Good evening everyone. Somebody took away the g. >> I don't know where it is. I can't find it. >> You stole it. >> Uh, I'd like to call this regular meeting of the town provotion board of justice to order. Um, can we please take a roll call? >> Sure. Mr. Ashkenazi >> here. >> Mr. Doma >> here.
>> M. Mr. Chamora >> here. >> Miss Lipman >> here. >> Mr. Fujielli >> here. >> Mr. Laneski. Mr. Paramatica >> here, >> Vice Chairman Daneo >> here, >> and Chairman Paul >> here. Can we please salute the flag
to the flag of America nationisible for all. >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. that a copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk.
Emergency notice. There are emergency doors um exits through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. Please, no smoking or vaping. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. this evening and no new testimony taken after 9:30 p.m. In addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes
of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceans Community Cable channel, channel 22 on FiOS and channel 77 on cable vision. Please turn your cell phones off. If you must make a call, please leave the room to make a
call. Uh resolutions to be moralized. >> We have done together is separate, but the rest can be together. >> Okay, let's start with uh Michael Roshanzir, 130 Rosel Avenue, block 55, lot three. >> So only can vote. Mr. Delomo, Mr.
Chamora, Mr. Fuji, and Chairman Poland. So, we just need a first and a second from one of those. >> I'll first. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> It's got to be a roll call. >> Uh, Mr. Damo, >> yes. >> Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Mr. Pujielli, >> yes. >> Chairman Polar,
>> yes. >> Uh, okay. Then we have the remainder on the agenda. Frank and Amy Spanell, 1604 Logan Road, block 84, lot one. Brian Cella 50 Lind Drive block 1.02 lot 98
Flora Lax 240 Overbrook Avenue block 22 lot 34 and Belle Avenue LLC 1304 to 1306 Belle Avenue block 184 lot 1.02 >> either Mr. Ashenazi Mr. Chamora Miss
Litman or Mr. Kamatica >> first Mr. Ashkenazi >> yes >> Mr. Chammora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Karamatica. >> Yes. >> Uh we have a ministry memorialized March
19th, 2026. Same group for that just voted on the last uh resolutions. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Ashenazi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman? >> Yes. Mr. America?
>> Yes. Okay. We are on to old business. First up, we have two Texas Avenue LLC, 219 Lewis Street, block 17, lots 26 and 44. >> That's being carried. >> That's being car Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, that is in bold right there. This will
be carried to Wednesday, May 27th, 2016 with no new noticing. >> Are they noticing or are they not noticing? >> Oh, sorry. With new Sorry, let me say that again. >> So, they're not going to notice again. All right. So there's no new noticing >> if >> May 27th
>> May Wednesday May 27th >> because probably because of Memorial Day that's >> usually Thursday. >> Yes. It's it's because >> Okay. >> All right.
>> All right. So if anyone's here on that application is not being heard tonight. That's going to be heard on Wednesday, May 27th. That's a Wednesday rather than a Thursday in this room at 7 PM. You're not going to receive any further notice. If you receive notice for tonight, we will see you then. You stay, don't stay,
that's up to you. But come back May 27th. >> Is anyone here? >> I don't think so. >> Nope. >> Okay. Next my next item on the agenda, Township of Ocean 1313 South Roller Road, also known as block 142, lot 36 on
the township tax map. Um, that will also be carried to Wednesday, May 27th, 2026 with no further notice to be given. >> All right. So, the same notice as before. If you're here for that application, it's not being heard tonight. You need to be in this room on May 27th, 2026. That's a Wednesday, not
a Thursday, at 7 p.m. There will be no further notice given. >> So, people worried we had a long agenda, but we already knocked off two. So, let's get going. All right. So, the first one we'll actually hear tonight is Jeff Barnes, 8 Klein Street, block 33.13, lot three.
>> Mr. Barnes, >> I'm looking for to do a Baron. >> M. Are you Mr. Barnes? >> Yes, I'm Mr. >> Okay. All right. Let me let me swear you. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give to be the truth? The whole truth. Something about the truth. You got >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Jeff Barnes. >> All right. Mr. Barnes, I'm just going to
mark in the following exhibits. A1 is going to be the variance application. A2 will be the plan of survey. A3 will be the architectural plans. And then the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planners report. And exhibit C3 will be the board
engineers report. And Mr. Barnes, who's with you? >> This is my architect. >> And sir, let me just swear you in. Do you swear your testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth about the truth of God? And just state your name for the record. >> Earl Jackson. >> Earl Jackson. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Jackson, you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and
your license is in good standing. >> Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Barnes, go ahead. Tell us what you're doing. >> You have a seat. Get comfortable. >> Don't kill me. Um, so I'm looking to do a variance. Uh, so I want to do an addition above an existing structure,
but the house when it was built was already past the the existing, so it's approximately 4 feet over. But I'm not going any further out. I'm just going over the existing structure to build uh I'm putting a bathroom and expanding a
bedroom up above it. >> Okay. >> Um why don't we turn to Mr. Higgins if we can? Um you want to >> let me square them in. Do our experts for the evening both swear any testimony they'll give in this application any any future application for the evening will
be the truth the whole >> yes basically just it's nonconforming condition of the sites that there's nothing to be done about that and they're just going up and not increasing the magnitude of the setback variance rear yard setback variance. So clearly
there's a hardship and we're really making it any work other than going vertical. The only other thing is that there is a detached garage on the site. It's a nonforming location. What I said is that in the future the garage is
either significantly modified or if it's replaced it should be put in a conforming location if possible. If not, then they would have to back. >> Okay. Um but that garage doesn't have anything to do with this application right at this at the moment. Right. So,
you understand if you have to if you're going to do something, you'd have to come back for that. >> Okay. >> Mr. Matlack, do you have any uh any comments? >> No, there's no there are no site improvements. It's all to the building. So, I don't have any engineering. >> You members of the board have questions.
>> Mark, what do you need anything more specifically? >> I I don't If you don't have any questions for Mr. Jackson, then uh then I'm good with the uh with the vote based upon Mr. Hagen's testimony. Do we have any uh questions from the uh public?
Okay. Any comments from the public? All right. Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Ashkenazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Dama, >> yes. >> Mr. Chammora, >> yes. >> Miss Lman, >> yes. >> Mr. Pelli,
>> yes. >> Mr. Monica, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Dane, >> yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Good luck. Maybe you should. You could have stood through that. I guess >> you guys want to pay for it now, too.
>> Next, we have Joseph Fontana, 17 Cold Indian Springs Road, block 37.04, lot 5 in the R3 zone. >> Mr. Chairman, while the applicant is setting up, I'm going to mark the following exhibits into evidence. Exhibit A1 will be the variance
application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the topographic plan. Exhibit A3 will be the grading and drainage plan and exhibit A4 will be the architectural plan. We then have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the
board planner report and exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report. And sir, let me swear you in. Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth on about yourself? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Mr. Fontana. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fontana. You are the owner of the property, correct?
Correct. Why don't you tell the board? >> Uh, I'm looking to um add a one-story garage attached right to the existing home. Um, and it also will incorporate like an overhang going into the backyard
over the patio. >> Okay, >> that's about it. >> What um can you tell us what what uh what rule are you technically breaking that makes you come before us tonight? Uh I believe there's some setback issues. Um my my architect and my engineer are here and they can
>> Okay, great. >> describe all the particulars to you if uh if you so wish. >> Okay. Who would uh who's who do you think should go first? >> Anthony Erkalino. >> Very good. >> We got Joe Kuba. >> You hired Erolino. Look at that.
>> Yeah. >> Don't worry. It's the first time I ever seen that happen. Once Mr. Erino's set, we could swear him in and then he could give testimony. Okay. >> Hello, Mr. >> Swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth, self to God. >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Anthonyo with pastelino architects. >> And Mr. know, you are a licensed architect state of New Jersey and your license is in good standing. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. Go ahead. >> So, it's a a one and a half story
edition basically extending the south side of the house. Yeah, the extending the south side of the house. Uh I know you have drawings that my site plan is an old one and it shows a circular driveway that is no
longer going to happen and I'll provide a updated drawing. Uh the engineer's drawing supersedes it. So the addition is for a garage. on on the south side of the house with some storage space in be behind it as well as
a covered patio area. Uh upstairs there's a there's a loft space or mezzanine type space up there that we're just extending up over top of the existing roof. >> I might be able to speed this up a little bit.
>> Really? >> All right. Before we do that though, Mr. really know. So, you'll revise as a condition of approval, you'll revise your plans to remove the circular proposed asphalt driveway from the plans and the engineering. >> Actually, I'll just throw it away. >> Well, we have it. I mean, >> I know, but the engineers drawing
supersedes it. So, I won't do a site plan if he's going to do one. >> Okay. But your architecturals are still here and it's going to be a exhibit A1. So, you you got to give stuff from that. I'll do an update going forward. You know, he's away. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Jim.
This is the R3 zone. But when you look at the area, first of all, when you look at this application, it looks like there are significant variances. When you look at that area, there's several blocks. There's about 40 to 50 homes in that area, all of which are on 10,000 to
11,000 square foot lots. They don't none of them conform to the R3 requirements. The master plan recommends that that area be reszoned R4. And I can see no reason that that is not going to happen because you don't want
to make 30 or 40 to 50 homes in an area completely non-conforming which has been happening for years and it really shouldn't have been. >> This application if it were R4 would be completely conforming. >> So I just wanted to point that out. >> That's great to know. Yeah. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I mean your notes say that in order to confirm this what the garage have to be 7 ft >> garage the garage will be a separate issue. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Your notes about the shed and shading or trees or plantings that you needed to be reported. Yeah. Not the garage and the
shed. The garage will be conforming. >> Okay. >> Shed the existing shed isn't similar to the garage on the last complication. >> Okay. >> But you know the application as presented if this were R4 would be completely conformed. including the shed. >> What?
>> Including the shed. >> Well, no, not including that's the shed's really not affected by the application, >> but it would be a non-conform. It's a non-conforming structure. >> Still, >> so it's the same thing that we always say that if that check comes down, it's got to be moved to a conforming area. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> But your letter says some additional small ground coverings or lower level plantings could be provided to increase. Is that something you're >> They could do that. It doesn't it's not I don't think it's essential, but it would help with the >> Okay. You follow that, sir? Yep. >> So, your shed's not part of the
application, but he's pointing out if you're to put something new there, it would be non-conforming. So, um yeah, but if you're going to come back to us, put some plantings around it, make make it look nicer, and it'll probably be easier to approve if the day ever comes. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or for Mr.
>> We have no no appliances in the garage. >> Appliances. Final. >> Any questions? Any questions from the public? >> Mr. Matlick, I didn't ask you. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Uh, so the applicant had
has made a few separate submissions. Um, I had I'm on review letter number four. Uh, the previous comments from my review letters have all been addressed. So, I don't have any any problems with So they don't have to get back to you on
anything at this point. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, we got a vote. You never know what will happen. Um any So, no members of the public have any questions? >> Okay. I'll close the public hearing. >> Anyone make a motion? >> I'll vote for positive resolution.
>> Second. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Pelli? >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Janeiro? >> Yes. >> Chairman Fuller. Yes. Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you.
>> Next up is Abraham Benitar, 517 Laurel Avenue, block 68, lot 7 in the R5 zone. >> Remind me. >> Attorney for the applicant. Not on the agenda. >> Every time. >> It's why she put it over here.
>> Miss Krimco, how are you? >> Shall I introduce myself? >> Yes, please. Uh Jennifer Krimco on behalf of the applicant uh just so I'll give you a high level like I usually do then we'll look some things. We have an undersized lot and what we are proposing to do is construct a new home and new
improvements. We are eliminating some nonconformities with regard to the existing house and structures and we're seeking some minor nonconformities with regard to the new the house itself meaning the box or the volume fully conforms. The uh issues we have here are
the steps leading to the house and some window wells. Otherwise, the house fully conformed. Uh but because of the smallness of the lot and some of the improvements that we're hoping to put on here, we need some setback relief for accessory structures. So, uh I will sit
down and let Mark accept service and move some things into evidence and then I will do the same. >> Okay. So, exhibit A1 will be the variance application. Exhibit A2 will be the boundary and topographic survey. Exhibit A3 will be the architectural plan. Exhibit A4 will be the plot plan.
Then the board exhibits will be exhibit B1 which is the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. And exhibit B3 will be board. >> Thank you. And I just have two additional exhibits. If my uh trusty assistant over here, otherwise known as
a licensed professional engineer planner. Uh A5 is a neighborhood exhibit of today's date. >> It's an aerial. >> Yep. And I'm just I'm going to pass them out after I mark both. Uh and A6 is a plot
plan exhibit. Oh, thanks. I usually have to get up. And again with today's date, both plan both prepared by Insight Engineering. behind you.
>> Okay. Um, so if I could have Pat Sworn, >> do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. God. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Patrick Ward, W with Inside Engineering. >> And are you testifying in two capacities tonight? >> Yes. Professional engineer and
professional planner. >> And both licenses are in good standing with the state of New Jersey at this point? Yes, they are. >> Thank you. And I don't think that there's very much architecture related to it. Uh I'll just have him go through all of his testimony and then I'll have the architect if there's questions.
>> Great. >> Okay. Go ahead. Take it away. >> Cool. I have that mic. >> Okay. So, it's subject properties 517 Laurel Avenue, block 68, lot six, and we're in the R5 zoning district. So, the applicant seeking approval to demolish
all existing site improvements to construct a new 2 and a half story dwelling, a driveway, and a rear yard pool and patio. This lot is significantly undersized in area and width, and both variances are proposed as part of this application. That was me. Nope. Mr.
She's turned off. >> So, uh, first I'll refer to, uh, A2, which is the survey, just to discuss existing conditions briefly. So, here's the property. Um, north is up that there are a couple of, uh, structures on here.
One, starting with the existing dwelling, two-story dwelling. As you can see, it's tucked into the back right corner of the property. Um, very much in a non-conforming location. We have about a 1ft setback at the rear and just over 1 ft uh on the right side. There's an
existing detached garage on the property. And then there's three sheds, uh also on the property, all in non-conforming locations. There's a long driveway here, uh as you can see that gets all the way to the garage at the rear. Um driveway is non-compliant in terms of setback. Uh
and there's also a front large wood deck on the property. So, we're seeking approve. We want to remove all site improvements and thereby eliminating all existing non-conformities related to those structures. So what we're proposing
and this is A6 the rendering. >> Patrick, can I pause you just right there? Absolutely. >> Sorry. So the existing dwelling is the back right corner of the property. >> Yes. Twotory dwelling basically on the very close to the setback within about a foot. >> Yeah. I was going to ask you how far away from the setback is it currently?
