Good evening everyone. Tonight's uh call to order the tonight's regular meeting of the township provotion board of adjustment. Um can we have a roll call please? >> Mr. >> Here Mr. >> here >> Mr. here.
>> Here. >> Here. Please rise. Salute to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for it stands nation, 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 having been sent to the Asbury Park Press in the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. Emergency notice. There's an emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. No
smoking, please, in this room. Board policy. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. No new testimony taken after 9:30. In addition, each applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceans cable uh community
cable channel 22 on Verizon FiOS and channel 77 on Cable Vision. Please keep your cell phones turned off. If you need to make a call, please leave the room uh to complete your call. Uh resolutions to be memorialized.
We have four. Uh the first one's Emerald Jade LLC, 519 Wildwood Road, block 61.05, 05 lot 11. >> Nicole, can they all be done together? >> We can do them all together. Fantastic. Larchwood Synagogue, 48 Lwood Avenue,
Oakst 8.02, lots three and 23. Alan Mal Alan Mela, 481 South Edge Drive, block 76, lot 6 in the R5 zone. Leo Picotto, 186 Delaware Avenue, block 25.09, lot
11. Sorry. Oh, can we have a motion? >> I'll second. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes. >> And chairman.
>> Yes. Following cases being carried to the November 24th, 2025 meeting without further notice. Two Texas Avenue LLC, 219 Lewis Street, block 17, lots 26 and 44. Following cases are being carried to
the December meeting and will require new notice for seven meeting. Steven and Joe Dwek to Dwight Drive block 40.01 lot 17 and Michael Rosen Shamir 130 Rosel Avenue block 55 lot 3 in the R2 zone.
>> And Mr. Chairman just to make it very clear for the record if anyone's here on that two Texas Avenue case which again is 219 M Street that is not being heard tonight. It's being carried to the November 24th meeting at 7 PM in this room. You will not receive any further
notice. So, if you want to be part of that application, you need to be at that date and time in this room. Okay. Old business. We have uh first up, Sam Gab, 8 Mammoth Road, block 5, lot
35. Hello, sir. Come on up. Right, sir. Um, and you're still under oath from the last hearing, correct? >> Okay. And just state your name for the record again. >> Sam Cabay. >> Okay. And Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing, uh, the board had asked him to
the applicant to return with photographs. He's now submitted seven photographs of what he's looking to do. I'm going to mark that in as exhibit A3. >> Okay. Everybody see the the photographs the
applicant has included? Yes. Okay. >> Good evening, sir. >> How are you? Do you have the photographs packet style that we could just run through real quickly what you have? if you could be so kind just to walk through these photographs that you sent
and just let us know what we're looking at. >> Sure. >> Uh and then I'll probably uh ask for Mr. Higgins to give some input. >> Sure. >> Is that okay? >> So, yep. So, the first image um is from the back of the house uh facing the front. The left is Mammoth Road and the
front uh all the way by that white house in the front is Lake Avenue. Um the condenser units are approximately 27 ft from the property line, not the required 30. Um and you could see that over here.
We uh I guess put them as close to the house as possible. Um but you could see how much space there is between the condenser and the street itself. We also put trees uh around the property. Um the next image you could see from the
street across the street that they're kind of hidden away. You can't really see them uh from the street and also that that patch of grass in the front. It may look flat but it's actually elevated uh by a bit. Um going in
closer. The next image is a closer uh shot of that um on the sidewalk itself. The next one is on the sidewalk again on an angle. Just trying to get as many different angles as possible. This is head-on. Um, this might be the best
picture I've ever taken in my entire life. Very clean lines. And, uh, the last one is, uh, last two I'd say is just from the other side, from the front of the house facing the backyard. Okay. Um, now, when you were across the
street taking that picture, what's what is across the street? Remind us. I think we talked about it last month, but just remind me. Is there a house right there? >> I I don't know what I would call it. It's definitely people living there. >> Okay. >> It's a house. I don't know if it's a house or a condominium or a multif family home.
>> All the neighbors are still trying to figure it out. Does anybody have any questions? >> Mr. Mr. Higgins, you weren't here last month, but if you could give me uh your impression after seeing these pictures and have you been out to the site? >> Yeah, I've looked at the site. I I did write obviously wrote the report on it.
I don't have a problem with it. It's it's screened. I think one of the recommendations when we redo the ordinance is going to look at possibly allowing air conditioning units to be in a front yard if they're adequately screened because quite frankly if
they're there any noise from them will not disturb the adjacent neighbors and as long as visually it's okay I don't have a problem at all. I think it's actually a better location than on the side side of a house right adjacent to another residence. I assume that would
be particularly when there's a two front yards right here. >> Exactly. >> This is considered um um a front yard because it's it's a corner lot with >> Yes. >> two two fronts because because from the
photos it doesn't look your front doors on MH. >> My front door is on Lake. >> Right. So, okay. Any other questions? Any questions from the public?
You have anything you want to add? I don't >> I'm hungry. >> Any complaints? Um >> yeah, Nicole, who was here at the last meeting because only >> we have enough though, right? Yeah. Okay. Any members of the public like to
make a comment on this application? Okay. Any make a motion for a uh to close >> public? Who's who's not eligible? Who's eligible or Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. So, one of us has to
>> one of those people. >> We have to make a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Ashi, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman. >> Yes.
>> Yes. So, make a motion for positive resolution. >> Motion. >> Was that wasn't that what it was? >> That was to close public hearing. Well, everybody could have voted for that. >> Scrambling my stomach. >> That can be in all favor. Just
>> Okay. >> Someone's got to make a motion for it to approve the application. >> Okay. I'll make a motion for a positive resolution. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, did I misspeak? I I thought I closed the phone hearing, but I did the positive resolution. Sorry. >> Okay, >> it's all good. >> We're going to do everything twice tonight, folks. It's going to be It's going to be great. Okay, new business.
Um Irene Shore, 30 Northwoods Drive, block 35.02, O2 lot 6 in the R1 zone seeking permission to keep an keep a change of existing grade that is more than 2 ft in connection with the ingground pool and pool surround pool patio pool code fence and retaining
wall. >> All right. So I'm going to swear in the applicant the swearing testimony the swearing testimony you're about to give will be the whole >> state your name for the record. >> Irene Shore Sh. And sitting next to you is who? >> Is uh my um
>> project manager. >> Project manager. >> All right. Let me swear him in as well. I assume he's going to testify. Do you swear a testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth? Something about the truth of God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> William Wager. >> William >> Wager. W A G E.
>> And are you you're just as a product manager? You're not are you an engineer, planner, anything like that? >> Contractor contractor. >> Okay. All right. Okay. So, m sure, I just have to let you know and your notice there is
a typo in it. I don't know if you're aware of that. Uh, you have a fragment sentence. You have you have in your notice in both what was sent to the public and also sent to the newspaper and published the paper. It just says in addition the applicants think seek that is proposed.
There's the rest of the sentence is missing. Okay. So, I need I'm willing to let it go, but you have to understand that if someone challenges you later on based upon a notice issue, that's going to be on you. And I just want to state for the I want you to stay for the record that
you are okay with taking on that risk. >> I'm okay with that. >> Okay. So, you can't yell at me if we're in court at some point instead of judges and notice because it's your notice. >> Okay, >> sir. I understand. >> Okay. Thank you. I I'm fine with uh jurisdiction then, your uh your honor,
Mr. chairman and we will and I'll mark in the following exhibits. A1 is going to be the variance application itself. A2 is going to be the survey. Exhibit A3 is going to be the pool grading plan. Exhibit A4 will be the asbuilt pool
plan. And then we have the following. Oh, the project engineer uh is Mr. Cannon who's not you. >> Correct. >> Okay. Are you in the same company with Mr. Canon? I am not. >> You're not. >> Is he involved in the project anymore? uh he did the uh the plan and he updated the notes is about all.
>> All right. So, we'll Okay. So, I'm not even going to mark that in the letter from him and you can testify as to what you want to testify to. >> We're going to mark in as exhibit B1, the zoning officer's report. B2 will be the board planner report and B3 will be
the board engineers report. >> All right. It's all yours, Mr. >> Okay, M. Short. Hi, how are you? Um, I'm going to ask you to just kind of let us know what brings you here tonight, right? Um, and then you can turn it over to Mr. Wager to talk about the project, some details, then we'll ask our experts
to to kind of cover anything that you may have missed and and we'll go from there. Okay. >> Certainly. >> Okay. >> I'm a longtime resident of Ocean Township, lived here over 15 years, raised my kids here, bought a new house from Ocean to Ocean, uh, 30 Northwoods
Road. If you're all familiar with Northwoods, it is a pretty steep road and it is it does have a pretty steep hill. In fact, they make fun of my house and the I think 26 steps that it takes to get up to my house. Um, you know,
when we were buying the house, I wanted to make sure that I could put a pool in for my kids. So, in fact, Mr. Cannon, then Janera, I had him come out. I had him look at everything. We had everything looked at. We did everything right. Um, I'm an attorney, so I'm pretty careful typically to do
everything very uh, you know, uh, along the lines and making sure that I follow every um, you know, I dot every eye and cross every tea. I had a great team, Mr. uh, Wager who assisted me and who was my project manager. I had an engineer along
the way who revised the plans, I don't know, 10 different times to make sure that it met all of the specifications of the township engineer. Um anyway, we we did everything right. We um submitted uh all the permits for finishing the
basement in the house and also for doing the pool and the patio. Got through everything. I mean with great effort and after many many months um all to find that on one tiny corner of the property.
So picture you're looking at my house 30 Northwoods Road. It's that big hill um you know up to the house and on the very right hand corner of the property the corner is 4 in too high
um 5 in too high. It is on my property. It does not encroach onto my neighbor's property. In fact, we even positioned the patio and the pool. We made sure we stayed about a foot in to make sure we don't encroach on the neighbor's property and that we had plenty of room
to spare. So, it was pretty frustrating to find that this 5 in was keeping us from getting the CO. So, um again, well, Mr. Wager, you know, what are we going to do? Um he said, "No problem. We can
either, you know, start taking it apart, which is something I didn't want to pay to do, or we can try to get this variance for our 5 in on the very corner of the property. So, we got the plans. We had Mr. Cannon, you know, prepare the asbuilts and everything that we needed
to do. And we are here today to ask for um your uh approval of these extra 5 in at the corner of my property so that I do not have to expend substantial additional fees to fix it.
>> Anybody have any questions so far? >> So you got permits for all the other stuff? >> Everything? >> Yeah. >> Everything 100% everything's permitted. >> Everything. the basement, the outdoor kitchen, the sink, the anything we did, we got a permit for. That's the
frustration when you know 5 in corner is off >> a bit. >> It's if you're looking at the house, it's the back right hand corner of your property. >> Back right hand, it's on it's actually on the side just before the rear corner.
