Good evening. >> Call this uh regular meeting uh of the township promotion board of adjustment to order. Can we please uh rise for a salute to the flag? Oh, no. We do roll call first, right? Roll call first. Sorry. >> Up and down. Got you all. >> Merry Christmas.
>> Mr. M. here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Miss Lintman >> here, >> Mr. Mr. Leski >> here, >> Mr. Vice Chairman Jane >> here,
>> and >> here. Now we can rise to salute the flag, please. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stand for it 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. A copy of the notice has been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. Emergency notice. There's emer there are emergency doors through the courtroom
doors and two exits at the rear of the room. No smoking is allowed in this building. If you need to smoke, please leave the building and go an appropriate distance away. board policy. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. No new testimony taken after 9:30 p.m. In addition, the applicant will be limited
to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceans Community Cable channel, channel 22 on F Verizon FiOS and channel 77 on cable vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a phone call, please make
your call outside the meeting room. We have two minutes uh for approval. Uh first one is January 16, 2025. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh February 20th, 2025 for approval. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chammora, >> yes. >> Miss, >> yes. >> And Mr.
>> Yes. >> Resolutions to be memorialized. We have Township Provotion Fire District number two, 2001, Sunset Avenue, block 114, lots 1 through 3 and 12 in the C1 and R six zone. >> Can we Oh, yeah. We were Yeah, everybody
at the same time. All right. Uh, then we have Michael Cellar and Vera Essis. 324 Roosevelt Avenue, block 22, lot 7 in the R4 zone. >> Miss Li, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. The other resolutions that were on the agenda for this evening will be uh memorialized on Monday evening. >> If we have the Monday meeting of January. >> Okay. Very good. Following cases are to be carried to the
February meeting um and will be noticed for said meeting. Two Texas Avenue LLC, 219 Lewis Street, block 17, lots 26 and 44 in the R4 zone. Now, we have um one case seeking administrative approval for
changes from approval, which is 300 Running Avenue, block 48, lot one in the R2 zone. seeking administrative approval from the resolution dated April 1, 2025. >> Good evening, chair, members of the board. Jennifer Krimco, I represented
the Feldman's at the time of the approval. I do understand that I submitted approved versus proposed in already. I had highlighted these, but I understand from Nicole, you already did that also. All right, so we did double highlighting. Um, essentially we came in
for approval for uh fence height in a front yard, uh, tree height in a front yard, hedge height in a front yard, and the pool and patio in a front yard. Uh, we're did not need any relief as it relates to the walkways. The client had decided once he hired a designer that he
wanted to reconfigure the walkways since it was different and slightly moved the fence over since it was different than you previously approved. Uh, Colleen thought it best that we come to you and and ask your approval. It does not create any new variance relief. I will
note that they had hoped to shrink a patio, but I had advised them that once they removed it, they lost the right to put it back without a variance. So, we are not seeking to put that back since it would require variance and would require noticed hearing. So, it's basically to reconfigure walkways in the
fence location. No new variance is being created. Nothing would prevent them from just building a smaller patio, right? >> Yes, it would. >> Oh, they have to build >> in the front yard within the front yard set back. Had I known it was coming out, I would have told them not to
>> and I would have had them maybe update it rather than rip it out and replace it, but it was already gone by the time >> Oh, gotcha. >> I found out about it. >> So, essentially, they're just, you know, and as I explained to Colleen, and I understand her sending it back because you don't want to come out and say, "Well, that isn't what we approved." But
essentially, if we did all the work, we could then just go and get a permit to do this work. It doesn't require any relief. >> Any questions for anyone? >> Have all this wasted. Anyone have kids who color? >> Okay. Um, anybody make a motion?
>> I'll positive resolution. >> Yes. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Leski. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Chairman. >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh, next we have old business 55 WPR
Holdings LLC, 55 Wamasa Point Road, block 13, lot 35. Attorney for applicant, Mr. Akens. >> Good evening, chairman. >> Good evening. >> Is the mic on here? >> Yes. hard to tell.
>> Well, thank you. Great. >> And before you begin, sir, Mark went over the, you know, highlighted the fact that I think only four of us are able to vote on this case this evening, right? Okay. >> Yes. So, chairman, as good evening, board members. Mark Akens on behalf of
the applicant 55 WPR Holdings LLC. The matter was last before the board at the October 16th meeting and it was adjourned at the request of one of the applicants, excuse me, one of the objectors uh so that their attorney could prepare for the hearing uh this evening. Um so since the there are only
four, as I understand it, eligible members of the board, um we'd like to proceed in the interests of uh economy uh both for the applicant as well as for the neighbors who are present. However, I'd ask the board's indulgence with council's approval that I have the opportunity to pull the board informally
at the end of the hearing so that if we don't have a majority, we can carry the matter so that I have a full board hopefully at the next meeting. Chairman, >> that's fine. >> Thank you, sir. >> And and I should note I I know there's objectors council here tonight. So, and we only allow How long are we do we
allow per application? >> 45 minutes to an hour. >> 45 minutes. So, we might not even finish tonight. We'll try to be as concise as we can on the applicant side. Mr. Lexine, thank you. So, ladies and gentlemen, um to refresh your uh your memories, at the last
hearing, uh there were comments elicited from the board as well as from uh the neighbors and neighbors council. Um as a result of those comments that were elicited, we have submitted revised plans across the board. Uh we submitted revised architectural plans dated December 5th which reduced the house's
footprint uh and mass of the structure and provide for a full twocar garage as well as two cars in the driveway. That eliminates the variance for any parking. It also significantly pushes the house northward off of um the street by a
distance of almost 20 ft. Also, the board had concerns with the air conditioning units that were on top of the garage. Those have been moved to the front yard. Um and um in in addition uh because of the reduction in square footage, the ha the half story on the
third floor uh now clearly meets the um limitation of the 1/3 maximum of the floor below the second floor. The applicant also uh retained Green Touch Nursery um which has as its principal uh
Zigg Panic, a licensed tree expert in the state of New Jersey. A written report dated uh November 27th was submitted uh to the board secretary. We will review it this evening. Um and lastly, there were revised engineering plans submitted dated uh December 4th,
which now coincide with revised architectural plans. Um, and we also at this point, uh, I want to call to the board that we're significantly below the, uh, maximum impervious coverage of 65%. We propose, uh, just, uh, a tad
over 47% resulting in a footprint of slightly larger than 2,000 ft for this house. And again, if I may please remind the board, this lot is about 5,800 square ft, where in this zone, we have a 10,000 square ft
uh, minimum. So the lot is substantially unders sized. Again, it's also 40 feet in width where 50 feet in width is required in this zone. So we have some some significant uh bulk limitations of the existing site. So with that, um I would recall uh Anthony Scaliz, licensed
architect, uh and ask him to walk the board through the revised plans. Good evening, Mr. Scalis. Would you like the mic, sir? >> You're already under and I think we're up to exhibit A7. A7. I agree. >> Is that what we're on?
>> Yes. >> So, we'll mark those as the revised architectural plans uh prepared by um Antonio Scaliz of uh >> A9. I'm being told by the brighter the brightest person in the room that
>> to a N parallel architecture group. Uh these are um originally dated April 17, 2025. revised through December 5, 2025 as I indicated A9. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Scaliz. Okay. >> Good evening.
>> Good evening. Thank you for having me again here. Um, so I'd like to go through the changes. Um, unless there's questions about the previous design, I'd like to just dive right into, you know, the changes on the proposed design. >> Please do. So, um, on the neighbor's
side of the property, we had a few jogs and I think there was a discrepancy on my plan as far as being closer than 3 ft to the property line. I want to clarify that we are uh, straightened that out and we are 3.2 ft from the property line
from start to finish. So, just to be clear about that, we eliminated any questions there. Um, we increased the front yard setback, which is Wana Massa Point Road. I don't have the site plan in front of me, but essentially we went from uh 6 ft, which was that detached
garage to Wan Massa Point Road. We are now uh at 19.4 ft. So, we basically removed a few of the the first floor components and we created a garage in this location. So, we kind of moved
this. We also modified the stair. Um, we increased the size of the attached garage to com comfortably fit two cars. That was a comment I think even one of the board members may have mentioned. Um, so we we've done that. Uh, we
removed the den which was in this zone. Um, and slid the garage away from one amass point uh point road. We increased the size of the driveway to also fit two parking spaces. So essentially, we're able to fit four parking spaces in that
area. Uh the stair tower was adjusted to be straight. That just makes me sad, but uh I think the design is still great. Um and we just straightened out the stair tower. I don't think it really affects much there. Uh we do have a full second
story now u above the garage, which you could see on page A102. Um drawing number one. Uh we added uh space above the garage. Um we did also
in the attic um because through the adjustments and again this is more of a building code issue, not necessarily a zoning issue, but we designed the attic to be one-third the space below, which in building code terms just means it's a
habitable attic. uh and to code. If you go bigger than that, you would have to use sprinkler systems or change the classification of the building. Um so we clearly defined everything here. We had a storage area that we removed. Client thought about it, said, "You know what?
I'll I'll put a bedroom here um just to have it uh study." And then there's an open area uh near the stairwell. Um we have a new total number of bedrooms. We have five.
Um, and that's I mean really effectively the quick down and dirty of the changes of the of the pro of the building. >> Thank you. Uh, chairman, board members, no further questions of Mr. Scaliz. >> Any questions?
>> So, you didn't look at moving the building away from the property line more than 3 foot2. >> I I mean, we discussed it. I think there's some challenges in that. You know, we're trying not to be too close to the to the roadway. And I think just
for a few reasons, aesthetically and just functionality, it was better to keep it by 3 ft. >> But and you still have the basement though. >> Yes. >> I still don't understand how you're going to build that basement being that close to the property line >> than the house that's next to it.
>> Understood. And I think, you know, uh it's a very good question. I will tell you that you know we discussed that with our client and through some good engineering we will make sure that um you know we're not touching obviously it's this is a we're getting into
another building code issue that's going to create a you know it it's it's a little bit challenging but uh I think we can get a basement to work here. The concern I have is that you're gonna your builder is going to get out there. Whoever it is is going to attempt to do
this and the per the building's not going to end up where you say it's going to end up and you're going to be back in front of us again. And until I I'm I'm honest. This is my honest opinion. I don't think you can do it just given the fact that you need to sheathe and shore that side of the
property. You're 10 foot down. There's no other basement on the other side. I mean, you really need to bring somebody in who can prove that you can do it. >> Well, what I would say in that regard is it's probably very easy for us to ask and obtain and the board could certainly condition any approval on obtaining a construction temporary construction
easement from the adjoiner to the east. That's a reasonable requirement and that would address that condition and submitting asbuilts as well to verify that the structure as constructed meets that 3.2 foot setback as proposed. Mark, I if I may, I would also say just to,
you know, assuage your concerns. Um, we can make it a condition of should the board approve this, a condition of approval is that if we put a shoring plan together to show it to your engineer to review it, and if they absolutely have a problem with that,
then, you know, I don't I don't I don't think there's going to be an issue is really what I'm saying. I'm the son of a mason. I I've done underpinning and uh I've worked on stuff like that all my life and I know the concern. You can't just go in there and start excavating and think everything's going to be okay.
But I'm confident that it can be done through, you know, good engineering. Um our client is in the building trade. So all I would tell you is this is not a client who's not aware of what's going on. Somebody just goes in there and starts digging. I think there's going to be a lot of supervision and eyes on this
project. So, I'm confident that this will be done right and be at 3.2 ft. >> And you also are agreeing to if the board approves the application, I don't know if they will or will not, that you'll secure a uh construction easement
from the neighbor to the east is what you said. >> Yes, that's what I that's what I profered. >> Any more questions from the board? I like what you suggested, Mark. Did you >> a shoring plan? >> The shoring plan. Yes, I have. >> We would stipulate to that as well.