>> Yeah. Um, and I'll get into each uh of the existing non-conformities, but it's 1 foot from the rear and about a little less than a foot and a half on the right. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> Okay. So, what we're proposing here is a um a new two and a half story dwelling.
Proposing a new driveway in the front yard. Uh a new rear deck pool and spa. um unique part about what we're proposing here really for drainage and aesthetic purposes and we'll get into this in a little bit in a little bit. We're seeking to res raise the majority
of the property by using a a short two-foot retaining wall um around the perimeter. And you could see that it's represented on our plan as a gray line. It's also on on the exhibit here as well. So, there are portions of the
front yard that will exceed the maximum twoft grade change. The entire rear yard and sides of the home um are not crossing that threshold, but the maximum in the front yard's about 3 ft. >> Hey, can you just point out where and give us an approximation of like what
percentage you would say? >> Yeah, so there's a very small sliver along the front where the front retaining wall is. I would say it's about five feet from the front property line. >> The wall is still only two feet high and fully conforming. It's just we have to raise the grade a little more than two
feet. >> Correct. And then just a small area by the uh the front steps. >> But otherwise the wall the grade change everything's fully conforming. >> Yes. And then elsewhere everything's within the two feet. >> Okay. >> Um so really the rear yard grade change
and increase in my opinion was also done for drainage purposes. So the property today is very flat. So from the rear to the back or rear to the front, very flat. Um so in order to continue um the aesthetic across the entire property, we're proposing also to raise the front
yard slightly with that twoft retaining wall. We are propo so um just for context, the ordinance does allow 4ft fences in the front yard. This wall will be half that height. A fence is proposed to enclose the rear yard because we have a pool. The fence
is designed so that the combined height of the fence and the wall does not exceed 6 ft in any location which is compliant with the ordinance. There was a gap shown around the perimeter of the property between the wall and the property line. This was >> when you say a gap, let me phrase it a little differently because I was confused till I called today.
>> The the wall set back from the property line. >> Yes. >> Is essentially what you mean >> by Yep. By about 18 in. And the reason for that is drainage. Um, if you built a wall, >> Well, before we talk about the wall, how does the neighbors currently drain towards our property? Correct.
>> Correct. Yes. So, I said we're relatively flat, particularly towards our rear, we receive runoff from the neighboring properties. They sit a little bit higher from us. >> So, if we put the wall right on the property line, the water would pull on their property and they wouldn't be able to have the same flow of water that they have today.
>> Correct. So, you're effectively damning the water. >> Okay. So what are we doing as a solution? >> So uh two things. One on the sides we have that offset that set back to allow for drainage to continue to the front. At the rear water is coming towards the
rear of the property. So in order to avoid daming it, we actually have pipe penetrations in the wall that will receive water. Usually pipe penetrations spill water out. this will receive and what what's going to end up happening is in addition to collecting runoff from the property that all the improvements
we're proposing, we're receiving that water and ultimately we were discharging it at a new pipe penetration in the driveway out to the right of way. So >> essentially the water from the neighbors that were coming onto our property will still come onto our property. It just won't affect our property. It'll go through the piping,
>> right? goal is to send it through the property to the right of way of Laurel Avenue and in addition everything from our proposed improvements will also head to the street. >> How will that area be the surface be treated and how will it be maintained? That was my concern.
>> Uh in this within the setback >> within within the 1.5 ft >> it was the 1.5T. So the applicant's desire is to um landscape that with some sort of seaggrass or something like that, Mr. Higgins. Um
>> on the plan. >> Okay. >> And that's fine. Yeah. >> But but also in the event that it was going to be grass because the wall is so low and it's so close. That's something that a weed whacker or something could actually get to from the from the wall. It's only two feet higher.
>> Yeah. But part portions of the wall have a fence on top. That is a great that is a great point, Joe. >> Okay. >> Um well, two things we'll do. One, we'll show the landscaping should it be approved. And two, we'll talk about putting the a gate in the appropriate
place for access if need be. >> Yes. >> How's that draining you're describing, the piping is draining out to Laurel Avenue? >> Correct. >> Okay. A flooding problem at all on Lower Avenue now? >> Not Not that I'm aware of within the street. No.
And where is um the the town located? >> You don't I don't have that answer. >> My architect who'll give me the right term. >> Oh, like any municipal inlet? >> The storm basin. Yes. >> You know, um >> sewer,
>> the storm sewer. So, I don't have the precise location of the nearest inlet. Um, it's not at the intersection with Stafa. I don't know if there's one at South Edge Drive, I believe. And I can I can look at this um and get back to the
board in a minute. I believe everything drains this way towards the east, but I can check that. Um, >> thanks. >> It's a good question. >> You're saying So, you're saying the water from the neighbor's property is still going to come on to this property,
but it's on the outside of the aft And it's still going to go into >> Yes. So the way this is designed, these pipe penetrations at the rear will receive it and everything's sloped towards a a discharge point in the within our driveway and then we'll go across the apron
>> only to the back neighbor or to the sides as well. >> It's it's there's three collection points mainly along the rear line. The sides here and here are relatively even with where we are today. So they we're not receiving >> today. No, but we're
>> not where we're proposed. Yeah. But because we're keeping the wall in, it's going to allow the water to continue to flow towards the street as it does today. >> Yeah. >> But Pat, I have a question with regard to Miss Litman's question. >> We don't need a coverage variance, right? >> We do not.
>> Okay. So, the water that's going there is water that would go there anyway, whether it was piped or not piped. >> Correct. >> So, the run was not getting greater than it is today. Well, it'll be greater than is today, just not more greater than what the ordinance would allow us to put
here. >> Um, not that I'm aware. I don't believe the structures at the rear there have any damage. I mean, they're they're right on the property line. I don't know if that has any I can't speak for what's going on below the ground in like the basement or crawl space of those buildings, but I don't believe so.
>> So, Miss Ko, what you just said doesn't sit right with me. Right. So, today the water goes from the the neighbor behind and it goes towards Laurel Avenue, >> but it's at ground level and it's got to go across a whole property before it actually hits Laurel Avenue.
>> Correct. >> This is going to take the water that would have gone on to to the applicant's property and basically give it an express pass all the way to Laurel Avenue. >> Yeah. And John, I'm sorry. And Mr. chair. I wasn't inferring that it wasn't
going to be going in a more concentrated fashion. I said it was getting there anyway whe through that. So again, >> but does it get there anyway? >> Well, I mean >> ultimately yes. >> But depending on how much water is coming down, it's
>> dissipate ground >> to >> as it goes across the property, isn't it? Well, so any any lawn, yes, has um will retain some water. Um but that not all of it. >> But now you're basically taking anything that's going to be absorbed into the ground and putting pipes to giving an
express route straight to the street. >> And to uh address that concern, we can attenuate some of that runoff and slow it down. We have the ability to do that. or if we know where like the the inlet is over there. It's it's not I'm not trying to make I could think it I'm dismissing the idea because it's
probably a good idea in the long run. But just what happens to the water then is going to be important to us. >> Perhaps the suggestion is and I'm going to not use such uh engineer speak and put in English. Perhaps we can put in some dry wells to retain the water so it's not coming out faster than it is.
So the same water will can they can be infiltrated into the ground. So really there would be no difference because either it's going to infiltrate through the grass or it's going to infiltrate the drywall. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I was going to recommend uh maybe some perforated pipe with some stone uh similar to a dry well
uh along that that pipe run. Um essentially what I agree with what Mr. Ward's saying. You know, when it rains, uh the first rainfall gets soaked into the ground. Once the ground gets saturated, that's when you get your runoff. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um so any any grain event that that happens so whether it's it's happening in the existing condition or in the proposals that this situation uh they are below the the maximum impervious coverage. So there's no uh variance required for that
but um I I do understand the board's concern with with um just taking all that water and piping it directly to the street. So I think uh a recharge system like that that perforated pipe and stones is an option. >> We would and again if the board were to
approve this we would agree to that condition and we would work with Ben to make sure that it's not going to have the concern that you had with regard to the cont works better the the drywall system that was describing or the perforated pipe
>> they're essentially the same. I can tell you the perforated he's trying not to say the perforated pipe will work better because the dry well can fill up and go over but since the pipe is the entire length of the property it has more area to infiltrate but
>> why are you afraid to say that >> trials are cheaper >> because it because we agreed to the price so it didn't matter. So is the purpose of the wall is it aesthetic or are you doing it for the drainage purpose? >> It's the answer is both. I from my
perspective it's a drainage feature, right? It's really meant to >> Who drew it first, the architect or you? >> I did not draw first. >> Okay. So it's aesthetic that >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I said I suppose my response is both, but from my perspective architectural design and you're finding a way to get the water
away because this wall is here. >> We would have to raise the rear property anyway. for to get the runoff to now the existing condition aside, right? Because it's I think it's a relatively flat property. If we proposed that today and that result was what you see on the
survey, it wouldn't be approved by a reviewing engineer. We wouldn't bless it either because the slopes aren't enough to get out to to today's standards, we'll say. So, no matter what, we would have to raise the rear yard to encourage the runoff to not go to any neighbors. Even though the rear is heading our way,
we would still have to get it to be directed at least 2% by sheet flow towards the street. So, we're raising it anyway. The wall that's why I say it's both, right? Yes, there is a it's it is an aesthetic element, but we would have to raise the rear yard anyway. >> So, >> we normally do that for most
>> and you're collecting the water on the backside underground. You're running it underground and then discharging it above ground at the front of the property. >> Correct. And again, like the wall Yes. The wall is proposed, but
almost all of the single family infill plot plan zoning plans that that we do, we try to encourage the runoff to go to the street, not any neighbors, because that's what we want to do. >> If we have a situation if we didn't have the wall, we would still have to collect the runoff from the neighbor
>> and still pipe it >> along the property line with a little inlet. It might be lower than our proposed inlets by the patio and get it to the street. We would still the net is that we would still do the same thing we're doing. >> It would be the same drainage system, >> right? >> But
part of the >> if you don't have the wall, correct me if I'm wrong, if we try to do a gentle slope to raise it and then slope back down onto the neighbors, which we could do, there's no opportunity to necessarily
get that air that 18inch area to get all the water in there. So this is actually by making and then it gives us a flat yard and it achieves the same thing. So it's not creating more it's not creating more runoff. It's just a different way to collect it. >> Yeah, I get it. But you could collect
the water without the wall being there. >> We could, but I'm just saying this is how you're choosing to I get it. This is how >> Yeah, of course it could be done. Yes. >> Yeah. >> So this wall is it considered a fence? I mean because that's what we're saying is the fence this wall is on the property
line and we're saying four foot a four foot fence is allowed along the property line. >> Your your ordinance says that you can have a maximum height of six feet of wall and fence combined. >> Okay. So so this wall is acceptable by >> our ordinance.
>> Also Mr. Did you know it's a two foot wall. It's not four feet. >> Got it. No I know I said the we you could have a four foot wall. What was said and I know it's to only Yeah. Yes, we could have I agree with what you're saying. We could have a 4ft cell wall and so we have a two and then just the fence on top. >> Yeah, that's a good question because um
there there's a you know the back corner um has a sixoot fence uh where there's no wall and then where there is a wall the fence changes to a 4ft fence because it's a a two-ft wall with four foot on top. That's the maximum they can have.
So they're they're complying with the ordinance that way, >> right? And and also Mr. Janeiro, except in those very two small spots in the front, the walls and the wall and and everything we're doing could be done as of right with the current house because
we're less than the 2 ft. >> So really the only quest obviously getting the drainage out is a big question for the board. But the idea of the aesthetic, you know, that's really for the client to decide as long as we're not creating any variances. And
again, there are none in the back where that wall is and we're just continuing the wall to kind of create a flat driveway that's kind of dug out into the yard as you'll see. >> Yeah. My question was about if the wall is allowed and it's allowed. So that's what I was asking. And then on the
inside of the wall, >> you're essentially grass other than it looks like some PA areas. Is that right? >> That's right. Yeah. Mo mainly grass. There's some pa stepping stones. There's a deck that we'll get into in a moment, but yeah.
>> Okay. Um, >> wait. Any other questions before we go on? >> Yeah, I just wanted a quick question I had. So, thank you. No, that was that was >> Oh, that was okay. >> Half hour. >> Uh, and just to put a a uh just one more thing. Um, Mr.
Matlack had a couple of uh technical storm water comments. Obviously with the agreement to put in the perforated pipe, we'll address his pipe capacity calculations and all that in his memo. No issues with that. >> And and I I agree with the the planning concept. It just needs a little more
detail um to verify that the the pipe is uh the sufficient size, but other than that, I don't have any any problem with it. >> Thank you. Um we are proposing mechanical equipment on the right side of the property here. Uh we have ACs and
uh pool equipment uh and also a window well uh for the basement. We are proposing to remove one tree um that does not require replacement, but we are going to propose two street trees at the front of the property for streetscape purposes.
The limits of the dwelling, the pool, the patio, the driveway, um excuse me, that's the coverage all comply is what I wanted to say there. um in that respect. So, I'm going to get into the proposed variance relief in a
moment. What I would like to do is kind of step through point by point the existing non-conforming conditions and the um how non-conforming some of the items are uh for context purposes. So, lot area is 5,000 ft where 7,500 square
feet's required. So, we're about we're twothirds of what's required. Lot width, same thing. 50 feet in width where 75 ft is required. The area and width are not changing. The rear yard setback is.7 ft to the home which is two stories where 30 feet is required. That condition is
being eliminated. The sideyard setback of the home is 1.3 ft where 7 1/2 ft is required and we're significantly improving that with the construction of the new home. The setback non-conformities with the garage and all three sheds, they're all in non-conforming locations are all
eliminated. And the driveway setback um does not comply zero feet where 5t is required. and we're going to eliminate that and propose a compliant driveway as part of this application. So, in terms of the variance relief, again, back to A6 for reference. Um, start with the
front yard setback. Um, there's an architectural feature across the front of the home, across the roof, and down each side, uh, and the front steps that require front yard setback relief. So, we're at 28.33 feet to the front facade
feature and 25.24 24 ft to the uncovered entry steps. >> And I know that the architect is here. And just to explain, >> you know how there's an overhang usually off the top by the roof? That overhang extends down to kind of frame the house.
