this regular meeting of the town board of adjustment uh to order. Can we uh have a we take them take attendance then we do this the salute to the flag >> here >> here
>> yes >> Mr. Pelli >> here >> Mr. Weski >> here >> Mr. here. >> Engineer >> here >> here. To the flag of the United States of America to the republic of the stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. The copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press in the coaster filed in the office of the township clerk. Emergency notice.
There is emergency uh exits through the courtroom doors and two exits to the rear of the room. Please folks, no smoking in this building. Board policy. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. No testimony taken after 9:30 p.m. In addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony.
Notice all meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on task provotions community cable channel 22 on Verizon FiOS channel 77 on cable vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a call, please take your call outside of the meeting room.
Resolution to bemorial to be memorialized. Sam Gabby, 8 Mammoth Road, block 5, lot 35. >> Mr. Chairman, I think it's all the same people involved and so I know how. >> All right. Also, I shore 30 Northwoods
Drive, lot 35.02, lot six. >> Is there anyone up here who's not eligible? >> Uh, Mr. Pelli. >> Mr. Puielli, not eligible. >> Motion positive. >> Second. >> All right. Mr. Ashkinazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Bono, >> yes. >> Miss,
>> yes. >> Mr. Lowki, >> yes. >> Mr. Carica, >> yes. >> Janeiro, >> yes. >> And Chairman, >> yes. The following cases are to be carried to the December meeting and will notice for said meeting. Steven and Joe
Dwick to Delay Drive 40 the point 01 lot 17 in the R3 zone. And so Mr. Chairman that application is being carried as you just said. If anyone's here on Two Dwight Drive, uh for Stephen and Joe Wear tonight, you need to be here on
December 18th in this room at 700 p.m. Although apparently you will receive new notice. >> Okay. Now, the following case will be carried to the December meeting and will not require notice.
>> That's right. Thanks guys. 55 WPR Holdings LLC 55 Wamasa Point Road Block Wanamasa Point Road Block 113 lot 35 in the R six zone. All right, so Mr. Chairman, if anyone's here on that
application again, that's 55 WPR Holdings LLC 55 Wasa Point Road. That is not being heard this evening. That is instead going to be heard at the December 18th meeting of this board at 7 a.m. in this room. and you will not receive any further notice. You want to
hear the applications to proceed here at that time and in this place. >> Okay. The following case was carried to the February meeting and will notice for said meeting. Michael Rashen Zamir, 130 Rosel Avenue, block 55, lot 3 in the R2
zone. >> All right. And Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking up what the February date is. Um, that' be February 19th. If I'm looking at this correct, yes, sorry. So, February 19th, if anyone's here for that application,
Michael from John Zamir, 130 Rosel Avenue, block 55, block 3. That application is not being heard tonight. It will instead be heard on February 19th at 700 p.m. in this room, although you will receive any notice on that matter.
>> Okay. So, on to regular business. um can't take the product of the chair. We have a awful lot of first responders in this room and I worry if something happened there'd be too many people in here. So if we could have uh start off with the to township of Ocean Fire District number two, 2001 Sunset Avenue,
block 114, lots 1-3 and 12. Come on up, gentlemen. Attorney for the applicants, Mr. Richard Brassow. >> My name is Bob Shay from Marcy Shay Associates. I'm I'll be handling this application uh in lie of Mr. Bradlo
who's a dear friend and a good man. Your name Robert Shay from RC Shane and Associates. >> Good. I'm going to mark in the filing exhibit. Exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be
the report from code enforcement. I'm sorry, that's not right. Exhibit A2 will be the score calculations. Exhibit A3 soils and application report and exhibit A4 site plan by the architect. Then we
have the following market. Exhibit D1 will be the report. Exhibit E2 will be the report from DW. Exhibit E3 will be the report from traffic safety. Exhibit E4 will be the
prevention bureau report. Exhibit B5 will be trans report. Exhibit B6 will be report and then I guess I'll add in exhibit A5 the driveway agreement with 1405 being a
that's the opportunity that those are all these that I have premarked. >> All right. All right. Uh members of the board, Mr. chairman. Uh the applicant in this application is fire district 2, which is a taxable entity of the township of
ocean. Uh we're seeking an inherently beneficial use, seeking additions and alterations to an existing fire department uh house. Uh question exists as to whether the applicant uh should be whether the application itself should be considered a courtesy review. However,
uh with that being said, out of respect for the board, the township, uh zoning determination was made that uh proper jurisdiction is in front of that of the zoning board. We're respecting that decision. I just for the record, I just like to say as a I've had in other
townships, uh other townships view these type of applications as courtesy reviews. So, with that being said, we're just going to respect the jurisdiction uh that was called by the board of zoning officer and move forward with the application. Um the application consists of two parcels. Uh one located in the C1
neighborhood commercial zone. Uh one located in the R six highdensity single family residential zone. Uh we're seeking a D3 use variance with a D6 height variance. Uh with bulk standard relief for parking and setback requirements that will be subsumed under
the D3 variant standard. Uh so there's no need to issue no on will this be subsumed under the D3 variance. Um, we're relying upon the board engineer review letter from CME dated November 7th, 2025 and the board planner review letter uh from Higgins Associates dated
October 29th, 2025. Uh, with that, I'd like to request the board to swear my expert um, uh, Robbie Connley uh, into the record is going to be uh, testifying as a professional planner and that of a professional uh, architect and then we can move on from there. >> Conly described as what you're about to
do will be the whole shot. Yes, I do. >> And just state your names for record. >> Robbie Connley. C O N L E Y. >> And you are a licensed planner. State of New Jersey. >> I am licensed planner state. >> US is in good standing. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Um I think I'm better standing up. I didn't want to Yes. Okay. Um, basically most of you probably know the property that we're talking about. You know where the firehouse is. Um, but I just want to go over quickly for you
what we're looking at. >> You're referring to what the market as a >> uh TS2. >> Yes, the market is A4. >> Okay. Um, so basically what you're looking at,
Vienna Avenue, Sunset Avenue, Wikipek, the existing firehouse sits here with some parking behind. There's a parking uh township parking lot here, um, which is along Wikipek Drive and, uh, North Wanamasa Drive.
this piece of property here. Uh the township gave that over to in a uh an agreement to the board of fire commissioners for them to build this addition onto the property. This the changes the only changes to the township
parking lot is currently this is the driveway. Uh we submitted this to the township and they were okay with us closing off that driveway, making the only access off of Wanamasa Drive. Uh multiple reasons, one being it's much
safer for ingress and egress off of Wanamasa Drive and we can separate the emergency vehicles from the public coming out there. Plus, we pull further away from the light. So that gives you an overview of how we got to the
addition to the building. The addition to the building is going on this piece of property right here, which is the property that the board of fire commissioners received from the township to build this building. Um, what we're
looking at the property line is right about here where this is the commercial section C1. This is the R six back here. this portion of the building, which the existing firehouse is partially in the R
six use. So, we're actually looking at an extension of an of an existing use on that property. So, this piece here, so we've already said it's an inherently beneficial use.
So if you want to talk about the negative criteria and it's a conditional use in this district in both districts and we need to meet the conditions. So the conditions are that the building
meets the aesthetic value of the neighborhood is not a detriment to the neighborhood. And we feel that this addition because it's an addition to an existing building that is already operational in the
neighborhood is an inherently beneficial use and is also aesthetically similar to the exact existing firehouse. We feel that we already meet all those criteria that is put forth in the ordinance for a
conditional use in both zones. And just the record is clear, the the exact standard is the design of any building facility performs the general character of the zone and will no way adversely affect the safe and comfortable enjoyment of the property
rights of the zone. So given uh Mr. Connley's testimony, it's an existing building. It's already there. It's it's stone throw away from the neighborhood next door. uh the addition is going to be uh added onto the existing structure. It's not going to change the the dynamic
of the facility of the of the existing site. Um and it really doesn't impact the the enjoyment of any property rights within a zone that already existed. Correct.