Um, now it's has a small retaining wall with landscaping, uh, stone and and bushes. So this 18inch high block wall that's new that you I guess you put that in. >> Yes. >> Okay. And is it
>> away from away towards the property line or >> it's 12 in from the property line. It it came in 12 in. We put it in 12 in more than where we could have put it >> according to the engine. >> It's not between the patio and the retaining wall. It's between the
retaining wall and the property line. >> Correct. >> Oh no. I'm sorry. the the space that we're talking about is if you look at the um the spot that's there, you see the corner of the house >> where it says 12
>> the stone pit 127 cubic feet. Got it. >> Where where you see the numbers 122 and 22.2. >> Got it. >> This is the region where the 5 in higher is. >> Now, if you're walking up on the side of the property, you're walking up a hill. >> Mhm. and it's it's a progressive hill
all the way to the backyard. So, in order to achieve uh a flat area to put the pool and the landscaping and the patio where it needed to be, uh we came up 5 in somehow, which is really I think we stayed very very close to the
plant, if not dead on. That five in is only in that little corner >> where the stone pit is called out. It's literally right there. So, it's between the retaining wall and the patio paper. >> Yeah. So between the trees in a house in that little area there um I mean if we were standing there looking at it we
would be looking at each other like >> five inches. >> On the application it states that it's 21 in higher and you're saying it's only 5 in >> according to the architect. Let's see. >> On the actual application that we have here in front of us it says requesting approval for six square feet area where
the corner of the pool patio is 21 in higher than the house. rate change over. >> I think it's a typo. >> Yeah, I think so. We're not. I mean, we're very very close. Says the engineers notes are the pool pool meets
side and rear setbacks a great change over 2 feet. Uh is minus 5 in. Maybe it is 18 in. Again, it's it's in that little space where it's just landscaping and there's
nothing there. So I want to get I just want to get a clear understanding of how many inches it actually is. Is it 58 or 21? >> Jim's letter says >> Can I clarify for the board? >> Yeah, please. >> Um, so the the ordinance or the the variance is being sought is for a grain
change in excess of two feet. So the there in violation of that two feet by 5 in. So it's it's the grade change is 2 feet 5 in. >> Oh, that's what this says. Okay. Thank you. >> And from what they proposed
>> last hour of discussion, I think that was >> so what what I'm seeing on the um approved grading plan is that um the the patio was was approved in the same location that that it currently is. And
the plan was to just slope down uh from the patio to the property line. Instead, a retaining wall was was put in and that that area was was elevated uh more than than what was originally approved. So, instead of sloping down at a a gradual
or 3 to one slope, uh it's it's leveled and then there's a drop off at the retaining wall. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Good. >> Jim, do you have anything to add? >> What? It's five inches on a very very
small part of the site. And in fact, when I'm looking at the approved grading plan versus the one that was constructed, there's only a a three foot, which is just a little over 3 inch difference between the two. So, the
approved grading plan probably had a a changing grade of more than 2 feet, too, that wasn't picked up >> because it's such a small area. because it's such a small it's such a small area and the plans are small too. >> So that's not a full size it's not a what you would normally get as a
fullsize set of plans. I I just I don't think it's a big big issue at all. Um, but the one other issue is that I guess the uh township engineers denial also denied it because the pool equipment was not put in the location that was on the
approved plan where the location where it was put is actually a better location. It's fully conforming. So, I don't have an issue with that. >> And neither of you believe there's any drainage issues being >> No. And and I'd like to just clarify
something on my report. Uh my note number two uh I identified that there was not enough storage capacity um for the uh from what was on the approved plan to what was constructed. Uh the
plan was was updated to include a uh stone pit by where the um pool equipment is going that I didn't pick up on. Uh so so they do have sufficient capacity. Uh so that satisfies that comment. Anybody
have any questions? Any members of the public have questions? Any members of the public have any comments they'd like to make? >> We get a motion to close a public hearing. >> Mr. Chairman, you don't just think, you don't need to do that. That as far as
any public comment, you can just say, "All right, we're closing public comment." You don't you don't need a vote. >> Okay. Wow. >> You didn't you didn't motion to open it. You don't need to motion to close it. >> Okay. Very good, man. We're going to be we're going to these meetings are going to fly from now. This is going to be fantastic. All right.
Public comment period is public portion of the meeting is closed. Can we get a motion for a positive resolution? >> I'll make a motion for positive resolution. >> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Congratulations. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. Have a great evening. >> Mark, if you would just let me say all in favor for these votes, we could really move >> that part. Unfortunately, you need a vote.
>> Baby steps. Baby steps. Huh? >> Maybe next time. Maybe next time. >> Yeah. wear them down. >> Okay, next up we have 55 WPR Holdings LLC, 55 Wanamasa Point Road, block 113,
lot 35 in the R six zone. Attorney for the applicant, Mark Aens. >> Correct, chairman. >> How are you, sir? >> I'm I'm good, thanks. How are you this evening, James? >> Good. Mark Akens, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the applicant of 55WPR LLC.
Um, as I get settled, I'd ask that uh council please confirm that my service by publication and certified mail is in order and the board may retain jurisdiction in this matter, please. >> Sir, could I ask should we have that set up over here >> so the folks in the >> wherever you like? Chairman. >> Yeah, if you don't mind
>> if you bring bring it over here so the folks in the audience can see it. >> There. No, just >> that's good viewing for us, but the folks in the uh audience might want to be able to see and Mr. Chairman, if I can mark services in order. Yes. So, let me just mark in
the exhibits that I have. Uh, exhibit A1 is the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the ser will be the survey of the property. Exhibit A3 will be the architectural plan and exhibit A4 will be the plot plan. Those are the
pre-marked exhibits that we have. We then have the following exhibits on behalf of the board. We have the zoning officer's report. That'll be exhibit B1. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner's report. Exhibit B3 will be the board
engineers report. Exhibit B4 will be the approval from the uh flood plane manager. And then I'm sorry, there is another uh applicant's exhibit which will be exhibit A5 which is the elevation certificate. And then I did want to make a general
announcement to the public. Uh there were residents I believe who tried to submit letters to the board uh rather than be here tonight. The board cannot accept letters from residents. You only you have to be here in person because
the applicant has a right to cross-examine someone who speaks from the public. And you can't cross-examine a letter. So I just want to put that in the record that anyone who submitted a letter, that letter, the board has not seen those letters. They're probably just finding out when I'm saying this right now for
the first time that there even is a letter or letters, but they're not in the record. They're not going to be considered by the board. Also, members of the public uh cannot speak on behalf of their neighbors. They only can speak upon themselves. Often time people get up and say, "I spoke to all my neighbors
and we are all against this or we are all in favor of this." You can't do that either. You only can speak for yourself and only yourself. So, I just want to make that general announcement for the public. >> Thank you. And we think this hearing will go more than tonight, right? >> Yes. My Mr. Akens, did you want to
address that? >> Yes. Uh, chairman. Uh, so I was contacted by Mr. Gazerowski a day or so ago. He indicated he was just retained and he asked for the opportunity to bring his witnesses uh with regard to an objector's case. And so in the interest of fairness and due process, I agreed with Mr. Gazerowski that I would present
my case this evening and then with the board's consent, we would adjourn the matter so that he could prepare, if appropriate, his objector case for the next hearing. >> Okay. which seems to be fundamentally fair in the interest of due process. If I fairly summarize that, Mr. Kazerowski. >> Yeah. Once let me first thank my
colleague for his collegiality in terms of my request. Uh I did in fact was pertained yesterday the first time I showed these documents was yesterday. My only uh in listening to the testimony of the
witnesses, I would like to hold off my cross examination until the next meeting. However, if Mr. doesn't consent to that, I understand that >> that's going to be up to M. My opinion, that's up to Mr. Akens whether you want to bring back your witnesses or not. If
they're testifying tonight, >> I I mean, I I had this discussion with Mr. Gazowski and my witnesses are here. And um while he may not have in fairness while he may not have had the opportunity to present uh his case to prepare his case in opposition, he certainly can hear the same the same
testimony that I'm hearing from my witnesses this evening. So I would respectfully request that he cross-examine my witnesses this evening so that I can proceed as efficiently as possible. >> I understand. >> And and of course if something comes up on at the next meeting where Mr. Gazowski asks a question and you did not
rebrand and the board feels they need to hear from your witness again, Mr. Akens the board could then weigh that at that time. >> I I my only request today is my colleague has an extra copy of a set of plans. I would like to have give me a copy of it this evening if you can.
>> Mr. Gazowski right >> there we are. >> And chairman board members I would also add that um in fairness to Mr. Gazerowski who has because he has been so recently retained he's not been able to articulate what the neighbors concerns are. And I've been doing this
for a few years as you folks can tell. >> Not as long as I have. >> That's true, Mr. Gazerowski. Right. I'll I'll second that motion. >> Fair enough. >> Um truth is a defense in those situations. Mr. Gazerowski. Um that that being said, we would welcome the
opportunity once Mr. Gazerowski has articulated a position which may or may not be this evening to chat with him and the neighbors about what what you know particular objections might be. We don't want to create an adversarial situation as neighbors. We're going my client's
going to live in this in this residence as proposed. So we don't want to create an adversarial situation that could be resolved perhaps with sidebar discussions outside of the presence of the board. So I just note that for the record as well that that remains that remains open as well. So >> great. Okay, terrific. Thank you, Mr.
Gazerowski. Okay, so with that, at this time, chairman, I'd ask that my architect please be sworn. >> Sure. Do you swear testimony about to give will be the proof of the truth, the whole truth, nothing but by the truth be God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Antonio Scalis, S C A L I S E.
>> And Mr. Scaliz, I mean, you've been before this board. >> I have. >> And you are a licensed architect and your license in is in good standing with state of New Jersey? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And I are you an AIA or or R? I am well but technically both but I am AIA. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
>> I'm also the chairman of the planning board in my town of West Long Branch. So, God bless you guys. >> I did not know that. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. >> Very good. And thank you for your service, Mr. Scalis, as well. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, that being said, the
preliminary is behind us. Mr. Scalis, I'm wondering if you can introduce the board to uh the applicant's property. talk about the existing conditions. I know we have some photos that hopefully Mr. Gazerowski will agree fairly depict them and then you know after we've established that let's review with the
board exactly what's proposed by what we believe are the handsome drawings that uh that are going to be before you this evening ladies and gentlemen. >> You know we should Mr. Akens actually for procedural purposes Mr. Gazeraskki really should identify who his client is for the record so that we so that we have that >> sorry
>> who who your client is just for the record the name of your client. Name of my client is Charles Paloo spelled P A L L O U X >> I'm sorry P >> P A as in Albert L O U X.
>> All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. >> And Mr. Gazerowski did send me correspondence to that effect. So >> Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So again, uh good evening, Mr. Scaliz. Can you orient the board to the site, existing conditions, and let's talk about what's proposed?
>> Sure. Uh the property is Thank you by the way, Mr. Chairman and board members. Um the property is located at 55 Wana Massa Point Road. Um it is on the corner of Camp Avenue and Wana Massa Point Road. Uh it's in the R six zone and I'll
leave it to my colleague to go more into the site specific items, but related to the the building, um there were existing conditions there. There was an existing home there that uh when my client retained us that we evaluated. There's also a detached garage there, uh, which
is on Wanamasa Point Road. In evaluating both of those structures, uh, we came to the conclusion that unfortunately the best thing to do was to remove them based on what he was trying to do, but also based on what what it would take to
bring them back. Um you know from my perspective there's no um historical significance as far as the building is concerned from my understanding. There may be some locally you know as far as what the building was
at one time but um it's also a unique building. It's kind of like a log cabin type building. Um, so also with today's standards of energy efficiency and all that fun stuff, um, you basically wouldn't have much left of the building by the time we do it, do something with
it. So, it wasn't our first choice, but unfortunately the building needed to for us to do what we needed to do, be removed. >> Um, >> do you have photographs of the existing building? >> I I do. Yes, >> we do. Can may we mark these to start with as A6? Yes. I'm going to show them
to Mr. Kazerowski as well. And can you give a little background for these photos that we've identified as they >> Sure. Um these are just showing some of the photos of the exterior just to get a sense of of what's there. I don't know that they really show you uh the
condition of the home, but you kind of see the the finishes themselves definitely are lacking. There's holes in in the stairs of the deck uh on the back side. Um the garage is in pretty bad shape. I think if you look closely on um
Wanasa Point Road, you can see that the paint is is pretty worn. Um so, you know, o overall I think the point is that um unfortunately the building for us just made more sense to come down >> and can you estimate the approximate age
of that structure? >> Yes, I believe it was 19 sorry about uh somewhere in the early 1900s. >> Okay. And same thing for the garage. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Um so it was just to talk briefly about the existing building. It is a twostory single family dwelling. Um you know setbacks here are a little bit unique because I've done a house like this in Point Pleasant. If you take a front yard
setback and a rear yard setback, it's basically a negative setback. So there's no potential building area because of just the unique shape of the lot. >> And in this instance, right, we have a particularly undersized as well as narrow lot. >> Yes. >> Right. So uh ladies and gentlemen of the
board, so we've got a lot, right, that is um a little bit less than 5900 square ft. We're 10,000 is required. Right. So we're 40% under in terms of square footage of the lot in this R six zone relative to what's required at 5873.5.