That's the architecture. >> That's the feature. >> Architect company, but I just in case it was confusing. >> So just to to clarify, the overhang itself is 2 feet. So that's exempted from the front yard setback requirement. I misread the plans. I
thought the overhang was the second floor overhanging the uh the front of the building, but it's not. So, the only elements in the front that violate the front yard setback are those two little twoft extensions so that you see in gray
on the plan on either side of the building. All the rest of the front facade of the building replies >> and with that, yeah, the front facade is beyond the 30 foot setback. So the h the house like I said at the beginning the house fully complies and again we didn't
know Jim whether or not you considered the the the eve on the side as a feature but if it does then yes that fully complies and it's only the two steps which are about a foot >> right >> above >> right uncovered entry steps at the front
there. um the minimum sideyard setback. So on the left side of the home we have 6.58 feet to the uncovered side steps, 5.17 feet to the window well on the right side where 7 and 1/2 ft is required. Um the building facade is at 9
ft on either side which conforms. >> So we exceed the setbacks. We just have those at grade >> right the little accessory intrusions. >> Um the the minimum combined are both sideyard setback here. It's 11.75 when measured considering the window well on
the east and the steps on the west side where 15 feet is required. >> But the combined for the house which is what would be seen from the street and would affect the rhythm of the street is actually 18 ft which >> uh 17 and a half. Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry,
right which exceeds the 15. >> Uh we are proposing a rear deck. Um there to the bottom of the step is a 9 foot rear yard setback where 10 feet is required. um to the side, the right side is 2.25 ft for 10 feet is required. You can see
on the aerial it's immediately adjacent to um neighboring garage which is about equally set back from the shared property line. There's a driveway on that side. >> So it's it's up just to be clear, it doesn't extend really past the garage. No,
>> it's up against a wall of a garage and essentially no impact on that neighbor. >> Right. That garage sits at a higher elevation. And it's actually further than where the house was. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yep. Um the sideyard setback for the AC units
and the pool equipment. We have 5T to the air conditioners and 4.03 feet to the pool equipment where 10 feet is required. Again, that's on the right side there >> and we talked at length about >> we talked about the grade change and where that is. >> And also Jim, on your report you identified the pool setback as a
variance, but it's not. It's actually 10 feet to the water. Just want to clarify that. >> Right. Okay. >> Yes. >> Open open below. >> Open. >> Yeah. >> My report uh indicated that there was a
5 foot grade change. Uh I I didn't see a detail for the so I wasn't sure if that was built up patio or or open below. But if it's open below, then then that doesn't apply. But they did previously to the two foot grade change in the front.
>> Okay. So Pat, from a planning perspective, let's jump in. How do you justify these variances? >> Okay. So in my opinion, the requested sideyard setbacks, and I'll list off those features for the window well, the stairs on the left side, the combined setback of those, the air conditioners,
the pool equipment, and the deck can be analyzed as C1 hardship variances directly related to the narrowness of the lot. The lot width limits the extent to which this property could be developed by right. The two other variances the front yard setback and the grade change can be analyzed under the
flexible C2 criteria. So the front yard setback is measured uh in this case >> to the stairs. Um which is really an uncovered very small at grade projection from the house. Um the grade change in the front yard as I
noted previously is proposed to carry the aesthetics from the rear yard to the front. um the rear yard conforming grading which was done also to provide an effective drainage design as we discussed >> but and aesthetics Mr. DJ >> and aesthetics. Yep. Um again for point
of reference the ordinance does permit 4ft fences in the front yard. So visually the proposed wall is half the height of that and won't take away from the streetscape. In my opinion purpose I of that municipal land use law is advanced here promoting a desirable visual environment. Both variances are tied to
site aesthetics and a result of our goal to provide a cohesive architectural vision for the property at both its front and rear. The wall and the accompanying grade change is intended to complement the architecture of the home. So for the flexible C2, we need to
identify a minimum of one purpose of the MLUL and in my opinion purpose I is the one that is advanced. When we look at the negative criteria, we must determine if any of the relief sought has an impact on the public or neighboring properties. And I'll start with the public. And that's really public
viewshed. Um I see limited impact. So the front stairs at grade um uncovered has no impact on the streetscape. Um the grade change as a result of the two-ft retaining wall in my opinion has no impact on the streetscape either. And
again, I say this because the ordinance does allow for a 4ft fence in the same location. >> Four foot fence or wall >> or wall or plantings, right? Um along that front property last >> solid three. >> Three foot. I'm sorry. I apologize. Solid three foot open.
>> Four foot hedge. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Four foot hedge. Yes. >> Um and the wall is intended to carry through the aesthetics of the wall in the rear. um and also for drainage purposes and to complement the architecture of the home. Sideyard setbacks for the stairs on the left
side, the window well on the right side and the mechanicals have no impact on the public in my opinion. >> Speaking of that, and I just want to point out, we talked about uh landscaping. We would also agree to put some landscaping adjacent to those mechanicals
to either a solid fence or landscaping, >> right? You consider putting a hedge along there? I think a solid fence. >> I think a solid fence >> might be better. >> Thinking the water element, the hedge might help absorb the water. >> There's not going to be a water element
because it's all going to be piped underground and soaked underground. >> There always is a little >> I would do both. >> Is the pool compliant fence going to be solid? >> No. >> Probably not in the back. No, >> but it could be. I think it wants to be
at least on the right hand side where you're bordering that neighbor's property >> where where the deck is >> where the deck is. You're two feet away from their property line and you have an open fence. >> I don't know that we're going to be able to put a fence, >> but we're going to have to show it. Right. Right. I'm just thinking out loud
for a second. When you have a solid fence in that area, there's going to be maintenance on the other side potentially. And the problem is it's their garage is almost up against the property line. >> Maybe the deck needs to be pulled back then. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, >> so
>> um but to address the Yes, we will screen it. Um uh the the mechanicals on this right side, something solid, I think is where we >> Well, that's what Miss Primco said. I heard board members say they want plantings. Also, >> I'm thinking plantings if you're doing a
in addition, I just think anything to help absorb water. >> I I think we we could do both. >> We could certainly do both. But in the event that the client opts for an open fence, we could do a solid enclosure around the actual mechanicals. >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. >> And then that way all the time
>> that way it's covered. >> So back to the sideyard setbacks and public impact. My opinion those features will not be perceptible from the street view shed. Stairs are uncovered. The window well uh is that going to be built
at grade and the mechanicals are proposed at existing grade. And that's one thing actually I I I missed in my initial testimony. We said we we said we're raising this front portion of the yard. We're stepping down along this right side of the home. So right here, this will be at existing grade really because we didn't want to elevate those
features any higher than they needed to be since we were proposing them on the side. Try to mitigate that impact further with the proposal of the solid fence and landscaping um will further mitigate any impact. And just to address Pat, uh I think it was a suggestion about cutting back the deck. Of course,
you could always reduce something to avoid the variance, but our lot I don't want to use the word enjoys, but our lot >> can I offer this alternative solution? >> Rather than cutting back the deck, >> if you were to move and everything just
over two to three feet, >> that's what I was >> just like there's room to do. >> Then you would have four to five feet along the property line that could be maintained. you could have an open fence. >> We definitely talked about that and I think that it was just again that's an option.
>> The intention was since that's up against that wall anyway and this property has I'm going to say the burden of having a structure right up against the property line, they kind of wanted to create that little corner with the deck up against it for some privacy over
there. So again, that other area that's really the yard area, they wanted to keep that open. we could move it over. We think it's a better zoning alternative here because there's no impact on anyone because the setback is just to an existing structure almost at the property line. So, it it it
definitely is a better alternative argument in this case because nobody's going to see it as it's tucked in back behind that garage. >> If it's moved over, >> if you move to the west, what would the setbacks be on the side? >> Well, it's actually I'm looking here now
and because it's so faint, there is a fence, six foot high fence on the adjacent property that runs back right back to the end of the property line. So you would have a six foot high fence there, the wood fence on the neighbor's property
>> and it's right on the just about right on the property line >> and their garage is right on the other side. So again, could it be eliminated? It could by shifting everything around. Again, a lot went into the aesthetic of this house. That's why they were asking for the variance for it
recognizing that there really is no impact on anybody from it. >> But who's the impact? What negative impact is created by moving it over? Like >> I didn't suggest there was. I said the difference was the aesthetic >> and the only one the only one who cares about the aesthetic is is your client. >> Correct. Which is why we're putting it
forward. >> No, I understand that. I'm not begrudging you that that option, but it's not it's certainly not being done for the betterment of the community where where the pool is. is being done for the benefit of your client where the pool is. >> Correct. >> And and you could eliminate the variance by shipping the pool over without it
negatively impacting anyone other than your client. >> I I don't know that we can eliminate it entirely. >> You can make it better. >> I don't know what anybody >> I'm not saying you should do it or not do it. I'm just >> I think it should be moved over. That's just my personal opinion. I mean,
>> I agree. >> God forbid in the future they want to knock take down that fence, knock down that garage. It's going to be, you know, it's gonna be open. >> I I I know what fights to fight and this is not one of them.
>> So, despite the fact that my client worked very hard with the architect to come up with the ideal aesthetic, we will move it over. And can we move it over and comply with the 10 on the right side? I don't think so. >> No. I mean, the because the h the we have a sideyard, principal sideyard of
seven and a half. I was going to suggest getting it to a five foot setback which would match the deck height. >> I I don't care person. >> I mean I think that's a you know I don't want to do a is that okay with the board. I don't know if that's appropriate but I >> I think when when you look at this the
side setback is 7 and 12 ft to have the accessory be more than that I don't I don't think that's reasonable. uh 7 and 1/2 ft maybe could be done maybe five feet as long as there's room to maintain the area between the deck
and the property line, >> right? And the remember it'll also be in line with the landscaping and the other structures on the side. So really it will be just all it will all go in line. >> So just be very clear how far are we shifting it over?
>> We're proposing five feet. >> You're going to shift it five feet? >> No. No. The total >> the new setback to the deck will be fine. >> The setback will be fine. >> And that aligns essentially with the equipment then. >> Yes. >> Yes, that makes sense. >> I got a question. You said the equipment is going to be a current grade. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, and you're raising you're raising the back and you're raising the front. So, is the property going to be like drowned without raising the >> No, there's going to be step downs from this wall, right? That these are the this is the area where we're not >> Mr. Josh. It's essentially going to be a
well to keep the it lower so we're not pro cropping it up. >> It's like a sunken area on the side, but >> yeah. Not a not a not a belly. Um >> and and it's essentially level with the adjacent property. >> Correct.
>> I see where I was here. So, I mean, now with what was just uh discussed and and offered to the board, um when reviewing neighborhood impacts and and some of this was already touched upon as you you know, you could even looking at the existing survey, there's like a cluster
of buildings along this rear property line, including what exists today on our property that also exists on neighboring properties. I mean, on the on the west here on lot seven portion of the home is very close to our property line and their rear property line. There's a shed immediately to our rear. There's a
garage at the northeast. Is it northeast direction? Yep. And then there's the garage we were we've been talking about immediately to our east. So there's um already um impact and there was more impact from what we have there today. We're improving that. Um
in my opinion with the mitigation that we have offered. I think we're limiting any impact here. Um I think the equipment is going to be mitigated by the solid fence and the landscaping. I think the shifting the deck over and sliding everything over is a a much
better solution. The uncovered stairs on the west side, as I've said, small encroachment, uncovered, no impact. >> But most importantly, Pat, >> the impacts of what we're proposing is far less than the impacts of those existing non-conformities almost a foot from the property line, >> right? It's a it's a significant
reduction in impact from today. >> And importantly, the massing of the house and, you know, all of that all complies. The building coverage complies, the height complies, everything else complies. >> Right. Building coverage, lot coverage, the setbacks to the the facade of the building. Um, and the height. Yes, they
all >> And I don't know if Jim did a revised report when we resubmitted, but he had suggested we widen the driveway to 20 ft. We did that. >> We did that. We can do that without interrupting anything we've proposed, including the coverage. >> Mr. Chairman, if I if I may at this
point, 805 is going to be 45 minutes. I know we still have public I want to testify there and I believe to the application already indicated the witness. >> No, no, no. Only other witness is the architect if they have questions about the architecture.
>> So, um, we're good to have it open to the public now. >> I'm just pointing it out. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. >> Anybody have any questions for this witness? If you think of any, we can come back to you. But does any public members of the public to uh let's form a a short line
>> conga line? >> You're going to come on up. >> We're going to ask you your name. >> Have a position that I want to set forth, but I still have questions. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right now we take questions for this witness. Perfect. >> You can model the behavior. It would be great.
>> Yeah, you do need >> I'm John COTL. I live at >> Hold on. Sure. >> Uh, do you swear a testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And just state your name and spell your last name for the record. >> John Sto C.
>> Cto and your >> 514 Corly Avenue on the house with the garage. >> Can you just point it out on the uh on the drawing where you are? >> Uh, where's Coriss is behind on the top >> right right here.
>> That's you. Okay. >> And this is my garage. >> Okay. >> Okay. And just so you know, that house has been there. We did it in a variance about five years ago to add on the other side, but that garage has been there almost 100 years. Uh, >> all right. We're not coming looking for
you. >> As long as the other part of the house, so I just want to give a perspective. I just have a question. Have you done an environmental impact report on this site? >> No, that was not in our purview. >> Did you do a perk test on this location?
>> Nope. No soil testing was done to date. >> Are you aware there's two aqua fears in this location? There's only one at 4 foot level and there's one at 12t level. >> We did determine the season high groundwater with a test pit. >> Yes. >> Done.
>> And you're aware there's two aquas? >> Aware that there's aquafers. There was no testing and I don't know what you're basing that off of but the there was no testing for any aquifers. But that's >> we know where the seasonal high ground water is. >> All right. the seasonal high groundwater becomes a big problem in that area, but
you don't have an environmental impact statement on that, do you? >> I don't think that's required and uh appropriate for seasonal high ground water to have an envirment. >> But if you're going to put a well and a whole drainage system there, should you know that's before you put it in?