So, um so I I think that is really where we're at with the questions. Let me go over Mr. Higgins. Let me look at my notes here. Uh we're also talking about a height variance
and the height variance. In the commercial zone, the maximum height is 35 ft. In the residential zone, the maximum height is 30 ft. The peak of the building that we're
planning on putting there is 38 ft. Now, basically the wall itself to the sopet is 28 ft and then the peak of course is up above that. Your ordinance does measure to the peak of
the roof. Some ordinancees uh measure to the mean of that peak. uh some to the sopet. Yours does go to the peak of the roof. The reason why we need to have that additional height of the building is because we're putting the
fire trucks on the first floor and the fire trucks have to raise the second floor up higher. And so with that to put a second floor above that, we did need need or we do need that variance for the
height to be able to get that or um basically we wouldn't be able to get the use within the building because the use is what we had for the fire trucks on the first floor which they're hoping to be able to take all the equipment and
the old firehouse across the street and move it into this building and consolidate. And then the other spaces up above are meeting and training rooms, uh, kitchen, things like that that they need for their operations that they don't really have in this building, but
they do have across the street. And the idea is to consolidate and condense everything into this one newer building with the addition on it. And that's where the need for that height variance comes in because we need to be able to fit all of that in there
uh without spreading it out further on that property. So, um, the other thing that we were looking at is a setback variance. And
unfortunately, this property is sitting on three on three corners, three streets. It's fronted on three streets. So therefore, what most people will look at that building and think is the sideyard is
actually the only rear yard to the property. And the ordinance calls for 25 ft set back to the rear yard. Well, if we had to maintain that 25 ft set back to the rear yard, which let me jump over here
and show you. Since we have Wikiped, Sunset Avenue, Nuna, this is the only place that could be considered a rear yard cuz these three have to be considered front yards. So basically, if we had to maintain that 25
ft setback, then we wouldn't be able to build addition at all. Um, so we're kind of trying to maintain the sideyard set back there, which would make sense off of Wapekco Drive, uh, and
keep the building away from the property there. I believe that you would view those as special reasons for the for this type of variance. Correct. That is correct. So I believe that these are special reasons why that these
variances should be approved and again for a inherently beneficial use that is an expansion of what's already there. All right. Now just as to the particular suitability of the proposed use this this site is particularly suited for
this type of endeavor because of the existing nature of the site. Correct. >> Yes. Exactly. And as to the negative detriment to the public good, there really is no negative detriment because the nature in which the inherently beneficial use is being expand on that.
>> Correct. So yes, I mean there it's an inherently beneficial use. There really is no negative criteria to try to testify to. It's a positive use. It is it's an existing use. It's not like
we're going to put a new firehouse in the me middle of a residential zone, which we would be allowed to do, but we're putting it as an addition onto an existing firehouse that's already there. So again, that takes care of some of the negative criteria that you would have
putting a firehouse in the middle of a residential zone. And >> there's nothing here that would either impair um the intent or purpose of of the local zoning ordinances. Correct. No, I I believe it meets your zoning ordinances. Um, and you know, the fact
that it is over two different uh use groups where it is, it definitely meets your C use group a lot more than it meets your R six, but I think it makes a lot of sense to have this building be at
that location uh as opposed to being somewhere else in the township. Any questions? >> Nope. >> Any questions for the public? >> Can we turn to Jim? What do you think,
Jim? >> Oh, somebody coming up. >> Oh, sorry. You're coming up. Do we want to have the professionals? Um, >> well, I asked if anybody had questions, so it's it's up to you. You swearing you're about to give will be the truth of all truth about the truth of God. >> I do.
>> Did you state your name? Spell your last name for the record? >> Julia Valente. V A L E N T E. >> And your address? >> 1405 Vina Avenue. Lucky lot 11. You will see on your site plans.
>> Can we switch this to the site plan we're showing the survey? Sorry guys, I'm >> um I have a few questions. >> Yeah, this is good. >> Okay, perfect. Um >> what are you looking at? This is SP1.
Thank you. >> All right. I'd like to start out saying I am in full support of the fire one district. I am happy that you guys are improving the building. I saw the plans. It looks beautiful. Um I just have a few questions for the professionals. Um
obviously you guys have your responsibility to your clients to prepare plans on their behalf. And so um in regards to the easement, I'm concerned right here with setback. You don't show building corners, a
driveway or a garage in lot 11. So really, no one is sees how close these stairs are going to be to a garage almost butt up against each other cuz there's a garage that sits right on this property line.
So this survey just doesn't give a full picture, I would say, of the setback issue I'm raising. Are you not the surveyor? No. >> So you can't tell. You don't know what you >> Yeah. Okay.
>> So the survey was done for the property. >> Mhm. >> The firehouse owned property and it was also done for the council owned property. >> Yeah. >> But the survey was not done for the neighboring property. Well, naturally, you're survey surveying a property for the Oh, you're not a surveyor, so I
understand this isn't really a question, I guess, at this point, but you would show that a driveway was encroaching into their property. You don't show that. >> Well, the the my understanding was that the easement that is here. >> Yeah. Which isn't shown >> was given. It is. It is shown on here.
And the easement was put there for was given for the property. And we do have a copy of that ement that was submitted >> to the council as part of the application. >> Yes. >> And the fence that is
not going to be moved. >> Okay. >> So that existing fence that's there, the fence will still be there. >> We'll cut you're sewing it here and then cutting out around lot 11. >> The fence the fence actually comes along here.
>> Mhm. And our sidewalk is going to come along that fence. >> Okay. >> And then it will cut out behind this where the parking lot into the C1. >> I just I'm concerned that this building corner right here is sitting this property corner is sitting a building
corner >> is my concern. >> That's an exterior. >> That there'll be enough space to hip around there. Yes. >> Okay. >> We can make a couple of conditions for the record. So that number one condition, the fence will not be moved. not touching the fence. Uh condition two
uh is that we obviously can't infringe on any existing easement area. We have no intention to doing that. Uh the easement is recorded. It's deed. It runs with the property, runs with the chain of title. Uh we're not going to be touching the easement pedal. So you don't have to worry about that. >> I just think the showing, you know, the
adjacent improvements would have you know drawn a better picture >> if we had a better survey. >> Yes. Um the second thing clarification to Julia actually you look at TS2 um it is a color photo. I'm just trying
to see on this it's this area where am I? >> Yeah. So >> yeah. >> So the property line is really here. >> So this is the property line here. >> Yeah. So this is where they're building the steps right here. And I'm just
concerned it's landing right on my building corner. I have a door right there. So I open my door and I'm actually standing in their property which was this is a your property. >> Yes. >> And that fence will not
>> will not be moved. Okay. >> Whose property is that? >> The firehouse property. >> All right. So you're So I want to be clear. You're making a condition of approval. your offering is that the firehouse the fireman can never touch that fence unless they come back in here
and ask for relief. >> Well, so so the fence I believe we had no intention of moving or touching it. >> I understand that you don't have anything today, >> but I want to make sure that that you're limiting prohibiting the fire company at
the fire district from ever amendment. >> Okay. I'm fine with it. I'm just trying to make sure that's what you're doing. >> Could they at least we could say that they would replace the fence with a different fence?
>> When you don't see the building, >> it's on your property. That's what I'm being told. >> All right. So, so if you're going to maintain, you cannot remove and you must maintain the existing fence. That's correct. >> Just be careful. Your your drawings say remove the fence and reinstall it.
That's what your drawing say on SP1. >> My client indicated to me that they weren't going to touch the fence at all. >> I s remove and reinstall if need be to for the construction. But now that we've that fence was closer to the property line when we didn't know there was an
easement. Now that we know there's an easement, that fence will not be removed. It will remain there and we'll make that change on the >> draw the lapic kind of repair. >> No, it's a vinyl. I'm sorry. It's a vinyl.