>> They would need to do that anyway. >> It's a It's a fair question and it's just being smart and safe and >> any questions from the public. >> I'm Dennis. >> Come on. I'm sorry. if you're going to speak into the microphone. >> Yeah. >> I'm Dennis Galvin.
>> Sure. >> My name is Dennis Galvin. I'm with the Galvin Law Firm. Tonight I'm going to be filling in for Ron Gazerowski. That's a tough act to follow. Um and I do have a question if that's if that's all right.
Do you need any more information? You got enough? Okay. I I have very question. What's the square footage of this building? the habitable space. You can give me the garage and the habitable space. So, >> so the first floor is the
>> this on. >> Oh, did you turn that off on me? >> That's not right, guys. Check. All right. >> Uh the first >> Oh, we can hear you. >> The total floor area is 3,1
ft. That was the previous design. The new design is 3,263. What I want to point out is that the first floor area, previous design was 1,256 ft. The new design is 1,070. So we
reduced it by 186 ft. Um the garage area is 375. We increased that to 541. Uh the front porch area is 123. It's now 107. Um and
the total floor area is 3,263. Um based on the second floor change. >> Okay. Are there any other h did you look at any of the other other houses in that area or that's beyond your responsibility? >> We know what the context or the fabric of the neighborhood is. Yes. But I
didn't size or do any square footages of every other home in there. No. >> Okay. Is you thought that was a a size that was common? all day long. Yeah, sure. >> Yeah, I've done a lot of houses. >> Tell us. So, >> okay.
>> Disagree with me, but thank you. Appreciate the answer. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Come on up, sir. >> All right, sir. I'm just going to Okay. Do you swear to raise your right hand? Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole >> You could sit, Mr. >> And just state your name for the record.
Richard Vgilio. V is as in Victor. I R G I L I >> and your address. >> I was here last time. >> See, you did it again. >> We're doing it on purpose. We just don't want you guys to talk. >> We just have We have to get it on the
table. This >> might be the new way of doing it. This >> 1409 Wanamasa Road. >> Thank you, sir. Go ahead. So, um, just to the point earlier, uh, about the
neighboring property, 53 Wamasa Point Road, I wanted to ask you, um, in all your conversations with the owner of 55 Wanamasa Point Road, has he ever expressed to you that he has any financial interest in 53 Wanamasa Point
Road? Objection as to relevancy. >> It's it's >> so it speaks to character. >> No. So, no, it does not. It's listen I under listen um during the question and answer period the questions have to go to the witness based on what he specifically testified to. Now if there
is something that you want to make a statement about at the end there's a you have the opportunity to make a statement about that. If there's somebody testifies to what somebody owns other properties I don't know why that would come up but then I guess you could ask questions about that but that wasn't necessarily testified to right now. So
that kind of puts us in the spot where you should hold off on that. Were you guys just talking about 53 miles? >> You just were. That's why I brought it. That's the only reason I'm standing here. >> So, so what he's saying is it was just
agreed that the you would secure a construction to these. >> Okay. >> Which is why he's asking the question as to whether or not there is a that there's a common interest between the two properties. I personally don't know what the relevance would be whether
whether they own the property next door or not. It's clearly in different ownership. So I I don't know what the relevancy is. A character is not a component that the board is can consider. It's not we're not a character board.
>> Um well the relevance >> I can tell you and I'm about this applicant and we get a lot of applicants who are not nice people. We don't hold that against them >> because we can't. And I'm not that has nothing to do with this application, but I understand that you're trying to make
an argument over character. And I'm just saying that is completely irrelevant to what the the criteria the board can consider whether the guy's a nice guy or a bad guy. >> Well, I mean, we're talking about whether he's telling the truth or not. And we're all sworn in under oath here.
And by the attorney viferously objecting to this question that somebody else brought up last week or last time, I'm trying to get to the point where they've already denied it and we know that it's
wrong. And so I was asking the attorney if >> but what's what's the relevance from a land use perspective? >> Well, they were talking >> whether the guy owns both properties or not. Well, you were just So, one of them just said, "Oh, we'll be able to get an
e an easement or something from that uh other property." >> Well, I didn't say we can get one. I think what I said was should the board deem the matter subject of being appropriately approved. The board could condition such an approval on obtaining
an easement. I think that's what I offer. Listen, we can assume that if they're going to be able to get an easement from the neighbor to the east that there's some relationship between the neighbor in the east and them. So, let's assume for the sake of the conversation that is the case. So, what
>> I thought it was a point point worth bringing up in in the context of the discussion. >> Note my continuing objection, please. Thank you. Right. >> Which is not viciferous. Just noted. Thank you. >> It was last time. I I agree that I don't
know what the relevance would be even even if they were the exact same person. >> So what and I'm not saying that sarcastically legitimately asking from a land's perspective. So what >> I thought it was relevant because they
were talking about it. I mean so so what I mean so I thought it was relevant since it was referenced. >> I mean I'm going to instruct the board that there is unless someone can can advise me what the relevance is. It's irrelevant from a land use perspective whether there's commonality between the
ownership. If they are both under the same ownership, exact same ownership, then you would have an argument because there that would go to questioning as to whether they actually need a lot of these variances because they own both lots >> and I would represent to the board that that is certainly not the case.
>> Not the case. So we know from the tax records they are owned by different entities >> who are listed who is listed in as 53 >> I don't know that I have >> objection as to relevancy who the owners are is not really relevant application
he just said >> this is an application for 55 WPR LLC chairman so >> it is relevant to the extent Mr. Mr. a as to whether or not it's the same owner or not. >> It's not I've represented it's not the same. >> Understand that. So, so, so then it's
not a big question to answer who the owners of 53 are >> if it's a different entity. Just say we can just say who it is. >> I don't know who the owners of 53, >> but we have the list. We have the property list. So, just get it on the record who the owners of 53 is. I think
it's on the survey. >> It's not It's not an outrageous question. I I believe that as long as it's a different owner. >> Kyle, >> that's not the See, that's not the case. >> But but that's who that's who the owner
is. That's who they you may not believe that's the case, but as far as the Mammoth County Mammoth County Clerk's Office is concerned, that's who owns that property. >> In what context, it was sold on September 2nd or 3rd. >> That whatever the deed that is recorded is who owns that property at the current
time. Well, that's just not the case. I sent the information to her. Okay. So, we're just going to pretend that they don't own the house. >> Do you have proof that that someone else owns the house? >> Well, that's what I was asking your question about. I was asking if in their
conversations they have discussed the owner if he has a financial interest in 53 Wamasa Point Road. >> Whether he has a financial interest is irrelevant. whether it's the exact same owner would be relevant and all evidence
unless you have something different that it's the exact same owner if he owns if he owns both properties in different entities. So say he has it in XYZ corporation for one lot and ABC corporation for a different lot. Those are different owners. It doesn't matter if the same person is the only member of
those two corporations. >> So if they're two LLC's because that's what they are >> and then they're separate owners. Period. >> In the eyes of >> in the eyes of the law, they are two separate owners. >> Even parties have not merged. >> So the financial interest has no bearing. >> No bearing
>> from a land's perspective. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. >> Mr. Galin's going to get up and tell me I'm wrong, but I was listening intently and you did a great job. Everything is correct. >> I appreciate I'm having is I got it that they're not merged. But it is an interesting question. If both those
properties are are somehow under the control of the same person, then you're making an argument that it's an undersized lot and we can't acquire any other additional land. It does kind of compromise the argument that they
have that they don't have sufficient land, you know, >> it it does not compromise the applicant's position. >> I said it was an interesting question. I didn't say it was automatic. I might take it on with the court.
It is an interesting question, but but that's that's another that's for another day. >> So, hold up hold on hold on. Can I if I could if I if I may. >> I feel Mark, I feel like these are very important questions and stuff that the board's going to have to understand. >> Yeah. >> Um, in the interest of only giving
people 45 minutes and there are other people here that want to have their cases heard, >> this is the part where we're really just be ask supposed to be asking questions of the architect, right? So should we be sticking to that and then leaving the this question for after this part or
>> so >> is it worth diving into this right now? >> I guess the reason it's coming up right now is because Mr. Akens made the uh representation they secured the easement from the neighbor to the east. That's why it's coming up. >> So that's the only reason I allowed it
to go as far as it did because obviously it's not a it's not a question for Mr. police, but it is based upon something that was just said by the attorney in conjunction with the with the discussion. But I think we've reached the end of the discussion. >> I just want to have one sentence here,
which is under normal under conditions where maybe you're not making a a hardship application. Maybe you're only making a special reasons case. But if you're making a hardship case, you're saying that you cannot acquire additional lands in order to bring the
property into conformity. And normally you would write to the neighbor and they would say no I don't want to settle your property. It does beg an interesting question if there is some sort of longd distance relationship here. I'm not saying automatic. It it would it
wouldn't be capable of being combined based on the merger documents. But it still offers a question of do they have a hardship if they have a means of making additional land available >> and and that is a legal argument which your office is more than likely to make
>> that I would have tonight >> and that's fine and I don't think we're going to conclude tonight. I I really don't and I think you're going to have an opportunity to explore who the owners of that property are and come back the next meeting and make that argument. And I would note for purposes of hardship in case we we argue in the alternative C1
versus C2 that the lot to the east is is is even less conforming in terms of lot size than the applicant's property. So the likelihood that any land could be acquired from whomever are the owners of the property to the east 53 is
non-existent because it's even smaller than the applicant's property. Just just just so we're talking. So, so this is there there's a lovely theory about acquiring strip of land from a contiguous property, but not when it's smaller than that which is already non-conforming. And I think the board
can take judicial notice of that. >> And it's also >> that's no great legal mystery in the world of land use >> by a single family residence and is a separate single family residential lot. >> And I don't think Mark can correct me there, but I've never seen a case where
the doctrine of merger applies when both lots are developed as single family residences. Next >> Yeah, I don't think anyone's disputing that merger merger is not applicable here. The the question Mr. Galvin's raising, which I think is a legitimate question, is is the hardship aspect of
this. He owns both plots, so can he can he acquire from another piece of property, tear down a house, and do it? And I think that's what he's raising, which I don't think is a crazy suggestion. >> So, but it's not a merger, but it's not a merger question. >> Crazy.
>> It's a situation where in order to do it, he would have to knock down the other house. >> I've just never seen anything like that in 45 years. We're we're support that type of thing. >> Do we have more questions for the
public? >> Well, we got you got to come on up and we got to square you in >> and and and just to Mr. Fuller's point, the chairman's point, is this a question now for the architect? We should probably get back on point on that. >> It vaguely I wasn't here at the last meeting. I'm sorry. Oh, I got a mic. If
you're not asking qu if you're making a statement that that's not about what the argument >> I will only ask my my one sincere question. >> Okay. I'm going to swear you in. >> Yep. Hold on. Let me right hand this. >> You swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth be God. >> I do. >> And what is your name?
>> Jennifer Erdos. 1412 Camp Avenue. >> Spell your last name. >> E R D as in David. OS as in Sam. >> And your address again? I apologize. >> 1412 Camp Avenue. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. My one question because I wasn't at the last meeting and I apologize is
about sewer capacity, flooding, bathrooms and basement. So that >> So before you ask the question, is that something that your architect would be handling? >> That would be the engineer. >> That'd be an engineer. So we're going to ask you to hold your question. >> Not a problem.
