would have to present this application as new and and there wouldn't be a lesser burden of proof and
I concur 100%. I'm not aware of any such exception >> or reduced standard. >> In fact, I think the law is exactly the opposite. if that the entire house comes down, they have to meet the current standards and they could I understand the the the
applicant would make the argument, hey, we're just rebuilding what was there, so board be kind to us. I understand that would be the that would be the argument the applicant would make, but there certainly is not a lesser standard under the law. It's it [clears throat] they have to build it as if they were building new construction and they have to comply with all the new standards.
>> Let me let me praise the question, this Finn, and you know that from experience. This is what often times was done. If all but for one let's say side of the house is knocked down and one side is left standing. Uh would the existing
pre-existing nonconformities be still applicable or would the applicant have to make a new application? >> I'm I'm going to No, no, no. I'm going to I'm going to object. We're not proposing to leave any wall standing. This is a completely new structure. The question is not relevant to the application before the board. I I I tend
to agree with Mr. Akens on this. Mr. Gazarowski, >> what is your understanding, if I may ask, as to the intent of the owner of this property? Is it to completely knock down the existing house? >> The application before the board is to remove the existing house. It's depicted
on the site plans. We've had This is the third night of testimony with regard to an entire >> I'm asking the witness with regard to an entirely new structure. Nope. My objection. >> Okay, fine. That's your testimony. is an entirely new structure. >> Yes. The disc I think that's stipulated too much. >> Now with with regard to the lot in
question, uh the minimum lot size of the lot in question is 10,000 square ft and there is an existing 5,783 ft. Correct. >> If you know >> what the the lot size you mean? >> Yes. >> It's the existing lot.
>> Okay. With regard to the lot width, 100 ft is required, 40t is existing, and 40t is proposed. So, it's a pre-existing nonconformity. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Now, let's talk about the minimum front yard setback of this property with regard to Camp Avenue. 30
ft is required, is it not? >> Yes. >> And there's 10 12 ft which is existing. >> Yes. >> And the applicant is seeking and proposing to reduce that 12 feet to 10.71 ft. >> I believe that they are
>> square feet. Not square feet. >> What? >> Not square. Did you say square feet? >> Feet. Feet. I mean feet. >> You said square feet though. >> I then I retract that feet. >> Okay. Yes. >> Similarly with regard to the front yard setback on Wanamasa 30 ft is required.
There is an existing 41.7 ft and the applicant is proposing to reduce that and have it less than 41.7 ft as well as less than 30 feet. >> Uh repeat that again. >> Okay. With regard to the front yard setback >> on Wanamasa.
>> Front yard setback of Wanamasa. Okay. Okay. A a a 30 ft setback is required, is it not? >> Yes. >> There is an existing a 41.7 square ft. >> I believe that's correct. >> And the applicant is seeking relief to
reduce it to less than the 30 ft less than the 41 ft and proposing only 19.15 ft. >> Yes. >> So he's intensifying that deficiency. >> Yes. With regard to the minimum rear yard setback, 5T is required.
2.6 ft is existing and he's proposing to have it less than 5 ft by making it 3.20 ft. >> No, [clears throat] >> what >> I believe it's I believe it's a little more than that. I'll tell you mistaken, but >> I'll stand corrected. >> Yeah. 3.2 I believe it is. >> Yeah, that's what I said. >> Okay,
>> correct. >> Yes, 3.2. So with regard to the minimum driveway set back to the corner, 26.7 ft is required, 18.9 ft is existing and he's seeking to
have it reduced to 15.66 ft. >> Yes. >> With regard to the >> Are you just going over the variance list? >> Sounds like it. Well, I he's testifying as an expert, as a planner. And what I want to show is his testimony, I think, is colored by the fact that we
acknowledge the fact there are a number of pre-existing nonconformities, but he's seeking to create new nonconformities, and he's held to the burden of proof of justify how he's entitled to that relief. >> But he's identified all those variances, Mr. Gazerowski, and he's given both the
C1 and the C2 criteria in his direct testimony. So if you want to challenge him on that, fine. But the list of variances we've established, >> but he's g he's given no testimony as to why that relief is justified. >> He has. He just spent a half an hour testifying as to it. I >> I'll make let me make it quicker. Would
you agree with me that there are a number of new nonconformities which the applicant is seeking as compared to what is presently existing with the existing house. There's different variances that we are seeking with relation to the new
house. >> Right. >> But I have no further questions. >> Thank you. >> Nothing on redirect. Chairman, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Hudac. Applicant rest. Chairman, >> I'm I'm going to proceed.