In addition with regard to lot width, we're also substantially undersized, right? We're at 40 feet in width where 50 feet is required in the R six. Correct. >> Yes. And it's also a corner lot which um you know obviously has its own sets of challenges. And Wanamasa uh Point Road
is a unique uh kind of road there. It's a really nice quiet oneway. And as you turn onto Wanamasa Point Road where my client's structure is and you kind of follow the houses down, there's all garages there, right, that kind of face you there. Uh, and actually a few houses
down there's a house looks like it wasn't done that long ago, which I think has echoes a little bit of the similar characteristics of what we're trying to do. So, I feel overall the design is really trying to match some of the, you know, uh, houses in the neighborhood,
but also as a typical seashore colonial home, I feel a lot of the language we're using is there. Maybe the colors might be different. Um, but we're trying to use natural materials. Um, also, um, one of the things to note, you have a really beautiful view of Deal Lake
there. >> It's on the water, right? >> Yeah, it's on it is on the water. And actually, you could see the water uh now at this time of year. Earlier, you couldn't see anything uh during the summertime, but um so there's just a really beautiful view there. And we you could see on on Oh, I don't know if we want to.
>> Let's mark these as A7, >> right? I'm going to give Mr. Gazerowski a copy of A7. A7. >> And A7 is also what's on the uh the podium, correct? >> Yeah. Yes. It's a >> larger version. That's That's correct.
>> And that was prepared by my office. Um, and again the colors may not be 100% exact. It's also a rendering which it's always hard to get exact tones, but I think the idea is it's a, you know, our client u sells windows for a living. So
part of the design was trying to have a little bit fun with some window designs. You could see there's a stair tower that's to the right of the page where your front entrance is, which is off of um what is it? Uh camp Avenue there. And we're having fun with a little bit of a
stair tower there, uh, just to bring in natural light. Um, and I think, you know, overall we tried to kind of follow, which is really what the site dictates, the same shapes of the building that was there. Of course, we're a little bit bigger in certain
areas, but um, overall we were trying to follow the same, you know, it kind of requires a little bit of that lengthy side on Camp Avenue, and it's a very short side on Wanamas Point Road. Um overall um so
um the the zone permits a height of 30 feet and two and a half stories. Our proposed building is 2 and 1/2tory dwelling at a height of 29.87 ft. So I want to clarify that we are below the height. Um the front setback on Camp
Avenue is um 10.92 to the front covered porch line which you would see I guess on that elevation. Um the front setback on Wamasa Point Road is 5.99 to the proposed attached garage.
So, one of the things we did a little bit differently, and you would see that on my colleague site plan. Um, the house, the home and the garage are separate. Now, we're proposing just to kind of connect them and create a little bit of a better connection from going in
from the garage uh into the home. Uh, we're trying to keep the mass down that's on the right side of the of the design. >> Can I ask you perspective? You saw saw my face. >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. Sorry, I got my heart on my sleeve. I I
in this picture, the neighbor where on your rendering, >> so >> this home. >> So, we didn't do an exact photo of where that would be there, but that photo you see on the upper left is actually what faces the water. So, what faces the
water on my design is the the on the left. Yep. Right there. Thank you. >> That's this >> that's what Yes, that faces the water. Correct. But that's not the house. That's just a block on his drawing. >> It's representative, >> right? It's understood.
>> But the size isn't representative. >> It is. That's a That's a per scale. >> Well, I mean, that's of that's just a rendering meant to show the home. We did not >> That's That's what I'm saying. Oh, yeah. The the block to the left, that house, that white existing house that's there.
>> It's like the dome. >> Yeah. That's not the actual size of the house. >> No. Correct. I mean it's it's representative correct but to answer your question the >> so is it closer in person than you've depicted it there or no that is accurate
>> I just want to stress that the rendering is purely for visual purposes only not meant to give you the exact scale because renderings are very tricky there's there's depth there's you know again I just want to be clear that's just for representation
>> thank But that house next to you is only 3 ft from the property line. >> We'll have when the engineer, forgive the interruption, when the engineer testifies, we'll have a Google Earth exhibit that will show specifically the location of those adjoining structures. >> Yes. Yeah. That's why I'm I'm omitting
some things, but my colleague Yes. will clarify >> plans also, but I just wanted verbal clarification on >> Sure. Um so the the rear yard setback which would be the property line is 2.99 ft to the proposed dwelling and the sideyard
setback to proposed rear covered patio is 35.96. Um we do provide three uh spaces for 9 by18 for parking and the total square footage of the home is 3,01 square ft.
But what I want to be clear about is that um the the the first and second floor is 2571. The reason that we get to the 3001 is the attic which is within the peak of the building has a little bit of uh
square footage there and that's what brings it up to 3001. But if anybody's looking at the home, it's basically a 2500 foot home which is to me modestsiz home. All right. So, so I'm going to tell everyone in the in the audience again, this is like a court hearing, okay? You
can't comment from the audience. It's being recorded. Everyone, you have to be under oath. Um, so please don't talk from the public. You're going to you'll be given an opportunity for public comment. Okay? We promise everyone's going to get an opportunity to speak, but you can't speak from the audience.
>> The existing size of the blind currently is what? The existing is approximately just the two floors, no attic is about 1,600. And the detached garage, which in my number the detached garage is
separate, but it's about 371. >> The correct number to evaluate would be 16 to 25 because I don't know the attic there. I'm I'm including our attic just to to be clear. >> Thank you. >> This So the attic itself is is that
livable space? I'm trying. >> It is. It's it's from a building code perspective, it's it's livable space, but there's something in the building code called habitable attic. So meaning you're allowed one-third the space below. So the attic is allowed to be
one-third the space below. If it goes bigger than that, then it becomes another floor. And then you either have to protect the building or sprinkler the building when you go there. So this is just a typical attic space that's done a lot of times in many different towns. We're just we're defining it more as a
from a building code perspective. >> So what's in the attic? >> So it's basically a study uh storage area. We do have a bathroom up there. Um and then there's the stairs that lead there. So there's a study storage area and then again um stairs and a bathroom.
>> It's not really an attic. I mean, and what we think of as >> Are you going to make it a bedroom? >> Um, right now we're showing it as a study. That's what it was meant for. >> But it could be turned into a >> could it be? Well, it has Well, and if it would be allowed to be a bedroom. Um,
it does have the proper egress that we do every day. So, I want to be clear. This is a attic space. Yes, it's livable, but it's still within the roof line. >> Understood. But but most people don't have bathrooms and studies in their attic.
>> I'm also thinking >> I I >> bathrooms and atticss are normal now. >> I mean if you want me to I've done a fourstory home in Long Branch. Yes. I mean >> why why is that not just a third story rather than in
>> because it meets the one-/3 restriction of the floor below. >> Yeah. >> Under the building code. But if it's a bedroom under the code, you have to make sure if it can be a bedroom, we have to be concerned with parking adequacy. >> So, I'm telling you right now, this is a
study. That's what's on our plans. That's what we intended to be. >> Could it be a bedroom? I'm not going to tell you no, but it's it was meant to be a study. >> What is the parking for this property? Does that be on your text? >> The engineers. Yeah, we have three
parking spaces, but my colleague would explain that >> you have three parking. How many bedrooms are you proposing? >> Uh, there's three bedrooms. It is We have three bedrooms on the second floor. It's just three bedrooms
basically on the second floor. And then, like I said, on the first floor, we have kitchen, living, dining room, den, garage. Second floor, we have three bedrooms, laundry, and two bath. And in the attic, we have a study, storage area, and a bathroom. >> And how many car garage is the garage?
>> It's two. >> Two car garage. >> Yes. And then there's a space next to it adjacent. >> Three parking spaces. >> I would like again I would like my colleague to clarif but but let's just let's just set ourselves up for this. >> Sure. >> How many cars do How many spaces do we need if there's a fourth bedroom? >> 2.5.
And the RSI is strange. It says you have 0.5 you round down. So technically they need two. They have three. >> What if it's five bedrooms or six bedrooms? >> Five bedrooms would then require three. Six bedrooms.
There is nothing in the RSIS that goes above five bedrooms. >> But the DCA has made a determination. It's my understanding from talking to traffic engineers that have talked with DCA that the each bedroom generates an
additional requirement for a half a space. So a sixbedroom would require 3.5 parking spaces and you round down it's three. >> Is there any other anything else that would come into play if there were added if there were more bedrooms up upstairs
other than parking? >> No. Okay. So, back to your testimony, Mrs. Clay. >> Mhm. >> Yep. So, um again, let's um let's review the uh the floor plan just so we're we're we're clear. I know you've said you you've ticked through the points
generally, but maybe walk the board through first floor to the second floor. Sure. To the attic. So, the first floor has uh a living room that faces towards the water. We have a fireplace, dining room, kitchen area. We have a pantry. Uh if you come
in off of um Camp Avenue, there's a a little foyer area which is adjacent to the stair tower there again to bring in natural light. We have um a powder room and then we have a den area which then
connects you from the foyer to the garage. >> Now what's the width of this um of this proposed structure from east to west? >> It's a 20 24 foot 11 and a half outside to outside.
>> Okay. So 20 So a little bit less than 25 ft. >> Yes. >> Okay. And how about the garage that's uh that's on the street there? >> Uh the garage would be 18 foot3. >> Okay. Can we fit two cars in there? >> I mean, a parking space is 9 by 18. It's
a little tight, but uh I think you could. >> Okay, great. Um and the overall um again, let's go to the bedroom count. Again, we talked about that, but just on the second floor, >> to be clear, it's a it's it's a threebedroom home. Obviously the study,
you know, I know what you're looking at and I know exactly what you're talking about, but you know, our client, if he was going to make it a bedroom, he would have said bedroom there, right? >> You agreed with deed restriction that it can't be a bedroom. >> I just think that's why we ask these questions because we want deed
restrictions if it's not qualified as May I >> Yeah, please. >> May I ask a question? What if if we meet the demand for parking? We only have it's a three-bedroom home, which in my opinion is very it's less than a lot of
other homes that I'm doing. The bedroom in the attic, what's the reason for the deed restriction? What's the concern? >> Bedroom. >> I'm sorry. >> Just call it a bedroom. >> But but you're saying if it was a bedroom, you were asking for a deed restriction. >> It wasn't. If you're not making it a
bedroom, we would perhaps consider asking for a deed restriction. >> No, no. I I I fully understand. I guess where I'm going, what is the the the issue with it being potentially a bedroom or not being a bedroom? >> Strenging out the upstairs garage space
to somebody because it's not part of the >> We would certainly stipulate that >> there is no there's no square footage over the garage. There's nothing here that could when we So if you look at the building, the garage is towards the front.