>> Yeah, they got to keep that fence in good condition. That's all I'm saying. >> How about a asking people for buddy over. >> Yeah, we're not we're not going to touch. >> Okay, I'm sorry. Can I next question? >> It's going to be as a condition of
>> Okay. And then my next um bullet item I guess was um regarding your height variance that you guys were going for. Um I know you know this is you're just adding onto the firehouse. I didn't know if um there could be some consideration
to um lowering the building height that's going to basically be tow I don't want to use the word towering over my property. Um I just future negative criteria. Um, if I wanted to install solar solar panels, I'm no longer a
candidate to for any incentives on that because I will be blocked by a building. So, I didn't know if you had any I know you have plans for the second floor. You'll know if there's any way you can
downsize it a few feet and be at your 30 ft recommended by the township ordinance. I'm trying to get to the other. >> Yeah. Right here. >> So that's the other side of the building. We're talking about this side
here. >> So this is what's looking at my property. >> So yes from here that way will be the property. >> Okay. >> Um we're at 28 ft to the south.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. And then this is going away from your building. >> Mhm. >> So the height at 37 ft is really not going to affect your house. >> Okay. >> The height that you need to be concerned about is approximately 28 ft to the
fascia and set of the building. >> Okay. So just for context, right here is my garage, I guess I should say. >> Okay. And so this is 8 ft away from my garage because my garage is on the property
line. You're proposing it 8 ft from the property line, not 8 ft from the ement. Correct. >> Correct. 8 ft from the property. >> So the fence >> and my garage is 8 ft. Exactly. So the >> property or
>> No, it's on the property line. So on the other side of the fence that you're not touching is going to be the footstep back to the property line. Yes. >> Okay. I'm just, you know, no room for error here is all I'm saying because
that's exactly 8 ft to my garage. >> So, it' be a 6T fence. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just >> And and your portion of the easement >> Mhm. >> is has to be on that side of that fence. >> Correct. >> So, the easement is given to you, but
the fence >> just in numbers. The fence is on the fire department side of the easement and the easement was a 6ft ement. So that would mean that your garage has to be at least 10 ft away from that
fence. So therefore your garage is 18 ft away or approximately 18 ft away from the building. The the easement is 3.38. >> Okay. It's 3.3. Okay. So it's approximately 12 feet.
>> Okay. >> I I just want >> I think just congestion >> on the same page. So the I I believe the the property line is 8 ft from the building. Correct. And then
the fence is in between there 3.83 ft or 3.38 ft from uh lot 11. And then there's whatever the difference is 462 ft from that building. So So there's
enough room for a 4ft concrete walkway between the fence and the new proposed building. >> Go ahead. >> If you want a higher fence, my client may be able to accommodate, but they would have to seek an additional variance for that. So, you know, we're
just offering you additional. Would you need a variance for a higher than five foot fence? Solid fence. >> Six foot is allowed in the zone. >> Okay. I think you're proposing a five foot. >> No, six foot. >> Oh, there is >> existing. Okay. The previous plans must have said proposing 5 foot that I saw.
Okay. All right. Um I think that's it. So nothing you can do about the height. >> The height is unfortunately they need the equipment. They need the trucks. >> I just >> Yeah. I mean the trucks the trucks are basically up to here. So they need that
space. >> So could you walk me through? I'm on the second floor. What room is this? Just so I know cuz I'm staring at my bedroom at this window. >> Your living room. >> The living room. Okay. >> Can we keep walking down that hallway? I'm curious what the interior is. I don't understand. >> This is the interior. Um this is really
what we would get into during planning, but we'll more than happy to do it right now. So at the rear of the building, there's a door coming in. And this is the stair tower elevator. And this is the engine bays for the apparatus on the first floor. >> On the second floor, you come up.
There's an alert station here. What's called a ready room. Kitchen in the center. And then this is the training room in the front. >> Okay. >> It's a long living room. >> Basically room. >> This this the ready room is basically a living room. That's where the firemen sit and
>> you know and then their alarm station is there. Alarm desk whatever. >> Okay. Where was the kitchen? >> The kitchen is in >> here. So there's nothing you can like >> room. They really need the the ready room and they need the training room.
>> Mhm. I understand. >> Exercise that they are. >> Absolutely. I understand what happens with the second floor is they want to expand their operational training and they need the second floor to do that. They also need the elevator to bring the equipment up. So it's
the elevator required by code. Whenever you spend public, you have to have an elevator. Um, and >> Mhm. >> Can I make that? >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Any more questions for the public? >> Come on up, sir. in this part about just state your name for the record. >> Jesse Croner >> and just spell that last year. >> K O L O D I O >> and your address.
>> 2002 North Wamasa. >> 2002 North. Go ahead. >> Um quick question. So the site plans that we saw, um it didn't seem like there was any um landscaping improvement from what there is currently. And I know
that you guys are going over about 19% as far as the variance, one of the variances that you're also uh asking for, right? The building space, I think it's going from 27 to 46. >> No, the um the building is currently or
the property is currently uh 100% or almost 100% um in use coverage. And the space that we're taking and putting the building on is currently in coverage. So there's no there's not going to be any landscaping improvements. >> There is no landscaping along the side
of the building on the parking lot side. >> Mhm. >> Um and there might be some landscaping in the front of the building. >> So the landscaping on the parking lot side already exists. So >> we're going to replace it when we build the building there and we get rid of this drive along the building. We will
put in some landscaping along that side of the building. >> Do you guys have like a satellite image of like the rendering or is it just movement? The only reason why I'm asking is because um you know I mean I understand that it is
impermanmeable surface now but it's also to grade and so now you're basically adding >> elevation to it. >> Put the additional on this side of the building. We will put landscaping along this side of the building. >> Okay. um and any anything as far as
infrastructure drainage or any of that nature to enhance any of the permeability in this area cuz the the sink is towards north wanamasa right so all of it basically all the runoff comes through this area and what
>> yes the runoff currently flows like that what we are doing is we're putting a small little basin here that will plate it back to here and all the down spouts are going down and then charging into the So you are putting infrastructure in for drainage in this
>> construction project. >> One pipe. Okay. And that's redirecting you said back where towards uh sunset. >> Back towards sunset. >> Okay. And that's just that's happening on my neighbor's property. Correct. Joel >> fire department property. >> It is. Okay. All right. All right. All right. That was I think one of the main
questions because I saw >> and just to be clear what happens with with the drainage is that >> based upon the new laws that just came out a few years ago um every applicant has to comply with new storm water regs those regs are like almost 50% more stringent than they were prior to that
for the prior decade. Every time an applicant has to do that they actually have to reduce the uh the exposure the elements of the water property. So correct. >> So this will actually be um more efficient as a result of complying with the new regs as opposed to the storm
water management system that's on the property right now that complies to the old. So it's kind of like an upgrade with higher standards. >> Okay. >> Just to give you back. >> Yeah. No, no. That's that's that's exactly what I was asking for. So perfect. Thank you very much for explaining. Appreciate you.
>> Any more questions from the public? Come on up, sir. So on screen >> I do. >> State your name for the record. >> James last name. >> V A L E N T. >> 1405 Von Avenue.
>> Thank you. Go ahead. I did not hear this or did not hear it correctly. So the vinyl fence that's there now. >> Yes. >> Is not going to be touched. >> Correct. >> And directly behind that vinyl fence, what's going to be there?
>> Directly behind >> on the firehouse side. >> On the firehouse side, >> y >> uh for the most part grass. There's going to be an area that's going to be sidewalk where there's a door to get into the side of the firehouse. >> Okay. So it's not going to be fence 28T.
>> No. No. >> What's the buffer there? >> Well, we're 8t off the property line. >> So it's approximately fenced and uh probably about 5 1/2 ft or so to the building. >> Okay, cool. That's it. I just need to
paint the picture. >> Yeah, >> thank you. >> Okay. I just I just wanted to clarify that it it's actually uh 4.62 4 and a2 ft. >> Okay. Any more questions public?
>> Okay, Mr. Higgins. >> Yeah, I don't have too much to say. I basically agree with the testimony that's been given, but just want to give you some guidance as far as what you're voting on. And you're voting on a D3
variance. Now a D3 variance, everybody thinks the Dvarianes are use variance. It's not a use variance. The use is permitted and it's there. Now what you're voting for on is a deviation from a
specification or standard pursuant to section 54 which is conditional use and the permitted I'm sorry uh pertaining solely to a conditional use. So you're voting on the deviation from the
condition of the use, you're not voting on the use itself. You still need the five, Mark will agree, you still need the five votes, but it's it's not a use issue. And while they've been talking about about the fact this is an inherently beneficial use, I think as a
planner and Mark can disagree with me as an attorney that I think you can take that into consideration, but it's not like it's a D1 use variance where if it's an inherently beneficial use, that's the special reason. The special reasons have to be that the site can
accommodate the use despite the deviation from that standard. And the same thing with the height variance. the standard is the same whether the site can accommodate the use despite the deviation and in this case the C1
section it's not a B variance it's a C variance it's only 3 ft which is 10% is less than 10% of the requirement but when you go to the R R six area it's 8 ft which is more than 10% of the requirement so that makes it the D6
variance but again you've got to decide whether or not the site can accommodate the use despite those deviations. >> Okay. Any questions from Mr. Higgins? >> Mr. Matley.