>> Well, like I said, we did do a soils investigation to determine seasonal high groundwater. Um but proposing underground drainage does not nec necessitate environmental impact especially for storm water management >> but in a location where you have a lot of water
>> at periods of time. Don't you think it's important to know that? >> I think it's important to manage the water and get it to the municipal rightway instead of keeping it on the private properties or sending it to neighbors. >> Let's talk about the municipal rightway. Are you aware there's no storm drainages along Laurel Avenue? >> Yeah, that's what we were discussing
with the board earlier. >> Okay. So, if there's no storm drainages, where are you going to dump that water? >> The uh best place to send rain water, whether it's from our property or what the neighbors are sending to ours, is to the municipal right ofway >> to the street.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now, to the back of the yard, if you put drainage in the wall, you you explained that before. You can put pipes in there. >> I know from experience this last winter, those pipes get clogged. How you going to clean them? We'll have to put we'll
put together a operations and maintenance manual for the homeowner um to follow. They have to be maintained. >> Can I just ask Bett, do you have concerns about what the owners probably got from an engineering perspective as far do we need an environmental study of the property?
>> No, an environmental impact statement is not um something that's that's required by the the board application checklist or um it's not necessarily appropriate for for this type of application
>> and it's not for storm water. Environmental impact has to do with other noise, >> contamination, things like that. We did our storm >> geared towards wetlands and and um >> your trees, vegetation, things like that. Uh but for storm water management
um typically for the the type of recharge system we were talking about uh we would typically require uh uh soil boring to determine the seasonal high water table to make sure we have the right separation from the season high water table uh and the
recharge system. >> Mr. Matlac, are you at all concerned that there are no storm drains along Moral Avenue? As just mentioned, >> that that really isn't the applicant's responsibility. Uh it's it I'm not aware
of of what the storm water conditions are on Laurel Avenue, whether or not there are drainage issues currently, but uh that's really, you know, the streets are designed to convey water along the gutter lines to the nearest uh
Isn't it our responsibility though not to over power the streets with water or >> Yeah. And that and that's why we have uh maximum impervious cover uh requirements uh which was mentioned before the
applicant uh meets that uh and their require the requirement is that they do not uh discharge water onto neighboring properties. the the uh ordinance intent is for uh dischar to be discharged towards the the rightway and then it's
handled by the municipality or it's recharged on site. >> And Miss Litman, just to address, we're actually 5% below what's permitted and that's based on a significantly undersized lot. So if this was a full-size lot, we would be allowed a lot more coverage than what we're proposing.
If I was here seeking a variance for coverage, well, let me rephrase it. I wouldn't come here and seek a variance for coverage here because I don't know that we could justify it unless all of these studies were done. But since we're fully compliant and could otherwise the current homeowner could build out as
much coverage as we're proposing and not come to the board it the so the drainage is only in front of you guys and Ben instead of Greg the township at the township engineer township attorney from our last meeting with him the township engineer just
because we need other variances related to it. if we kept the existing house, added on to it, we could put all this other stuff in and be 5% even more and never come before this board. So again, I appreciate the board's concern for the neighbors and the neighborhood and the
and the drainage, but the drainage is not really an issue that we're here for because we fully complaid there's going to be a full basement, correct? At this location. >> Yeah, it's a Yeah. Yeah. So this that basement's at least 9 ft deep. Correct. Because you have 9 foot
>> 8t. >> 8 ft. And that's going to be below the first aquifer. >> It's not. It is designed to be above the seasonal high ground water by two feet. >> Are you sure about that? >> I am sure about that >> because my house is right next to it and we have that problem. So >> we do the testing for that very reason.
We have we are very strict with that when we do our designs. Yes. >> Okay. But what I'm going to ask you is you're going to have sump pumps in. Correct. >> Yes. And where are those sump pumps going to pump out to? >> They can pump actually they could be connected to our drainage system and pump to the street, >> right? And it's going to pump into the
street. Correct. >> That that that's the best place to >> and the seasonal high water table is really high like it was last year. It will be a continuous pumping into the street. >> That's not our anticipation based on the separation we're proposing to the
seasonal high ground. >> Okay. But if I let you know the fact that that will occur because it occurred to several neighbors in the area, isn't that a factor you should take into account? >> I have to object because we don't know what the neighbor seasonal high water table is and we also don't know where
their basement level is. So again, >> we if the houses have been there for a hundred years, my guess is they have no storm water management. So we're coming before you. We're meeting all of the current regulations with regard to storm management and your engineer has no
issue with it. So, you know, respectfully, whatever aquifer Mr. Sito may have on his property, we did the soils testing. We know what's on our property. >> I just want to clarify. I said only one part of the house 100 years old.
>> And that's basement. So, I know from experience the first is really bad in that area. You'll have an opportunity to offer testimony. >> Just address. >> Thank you. Next person for questions, please. >> How many can I just ask how many people
here are going to speak on this application? >> So, one, two, three, four, five. >> I just have comments. >> And then and then then their comments. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm just pointing it out. We're past the 45 minute part. We still have one. We still have three
other applications that need to be heard this evening. I think some of the other applications may have public involved. >> Uh I'd like to have the people that are here to ask questions ask their questions right now because there it's on your mind. You're ready to talk hopefully and and we can get through that and then we'll figure out what to do. Okay.
>> Sound good? >> We're ready to speak. >> Come on up. There's some questions. >> Yeah. These are questions of this witness only. >> I am George Butler. This is my wife, Michelle. >> Sh. You go one at a time. >> Want to know if you have questions. >> Oh, I don't have any questions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's be very clear because that's why I kind of thought this could go fast. This has to be questions of this witness. If the witness talked about it, you can ask him questions about what he talked about. If you want to tell us it's a bad idea, that's not the time to do it just yet. Okay. >> That's quite That's quite all right.
Yeah. No, we just have to This Mr. Sito knew, so he didn't I didn't have to explain it. So So that's usually by spiel I give. Yeah. I know it's very good. >> Yep. Okay. So, questions of this witness specifically. Come on up, sir. >> So, I'm just going to swear you in. The swearing testimony you're about to give
because invariably there'll be testimony uh that you're about to give will be the truth. Talking about the truth to help you God. >> Yes. >> Just state your name for the record. >> Patrick Glenn Gy N. >> And Mr. Glenn, what is your address? >> 518 Cor. >> 518 Cor Avenue. Can you just show on the
map which on that drawing which was yours? >> Where is it? >> Are you right behind? Okay, >> that's you. Okay, thank you. >> Okay, so M. Your property doesn't touch oursel. >> No, it doesn't. >> Okay, physically touch. No.
>> Okay, Mr. Glenn. >> Uh, my question is >> I think so. Yes. >> My my question is about You talk about a basement and this
how far down below the grade will that basement go. So below the existing grade and again by virtue of the some of the raising that we're doing it the basement slab is four about four feet below the existing grade.
>> Okay. And you like you said you have some pumps but problem with the some pumps my only comment this is questions but go ahead I'm sure you can form it in as a question started
with do you agree here's the problem in that area and I've lived there 30 40 years the groundwater will actually come up to where the land is will come up to grade
in a wet season and I think what that will overload your drain system that you discussed because if if you go where the drains go back the you know the pipe perforated
pipe it will push if it comes up that high it will actually push that water into the basement rather than take it out of the basement. So, that's my only comment on that. And
the fact that you have no drains on that street we had and Corley's Avenue, we didn't have those drains. >> Sir, I'm sorry. You You're supposed to be asking questions of Mr. Ward. Okay. I apolog I I didn't let this gentleman
speak. Um, and he didn't have questions, so I can't let you just >> All right. >> You'll have a chance. >> Yeah, there will there's a ch there's a time set aside for you to make specific comments. Okay. >> My only question was >> about the drainage. >> Okay, >> Mr. Glenn.
>> Hi. >> Do you have any um drainage system on your property? >> Yes, I do. >> And what is that? >> Uh, I have some pumps and I have drain tiles. And what I did is when I put the
addition la last addition on, I have drain tiles that cover the circumfence, interior circumference of the crawl space, and they're redundant. I have two crump sump pumps. I have two wells, one at
each end. If one doesn't work, the other one will. And if I know I got water coming out of the one which is a little higher than the other one, I got a broken pump. So you need I you know on that street
they'll fill up a basement will fill up. I've seen them where it fills up all the way to the first floor on houses on that street. >> Right. when the when the when the system fails. >> No more questions. You're asking him to
give testimony and I'm trying to tell him not to give testimony. >> Okay. Um any questions for Come on up, sir. >> Patrick, I think you have to turn it back on. Looks like it's right. >> All right, sir. Let me just swear you in
just the case. Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, but the truth of God? Yes. >> Just state your name for the record. Billy, >> can you spell the last name? >> Uh, dou g h e r t y >> and your, uh, address, please? >> Uh, 515.
I'm at this property directly east to >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, I just wanted some clarification on a few issues primarily on the drainage and also on the deck. Um, and also with regard to the retaining wall in the
front, is it two feet above current grade or will be three feet above? Sound like >> at the very front, uh, right behind the sidewalk, couple feet behind the sidewalk, it'll be slightly increased at the bottom of wall plus two feet to the top. >> So, what's the slight increase? >> Uh, it's up to a foot in the front.
Yeah. >> So, it'll be less than three feet, >> right? >> Higher than what's there today. >> And on the right side, it'll be at existing grade, two feet plus. >> I mean, we mentioned about streetscape and aesthetics. Um, you know, retaining walls do look great somewhere.
So, that would be a significant difference in aesthetics as far as like what the property looks like as this deck right here, is the fence going to be on top of the deck or like along the side >> with moving it to five feet, the fence
will be along this the property line. >> So, the deck is 5 Right. >> Right. >> No, they're separate. They're separated by 5T laterally. >> So, it'll be there'll >> be a gap between >> I thought it was on top on the side of the
>> It was going to be Mr. Dy until they were now moving the deck over. So, now the fence will stay at the property line. >> Um I'm a little concerned about this area right here and I saw it in the engineers report.
air conditioning unit as well as the there was a note about potentially moving this back into this corner. Um, you know, my bedroom, our bedroom is in front here. My daughter's bedrooms are right here. This is about 22 feet, I think, from my house and their bedroom
to those units. I a little concerned about the noise that that may make. I heard some pumps are very loud. We're light sleepers. We don't really want to have to hear vacuums running all night. Um, couple just just to point something out and just so you understand the the
ordinance requires basically the equipment to be 20t from your house. Meaning the purpose for the 10 foot setback is so it's 10 ft from the property line >> and then your house can be 7 and 12 ft. So in this zone, conceivably
it could be if your house was closer to this side, they think it's acceptable that 17 and a half ft is enough distance. So while we're too close to our property line, we're still giving you the amount of space that the ordinance contemplates. That being said,
we're adding solid wall and we're adding landscaping along there as well. >> Yeah, I'm just concerned about the noise. I have a wooden fence right here, but you know those pumps carry some noise and you know
maybe back in this area that you have three separate garages from it getting just a comment I had. So, how was the depth of water determined or the seasonal high depth of water? Was that based on >> uh with a geotechnical engineer that the
applicant hired well put in table? >> You know, I can't speak for because I didn't do the work, but it was done by a professional engineer. Uh there were two investigations on the property. Um we'd be have we're going to have to submit that as resolution compliance. Anyway, >> you know, water tables do fluctuate
quite a bit. So if it was done or fall, late winter, um my sump, I do have a sump in my house right here. The water below grade in that sow at times. If my sump lost power, I got about six inches of water in my
entire basement. >> Sir, I'm sorry I'm cut you off because you're testifying. So we just got other stuff. I'm just concerned about I'd like to ask further questions about the depth of water because I think it's much deeper 10 also said um
the sorry the drainage into the street as far as people did say there was no storm sewers on Lauras basically becomes an ice skating lab. Okay, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's just questions only at this point.
compared to the existing drainage conditions on the property. Now, >> is your plan improving it? Including the drainage conditions? >> Yeah, there's no there's no drainage infrastructure at all. The roof leaders go down or the roof or might not. There
aren't gutters on all roofs. So, everything just hits the ground uh on top. So, we're improving it. We're only increasing coverage very so slightly, but with the um what we've offered to do in addition to what we're already proposing, we're improving it. >> Is there a basement in the existing dwelling or
>> No, that that I don't know. Just curious. >> No, >> I don't think you could construct that close to the property line. >> MCO, could you conceivably move the pool equipment back behind the pool? >> We we could move the pool equipment there. We could move it into shed on
that property behind. >> We will Again, we could move it there. We could move it into the basement. If it's vented properly, it can actually go right in our in our basement. >> Um, and this area right here, this is just going to be grass below the proposed air conditioning units and pool
pump. >> Other than the other it'll be on a concrete, it has to be on a concrete pad, but other than that, yes. Um, and this you said would be about two feet lower than the front yard and the backyard because it does like a dip. >> They'll be at existing grade. Yeah.
>> At existing grade. Okay. Um, and are the roof drains connected to the subsurface range? >> That was a comment in Mr. Malac's letter. And yes, they will be. >> Okay. And then this the retaining wall right on the other side of my fences is going to be about 2 feet above grade. When when we get a heavy rain and this soil, this soil and this grass get
saturated. inevitably it starts a surface um ground water's going to rain water is going to pull up on the surface of the ground. How what's going to prevent that water from draining off this retaining wall onto my property? >> Yeah. So, no good question. No problem.
We have it graded at 2% from the face of dwelling to the wall along the street. So, it's it is not at all slope towards. It's actually towards the street and towards the driveway. and we have to build it that way because it'll if it is approved and we have to supply a final asbuilt survey to the township to make
sure it's done that way. >> It's a great question. We can't do that. The township wouldn't let us. >> Um and I just was clarifying something you said earlier. Did you say that there was water from my property entering onto Okay. Because I have a 4in Belgian block that correct
>> along my driveway that prevents that. >> Yeah, that's from the rear primarily. Isn't there is there a block retaining wall back along the rear? Isn't there a cinder block wall that prevents that? >> The lot 14 sits uh the yard like kind of in the middle between the house and the
property line is about a foot above ours I believe not more. >> Okay. Um the only thing other thing I'd like to say is you know was a mention about aesthetics. Um you know I have I have a view through here. I don't know if this is considered a question or not.