>> Any more questions for the public? >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Please. Okay. Applicant now calls Zig Panic, licensed tree expert in the state of New Jersey. >> He was not previously uh qualified or sworn. >> I'm going to swear you in. Do you swear any testimony you're about to be able to
be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, self? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> My name is Sig Panic. >> Zi G. >> Correct. >> And spell the last name. >> P A N E K. And are you are you an engineer or >> I am a licensed tree expert.
>> Just licensed chief. Who licensed tree experts? The state. >> The state. >> Okay. Through the department through what? The department of community affairs or >> uh no the department of uh forestry. >> Department of forestry. >> Yes. >> Tree expert. Okay. And what um
>> I'm also uh an arborist and a degree landscape architect. I'm going to testify. >> That's okay. And and as a licensed tree expert, what what are the initials for that? Is it a LTE? >> I'm an LTE and my number is 364. >> Okay. I've just never I've never dealt
with that before. So LTE >> an LTE and uh I am number 364. >> If you want the front of his report >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate it. That my education. >> Go ahead.
>> You're going to square me in? >> I just did. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. And we do have his tree report. So let's mark that in as exhibit A10. >> A10. >> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Panick. Having qualified you as an expert with regard to
arbor arboral matters and as a tree expert. You had the opportunity to uh walk the applicant's property? >> I I have. I walked the property and I also checked out all the trees on the property. >> Okay. And um can you review with the
board the conclusions that you reached in connection with your report that's been marked as exhibit 810 this evening? >> I um if I may, I would like to uh I I I reviewed and carefully looked at what's
called a level two tree study on 17 trees that were on the property. And uh if I may, I could go through each one of those trees if it benefits the uh public and the board. >> Well, I think there were significant questions last time that the board and
members of the public had as to the um forestation, if you will, on the property. So, let's go through. >> Okay. Um tree number one is a willow oak and it was under 6 in. So, um uh I didn't do a
review on that. that anything under 6 in is kind of get a pass on. It's not considered a a structural tree. Um, number two I looked at was a wild black cherry and uh that tree was dead and
it's a vine covered tree. I had a close look at it. Had a major cavity in it and uh uh the tree was uh dead and it's close to the street. It's uh right on the corner. It's also has power lines out there. I would uh something like
that. I would recommend the immediate removal of it because it is a hazard. Uh number three uh was a malberry tree. Um it had a DBH of um 10 12 in. Half of
it was already dead and uh it had numerous dead limbs in it. And um the tree was also uh close to the property border and it was also growing in the power lines. And many of the trees on the site were in the power lines. And um
as most people know that deal with the power company, they're not very good tree trimmers. They're uh they really do more damage to the trees and eventually leads to their uh demise. And this tree is um one of those trees. It's uh I
consider it a hazard and unsafe. Um, it also is a hazard to people walking on the sidewalk. In, uh, in a lot of cases, uh, those limbs will fall off without warning. It doesn't need a storm or heavy rain or wind. It could just fall at any time. And there is a sidewalk
there that people use, although the sidewalk's a mess. Most people do use the road as I observed. Um, tree number four is another wild black cherry. Uh, that's dead. And um the wild black cherries um by their nature, they're
like a they're um a native tree, but it's pretty much a pioneer species. There's a few trees that that are the first to grow, but they're also the first to die. And these trees have a lot of problems with them. They are they are great for birds for a while as far as
the uh uh little um small cherries do, but the the tree is also a dead one. uh needs to be removed. Um tree number four is a box elder. It's a native tree and
unfortunately has an awful lot of problems with it. Also growing in the u in the power lines. It had numerous dead limbs in there. Box elders are also a a native tree, but it's a good good fast growing tree, but fast growing
trees also die quickly. Um, I also would mark that tree as a hazard and unsafe also because it's also growing into the uh power lines and leaning heavily into the sidewalk. Um, tree number five is a
blue spruce. Um, it's uh 40t tall, but unfortunately it's got uh what what's called blue spruce canker. And um when these spruces, by the way, the blue spruce should not even be grown in New Jersey. It's a It's a cold area tree.
They're great in upstate New York. It's a very common tree in Maine. It does terribly in New Jersey. It's really too warm for it. It's got canker on the tree and uh it will die. It has numerous dead limbs in it already. It has to be
removed. Um number six is a chestnut oak. It happens to be one of the two uh large species trees, but unfortunately that tree, and I observed it a few months ago, and my report shows red arrows on
there um a few months ago when I first went to the site. It and you'll see the remnants of it. It has active fruing bodies or mushrooms all around the tree, which uh which tells me as a tree expert that there's ongoing decay going. And uh
the tree also has a heavy lean to it. Um whenever you I see fruing bodies and uh anyone that looks at it that's in my position would would have to say the tree has to go. There is no cure for that. Um so but eventually it it will
cause a problem as far as any structure. Tree is very large. It's uh encumbers a small lot area and also the sidewalk on the um south side of it. it it it poses a danger, a future danger.
Number seven is a um a black locust. Um it's one of the again it's a pioneer species tree and mostly when I see black locust trees, I look at them and I look for again uh fruing bodies like shelves.
Um these these trees are uh tend to have very weak systems and they are attacked also by locust bores and a a good fast growing tree but um but they're they're bad in this small lot this small
position. Um this has active decay a lot of uh internal decay and also growing into the power lines. um uh just because it's even if it was in good shape, I would still ask for it to be removed because it is growing in the power
lines. Um number eight is a sweet gum. Uh that one is again it's less than 6 in. And somebody would say why would I review trees that are less than 6 in? because when I look at the trees and the ordinance also asks me when I do a uh a
tree study to look at all the trees on the site and this way um I can certify that we looked at it and it is a substandard tree. Um number nine is a red oak also substandard
uh tree. It's less than 6 in. Number 10 is a crab apple. It's It's been on the property for quite a while, but it's already seen better days. Uh um my picture shows one of the stems that broke off. It was uh not active now, but
as soon as it warms up, you'll have um wood wood decaying and wood digesting insects that are attacking it. It's got a huge cavity also at the um uh maybe about two foot up the tree. um there's no way that that tree can
survive. Number 11 is another blue spruce. Exactly the same problem as the one that I talked about earlier. It's got uh obvious spruce canker, sick dying. It's got tremendous needle loss uh throughout
the tree, a lot of um dead limbs. Um that tree would have to also be removed. Um number 12 is a malberry. It again it's undersized under six inches.
Number 13 is another black locust. Now what you're going to see that I'm talking about is a lot of these trees are they they're selfsewn. Nobody planted them. They're um they're basically pioneer species. Birds planted
them. Um they're windb blown. Uh insects uh will attack these trees. And um again, this is one is it's a 2 L tree. One of the leaders broke off at an earlier time. Um it's got a basil cavity. It's a again a shortlived tree.
Um on this piece of property, the only thing that I've seen that was taken care of was the um the the large oak tree in the front. So limbs had been cut off as they were growing into the into the home itself. Other than that, uh none of the
trees didn't show any kind of care. Number 14 is another locust. This tree is uh close to the water uh water line. It's it's already popped out of the ground and eventually it's going to fall in into the lake. Uh it's a it's a real
hazard and uh it has to be removed. There's there's no saving it. You wouldn't want to save a locust anyways. Number 15 is right next to it with the same problem. It's falling over. It has to be removed. Number 16, that's the only really good
tree. And unfortunately, um, nature planted it in the wrong spot. It's it's it's 5 ft from the foundation of the home. Um it's in the critical roots zone is which uh for people that
don't know there's a certain area around the tree that if the roots are cut or trampled on or disturbed in any way um it's an it's it's doesn't help the tree at all. Actually it makes it sick. um in
the construction. Um being that it's so close, they'd have no choice to either drive over those roots or to cut those roots when they have to put the new foundation in. Also, you're going to be cutting what's called anchor roots. These are roots and that really
they grow all around the tree and they hold the tree up. So, not only are those anchor roots going to going to be cut, there's no way of saving them. all of the the limbs and the branches that are on the side of the new construction
would have to be elevated all the way up because not only would they be hitting the structure, but they're also overhanging the roof. It's unfortunate because it's a beautiful tree and I only wish it was was growing closer to the lake and it would have been preserved,
but there's in my opinion there's no way to protect or preserve that tree. The lot is much too small. So, um, that being said, um, I'm done with it. If I can answer anybody's questions on the board or the
public. >> I appreciate that you do this. I >> have so much appreciation for your expertise and love that you prepared this. Thank you. Do you have a recommendation for what kind of species?
>> Yes, I I I do. I I worked with the uh with a couple of the designers and like I said, I'm also a degreed landscape architect and um this is my whole life. I've worked with trees. My my family had the same business and I went to school for it and and I've worked in this area
for over 40 years. And one thing that I have to take into account are the high deer population and salt and hurricanes, which we've got a lot of all of it. So when you're picking trees, you have to keep all of that in mind. Um, so with
that, what I also try to do is I try to look at natives when I can. And also cuz I mean natives are are great for anybody that knows and and even for the native trees like with the malberry. I I really like them because they have caterpillars
on them and we never spray them because birds eat and love those caterpillars and a lot of those caterpillars turn into great butterflies. So uh we like to try to preserve them. So, having said that, now one of the things that we're using is uh I'm I'm using American
yellowwood, which is a native. It's a great tree. It really is underused in in the state. And I'm I'm working with the uh the local forester in town, and we're trying to change some of the varieties. are trying to get away from oaks and
some of the maples because the oaks right now have an awful lot of problems and uh there's so many of them and uh so we're trying to go to other species. So the American yellowwood I picked two of them and u I've recommended uh some of the a little bit
larger caliper instead of a small I want to call it a Home Depot tree. So, we have a really good um tree a little bit larger than what's what the ordinance calls for. So, instead of a two and a half to three inch, I've recommended a 3
to 3 and 1/2 in uh yellowwood. And if you look that up, it's got beautiful, beautiful blooms on it. They uh sort of look like a wisteria, but but white. And there is also a pink variety. And they're also fragrant. It's an amazing tree. Uh totally underused. I'm using
another Japanese alcoa tree and it it grows more of a fastate tree. It it it's the canopy is really contained more like a soldier type. The problem not the problem I mean the we have a undersized lot and I'm trying to get uh sufficient
amount of trees to replace the ones that were removed. So we can have large canopy trees. So I'm using um at least four of these. I'm trying to fit five trees on there properly so that we can get the canopy replaced but without
overwhelming. Plus the fact that people driving by, we want to take a look at the water feature. And this allows you to give um shade, a little bit of uh uh canopy cover, but plus it's not going to block the uh the view of the water. Um
I'm using a magnolia brown rack. It's a southern tree that is uh that do does very well because of the salt exposure and it's also um it it takes all the hurricanes that we have down south. That's one of the few trees that survive
that kind of a beating between the salt and the winds. And it's also a very beautiful tree. The blooms on them are are quite large. They can get to be between four and six inches across. Really quite a beautiful tree. Um, and
uh, Japanese maple. I'm using two of those, a blood good, uh, we use them for the color and the fact when when I treat those, I I prune them in a Japanese style because it is a Japanese tree. And
what what I mean by that is I I keep the inside of the tree quite open and so you could see the structure because part of the beauty of a Japanese maple is not just the leaves, it's the form and it gets to be very vigorous. So what I tr
what I try to do is an arborist I open that up and then I'll also recommend that to the owner and I know the owner is uh quite into trees and and uh and the beauty of it. So he he will maintain that look. And uh the last tree that I'm
recommending for the site is a crepe myrtle, a white crepe myrtle. Um and again that will take the salt air. It's a beautiful tree. It blooms in the summer when nothing else is going to bloom. And it'll stay blooming for about
3 months. And uh and I think in that neighborhood, that neighborhood is very special. And uh trees and colors are what we look for. And I know the owner was that was his main concern. And uh those are the the crux of the trees and
we're looking at 11 uh large replacement trees. >> Thank you very much. >> Any other questions? Any questions from the public? Come on up. >> Make a little line here.
Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth is about the truth. So I'll be God. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Carol Doyle. >> 18. >> D O Y L E. >> Correct. >> And it's Carol with a C. >> That's right. >> Okay. Address >> 18 Wasa Point Road.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, thank you. I did appreciate your discussion as well on the trees because I do have a concern. Um, and so the one part I missed though is the willow oak that you mentioned, is that dead also or is that >> No, it's not dead. It's undersized and
it's actually the first tree. Um, and it's growing uh right up against the foundation of the garage, it would have to go for the two reasons. It was undersized plus it would eventually affect the structure that although the garage is going to go is in in that
particular case, I would nick that tree right off the bat. >> Yeah. I think is the amount of water absorption of those trees. >> I'm sorry. >> The amount of water absorption because you're taking a lot of trees down. I guess I had a concern or a question. Is there what's the net result of taking down all those trees as it relates to
water and flooding? >> Well, we're going to replace you have to understand here. I'm just got a list. Here's what we're taking down. We're going to take down four that are undersized, two that are dead, nine that are defective. So, we're only looking at two trees really that are meaningful on
that lot. So, if anything, when we put these trees in, they're going to benefit any kind of a water situation. Okay. >> And we're going to replace it with diversity and a great canopy. >> And that is part of the design to have those trees that you just mentioned. >> Yes. That's going to be in the landscape design.
>> Okay. And it is a net loss of native trees because you mentioned a number of native and you're only placing >> well again for the same reason the native trees aren't helping us here because they're mostly dead or they're just not going to make it. So we're going to replace also part I only mentioned the the trees. I didn't
mention anything as far as the shrubs. So we are going to have shrubs that are going to uh be habitat for birds and are going to have berries. They're berries. >> Okay. And uh let's see. I think I have think those were my questions. Council,
is this plan solidified or is it just theoretical? >> No, there is a landscape plan >> and you're going to utilize it and follow it. >> So, the landscape plan will be provided. We wanted to cover with the testimony the the offering of the uh trees to be
removed. >> I only talked about trees. I didn't talk about the landscape per se. Sure, there is one. I just didn't want to be in a situation where you leave and then your client decides to only put in half of them. >> No, there there would be a landscaping
plan. >> Following up on Lisa's question, a landscape plan was submitted is part of the application and it just listening to Zigg clearly that's not the plan that you're going to be proposing. >> It's it's going to be supplemented
through the testimony. Yes. >> And a revised plan ultimately. revised plan >> which we do not have right now. So hopefully before the next meeting you'll have the revised landscape. >> Correct. F first we're talking about tree removal then we'll talk about supplementing the trees and new landscaping. Correct.
>> And just just while we're on that very quickly when you do the revised landscape plan there are shrubs within the street right ofway. They have to be moved out of the rightway. So, we noted that and um you know, one of the things that that I often see in my experience is that where they're not
an uh an incumbrance or an impedance to traffic or to sight distances that often times uh the municipality will allow those shrubs or even improvements to remain as long as they hold harmless as offered by the property owner to the municipality. Now I know that's a
governing body issue and not the planning board but I offer that as certainly if the board wants the landscaping closer to the house it can be but typically it's parallel and proximate to the street and the cartway which has a better from my experience from my very I don't disagree with that
>> right aesthetic aesthetic >> I refer to Mark as to whether or not the board has the authority to actually improve that >> again I would suggest that that would be if the board wanted the landscaping to be approximate to the cartway and the edge of the the edge of the right of way
rather than closer to the house that that could be a condition of approval for us to then pursue with the governing body to hold harmless to allow the landscape. >> Why don't we wait until you submit at the next meeting you prepare? I suggest we're going to have one more member of the public speak and then Mr. Chairman we're over an hour.
>> So um >> and we're grateful for the time everyone. >> So what I suggest is before we come back at the next meeting you have that landscaping plan so it can be reviewed prior to the next meeting. >> Yes. But to Mr. Higgins question that would be the answer to resolve that you know that conundrum if shall we say. Yeah. >> And I apologize. Just one more quick
question. Um are any of the trees within 50 ft of the lake that you're taking down >> because I believe that you have to get an approval from or my understanding is you have to get approval from >> the only ones. We have the the two um >> we have the two black locust and you can see the picture that I have. They're
actually falling practically into the lake. I mean uh I mean the client has agreed to to remove them because of the safety situation but if if we have to leave them we'll leave them but I I don't see the reason for that. >> Yeah. I just I just wanted to make it known that I believe there is a
something >> those black locusts that I spoke of uh number 14 and 15. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Allow me to swear you in. >> I was sworn in last time. >> I'm just going to swear you in. Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth about
the truth helping God. >> Yes. >> Just state your name again for the record. >> Robert Torren. T O R R A N C E. >> And your address? >> 1310 Garvin Avenue. G A R Ven. >> Thank you. Go ahead.
>> Um, now there are two mature trees that are between the sidewalk and the the curb of the street. Is that correct? >> Those trees would not be on the applicant's property though. >> Okay. But my question was, did you assess those trees or
>> I I actually did. Those are street trees and it's in the purview of the town >> and uh I actually have photographs of them and it's lifted the sidewalk >> and um those are silver maples and um quite frankly they should not really be
planted at street trees but that's not in the purview of of this application. >> The applicant doesn't have the legal authority to take them down. So we defer to the township in that regard. >> But that you don't have any intention of asking the town to take them down at this point. >> Not as part of this application.
>> Um but you also said that when you're doing construction around trees, it's important that you protect the root system of the trees. So would it be important to have some type of plan in place to protect those trees if they're going to remain during the construction? those trees. Um, in my opinion, we would
um there be some sort of protection. Normally, we would put up a protection fence, but again, that's in the town right away. We would have to have permission to do that, >> but it would be important to try to protect those trees if those trees were going to be saved.
>> Well, my opinion is I would I would take them down. It's again, it's not in my purview. I would strongly recommend the town remove that and replace those sidewalks. They're dangerous. they're all lifted. It also affects the curb and I know it's it's underneath the road as
well. So, uh my experience with silver maples is they should never been planted and uh no no tree committee actually uses them. They're not on a tree list. >> Do you have those photos? I do. Mr. Panic of those trees just so the board members could see what we're talking about. Kind of pinched pinched between
curb and sidewalk and under sidewalk. Not on the applicant's property. >> Can I can we mark these? Uh Mr. I think we're up to um >> A1. >> A1 11 and 12. Thank you. >> And what are they? >> A 111 and 12 are color photos of the
silver maples between the broken up curb and the uh deteriorating sidewalk. I'll mark um I'll mark the one with the car as A1 and the um the one with it lesser version of the car as A12. Did you take
these, Mr. Panick? I did. >> When did you take them? >> Uh, I took those I have to look at my report. I'm I'm going to guess >> recently. >> Oh, yes. Just um probably two weeks ago. >> And do they fairly depict the existing conditions? >> Exactly. I tried to get it as best I
could to show the sidewalks and the roof system the problems that it was causing. >> Could you show them to council and then to the board members, please? So, >> these are the trees that are not on your property. >> They're not on the applicant's property. They're between the sidewalk and the
curb. Yes. Yes. >> You have to. >> So, Mr. Chairman, if there no more members of the public, I would just suggest that we've been over an hour on this application. >> Then I believe the next meeting date, Nicole, January 15th.
>> Okay. I have one question before we do that. So, um, no, no problem. So, looking at those sidewalks, does the applicant plan to replace those sidewalks? >> If the board requires or the board engineer requires them to be replaced, that certainly makes sense to us. They're obviously in a very highly
deteriorated condition. Again, I defer to Mr. Panic with regard to the viability of those >> trees. Yeah. Yeah. But even if the trees, let's say the trees weren't there or the trees had fallen down or something like that, >> is is it already in the plan to replace those sidewalks? >> Again, you know, typically as a
condition of approval, the engineer reviews the condition. If the engineer requires it, it's a condition of approval and the applicant stipulates to replace you would ask for. So, so we >> would be pretty standard condition in a case where the sidewalks look like that.
>> I just feel like usually people talk about, yeah, we're going to do the sidewalk and we're going to do the apron, >> right? They had not talked about that and I thought, >> you know, again, >> I think you would put a new this house and then leave that sidewalk. >> Exactly right, Chairman. And that's exactly what I was going to say that that the aesthetic the this applicant is
developing for this new residence and a busted up sidewalk in front of it are not consistent. Right. We can all agree on that. >> We may not agree on everything, but I think we can agree on that. >> Right. >> Mr. Chairman, uh the plan currently does not show replacing all the sidewalks in
front of the the property along Camp Avenue. Uh there you have existing sidewalk there. Uh there is some utility work for new uh utility services going to the house which will require removal of some some portions of sidewalk. So
the board wants to uh require that the applicant does the entirety of the sidewalk. That type of work is already being done. So it's not an unreasonable request >> and not viewed by the applicant as unreasonable either. So that's fine. Okay. Um, I have a question if I may. If
we're going to replace those sidewalks, um, those trees obviously have to be removed. And, um, whose responsibility would it be the applicant or the town? Because those are street trees. They don't belong to the applicant. >> Well, you need permission from the town,
>> but I'm I'm assuming the town would want you to remove the trees. >> So, with the governing body's consent, or if that's done administratively, Mr. extended, you know, we'll take care of that. >> Yeah. I mean, that's the governing body. That's out of our purview, >> right? So, again, >> and and obviously if for some weird reason the the township decided, hey, we
don't want you touching our sidewalks, that wouldn't have any bearing on the approval because they're not ours. They're not >> right. We we would endeavor we would use good faith efforts to obtain that approval for the replacement of the sidewalks, for the removal of the trees. We all agree it's a governing body function. If they delegate it to the
administrator, so be it. >> I'll put the application in for that. Terrific. >> Okay. So, this case will be >> Yeah. So, >> I'll do the application for the two removal >> when we get to that point. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> So, next is uh the 15th
>> January January. >> No further notice. >> I don't I personally don't believe forward there's any reason for further notice. Everybody's here. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm fine with no further notice. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate the opportunity to >> just so everyone's aware this application is being carried to the
January 15, 2026 meeting without further notice there. You will not receive any further notice. If you want to be heard in this application, be here in this room at 7 p.m. on January 15, 2026. >> Thank you. Good evening. Happy holidays. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for that presentation. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Next case will be Steven and Joe Dwick. Two Dway Drive block 40.01 lot 17 in the R3 zone.
>> Happy holidays. warms up. The applicants are seeking permission to construct a one-story front edition, second story floor edition, covered rear patios, ingground pool with equipment, uncovered front patio and driveway. >> Hello. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair.