>> Uh I don't have anything else for uh the planner. Do you have a separate engineer? >> No. >> Okay. Well, then I'll just I'll just go through uh a couple things in my report. Um there were some there's a few uh
stormware management and grading uh comments that I had in report. Uh for the most part they are technical in nature. Um and I think they can be resolved uh with some plan revisions. Um I also noted that the uh parking is
being reduced from 53 spaces on site to 43 spaces while the building is being enlarged. Um so the the required number of spaces is 67. Uh now the parking that's that's on site there
is a municipal parking lot. Um so it's it's kind of uh I think the the applicant can can talk about this but the um number of parking spaces required may not necessarily for the this use may
not necessarily be 67. Um but that is what the ordinance requires and they're providing 43. And um there's also a uh a light fixture that is uh 8 ft from uh the property line from a
residential uh property lot 11 uh where it's required to be 25 ft and and that requires a variance. >> Okay. Um the light picture I'm confused on that. Is that the one that's at the back door?
>> I believe it is. If it's the one that's at the back door, we can either do a canopy so that light shines down so it will not be shining on the neighbor's property or we could make sure that it's got a cut off on it, but that's required by code to have a light
at an exit door at an egress door. >> We'll stipulate that as a condition. >> Yes. Yeah, that's the one uh on the building. >> Okay, that's what I thought. I'm more than happy to most likely we will put a canopy there over top of it with a light shining down so that way it's not
shining in the yard. >> My already indicated that all the lights on the property are already on a timer I believe so we can make sure that that's on the timer as well. Make sure it's code compliant. Um, and as for the parking, uh, do you
have more you want to go through or can >> Okay. As for the parking, your ordinance lumps a firehouse in with a police station, uh, a post office. I think there was another, um, one that was in
there. Let me see if I police police station, fire, uh, post offices. Um, so it's 250 square ft per parking space. Um,
I went through and just did a quick look at the firehouse itself, the existing and the new. And though it's a 15 16,000 square ft building, over 12,000 square ft of that building
is storage, circulation, and toilet facilities, locker, showers, toilets. These are even though your ordinance does say gross, but these are areas that would normally be taken out in most ordinances. And then we roll
down to what accounts to about 20 parking spaces would be what this building would need. And I think Rich, that seems to make a little bit more sense. 20 parking spaces. >> Yeah. >> So for the fire department. Um so I don't think that cutting that number of
parking spaces in this area is going to be uh a detriment to the project. uh and especially when the fire department does have training or something like that, that's most likely going to be in the evening and all the businesses across
the street are closed in the evening or closed earlier or earlier. So, I don't think that there's going to be an issue with the parking uh there anyway. >> And just to be clear, there's only I think they only have about 20 to 25 or so uh volunteers. Only 10 are on site at
any point in time uh when the training occurs. only those 10 that are in the building will be doing the training and they rotate when they're doing that. So the so it's it's our position that 67 is kind of excessive based upon the fact that they don't even have they probably would love 67 volunteers but they don't
have them at this point in time. Um so and there's only 10 on site at any point in time. >> Will there be any social events there? >> No. Are is is there any way to rent out a room at the firehouse or anything like
that? >> So, do they need approval there? No, there's no rentals of the firehouse. >> Yeah. >> Do we need a variance for parking though? I don't think so. So I believe it would
be subsumed under the D3 if >> well no it wouldn't be subsparate for D1 >> D1. Yeah. >> I I would say just to be safe that we
would I would go for it just to be safe. >> Realistically with the uh public facility right next to it. I don't think it's going to be an issue. Okay. >> So, I think that concludes uh my
testimony. Um >> I believe that is all we have. >> Yeah. So, thank you. I appreciate everybody's time. I appreciate the professionals. Um we've had some conversations and some back and forth and also the attorney and uh Nicole,
thank you for all your help, too. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time and hopefully you look favorable. >> Okay. Does anyone have from the public have any statements they want to make on this case? Okay, then we'll close the public hearing.
>> We'll move to close the public hearing. >> We don't have to move. We don't have to vote on that anymore. Thank you, Mark. We need to vote on that. You missed. >> So, do we have any to offer a positive resolution? >> I'll offer a positive resolution.
>> I'll second. >> All right. Mr. Ashen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. And thank you one master fire company for all you do. It's greatly appreciated. >> Yes. And I second that. Thank you for your service. >> Mr. Pui. >> Yes. Thank you for your service.
>> Mr. Lowki. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Mr. Garica. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Vice Chairman Janeiro. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Bullet. >> Yes. >> Thank you all. Thank you very much. >> Thank you everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
Are you doing this seeking administrative? >> Yeah. >> Okay. as these folks do. Next up, we'll be hearing Michael Seller and VR Essis 34 324 Roosevelt Avenue, block 22, lot 7
seeking administrative approval for changes from a previous approval. Uh, seller and Esser attorneys for the applicant. >> Have a good night. >> Hello, Miss KMCO. >> Good evening. Uh, Mr. Cole, members of
the board. Uh, my name is Jennif My name is Jennifer Krimco uh from an here on behalf of the applicant. As you know, I did not represent the applicant at the time of the original variant. Excuse me. They were represented by uh just the architect and the time they
came it was purely for a lot with variance the house fully conformed and they showed you the house that they intended to build at that time. However, since then, they hired a builder and hired a designer who's been working with the architect uh in order to make some
modifications uh without them knowing that those modifications would require them to come back here even though it doesn't create any new variances. But because it is the board's policy that whatever plans are approved have to be constructed, any
changes need to be run by you even if there's really no variances to be offered. So, I worked with the architect and had the plans uh prepared that were submitted to you. And if I could just take a moment and walk you through the changes. So, on CP1, it just shows some
architectural changes that are being made to give the foundation for bumpouts. And what I did was the top is what was approved. The bottom is what's proposed. And each and every change is highlighted in red with a bubble. So, it's really just some bumpouts in order
to give some more architectural style. When you go to page two, you see those bumpouts on the first floor. Uh those are really the only pages as it relates to the first floor. When you go to the second page,
you also see really just those bumps. As you're going to hear, majority of the changes are specially designed in nature. Uh some of the roof lines are changed, which you can see in this second floor plan over the first floor.
Again, no real changes. The one change was uh adding originally they had a pull down to the attic and they wanted to put a stair into the attic. So, you see a stair up into the attic. Now, the arch, interestingly, the architectural plans
that you have before you did show an attic pull down, but never showed you the attic floor plan. So they'd always intended to have an attic, but they unfortunately didn't present to you the attic floor plan. So that's why when you go to page four,
you'll see that while there was hatch was shown in their prior plan, there never was an attic floor plan. So, what they're proposing to do is give them at some point a finished attic, which necessarily is part of this first phase, but in order to have the uh ceiling
height for that finished attic, they had to make changes to the roof line, which necessitated coming back to the board. Uh it will eventually be a maximum of two additional bedrooms. And as you'll see, we have more than enough parking to accommodate that. That doesn't create an issue.