>> Doesn't sound like it is. >> Okay. Does anybody else have questions? >> I got a question. >> Um, I'm going to I'm going to pass the mic then. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right, sir. Now, I'm going to throw you in then. Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be disputed the whole truth only but the truth? So, I'll help you out.
>> I do. >> And just state your name, spell your last name for the record. >> George Butler. >> And what's your address, Mr. Butler? >> 516 Corly Avenue. The rear of our property borders by 17 Laura 11. >> You just show everyone on the map where
>> right here. >> Okay. Mr. Buller, >> I wanted to know how you would characterize a property on our side of 517 Laurel Avenue that would allow water to enter from our property onto theirs. How would you characterize it? What's
there on that property? On our property, have you looked at it? the the air. >> Have you looked at our property on that issue? >> So, Mr. What's there, >> Mr. Butler? You got to let him answer. >> Okay, go ahead. >> He hasn't looked at it. That's why I'm
saying >> that's not Sir, that's not true. Okay. We have an aerial and we have a survey, right? And I've been to the subject property. Obviously, there's a lot of buildings on our rear property line, but the topography on the survey that was submitted done by a professional land surveyor. And as you can see on the
aerial, your property sits higher than this property in elevation. In the event of a rainstorm, ultimately the water goes to the lower spot, which will be where we are. >> Are you done? >> Mr. Butler, please don't be antagonist. >> Okay. I'm just trying I'm trying to
answer it so we have the right perspective on this. >> You have the right to ask questions, but not everyone's profession. >> Can I answer now? Can I respond? >> No. That's where you ask question. >> Well, I wanted him to answer and
describe the property and I I can tell you it's not that at all. >> Thank you. >> So, >> looks like >> any more questions for the public? >> Okay.
Okay. to carry this case. >> I'd recommend that if the applicant's going to be making changes to the plan to move the pool or to do anything with landscaping or anything like that that you come back with the next meeting with those revised plans for us. >> What's the next date?
>> That next date is Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. >> Sounds like I'm getting word that the May meeting may be overpacked, so we're going to have to move it to June. What if >> No, no, no. My question is
>> Yeah, that's our last meeting, right? >> So, what Right. I just said, what I was going to ask is if in case something else that's on in May cancels, >> but you know what? I'm not going to be here in May. Anthony is I'm not going to straddle. >> Okay. But so, we're going to move
>> the the remand in May. >> I I don't care. We can do it in June. >> Okay. But that's not that's not for here. >> I think our last meeting is is in June, right? >> The last meeting is in June. So, >> what's the date?
>> The June date or the date? >> June. >> We get our red slip. >> So, we can carry to June. Yeah, we can carry to June. We'll have to figure out >> Oh, looks like I'm here anyway. >> Great.
>> Our June meeting is is a Wednesday. June 17th. >> Um, yeah, we're here. >> Nobody asked me anything. >> If we could do that, please, Mr. Chair, with no further notice. >> Yeah. So, June 17th. Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 with no further notice. Um,
that's when 517 Laurel Avenue will be heard next. I everyone's understanding that. Put it in your calendars right now, >> June 17th. It's a Wednesday, not a Thursday, in this room at 7 p.m. So, you're not going to get any further notice, but they are going to be
submitting revised plans. So, you may want to you may want to contact Nicole before that date. Uh they should be in at least 10 days beforehand to see what the revised plans look like. But please be in this room at that time on that date. if you wanted to make comments and I did
not let you, that will be when you'll be able to do that. So, I apologize for my rustness, but we're wailed way over time on this application, but I wanted to give everybody the opportunity to ask their questions. >> Thank you, everybody. >> So, we're going to take a fivem minute break.
>> All right, can we take uh we're going to be we're back here. Can we take uh >> attendance, please? And we got to take we can take uh their stuff down. >> But why don't you why don't you look outside and get >> I'm going to get I'm just going to like
pop out and hand it to them. >> Yeah. And then he's got the stuff on the board. A nice I read the email. >> Me, too. >> Yeah, we're doing 360. >> Yes, please. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Domo
>> here. >> Mr. Here, >> Miss Linton >> here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Lineski, >> Mr. here. >> Vice Chairman >> here. Chairman >> here. All present and accounted for.
We're going to um move on to uh the last item on the agenda uh because these folks uh got bumped last month. Uh so it's 260 Overbrook Avenue LLC. 260 Overbrook Avenue, Block 22, lot 40 in R4 zone. Attorney for the Avenue,
Christopher Ksurus. >> Perfect. Thank you. I feel like whatever I said you were going to say perfect and everybody would call you that. >> It was musically perfect. >> Welcome sir. >> Thank you sir. >> I before sir before you start I'm just
going to mark in the following exhibits that we have. >> Sure. >> Exhibit A1 it's it's going to be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 is going to be the elevation certificate. Exhibit A3 will be the survey of the property. Exhibit A4 will be the existing conditions plan and exhibit A5 will be the architectural
plans. I then have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report. Exhibit B4 will be the zoning board resolution dated March 12th, 1981. Exhibit B5 will
be the zoning board resolution dated January 14th, 1988. And then exhibit B5 is excuse me, B6 will be the violation notice dated April 29th, 2025. >> Bingo. >> Thank you. of bees. I got the bingo.
>> Welcome. >> Thank you. My name is Christopher Coutsures. I am uh from K Law Group, which is in Medford, New Jersey, out of Burlington County. I represent the applicant. Um I think there's a number of witnesses that we should get sworn. And uh
>> we usually do them like as you're calling. >> We'll do them as I go then. So, I'd just like to present a little bit of background if I can. Um, foremost the applicants here for what it for whatever it's worth without prejudice to
the prior rights that were granted to this property on the two prior resolutions. I know that there's some thought and it might be right that there's a change in use uh which is why we need to be here today. I don't know that I
necessarily agree but we want to be the best neighbors that we possibly can be. We want to make everybody happy, especially Mr. Higgins, and he deserves it. And um that's why we're here. Um because there's a school of thought that
we should have been issued zoning violations and went and fought it in court and you know that we weren't complying with the prior U resolutions, but we don't want to do that. We want to we want to show why this is the correct um use for this property. We want to
show why the parking is adequate because I think that's the really the big issue that's of concern here. So let's talk about the site. Back in 1981 81
when I was three, this site received approval from this board to utilize the site as warehouse. So, that's the first resolution that you have um in your packet as a board exhibit. And then in 1988, when I was a little
older than three, but still in elementary school, um the property received board approval from this board to expand the non-conforming use.
Now, in the 1981, the 1988 variances, these variances that were granted were probably D2 variances because the property existed in a form that was uh a
condition that was ongoing prior to the adoption of your zoning ordinance in 73 thereabouts. Yeah. When I was >> first ordinance was in the 40s. >> Yeah. I wasn't born yet. So now this is where it gets interesting gets a little interesting. Just to give
a little background, the 88 resolution um agreed, that's the language, to permit the existing use to be quote classified and limited. So, future occupants of the site will be restricted
and would require board approval if the intensity of the same changes in any way, whether it's better or it's worse. Okay, that 88 resolution says that the use of the entire site
shall be limited to a tool sale and service type business with a maximum of 25% of the use associated with retail sales. >> If the same shall be expanded in any way, the same shall require a variance.
I presume variance for use. It's over here. Now, I ask you to remember this 1988 resolution because I think it's important. Um, but we're going to talk about that in a free in a few minutes. So, let's talk about the history of the applicant's ownership. I'm just giving
background. I just want to give as much background and then I'm going to go through it quick. Theo the whole the property is owned by a holding company 260 uh Overbrook Avenue LLC. My client,
that LLC, purchased a property on February the 3rd of 2025 before closing. My client performed its due diligence. How do I know that? Well, they had a good attorney
and they had a good real estate professional, Michael Mahi, who I think the board might have seen here once or twice before. Um, and we performed an Oprah search. We did an Oprah search. We sent out our Oprah request. We said, "Can we have all the information for
this site and we did this prior to December Christmas and December 23rd, 2024. We get a response back and um we relied on that response. We purchased the property innocently.
We got the 1981 resolution in that response from when I was we didn't get this resolution from 1988. Nobody told us about it. Seller didn't tell us about it. The town didn't tell
us about it. Mr. went down in person to the zoning office, got his response, the open request, and the 88 resolution wasn't there. How should this seller have been bound
to tell us about the 88 resolution maybe with the date restriction, but that wasn't just obviously knew about the 88. >> They should have disclosed it. So there is the people to take it up.
I agree. I I I agree. But we're here seeking approval for exactly what to continue the use that's been previously granted with the same number of parking spots that were previously authorized. And I'm going to tell the board why
quick fashion why this is appropriate. The 81 resolution granted that applicant the right to operate their business out of this site with eight parking spots. The ADA resolution did the same at both times. The resolution states one of them
inaccurately I might add that 18 parking spots were required. The second use is probably more like 25 or 26 parking lots required by your work, but nevertheless, >> resolution holding you up.
>> No, I I really can't because as far as I'm concerned, the 88 resolution grants my client approval to keep the property exactly as my client intends. Nevertheless, we were told to cover this board. >> I I have to disagree with that. >> Yeah, I was just going to say Mr. Higgins, what's your take on that?
>> The 88 resolution says the shall be conditioned upon the following condition number seven is that use of the entire site shall be limited to a tool and service business >> which
it's not a tool service type business. >> We're a service type business. >> Do you sell tools? No, we don't sell tools. >> You're not a tool sale and service type business. >> We are a service type business. We are a service business operating an office in this area.
>> But in the context of this, service means servicing the tools. >> And so what we're proposing is a lessensive use of this property >> and that may very well be so. But that but but you definitely are not by your own.
>> That's why we're here. We're here without the fire right because that might be open to interpretation do the business registration So, who is 260 Overbrook Avenue? I just want you to know who the neighbor that
wants to operate in this property is so that you know. Our ultimate par parent organization is a company called IBY. I buy distributes consumer and electronics equipment to professionals throughout the world. That's what they do. They are a
gross billion dollar a year industry. We have in Florida, Somerset, New Jersey, New Jersey. They have over 140 employees that staff those other locations. Um, and they do various things from those
locations. These locations are the primary sales locations. Those are the warehouse locations that sell the equipment. For 247 operation, we supply uh large contracts to the United States federal government and to educational consumers
as well as others. That's what we do. That's what the business does. 260 Overbrook Holding Corporation. IBY is our parent. I buy donates vast amounts of money to charitable organizations annually. We invest in the communities which we
operate. We do this because we are part of the community that we move into. Our employees are also part of our family. We treat our employees like family. That's why we purchased 260 Overbrook
Avenue. We purchased it to reduce the need for our members to drive all the way to all the way to Somerset. >> Sir, how many members will be in that building? Well, we anticipate on a daily basis
somewhere around and I'm going to have to defer to to Allan, but I think we were anticipating somewhere around 18, but he's not sworn yet. >> You want to swear in? >> Yeah. Alan, could you stand up? >> Mr. Matlac, how many spaces are required? >> How many are there?
>> Not everyone. >> Let me let me get there because we're going to explain that. >> Let me swear it. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Alan Roberts. >> Could you please spell that last name?
>> O S H E R O V I T. >> And Allen is a L. >> And what is your position at the company? >> General. >> Allan, how many folks do you anticipate on a daily basis operating from 260? >> Anywhere between 16 and
>> Okay. There's a question about letter here for I says that there will be a maximum of eight individuals there and no time will be more than eight. >> That's where our intention is as we roll this out because this is our first step. >> But you just testified there could be up to 18.
>> Well, as we get there because this first step is to allow eight employees into the property and we want to come back. We want to expand our parking on the site at a later date to accommodate the 18
individuals. >> I was going to ask you question >> because we want to get this open with right now rather >> the interior going to be suited for 18 employees >> probably. So why would the parking then meet that? Why would you come back later? >> Because we want to make other improvements to the site. We want to come back for a complete site plan. We
want >> put 18 offices in. I think or however many offices you're putting in. I think we need to comply with the parking at the gate. >> Okay. Well, the ordinance would require 14, not 18. 14. And I can explain why that is because some of the
site is for storage. Storage is a less intense use than the office use. There are no sales that come from this site. There are no visitors to the site. That's not the intention. And if I could make my application which is traditional
before we get to the board questions Mr. Oerowitz is going to explain that we actually have in place right now a car pool. The company operates vans. These folks don't want to drive. They drive them all the way to right now. That's in
operation. That's the plan. And we're going to continue it. We lease two vans. >> Hold on. You're going to agree to a condition of approval that forever into the future and no matter who owns this property that that they're not allowed to park
that they're going to have to carpool or vanpool their employees to the building. >> That's not what I asked you. Are you going to agree to a condition of approval that whoever going into perpetuity that in order to operate this site the employees have to be van pulled
or carpooled site? No, we agree that no more than eight vehicles will be parked on the site. >> We only have a parking space. >> That's all we're going to park right now. Again, we plan to expand the parking in the future. >> Yeah, but you're not Hold on. But you're not doing it now. >> That's right. >> So, so you're proposing
it. >> I mean, I have a I have a problem from a legal perspective that you're sitting here telling us that you're going to have 16 to 18 employees. And you're not going to agree to a condition of approval that if you're going to 16 and 18 employees that they're going to have to car
these cars are going to park. >> How many employees have from the 1970s? >> I don't really care because you're not the pool stop from the 1970s. You're you're this business >> and the question is you're testifying you're going to have
>> your witness just testified. I didn't say you were. said you, the collective you is testifying that you're that you're going to have 16 to 18 employees. You have literature that says no more than eight individuals. So that contradicts the literature which you handed in
and you're telling us well don't worry about that because we're going to carpull everybody in, but you're not going to agree to a condition that you're going to carpull everybody. >> I I literally asked you and you said no. >> No, I said that I would agree that we would have no more than eight cars. >> So that's not the same as saying you're going to carpool in employees. I
understand you only have eight vehicles parked at the site because you only have eight parking spaces. So, you can't half park, you can't park. What's to stop people from parking elsewhere in the neighborhood or anywhere else to get those other uh 10 people into the into the site? >> Well, I suppose that you can restrict
offsite parking. >> We can't how can we restrict we can't stop someone from doing that. >> We we can put a condition against you and I don't mean you. you're the attorney and you don't work for this company. I mean, you the collective, you
can put a restriction that you're not allowed to park off site, >> but then you're putting the burden on the township that the township's got to patrol and make sure that any cars that are parked in the neighborhood around here aren't going to your site >> and that becomes very difficult. That's not a fair condition to throw that over
to the town. >> Maybe this building is not the appropriate building for your use because you can't fit what you're looking to do in there. >> We absolutely You can't >> because we carpool our employees right now. >> But you won't agree to a condition, sir.