>> You have no other witnesses? >> No other witnesses. >> All right. Let me [clears throat] ask this question. Is Mr. Ste your only witness for this? >> Yes, he is. >> All right. And so Bor, I don't know what you want to do. It may be worth it just to if he only has one witness. It may be
worth it to just hear that witness and >> and then we have to go through public comment. >> I know you got through public comment. It's it's it's up to the board. I understand the board rules you don't hear anything after 9:30. >> I want to hear everybody's opinion. I mean, run down the line, yay or nay on
if we want to continue. Sorry, Gina, you're first. [laughter] Yeah, we'll continue. >> I'm okay with >> this one. >> Good. Good. >> I'm in. >> Okay. Keep going. All right. >> All right. So, Mr. Gar's going to go
faster. >> I'm sorry. >> The board is allowing you to proceed tonight. >> Fine. >> Filler buster, though. >> No, he's not. >> I'm serious about that. I Now you're my time. >> I'm sorry. I I didn't hear >> filler buster. >> You know what? Let me say this. You
know, I I've been doing this a long time, >> and I've always I've always given great respect I've always given great respect to the court. >> Just please please continue to allow the objector to put on his case. If it gets irrelevant or it gets or completely off
the mark, Mr. Akens can say something. I will the board has to allow Mr. Garass case. >> I But we we got to keep it on track. I and I keep it on track. >> I'm trying. >> Okay.
>> I want to note my objection to the comments of the board member for the record. >> I understand it. I think I just basically did the same thing. Okay. >> All right. Mr. Stepp, do you swear any testimony you're going to give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I'll be
God. >> I do. >> I just state your name as spelling your last name for the record. >> Peter Stack. S T E C K. and you are a license planner in the state of New Jersey and your license is in good standing. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Uh I have a handout that might be
helpful. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to mark this in as um I guess I'll mark it as 01 for object one. I'll just identify for the record uh what 01 is
>> please. Uh, it's a [snorts] three-page exhibit that I prepared. The [clears throat] first page on the left hand side has a excerpt from the zoning map and then from your 2023 land
use plan. Uh, to the right is an excerpt from your tax maps. [clears throat] On the second page, I have uh reproduced the applicant's existing and proposed new dwelling to
show the difference in size. And then on the right hand side, uh I list the items of relief that are on the revised plans. Uh on the final page, [clears throat] I have similarly part of the
neighborhood with uh the tax map. uh lines at lots and blocks and in red I put in according to the assessment records the square footage of the houses that are in the area.
Uh so uh to lay some foundation [clears throat] uh I did review >> before we start could we have on the record that the board has accepted Mr. exquatifications. I said to do with [clears throat] all we do with all professionals. He is a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. He's been
accepted as an expert. >> Okay, Mr. Stack, rather than my leader through this question by question, why don't you proceed with your testimony before the board? >> Yes, I will. Um, this uh is a in preparation, I looked at
your zoning ordinance, your master plan. I looked at the subject property and the surrounding area. Um, [snorts] I read the transcript of the uh December hearing and I was here this evening to hear the testimony of the applicant's planner. Uh,
this is a corner lot uh that has an existing dwelling on it and an existing garage. And that's important because there's reasonable use of the property today. Uh, the applicants planner talked about
the Dalmire case. The Dalmire case, I believe, made a distinction between vacant lots and developed lots. If someone had a vacant lot and you didn't grant a variance that the applicant was requesting for, let's say, a substandard
lot, you may have confiscated the property because there's no use of it. This property already has a house on it that's about the same age of the other houses and about the same size as some of the other houses, and it has a garage on it. So there's reasonable use of the
property today. The applicant has a preference for tearing down the building, but there is no detailed information on the record of why it simply can't be rehabbed. There's nothing wrong with using this. The
applicant prefers to tear it down. And that means that all of the nonconforming setbacks disappear because he's going to start with a blank slate. [snorts] [clears throat] The dwelling that's
proposed is large. It's frontto back depth is about 75 ft. It's about 27 feet wide. It's a it's a big dwelling. Certainly taller
than what was there before. and will be much more apparent uh because most of the trees are going to be removed and it is a corner lot so it is highly
visible compared with uh interior lots. [snorts] Um, this area is depicted uh at least from the size of houses on
the third page of my 01 exhibit. And you can see that according to the assessment records, the house is 1,372 square ft. And you see the square footages of the other houses in the
area. Most of the houses are well under 2,000 square feet. That's the character of the neighborhood. [snorts] The applicant is proposing a large house. And again, there is a full basement that
is uh while you can't sleep there because it doesn't have an exit window, it's a heated area. uh the applicant has uh a a full first floor, a full second floor, and those just those two floors together are 2571
square ft. And if you add the attic, which is occupiable space, we're over 3,000 square ft. So, this is a fairly substantial building, clearly different in character uh than what has been built
in in the neighborhood. Uh your [clears throat] master plan is fairly recent. It's 2023 and it did uh say the current policy is
5,000 square ft feet for interior lots, 10,000 square ft for corner lots, but it does say it recognizes that this portion of the R six zone has a lot of substandard lots. And so the
municipality apparently is was directed by the master plan to study it and it's studying it. But as of today uh we don't know whether the governing body will change the standards at all in this zone. So the standards uh that are
in your zoning ordinance today uh are are the standards that apply. Uh if you read your master plan and again kind of hot off uh uh the press here, the very first objective
on page nine is as follows. Recognize existing development patterns in the township are largely established and ensure that future development does not conflict with those existing development patterns.