>> The garage is on Wamasa Point. >> I'm glad you asked the question. This is why I looked. This is the attic space. >> Hold on one sec. One sec. Does he need a microphone? >> Sorry, chairman. Um, as you look at this rendering, the the
first floor is this zone here. And where the garage is located, there is no second story above it. >> What's the height of that? >> Uh, I think it's like uh 16 or 15. It's low. So, it's not a full two story across the whole building. If you look
at the floor plans, I think, or even the elevations, the side elevation, you'll see that. Again, this is just a rendering that kind of is just depicting one side. But if you look at my I'll I'll pull up my uh so I think a good example is uh sheet
204 A102. So the the garage area is free of there's no seconds story space over here. >> It's at the bottom of your plan, >> right at the bottom of my plan. And then the attic area, you could see this is
still there's no living space here. So there was no intention of trying to create an apartment or anything like that. That's why I was just curious where the third floor or whether it's a bedroom or not. Again, we're we're we're depicting it as a study. If my client had wanted it to be a bedroom, we would
have said bedroom. And if it's something that's creating a little bit of an issue, we could say it's a bedroom because it from a building code perspective, it can function as a bedroom. But for something like this with only three bedrooms on the second floor, you know, I don't think anybody was adding anything there that wasn't
supposed to be there. >> So, I think what the issue is is that a lot of people come in and they label things as an office or they labeled things as a study when the intent is really to make it a bedroom. >> So, and you're saying you're you're probably not doing that, but you're resistant to a deed restriction saying
it's not. So, I'm just going to instruct the board I'm just going to instruct the board. Let's just pretend it's a bedroom because that's most likely what's going to happen at some point. >> It could be and I understand that and that's fine with that and I appreciate that. >> Of course, there's nothing to hide. >> Just generally understandably suspicious
when people come in. >> I totally I I know where it's coming from, but I wanted to be clear where Yeah. That's suggesting you have an nefarious intent and none taken. >> Understood. And I appreciate what you're where you're going. >> We're we're going to treat it as far as
we're concerned as a potential bedroom. >> Sure. >> But I think the key metric here is that whether it's treated as a bedroom or whether it's treated as a study, the parking requirement is met >> and there's no separate requirement and it meets the building code by not exceeding the floor below by greater
than 130. >> That's what I mean. I think if we needed four parking spaces then I think the point is even you know we understand >> flush this out >> and that's okay right >> appreciate the question yeah >> right >> um so yeah ju just to be clear on the
Wamasa point road it's not a full twotory it's set back and that's >> elevation on that >> yes there is >> on your southside there we go right >> sorry about the sound so you could see here on which is the front elevation,
what we're calling the front elevation, but it's the garage side, which is south, >> south side, Wana Master Point Road. You could see there's the garage, which is a gable. I apologize you guys can't see. Um, there's the the one story here, and
then this is all set back. So, there's no apartments or anything like that, you know, there's no way. And also, uh, I want to point out, I know there was a question about, um, condensers. So, one of the things we were doing because the site is obviously tight, we carved out
an area above the garage roof here, and you could see it also on the plan where we created like a little bit of a flat roof condition, which is um it's cut into the roof, meaning that recessed into the roof where
>> on both sides you only see a regular garage gable, but within the roof line, you could have two condensers there. Um, and there was a discussion about do we screen them? And we can always do a little knee wall or something that that screens the three sides. My only caution
is the side on which would be the neighbor's side. There is another garage right here as well. So, I don't think it first of all, I want the water to kind of be able to go off the roof there and not like create four sides and block it in. Um, so that potentially would be
open, but if the board thinks that, you know, some screening further needs to be done there, I guess there's something they could place there like a lattice or something that has the feel of, you know, just to kind of screen it, which I think my client's willing to do. Just creates a little bit of a challenge
with, you know, how we how we install it. U, but I know that was something else discussed and I think at this time I'm >> Well, let me I'm going to ask Bennett. I think the testimony was that the garage could fit two cars, but it's tight. Do you agree from an engineering
perspective that two cars could fit in that garage? >> What I agree with what what the um architect said. It's a parking space is is 9 by 18 uh according to the ordinance and the garage is I think it's a little over 18 ft wide. Is that right?
>> Yeah. >> So you you can technically fit two cars in there >> technically in the >> technically. >> It's tight. It would be sort of difficult to get out and get out. >> You would just sleep in the car. I I don't know. >> Maybe they wouldn't be using the garage
for any storage purposes if you're putting two cars in there. >> I'm sorry. >> They would not be using that garage for storage purposes. If they're putting two cars in, >> I'm just not used to where someone >> park the cars in there either. You can get out of the car.
>> Yeah. So So that's that's what the that's what the point is. They need three parking spaces. If they have if they have a fourth bedroom. >> No, they need two. >> They only need two no matter what. >> Yeah, >> it's two. >> Even if there's a fourth bedroom. >> Yeah, we need two. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, it doesn't make a difference.
>> No. Correct. >> Okay. So, with that, uh, chairman, board members, no further questions of Mr. Scaliz at this time. >> Any questions from the board? >> Sure. >> I have questions. Yeah, we have some questions.
>> Make the garage a little bit bigger. Is there would that create another issue? >> Well, I think I mean could we? Yes. I I would defer to my colleague if he has a different opinion on that, but you know, we're a little bit over on coverage. So, I think you know, we're trying to make
it a as modest of a a width as we can. Uh I mean, of course, we'd love it to be bigger, right? But I think we were just keeping it as tight as we could. What's the height inside the garage? >> Um, it's about
I have a plate height of 9 foot one, but then you probably have So, maybe it's like 10 and a half, 11 plus or minus maybe. And there's really no attic space there. It's really tight there.
>> Is there any access to the area above the where the cars will be parked? Well, part of it is already carved out, right? And I would say that you probably would have some kind of access panel. We haven't thought that through. >> Scuttle hole or something. >> Yeah, like a scuttle hole. Exactly. Because there's not much you're going to do in there, right? Maybe you're running
an electrical wire or something. It's more utilitarian in nature. I don't think you're I mean, maybe you could store something in there, but I think it's really tight. I I don't I don't think that's happening. >> The I'm sorry, I can't get off the attic.
>> Okay. the the one-third rule that you're mentioning, is it the study that makes up the third of the footprint of the attic that's occupiable or habitable? >> It's a function of the attic floor
plate. And the way it works, again, this is a building code >> and the study is onethird. >> No, not the study. No, no, no, no. >> The entire house. If you look, if you >> The whole floor. >> The entire house. >> Yes, sir. Yes. If you look at uh page 204 and it says habitable attic floor
plan, >> that's what I'm looking at. >> The hatched area is what gives because the way it works when you have a peak. This is what I'm saying. This is a I call it an attic because it's within the roof line and usually it's this it's the
height that's 7 ft. So you're not it's not dictating the floor plate the attic. It's basically wherever it's 7 feet or better. meaning that you actually have a walkable area. That's what's counted in that square footage because the rest of
it is, you know, on an angle. If I kept walking, even myself at my stature would hit the uh side of the the the wall >> area is onethird of the footprint of the >> space below. That's correct. >> Space below
>> the second floor. >> Second floor. >> Second floor only. Yeah. And that's a it's a building code issue. We just put it on there just for clarity, but it's a building code issue. >> And for further clarity, is the second floor itself smaller than the footprint of the first floor?
>> Um, well, yes, it it is. Um, >> so yeah, the the the so the second floor is let's see here, it's about 1315 is the footprint of the second floor, >> right? And
>> first floor is >> it's about uh 1256. >> So actually the second floor it's similar. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And why isn't the unfinished storage
considered part of that habitable area just because you're calling it unfinished? Um, >> well, it depends on the height. Um, >> looks like the ease of the roof. I mean, it looks like there's walking room in there. Like you can open up the door.
>> It does. Actually, to be honest, maybe that should have been included in there um as area, but again, whatever we do, if I go, it's not that you're not allowed to have that be greater than. So, you could have a third floor unless
zoning says otherwise, but in building code, you could have a third floor. But here, we're trying to stay within a roof line and not go beyond that. So, that may be a slight error that I could double check the square footage. But either way, I don't want I know my client and I don't want it to go beyond
that because then you're changing the classification of the building from a five I'm sorry this is not zoning but a 5B building to a protected building which is either sprinklered or there's a lot of extra things you have to do and I know my client is not looking to do that >> and from a zoning standpoint we are not
seeking to have three stories. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that defines I think where we are in terms of what we can or can't do with regard to that other area. But for deed reasons, we may want >> No issue there >> to consider. >> That's no issue there. >> That's the profer. No problem.
>> I'm sorry. What was that? >> Reasons. You may not You might want to suggest that area can't be developed or can't be made habitable. >> No issue. >> Yeah. So, we're talking about the storage area. Storage >> cannot be made habitable. >> Cannot be made habitable. Right. because
that would that would be that would then raise the spectre of three floors and that's not what we're seeking >> either way by code. The codes the building code's not going to allow me to do that because then I'm changing. >> We get that. Yeah, totally. But our concern is that the house gets built,
they move in, and nobody's going to go nobody from code enforcement's ever going to go back in that building and then you're going to do whatever you want with not you. I'm saying the client would go and do whatever they want. >> Well, they could is what you're saying right now. But at least I got it. I >> I fully get what you're saying, believe me.
>> You know, at least it's a little extra measure of prevention on our side >> to make sure something like that doesn't happen. >> Yeah, that's it. >> And I and I respect where you guys are coming from because we would ask the same thing in front of our board. >> If I thought something was happening here, I wouldn't be presenting it that
way, you know. >> Agree. And it's not even your client. They sell the house, the next person moves in. >> That's exactly understood. I I agree with you. >> Okay. So, no further questions. Chairman of Mr. Scaliz.
>> I I would like to see a calculation for the for that attic taking into account the unfinished storage. We can >> because you're right at 33 with your current calculation and you add the extra 96 square ft for that unfinished. >> Oh, then I have to take it away somehow.
Yeah, agreed. Add that 96, you're now up to 44% of coverage when you're right at that 30. >> Understood. The 130 we're talking about. >> I think the the screening of the mechanical platform makes sense in my
opinion. I would certainly, you know, like to see some type of lattice or something like that. >> Yeah, we could do uh my client's happy to do that. We kind of discussed that already. Um that's an easy fix to me. Any other questions of this witness?
Anyone from the public like to ask questions of this witness just based on what he's testified or testified to? >> You're going to come up. We're gonna you're going to take the microphone. We're going to square you in. All
right, ma'am. Just raise your right hand. The swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Self you got. >> Yes, I do. >> And state your name for the record. >> Claire Antonuchcci. >> Could you spell that last name, please? >> A N T O N U CCI. >> And your address, Mr. Anthony?
>> 47 Wasa Point Road. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Had a question. You mentioned a condenser. I'm not familiar with that. >> Huming. So if you have a a furnace it's called let's say in your home line set it's called that connects to the outside what
allows you to have air conditioning and the condenser is usually what you see outside usually a fan on the top of it >> um to create it's common at >> so I assume the air conditioner unit will be central air unit will be outside
will that be on the roof is that what you're saying >> sorry >> it's it's on the roof of the garage on the lower It's on the show. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, if you look here, >> referring to sheet A102.
>> Yeah. So, on sheet A102, the proposed second floor plan, this is the roof of the garage. So we have our units is on top of the garage here which is think of it like a when you look at it from the
street you'll see a gable but within it there's a flat roof there. So we had talked about there was a comment about adding screening around all sides here so that nobody would see it and I think that's easy to do. We could do a little knee wall. We can do lattice. There's
like a few things we can do to screen those. But, you know, if you drive there, you'll know that it's actually I mean, my opinion, it's not that bad. Meaning that um you may see a little bit of the top pop out because the gable is low. Um but it's there's a garage to the
next of it as well. So, the opening aspect of this is facing the neighbor, but it's looking at the other garage. So, maybe if somebody's walking, you'll see it. Maybe as you walk that'll be east to west you may see it and that's where we would add screening.
>> My concern wasn't so much about the sight of it was the sound. So is there any consideration for the noise because as you noted these houses are very close together and uh I have air conditioning units on both sides of me. I hear both of them.
>> Yeah. I mean, um, all I could say is it's typical of I think the decibel levels are not I don't have the exact decibel level. I mean, if you want, maybe next time I can try to find that, you know, what the exact number is, but I know the condensers are typical.