You know as well as I do conditions run with the land doesn't run to this business. Okay? So your business model of car poolooling people to this site. If you're not going to agree to a condition that into perpetuity, you must carpool to the site, then it's a
worthless offer. That you're that that is what is what you're saying. agree to reduce our parking requirement to two spots with two carp. >> I'm cur I'm just curious because to me it's academic. We have we're asking for eight spots and we're telling you we're powerful our employees.
>> So you are not you the collected you. You started it with the youth. >> I did start. >> Yes. All right. Uh so I'm just going to say you and when I say you I mean everybody the applicant >> I understand but that's not the way zoning works. So, what they would like
you to do, Alan, is to agree that all of our employees, I don't know why all when we have eight parking spots, I guess, which is where I'm a little stuck, but that we would >> Well, who do you carpool in? Everyone but the eight people who can park there.
>> So, and we have two Honda Odysseies that we lease out and we pick up all the localities. >> And what happens if you stop car pooling? We have they're three year leases. We've been doing it for the last almost nine years.
>> I I understand that, but that's you. So So the problem we always have with this when people come in, even when they come in and say, "Hey, we we're going to we're going to uh park cars. We have we have a great relationship with this neighbor and he lets us park on his property." But no, we're not going to enter into a uh agreement or or a
99-year lease with that neighbor that we can always park there. So then the other person on the other side could go ahead tomorrow and say you no longer park on my property. Same way here. So whoever you have this lease with with these carpool vans can say we're not leasing you the carpool vans anymore and you decide not to do it. And then what
happens when the board allowed allowed you to go into the site this building's not big enough for you guys. >> So I extend like what you're saying. >> Respectfully the building is fine. The site is >> the site the site is not big enough.
existing spots on the site right now. You say we need 18. I argue we need 12 to 1400 or when the writing for the eight employees was issued. That was in our effort negotiating with the zoning
officer to get access to the site right away. Now we're indicating that we will use the site spots until we can come back because we don't want everybody to drive from deal and local community all the way out
to Somerset and do it. They don't want to. This is our billing staff, our back. >> That's right for you, but it's not right. But that's not a zoning ideal. >> How does that mean the applicant wants >> zoning? >> No, that's a that's not true. That's a
blanket statement that it varies based upon the site. >> You can't just say it like that because in some way and stop for a second. In some way because you're insulting this entire board and every attorney in this room and every professional in this room. >> In some cases zoning encourages car pooling. In some cases zoning encourages
less cars. But in some cases it doesn't. So don't like that. Stop with the generality. >> But it is a generality to say that the generality is directed at me. The response is why are we making this generality? But how do we know in three years those leases come due that you're
going to renew those leases, get more leases, get more vans? You've already, according to this, you've already done construction in the building without even getting a permit. >> Can you explain the notice of, >> you know, so you've done construction in the building without permits and now you're saying, "Don't worry about it. We're going to
>> trust us. I I can't approve something that could potentially need 18 or 14 without knowing where those other spots are. tell you, but we haven't been given an opportunity to tell. How about this?
>> And let's hear from their experts. >> Are you adjacent to wetlands? >> You want to hear from the expert? I think that's a question for my professional answer that are adjacent to wetlands. >> Yes. >> So, you're already restricted as to
where you can put the additional spaces. >> Correct. the reason another reason why we need to see the full depth and breadth of the plan for all of the spaces before any approval can be had. >> So respectfully for two decades I've
represented planning zoning throughout the state and >> I'm appearing before this giving background because it's entirely appropriate for the board to know about the properties that the board is considering. So if you'd like to hear from the professional planner
professional engineer I'm to present that individual. >> Yeah, let's go ahead and um >> stand up. >> This is Christopher Rosi from FW Associ. You're saying 18 occupants. The letter says on the plan says 28. So there's a
lot of discre on the plans. I don't think anybody says 28 occupants. Where you getting that information from? Clear that. >> No, on the last page of the plans, I think somebody counted squares, which are lights on the ceiling elevation. >> I can swear me in.
>> Here's what we're going to do. Okay, because this quick night turned into a very long night very quickly. Um, let's swear them in. >> Okay, >> let's not ask any questions until somebody there says any questions. Okay,
good. >> All right, sir. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the whole shot? >> Yes, I do. >> Just state your name for the record. >> Christopher P. Rosati Rati with FW Associates, New Jersey. >> And you are a licensed engineer, state
of New Jersey. License in good standing. >> Yes. And a licensed planner as well. >> And you're testifying in both capacities. >> That's correct. >> Okay, great. Go ahead. >> Well, Christopher, why don't we start with the question? How many occupants of this building are we proposing
per the per the applicant for the general manager the intent is to have uh approximately 18 people. I can get to the answer of the 28 issue that that is on the architect's plan as a reference
to a fire code. So on the the fire code has a maximum occupancy of 28 based on the total square footage. So that's why there's 28 written on sheet one and also on the last sheet. The last sheet is a
uh a design document showing the egress uh paths for someone in an emergency. So the reference to the 28 is total occupancy not what we're asking for. >> So that we can just wanted to clear that up because I I noticed that as well. Was
there also not some reference to 28 desks being one of the architecturals? The one of the letters I saw was a um a reference to a number of workstations shown in a plan, but I have not seen that plan. Um so
um the plan that was submitted is the architectural plan showing a number of offices, showing a main office area, um storage, etc. Now, you've prepared a parking plan. >> Yes, our office has uh prepared uh what
we've called an existing conditions plan. And on that plan, there are several uh proposed parking stalls marked. They're marked in concept because if you've been to the site, you've noticed that there's no striping per se on the site, but we marked uh
areas where uh eight spots are available. used the microphone. Um, we talked about the 1981 um, resolution. I was actually uh, 10 when that came out and I actually grew up in Ocean Township. So, I was actually
visited the site when it was King Saw with my dad back in the 70s. So, I'm familiar with the site and I've actually been there. Um, we are showing in concept and schematically eight parking spots. two along the front. The closest
one to the entrance would be the handicap uh ADA compliant stall with the associated um access aisle and um 5 foot wide uh pedestrian path. Next to that, an additional 9- foot space. And then to the south of the building, we have an
additional area for additional three 9 by18 spots. And then across the gravel area um is another um is an area for another three spots. And actually, we can get a little bit more if we if we had to. Um, >> where would those spots go?
>> Um, they would just be adjacent to the three that we're showing. You would have one to the west and then one to the east. So, we can get a total, in my opinion, a total of 10 quite easily. >> Now, are there other areas of the site that are suitable for parking? >> Uh, sure. Along the back, we can, you
know, we could always extend this parking lot along the back and and have additional parking there, but then we would need obviously site plan approval. We need to do some storm water management. We also are in a flood zone as was noted in both um uh reports. So that would be a flood hazard permit
would be required and we'd have to do the rigmarall with D in order to expand the um the operation of the site. In >> your in your professional experience, how long does that process take? >> Nowadays, under current rules, you're probably looking at 12 to 18 months
start to finish when we have to deal with D and flood hazards. >> So could a business requires approval uh zoning approval to operate as a nonit. >> If the additional parking was required, no. >> Okay. But you think we can get 10 spots
in areas that would not require correct? >> Yes. >> And we we're showing eight because those eight currently exist, right? >> Correct. the from old from uh aerials. >> Let's show the >> from aerials going back to 1979.
They're the older areas, I apologize, are rather blurry. We didn't have the the tech that we do now. Obviously, you can see the the the structure itself sort of dead center of the site in each of the ones. We have 1979, skip to 2002,
2007, 12, 15, 20. There's always several vehicles parked in front of the building and to the south of the building. There used to be an old shed structure shown up on most of the pictures and then between 15 and 20 that shed structure is gone, but
there are always there was always parking on that side of the building and in front of the building as well. >> Correct. and that's showing down the right side all the >> Yes. >> And in addition to parking
to the uh south side of the site on all of those documents, are there vehicles or trailers that are parked elsewhere on the site throughout those years? >> Yes. >> Where can we show the board where those are >> on the 2007 aerial? There's some trailers in uh the back of the building,
I guess, on the west side. There's also some actually off-site parking on the on the south on some of them. Uh again, on the 2012, there's some sort of trailer, maybe smaller vehicle in the back. And then on the 2020, there's a it looks like to be a van pulling a large trailer
uh to the south of the structure as well. >> Okay. Now, are you familiar with um the ordinance in Ocean County? Yes. >> You agree that that ordinance requires 18?
>> Yes. Based on uh the ordinance requires one per every 200 square ft of gross floor area. So we have 3600 some odd square feet of building that equates to 18 required parking stalls. >> Okay. Now, if 779
square feet of the site was used and restricted to use as storage, does that change their parking department? >> Well, under the ordinance, no. But the board has flexibility with that ordinance to to recognize that certain parts of the building may not be as
intense as an office use. So, they have the ability to reduce that that requirement. with that 779 standalone. >> No, I actually and I looked at it leave a little bit more in depth. I mean, if we really wanted to push the envelope
because we're trying to make the board comfortable, right, that eight parking spots is going to work as we initially open this business should the board act favorably. So I think we have the architectural plan. >> Actually this will work. Sure.
>> Is this just a version of A5? >> It's a version A5, but it also has a highlighted area showing the area designated designated as storage. Let's mark it in as A6. Then >> the floor plan with the
uh storage area highlighted. >> Yes, absolutely. So A6 is a uh mounted version of the ground floor reflected ceiling plan with a highlighted area that's uh designated by the applicant as storage, but we also
have the uh entrance vestibule. We have two bathrooms. Um doesn't go all the way behind the bathroom. There's a a employee lounge. There's a hallway. So if we really wanted to again push the envelope, I understand what I'm doing here, but push the envelope. I did a
calculation that if we take out all of the nonoffice areas, people aren't going to be working there, right? They're going to be no one's going to be having a desk in the entrance vestibial, etc. Um, I came up with um I believe it was 12 parking spots where we're asking for
eight. Now, 12 would be >> Mr. Chairman, I just have to correct something. The the parking calculation in the ordinance for an office use is um based on the gross floor area, not I said I said that but I said the board
also has the flexibility to recognize that we may need may it may work with less but I 100% recognize that the the ordinance does not state you can reduce >> but your point Ben is that by nature of it being a gross number it takes into
consideration the hallways the vestibules the thickness of the walls all the things you correct >> and that the calculation might be smaller if if it was a net >> I What the witness is saying is that the board could grant a variance lesser
parking if you were convinced that the actual parking requirement was less than the ordinance requirement. The requirement would still be 18. >> That argument has been made to us before, right? >> They're still not even meeting what they're reducing it down to.
>> I have a feeling he was about to surprise us. I don't know if I was going to surprise you because it was already already mentioned. Um but yeah, that's uh Mr. Higgins is correct. That's that's kind of where I was going. Um the uniqueness of this application and we already
talked about and I didn't know it was going to go there. We do have an applicant who drives the employees to the site. Um I have never had an application that way. Um
so um you know that's it's a very unique situation from an office standpoint. Um my office we have 85 people in it. No one gets driven there. So our parking lot is is crazy, right? Um but also to
compare I also wanted to bring up too this main office area is really going to be the the meat and potatoes of our operation, right? It's a it's a telemarketing, not a telemarketing, I'm sorry. It's a online and uh phone operation for sales and clerical work.
So, there's not going to be any visitors coming. There's no client visitation. It's all people get there, they get on their computers, they get on their phones, they work their eight hour day, and they leave. Now, this main office hub is roughly uh 43 by 37 or something. I have in my notes going off the top of
my head. I actually in my office again with the 85 people, we have a main working area where our engineers are and clerical staff. It's roughly the same size as this building. I measured it this morning myself and I have eight workstations in there. So,
>> how many square feet is that room? >> I had to look it up. It's 43 by 37 or something like that. It's like 1500 square feet, something like that. I have it written down. Hold on. Let me see if I can find it. I knew someone was going to ask me.
That's why I brought it. I have 1550 some odd square feet for that section. >> You could put like 15 people. >> Well, yeah. I'm just saying based on what we do because our workstations are a little bit bigger. We're engineering office. You could get a little bit more. But again, just to give some uh
understanding of of that space. So say 8 to 12 can go in there. We were talking already about 16 18 people in the office. We also we have three offices here. a potential office here which is right now is set up to be an employee lounge.
So um with with you know my quick calculation of of 12 being able to present quite easily a total of 10. We're getting closer and the total of 10
versus the 12 does not have anything to do with the valet um provision of having people quote unquote bust to the to the office. >> So, are you showing 10 spaces or are you showing eight? >> Well, the the plan that was submitted is showing eight, but I'm in testimony. I'm
saying I can I recognize that there's an an area for an additional two. So, I can testify that we can provide 10 quite easily. >> No. >> It's irrelevant. Can I ask a question? >> All leases are irrelevant because leases expire.
>> Can I ask a question about >> No, no. Let me let me just finish. Leases expire. So you have no control over the person who is leasing these vehicles. So if the lease expires three years, are you coming back in three years to to reclassify before the board?
>> Are you because I'll I'll give you I'll give you a perfect example. We had another application. It wasn't in this town, but I'll tell you what I had. And they got their approval, and their approval was based upon leasing spaces from the from the adjacent property owner. Guess what that adjacent property owner did when the lease came up? They
jacked up their rates for their leases. And and the property owner decided, I'm not going to rent from you anymore. And we had parking chaos all over the place. We cannot a lease is not evidence. This is a D1 use variance. Let's What is the
particular suitability of this site to allow a use that is going to need 18 parking spaces? >> I don't want to. You can submit them, but I'm telling the board they are they are completely irrelevant. >> If you want to submit, if you want to
submit them, I'm not going to stop submit them. By all means, submit them. >> I'm not stopping you from submitting them. I'm just advising the board that they are irrelevant and should not be considered for use purposes. That's up to you whether you want to submit them or not. >> No, apparently it's up to you, sir.