So, this neighborhood is fully developed. The existing development, I I assume you've driven the neighborhood. I I'm guessing you have. Uh, this kind of documents the square footage in the area of the of the houses that are in the area.
And this house is clearly discordant with the pattern in the area. And not only is it discordant, uh, but it's on a corner lot, which means it's highly visible and will certainly be more visible with all the
vegetation that's being removed. Um, again, the applicant went through a number of purposes of the mispa land use law. Um, talking about aesthetics. It's a nice wooded lot. Now if you see from the aerial photograph
uh this will be a big house 75 ft in its width uh facing the uh camp avenue uh it will be out of character with the area. Um and while the applicant is not asking
for a white height variance there's a relationship between setback and height. The ordinance says you're supposed to have, you know, f a five foot setback for a sideyard, but this house is a little over three
feet. If you remember when the first application came, it was 2.99 ft. And that means that the building code wouldn't allow any windows because it's a fire hazard. So, the applicant now has 3.2 feet. But there's a relationship between height and setback. You would
think if something if someone is intruding on the setback they would pull the height down a little bit to compensate for light air in open space. That's not the case here. [snorts] The your ordinance has
special standards for corner lots and it's it's rather harsh. It says it's got to be twice the minimum lot size, right? 10,000 instead of 5,000 square feet. because it has two front yards. But if this lot were an interior lot,
it would still need a host of variances. Why does someone need If this were a an interior lot like most of the other 40 foot lots in the neighborhood and they were building new, they would have to have a 5-ft sideyard setback. What are they doing? 3.2 feet.
a fraction more than what the building code required for fire protection. So applicant hasn't the burden of proof. In my opinion, the applicant has not met the burden of proof. The Dalmire case, I
believe uh referenced a vacant lot. Wholly different instance than this application. And there's a house on this property and it's occupiable and it can be rehabilitated and it clearly fits in the neighborhood. It was built about the same age as the other buildings in the
neighborhood. [snorts] Although the ordinance is stiffer for corner lots, the purpose is to uh it recognizes that there's special considerations with corner lots. if and
this applicant I'll I'll grant you if you strictly apply all the setback variances uh there's some relief that's needed. The whole question before you is is it justifiable to have a house this big
that violates the setbacks and and and while it has a st a conforming height that conforming height is in areas where you're not supposed to have a high house at all. Um, in my opinion, the only benefit that
is substantial in by the applicant is that uh there's more parking. Well, you could tear down the garage that's there now and make more parking. So while that is indeed a benefit, it is
minor compared with the adverse impact of this large dwelling on this corner property. So your master plan didn't say, "Oh, let's change the goals. Um, we don't want a property that that
is consistent with the neighborhood." The answer is the goal is still the same which is future development should not be in conflict with the existing development pattern. This applicant has chosen or is
proposing to tear down the the building. So forget that there are substandard setbacks now because while they're they're going to try to match that, this is a much taller and much longer building than what's there. So there's a there's not any protection from the
existing conditions. This is starting from a a vacant slate. Uh in my opinion, because it is an exposed property, because it wouldn't even meet the
standards if this was an interior lot because the your ordinance says there's special concerns of corner lots. Uh in my opinion, none of the municipal land use law purposes are advanced in any
substantial way. There is no hardship because there's existing development on the property and it clearly is substantially detrimental or substantially impairs the intent and purpose of the master plan.
This building in nowhere is consistent with the established c pattern of the neighborhood. If the applicant wants to build something that is somewhat smaller, there could be a justification, but there is no justification on the
record of a building this size. Now, the applicant saying, "Oh, we got to meet modern standards." Well, what are the standards in your ordinance for two and a half story buildings? The first floor has to be at least 700
square ft and the two floors together have to be 1,400 square ft. That's the minimum standard in your ordinance for a house, a a 2 and a half story house in this zone.