>> They're outside. They're always >> sounds they're outside and I >> I know they're always outside. um how you hear them. I don't know where you're located based on our property, but you may be further away enough that if you're inside and let's say your windows
are closed, you shouldn't hear it. But if you're hearing ones next to you, I understand it's a little bit of a tight area. I I get what you're saying. Yeah. >> Oh, my concern was not for myself hearing these. I'm like four houses down. I'm concerned for the neighborhood. I'm asking for the person
who lives next door potentially. >> I guess my only comment there would be are you expecting them not to have air conditioning? Like that's part of the system. So I don't know. >> I don't know how to answer. It's a >> but they they're so much quieter than
>> they are a lot more efficient >> putting them in. That was terrible grammar. Excuse me. We just put units in two of them. I just did it and three years ago and that's old technology and they're quiet. I don't hear them and
they're right next to where we eat and the two can go at the same time. So technology now three years post they're likely much quieter than the ones you currently hear. >> Even the freon is different now. It's changing all the time. But yeah, I mean
I don't know what the exact decel level is. >> Okay. I just wanted to express my concern for you know neighbors, current neighbors and potential neighbors. I mean, it's just like any other neighbor. I'm sure there's others that have it, you know. >> Yeah. We're just We need to stick to
questions here. >> So, so she can just she can express concerns for the neighborhood. She she can't speak on behalf of other neighbors, >> which I don't think she was doing. So, I think she was just making a general state. >> Does the homeless there have
>> I I don't think so. I don't remember seeing it, but it could have. to the home. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. There's a home that's fairly done that's two or three houses down that >> has it.
>> And you would So, I'm assuming from what you said that you would uh agree to agree to a condition of approval if the board approves the application that you'll provide proper screening for the condensers >> which will be subject to the board review. >> The screening. Yes. Yes, sir. >> There's wind. Yeah. Did you see there's
window units in the in there now? Yes. >> I have one question. >> As I understand it, the the open part of the roof of the the garage that we're talking about screening is facing the residence to the east. >> Faces the garage to the east.
>> Faces faces the garage, but it's the it's the the the neighbor. Yes. >> Yeah. Would there be any way to have that open area face the other direction? Face the street? I mean, I felt I I mean, if as a designer >> and if I lived in the neighborhood, I
want it facing the garage. >> I don't disagree with you. >> That's I mean, I think it's bigger and it's that we were trying to conceal it. I think it's a bigger eyesore facing the street. >> I don't I don't disagree with that at all. I just wanted to bring that up, you know, so that the board could consider
it. I also agree that the newer units are so quiet you don't hear them anyway. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean it I know it's I I don't I don't know how to answer the question. I feel bad if there somebody's next to it and hears it, but they are better. >> Units are like louder than the new condensers, >> right? Oh, yeah. Agreed.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Come on, sir. >> Come on up. And same thing. >> You can form a line. >> How are you? >> Hi. >> Just going to swear you in. Do you swear your testimony you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth. Nothing
about the truth of God. I do. >> And you state your name for the record? >> Richard Vgilio Vas in Victor. I R G I L I O. >> And your address? >> 1409 Wamasa Road. My house is on the
corner. So, but my property is uh primarily on Wanamasa Point Road. >> Okay. >> It's about house away. Sure. Uh so you were saying your point about the garages uh all this garage being consistent with
the other garages in the neighborhood. Isn't it true that the other garages in 99% of the other garages in the neighborhood are detached garages? >> Um I believe three houses down it is not next door to us is. And I did state
that. Can you guys hear me? >> Yeah. I did state >> you should take you should get the mic. >> It's for the recording. >> Oh, okay. I'm always told I'm loud, too. Geez. Thank you. Um, and I did state that yes, the original one was detached, but we wanted to attach it. And I
believe three buildings down, there's a brand new home there, similar stature or idea as ours, and it is attached, >> right? the other 99% of the home uh garages are detached meaning for the
consistency of the the neighborhood >> I thought >> I did not assess every single building there with detached I know the next story yes I can't speak of the others but they could be I just can't say either way you know
>> I heard generalizing that's I I just want to be clear >> thank you Thank you. You're welcome. >> So you win. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the pro the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, love God? >> I do. >> Did you say your name for the record?
>> Joe Bove. B O V E. >> And what is your address, sir? >> 27 Wamasa Point Road. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. Just to uh for the defense of the existing house, it is a an older
building. I have a a map, a Wartman map. Wartman used to, among other things, used to run a conveyance service, a boat service from uh the Allenhurst area into Wanamasa area. And this is a I believe
it's a 1980s map. And on the map, that whole area, Wanamasa Point Road, Wanamasa Place, even across the lake to Deal Lakeoint Road, that was all part of the YMCA campground.
And the the house in question, which admittedly is in rough shape, uh was the original kitchen and dining hall for the WMO the YMCA. So, I had tried unsuccessfully
to get either the township or the county or the historical society of the county and some other land preservation organizations within the county to see if they could buy the property and
rehabilitate it and use it as a historic site. Since it is, as you had mentioned, right on Deal Lake, it has many many uh potentials for use. I'd even suggested that the Deal Lake Commission who now hold their meetings in uh Interlac and
could use that as a meeting site. Uh also could be used as a public access to the lake. But that's all water under the bridge because uh nobody took the bait. But I did want to point out that it it did have it does have historical uh
significance and it is a little bit older than what you had said but uh I presume that >> do you have um this is the question portion so you have questions for this witness. >> Okay. I just wanted to >> questions but but you'll have time at the end to be able to give your
statement as well. Okay. I just well maybe perhaps my questions are more of a uh a general nature as to the area but as I've been there living there almost 51 years now and it's called gone from uh quaint to uh you know kind of
upper upper uh scale houses but things change but we all concerned with the parking as you mentioned parking is always a problem I mean I have a 100 foot frontage on my house none of which I can park in
because it's it's designated as an area that for fire trucks uh for sanitation and whatnot. So when you start adding other vehicles to the street, it becomes very territorial. So when you were talking about parking and the number of
cars that you can accommodate, I think that that garage realistically when push comes to shove, if you get one car in there, you'll be happy because it'll be filled up with everything else. But that's a concern that I had and I'll I'll save my other comments for later
on. Okay. >> If I can stay awake that long. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We'll be back next month, too. So, you >> I I I gather that. Yeah. >> Thank you. The name is Robert. You swear that any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I'll be God. >> I do. >> Just state your name for the record.
>> Robert Torrance. T O R R N C E. >> And your address? >> Uh 1310 Garvin Avenue. G A R V I N >> V- N >> Ven Carbon Avenue. All right. Go ahead. >> Uh I had a question. You said that the uh side to the east was going to be 2.99
ft from the property line. >> Is that for the full length of the house? >> Yeah, for the most part. Yes. >> Okay. Do you realize under the building code that if you're less than 3 ft, you can't have any openings? There's windows or anything on that side.
>> Okay. So, but the your renderings do show windows on that side. >> Um well, uh I think we're at 2.99. >> Mhm. >> Go to 3 ft, which I think it was just maybe the way the computer showing that
I'm allowed 20% of >> correct slight adjustment to >> Yeah, I was just pointing that out because it's 2.9. I understand where you're >> uh my next question is that I believe uh by the plans you're proposing a full
basement for this house >> and the elevation of the floor is somewhere between five and six feet above sea level for the floor in the basement. >> Have you done a a ground cut groundwater study there? >> We have. >> Okay. >> We have.
>> Okay. because I know other houses in the area where the basement floors are only 4 ft below grade and they all get water. >> So yes, we understand that >> because it if you if the grade around the house is about 13 feet, which I
think it is, and you're going to between five and six, you're going to be digging about seven feet into the ground. >> Yes. No, we there there was engineering and geotech done. We're aware of where the water is. We advise our client, you know, again, has no with all respect and
I'm saying this with all respect it doesn't have really a bearing on zoning only because it become like a building technical thing right >> and if we have to create a bathtub you know I've done we've done that before okay >> it's not ideal and I hear what you're saying but we are you know we're well
aware of that and appreciate your point >> okay >> the other issue I was going to bring up was in relation to Mr. Villio's question, uh, the house that's two feet two houses away, >> which is new. It was built probably seven or eight years ago. Um, they did
get a variance for a front yard, >> but there is the the setback is 25 ft from the road. >> Garage is further back. >> Yeah, there's enough room to park cars between the garage door and the house. We're we're not talking six feet. We're talking 25 ft. >> Yeah. >> Okay,
>> I got you. >> Okay. >> Y, >> that was all my questions right now. Thank you, sir. >> All right. So, so, so the basement brings up an interesting just looking at the basement now. This is the basement. And the basement again has a bathroom. Uh, it's got storage
space. It's got everything. And if the basement became a bedroom, the and the became a bedroom. >> First of all, the basement cannot be a bedroom because it would be illegal because it doesn't have an egress. So, if he were doing that, it would be illegal. Could somebody put a bed down
if he sells the house and somebody put a bed down there? Of course. But that would be a That's illegal. It can't. >> I I understand. >> So that should be a deed restriction where you wouldn't have a bed. I >> was about to say can you deed restrictions that >> it's not even safe for somebody to have a bed down there. So it's even Yeah, but
of course. >> All right. So is that something the board would like to see? >> Yes. >> All right. So there'll at least be a deed restriction on that uh and wells with the storage space. You can do one deed restriction, but it's going to have to be included that the that the bed the basement cannot be turned into a bedroom. >> Mark, if it's I don't necessarily want
to argue about this, but if it's if it's illegal and we put a deed restriction on something that's illegal in the first place, are we then giving the impression that we think other times it's okay to put bedrooms in basement? >> No, but it's illegal. >> What we're doing is putting people on notice because he knows the building
code. If if you go and move into that house tomorrow, you're not going to know what the building code is. The average person, you might, but the average person is not going to know. So this way they're on notice when they move in. >> Fair enough. Okay. >> That the basement cannot be a bedroom. >> Some family looking at it might say, "Oh, look, I need to do this."
>> Okay. I just wonder if should that always >> perhaps the council should say any deed is should have that requirement in the, you know, restriction. But anyway, that's fine. I don't need to drag drag this on. >> And you have you don't want to put
egress windows in this basement. I >> I mean it my client is nodding no. Uh but um >> but it's a isn't it a safety consideration that the base you have a lot of activity going on in this basement. >> I I believe me I understand what you're
saying. Yes. I mean, could you I guess I think I'd have to discuss that with my client because right now we weren't planning on doing an egress window and I think the egress window would have to be in the front of the house. And then if we did do that, I think you may have some more setback issues of where the
well comes out. I mean, we're happy to entertain it. I can discuss it with my client. I don't think he wants to do it. >> He's a window guy. He loves selling windows. But um I mean again, you have a god forbid there's a fire in this house and everyone's downstairs hanging out in
that media room. How are they getting out? >> I mean, listen, you're you're asking me a tough question, right? I mean, there's many homes that don't have egress windows. >> This is a brand new house being built. >> Um I understand. Uh listen, would I love
to have an egress window there? Of course. I'm not going to tell you no. Um, I think it's something I would have to discuss with my client. I just don't want to make that decision without >> I can't say it. But or are there other options? Another stairway out, right? Other side, something like that. >> I I could, but but here's the the the
rabbit hole we're going to go down. If we have a stair on the other side, then somebody's going to say he's building an apartment there. So, it's you >> Well, you're having a restriction. >> Well, I mean, I could discuss it with them. I mean, it's not bad to have access there for functional purposes if
you're truly just doing that. But, you know, I I can discuss that with my client. I mean, we're coming back again anyway. I can have that conversation. And I think there's a couple of things I'd like to button up because as the one person mentioned about the 2.99, it really should be three. And, you know,
just to >> Yeah, I I I mean, I don't know how the board feels about that, but but I would think that's something from a safety consideration. You want to have safe. You're ask this is a big house on a small piece of property and I >> I I think the problem is I agree with
you. I think the challenge is you're putting elements like a stair and a potential window on the front on the street side. That's not typical, right? So if you know I can discuss it with my client if the board thinks just as a
conversation that that would be something they'd be okay with. I can we can maybe look at that. You're a very good architect and and I have no doubt you can figure out how to do something. So >> yeah, I'm up for the challenge of course.99 to a three as the gentleman pointed out.