>> You're not listed as the attorney here. What a surprise. I am. >> I guess my agenda is cut off, I think. Anyway, attorney >> and anyway, here we are. Yeah. Hello. Welcome. >> Jennifer Crimco on behalf of the applicant and uh this is a relatively
simpler application than the one before you. Uh we have an existing home at two Dwight Drive and it's on the corner of Dwight and Steven. >> Hold on one second. Let >> me just >> I was following your lead. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And let me mark in my exhibits or or the
the office exhibit. >> Okay. So we'll mark in is exhibit A1 the variance application. Exhibit A2 will be the survey. Exhibit A3 will be the clock reading and variance plan. Exhibit A4 will be the architecturals. I then have the following board exhibits. D1 will be
the zoning officer's report. B2 will be the board planner report. D3 will be the board engineers report. >> Thanks. And again Jennifer Krimfell for the record. And I just have two more exhibits. Uh, A5 is just an aerial that I downloaded from
Google Earth. Actually, not from Google Earth. Google Maps, I should say, to be accurate. Just to put it in context, I can answer. And then A6 is just a closeup of that. And it's really just to see the prox the
rear yard of the neighbor behind us because as you're going to hear, we do need a marriage for a per off the back of the house. So again, just by way of very quick summary, we have an existing house that has a corner lot. It currently has the
driveway and garage on the east side of the house uh close to Stevens, which the clients are looking the clients are looking to relocate the driveway to a conforming location on the
left side of the house uh and put up a carport. They're looking to put a second story addition over parts of the house and put in a fully conforming pool and pool equipment and fence. and um a pergola. So, with all of that
as the background, I'd like to introduce my first witness, David. We'll have David sworn. He'll share his qualifications and we'll start discussing his plot plan. >> All right, sir. Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth? Tell me about the truth, self. >> I do. And just state your name for the record. >> Uh David J. Schmidt. >> David, you're a professional engineer licensed in the state of New Jersey. >> That is correct. >> And your license? >> That's all we need. >> No. No. And your I was just going to say
your license is in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay, good. So, David, you prepared this plan for the uh construction we're proposing. Could you walk through uh what's existing and what we're proposing and what the variance relief is?
>> Okay. We are block 40.01, lot 17 to Dwight Drive, Ocean Township. The lot area is 16 16,691 square feet. We're in the property zoned R3, medium density. The property is at
the corner of Dwight Drive and Steven Road. Dwight Drive is on the below part. Steven Drive is to the to the right of my exhibit. And just so the board is aware, one of the reasons I also included the um the aerials, it shows
you that Steven is the members access into and the maintenance access into Hollywood Golf Club. So it is utilized quite often. >> Okay. The existing site, as Jennifer said, it's a one and a half story frame dwelling with a driveway, concrete
porch, concrete patio, and a walk. Um we're proposing uh on the existing house the second floor additions to the dwelling. We're relocating the driveway uh um to the um >> west. Uh it's going to be 20 ft wide.
It's going to provide four parking spots. Um we believe it's a better location uh away from the intersection. Uh we're also providing a carport, a pergola, covered porch, pool and pool equipment, pool, patio, and shed. >> Okay. Just to interrupt you for one
minute. Um, we originally got a report from Jim with regard to the driveway and he felt it was not functional in the way it was and he asked us to widen it and move it further from the house which we did and it remains conforming and I wanted to point that out and >> it's still conforming 5T from the
property line. Uh, RSI is 18. He's going 20. That's fine. >> So, David, I'm just going to walk you through some of this. So, the building coverage is uh proposed at what? >> 28.45. >> Okay. No, you mean 20. The building cover, right? But the building coverage
proposed is 22.62%. Yes. >> Uh, that's correct. >> Okay. And the max is 25. So, we're under building coverage. >> That's correct. >> And we are also under lot coverage by about 10%. >> That is correct. We're at 3583. >> So, we have the pre-existing variance of
the lot area. The existing house front setback is non-conforming. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And what is the front yard setback and what are we proposing? I'm sorry. What is the front yard setback and what's required? >> Let me help you. >> You got it.
>> I got plans. It's okay. >> It's 45 ft. >> Right. >> So, it's 45 and it exists at 25.35. >> Correct. >> Okay. We're not proposing to bring it any closer. >> No, we are not. We're just proposing to put a second floor addition over a portion of what's existing. So, we're
exacerbating it vertically, but not bringing it any closer. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And as it relates to the rear yard, the existing rear yard set 24.8 where 40 is required. >> Correct. >> And again, the second floor will go up from there. >> That is correct.
>> All right. We're also proposing a rear yard pergola and that will bring it to about what 11.2 from the rear yard. >> 11.2 for the rear yard. >> Okay. and the architect will obviously testify as to the height and the appearance and uh all of those things as
we just went through. That's the only variance relief that's needed >> is the pergola >> is with regard to what we just went through the pergola, the front yard setbacks and the rear yard setbacks. Um, as it relates to the board engineers review letter, there were questions with
regard to the storm water management uh most particularly uh in the area of the driveway. Can we uh address everything Ben requested that we do? >> Um, he's requesting a burm along the common property line um block 16 and 17. >> If you get up, you have to grab the mic
from Nicole. >> Okay. As we notice, we have the addition uh second floor additions. We have the pergola to the pool, the driveway, the distance away from the driveway. Believe it's more um the drainage patterns for this whole property are in three directions. They run to the west, they
run to the east, and then they run to the south. Um what we're what we're proposing is the driveway over here to the west. The water is going to run down the driveway and onto Dwight Drive. The concern the engineer had was there's a sliver of property that could drain into
the adjacent properties. He's requesting either a swale, a burm, or a curb. And we're proposing to put a a burm along this property line so that the water that was always going onto lot um 16 is now being directed completely to the driveway and into the public road. So
that'll address the concerns that the township engineer had with the u um though the property was though the property runoff was going to lot 16 is now completely being diverted down our driveway and off the property. >> Right. At least in that area and uh we
can comply with any other suggestions in Ben's that was with regard to showing the limits of the curb repair. >> That's correct. >> Okay. That's all I have for the engineer recognizing that I do have the architect here to talk about the additions.
>> Any questions? >> Any questions from the public? >> Sir, let me swear you in swearing testimony. >> I'm gonna I'm councel >> for for whom? >> For Arlene Tabore, the owner of Ford Dwight in property. Daniel Himlman.
>> Oh, you're Daniel. Okay. That's right. >> Daniel Hillman. Okay. And I'm sorry, your client's name again. >> Arlene Tabore, the owner of the adjoining property. >> Mr. Hamilton was kind enough to call me and let me know he'd be coming and we were able to talk. So,
>> Mr. Crimco and I had an o opportunity to discuss this. I do understand that they're willing to burm and possibly curb the driveway so that the water is not going to be there's more pvious coverage now that they're installing that driveway on that side of the house.
The concern well my question for the engineer would be would it be advisable for a dry well to be along that line as well or the burm would be sufficient? >> Uh the burm is it's it's 2,000 square ft of runoff or well under the lock
coverage and the burm will divert the water that was going onto their property. So it's going to pro the design that we're proposing is going to be better than what it is currently. >> Okay. And would it be uh advisable to have any shrubbery along that line because there that driveway will be
essentially adjacent to the driveway on the property next door? >> It would it would it would soak up some of the water. It would provide privacy between the two properties with a garage and a garageing each other. That would be up to the >> Well, we would I would request that the applicant be willing to do that as well. >> We would be glad to.
>> Okay. >> Um >> we'll be glad to. >> They'll be glad to. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the public? >> Okay. See,
>> thank you. And Alan Zimler. Thanks, David. Dave, you want to take your stuff? >> No, you're good. Run while you can. >> Good evening. William, do you swear a testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and both truth be God? >> I do. Your name for the record? >> Alan Zimler. Z L E R A L A N. >> And I know you're a registered architect, but you're still in good standing. >> I I sure hope so. >> Okay, good. So, uh, Alan, you heard me
generally describe what we're doing. We're essentially adding, uh, second floors on portions of building. Do you want to call up your elevation so we can talk about what you've done to minimize the impact to the street >> and minimize the massing of it?
>> So unlike many times when applicants come before, we're not looking to add a full second story and Oh, you need the mic. Did Dan take it? Sorry. >> Okay. >> Okay. We're not looking to do a full second story just in two sections.
Correct. Home. >> Okay. >> Uh and in those areas it's just going up vertically. It's no closer to the street. >> Correct. >> And then to the left we're doing the pergola. I'm not the pergola. I'm sorry. The carport. >> Oh yes. Correct. Yeah.
>> Okay. And part of the reason for moving the driveway I understand is where does the driveway bring you to now versus where we're proposing. >> Right. But right now, the driveway comes to the east and in order to get into the service portion of the house, which would be the kitchen, you'd have to go
across the entire living space of the house, the living room to get to the kitchen. I can show you what plan. Let me do that. >> Well, the driveway is conforming. I just want to explain to the board why. >> Well, that's what I'm just saying. So that putting the driveway on the west side would make it more useful to the
service portion of the house, which is the kitchen areas, which is also on the west side. So, it's more um appropriate for the driveway for the functionality of the home to be on the west side. >> Okay. And as it relates to the pergola, if we could go to the next sheet,
>> this is the pergola here, >> right? It's in the center of the two areas. What's the height of that pergola? >> 10 feet. >> Okay. It's 10 feet or 14 feet? >> 10 feet. >> Okay. And good. That's even better. And uh what I moved in is A6 depicts the uh
house behind us. And again, the area of the pergola is kind of over here in the center where the red line is. >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay. And there appears to be about a 6ft fence in the neighbor's yard behind us.
>> I I I don't know that for sure, but >> Okay. the site engineer. >> So again, it would only be four feet taller than the fence that's there >> and their living their their patio that's up against the property line appears to be further to the east than where we're proposing >> where the pool is. Correct.
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So in your opinion is the pergola is really not going to have much of an impact on them. >> Again, it's not a solid wall. It's really just an open roofed structure. So it's really, you know, it has little
visual impact, so to speak. It's not a large as far as it's maybe 10 ft high, but it's just a roof effectively. >> Okay. There any questions for the architect? >> They're going to put a canopy on top of the pergola or they're leaving it open. >> It It's envisioned now to just be um
horizontal members and be open. >> Do you have a rendering of it? >> I I do not. I have just the elevation. It's a very simple structure. >> It's a standard pergolates. Just right. >> Yeah. Just the posts with the across the top.
>> Are you going to redo the siding of the all the siding on the house part of the house? >> Yeah, absolutely. Right now, it's an existing I guess shake siding. There's some brick. Um, but the plan is to renovate the entire exterior of the home. So, it would be more appealing. I
mean, we can't we can't add these bulks or these portions of the house without making it blend together completely. So, >> what are the proposed materials for the exterior? >> Uh, it's siding. Um, uh, it might be, um, fiber cement siding or cedar cedar
sighting. I we don't have that siding of some sort. We can't commit to the actual material. >> Exactly. Correct. Any other questions? >> Any questions from the public? Okay.
>> That's all I have, Mr. chair and I would just offer that in light of the other matters that are uh >> coming up after this and in the interest of time based on testimony provided and the lack of impact on any of the neighbors of the streetscape and the fact that we're willing to address Ben's
letter and add the trees for the neighbor. We'd ask that you vote in favor. >> Okay. Before you close, Mr. Higgins, do you have anything to say that wasn't addressed? >> No, I agree with the testimony. >> Mr. Matler? >> Yeah, I don't have anything else. >> Okay. Any members of the public have any
statements they want to make since we have council representing any to nothing. >> Okay. Okay. So then we'll close the public portion of the meeting. Do we have a motion for
a posit resolution? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Did that have to have any conditions? Did we get any capture any? I don't think so. >> Oh, no. We did >> with the letters conditions. The condition Mr. Himleman asked for that they agreed to. So,
>> you've got that. >> Y >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. Chairman, before you call the next application, I think based on the time 8:30, we're never getting the WF Ocean Redevelopment LLC because it's after 9:00. I mean, right now it's 8:30 and it's it's 8:35 almost
getting the WF Ocean, at least not in any meaningful way. >> And since we're coming back Monday for special meeting anyway on that application, >> we were hoping we didn't have to. We're hoping we get through it. I certainly was. >> Unless you guys think you can, but it's
it's 8:35 now and policy is nothing. >> We're I'm going to stay anyway cuz I'm here. I have another one after this. So, I >> understand but there two other there two other residential applications. I'm sure they'll take 15 minutes at least 15 minutes each. >> I'll defer to the board, but obviously
our preference is to at least try. >> It's up to the board. I'm just raising it as an issue because I know what the policy is at 9:00 a.m. 9:00 p.m. >> Yeah, I I >> told me he's going to go very fast. >> Jennifer is right. I told Jennifer I'm going to go very fast. >> You have never gone fast, my friend.
>> Um, so I'm torn. Do we have members of the public that are waiting to hear this application? I would hate to I would just want everyone to know that we if we >> I know there are two members of the public. >> Yeah. So we may not get to it. >> Well, and the only So that's why I'm
suggesting if we're not if we make an intelligent guess that we're not going to get to it, Mr. Chairman, the professionals are here, we should probably let them go and let the public go. >> But I we Monday night. >> I just did the whole thing Monday night, which will be the only thing on the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What do you think? You fine with
that? Agree? Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we have jurisdiction. >> Yeah. We know we're we're we're darn sure we're not going to get to it tonight. I I really don't think that. So, all right. So, if anyone's here for the WF Ocean Redevelopment LLC application, that is being carried to
>> the meeting on Monday, which is December 22nd at 7 p.m., right? At 7 p.m. there, you will not get any further notice. So, please come back in this room at that time on Monday and we'll see everyone then. No, no further notice is required.
Will be sent. Okay. Did I call this up yet? We have Jimmy and Barbara Levy, 250 Cliffwood Road, block 25.31, lot one in the R4 zone. Attorney for the applicant is Mr. Farber. Good evening, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
everybody, good evening. I represent Jimmy and Barbara Levy for their application 250 Cliffwood Road. I'm going to stick my neck out and say this is fairly straightforward and hopefully not problematic. Uh we have a
pre-existing non-conforming lot. It's nonconforming due to depth. It is not 100 ft as required in R4. It's 89.06. Um we seek three essential variances and the main part of this application simply
is to enclose a pre-existing carport and make it into livable space. No additional bedrooms. Uh we're squaring it off which furthers the nonconformity because part of the car is nonconforming. Front yard setbacks 30 feet are
required. It's 26 ft as proposed. Rear yard setback 30 ft required 12.5. It's a corner lot. Finally, there's an ancillary structure that supposed to be 5T but it's actually at 4.9 ft and we're going to seek a variance on that. Our
expert tonight is David Feldman, a licensed architect at the state of New Jersey. Been before you a zillion times and uh I'm ready to proceed when uh you are if you would like witnesses. >> I'm just going to mark in the exhibits that we have. Exhibit A1 is the
application itself. Exhibit A2 is the elevation certificate. Exhibit A3 is the survey of the property. Exhibit A4 is the outbound and topographic survey. Exhibit A5 are the architectural plans. And then on the board's behalf, we have exhibit B1 is the zoning officer's
report. Exhibit B2 is the board engineers report. And exhibit B3 is the board planners report. Those are all the exhibits. >> What are the dates on the reports? Uh Mark, because they're a series of >> the on on the board's reports.
>> Yeah, I think Mr. Higgins issued two reports. And you know, >> all right. So I have the zoning officers report is dated October 29th. The board engineers report is 11:21 and the board planners report is 11:10. >> Okay. I think you have the most recent so I think we're good. >> Okay.
>> All right. Mr. Hagens and Mr. >> We don't do that anymore. >> Oh, okay. >> You're experts. >> I don't show up for three meetings unless David. >> John is right. >> All right. Mr. Belman, let me swear you in the swearing testimony you're about
to give will be the truthful truth. Tell me about the true self of God. >> I do. >> State your name for the record. >> David H. Feldman. Feld man, principal architect of Feldman and Feldman Township, New Jersey. >> All right. And your license is in good standing. Correct, sir. >> Uh, yes it is.
>> Great. >> And you are licensed in the state of New Jersey, just for the record. >> Yes, I am. >> As an architect and you've been before the stores about two dozen times minimum, >> a couple All right. >> Take yes for an answer. >> Come on. Okay.
>> Take yes for an answer. Come on. >> Uh David, Mr. Feldman, can you please elaborate on what I said in terms of the nonconform proposed for this project? >> Yeah. So, what we have is an existing
lot. Uh the lot area is 13,000 13,000 plus 10,000 is required. So that's conforming. The lot width is 155
is conforming. 90 is required. So that's conforming. Um as the attorney pointed out the lot depth is deficient um in that minimum. So that's
the front yard setback that has two front yard setbacks. The existing uh front yard setback on the flip wood is 19.5 where 30 ft where 30 ft is uh required but that's an
existing nonconformity. Um the existing house off of Redmond is 47.9 ft which is conforming. The carport that we're proposing to enclose is 35 feet off of Redmond, which is also
non-con uh also conforming. The existing corner off of Cliffwood um is also to the carport conforming, which is we're proposing to enclose as well. The sideyard setback um where 36 1/2 ft is
um required. I'm sorry. 36 36 feet 5 in is existing. Um where 10 is required. So that's conforming the uh existing rear yard. Um where 30 ft is required. We
currently have 18.2 ft to the house and where the existing carport is is currently 12.5 ft. Um so that's that will be nonconforming. >> Mr. development. In terms of the existing footprint of the house, nothing except for the front entryway is going
to be changed. Is that correct? >> Uh, as far as the footprint, the only change will be the porch that we are adding to the front of the house, which is approximately 6x 20 ft. Um, again, the porch uh to Cliffwood um will extend
approximately 26 ft from the property line where 30 is required. However, the existing house currently is at 19.5. So, we're well behind the existing uh line of the house. >> You should say 26 ft. >> Yes.
>> My report, my review said 24.5 ft. Is that 26 to the porch part or to the overhang? >> Uh to the porch. >> Okay. So, it's 20. Just from the board's information, the 24.5 would be the overhang.
>> Correct. So instead of to the covered porch, it's to the overhang. >> Yes. >> And then off of Redmond, the porch is as well conforming to the 30 minimum 30 foot uh front yard setback. >> But the number is right. >> We are also uh conforming to height um
where 30 ft is allowed. We're 25 foot 8 in. Um, we're also conforming to building coverage um and lot imper total impervious coverage as well. >> And let's not forget this shed. This little corner of it is 3 in too close.
Is that correct? >> That is correct. One corner is uh 4.9 which is probably about a inch and a half to 2 in. Uh the other >> correct >> the other is 5.2.
But if you look at your plan, you'll see it's just in this little corner up here. So to recap, the only issues really are enclosing and the nonconformities uh that exist and the variances required are with the exception of the front
porch all pre-existing. >> That is that is correct. And again, while we're enclosing the carport and it's not going to be a bedroom, um the carport is and that's an exacerbation because you are increasing the nonp performing. Nonetheless, you're not
increasing equipment, >> right? As far as the use of it, um which is off to the left of of our drawing labeled P2. Um what we're proposing is to expand the existing dining room uh into the carport area, create a little
side entry mud room um into the house, and then expand the kitchen into the um a portion of the uh carport as well. Um, in terms of materials for the home, it's the intention, the the home is currently
a a brick home and it's the intention to match that existing material to the best that we could. >> All right, I think you've covered everything. Um, I believe I'm done with my direct. Thank you. >> The shed you mentioned that exists. That
That's the shed exists. >> It's pre-existing. It's been there a while. >> And the the roof isn't changing at all. Oh, that hip roof was there over the carport. >> Yes, that's correct. >> You're just filling in the walls. Correct. Walls. >> Correct. >> We're infilling three sides of the
carport. >> Any other questions? Any questions from the public? Mr. Mr. >> M. Yes. I just have one question. Uh, are there any uh proposed grading changes with the the new porch and the walkway?
Uh there is no proposed grading changes and in addition um we will also ask by the township because this isn't a flood zone to confirm that the house is in compliance which it is. >> That's all I got. >> Jim, you have the shortest memo I've seen from you a long time.
>> I don't have any problems with it. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mlik, you have anything else to say? >> Yeah, that's it. >> Okay. >> Well, I'm hesitant to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I think >> Yeah. How many more witnesses do you have? >> Pardon? >> How many more witnesses do you have? >> Uh, well, I have Mrs. Levy here, but I
don't think you need her to testify that she promises it won't be a bedroom. >> I don't think so. >> I guess you want to open it to the public, sir? >> Yep. Any statements from the public? >> I see none. Okay. >> Look, I have to be done for Jennifer
quickly. So, if you're ready to vote and you want to someone wants to vote on a resolution, >> um, >> Nicole, you ready? You're good. Okay. So, we'll close the public hearing. >> So, so Nicole is is mouththing to me as
she is. And we normally do ask this question. Do you want a date restriction for this being a structure? >> Can you repeat what you just said? a de restriction to keep that area from being utilized as an extra bedroom. >> I didn't hear anybody bring that up as a
concern up here, but since you're asking, do we want that? Is is any anyone concerned that it could happen? >> We've been asking >> Mr. Chairman, if I just may say, >> is that something that is now something you require in every application? I
mean, there's no re there's no intention to do that. Well, the problem the problem is, Mr. Farber, is that there may not be any intention of this applicant to do it, but a future owner of the property may have the intention of doing it. And if you're going to represent to us that it's never going to
be used as a bedroom, then it's a safeguard for the board that it not be a bedroom. It would it would then infringe upon the uh parking requirements and things like that. Sure. My client does not have a problem with the >> consistently.
>> As I said, Miss Litman, it's been three months since >> now. So, if you actually if you have Mr. Feldman walk people through the floor plan, I don't think there would be any concern that it's >> Mr. Felman, why don't you walk people through the floor plan? >> Yeah. I mean, >> pretty much impossible to do that. Go
ahead. So, so just so we're all on the same page, we have put that restriction on a number of these, but those are in cases where we felt like there were a lot of bedrooms and there were clearly going to be additional ones, right? Um,
>> I didn't get that I didn't get that impression from here from this. So, I wouldn't necessarily just say, oh, just because we're going to do something, we need to say that'll never be a bedroom. >> I don't see the need for >> that's why I need to bring it up. But but I but but I thought it was a legitimate question. Something we have been doing.
>> I mean, if I may, like I pointed out earlier. Um the expansion into the carport is to expand the existing dining room. Um elongate that. Uh and also to create a new mudroom/ laundry room. Um even though it has a door, it does not
have egress windows. Um and then it has direct access into the kitchen. So, I mean, for it to be a bedroom, >> um, >> it never be a legal bedroom. >> Yeah, it's kind of awkward. >> That's the reason I've never would there ever be a parking issue even if there
were there's >> Yeah, it's never mind. >> I withdraw that question. >> So, it's not it's not the intent for the uh for this owner to utilize that space as a bedroom. And personally, I think
it's going to be kind of difficult down the road for somebody else. I mean, they wouldn't have a laundry area at that point. >> Mhm. >> Well, I leave it to the board. >> I don't think we I I I want to stay away from the idea that anytime somebody does something that we're going to say and it
can never be a bedroom. Um because it just doesn't really make sense to me. Um >> you're right. >> I think it's a case by case. Yeah, >> you're right. I agree. >> Okay. So, the public meeting is closed. We're ready for a motion. I'll move for positive resolution.
>> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful evening. Healthy, happy holidays and new year. >> 18 minutes to you. >> That was very fast.
>> Wasn't 15. He could have been 15 if we didn't start talking about that. >> I know. I know. We were close. >> That wasn't his fault. >> You would have been under 15. That wasn't his fault. >> Next case, Raymond and Nicole Cher, 741 Roseld Avenue, block 40, lot 35 in the
R1 zone. Turning for the applicant, Jennifer Crimco. >> Glad I had time. Uh, for the record, Jennifer Krimco, he can't quit, can he? Uh,
on behalf of the applicant, and I think we're all familiar with this. It's on the curvy portion of, uh, Roseld Avenue, just west of Hollywood Golf Club, across from Coach. and it is an incredibly encumbered parcel of property uh which
is regulated by the DP to great extents. I will say and as you'll hear from the testimony, we already have approvals from the DP who protect all of those restricted areas, but those restricted areas really drive where our development
can be. Uh, so I'm happy to say that we are going to meet lot coverage, building coverage, and all setbacks except for one overhang. So the house is appropriately sized. We're just dealing with difficult topography and nowhere to park. So we need a few variances as part
of this. So I will let Mark, if I can ask you to give me two seconds to get my pen. Thank you. Done. >> Ready. Okay. So A1 will be the variance application. A2 will be the elevation
certificate. A3 will be the boundary to topographic and utility survey. A4 will be the architectural plan. A5 will be the elevations and A6 will be the plot plan. Uh we then have the following board exhibits. B1 will be the zoning officers report. B2 will be the board
planner report. B3 will be the board engineers report. And B4 will be manager report. >> Did I get that? the site manager report. >> It's just a letter. >> I didn't I didn't get it. I'm assuming it's saying we're compliant. >> Literally says, "Dear Colleen, the
proposed structure on the above reference property will be constructed more than one foot above the 100year flood elevation provided in the flood elevation certificate and the currently adopted FEMA maps. Thus, the proposed dwelling design requirement governing construction within the plan." All right. Question.
>> Great. think no. And I knew that he was reviewing it because Nicole had asked me to submit the flood certificate for him. >> I I'm concerned. Am I in the 300 foot list on this? Did you check >> It's 200 ft. >> It's 200
>> and we can tell you. >> But I'm glad you raised it now rather than find out later. >> Trying to think. I don't think so. >> And I never checked my mail. So if I got noticed, I wouldn't know. No, but I I I can't say this about all the board members, but I do know where
you live and uh and I don't think you are, but >> Okay. So, I just have two more quick exhibits. Uh A7, we left off at A6. So A7 is an existing conditions map and it shows all of the
environmental constraints on the property. That paddle go over A8 is a neighborhood aerial overlaid with our proposed improvements. And as you'll see, we are in a very
isolated area on the north side of Verel. >> And then lastly, a >> nine so you don't have to get up and down. No, that's fine. As long as the board members could see it in context since Pat's going first. I just want them to
see >> what is A9. >> A9 is just the proposed conditions color rendering. And with that, I'd have Pat Ward sworn. >> All right, Mr. Ward, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth to all about the truth of God?
>> I do. >> Thank you. And you are a licensed engineer, state of New Jersey. >> Yes. And planner. >> And planner. You're testifying in both capacities this evening and both licenses are in good standing. >> Yes. >> Great. Pat, take it away. >> Okay. Nicole, can I have the mic?
>> Okay. All right. So, we are This is 741 Rosel. We're on the north side of Rosel. Um, and we're along what's a stream called the Harvey Brook. Um, very unique property. kind of a unique location, but a lot of things happening here, and I really tried to do my best to make this
clear, but there's a lot of lines and spaghetti that we had to contend with. Um, we are, and you'll see this on the neighborhood area, we're right at the intersection with Coach Drive in Rosel. So, we're right across from the intersection. Behind us is the Hollywood Golf Club. And, you know, on either side
of us is a wooded areas of Rosel Avenue on the north side. So, this property uh presents a lot of challenges from the D standpoint. Um, and really I have a lot of lines on here, but I'll just briefly try to describe them and which ones are the most important. So, Harvey Brook is
a stream. So, it has a fluial flood zone. Part of that, and this is the dark blue lines, is something called the floodway, which you may have heard in the past. Floodway is where the water during a flood is actually flowing. You can't build in a floodway anymore. Historically, they didn't regulate them as much, but now there's really not much
you could do in a floodway at all. So, we had to stay out of this big heavy blue line, the dark royal blue. Um, just off the property now on the east side, there's a little triangle here, uh, that's green. That's a wetlands complex. Uh, and there's a 50ft
wetlands buffer from that. So, that's another wrinkle. And then of course there's also >> we really can't build in the buffer because we can't we can't transition it since the wetlands aren't even on our property. So we're basically kept out of that area too, >> right? Yeah. We can't we can't work in
that little half circle. Um there's I'll explain there's some existing improvements in there we could take out. Um but we're staying out of there with new new construction. Um with the the stream there's a flood hazard area, there's the township flood hazard area, a flood hazard elevation. Then the D takes it a step further. So, we have two
light blue lines that represent the flood zone on here as well. Um, because it's fluial, we can't add fill or really add structures unless they're properly vented in that area. Um, additionally, there is this purple line that is on
here that represents the top of bank of the stream. The top of bank is one thing. There's a 25 ft setback from the top of bank that is also a no-go zone whatsoever. So, we can't go beyond this purple line and beyond this blue line. They and they they crisscross. They they
twist and turn over each other. Um, what you can see here is that there is an existing home. There's an existing home here and you can see it's it kind of crosses a lot of those constraints and there's a detached garage over here which crosses the wetlands buffer. >> So, importantly, the existing home is
not wouldn't be legal under today's D regulations >> in terms of location and elevation because it is at grade. So it's in the flood elevation. >> Okay. >> Uh the property itself from Rosseld slopes back towards the stream naturally. Um
so what I want to get into is so like I said the existing structures and the driveway will be completely removed. Um what we're proposing and I'll turn to I believe it's A9. No, you're good. I'm going to
is the new home and the same lines are on there. So, we're proposing a new 2 and a half story dwelling. Uh it's going to have a driveway, a rear deck and pool. Uh everything compliant with D regulations and nearly fully compliant with the zoning requirements. Uh as Mr.
Crimco stated, >> and I just want to clarify, it's not really two and a half stories. It's It's our crawl space counts as a story, >> right? >> Above grade. So, it's two stories of living space. >> Correct. >> It's really one and a half of living space. Yeah. Yeah. And that was good.
>> So, I just want to He called it a two and a half. It's not really >> by zoning standards. It is. Um we have all DP permits as Mr. Crimco said, but yeah, functionally and visually, and you can look at Mr. Collins renderings, it it looks like a one and a half story from the street. What makes it a two and
a half story is the crawl space which in the back we can't comply with the stories above grade rule. It's about six feet in the back of grade difference from the first floor to existing grade >> but it's not habitable. >> No, it's a non-habitable area. It's uh the ceiling height is I think less about
5t. Um so it's it's not usable at all. Um more importantly the D would only allow it for storage anyway and it would be deed restricted as such. >> Correct. So it has to be vented properly. It's prone to flood waters. Uh applicants proposing a 16 foot wide
driveway entrance from the street due to the constraints on the side and the rear of the home. Um we're proposing to make the parking area in the front yard uh which allows for more than adequate off- streetet parking because it's not practical to park on Rosealth Avenue. As you know, this parking area is 77 ft at
its widest. Uh but it'll be surrounded by a decorative wall uh that will act as a retaining wall but also act as a visual screen for the parking court from the street. We are also with this plan proposing landscaping um along that wall uh for additional
screening. The first floor of the home is going to be situated at elevation 38.5 which is about 3 ft above the Rosel Avenue pavement and this was done for a few reasons. One is provide additional freeboard above the the flood elevation.
Um the flood elevation is really it's a it's a requirement but it's also guidance. So we're looking for an extra level of protection. Um the worst case flood elevation on site is elevation 33.5 for reference. It also allows for the port a portion of the roof runoff and all of the new driveway to be uh
directed towards Rosel Avenue and away from any neighboring properties. Um this is something uh Mr. Matlike mentioned in his letter. We can't send all the water to the street, but we're sending as much as possible uh to the municipal rightway in this case.
So since the rear yard is so low compared to the front yard and in order to provide a functional space for the home, we're proposing this elevated rear deck and covered terrace at the first floor elevation. So you walk out to a a deck since it is raised and raised significantly over the existing grade in
the back. We're actually able to provide uh a swimming pool at the deck elevation raised up on piles so flood waters can actually flow underneath the pool structure. It's a very unique uh circumstance here, but fully compliant with the D rules. Um
the pool will be enclosed uh within the required pool barrier from the pool st uh the state pool code. Um locking gates, etc. >> And that'll be up on the deck area. >> Beyond the deck area, there's a set of stairs that get down to grade that'll have a locking gate.
Boy, that could have been last hearing of the year. Not good. Um that's something also Mr. Matt Lac mentioned in his review letter. Um so yeah, we have to comply with that code and we will and it's something we can do here. So in terms of the variance relief
uh sought, we have a lot depth of well this existing condition but lot depth of 46.5 ft where a minimum of 150 is required. You can kind of see this is a very unusually shaped lot. That lot dep lot depth is driven by this very shallow portion. Existing condition, we're putting the house in the deepest part of
the property. The condition is not changing. In terms of a sideyard setback, uh, on this east side, you can see the white sideyard setback line. There's a portion of this overhang, and it's an architectural feature Mr. Collins, um, designed. It overhangs, uh, and the
setback is 18.43 ft where that sideyard is supposed to be 20 ft, but the building itself is at 21.6 ft. So, uh, an overhang is only permitted to extend 2 feet. It's a little more than that, I think. more important >> it doesn't extend more than 2 feet into the setback but the overhang itself is
greater than 2 ft >> right the physical from the wall of the house to the edge of the overhang >> we're meeting the intent which is to make sure that nothing overhangs more than 2 feet and we don't >> right >> and and the other thing is because of the angle that the house is to the side property line only four square feet are
actually in violation >> yeah it's a very small >> and realistically no one can build there anyway because it's wetlands and buffer >> right um we also have have a combined height of a wall or fence in a front yard and that ranges from 4 and 1/2 ft to 9 ft where a maximum fence or wall or fence
height in the front yard is 4T. Um the highest part of this is on this right side. So as I mentioned the topography slopes off to the back. It also slopes to this wetlands complex. So in order to have the driveway meet the front door of the home, there's a drop off on this right side and and as you keep going
further back, that drop off gets more and more significant. uh combined height of a wall or fence in the side or rear yard. Um we have 10 10.25 feet to 10.66 where a maximum of six feet. Again, it's on this right side by the wetlands complex where we can't really affect
existing grades on that side because of the transition area, >> but nobody will see it. >> This is Yeah. And this is in an area where one we're landscaping it, but looking at the neighborhood, >> you could see that we we don't have any receptors on that side. No, no
neighbors. Let's talk in English. Let's not call our neighbors receptors. >> I said residents. Uh >> but you can see here here's the golf here's the golf course. There's no there's nobody over here for a good distance. It's actually off page. So where this this wall height is going to
be is over here. >> Um >> and you said nobody can build to the right because that's wetlands. Is that right? >> Yeah. There's a there's a wetlands pocket right in here and we have we're affected by a portion of that >> and that's why we have to be where we are. >> Yeah. >> Because their their wetlands their their
wetlands buffer extends onto our property. >> Yeah. >> Even though there's no wetlands on our property, >> we are proposing a change in grade uh 2.1 to 6 and 1/2 ft where a maximum of two feet is permitted and again more related to where the driveway is
compared to this sideyard setback and and the existing grade off to the right. So, we're not lifting the whole property. We're just lifting portions of it to allow for access into it and some parking. >> It's really the the the worst point is right here, but it's really just in the front. The rest of in the back, we're really not we're not touching. Great.
Because with once you get to the flood zone, you can't, >> right? And and I just want to point out we can't really work with the existing house at all because it's so violative of the D regulations. So, they wouldn't let us put an addition on it because in order to put an addition on it, it would
have to be brought into full compliance and we can't bring it into full compliance where it is. >> That's correct. Yeah. That the >> I just wanted the board to understand that we're kind of forced into this spot because of the D regulations. We can't do anything with the existing house because once you
>> once you touch it >> substantially improve it, >> you're forced to bring it into full compliance and it would have to be relocated to where we're proposing it, >> right? Um we have a driveway width here of 77 ft where the maximum is 20 ft. Now the driveway access from the street is
only six into that parking court behind the walls in the landscaping. >> So and as I know that Dave will talk about it but as you can see in the renderings and as you'll be what we're what's being proposed that's the actual landscaping that rendering is from our landscape
plan. So we narrowed the 16oot entrance so really it'll appear just like a driveway coming into the property and it won't really the the parking court won't be visible from the street. >> Right. Right. And >> and that was intentionally designed that way.
>> Exactly. >> And again that the parking is it's one to provide the adequate off- streetet parking uh where we can't have any on street parking whatsoever for guests on Rosel, but also because of the constraints that loop around us as you could see um by the spaghetti that I
have on this plan. Um, the other variance that we're seeking is construction in the township designated 100-year flood plane, which again, we're complying with D regulations. Um, so I think that's justification there. So, in terms of the variance relief, I could analyze all of the variances under the
C1 hardship criteria. They're all due to a lack of lot depth across most of the property, the environmental constraints that affect the the sides of this lot on all sides and the rear except for the front, and for the topographic conditions that exist today. Uh these constraints limit the extent to which the property can be developed by right.
The lack of depth and presence of the environmental constraints. Um the driveway and parking cannot be provided on the side or rear of the home. They're forced up in the front. In order to provide adequate parking, we're raising the front above existing grade leading to the grade change variance and the need for the retaining walls. In order
to mitigate the grade change and the driveway, we're proposing to extend the wall above the driveway to screen the vehicles from sight. And then with that, we're also adding the landscaping. So in effect, all variances are related to the existing conditions on site and how they affect our ability to build here within
the requirements of the ordinance. Out of abundance of caution, can also analyze the grade change in the wall height variances under the flexible C2 criteria as they further the following purposes of the MLU well. purpose a this is an appropriate use as a single family and an appropriate development of this
heavily constrained property which does promote the public safety by complying with the flood regulations and removing the existing development that does not comply with those regulations we are slightly improving the downstream flood condition for properties along the stream purpose B the application secures safety
from fire flood panic and other natural and man-made disasters we are proposing new construction built to the latest codes which is a safer condition but most notably the dwelling meets all the flood requirements which is safer for the applicant and the other properties affected by the stream downstream.
Purpose C light air and open space is preserved with this application. Looking at the location of this property and surroundings, open space is preserved. We're not seeking coverage variances or setback variances. Aside from the small overhang at the back corner by meeting the coverages and setbacks, we are pres
preserving lighter and open space on the property and purpose eye. This application promotes a desirable visual environment. The property is designed to fit right into his surroundings. It's really like a house in the woods. I think the architect did a great job achieving that. And as you can see on his rendering, um we're trying to fit
naturally into um our natural constraints. When we look at the negative criteria, we look to see if our application causes any impacts or detriments to our neighbors and the public. Here, I see no impacts resulting from the project. The house and its accessories have no impact
as they are compliant. The driveway is screened from view by the wall in the front yard landscaping. Having ample uh parking on a street where you can't park on is a better zoning alternative in this case. The grade change of wall height have little impact. The wall facing the road is 6 ft
in height but is screened with landscaping and set back 20 ft from the right ofway. So in my opinion as you drive down Rosseld any visual impact of the wall will be minimal. And the highest parts of the wall that are listed like 9 to 10 feet in height are really on this right side where we have
the wetlands complex and grade drops off. Um the north side of Rosel in this area has a handful of homes that are in effect tucked into the woods along Harvey Brook. And I'm going to bring up the neighborhood. >> I'm sorry, Jen. Did we mark in that?
>> It's just it's what's in his plans already. It's the >> already in there. I apologize. Got it. And when we look at uh a >> color version, but yes. >> Okay. >> The the neighborhood area, when you when you look at this north side of Roselle, there's a handful of homes basically
tucked into the woods. We're trying to um further the character of this area without impact. And I feel with Mr. Collins's design uh and the layout here, we've achieved that while also being fully compliant with the D regulations and the constraints affecting the property. So to summarize, my opinion,
the proposed development would not cause substantial detriment to the public good, nor substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. And it's my opinion that the benefits of the application substantially outweigh its detriments, giving the board the ability to approve this application with confidence. That's all I have.
>> There any questions for planning or engineering before we go on to architecture? Trees being removed. Yes, I believe so. >> Oh, he's just removing the rest of the trees. >> Yeah. And actually, um, Mr. Collins plan actually shows
a couple of the mature trees along the street that are staying. Yeah, we're trying to work within I the benefit of having a really large driveway that's there today. It's kind of open in on the property. We're working within the open space generally, >> but we'll comply with the tree ordinances as needed.
trees coming down. >> I encouraged her to talk. I said, "You got a valid question. Ask." >> It's a great question. >> I have a quick question. Uh >> no, Colleen used your pen. >> Maybe you already covered all these, but uh numbers 1, three, and six in my
report require some minor plan changes. >> No problem. >> Are those okay? >> You can comply. >> I don't have I don't have the right gate. Yes, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure I could see >> I've I asked you in advance if there was any issue. >> Elevation and then solar.
>> Yeah, that's no problem. Well, I looked at those two. Yes, no problem. >> I wouldn't have committed if you didn't tell me it was okay already. >> I had a quick question. The from the if you're on the inside of the driveway, so on the other side of the wall, closest to the house, what's
the elevation to the top of the wall? >> Uh four feet. >> It's four. So, it's four feet high. So four foot of a car will be covered, >> right? It's >> from the wall. >> It's more like a fence, like a solid fence. >> Yeah, >> that's the intent there. Yeah, >> it's decorative. >> It match the siding as you can kind of see it here. Yeah,
>> any other questions for >> Thank you. >> Any questions from the public? >> Only public's with me. >> I'd like to call Dave to Dave uh Collins to talk about his beautiful design. Mr. Collins, the swearing testimony
you're about to give will be the chief of the tree. >> I do. >> And just uh state >> David Collins. >> And you're a licensed architect with the license in good standing is David Jersey. >> I am. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. Dave, since the house technically
does not need any variance relief except for that corner, but I think that the walls are integral to the house and the parking court. So could you just speak generally as to the number of floors of living space as well as the uh decorative wall design in the parking court?
>> Sure. So uh what what we tried to do is is create this house in the woods. And the idea was to create a series of pavilions to try to break down the massing uh of the building to use dark natural materials to try to help that building blend into the the woods. And
really the kind of the money shot here, we don't show is that in the back you get to go on this beautiful uh wood deck and sit under all of these mature trees. And so that was kind of our vision from the beginning. And uh because we're on a
busy road and we wanted to be safe about coming in and out, we wanted this parking court. We wanted it to be intentional architectural. So, what we've done is the the same material that we're using in a vertical format on the house, that wood material we're using as
in a horizontal fashion to wrap around uh those two areas with the gate to enter into that area. So, it helps buffer some of that street noise for our clients and it also visually breaks that for the people driving down the street. They can't kind of see into everything
that's happening in the front. >> And I think we forgot to cover it with Pat. One of the other things that was most important was is to give enough area to turn around so there would be no backing out of this driveway. >> That's right. Yeah. Part of the reason we have this size is so that you can pull in, turn around and come out nose
first. It's kind of fast room for parking >> and still have room for parking. That's right. >> Okay. And I had indicated that the house is technically the two and a half stories, but by definition it's really by definition it's two and a half stories, but the living space is just one and a half.
>> That's right. The two pavilions, the center pavilion and the right pavilion are the the kind of public living side of the house. So, living rooms, kitchens, those kind of spaces. And the space to the the right, which is the west side, is a twostory bedroom. So, the kids bedrooms were downstairs, the
parents bedrooms upstairs. So, this is this is really a very traditional twostory house, but that's only really a small portion of the house, which is mostly one story. It is technically two and a half stories because of the crawl space, because of the weird topography, the way it drops off. It's like a walk
out basement without a basement. So, it's really not two and a half stories the way we think of it. >> There any questions for Dave? >> No questions. Colleen, go ahead. >> John, that has to be a thing.
>> Okay. >> No. So, uh, members of the public, >> Mr. Higgins, >> I I think it's fine. The fact that they're screening that large parking area in front of the house, and I think that area is
necessary for safety. So, by screening it, it doesn't look like there's a commercial parking area in the middle of a residential area. We sent everybody home, so I might as well ask a couple questions. Um, just out of curiosity, the pool. Um, so you
come out the back, there's a patio, there's a pool, and it from where you are, it looks normal, but it's actually raised on pile pilings, right? >> That's right. So the pool is generally flush with the wood deck and the wood deck is elevated and so the pool is set
down in there, but it's not set all the way down to the ground. It's set down and raised on piles so that water can flow from from a flood can flow right underneath that structure. So it's essentially a shell sitting on posts, but from the deck it'll feel just like a
regular bolt. >> John, if you want to see how it works. >> Yeah. Well, I just want to see what it looks like on like what does it look like from the other side if you're on the ground looking at it. >> And just so you know, drive by 65 almir in deal. They have wetlands behind them and it's a raised deck and the pool is
in the deck. >> Is it on piles too? It's on piles >> underneath. Yeah, >> that's what I want to see though. >> I think they have screening on theirs because they have neighbors immediately to them. But here there's no neighbors. >> There's no neighbors and we do have screens. Um, so what what we have is an
open slatted kind of wood enclosure that wraps around that whole area. Water can flow right through that. We still have the ability for everything to flow through. It's still architecturally complete even though maybe a golfer could see it if they hit too far to the to the right. That's about it. No one
else can really be back there to see it. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, any more questions? >> Anything else? You >> sure? Maybe the other ones go home. Ben, do we have, and it might be in the drawings, I didn't unfold them. Um,
protection of those trees that are shown in the rendering, do we have a requirement for those to be protected during construction in a certain way? >> Freehold soil will >> there? Yes. And and a soil erosion plan will be submitted um that shows the
limit of disturbance. >> Okay. >> Uh so that'll be to >> Okay. I just hate to see those. I I think our clients would also >> Okay, good. >> I mean, essentially, it's going to be like a treehouse the way the back is.
>> Okay, we'll close the public hearing. >> So, I got >> Do you have any anything second? >> I know we don't. >> Do we have a motion? >> I'll move for positive resolution. >> Second, >> yes. Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr.
>> Vice Chairman, >> yes. Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a great night. >> Have a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion journ. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I posted
for you, too. >> Okay.