The applicant is doubling that and there's no evidence that that is a necessary thing to have modern living. you have standards in your ordinance or what are the minimum. This is a self-created hardship because the applicant wants a larger dwelling that's
bigger than the neighborhood. It will be one of the biggest houses in the neighborhood. It will be a house that's in your face because it's on a corner lot and it's on a lot that's on a substandard street uh that has a width of only 20 feet. Um so in my opinion the
applicant has not met its burden of proof and uh in in my opinion uh if is if it is approved uh it will result in substantial detriment to the public good in terms of crowding the lot and crowding the adjacent property. How are
you going to put a ladder up in a three-foot setback to to to work on the side of that house? Can you imagine how you're going to m maintain that with a three-foot setback? You're the minimum is five. Uh in my
opinion, if you grant this as proposed, it will result in substantial impairment of the master plan because this house is clearly not in character with the area. Thank you. Little bit across. Mr. Stack referring
you to page two of exhibit 01. the footprint of the existing dwelling. That's the left shadowing. Where's the front porch on um deal on the De side? Is that depicted in the black? >> Yes.
>> Where is it? It's It's in the black. There's a patio behind it. >> So, how about the P How about the porch on the west side? Where's that depicted? >> Uh I just blocked in from the plan. I'm going to refer you to um exhibit 815
which I'll [snorts] pull up [clears throat] the red and green. Doesn't this in fact as to your page two propose is inside the existing porch on
the north and it's inside the existing porch on the west whereas your page two doesn't show those things. Isn't that true? >> U it's not clear from this >> it's crystal clear. Let let me answer
the question. The green the the green line is about the same but it's in because the new building is 75 ft long. It intrudes on more of the easterly setback. Um there are
>> No, it doesn't. That's not what the witness testified. >> Let the witness answer the question. >> This diagram shows that the the But there's an open port area, but there
are there's more intrusion on the setback than exists today. Certainly between the building and the garage. >> Isn't it true that the witness for the applicant as an engineer testified that on three
sides in comparison to what exists today, there's an improvement in the footprint. And that was uncontested. Isn't that true? You cannot >> out that dimension because this is a much bigger building. It's taller. It's
longer. >> That's not my question. My My question is, isn't the footprint improved by comparison new versus existing? >> No. So, you're saying that what's depicted on A15 is not accurate? >> What I'm saying is there there's no
You're proposing I think 34% building coverage. That's greater than what's there today. There is no residential zone in Ocean Township that allows a building coverage of more than 25%. M
>> Mr. Stack, I think what the question is is does your diagram where you're trying to display how much bigger this new house is, is it accurate? And I think that's what Mr. asking you. >> The answer is I believe it's accurate. uh it there may be some errors to it but clearly the footprint is substantially
larger than what's there today >> and that's a se that's a separate issue >> then I I I did it the best I could if if if there are errors I'll acknowledge it but I did the best I could in in accurately depicting the footprint of the house >> I have no further questions of Mr.
>> I think I think this is important so Mr. Higgins you want to comment on this >> yeah [clears throat] I looked at uh P2 of the exhibit and I this is not to be critical of Mr. Speck at all but because I've done things like this and made
mistakes too but the existing footprint does not include the covered porches and the proposed footprint [snorts] does and the covered porches on the proposed building are substantial in size. So it's to look at it it's very
misleading as to the difference between the two. >> No and Mr. Stack no one's suggesting that you did that. No, no, no. The but the only point I want to say is that what is important in terms of the scale of the building is what's enclosed
in it within the building. Now the the new building has some porches, [clears throat] but it it is undisputed that the new building has a bigger footprint than what the old one was. >> Excuse me, Mr. Higgins. Can I ask a question? You a question?
>> In the in the R six zone, >> does the have is it their prerogative to knock down the property instead of utilize the existing structure >> in any in any on any property. >> I just want the board to be perfectly
aware of that that even though there's an existing structure they don't have to use it. It's a prerogative to knock it down and then if they knock it down that's where all the variances come. >> I was actually going to ask that exact question to Mr. Ste. Mr. step. Are you,
and I understand you're not a lawyer, you're a player, but are you aware of any case that says if you have a non-conforming house and you decide to tear it down and build a new house that somehow that can be held against you as a self-created hardship because you could have utilized the existing house.