When you go to the next page, and again, like I said, I'm going quickly because the changes are really hard to touch on the exterior, it just shows the changes to the roof lines in order to accommodate some dormers uh at the
Now, when you go to page six, you can see the differences of imposing some dormers one house architecturally different a little bit more modern. And um most importantly
the max the max height uh to the top of the building actually they have it measured long here they they are showing it to you from the uh elevation it's 34t 9 in where as you
know you actually measure your height from the finished floor. So, it's well under the 35 ft that's required. And so, there's some squaring off of uh some of the areas. If you look in the front, breaking down the front opening with one
large one story, adding the dormers, changing out some windows, changing some roof lines, and then as you're going through, you can just change it as you go through. Again, it's it's not something that this board would
typically review because there's no architectural design standards here. It's really just the changing of the roof height and some changing of the architecture. I wanted to go through it and that that's really the sum and substance of
it. Obviously, the additional bedrooms if we did not need parking would be a would be an issue, but I'm sorry that these aren't I hope yours are stapled. Mine are not. >> No, >> I didn't submit them directly. They were
submitted directly by the architect. So, if you go back to the original approval, there is a massive driveway that could fit up to I think eight or 10 cars. It was a um it was a circular driveway with a leg that went on. And obviously that would be subject to the zoning uh
officer. Anyway, we're not seeking new variances, but really just to show you that when you drive by it, it we're seeking to have the architectural style a little bit different than what you saw, but no new variances are required. This couldn't. What were the variances
for originally? >> It was one variance. It was the lot width. >> Lot width. >> That's it. >> So, you're okay on height >> and everything. >> And with the changes to the roof line, you're still okay on height. >> I wouldn't have come before you
administratively if we weren't. Obviously, we, you know, we didn't see plans for the attic, right? And now the plans show two bedrooms. So, that obviously makes people think, what's going on, right? But if you if you had come and shown just an
attic and then had it built this way, you never would have shown you wouldn't had to show bedrooms in that. >> Well, and and I can explain why. So originally, unfortunately, they didn't have the designer at the time and they didn't have the input of what their
future would be here. So they didn't think about it. Originally, it showed pull down stairs. So for example, had this house been built and it was all done and the the roof line would have to be lifted. That's really what we're here for. We're showing you the interior because one day they want to do it. So
they want to frame it out in a way that they can do it one day. Um, but 10 years from now, if they came in for building permits and said, "We want to add a staircase and build out bedrooms." As long as it didn't create any variances, they'd be entitled to do that. The lot
once the house is there, the lot width, it's only because there's no construction done yet and we were still in the process of resolution compliance and seeking building permits that brings us back here. >> Any other questions? Mark, what's the process here? >> Somebody moves to uh
>> normally have um the public. >> Yeah. Yeah. Does anyone have uh any questions from the public? It's just a motion to >> I'll make a motion to approve the >> I'll second
>> administrative. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Whitman. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> Absolutely. >> I'd like to say you're getting rid of me, but not yet. >> Don't Don't go anywhere. Yeah. >> Mr. Donna, do you have your uh >> what? >> I think Okay,
>> Mr. Donna, would you object if we did uh Mr. Towel before you? It is a very short. Sure. Okay. Thank you for your indulgence. >> Mr. Towel, come on up. >> Good evening.
That's it. >> Y >> All right. I'm going to mark in the following, chairman. Uh A1 will be the variance application. A2 will be the uh textual plan. A3 will be the shed text and A4 will be the
addition and driveway grading plan. I then have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. C2 will be the board planner report. C3 will be the board engineers report. B4 will be the zoning board resolution dated 721,
2022. Exhibit B5 will be the amended zoning board resolution dated August 18, 2022. And then I have exhibit D6 will be the zoning board resolution dated 516 2024 and M I will swear you test will be the
public. >> Thank you. Just state your name for the record. >> Kenneth Ella >> and you're the owner of the property, correct? Yes. Thank you. >> Hello, sir. >> What brings you here, sir? >> I'm seeking uh some additional variances
on the property. Uh one being a front yard setback, uh a rear setback, and um increased uh in size of the shed. Um the front yard set back. Um if you
guys can see that the house had a >> So let me mark that in as did a how many photographs we have? >> Really only only like two are going to help me. Although just to give some background >> well I just want I just need to know for the record how many there are
as one package. One, two, I think three. >> So as exhibit A5 will be a series of three photographs >> of the house, right? >> Well, this one just for the front.
>> No, but I'm saying in general they're all they're all did you take photographs? >> I did. Go ahead. Okay. So um the prior house which is now in construction had an awning and my ar my plans didn't include that and I'm like how going to
shelter ourselves from the rain. So we wanted to encroach on the setback by adding an awning and give the house um an architectural character by coming out like 12 in only on the first 12 ft of the house. So it's just not a straight wall with an awning. Looks kind of
weird. Looks very uh institutional, not really residential. So, we're trying to bring that back into the house for shelter. Um, if you see here, I don't know if I um So, now should I switch the rear rear yard back? >> Yeah. Just keep going with photographs.
Remark them. Okay. So, um the house had a two bar twocar garage before, which was pretty humongous. Um the town allowed a 10 by 15 scale. I'm asking to increase that uh 10 by 20. Uh
my neighbor's property, as you can see here, it's just a bunch of lays. His property is on the second lot, let's say 50 ft over and back. And my neighboring property at Nelson, uh he has a shed right on my fence. So really, it's not really going to bother
him cuz his shed's in the way. Um and the need for it is and the hardship is that you know we have a lot of pool equipment high schools and a growing family garden equipment and giving this up to allow a bigger house you know gave up a lot of shelter and storage. So we're
asking for that shed and then the final one was in the rear of the house um asking for 0.8 in in the back to square the house off. Um, I don't have to explain that to you, but
show them the grain plan. >> Yeah. So, if you see in the back, uh, the house had a little bit of a jog in the extension, and we just wanted to square it off to was having that jog in the back. Make the bedroom come in 8 in and not make it straight for a bed. So,
>> that's like a six square foot addition. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's uh not not not very not very big. Uh, and that's really it, right? I don't think there's much more to it. >> Any questions from the board? N.
>> So, where your uh you said where your um shed's going to be is up against next to your neighbor's shed. >> Yeah. So, prior it would be 5 ft from that shed I showed you. Um I just want to go the other way. 5 ft. I can go just that's empty. I can show you that we're back at the lot right now. But you're
already planning on putting that shed. Yeah, you're already put planning on putting a shed there. You're going to do a little bit bigger, which in theory should be further away, which is an empty lot pretty much. >> Okay. All right. Mans, you have any comments? >> I don't have a a big problem with that.
In the magnitude, it's not that big a difference, but it should be noted that if that shed were moved 5T to the south, the sideyard step back deviation would be eliminated. You're not going to eliminate the rear yard step back because 30 ft's required, right? Because
of the size of the shed. But if it removed just 5T to the south, you would have a 10ft set back from that. There would be a variance required. So, it's something you you should consider. >> I I don't know if there's any any substantial
planning justification for it. It's not a hardship, so it would have to be a CT situation. I again I appreciate that and I respect it. Uh it just it's going to in on my property just to the other side. There's nothing there at all. Just I just have some grass to give my family some more
storage. You have seven bicycles. >> If you were to move it 5 ft and keep it the same size you would still have storage. >> Yeah. But then it looks it's off center in the back of the house. Kind of lines up nicely. And then you have the shed that's off center. So it's not so pleasing. They want to throw a ball or
something. It's just in the way. Mr. Matt, do you have any comments? >> Uh, the only comment that I had in my review letter was there was a set of architecturals uh submitted um to show the the modification of the house. And
now it looks like there's a a third story window um or or an attic window. Uh, and I just wanted to clarify if that is a new addition to what was previously proposed or >> No, that was that was actually there and
was approved already. So, I think I think might have reached out to you in an email that the next time. >> Thank you guys. >> Jim, did I cut you off? I'm sorry. Did you have anything else to say? Okay. Any questions? Anyone?
>> The picture you showed with the shed, the your neighbor shed. Yeah, that one. Is that the back property? That's the south side. >> Sorry. The back is where the trees are. There's nothing here at all. It just went off. >> Okay. So, by leaving it where it is, there's a shed on the left hand side.
>> Yeah. If I if I still be in two place. So, I'm not I'm not I'm not getting closer. I'm actually just going to which is my second level. Any questions from the public?
Any comments from the public? That will close the public hearing portion. >> Oh, yeah. >> Anyone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion poser resolution. >> A second.
Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you guys. Ladies, no. No, Mr. Honor. Thank you very much. >> My wife will throw me out of the >> That was a bit longer than the five minutes I was promised. So, I apologize, but I appreciate >> Oh, this is two. Sorry folks. This is um
>> two Texas Avenue LLC 219 Louis Street, block 17, lot 26 and 44 in the R4 zone. >> Good evening, members of the board. I'm Jeffrey Donner. I'm representing two Texas Avenue LLC which is the owner of
219 Louis Street. We were back here on uh we were actually here on September 29th and at that time we did present engineering testimony and we began his first portion of Mr. O'Neal's architectural which would have been
planning testimony. that time we felt that there were disparities in the board drawing board. >> Yeah, I guess uh >> it's a handy. Okay, as I was saying, I'm Jeffrey Donner. I'm
here representing the applicant to Texas Avenue LLC. We were first here on September 29th, at which time we uh were seeking a variance, center variances in order to uh convert an existing non-conforming commercial use into a
single family residential property. Uh we at that time presented extensive testimony from our engineer Walter Hopkins. Uh went through all of the issues on his plot plan and drainage and things of that nature. And then we proceeded with the beginning of Mr.
O'Neal's testimony as our architect and our planner that in the course of his testimony we recognized that there were some disparities with the application and at the board's request we adjourned our presentation and went back to the
drawing board to refigure uh the design of the single family residence. Uh so just to to refresh your memories, this is an undersized lot. Uh it's very narrow 35 ft in width but it's very deep
225.5 ft in depth. It because of the unusual shape of the property. Uh there are a number of variances involved and Mr. O'Neal will get into what they are. Uh most of them uh arise from the
pre-existing conditions on the property and uh frankly as I can tell you as Mr. McLeir would testify and and justify his statements. Uh if we didn't get the variances that we're seeking, we really could not do the building that we're looking to do and the property could not
be converted from its existing non-conforming use to the residential proposal. Uh what I'd like to do at this point in time is start with the testimony of Mr. O'Neal because I don't think there are at this point very many issues about the engineering. I saw Mr.
Matle's letter. uh he seems to be satisfied with the uh interaction between Mr. Hopkins and himself and he has no issues or questions at this time, but I think the focus of the application was on Mr. O'Neal's testimony and that's where I would like to start at this
point. So, >> let me let me mark in the new exhibits that we have. Yes. Uh >> Nicole, you confirm we're we're up to A7 is the next exhibit? >> I believe so. 2 A6 is next.
>> A6 is next. All right. Um, we have a A6. A5, I'm sorry. We have a the drainage reported, is it? That was submitted previously. >> That was A3. >> Okay. So, we have new architectural plans will be which will be A5 that's
been revised as of November 4th, 2025. And then we have a revised pop plan which we're going to mark in as A6 which is revised through November 6, 2025. So I think those are the applicants to new exhibits. We then have revised letters
on behalf of our staff. Um and what are we up to on that? Do we have that also? >> We're up to B4. >> Okay. So B4 will be the zoning officer's new report dated November 14th, 2025. B5 will be the board planners report
dated November 18th, 2025 and B6 will be the board engineers report dated November 17, 2025. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. L. Um, when you said the architectural plans, do you include the elevations?
>> I have all we have are the architectural plans prepared by your firm outdated February 21st, 2025, revised through November 4th, 2025. >> So, it's all the sheets in that set. >> Yes. Okay. that that's when he was on top. >> Yes. Just one. >> So, as noted, I'd like to proceed with
the testimony of Mr. O'Neal, our architect and planner. I believe you've been previously qualified by the board in both disciplines. And is he still considered under oath or you want to resurrect? >> Still under oath. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.
We've had uh some brief background presented to the board as to where we are. I'd like you to address the application in terms of what changes have you made to the architectural plans between our last appearance on September
September 29th and tonight? Well, the probably the major change would be the reduction in the size of the building. So, we've the initial plan we brought last time was 4592 ft. That's old and new. And that's been
reduced to 3,823 ft. Um, which is a 769 ft reduction. Realizing that the existing building is 1,960 ft on the first floor and that the
second floor existing is um 800 square ft. So those exist as of the moment. So mo almost the entire addition is here the red line and the one bathroom
in the in the back. So that that's the addition and that so all of this other stuff all of this exists. Now the the existing building has been reduced in size but it does it isn't
reflected in the building coverage because it has a roof over it which is this part back here. So this is a 9x4t space. So the existing building now has a wall here.
We are pushing that back 9 ft which has the logic of the 9 ft has to do with the structural system of the old building and that would be the the roof would remain that's existing but that would be our outdoor space and the idea
is that this would become a shaded space to the proposed pool which is adjacent to it. So those are all reductions in the livable square footage of the of the building. I'd like you to detail also the specific
changes in the floor plan that have been brought about with your new plan. >> So we have brought the this wall that is the wall of the staircase in approximately 2 ft 2 ft
based on the building's uh coverage. We've also reduced the building 2 feet from the street and those together with the second floor plan eliminating um one of the bedrooms
and then the other bedroom has become an exercise room for Mr. Matoot and we maintained one bathroom. We removed the other bathroom. Originally there were two. Um so those are the things that have been altered in architectural plan.
So again, if we just take the numbers off the plan, the existing building is 1,960 ft on the first floor. We're proposing a 476 ft addition on the first floor. That makes it 2,436
ft on the first floor. And the second floor existing is 800 square ft. We're proposing a 587 foot addition. That makes the second floor 1,387 ft. So the total building size would be
3,823 ft, which again is a 769 square ft reduction from last. >> Reduction from what? Excuse me. >> Uh from last we met. to the last plan.
>> Yeah. >> I think you said it was a 4,592 ft original proposal which is now 3,823 square ft. Correct. >> Okay. Uh can you take us inside this
process a little bit? I I think you've used the term if not before the board in our discussions about an adaptive project. What do you mean by that? Well, the the existing building is a light industrial building. It was built I'm not sure how long ago, but definitely
over 100 years. >> Do we know what the use is? >> We believe my understanding was that it was a cabinet shop. >> Okay. Do we have any documentation as to I'm just trying part of the argument is
that it's a pre-existing non-conforming >> commercial building. Yes. But if you don't know the specific use and don't have a certificate of nonconformity, I don't think you can make that argument. That's the question I have. Okay.
>> Well, uh I I think we know from the record that it was a place that made cabinetry and we set that forth last time. It's not an issue. This is the first time anybody unaware of this challenged whether it's a non-conforming commercial use. Certainly has not been a residential use. And
>> the question the question I have Jeff is if you to apply for a certificate of occupancy tomorrow could you use that for a non-commercial use? >> You mean a commercial use? >> A commercial use. >> Non I I hear what you're saying but but
our intent is not to maintain the commercial use. We're looking to wave the commercial use and convert it to a residential use. Yeah. And the point I'm saying is I don't know I you haven't made an argument that you have a commercial use there. You have a a former commercial building. No question.
But what the use was is the question. >> Well, if it's commercial use, if it was an office, it's one thing. If it was a cabinet contractor who made cabinets, it's another thing. If it was a pharmacy, it's another thing. When you have a pre-existing non-conforming use, you
have to narrow down the specific use. You can't just say it's a commercial building. >> Well, I could I could argue that under the building code, it would never be allowed to be a residential use. You would have >> That might be. >> So, and that has to do with um the fact
that there's a front door that doesn't it's an overhead door that doesn't um it doesn't it isn't weatherproofed at all. It's a rough concrete floor. But but you're using a lot of that existing building for the proposed residence, correct?
>> With massive amounts of renovation in order to meet meet a residential building code use. >> I I think what he's saying, and Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, is part of your posit part of your criteria that you're putting forth here is that you're converting it from a non-conforming use
into a into a conforming use, and therefore you're asking the board give you relief based ignoring the fact that this is a very obligate building. And I think what Jim is saying, in order to do that, you kind of have to establish for us that you actually have the right to continue a non-conforming use on the
site if you weren't here getting the res. Otherwise, it just falls apart. If this is something that's been abandoned for for 200 years, and I'm purposely exaggerating, it sort of becomes uh a moot point and you're really not doing anything because you couldn't reopen as a commercial use anyway.