Does that change the setback that you currently >> Well, so that it it would technically, right? Uh well, no, that is the setback. Yes, it would. We're saying it's 2.99 to three. So it's basically a point off. I don't know. Sometimes with the
dimensioning in there, it may be like it rounded. >> When you change that, does anything else on the plan change? >> But it goes under 3 ft. >> Um, it may slide it towards um Camp Avenue there. Maybe that's probably what would happen. I'd have to double check
that, but we're talking fraction 100th of a foot, >> right? >> Or you could narrow the structure, the width of the structure. >> I could I mean I I think I could get around it. >> Yeah. >> Kind of like their five inches before. Like that's just what I'm trying to figure out if there's a big impact or not. And >> I don't think it is.
>> Be 1/100th of >> I don't think it is, but I think it should be at three feet for sure. It's It's what it was intended to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't have windows there. So, >> you might want to make it more than exactly 3 feet. I just You know, your
builder going to be dead have to be dead on and if he makes a mistake by 1/100th of a foot, you're going to be back in front of us again, >> I guess. It's all No, we agree. I I understand what you're saying. I guess the point of the story there is obviously I don't want to be that close
to the property line. Nobody wants to be, but it's the nature of that site. So, by solving that problem, which I want to solve and and make it three and a half or even four, I think now you're pushing towards the street. And that's
the only issue. If if the again and we're just talking hypothetical right now, but if the board doesn't feel the board feels that moving the house away and I you know there's many reasons why I want to move that away already. I'll probably have to fireproof that wall to some degree and do things to from a
building code perspective, right? To make it safe. Um, of course I want to move it forward away from that line. We just may get a little closer to the street. I don't know. I'd have to talk with my colleague what that would mean. we are absolutely happy to look at that.
Um and and I would love to put an egress window in there and and so forth or a set of stairs that come out. Um as long as the board is understanding that, you know, these are elements that are in the front of the house. Maybe through screening, creative screening, we can do. But I just want to be clear, you
know, it's a little bit of a give and take, I think, on that. Can >> you come back? Can you counsel, can you have your client provide pictures of um better pictures of the area of his neighbors of the front.
>> Well, we also have an aerial exhibit which we haven't introduced yet. >> Oh, you did mention that. >> That's okay. But yes, as many photos as you need. >> Any more questions from the public? >> So, you're talking about if you make that a little bit more than 3 feet,
you're not talking about narrowing the house. You're talking about moving the house over. >> I think right now the house is kind of narrow enough as it is. I would love to just shift it over. Yes. If it I mean that's what I would love to do. I don't know if there's any
my colleague wants to say something but he would have to Could he swear himself in now or it's fine. >> Well, maybe we could just hold that thought just just so we finish with this witness if that's okay. It's a better record particularly where we have an objective counsel.
>> Respectfully. That's fine. I don't think there were any other questions for him. That's why I thought it would be good to uh Oh, there is someone else in the public. >> No problem. Come on up. >> Hi, ma'am. Do you swear any testimony will be the truth by the truth? >> I do. >> Just state your name for the record.
>> Carol Doyle. >> D O Y L E. >> That's correct. >> And how it's Carol with the KRC >> C. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Uh 18 Wanamasa Point Road. So my question and maybe not for you and maybe for the next gentleman but was around the sewage and the town itself.
We've had issues on that street and the sewage lines are very old. I was curious have you figured out or is there a study where okay so I think the question is there is no study that looks at the impact of those number of people living in that house with additional basement
and attic and all that. And my other question also, did anyone look to see if anyone else on that street has a full basement in there? Because we do not. And I think many of them are not full basements. So, you'd be the first one.
>> So, chairman, I would defer I would defer the question with regard to the sewage lines and capacity to our civil engineer. Okay. And I think the testimony was that there were soil metric studies done that that confirm that a basement is appropriate for this site. Maybe not for other sites, but for
this site. Okay. >> Okay. Any more questions? >> Sewer questions are directed to somebody else >> to the civil engineer. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Thank you, board. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scaliz. Applicant now calls Douglas Clown, licensed professional engineer. >> What time did we say? >> It's been an hour. So, it's been an hour. Um, do we have
any objections to hearing further? Another witness. The policies to end after 45 minutes. Correct. >> That that's up to you. >> Yeah, I'm okay going further. Does anybody have an objection to do that? >> Okay, >> I need one moment.
>> Okay, we we're going to take a a five minute break. >> Okay. at 8:32. >> And we're back. >> Okay. Please call the role >> folks. We're going to get started.
>> Here everyone in the public, please be quiet. Thank you. >> Mr. D >> here. >> Miss Beal, Mr. Chamora, Miss Lley >> here, >> Mr.
Mr. Lineski >> Yep. >> Mr. Kapanica >> here. >> Vice Chair >> here. >> And Chairman Fuller >> here. >> We'll just let it know that it's 8:41 p.m. >> And and as the chairman said at the
beginning of the hearing, we're only going to 9:30. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um I'd like to place I'd like to get him sworn and uh place his credentials on the record. testimony you're about to give as the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> State your name for the record.
>> Douglas Cleland >> and uh Mr. Cleland, you are a licensed engineer state of New Jersey. >> That is correct. >> And your license is in good standing, correct? >> Yes, it is. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Terrific. Thank you for qualifying him as an expert with regards to civil
engineering issues. Okay. Mr. Clown, you're familiar with the application that's um before the board this evening. >> I am. And you've prepared the uh document identified as the plot plan which is also marked as A4 in the U evidentiary list this evening. Correct.
>> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. >> And >> what can you tell the board about some of the engineering issues uh that affect uh this particular application? >> Sure. So, um thank you all for being here. Uh my colleague Anthony already oriented the board to the to the site,
but um just to run through some of the more engineering related items, um the existing lot size uh is 5,873.5 square ft or 0.13 acres. As was mentioned, we are in the R six
highdensity single family zone. Um it's an undersized lot. It's an undersized corner lot with frontage on Camp Avenue uh to our west, Wanamasa Point Road to our south, 10,000 square feets the
required uh minimum lot area and our lot is call it 58% of that um at the at the 5,873 square ft. Uh it's much longer than it is wide. Um I believe our our our width
is around 144t. um where we have 40 feet in width where 100 ft is required. Um the applicant here seeking uh to take down the existing two-story single family dwelling um and detached garage and
construct a new 2 and a half story single family dwelling with a new patio, an attached garage um walkway to the sidewalk and a rear deck and patio. Um, one point of one point of clarification
just before I get into some of the technical variances and everything. Um, your ordinance defines the rear yard as the yard that's opposite the functional front of the building. So, um, this is going to be confusing. I confused myself
writing this, but um, so the existing home has a covered front porch entrance that faces Wanamasa Point Road. So, I'm going to point to the exhibit um in the existing condition. >> So, what's we didn't mark that in yet. >> Oh, sorry.
>> Oh, what are you looking at? Actually, >> this is the uh site rendering. >> So, we're going to say that's A8. >> It's A8, I believe. We're up to >> the color site rendering. >> Color site rendering dated today. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, um
>> yes, I passed them out right. >> Terrific. Thank you. >> Um the existing home has a covered front porch. that faces um Wanamasa Point Road to our south. So that would make um the yard between the house and Deal Lake the rear
yard. Um the proposed home on the contrary has its main entrance front covered porch um facing Camp Avenue uh which would then make uh the eastern property line the rear yard. So essentially uh the rear and sideyards
have effectively flipped from existing to proposed conditions. And >> just just make I'll make a point that that's really a technicality, >> right? >> It's yes, it's true technically, but functionally the east side is the sideyard and the
north side is the rear yard. >> Understood. And I only point it out because when you compare some of the numbers, um I just want to make sure the board is seeing it apples to apples. Um and I'll I'll get into some of that. So um as I me talked about lot area,
um 10,000 square ft required. We exist at 5,873.5. U we're not proposing to change that. The minimum lot width required is 100 ft. We exist at 40. Uh we're also not proposing to change that. Um the minimum
front yard setback uh from Camp Avenue uh required is 30 feet. It currently exists at 12 feet. Um and proposed is 10.92. So this is very similar to what exists today. Um and that given the required
front yard being 30 and the required rear yard being 30 and the lot being 40t wide as was also pointed out in your in your planner's letter. Uh there's essentially no build envelope on this lot. Um I do want to point out and just clarify for the board that um you know
the proposed home its location is essentially the same as the existing home that's there today. There are certain areas where it is slightly larger in footprint um where some of the the covered porches are. Um but where
the attached garage is being proposed is generally the same exact location as the detached garage currently exists and where the proposed home is being proposed uh is in the same general location as the existing home. And the
the diff the main difference being that we are now proposing to connect what was the detached garage and make it attached to the home. So there is some cover building coverage added um between the the garage and the home. Um as for the
front yard setback to Wanamasa Point Road uh required again is is 30 feet. We are a corner lot so we need to meet the uh front yard setback on on both frontages. Uh existing is 41.7
feet and proposed is 5.99 feet. This appears to be um more of an an encroachment or it sounds like more of an encroachment that it really is. Um the existing detached garage is set back 6 feet from Wanamasa Point Road. So we're essentially holding that setback
line. Uh but given that we're attaching the garage to the main dwelling, that same setback of six feet essentially becomes our new proposed front yard setback. Um as for the rear yard, um required is 30 ft. Existing is 37.4 ft
and proposed is 2.44T. Again, this is why I brought up the point earlier. And as I mentioned, in the existing condition, we noted the rear yard as uh was the Deal Lake side and in the proposed condition, it's the eastern property line. So, just to
compare apples to apples for the board, um we are slightly improving the setback distance to the eastern property line. So, the existing garage is set back 2.1 ft. Um, and the existing house is set
back 2.6 ft. In the proposed condition to that same easterly property line that we've already been talking about, um, the attached garage portion is set back 2.44 ft and the dwelling itself is 3.12
ft. So, I know there was some talk about 2.99. Um, not sure where it originated. I was confused listening to it. Um, but essentially you can see on along this whole >> easterly line, >> easterly line of the building, you can
see that the garage is notched out a little bit slightly. So that whole easterly line of the building um is a minimum of 3.12 ft from that eastern property line. And then where the garage is notched out a little bit, it becomes
2.44 ft. Again, very similar to what exists today. um only I would say the proposed home is actually set back slightly more than the existing home. >> Um so is your testimony just so our
record's clear that your greater calculation and your greater figure is the one that the board should rely on? >> Yes. And that is and uh dimensioned on the plan as as 3.12 feet. >> Okay. Thank you.
So, uh, worth noting again just a technicality, but the existing non-conforming side setback of 2.6 ft is now proposed to be eliminated. Um, and since the garage is becoming attached to the main dwelling, there was a list of existing non-conformities related to
that detached garage. Um, those are also being proposed to to be eliminated. On paper, I get it. they're kind of being swallowed up by the fact that it's becoming part of the main dwelling. Um, but on paper, those are those are proposed to be eliminated. Um, as for
the driveway, uh, we are we currently have access from Wanamasa Point Road. There's an existing curb cut there, um, with access to the detached garage. We are proposing to keep that basically as is um and then expand
to provide some more parking area um to the east with some some PA block to allow for there's two cars uh that can fit in the garage and then >> sorry pardon me expand to the west. >> I apologize. Yes. Expand to the west
towards the corner. Um with two parking spaces fitting within the garage and uh a third fitting within that expanded parking area. Um the minimum driveway setback what's required is 26.7 ft. Uh
existing is 18.9 ft and we are proposing that to be reduced to 7.32 ft. And again that's getting closer to that western property line, not the east. Um, and while we are reutilizing the existing curb cut location, we are providing that
expanded parking area to the west. Um, so that we have sufficient parking on the property. Uh, obviously keeping >> where the three parking places come in. You're suggesting that two are in the garage and then one on that paper plot. >> Yes, correct.