>> The the self-created hard the hardship involves the fact that the applicant cannot rely on existing setbacks because everything is demolished. So, I know the applicant is saying, "Oh, we match the old or close to the like the easterly
side setback." But the answer is you're not keeping that wall. It's every this is going to be a blank slate. >> Understood. >> And so, the applicant has has the ability to to try to comply more with the setbacks. And and my point is the
Dalmire case, I believe, was a vacant lot. >> I think you're right. And in fact, there's a footnote that says it's a whole different world when you have other than a vacant lot. So, Dalmire is not the rule here. >> But my question to you, I'm taking as
the answer to I understand what your hardship argument is that they are by nature I that they I think everyone can agree they could build a smaller house. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think everyone understands that. Um but the question I asked you was are
you aware of a case that actually says that that can be held against you that you're not reabbing the um existing house and the answer the I think the answer is no suggest it's a yes or no question you're not aware of a case >> it's not that that >> can you just answer my question yes or no
>> I can't I can't answer it yes or no the the my point is that if you demolish the house you've lost the argument there's a pre-existing non-conforming situation that you can rely on >> applicant never made that argu They never made that argument. >> Applicant never made that argument. >> Correct. >> You've never heard me say that once in
three nights of hearings. Not once. But it is relevant to this case that there is no hardship in my opinion because they're existing dwell. I I I have a question. >> Can I finish? Thank you. With regard to the trees, um there was an extensive
study done. I don't know if you saw it. Um it depicted the property, the trees. There's 16 trees that that are dead. They they need to be replaced. They they they are an eyesore. Um and and with
what the applicant is doing or proposing to do, it's an improvement to the property. >> Removing Excuse me. Wait, I'm not done. Yep. >> They are also there's also that sidewalk that's dangerous. It's a dangerous condition. They're taking on it on
themselves to replace that entire sidewalk and the two um trees that are that are there that would will likely die. So, they'll put into new larger trees as well. So, there there's things
that you said that I I don't agree with there. While they're removing trees, they need to be removed, but they are replacing them and beautifying the property, which will add value to the community. Um, I I will say this and Mr. Higgins,
correct me if I'm wrong. In the R six zone, it does read though about preserving the established residential character of the neighborhood. Is is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So, that again just for the board that's
something also that you need to know >> um when when determining this application with regard to the home. >> Question for the professionals. Mr. Higgins, I think it came up that this was originally like a camp.
>> Was a what? >> Was a camp >> that the house? >> I I don't know for sure. I think I heard testimony to that. >> I >> I think there was at the first hearing there was testimony at this and I think that's why it's camp drive, right? Um >> yeah, >> the that this was a camp of some sort.
>> I think the record showed it was a YMCA. Okay. Yes. >> But is it even a habitable house? >> [snorts] >> I I've been to the property. It's >> the house. It looks dilapidated, but I didn't go inside. I >> I don't think you could rebuild it from what I'm not a structural [clears throat] engineer, but >> he doesn't have to. Like the point is
>> Well, I know. I'm just saying. But that's >> and that was my point, Mr. Mr. of asking the question I asked Mr. Ste is I think the fact that the house quarter anything could be rehabed, you know, if you put enough money into it. I don't think that's relevant uh to the to the question because and again, the
applicants never argued that. uh they've argued they're acting as if this house does not exist and they're building a new house. I mean, that's the testimony I've heard. So, >> yeah. And and as a side note, I appreciate picturing the garage. I I had a problem with where it is backed out on the street. I think that greatly
enhances safety of the property. So, thank you for considering that. >> Can I ask a question if I may? >> You can ask me. I What's your question? >> Basically, I'm listening to the
comments. Uh, is is it is it is it is it the fact that we're saying this board should look at this lot as being a completely vacant lot and they're seeking all the relief predicated upon
receiving variances from the zoning ordinance as to all of the conditions? No, I think the distinction is that the applicant, if I may, Mr. Lexi, thank you. If I don't agree with you, I >> I think I think the distinction is that the applicant is not seeking any prior
existing validity for the existing nonconformities at the property. That's the applicant has never said, "Well, because these are non-conforming presently, we should get a pass today." We've shown our reasons differently based on the expert testimony.
>> Then why'd you show the red line on the diagram? That was one of your exhibits. You're making a big deal about how that's related to >> the green line. >> The green line shows that there's an improvement over existing conditions, not as a basis for the new condition
that we're that we're not exacerbating the conditions that exist today that we're improving them on three sides. That was the specific testimony. >> And Mr. Jack, I would agree that uh that that was the testimony. That's how I have understood the testimony. I have
not heard anyone even remotely argue that because there's already an uniformity on the property, therefore they're entitled to release. I've not heard that. >> Chairman, is the board allowed to um have a a caucus for five minutes or
three minutes or just I mean you can't but what are you talking what are you asking? >> Just to talk to the board without >> you can't you're not it's a public meeting. You can't can't talk to board members privately. You only can go into executive session for purposes of
executive session which talking about this application but because you wanted to get other boards members viewpoints would not be a reason for executive session. >> Okay. >> So it's just a just a question the existing pro the existing house with the
garage is what footprint? What what's this? What's the footprint compared to what's proposed? >> I'd have to call the architect back as to the square footage. >> Yeah, I have no objection to that. If
that if the board members ask me a question and the architect is able to answer >> or the engineer >> recall Douglas clen licensed professional engineer. I'm really bad at mental math, but I'll give you I'll give you the number. >> Don't guess. [laughter]
>> You can do the >> Someone have a calculator. >> Assume. >> All right. So, in the existing condition, um, the principal building is 847 square ft.