>> Right. Well, this is the first time the issue has been raised. It's not in Mr. Iggen's report and uh you know we we did not come prepared with a certificate of a given use. I mean we could go back to the building department and I'm sure determine that what the use was. Uh I
just want to ask >> you wouldn't need a certificate of non-conformity. You would need what you need is just some some evidence some testimony. When was the last time this place was used as a cabinet shop? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Can I just have one? I apologize. I The first time you're hearing this
from me, it's cuz it's the first time I'm hearing it from you cuz I was sick at the last hearing and I wasn't here. >> Okay. But it's not an interview report. I just need one more to talk to my client. >> You have any discussions with anybody? My client has direct uh information
unfortunately an observation as to the prior use of this. So if this becomes an issue I can put him on right now or we can put him on next but we can have testimony for the board as to the specific use that he observed
in existence. Okay. Why don't you provide that? >> All right. We'll interrupt Mr. O'Neal's testimony with the permission of the board and we call Mr. Jeff. >> Testimony about to give would be the
truth to yourself. >> Yes, sir. >> Go ahead. Say your name for the record. >> Jeffrey Nathaniel Matoot. M A T M. >> And your address, Mr. Matoot? 448 Holly Terrace, New Jersey 077.
>> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Mr. M, uh, you are the principal of the applicant to Texas LLC? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And were you involved in the acquisition of this property by to
Texas? >> Yes, sir. At the time that you were involved in that acquisition process, did you have an opportunity to make observations about the building and its use? >> Yes, sir. I visited 12 uh uh three times. >> All right. And what were your observations?
>> So, the first time I went, there were building cabinets. The second time they were winding down and the third time they stopped operations and there were still cabinet factory
um tables and whatnot. I have photographs of everything and I have a video as well. >> Okay. >> And when when was this? >> It was uh prior to uh purchasing the building. Uh it was a quick closing. So,
um, memory serves as me correct, it was back in February, I want to say 2021. Might be 2020. I have I have I have photographs. I'm trying to find the exact date.
>> But approximately February 2021, you observed it being utilized to the cabinet shop. >> Yes. >> There was dust, sawdust all over the place. and since your acquisition of the property through to Texas, have you done
anything uh to formally wave the opportunity or right to make that use? Is that still in your mind a nonconforming available use for the property? >> I don't want to use it as a cabinet factory. That's that's the question. >> Well, that that may be your intent, but
have you taken any formal action to wave the rights for that use? Okay. I would submit to the board that we've made adequate presentation of the fact on a firsthand basis by Mr. Matut uh that this is and has been a cabinetry shop
manufacturing cabinets and that he observed that operation uh in existence uh at or about the time that he purchased the property. >> Can I ask since he's up why won't you just tear down this the building as it is and just build a house? It's uh
pre-existing. >> I understand it's pre-existing, but it's very weird. >> I mean, you know, just to be blatantly honest, I think that's one of the concerns of everyone is in the planner's letter. Why wouldn't you just tear this down? And you're build you're already building this entire addition to the
house. I mean, I'm sorry. You're building new You're just building a complete new extension. You're you're basically trying to convert a cabinet shop, which you just testified to, into living space. And it sort of is bizarre,
I think, to it's bizarre. And I think that's what Mr. Higgins concern is. He notes it in his letter. It's not making a lot of sense to a lot of people. >> So, if you did a walk through like I did with a creative mind like Mr. O'Neal, >> yes, it would make a lot of sense. And
it's a ma it's a masonry f it's a masonry building. It's a very very strong structure. It's uh you know similar to what goes up in Florida you know to withstand a hurricane 140 mph winds of that of that nature.
And um the addition is not really that big. You know we're just going out a few feet. Well, you're going out more than a few feet, but um I mean you're build you're building a lot. All that you're leave all you're remaining from what you started with uh is this gym area that you're adding a bathroom to and then a
large place for storage. >> Actually, the storage is already there. It's a it's there's a second floor. >> I I understand that. >> So, that's going to remain the same. All we're doing is is there's no basement and there's no opportunity for a basement. So, we need a a storage. So
that's going to be used on that in that space to the right and on the left that's going to be the gym and there's going to be a bathroom. >> And would you agree as suggested in the planner's letter to a deed restriction that if you ever convert that from a gym
or a storage space that you would come back to this board for further relief? >> Yeah. Yeah. I believe there would be some kind of uh relief in the board. We would agree to a gig restriction that we would not have family. Okay. Okay. That's not what I'm asking. >> No, but that takes care of your concern.
>> No, it does not because you can have one family. The definition of what one family is is is very uh large. >> Yeah. But I I don't understand the problem here. Okay. This is a this is a property my client owns. He can
illegally occupy it. Okay. Your comments about whether it's bizarre or not were not reflected in Mr. Higgins letter and has nothing to do with the law. He's entitled to build what he wants as long as he adheres to the zoning ordinances
and satisfies this definition and satisfies this board that the viances are justified. To say his concept is bizarre is not fair. >> So Mr. Mr. Don, Mr. Donner, since you just said that I reflected something that was not in Mr. Higgin's report, let
me read what Mr. Higgins report uses and we'll use the word bizarre. Did he use the word bizarre? you unusually large and has an unusual shape. >> That's not bizarre. >> Okay. It's a synonym. >> Okay. You use the word No, it's not. You use the word bizarre, which is porative
and negative and can influence this board that we're trying to do something that is unsatisfactory and undesirable. And with all due respect, council, and we have a great relationship, and I like you, I object. >> I object. I will retract the word
bizarre and I'll switch it to unusual and unusually large and unusual shape. And the current plan remains one of the former bedrooms uh as an we renamed one of the former bedrooms and exercise room and the other former bedroom which no longer has a bathroom attached to it as
for storage only. One concern is that a future owner could convert these to bedrooms creating a dormatory type of situation. Given the unusual shape and size of the two rooms, I recommend that consideration be given to a condition of any approval should the board decide to approve the application. Be that these
two rooms not be used as bedrooms and a deed restriction be provided to the effect that the dwelling shall only be used as single family dwelling as defined in the land development ordinance. >> Okay. And my position on behalf of the client is we must certainly agree to a deed restriction not permitting multifamily. But I don't see the need
for restricting the prerogatives of some future owner down the road who would have to come back to the board anyway. Okay. And by the way, the second bedroom doesn't have a bathroom. It can't qualify as a bedroom by itself. Uh one of the rooms doesn't even have a window. So that can't be a bedroom.
So, but we're not we're not looking to pull something off here. We're looking to finish Mr. Matut's dream of what he wants to do in a matter. Maybe it's different than what most people would do, but this is America and he does have a right to try to convince this board
that he has the characteristics and qualities that that qualify this project for approval. And that's what we're trying to do. That's all we're trying to do. So he's unwilling then to to eliminate some of these variances and there's a lot of variances here which
could be eliminated if you just tore this building down and started a new >> Wait one second. The the lot is 35 ft wide. Okay. We could not exist under the zoning requirements of this zone and build anything other than a 10-ft wide
house. Okay. if we adhere to the setback sideyard setback requirements and uh the other some of the other variances that Mr. Higgins has noted in his report we will be left with a 10 foot wide house. Okay. So we have to anything we put up
here we would have to have similar variances in order to have anything. >> No question about that. But but but but you'd have an easier time building a new easier time building a house if this structure that you currently have, which is an unusual sus uh structure was not
being added on to and you and you started from a new. >> We'd have to build a new house and still seek the same variances. Otherwise, it would be 10 ft wide. >> No, you wouldn't. No, you wouldn't. You could build a new house and have variances that would be much less than this. And quite frankly, you could build
a new house that would meet the building coverage requirement and not exceed it by 439 ft. I have a question. This is being used as commercial industrial.
Can I there? Let's just say that you don't do the addition up front. Can it be residential now? Does it need a variance to go? >> It it it might. No. Well, if he There are two different questions here. I mean, from a hability standpoint for getting a CO, which has nothing to do
with zoning, theoretically, yes. If they refab this area and it meets the criteria for it to get a CO for a residential dwelling, he could turn this into a residential dwelling because that's what's permitted in the zone. I don't know that it would meet a CO meet CO requirement as currently constituted.
It probably would not, but that's not a land consideration. Hey, >> I I'll be I I got a lot of problem I got problems with everything on this. It's >> well I think we're entitled to at least present our application and an opportunity to answer your questions
>> and that's why I asked the applicant and while he was sitting here whether he considered tearing this down and as Mr. Higgins said it would alle it would alleviate a lot of the variances that you're asking for. Um the answer as I've understood it from Mr. honor and and from I don't know if your your client actually said it, but I'll let you speak
for him is that he's unwilling to do that and this is the house he wants and this is the house he's he's insisting that he that he apply for and that's your right and you can put on your case. >> Thank you. >> I do have a question also. Why why would it be a problem with deed restriction not to convert those rooms to a bedroom?