>> It isn't. I'm telling you, you have a right to submit the leases if you would. >> Would you accept them, Mr. Mark? There two there's one lease or two leases. copies of each one.
>> Yes, we're going to mark them in collectively as A7 the leases >> leases for vehicles. >> It's Chris, >> Mr. Rosi. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Forgot the formalities.
>> Can you reiterate for me to fulfill stated reiterate that. >> Sure. And so the question is what would we need to do to make it a compliant parking lot, right? >> We would need to um um design a site
plan to expand the access and driveway. My um thought is it would come uh into through the south of the building and maybe towards the back to get uh additional parking stalls, a double, you know, a row of stalls along the south
edge, a 24 foot wide cartway for two-way traffic >> 100%. Because then we would be we would be increasing our impervious surface or we would be disturbing more than 5,000 square feet. So we would need freehold soil conservation district approval. We
are in a flood zone. So therefore we will need D flood hazard approval etc. So myriad approvals including this board for site plan. >> And is there are you
pointed out >> on the GIS mapping? There was no wetlands shown. However, we are very close to the popular brook which is probably classified as state open water. So, no wetlands associated with it >> on the on the colored rendering the
popular brook >> Mr. that we just revised like two years ago. >> I don't think the master plan is necessary. >> The popular brook is probably 200 feet or maybe 150 ft south of us.
There's one lot that's to the south of us which is lot uh 41 which is a township owned vacant land. The bound that southern boundary of that lot is the popular brook. So it's adjacent not right next door. Okay. Again, I'm going to ask let's let
the applicant make the application and then give questions. Okay. >> Because I I told Anthony you can ask questions >> and then you start asking questions. Now he's punching me. So >> some of the things that we have to get
to is this site particularly well suited for the proposed piece. So >> yes, he's a planner, professional lic. So we have a two-prong in my mind, a two-prong uh uh burden for the board to
recognize and and approve. One is is the use component, commercial use in an R4 zone. The second component, as we've discussed in um pretty good detail already, is getting the board comfortable with our our parking uh
requirement. So, I can let's go to the um the use first because it's in my mind the use or the commercial use of this property is is the easier of the lifts. Um again, we're in the R4 medium density single family residential zone. Uh we're
bounded by vacant township lots to the south. Um commercial use to the north. Across the street we have more commercial uses. Uh over Brook Avenue is our eastern boundary. Um we're a one-story commercial structure with an important driveway and parking area. The
sites uh sites the former place of business for as we discussed is King Saw since the early 60s. So it's been a commercial uh use for quite some time longer than I've been alive. Um, again, we're looking at an adaptive reuse of the building and grounds for a satellite
office for the I buy distribution. Uh, the proposed use will be for office use only. Again, there'll be no retail sales, uh, no customer interactions, and no visitors aside from an occasional delivery of UPS or Amazon for office
supplies, what have you. Um we talked about the um existing conditions plan and the proposed uh concept parking layout with 188 compliant spot and an additional spot. And again that chosen layout was based on history of the site
and his historic use. So we're here for the first part is the D1 use variance to allow the office use within the with uh within the R4 residential zone. Um, we also talked about that 1988 resolution where it said, quote, "The applicant agreed to permit his existing use to be
classified and limited so that future occupants of the site will be restricted and required require board approval if if the use or intensity changes in any way." So, we already discussed we in our opinion, it's a less intense use than what King saw was because they had a retail component, etc., but it changes.
So, we are here for the D1. um being that we're going to u 100% office. So the issue at hand is we have a commercial structure that's been here since the 60s. Their adjacent commercial uses north and east. The recent vacancy
uh was not an abandonment of the previously approved commercial use as it was uh obviously advertised as a commercial uh use for sale. both the 1981 and 1988 uh zoning board resolutions found the site was particularly suited as a business use even though it was also at the time in
the R4 zone. So in in um the board in 1998 1988 chose to add the condition that someone should come back do any change in my professional opinion was so the board actually has some say in what's going to happen uh uh in the future. Um, I actually I find it hard to
argue against allowing a commercial tenant to continue utilizing the site since the commercial element of this uh end of Overbrook Avenue has been established uh for quite some time. So again, we talked about before the main issue of asking for favorable action of the board comes from assuring the board
that the operation of the proposed office will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. uh has been noted by your board planner that the main issue of the operational questions is the parking which we've discussed and we will of course in a little bit more. Um
again we talked about the ordinances 18 where we're only supplying per the exhibit eight per what my testimony is 10. Um the act applicant understands that should the board act favorably, we would have to uh delineate those parking
stalls via striping and or uh some other fashion. Being that we have to the south area of a gravel area, our idea is to do grass pavers where you can put uh at grade markings for the um for the
parking stalls. We can't paint the the gravel area. Obviously, it wouldn't last long at all. Um we t um we talked about the um why in our opinion eight spaces are adequate.
The main reason was one of the big arguments was that we do have the um we do have the um uh valet service. While the ordinance does require the parking based on gross flare area, we did the breakdown where in my opinion that I
think 12 or 10 or would work. Um um and this building was chosen due to its location, not its size. So um we talked about we have some u employees that live in the area. So, the fact of
the matter is that the 200 2,000 some odd square feet of office that I kind of showed the board real quick, aside from all the other uh areas, um it fits the needs of the business with the added benefit of maybe having some nicer amenity areas for the employees and an
ample room for storage of the business. >> Let me ask you, yes, where's the nearest um performing property we are? Is it anywhere nearby? Um, it's probably two lots to the north. >> And could this property um be easily um
adapted, reasonably adapted to uh conforming? >> I'm sorry, can you say that again? >> Yeah. So, without hardship to the applicant, could this property be converted to an R4? >> Well, the hardship is the question, right?
It's it would have to be to be conforming. we would have to take down that building and uh and >> make it a home in compliance. Correct. >> Can I just you know I don't think anyone is disputing that this site is particularly suited for commercial
issue. >> Well the so so talking about whe I don't think anyone suggest you the part of this application establishing the fact that it's an early
student for a for commercial use. We get that. Okay. It's been that for when he started in third grade. So, so, so we understand whatever but uh but the reality is at this point the question is whether it's
particularly suited for this use which is not necessarily a commercial. We understand commercial but there different levels of commercial and this decision if you read these earlier resolutions is very very specific that the commercial use being described based
upon the number of employees that were going to be there based upon the activity within within the building that this was conducive to that particular suit that's found so the question is now this business is this site particularly suited for this business and I think that's my
question is Jim I just asked you am I as the planner am this correctly. >> All right. So, you agree. >> So, if we can just move over to that rather than start I mean we don't need to talk about converting it to residential. I know you were asked the question so you were just answering it but I don't think it's relevant because we'll all concede
>> is particularly suited for commercial. >> Right. So, what what I was discussing is in the in the review letters we had in my opinion like I said we had two burdens of proof. one to show that the um the business use continuing the business use in this area makes some
sense and I don't believe there's really any argument to that and as I said the the second portion of that is to make the board comfortable with the parking issue to in my mind that's that's that's the main issue. Um, I don't um I I think
what we discussed with the with the use and I can go on and to get the uh testimony on the record as far as what purposes it's it's um it's advancing through favorable action aside from
somewhat or site plan issue of the parking. >> I think what we're hearing is there's more or less a stipulation as to the use positive and negative criteria. The real parking. >> No, that's not what I'm saying. >> Part of the question. >> It's a part of the question, but it's
very >> commercial in general. There are different levels of commercial that that that one could have envisioned. The commercial use described in the 1981 resolution is very specific as to what that use is. In 198 1988, they're very
specific that all we're doing is adding storage to the site. So, we're not increasing anything from our five employees or I I don't want to misquote it, but it ba it basically is extremely limited. So, we understand it's particularly suitable for that particular use at that time. In 1988,
they realized we want to make sure that it's clear that we're not saying that this is this is good for any commercial use. McDonald's couldn't go and just put itself there because that's a commercial use. It wouldn't be necessarily it doesn't say McDonald's, but I think that's basically the impression. So, we want to make sure that that if anyone
else ever goes in here, the board comes back because we're not just opening this door forever for anyone to come in and do any type of commercial use they feel like doing. That is the limitation that's in that 1988 resolution. >> Yeah. And the other issue is the operation. What is the operation going to be? Right.
>> And it's already stated it's 247. >> Not at this site. Not at this site, Mr. Higgin. >> Oh, okay. You said before 247. with our 150 employees in the billion dollar industry. It's 247 operation. This is the back end. This is the billing office
>> and some record storage. >> That's what's happening. >> This is a 9 to5 operation basically. >> 9 to5 operation. >> 9 to5 Monday to Friday. >> Yeah. >> Now the other thing I think though is that's important
is the ordinance for retail space which the saw shop had. one space per 150 square feet of area. It's a more intensive use. If you add up the space that was authorized for retail and
service, they needed 25 or 26 spaces. They got eight. We're not having customers come and go. >> They also had specific testimony as to the nature of the use and what was going to occur there. And the resolution says
that they had to comply with That testimony was >> I was 42 years old. >> I know. >> And I actually was >> get your saws sharpened over. I think >> so. So So the tool shop was large, a lot
of storage space. They said they'd have was it five workers? >> It says four. The 88 resolution says the applicant has only four employees and his type of business is an off-road location. Do not lend to much customer traffic. So, and so the board decided
four employees plus a number of spots for people to come buy something made sense. >> And so now it may make sense to only have eight spots if everybody's getting um vanned in. But if a consulting group comes in next and they're not vanning
people in, we will have okayed a spot for 18 people or maybe more with only eight spots. So we have to figure out what to do with that, right? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. >> What we would also willing to offer is
as much as we don't want to is to accept the limitation on the employee number so that we can get approval and come back with our site plan because our real goal is to just get this open and not sittingow while we're waiting for the approval. We
can enforce that for site visit come down and see how many people are there and if we're a violation you can fire us revoke our registration certificate. Show us that. >> Well, I have another question or a possibility and and our experts can tell
me I'm crazy. Um, but what if uh we approved the ability to park cars in valet style so that if there was nine cars there, one of one car could be double parked or something like that.
Since it's not people coming and going, it's people working from 9 to5 or whatever the case is. attended parking. Yeah. Is that something that we could do >> standpoint? Whether it's going to work or not component to that, but I think that's
hard to enforce. You have to have somebody whether or not >> I think one of the problems with this application again wrong is that what we're doing is we're
trying to make this site work for them rather than them telling us why this site is particularly suitable for them which is what the standard is. The standard is, and the standard isn't we have this site, so
we're gonna do everything we possibly can to try to fit in there. That's not the standard. >> Correct, Mr. Well, they do. They have to demonstrate that they're proposing. And part of the
problem is they want now something later, but they want approval for the something later now. >> And so I'm not as a planner, I'm not quite sure what they're proposing either. I haven't heard what exactly
like I heard initially was 247. That's just the overall business. That's not his site. And this could be five days a week. Alan, can I take some testimony from Allan very quickly just to get his on the record while we're here?
>> I don't want to take it very quickly. I think we want to >> Yeah. >> What time did we start? >> What is being proposed? >> How deep are we into the time? >> Okay. Can I ask a question please? >> This driving car pooling is it a
mandatory policy or is it optional? >> I don't know that answer. So there's no guarantee that people are going to do it. >> So the vans that you the leasing agreements they're for specifically this
location >> for Ocean Township. They're not for the other facilities. >> Okay. So, >> no, but my point is if I'm a resident in Ocean Township, I I No, I know that. I
know that >> you are. >> Yes, that was my point that I'm a resident of Ocean. No, my point is I get the fact that if you're going to Somerset from Ocean Township, it makes sense to use the shuttle. If I'm a resident in Ocean Township, I live around the corner.
>> I don't need a Let me finish. I don't need a shuttle. I want to go to the doctor's office at lunch. I want to go get to the grocery store, the liquor store, or someplace. I'm not sorry, >> but I want to My kids, it's Halloween
and my kids have a parade and all the kid all the people working there have kids. They're all going to drive there that day so they can go see their kids. I mean, you can't guarantee that >> which is which is exactly why the parking standards exist. >> I was going to echo that in the fact that, you know,
>> and but that's today too, >> correct? That's what we have to figure out. >> I mean, that's the problem. >> The drivers of the vans at the facility all day. >> The driver who stayed at the facility all day. >> Who drives the vans?
>> But it's not it's not going to stay that way. >> These plans, as you can tell, >> this plan was originally approved the original 1981 and it's and then 1988. That's a long time ago. And you these things run with
the land. If they wanted to continue running the business that started in 1981, they could do so today. If they wanted to do what was approved in 1988, they can do that today. >> So these are long range plans. Some of us might not even be alive in uh 20 years.
>> So it sounds like if we require the additional parking, the site itself has to shut down for 12 to 18 months. Is that correct? If you require additional parking today, we cannot open, you cannot get a business registration certificate until we get zoning approval. All the construction, by the
way, that was previously done has all been approved. It's all been completed. It's all been satisfactory. Fire official was very happy. The construction official has given all approvals. >> All right. But let me what I'm trying to say though is >> work
the number of works that were there. By the way, what was >> Hold on. Let me let me finish real quick. Right. So, we want we require additional parking. Site can't be used 12 to 18 months. This is for expansion and all these employees are in Ocean Township. They go to Somerset now. Why can't they go to Somerset for 12 more
months? >> Well, they could, but we bought a property. We're paying for it. We'd like to use it. >> I understand that, but there's a parking requirement. >> There is. And by the way, >> you said in the future you're going to meet that requirement. >> We >> So, I would say meet it now then because you have the employees. The employees do have an area to work. So we're not
stunting your business. >> And remember the problem was how I start why I started with the history lesson was when we bought the property we were we did our due diligence. We did our opener request and this 88 resolution was missing. >> But but per Miss Litman that's not that
is the that's your issue with the seller. >> It's not this board can't take into consideration >> that you did not get all the information when you bought the property. My point is purchased the property
>> purchased it without the restrict without knowledge of the restriction on it as to the saw. >> It was for commercial use office space approved for 18 requires the exact same ordinance requires of us
>> but now you know what exists. So let's work within the problem. That's why we're here mad. That's why we're here. I would be much more inclined to approve this if have your employees continue to go to
set. We're not stunting your business. I would like the storm water. I would like to see if D is going to approve the spaces. I would like a design. I would like to see the approval
and and all the required um authorizations as discussed and then we can revisit this. >> Could we not receive approval for our eight employees limited so that we can at least have business operational with
those eight spots? >> Not from me. Not because of the reasons I just explained. I I will not approve I know you guys have some reason in 12 or 14 months you're
not approved for the 18 My concern is that you're not guar you're not guaranteeing that everybody's gonna ex take the van. I mean, >> okay, we're well over. I'm sorry to to cut you off. Do you have a question now or do you want to wait till next time?