The detach garage, >> the footprint, >> the footprint, right? The detached garage is 371 square feet. That's 1,218. >> Yes. >> And then there is a covered wood deck at
371 square ft. >> And a covered wood porch at 52 ft. >> That's 1541. That's 1641. >> And our proposed uh building square
footage footprint is 1623.17. >> So that that includes the porches as well. >> That includes our porches as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So the difference is 18 ft less >> total. Is that plus 16 or total? >> That's the total proposed. >> So it's 18 ft square. It's 18 square
feet less. Thank you. >> Thank you. But the deck is not building coverage, is it? >> Let's not argue. The at this point we've we've recalled the applicant has recalled the expert answered the question. Chairman, the applicant rests. We've had our cross examination.
>> Uh any questions from the public? We didn't do that for >> sure. >> Mr. I for his name. I'm sorry. >> Mr. Stack. >> Mr. Stack. Any questions from the public for Mr. Stack? >> Okay. Thank you. Now you >> I tried to get [snorts] out before. >> Get out. All good.
>> Okay. >> Now we got to open to the public for comment. >> Okay. Now we're going to open for public comment. If you have comment, feel free to come up and comment.
>> You guys are really excited. >> And we just need you to state your name against the record. >> But here we go. >> Okay. Um, just state your name again. >> Sorry. Richard Vgilio, 1409 Wanamasa Road. >> And Mr. Villio, you're already under
oath and you continue to be so. >> Cool. So, this is comments, no questions, correct? Okay. Under road. Yeah. Cool. Well, I appreciate the applicant's interest in improving their newly purchased property. The extent of the proposed deviations from Ocean Township's established zoning
requirements is excessive. Raises serious concerns regarding neighborhood character. Do you like watershed? The environment, safety, neighborhood quality of life, property values, as well as overall precedent for future development.
Based on the proposal, the owner requires a house much too large for the lot and neighborhood, creating a substantial burden on the neighborhood. The own I believe the owner has manufactured a hardship. They should
have thought uh pardon me. They should have sought out a commensurate size lot rather than proposing to build an imposing threefloor 5bedroom home including a full 8ft ceiling basement. What what and what we've heard elevator
as well. The variance application before you seek significant relief. The cumulative the cumulative impact of these variances far exceeds what could be considered a reasonable accommodation, especially considering the neighborhood.
As two of you stated in October, this is quite a large house for the lot building coverage. I think we've been through all that. I don't need to go through all the data, but you guys have it already. Um 99% of the 69 homes on Wanamasa Point
have the same unimposing aesthetic and character. The structure proposed disrupts the proportional spacing and scale and the point the Wanamasa Point's charm. The proposed structure is
atypical of 98% of the 69 Wanamasa Point residences and if built will irreparably negatively impact the 125year-old historic character of Wanamasa Point. Ultimately this impacts the entire
neighborhoods with 69 houses let's say 350 people quality of life over the past decade. Guanamasa Point has lost 40% of its street parking spaces. If we apply the same logic and reason with a house this size, the
homeowners are not driving minis and c mini coopers. They're they have big cars that they're not going to park in the driveway. They're and it's going to take up more parking. Granting these variances would continue a troubling precedent for the overdevelopment on undersized lots in
our neighborhood, altering the wellestablished historic 100-year-old resident residential character and safety standards that Wanamasa Point residents rely upon from the township. Again, 69 houses.