>> Be a problem. the he he asked about a deed restriction. If you were willing to put a deed restriction not to convert those the uh the weight room and the other room into bedrooms problem with that >> I just felt from a legal standpoint it was unnecessary to constrict the
prerogatives of a future owner. He's not >> but you're not representing a future owner. You're representing an applicant that's here in front of us now and we're talking about now not what's in the future. it has a reflection on the value of the property and who might uh want to
buy the property after Mason has decided to sell it. So we would definitely definitely agree it can't be multifamily. >> Are we looking to sell build the house or add on to it and then sell the property? Is that >> not immediately to my knowledge? We're
just looking to use it and enjoy it. >> But property has an extrinsic value and its value increases over time and I don't think it's a problem or anything unusual to consider impacts of certain restrictions on value ultimately of the
property. is making a major investment here, >> right? But the reason why you're here is because it's not allowed and you're asking permission. >> We're here because we believe we qualify for certain variances from the standards of the zone, >> right? >> And we have a legal right to to pursue
>> absolutely you do. Thank you. >> Now we just erase that bedroom and now it's storage exercise. >> Well, no. I think there have been other other changes. We haven't gotten to those changes. We we've taken off 769 square ft from our prior proposal and I
was going to ask Mr. uh O'Neal to point out specifically what has been changed but there has been movement of the walls etc. Also some of the variances have changed as well including the sideyard variance on the north elevation which definitely increased that to a
degree. Just from >> just Jim, quick question. How many more given the current parking there now? How many more bedrooms could be added? >> Do they have could they add more bedrooms given the current parking? >> The the way the the parking is set up,
you can't tell. >> Okay. >> There really aren't any parking spaces shown there. It looks to me like you can only park two cars there. You can't park the cars perpendicular to the driveway cuz there's not enough depth there. >> And in fact, we've reduced the size of the driveway. So we might not have the
additional space of that original driveway. We've narrowed that driveway >> on the front building. What are your setbacks from the neighbors versus that narrow part which those setbacks? Can you tell me >> on the on the north elevation the
sideyard setback as originally proposed was two 2 3 ft. Okay. Less than 1 ft. With the changes that we have made, we've increased that sideyard set back by an additional 2 feet and it varies now between 2.1 ft and 2.5 ft depending
on which part of the building you're looking at. The other side of the building, the other side of the building has a 9.94 or 9.92 setback which because of a canal lever addition on the second floor has been reduced to 8.82.
But but essentially from a visual a a visible standpoint would not look changed whatsoever. All of these setbacks are occur are occurring because the property is only 35 ft wide. Mr. Higgins does note in his first planning
letter that that is without a doubt a hardship. The 35 ft. There's no question you have a hardship, but that doesn't automatically mean that you get the benefit of the um of the excuse me, of the approval, but you still have to prove the negative criteria, and you
still and you still potentially are creating your own hardship in some ways by trying to exasperate what you already have on the site. >> Look, I I didn't I didn't say that the hardship that Mr. Higgins conceded was the sole answer and the sole
qualification for the biases. I'm aware of positive criteria and negative criteria and we'll prepare to address it. >> So let's talk about and Jim just touched on the the parking space. >> Yeah, I was going to add just clarification on the order. >> Yeah, cuz I thought you brought up a very good point and so Jim, how many car
spaces are currently allowed? I mean, how many car spaces are currently required? >> I'm trying to remember the number of bedrooms. There were two bedroom. >> So that would require two parking spaces. >> Yes.
>> And then they add a fourth bedroom. >> Uh it would still require two. >> No, they had four bedrooms. >> No, they they would require more than that. >> You talking about the RSI sandwich? I think it would be three if we added a
fourth bedroom. >> So that's kind of the concern, right? You don't have the market and I'm trying to understand why there's a double vanity in an exercise room bathroom. I was >> going to ask I mean it's a pretty impressive bathroom for an exercise room. It's better than the bathroom in the bedrooms.
>> It leads me to believe that this could be converted to a bedroom without our knowledge. >> It's not our intent to do that. That's not what we're planning. I not agree to the deed restriction that these won't be turned into bedrooms. >> Well, I did agree to the deed restriction. It would not be multif family.
>> No, no, I'm saying not be turned into a bedroom. >> He's asking for a condition on a deed restriction on that. >> But look, because I believe that the future owner would have to come back to the board anyway. So, as long as it's just a condition and not a deed restriction, we
could >> probably restriction by coming back to the board. My my my problem with it not being a deed restriction is that the current the next owner comes in, they're not going to know what the condition of a resolution is. They're never going to see a resolution. But if there's a deed restriction, it
comes up and the deed restriction would have all my deed restrictions that we ever do ever before our boards always has language in it that you can come back to the board and ask for a release of the restriction. >> I'm just making the point. Mr. Higgins didn't ask for a deed restriction on that point only on multif family. You're
adding it now. I >> and the board's asking for it too. >> Yeah, I think the board is also asking for the D restriction on the record. I have no I have no objection to it. >> No objection. >> His attorney was too fidious. Okay. >> I have I have no need for it.
>> Okay. >> And here are the pictures of the cabinet factory. >> All right. Show me a picture of the cabinet factory. >> I think we'll be on that point. All right. >> You're consenting. Thank you. >> Right. So, what I'd like to do now that we have Mr. took testimony and we know
it was a cabinet factory and I have a photograph of it. Uh I'd like to bring Mr. O'Neal back. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Leski, don't don't hold back. I want to know what's on your mind because we can answer these questions.
>> I set back. >> All right. Okay. >> Are you getting a wheelbarrow? >> I think you can now. A wheelbarrow and probably a probably a lawn mower. under our new proposal account, but that's something else. >> All right,
>> Mr. Mayor, Mr. Sworn, uh, I'd like you to go in specifically and discuss what are the spaces that you've made allowance for under the current uh, architectural plan. So, the board understands exactly what you've done,
what rooms there are, and why you've done it. >> Okay. So, I'm not I hope I'm not repeating myself, but the changes we made since the last time we were here where we moved this
wall, north wall in 2 ft. We moved the front elevation wall in 2 ft. We eliminated this as occupiable area by having it as um storage. And we eliminated the bathroom that previously
was here. So now, in essence, what the house is is you walk in, there's an open foyer with a staircase that goes up to a law to the second floor. You walk through past the master bedroom. You walk through into a
dining area with a kitchen, living room here. This is the master bathroom, a powder room, a pantry, his and her closets, the master bedroom, and then this these series of doors open
out onto the pool. When you get to the second floor here, there's a small study area, study loft. You walk in, there's one bedroom, two bedrooms, and they share a bathroom, kind of a Jack and Jill bathroom. And
then there's a door into an exercise room with the one bathroom here. And again, you know, I I am trying to to explain that when you adaptively reuse a building, there are going to be inherent inefficiencies
because there's going to be spaces that are sized for, in this case, machinery, not for a dining room table. So, this is the building that exists. We are only reducing this area here.
This is the addition. And I with all due respect to Mr. Higgins, I don't see the bizarre shape. It's a rectangle. >> We abandoned the word bizarre. And we're using the word unusual. >> I'm sorry, Mr. >> But but even as an unusual, it's a
rectangle. I mean, the building is a >> rectangle. He's referring to the second >> very long rectangle. >> I got really not real. Second floor is what he's referring to. >> That's right. Well, the second floor is this is another rectangle
>> and this is the existing addict of this space. >> Yeah, it's existing. >> So, it's not that it's been created, it's there. So, all we're doing is taking one half. Now, this is something that is unus
unusual and it's really actually very unique. When the building was built, this right here is a 7 to 8 foot tall man-made wood truss was made in the
field and put up there and off of it are other trusses. This holds the entire roof up. And if you notice here, there are no columns. That makes the building unique. And I like to word use the word unique rather
than unusual. If I may, Mr. Lex, >> I I I approve. It's unique because when Mr. Matuk took me into the space, he said, "What do you think it looks like?" You know, without looking at the fact that I was looking out the windows or anything, I said, "This is like a New
York loft. This is the kind of space in Soho that people paid, you know, their life savings for because it was one big open space and you could fit the kitchen, the living room, the dining room, and the
utility spaces all in this area.