>> Okay. All right. So, I think we have to carry this. Um, my suggestion is um to maybe talk with our experts and see what what uh alternatives you have here. You kind of know what you're up against, I think. Um, but what do we do? We carry
to the May meeting. >> We have a couple problems. Um, because this board ceases to exist after the June meeting and >> we're going to become one as of July. And
what is the I'm being told already from I I don't know this, but I'm being told from the previous application, the scrim code that we that the May agenda is completely stacked. >> Okay. >> Here's here's what we could do though.
We could put this on the May agenda and with the expectation that we are going to then announce something new about it, right? >> But you're not going to be here. Um I'm going to advise the audience. I understand I am advise the audience you cannot speak from the audience.
>> Thank you. All right. So I'm sorry Mr. Fuller the um so your idea is what that that that we carry it to May and then >> carry it again after that >> a few weeks to figure out what we're going to be doing. >> Um
>> I mean perhaps we could submit a revise. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I'm just speaking out loud so far. You have an 88 resolution. 88 resolution special conditions to this property. You're bound to this number of spots. You're going to have this number of
employees. Any changes you have to come back to the board. We would ask for the same consideration just to get operational. Certain number of employees, certain number of spots, any changes increas about that. see if there's any thoughts as to whether or not from I don't think from an engineering perspective it's
going to make much of a difference from a planning perspective does that work revise our application >> guys one second so so the audience talking please stop you would not like it if someone was doing it to you >> okay thank you
>> go ahead I'm sorry >> you like the idea of carrying to May >> yes and talking with >> Okay I don't expect you'll be able to hear it in May. >> I I don't either. >> But >> how's that going to work?
>> It's basically giving them a month to figure out what to do and we're not voting on it right now >> because we're not going to vote on it right now. >> That's not for us to decide right now. That's I'm totally punting this to be able to figure those details out because it's not something we can solve for right now. >> So, they wouldn't have to restart their
testimony, but they would have to provide additional testimony as to what what they are putting in. My personal recommendation to you is that you design your site plan and you come in and you and you I understand you don't want to but my my sincere suggestion is design
your site plan come in and present your site plan. >> I agree >> potentially ask for phasing. I don't know >> but but but but there different ideas you could do and maybe that's what you should figure out. Yeah, there's no way you're being heard
in May. I don't know what the point would be. >> I You could do it, but I but we're being told I I haven't seen the schedule, but I'm being told definitively that you're not getting on in May. >> I don't get to set the schedule. You tell me when you come back. You know, you're asking time. I'm not going to not
give you the time that you need. I know where this is going. If I don't, >> you might need you might need some time to design the site plan. If that's what you're going to do, >> you do decide to have a special meeting. I'd ask you, >> it'll be considered. >> We will not be having a special meeting.
>> What is the June date again? >> John, are you okay with that? >> Yeah, I just I'm just trying to give >> No, I understand. I understand. I just don't think I don't think there's any chance it's going to happen. >> No, I I didn't think so. >> We would accept whatever That's >> we would just ask for uh that the
announcement be made today >> and therefore I don't know if anybody on this anyway. >> Yeah. So this case this will be carried to June 17th >> with no notice required.
>> Okay. So if anyone's here whether they're here or not I'm going to make the announcement anyway. This application is being carried to the June 17th 2026 meeting. It is a Wednesday, not a Thursday, at 700 p.m. If you want to be heard on the application, please be present in the room at that time. The
applicant might very well be submitting new exhibits. If so, they have to be in at least 10 days in advance. So, make sure that you check with the board secretary if you're interested. >> You will not receive any further notice. >> Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you.
>> Have a good evening. Next up, 149 Chattam LLC. 149 Chattam Avenue, block 25.05. 05 lot six. If you didn't ask so many questions, we would have been on to this case already. >> Yeah.
>> That was a mistake. >> My presumption will be that at least >> some of the board members will be on the planning boards. That's my guess. >> Not it. I don't know who, but that's my guess. That's usually what that is.
>> Depends on how much my paycheck goes up. >> 149. >> All right. So, >> I can tell you that the next two are undersized lots. Everything conforms except for stairs. So, it should be quick >> except for the fact you do have public still. >> Okay. They might have questions. Maybe they just want to see the
>> Do we want to uh Mr. camera. Do you want to set the ground rules for the remainder of the evening then? Because it is it is 9:45. I'm not telling you not to proceed. I'm just trying to get an idea what what we're going to do. >> We're going to hear these two cases. We're done with them. Let's go. >> Okay. Thank you. We're on 149. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Jennifer Crim on behalf of the applicant. >> All right. We have the following exhibits. A1 will be the variance plan. A2 will be the boundary and topographic survey. A3 will be the architectural plan. A4 will be the plot plan. And then
we have the following board exhibits. B1 will be the zoning officer's report. B2 will be the board planner report and B3 will be the board engineers report. >> And then A5 will be the neighborhood exhibit and A6
will be the plotland exhibit. And I'll hand them and ask you to pass down. And then that way in the meantime we can have Pat sworn in. >> Mr. words you swear in testimony you're going to give this evening will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth of the guy >> I do >> and you're still a licensed planner and
an engineer in the state of New Jersey and your life is still in good stand >> yes yes they are >> thank you >> without the fanfare perhaps that we did on the other one uh walk the board through uh what's existing and what's proposed and
let's try and limit to what the variances are and what the justifications are. >> Yes. So, subject properties 149 Chattam. We're seeking to demolish all existing improvements to build a new two two and a half story dwelling, driveway, and rear yard pool and patio. So, today
there's existing home on the property that really is significantly non-conforming in terms of the front yard setback. It's about 15.1 ft from the front and 9 and 1/2 ft to the steps. Very forward on the property. Um there's a driveway on the right side with to a detached garage and a small shed at the
rear. The subject property is uh unique today just really in terms of topography which um I'll get to why I'm saying this when we talk about what we're proposing, but the house is here towards the right side of the property. This part of the
property is level with the street. This left side of the property actually dips down onto our adjacent lot five uh to the north about over three feet um and it's about 3 ft lower than the street. So what are we doing? We're
proposing to remove all existing site improvements um and proposing a new two and a half story dwelling. We're proposing a fully compliant circular driveway in the front yard which will provide the required number of parking spaces per RSIS and township ordinance. Along the left side is mechanical
equipment and two window wells. Along the right side is a walkway to the rear which is a has a compliant pool and patio proposed. >> And just the mechanical equipment and the window wells, they comply with the sideyard setback for a single side. Correct. >> They do for a single side. Yeah, they're
at least 12 feet off. The there will be some tree removal for the project, but we're seeking to uh m comply with the township tree removal and replacement ordinance. So, we strove to maintain existing topographic conditions considering that low spot I mentioned on north property line, but we did make
some changes that result in the maximum grade change of about 3.12 ft in a very small area of the driveway. And I'm pointing to that here at really at the front left part of the home. >> Pat, we're just leveling out the site really. We're not raising it. We're not proposing any walls.
>> Yeah. So, and really the site today all drains to the left to this adjacent lot. Um, what we're proposing to do is take all the hardscape, roof, patio, and the driveway and send directed towards the street. In order to grade the the driveway, so it all goes to the street
and not our neighbor, we have to >> increase that that grade. Um, >> the house itself >> Yep. >> Does it does the house itself conform to the uh front, rear, and sideyard setbacks? >> It does. Yes.
>> Okay. And the only thing that intrudes in the front yard set back is 1.42 feet of a of a um step. >> The front yard is um a little less than that actually. It's just it's six inches of a step goes into the front.
>> Well, I don't know what to tell you because your testimony says something else. Oh, I'm looking at the wrong one. >> They're so similar. I apologize. >> Yeah. So, it's it's half of an uncovered step. You could see that on the the rendering in front of you. encroaches in the front and then in the back it's one
and a half of the steps. >> Okay. And the pool complies, the pool uh equipment complies, all of that applies. >> Yep. >> And the only thing with the house other than that is the combined sideyard doesn't comply because of the window
well only. >> Correct. Which will be at grade. >> Right. >> But yes, that's it. Otherwise, single sides, single rear, single front all comply. >> Okay. And we did, and I I shared it with Mark, we did um make an offer to the
neighbor to see if we could buy more of his property because it's larger and it's vacant. And he replied that no, he likes his side yard and good luck on our application. So, he was not willing to sell it. We could have bought it and made all of this go away, but unfortunately, he wasn't willing to sell
it. Um, and we can stipulate to that, and it is part of the record because I submitted it to your planning director in the email. Um, so >> you want to mark you want to mark that in. >> We can I was trying to expedite. >> I know, but but we might as well mark it in. I think it's probably smart.
>> Okay. >> What's the property? >> I know. I have copies for everybody. So, >> property to the left you're talking about? >> Yeah. The property left is oversized by 30 ft. We offered to buy 20 so we both be fully conforming. And he said no. And just for the record to read it. I offered it and he wrote, "Hey, Jen,
thanks for reaching out. We like our side yard and wouldn't want to give it up. Good luck at the hearing tonight. We're excited to see what they build there. Thanks, Isaac Nasser. I can tell you that he is the principal of Dumont Holdings because I represent Dumont Holdings and I'm the one who consolidated his lot.
>> And he wouldn't give you 10 feet. >> No, we need 20. >> 20 feet. He wouldn't give you 20 feet. >> Again, we have to ask. We can't make him. >> So, that would be a >> A7 >> A7. But again, the only thing that intrudes in that sideyard is a window
well. Everything else complies. Right. >> Was there anything in the review letters that we took exception to? >> No. >> So we could comply with the review letter? >> Absolutely. >> So at this point, I'd open them for questions for the public if there are any. >> Mr. Chairman, if I can make a
recommendation just let people ask questions. >> Any questions? Mr. Higgins, you have any questions? >> Any questions from the public? Any comments from the public? Seeing that we made every effort we
possibly could to comply and the encroachments have nothing to do with the house itself and we're under coverage and building coverage. Please vote in favor. Sub, excuse me. Subject to us complying with Ben's letter as stipulated. >> I'll second.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Next one's going to sound an awful lot like this one, but even less encouragement. >> We have uh Mark sit 508 Palmer Avenue block 62 lot 12 in the R5 zone. >> I'm Jennifer Criml.
>> All right. Uh we have the following exhibits. Uh A1 will be the variance application. A2 will be the topographic survey. A3 will be the architectural plan. A4 will be the one. >> I'm presuming there's going to be an A5 which is going to be a neighborhood aerial.
>> Yes. Well, we don't even need that one. We'll just move in. The A5 is just going to be the plot plan exhibit. >> A5 is the plot plan exhibit. We're not doing a neighborhood area. >> No, it's not >> plot plan exhibit. Okay. And then I have the following board exhibits. B1 will be the
zoning officer's letter. Uh B2 will be the board planner report and B3 will be the board engineer. >> You want to copy that circle? >> A5 is Thank you. And would you like me to swear in Mr. Ward?
>> Yes, please. >> Mr. Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the true self of God? >> I do. >> And uh just state your name for the record. >> Patrick Ward with Inside Engineering licensed engineer and planner. >> And your licenses are still in good standing and uh David. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. So Pat, I'm going to go through this really quickly. We have an undersized lot 5,95 or 7500s required and width of 50 or 75. >> Yes. >> And the existing front yard setback is deficient.
No, I'm sorry. And um we're proposing again to demolish and construct a new single family home. >> Correct. >> And other than the lot variances, the only variances we need are with regard to the steps in the front and the
steps in the rear. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> And the existing house is set back 12.7 ft from the front. And we're setting ours back to the stairs 28.56. >> 28.56. Yep. And we're willing to and no other variances, no window wells, no air conditioning,
>> coverage, everything works. >> Okay. And we're willing to comply with any suggestions in uh Mr. Matlack's letter. >> Correct. >> Does the board have any questions? >> How many? >> Yeah, I had a question. A number of
>> Oh, >> there's three. >> It's three. It was mislab. >> I thought so, but I just wanted >> What happened was there were more and because of the parking I suggested that that's a nogo. So, one of the bedrooms is actually >> And how many parking spaces are you?
>> Two. >> Two. >> Okay. >> And comps, Mr. Higgins. Any questions? Any questions from the public? >> Sir, I'm just going to swear you in also. Come on up.
>> The swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth to hold on to yourself. >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Richard. >> Could you spell the last name? >> B. >> And your address, sir. >> 506. >> So, you're right next door.
>> Yes. You just show on the uh on the drawing >> right or left >> this house >> left. >> Okay. >> Home. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask it was on here it says architectural plans do not show any type of screening. What does
that mean? >> Oh, the mechan there's going to be mechanical equipment on the roof, right? >> And we are going to screen it. We agreed to screen it. >> So that means there'll be a screen around it. Correct. >> Okay. >> And it'll be it'll be lower than the main than the top of the roof line.
>> Okay. >> It will it's not you're not going to stick it on the peak of the It's going to be lower than that. >> Okay. >> At first we were concerned that there would be a party deck up on the third floor. >> No. >> All right. That was it. >> I wish you would have called me. I would
have stopped helped you from the torture of uh >> sitting here. I want on the record. >> Only only two more shows. So >> fabulous. >> Any other questions from the public?
>> Any comments from the public? Okay. No questions from the board. Right. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Yes. >> Thank you, everybody. >> Thank you. >> He didn't even let you give your closing statement, by the way. He went right to a positive resolution. >> No, I said that's all I got.
>> All right. >> What am I going to say? Please. Pretty please. >> Oh, yeah. We have to adjourn. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> A second. >> All in favor?