If the town um I'm trying to fast forward, respect your time and fast forward there. Um, if the town continues to grant these types of excessive variances, in 20 years, Ocean Township's most historic 100-year-old
neighborhood, a former YMCA retreat, will look like a Toll Brothers development. Is that what we want for our community? The the proposed variances for 55 Wamas Point Road do not take into account the neighbors, neighborhood, pedestrians,
time-sensitive emergency situations, or the lake. Hopefully it goes well. >> Thank you. >> It's late. I'm sorry, Robert Torrence. I understand I'm on Earth. I It's late. I know everybody wants to go home, so I'm I'm going to be try to be brief. The
point I was making before is I think that this house is much too imposing on the lot. It is way oversized for the character of the neighborhood. And I just wanted to tell a story that when this house originally went for sale, there was somebody was living in this
house and it went up for sale and there was a young couple who the wife grew up in this neighborhood. Her parents still live in the neighborhood. It was their dream to buy this house and either renovate it, which would have been
challenging, or build a modest home so that they could be near her parents as they aged. But like is happening all over the company, the uh country, you have corporations coming in and buying these properties
and making them unaffordable for young couples. You can see there there are two corporations own this property. You have another corporation that wants to buy it and the house next door is owned by a corporation. So it it's making the the
area which originally was a place where young families could buy a home and hopefully raise their families and then maybe move to a larger home. It's making that dream non-existent. So the only I just have to say for the sake of the
record the board cannot deny an application because there's a business buying the house rather than >> rather than of an individual. So you have to ask the the board to disregard that commentary. Okay. >> It just it isn't relevant to the application.
>> Okay. And I I know it's late and I I that's all I have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll make it very quick. Jennifer Erdos, yes, I know I'm under oath. Board members, thank you so much for your time. It is appreciated. I only give my opinion now because I wasn't
able to previously. I understand that this is a private resident. I I have no problem with somebody building something. The imposing nature of this house is overwhelming. And my only
financial thing is the house that I own. That's all the money in the world I have. That's the only thing I own. So, I'm very protective of my house across the street. It floods. We're on a lake. Rainwater happens. All these things have been mentioned previously. You know,
trees and absorption and footprints and whatnot. Most of the houses in the area are approximately an average three-bedroom, two-b houses. We've had sewer issues in the neighborhood. It's an old system. There's going to be a lot
of taxation. It's it's already a sort of crowded shore neighborhood. And so to have an imposing thing of this nature is why we're here. That's all. So I'm hoping that I can ask you guys to all take this under consideration
that we are people that live in this neighborhood. We chose to live in this neighborhood probably for the same reasons Mr. Harmon did, but we'd like to preserve the nature of that neighborhood and the neighbors and the size of the homes. That's all. Thank you.
Anybody else public comment? No. Do we go to So, I'm going to close motion to Well, we don't need I can just close it. Close the public comment portion of the meeting. Um, is it I don't know if uh Miss Mr.
Akens has any closing. I don't know if you already did the closing. >> I'm grateful for the board's consideration. It's after 10:00. We thank you for your accommodation and allowing the matter to be concluded this evening. Thank you. >> Are the board members allowed to say >> I have a comment to make and and I will
be brief. First of all, you have a zoning ordinance in place [snorts] in this municipality. If the purchaser of this property sought to build a house which is over 30%
greater than what is committed by that should be a matter they can be zoned. What the applicant is doing is rather than paying for a larger more expensive lot is buying a smaller
lot which is contrary to zoning ordinance. It's really as simple as that. you have a zording ordinance in place. If you don't like it, township council can change it. Uh this applicant and he hasn't appeared before to testify. He is imposing his profit
motive upon these neighbors. That's just not right. Thank you. >> I know for the record that the applicant has testified and did so earlier this evening because the record's clear. >> That's it.
board member say anything or >> of course >> I would like to just say something very briefly. I'm trying to balance all the interests. Um I I the home meets the height requirements. It's 30 feet and you're at
29 and a little more. So that's not an issue. Um you're improving a sidewalk that's not even owned by the property or part of it. I mean, you're you're taking that on yourself and beautifying the community
with that. Um, and making it safer because I saw that sidewalk. Uh, you're because of your extensive tree study. Again, you're beautifying the neighborhood and the property, removing all these trees and bushes and shrubs
that are eyes and and adding shrubbery and landscaping. That's beautiful. Um, I am having a lot of trouble getting past the R six requirement of preserving the
established residential character of the neighborhood. I I really am I think this home could be scaled down a little bit to fit within the confines of the established residential character of the neighborhood.
I had a question about what the conditions. Do you do we have a list of all the conditions that we've that the applicant has agreed to at this point? Do we need to >> I don't think were there any special conditions? I don't >> The only one was the landscaping >> I think the landscaping was really the only special
>> Well, and the construction easement >> the sidewalk along Camp Avenue being replaced, >> right? Okay. >> And the agreement of the construction easement on the adjacent property, >> right? which which okay >> I'll go back >> yeah no he's right he's right that was
discussed at the last meeting >> so 53 was going to give a construction easement to to 55 >> I just want to make sure if somebody makes a motion for positive resolution that we understand what all the uh conditions are three meetings but
>> no abs absolutely that I mean I have it in my notes that I forgot about it as we're sitting here right now but yes >> you're 100% I mean, the one thing I'll say is I know that the first house we looked out is certainly a lot different than what we
have in front of us now. They did there were significant concessions that were made uh previously and the house has gotten smaller. They've listened to the board and, you know, made adjustments along the way. So obviously I certainly appreciate the effort that was put into that regardless of the outcome of uh
what happens tonight. >> So anybody >> I mean just Mr. Higgins I mean really you as the planner >> as the board planner >> because there is obviously you heard Miss Litman's comments you agreed you
agreed with her that that is a condition of the master plan >> that is that that's in the ordinance that is the R six one of the purposes of the zone >> definitely I think it's a difficult application because there are a lot of
substantial benefits the applicant's proposing it is a big house. Um, I don't think it's quite as big as exhibit P2 shows. I would, if I were the board, I would disregard that exhibit because it's very misleading.
>> And [clears throat] I think you really have to balance the improvements that are being proposed. One thing I can tell you, I did a quick uh calculation. If the section of the house that includes
the garage were removed, the building coverage would be 25%. Which would comply. You'd lose two bedrooms upstairs because there's bedrooms up above that, but that the building coverage would comply if
you if you just had the garage and one story there. It would would be a little bit more aesthetic. Um, but I don't think it's that bad as it is now. There's there's sub substantial improvements that are being proposed, >> but he could build a smaller house.
>> He could he could build a smaller house. There's no question. >> That would still be a very nice house. >> Yes. Yes. >> I I want to also clarify because we talked about some square footages before and it seemed like that the building was getting smaller from the existing to proposed. Um, the existing building when
we added up the building, the the covered and the garage was 1641 square ft. >> Uh the proposed building >> was 1623 but if you add the rear and front covered porch you get to 236 ft.
So there is an increase in of 395 square ft uh which is lines up with their [clears throat] maximum build building coverage increase from 27.94 to 34.68 68 and excuse [clears throat] me uh 395 square feet to put that in
context that's like two parking spaces which is um you know 10 by 20 is a parking space so that would be 400 square f feet would be two so that that is kind of in line with what uh Jim is saying that the uh area of the garage is
is kind of that overage. So basically, and Jim correct me if I'm wrong as planner, but this is the board has to determine whether the benefits that you're getting out of these variances outweigh the detriments uh in that that it would otherwise
create. >> And it's it's it's a very tough decision on your part, >> but it's got to be your decision. I don't want to try and lean you one way or the other. >> Thanks, Mr. Higgins. But I think I think so much to [laughter] say this is not a case where anyone where anyone's going
to tell you no one on our side is going to tell you yes, you're legally obligated to approve this application. You're legally obligated to deny this application. >> This is up to you. And in my opinion, it really could go either way. And it's up to the board to make that determination and weigh the balance. >> That's basically what I was just saying.
>> Yeah. I mean, listen, again, I'll I'll I'll state my opinion. I mean, I think I said it before that I think they've done a lot to accommodate the board and make changes. Um, I think this whatever it
was, A16 is pretty telling to me on looking at the overall footprint of the building and comparing the size from the existing to the new and and the and the setbacks they're improving on. Understanding I [clears throat] clearly don't like the fact that it's that close to the other property line. I've said
that a million times. I always want to force the construction easement. I do worry about the ability to build a house, but again, as long as it goes in that location, I I think I'm I think I'm okay. >> Can I make one more comment? Something just just clicked with me that goes with
regard to Lisa's comment of the character of the zone. And when she said it, I'm thinking of just Wamaza Point Road, but that statement to reflect the character of the zone talked about the entire R six
zone. And it was put in there specifically because I fought with the council and the planning board for probably 15 years to change portions of Wanamasa from R4 to R six
>> because the interior lots were 5,000 square feet and the corner lots were 10,000 square feet and they wanted everything 5,000 square feet which meant that within certain areas 90% of the homes were non substantially
non-conforming as far as lot size. So that that reference about the character of the area is talking about the character of the lot sizes in that area where you had interior 5,000 square foot lots and corner lots that were 10,000 square feet.
>> So it's not talking about architecture. >> It's not talking about architecture or the buildings. >> That was the intent. >> I don't know if that helps or hurts. [laughter] >> If does anybody else anything they want to say, comments of the board.
Otherwise, I'm gonna I'm gonna try and move this along. I'm gonna I'm gonna move for positive resolution. Uh given the conditions that we've set forth, >> I'm going to second >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ashi,
>> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> No. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Leski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. >> Vice Chairman Janeiro. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Thank you for your time and thank you to all who participated. Good evening. >> Oh, sorry. A motion to close the meeting. All >> in favor? >> Second. Bye. Bye.