>> But I thought we established that you can't put two cars in the garage. >> They only need two though. Whatever they are. >> I thought we needed three. requirements to and and I I will I would like to just correct something I said before that the uh the garage can handle
two parking spaces. I I took a a second look at the architectural plan. Um the exterior dimensions are of the garage are 18 foot three inches but the interior dimension is 17 foot4 and then the um opening the the garage door is
not dimensioned but it's small slightly smaller than the interior dimensions. So in reality you can really only fit one car in there. So it it does have two which is sufficient for what they're proposing. >> Thank you. So I want to come back to that that that point again because you heard the
questions of the architect with regard to potentially enlarging the garage. So could the garage be be widened in other words from east to west at the expense to a degree of reducing the 11.6 roughly feet width of the proposed paper block
driveway on the west side of the garage. >> Correct. That's I think exactly what we would do. um being that it's already considered coverage, expanding into that um proposed enlarged driveway uh would would be a perfect solution. >> So, I'm going to pause here uh and ask
the board to consider that uh if the applicant were willing to make those revisions to enlarge the garage, whether the board might find that to be beneficial so that we could affirmatively provide three spaces rather than one, maybe two in the garage and one big one on the west side. We can
affirmatively provide for three spaces with a slight revision based upon Mr. Klen's testimony to widen the width of the garage from on a on a east to west axis. Also would address one of the neighbors concerns with regard to parking in the
neighborhood. Yeah, the space next to the garage I think is 12.68 ft wide in the plan. So if you widen the garage by two feet, you could probably fit two cars in the garage somewhat comfortably.
>> So what I would recommend that you do then the board affirmatively telling you that this is something they want to see and somehow imply they're in favor of the application if you do so why don't you just come in if it's not a big overreach when you come back next meeting and show us an alternative. This
is what we're proposing. >> We can show you version B for the garage, >> right? and show that the numbers work and that we can affirmatively prove that there would be three parking spaces that meet, you know, that meet that criteria. >> I think that would >> even though two are just required under
under Reese's, but it seems to me that we're on the cusp of being able to provide three spaces with a very modest increase in the size of the width of the garage. Not the depth of the garage, but the width of the garage. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please continue to call.
>> Yes. Um so I was talking about maximum driveway width. Um oh there is one more um related to the minimum driveway setback uh required of 5T to any property line whereas the
existing curb cut is 3 feet from that eastern property line and that is proposed to remain and not be changed. Um maximum driveway width uh required is 20 feet. We are existing at 18 feet and
proposing 29.62 feet. Again, this is um you know along with these changes that we're proposing uh being done to provide ample parking on the property um rather than on the street um to provide you know proper parking for the home. um the
AC units, the minimum rear yard setback again that was discussed where they were recessed into uh the roof of the garage. Um required setback for the AC units is 10 ft. Um currently uh not applicable.
Uh but in the existing condition, I don't believe there were any condensers. Um in the proposed condition, 7.4 ft from the eastern property line. Again, it was mentioned this was set into the roof of the garage, screened from from
view uh from Wanamasa Point Road and from Camp Avenue. Um, and the generator also in the same general area. Um, required setback is 10 ft. And the proposed is 7.81 ft. Again, set into the
roof of the attached garage and and largely screened from view. Um, worth noting, um, you can see it on the on the aerial. I know there was discussion about about noise of these, uh, mechanicals, uh, that adjacent the
adjacent dwelling on lot on lot 36, the approximate distance from um, the proposed the closest proposed mechanical equipment to that home is a little over 45 ft. Um and again immediately adjacent
to it is a detached standalone detached garage. um you know so I I while I I can understand the the the concern uh I do believe you know I I don't have I don't anticipate any significant noise impacts
given um that we're shielded on three sides um and potentially uh all four sides um and the proximity of that existing dwelling being 45 ft away. Um as for as for maximum building coverage
the requirement is 25%. Um we exist at 27.94% and proposed is 33.42%. This is uh largely driven by the undersized nature of the lot. Uh we are
also proposing to mitigate any potential impacts from the roof runoff um which you you know you could think of as the potential um you know largest potential impact would be runoff from the roof. So, we are proposing to direct the roof
leaders away from any neighboring property uh with half of that roof area being directed towards Deal Lake and the other half being directed to um the public right away of Camp Avenue and Wanamasa Point Road, which will
ultimately um flow along the gutter line from Wanamasa Point Road down Camp Avenue to a series of inlets that exist within um Camp Avenue. Um so uh we are also compliant for uh overall impervious
coverage by a good margin uh with 65% being permitted and we are proposing 45.12%. So uh we're approximately 1100 square ft less in coverage than what is permitted in the zone um by proposing a modest
patio, small walkway, of course the driveway which was necessitated by the parking. Um, and then moving on to some of the uh boring engineering stuff, utilities, we're proposing all new utility connections for the for the new
dwelling. Um, we've shown those on the plan. Um, storm water management, I I touched on this, but uh just to reiterate that all storm water from imperous surfaces um is being directed either to the public rightway uh where
it's captured by the municipal system uh or towards Deal Lake. um neighboring properties going to be protected. Uh we're not proposing to increase runoff to any adjacent properties of record. Um and then to uh talk a little bit about
uh tree removal. Uh we have a uh tree removal compliance chart shown on our plan. Um, when the plan was submitted, we're proposing to remove uh three existing trees that were in direct conflict with uh the location of the
proposed construction. Uh, in addition to removing uh a lot of the overgrowth that's on the property, um, as can you can see in in some of the pictures that were submitted. Um, you know, there's a there's the property has not been maintained in terms of um, you know,
what's been growing there. Um, but a lot of that overgrowth since it wasn't picked up on the survey means that it's less than the regulated tree diameter size. So, a lot of it is going to be clean up of kind of opening that up and getting rid of the overgrowth. Again,
not something that's regulated because it's less than um the tree diameter size that is regulated. Um, and we've included replacement requirements on our plan and agree to comply with the township's uh tree preservation ordinance. Um, one other thing I did
want to bring up, uh, and it's it could be a con a field call in the field in terms of construction, uh, but there are two street trees on Camp Avenue. Um, taking a look at the site, they're causing significant issues with
sidewalk. Um, a lot of up, you know, heave is happening with the sidewalks. So, if during construction we, you know, and we were looking to replace those sidewalks and bring them up to code, um, you know, and deemed that those needed to be removed, um, we would certainly
agree to adequately replace those trees with a a new replacement, um, street tree, um, and obviously agree to also comply with, um, the overall tree preservation ordinance. >> Do you have to I' I've seen them fix the sidewalk without touching or disturbing
the trees. You could just There's a we have a couple pictures >> tree removal in this flood zone >> and I I just I would even like to see or understand more about the replacement of shrubbery or trees on the property
because I it helps absorb the water and it was zone. So I I have a lot of concerns about this. >> Sure. to see you remove any trees, especially large ones like that with root systems that absorb all the water. >> Yeah. And and our the plan would be to
not remove any unless we absolutely needed to. Um you know, obviously with the sidewalk, safety is the concern. Um if you also you don't want to create a a a steep slope in the sidewalk to get
over a route or something and only for it to happen again over time. Um, so it it's it's something we could take a look at. I I I just wanted to state that we would obviously agree to comply with the tree ordinance if we did need to remove them. But
>> you know, the sidewalks along 71 um in where I used to live was right along there and the sidewalks were just like these. We came in and redid it and didn't have to speak to Mr. It's the house that burnt down on Super
Bowl Sunday. >> But yeah, that's something we can take a look at. >> I think that was it for me. Um, >> number A9. Could you describe A9 for >> sure? I didn't record a whole lot, but A9 is um a neighborhood aerial to
provide some context for the board. Um, overlaying the proposed conditions uh much more zoomed out than the site rendering also dated today. >> Thank you. >> And you distributed those to the board? >> Yes, I did. >> Thank you. Uh chairman, no further
questions of Mr. Clown at this time. >> You guys are going to possibly come up with a plan B. Is it talked about possibly making the garage a little bit bigger? Is it possible where the garage can face
>> camp? possibly have two inside and then two here. >> I have copies of these. >> Yes. >> Yes. Do you have extra copies for Mr. Kazari? while they got distributed while
>> and I need a copy too. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's the thing. >> When you come next month, can you provide a plan that overlays the existing house on top of the new house? >> Yes. I'm just curious because you you
were talking a lot about the existing footprint and the new footprint. I'm curious to see, >> you know, how that lays out one on top of the other. And then I had a question concerning, you know, we a lot of conversations been happening about the
the basement and and uh drainage issues. I guess I'm more concerned about the house next to us not having a basement and undermining that house. What's the soil condition? Did you do the borings >> or did your firm do the borings? >> We We didn't ourselves.
>> I know you don't do them yourselves, but you ordered them. You reviewed the What's the soil? What's the soil? >> I don't know off the top of my head. I I I recall not seeing um >> Is it sandy? Is it silty? Is it clay? Do you know? >> Not off top. I'll have to review. I could get back to you on that. >> I mean, you're going down if they don't
have a basement. You're going down 9 ft. >> Yeah. >> And you're only three feet away from the next house. >> Understood on the concern. How you I mean I don't know how you they're going to have to >> it'll be shored up >> shorter underbend or I mean that's
>> Yeah. And I can take a look at um the soil conditions. I like I said I don't know off the top of my head but um we'll look at that. >> Yeah please for next >> certainly address that for you. >> Are you direct questions about sewer to you
>> sewer? >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. >> Before I do that you said going to comply with the tree ordinance. Does that mean you have intentions of contributing to the tree fund instead of putting the trees or back on the property?
>> So, I think it'll probably be a combination of the two. Um, >> I would like to suggest right now money. >> Understood. And you know to the Yeah, and that's that was our goal. Obviously, as many as we can fit in that
we want the the trees to thrive, right? There's only so much light and space, you know, that they're going to get, we want them to be able to be healthy and grow. Um, so we will to the maximum extent that we can place them on the site.
>> We want further discussion. >> We you also have a waterfront exposure, right? So, you don't want to block the exposure. True. True. Well, there has to be balanced, right? Yeah. >> Because this is a flood zone, it's a concern. >> Okay.
>> You want to see a landscape plan in there? >> I would like that would be >> that would be helpful. And the all these all these things kind of go together, right? Seeing what the existing frontage is um versus the what you know what the
proposed is. Um, yes, the existing is what whatever it is 12 to Camp Avenue already. Um, and so you're proposing not much of a difference, but so much more like the line, right? And so you have
all that further distance, you know, that that larger amount of a house that's close, you know, that close to Camp Avenue. And then you combine that with the fact that you're going to be removing a lot of trees, right? you'll have to um in order to to do all this
stuff. Um those trees could be shielding that impact, right? So, it'll be helpful to have, you know, that that uh landscape plan. Definitely >> actually, we could certainly provide a landscape plan >> because you know what what uh from the architect rendering, you know, that
picture is a beautiful house, but it's changing the the whole look of that neighborhood, right? as you go down that street, it's complet it'll be a completely different look if there's no there's no trees in that picture. Right. >> Right. Right. And I' I'd also like to come back to the the comment with regard
to changing the orientation of the garage doors to the west side. That would negate the third parking space that we just thought we want to try to preserve. >> Yeah, I think it would give you more up front. You would need it. >> Big pardon?
Yeah, if you relocated the garage to Camp Avenue, you'd have more space in front of it. So, you should be good on that. >> I'm I'm I'm worried that you wouldn't be able to park a car without extending it
into the municipal right of way. Not the cartway, but the municipal right of way. Do we have to do we have just do some dimensioning on that? >> Yeah. And I mean, we'd also be closer to that intersection in terms of backing out. Um whereas now we're we're kind of
set as far away as possible um on Point Road. >> Backing out to the street. >> Understood. No, understood. >> Any more questions? And it any questions?
>> Sure. Um, so I'll I'll reference my report. >> Yeah, please do. >> So the the portion of the property is located in a flood zone. Um, the the flood hazard area comes up the the side
from deal lake. It doesn't actually reach the portion of the property where the home is located. So, and Mr. Mr. Clin and I had several conversations about this. Uh, so the the home is not technically subject to the
flood damage prevention ordinance even though it is a portion of the properties in the flood zone. Um, so with that being said, the the basement um elevation is at uh I think it was elevation five approximately
>> 5.2. >> Yep. >> 5.2 which is technically below the base flood elevation which is 10. Um but again because it's technically out the house is technically outside of the flood zone, it's not subject to the rules and requirements of the flood
damage prevention. So that's it's kind of a gray area in the reg the regulations the flood regulations and the is based on flood regulations. Um so it's There's not a clear answer.
However, um they they're not subject to those rules. So, it's the basement is technically allowed in this situation. Um but consideration by the by the applicant and their professionals has to
be made uh for that basement elevation being below the uh flood elevation. And that's part of the the soil borings that that were done. They I'm sure they located the seasonal high water table uh and that has to be taken into consideration when they go for building
permits and the building department reviews that and because it's also portion of the property is in the flood uh hazard area uh it could be subject to review by the township engineer who's the flood plane administrator. So it could be an additional review uh being
done at that point. Um for from the board standpoint, there's no variance required from the flood damage prevention ordinance. Um so there's there's nothing that that uh we can enforce uh from that standpoint.
Okay. >> So I just add to that uh Mr. Badlike by saying that in addition to providing the soils boring and uh overall analysis, we'd also uh use the time in between now and the November meeting to confer with Mr. Scaliz as to any waterproofing issue. You heard him mention in his
testimony that a so-called bathtub might be one of the options to deal with waterproofing. We'll explore that option as well. Report back to the board at the November meeting. >> If that helps, Mr. Malik. >> Sure. >> To your comment. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Stud manager already reviewed the application and approved it. So, it's been reviewed and approved by the engineering. Thank you. >> What have your studies shown about the
sewer? Does anything have to be can the current system manage the additional bathrooms? Does anything have to be done to accommodate the old existing sewer system in that area? >> So, I can I can take a look at at the
sewer the sewer system itself. um you know there was no study that was formally conducted that evaluated those current municipal systems. I do know that those systems were largely designed uh in most towns taking into consideration the allowable
coverage in the zone. They size the pipes accordingly. Um discharge in all likelihood it probably discharges to Deal Lake. Um but I did look at the drainage path from our property. Um, and
there does appear to be sufficient slope from Wanomas Point Road along the gutter line. Makes the turn around the corner down to Camp Avenue. And there's a series of inlets that are very close to Deal Lake. And I would imagine I can confirm this with a quick site visit,
but I would imagine that they um empty right into Deal Lake there. >> That's storm you're talking about. >> Storm sewer. Yes. >> Oh, it's a combo storm sewer. >> And And it combination storm and sewer system or >> No, no, no. Storm sewer. >> So, okay. So, it's storm. >> We're talking about I thought we were talking about storm sewer.
>> I think I think >> she's asking about sewer sewer. >> She's talking about sanitary, >> right? >> Let's go back. >> So, just right. So, just so Right. So, yes. Storm sewer >> information anyway. >> The storm sewer is at the north end of
Camp Avenue. We got the flow. Let's focus on sanitary sewer. Okay. >> Understood. >> Okay. Back to sanitary sewer. >> Right. So typically as as part of um any building permit application process that storm that sanitary sewer connection
would be uh reviewed and approved by the township engineer. Um you know if there's any formal you know confirmation that they need at that point that the regarding capacity of the existing sewer line um we'd be happy to provide it. Um
but that usually happens um you know more closer towards construction. I I'll also add that um typically the the sanitary sewer is designed for the use of the property. So the existing use is currently residential. Correct. >> Mhm. Yes.
>> And the proposed is is similarly residential use. So there shouldn't be a significant increase in the sewer. Correct. Sewer flows. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes. >> How many bathrooms in the current dwelling or work were in the current dwelling?
Uh so the way that the D sewer rags calculate um flows is based on actually the number of bedrooms. >> Okay. >> So I don't know how many bedrooms are in the existing dwelling. I don't know if the applicant knows that. >> We believe it's three.
>> They don't do it by fixture counts. Is that fixture counts? No. >> I think some of >> when you're talking about >> capacity of the gravity mains in the road, it's based on the number of of bedrooms in there. >> How many bathroom do you know how many
bathrooms in in this home? Like was there one? I'm just wondering if you're increasing the bathrooms from one to four or five. >> I believe there are two bathrooms currently in the residence. >> But at the end of the day, and I think this is why the D regulates it based on
number of bedrooms, you can only have so many people using a bathroom in a given moment, right? There can only be so many people in the house given the bedroom. So that's why I think number of bedrooms was um you know kind of better quantified the the sewer demand than the bathrooms themselves.
>> And I think we have to you know we have to maybe ask the question of the of the township engineer as to you know the sewer capacity. Presumably it's there for the neighborhood. Presumably it's there for this house. Whatever that requirement is going to be is going to be something that's separate
than this board's jurisdiction as to municipal sewer. Right. We can all agree as to that. Understood. I just don't neighborhood. >> We don't want to create a problem either >> grow and >> built years ago >> and certainly between now and the
November meeting, Mr. Mlen can inquire of the township engineer as to the particular details on sewage capacity. No issue doing that. >> Any more questions? >> We don't we don't want to build a house of this caliber, right, and have a seage problem, right?
Jim, do you have anything? Any questions? No, you're good. Any questions from the public? Come on up, sir. You grab the microphone. Sir, are you swearing testimony about will be the truth? Nothing but truth. >> I do.
>> State your name for the record. >> James Deont. >> Spell the last name, please. >> D E M O N T. >> And your address? >> 18 Wamasa Point Road. >> All right. And so the existing garages that are on the property now, they share them. The property next door and the
property in question, they share one structure for their garages. So how is he going to rip down half a garage? And our understanding is the same fellow owns the property next door, too. >> That's not accurate. >> Okay. So is he going to cut down half a
garage? The plans depict that the garage is the current garage is located entirely on the subject property. >> But it shares the garage with the house next door. >> When you say share, what do you mean? >> On Wanamasa Point Road, houses share garages. There's a structure on the
street. One house has half of it. The other house has the other half. >> Not in this instance. >> You're positive about that? >> You're asking the question. What's your proof? >> Because there's numbers on the on the garages. So, so sir, I'm just telling you, we're looking at the plans, looking at the survey. This garage that's to be
removed is completely on this property, >> right? But there's one directly attached to it. >> No, there is no detach. So, I'm just so the record is clear, I'm referring to sheet 105, existing conditions, which clearly indicates a
detached garage for the subject property in no way encroaching upon the lot to the east. And of course, Camp Avenue is to the west. Just so our record's clear. >> Yeah. And no, it's clear. And it's also it's also clear in the photograph that you see. I I I would further note for the record I would further note for the
record that the detached garage on the lot immediately to the east is entirely on that lot and in no way encroaches on this lot. >> Listen, this isn't this isn't up for it's not even up for debate. The photograph just want to make sure our records >> Yeah. The survey shows that it's completely it's completely on your
property. The photographs show that it's not attached garage to another garage. >> These garages are not shared. These garages are not co-used. They're independent garages that are detached and exist separately on each individual lot. >> I mean, we don't know about use, but but
but the fact is the structure is not attached to anything. It's completely on this. >> I would stipulate that my client has not given any other party the right to use this detached garage. >> That's fine. >> Thank you. >> Any more questions from the public? >> All right. So, just repeat your name
again for the record. Hi again, Richard Vgilia. >> All right. And sir, you're still on your road. Okay. Thank you. >> Question regarding the utilities. Um, are they going to be underground or above ground? And will they require a one of those telephone poles, a new
installation of, you know, a telephone pole to bring it all into the ground. >> Uh, so they're largely underground utilities, uh, with the exception of electric service, which is typically pulled from a utility pole, but it would be from an existing utility pole. Do you know where that telephone pole would go?
>> Uh, not. They're not putting in a new telephone pole anywhere. No. >> Um, like to get the electric or the utilities to the ground. How are they going to do that? >> Which utilities? >> The um You're saying that I'm sorry,
pardon me. Are you saying that the electric >> the electric's above ground? It's going to be dropped from a pole >> to the house. said from an existing pole. >> Correct. >> Got it. Okay. >> Utility pole. Yes. >> Gotcha. Cuz there was another house just
that they had to put a telephone pole on their property. >> Okay. >> I just want to be clear about that. >> And there is I could see on the survey here that there are ex existing utility poles that could provide service to the house. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Sorry, just state your name again for >> Robert Tards. >> Have you already under? >> Yes. >> Uh you said that the proposed lot coverage is about 33%. >> Uh building coverage. >> Yes, building coverage. Sorry.
>> Uh and 25 is the allowable. >> That is correct. And I believe when you're seeking a variance, you have to prove that you have some type of hardship. >> Not necessarily, but we'll have testimony from our planner at the next hearing, sir. >> Okay. Because it it seems like this is a
self-imposed hardship. >> Well, be hard to say that an undersized lot that's 40% undersized is a self-imposed hardship. But we don't want to argue the merits of the I will respectfully request that we defer testimony with regard to hardship, whether it's C1 or flexible CS to C2 to
our planners testimony. So he's right. Let's just defer that to the planner's testimony because that's not appropriate for the engineer. >> Okay, that's fine. Um >> but you absolutely have a right to make that argument when we get to the planner. >> Okay. Can I ask a question about the setback on Wanamasa Point Road?
>> Go ahead. >> Um my question would be uh you're required to provide two parking spaces. Is that's correct? >> Yes. Does it is there anything in the ordinance that says that the parking
spaces are required to be in a garage? >> Not that I am aware of. >> So if you were to eliminate the garage completely, you would clean up a whole bunch of problems. Your lot coverage, your
building coverage would go down. Your Monamasa road setback would go from 6 feet to 25 feet probably and it would also reduce the visual impact of the new structure from Monamas
Point Road and from the corner. I'm just bringing that point up. Noted. >> Thank you. Any more questions? >> Sure.
>> And ma'am, just when you get the microphone, just restate your name and you are under >> road. >> Thank you. >> I don't even know if this is a question for you, but um so far there's been no mention of the lake edge. Is there any any planning as to what's
going to be done? Yeah. >> Yeah. We're not proposed to change. We're not proposing to change the the edge of the lake at all. The furthest extent of any of the grading that's happening on site is proposed to be a few feet past the uh rear edge of the
patio. So, that's largely just going to be left untouched. Okay. Any ideas about protecting that area? >> Uh from what? >> Securing it or making it a little more
stable, helping it not erode to erode. >> Okay. Um yeah, it looks on the survey there is an existing retaining wall there. Um again, we're not proposing to change it. Um are there certain erosion
issues that you have witnessed that um you are concerned about? >> Wait, everyone's edge is either eroding or flooding at times, >> right? How about for this property? >> How about for this particular property?
>> Well, I don't trespass on it, so I couldn't tell you really. But >> so you're not aware of any particular erosion issues that affect this property? I was actually asking if there's any thought been given to the edge. >> So I think the witness has answered that
there's an existing retaining wall and to his knowledge there's no deficiency. >> Yes. >> You okay if I check out that existing retaining wall? >> Uh I don't if to the extent that you could see it from Camp Avenue that's fine.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any more questions from the office? Any more questions from the board? >> All right, Mr. Akens, we've talked about whether or not Mr. Gazeroski would be
asking questions. We've also talked about whether or not your witnesses would be coming back. It sounds like both of them are going to be coming back. >> I would wager that both are coming. >> Yeah, chairman. >> So, um, >> we've reached the magic hour. >> We have. So, >> and we're grateful for the additional time. Board members, thank you for your time and for extending us the courtesy
of the being much longer, much longer than the typical 45minute allowance. Thank you. >> All right. So, the November meeting is what date? >> Monday. >> So, it's Monday, November 24th is our next meeting. Um, there is not going to
be any further notice. So, if you want to be heard on this application, you need to be in this room at 7 p.m. on November 24th. Again, you're not going to get any further notice. >> And no further notice required to be given on my part.
>> Yes, that is true. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Good evening all. Thank you very much. Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed?